It's all become clear to me now.
I want to thank 'The Leyland Brothers', Dick and all the other NAS proponents. You want the US system (including the level of service provided by US controllers), and it seems you are going to get it.
NAS really means 'turning on the seperation when it's required' ie. when the controller spots a VFR who might be a problem for an IFR, turn on the separation.
Now, what this means for oz is; controller numbers will have to increase, to accomodate the re-sectorisation of radar sectors into smaller, traffic-spotting-friendly, US size sectors. Workload will be irregular (as found out by sectors that provide low-level FS 'services' already), requiring 'inefficient staffing' (you can't staff efficiently because workload becomes wx reliant). Plenty of midday TV, there boys!
If you think I'm joking- ask a US controller how big radar sectors are over there. Then ask an aussie.
Thanks, fellas. Nothing like demand to push up the pay packet. Who's going to pay? Well, certainly not GA. Right? Right?
Once again, thanks.
