- The police have a number of powers that can be brought to bear, including giving directions to a member of the public, and control of vehicles on the ground, which includes aircraft
- I'm told the temporary restricted airspace was legally declared and published
- The airspace was requested and declared due to the scene incident, NOT for firefighting; in fact there was no restricted airspace declared due firefighting, there was (and still is) a general warning NOTAM about fire fighting and that is all;
- It was not a “car accident”. At the time of requesting the exclusion zone it would have been classed as a crime scene, due to the full circumstances of the deaths not being established at that early stage i.e. it could have involved a murder/suicide. The police were well within their rights to request that the scene be preserved.
- Helicopter downwash and people moving about can clearly disturb evidence.
If there are “questions being asked”, it is no doubt either by people who do not know the actual circumstances, or others who are sprung occasionally without adequate briefing. From time to time the latter thump the table demanding a review of the declaration of restricted airspace, so given Weipa and this one I would not be surprised if they show up again. Very few restricted airspace is declared for police matters (I’m told many requests are refused due to insufficient justification), and those that are, are subject to close scrutiny by the regulatory authority.
The media have always had the impression that restricted airspace is declared to keep them out, but evidence suggests that they rarely take the time to specifically ask the declaring authority - or in particular the arbiter - exactly why it has been declared, and what arrangements can be made for their access. Easier to grumble to others.
There is no getting around the fact that updates to briefing is required enroute, and someone going to an incident scene would clearly know or suspect that restricted airspace might have been imposed – so ask.