So, Leadsled, what then is to stop the Gen Y/AOPA activist/red-neck/non-conformist buying a small bugsmasher and setting up, without a radio, at any of the CTAF Rs? He doesn't need a radio, much less a transponder, so why should he get one? Or the cheapskate who's radio goes U/S. Why does he need to get it fixed? Commonsense, as exhibited by your attitude ("the studies don't support it so we shouldn't do it") has disappeared from aviation, so don't pull the "oh he'd get it fixed because he knows his life depends on him knowing what is out there" claptrap.
Compliance rate studies up until now are in the main irrelevant, because up until NAS 2c, if you've had a radio, then you have
had to use it in CTAFs (and obviously in MBZs). I have not seen any studies of how many aircraft operate into CTAFs
without radios.
As to Government airspace policy, is how it got into legislation the point? The facts is that the Airspace Act and Regulations package is in place, it incorporates (as part of the legislation --- enforceable) the Airspace Policy Statement.
As I recall, that legislation was supported by Labor, when in Opposition.
No, that's not the point. Just because it is in legislation doesn't make it good policy. Do you seriously believe that 95% of pollies know anything about the subject? Policy has everything to do with the perpetrators/lobbyists, not necessarily commonsense.
I will say again, the first time a jet has a major scare with some twit without a radio (or one who chooses not to use it), you jokers will be running scared. I just hope it isn't me, and I survive. And yes, I have had my share of close calls.
Ambidji:
Non-radio aircraft able to access the airspace:
Very high standard of scanning required; The worst case scenario of high speed, head on closing gives very little time for avoiding action when the traffic is unknown; Recommendation from the then Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) that “un-alerted see-and-avoid is never the sole means of separation for aircraft providing scheduled services” (Note: the word “never” in this context has since been overtaken by the Australian Risk Management Standard)
I ask again:
The only reason you don't want mandatory radio is because you want to operate no-radio. Why on earth are you so opposed to it otherwise?
Why isn't anybody prepared to answer?