LHR
Not arguing that Niles may have been outside the pale - what I am pointing out is that it was an excellent diversion PLUS if you want to backtrack some other threads you will find that Dick had no compunction in denigrating others with improper assertions, in my case using the fact I was anon as his rationale that he could abuse a non-real entity. I am reminded of a philosopher (Greek or Latin, not sure) named
Hypocrisies.
His burning need to identify other posters and try and flush them out despite the forum rules is probably part of that issue.
No tirade desired against you - you have put a reasonable proposition although I think your pendulum has swung past the middle since you rang Dick and received your hyper-injection of his religion
To cut to the chase, you will note Dick has not answered my questions. Should he do so, we will really move the debate forward re SAFETY, not his crusade for his interpretation thereof.
Bob Murphie
Yours is easy.
What team - the ones running interference for Dick and anti-ADS-B no matter the facts. No reader has to be a rhodes scholar to - as but one example - deduce the genesis of Xinhua, eh
TSO 146 is the only gadget that will attract the 'subsidy'? - Bob, have you considered reading the JCP? After you so do, you could also read the NFRM for ADS-B. But, to save you effort, here's an extract:
On and after 28 June 2012, the geographical position transmitted by the
equipment must be determined by:
(a) a GNSS receiver that meets TSO-C145a or TSO-C146a as in force on
19 September 2002; or
(b) another system acceptable to CASA for this purpose.
Bob, become like Dick - open your mind.
ADS-B IN for free in the subsidy changes the whole equation and deserves wide support.
What's it all got to do with airspace - ask any regional RPT driver - ADS-B allows the CTAF R to become the CTAF A with traffic info BOTH ways, plus you can put the cream on the cake with Class E cones over CTAF A and provide CTA protection all the way.