PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - NAS rears its head again
View Single Post
Old 21st Mar 2010, 21:29
  #125 (permalink)  
Freedom7
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Glass Gumtree
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
konstatin

There is no thunder to steel.

You have provided an incomplete scenario. I will not second guess your scenario to have others state I have orchestrated it for my benefit.

The controller gives the VFR aircraft the option of tracking either via overhead Broome or remaining laterally OCTA
Why?

for the purpose of separation assurance between ALL aircraft operating or proposing to operate within the controlled airspace volume.
For the purpose of Separation maybe?

Oh, I`m sorry, my bad, I apologise for the fact that I forgot some people want to fly where they want when they want...like, hypothetically , someone flying from Lord Howe to the Australian mainland in a single engined aircraft and then complaining about not receiving direct tracking to destination within the Sydney basin touting the possibility of an engine failure as justification. Just hypothetically...


Hypothetically,

E airspace

- IFR aircraft happily chugging along enjoying the view
- VFR aircraft happily chugging along enjoying the view
- Tower controller happily processing the known IFR inbound
BANG

C airspace

Aircraft Separated or 'assured' for the SAME COST, no delays, less transmissions and as an added bonus no Bang.

I can understand individuals own experience but, There is a misconception out there that procedural and/or C airspace is restrictive and should be abolished for the purpose and gain of what exactly???
Freedom7 is offline