WillowRun 6-3,
I
assume that you support my contention that the US, and a few others, need to up their game and join the ranks of those who support the theme of standardization as advanced by ICAO.
I use the word assume because you dress up your observations by using prose in a very unusual style. Are you not able to use plain English as a means of communicating?
I read them all this evening. I didn't say 'read closely.'
What happens if there is another "System Perturbation" such as the US ground stop on 9-11 (phrase from The Pentagon's New Map, by Thomas Barnett)?
What about in the case of armed conflict occurring? Assume active hot warfighting in, say, Syria? Are you now more concerned, or less (or unchanged) about ICAO R/T standardization compliance if you are PIC within, let's again say, 75 minutes (U.S.), at under Mach 2, of Incirilik?
Proposition: with due respect to Ace R, the ICAO triennial is next month. 466 posts, and mounting some special agenda item for ICAO merits but a shrug? Well, if so, I'm left wondering what all the ground-pounding was about.
Unintelligible.
Discuss. Or drink. Probably not both (at the same time, is what I meant).
I think you may have had one too many!
What on earth is the message you are trying to get across|? And what are you on?