Bloggs, we just don't seem to learn. When the inconvenient questions get asked (as per my query on the - non existent - study that justified E, based on traffic levels under NAS), there is silence. The 'inconvenient truths' are ignored, because they can't be rebutted and are just that; inconvenient.
'Fundamentalism' comes to mind.
So, once again NAS crusaders, if ICAO airspace classifications are meant to deliver an equal risk outcome across all airspace classifications based on traffic levels - as alleged on here - please point me in the direction of the study that definitively established the facts regarding relative traffic levels when a large amount of airspace was re-classified from Class C to Class E under the dog otherwise known as NAS 2b.
Anyone?? Was the judgement to reclassify C as E based on sound empirical analysis, or was it grounded in nothing more than fundamentalist ideology and arbitrary (flawed) judgement??
I'd bet my house on the latter, but the invitation remains open on this specific question - without irrelevant obfuscation. It's a pretty simple question. Anyone?? Anyone??