Aussy Andy, eta23 etc.
You keep talking about the US system. Australia
is not getting the us system! You need to read all the NAS threads, then a lot of stuff won't be repeated ad nauseum.
Australia developed a unique way of doing things, because the airspace use is unique. The UK has some huge differences to ICAO, which you acknowledge, to suit what it sees as the best solution for it's airspace. The US system is certainly not ICAO, and the way it is operated is not even the way it is written in the books (in reality there is a lot more service provided {and expected}). The US relies heavily on it's radar coverage, and the reason you can jump in your glider and fly over airbases etc without even receiving a service is because the other- fast- users are receiving a service. There is probably no point in providing traffic to a slow aircraft versus a jet. The jet will be the one doing the avoiding. But the slow aircraft still has to be included (whether he knows it or not) for that to work. Full radar coverage (even in the J-curve) aint going to happen in oz. So to say "the US system is great, let's do it here" is either misguided or setting out to mislead. I'm sure those on the NASIG know which
The poms don't subscribe to the 'only one party in the conflict receives a service, and if you are VFR you can call up and get any help you want' attitude that the yanks are happy with, but in oz we are going to try the 'one party in the conflict may/may not receive a service, and if you are VFR you are on your own' system.
AK.
Is AOPA going to support mandatory transponders? How about we stop putting the cart before the horse, and find out what the end state will be, what equipment will be required, what equipment would make it work etc etc before sabotaging the airspace? Still no response about confusing the charging system with the airspace system, from either yourself or AOPA.