Leadsled, this is a piece of legislation that should be repealed or tested in the High Court. This enabled Linfox to charge for approach practice at AV. Have always thought it contravened the Navigation Act. Least I think it was that act that allowed the Feds the sole right to legislate wrt aviation.
Oz,
An interesting situation, indeed. The Commonwealth Constitution does not cover aviation, aviation is states rights, and there is a fascinating (if you are interested in that sort of thing) history of court cases, through to the High Court. Google Goya Henry.
The Air Navigation Act gives effect to Australia signing the "Chicago Convention", based on the Commonwealth's powers to sign treaties (S51(i) ??), but that is limited to matters covered in that treaty.
An example is often quoted: The convention makes no reference to airshows, there for the Commonwealth (CASA) has no power to regulate airshows. As far as I know, this proposition has never been tested. It has also been claimed that the Commonwealth's corporations powers can be extended to cover aviation, but I do not know if this has ever been tried.
There are significant recent sections of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 that are bluff, but who can afford to take CASA to the High Court?
CASA has no powers of commercial regulation, not withstanding CAR 206.
All the above is a bit of an over simplification, but you get the drift.
Tootle pip!!