JAK:
Thanks, I've had a copy of this report for some years now, but its recommendations seems to be (conveniently) overlooked or ignored in the NAS debate.
How can any airspace system improve its safety integrity, when we don't acknowledge the research or lessons from the past?
For info, there is also another study done by CASA which is worth getting hold of and having a look at re the MBZ/CTAF argument ("The Airspace Risk Model - MBZ/CTAF Analysis" by Robert Phillips Feb 2002).
Finally, Dr. Neale Fulton of the CSIRO (email
[email protected]) has undertaken a number of scientific studies into "see and avoid" in Oz airspace, which have been published in "The Aeronautical Journal" (Royal Aeronautical Society mag). In one of his article overviews he states (bolded phrases are my emphasis):
"In classes E, F and G airspace, there is an expectation on pilots to see and avoid other aircraft, but this is often not possible so to design airspace rules on this basis is inappropriate" and, in another article, he concludes
"To achieve the desired airspace safety and reliability levels in a cost effective manner airspace design requires some form of robust communication other than visual acquisition (sic of other aircraft) whilst at the same time maximising the potential for pilots to perform visual acquisition" . Given his extensive qualifications and knowledge of risk and reliability engineering, it beats me why Dr. Fulton has not been engaged as an advisor on the NASIG. Perhaps, he knows too much and could ask too many embarrassing questions??