No wars in this case, or am I missing something?
So everyone is united on what the rule should be?
That would be everyone … except, strangely, the rule makers.
How is it that the rule makers could be so out of step with what “everyone” says is safe? What could their motivation be for this “change”? I’ll bet you London to a brick that they say: “Safety”.
The fact is that there’s lots and lots (and lots) (and even more lots) of not much happening at places that aren’t marked on any aeronautical charts. The alleged risks arising from the “change” are therefore either invented or merely perceived rather than substantial.
As with everything aviation in Australia, there’s much more to this and it doesn’t have much to do with safety.
I’m not in the way of any change, so my stepping in any direction won’t make any difference.
I look forward to more entertainment watching the attempts at getting the rule “changed”!
