HISTORY
I am new to this thread and wonder if Dick is the same Mr Smith who forced Minister A. to introduce airspace change 10 years ago which almost resulted in two mid air collisions? Fortunately Airservices Board called for a review and rolled back the change. The alternative facts look remarkably similar so I conclude it's the same person.
However, we don't make progress just throwing mud - let's be constructive. Sorry Mr Smith - I breeched my own rule, aviation safety management does need qualitative assessment and all opinions are needed and valued.
But ADSB is here to stay - the capability improves efficiency and safety. So let's start at the structural level. The OAR CASA decides when the level of airspace risk warrants a service or airspace change.
Just because Airservices can see all aircraft doesn't mean they should provide a particular service other than when a risk based assessment concludes they should. I concede that having introduced a mandate requiring me to fit 1090ES when I fly once a year to mandate airspace, is a little annoying. But we should work with Airservices to develop a monitoring regime without usurping our responsibility for see and avoid - added eyes and situational awareness is all we need - and a call for help and location when required. Whether Controllers apply 5nm or 3nm separation is irrelevant - only is high density approach phase is 3nm remotely needed.
I'm used to flying TISB FISB with UAT which is great but it's not going to happen here - Nor should it, hugely expensive option when we have an Industry and a Regulator with a very professional approach. Stirring up Senators who relish the opportunity, regardless of the facts, to score points, is pointless. I'm sure many get vicarious pleasure watching this sport but we don't make progress. The issue needs leadership.