Nice pick-up
Squawk6969.
Unfortunately your observations are yet another 'inconvenient truth' that will just be ignored.
I get ignored as well. Why are people so unkind?
As regards the YMAV study, the subsequent one (2009) said this:
The potential conflict risk area identified in the previous Avalon Aeronautical Study remained. This area was identified as an area to the North of Avalon where VFR aircraft travelling East and West had the potential to conflict with IFR PT aircraft arriving and departing Avalon (approximately 8 to 12 NM North of the aerodrome). Airspace changes proposed in the ACP will assist in mitigating this conflict risk. Barriers to this threat include surveillance and monitoring of the airspace by air traffic control, airspace design measures to provide IFR/VFR segregation; and ACAS protection.
Given that the implementation of Class C, after the 2008 study, addressed the problem, all I can conclude in regard to the E over D is that this was a predetermined outcome, and that the facts have been manipulated to support that
pre-determined outcome. In short, the 2009 report alleges that a problem still exists, whereas action, post the 2008 study (Class C), mitigated a risk that no longer exists.
From my perspective, to allege that the risk still exists (when it has already been mitigated by Class C) and that Class E over D will fix it, is a pre-meditated effort to support a pre-determined outcome - and a duplicitous exercise on the part of the OAR.
Just my opinion.