VVS Laxman, thanks for the posting. In fact, I was referring to the educational material which makes no reference to a specific code being allocated in any way. My suggestion is that you arrange to have the educational material corrected to make it clear that under some circumstances a specific code will be allocated.
However, more important is the fact that it looks as if under the Australian system the air traffic controller will still remain responsible for the VFR aircraft after the service is terminated. This is because of your comment:
We don’t need to add ‘frequency change approved’ as there is no need to change frequency as of last November …
This surely means that if the aircraft has communicated to the controller and remains on the frequency, the controller has a duty of care to prevent it from running into someone. That is why the American system (with many years of experience of threatened and actual litigation) makes it clear that there is no longer a responsibility for the air traffic controller to provide information to the VFR aircraft after the words “frequency change approved” are used.
Are you suggesting that the air traffic controller responsibility remains?
I should also mention another difference with the US system. You state:
If you get the service via an FDR (Flight Data Record), a flight plan in TAAATS (this will be transparent to you the pilot), this will include code management to get the record and your radar paint to “couple” or become one …
I should point out that flight following in the USA does not include a provision for flight planning for VFR aircraft. Their philosophy is simple – if you want such a service you file IFR. The US flight following system for VFR aircraft does not entail an input to the flight data processing system with a flight plan. Flight following does not extend sector to sector via the FDP system as it does with IFR in the USA.