Going back through the NASIG stuff and seeing we had a change of Secondary procedures to GAAP after a non fatal mid air at BK in 76 and we started getting GAAP in 1978. Basic change was to enshrine pilot responsibility for separation.
This change is going to revert the responsibility back on controllers. So if the tower is responsible that means we are going to have to fly within the visual limitations of a view point from within a point in space in the tower cab.
VFR limits are set down quite explicitly. We are going to need the acerage at our GAAPs as big a layout as found at SY to facilitate two runway ops. I can see that happening, NOT!
NASIG just wanted a NAME CHANGE from GAAP to ClassD, the same procedures were to be kept in place. There isn't much difference from GAAP to US ClassD Our guys must receive instructions to enter where the US guys are expected to follow whatever procedures as set in their ATIS or aerodrome procedures...same thing just said differently.....in this case it is another argument.
I would prefer to keep the GAAP procedures as present...It is still the responsibilty of the PIC to maintain separation!
Operations within the GAAP need to be cleaned up as far as circuit procedures and the like but as Sunfish put it...we all have to start somewhere and things fall into place as soon as the newbs catch the beat.
Glad you agree with me, Dick.