Dick Smith said:
There is little doubt in my mind that if Class C airspace is required in the link airspace above Launceston, then Class B airspace would be required where the collision risk is far greater in the area close to the runway.
This is the basis behind all of your reasoning for the airspace class changes, however it highlights totally your flawed logic.
- 'There is little doubt in my mind'; to me implies you have based your belief on opinion only and not backed by facts
- It is nonsense to assume that just because Class C may be justified for an arrival area, then Class B is automatically required in the terminal area. Who says the collision risk automatically increases?
If what you say is true, then the risk of collision in the SYD apt terminal zone in the Director radar pattern must be automatically higher than in the terminal arrival airspace where there are three airports and a couple of VFR lanes as well as mixing it with PJR ops.
How about a mythical piece of arrival airspace that services 3 or 4 large airports in close proximity, are you saying that the terminal airspace of each individual airport is automatically riskier than the arrival airspace where traffic for all airports is mixing??
It is easy to see that Class C arrival airspace automatically requiring Class B terminal airspace is silly. It is entirely sensible that Class C arrival AND Class C terminal airspace may be entirely justifiable.