alioth wrote:
But pays huge taxes on fuel, for which we get absolutely nothing in return.
Depends from country to country.
In Germany many airfields are subsidized from taxes, ATC provides some free services to VFR and GA IFR traffic plus we get free ATIS, etc at some airports.
We burn about 15 mio litres AVGAS per year that leads to tax income of about 11 mio. EUR. I’m pretty sure that the cost of GA for the different public entities is higher than that.
Therefore it’s simply not true that the taxes on AVGAS are subsidizing other government services. They are not enough to cover GA aviation service.
Malibuflyer wrote:
We burn about 15 mio litres AVGAS per year that leads to tax income of about 11 mio. EUR. I’m pretty sure that the cost of GA for the different public entities is higher than that.
Therefore it’s simply not true that the taxes on AVGAS are subsidizing other government services. They are not enough to cover GA aviation service.
Debatable, 11M is a lot of money for just a few people in the NAA that are used exclusively by GA. The rest of the NAA infrastructure is shared with other sectors (Business aviation, CAT, Military/Policy/Ambulance etc).
Don’t forget you also pay directly every time you want anything from NAA, like medical, license changes, any exams etc.
And indirectly everytime you use any training organisation etc.
Well, over here the CAA has to not only be self funding but profit making (6% return) from its fees, so none of the avgas tax goes to that. Airports don’t get public funding (and if they do, it’s a local council, not the Treasury funding it). You don’t get ATIS for free, you pay for that when you pay for landing and parking at the airfield you go to. Ofcom charges massive fees to airfields for radio licences (for which virtually bugger all service is actually provided, other than taking the fee).
About the only thing you get “for free” is to talk to ATC and FIS, but the airfields (businesses) get to have effectively private ownership of large chunks of the air in return.
Uavionix are now showing a version of their UAT tailbeacon which does 1090 – the tailbeaconX. USD 2500 in the US.
I wonder what the market is?
Incidentally, once CV19 is over, I would be happy to do a test flight if anyone wants to come along with a Skyecho2, and while I fly around they could record all contacts seen visually, on the TAS605, and on the SE2, and compare. I don’t think I could do this myself, and would not want to given the enjoyment the CAA guy would get from me touching some CAS 
Peter wrote:
Uavionix are now showing a version of their UAT tailbeacon which does 1090 – the tailbeaconX. USD 2500 in the US. I wonder what the market is?
Canada and Australia, and other places that may adopt space based ADS-B? A list of worldwide ADS-B mandates is here with UAT only compliant in the US.
Silvaire wrote:
The standard Uavionix Tail Beacons have become ubiquitous in the US. I haven’t heard of anybody having trouble with them. They showed up just in time for a lot people to get ADS-B Out compliant without big hassles.
The Uavionix TailBeaconX with diversity is now TSO’d.
Besides their own AV-30-C AI that can serve as remote transponder head, they also support GRT and MGL EFIS units as remote head which might be an interesting option for experimentals. Of course, for certified aircraft they still need an STC for an approved ADS-B installation.
This is the height of cynicism
Traffic device which needs constant mobile data connectivity.
Peter, I would be interested in testing this with you.
Let me know when and I’ll be happy to come along for the ride with my Skyecho.
My experience of the skyecho so far is that it does pick up contacts that I haven’t seen, especially useful when flying under the London TMA into sun.
A test is not necessary; this device will definitely not work if it doesn’t get 3G/4G reception
