You assume it would be calculated somewhere.

So not really knowing how these changes occur: have the usual suspects here actually submitted requests to OAR for an audience change?

LB is correct. A competent organisation involved in risk mitigation (which is all Airservices does) would have the numbers. However it seems Airservices mission is to maximise cash extraction from industry by charging the highest price for the minimum of service, like all parasites.

Their mission statement:”Please God! Not on my watch!”. They pray that they can take their bonuses and retire before the consequences of their cost cutting appear.

In Airservices that ensures nothing will change until there is the inevitable 200+ killed in a jet mid air.

The tools are there, the data is there but the Governments expectation of its annual dividend precludes rational thought.

To put that another way, if a bunch of amateurs can see the accident developing on Flightradar24, why can’t Airservices? Where is the ADSB we paid so much for?

As a pilot, I don't want more E where G existed before (below a100). The adsb argument you're making is irrelevant in this situation since as hoostenn said the aircraft had traffic and knew about each other.

Perhaps they “knew” about each other, but didn’t know where they actually were?

In that case, ADSB is entirely relevant...

I hear on frequency all the time when atc gives traffic, you hear the two ifr either talk over centre or on the ctaf to organise themselves. If I'm not sure of where someone is, then I will ask. I'm not going to go "Yeah ok, I'm sure that will be fine"

Balon and Sunfish, none of that applies here.

Porter/Houston stated that "My beef is purely with the class of airspace in this area. Australian pilots seem to labour under a few mis-conceptions", one being
It is up to no body or organisation but Houstin to justify that statement.

Where is the like button?

Airservices paying a dividend to government distorts their primary purpose - risk mitigation or as a former colleague said "it's all about conflict detection".

Yet another former colleague said "the worst outcome is the best outcome", think about that for a moment. It's a sobering thought.

The tools are there.

That is the problem right there! All the managers are blunt tools!

Call me crazy, but another viable option would be to not punch into IMC until you know damn well where the other traffic is.

Quote:

---

[A]nother viable option would be to not punch into IMC until you know damn well where the other traffic is.

---

I’ll have to add that to the Big Book Of Aviation Wisdom.

If you are suggesting that in this case an aircraft punched into IMC when the pilot did not “know damn well” where other traffic was, what is the evidential basis for that suggestion?

Do you know for sure that accurate traffic information was transmitted to the aircraft?

Do you know for sure that the PIC of the aircraft received the traffic information but misunderstood or was unsure what it meant?

Although pilot error is a possibility - maybe even probable - I thought we’d grown out of this kind of ‘blame the pilot’ mentality. (Excepting, of course, the ATSB, Airservices and CASA.)

OCTA Aus , you have hit the nail on the head , inadvertently of course.

“until you know damn well where the other traffic is.”

You cant . That’s the point . The simplest failure of situational awareness , navigational error , over-transmission or a myriad of other variables and the system fails. There is no third party oversight . Its fail dangerous , pure and simple . Only somebody who has never sat at the holding point in poor weather trying to self-separate from multiple IFR and scud running VFR could make such a naive statement.

The minimum requirement of any port with multiple RPT jet operations is a tower. Simple.

Otherwise you’re just rolling the dice.

So we get rid of G entirely?

As suggested by AlphaVictorFoxtrot , reintroduce FIS and MBZs . Back to the future ! Crazy idea isn’t it !
Normalization of deviance is fatal in aviation.
Somehow over the last 20 years we have convinced ourselves that the airspace structure is ok , or worse that it is “world class” .
It isn’t . Never has been.
Pity it takes a disaster to make it obvious.

^^^^^This^^^^^

^^^^^And this^^^^^

Quote:

---

It is up to no body or organisation but Houstin to justify that statement.

---

Your stupidity is breathtaking. Perhaps CASA should start testing for senility.

Quote:

---

So we get rid of G entirely?

---

Absolutely not, E Corridors.

Forget about a restriction to your movements, it won't happen. If you want to know how it works, go fly back and forth over the top of Avalon. But make sure there are no senile, ex-RAAF, B717 pilots there.

Unfortunately, define "multiple". Is it two, three, six, ten? It used to be one. That was howled down as uneconomic and unsustainable by the industry itself. If we are protecting RPT jets from the LCD, then it shouldn't matter if it's 1, or 20.

OKay....

So...

Where is the objective cost/risk data to show what us “uneconomic” and “unsustainable”?

In order for the OAR to do its job, it must put a value on a life. What value does the OAR put on a life?

Then the industry needs to be told to shut the f#ck up. The idea of the ” industry” driving policy is part of the problem. I know that idea is archaic but it used to be one of the great strengths of the Westminster system.