Geoff Fairless
13th Jul 2021, 05:12
The Department (not CASA, although OAR must have written it) has a paper on their website inviting feedback. I have tried to attach it, but the URL is below.
<https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/australian-airspace-policy/files/national-strategic-airspace-national-aviation-policy-issues-paper.pdf>
I do not know how long it has been there but this coming Friday 16th July is the cut-off for responses.
My opinion after the first reading is that the document is as confusing as is the current airspace. It seems very confused about the purpose of having airspace classes and what Australia is trying to achieve, apart from the AAPS reference to passenger transport aircraft. By it's reliance on reproducing so many possible iterations of airspace organisation (although it fails to mention the ADF R areas) for us to "choose" from demonstrates that both CASA and DIRD are very risk-averse. Clearly, they want someone else to choose so that they may claim that it was not either their fault or the Minister's fault
If I am correct in my, admittedly cynical, theory I would recommend that the Government simply re-adopts the decision made by Cabinet many, many years ago, to introduce the tried and trusted FAA model. I was there when we tried and now nearly 30 years later we are still stuck in the 1950s!
From the FAA web site:
Every day, the Federal Aviation Administration provides air traffic services to more than 45,000 flights and 2.9 million airline passengers traveling across the more than 29 million square miles that make up the U.S. national airspace system (NAS). (Australian Airspace is approximately 26.5 million square miles)
The NAS is a network of both controlled and uncontrolled airspace, both domestic and oceanic. It also includes air navigation facilities, equipment and services; airports and landing areas; aeronautical charts, information and services; rules and regulations; procedures and technical information; and manpower and material.
<https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/australian-airspace-policy/files/national-strategic-airspace-national-aviation-policy-issues-paper.pdf>
I do not know how long it has been there but this coming Friday 16th July is the cut-off for responses.
My opinion after the first reading is that the document is as confusing as is the current airspace. It seems very confused about the purpose of having airspace classes and what Australia is trying to achieve, apart from the AAPS reference to passenger transport aircraft. By it's reliance on reproducing so many possible iterations of airspace organisation (although it fails to mention the ADF R areas) for us to "choose" from demonstrates that both CASA and DIRD are very risk-averse. Clearly, they want someone else to choose so that they may claim that it was not either their fault or the Minister's fault
If I am correct in my, admittedly cynical, theory I would recommend that the Government simply re-adopts the decision made by Cabinet many, many years ago, to introduce the tried and trusted FAA model. I was there when we tried and now nearly 30 years later we are still stuck in the 1950s!
From the FAA web site:
Every day, the Federal Aviation Administration provides air traffic services to more than 45,000 flights and 2.9 million airline passengers traveling across the more than 29 million square miles that make up the U.S. national airspace system (NAS). (Australian Airspace is approximately 26.5 million square miles)
The NAS is a network of both controlled and uncontrolled airspace, both domestic and oceanic. It also includes air navigation facilities, equipment and services; airports and landing areas; aeronautical charts, information and services; rules and regulations; procedures and technical information; and manpower and material.