VOR-DME wrote:
Your conveyance of information through written text being somewhat
sub-optimal,

Feel free to give a me phone call, then.

I’m trying to work through what you are trying to say.

Among other things, I said the FAA isn't as competent as you seem to
think they are.

I was also going to add that from an engineering perspective ADS-B sucks
big time. It looks to me like it was designed by a committee that fell
victim to feature creep. But being the humble person I am, I wont say any
of that.

If
the meaning of your contribution is that on-board radar systems would
perform to a higher standard, with regard to air traffic control
concerns, than the proposed NextGen/ADS-B, based on satellite
localization, then I wholeheartedly disagree.

Consider an aicraft on collision course with a flock of birds or an
ultralight. Which do you believe would be more likely to aid in
preventing a collision: ADS-B "In" or some on-board active sensing system
like radar?

I am also at a loss to understand what collision avoidance, the purported
reason for mandating ADS-B Out, has to do with phasing out a navigation
system like VOR/DMEs. No doubt someone with your vast intellect and
communication skills could answer that in a manner even a sub-optimal
communicator like myself would understand.

In article ,
says...


I read and assimilated the part where VOR-DME used the classical
fallacy of appeal to authority:

"... if you believe someone with your limited understanding of the
system is going to dream up failure modes that the NextGen developers,
in their haste, have not worked out to the tenth decimal place..."

It is an assertion of competence on the part of the FAA that also
happens to be historically inaccurate.

The only legitimate goal that the FAA can reasonably seek by its
rules, separation of commercial aircraft from all other airborne
objects (including birds), could also be accomplished by requiring
on-board radar and alert systems for those aircraft. This is a
technical alternative to ADS-B that accomplishes that goal. It also
manages to equitably match the burden with the benefit. It also
permits non-commercial GA the freedom to choose their level of risk
versus cost. The ADS-B out mandate doesn't accomplish either of the
above.