Originally Posted by
Capn Bloggs
I don't know why I bother but...
So Leddie, at Hobart, tomorrow, Class A is just as safe as Class G, is it not, based on your theory?
Bloggsie,
Sometimes I wonder if you really are as thick as you present yourself to be.
ICAO isn't a theory.
ICAO airspace management Docs/SARPs are not a theory, to a greater or (in the AU case) lesser degree they are standards used worldwide.
There is nothing theoretical about risk management, unless, of course, you believe all the ISO standards, which underpin just about every industrial process, are just a theory (or FAA/EASA design and certification standards)---- which means that whatever aeroplane you are flying is largely designed on some basis, that is not valid -- risk management.
And yes, in the Hobart case, if the traffic levels only required G (which they don't, D is where it is) all A would do is increase costs without without improving the actual separation assurance outcomes.
Unless, of course, you believe banning VFR aircraft entirely is right and and proper ---- and, considering that proposition, you are probably unreasonable enough to believe that is reasonable.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Do some homework, and have a close look at Eurocontrol publications, they actually publish their CNS/ATMrisk targets and and achieved results, on a regular basis.