Had I read this before I posted, it would have been a shorter post : )
If you cannot see VFR traffic because of the deficiencies of your system [any system, not specifically Australia's system] - then the obligation to pass traffic in respect of observed traffic cannot be met - but the designed procedures for Class E airspace are still satisfied.
So you would agree that a mid air collision can still happen in Class E even when "the designed procedures for Class E airspace are still satisfied." Given what I wrote previously, this surely cannot be called "safe". (In isolation from reality, talking about Class E as a design concept, sure, it could be seen as safe, but what does that mean in reality?)
I quote from the ATSB interim report, to use the most recent incident as an example and to demonstrate that this is not just an intellectual exercise:
..the crews of both aircraft and the ATS controller complied with the published procedures for Class E airspace under NAS.
So we had a near collision with everyone doing the right thing. In fact, the report details that all parties did more than required by the system.
If this is an unacceptable situation, then, according to your reasoning, it must be due to the location of the Class E airspace and not the design of Class E itself. It cannot be the implementation (eg education and training) because the ATSB says that all parties followed the correct Class E procedures.
Now, you say:
This thread was meant to defend Class E as a valid and legitimate airspace management option - it is NOT about WHERE it is applied in Australia, or HOW it was implemented.
That's fine - and no-one here has said that all Class E should be removed - it has been part of our airspace for a number of years. No-one says that Class E shouldn't be used anywhere.
However, you do cite examples of US airspace which seem to work fine (because no-one complains and there are no controllers calling for an increase in services), which to me means that you are also implying that any similar airspace in Australia should be fine and why are we all kicking up a fuss?
If our Melbourne and Brisbane E airspace is similar to that used near cities in the US, then, given your comments on the US system, it should be perfectly OK to have E in these places.
Well,
We have Class E in this airspace
We have the procedures being applied correctly (ATSB report)
We have a TCAS RA.
This is not acceptable to many people here, regardless of how acceptable it may be in the US or Europe. The location of the Class E is wrong, and just because it seems to be acceptable for similar locations in the US, it doesn't follow that it should be acceptable in Australia.
It actually begs the question of "Why is it acceptable in the US?"
In answering this question, maybe we can reveal more about how the differences in aviation, culture and infrastructure cause this difference between Australia and the US.