Hi Dick
Procedural class E would be horribly restrictive to IFR aircraft, and the extra 4000ft of class E would provide no safety benefit whatsoever. Have you considered the potential restrictions placed upon IFR aircraft in poor weather? For example...
You are in the lowered CTA (say base of CTA A045), in IMC, below the grid lowest safe (say A066), and require left of track due weather. As an enroute controller I can not, and I will not clear you to deviate. What do you do?
Now, throw in another IFR aircraft, that I am separating you from (class E remember) who is inbound at A080, pushing for further descent, and wanting to deviate in the same direction that you do. And this is with horribly restrictive procedural standards remember?...Fast running out of options here.
Or it could stay class G, you can move as you wish, and receive detailed traffic advice and 'suggested' options if you ask for them.
Radar class E at Williamtown was implemented after a CASA mandate, and the net gain to safety was zero. However; Increased complications for IFR aircraft? Check. CTA below GRID LSALT and enroute ATC not having the training and authority to use the full range of tools available? Check. More restrictive to RPT? Check. Complicated ATC procedures where the rules specified in Mats are at best contradictory? Check. Increased risk to all concerned? Check.
Im all for discussion on improving in the current setup, but lowering class E is not a good answer to anything, especially below LSALT. Having some aircraft in CTA recieving an ATC service mixing it with VFR's who are doing as they wish is not safer for anyone concerned. But that's just my opinion.
Last edited by tyler_durden_80; 14th Jul 2015 at 12:56.
Reason: Spelling