SM4 Pirate, you claim that there have been multiple trials in relation to Class E to FL145 and these conclude that there are extra facilities required and probably resectorisation with extra staff. I wonder if the people who are doing this are looking at it with an Australian “culture”. There are huge areas of Class E airspace in many countries in the world without radar coverage. Canada would be a good example.
It is obvious that you and others at Airservices must believe that it is safe for the airlines to provide their own separation in IMC in Class G (i.e. the present airspace below FL180) but such a separation standard used by air traffic controllers would not be acceptably safe. Do you understand what I’m saying? That is, the airspace works satisfactorily now without radar coverage and being Classified Class G. What you are saying is if we classify it Class E it will not work satisfactorily.
That can only mean that the separation standard which is used by the airlines at the present time when in IMC in Class G does not provide an acceptable safety level. If that is not so it must mean that the standard air traffic controllers need to apply for separation in Class E is too onerous. Do you see what I am getting at?
The United States has a vast amount of Class E airspace without VHF radio coverage. Much of this is in the terminal area, where radio for separation is even more important.
What you are in fact saying is that we cannot have a bit of extra safer Class E airspace between FL180 and FL145 without spending more money. I do not agree. I believe you should get some Canadian controllers down here and they will very quickly show you how the system can work very satisfactorily in low density airspace – which we have.
Yes, when IMC exists it is one aircraft at one location at one altitude, however as I have stated in other threads, that is what any prudent pilot would normally insist on when in IMC in Class G airspace.
I think those who are looking at this safety improvement (the Class E to FL145) have fixed in their minds that “controlled airspace” will only work where there are VHF coms. This is simply not true.
Most importantly, LAMP brought the Class E down to FL125 and the LAMP proponents at Airservices were convinced that this was OK. Can I ask what is the difference? LAMP is OK to FL125, however NAS is not OK to FL145.
I look forward to the answer.