Lead, in the first instance, thank you for your reply. I do not subscribe to the theory that anonymity on this forum somehow decreases credibility! I have always found your posts to be reasonable and measured - notwithstanding that I don't always agree.
However, I fail to understand (call me stupid) how filing a 'difference' then makes you 'compliant.' Regardless of what the FAA says, they cannot be technically compliant if a 'difference' has to be filed.
I appreciate that you and
Dick are a double-act and I don't doubt the sincerity of your efforts but, for the life of me, I see absolutely no gain in reclassifying GAAP to ICAO D (with FAA modifications and the filing of a 'difference').
As I have stated before, I believe that the end-game is D at GAAPs, compliant D at regionals (for the sake of uniformity), which then re-opens the argument about the 'unique' practice of having C over ICAO D (with the FAA exception). In short, it's not done anywhere else (read US) Minister, so why do we have unique procedures here? It's roll-back of the roll-back by stealth.
As regards military airspace and Warning Areas, I (partially) take your point. So I got on the web and looked at how others do business. I would suggest that the military does not perceive a 'threat' from aircraft that are foreign registered. I'd say that their main worry is domestically registered aircraft that want to go through training areas, regardless, because they can.
So, I refer you to the NZ CAA publication:
www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/GAPs/GAP_NZ_Airspace.pdf
Check out the requirements for NZ registered aircraft with regard to MOAs, no matter how far off the coast.