Just a couple of corrections to the more recent replies.
LAMP did propose a reallocation of resources according to lines of risk. As I understand it this was to be achieved via a combination of airspace restructure and a new frequency management plan (to eliminate retransmits and congestion).
LS, you say that Australian "professional pilots" reject any objective analysis based risk assessment. The implication being that it does not match their perception of risk. Unfortunately that is exactly how a risk assessment is carried out. It utilises a number of pilots and ATCs from all walks of professional and private flying to provide their best objective/subjective view on the likelyhood of a particular event (eg failure to hear a call).
It is also interesting that you say that any such risk assessment is automatically rejected by certain professional groups. That is exactly what RHS and the various hangers-on including AOPA have done in this instance. I have yet to hear a substantive rebuttle from any of them to what is an exhaustive safety case associated with the first stage of LAMP. Nor have I seen one to support the NAS.
Sorry, thats right, RHS is advocating (as are all those same hangar-ons that are unable to think for themselves) that NAS does not need a safety case because "it's what they do in the "good ol' US of A". If it's good enough for them then it's good enough for us.
I think that is a wonderful hypothesis. So lets also have Class B in all our primary terminal areas, mandatory transponders(as they are now about to do), primary radar coverage down to 1200' over most parts of the country, a multiplicity of Class D zones, change our Regs and charts and training......
You see as a friend in the US told me recently they have a system that works just fine. But it works just fine because it is a package that has regs, infrastructure, traffic levels, charts etc that have evolved over many years in support of the system.
What Indiana(thank you Gaunty)has done, which is usually what he does, is pick and choose the bits he wants that support his theory for the day and selectively forget the bits that don't. Fine, but don't rely on the "it works over there" argument.
I reckon Airservices would love Indianas plan. LAMP was going to be a reduction in services and their revenue base but thanks to RHS spending on software upgrades for Tarts, ATC recruitment and training to handle all the low level "E" along with associated charges should see a smile on all their dials. And I thought the Honourable John was just playing a round of "political payback".