No, I don't think I was the fellow who made the remark about opinions and arseholes....but I would agree with that observation...I have a similar saying regarding 'advice'....that's my favourite, but nothing to do with this exchange!
But you must acknowledge that opinions are often tempered by experience....
The term 'time will tell' is not intended as a parting short...nor a precursor to 'I told you so'..it is literally...'time will tell'..ie ' in time this issue will be resolved one way or the other'...nothing more, nothing less, ffs...mate...don't fly off the handle whenever an opposing viewpoint is produced...
Don't cloud your delivery with fiery, emotive blasts.....You have a strong and popular argument...it should fly without that sort of reinforcement!
And don't use the cheap and easy argument that no legal impediment exists for civil NVG ops in Australia...Even if correct,it won't achieve anything...and will only serve to get CASA's back up...
If you can get civil NVG ops off the ground...then excellent..
that is a significant step forward...if MT and his boys in blue down at the VPAW can do it, then good luck to him...
that is a significant step forward....Have I repeated myself here, or does it indicate some similarity regarding the aim?
It's not that I think that SC-196 is a poorly written document...It is just my
opinion that it provides an inadequate foundation for a new NVG pilot flying a general aviation style aircraft...It is simply my
opinion that the original CASA offering is better.....
Does that make me
narrow minded, and poorly informed? Possibly...
Does that make me
wrong? Who knows...just look at the NASA vs el cheapo 'space plane' model....(hint...the 'space plane' came back in one piece)..
Does that make me an...an..an.....
ARSEHOLE? Most certainly!
Keep up the good work!
And yes...I'm sure I'll have a beer with you in the near future....
Cheers...