Quokka, look at the warning on every page,which says in effect "contributions may be the opposite to what may be apparent - or the unscrupulous may use it to elicit certain reactions"
Why would Danny put that warning there unless he wanted us to be very careful about what we accept?
Where is the evidence that this warning does not apply to James Michael? Or even yourself?
And because you are not game to put your own name to the post it cannot be slander.
If there is anyone in Airservices or CASA management who really sees the effective safety advantage of bringing 7000 small aircraft, primarily in very low traffic density airspace, on to ATC screens then let them say so publically under their own name!
James, it's good to see that you recognise that the ADSB cost benefit study is flawed. Remember it provides the only objective evidence that the $100m subsidy is cost effective and not just an emotive sop to those who desperately want to get VFR aircraft "back in the ATC system" as they were before Feb. 1991
It is a waste of time trying to correct this intentionally misleading document- as I am sure you know- the ethics at Airservices and the other organisations involved is similar to that uncovered at the Wheat Board.