I don't think the Office of Airspace Regulation actually exists!
The Minister's Australian Airspace Policy Statement is a legislative instrument and says:
The Office of Airspace Regulation
5 CASA will exercise its airspace authority on the advice of an Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), which will be a distinct operational unit of CASA.
So let's have a look at the CASA Corporate Structure Diagram to see if it exists and where it fits in:
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...sational-chart
Funny, NO OAR on the chart.
But there is text version too............. NO, not there either.
What about in the CASA Annual Report for 2019-2020?
Lots of good stuff about what fine people the Board are but at pages 84 and 85 there is the Corporate Structure.
Guess what, NO, NO OAR.
Oh, try searching the index? Nope, still no entry for the OAR.
OK, No evidence of OAR existence, how about some evidence of somebody somewhere doing some of the things OAR is legally obliged to do?
Going back to the Ministers Policy Statement:
Airspace Reporting
52 CASA will provide advice on the major initiatives and priorities of the OAR in their corporate plan including those covering the Government’s policy objectives outlined in Paragraphs 34 to 42.
This is getting boring but we can find CASA's Corporate Plan for 2020-2021 here:
https://www.casa.gov.au/publications...plan-2020-2021
Nowhere in the CASA Corporate Plan does CASA provide advice on the major initiatives and priorities of the OAR, so it is a reasonable assumption that they have nothing to advise upon - or that they do not exist to provide advice?
The CASA Corporate Plan 2020-2021 dated 3rd December 2020 does not anywhere appear to mention the Office of Airspace Regulation directly but does contain the following words in the
Minister’s Statement of Expectations
(Not
advice from CASA as is required):
f. work with my Department and Airservices Australia on modernising airspace management, including, as the regulator, leading the development of a national strategic airspace plan which articulates a regulatory narrative on controlled airspace.
Which seems at odds with the Airspace Statement provision:
13 CASA has sole responsibility for the regulation of the design of all Australian-administered airspace.
I can only think of one other way to see if OAR exists: Is there any evidence of somebody somewhere doing the tasks laid down by the Minister for OAR to execute:
From of the Minister's Statement 5 :......
Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration and the OAR must approach the development of its advice on airspace regulation on the same basis.
34 The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations. Airspace administration should also seek to deliver good safety outcomes to all aviation participants.
35 The Government expects that CASA will continue to review Australia’s airspace as required and continue to move towards closer alignment with the ICAO system and adoption of proven international best practice.
44 This legislative framework enables CASA to examine and determine future Australian airspace requirements and has established that safety of air navigation is the most important consideration.
And finally from the Minister's Statement of Expectations of CASA;
3. Regulatory Approach
I expect CASA will continue its regulatory
approach, in accordance with its regulatory philosophy, with:
a. a focus on aviation safety as the highest priority;
FACTS:
The USA and most of the developed world has an ATC service which SEPARATES all aircraft who can not separate themselves because they are in IMC.
Australia does not.
Leaving aircraft who can not separate themselves because they are in IMC is
NOT world's best practice nor is it regarding aviation safety as having any priority let alone highest priority.
Passenger Transport aircraft operating in IMC get no greater safety separation than any other aircraft in similar airspace contrary to 34 above.
The notion that providing an aircraft flying in IMC with traffic information on other aircraft which by definition are close enough to be in confliction in circumstances where the pilot(s) can not do anything with that information is not adding to safety, it is actually a derogation of safety by distracting the pilot from the immediate safety tasks.
A pilot flying an instrument approach is legally unable to change the track of the aircraft because of a (proper) regulation requiring such approach to be flown in accordance with the chart. Climbing but still laterally following the track may be permitted.
The notion that a pilot flying any complex instrument procedure has the ability to get out a map, evaluate traffic information, and decide a suitable avoidance manoeuvre is a nonsense; indeed most GA cockpits are too narrow to spread out a full WAC chart whilst still flying the aircraft.
Traffic information to an aircraft in IMC is not world's best practice, nor is it helpful for conflict avoidance.
CONCLUSION:
Whilst CASA documentation contains no evidence of the actual existence of an Office of Airspace Regulation,
that office if it does exist is not performing the functions laid down for it by the Minister,
nor is it reporting/providing advice on its future workload and priorities in the CASA Corporate Plan.
So CASA if you allege I am wrong, then republish your Corporate Structure to show where OAR exists, who runs it and who she reports to.
- and perhaps start doing the things you are charged with doing.