For those interested in a controllers point of view re controlled airspace, the update requirements may satisfy a 5nm standard, but you would still need direct VHF Comms to use the surveillance standard. And if you have direct VHF comms you're likely in range of existing terrestrial ADSB or Radar. I would expect a more procedural-esque distance of 15nm or so.

DMEA wasn't American - ergo, it couldn't have been any good :ugh::ugh::ugh:

growahead,
Having been around long enough to have used both systems, I well recall the serious deficiencies of the 200mc DME, they were not theoretical, and I get a little tired of Ra!! Ra!! nonsense based on prejudice, with nary a fact to spoil the jingoistic nonsense. Particularly undisguised Yank bashing.

So you stick to facts, and I won't criticise.

I also recall the arguments at the time about the alleged problems of 1000mc, and the "Australian" view that avionics development would preclude the use of such high (UHF) frequencies.

Of course, the fact that AWA owned all the avionics used by the Australian domestics of the day would not have made them at all biased, would it?? No conflict of interest here!!

As it turns out, I have also been around long enough to remember the objections to the introduction of VOR in Australia --- and only in Australia -- but that is another story.

I am afraid Australia of the 40's-50's was not too good, at an institutional level, at accepting technological development ----- so DME(A) seemed the safe bet, but Australia was very wrong ---- and this was not a "USA" thing, nowhere in Europe was interested in low frequency DME either, because VOR/TACAN was the decision for both civil and military use throughout the western world.

Tootle pip!!

ADSB-A







........