On-topic discussion:
I'm going to see the Kings, I reckon there may be a cup of tea in it for me. Another reason to go and a frustration I have with this septic procedural invasion is the difference between what the US documents say, and what ATC & operators do. Still not sure which we are getting. But anybody who doesn't go, and is bleating about any points they actually convince me on will recieve the full length of my tongue...
Off-topic discussion:
Galah - aircraft tells C/D airspace controller "ABC, I'm here buddy, wanna go there, um, that there level" (extract from draft AIP/SUP). Controller then has the option of saying "ABC" which the pilot takes as to approval to do as he said (no fr*gg*n readbacks required coz he's already said it) or still has the option "ABC, y'all remain outside this here control area and I'll get back t'ya" (another extract) or an alternate clearance if it will work better.
The difference in traffic moving between B and C airspace is buggar all. In C we separate VFR from IFR but only give traffic and don't separate VFR from other VFR. I've probably done this 5 times in a decade. The only advantage to B airspace is you get more volume where VFR require a clearance (US model) and the transponder veil. F*ck all difference for traffic moving.
custard - making all towers C airspace won't fix anything as implied clearances DO apply in C
Agree F would be nice, we've had it for 12 years, the powers to be just aren't game to hang the right tag on the airspace
Mr. Hat - Agree the NAS project has used up a lot of goodwill with crappy changes nobody uses. ******** Smith is obsessed with the multi-staged implementation plan from Airspace 2000 (he still has the education leaflet from that in his briefcase - I've seen it). On the other hand, to implement stage 4 with nothing prior would just not work. Too much for pilots and ATC to learn, too big a risk of complete failure. Personally I think stage 3 (with the retention of traffic in G,) would be a good end-state.