Unlike most of the posts on this site, we HAVE provided factual information. We cannot sit by and let you make unfounded generalist statements about Class E airspace. Our comments regarding the implementation of ALL of the NAS elements are well documented – so you are aware of our position on that implementation. When you criticize Class E airspace as a means of providing adequate levels of service, we must intervene.
What differences, exactly, are there between the application of Class E procedures in the United States, Europe, and Australia? Put aside the designation of areas and detail exactly what part of your basic Class E procedures is different from those applied in the United States. Forget whether you have radar or not – it is essentially irrelevant. Detail EXACTLY what part of your Class E procedures is different to those applicable in the United States.
In the United States, controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – in EXACTLY the same way as is done in Class A, B, C and D airspace, and in exactly the same way Australian controllers separate aircraft in Class A, C and D airspace.
In the United States, controllers pass traffic on observed VFR traffic – and when asked and able, provide suggestions for avoidance. Most often, however, pilots are intelligent enough to realize that if passed traffic by a controller they take whatever action they deem necessary.
In the United States, traffic information on VFR traffic is passed when it is available and relevant – that is, when in the opinion of the controller the aircraft are on a collision course. If it is assumed that they will miss – BY WHATEVER DISTANCE – traffic is rarely passed. That appears to be the fundamental misunderstanding by Australian controllers. If separation is NOT required in Class E airspace – why concern yourself when aircraft pass with less than you would use as a controller.
We know that your controllers went through a difficult cultural change when Class G airspace was ceded to them, having to pass traffic in apparent and obvious conflict situations – yet aircraft did nor hit. This is fundamentally no different.
We have stated on several occasions that we do NOT support the change process that was used in Australia. We have stated on many occasions that your training and education packages were deficient. But we cannot stand by and allow Class E airspace to be maligned as an airspace management tool when it is the process of use and application and not the airspace classification itself that is at fault.