Many VFR pilots I have spoken to have difficulty in working out what the correct frequency is when at 8500 in areas where there are different frequencies allocated above and below 8500.
It's a complex nightmare for many- amazing how all the other leading aviation countries in the world don't have such complexity. But we wouldn't even want to know how they do it
Oh for god's sake Dick. I'm getting cross now...
When I was still a student pilot, I was taught that upper airspace limits are inclusive; lower limits are exclusive. If you're at the base level of a piece of airspace, you're not in it. The same applies worldwide. I don't remember anyone having trouble with the concept when I later worked as an instructor.
If "many VFR pilots" have trouble grasping this, a quick chat with someone who knows would clear up their glaring ignorance of basic rules.
So, is this the best case you can make for claiming that the current airspace model needs yet another revision? We've established that the original threat of innocent bodies cascading from RPT jets in the stratosphere is invalid. We also know that the required frequencies to monitor are listed on the same charts used by any responsible pilot to avoid PRD areas. Now we're supposed to rejig the whole system because a few people get confused when they cruise at 8500'?
I'm no longer sure what the agenda is here. You may even have some valid points to make, even if I don't agree with them. But whatever laudable goals you have for the betterment of GA are lost in the noise, when you employ specious arguments such as these.
There's already enough uninformed opposition to the practice of flying light aircraft around the country. You know that your comments inevitably find their way into the slavering jaws of the mass media. Please don't give them more material with which to discredit our activity, by using wildly shifting and hyperbolic anecdotes to support your view.