I assumed the 2 miles was for dead reckoning errors, and not a requirement - otherwise they could just extent the airspace by two miles!
and:
AIP Book ENR 1.1 40 Quote:
19.12 Avoiding Controlled Airspace
The pilot in command of an aircraft operating in Class G airspace, or to the VFR in Class E airspace, must apply appropriate tolerance to the flight path to ensure that controlled airspace, or restricted areas, are not infringed.
In calculating whether an intended flight path may infringe controlled airspace, the following navigational tolerances must be applied to the intended flight path depending on the method of navigation used. ….
Folks,
With all due respect to Creamie, Bas is right, and, as I am certain Creamie knows, entering controlled airspace without a clearance is the offense, not entering an "x" mile buffer around a control boundary.
However, a word of practical caution, AsA radar images are not all that precise, but are, nevertheless used as evidence for a penetration of controlled airspace allegation and aircraft targets on the radar screen are not "scale", it is hard, but not impossible, to prove that you did not infringe controlled airspace, when the radar say otherwise.
Also consider various "lanes" around the country, such as north of Sydney ---- staying two miles (@ c2500') from the boundary puts the north and south bound traffic rather close together.
Tootle pip!!