LeadSled
Because of the way Australian law has been constructed
And whose fault would that be?
ATC persons here are at much greater personal and professional legal risk than in many countries
Not if proper process and ICAO rules sets are followed i.e. G that was G, F that was F, E that was E [and only used where invisaged in SARP's], and D that was D [not the scramble for GAAPism's so the GAAP's don't come to a stand still because of their proximity to Primaries] and GAAP was GAAP with the same protections that existed for ATC in that environment ... all gone!
with which we would compare ourselves.
There is no comparision with the mess you amateurs have created. A bit like the 'Show Cause' system
My reference to Civilair was not a mistake.
I'm sure it was not. The fact that your reference was wrong is the important bit
and the asserted liability (as opposed to real world liability) had been a very effective political/industrial line from Civilair since the 1980s, despite more recent favorable High Court judgments around liability issues.
Give us one example of the controllers association asserting anything other than reality [with regards to airspace services]. WRT Liability, the ANSP interpretation is EXACTLY the same interpretation as the high court in Australia.
In the US, liability of FAA or individual controllers is a non-issue, just as Rec. pilots are a non-issue in E.
Yes, and only the deaf, dumb and blind would not see the difference in infrustructure, service rules [US pilot collision avoidance responsibility in VMC in ALL classes of airspace], and airspace and ATM regulatory differences between the two.
I understand why you and
Mr Smith [past form] would want to push the 'industrial' line [run outa puff and fluff on everything else] so:-
Show ONE example of what you are accusing the ATC association of!
As for
All Government policy making is political, that's how the system works, and always has done.
Nice try, but again no Cigar. This is not about policy, the policy is clear [as reported and linked in this thread], this is about abuse of process and political interference in policy adherence and legislated process. We could perhaps couch that as re-election expediency
If you cannot see the difference, then perhaps you have pulled your Tootle Pip one too many times
