NAS 2c is even worse than 2b - we need to roll it back before implementation
You must feel sorry for reporters -they just don't research their subject. My experience of what PPL's know and feel about NAS is just the opposite.
The PPL's that I contact in WA don't want to change anything as per NAS 2b or 2c. They have enough problems staying current, and are fearful that these dictated changes will be difficult to learn, and inherently less safe.
There is no way that 2c will improve safety. With radio, perhaps, but without - you're joking.
If you can't afford a radio in your bugsmasher - then you shouldn't be flying. We can't register a car without turn indicators to give prior warning, ( = situational awareness), to our fellow drivers. We have had 60 years experience with radios in aircraft, and they are cheap. A lot cheaper than human life - which is what we need to equate them to.
An ag aircraft in the USA may well be able to operate noradio - but most don't - because they understand the basics of 'situational awareness'. But, if they want a government or local government contract - they must have (1) a turbine - for noise abatement, and (2) DGPS - for accuracy and accountability.
In other words, technology has been written into everyday business arrangements.
Yet here we are in OZ, arguing about whether it's important to allow for freedom of expression via not mandating carriage of VHF radio! Radio is part and parcel of becoming situationally aware = safety. So too is GPS.
How indeed can we explain this deliberate 'ignoring' of technology to the general public, and not feel somewhat backward?
NAS 2c ignores technological progress. It's a step backwards for all aviation.
happy days