Wally
How many times does one have to say that a CTAF / MBZ is NOT a parcel of airspace but a PROCEDURE.
Good airmanship should dictate that if a size is stated (or whatever) then you should be on that frequency earlier enough to sort out all the traffic NO LATER THAN THE STATED DISTANCE. Making the first call at 10nm (or wherever) is just plain dumb and creates more workload than any of us would want - especially at 250kts.!
No matter what size may be stated... 5, 10 or 15nm then by then you should have all the traffic sorted out and your approach planned.
Chief G
The EXISTING procedures for class E allow for an aeroplane other than an RPT to operate in Class E whilst VMC exist without even a call to any possible or known conflicting traffic. You just have an operating transponder.
Under LLAMP it was to be a 3way contract (both a/c and the controller). Not so under NAS. Notwithstanding the major beneficiary of this procedure will/would be regional RPT aircraft, especially where there is parallel scheduling and aircraft with differing performance.
Without the benefit of knowing what the NAS people are planning it is difficult to see any of the picture as yet, and as said above it seems very much as if only some elements of the NA system are to be introduced, and not the FULL package.
I would say however that the costing estimates (due by March) for the proposed NAS changes will grab the Ministers attention and then we may just see some changes…. again!
The people behind NAS must realise that to operate under a veil of secrecy and to implement by stealth is risking everything that they are aiming for. The sooner the AEG and the NAS group start operating in OPEN forum the sooner they might see some (?) understanding of what they have in mind. One reason the RAPACs have said little is that they have been told very little to date.