mjbow
I understand your burning desire to only list those airports that serve aircraft of Part 121 carriers with 31 seats or more. This is an unfortunate, misguided and deliberate attempt to mislead the unsuspecting reader.
No burning desire [I’d suggest the ‘burning’ is elsewhere in this debate], rather ensuring that readers have the ‘full’ picture on which to consider the relative merits or otherwise. There is nothing misguided in raising these comparative points. Misguided is to suggest E over D without surveillance, without approach and departures controllers [TRACON], without tower services resourced as they are in the USA. The deliberate nature of that assertion put by the NAStronauts can only be considered misleading to the unsuspecting reader.
And by the way, I don’t know why you care what airports aren’t in the contiguous U.S but you might check the location of Long beach California (LBG).
I think you do. I am glad you picked up on Longbeach, did you note the class C airspace serviced airports above and below Longbeach.
LGB - Long Beach /Daugherty Field/ Airport | SkyVector.com [note the Airport Services comments]
SkyVector.com - Aeronautical Charts - Flight Planning [note the class
B airspace above A050, A025 to the North, Los Angeles, and Los Alamitos AAF next door]
Here is the next ‘comparison’ point I knew you would want to discuss:-
LONG BEACH TOWER: 119.4(RY 30 APCH RY 12 DEP) 120.5(RY 12 APCH RY 30 DEP) 257.6
LONG BEACH GROUND: 133.0 257.6
SOCAL APPROACH: 124.65 316.125
SOCAL DEPARTURE: 127.2 269.6
CLEARANCE DELIVERY: 118.15
F.S.S HAWTHORN
That’s 4 VHF tower frequencies [including clearance delivery] and 2 VHF Approach and Departures Radar frequencies.
Longbeach and the associated Radar Class D,E,B airspace compares with Broome and Karratha [and other Australian regional Towered airports] how EXACTLY?
Who is deliberately misleading who regarding proper US/Australia comparisons!
Part 139-airport class classification, has absolutely NOTHING to do with airspace determination.
Correct, however the overwhelming evidence proves that most RPT/PTO serviced airports servicing Part 121 >30 pax seat capacity aircraft in significant number in the US have CLASS C or B airspace associated. FACT!
Part 139 details airport specifications for airports wishing to serve air carrier operations. Simply put, Class 1 for Part 121 > 30 seats, Class 2 for Part 121 < 30 seats.
I’m glad you are finally acknowledging the fact.
Many class 1 airports serving high capacity RPT jets in the United States are in fact CTAF and Class E over D towered airports.
Wrong.
The busiest US Class D [
without Terminal Radar Service Area rules] with E above in the US in 2008 was:-
Joe Foss Field [FSD], Sioux Falls, South Dakota
FSD - Joe Foss Field Airport | SkyVector.com
It recorded
8,745 Air Carrier movements 2008
The Class D [Sioux Falls] is equipped with:-
SIOUX FALLS TOWER: 118.3 257.8
SIOUX FALLS GROUND: 121.9 348.6
SIOUX FALLS APPROACH: 125.8 126.9 267.9 353.6
SIOUX FALLS DEPARTURE: 125.8 126.9 267.9 353.6
F.S.S.: HURON
Sioux Falls Class D, E Radar airspace compares with Broome and Karratha [and other Australian regional Towered airports] how EXACTLY?
Who is deliberately misleading who regarding proper US/Australia comparisons!
I WILL REPEAT THIS FACT:
Class D towers alone in the US handled over 200,000 AIR CARRIER operations with over 10 million passengers.
Assuming your figures are accurate, a simple division of the number of Class D [including those with TRSA] that have any Air Carrier [including those
smaller than 30 pax seat capacity] which is around 140 smaller airports according to the FAA. They move on average
1,428 Air Carrier Op’s [Turbo-prop and piston mostly] each per year
Your post compares some of our bigger airports that have similar aircraft movements to ones in the United States. It shows admirably that we have Class C appropriately allocated to these busy airports when compared to the U.S. Well done.
That’s the point, most of the Australian towered airports servicing Hi-Cap RPT are moving the same numbers of these aircraft as US Airports protected by Class B or Class C airspace [as well as all the other services such as radar and TRACON]
Here is another accurate comparison, like for like as you say.
Broome CTAF
36,162 movements, Aprx 410,000 pax 2007 (CASA aeronautical study)
Eagle/Vail non radar, E over D
36,417 movements 430,686 pax 2008 (FAA/ KEGE airport)
Pretty similar aren’t they?
Not really
Eagle County Regional
EGE - Eagle County Regional Airport | SkyVector.com
Airport
6548 feet AMSL [
Class D up to A090AMSL and a bit]
Most Air Carrier during winter [VFR moves during Winter would be?]
Much of Eagle’s movements are Mil helo training below 1,000ft AGL [see airport notes bottom of the linked page]
They record the Air Carrier/Commercial moves for 2009 as
2,724
The FAA record the Air Carrier moves for 2008 as
3,352
AND;
CLSD TO UNSKED ACR OPNS WITH MORE THAN 30 PSGR SEATS EXCP PPR CALL AMGR
Broome
Has no winter [VFR reductions] or altitude/topography limitations
Air Transport moves as at 30 June 2009 of
13,300 [all year round]
Your Pax figures for Eagle include all operations, not just Scheduled Air Carrier. Broome numbers are for Air Carrier only. Big difference wouldn’t you say.
Notwithstanding the above differences, the biggest difference:-
ATIS: 135.575
AWOS-3: 135.575 Tel. 970-524-7386
EAGLE TOWER: 119.8
EAGLE GROUND: 121.8
CLEARANCE DELIVERY: 124.75
EAGLES NEST: 41.75
CTAF: 119.800
AWOS-3 at 5SM (25.1 SW): 126.075 970-384-3380
ATIS at ASE (25.3 S): 120.4
AWOS-3 at 20V (35.5 NE): 118.425 970-724-9659
Remarks:
• COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDED BY DENVER RADIO ON FREQ 122.2 (EAGLE RCO).
• APCH/DEP SVC PRVDD BY DENVER ARTCC ON FREQS 128.65/282.2 (KREMMLING RCAG).
• CLEARANCE DELIVERY PRVDD BY DENVER ARTCC ON FREQ 124.75 WHEN ATCT CLSD.
One in, one out service??
The two examples you cite
mjbow are about as similar as Howler monkeys and Minky whales
One country's airspace has been assigned on the basis of a scientific Cost Benefit Analysis. Can you guess which one?
Airspace requires a little bit more than a guess. How about you ask the CASA if they have a design safety case furnished from the FAA for US Class D. In the meantime, do you disagree with the numerous Aeronautical Study/Airspace reviews conducted in recent months on Australian Regional Towered Airports? That’s scientific!
Projected cost of lives lost over 15 years (at Aprx USD $1m per life) divided by the cost of saving those lives by upgrading the airspace. Obviously the cost of upgrading the Eagle airports class D to Class C is significantly less than 1 when divided into the projected cost loss of lives.
An admirable attempt at to appear well informed, and reasonable. As already discussed, Eagle County, due lack of VFR traffic during winter, the fact that the class D reaches almost to A100 due airport elevation, and the lack of Scheduled Air Carrier when VFR are likely to be operating [summer] would make it somewhat unique as far as airspace management needs go. I suppose that is why you have twice tried unsuccessfully to put it forward as an example to be followed in Australia.
Why you rant on and on about TRSA surrounding class D in the U.S. is perplexing. The first TRSA was established back in the early 1980’s prior to the FAA using the ICAO class A-G airspace classification and prior to the FAA adopting their current scientific Cost Benefit Analysis.
I don’t rant
mjbow, just provide the factual information to those who would otherwise be ‘mislead’. Class D was the category implanted within TRSA. It is a fact that if you compare the locations that had TRSA at the time of alphabet airspace inception, many have been reclassified to class B or C.
Last but not least. By jove
mjbow, I think you have finally worked it out. You said today:-
Some class D airports get upgrade to class C only after a Cost Benefit Analysis has been performed weather there is an existing radar facility (TRSA) or not. Just like Class C airspace will be upgraded to Class B when traffic levels justify it.
Quote of the day – that is two in two days for you chaps!
Proper process is what the industry in Australia is demanding. Safety Case, Cost benefit analysis, what a great idea.! Amazingly, you agree!
