Class vs Allocation
Dick,
Some of the points you have are valid, BUT, none of them have to do with the Airspace Classification. Your arguments revolve around the way the airspace is allocated between controllers. Whether it was Class E or C makes little difference. In fact there might even be an argument that Class E presents a higher workload for controllers, but I'll leave that to others.
Why does the airspace above the Control Zone have to be Class E in order for it to be controlled by a "TRACON" type unit. Would not it be just as effectively be operated as Class C outside of Tower hours (i.e when its dark and therefore no VFR traffic)?
I will give you a tip, if you want to gain the support of the professional pilots in this country (not just the AOPA brigade) advocate airspace changes that move up the ICAO scale, not down. Yes that does suggest a Towered Control Zone at Avalon of any Class would get support if it is introduced properly and according to transperent processes.
Give up on introducing Class E in lieu of Class C over any control zone (D or C). It will simply not get the support of the industry. You saw what happened after NAS 2b.
I have a few questions for you:
The Dimensions you suggest for the US style Class D control zones would not contain a typical instrument approach profile (10nm/3000ft). Do you propose that we cover the residual of the approach with Class E, creating a mish mash of airspace classes in a small area? This was already suggested at Albury but thankfully sane heads prevailed and alternate solutions were sought.
In relation to the low level Class E airspace procedures to non-controlled terminal areas. I refer to your often stated vsion that an RPT aircraft will be able to state to the controller "Cancel IFR, procedding VFR" and then land at the non-controlled aerodrome. Would any operator holding an AOC issued under CAO 82.5 be able to do so? I refer to CAO 82.5 Section 7. Feel free to correct any misunderstanding I may have of the US system, or indeed your vision of it.