trained existing en route controllors to do the terminal service at airports like Ballina that safety would be improved at very low or zero extra cost
Earth to Dick, as usual you are not listening.
For en route controllers to take on additional responsibilities (
more airspace) isn't going to happen without significant safety work to validate airspace volumes and airways data, likely to mean smaller sectors = more sectors = more controllers = more consoles = more frequencies = more surveillance =
more $$.
Training all the en route controllers, lets say four days training X 200 ATCs, assuming training ratio of 2:1, 2 ATCs/1 Instructor = 1200 work days = $$, that's without the cost of simulator time, blip drivers, purpose built exercises that need to be validated.
It ain't zero extra cost, and it ain't very low cost either.
And, FWIW,
I would have thought that a proper " control " service with actual enforced separation standards would be safer than a " do it yourself " radio arranged - no standard required " service.
I agree that a "proper" CONTROL service would be safer than do-it-yourself, however, you seem to whinge when you are delayed when ATC is doing their job and separating you from other users.
I thought you were a strong advocate of see and be seen, no standard required, missed by a coat of paint..