Aaaaah, Cap'n C.........it
can be
so hard to cope with change sometimes.
Sounds like you haven't even been around the CTAFs for a while, bit of a difference from a steady diet of Class A, C and OCA, eh?
Why, just today I had to descend through non-radio non-transponder glider traffic to a CTAF where there were ultralights and light GA ACFT. I must just be lucky to be alive, because I'm sure that kind of descent to such a CTAF must be so very rare......
CC, if you are having to descend through noncontrolled airspace through those pesky little planes, I'd strongly recommend you know what you're looking for when a Karatoo calls airborne!! At least I know now a Beechjet isn't a jet
For the record, I am neither pro or anti NAS, I just have an open mind. However, I would like to hear some *facts* as to the en-route collision rate, either by comparison between current systems of airspace management, or between airspace models which account for the traffic loads. Even some logical argument would be nice. This has not been forthcoming from proponents or opponents of NAS.
I am also merely pointing out that there are numerous areas within our own
current system that are not "protected" for IFR ACFT and that it seems there is no significant en-route collision rate.
Statements to the effect that the sky is falling are neither facts nor logical argument.
Safe flying
NOtimTAMs
(BTW CC, you're welcome to use an NDB or a VOR (with aggregate error up to 5 degrees) over being .5NM to R of track - maybe that's what I should be doing, but whenever I cross check the GPS with the VOR & NDB, it all seems OK
. INS must be nice to have.)