Interested readers might like some US examples to ponder whilst considering the like for like of the US NAS and Australia's Broome and Karratha
Class C airspace [one of the quieter ones]
SPI - Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport | SkyVector
RADAR Tower, RADAR Approach
Statistics collected for 12 month period ending 2008-12-31
Single Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 133
Multi-Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 29
Jet Aircraft Based on Field: 6
Helicopters Based on Field: 2
Military Aircraft Based on Field: none
Gliders Based on Field: none
Ultralights Based on Field: none
Annual Commercial Operations:
46
Annual Commuter Operations: none
Annual Air Taxi Operations: 8012
Annual Military Operations: 3280
Annual GA Local Operations: 9141
Annual GA Itinerant Operations: 16419
Full RADAR Class C services, why is CASA not following the reference system [US NAS] and applying the model as used at Abe Lincoln Capital?
OK, lets find some Class D and E examples:-
Class D and E Airspace [one of the busiest
with Commercial operations]
MSO - Missoula International Airport | SkyVector
RADAR Tower, RADAR Approach
Statistics collected for 12 month period ending 2009-12-31
Single Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 92
Multi-Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 20
Jet Aircraft Based on Field: 11
Helicopters Based on Field: 14
Military Aircraft Based on Field: none
Gliders Based on Field: none
Ultralights Based on Field: none
Annual Commercial Operations:
4551
Annual Commuter Operations: none
Annual Air Taxi Operations: 9208
Annual Military Operations: 577
Annual GA Local Operations: 14216
Annual GA Itinerant Operations: 10665
Sounds promising? No, look at the AD elevation, and surrounding terrain LSALT’s
No, OK lets keep looking:-
Class D and E airspace [another example of busiest
with Commercial operations]
SWF - Stewart International Airport | SkyVector
RADAR Tower, Radar Approach
Statistics collected for 12 month period ending 2009-12-31
Single Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 8
Multi-Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 7
Jet Aircraft Based on Field: 26
Helicopters Based on Field: 8
Military Aircraft Based on Field: 31
Gliders Based on Field: none
Ultralights Based on Field: none
Annual Commercial Operations:
2366
Annual Commuter Operations: none
Annual Air Taxi Operations: 8485
Annual Military Operations: 3017
Annual GA Local Operations: 8203
Annual GA Itinerant Operations: 16149
That last one looks promising? Oh dear, well not really -
RADAR Tower and RADAR Approach:-
Comparing all of the above to
Broome and
Karratha, the US examples [above] have:-
- Substantially less Air Transport operations
- Full RADAR Tower and Approach services
Compared to the two Australian airports in question
YBRM - 12 months to 30 June 2009
- Movements - 36,800
- Air Transport –
13,300
YPKA – 12 months to 30 June 2009
- Movements – 29.901
- Air Transport –
10,928
-
NO RADAR
- NO separate surveillance based Approach Services
- D tower with no surveillance
- D tower with unsurveilled Class E
- High level En-route Sectors providing unsurveilled Class E services to A045
The CASA model for YBRM and YPKA is US NAS compliant how exactly?
Even if surveillance was available [now or in future], the services at YBRM and YPKA [no dedicated approach services] and the airport traffic levels are not compatible to US style Class D and E. The most common application in the US [to these sorts of airports] is
Class C
Mr Smith, perhaps you could provide us with a US example of:-
- A 'small zone unsurveilled Class D [with or without unsurveilled tower Class E]
- With unsurveilled Class E above [centre, not dedicated approach]
- That is even close to the conditions apparent at YBRM or YPKA i.e. similar figures and infrastructure as listed above.