[Kharon]

Obvious, odious obfuscation; or,

A) – “[designed] to adapt to current and future Australian airspace architecture.

Rubbish – it is designed – now they have to ‘adapt’ it to suit, just like TASWAM.

A) “[provides] for the adoption of proven international airspace systems, including the United States NAS, to be considered and implemented as appropriate for our conditions and level of traffic in Australia

Proving that it is designed – now they have to ‘adapt’ it to suit, just like TASWAM. Only this time it’s a big number duck up; the TAS experiment being so successful.

A) “[and] implemented as appropriate for our conditions and level of traffic in Australia. Airspace classification and air traffic services requirements are determined by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the aviation safety regulator, after undertaking a detailed risk assessment. etc

So why are we paying the ASA ‘experts’ to assess and purchase a system which will depend on whether the CASA experts like it or not.  It’s a bloody nonsense – a repeat of the Tassy mess.  

I particularly like -

 “I am unable to comment further without supporting information on the derivation of the concerns.”

Derivation – “the action of obtaining something from a source or origin.”

So, tell us what you know and we’ll wriggle out of it, close the doors and protect our goose, the one that lays golden eggs.

The insult lays in the notion that everyone, except them, is as thick as two short planks.

- believable fairy tales.

Toot - toot.