Just my take, but it seems the original report has been re-written subsequent to 'industry feedback' - I still have the original.
What is intriguing is a reference in the (apparently revised) report that lists the following feedback from 'industry' - for the life of me, I cannot imagine which section of 'industry' made the comment referenced below. It then goes on to record possible, future CASA options with respect to E over D. As follows:
That the study did not address the Governments policy to pursue reform of the airspace as detailed within the AAPS 2007. It was considered by the
respondent that the existing airspace design surrounding the aerodrome,
without adequate means of surveillance, was ineffective in addressing the
level of risk and that the study required further review to incorporate
comparison of the level of safety that Class E airspace might offer over
existing Class C airspace.
(My underlining and bolding)
And the CASA response (this is in the Executive Summary) is as follows. Keep reading, it gets interesting:
The opportunity to review the Alice Springs airspace architecture in
accordance with the AAPS 2007 remains. As detailed in the AAPS 2007
the Government requires CASA to assess the remaining United States
National Airspace System (NAS) Characteristics for application in
Australian airspace and determine an implementation plan. For Alice
Springs this broadly requires review of the safety benefit of existing Class
C airspace steps overhead Alice Springs versus possible reclassification
of those steps to Class E airspace. Below any proposed Class E airspace
the Class D control zone (CTR) would also be subject to review to a lower
level than currently exists......
Well, well, and to quote Gomer Pyle, SURPRISE! SURPRISE! (Sergeant Carter).
Now, bear in mind that this AS report was released in January this year and, it seems to me, amended to take account of 'industry feedback' some time later. I have absolutely no beef with that process - that goes to consultation and transparency.
However, the report was released in January and justifies the 'possible' reclassification of C over D, to E over a reduced D, based on the Airspace Policy Statement from 2007.
That statement was superseded by the statement effective from 1 January 2010, and released on 16 December 2009, which stated the following:
The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government's airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.
Nothing, nada, which says NAS
must be the end-state. Only that NAS must must be considered as part of the mix - French, German, NZ, Upper Volta, Ethiopia, etc, etc. It is merely an example in the 2010 document as to where we should look for 'best practice.'
My question is as follows:
Why does a CASA report, released in January 2010, and (it seems to me) subsequently amended, refer to the 2007 Airspace Policy Statement as the
authority when the Minister released a revised statement on 16 December 2009 that was
effective from 1 January 2010?
The CASA release date on their study is 21 January 2010, a good 5 weeks after the revised statement was released, yet the only reference to direction is the 2007 statement. There is not a mention of the 2010 statement.
I'll give you all another prediction. The first cab off the rank, in the interests of 'standardisation,' wont be AS; it will be YMAY. Why? Because it's regional, out of the way, and will be judged to cause the least grief to prove the 'concept.'