Second, as to credentials, suffice it to say our resumes would stand more than favorably against any offered by participants to this forum.
Interesting comment since not many have put their resume on here. Credentials of themselves do not mean that the person making an argument is right, in fact they are irrelevant. The only important thing is the validity of the argument itself. You can have all the credentials in the world and still be wrong. Mr D Smith makes the mistake of equating credentials and even identity with validity.
The identity of VoR is not required, but what is required is an assurance that what is written by VoR is from a consistent voice and not just from a bunch of people with differing ideas writing under the one pseudonym, otherwise why not post under different names? VoR has proven on the most part, without supplying credentials, that what they say is worth reading because it is generally well reasoned and referenced. When this thread came up, most people were up in arms because it wasn't they came to respect.
Yes, the change from Class C to Class E does increase risk – but is it an unacceptable level of risk – probably not. Are the incidents in Class E airspace indicative of a safety deficiency – yes. Is it a deficiency in airspace design – probably not.
"Probably not". Hardly definitive and thus not really that helpful in this debate.These statements need clarification and supportive evidence/argument.
You make a judgement here that Class C to E is "probably" an acceptable risk. To make this statement you must believe that the benefits "probably" outweigh the increased risk.
You have not outlined what the benefits of E are, so to understand what you mean, we need to know what you think these benefits are. What are the benefits, in Australia, of Class E over C, in the areas that NAS has introduced it?
Many here have outlined the increased risk in Class E, and we have seen several incidents that have highlighted the immediate dangers associated with the airspace, even when it is applied correctly. These incidents would not have happened in Class C under the same circumstances. No-one on this forum has yet to demonstrate the net benefit of Class E and many of us are waiting to see it.
It is more likely to be a misapplication of the procedures associated with Class E airspace.
What is your response to the ATSB report which cocludes that neither of the pilots nor ATC applied procedures incorrectly? If you disagree with the ATSB report then please clarify why. If not then why make this comment?
Again you assert that it seems to work OK in the US so it should be OK here. This is a premise that requires more elaboration. As I've stated before, we have a TCAS RA occuring when everyone involved followed the rules.
This is not acceptable here.
Does this happen in the US?
Would this situation be acceptable in the US?
Maybe Class E in similar areas in the US is acceptable because US controller and pilots apply procedures in Class E that are different to those prescribed to make it work. Do you have evidence that Class E procedures are followed to the letter in the US and that no workarounds (either culturally instilled or unofficially endorsed) are used?
To summarise:
The ATSB says that everyone followed the Class E procedures in the most recent Virgin incident, and we still got an RA.
You agree that there is a safety deficiency but say that it is probably the application of the rules and not the design of the airspace that faulty.
One of these is wrong - which one?
HtH