Lead,
In my opinion, you are dead-set wrong and I suspect you know it. From where I stand you are perpetuating myth old chap; but nice try at obfuscation when there's no supporting facts. You state as follows:
Howabout,
A wider agenda? It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model.
The Airspace Act 2007 states the following:
The Minister must make a statement (the Australian Airspace
Policy Statement).
Note: Generally, CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions
in a manner consistent with the statement: see section 11A of the Civil
Aviation Act 1988.
My underlining.
The Act has absolutely no reference to US NAS; nothing, nada, zip!
Let's look at the Airspace Regulations 2007:
Not a single reference to US NAS. Jeez, this is getting really frustrating; I was sure I'd have found a reference by now, going on your post.
On to the Airspace Policy Statement. There's this little gem:
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.
And, finally, it does actually include a reference to US NAS as follows:
The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government's airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.
Is this all you are hanging your hat on Lead? Say it isn't so Joe (for baseball fans). 'Considered and implemented
if appropriate!'
Furthermore, I refer you to the line
'Such as the..' What does that entail? How does that compel us to slavishly introduce US airspace?
If you follow the thrust of the full statement, the US NAS is being used as an
example, not the epitomy of 'international best practice.' Indeed, the way this
singular reference to NAS is phrased, the Outer Mongolian system could be implemented if it constituted 'best practice;' or, possibly, the superior Lapland system; hell, even that employed in Borat's home country could be considered. You could insert any system, any country, in those brackets and it would not mean a thing as regards government direction - other than the OAR
considering the merits of other international systems.
Lead, are you seriously telling me that this is all you've got to go on? That the identified sections of the Act, Regulations and Policy Statement seriously and unequivocally mandate US NAS airspace?
In short buddy (US terminology) there is
absolutely nothing that supports your contention that either Act, Regulation or Policy Statement give credence to your argument. In particular, your claim that:
It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model
Lead, assertions, particularly assertions that have the potential to affect the safety of
'passenger transport services,' which remain the
'government priority,' cannot be based on such thin (non-existent) justification.
In short, there is nothing in the Act, Regulations or Policy Statement that supports your contention that US NAS must be the Australian end-state.
Nice try though; but you get an F.
In the interests of even-handedness, I'd be happy to hear your response.