[QUOTE=Sunfish;10982908]I don't think Airservices has thought this out. The proposed airspace has to include at least half the GA, RAA and SAAA aircraft fleet.
On the contrary, Sunfish, Airservices has thought this out but we do not know what their thoughts were/are. However we can speculate......
If you think they genuinely want to do what they propose, then they know, as well as we, that the "GA, RAA and SAAA" people will knock it back; so,
- Either it is a straw man, designed to appear to be doing something, but in the full knowledge that it will not get up; or,
- It is a challenge to the authority of CASA, who, according to their airspace reports, classify the current Class G as "fit for purpose"; or,
- As postulated by Dick Smith and myself in earlier posts, it is a face saving response to the ATSB report on Mangalore, that they will already know the results of, but we do not.
Either way, it is a classic "wedge" often used in politics, where those of us who support low level Class E, cannot be seen to now oppose it, when the Government (Airservices) propose to introduce it.
At the same time, if it does get up, as proposed, Airservices will have got what they want, more services to charge for and make more money for Canberra; and,
If they get what they want but without a transponder mandate, and with their nonsensical S-AFIS rejected (why would you introduce low-level Class E then exclude two, with more to come, aerodromes that really need it!) then they can claim, if anything goes wrong that it was not their (ie, their boss the Minister's) fault.
So, I believe we should call it what it is, a disingenuous (A disingenuous remark might contain some superficial truth, but it is delivered with the intent to deceive or to serve some hidden purpose-Miriam Webster) attempt at consultation with the industry over the top of CASA, the airspace regulator.