Andy, I asked a simple question.
There have been no positive answers, not even yours.
This post was not a soapbox rant, it was a question. eg 'It does because....."
Many supporters of the system come up with all sorts of rationale to support the system, but when pushed for the benfits, especially toward safety, well things go quiet.
I am yet to see an answer to the question. But there are plenty of guys I named previously who are quick on the keyboard to express sarcasm and insult the professionals who work in this environment on a daily basis, knowing there are guys, by their own admission, who can't do a VFR flight across 60 miles and actually get the ****e together enough to deal with 2 frequency changes once exiting the CTAF, or others who can't switch on a transponder. And then they wonder why airline pilots worry about having to share airspace with them when they may be known or unkonown, and may not even be monitoring another frequency - but still lay blame at the árrogant regional drivers'- do you consider this 'safe enough'.
What constitutes 'Safe Enough'? What kind of % risk of a MAC or accident becomes acceptable? At which point do we accept that an increase in that % is ''safe enough'. At what point is the floor of 'safe enough'.
For a start, part of basic airmanship demands that we do everything possible to minimise the risks, and ENHANCE safety in our flight operations. Yet you have a government and an implementation group who are increasing the risks attached to flying, especially RPT flying.
At this point, the anti-NAS group tend to say Oz is unique because "in the rest of the world they have radar everywhere..."; then the pro-NAS group say "that's not true..."; and so the "debate" becomes circular.
The Anti NAS group say that the new system IS unique, because despite what the propaganda would have you believe, the new system is only loosely based on the US system. Too loosely to be adopted directly and implemented without a proper safety case being made.
And this is one of the biggest concerns and cause of concern to most, if not all, critics of the system.
Yet the pro-NAS sector use the argument that the critics are afraid of change, or are greedy users of the airspace. I think I can generalise here that and state that professional pilots have no problem whatsoever with sharing airspace with all aviators, professionals or recreationals, as long as it is done so in a SAFE MANNER. You would find few who critics of the NAS who are against an IMPROVEMENT in airpace and the SAFETY Australian airspace.
But why replace a WORKING and safety proven airspace with some uniqueness, to ANOTHER uniques airspace arrangement that has alot of safety 'unknowns'. LAst time I checked, Australia was not the 53rd State of the USA (despite our current governments wet dream)
Do you fly IFR? Do you fly high performance aeroplanes? Do you have to transition in one of those aircraft from C to D and vice versa through E knowing that there is a very strong possibility that there are known and unknown aircraft, like the guys that 320/20 talks about. I suggest not. Otherwise mentioning terms like 'safe enough'would not be.
There are plenty of resons why the new NAS is less safe, and there have been plenty of discussion about that on these forums. Just because the 'government' has çhanged your regs' does in no way remove them from criticism or in the very least moral responsibility for creating a more hazardous work environment for pilots and cabbin crew, as well as for the travelling public and the people who live under the airspace.
So the question remains: How does the new NAS improve Air Safety in Australia?