Jaba,
On airspace classes, have a look at India and Pakistan, that's give you pause for thought, given the traffic levels.
Mind you, Bloggsie would undoubtedly approve, none of that E stuff, just lots of G & F, with a bit of D & C for terminal control areas around major airports.
I would suggest you use NAA AIPs as references, rather than Wikipedia.
As Dick has said, time and again, and correctly, E is not dependent on radar, and despite the mysteriously unpublished CASA airspace management analysis, nobody of consequence, of whom I am aware, has seriously challenged the basic principle of separation assurance as the basis for ICAO airspace management.
If this mysterious report says anything new, what is the motivation for not publishing it. Maybe it doesn't support current ASA/CASA/Union policies. ASTRA knows nothing about it -- unless??
If it demolished Dicks/NAS/Airspace Act Airspace Policy Statement, I would have expected its proponents to shouting it from the rooftops.
It is the best kept secret in CASA, I have never even heard a whisper of it, but now we know about it, the new Minister will be interested (I can guarantee that) and it will be a serious subject in the next RRAT Senate Estimates.
Unless, of course, you are referring to the lunatic (and lunatically expensive) proposal for 100% surveillance and 100% random tracking, with every aircraft airborne subject to real-time control, and the big-brother computer controlling all this was to be "more" infallible than any human controller or pilot. A whole different meaning to "One Sky", with an equally lunatic proposal to charge every aircraft in the country for "access to airspace" to pay for the whole monster.
If that had been released, it would have made Australia a laughing stock --- or even more than it already is in aviation circles.
It's a pity more of you didn't have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the development of airspace management techniques over the years since WWII --- most of which have appeared first in the US, because, simply, of the needs of the traffic. Go back before "alphabet soup" airspace, and what is now E in US was previously still controlled airspace, but was called " --- VFR Exempt", this predated the widespread radar coverage in the lower 48, which, by the way, is now shrinking.
How the FAA ADS-B mandate plays out in the next 4 years will be interesting, as major airlines are effectively boycotting it --- on the basis that it is a major expense for no measurable benefit. Last time I looked, several months ago, it was around 9% for airline aircraft.
In contrast, in Australia, post WWII the position was very different, it all belonged to the RAAF, and civil aviation was "tolerated". When I started flying aircraft that would go high enough, the ceiling over Sydney was 20-25,000 ft, above that, all mil. R, inbound to Sydney we would always have to descent 60-80 miles early, at great cost in fuel, to stay below mil. R, and clearances for civil aircraft through mil. R was not ever requested "please don't ask, as refusal may offend". The huge AU military zones with sod all military traffic is the remnant of that era. The then maximum flight level anywhere in Australia was (from memory) FL390, FL400 and up was all Mil P.
The "we won WWII, it all belongs to us" is still much in evidence -- sub-consciously, if nothing else.
Re. use of ADS-B in US, FAA does not regard ADS-B IN, (the mandate is only for ADS-B out) as an anti-collision aid, ADS-B OUT is just a supplement to or a substitute for radar.
Again, as been said, time and again, neither the FAA or Eurocontrol mandates for ADS-B impact un-pressurised GA aircraft to the degree that it does in Australia --- and now we have AVM() Skidmore advocating mandatory ADS-B for everything flying. Although expressed differently, the FAA and EEC mandates are very similar end results, with EEC mandate actually being less restrictive than US.
I'm sure thats how they'll do it in the USA.
Chronic Snoozer,
Been snoozing too much, FAA have no such plans, and so far, none of the manufacturers of TCAS II have taken up the option of incorporating ADS-B (or C) IN in the TCAS processing --- the standard has now been available for years ---- probably because there is negligible ( probably zero, but I don't know that for a fact) demand from the HCPT market or major airframe manufacturers --- and it doesn't produce an enhanced output, so why bother.
Fujii,
50's through early '60s, generally the period when Don Anderson was D-G of DCA. In those days, a very large % of recruits to ATC/FS were already pilots.
Snakecharma,
More likely, too much Valium is the problem, but it still hasn't been enough to temper you anti-US prejudices. How come you didn't recommend getting rid of their aircraft and engines, and avionics, they couldn't possibly be any good, coming from such a crap country.
You better stop using that yankee GPS rubbish.
Indeed, look at our pristine financial institutions in Australia, never a word about customers being screwed, never a word about inquiries into banks??
Our wonderful insurance companies, with hoards of happy smiling claimants --- never a dispute about a payout.
Obviously the present call for a bank Royal Commission is just a bunch of mislead dills.
Tootle pip!!