mjbowI can assure you Dick's supporters do know what he wants and we share his vision
OK - I'll bite. What exactly is the vision you share Mjbow?
Albizia Good reply.
Dick, I am sure you now feel reassured by the response from an experienced former Albury tower controller, that the options available are not at all restrictive to your VFR operations. As you can see, the airspace as it stands is very flexible and able to deal with the prevailing traffic levels without imposing the expensive burden of extra resources upon the GA businesses you talk of. Is this not simply a case of placing the levels of affordability in safety resources where they provide the best level of safety outcomes? Is that not something you agree with?
Anyway, could you advise if there would be any safety problem if I get half a dozen VFR aircraft, and a few IFRs, to do some practice flying at Albury in Class C and set up typical scenarios on a CAVOK day? Do you think the controller would be overloaded? Do you think there could be any safety problems with this or would it be a reasonable test?
But what would be
typical about that, if you are "getting" the aircraft to do it to prove some point? Surely, the real point is that this is not a usual traffic scenario - i.e. the normal average traffic levels do not warrant the expense of what you are proposing? Any delays or restrictions imposed on an artificial scenario would be simply to manage the demand upon the airspace in an extremely unusual period of demand - I doubt safety would be at all a problem. The controller would manage the demand in an orderley manner to ensure the required separation and level of safety is met. Even when a Terminal radar approach service is provided, demand from time to time outstrips capacity - do you agree that there are holding patterns published and utilised at KLAX, KORD etc? This is simply a traffic management system to ensure that the approach controller is not overloaded - no different to YMAY.