"right that BOTH sides should listen to each other"
I couldn't agree more. So why is it then that I have seen nothing here to convince me that any of the contributors who started out on an offensive tack in this thread have actually
listened to anything that's been posted in rebuttal of any of the opinions/nonsense that's been posted as "fact"?
Why do contributors continually argue that just because it's CAS there will automatically be exclusions, where there is no empirical evidence to support this position where DSA is concerned? I cannot recall a single occurrence where a GA flight has been refused ATZ transit, and where others have been asked to adjust their track... well that's already been covered
ad nauseum; there's no need to continually rehash old ground.
Nobody's denying that there are certain custodian's of airspace in this country who haven't exercised the most responsible control over it, but the evidence at DSA points to the opposite. So for the Love of God can we please stop generalising and insinuating that ATC at EGCN are "GA-Unfriendly" and will do all in their power to keep GA non-terminal traffic out of the area! If contributors have gripes about the policies in place at other ATC units, then would they please refrain from airing those gripes where they are not relevant! As I've already said - nobody can predict the future!
WRT your question about the initial "invitation" period: Have you considered the possibilty that maybe that might have been a deliberate policy on the part of the airport authority, not ATC; and rather than being designed to exclude GA owners from being able to use the airport "because they weren't wanted", it might actually have been designed to discourage GA owners who might have wanted to base their aircraft there, in order that the establishment of the airport had as little an impact as possible on the business of the surrounding GA airfields? How might they have felt towards the airport if suddenly they haemorrhaged business as privately owned aircraft suddenly upped and left for the bigger airfield with H24 ops?? Just speculation on my part mind you, but certainly worth considering, don't you think? In fact, local GA still forms a very important part of Controller training at DSA, as I'm sure it does at most airports around the country, and local pilots often avail of fee-free training when there is a controller in training or a Validation Board in progress. That combined with the fact that there is always a friendly, professional and courteous manner on the RT between ATC and GA, and there is quite often the odd bit of friendly banter exchanged when workload permits, tells me that there can't be that much bad-blood between ATC and the private pilots who frequent the area!
"Air grab"/"Land grab", I'm afraid you're allowing yourself to get bogged down in symantics WorkingHard. You would have a point about having to pay for it if it weren't for the fact that it costs a huge amount of money to operate a block of CAS. Don't forget about the capital outlay required to set the whole thing up in the first place: infrastructure and equipment purchase, installation, setup and subsequent ongoing maintenance; manpower recruitment, training, and continual licensing and revalidation, application administration costs and consultation costs.... the list just goes on and on. Nobody ever thinks about these things.
"exclusive right to keep others at bay.."
Yes, you are right, ATC are vested with that executive authority under the law, but not to be used frivolously. It's there as a fall back to ensure the safety of flights. And again, let's not tar EGCN ATC with the sins of others until the case for the prosecution has been proven in evidence. And as has already been advocated on so many previous occasions if it happens in the future and the belief is that it has happened unfairly, then follow the correct procedure and report it to the relevant authority.
It appears that there are some individuals here who are so intransigent in their opposition to CAS, that no amount of logic or reasoned argument presented in opposition to their position will soften their stance and help them to see that maybe there is a good reason for it's establishment.
At least we appear to have gotten away from the argument that there can be no possible justification for the airspace based on traffic levels!
