Hempy
Personally, next time I travel it will be to a capital city airport in a jet, or by bus. Good luck
Unfortunately, the point is that your jet (be it a DJ B738, a Cathay B744 or whatever) will, on descent into Sydney, Hobart etc., be flying through Class E airspace. This will mean that there will be unidientified, unknown VFR aircraft, not on the ATC frequency, which will conflict with your jet.
Currently, the same jet would be in Class C airspace, in which it is positively separated from ALL traffic.
From November 27, your RPT flight will be significantly less safe, and the only thing standing between it and a mid-air collision will be BIK's
"BS" Theory or 'see and avoid'.
For the heavy metal drivers out there, consider this:
On descent at 300KT IAS (GS 400KT+) with a ROD of 2000 fpm, do you really believe that your forward and downward visibility, combined with visual acuity and the time required to:[list=a][*]See the traffic[*]Identify the traffic as a collision risk[*]Assess the safest course of action[*]React, without placing your aircraft into conflict with other aircraft[/list=a] is relaible enough as the
only method of keeping you alive?
Personally, I see nothing wrong with keeping you and your passengers alive in the way we do right now: full separation, with all traffic known to the controller.
A question for the NAS proponents who claim that VFR aircraft have been unduly delayed and penalised by the current sytem: "How many times has a controller's response of 'remain outside control area' led to an
actual delay in your flight?" I have used this phrase on many occasions as a 'paper stop', while a clearance and separation was formulated. I cannot remember a
single occasion on which a VFR aircraft has been required to hold outside CTA or alter its track in any way. In
all cases, a clearance has been issued prior to the CTA boundary.
By the same token, I have frequently issued IFR aircraft with 'clearance limits' as a means of assuring separation.
Never has one of these aircraft been required to hold at the clearance limit. On every occasion, an onwards clerance has been issued in good time, once the conflict has been resolved.
Citing the (frequent?)use of the
phrase 'remain outside control area' as evidence of delays is disingenuous. a simpler solotion would be to just replace the phrase with something more innocuous, like 'stand by for clearance'.