Gee Peuce....am now going thru 'withdrawal symptoms'......
And, sorry Owen - that bloke has more hair...and is better lookin'...But TKS for the thought...
Now back to 'bizzo'....Frank, re yr:
"Therefor is "dirt road" airspace like G over D more cost effective than E or C over D? " (sic)
Certainly IS!!
In 'G'...NO 'dedicated' controller looking after airspace - just the SECTOR guy/gal working the aircraft in CTA above, for which they are primarily responsible....
and ALL 'other' requests ='When Workload Permits'...
therefore, in my reckoning,
cost of 'G' = NIL!
Can't be more 'cost effective than that..!!
(Well, almost NIL, I know 'Flightwatch' still there manning HF & briefing etc..)
I could go on about the 'services' offerred in the past, like when we were cut down and then 'self-managed' from a total staff of around 138 in late 1991 in PH FSC, to just 38 in late 2000 and still managed to provide a 'service'... but there's really no point.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
Would have to be a fairly huge reinvestment in facilities- eg VHF outlets to replace the ones reallocated to ATC use - 3 'spares' left in WA which were surplus to ATC reqs, therefore became VHF Flightwatch freqs, ARG, PD and Kalamunda - LOTS of space in between to be filled now....and that's only in WA!
BUT - WHO would WANT 'G' in such an area as BRM or KTA??
Regards....