Thank you for the reply Tucumseh.
I am still undecided in my own mind. I totally agree with you wrt IFF which is an entry level requirement, and having read the H-C report recently the Nimrod issue is equally as cut and dried.
Is CWS really an entry level requirement though? I have never operated with one but can see the utility. On the other hand I have flown a machine that gave so many secondary warnings that you got used to ignoring them - to the point that I ignored a really important one once. I understand false alarms are not unheard of with CWS. One also assumes it would be annoying in BFM etc, although there may be a way of suppressing it.
On the other hand I think the 'just keep looking out' argument a little simplistic, naive even. But the counter argument that a close air prox is tantamount to a collision is (to me) daft as well. That would make every time I walked on a pavement the same as actually being run over.
And I can also see that if we aren't safe without it then a failed BIT = crew out, which seems a little extreme. But maybe that's right.
So, in adequately perhaps, I remain on the fence.
I suspect the fence is there because the R in ALARP is multi faceted and allows for human interpretation.