Le Ping The E over D at Broome and Avalon is clearly not for ideological reasons.
It follows an objective risk criteria.
Le Ping. You support C over D at Launceston because you believe that's what we had before and as per the original post quoting PM Billy Hughes you resist change in every way you can.
The airspace at Launceston is clearly upside down. Or reversed.
It's obvious that the collision risk in link airspace is far lower than airspace close to the runway.
The C would clearly be safer if it was adequately manned. This is not so in Launceston. Some of the C is controlled by the tower controller which means attention has to be taken away from the higher risk circuit and runway operations.
If putting C above D could improve safety at no extra cost other countries would have copied this by now.
Le Ping. You should learn that safety costs money and it's not possible to get something for nothing.
I have spoken to FAA Air Traffic Control experts about the system you so strongly support. They say the allocation of the airspace simply shows an incompetent resistance to change.
If it's so good why is there not one other country in the world with this type of reversed airspace?
To quote and paraphrase " What Hughes identified was the extraordinary resistance to change of most Australians- they are hostile to almost any change"