I have been watching this thread with interest...
There is no doubt in my mind that if better procedures existed or if Class E airspace had been introduced in the Benalla area, there would have been less of a chance of this terrible accident occurring. Surely you must agree with this.
OK, I will agree with your point better procedures (ie: Class E), may have averted this accident! Now, will you then agree, that in order to have this extra net of safety, we need the ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE!
Just listen to the controllers on this thread who work this sector everyday, they are saying the facilities do not exist, or are intermittent at best!
Since day one of the airspace debate, I have been saying that we can't adopt the system you propose without the necessary infrastructure! When ever I raise this point in threads, you never seem to repond, you are quite happy to deal with the peripheral issues, but not this major question.
So as I have not yet received a satisfactory response, I will ask again,
"How can we institute a US style airspace system without the necessary infrastructure".
There is 96% radar coverage of the contiguous United States, now I know you keep bringing up small pockets of US airspace, but these are very isolated areas and not the 'satus quo' in the US!
We are talking about almost the reverse situation in our own country, the percentage without radar must be around 80% at least! Take Benalla for example less than 200 klms by road from Australias second largest city, yet it does not have suitable radar coverage, this is what we are dealing with!
If you want to propose changes, implement the infrastructure first, then implement the airspace changes, its a bit like trying to put the horse before the cart, just doesn't work!
How about we stop trying to apportion blame and get it right, by doing whatever it takes, including the infrastructure?