SM4Pirate, you state:
It isn't about E over D is not safe; it's less safe (in that airspace, leave the CTRs out of the argument).
How can you leave the workload of the controller in the CTR out of the argument? It is not a personal opinion, I have spoken to controllers all around the world in relation to this particular issue. The controllers in the United States have said that if they were responsible for Class C airspace to 8,500 feet above the D at Lihue, safety would actually be reduced. Why did they say this? They said because they wouldn’t be able to concentrate on the traffic close to the runway where the accidents are likely to happen.
SM4Pirate, you never answer this point. Are these controllers wrong?
I have always agreed that C is safer than E, but only if it is adequately staffed and you actually know where the VFR aircraft are.
When the controllers in Australia have to be responsible for huge amounts of Class C airspace as well as the D, do you accept that even to a small degree, the concentration of the controller on traffic close to the airport would be reduced – even slightly – by VFR aircraft calling and requiring a service in the Class C airspace above? It is simply logical commonsense to me and to many others I have spoken to.
I have pointed out to overseas controllers the view that Australian controllers have – that is, they can provide the extra service of C airspace above D, and believe the combination actually improves safety, not decreases safety. The overseas controllers all say this is not possible.
I find it interesting that you won’t even discuss this point and give any acceptance to the validity of the argument – even if it only has a small effect.
Is there anyone game to discuss the point made by overseas professional controllers that having too much airspace controlled by just one controller can actually reduce safety under some circumstances by capturing traffic which has very low collision risk possibility?