NAME CHANGE TO AIRNOLOGICAUSTRALIA
AirNoServicesAustralia
I really admire the mix of emotion and disconnected facts but in terms of the four paras of your reply, as 1 - 4 below:-
1. And are East Sale and Amberly in this class? If your argument is correct, let's remove them from the charts and only create by NOTAM as needed. And, even with all that airspace, we still need to issue AIPs to create more MIL airspace for exercises!
2. Another unwarranted dip at VFR. Since MBZ become big CTAF - which they are effectively already - and at MBZ/CTAF is the highest probability of a mid-air, so the procedures are being enhanced, I'd say the safety factor improves. The other area where VFR and RPT mix in proximity is the CTR and that remains protected. Your second sentence is totally unwarranted, purely emotive, and I'm still waiting for something concrete to substantiate this rash assertion.
3. Change is a part of life. Learn to live with it and adapt - the dino's didn't and are perished. ATC does an excellent job but the union strength is in subscriptions which equals membership and the average union will resist any change that decreases membership. I'm not agreeing that ATC should be the decision maker on what constitutes "safety".
4. Same story. You draw a hypothetical case - and I suspect it already exists anyway with all the ultralight aircraft flying around. Is such an event a regular occurrence in the USA?
Perhaps the argument would have more substance if someone would like to offer some convincing statistics from the USA experience where their traffic volume is much higher - some details of VFR/RPT mid-airs for the past 5 years say, including where they occurred (CTAF / CTR / Class G). Then we can move from rhetoric to a discussion based on facts.
Of course, the media will rarely allow facts to spoil a good story (as with the earlier release that VFR and RPT were going to fly in the same airspace below 3300 metres - gee, golly whizz, that must have scared the travelling public to hear it will happen - oh, it's been that way for yonks hasn't it but best we don't allow that to ruin the story).
Continuing the subject of the media, and for anyone who sees or hears any media on the NAS, a warning to viewers from me who watches about ten minutes a month as I prefer to keep my brain in good shape. Some years ago a program - let's call it "An hour of lies" rather than name it - filmed a Q and A interview with one of our key people. They then went back to the studio and re-filmed the interviewer - let's call that person "non-event" rather than name them - asking slightly different questions. Then they spliced in the new questions with the answers our guy had given to the original questions.
I have done media training and - like some of the disconnected logic in some of the postings on this forum - it is amazing how the media can twist facts by use of language - eg "Brian H refused to discuss the allegation that he flew under the Sydney Harbour Bridge". Obvious public verdict - he did it!
And people really watch and believe this b#@$hit?????
If we intend to continue a logical debate, can someone please trot out some USA statistics on the NAS. Otherwise, the emotion level will continue to rise and the debate will continue in useless circles.
Cheers
BRian H