the above clearly shows that you haven’t bothered to read the document.
True, these items are in the document you prepared to sell the concept to the minister. It did its job and is now lining cat boxes around the country, I didn't know it was in the rating paper. I'm talking about the implementation 'characteristics', and it isn't there. Those that are there (like #12) seem to indicate even C towers will retain airspace. You can get as agressively defensive (
) as you like, even your supporters don't really know what it is you want. As usual you take any question as an attack. It may come as a surprise that while I personally hold a very low opinion of your good self I genuinely support airspace reform.
Your answer also clearly demonstrates you haven't read my questions. What about the concept that running non-radar C airspace the way the yanks do would mean none of the diverting of VFR flights you find so painful?
Why not make a clear statement about increased risk for E over C?