Jerricho, post 54 basically says that in the view of En-Rooter, the radar coverage at Benalla is not suitable for Class E airspace. No evidence is given on why En-Rooter claimed this is so.
It appears that it is not suitable for Class E, but still suitable for the ATSB to do a report showing radar traces to low level, which clearly show that the pilot was many miles away from the correct approach point.
As stated by Voices of Reason at different times, Class E airspace has nothing to do with radar coverage. All IFR approaches in the USA are covered by a minimum of Class E airspace. Over 50% of their approaches are below radar coverage.
I ask you to support at least trying one bit of low level Class E airspace – let’s say at a place like Charleville or Mt Isa – to see how it will work, to find the extra training costs for the controllers, and to find out if there are any delays for IFR aircraft. Surely that is the way of seeing if a system will work safely.
Remember there were pilots who supported the engineers in claiming that a Boeing 767 could not operate without a special engineer’s console on the flight deck. Ansett took notice of this resistance to change and it was the start of their downfall – that is, the millions of dollars wasted in ordering 767s with an engineer’s position, and then the tens of millions of dollars wasted in removing those engineer consoles many years later.
Isn’t it a pity that the pilots and engineers at Ansett at the time couldn’t have taken advice and at least tried the proven system which now works in airlines all around the world?