Chris Higgins wrote:
It seems that Dick Smith and Mr Caplehorn and Mr Dumsa are able to reveal their full identities; why nobody else?
Apart from the name-dropping that Dick constantly draws like a loose cannon (which I believe he uses to try and gain credibility), why does he not name his "anonymous" sources - those single engined pilots that get held over water near Hamilton Island, the GA pilots that are supposedly making millions with all those track miles saved, the QANTAS pilots that support NAS ... et cetera.
The sword is two-edged. Like it has been said on this forum before, many people on this forum remain anonymous to protect themselves (there have already been cases of people having their reigns "pulled" for speaking out); it does not detract from their credibility. What does it matter
who the contributors are; if they are not in positions of authority, their names won't mean anything to other contributors anyway.
Dick purports to have a raft of supporters. Perhaps he should start his own petition (not unlike SafeSkiesNow earlier this year) to demonstrate to the minister
just how much support he has for NAS.
Consider it a challenge.
As for Class E-
Class E airspace does not work without radar monitoring and full traffic participation-period! It never has, and it never will. Class E airspace without radar is merely an extension of an outmoded philosophy of "affordable safety."
Chris, this would be one of the principal concerns about the NAS 2b rollout. I hope you have been made aware of the Christmas eve incident near Launceston involving a 737 and a Tobago - in non-RADAR Class E airspace (involving an RA). There is no proof as to how close the aircraft actually got laterally, but so much as to say the passengers could see the Tobago quite clearly. The Tobago pilot thought he wasn't supposed to talk (NAS 2b training package), so he didn't. He thought the jet would pass him on his right; it passed him on the left.
What was the fallout? Airservices' only transportable RADAR (which in the past had been used for increased surveillance when required - e.g. prolonged RADAR failures or special events) is now cemented firmly in place in Launceston - on a 72 hour recall I believe. This is a band-aid solution that doesn't placate the significant chunks of identical airspace around the country where an incident hasn't occurred yet.
I suggest you have a read of the ATSB report:
Christmas Eve incident summary
[edited to add non-RADAR E comments]