Australia still has a mishmash of regimes in which some airports are in designated controlled airspace, but most others, including some with significant airline traffic, are not, requiring pilots in cloud to talk to each other to work out their relative positions and avoid collisions.
Mishmash indeed. The only mishmash is the biased use of a national newspaper to push personal agendas (that won't publish letters countering the diatribes that are printed). Australians self-separating. Shock, Horror.
Mr Smith suspects he will encounter push-back from Airservices because of what he claims is a misguided assumption on its part that it would mean hiring more air traffic controllers.
Yes, how silly of AsA, how could providing full approach services for IFRs in the regions
possibly mean more controllers (and training)?
With the extension of E airspace, the right of RAOz Pilot Certificate Holders to operate in E must be granted, subject to meeting the current transponder requirement.
Controlled Airspace training or just swan around with the other users dodging them? So now we have even less experienced operators in an airspace type that does not provide any traffic information, all saved by the mighty TCAS/transponder. Good stuff.
I continue to chuckle at this fanciful concept that just because it is VMC, you can operate two parallel but completely independent airspace types, all aircraft kept apart by See and be Seen. Dick, you're right you would never have got ANY Class E unless transponders were mandated. It is sheer lunacy to expect jets to fly around looking out for bugsmashers. Tobago v 737 example. I wonder why J Mac didn't mention that one? ATC are quite at liberty to provide hazard alerts; if going into a CTAF, they should and they have.
As for Tiger, it's been done to death already. Should we design the complete airspace system around those that don't know the basic rules? EGPWS will bleat if you get too low off-airport.