Remember, before then VFR aircraft would have to operate “full position...”
No they didn't. CHTR did, the others had the ability to operate full reporting if they wanted to or go SARTIME or NOSAR. You took it away. In case you were wondering I support that concept, but get it right.
What you fail to mention is that our non-radar Class C is operated by the Class D controller in the airspace below. This takes the attention of the controller away from runway activities. I thought most people knew that one of the most common types of fatal accidents now is an accident on the runway – quite often where an air traffic controller’s attention has been diverted.
This is manufactured drivel. If the people in the tower are too busy, then they put more people in the tower. All the towers lost airspace in NAS 2B, (eg. LT used to own up to FL125, now only 8,500FT) I'd say all you need to get support for E above D is to admit there is a clear and obvious increase in collision risk involved in that arrangement compared to C above D. The risk is still As Low As Reasonable Possible, and the justification would be the increased efficiency of the airspace. Just try it instead of repeating the drivel above which the controllers involved know is complete claptrap.
Could I ask you to think laterally and examine whether Class E airspace could be used?
Fine by me, I eat what is set in front of me, subject to the above. While we're all thinking laterally though, why not do here in non-radar C what the septics do when the radar is off in their C airspace. AIM 3-2-4 refers:
Separation and sequencing of VFR aircraft will be suspended in the event of a radar outage as this service is dependent on radar. The pilot will be advised that the service is not available and issued wind, runway information and the time or place to contact the tower...Separation of VFR aircraft will be suspended during CENRAP operations. Traffic advisories and sequencing to the primary airport will be provided on a workload permitting basis. The pilot will be advised when center radar presentation (CENRAP) is in use.
This would support alerted see-and-avoid, which beats the crap out of C402 flying through holding patterns at FL175 with their mode C off, or homebuilts thinking they have cleverly self-separated by a 1 radial offset, (remember??)
At the present time I don’t consider it sensible when I descend into a mountainous area (such as Proserpine) and be forced to change off the radar frequency when I most need it – that is, doing an approach close to mountains.
Fine. Could you please knock up the NAS 'characteristic' that will achieve this? There isn't one at present. I know in your private self you are working to the concept of Enroute ATC applying control services to IFR flights in all airspace, down to almost ground level, but it isn't in the document and it is a bit mysterious when it is supposed to happen. When do all the enroute ATC get the training in approach procedures (couple of months worth per controller) that will facilitate this? Get started on CH42 & 43, stat!
By the way, why is it that you, and others, who are doing everything you can to undermine the Government’s NAS policy, never use your own names?
If anybody cares what my name is it is in my profile. Hopefully they will read my words and consider them for their worth without the artificial reinforcement attached to the trademark of a determined media tart. If I stand up in a meeting and exhort, "Please, USE the Mark Spedding
(tm) name to sell this," I wouldn't expect big results...
Another reason is that I have been effectively gagged from doing so since you were CAA chairman. Since then all employees of ASA (and its forebears) have not been permitted to comment on the policy of the department (and its successors) under pain of unemployment. I can't say what I think about that, erm, for the same reason. Anybody that wants to disagree with ASA, (I wouldn't boss, really) has to use a
nom de proon.