but unsurveilled E is effectively the same as G, except that the risk to IFR has increased.
Biggles in Oz,
Old mate, by just what convoluted line of total ill-logic did you come to the conclusion that risk to IFR in E increases, compared to G. Whatever your are smoking, it must be strong stuff.
On a serious note, it is this kind of unsupportable ill-logical thinking that lies behind the hard core objections to any change in the old Australian airspace arrangements. As for most of you, all I see is a string of assertions about "safety", without any qualified support, no data, just more than personal opinions, howling down anything that doesn't conform to your opinions -- that Australia does it best ----- when it is rather obvious that Australia doesn't.
It is a great pity that most of you are unable to even read the published ATSB reports without a pre-bias that the VFR was wrong, and the RPT Captain could do no wrong, therefor a very careful consideration of the Captain's actions (particularly in the Brisbane case) is not something you have been able to do.
Bloggs,
Please tell me you are not really an RPT Captain, some of your statements really are "so interesting" ---- I find it more than somewhat difficult that such statements could come from a real life airline pilot.
Owen Stanley,
I will back Dick's experience as a pilot, across a variety of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and his knowledge of matters airspace design, acquired over many years of study of the subject, including being Chairman of the CAA Board, and his time on the CASA Board.
That you are a controller does not make you an expert on CNS/ATM design, any more than you (or Bloggs) being a pilot (with a current medical) flying in the airspace make you an expert on the subject. Dick has had some of the world's preeminent experts, both organizations and individuals, to guide him in his acquisition of knowledge in the field.
Owen, if you think you can match that sort of background and experience, please tell us why you think you can.
Tootle pip!!