Dick,
Read your post and saw the 7:30 report.
You are aware of the time and effort that went into the DAS and the very high standard of the Panel and CSIRO audit.
What I do not underatand is why you think it is acceptable to cherry pick a scientific report which has its conclusions confirmed by Pilot survey and Stakeholder interviews and audited by the CSIRO.
The reports conclusions from all these sources says CAGRS procedures are all that is necessary at Bme for the present.
We make no money from the CAGRS infact it costs us $60,000per year.
Why do I not support a D class tower? It is not necessary and will cost GA and Pax heaps, you estimate $20 per head we feel around $16 unless we do it as a sub-contractor to AA(I am aware you support the subcontract method, so do I) On our short haul routes this is a heavy impost as unlike the USA towers Aust. towers do not get funded from central revenue.
The DAS study team looked at the need for a tower at BME using the USA FAA model. BME if in the USA would not get an FAA D class tower!!!! as it is in G class airspace a LAA where flight service personnel advise traffic would be warrented.
Yes in the USA it would have a CAGRS(USA) not a tower. Dick please read the whole of the DAS as these questions you raise are analysed and answered in detail.
You agree that CAGRS is NAS(USA) compliant and you were a great proponent of affordable safety. With some very important cost savings achieved as mentioned in your post.
The DAS proved the following:
CTAF(USA) vs CAGRS 500% increase in safety $1:00 per Pax cost.
CAGRS vs D class Tower 20% increase in safety $16 per pax cost
Finally if Bme gets a tower what about Ayr Kal Kta? Each tower is around 4million p/a. I thought NAS was to reduce costs not impose a further burden on Pax and GA.
We still disagree on this one!! cheers Mike