mjbow
I simply cannot accept Civil Air's position that Class C costs no more to staff and run than Class E. This is the most preposterous claim imaginable.
Not preposterous at all. Existing class D and C towers utilise the same number of tower staff [for each specific location] whether they have overlying C to A085 or not. Simply put, the workload in the D is such that the additional C is no impost or saturation risk, particularly when having that approach/departures airspace enables the tower to ‘tactical plan with out the additional workload associated with a separate remote controller [either en-route or approach/departures] that requires a dialogue between tower and centre or TRACON for every movement, more importantly, assignment of separation responsibility where a conflict occurs close to the boundary of the airspace parcels.
Simply put combined tower/approach reduces complex co-ordination in the terminal area, which reduces time lost to other tasks [scanning, separation, VHF], and removes the ability of a ‘combined’ controller to tactically plan traffic solutions, enact them, and re-evaluate, monitor, re-evaluate in quick time without having to bring an adjoining controller in to the thought process and agreement loop.
The other side of this equation is of course the workload, training and co-ordination complexity for the overlying airspace controller [en-route or approach] who, in Australia will not be a TRACON/approach controller, rather a sector en-route controller with huge swathes of high level CTA, OCTA FIS and related workload already.
If you add low level Terminal area CTA to these airspace services, it is not rocket science to understand the exponential increase in diversity of responsibility, complexity, and most importantly possibility for distraction/error or otherwise unnecessary delays. This no reflection on the en-route controllers in Australia who are already providing very complex, busy and non-stop[listen to their frequencies on any given day] ATS services from the surface CTAF’s at KickaBobalong through to vector sequencing, time and speed control, STAR delivery etc into arrivals airspace to capital cities.
Surely you can see that if we put 10 VFR flights a day into the airspace surrounding an airport we might be able to do it for the same cost. But when we put 100 or 1000 into the same space the work load and cost will inevitably increase.
Of course it will Notwithstanding the first answer in this post, the thing you Nastronauts seem incapable of understanding, is that the volume of traffic is part of what determines the classification, the primary driver is passenger transport volume, and all of those aside, what determines the ‘appropriate’ classification to service the previous mentioned is of course the ATS infrastructure.
- Tower [how many frequencies and operating positions are necessary]
- Terminal area control CTA [can it be done from the tower, if not how many terminal area positions are needed remotely] etc etc
- Is surveillance available? Is it required?
I can say with a high degree of certainty:-
If the terminal area traffic above the tower zone is too busy and/or complex for the tower to manage, then it will certainly be orders of magnitude worse [incompatible] for a remote en-route sector
If Civil Air were right then the FAA could [U]divide up their enroute Class E into tiny sectors[/U, reclassify it Class C and employ thousands more controllers at no extra cost
A ridiculous analogy. The discussion for Australia is not about
dividing up existing airspace volumes, it is about establishing tower services, and separately how best to service the climb and descent areas associated.
Done by the tower? E or C = same number of tower staff!
Done by the Centre? E or C = same number of en-route staff? Maybe not!
It is possible that the TMA airspace above A045 – A085 [if done remotely] will require console positions in the centres be split irrespective of E or C [due the IFR/IFR separation and co-ordination complexity].
The reduction in VFR responsibility in E [via remote centre] is not outweighed when compared with the tower applied C option. Nor is the risk mitigation anywhere even close to that of local tower controllers with local TMA knowledge. Centre based Class E in climb and descent areas above busy ICAO D towers does not fly from a safety, efficiency, or cost point of provision points of view.
The biggest issue I have with enroute Class C over D is that if the risk of collision at Broome is such that Class D is justified, how can a higher classification of risk mitigation (Class C) be justified in the areas further away from the airport where the risk of collision actually drops significantly?
Quite apart from all of the other cost of provision and safety advantages discussed in this thread:-
Services application - C or D over D - Further out, larger lateral ‘separation standard’ options exist. In other words it is easier, safer and with less opportunity for short notice [no tactical options] ‘surprise’ factor of Class E. The pilot-to-pilot-to-ATC impact of additional frequency loading [chatter involved with self separation] with class E is a safety negative to adjoining services [en-route or tower as the case maybe] that should not be underestimated.