Cream Puff – I love it!
I’m all for Dick’s airspace model, provided it comes with all of the attributes of the model on which it is based, not just the bits he likes and lacking the bits he doesn’t like or isn’t aware of.
Creamy, what a great put-down, but in fact I don’t think you are correct. I notice you never phone me to discuss this issue.
Any success I have ever had in life is the product of copying successful systems from overseas and incorporating them with successful things that are done here in Australia. One fool from the old Department of Aviation told me that if we were going to take the advantages of the US system we had to have the disadvantages. Sometimes that is forced on you, but mostly it isn’t. In fact, you can take the advantages of both systems and that is what I have always done in my business career (with some success).
The NAS document, which I am looking at now, as approved by Federal Cabinet was certainly based on the North American Airspace System, but it kept some of the advantages we have proven safe. For example, all instrument approaches in the USA are in a minimum of Class E controlled airspace. We have had years of experience of IFR pilots self-separating in G airspace – then why wouldn’t we keep this?
So I can assure you – if we want to be successful in Australian aviation, then we search the world and find out the regulations which allow the required level of safety at the absolute lowest cost and we then incorporate these with those things in our present system that we already do better. Then we will be really humming - as long as the process isn’t stopped by people like you.