212 - your first point, no argument there! To be fair to the authorities, once it had been agreed that L and L2 were the same type rating (in 1992) it was pretty hard to say that L2 and 225 were not the same type. The difference between L and L2 is greater than the difference between L2 and 225. Therefore by association the L and 225 ended up as the same type.
Third point, not quite sure what you are saying but the whole point is that its very similar to AVAD. Its not quite as good because there are no attensons and its not repeated. Its also part of a very complicated box that is probably inherently less reliable than the very simple AVAD.
Fourth point, if an operator wanted to have the EGPWS display up all the time, there is nothing to stop them, however as a means to detect failure surely an effective CWP caption is a much better idea rather than tying up a whole screen? We don't like the EGPWS display offshore because as we all know it only contains some of the obstacle data, so is misleading whilst looking rather like radar. It doesn't tell you anything you don't already know apart from the fact that its working, but does fail to tell you things you do (hopefully) already know such as obstacles in front of you that you could hit.
HC