Z.A - like WH, your post is based upon pure supposition and not an ounce of fact, prove your case with the facts.
The facts were mentioned. I referred to the way the objections were handled in the Stansted TMZ case. I will be interested to see how my objection is forwarded. Unfortunately it has to go though NIA who have a vested interest in minimising it.
Like NIA it is impossible to produce facts for what might happen in the future, Projections are just that. NIA are making projections about future traffic and I am making projections about what might happen. If this is unnacceptable then I suggest any NIA projections are removed as they are not facts.
One thing is very clear, there are dwindling numbers of flights so the need for this airspace is not clear. NikNak seems to be brushing aside the objections of GA on the basis that we have no statistics about the number of GA flights through the proposed area and cannot prove what will happen if class D is granted. I practise aerobatics within the proposed area regularly. Probably tens of times per year. I also make about 10 transits of the proposed area a year. Surely NIA should have made an assessment of the number of other GA aircraft that have used or passed through the proposed area. They have access to radar records.
ZA