peuce you clearly do not understand. There is no inconsistency at all.
The concepts expressed by Leadsled as I understand it is that an IFR aircraft flying from an uncontrolled airfield to a major airport should be exposed to the same minimum level of risk from the point of departure to the destination.
Surely you can see that this means than a ground controller is not required at Ballina but is required in Sydney. And that different Classes of airspace are required. As the actual risk increases the level of risk mitigating also increases so the resultant risk is at the same acceptably small level regardless of where the IFR aircraft is.
peuce. We do not have Class F in Australia. There is no IFR to IFR separation even 'as far practicable', we get traffic information.
No one is demanding blanket Class E. I want to see allocation of airspace classifications based on scientifically supported risk assessments. Not based someones Alice in Wonderland type 'belief' that enroute and link airspace are as risky as Sydney airport or in the case of regional airports, more risky than the towered Class D airspace.