Geoff, with respect, you just made most of my points for me.
- No I did not mean airspace classes. If modern technology has increased the risk, why are we proposing an airspace solution that was developed decades ago in an environment where that technology did not exist? Airspace classes are not going to solve these problems. The only organizations left on the planet who don't understand this are ICAO and the regulators. The UTM framework that is under development start down the exact path I'm discussing.
- ICAO classes of airspace do not set performance requirements. As in, how do we determine that a piece of airspace is meeting the demand being placed on it? We have no tools for this, its why the OAR cannot determine why the airspace at Melbourne is Class C, or whether it should be something else (like Class B). Its Class C because it always has been.
- The US NAS has not changed, you are correct. But its use has and now the FAA are being presented with the same problems. US NAS is obsolete.
- See Australian State Safety Program 2021, I had a quick read. There isn't anything in there that opens the door to the type of thinking required to solve these problems. The draft document exists for the sole purpose of protecting the minister, it offers nothing as a solution.
I am on record with CASA and the ATSB as recommending a Class D airspace solution with a small ATC Tower. Class E instead of G should be the overlying airspace because ATC has (or should have) surveillance of all IFR aircraft.
Is the root cause analysis, risk assessment and mitigation for your determination of this also on record? Where is the supporting evidence? Why does it need to be Class D? What methodology did you use to determine this?
You mention again "airspace performance requirements", I am not sure what you mean by this.
How do you determine if a particular piece of airspace is doing the job (meeting the performance) it has been designed for? You need a set of performance criteria to assess this against. Where are these documented? And no the ICAO airspace classification is not what I am referring to.
CASA requires risk assessments for all changes, airspace or otherwise.
You and I both know they will not, and cannot adequately perform this risk analysis
Obviously, Sydney/Ballina/Pilbara are different, that is why we have different airspace classes.
. I didn't mention Sydney. But the current airspace at Mangalore/Ballina/Pilbara are exactly the same, CLASS G. The solution being proposed (Class E) is also the same. How can this be if the problem at all three locations is completely different?
The variables you mention have been assessed many times all over the world, this is what led to the proliferation of different types of airspace, brought together by ICAO as the classes
No they haven't. ICAO classes of airspace were first published in 1990. There has not been a significant change to them in 30 years. Technology and aircraft performance on the hand has developed 10 fold.
...we do not need to re-invent the wheel....
my point is, we don't even know if we need a wheel.
With respect to your knowledge and experience Geoff, and it is highly respected, it won't be the traditional solutions of the past that solve the modern technological problems of the future.
Cheers,
α