The implication in some posts is that Australia is 'unique.' That we need to grow up and conform to 'world's best practice' whatever the hell that is. Australia's 'greatest aviator' also pushes the same line and transparency of argument goes out the window because of what I regard as half-truths that are peddled at the altar of convenient argument.
From Leady, whose an otherwise nice bloke:
We continue to publish purported restricted military training areas outside Australia's continental limit, which have absolutely no legal standing, but it is the same arrogance as displayed by "username here" that is the basis of why we continue to do so.
The implication there 'Leady,' old fruit, is that we are the only ones that impose these restrictions on civil traffic offshore. I wouldn't mind if your argument was watertight, but it ain't.
Check out Canadian AIP and associated charts for over-water airspace outside the territorial limit off its east coast. It's Class F with the addendum that 'clearance is required.'
Similarly with NZ. In 2004, NZ CAA published an 'Airspace Handbook' that allowed free-for-all movement through offshore MOAs promulgated for military activity. That's the ideal world according to the zealots.
In 2008, the NZ CAA, a
civil agency BTW, republished the Handbook with the addendum on offshore MOAs that 'clearance is required.' Why? Because they realised that unfettered access in amongst military activity was just plain dumb.
I don't mind the zealotry as regards airspace. But I would like to see fact as opposed to what I regard as half-truths in support of arguments that lend the impression that Australia is 'unique' when it comes to airspace management.
Half-truths have been the weapons of convenience for the zealots during, and since, that disaster called NAS.
Tootle-Pip!