Once again, and once again, Leady, and in reference to your quote, check out Canadian AIP and associated charts. There's Class F out there off the NE coast, and outside the 12 nm limit. It's designated D and Class F, with the rider that 'clearance is required.'
My principal reference was to Class F, not D, if I have not worded my message adequately clearly, I apologize. A "clearance" in Class F, for all aircraft, means one of two things, either it is not Class F, or somebody is not understanding the definition of Class F. Civil airspace designations are not appropriate for military training operations, where R, P or W is appropriate. There is no issue about a state declaring civil airspace designations in international airspace, over which it has jurisdiction, but mil. airspace is a different issue.
Again, my primary remarks were about Australian R beyond the 12 mile limit, the proper designation for an MOA beyond the 12 mile limit is a Warning Area, W.
The US treatment of such airspace is the best example I know, of a country complying precisely with the relevant treaties.
As those of you who are ex-military may or may not know, the US Navy, from time to time, conducts air exercises in airspace that Australia declares as R, but never requests any kind of "permission" from Australia. They very politely advise of their intentions, but they do not "request a clearance" The legal framework is exactly the same as US naval operations in the South China Sea, claimed as territorial waters by RP China. The US Navy does not ask Chinese permission to sail ( or fly) these waters, outside the RP China 12 mile limit.
Fortunately, aviation is not a democracy, if a majority think something that is wrong, is right, they are still wrong, the majority does not rule in this case.
Jeezus, just like God's gift to aviation you continue to ignore the inconvenient truths.
An just what inconvenient truths would they be, pray tell??
You also conveniently ignored my previous reference to NZ offshore MOAs requiring clearance.
Same comment applies, the airspace should be designated as W. The demand for a "clearance" has no legal validity. Maybe the NZ cousins are taking a leaf out of the Australian bureaucratic lexicon, fortunately something that they do not generally do in aviation matters. Just what airforce has NZ got, that it needs extensive MOAs offshore, I wonder.
And, as I've said before, this has buggered rational debate - zealotry that chooses to ignore fact to push a barrow.
We should start with the facts, and the facts are, in this case, and it is quite clear legally, R and P areas outside the 12 mile limit ( it can be still 3 miles in some areas of the world - depending on who has signed -- or not -- which treaty) has no legal validity.
Amazing, "pushing a barrow" for efficient airspace usage, proper risk assessment and management of Australia airspace for the benefit of all, is somehow "zealotry.
What am I supposed to accept, that Australia continues to blunder along (been reading any Senate Hansard recently??) with significant segments of the aviation population seriously disadvantaged as a result ----- because this is the "Australian way".
If the debate is around fictional straw men, it is an irrational debate, far too much "discussion" about airspace matters in Australia is irrational, because rational risk management is usually ignored, in favour of "no change" because "that's what we have always done" and the continued claims that, because of some kind of "cultural differences" to UK, western Europe, US, Canada, NZ etc., what "works" -- ie ICAO compliance in spirit, not by notifications of differences) "won't work here".
Tootle pip!!
International Conventions, like the Chicago Convention (happy birthday) bind countries, not people.
Laws bind people.
Creamie,
Would you like to comment on how the Commonwealth makes laws for aviation, given that aviation is not mentioned in the constitution, the relevance of the Commonwealth's treaty making powers, and just what is the Commonwealth's power to establish such as CASA, as a result of such treaties, and not a direct power under the constitution.