Mike Barry
You may be an ATC who has named yourself, but it’s quite clear you don’t have a clue.
For example, you state
I'd call the tower and have him separate visually,,that's why he has binos in the tower cab
Mike, they would have to be pretty amazing “binos” that you could see a small aircraft twenty miles away.
Then you go on to state,
not sure if they are allowed to use composite sep standards in OZ at the present time
If you’re not sure of such a basic issue, how can you say that there is no more workload in Class C – where you have to separate IFR and VFR and Class E where you do not have to?
You go on to say
There are a multitude of sep standards that can be used, I haven't used them for a very long time and I don't have a copy of MATS in front of me
In fact, I think you will find that ATCs who do have a copy of MATS in front of them are the ones telling me that Class C without radar is far more complex to control than Class E.
You state
Or I could use what Konstantin said...remain OCTA to the bugshmasher, job done!
Oh, Mike, now I understand what you are saying! Class C has no extra workload if you tell the VFR aircraft to remain OCTA!
Anyway, Mike, I admire you for using your own name. Now we simply need to get an ATC who is familiar with Australian standards in both Class E and Class C non-radar airspace to answer the question.
And by the way, telling the VFR aircraft to track from twenty miles out to overhead Broome does add to costs. So forget this claim that Class C costs the same as Class E. This may be to ATCs who tell the VFR to keep out of controlled airspace, but certainly not to all the aircraft that are given extra tracking distances.
I confirm again that I cannot get any ATCs to come on this site with their true beliefs about the workload of C compared to E because they will risk losing their jobs by doing so.