Dick
In order of your sentences
1. Humour and a bit of fun are not banned, and I don't make the rules. You were not the least into humour and a bit of fun and I believe your recurrent breach of the rules would have gained me a thread holiday if in your place.
2 & 3. Hooray. And see below.
4. Why I appeared is my business. What you do (within reasonableness) is yours. What you see as "ASA spin" might be seen by others as logical and sound for the future of GA in Oz. What I see as "Dick-spin" might be positive to you and to me detrimental - we each have our own beliefs.
5. (and picking up the promise from 2 & 3 above).
Please, please, please
read the relevant material. Read what the Minister's representative said in June:
Bill Sims (Dept of Infrastructure) commented that the tide cannot be turned back now – ADS-B and GNSS already exist and are already in the market. He continued that the Department wants to take ADS-B and GNSS further. We are locked into a process and therefore we are committed to let the Government have a say as well as the industry. Nobody in the Department misunderstands the urgency of decision making.
Michael Kus stated that ABIT/GIT had been given the views of Airservices, CASA and Defence and asked if the Department would endorse the proposal to proceed with Phase 1 of the Project. Jim Wolfe responded that a document outlining the Department’s position would need to be endorsed by the APG at the CEO level. He stated “the Department has no difficulty with the wider application of ADS-B.”
Jim Wolfe responded that it was a legislative requirement to have the safety regulator, (CASA), sign off on a regulatory mandate and that Government involvement was required wherever a proposed change would have implications for Defence, and where it had other financial implications then the Finance Minister, Treasurer and ultimately the Prime Minister all would likely be involved. It is wrong for the industry to think otherwise.
Now, Dick, do you believe ASA staff are able to answer for the eminent underlined group above and keep their jobs afterward? Or answer for the timeline of getting the documentation through the various external underlined Departments involved?
And, could we suggest that further delay may have occurred by one who lobbied for the radars to be kept running in parallel with ADS-B for the first few years
