Old 13th Mar 2020, 04:35
  #466 (permalink)  
Lead Balloon
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,202
I suggest that you have a think about why the “shambolic” situation at Avalon exists. I put it to you that it exists because the airspace fundamentalists forced the current arrangement on CASA. When it became obvious that the system wasn’t working, CASA and ASA started adding requirements to keep the airspace reasonably safe.
I put it to you that the problem is that the Australian ‘system’ is culturally incapable of accepting that Class E airspace exists for a reason and works. The people you describe as “fundamentalists” might instead be “objective”. What you describe as “reasonably safe” might instead be an “overreaction to exaggerated risks”.


Finally, CASA has said enough is enough and it’s going to recommend ASA replace the E. On that point, have you written to the minister arguing that CASA should have the power to mandate airspace changes instead of just “recommending”? I didn’t think so.
CASA does have the power to mandate airspace changes! That was supposedly the point of moving the designation of airspace out of Airservices and into CASA. The words “consult” and “recommend” do not appear in any form in the Airspace Regulations 2007! That’s precisely why I’ve pointed out that the recommendations out of the review of Avalon are just bureaucratic flim-flam.


(Please take a deep breath and try as best you can to listen to me, just for couple of sentences. I’m whispering this just to you: The designation of airspace in Australia is influenced by bureaucratic duck-shoving, sectional interests and petty politics. I know that might be confronting, but it’s best you know because it helps to explain the ostensibly inexplicable.)

Back to the specific circumstances that resulted in this thread: Two IFR aircraft collided in G. Bloggs: You haven’t explained why the implementation of E instead of G would not result in a net increase in safety for IFR aircraft.
Lead Balloon is offline