Peuce
Who or what has changed your mind? For a while there you were actually supporting common sense use of radar and dare I say it, Dick Smith.
As for a CBA-
not one scientifically validated Cost benefit Analysis has been done for C over D. Not one! If it were you could NOT assign a lower level of risk mitigation (Class D) in the highest risk area and then put a higher level of risk mitigation (Class C) where the risk is actually less. Its a remarkably simple concept Peuce and I know you understand it but you push a fundamentalist line that can only survive if you ignore the truth.
Howabout
I just do not understand your slavish adherence to an airspace classification that relies on chance when it comes to IFR/VFR separation.
You Class E deniers have never objected to the vast swathes of Class G we fly though hundreds of times to get to airports like Balina and Proserpine etc. Your fairytale belief system however says it would be inherently unsafe if we turned it into Class E. Remarkable insanity!
The chaser
1. DickNAS .... Class E over little D; or
2. USNAS .... Class C or B
As those are the two options in real life.
As has been demonstated in proper Aerostudies of late
,
Interesting you did not refer to these 'proper Aerostudies' as scientific Cost Benefit Analysis'.
What an astonishing thing to say. So you would you support US NAS Class C at Launceston and Hobart. That’s fantastic. Both Class C and B have class E surrounding and above them.
I would fully agree to having Class C at these airports, as long as it was supported by a scientifically validated CBA.
3. Australian/ICAO C over D is safe, efficient and not in need of change ask some of the crews who operate through on a regular basis if they think C over D (done from the tower) is less than best.
I am one of the crews that operate at C over D. Every single pilot I fly with hate them. We cannot fathom why all this reporting of altitude an distance etc is required when there is a perfectly good radar that could be used. Its insanity.
If you really believe giving the tower huge amounts of airspace so they can
procedurally separate then why don’t we use procedural separation at Sydney and Melbourne etc. It’s obvious, the busier an airport gets the harder it is to procedurally separate. The fact is that radar separation is far more efficient than procedural
Dog one
Could you enlighten us unworthy pilots how radar would have prevented the Hotham accident.
What is different about the airmiss between the 737 and A320, and the 737 and the light aircraft. The death toll in the former would have been about 180.
Dog one its obvious had there been Class E on descent to Hotham, the pilot would never have been allowed to fly off course to the approach IAF. This has been pointed out many times before.
You Class E deniers never mention that there was actually no chance of collision with the Tobago in Launceston as the Tobago pilot had seen and avoided the 737.
Dog one, How about this for common sense! The difference between Karratha, Broome and Tasmania is the mountainous terrain in Tassie and there is outstanding surveillance there already so why not use it properly.
Freedom 7
Who is going to issue the Landing clearance/MA? - ML Radar
Are you for real? Who normally issues a landing clearance at a CTAF? No one, Its a CTAF! You fundamentalists will launch any specious obfuscation possible to muddy the waters without actually thinking about what you're saying.
And Capn Bloggs is still spruiking the same old line
The other big issue is ATC control of an IFR that also has to manage a CTAF arrival. That will unnecessarily increase risk.
You don't get to make up facts.
Bloggs, Freedom 7 instead of letting your imagination run wild, just ask how it works. They have been doing it with the NAS airspace for years in the United States. Clearly neither of you have any experience with the proposed airspace.