Creampuff, you ask how one can decide whether Flight Service is ‘affordable’. The answer is really simple regarding affordability, but more complex in relation to cost benefit.
Affordability simply asks whether the person who is forced to pay for it can afford it, or do they end up buying something else. In the case of the claimed $500,000 that can be saved by Airservices by closing the VHF outlets, this is approximately 0.1 cent in the dollar of Airservices revenue. On a typical flight of Sydney to Melbourne, I think the Airservices amount per ticket is probably $6 or $7, so this would be 0.1% of that $6 or $7 – i.e. less than a cent. Obviously such a small amount wouldn’t be the reason someone would decide to drive to Melbourne rather than going by air.
The other thing to look at is whether that $500,000 could be spent elsewhere to save more lives. That is a more difficult question that a cost benefit study should look at.
I tend to agree that this is a very difficult equation. Then again, we have used cost benefit studies to decide whether a Class D tower should operate, and these are used throughout the world. I suppose if the answer reflects what seems to be commonsense and professional judgment, then you go with it.
Slugfest, I certainly support any available cost benefit study that can be used for NAS. For example, changing the Class G airspace at Proserpine to Class E I’m told will have no appreciable cost, but will clearly improve safety. A simple cost benefit study can be done to show this if it is so.
The main change in NAS (as approved by Federal Cabinet) compared to our present system is that the maximum use is made of radar. IFR aircraft remain under radar control when in IMC to the maximum extent possible, and IFR aircraft are generally not cleared below the legal lowest safe altitude when in cloud until they have reported visual or are clearly on the correct approach track. This has no real measurable cost increase, but obviously improves safety.
Look at the situation at Benalla – where the professional pilot was 11 miles off course, but the controller would have had no idea if the aircraft was in IMC or visual. Under NAS, the pilot would be in controlled Class E airspace and would have to either cancel IFR or report visual before heading off in a different direction to the legal approach.
Regarding the training of briefing officers to give weather advice, yes, pilots (especially private pilots) have limited training on how to interpret weather forecasts, but in the system in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe, the briefing officer has additional training and professional expertise to advise the pilots – which they do – as to whether VFR flight is recommended. It just adds to safety, so why not do it – especially when it would not cost much more to have additional training for the briefing officers.