Wikiposts
Search
Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Williamtown Airspace

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 8th Apr 2023, 07:25
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 3 Posts
Williamtown Airspace

I realise I have done this all before, but just to let you know, the "war in the air" continues.

Dear Flt Cdr,

Once again I am driven to write to the ADF concerning airspace changes that are not authorised under Australian law. The rule of law so often quoted by our senior politicians.

In the above AVSEF request for feedback you make certain statements that are not, and create airspace that is not, allowed under the Airspace Act, Regulations or the current Airspace Policy Statement (Barnaby Joyce; 19 Nov 2021)

I will not quote the detail from the Act and other documents, I am sure you have read them, and for purposes unknown, decided to ignore the words authorised by the Federal Parliament.

Specifically you refer to:
  1. Military Class C control area (CTA)
  2. Williamtown Military Control Zone
  3. Proposed R574ABCD WILLIAMTOWN
The terms used at 1 and 2 do not exist in the various documents authorising airspace, so CASA OAR does not have the authority to authorise their use. Furthermore, if the nomenclature is designed to contain some kind of modification to the classes of airspace being promulgated, then it is misleading and arguably dangerous. There is no point in claiming that Australia complies with, and uses, ICAO airspace classifications, if a pilot is flying in an airspace that does not comply with the ICAO definition. It is recognised that CASA may create CTA and CTR of an ICAO class and allow the ADF, unaudited by CASA, to provide airspace services in that airspace.

The restricted airspace at 3, R574 A - D, appears, in large part to be outside of Australia's territorial waters, is therefore illegal. CASA has in existence a published aeronautical document (AIC H08/23) stating that such airspace is not recognised, cannot be enforced, but then ordering Australian pilots and companies (including Airservices) to recognise the airspace.
Yours Sincerely

Geoff Fairless
Geoff Fairless is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 8th Apr 2023, 07:43
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Further away
Posts: 946
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
Being Easter doubt there would be anyone other than the gate guard at the base, I look forward to a reply mid next week
megle2 is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2023, 09:10
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1. Defence have used a misnomer but they are trying to describe the service that will be provided to civil aircraft as per AIP ENR 1.4 para 1.5.2
2. Defence can't be blamed for using the same terminology as in AIP ENR 1.4 para 1.3.1
3. Think you will find that R574 will be renamed and published as a MOA when it finally arrives on 30 November.
atcnews is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2023, 11:54
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 133*50 23*50
Posts: 163
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RAAF ‘Unidentified aircraft, identify yourself’
PRC ’this is Chinese military aircraft, operating in international airspace under the rules and regulations…..’
Mail-man is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.