MJ: I'm not trying to confuse you. I am trying to say that we should not put the cart before the horse - resources and training first, then implement. If a study dictates that the airspace in Australia must change to ........., then we must resource it in the first instance. AsA are suffering from an internal restructure problem at the moment. At the stroke of a pen, the way airspace and ATC groups are divided changed. To enable this to happen, we needed more controllers to be able to release people off the consoles to simulate and train on the new airspace. This did not happen (in fact, we lost operational controllers due to the restructure) and the results are clear to everyone.
If people like Dick and yourself want to changes things, fill your boots. But, provide the resources first so we don't end up chasing our tails.
Dick: Not sure how I can explain the separation minimums quickly, but I'll try. The definition of 'separated aircraft' is 1NM between the possible positions of two aircraft. In TMA radar, that means a 1NM radar tolerance for each plane, plus the 1NM between their possible positions = 3NM. In a non-radar environment there is no radar tolerance so in fact the aircraft can be 1NM from each other and be separated. It's all in the wording, but there are instances where the enroute 5NM standard is greater than what a procedural tower can provide between two aircraft on established tracks.
Cheers,
NFR.