In article ,
says...


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

I can accept your judgment, but to think they have not dealt with scenarios as
obvious as GPS blackouts in developing the new system, as MXIDIOT suggests, is
patently ridiculous.


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.

Which engineering features? Are you an engineer? I am. Are you a pilot? I am.
Are you instrument/commercial rated? I am. Why is it that you say ADS-B "sucks"
when I don't see it that way? Tell us what is wrong with it.


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?

As you know from your engineering and aviation background, obstacle avoidance
is not really a primary ATC function. I do not mean to discredit your argument,
but primary ATC functions are concerned with systemic risks (other aircraft)
while terrain and local hazards are relegated to more basic avoidance
procedures. ADS-B is an air traffic control protocol, not a terrain or obstacle
avoidance protocol.



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.

Well, if you start by telling me what collision avoidance is provided by
VOR/DME's then we're on course! VOR's enhance collision opportunities by
placing multiple aircraft in the same position. Avoiding same is progress.