direct.no.speed
You ask
what is the upside to your plan Dick
The “upside” of the plan (not my plan) is that we follow international airspace which allows the Controller to concentrate on the airspace where the accident is most likely to happen, ie. not upside down or reversed airspace.
Pretty simple – C over D is upside down. If indeed you need C in the link airspace where the risk of collision is less, you would then need B in the terminal airspace below.
The order that you people want is akin to building a large jet with the thick part of the wing outboard and the thin part of the wing, where it connects with the fuselage, inboard.
Of course when people pointed out this was “
reversed”, you would say “
oh well, it works, so why worry?”
But you will not mention the obvious. If we had C airspace provided with the proper tools and staffing, it would indeed be safer. However, we use large amounts of C airspace controlled by a single Controller in the D airspace below. This is the reason other countries have E above D. They wish to allocate their safety resources effectively, and don’t want the concentration of a Controller in D airspace close to the runway to be affected by having to provide a Class C service at the same time when the risk of collision is far less.
It’s what we call
common sense, and it happens to comply with science. So why wouldn’t you act on it?
No, I know the answer. “
We have done it upside down in the past, and that’s the way we’re gunna keep doing it”.
The change CASA is proposing is better because it will reduce the chance of mid air's by moving resources to where the risk is greater