AA, TBT,
"Aircraft apart 300 feet mid-air now okay"
The ATSB report itself says that there are no separation standards applicable between VFR/IFR in Class E, so isn't this title true? Isn't it? You may think the use of the 300ft is questionable, but does it change the truth of the statement?
The body of the release does not mention any distances, because the point of the release is to highlight that it is made clear by the ATSB report that there are no separation standards between VFR/IFR in E. Simple. The title could have used 150ft and still have been correct, regardless of what distances occur in the report.
If you are so concerned about truth in the NAS debate then are you happy with the publically stated $50-$70M savings that are unfounded and unproven? Or that the Minister has said that the airspace is safer? Will you answer these questions?
You have not demonstrated that the new airspace is not less safe. You have not demonstrated that there are savings in the airspace. You attack the perceived tactics of one side of the debate whilst not concerning yourself with the government-level public misinformation being made by those who are pushing NAS through.
The Government and NASIG want the public to feel happy about the airspace changes. Pilots and ATC know that it is less safe and does not save any money (it probably now costs more money). You want to attack groups that attempt to bring this to the public's attention.
Prove that NAS is as safe or more safe.
Prove that NAS will save money
And again, please tell me how the statement "Aircraft apart 300 feet mid-air now okay" is incorrect.