Originally Posted by
thorn bird
I've often wondered how they work out airspace management in Australia.
When one looks at the proposed airspace required for Badgeys Creek it seems an enormous amount of Airspace will be required.
When you consider Dallas Fort Worth and its precincts in the US, to accomodate that airport and its satellites in Australia you'd need an area about the size of Victoria to accomodate it.
thorn bird,
In the best of Australian tradition, the proposed CTA for Sydney West is based on an aircraft that does not exist flying a maneuver that is obsolete for large aircraft.
By this, I mean that the CTA is sized to "protect" a Approach Cat E aircraft flying a visual circling segment of a non-precision approach.
There are no Cat E aircraft in existence, nor will there ever be.
In the day and age of Cat 1 or better GNSS approaches, even if there is no ILS ( Sydney West should have Cat 111C from the word go, it is a fog hole) no large aircraft is every going to do even a Cat C or D circling.
As you and I well know, most major airlines don't even permit their crews to fly a visual circling segment.
With a less "Anal Australian" ( ie more ICAO compliant) approach to airspace design, we would still be able to have IFR arrivals and departures to YSBK ---- but this would not meet the criteria of maximizing disruption to GA.
Tootle pip!!