Restricted airspace outside the 12nm limit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Restricted airspace outside the 12nm limit
I vaguely remember this topic being raised on the 'New Airspace Proposal' thread a little while ago, but don't remember seeing a satisfactory answer.. .. .My question - can someone point me towards the legal basis that allows a country to declare 'Restricted' airspace outside the 12nm territorial limit. . .. .Just to show that I have done some research, Article 222 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention allows for . . </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">. .enforcement within the air space under a state's sovereignty in order to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere.. .</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">But that seems a slightly dodgy excuse. Can anyone help?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By mutual International agreement - see. .<a href="http://www.icao.int/icao/en/pub/memo.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icao.int/icao/en/pub/memo.htm</a>. .. .Each contries aviation rules will refer to ICAO standards. . .. .?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No state can legally enforce air rules outside 12nm. (ICAO Doc 4444). Complying with clearances is really only being polite. Ask the US mil P3 drivers- you know the ones that occasionally bump into angry locals.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be an online copy of the relevant ICAO Doc 4444. And I'm not in a huge rush to spend US$125 on a question that was really one of curiosity.... .. .I don't suppose one of the kind members out there has a copy of the relevant pub lying around that they could cut and paste from???. .. .Please excuse my cheapness <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />
Fishy,. .Get off ya butt and out of your office, walk just across the road and ask one of those over paid, under worked legal types next to punnies office. Geez, ya leave and the whole place goes to rack and ruin.. .Seem to remember that a state can do what it wants, where it wants, as long as it can enforce it (same deal as exclusion zones etc.). .Tell me, you have not been caught being a cowboy again have you?. .Your hero and mine.. .Don. . . . <small>[ 19 March 2002, 06:42: Message edited by: donpizmeov ]</small>
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It goes something along the line that a State can proclaim R areas outside the 12 mile limit, but it has no authority to keep other State aircraft out of the area. They do have authority over civil aircraft from their own state.. .. .Put another way, Australia can proclaim R areas outside the limit, but if the US or any other state aircraft chooses to operate in that area then they can do so and there is zip that the Australian authorities can do about it. However.. if you are an Australian pilot/Aircraft then the same rules apply as to R areas within the state boundary.. .. .This was subject to much discussion during the PRD review held in the mid '90's. The recommendations I think are still bogged down within the DoD.. .. .Will post some extracts on return home later in week if interest is still there.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic,. .. .No, the issue is not bogged down in DoD. ASA are not real keen to revisit the issue either! A meeting was held in 1999 to try and progress the issue, and the basic upshot was it(from ASA's point of view also!) is all too hard to fix!!. .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="cool.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="cool.gif" /> . .. .Fishhead - If you want an update, ring JCAM 1/DLO at ASA - WGCDR John Hodder on 02 6268 4327 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />. . . . <small>[ 20 March 2002, 02:16: Message edited by: scran ]</small>
try:. .. .<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=008797&p=2" target="_blank">http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=008797&p=2</a>
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scran.. yes know about that, but they are just taking the easy out. Like everything else over the past 10 + years. The only things that ASA do is what they want to do and not a bit more.. .There is only one item that has come about in the last 12 years that was an industry initiative and that had to be fought for. The whole issue of the PRD report has been raised again, just this month, so it will be interesting to see how and who wants to bury it this time.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just checked- and Doc. 4444 section on applicability over the high seas has been removed (amended 1996- good to see I stay up to date????). Now the only applicable refs are Annexe 2, and article 12. So basically ICAO claims contracting states do have authority over the high seas. Which leaves you with the chestnut of States claiming the high seas. Impossible to win (warning-lawyerfest).. .As an aside: The biggest abuser of this rule (Annexe 2) would have to be the US mil, even though the US is a contracting State! "....bearing the markings or registration of a contracting State...." pretty clear imho.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don PizzMeOrrf... . .I did get off my butt (which I might add, is significantly smaller than yours) and walk across the road. Unfortunately, my question was beyond the knowledge of our legal eagle, and she was also unable to find an answer in her research. As a result, I am forced to revert to the ultimate oracle of all knowledge (PPRuNe!). She has asked that I pass any info gathered onto her so she can edumacate herself.. .And I am not a cowboy!!!. .. .Ferris,. .I did find in the US FAA docs a reference to the fact that they are unable to declare Restricted airspace beyond the territorial limit, hence the existence of Warning Zones off the coast. My legal type _was_ able to tell me that the US of A hasn't ratified the 1982 Low of the Sea convention, and do not actually recognise the 12nm 'limit' - rather, they accept a 3nm limit as the boundary for national sovreignty.. .. .Scran,. .Thanks for that - I rang WGCDR Hodder (although probably at a bad time - he was in the middle of dealing with the contingency plan for the ATC strike) - he was kind enough to inform me that there was no legal basis on which we could declare the airspace restricted, and he was suspected that it would all be made Restricted/Warning airspace at some stage in the future (Restricted within 12nm, Warning outside of it).. .. .Amazing what you can find out!
A small but important point FishHead: don’t conflate the limits on Defence’s power to declare restricted airspace under the Defence Act as being the limits of the Commonwealth’s power to declare restricted airspace. The former powers are a subset of, not co-terminus with, the latter powers. The fact that a Wing Commander may not have power under the Defence Act to declare restricted airspace "outside the 12 nm limit" does not mean that the Commonwealth does not have that power. I think you’ll find that the PRD review bogged down at the point it discovered that old defence – repeat defence – declarations might not be valid.. .. .If you read my posts at the link I gave above, I try to explain this point in some detail.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff. .. .It's clear to me from the above discussion and notwithstanding the accuracy of your descriptions, that the promulgation of "whatever will do the job for the time being" by executive fiat lack of legal support would go for the most part, unnoticed at least for the period during which it was necessary.. .. .Afterwards.......oh really, OK next time we'll know and with any luck somebody else will be making the same decision.. .. .gaunty in his Cessna Ciatation X to US Navy Tomcats on intercept at the 3 nm zone off Catalina with one on six requiring him to follow them or be shot down;. .. ."Sir you may go bite yourself, under ICAO Annex blah blah 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. .blah blah, I am in an Oz aircraft and we are a Contracting State to the 2000 Punxkatawny Convention blah blah..............Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp.....er OK Sir which way was it you wanted me to turn again." <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .gaunty's anarchist evil twin.. . . . <small>[ 21 March 2002, 03:15: Message edited by: gaunty ]</small>
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,. .. .But the distinction is that the military are State aircraft and State aircraft are not limited by the Chicago Convention. You will note that our Regulations give effect to the State aircarft exclusion {CAR(88)3(5)} and to the civil aircraft compliance arrangements {CAR(88) 223}. . .. .The US military has a deliberate policy of exercising the freedom of airspace over the high seas - its part of the standard pattern of being the saviour of the world. If one of their Tomcats runs over you off Lancelin, don't bother trying to sue them - they will probably try to sue you. And why would anyone get pissed off with the most internationally unco-operative country in the modern world?
