Guys,
Before we get too heated in "agreement". I think the study was aimed to indicate how efficient each Air Traffic management company is in regard to being operated as a business.
Sometimes we equate proficiency with efficiency. As has been stated, Oz ATCs are no more or less proficient than ATCs in other parts of the world. What the stats do show, is that Airservices Australia as a Air Traffic Management company are going about their business in an efficient manner.
This negates the argument used by Dick and his suport for NAS as being a better ATM system. As we have all been trying to tell him, Airservices is already an efficient company, and VFRs already receive a free service in C or E airspace.
By apeing the FAA and the USA ATM system, Australia will likely see an increase in costs for providing Air Traffic Management, due to increases in the capital cost for infrastructure (more radar heads and approach units), and increase in staffing costs (more controllers to man approach units and divide up the airspace into smaller sectors).
But don't take my word for it. Lets actually get some data, facts and figures. Lets find out the cost/benefit, and go with something that is;
- not less safe
- and isn't more expensive.
Simple, no?
DP