Re: Get £250 rebate on EC devices
PostPosted:Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:44 am
gaznav wrote: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 supplied
Fox guarding the hen house or what
That’s a bit like saying that a house survey, that you pay for, that values a prospective property that you are buying, is written so that is doesn’t “report on issues the customer might not want to see“. We know that is bunkum or there would be a serious problem in the housing market - I’ve walked away from properties that I have invested in due to a survey that I have paid for. I have also walked away from the purchase of an AA-5, having paid £300 for an engineer to survey it for me.
Sorry, I’ll say again, QinetiQ is a world leading company that lives and dies on it’s reputation on research and scientific consultancy. This report probably cost a few thousand quid and QinetiQ is worth around £1.3Bn. It would be CRAZY for it to risk it’s reputation and worth for a few thousand quid.
Finally, the choice of 12 Jun 06. So the CAA and NATS chose a day in the summer, towards the start, when it is more likely for people to be flying after the slow improvements in weather from the winter. Why on earth would they choose a day when it is quiet in the middle of summer? Why would they risk challenge by stating the date of the data and also for something that will affect the safety of others that could later be challenged in Court? Again, that doesn’t make sense. You wouldn’t spend all this money and effort to do this by picking a ‘phoney day’ - especially when it involved the safety of people (pilots and passengers and those that live underneath on the ground)?
I’m sorry, this is another mad conspiracy theory developing here. I’ve said it before, I’m a fan of “Occam’s Razor” (look it up), and the most likely thing here is that a scientific report has proven that low power ADS-B is ok for the use that they intend.
The report and research is all fine, it answers the question asked of it. For all reports people will pick at all source data as not representative etc. it just happens.
What the report does state is a potential issue with 1090MHz loading, and that to mitigate that the use of lower power ADS-B transmitters would be the better choice to mitigate additional loading on 1090MHz.