LeadSled
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
Mischievous at best!
The summary [on page 10] at the below link, sums up the Legislation, process and expectations.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post5589697
The US NAS is
not ’the model’
As to appropriate "processes" to justify any particular airspace design, again refer to ICAO compliant methods of justification, I don't really think there has been any lack of "process" in the OAR, just because the answer doesn't come out as a few of you believe it should, does not mean the processes are deficient or absent.
If the processes are not deficient or absent, where is the ‘publically’ available safety work for the information and consultation with industry stakeholders? I challenge you to post anything remotely resembling these ‘required’ documents. An ACP for Broome and Karratha at 1 minute to midnight [so to speak] is not proper process, particularly when
the ACP clearly ignores the YBRM, YPKA, and all other 'like type' Airspace studies, and the mitigations explicit in the Instruments.
Further, the CASA instruments [date 13 Nov 2009] for both Broome and Karratha make no mention of Class E, only
Class D
Broome
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...casaoar192.pdf
Subsequent determination foreshadowed
Subsequent phases will include designing and finalising the classification, in consultation with AA, of relevant airspace and control zones, and the preparation of a Determination of airspace and controlled aerodromes etc to be issued on 18 November 2010 embodying the full details of the new arrangements.
and;
Karratha
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...casaoar193.pdf
Subsequent determination foreshadowed
Subsequent phases will include designing and finalising the classification, in consultation with AA, of relevant airspace and control zones, and the preparation of a Determination of airspace and controlled aerodromes etc to be issued on 18 November 2010 embodying the full details of the new arrangements.
Both instruments go on to say:-
Logistical requirements for publication and data distribution mean that airspace design and development work must be completed by June 2010
And;
Consultation
Consultation under section 17 of the LIA has been undertaken with AA. Before the arrangements for Broome [and separately] Karratha are finalised, relevant airspace users will be notified of the proposals and consulted about them. Any representations made by the users about the proposals will then be taken into account by CASA.
Thus the ACP recently closed.
Asked over and over again [not only on PPRuNE], where is the CBA and Risk analysis for E over D verses C or D over D? Particularly, if the final determination needs to be made and locked in by June 2010.
You seem to be the only ones that cannot or will not acknowledge this glaring omission.
Obviously I, for one, hope the OAR stick to their guns, and the intent of their enabling Act --- and not once again give in to possibly well intentioned but ill-informed sectional pressure groups.
3 Quotable quotes in 3 days. Not a bad effort from you three!
Howabout
Apologies for doubling up
... quite funny really
