The last time I checked it cost about $150 for each VFR flight plan accepted into the system through the briefing office in Australia.
Did you make that up, it’s a little hard to believe, even for you.
“…remain responsible for the VFR aircraft after the service is terminated …”
I think that Spodman was quoting you, not AIP 8.1.2… Read it, please…
This clearly shows that the whole thing is ripe for misunderstanding and therefore serious safety incidents.
Only in your opinion, because you don’t read the documentation you react to half truths and rumours…
With the US system it is totally clear where the responsibility lies.
So far you are the only one who is unclear, there could be something in that?
That is, if their radar paint is close to another aircraft, the pilot should be called by ATC and warned.
VFR known to the system would be entitled to that service yes, however, the code management issues and termination phraseology to which you refer, does not influence the known status or not of a VFR aircraft. From MATS
Known Traffic: With respect to ATC clearances and traffic information, means aircraft whose altitude, position, and intentions are known to ATC. After the statement
“Radar Services terminated”, it is clear to all that service is no longer provided and the aircraft becomes
unknown to the ATS system, as intentions could immediately change
If the controller is too busy, the service is not given as the US NAS system is designed around giving a service to IFR aircraft. That is how it should be.
This is how we are implementing it here too; and finally
That is the specific reason in the USA that they do not show ATC frequency boundaries on charts
Is this the real reason, or a reason which you think is the real reason?