Dick,
Well, you would say that ....
If the Class C is manned by an already overloaded Controller for the Class D airspace below, it is most likely that the safety of the total system will be reduced.
By that logic ... If the
Class E is manned by an already overloaded Controller for the Class D airspace below, is it also most likely that the safety of the total system will be reduced?
The experts say to me – and it seems to fit in with commonsense – that if an Air Traffic Controller’s concentration is taken away from where the collision risk is greatest, that an accident is more likely to happen.
By that logic ...would it not also be the case for the Class E Controller?
I am told by a small number of Air Traffic Controllers in Australia that in their case, they can handle the Class C airspace – at huge volumes – as well as the Class D airspace without any extra manning (normally just one Controller) and without any reduction in safety.
Well, of course, they would say that (to use the Mandy Rice-Davies defence), however I’d rather use commonsense and logic.
So, you'll believe your "experts", but not Australian Controllers?
I hope your "experts" aren't lying Controllers also?
As I’ve said, I support Class C airspace if it has a proper approach radar facility and adequate Controllers.
Why don't you also put that caveat on Class E airspace? Doesn't it need Controllers or facilities?