We HAVE said in this series of posts that Class E airspace, properly applied, is safe.
What really do you mean by this? Nothing, as we all know, is absolutely safe so surely you are not suggesting this.
Do you mean that Class E, properly applied, is as safe as it can be? Well, anything, properly applied, is as safe as it can be - that's the definition of "properly" in this case. If that's what you mean then you're making a tautology. If not, then please elucidate on how to "properly" apply Class E.
Do you mean that Class E, properly applied, is safe enough? This implies some form of risk/benefit consideration. Given that you make no judgement on the apprioriateness of it's use in the currently designated areas of Australia, then this interpretation of your statement renders it contradictory or meaningless.
So what do you mean by this statement?
If you meant that "safe" is a relative term then saying "Class E, properly applied, is as safe" is meaningless without a comparison.
Sorry to concentrate on this one line of yours, but the word "safe" is a word much abused and I am seeking clarification of what you meant. I might add that you used an even less qualified statement in the thread title "Class E Airspace is Safe", which, intended or not, could serve to get people's backs up and only encourage those who use sophistry to support NAS, to lower the level of debate believing that they have your reputable pseudonymn as support.
If you can provide facts or evidence that Class E airspace – NOT its application in Australia – but Class E airspace itself – is unsafe, then do so.
Like the definition of "safe", the word "unsafe" is problematical.
Again, is it an absolute term? a relative term?
I'll take "unsafe" to mean that, in airspace terms, there is a possibility of an accident even if all procedures are applied correctly.
From this I will demonstrate that, depending on what you wish to define as "properly" in applying procedures, that Class E is unsafe, because either the properly applied procedures allow for an accident, or that or it is impossible to for it to be applied properly. I will use one scenario as a discussion point and we'll see how far we get.
An IFR B737 is on descent into a major aerodrome. A VFR PA31 is cruising along a crossing track at FL115. The paths of the aircraft cross so that a midair collision will occur if nothing is done. Both are in Class E.
One or some of the following parts of the system must work for the collision to be avoided:
ATC sees the PA31 in his/her scan
ATC's STCA works correctly
PA31 has a working transponder
PA31 was transponder turned on
PA31 has working Mode C
PA31 has Mode C selected.
PA31 pilot can see the B737
PA31 is monitoring the ATC frequency
Pilots of the B737 can see the PA31
B737 TCAS is working correctly
Any avoiding action taken will be in different directions.
Assumption 1: Each of these factors are a necessary part of Class E being properly applied.
Because we know that they are not a guarantee it is impossible for Class E to be properly applied, it is thus impossible for Class E to be "safe", therefore it is unsafe.
Assumption 2: Some or none of these factors are part of Class E being properly applied.
If so, then in "properly" applying Class E then we have a midair collision occuring with Class E due to external factors. To talk of Class E being "safe", therefore, in isolation of these factors is to talk in isolation of actual events and therefore meaningless. Given that these factors exist, a collision is possible in Class E when applied properly, therefore Class E is unsafe.
In conclusion, either it is impossible to apply Class E properly, or it is possible. This depends on the definition of applying it "properly". Either way, a midair collision still occurs, therefore either by design or in application, Class E airspace is unsafe.
To make it a bit less esoteric: even if everyone follows the "rules" in Class E, there is still a risk of collision, unless you think the "rules" are everything that avoids and accident, of course, which is unrealistic because you cannot guarantee everything.
It is absolutely correct to say that in any given volume the level of risk associated with Class C airspace is less than that associated with Class E.
This is not recognised by many proponents of NAS, and even if it is, there is no demonstration of the increased benefit for decreased safety.
VoR your posts are appreciated by many here, and many agree with you. Your "outburst" is hard to understand. In this thread you state that the NAS implementation is flawed, however you come out with a flawed argument concluding somehow that Class E airspace is safe. For one you cite that in the US people don't complain - how is that a valid argument? It is perplexing that given such reasoned and measured arguments put forward by you previously, you come out with a blanket statement is not defined or qualified..
As many have said, so so many times:
Class E is less safe than C. There are no real benefits in replacing C with E as NAS does. Therefore there is a decrease in safety for no real benefit.
No-one has ever, on this forum, shown the actual benefits which outweigh the increased risk in Class E in NAS. The increased risk has been demonstrated, the benefits haven't.
Instead of challenging others to prove Class E as safe (fruitless exercise ; ), we should be challenging others to prove why it is needed.
HtH