ARFOR
You say
Please do not assume that PPRuNe is the only vehicle to which input is being made on these subjects.
As nothing is communicated from the Office of Airspace Regulation in relation to this, presumably it is all being done in secret by people posting on some even more “anonymous” website than PPRuNe. What a pathetic reflection of incompetence!
I have said it before – there is absolutely nothing that should be secret, confidential or hidden about airspace allocation and procedures. Everything related to public air safety should be completely out in the open with all those involved being able to state their true beliefs under their real names.
If we continue down this “fake” route, we get into the problems that we have been through.
You say,
I'll make it one simple question
Do you support the use of proper international standard aeronautical study processes and CBA for allocation of airspace services?
YES or NO?
I certainly do support the use of proper aeronautical study processes.
I am not sure what you mean by “international standard”.
You should know that the system used by the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation to map aviation hazards into a societal criteria is wrong. Experts believe the misuse of this methodology is leading to deeply flawed responses to aviation hazards.
I suggest you have a look again at the three reviews on the Ambidji GAAP Report. See link
here. I particularly note that you don’t dare to debunk these reports.
You may not know that ICAO provides, clearly in writing, two methodologies for “determining whether a system is acceptably safe”. They are:
a) comparison to a reference system, and
b) evaluation of system risks against a threshold
There is little doubt the most accurate way is the comparison with a reference system, as there have been hundreds of millions of movements in ICAO classifications of airspace around the world. As it is possible to get the actual accident rate in this airspace it’s ideal for making safety decisions.
Remember, airspace procedures and classifications were not designed by an engineer in a laboratory. They have evolved after accidents and after, as stated above, many millions of movements and many decades of experience.
So if you mean by “international standard” the ICAO “comparison to a reference system” method, I would certainly support and accept this method. I would certainly not support the type of amateurish, inaccurate incompetence that has been produced by Ambidji for the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation. The company should be severely embarrassed and should refund any money that was paid to them.