the claimed reason for the reversal of NAS 2b was that the Airservices management did not follow the correct process for the introduction
No, Dick, that wasn't the reason why NAS2b was reversed. That's your convenient revisionism trait on display again.
I think this is the thread created to cover issues that didn't have anything to do with GRAS.
...and Dick is correct. I am not a spokesman for ASA, but while the industry were a bit aghast at the crappy pup they had been sold with NAS 2b, the decision to reverse was for exactly the reason Dick stated. The slant he gives it is entirely imaginary though. ASA was REQUIRED by its legislation to reverse the experiment, because they had not implemented the airspace and procedures in accordance with it's legislative requirements. When it did apply the required process to the pre-NAS 2b environment ASA discovered there were some items they could not legally implement - so some heads roll and some airspace rolls back.
It seems to me the horse's arse of a minister we had at the time was ordering the organisation to do things it had no legal means of doing. Almost like some other minister in some other government ordering the police to avoid particular knocking shops or illegal casinos. Can't happen.
1. As others have said before - there was no specific safety case permitted for
Australia for NAS. The safety risk was never specifically proven.
2. Just because the Septics do it doesn't mean it is best practice. Why the
obsession with this? American best practice is often an oxymoron.
But it is a valid method of assessing the safety of a change to compare with another model. I have never heard Dick claim the US is best practice, just that it would be more efficient and provide better access, particularly to VFR. He does claim an increase in safety also. I don't believe that, but a US-style airspace arrangement WOULD be safe,
...safe enough anyway.
Shame there was nothing to compare the baby-step in between bits of the plan that we are mostly stuck with now.