An Interested Party, welcome to PPRuNe. What a pity you can’t post under your own name. Isn’t it incredible that anyone who has anything to say against NAS has to operate under a false name? This makes many people think there is a con going on.
You state:
That's not to say you actually need Class C airspace - it's just that we want you to admit, Dick, that for the same volume of traffic operating in any given airspace, the level of risk increases as you go from Class A to Class G.
I agree with this totally, so surely that should get most contributors here back on side.
What you don’t listen to is the fact that if you are going to have that Class C airspace operated by a controller who has to take his attention away from traffic in Class D airspace, the total result could indeed be a decrease in safety.
Let me explain it simply. You could get a small increase in risk reduction in Class C – because the risk of collision is small – but a large increase in collision risk in the Class D – because the collision risk is higher.
Has it ever dawned on you that countries such as the USA and Canada would put Class C above D if it would give a higher level of safety, and if it didn’t need any more staffing or even radar? They would be getting something for nothing.
By the way, CASA has determined the level of risk they are prepared to accept. CASA has made clear that they accept the Government policy on NAS. This means they accept the level of risk that the US system has in Class G, Class E, D and C. These figures are readily available.
It also stands to reason that if we follow similar procedures in Class E in Australia, we will end up with similar safety results. Yes, I know all the rubbish about radar. What I’m saying is that we follow similar procedures used in radar covered Class E airspace in the USA, and similar procedures used in non-radar covered Class E airspace.
After all, I managed to convince the industry that we could accept Boeing 747s here without a complete recertification. The plan was that we would accept the certification and the resultant level of safety that was accepted by the FAA. If we can do it with a 747, why can’t we do it with airspace?
Owen Stanley, if you look at the number of RAs during the NAS 2b year, they were less (using the same criteria) than before or after. That clearly showed that the airspace was safer.
No one with professional expertise, not even the ATSB, said that the airspace should be reversed because of the two RAs. They happened early on in the NAS 2b airspace. Once pilots recognised how it should be operated, there were no more RAs.
Owen Stanley, it is almost as if you don’t understand proper risk management techniques.