To The Nastronauts,
Lots of he said and I said and why don't you both say here. Everyone is entitled to their individual opinions ... even Controllers. It's still a democracy and the fact that 100% of Controllers might not agree on a specific issue ... does not the issue prove , or disprove. Everyone has their own knowledge and experience... and thus opinions are formed from those. The challenge for the reader is to sort through all the offerings and form their opinion.
So that we don't continue to go round and round in circles forever, I would like to attempt to encapsulate the two basic opinions here. So, let me know if I've got it worng. Here goes ...
The Nastronaut Argument
- Someone, somewhere, has done the maths and come up with the probability of a MAC over Broome and Karattha, if Class E Airspace was mandated, as x.
- x is considered to be in the "Safe" zone.
- If Class C Airspace was mandated, then the probability would come out at y
- Y is also in the "Safe" zone
- Therefore, as "Safe" has been achieved in Class E, there is no need to move to a higher, more expensive Class of Airspace ... as minus 60 degrees is just as cold as minus 50 degress
The Fundamentalist Argument
- Y will be achieved with absolute certainty ... as positive separation is provided for all
- x will be achieved IF the data used to do the sums was correct, if the sums are correct and if "murphy"doesn't poke his nose in it
- As Class C costs are similar to Class E costs, why take the chance on x being correct, when y is a certainty?
- If we have it wrong and Class C costs more than Class E, why sweat the small difference, if an absolute safety factor can be assurred?
Let me know if I have mis-represented anyone's position.