Great Post JimL. I agree that some of these threads get a bit confusing because we are all so eager to throw our ideas out that we often ignore those already on the table and end up in the cyberversion of "talking over the top" of each other without using the ears at all!
I assume then, that all those passionate about this EGPWS v AVAD v Mk1 etc are all busily contacting SC 212 to provide a reasoned case for their preferences for CFIT protection?
Or will we have the 1994 SC 196 (NVG) outcomes where experts and regulators from around the world can disregard the considered SC 196 solutions and continue to rely upon personal opinion as to the way forward?
I think the trick is to get the message out there on forums such as these as to what the RTCA committees can do for us all, how we can have input, and where to source outputs. The RTCA outputs generally contain definitive information from subject matter experts. usually published as a concensus for world wide standardisation, available, properly thought out, and usually heavily debated. But who actually listens? Or perhaps this is just the pprune world that has quaint little arguements and pokes fun at people, but forms no lasting impression on the regulations or safety cultures.
JimL, i know you have been one one or two committees (
) and have seen some success from the outcomes making regulation. What do you think? How will the SC 212 outcomes see the light of day?