Mr Smith
Just because we have not had an accident between two IFR aircraft operating in and out of GAAP
You acknowledge the point being made!
The US FAA with fifteen times the traffic density can offer an ICAO separation service between IFR in all of their 350 Class D non-radar towers. Why can’t we?
How are they 'separating' IFR and IFR?
, the same way GAAP controllers separate when Restricted VFR op's are in progress
The next point you raise is a good one
Pilots from anywhere else in the world would have no idea what GAAP airspace is.
Pilots from anywhere else in the world, would read the local documents to know how to follow procedures, which after all shall be
no different to that which they receive in the
non-ICAO compliant US D airspaces. (note the US has lodged differences listed with ICAO for this reason)
If it’s marked as Class D, they know what the procedures are. That was the whole reason that ICAO changed all the many airspace descriptions to the ICAO alphabet classifications.
This is where your argument falls down. The fact that the US call their airspace D is
potentially misleading as they do not provide the services as described by ICAO for D, including the service application definitions. For overseas pilots operating into the US, this could be a protential problem. Obviously pilots would study the airspaces and system before they went
If I go to the USA, Canada, or indeed France – look on the chart and see an E or a D and I know what service I will get.
Correct, for two of those countries because those have
ICAO D airspace! Which would be transparent to a pilot expecting less, but getting more, not the other way around!
If a French or American pilot came here, they would have to learn what GAAP was.
Those foreign pilots are alerted to the fact that the rules may be different because it is called GAAP, not called D that isn't!
If we can have an international road rule and sign system, why can’t we have something similar in aviation?
We do, + calling GAAP GAAP highlights the difference from ICAO D, and is a sensible approach to highlighting a service difference. What you propose takes us away from that
worldwide standard system!