43" your points are valid. What is needed here is some lateral thinking with the design of the control zone (D). It does not have to be a circle and like in the US could be just 5nm at ground level and maybe having a step or similar. I recall the old adage that the zone should only be as large as what can be seen from the tower. Is there an option to have a lane over water along the coast up to 500ft that is outside the class D zone? If not, then could it be established with VFR friendly procedures. What GA are interested in is VFR user friendly procedures associated with the zone. Even the RAAF at Tindal changed their procedures to accommodate low lever mustering ops, so it is not difficult - just have to think well outside the box and talk to industry. Nobody seems to have mentioned the need for a full-length parallel taxiway - that would solve a lot of problems, even if some of it was for GA (<5700kg) only. If we wait till the end of 24 for a tower, who is then responsible should there be a smoking hole in the ground. ASA have some portable towers like the one we have seen at Mangalore and Parafield. Given the right leadership it could be there this year. The prices quoted are preposterous and ASA know that. The rules need to change to allow other organisations to provide air traffic services with the appropriate approvals. A bit of competition would be good for ASA.