Howabout
as regards your comment:
Quote:
You controllers have two irreconcilable positions on Class E. That is, we should use enroute Class C, because we can but only until traffic levels reach that of the United States, then we should downgrade it to Class E so we don't run into grid lock. Extraordinary!
Who actually said that? In context and with references please.
This is what
Peuce said to
Howabout in
this thread about NAS.
Howabout,
As all the others have said, the issue in Class E is vectoring IFRs, whilst VFRs track as desired. With surveillance, there's some mitigation, without surveillance, it's Russian roulette.
As Dick will quite rightly say ... "they do it all day, every day in the States"
Yes, they do ... because they have to. There's no other way to process that amount of traffic. Imagine if it was all Class C.
My bolding
Again I ask. Are you controllers all in agreement in your objections to NAS or is your intent to say anything at all, regardless of how ridiculous and contradictory, in your attempts to discredit NAS?
Do you controllers really believe it costs the same to provide Class C as Class E? This is an ill conceived con by Civil Air to resist NAS and it looks like some controllers are finally admitting the truth about the real cost of Class C.
ozineurope
mj - do you have any idea of what you speak? If an IFR aircraft is collected/collects another aircraft in G airspace the controller could find themselves in front of the coroner for failing to pass a traffic alert and suggested avoiding action to the IFR.
For you to say that G absolves the controller shows that you have no idea of the rules that ATC operate under in Australia.
This is an extraordinary statement.
The Baron and the Saab were both IFR operating in IMC, in radar covered class G airspace on the CTAF frequency.
If what you are saying is true, that you do have a responsibility, then how could you possibly not
want Class E so you can guarantee separating them, thereby keeping your job safe. Think about what you are saying
ozineurope!
The Chaser
You know full well that the statement in the Orange report about airspace at Orange being NAS compliant is false. Completely false!
Go and read the NAS document again. The interim design was to make Class E corridors into selected airports.The end state design of NAS was to have all radar covered airspace a minimum classification of Class E. On both counts this included Orange as the radar coverage is close to the ground.
The Chaser. It is a fact that if Orange had Class E this near collision in IMC would not have happened.
Owen Stanley
I know you blokes are keeping it civil but I'm a kinda 'call a spade a feckin' shovel' type of guy.
What a complete w@nka, don't think I'd come across a bigger tossa if I had two life times.
A self professed expert suffering relevance deprivation syndrome (as well as dementia)
What a w@nka
I would rather be called a NAStronaut please. :-)
OZBUSDRIVER
mjbow2...you ARE Dick Smith's pilot!
It is true that I have been seen in a certain Citation, I will admit that. However it was registered in the United States where I was paid to fly it, but not by Dick Smith.
Surely you know that conspiracy theories are looked upon with skepticism and lack any real evidence.