Peter Duniho wrote:


What McNicoll is trying to say in his oh-so-charming way is that "radar
identified" has a very specific meaning, and the VFR traffic wasn't radar
identified. Being visible on the radar scope is not in and of itself
sufficient for being "radar identified".


Good points (both about McNicoll and radar identified ;-) Having said that it
seems that the air traffic procedures folks are primarily fooling themselves
(so, what's new? ;-) when they don't consider an unknown secondary target
returning Mode C data to be sufficiently radar identified for merging target
safety action. Good thing TCAS isn't so strict about what it tags.