Dear Neddy,
Thanks for the lesson on risk assessment, believe it or not I think you have just made my case for me.. . . .As I understand it, (and I understand it pretty well) the various steps of the safety case in LLAMPS went well, and a believable outcome was the result. Individuals may well take issue with parts of the safety case outcome, but most agreed it was a good effort.
In my opinion, the analytical tools used, refined and developed during this exercise will stand up to any reasoned and logical scrutiny.
Unfortunately, it's outcomes did NOT support the long held beliefs of the "true believers", and the subsequent "additions and enhancements" to LLAMPS had precious little to do with satisfying shortcomings revealed by the safety case. In fact, nothing to do with the final LLAMPS outcome, and everything to do with "bringing VFR back into the system", and completely restricting large chunks of sports aviation, particularly gliding, whatever that is supposed to achieve in safety terms.
It is the latter that has brought about the downfall of the "final" version of LLAMPS.
By the look of many of these posts, those who think they "know" the FAA system and why is won't work here are sadly astray. I will bring up just one point. Low level en route, the % of the US with low level radar coverage is almost the same as Australia . .( source: ASA)
Something to chew on: The FAA system, which really does work so well for so many, is the ultimate user pays system. The system is largely for the benefit of the airline travelling public, and they very largely pay for it, via a ticket tax.
Two Dogs, . .Again you have made my case for me. There is a rather large gulf between LLAMPS "asking sports aviation to use their radios, generate NOTAMs etc.," and a safety case that supports the need for those radio's to be used / WAFTAMs to be generated, as the solution to a quantified safety problem.
Where was the (as established by formal analysis) problem, to which LLAMPS in its final form was the answer. Where is the evidence that gliding, in particular, is such a danger now, that all the additional requirements were needed. Here were requirements that are not even contempalted in the confines of western Europe, with far less airspace, and many, many more gliders.
Where is the evidence that the gigantic MBZ was an answer to a problem.
In the case of CTAF/MBZ size,even current ATSB thoughts suggest otherwise than that proposed in LLAMP.
Tootle pip!!