So, as a tech company that provides scientific advice, it lives or dies on the accuracy of the scientific reports and recommendations it makes. Just because the CAA and NATS may have paid for the report, I would suggest that a £1.3Bn pound venture like QinetiQ are unlikely to falsify it’s report’s finding into this somewhat small matter and risk it’s global reputation as a scientific consultancy? If that is what you were getting at?
I've has a quick skim, this is the section that concerns me:-
"standard civil commercial aircraft modelling component, which had been derived from NATS UK radar recordings from 12th June 2006
"Transponding General Aviation Component
This component contains a typical distribution
of GA aircraft and is based upon
NATS radar data. The component has been used for a number of years in SIEM
modelling tasks for the NISC. All the aircraft are transponder equipped.
The total number of GA aircraft in the component is 170. "
What is special about 12th June 2006 and why did NATS supply such historical data?
I would want to determine the busiest day
in the past 5 years, not only that but the busiest hour in that busiest day
, and then extrapolate the ADSB take-up over say the next 10 years, to include all possible new applications such as delivery drones, air taxi etc, not
just a typical day
After all, the system needs to work 100% of the time. Imagine if for just 1 hr of 1 day the system falls over !
Also we don't want to be replacing equipment that becomes redundant in a few years because as it is no longer fit for purpose.
I have Flarm, PAW and ES transponder (I think it outputs SIL 3
) therefore I'm not wanting the system to fail !)
ADSB is CAA and NATS preferred solution. They asked and paid QinetiQ for the report.
Any consultancy producing a report don't have to falsify
anything, just don't report on issues the customer might not want to see.
The report is based on the data the customer
Fox guarding the hen house or what