Sunfish said:
Who is going to take responsibility for Marree considering the amount of tourist traffic it gets in a flood year?
You can comfortably assume that the volume of tourist traffic will remain the same, whether or not details of Marree are published in AIP.
You may be labouring under a misconception. Who do you think “takes responsibility” now? Marree’s already uncertified and doesn’t have a NOTAM service, so it’s effectively been ‘use at own risk’ and check suitability in advance, for a long time.
Marree’s one of many good examples of why Part 175 is an over-kill. I guarantee that Marree’s actual location and actual elevation won’t change much, whether or not those details appear in AIP. If some ‘criminal’ told Airservices that the elevation of Marree is 1,164’ rather than the currently-published 164’, and the erroneous 1,164’ were published in AIP, do you reckon it would rain aluminium? Would you keep trying to land on a non-existent runway at 1,164’ that you can see 1,000’ below you until you ran out of fuel, or would you land on the runway?
I’d probably land on the runway...