Well, I've been on hols for a few weeks ... and I see that a degree of common sense has been applied at BRM/KTA ... for the moment.
Avalon, and the expansion of its unique procedures appears to be still a problem child.
My real problem is with this CAR100 stick. It is unnecessarily introducing more ambiguity into the system ... and isn't a system supposed to provide a standardised, unambiguous method for dealing with a process?
The greatest introduced ambiguity is a Controller's Authority to direct all aircraft in all environments ... as CASA's Avalon literature appears to imply.
By introducing that alleged stick, CASA will now put a question mark into every VFR's mind when they are contemplating a command decision.. even in Class G airspace.
"Was that controller advising or suggesting a course of action, or am I required to follow it ?"
It doesn't even have to be a tracking instruction either.
As an example ... when I was doing solo training OCTA close to a Flight Service manned aerodrome (yes, a long time ago), the FSO advised that the wx was deteriorating and that I should consider returning to the aerodrome. I considered the FSO to be a GOD and quickly headed back ( from my 8 oktas of blue training area) to the aerodrome which was now below minimas. I entered cloud. Luckily I didn't panic (too much) and headed east over the water until I found a way out of the mess and landed, as they say, without further incident.
My point being, by introducing (or intimating that) Controllers instructions must be followed ... everywhere, we would be adding another possible whole in the swiss cheese.
CASA .... please make a decision (either way) and provide your interpretation of CAR100 as it pertains to aircraft ... in Uncontrolled Airspace.
CASA ... please provide your interpretation on whether Class E Airspace is Controlled or not ... as it pertains to VFR aircraft.