Mjbow2,
Who or what has changed your mind? For a while there you were actually supporting common sense use of radar and dare I say it, Dick Smith.
Wash your mouth out with soap!
Only joking....
Actually, I don't support or oppose people ... I support or oppose their arguments. Dick's a good bloke and I think he believe's his arguments are correct and right. That's why it's no use having a go at someone who believes they are doing the right thing. In fact, he could be 100% right and I could be 100% wrong. The only way to test our arguments is to place them in front of our peers and let them be the judge.
The challenge is ... to be able to withdraw when it appears that you're ideas are supported by a very small minority ... although, once again, the majority could be wrong, I suppose. However, our democracy allows the majority to rule ... even if they are wrong.
Enough fluff, to your points:
My current thinking is that, if we have surveillance, it would be prudent to use it, as I said earlier, for
some form of ATS ... greater than ICAO Class G. What that form takes, depends on the requirements of that particular volume. Requirements include traffic mix, density, numbers ... balanced off against the economic and resource cost. That seems to be a fairly logical process to me.
What I don't agree with is the declaration of blanket Class E airspace where we have surveillance. That's just funamentalist stuff, as far as I'm concerned.
Cost Benefit Analyses .... I agree with you. If we haven't done CBAs for C over D etc ...
and there's broad agreement that we have a problem with C over D ... then go for it.
Some may think there's no logic in having a higher category over a lower category, but it seems to work. It's horses for courses. One way of looking at it is ... down low where we have to move a greater number of VFRs amongst IFRs ...the more flexible options of D are more useful. Up higher, with less VFRs, the greater restrictions affect fewer aircraft. So, from my point of view, I can live with that.
As to having procedural C over D, managed by a Tower ... where there is radar coverage in the C ... that definitely is a problem child. Logically, you would think that you could just give the C to the bloke that works the radar and all would be solved. Unfortunately, in your scenario, the complications include the fact that the Radar C guy above would have to be Approach trained, rated and current. Also, additional coordination would be required with the Tower, and, presumably, that would have to come at a much later time in the arrival sequence. Or, you could train the Tower guy to Approach standards. These all have logistical and economic costs associated with them. But I'm happy to support a CBA that looks at it.
You Class E deniers never mention that there was actually no chance of collision with the Tobago in Launceston as the Tobago pilot had seen and avoided the 737.
This argument doesn't quite hold water as the 2 jets saw, and knew about each other at Launy also. There was never a real chance of a prang. So ... same, same.
And I don't think you could call most of us "Class E Deniers" . We, like yourself, just want to see the CBAs before throwing an E blanket over Australia.