Yes, the measure should have been to leave it as it was....it worked.
Raising the questions: what was "the measure" and what did it do that "worked"?
I know of 3 unmarked strips within the Melbourne Basin, that have no overlying CTAF and their location puts them on 135.7...there are probably more.
What in heaven's name does "no overlying CTAF" mean?
Yep, I can see how well this is going to work with 100% compliance
The rule change fixed something that wasn't broken...yet again
I reckon the biggest problem is that most people don't have a clue what the current rules are or what they require and permit, or what was fixed that is now broken.
I'm beyond caring.
