Jonkster. No. It’s not a fair summary. My prime aim is to get an airspace system which is proven and with minimum differences to airspace used in leading aviation countries.
That will maximise export income for Australia.”
Our present airspace is a half wound back system. That’s the prime reason for the previously unheard of total disagreement between CASA and the RAPACs.
I am concerned that an airspace system that we are supposed to rely on is bastardising the intention of the ICAO classification system and is not the way to go.
For example ICAO class E and G airspace have no radio requirement for VFR. This is not accidental. If safety dictates VFR need to be in the system a minimum of ICAO class D is required,
As stated before the present system is a crock. To mandate radio for VFR against ICAO recommendations and then rely on VFR pilots monitoring hundreds of non directed calls , sometimes retransmitted over 100’s of miles ,just doesn’t work. It’s trying to hold on to the past without allocating the necessary resources for the system to work .
Yes. I would like to see some more E. I can’t believe we have our airline pilots performing a do it yourself amateur like separation service at places like Ballina in IMC while the ATC sits in front of the radar with no responsibility for keeping the aircraft apart.
It’s all been planned and approved by the government. But stopped by ignorance and resistance to change. Why don’t you give me a ring.
Recently I made an offer to Mr Carmondy that I give a presentation on the Aus approved NAS
He refused.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Jan 2018 at 08:54.