Ron Lee wrote:
"S Green" wrote:
My suggestion is that you read what I have written then read the NPRM.
If you agree with my analysis, please reply to the FAA and AOPA. You
may use any or all of my reply but I strongly suggest changing it to
reflect your views (possibly shorter).
Shall we still write to the FAA if we don't agree with your analysis?
You are free to disagree with anything I wrote. I would be surprised
if you did not concur with my views if you read everything provided.

Around 1985, I attended an RTCA meeting where this transponder mode was
discussed. (S-mode?). What has happened since, other than 20 years ago
positional (GPS) information was not available, but barometeric,
velocity and heading were, along with acft identification. My
recollection was that the degree of acft identification was a sticky
point then, and that transponder signal clutter could be intense in
termial areas.

My attitude then and now was and is that, I would not stand in the way
of pormulgating it gradually (is 20+ years gradual enough?). Clearly,
the data processing and sensors are now all in place.

So, other than the possibly that the FAA can make terribly inefficient
actions while wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money in the process if
we don't maintain a close rein on the matter, what are the negative
aspects of this specific NPRM?

Angelo Campanella (Flying IFR since 1965).