For example, I can see the advantages of upgrading Class G airspace to Class E – especially where we have radar. This will undoubtedly improve safety.
But at what cost? There is an implication that it is more cost effective than G, that doesn't mean less expensive.
...they are more focused on why we are not using the radar correctly.
Who are "they" and why do "they" say it's been used incorrectly?
I have never stated or implied such a thing.
I'm sorry but what other implications can otherwise be drawn from comments such as
At the time the Airservices controllers turned off the route monitoring alarm three times rather than inform the pilot.
in this very thread.
... in this location – which has quite good radar coverage to the initial approach fix – would have very likely prevented the accident from happening.
Who says
this location has good radar coverage? I can tell you it
is rubbish; don't mistake what the radar head observed (ie a radar plot) with what was available on an ATC console; they are not the same thing. If the RFP (radar front processor) says paint not accurate (or strong) enough there is no displayed paint on the 'synthetic' TAAATS console; please come and look for real at the data we actually get in this area, often below FL110 is non-radar; some days A075 works fine; but I can't recall seeing lower than that in this area,
ever. Would you really want E to AGL 1200 with radar paints dropping out somewhere near 5000+ feet higher than the base of E; all on inference that final approached will have better monitoring. That's right you don't need radar to do E