This has turned into a very interesting thread indeed!!
I must confess, I still feel the intent of this section of AIP / Jepp has NOT changed, but I find it harder and harder to argue that in truth, when the specific wording of the document is examined, that "nothing has changed"...
Which in turn means I have been busting the rules on my night VA's since the change. More proof (as though I needed it!) that you never stop learning... So thanks to the original poster for a good question, and all posters for their thoughts on it.
Re: ATC - An interesting observation which may or may not be relevant here, is that Darwin ATC are military, while MOST other radar locations (ie. capital/large cities) are civil... But Townsville = miitary, yes? So...
Another point I'd like to add - As a pilot flying into a random location... Are you expected to know if you're getting an ATC SS? Agreed, most would know this as a point of situational awareness or local knowledge, but if your expected / required / allowed behaviour during a visual approach is altered, surely it must be CRYSTAL CLEAR. Perhaps the advice "you are identified" does in fact serve that purpose? (That's a question, not a statement...) And why in fact should a "visual approach" be executed differently in radar and non-radar airspace?
Something else has not really been mentioned so far - the words "MUST DESCEND AS NECCESSARY" is used in the opening to 11.6.5 - Minimum Altitude Requirements.
So what is "neccessary", and why is it a "must"? Why is it written like that? To me, on an inbound course that is close to the runway alignment, it is "neccessary" to descend (only if able to, hence this entire discussion) and thus avoid unneccessary manoeuvering overhead, as well as freeing up levels earlier for following aircraft - basically this amounts to simplifying and increasing efficiency. If I am visual, why can I not descend to MSA (if <25nm) or IAW DGA steps (if so equipped)? Then when in the CCA I have no need to loiter to lose height, but can join an abbreviated circuit at a height allowing normal descent to landing?
Is it really only simple terminology preventing me from legally continuing descent after "cleared visual approach" (as I and many others, for years, legally did before), am I missing something?
*Lancer* - not sure about your comment re: STARS... Were vectors once an unavoidable result of a STAR clearance?
As for STARs into Darwin, well that is a whole other discussion...
CR.