Cap'n Midnight,
Methinks I prefer LLAMP, Low Level Airspace Management blah blah, but I guess this is just getting picky.
As I understand it (and I understand it pretty well) the late editions to LLAMP of a plethora of VFR radio calls virtually take us back before AMATS in 1991, and have little or nothing to do with EFFECTIVE "see and avoid". Haven't we learnt anything in the last ten years. Where is the adverse record that demands turning the clock back.
Can you tell me where the LLAMP Safety Case demonstrated the need for all these calls?? I can't find it.
Nobody in their right mind argues against the value of "appropriate" alerted see and avoid, but the key is "appropriate".
Perhaps you should give ATSB a call (as I did) to verify that they have had a significant change of heart on matters of "see and avoid".
It would seem that CASA and ATSB have settled their differences on an old BASI demand that all RPT be provided with radio arranged separation. In fact, it would seem that ATSB now concur with the latest CASA view (and FAA and NASA) that the larger the "radio alerted see and avoid area", the less likely that any procedure is going to have any useful outcome, other than a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Were such VFR calls part of the original LLAMP, ?? Seems not. As far as I can see, most GA pilots have and use radios, therefor a handful that don't cannot constitute a significant risk.
Otherwise has NEVER been objectively demonstrated, in anything I can find.
My greatest concern with LLAMP is the very real effect on Sporting Aviation, and gliding in particular. The demands of the Regionals will have a severe effect on gliding and unless you know how gliders operate, you obviously don't understand that the demands of the Regional's cannot be satisfied.
Again, as I understand it, the Regional's have not demonstrated or quantified a risk presented by the gliders, because objectively it does not exist. But that doesn't stop the demand.
In a previous post on this thread, I mentioned gliders in Europe, nobody seems to want to take this on, in terms of the proposed LLAMP requirements, far more restrictive than any European country that I have experienced.
AOPA and ASAC were on the panel, but did they agree with the final outcome. Ask them.
Finally " have ever been up front of a high performance aircraft", you obviously don't know one F.W.Pike, ex RAAF, C-130 etc, ex Regional CP, lots of time on turbine thingies with somewhat higher performance than such "high speed" missiles as the Irish Concorde, that meandering early sixties device the Tankstream, and various other aeronautical means of conveyance which seldom see 250 knots, hardly "high performance".
After all, if you think the speed you are travelling is too fast, slow down, it only costs time and money, and what is money where air safety is concerned ??
Front and centre, that's where. Just maybe, what we have here is a commercial problem, cost, not a safety problem at all. Think about it.
Last I heard, F William had come back from QF B747-400 to B767, but he would have more than the odd exposure to the world's airways system in his first 60 years.
Tootle pip !!