I agree this change hasn't been thought out or managed well, but to correct some misconceptions:
This has to be the largest and most significant screw up by ASA & CASA for many years!
CASA, not Airservices.
Airservices's responsibility would have been limited to proposing the airspace change and publishing the charts and DAP. They aren't responsible for VFR notes and procedures in Class G airspace including NOTAMs related to such. That's CASA's bailiwick.
If I were flying visually in the terminal area only, my first reaction is to get the VTC. In which case, AsA in its wisdom denies me the information about the changed recommended VFR route cruising levels.
Not sure what you are referring to here - the ML VTC online from Airservices includes the expanded portion down the bottom of the chart, and always has.
The VNC does not have the notations / recommended directions, or at least for Melbourne it doesn’t.
The VNC shouldn't be used for operations within the terminal area, which is why they have the usual box around the area and note saying "USE VTC" for operations within, with the VTC showing far greater detail. It would be like trying to use an ERC within a terminal area instead of a TAC.
The "direction change" was NOT part of any of the briefings. it is a late change implemented by CASA without any consultation with RAPAC or the OAR. It is believed that the only consultation may have been with the airlines.
CASA were supposed to have had an education programme, but with now less than 2 weeks until implementation there is no sign of any communication programme whatsover from CASA.
RAPAC has called on CASA to defer the change. CASA has rejected this.
CASA now have a problem.
Deferring use of the charts presents a safety issue, in that some pilots will use them and may or may not be aware of the deferment.
Therefore the safety issue ASSW with deferring the charts has to be balanced with the safety issue ASSW the VFR route changes .....