Hi OZ,
That wouldn't involve the words 'controlled and 'uncontrolled,' from a far simpler time when the concept of Russian Roulette airspace was unheard of, by any chance? That's the problem with 'experts' in any walk of life. They inevitably have to 'fix' something that isn't broken.
Like NAS, the 'problem' that the 'solution' was supposed to be addressing was never identified or quantified. Opinion won out over fact.
I still shudder when I re-read the 2008 CASA Aeronautical Study on Avalon and do a comparison with the 2009 PIR recommending E over D. I keep finding what I regard to be inexplicable inconsistencies between the Avalon documents themselves and then the Launy and Alice studies in a wider context. I'd opine that it's a total bugger's muddle.
Ultimately, and the argument has been put before, Russian Roulette airspace can place the responsibility for safe separation on the LCD. It's conceivable, and likely, that a brand new PPL will be responsible for separating himself/herself from an IFR RPT, with a full load of pax, on decent into YMAV - with tracks at right angles.
And, NAS protagonists, don't give me that rubbish about the 'obligation' of the IFR to 'see and avoid.' We've got a kid, who's just got a PPL, doesn't have much of a clue with respect to RPT, and has prime responsibility to avoid a jet with multiple pax under this stupid system.
While it doesn't apply at YMAV, Bloggs' example is apposite. In this crazy system, theoretically, the crew of an A380 are supposed to see-and-avoid a VFR C150. I don't think we live on the same planet.
Last edited by Howabout; 26th Mar 2010 at 06:40.