Australia can take action against a VH-registered aircraft for things done anywhere.
Creamie,
You know that is not strictly legally correct, once an Australian aircraft is outside Australia's territorial limits.
----- such as Creampuff, who clearly have substantially more knowledge of Australian aviation law than you guys sure have?
Gerry 111,
Creampuff and I have known each other for a long time, whilst I respect his legal (and other) opinions, I do not always agree, and he is not always right. As to the B.M mentioned, he is a man of brilliant intellect, with substantial legal studies behind him, not to mention many years of experience in the field of contentious air law, it would be a brave man, lawyer or not, who took him on head to head.
As to why I don't put my views to a practical test as suggested, the answer is pragmatic. I simply do not have the funds to fight such a case through to the High Court, where it would at least get to leave to appeal.
I don't know what the starting price would be for the series of actions, but I should imagine something like $1.5M would barely cover it.
As to my views on airspace management, I have pretty wide experience, on a variety of aircraft, I know from personal experience just how third grade the Australian system is in practice, measured not just by the inefficient traffic handling, but the rather high rate of loss of separation incidents.
I simply do not buy the excuse that there are "cultural" differences in Australia that preclude fully ICAO compliant airspace management, as per US, Canada or western Europe, "working" in Australia.
Indeed, ever Australian pilot I have ever met, and who has actually done some GA flying in US, marvel at how simple, straightforward and pleasurable it is.
And a world where
"clearance not available, remain clear of controlled airspace" is unheard of. And anybody who tells you it is only because of radar coverage doesn't know what they are talking about.
Our RAAF ATC could really learn something from the RAF, whose approach to civil traffic is exemplary, including the volume of R or P airspace, compared to the "Australian experience".
Tootle pip!!
PS: Remember recently, how fast CASA was to enforce the effect of Australia's territorial limits on AOC holders, demanding "international" AOCs for anybody operating outside the 12 mile limit, including to some islands in the Torres Straight, and some direct tracking, but conveniently ignoring SID/STAR routes that are outside said 12 miles.