James Chan wrote:But if it's the same size then it shouldn't matter as much?
Existing towered fields get a Class D CTR and existing AFIS and AGCS fields get a RMZ in Class G or E?
You're trying to convert the UK system to the American system again.
Why have anything other than a Class 'G' ATZ because an aircraft transitting an ATZ has to
follow rules which effectively make that airspace almost the same as Class 'D'.
I'll now resurrect my 'old' idea; any airfield whether civil or military and having a CAA or MAA approved iap published in the relevant AIP should be given an ATZ 5nm radius up to 3,000ft above airfield elevation thus providing 'protection' for its own IFR traffic and also getting rid of the stupid anomoly of the MATZ (as it's only applicable to military aircraft it can be consigned to the bin). Establishment of Class D CTRs instead would require CTAs linking the CTRs with the national airways system, whereas with this idea, the airspace would remain Class G.
VFR only airfields (civil and military) to continue with the present ATZ system and the regulations for ATZ transits in all cases to remain as nowadays.
This would then provide MNC for MPE. (Minimum Necessary Change for Maximum Possible Effect if you read science fiction)