R Areas - Shoalwater Bay

[Geoff Fairless]

Dear Sqn.Ldr XXXXX,

I refer to the Airspace Regulations 2007, the AIR SERVICES ACT 1995 - SECT 3(1) and the Australian Law Reform Commission in regard to External Territories.

Airspace Regulations 2007

(1) CASA may, in writing, make a declaration designating an area of Australian territory to be a prohibited area, a restricted area or a danger area.



AIR SERVICES ACT 1995 - SECT 3(1)

Australian Territory means


(a) the territory of Australia and of every external Territory; and
(b) the territorial sea of Australia and of every external Territory; and
(c) the air space over any such territory or sea.

Australian Law Reform Commission 15 Jul 2010 in regard to External Territories

10.4 Several important provisions in relation to the external territories exist outside the specific federal Act governing existence of the Territory. Section 15B(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) deems any reference in a Commonwealth Act to a ‘Territory’ to include a reference to the ‘coastal sea of the Territory’ as if that coastal sea were a part of the relevant Territory. ‘Coastal sea’ is defined in s 15B(4) to be the territorial sea adjacent to the Territory. The territorial sea is the area 12 nautical miles offshore. Consequently the laws of the Commonwealth and the jurisdiction of the courts competent to hear matters relating to those laws extend throughout the relevant external territory and up to this limit.
​​​​​​​Due to the many islands, it is difficult to establish from the diagrams that accompany this proposal, where Australian territorial waters, 12NM limit, cease.

While it appears from your proposal that the newer areas are within the 12 NM limit, the diagrams also contain the outline of other R Areas that may not be so contained.

CASA, by the laws quoted above, cannot declare a Restricted Area over international waters, if they do so (or have done in the past) then both the Department of Infrastructure and the Department of Defence would be violating the "International rule-based order" so often quoted in regard to the South China Sea.

Kind Regards

Geoff Fairless

[Lead Balloon]

The maritime jurisdiction maps published by Geoscience Australia may help, Geoff. This is the relevant one (warning: big fat file): https://d28rz98at9flks.cloudfront.net/69717/AMJ_69717.pdf

Let me know if you can’t open it.

Key points:

The territorial sea extends 12nm from the territorial sea baseline, which is generally a line along the low water mark at the lowest tide of the year but there are ‘closing lines’ across bays and inlets. The baseline is the black line on the map.

The territorial sea is the greyish fat texta line next to the black line.

But fun key point for Queensland: Queensland includes all islands within 60 miles (I assume nautical but I’ve never tied off that loose end) from the mainland. Each of those islands has its own baseline and ‘generates’ a 12nm territorial sea. You can also see some (most) of those in the map. Note, therefore, that there are gaps between some of the territorial seas generated by those islands and the territorial sea generated by the ‘mainland’, because some of the baselines of those islands are more than 24nms from another baseline.

A common mistake is to assume that Australia’s EEZ is its territory. As you know, it isn’t. Australia has some sovereign rights over the EEZ, but does not have sovereignty.

[MickG0105]

Something relating to this has been in train since ICAO issued CASA with a non-compliance relating to declarations pertaining to Australian administered airspace that fell beyond Australian territory back in 2019. History here (https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/pp-2108as/) and temporary measure here (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00514). It is meant to be resolved this month.

[Geoff Fairless]

Thanks LB, I have read the Geoscience stuff, and you are correct, everyone quotes the EEZ these days without knowing what it is!
Also correct MickG0105; regrettably CASA OAR thought they had for ever to address the issue. (That seems to be the nature of ICAO audits, I am also a Lead Auditor for the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme). I don't believe they took it seriously until I wrote through Avsef about Talisman Sabre 2021. You know you have got through when CASA phones and asks, "we want to know what you are up to?"
I would be interested in your opinions about the new AIC, I personally do not believe it addresses the problem safely, but I hope there is more going on behind the scenes.

For information I have already received a reply from the ADF:Good evening Mr Fairless,

Thank you for concern. I think you might find the following CASA Policy Proposal of interest:

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/pp-2108as/supporting_documents/Policy%20Proposal%20%20%20PP%202108AS.pdf

Defence are working alongside CASA in an endeavour to resolve this longstanding issue.

In terms of the current proposal to expand SWBTA, I can assure you that all new restricted area volumes will be compliant with both domestic law and international conventions.

Kind regards,

Daniel Olsen
Squadron Leader

SO2 Airspace Operations, Joint Airspace Control Cell
Air and Space Operations Centre

[Lead Balloon]

What a joke. A “Policy Proposal”.

Purported declarations by Australia of Romeos beyond Australian territory are unlawful even as a matter of Australia’s own domestic law. Full stop.

I’m no longer surprised at how many public officials have difficulty in comprehending that compliance with the law is not supposed to be optional. The concept of a “Policy Proposal” and consultation to deal with unlawful declarations is the product of a busted bureaucracy.

This is how Robodebt happened. Implement the “policy proposal” and the law be damned.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Not sure I follow LB. They are proposing to change Restricted areas to Military Exercise/Training Areas. Doesn't that address the ICAO compliance problem?

[spoony]

Geoff, based on your previous thread creations, anybody would think you have a vendetta against our military and national interests. It shouldn't require much explanation, however clearly you need it. Airspace must be designated as PRDs at times, often for our military largely to ensure it remains effective and capable, but equally to ensure the safety of uninvolved aircraft. They almost always deactivated when not in use.

What happened in the SCS is very different, China built up submerged ground so that it ended up above sea level, and then tried to claim it as legitimate territory that should be afforded 12nm sovereign buffers, impacting freedom of navigation. This is clearly in contravention of international law. Are you proposing other airspace Australia control's (e.g. FIRs) outside 12nm's is 'illegitimate', or just restricted area's? They are no different in concept - just application. Every other nation in the world imposes rightfully their authority to control aircrafts movements in their airspace through active management (e.g. ATC flow management) or latent airspace procedures such as restricted areas. Your issue with these PRDs comes across as seated in a disdain for the purpose of them, not their legitimacy.

[Geoff Fairless]

In my view the point is this:

The relevant text from the Policy Statement (not widely distributed) is in the first paragraph:

Australia has a long-standing practice of declaring predominantly military restricted areas outside Australian territory in Australian-administered airspace. This is unacceptable to ICAO and unlawful under international law, with 93 permanent restricted areas declared in this manner. Restricting aircraft outside Australian territory contravenes The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1962) (UNCLOS) which confirms the concept of freedom of navigation and unrestricted overflight of ‘high seas’ (those areas which are not part of the territorial waters or internal waters of a State). These concepts are also found in Articles 1 and 2 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944) (the Chicago Convention) which refers to the UNCLOS (1962) for its definition of high seas.

The AIC H29/22 (very widely distributed) however then tells fibs by saying:

The Chicago Convention does not permit any member State (such as Australia) to enforce flight restrictions on foreign registered aircraft in such international airspace

The AIC statement is untrue because, the Convention as quoted in the Policy Statement, does not allow the establishment of R Areas at all!

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Australia, by declaring restrictions on airspace outside of territorial waters, is in defiance of International law.
So much for the rule of law so often quoted by our politicians.

[Lead Balloon]

What’s so difficult about understanding the concept of “outside” Australian territory, Chronic snoozer? Australia has power over Australians and Australian aircraft outside Australian territory, but there’s a word for purporting to push anyone else around outside one’s own territory while they’re minding their own business.

As Geoff has alluded to, a number of countries including Australia are in the habit of flying through airspace a long way away from Australia to remind a foreign country - who has been named by Geoff - of the freedom of air navigation of even military aircraft.

And CASA’s (OAR’s) airspace powers are expressly confined to airspace declarations within Australian territory (probably for the very reasons articulated by Geoff and me). So who’s going to implement the ‘Policy Proposal’ and what powers will they be exercising?

(PS: Post after Geoff’s, which is self-explanatory.)

[Chronic Snoozer]

I wasn’t referring to that LB, perhaps I’m missing the point of the argument. Isn’t the policy, although not explicit in its text, proposing that existing R areas outside Australian territory be designated under D areas as a new subset MEA and MTA? Wouldn’t that address the issue?

[Lead Balloon]

CASA’s (OAR’s) power to declare ‘D’ areas is also confined to declarations of areas within Australian territory. So, no matter what ‘subsets’ are dreamed up by the brains trust, how does CASA declare a D area that purports to extend beyond Australian territory?

[Lead Balloon]

Geoff, based on your previous thread creations, anybody would think you have a vendetta against our military and national interests. It shouldn't require much explanation, however clearly you need it. Airspace must be designated as PRDs at times, often for our military largely to ensure it remains effective and capable, but equally to ensure the safety of uninvolved aircraft. They almost always deactivated when not in use.

What happened in the SCS is very different, China built up submerged ground so that it ended up above sea level, and then tried to claim it as legitimate territory that should be afforded 12nm sovereign buffers, impacting freedom of navigation. This is clearly in contravention of international law. Are you proposing other airspace Australia control's (e.g. FIRs) outside 12nm's is 'illegitimate', or just restricted area's? They are no different in concept - just application. Every other nation in the world imposes rightfully their authority to control aircrafts movements in their airspace through active management (e.g. ATC flow management) or latent airspace procedures such as restricted areas. Your issue with these PRDs comes across as seated in a disdain for the purpose of them, not their legitimacy.What nations in the world assert authority to “control” foreign aircraft movements outside the nation’s territory? Please name them.

We get it that erecting artificial islands and purporting to establish a territorial sea around them is not kosher in international law. But that doesn’t mean Australia gets to purport to declare airspace outside its own territory. The regulation of aviation movements outside territorial boundaries relies on the rules imposed by each nation on aircraft with the nationality of that nation.

It has nothing to do with disdain for the ADF or a lack of understanding as to its training needs. It’s about Australia’s own compliance with international laws which, if breached by another country, occasionally leads to the engagement of the ADF in unpleasantness.

(And, for the love of whatever deity you worship, please learn how to use apostrophes.).

[Chronic Snoozer]

CASA’s (OAR’s) power to declare ‘D’ areas is also confined to declarations of areas within Australian territory. So, no matter what ‘subsets’ are dreamed up by the brains trust, how does CASA declare a D area that purports to extend beyond Australian territory?

I can only quote from the document “The declaration of danger areas in Australian-administered airspace is acceptable to ICAO and lawful under international law, with 16 permanent danger areas declared in this manner. However, the Regulations only allow declaration of danger areas over Australian territory, unnecessarily limiting options to address airspace risk and making the current danger area declarations unlawful under domestic law.”

So they are acting to remedy this anomaly. I’m still not following your point. Perhaps you could dispense with the condescending tone, it does not enhance your posts.

[Lead Balloon]

The point is blatantly obvious, except to someone who’s been drinking bureaucrat KoolAide.

Something unlawful isn’t an ‘anomaly’. It’s unlawful. And you don’t spend months on a ‘policy proposal’ to deal with something unlawful. You JUST STOP F*CKING DOING IT BY FIXING IT, NOW.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Thanks for caps. Helpful. So your issue is that it isn’t moving quickly enough. Roger.

[Geoff Fairless]

[QUOTE=spoony;11330040]Geoff, based on your previous thread creations, anybody would think you have a vendetta against our military and national interests. It shouldn't require much explanation, however clearly you need it. Airspace must be designated as PRDs at times, often for our military largely to ensure it remains effective and capable, but equally to ensure the safety of uninvolved aircraft. They almost always deactivated when not in use.

Hi Spoony,
Welcome to the world of PPrune, a forum where ideas can be circulated and commented on. Regrettably you have jumped into the first trap and attacked the writer instead of the idea; ad hominin, I think the lawyers call it.

No, my vendetta is not against "our military and national interests", in this case it is against governments using illegal means to achieve their aims, while crowing about the rule of law.

You use that very contentious word "clearly" in your post, yet you then go on to claim that without PRDs our military would not be capable or effective, and then assume that without PRDs uninvolved aircraft would be unsafe. Have you not heard of radar surveillance and air traffic control? To mention only two nations, do you know that most US military airfields are assigned only a 5NM Class D area surrounded by Class E, or that most UK military airfields do not even get Class D or E protection, but have to get by with what is called a Military Air Traffic Zone (MATZ) surrounded by Class G airspace? "Clearly" their militaries are neither capable or effective!

To be clear, I have no issues with Prohibited or Danger Areas, it is the prolific use of Restricted Areas in Australia that I find an unnecessary restriction on our citizenry. Therefore, whenever I can, I take the opportunity to remind the "powers that be" of their responsibilities under the law and ask, otherwise, for them to justify R Areas. CASA has reneged on it's airspace responsibilities by setting up the AVSEF system, whereby all corresondence about airspace changes is directed to the proposer. Hence my challenges end up on the desk of some poor Squadron Leader who in the end will only be able to tell me that CASA will eventually decide. As far as I can see that decision will only be communicated to the proposer, the rest of us find out when the chart is published or the NOTAM is issued. A fine system, indeed!

[spoony]

"Have you not heard of radar surveillance and air traffic control?"

Geoff, obviously...
Have you perhaps considered that this control is ineffective against fast moving powerful aircraft that are a little more dynamic than your avg civil aircraft. Separating a package of fastjets in the middle of an exercise against a slow moving interloper, is a laughable suggestion. These are not benign constant altitude/spd separation conditions. Were you not a controller ?

Further, not all threats mentioned are related to keeping aircraft from swapping paint. Think weapons, lasers, jamming, high energy emitters. The bottom line is Restricted areas are essential, and for good reason are often out away from populated areas which don't permit uninvolved aircraft.

You can exercise freedom of navigation - what do you think the bear bombers in the cold war did... exercised this right, didn't stop them from being intercepted by F-4s every day off the coast.

[Lead Balloon]

Thanks for caps. Helpful. So your issue is that it isn’t moving quickly enough. Roger.You may have sensed some frustration in the tone and format of the post to which you responded. But I am, frankly, sick and tired of the indolence and casual corruption of government bureaucracies. (Watching the Robodebt Royal Commission hearings for the last fortnight has probably made me just a little more nauseous than usual.) For some reason aviation cops more than its fair share (all dressed up in the rhetoric of ‘safety’ and – in the case of airspace locked up for the ADF – ‘security’ and ‘public interest’ of course).

It would probably surprise CASA OAR and the ADF to learn that the existence of aircraft with “weapons, l@sers, jamming, high energy emitters” in airspace does not, of itself, actually satisfy the criterion for declaring that airspace a Romeo. All you have to do is read the legislation conferring the power to declare Romeos to know that. But hey – who cares what the law says? And even if I’m wrong on that point, Romeos are supposed to be usable on the conditions which must accompany the declaration of the Romeo. Again, you just need to read the legislation to know that but, again, who cares what the law says?

When spoony says: “The bottom line is Restricted areas are essential, and for good reason are often out away from populated areas which don't permit uninvolved aircraft.”, s/he’s just expressing an opinion based on delusions of dangerous grandeur rather than by the objective evidence of risk. As Geoff has pointed out, our allies like the UK and the USA manage to train and sustain formidable airborne defence capabilities without the equivalent volumes of Restricted airspace.

In another thread I posted an ex-RAAF mate of mine’s answer to a question I asked him recently about the airspace arrangements around the pommie equivalent of a Willytown and Amberley. My mate’s been flying in pommieland for decades. This is part of his response:In UK there’s a concept called MATZ (MIL Air Traffic Zone). Technically they’re optional for us to avoid, but we “should” seek permission to enter. They’re treated as class G otherwise. This is the main form of protection for fighter bases in our busy airspace like at Coningsby. Some RAF stations have Class D around them, notably Brize Norton. That you can’t ignore but I’ve never had a problem asking for a crossing.

Also in UK we have no designated Low Flying lanes for the fast jets: they can (and do) this any/everywhere. We all just have to see and avoid!Think about that, spoony: Even the airspace around the RAF bases themselves is not a Romeo or Class C, much less great swathes of airspace in which the aircraft based there train. How is it that the RAF isn’t "swapping paint" with civil “interlopers” and bringing down Jumbo jets with lasers and high energy emitters? Isn’t Restricted airspace “essential” to avoid that?

My mate also gave an example of the kinds of circumstances that would satisfy the criterion for the declaration of a Romeo in Australia: Note the nearby red areas [in the chart my mate sent me]: that’s army space over Salisbury Plain and that’s more serious: we almost never cross there as they grunts are shooting at each other in there with tanks etc (currently a lot of Ukrainian units in there being trained on SL ordnance).You see: the actual criterion for the declaration of a Romeo turns on risks created by what’s happening under the airspace that creates risks in the airspace.

But what do we have in Australia? Delusions of dangerous grandeur resulting in the normalised deviation of locking up vast volumes of airspace so that aircraft whose numbers can usually be counted on the fingers of one hand – and sometimes on one finger of one finger – can operate without the prospect of being disturbed by and having to respond to irritating “interlopers”. (That word “interlopers” manifests an attitude that’s so typical in Australia. In the USA it’s actually the military aircraft that are interlopers in the citizens’ airspace.) If Romeos were declared in accordance with the law, the “interloper” would not be a surprise because their use of the airspace would be in accordance with the published conditions and the military operations would be adjusted accordingly. But we can’t have that. Romeos that are unusable on any conditions when active are “essential” from the perspective of folks like spoony whose opinions will no doubt weigh heavily in the solemn deliberations of CASA OAR in the consultation process, in which process the law is unlikely to intrude.

[Geoff Fairless]

Thanks for the support LB, I think you have said it all.

[Eclan]

Just a small point: the "Department of Defence" referred to in this thread is in fact "Defence Australia."

I'm not sure the Squadron Leader would appreciate his name and even his email being reprinted here. Often there's a caveat at the bottom of such emails referring to sharing of the information. Posting that detail is a sloppy misjudgement.

While at it I have no issue with Australia managing the airspace in that area for our national needs. This is low-grade muck-raking and, if you really feel you need to engage in it, is better discussed in-house in some green leftist anti-establishment shame group not shared here in an attempt to sling mud. There are many real shortcomings of the government much more worthy of being made public than this non-event. Thank you.

https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/sleep.gif

[Lead Balloon]

I don't recall the RAAF being described as a "green leftist anti-establishment shame group" at any time during my decades of service in the RAAF. I am a staunch supporter of the ADF.

Airspace isn't being managed "for our national needs". It's being managed for the convenience of organisations that don't actually "need" that much of it. That's shown by how other countries manage their airspace. Australia likes to think its better and smarter, but it isn't. In my view, it actually results in the RAAF being less prepared than it should be to do its job.

And calling for compliance with the law is not 'low-grade muck-raking', at least not in the dictionaries I've consulted.

You'll have to explain your point about "Defence Australia" and "Department of Defence". I'm not aware of what "Defence Australia" is, as distinct from the Department of Defence and the ADF.

[KRviator]

I'm not sure the Squadron Leader would appreciate his name and even his email being reprinted here. Often there's a caveat at the bottom of such emails referring to sharing of the information. Posting that detail is a sloppy misjudgement.UUhh, no....

Said SQNLDR doesn't have a choice in his details being posted, "Defence Australia" has decreed he shall be the nominated contact - they're public domain with a request for feedback to go to him by 16 October in this document (https://www.avsef.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-09/documents/AvSEF%20Paper%20-%20Qld%20-%20Shoalwater%20Bay%20Training%20Area%20-%20ASMTI%20Expansion_0.pdf) so his job is to salute smartly and say "Yes Sir, I will check my emails for feedback Sir".:ugh:

While at it I have no issue with Australia managing the airspace in that area for our national needs. This is low-grade muck-raking and, if you really feel you need to engage in it, is better discussed in-house in some green leftist anti-establishment shame group not shared here in an attempt to sling mud. There are many real shortcomings of the government much more worthy of being made public than this non-event. Thank you.IF you genuinely think the Romeo areas liberally scattered throughout this wide brown land are "managing the airspace for our national needs", I have a bridge with a terrific water view I can do you a deal on... Consider what happens in the US in their MOA's, fast jets, AAR, low level work, all sorts of other nasties and you can fly straight through with nowt clearance whatsoever. Imagine doing that here, Ronny would have a heart attack at the mere thought.

I don't consider the Seppo's the sharpest tool in the drawer most of the time, but between them and the Poms, arguably countries with defence budgets equal to our GDP and much freer use of 'defence airspace' maybe we're the ones doing it wrong by wrapping the ADF in cotton wool and associated R-areas bigger than some countries!

[Lead Balloon]

Welcome to the low-grade, muck-raking, green leftist, anti-establishment shame group, KR!

[CaptainMidnight]

Consider what happens in the US in their MOA's, fast jets, AAR, low level work, all sorts of other nasties and you can fly straight through with nowt clearance whatsoever..!

In the early days of the "NAS" I recall Defence looked at changing many "R" areas to MOA, which in the U.S. I believe require the user to have radar surveillance of such areas. The cost to Defence to do so with the installation of new surveillance equipment and ATC or other personnel was high. As part of the exercise they looked at obtaining surveillance feeds from Airservices, but in many cases there was not the required low level coverage of the airspace.

[Lead Balloon]

You may be correct CM (and I’m not casting doubt on what you say). But according to spoony, radar surveillance is “ineffective” to deal with the mix of traffic. In response to Geoff’s question: “Have you not heard of radar surveillance and air traffic control?”, spoony said: Geoff, obviously...

Have you perhaps considered that this control is ineffective against fast moving powerful aircraft that are a little more dynamic than your avg civil aircraft. Separating a package of fastjets in the middle of an exercise against a slow moving interloper, is a laughable suggestion. These are not benign constant altitude/spd separation conditions. Were you not a controller ?

Further, not all threats mentioned are related to keeping aircraft from swapping paint. Think weapons, l@sers, jamming, high energy emitters. The bottom line is Restricted areas are essential, and for good reason are often out away from populated areas which don't permit uninvolved aircraft.As soon as I hear the idiom “swapping paint” I get the redolent whiff of an air traffic controller. Is it part of the banter during ATC 101 lessons?

And when the same person talks about “fast moving powerful aircraft that are a little more dynamic than your avg civil aircraft” and asserts that: “Separating a package of fastjets in the middle of an exercise against a slow moving interloper, is a laughable suggestion.”, I get the heady aroma of ADF ATC. And what’s the easiest way to make the life of ADF ATC easier? Give them vast volumes of airspace devoid of potentially irritating distractions from your “avg civil aircraft”.

What’s “laughable” is training for war in artificially sterile airspace designed to remove any risk of any unexpected ‘interlopers’. The USA and the UK know that. At least the Australian Army trains as it intends to fight.

[Geoff Fairless]

Just a small point: the "Department of Defence" referred to in this thread is in fact "Defence Australia."

I'm not sure the Squadron Leader would appreciate his name and even his email being reprinted here. Often there's a caveat at the bottom of such emails referring to sharing of the information. Posting that detail is a sloppy misjudgement.

While at it I have no issue with Australia managing the airspace in that area for our national needs. This is low-grade muck-raking and, if you really feel you need to engage in it, is better discussed in-house in some green leftist anti-establishment shame group not shared here in an attempt to sling mud. There are many real shortcomings of the government much more worthy of being made public than this non-event. Thank you.

https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/sleep.gif
Hi Eclan - Secrecy is the weapon most used by bureaucrats to hide their activity, but first a quote from the current Australian Government Directory:
"The Department of Defence is constituted under the Defence Act 1903, its mission is to defend Australia and its national interests."
Defence Australia sounds like another beaurocratic attempt at managing the media like the ill-fated BOM nonsense.

On secrecy, any attempt to hide the non-sensitive, non-need to know aspects of Government, is simply beaucraftic self - serving. If they can stay out of the public eye and the media then they can exercise power without accountability.
LB has answered your nonsense about "muck - raking" - I guess your saying that the end justifies the means, breaking the law is so acceptable!

[Eclan]

Hi Geoff - Secrecy? I'm not sure what you're getting at. I thought I'd point they changed their name, that's all. As for the email, if that's your point, yes the Squadron Leader is the point of contact for all the cranks wishing to bend his ear on their pet peeves and I'm sure his response was carefully worded however posting his email is still a little uncouth.

LB has answered your nonsense about "muck - raking" - I guess your saying that the end justifies the means, breaking the law is so acceptable!

No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying what I said but will re-phrase it: this issue of yours is a storm in a teacup and there are better shortcomings of our system to highlight.

I guess muckrakers never want to admit they're muckraking so your comment there probably makes sense in a way.

Well, you seem to have at least one ardent follower on your crusade. Enjoy it. We all need hobbies and you should keep us informed on how yours progresses. I wish you luck.

[Lead Balloon]

Could you please identify precisely the “muck” that you consider is being “raked”?

And can you confirm that you understand that one of the points of deterring and defeating armed attacks on Australia is that we can continue to have the freedom to express our own opinions? It’s certainly what I thought part my service in the RAAF was about.

You appear to have an opinion that you consider to be superior to mine. Isn’t it great to be able to express that opinion? You’re welcome.

[Geoff Fairless]

Eclan weote - No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying what I said but will re-phrase it: this issue of yours is a storm in a teacup and there are better shortcomings of our system to highlight.

I guess muckrakers never want to admit they're muckraking so your comment there probably makes sense in a way.

Since when has pointing out that the Executive Government (CASA) is breaking the law, constitute muck-raking or a storm in a teacup, Eclan? And, since when has distributing an answer to an AVSEF enquiry been uncouth?
The secrecy I refer to shines brightly in your posts. Calling the Government to account is muck-raking and publishing someone's name is uncouth. You obviously prefer a political system without public accountability, where officers paid by the taxpayer can get on with their lives without scrutiny.
Great - move to China!
PS. I would love you to start a thread where you highlight some of what you call "the better shortcomings of our system"

[Eclan]

Lead, of course I think my opinion is “superior” to yours although I wouldn’t choose that word. If I thought your opinion was the better one, I’d agree with you. Does that make sense?? Sorry if you wanted a “thank you for your service” most Aussies aren’t into that seppo crap. Many here also served, not good to make assumptions.

Hi Geoff,

As already pointed out here you give the appearance of having a vendetta. You appear to claim not to be anti-Australian but are merely outraged at a perceived lack of transparency and/or Australian authorities regulating illegally and/or Australia dominating others. Any one of these issues would be better addressed in some other forum or office where the leftist agenda (I don’t mean the RAAF, how Lead came to that conclusion I do not know) is upheld as they seem to love this sort of thing. Maybe the ABC has a dob-in line for anti-ADF topics.

Regarding “better shortcomings”, if freedom and transparency are your hobby horses why don’t you go down to Victoria and begin a vendetta against Chairman Dan where secrecy, lack of accountability and scrutiny, and autocratic overreach are now a way of life? You could throw in police brutality and a few other points as well. Your beef with restricted areas in a space about which no one but you (and your follower) cares is beginning to look a little bizarre and unhinged compared to the real issues of transparency and secrecy in Victoria.

As I said before, good luck with it. I will genuinely be interested to see if you get anywhere with your campaign.

[Lead Balloon]

Calling upon and expecting the executive government to comply with the law is a "leftist agenda"? Thanks for the belly laugh, eclan!

[Geoff Fairless]

Lead, of course I think my opinion is “superior” to yours although I wouldn’t choose that word. If I thought your opinion was the better one, I’d agree with you. Does that make sense?? Sorry if you wanted a “thank you for your service” most Aussies aren’t into that seppo crap. Many here also served, not good to make assumptions.

Hi Geoff,

As already pointed out here you give the appearance of having a vendetta. You appear to claim not to be anti-Australian but are merely outraged at a perceived lack of transparency and/or Australian authorities regulating illegally and/or Australia dominating others. Any one of these issues would be better addressed in some other forum or office where the leftist agenda (I don’t mean the RAAF, how Lead came to that conclusion I do not know) is upheld as they seem to love this sort of thing. Maybe the ABC has a dob-in line for anti-ADF topics.

Regarding “better shortcomings”, if freedom and transparency are your hobby horses why don’t you go down to Victoria and begin a vendetta against Chairman Dan where secrecy, lack of accountability and scrutiny, and autocratic overreach are now a way of life? You could throw in police brutality and a few other points as well. Your beef with restricted areas in a space about which no one but you (and your follower) cares is beginning to look a little bizarre and unhinged compared to the real issues of transparency and secrecy in Victoria.

As I said before, good luck with it. I will genuinely be interested to see if you get anywhere with your campaign.

Hi Eclan,

Thank you for your "genuine interest" in my campaign.
My airspace interest goes back over 30 years to when I first wrote some articles in Australia Aviation about how much better I thought it could be done if lessons from other countries were studied. The CAA then sent me to the USA to look at their NAS and I assisted with the Airways Transition Project. I worked for both Airservices and CASA, before retirement, so I believe I have knowledge of their processes.
I am still a registered user of the AVSEF system and take all opportunities to examine airspace regulation, as you suggest in your post; only sometimes do I publish what I am doing in Pprune.
On this particular "vendetta" I found CASA totally unable to respond, IMO because the OAR acts as virtually a rubber stamp for Airservices and the ADF; so I turned my attention to the ADF.
Since my communication with the ADF over two years ago, they have now stopped asking CASA OAR for R Areas outside territorial waters. The Minister ordered CASA to come up with an alternative plan, and the ADF is discussing with CASA, what might work within the framework of the Chicago Convention and Australia law.
After my latest campaign, and unpublished on PPrune, I have received other emails that satisfy me that professional people have not forgotten the subject, and that work is ongoing. I have also brought up with them some other issues that I think should be rectified.
So, all in all, this campaign has gone quite well; I continue to work on others.

While I do have an interest in politics, I do not live in Victoria, so what their premier gets up to only marginally interests me. I'll leave that to you poor folks.

[Lead Balloon]

AIC H35/22 describes the latest humps and band-aides being applied to this camel.

[Lead Balloon]

The extent to which the bureaucracy has lost the plot on this issue is neatly summarised in AIC H35/22. Here’s part of what it says, with my bolding:[A Direction issued by CASA] requires operators and pilots in command of Australian aircraft to comply with the requirements of declared restricted areas and danger areas in Australian-administered areas outside Australian territory. The Direction also applies to foreign registered aircraft operated under an Australian Air Operators Certificate (AOC) or a Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 141 certificate.

Think about what the bureaucracy has created here: Areas of airspace outside Australian territory which Australian aircraft are not allowed to use but foreign aircraft are allowed to use (provided they aren’t being operated under an Australian AOC or Part 141 certificate). Last time I checked, the Kamarians weren’t operating any Australian aircraft under any Australian AOC or Part 141 certificate.

Aussies? Stay out!

Foreigners? Do what you like; after all, you’re outside Australian territory.

So it seems that spoony’s crowd are not capable of separating a package of fast jets in the middle of an exercise against a slow moving interloper if the interloper is an Australian aircraft outside Australian territory, but are capable of separating them if the interloper is a foreign aircraft outside Australian territory.

Call me a low-grade, muck-raking, green leftist, anti-establishment shame group member, but only on planet bureaucrat could that make sense.

Here’s an idea: Instead of continuing to stick more humps and band-aides on the camel, so as to preserve the convenient but unnecessary status quo, just declare PRDs in accordance with the law.

Here’s what the PRD declaration power says, with my bolding:CASA may, in writing, make a declaration designating an area of Australian territory to be a prohibited area, a restricted area or a danger area.

It’s really not that hard.

The bureaucrats involved in this mess might do themselves and the rest of us a favour if they watched the live broadcasts or recordings of the proceedings of the Robodebt Royal Commission. Putting “the interests of aviation safety” or “the interests of defence capability” in a sentence does not magically ‘legalise’ some normalised deviation said to be in those interests. And mere inconvenience is no excuse for non-compliance with the law.

[megan]

What's wrong with the USA system of the area outside twelve miles just being declared a W area (warning). Students, VFR only, used to watch out for the airliner (Electra) transiting in order to bounce it, not too close mind. USN did their exercises off the west and east coast in W areas, dog fighting etc, the whole bit, IMC as well. Don't recall any military/civil conflict, near miss etc

[Lead Balloon]

What's wrong with the USA system of the area outside twelve miles just being declared a W area (warning). Students, VFR only, used to watch out for the airliner (Electra) transiting in order to bounce it, not too close mind. USN did their exercises off the west and east coast in W areas, dog fighting etc, the whole bit, IMC as well. Don't recall any military/civil conflict, near miss etcNothing wrong with that at all. It’s open to any country to inform the world that the country is engaging in risky military activities outside its and - more importantly - everyone else’s sovereign territory.

What would be wrong is Australia purporting to restrict, on pain of criminal sanction, flights of foreign aircraft through airspace that isn’t within Australian territory. That’s the kind of thing that Australia and others insist on demonstrating to the Kamarians.

But that’s what Australia has been purporting to do. And instead of fixing it, properly and quickly, the bureaucracy has come up with the perfectly stupid ‘solution’: Continue to restrict, on pain of criminal sanction, flights of aircraft through airspace that isn’t within Australian territory, but only if the aircraft are Australian or operated under the authority of an Australian certificate.

It must make the ADF feel safe, knowing that when training in restricted airspace outside Australian territory it’s being ‘protected’ from Australian interlopers but not foreign interlopers. Only in Australia…

[Lead Balloon]

Just so I can’t be accused of the ‘you don’t know how they really do it’ overseas….

It is true that the USA occasionally promulgates e.g. Prohibited Areas that extend beyond US territory and, therefore, bind only US licence holders or US registered aircraft. An example is the recent Falcon 9 launch from Cape Canaveral, which launch precipitated the promulgation of a temporary Prohibited Area that extended beyond US territory and is expressed to bind US licence holders and US registered aircraft (see: TFR ZJS 2/2338).

There are existing Restricted Areas off Cape Canaveral, but they become ‘W’ areas outside US territory.

Some of you may have heard of Cape Canaveral…

Rocket launches are temporary…

[missy]

Look away, look away now - AIP SUP H09/23 Military Exercise 'Tasman Shield 2023' Queensland and New South Wales 20 - 31 March 2022.
H09/23 (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s23-h09.pdf)

[Lead Balloon]

Normalised deviation.

It will be interesting to watch on the day the Chinese decide to conduct some flights through 'restricted' areas more than 12nms from the baseline.

[C441]

"Traffic is a pair of low level F-111s estimating Tindal same time as you." Nothin' like being 'swooped' in my 402 by a pair of F-111s approaching the circuit at Tindal or chased up the Katherine Gorge by a Chinook when doing a scenic in a 210. Ahhhh, the good old days of the 80s. :ok:

[megan]

Did you ever get used as a target 441? 210 driver inbound to Tindal was given an uncommonly low altitude, asking why was told some F-18's wanted practice picking him out of the ground clutter on radar.

[C441]

I wasn't personally, but I have no doubt it probably happened a number of times whether the GA driver knew it or not!
I was in and around Tindal from '80 - '85 so it was not a permanently active base then. Pitch Black exercises were always a fun time from watching some impressive acts of aviation like sitting beside the runway watching quick circuits in the Mirage, exploding F111 engines one year or just strolling across the threshold past the fast jets (and the not-so-fast Caribous!:)) for dozens of very cheap VBs in the mess. :ok:

[Lead Balloon]

The latest episode in The Keystone Cops Do Airspace series is outlined in AIC H08/23. As usual, the bureaucracy has created a web of band-aides that traps Australian aircraft but not foreign aircraft.

Apparently there have been “delays to the making of amendments to the Airspace Regulations 2007”. I’m guessing those amendments are intended to give OAR power to declare PRDs inside and outside of Australian territory but, to the extent that the determinations cover territory outside Australian airspace, will be binding only on Australian aircraft. I’m guessing that, in drafting the amendments, someone’s gone to AGD’s and there’s been some WTFs - expressed in euphemistic terms of course. I’m guessing that the WTFs would at least have been triggered by the patent illogicality of the suggestion that the continuation of these currently-unlawful declarations are necessary “to maintain an appropriate level of aviation safety in the relevant airspace” - the word “appropriate” being a meaningless modifier - when, in fact, foreign aircraft are allowed into the airspace. It is, after all, international airspace.

It’s not “appropriately” safe if Australian aircraft operate in the airspace without approval but it is “appropriately” safe if foreign aircraft operate in the airspace without approval. You know it makes sense.

Imagine how much counselling will be necessary when the Chinese disturb the controlled isolation in which our Air Force has become accustomed to train, when the Chinese exercise their freedom of navigation through international airspace covered by Australian PRD declarations. And the Chinese won’t have to worry about Australian civilian aircraft, because Australia will have them under control.

We’re a laughing stock.

[Geoff Fairless]

Lead,

The AIC is also misleading.

It notes that ICAO does not allow countries to close international airspace, and reserve the airspace for the use of it's military, but it fails to note that Australian Airspace Regulations, only allow CASA to declare such an area over Australian Territory:
(1) CASA may, in writing, make a declaration designating an area of Australian territory to be a prohibited area, a restricted area or a danger area.

Hence, I would contend that even Ms. Spence's very long PRD Instrument OAR 168/22, is unlawful.

Robodedt 2, anyone?

[Lead Balloon]

The express limitation in the terms of the airspace declaration power is why the band aides are necessary (in the minds of those who can’t let go of the normalised deviation). In effect, the instrument does what the declaration power cannot do in its terms: reach outside Australian territory. CASA’s powers do reach Australian aircraft outside Australian territory.

It will be interesting to see what the amended Airspace Regs say, if and when they are amended. Maybe the delays are because someone made an ambit request to just delete the words “of Australian territory” from the key provision you quoted! That would raise some eyebrows. But as I said above, I’m guessing the primary impediment is that someone did a WTF because the concept does not make sense.

This will never be another Robodebt. It’s all done in the name of the defence of the nation and the safety of air navigation. Most would prefer not to be confronted with the truth about what it actually achieves.

[sunnySA]

CASA OAR 048/23 – Declarations and Directions in relation to Prohibited, Restricted and Danger Areas etc. – Permanent Instrument 2023
https://www.casa.gov.au/declarations-and-directions-relation-prohibited-restricted-and-danger-areas-etc-0

[Lead Balloon]

It seems that the “delays to the making of amendments to the Airspace Regulations 2007” referred to by CASA back in March have become permanent, resulting in the need to pretend the band aide stuck to the festering airspace sore is permanent.

Laughing stock.

[Lead Balloon]

It’s important to expose what’s actually going on here.

A short recap: To the extent that Romeo areas and Danger areas purport to extend beyond Australian territory, they are not lawfully declared under the Airspace Regulations. Instead of making new declarations that are confined to Australian airspace and therefore lawful under the Airspace Regulations, CASA decided to put a band aide over the running unlawful sore. CASA decided to use its power to issue directions under CASR 11.245, which power – unlike the Romeo/Danger area designation power – is not confined in its terms to directions operating only in Australian territory. However, outside Australian territory, those directions are binding only on Australian aircraft.

Thus CASA added yet another hump to the airspace camel: Areas of airspace outside Australian territory which Australian aircraft are not allowed to use without authorisation but foreign aircraft are.

This is all supposed to be a short-term fix, while the Airspace Regulations are being amended. As I said earlier in this thread, I’m guessing those amendments are intended to authorise the declaration of PRDs inside and outside of Australian territory but, to the extent that the declarations cover territory outside Australian airspace, will be binding only on Australian aircraft. I’m guessing that, in drafting the amendments, someone’s gone to AGD’s and there’s been some WTFs - expressed in euphemistic terms of course. I’m guessing that the WTFs would at least have been triggered by the patent illogicality of the suggestion that the continuation of the extra-territorial reach of the previously unlawful declarations is necessary “to maintain an appropriate level of aviation safety in the relevant airspace” - the word “appropriate” being a meaningless modifier - when, in fact, foreign aircraft are allowed into the airspace without authorisation. It is, after all, international airspace.

That’s why there’s an ongoing delay in the forecast amendments to the Airspace Regulations. That, plus the fact that the amending regulations would be subject to disallowance. I reckon there’d be a bunch of Senators rather concerned with the concept of regulations permitting CASA to designate airspace which Australian aircraft are not allowed to use without authorisation but foreign aircraft are, supposedly in the name of ‘safety’.

Thus I laughed at the last sentence of the ‘note’ under section 2 of the instrument, which states that: "it is likely that the instrument will be replaced on 30 November 2023."

CASA predictions as to the timing of changes in regulations would make an astrologer blush.

[Lead Balloon]

The latest episode in The Keystone Cops Do Airspace series is the comedy gold contained in AIC H33/23. The latest hump on the airspace camel is now going to be called Military Operating Areas and the ‘interim’ arrangements extend to 28 November 2024. (I’ll bet folding money that the web of band-aides will extend beyond then, because Keystone Cops have a habit of doing Keystone Cop things.)

The aim of all this continues to be for Australia to promulgate airspace which foreign aircraft will continue to be free to use, at will, but Australian aircraft will not. After all, it always was and remains international airspace in which Australia has no jurisdiction over foreign aircraft minding their own business.

This kind of surreally silly nonsense is what’s said when attempting to justify a delusion: Interim legal arrangements were put in place on 29 April 2021 which removed any appearance of restriction to foreign registered aircraft in international airspace. However, as far as CASA is aware, there has not been any shift in airspace usage.Of course that’s the case. CASA wouldn’t know and couldn’t find out what the usage patterns were or are in most if not all of these areas and, in any case, they’ll change as and when foreign aircraft over whom Australia has no jurisdiction choose to. It’s…. international airspace.

Let’s use just one example. R574, off Willytown: The chart says R574 is from the surface to FL600 and extends beyond the outer boundary of the territorial sea of mainland Australia by about 80 nautical miles. Does anyone believe that CASA or Airservices or the Australian Defence Organisation would know that, for example, there’s an aircraft tootling along at 1,500’ 95 nautical miles off the coast of NSW if that aircraft did not make itself and its position known?

But more fundamentally, what’s going to happen when I take off out of YSBK and with my US licence in my N-registered aircraft, tootle up the lane to Palm Beach, head out off the coast then tootle up through R574 13nms off the baseline in international airspace – actually for a while I’ll be in R578B centred on Willytown but still in international airspace – unannounced. Under the airspace camel that's been created, that’s OK. But if I jump into a VH-registered aircraft instead and fly the same route, it’s not OK.

It all makes perfect sense … to someone.

[havick]

The latest episode in The Keystone Cops Do Airspace series is the comedy gold contained in AIC H33/23. The latest hump on the airspace camel is now going to be called Military Operating Areas and the ‘interim’ arrangements extend to 28 November 2024. (I’ll bet folding money that the web of band-aides will extend beyond then, because Keystone Cops have a habit of doing Keystone Cop things.)

The aim of all this continues to be for Australia to promulgate airspace which foreign aircraft will continue to be free to use, at will, but Australian aircraft will not. After all, it always was and remains international airspace in which Australia has no jurisdiction over foreign aircraft minding their own business.

This kind of surreally silly nonsense is what’s said when attempting to justify a delusion:Of course that’s the case. CASA wouldn’t know and couldn’t find out what the usage patterns were or are in most if not all of these areas and, in any case, they’ll change as and when foreign aircraft over whom Australia has no jurisdiction choose to. It’s…. international airspace.

Let’s use just one example. R574, off Willytown: The chart says R574 is from the surface to FL600 and extends beyond the outer boundary of the territorial sea of mainland Australia by about 80 nautical miles. Does anyone believe that CASA or Airservices or the Australian Defence Organisation would know that, for example, there’s an aircraft tootling along at 1,500’ 95 nautical miles off the coast of NSW if that aircraft did not make itself and its position known?

But more fundamentally, what’s going to happen when I take off out of YSBK and with my US licence in my N-registered aircraft, tootle up the lane to Palm Beach, head out off the coast then tootle up through R574 13nms off the baseline in international airspace – actually for a while I’ll be in R578B centred on Willytown but still in international airspace – unannounced. Under the airspace camel that's been created, that’s OK. But if I jump into a VH-registered aircraft instead and fly the same route, it’s not OK.

It all makes perfect sense … to someone.

All private aircraft owners should switch to N reg and FAA certificates anyway for all the benefits that provides instead of dealing with casa BS.

[sunnySA]

The latest episode in The Keystone Cops Do Airspace series is the comedy gold contained in AIC H33/23. The latest hump on the airspace camel is now going to be called Military Operating Areas and the ‘interim’ arrangements extend to 28 November 2024. (I’ll bet folding money that the web of band-aides will extend beyond then, because Keystone Cops have a habit of doing Keystone Cop things.)

The aim of all this continues to be for Australia to promulgate airspace which foreign aircraft will continue to be free to use, at will, but Australian aircraft will not. After all, it always was and remains international airspace in which Australia has no jurisdiction over foreign aircraft minding their own business.

This kind of surreally silly nonsense is what’s said when attempting to justify a delusion:Of course that’s the case. CASA wouldn’t know and couldn’t find out what the usage patterns were or are in most if not all of these areas and, in any case, they’ll change as and when foreign aircraft over whom Australia has no jurisdiction choose to. It’s…. international airspace.

Let’s use just one example. R574, off Willytown: The chart says R574 is from the surface to FL600 and extends beyond the outer boundary of the territorial sea of mainland Australia by about 80 nautical miles. Does anyone believe that CASA or Airservices or the Australian Defence Organisation would know that, for example, there’s an aircraft tootling along at 1,500’ 95 nautical miles off the coast of NSW if that aircraft did not make itself and its position known?

But more fundamentally, what’s going to happen when I take off out of YSBK and with my US licence in my N-registered aircraft, tootle up the lane to Palm Beach, head out off the coast then tootle up through R574 13nms off the baseline in international airspace – actually for a while I’ll be in R578B centred on Willytown but still in international airspace – unannounced. Under the airspace camel that's been created, that’s OK. But if I jump into a VH-registered aircraft instead and fly the same route, it’s not OK.

It all makes perfect sense … to someone.
LB, very disappointed in your post, where is all the bolding and/or underlining? It is strongly recommended that all future posts include either bolding and/or underlining because one must emphasis that the Chicago Convention does not permit any member State to enforce flight restrictions on foreign registered aircraft in international airspace.

[Geoff Fairless]

I have been waiting for the AIC that will solve this long-running bureaucratic illegality, and now it has arrived in AIC H33/23. It is a prime example of the nonsense that Canberra Governments write to pull the wool over the eyes of the people they are supposed to work for.

It is heavy on phrases purporting to assure us that all is now legal, but it is also heavy into confusion, requiring the reader to refer to other AICs, one of which H57/23, hasn't even been released yet!

In essence, the best that CASA could do was to re-name the R Areas outside territorial waters, MOAs, but then apply the exclusion rules to all operations under CASA jurisdiction, while STRONGLY RECOMMENDING to the PLAN that it would be dangerous to fly through them.

Australia has also introduced a conflict in airspace naming by stealing the name Military Operating Area (MOA) but defining usage as though it was a Restricted Area. The FAA defines an MOA thus: 25-1-1 A military operations area (MOA (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg_html/glossary-m.html#$MOA)) is airspace established outside of Class A airspace to separate or segregate certain non-hazardous military flight activities from IFR aircraft and to identify for VFR aircraft where these activities are conducted.

and to stress the point about VFR flights:
25-1-6 JOINT USE

In effect, MOA (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg_html/glossary-m.html#$MOA)s are always joint use in that VFR aircraft are not denied access, and IFR aircraft may be routed through the airspace, by agreement between controlling and using agencies, when approved separation can be provided from the MOA (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg_html/glossary-m.html#$MOA) activity.
Procedures for access to the airspace by nonparticipating IFR traffic must be specified in a letter of agreement between the controlling and using agencies.

So if I was a pilot used to US procedures and flying VFR I can fly through an MOA.
The confusion continues..............

[Lead Balloon]

My (educated) guess is that the review of the PRD designation regulations has involved some people, with proper expertise and objectivity, who’ve identified that, not only were the PRD designations unlawful to the extent they purported to apply extra-territorially, but also lots of purported Romeo airspace does not satisfy the criterion for its designation as such.

Believe it or not, the existence of risks created to and by fighter jets and other military aircraft flying around in a chunk of airspace does not satisfy the criterion for designating that chunk of airspace to be a Romeo. It’s actually what’s happening on the ground/water below a chunk of airspace that determines whether the criterion for the designation of that chunk to be a Romeo (or Prohibited) area is satisfied. That’s why, for example, one of the few Romeos in England is the chunk of airspace above Salisbury Plain. In Australia, think places like R350 (big artillery at Puckapunyal), R290 (the Murray Bridge Defence Reserve, with weapons ranges and ordnance stores) and R215 (Pine Gap, which used to be a Prohibited Area). (Most of the TRAs being designated as a means to put band aides over Airservices’ failures do not satisfy the criterion for designation of the areas as Romeos.)(3) CASA must not declare an area to be a restricted area unless, in the opinion of CASA, it is necessary to restrict the flight of aircraft over the area to aircraft flown in accordance with specified conditions in the interests of any of the following: (a) public safety, including the safety of aircraft in flight;

(b) the protection of the environment;

(c) security.Thus the MOA hump has become necessary to put a band aide over the Defence-related Romeo areas that have nothing to do with risks posed by or to what’s happening on the ground or water under the area. And in order to persist with the delusion, there has to be the uniquely-Australian addition of treating the areas as restricted for all aircraft to the extent the areas are within Australian territory and restricted only for Australian aircraft to the extent the areas are outside Australian territory.