You wouldn't old fruit, would you?
Only the highly esteemed Leadsled could couldn't they!
My dear fellows,
Actually, I was referring to the team that assessed EVERY reported incident during the 12 months that NAS2b survived, and their considered opinions. The team was made up of CASA, Airservices, Military, FAA and Industry representatives, the latter including some very highly qualified members of the International Society of Air Accident Investigators.
Much as I would like to post the comments here, I am not going to pay $30 for an FOI, which is the only way I could make them available legally. However, a
very careful reading of the ATSB report has the information. You need to look at the flight paths of each aircraft very carefully.
Maybe you have all forgotten about this review panel. Almost all the "incident reports" were filed by "professional pilots" in larger aircraft against smaller aircraft --- usually, as it turned out, also flown by "professional pilots".
I don't recall the actual (dreaded) statistics, but my memory says most were rejected as not valid incidents, quite a few were judged to be nothing to do with the characteristics of NAS 2b, and the three referred to here were amongst the only ones investigated in depth.
My memory also tells me
there were more RAs in C airspace during the same period, look for it in the ATSB records --- but RAs in C don't , do they, because C is "safe".
Would the High Court take notice of a 5E-9 separation assurance standard?? Be assured they would, because it is an internationally accepted and valid standard. Also because of existing High Court of Australia decisions rejecting damages, in a situation where "a safer outcome could have been achieved" (my words) but the court accepted that the standard applied was "safe", in that it complied with existing standards, and
the court made it clear that there is no such thing as absolute safety.
The claim for damages appeal was dismissed by the HCA, that the relevant standard was complied with was accepted by the court. A link to one such decision is already on another thread.
That compromises are an accepted part of establishing a standard are acceptable to the courts, notwithstanding that "higher standards" might be available, but are not mandated for a variety of practical, societal, economic or other reasons.
What you blokes are completely unable to grasp is that, once the separation assurance standard is reached, no additional services will further reduce the residual risk.
That C is "safer" than E, when analysis only requires E, is a devoutly supported myth, but no matter the sincerity of your devotion to the notion, it is still a myth.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Visiting the doctrine of Duty of Care, as the law sees it, as opposed to what most laymen believe is a duty of care, would be well worthwhile in considering the application of risk management standards in the modern world.