Airservices --- One for the lawyers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airservices --- One for the lawyers.
I think this is one for Creampuff, or any of the lawyers on pprune. Lots of stories are floating around about what Airservices legally can and can’t do. I'll stick to flying aeroplanes.
The stories are along the lines of only being able to provide services in compliance with their CASA license or licenses, and to a set of standards that are CASA regulations, MOS or whatever. Airservices can “designate” airspace, along ICAO A,B,C,D,E lines, ie: “controlled airspace”, but how much more, in a "regulatory" sense?. There seems to be some credibility to this, CASA was running the NAS 2c case, not Airservices.
It sounds like it gets interesting when it gets to changing what happens in that airspace, once Airservices gives it a name. If the CASA “standard” for C requires radar, who does what to whom to change the “standard” so non radar C can be rolled out (or back out, we wouldn't want to be shafted by pedants, would we) in November.
Is the Airservices “out” in the Ministerial directive no out at all, and C must have radar ?? Is Dick Smith's case being overtaken by this "allegation"from left ( or after Saturday's result, right ) field ??
There are a whole bunch of changes for November that were not part of NAS 2b, can Airservices just “do it”, even though it involves CASA procedures established by regulation, or do CASA have to go through all the consultation processes, risk assessment and the like, and not Airservices at all.
Wherefore art though, Creampuff. Some people are seriously suggesting that Airservices is a bit like the Emperor With No Clothes.
The stories are along the lines of only being able to provide services in compliance with their CASA license or licenses, and to a set of standards that are CASA regulations, MOS or whatever. Airservices can “designate” airspace, along ICAO A,B,C,D,E lines, ie: “controlled airspace”, but how much more, in a "regulatory" sense?. There seems to be some credibility to this, CASA was running the NAS 2c case, not Airservices.
It sounds like it gets interesting when it gets to changing what happens in that airspace, once Airservices gives it a name. If the CASA “standard” for C requires radar, who does what to whom to change the “standard” so non radar C can be rolled out (or back out, we wouldn't want to be shafted by pedants, would we) in November.
Is the Airservices “out” in the Ministerial directive no out at all, and C must have radar ?? Is Dick Smith's case being overtaken by this "allegation"from left ( or after Saturday's result, right ) field ??
There are a whole bunch of changes for November that were not part of NAS 2b, can Airservices just “do it”, even though it involves CASA procedures established by regulation, or do CASA have to go through all the consultation processes, risk assessment and the like, and not Airservices at all.
Wherefore art though, Creampuff. Some people are seriously suggesting that Airservices is a bit like the Emperor With No Clothes.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm, is there a question in all that twaddle???
There is no legal connection between C airspace and radar.
If my licence doesn't let me use C airspace I'll have to hold everybody at 40NM Melbourne until somebody fixes it
There is no legal connection between C airspace and radar.
If my licence doesn't let me use C airspace I'll have to hold everybody at 40NM Melbourne until somebody fixes it
Here’s your homework, monkeyfly:
Read sections 3, 8, 9, 10, 16 and 17 of the Air Service Act 1995 here: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pas...2/1217/top.htm
Then read the whole Act, twice. Note especially subsections 16(1) and 16(4).
Read Parts 1 and 2 of the Air Service Regulations here:
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pas...2/1215/top.htm
Then read the whole Regulations, twice. Note especially subregulation 2.04(1).
Then read Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority here (about characterisation of statutory requirements and the effect of failure to comply with them): http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/28.html
Then read National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Services Secretariat Limited v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs here(in relation to the nature and scope of Ministerial direction powers): http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c.../2003/287.html
Then have a quick squiz at the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, the Civil Aviation Regulation 1998, the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.
Then it gets complicated.
Read sections 3, 8, 9, 10, 16 and 17 of the Air Service Act 1995 here: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pas...2/1217/top.htm
Then read the whole Act, twice. Note especially subsections 16(1) and 16(4).
Read Parts 1 and 2 of the Air Service Regulations here:
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pas...2/1215/top.htm
Then read the whole Regulations, twice. Note especially subregulation 2.04(1).
Then read Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority here (about characterisation of statutory requirements and the effect of failure to comply with them): http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/28.html
Then read National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Services Secretariat Limited v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs here(in relation to the nature and scope of Ministerial direction powers): http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c.../2003/287.html
Then have a quick squiz at the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, the Civil Aviation Regulation 1998, the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.
Then it gets complicated.
Can you say that again Creamie, starting from: 'Here's your homework ....'
Alternatively, precis your view in three short dot points!
Cranky Franky
Alternatively, precis your view in three short dot points!
Cranky Franky
Last edited by Frank Burden; 12th Oct 2004 at 06:10.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
Seriously complicated.
There is no doubt of Airservices right to designate airspace, but they are licensed by CASA as a service provider. Whose rules prevail when Airservices is carrying out its licensed business of providing all the services it provides.
If there is a difference between CASA “rules” and Airservices, whose rules prevail.
Is there an answer at all, short of the High Court? Or is the legislation a crock.
Hermeias
Seriously complicated.
There is no doubt of Airservices right to designate airspace, but they are licensed by CASA as a service provider. Whose rules prevail when Airservices is carrying out its licensed business of providing all the services it provides.
If there is a difference between CASA “rules” and Airservices, whose rules prevail.
Is there an answer at all, short of the High Court? Or is the legislation a crock.
Hermeias
You’ve been provided with the links to the legislation. During this period of litigation anything further is inadvisable, lest assistance be provided to those who should be paying for legal expertise. Hence things have gone quiet on the subject. If a certain party or supporters want expert interpretation then they can pay for it, instead of perhaps engaging in fishing expeditions on PPRuNe.
I notice today that Dick’s website is down. Due to change of service provider, or perhaps (wishful thinking) pulled for legal reasons?
I notice today that Dick’s website is down. Due to change of service provider, or perhaps (wishful thinking) pulled for legal reasons?
