george wrote:
On May 30, 8:38*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
VOR-DME writes:
I just told you, and you didn't get it.

None of the things you mention provides navigation capabilities. The
airc
raft
and its crew still have to be able to determine where they are. They
cann
ot do
that with datalinks or other gadgets unrelated to navigation. Even
remote ground control of aircraft would require some sort of on-board
navigation system, unless the system relied on theoretical
calculations and dead reckoning, which would be hopelessly inaccurate
in practice.

Bloody hell but you're thick.
Didn't you read what he wrote and assimilate/understand the
information?

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.