Reading the postings of the two main "players" on this thread, and that initiated by
Voices of Reason (
http://pprune.org/forums/showthread....hreadid=117373) is akin to comparing chalk and cheese.
Whilst one attempts to bombard readers with reems (10,000) of words and references to incidents that seemingly NEGATE his argument, the other provides a professional, logical, and reasoned debate built upon a solid foundation.
One really does wonder precisely what you have in mind as your "Final Solution",
Dick Smith. From your posts to date, you indicate that many private pilots (PPL's) are bewildered/confused by the number of VHF frequencies which they SHOULD be utilising, as they transit from one airspace to another.
But because they either (a)don't have the necessary charts from which to gleen this info, and/or (b)are unable to understand these charts, and/or (c)are incapable/not confident of making/understanding R/T transmissions, and/or (c)don't have a radio capable of receiving/transmitting on those frequencies - YOUR solution is to opt for the
lowest common denominator by insinuating that as long as an aircraft is equipped with 126.7, then that is ALL that is really required.
The majority of the 79 incidents you have elected to publish on page 1 were, IN FACT, apparently
caused by light, non-revenue pax transporting aircraft, being where they should not have been, and in conflict with RPT aircraft.
Yet your plan is to INCREASE the access of this airspace to even more "lighties" who will converge, unannounced, to join a melee of other aircraft, and pray the SOMEONE has a functional TCAS to prevent what appears to be the inevitable.
An Australian airspace version of Russian Roulette!
As has been the opinion voiced by many other
professional aviation employees, I concur with them in condemning these latest changes as far LESS safe than the system they replace.