SM4 Pirate, I hope I haven’t misled you. I was previously asked about a “VRA proposition in E areas above terminal areas.” I stated correctly that I did not know what this was referring to. I now understand that VRA stands for “VHF Reporting Area” which is a unique Airservices/Qantas proposal that brings back full position reporting from the 1950s as a mandatory requirement in the Class E airspace to FL180 above Class D towers.
If this is what you refer to as the “Industry Option”, I can assure you that I do not support it. I have had no involvement at all other than a number of incredulous people telling me what was proposed and allegedly supported by Chris Manning of Qantas.
SM4 Pirate, I simply cannot believe that such an extraordinary proposal will go ahead. This is nearly as bad as the DAFs (Designated Area Frequencies) that were designed for the LAMP proposal. It is simply beyond me why people can’t accept that the US Class E airspace above D works with very high safety levels. In the USA in this airspace there is no mandatory transponder requirement, no mandatory radio requirement, and not even a recommendation for VFR aircraft to monitor the tower or ATC.
I had certainly heard about an industry proposal and have discussed it with a number of people however at no stage did I realise that this was a “VRA proposition”. I’m sorry if I’ve misled you.
I can understand how frustrated you must be. The problem is that there is simply no one who is showing any leadership in relation to the NAS system at Airservices. A good leader would be able to explain to air traffic controllers and pilots that there are advantages in moving to the proven US system and there is no need for unique modifications.
It must be frustrating for you as a professional to see the ridiculous unique changes that are being proposed. I can understand your view on the radar in Tasmania. Once again, it is obvious that there is a total lack of leadership. It is very sad for Australia and for our aviation industry.