Why should we be as restrictive as the US?
New NAS proposal
Following the debacle that has been NAS implementation so far, I offer the following as a solution:
Design Criteria
1. Follow ICAO methodology as far as practicable.
2. Where compatible, follow the United States model.
3. Eliminate local variations completely, if possible.
Airspace Model
1. Class A: Above the transition layer (Compliant with the US model)
Comment: The US model of Class A airspace above the transition layer appears to be unnecessarily restrictive, in that it does not allow VFR flight. Perhaps Class B airspace could be used in Australia, to allow less restrictive procedures to apply to VFR aircraft, thus stimulating GA activity.
2. Class B: All busy airports, typically capital city and major regional airports.
3. Class C: less busy airports, such as regional centres.
4. Class D: Existing GAAP and smaller airports.
5. Class E: From 700/1200AGL up to the transition layer, outside of Class B, C and D steps. This is entirely consistent with the US model, where class E extends up to the transition layer. As noted above, Class A above the transition layer would be too restrictive, and a relaxation to Class B is warranted in Australia.
6. Class F: Not used (compliant with the US model)
7. Class G: Everywhere else (Compliant with the US model)
The above model has the following advantages:
1. It is fully compliant with both ICAO and the US model.
2. It does not require the mooted ‘enhanced’ Class E procedures which are currently being considered.
3. It removes the ‘no VFR above FL180’ restriction which exists in the US, with no discernible adverse impact on safety. This will allow GA activity in Australia which is not possible under the restrictions imposed in the US.
4. It allows the majority of VFR flights (the unpressurised light aircraft) to benefit from the freedoms of Class E airspace)
5. It affords safety to the majority of RPT operations, which would be contained within Classes B, C or D.
Comments?