Missy, you ask if the FAA operates its Class B airspace without any exemptions or exceptions to ICAO.
The FAA is very smart. I understand they have filed the greatest number of differences with ICAO recommendations and standards compared to most other countries in the world. This is because the FAA considers that ICAO rules have not been properly “costed” and are basically in place for third world countries. FAA officers have told me about how astonished they are at the cargo cult recommendations that are made at ICAO which completely misallocate safety resources. I understand that there is one significant obligation for an ICAO signatory – that is, to notify ICAO of any differences with their rules and recommended practices. The USA does this all the time.
That is why, in the Cabinet approved NAS document, we did not say that we were going to comply exactly with ICAO recommendations and requirements. We made it clear that it was based on the North American system (not just the USA) and that differences, such as the GAAP/Class D difference, would be notified to ICAO.
If you read the ICAO Class B classification chart rigidly it is clear that VFR must be separated from VFR. This is sort of what we had in Sydney before about 1983. I have regularly flown VFR in the USA Class B, and their “separation” is basically giving traffic to VFR and ensuring that the radar dots don’t merge. If they are about to merge, they give one or the other aircraft a vector if they have not sighted each other.
The reason that general aviation in the USA is booming compared to other countries is because they simply notify a difference with ICAO and get on with ensuring that they have a thriving, viable and safe industry. Good on them.
Direct.no.speed and Hempy, the only airspace change in which I was ever directly involved with the training and education of pilots and air traffic controllers was the original AMATS changes. I have a feeling they went pretty well.
Ever since, those who were against the change have done everything they can to make sure that anyone who actually understands the reason for the change is not involved.
At the time of NAS, Angus Houston called me to a special meeting in Canberra to request that I not be “hands-on” in any way with the introduction of the system. No doubt he had been pressured by others, and we have seen the result.
I have found in the 15 years since the AMATS changes that generally you have one group or another actively opposing the changes – more for reasons of fundamentalism than anything else – and therefore they do everything they can to frustrate a proper training and education program. The whole thing is a stuff-up and they succeed in stopping it working, or getting it reversed.