Now I understand where the most of the chutzpah comes from. You must just post stuff then pretend to yourself that it never happened.
So, what are you trying to say ? That I can't fly in G (in Australia) up to the base of a step ---- which in most of the light aircraft lane north of Sydney is 2500' AMSL---- you added AGL, not me.
I didn’t ‘add’ AGL: AGL an element of avoidance rule that we (or at least those of us who were concentrating) were discussing.
In post #35 I quoted the tolerances that must be applied to the intended flight path of powered aircraft operating against the VFR, below 10,001’.
In post #44, you said, among other things:
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
The clear implication if not express effect of that assertion is that the applicable tolerance is 2 miles because the aircraft in the lane north of Sydney are at 2,500’. That’s just plain wrong.
The avoidance tolerances are calculated by reference to AGL. Aircraft in the lane north of Bankstown at an altitude of 2,500’ are not at 2,500 AGL. You know that spot called Pennant Hills? There’s a reason the word ‘Hills’ is in the name. Most of the terrain under the lane is around 1,000' high. Get it? Or are you now going to tell me that you were obviously referring to night VFR operations, in a thread about RAA aircraft?
In post#44 you also said:
[E]ntering 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.
The clear implication if not express effect of that assertion is that the
only potential offence (note the spelling of ‘offence’, me ol’ pomegranate) in the circumstances is entering controlled airspace without a clearance, and that the
only risk of entering the buffer is that, due to the inaccuracies of radar, the aircraft can appear to be within controlled airspace. That’s just plain wrong.
Entering the ‘buffer’ is also evidence that the rule requiring the tolerance to be applied to the intended flight path may have been breached.
I’ll say it for the third and last time, because almost everyone else seems to be getting it: The FOIs to whom Baswell referred raised the issue of aircraft ‘skimming the edges of CTA’ and the avoidance rules, for a reason.