Maybe I can add some insight.
The new approaches at TWB are not designed or owned by AsA. As they are 'new' designs they must be completely MOS173 compliant. The rules MOS173 basically state that procedures have to be either a)completely within or b)completely outside controlled/restricted airspace....clearly on RWY11 this is not possible without a significant offset (read operationally useless) The only way the procedure was allowed by CASA was with that restriction. (My opinion is who ever wrote the MOS, had no idea what they were doing....it's just not practical)
The previous versions were published pre introduction of MOS173. Rest assured AsA had also been informed that if our procedure stays it would also require that restriction.
The restriction can only be lifted by an exemption and that is going to require a complex safety case. The safety mitigator would normally be that the procedure conflicts are within OK airspace and can be monitored/controlled by them. In this instance OK have stated they are not prepared to do this any longer.
I will defend OK here. They have been very accommodating for a long time. They got told they would lose their airspace to accommodate Wellcamp. With the significant increase in traffic that Wellcamp will bring they were well within their rights to request that mil and civ ops be segregated. With 3 airports only 8nm from each othe,r and pointed at each othe,r someone was going to lose out. It was always going to be Toowoomba. John Wagner can say what he likes now, but the original concept assumed TWB would be closed.
The result is probably one of the most complex pieces of airspace in that region anyway...it was already complex enough.
I wouldn't go blaming Defence too much for the outcome. The outcome has more to do with a progressive business man doing battle with a set of outdated rules and a regulator that doesn't understand their intent nor can give guidance on better solutions.
Last edited by alphacentauri; 3rd Dec 2014 at 08:52.