Ron Lawford doesn't have the data to assert the amount of change in air collision risk.
Bloggs, Plazbot, 4711 etc. (posters here) do not have the data to assert this or otherwise.
DS and the ARG do not have the data to assert this either.
As has been alluded to on another thread, there has been no meaningful statistical analysis and comparison of types of aviation accidents, including MCAs, between Australia and USA under the "old" system and under the current and projected NAS. It has been apparently all guesswork, near enough is good enough and and beliefs. This is sad, because there are experienced and sophisticated folks in private industry and government who are adept at modelling scenarios and weighting raw data for variables such as traffic density, weather conditions, radar coverage, etc.
Why the AOPA board (please note, the board) needed to support it one way or another is beyond me as it makes vanishingly small difference to most GA flying apart from pushing up the cost and necessity of ERC-L's. They have enough to do (and have done well, BTW) with many of the other issues that need to be address. Drop NAS and concentrate on the other stuff - it really doesn't need to be AOPA's battle.
BTW, of the AOPA members that I do know, they seem to be fond of living, and are also concerned for the safety of friends and family that travel in the pressurised aluminium tubes.
Cheers
NOtimTAMs
PS A few ideas on safety - maybe, as a life is irreplaceable and priceless, we need to increase measures to make aviation safer:
Just for safety's sake, because some accidents can involve head injuries, why don't we make all pilots, passengers (and car passengers) wear helmets?
5 point harnesses definitely dissipate impact forces better than lap and lap/sash belts - lets make all restraints on all aircraft 5 point harnesses to be worn at all times.
As parachutes have been proved to save lives in cases of airframe break up, lets make all pilots and pax train in the use and wear of parachutes, hey?
As ATC staff can make errors, as can pilots, why not only allow one plane, per IFR segment, per shift?
Statistically, turbine engines are subject to failure less often than piston - and two engines are better that one - but assymmetric thrust is a survival problem - lets mandate twin push-pull turbines for all flying, too.
If any of these can save one life or have a logical argument that it *might* save a life, it will be worth it - right guys?