NSW Mil Areas changes 30th November 23
The wheel turns, too frequently. Complaining about the cost of equipment and then the cost of utilising them. Undoubtedly there would be complaints about equipment sitting on the tarmac not being utilised. Then we don’t buy it and when either the sh)t hits the fan or we want to wave a big stick to make someone think twice it is too late. Bases to close to heavily nice, populated areas. Well once they were not heavily populated areas or airways. A bit like noise complaints from those having bought near airports. And thank heavens for an opinion that is devoid of facts. Unless things have changed discounted drinks departed decades ago.
Not once in this discussion so far has there being any mention of the OAR, the section within CASA whose role is to manage the establishment of airspace (amongst other related tasks).
This proposal would be on their table somewhere and the OAR thru CASA have a responsibility to ensure such proposals are valid and balanced for all users and fully consulted with industry. Sadly however I don’t presently believe the workings of the OAR are being fully supported within CASA by some senior managers and an obvious influence by ASA who only want change to not cost them anything.
This proposal would be on their table somewhere and the OAR thru CASA have a responsibility to ensure such proposals are valid and balanced for all users and fully consulted with industry. Sadly however I don’t presently believe the workings of the OAR are being fully supported within CASA by some senior managers and an obvious influence by ASA who only want change to not cost them anything.
Thread Starter
The link in the opening post if you scroll to the bottom there is another link which takes you to the AsA engage portal on this. And then in the engage portal down the bottom of that is a link to the AVSEF consultation on this. Am sure OAR has some sort of connection with AVSEF ?
Problem is all these info channels don't include the ppl most affected, the punters paying more per ticket and the airline finance guy having to pay more for supply of services due to the impacts of changed routes, bad levels etc etc. The consultation doesn't target the ppl who will be adversely affected and hence why it's hard to see any changes being made. Who would propose them ?
Problem is all these info channels don't include the ppl most affected, the punters paying more per ticket and the airline finance guy having to pay more for supply of services due to the impacts of changed routes, bad levels etc etc. The consultation doesn't target the ppl who will be adversely affected and hence why it's hard to see any changes being made. Who would propose them ?
Yes, the OAR does have an interface with AVSEF which I would expect to consult widely on this proposal. However ASA of late seem to be wanting to undertake their own consultation with segments of industry (not everyone) regardless of AVSEF..
For those that have been around a while, we have seen the destruction over the past five years or so of what may well have been the most successful and longest running (almost 40 yrs) consultation forum. I am referring to the RAPACs which CASA backed out of in favour of AVSEF. Even in its last years ASA backed out of participation and helped bring about it’s demise.
The AVSEF process has not replaced the RAPACs as the consultation is not as broad and does not generate open discussion with industry. We shall see how this works out, but the RAAF stand a good chance of getting most of what they want. Why not ask them where the proposed VFR lanes through AMB got to?
For those that have been around a while, we have seen the destruction over the past five years or so of what may well have been the most successful and longest running (almost 40 yrs) consultation forum. I am referring to the RAPACs which CASA backed out of in favour of AVSEF. Even in its last years ASA backed out of participation and helped bring about it’s demise.
The AVSEF process has not replaced the RAPACs as the consultation is not as broad and does not generate open discussion with industry. We shall see how this works out, but the RAAF stand a good chance of getting most of what they want. Why not ask them where the proposed VFR lanes through AMB got to?
It’s interesting to go back to ‘first principles’ on airspace management, and in particular the declaration of restricted areas. Regulations 6 and 7 of the Airspace Regulations 2007 relevantly say:
There are a couple of very important things to note out of that:
First, restricted airspace is about - or is supposed to be about - what is happening in the area of Australian territory underneath the airspace. For example, mine blasting could put at risk the safety of aircraft flying over the mine. For example, the security of some classified installation on the ground might be put at risk if aircraft could fly over and ‘spy’ on the installation.
Contrast danger areas, which are about activities within the danger area (or in the area of Australian territory underneath the danger area) that are a potential danger to aircraft. Look closely and compare the words in regs 6(3) and 6(4): “over” versus “within or over”. For example, intense flying training is something happening within airspace, which is why they are generally declared danger areas.
Short point: Military aircraft flying around in a chunk of airspace is not, of itself, sufficient for the valid declaration of that chunk of airspace to be “restricted”. Restricted airspace is about the risks caused by or to stuff on the ground/water underneath the airspace (provided it’s in Australian territory).
Secondly, and in any event, restricted airspace is usable on satisfaction of conditions. Those conditions of use must be published along with the declaration of the restricted area (reg 7(2).
Short point: There is no such thing as an ‘active’ restricted area that cannot be used, no matter the circumstances. (That's a 'prohibited' area.) All restricted airspace is useable, subject to conditions, which conditions must be published.
At least that’s the theory.
Alas, mere trivialities like the law rarely get in the way of airspace management in Australia. Out of many, many examples, does anyone recall the conditions of use of the restricted area recently declared, by NOTAM, around Shepparton? I don’t recall them being published in the NOTAM.
(And for the sake of completeness: The ADF has no separate power to designate airspace.)
6 Designation of prohibited, restricted or danger areas
(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.
(2) CASA must not declare an area to be a prohibited area unless, in the opinion of CASA, it is necessary for reasons of military necessity to prohibit the flight of aircraft over the area.
(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.
(4) CASA must not declare an area to be a danger area unless, in the opinion of CASA, there exists within or over the area an activity that is a potential danger to aircraft flying over the area.
…
7 Publication of a designation
(1) CASA must cause a declaration designating an area to be a prohibited area, a restricted area or a danger area to be published:
(a) if the declaration is to have effect for a period of 3 months or longer—in the AIP; or
(b) in any other case—in a NOTAM.
(2) Publication of a declaration of a restricted area must set out the conditions in accordance with which the flight of aircraft over the area is permitted.
…
(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.
(2) CASA must not declare an area to be a prohibited area unless, in the opinion of CASA, it is necessary for reasons of military necessity to prohibit the flight of aircraft over the area.
(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.
(4) CASA must not declare an area to be a danger area unless, in the opinion of CASA, there exists within or over the area an activity that is a potential danger to aircraft flying over the area.
…
7 Publication of a designation
(1) CASA must cause a declaration designating an area to be a prohibited area, a restricted area or a danger area to be published:
(a) if the declaration is to have effect for a period of 3 months or longer—in the AIP; or
(b) in any other case—in a NOTAM.
(2) Publication of a declaration of a restricted area must set out the conditions in accordance with which the flight of aircraft over the area is permitted.
…
First, restricted airspace is about - or is supposed to be about - what is happening in the area of Australian territory underneath the airspace. For example, mine blasting could put at risk the safety of aircraft flying over the mine. For example, the security of some classified installation on the ground might be put at risk if aircraft could fly over and ‘spy’ on the installation.
Contrast danger areas, which are about activities within the danger area (or in the area of Australian territory underneath the danger area) that are a potential danger to aircraft. Look closely and compare the words in regs 6(3) and 6(4): “over” versus “within or over”. For example, intense flying training is something happening within airspace, which is why they are generally declared danger areas.
Short point: Military aircraft flying around in a chunk of airspace is not, of itself, sufficient for the valid declaration of that chunk of airspace to be “restricted”. Restricted airspace is about the risks caused by or to stuff on the ground/water underneath the airspace (provided it’s in Australian territory).
Secondly, and in any event, restricted airspace is usable on satisfaction of conditions. Those conditions of use must be published along with the declaration of the restricted area (reg 7(2).
Short point: There is no such thing as an ‘active’ restricted area that cannot be used, no matter the circumstances. (That's a 'prohibited' area.) All restricted airspace is useable, subject to conditions, which conditions must be published.
At least that’s the theory.
Alas, mere trivialities like the law rarely get in the way of airspace management in Australia. Out of many, many examples, does anyone recall the conditions of use of the restricted area recently declared, by NOTAM, around Shepparton? I don’t recall them being published in the NOTAM.
(And for the sake of completeness: The ADF has no separate power to designate airspace.)
The folly of disregarding informed advice and placing airspace policy in casa
"Airspace is a non renewable national resource" - quote from the forward of the recommendations from the AERU when drafting the original Airspace Act in 2004.
As at least one of the frequent posters on this site will remember, the recommendations of the AERU were based on the premise that the management of airspace was a policy matter and not one of regulation and therefore the office charged with "airspace" should be within the ministry and not in the regulator. Unfortunately the combined efforts of Airservices (worried about the financial implications) and CASA (worried about not having sufficient "control") managed to have the OAR established within CASA and then progressively gelded by poor personnel choices and internal politics to arrive at the sorry state it now finds itself.
Much that same can be said for the reasons and processes behind the demise of NAPAC and RAPAC and the changes in the upper level committee, once known as the Air Coordinating Committee and its regional elements (RACS) where robust and effective stakeholder engagement and discussion could take place.
The fox is now in charge of the hen house and reasoned policy discussions on airspace management and joint facilities and shared use and inconvenience (once a good workable arrangement) for airspace are in the hands of rank amateurs posing as regulators with inadequate experience and understanding of both.
Gne
As at least one of the frequent posters on this site will remember, the recommendations of the AERU were based on the premise that the management of airspace was a policy matter and not one of regulation and therefore the office charged with "airspace" should be within the ministry and not in the regulator. Unfortunately the combined efforts of Airservices (worried about the financial implications) and CASA (worried about not having sufficient "control") managed to have the OAR established within CASA and then progressively gelded by poor personnel choices and internal politics to arrive at the sorry state it now finds itself.
Much that same can be said for the reasons and processes behind the demise of NAPAC and RAPAC and the changes in the upper level committee, once known as the Air Coordinating Committee and its regional elements (RACS) where robust and effective stakeholder engagement and discussion could take place.
The fox is now in charge of the hen house and reasoned policy discussions on airspace management and joint facilities and shared use and inconvenience (once a good workable arrangement) for airspace are in the hands of rank amateurs posing as regulators with inadequate experience and understanding of both.
Gne
Thread Starter
This airspace could send a mob like Bonza broke even before they start ! Imagine trying to get a Sunny Coast to Avalon/Albury/ Mildura flight through that obstacle course !
I pity the ATCs trying to make a silk purse out of that sow's ear of an airspace.
I pity the ATCs trying to make a silk purse out of that sow's ear of an airspace.
I asked a mate of mine - coincidentally an ex-RAAFie like me - who's been flying GA for decades in the UK, what airspace arrangements apply around fighter jet bases like RAF Coningsby. His reply says, among other things:
One wonders how the RAF can possibly survive and remain competent without thousands of cubic kilometres of restricted airspace to fly in.
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!
Perhaps more than you do.
Let’s hope the previous government’s announcement of a long-term plan to expand the ADF to the size it was in the mid-1970s is implemented. Australia’s Lillipution – I mean ‘boutique’ – ADF needs to be somewhat larger if it is to stave off that baddie whose name you dare not speak.
Imagine how scared that baddie must be, knowing that the entirety of the ADF’s personnel could fit into the MCG. And spending upwards of $5billion on a terminated submarine project made a lot of people in suits richer but contributed nothing to defence capability. Plenty of other people in suits are getting richer off defence spending while contributing little-to-nothing to defence capability.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether the increased volume of restricted airspace – even the existing volume - is justified by the risks and costs. It’s not surprising that if there’s an option to operate in splendid isolation in a huge volume of restricted airspace, it’s taken. But that’s not how our allies train. For a reason.
My comments were semi light hearted, Australians are weak, soft and lack any moral courage or fibre. We saw that over the last 2.5 years, if I was in the defence force I'd find it difficult to justify laying my life on the line for the majority of the population. What exactly do you think you can do about the restricted areas? Nuthin' mate, if you want a say on aviation infrastructure, airspace etc, move to the States where having a say is protected by a constitution. Here, you're pushing **** up hill. If you don't know your place in this 'society' you haven't been listening over the last few years.
Thankyou for demanding the vulnerable lay their lives on the line so you can have a beer or whatever terribly important thing you missed out on. Thankfully you're both in the minority.
Thread Starter
Le Pingoiun,
From previous reading of some of your contributions you seem to have some previous/current ATC experience. Could you describe how these types of mass Aispace/Restricted Area/Route/level changes can affect the workload and normal flow of traffic in and around a Sector like this ?
And then throw in some storm systems moving across there or severe turbulence or a day where everyone planned low F250 chasing winds etc ?
From previous reading of some of your contributions you seem to have some previous/current ATC experience. Could you describe how these types of mass Aispace/Restricted Area/Route/level changes can affect the workload and normal flow of traffic in and around a Sector like this ?
And then throw in some storm systems moving across there or severe turbulence or a day where everyone planned low F250 chasing winds etc ?
Last edited by 10JQKA; 30th Oct 2022 at 23:57.
"Airspace is a non renewable national resource" - quote from the forward of the recommendations from the AERU when drafting the original Airspace Act in 2004.
As at least one of the frequent posters on this site will remember, the recommendations of the AERU were based on the premise that the management of airspace was a policy matter and not one of regulation and therefore the office charged with "airspace" should be within the ministry and not in the regulator. Unfortunately the combined efforts of Airservices (worried about the financial implications) and CASA (worried about not having sufficient "control") managed to have the OAR established within CASA and then progressively gelded by poor personnel choices and internal politics to arrive at the sorry state it now finds itself.
Much that same can be said for the reasons and processes behind the demise of NAPAC and RAPAC and the changes in the upper level committee, once known as the Air Coordinating Committee and its regional elements (RACS) where robust and effective stakeholder engagement and discussion could take place.
The fox is now in charge of the hen house and reasoned policy discussions on airspace management and joint facilities and shared use and inconvenience (once a good workable arrangement) for airspace are in the hands of rank amateurs posing as regulators with inadequate experience and understanding of both.
Gne
As at least one of the frequent posters on this site will remember, the recommendations of the AERU were based on the premise that the management of airspace was a policy matter and not one of regulation and therefore the office charged with "airspace" should be within the ministry and not in the regulator. Unfortunately the combined efforts of Airservices (worried about the financial implications) and CASA (worried about not having sufficient "control") managed to have the OAR established within CASA and then progressively gelded by poor personnel choices and internal politics to arrive at the sorry state it now finds itself.
Much that same can be said for the reasons and processes behind the demise of NAPAC and RAPAC and the changes in the upper level committee, once known as the Air Coordinating Committee and its regional elements (RACS) where robust and effective stakeholder engagement and discussion could take place.
The fox is now in charge of the hen house and reasoned policy discussions on airspace management and joint facilities and shared use and inconvenience (once a good workable arrangement) for airspace are in the hands of rank amateurs posing as regulators with inadequate experience and understanding of both.
Gne
And then throw in some storm systems moving across there or severe turbulence or a day where everyone planned low F250 chasing winds etc ?
10JQKA, recently retired en-route. Standard alternate routes are usually the way it's handled. Generally it's not just sprung on us so we have plenty of time to plan. As to the weather, etc, well we have to play that by ear. Of course it adds to workload and complicates things but that's what we're paid for.
I suspect this is part of the development for OneSky - the intention is for a more dynamic use of restricted airspace than we currently have once we're all using the same system.
I suspect this is part of the development for OneSky - the intention is for a more dynamic use of restricted airspace than we currently have once we're all using the same system.
That may be one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever read. Pilots will need to routinely declare emergencies just to operate safely in Australia? It’ll just box pilots into corners, force them to run past storms with fewer safety margins rather than go through the hassle of declaring an emergency, followed by the paperwork and subsequent investigations. Eventually some RAAF empire builder will decide to make an example and prosecute a civilian pilot just trying safely operate their machine, dissuading others from doing the same.
Maybe he was being “semi light hearted”.
That may be one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever read. Pilots will need to routinely declare emergencies just to operate safely in Australia? It’ll just box pilots into corners, force them to run past storms with fewer safety margins rather than go through the hassle of declaring an emergency, followed by the paperwork and subsequent investigations. Eventually some RAAF empire builder will decide to make an example and prosecute a civilian pilot just trying safely operate their machine, dissuading others from doing the same.
Thread Starter
Save the date, now Nov 30 2023
https://news.defence.gov.au/media/me...-area-airspace
Things gonna look very different in/out of SY to the NW and in/out of QLD to VIC/SA/WA for passenger jets very soon. One wonders how airline bean counters feel about long diversion routes and sub optimum levels for 26/52 weeks a year ?
Things gonna look very different in/out of SY to the NW and in/out of QLD to VIC/SA/WA for passenger jets very soon. One wonders how airline bean counters feel about long diversion routes and sub optimum levels for 26/52 weeks a year ?
So this now happening Nov 30th. Plus WM stars added and many other changes.
Do 3 split arse turns for a SY Wellcamp flight ( hard right near MDG to TW hard left TW to MOR hard right MOR to BN) or 2 for a ML Wellcamp (delete MDG turn) appear reasonable as a normal enroute high level flight planning route ? This just 1 of the highlights !
Massive route changes, massive increase in Mil areas and corridors.
Going to be a fun summer 23/24 storm season, throw in the odd TIBA here and there could make things interesting.
Guarranteed they haven't thought of that or give a ****.
Last edited by 10JQKA; 11th Oct 2023 at 04:01.