poorly considered and not the best solution, if indeed a problem requiring a solution even existed;
poor industry education and understanding of the change;
insufficient consultation;
changes not supported;
etc. etc.
and:
Including completely unnecessary.
Folks,
And there we have it, closed minds, the fact that it works just fine in the rest of the world, but Australia has to be different, and should have stuck with an Australian unique system that was expensive, ineffecient, and above all, generated unnecessary risk level because available resources were not allocated in conformity with demonstrated risk, but allocated on the basis ( and still is) of "That's the way its always been done".
No amount of "consultation" is enough when one major group rejects ICAO airspace management principles ----- ie: simply does not accept CNS/ATM based on demonstrated risk levels, but demands ATC services base on the "perception" of risk.
In short, rejects the basic principles of the A through G designations, where
the separation assurance level is the same in each class of airspace.
Bloggs illustrated the "Australian way" so admirably in his posts.
To suggest that only Australia knows how to run an airspace system shows a breathtaking combination of arrogance and ignorance ---- the net result is an inflexible, expensive and inefficient system where about the only thing in which we lead the world (almost) is loss of separation incidents.
I suppose we should be thankful that there is so little aviation in Australian airspace, otherwise the results might be distressingly newsworthy.
Tootle pip!!