Josh, you need to read the whole thread. But, in a nutshell:
Transponders are required by all aircraft above 10k in any airspace, and in E at any level. The original plan was for E above 2500ft. Hopefully we have knocked that on the head.
The only advantage of E is that IFR aircraft are separated. VFR do not participate in the system (nor are they encouraged to), nobody knows where they are, and everybody flies around looking out the window hoping to spot each other prior to colliding.
Most here are arguing that because class C can be provided for the same cost as E, and that C raises the safety to an acceptable level, class C should be implemented, given that the only reason for the airspace "upgrade" is because of increased traffic levels (VFR and IFR).
Of course, the NAStronauts say:
- E provides a suitable level of safety - we say rubbish, the two airproxs demonstrating that E is not safe enough (unalerted See and Avoid is a dumb way of ensuring the safety of fare-paying passengers);
- C must be provided with radar, which is of course again rubbish, as we operate quite happily with non-radar C now (and have done in the terminal area for decades).
- VFR should be free to go about the sky talking to no-one and not being hindered in any way. Selfish, arrogant, and unprofessional. Just like insisting on taking the horse and cart down the freeway because they want to.
E over D would have to be better than G over CTAF.
Not necessarily. The tower will improve safety, for sure, at a cost to all concerned. However, comms-wise, G/CTAF is better, as the Broome CTAF is a CASA-mandated large area ERSA refers), and with VFR required to be on-freq and talking above 5000ft in G, at least RPT jets have a chance of finding out where the VFR is to self-segregate. This will not occur in E (it's certainly not designed to, anyway).