Quokka
Well put, perhaps Dick can now specify the facts that support his arguments.
I believe his summary of objection is a good starting point:
I believe the answer is obvious- anyone really in the know accepts that there is no real safety issue being addressed,that the cost/benefit study is flawed and as it is most likely the subsidy will not go ahead they don't want to be personally identified with the failure.
1. anyone really in the know
2. no real safety issue being addressed
3. cost/benefit study is flawed
4. most likely the subsidy will not go ahead
Dick has already admitted he does not have the full information, so we can delete 1.
Re 2, even the removal of much DTI to actual TAAATS plots is a giant leap ahead. Add coverage where no current radar exists. Add ADS-B IN.
No real safety issue?
Re 3, Dick is correct and many who responded to the JCP made that very point. That's a case of reworking the CB study to get new numbers.
Dick - to whom did you supply your advice of the flaws and corrections in the CBS, and when?
Re 4 - everyone except Dick seems to have come to terms with the reality that no subsidy equals no JCP result.
The question I have remaining is the subsidy amount versus the reality of fitment. I am reminded of what happened to autogas kit prices when John announced the subsidy. It would be good to see a small sample of GA aircraft fitted 'publicly' with the costs and any hiccups put on display.
Bob Murphie
Quokka's sentence in bold is preferable to suggesting another poster imbibes hemlock.