R Areas - Shoalwater Bay
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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?
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?
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.
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.
14 June 2023
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...er-areas-etc-0
https://www.casa.gov.au/declarations...er-areas-etc-0
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.
Laughing stock.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 21st Sep 2023 at 09:35. Reason: To correct a typo.
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
f 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.
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
f 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.
The following users liked this post:
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 delusionf 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.
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
f 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.
The following 2 users liked this post by sunnySA:
Thread Starter
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) 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
The confusion continues..............
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) 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, MOAs 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 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.
The confusion continues..............
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.)
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.
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.
(b) the protection of the environment;
(c) security.
