Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Gawd 4dogs - too complicated for my tiny mind.
The external territories of Australia include the Norfolk Island Territory, which in turn also includes the 12nm territorial sea surrounding it and the airspace above.
But …
The Norfolk Island Territory is a ‘self-governing’ territory and, unless the Commonwealth chooses to legislate over the top of it, the Legislative Assembly of the territory makes laws for that territory.
However …
There appears to be no Norfolk Island Territory law about airspace (have some fun, here: Norfolk Island Government Information), but the Commonwealth Airspace Act 2007 and the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Act 1988 are each expressed to extend to “all external Territories” (see s 6 of each Act).
Further, Australian citizens operating Australian registered aircraft are bound by Australian law, wherever they are, to the extent the Australian law is intended to apply to them where they may be.
This seems to help answer the question as to what rules Australian pilots may be obliged to comply with and where.
But …
I don’t know whether it helps to answer the question as to what services must be provided, by whom, to aircraft in ‘international airspace’ – that is, airspace other than that above the territory of a sovereign state – or to what standard.
There’s a hell of a lot of ‘international airspace’ out there. I have NFI about the potential sources of legal obligations to provide air traffic services within it.
Hopefully the consequences of the Senate inquiry may include some improved clarity about who’s responsible for what, and to what standard.
The external territories of Australia include the Norfolk Island Territory, which in turn also includes the 12nm territorial sea surrounding it and the airspace above.
But …
The Norfolk Island Territory is a ‘self-governing’ territory and, unless the Commonwealth chooses to legislate over the top of it, the Legislative Assembly of the territory makes laws for that territory.
However …
There appears to be no Norfolk Island Territory law about airspace (have some fun, here: Norfolk Island Government Information), but the Commonwealth Airspace Act 2007 and the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Act 1988 are each expressed to extend to “all external Territories” (see s 6 of each Act).
Further, Australian citizens operating Australian registered aircraft are bound by Australian law, wherever they are, to the extent the Australian law is intended to apply to them where they may be.
This seems to help answer the question as to what rules Australian pilots may be obliged to comply with and where.
But …
I don’t know whether it helps to answer the question as to what services must be provided, by whom, to aircraft in ‘international airspace’ – that is, airspace other than that above the territory of a sovereign state – or to what standard.
There’s a hell of a lot of ‘international airspace’ out there. I have NFI about the potential sources of legal obligations to provide air traffic services within it.
Hopefully the consequences of the Senate inquiry may include some improved clarity about who’s responsible for what, and to what standard.
[B]ecause Norfolk Island is in the Auckland Oceanic FIR.
If that’s correct, what does the agreement say about the level of services to be provided in that airspace?
Last edited by Creampuff; 20th Nov 2012 at 09:38.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4dogs. Airspace management can be delegated by an Arbiter to a third party (I work lots of other sovereign territory airspace where I am {not Australia}). These delegations will be spelled out in Letters of Agreement, which are lodged with ICAO. Any disputes etc. will be mediated by ICAO. However, an Arbiter can, and does, require the airspace be managed in certain ways i.e. impose their own rules on the delegate.
In short, I am not sure what the LoA says in this case, but Australia is well within it's rights to require the airspace be operated in a certain way. I think this is what Heffernan is getting at; why hasn't AsA taken action to ensure the airspace be operated to standards that Australia sees as fitting, regardless of who is doing the operating?
In short, I am not sure what the LoA says in this case, but Australia is well within it's rights to require the airspace be operated in a certain way. I think this is what Heffernan is getting at; why hasn't AsA taken action to ensure the airspace be operated to standards that Australia sees as fitting, regardless of who is doing the operating?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: On 34L
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a controller, I've been a vocal opponent of Airservices' policies in the past and undoubtedly will be again in the future, however:
From past experience, I already knew that Heffernan stunk worse than things I have scraped off the sole of my shoe, and has an intellect to match, but on Monday he moved me to deep shame. Shame that a person like this with his foul, obnoxious behaviour and spiteful, juvenile, name-calling vitriol could be elected to high office in my country, not to mention be made Chair of an important inquiry like this one.
I am equally embarrassed that people in my industry and organisation can be so keen to try and score points against Airservices, that they would use this inquiry to try and piggyback on the daft, ill-informed nonsense that a couple of those Senate clowns tried to peddle without having the gumption to actually think it through for themselves. Harfield's answers were measured and accurate throughout. He deadset nailed it with his responses and tried to deliver a lesson in reality, but he'd been lined up from a long way out and nobody in that room was going to listen to his responses. To suggest that Airservices is culpable for another ICAO State's procedures and should be informing them of their shortcomings is pure farce. Staib started strong but unfortunately wilted a bit under the pressure and gave credence to their twaddle - natural for someone new to the spotlight?
There are reasons for hammering Airservices, but this ain't one of them.
From past experience, I already knew that Heffernan stunk worse than things I have scraped off the sole of my shoe, and has an intellect to match, but on Monday he moved me to deep shame. Shame that a person like this with his foul, obnoxious behaviour and spiteful, juvenile, name-calling vitriol could be elected to high office in my country, not to mention be made Chair of an important inquiry like this one.
I am equally embarrassed that people in my industry and organisation can be so keen to try and score points against Airservices, that they would use this inquiry to try and piggyback on the daft, ill-informed nonsense that a couple of those Senate clowns tried to peddle without having the gumption to actually think it through for themselves. Harfield's answers were measured and accurate throughout. He deadset nailed it with his responses and tried to deliver a lesson in reality, but he'd been lined up from a long way out and nobody in that room was going to listen to his responses. To suggest that Airservices is culpable for another ICAO State's procedures and should be informing them of their shortcomings is pure farce. Staib started strong but unfortunately wilted a bit under the pressure and gave credence to their twaddle - natural for someone new to the spotlight?
There are reasons for hammering Airservices, but this ain't one of them.
SS all I'd say is welcome to the world of politics. The 'Heff' behaviour would be regarded as somewhat tame if you compared it to the shennanigans in the other house. It is obvious that the constituents of the State of NSW disagree with your appraisal as they keep voting for him and believe he is representing their interests.
The theatre that was on display is a classic 'good cop, bad cop' routine and, believe it or not, it worked! From the moment the hearing started ASA were put on the back foot and they never really recovered but the good cops did show some sympathy and by basically implying that..."oh don't worry about him he's just that mad bloody Senator from Hicksville NSW"..they were able to extract far more relevant information from ASA than they would have otherwise...
The theatre that was on display is a classic 'good cop, bad cop' routine and, believe it or not, it worked! From the moment the hearing started ASA were put on the back foot and they never really recovered but the good cops did show some sympathy and by basically implying that..."oh don't worry about him he's just that mad bloody Senator from Hicksville NSW"..they were able to extract far more relevant information from ASA than they would have otherwise...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
As a resident of NSW I take no responsibility for "the Heff"
. Quite the nutter but if his outlandish behaviour and comments extract something of importance I guess it's OK. He really is a bit out there. His line to Joyce about being from a line of bomb makers was "interesting" to say the least.
. Quite the nutter but if his outlandish behaviour and comments extract something of importance I guess it's OK. He really is a bit out there. His line to Joyce about being from a line of bomb makers was "interesting" to say the least.
Last edited by ampclamp; 20th Nov 2012 at 20:10.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
atsb report
To get back to the matter at hand and atsb's supplementary report:
This is the absolute ostrich in the the sand routine and surely Gobbles pineapple reward extraordinaire!!
AND from a submission to the Green paper, notes:
This is the absolute ostrich in the the sand routine and surely Gobbles pineapple reward extraordinaire!!
AND from a submission to the Green paper, notes:
Re The ATSB and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill:
“The legislation also gives the ATSB new powers to compel agencies and operators within the aviation industry to respond to its formal recommendations within 90 days, giving the public greater confidence that the lessons from past accidents will be acted upon in a timely manner.”
“The legislation also gives the ATSB new powers to compel agencies and operators within the aviation industry to respond to its formal recommendations within 90 days, giving the public greater confidence that the lessons from past accidents will be acted upon in a timely manner.”
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 20th Nov 2012 at 20:21. Reason: A further question to the good Senators
Sosij Sizzl
You appear not to have watched to the end of the AA part of the hearing on 19 November, or read to the end of that part of the Hansard. At the end of the AA part of the hearing, the Chair said to the AA witnesses, and Hansard records, this:
As I have previously observed, Senator Heffernan tends to be flamboyant and tiring. But the substantial difference in this matter is that he is far from alone in his open disgust at and contempt for what he is hearing.
And Senator Heffernan is no dummy (or bunny).
You appear not to have watched to the end of the AA part of the hearing on 19 November, or read to the end of that part of the Hansard. At the end of the AA part of the hearing, the Chair said to the AA witnesses, and Hansard records, this:
CHAIR: Can I clarify that I am disgusted not by the officers but by the system that allows this to happen. We are in no way blaming you. I think you are the bunnies.
And Senator Heffernan is no dummy (or bunny).
Last edited by Creampuff; 20th Nov 2012 at 20:34.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sosij sizzl
I think I have mentioned that rather than being farce, Airservices is quite entitled to point out other State's shortcomings, and is quite entitled to require airspace over Australian sovereign territory be operated in any manner Australia sees fit. If you are armed with that information, Airservices Duty of Care comes into play. Whilst Heffernan used insulting language, his point was entirely germane. He is quite right in that it appears AsA's attitude (via Harfield) is that "It isn't our airspace, so it's not our business". That attitude may not be good enough, especially in a venue such as the Coroners Court- let alone a Senate hearing. It is Australian territory, delegated to another provider.
It's probable that that fact has just been overlooked, but can no longer (and nor should it) be ignored.
To suggest that Airservices is culpable for another ICAO State's procedures and should be informing them of their shortcomings is pure farce.
It's probable that that fact has just been overlooked, but can no longer (and nor should it) be ignored.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quite entitled to require airspace over Australian sovereign territory be operated in any manner Australia sees fit.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't be so lazy.
ICAO Doc 7300 Part 1 Air Navigation GENERAL PRINCIPLES
AND APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION Article 1 Sovereignty The contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.
There's a good start.
ICAO Doc 7300 Part 1 Air Navigation GENERAL PRINCIPLES
AND APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION Article 1 Sovereignty The contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.
There's a good start.
You are being naughty, blackhand. 
Australia may regulate anything in Australia because Australia is Australia. That’s what being a sovereign nation means. Australia includes its external territories, the territorial sea, and all the airspace above.
However, to return to the question about what services should be provided by whom and when, I don’t really see how this helps when an aircraft is in international airspace – that is, more than 12 nm from the baseline (of, in this case, the Norfolk Island Territory).
Australia may regulate anything in Australia because Australia is Australia. That’s what being a sovereign nation means. Australia includes its external territories, the territorial sea, and all the airspace above. However, to return to the question about what services should be provided by whom and when, I don’t really see how this helps when an aircraft is in international airspace – that is, more than 12 nm from the baseline (of, in this case, the Norfolk Island Territory).
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can think of several ways, but I've put enough time into this.
It can be done (quite easily, but might be a lengthy explanation). I'm happy to discuss consulting terms (and having thought about it, the OAR is probably the body responsible for fixing these sorts of things now), so get them to call me
.
It can be done (quite easily, but might be a lengthy explanation). I'm happy to discuss consulting terms (and having thought about it, the OAR is probably the body responsible for fixing these sorts of things now), so get them to call me
.
ferris thanks for the reference and I wasn't being lazy just helps if you know where to look.
Q/ Is there a MOU/Agreement between ASA and Airways NZ in regards to the FIR regions?
Q/ Is there a MOU/Agreement between ASA and Airways NZ in regards to the FIR regions?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BoM v ASA.
Senator STERLE: Colleagues, I understand the frustration and I am experiencing it too. But, with the greatest respect, yelling at the officers from the department is not called for. Chair, I think Senator Xenophon, rather than putting the question on notice, should put his questions to the officers now while we have the opportunity.
The lack of a similar system for ASA seems to have provoked the committee. There appears to be an identified 'fault line'; and, if that fault line had been addressed early in the piece (2000 days ago), then perhaps the heat in the kitchen would have been reduced. A Simple statement to the committee – "we have identified the fault line and taken the following steps to rectify it" – would have deflected the frustration. The committee could then throw their support behind curing any problem between jurisdictions at government level if required. Had this been presented as proactive safety management instead of the usual 'party line' it would have scored points. But, alas – Hansard tells a very different tale.
The fury and frustration with the agencies concerned is apparent; perhaps 'El Jefe' was OTT, but could that not be excused as being completely "over" listening to another carefully scripted alibi. If you read the Hansard Fawcett, Xenophon and a couple of the others were in just as dangerous a frame of mind as Heff; but played the 'good cop' very well.
Last edited by Kharon; 21st Nov 2012 at 00:10.
Gee sure is lively on here this morning!
It's officially official the Senate Inquiry reporting date has been extended:
Oh and for those who are interested, it seems there are quite a few, here's the live link for this arvo's theatre:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committe Aviation accident investigations 21 Nov
It's officially official the Senate Inquiry reporting date has been extended:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Reporting Date
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (16:07): At the request of Senator Heffernan, I move: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on aviation accident investigation be extended to 27 February 2013.
Question agreed to.
Reporting Date
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (16:07): At the request of Senator Heffernan, I move: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on aviation accident investigation be extended to 27 February 2013.
Question agreed to.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst Rome burns, the serfs procrastinate.
A new twist on the idea.
If The Senate hasn't achieved anything yet, it would appear there is more time allocated do so. What I, and a lot of others know now is, we were not paranoid, only driven to thinking we were. The other non believers are simply trying to defend the asylum.
A new twist on the idea.
If The Senate hasn't achieved anything yet, it would appear there is more time allocated do so. What I, and a lot of others know now is, we were not paranoid, only driven to thinking we were. The other non believers are simply trying to defend the asylum.