R Areas - Shoalwater Bay
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.
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.
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 so his job is to salute smartly and say "Yes Sir, I will check my emails for feedback Sir".
Originally Posted by Eclan
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.
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!
Last edited by KRviator; 16th Nov 2022 at 05:12.
Welcome to the low-grade, muck-raking, green leftist, anti-establishment shame group, KR!
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:
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, 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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
"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!
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.
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.
LB has answered your nonsense about "muck - raking" - I guess your saying that the end justifies the means, breaking the law is so acceptable!
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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"
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"
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 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.
Calling upon and expecting the executive government to comply with the law is a "leftist agenda"? Thanks for the belly laugh, eclan!
Thread Starter
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 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.
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.
AIC H35/22 describes the latest humps and band-aides being applied to this camel.
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:
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:
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.
[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.
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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
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
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…
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…
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…
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
H09/23
Last edited by missy; 16th Feb 2023 at 12:47. Reason: added link
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.
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.
"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. 