------ and utterly irrelevant to the "objective" (are there subjective facts??) fact that the Tobago pilot thought he could keep Mum (because E allowed him to) and keep clear.
Bloggsie,***
As Lawrence Welk would say:"Wunnerful, wunnerful".
Objective: When use as an adjective(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
impartial,
unbiased,
unprejudiced,
non-partisan,
disinterested,
non-discriminatory,
neutral,
uninvolved,
even-handed,
equitable,
fair,
fair-minded,
just,
open-minded,
dispassionate,
detached,
impersonal,
unemotional,
clinical
Subjective: When used as an adjective:1Based on or
influenced by personal feelings,
tastes, or opinions:
his views are highly subjective there is always the danger of making a subjective judgement Contrasted with
objective.
1.1
Dependent on the mind or on an
individual’s perception for its existence.
In (objective) fact, your whole case, and that of your cohort who cannot accept ICAO airspace classification, and the ICAO separation assurance standards, is entirely subjective.
To suggest that it is an "objective fact" that the Tobago pilot in the Launceston incident. would have run smack into the airline aircraft, in the absence of communications, and it was only the TCAS activation that saved the day is too silly for words.
Are you seriously saying that, in conditions of severe clear, undisputed VMC, with the undisputed fact that the Tobago pilot (who was quite an experienced pilot, and objectively an entirely rational person) had the traffic, at all relevant time, clearly in sight, would have just sat there and collided with the airline aircraft.
Are you seriously saying that the Tobago pilot was so incompetent and irrational that his behavior amounted to suicidal. That his instinct for self-preservation had taken the day off. Where is your objective evidence.
Such a clearly subjective view on your part is so far from any known definition of "objective", that it should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Unfortunately for you, objectively, the clearly distinguished FACT that Class E airspace is widely used around our world, on a day to day basis, as part of the safe and efficient handling of IFR and VFR traffic ( "safe" here meaning to an acceptably low level of risk, at least equal to the ICAO separation assurance standard) is the most OBJECTIVE evidence that you and your cohorts views on unacceptable levels of risk represented by Class E as an airspace category are entirely SUBJECTIVE.
Similarly, your entirely subjective view that our current arrangements in G (which you subjectively claim is F) are some how lower risk (safer) than the same airspace being E to 1200ft. AMSL is objectively wrong, based on the results of rational analysis, including analysis using Airservices models, and, of course, ICAO SARPs. and Docs.
Clearly, I, and many others of wide experience regard your views as something more than merely subjective, we believe they have been clearly demonstrated to be irrational. See, among others, the various posts of "Voice of Reason".
Indeed, I am bound to (once again) remind readers of the
then AFAP Technical Director's demand that "perceived risk", even when it could be objectively shown to be exactly that, perceived, and to not objectively exist, that nevertheless the ill-conceived perception had to be addressed with regulatory mitigation.
How do you regulate to mitigate totally subjective, indeed mythical, threats? That is beyond reason, or Reason.
Tootle pip!!
*** Bloggsie: Recent academic studies show that addressing you a Bloggsie, as opposed to Bloggs, will adduce in you greater feelings that my comments are friendly and more likely to be accepted. I wonder if, in your case, you conform to the academic profile??