Overwater Operations
Folks,
To determine the 12 mile boundary, you need to do some homework. It is a (vast) oversimplification to assume it is 12 miles from the beach, low water mark or not.
If you look hard enough, you will find where the 12 mile limit is, this will resolve all the questions about whether direct Melbourne - Perth "needs" an international AOC ( all the carriers I know of, do have one), whether you can fly from the mainland to Tasmania, and all the "apparent" anomalies that a fertile imagination can think up.
If you are a private operation, look it up ---- no problem.
The whole issue stems from one root cause, ratbag Australian regulation going back to before I started flying ---- and regulations that required ALL VH- aircraft to have "Government Permission" to fly beyond Australia.
The Attorney-Generals Department have long been aware of the issue, successive Governments have ignored it.
"Private" operations have a permanent exemption, ie; a permission. Putting a condition in an AOC "allowing" international operations is only another way of giving a (semi) permanent permission. Needless to say, CASA make a huge meal of it, as several medivac operators with an international AOC have found out.
In one case, a medivac operator flew several miles north of the northern limit of the AOC, to a resort in northern Philippines, to pick up a badly injured Australian tourist. The "AOC limit" was expressed as a latitude, and when drawn on a map, was just south of the airfield used. Caning the operator for such a grave breach of AOC conditions was obviously a matter of serious air safety, and to hell with the life of the seriously injured tourist.
The real answer is to get rid of these virtually Australian unique regulations, they have no place in this modern day, they had no place years ago, and are just another example of " All is prohibited, that is not expressly permitted", aka All Rights Are Reserved To The Crown.
One thing is absolutely certain, Australia's vast "off shore" military restricted areas have no legal validity, and have never had any validity, in international law ---- as various organizations ( particularly the US Navy) and individuals have demonstrated --- by flying "without permission" in said restricted areas to invite retaliation ---- and, of course there is none, because there is no legal ground to take action against operations in international airspace --- notwithstanding pretty red lines printed on Australian produced aeronautical charts.
The US Government has a widely publicized policy of challenging claims to "territorial waters" that do not accord with the Law of the Sea treaties.
The US is far more punctilious (or law abiding, or less arrogant) in the matter of military exercise areas, the US complies with ICAO and other relevant treaties, and published "Warning Areas", where a military exercise area is beyond the 12 mile limit.
Tootle pip!!
PS: US Jepp charts clearly depict the US 12 mile limit for the continental US.
To determine the 12 mile boundary, you need to do some homework. It is a (vast) oversimplification to assume it is 12 miles from the beach, low water mark or not.
If you look hard enough, you will find where the 12 mile limit is, this will resolve all the questions about whether direct Melbourne - Perth "needs" an international AOC ( all the carriers I know of, do have one), whether you can fly from the mainland to Tasmania, and all the "apparent" anomalies that a fertile imagination can think up.
If you are a private operation, look it up ---- no problem.
The whole issue stems from one root cause, ratbag Australian regulation going back to before I started flying ---- and regulations that required ALL VH- aircraft to have "Government Permission" to fly beyond Australia.
The Attorney-Generals Department have long been aware of the issue, successive Governments have ignored it.
"Private" operations have a permanent exemption, ie; a permission. Putting a condition in an AOC "allowing" international operations is only another way of giving a (semi) permanent permission. Needless to say, CASA make a huge meal of it, as several medivac operators with an international AOC have found out.
In one case, a medivac operator flew several miles north of the northern limit of the AOC, to a resort in northern Philippines, to pick up a badly injured Australian tourist. The "AOC limit" was expressed as a latitude, and when drawn on a map, was just south of the airfield used. Caning the operator for such a grave breach of AOC conditions was obviously a matter of serious air safety, and to hell with the life of the seriously injured tourist.
The real answer is to get rid of these virtually Australian unique regulations, they have no place in this modern day, they had no place years ago, and are just another example of " All is prohibited, that is not expressly permitted", aka All Rights Are Reserved To The Crown.
One thing is absolutely certain, Australia's vast "off shore" military restricted areas have no legal validity, and have never had any validity, in international law ---- as various organizations ( particularly the US Navy) and individuals have demonstrated --- by flying "without permission" in said restricted areas to invite retaliation ---- and, of course there is none, because there is no legal ground to take action against operations in international airspace --- notwithstanding pretty red lines printed on Australian produced aeronautical charts.
The US Government has a widely publicized policy of challenging claims to "territorial waters" that do not accord with the Law of the Sea treaties.
The US is far more punctilious (or law abiding, or less arrogant) in the matter of military exercise areas, the US complies with ICAO and other relevant treaties, and published "Warning Areas", where a military exercise area is beyond the 12 mile limit.
Tootle pip!!
PS: US Jepp charts clearly depict the US 12 mile limit for the continental US.
Indeed Leadsled!
http://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/GA3746.pdf
This map here provided by the Australian government confirms that a direct flight between Devonport and Melbourne, or even a crossing via King Island, would require an international AOC, under the interpretation in question. (As would Melbourne - Perth, etc.)
However, noone seems to have an answer to CAR 2 and the interpretation explicitly stated by CASA that an "international air service" is one that flies from one country to another, not one that leaves one country and returns to it without entering another country's territory.
Where is that law about needing permission to leave the country? I don't doubt its existence, but I can only find the part about student pilots not being able to operate outside of Australian territory.
http://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/GA3746.pdf
This map here provided by the Australian government confirms that a direct flight between Devonport and Melbourne, or even a crossing via King Island, would require an international AOC, under the interpretation in question. (As would Melbourne - Perth, etc.)
However, noone seems to have an answer to CAR 2 and the interpretation explicitly stated by CASA that an "international air service" is one that flies from one country to another, not one that leaves one country and returns to it without entering another country's territory.
Where is that law about needing permission to leave the country? I don't doubt its existence, but I can only find the part about student pilots not being able to operate outside of Australian territory.
Let's see do the various Police rescue helicopters have international Aoc's?
Lets's see Qantaslink must have an international AoC to do the Lord Howe Island run?
What about the helicopter operaters that do the crew the crew changes on the oil rigs on the northwest shelf?
So are Tasair in breach of there AoC if they do a charter from Hobart to Saint Helens and the pilot conduct's the runway 26 GPSNPA which starts at 15 nm off the coast?
What about the RNC route from Williamtown-Entra-Nowra that takes you 25 nm off the coast, do you requir an international AoC if you plan that way?
So many questions, so many answers.
Lets's see Qantaslink must have an international AoC to do the Lord Howe Island run?
What about the helicopter operaters that do the crew the crew changes on the oil rigs on the northwest shelf?
So are Tasair in breach of there AoC if they do a charter from Hobart to Saint Helens and the pilot conduct's the runway 26 GPSNPA which starts at 15 nm off the coast?
What about the RNC route from Williamtown-Entra-Nowra that takes you 25 nm off the coast, do you requir an international AoC if you plan that way?
So many questions, so many answers.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the answer is?
So just where does this all leave those operators that have, until now, conducted what they thought were legal operations? I mean those who head to Cairns via BARIA? Those who head into Nowra via ENTRA? Those who head to King Island or Lord Howe Island, St Helens or for that matter Tassie? And what about the operators who take tourists to the Reef? The operators in the Straits who head to remote communities daily? There must be some rational decision (I know, an oxymoron when calling on our regulator!) made very quickly by CASA to sort this mess out.
Do all of these operators cease to carry out what up until now, were presumed to be legal ops? Do millions of dollars that are generated by these ops just die up and go away? Waht of the hard working souls who rely on this business to keep a bottom line or sink further into debt? All while a legal department of a government regulator sits on their hands after making a quick and rash ruling on something of such importance, something that no doubt will require legislation to change. How many months or years will this take to sort out?
Shame on you CASA, you didn't think this through properly!
Do all of these operators cease to carry out what up until now, were presumed to be legal ops? Do millions of dollars that are generated by these ops just die up and go away? Waht of the hard working souls who rely on this business to keep a bottom line or sink further into debt? All while a legal department of a government regulator sits on their hands after making a quick and rash ruling on something of such importance, something that no doubt will require legislation to change. How many months or years will this take to sort out?
Shame on you CASA, you didn't think this through properly!
Folks,
Following on from my last post, and another has contributed a link to where you can see a pictorial depiction of the Australian territorial (12 mile) limit.
That this is the territorial boundary that applies to operation of Australian aircraft is covered in the Air Navigation Act 1920, S.3.
That all aircraft have to have (CASA) permission for an international flight (outside the 12 mile limit) is the Civil Aviation Act 1988, S.26.
In addition to CASA "safety" requirements, there are many requirements for (commercial) permission under the Air Navigation Act 1920.
There are a number of permanent exemptions from the (commercial) provisions for permissions under the Air Navigation Act 1920. These generally cover operations by smaller aircraft and/or only a very limited number of flight.
As far as I can see, there are only two exemption to the CASA requirement under S.26 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, that for private operations is detailed in AIP GEN 1.8.3.This covers all international private flights.
As I recall, this exemption is in the form of a Legislative Instrument, but I haven't spotted it in the very long list on the CASA web site.
The second is that there is provision for a limited number of flights by a foreign AOC holder to Australia, after which the operator must obtain an Australian CASR Part 129 AOC.
Therefore, per the Civil Aviation Act 1988, S.26, all CAR 206 operations outside the 12 mile limit require a CASA permission, and this is generally given by way of a statement to that effect in the AOC/Operations Specification. It may also be given by alternative methods, this latter would normally only be for a one-off operation.
Without a permission/exemption under S.26, you cannot go beyond the 12 mile limit.
Whether an SID/IAL procedure that takes you beyond the 12 mile limit ( if there is one) constitutes a permission or exemption is something, for which I don't (yet) have an answer.
One point almost universally missed is that all regulations that apply to Air Service Operation also apply to private operations, unless stated otherwise, see Civil Aviation Regulation 209.
Don't take any of this as gospel for your own operations, but do your homework very carefully. At least the above is a start.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Without being too categorical, most of the Torres Straight islands, and some but not all of the Barrier Reef islands are within the territorial limits. Re. Bass Straight, have a close look at the map of all the various international boundaries.
Following on from my last post, and another has contributed a link to where you can see a pictorial depiction of the Australian territorial (12 mile) limit.
That this is the territorial boundary that applies to operation of Australian aircraft is covered in the Air Navigation Act 1920, S.3.
That all aircraft have to have (CASA) permission for an international flight (outside the 12 mile limit) is the Civil Aviation Act 1988, S.26.
In addition to CASA "safety" requirements, there are many requirements for (commercial) permission under the Air Navigation Act 1920.
There are a number of permanent exemptions from the (commercial) provisions for permissions under the Air Navigation Act 1920. These generally cover operations by smaller aircraft and/or only a very limited number of flight.
As far as I can see, there are only two exemption to the CASA requirement under S.26 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, that for private operations is detailed in AIP GEN 1.8.3.This covers all international private flights.
As I recall, this exemption is in the form of a Legislative Instrument, but I haven't spotted it in the very long list on the CASA web site.
The second is that there is provision for a limited number of flights by a foreign AOC holder to Australia, after which the operator must obtain an Australian CASR Part 129 AOC.
Therefore, per the Civil Aviation Act 1988, S.26, all CAR 206 operations outside the 12 mile limit require a CASA permission, and this is generally given by way of a statement to that effect in the AOC/Operations Specification. It may also be given by alternative methods, this latter would normally only be for a one-off operation.
Without a permission/exemption under S.26, you cannot go beyond the 12 mile limit.
Whether an SID/IAL procedure that takes you beyond the 12 mile limit ( if there is one) constitutes a permission or exemption is something, for which I don't (yet) have an answer.
One point almost universally missed is that all regulations that apply to Air Service Operation also apply to private operations, unless stated otherwise, see Civil Aviation Regulation 209.
Don't take any of this as gospel for your own operations, but do your homework very carefully. At least the above is a start.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Without being too categorical, most of the Torres Straight islands, and some but not all of the Barrier Reef islands are within the territorial limits. Re. Bass Straight, have a close look at the map of all the various international boundaries.
Last edited by LeadSled; 21st Jul 2010 at 13:51.
beer bong,
Go look up the map on glekichi's post, and work it out for yourself.
Nobody claimed the law is sensible, but there are some savage penalties for non-compliance, and believe me, "The law's an ass, M'lud" is no a defense.
Tootle pip!!
Go look up the map on glekichi's post, and work it out for yourself.
Nobody claimed the law is sensible, but there are some savage penalties for non-compliance, and believe me, "The law's an ass, M'lud" is no a defense.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled,
I would have said that the flight in question did not depart from Australian territory for a place outside Australian territory. Rather, it departed from Australian territory (Hobart) and was also for Australian territory (Hobart).
This use of the term "for" in reference to the landing place of the flight is common aviation terminology as can be found in several instances in the AIP.
Same would therefore apply to all those domestic flights that briefly leave the territory enroute.
26 Aircraft on international flights to have permission
Permissions
(1) An aircraft shall not, except with the permission of CASA and in
accordance with any conditions to which the permission is subject:
(a) arrive in Australian territory from a place outside Australian
territory; or
(b) depart from Australian territory for a place outside Australian
territory.
Permissions
(1) An aircraft shall not, except with the permission of CASA and in
accordance with any conditions to which the permission is subject:
(a) arrive in Australian territory from a place outside Australian
territory; or
(b) depart from Australian territory for a place outside Australian
territory.
This use of the term "for" in reference to the landing place of the flight is common aviation terminology as can be found in several instances in the AIP.
Same would therefore apply to all those domestic flights that briefly leave the territory enroute.
glekichi,
Beware being a bush lawyer, the legal opinion CASA is quite clear, apparently.
I assume that a "place" outside Australian territory does not necessarily mean a landing place, it could be a geographical position. This assumption on my part, and that is all it is, would be consistent with the CASA rulings flowing from the legal opinion.
Flying outside of Australian territorial waters, the 12 mile limit, departing from Australia, is flight outside Australian territory, as defined by the Air Navigation Act 1920. As far as I can see, there is not suggestion that the flight outside Australian territory need to be to anywhere in particular, it only needs to cross the boundary.
Tootle pip!!
Beware being a bush lawyer, the legal opinion CASA is quite clear, apparently.
I assume that a "place" outside Australian territory does not necessarily mean a landing place, it could be a geographical position. This assumption on my part, and that is all it is, would be consistent with the CASA rulings flowing from the legal opinion.
Flying outside of Australian territorial waters, the 12 mile limit, departing from Australia, is flight outside Australian territory, as defined by the Air Navigation Act 1920. As far as I can see, there is not suggestion that the flight outside Australian territory need to be to anywhere in particular, it only needs to cross the boundary.
Tootle pip!!
I know I am not a lawyer but I can find any number of references throughout the AIP and the CARs that suggest my interpretation is right.
Here is yet another for argument's sake: (from the AIP)
Under your interpretation, why is it necessary to separate flights that are "over" and "into" Australian territory? What is the difference? Would a flight flying "over" Australian territory not already be flying "into" Australian territory? I'm pretty sure they are not talking about spaceships! 
Sounds more like CASA trying to backpedal and save face at the same time.
Has all Tasmanian traffic across Bass Strait come to a halt or changed course to fly the RNP approach-like track required via Flinders Island and all the other little islands?
Has the Sydney curfew departure that pretty much takes you via NZ been amended? Don't we all just wish!!
All that said, I (thankfully) don't have any plans to fly beyond Australian territory in the near future, so my bush lawyerism isn't going to land me in any hot water for now.
Here is yet another for argument's sake: (from the AIP)
1.3.1 Definition of Non‐scheduled Services. Non‐scheduled service,
in relation to an aircraft that possesses the nationality of a
Contracting State, means a flight by that aircraft over or into
Australian territory other than under the authority of an
international airline licence.
in relation to an aircraft that possesses the nationality of a
Contracting State, means a flight by that aircraft over or into
Australian territory other than under the authority of an
international airline licence.
Sounds more like CASA trying to backpedal and save face at the same time.
Has all Tasmanian traffic across Bass Strait come to a halt or changed course to fly the RNP approach-like track required via Flinders Island and all the other little islands?
Has the Sydney curfew departure that pretty much takes you via NZ been amended? Don't we all just wish!!
All that said, I (thankfully) don't have any plans to fly beyond Australian territory in the near future, so my bush lawyerism isn't going to land me in any hot water for now.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 nm Australian Territorial Limit
Australian territorial limits clarified
Air operators have been reminded of the need to have appropriate authorisation to fly into and out of Australian Territory. CASA has written to all holders of air operator’s certificates setting out clearly the requirements in relation to commercial operations outside Australian Territory. To fly outside Australian Territory operators must have an appropriate authorisation on their air operator’s certificate and operations specifications covering those activities. This applies to all flights beyond 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline of Australia (the baseline being the low water line along the coast). Section 27 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 states that except as authorised by an air operator’s certificate, an aircraft shall not fly into or out of Australian territory. Section 3 of the Act defines Australian territory as the territory of Australia; every external territory; the territorial sea of Australia and the airspace over such territory or sea. The term territorial sea refers to the sea surrounding Australia and each external territory that extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline. This limit is and has long been the norm under international law.
Operators are being reminded about the need for authorisation to fly beyond the 12 nautical mile limit after CASA became aware of some doubt in the aviation community about the requirements. Some people confused the 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit with the 200 nautical mile economic exclusion zone and the even more extensive reach of Australian administered airspace. (The CASA Briefing, Released 29 July 2010)
Now that CASA has decided to use this issue against one operator (whether it's due political motivation or not), CASA may have lost the ability to go back to ignoring the matter for the rest.
Through various speeches and other channels the Director has made his views quite clear regarding a prescriptive approach to regulation and applying the big stick approach to enforcement. That an AOC variation has been rushed through to protect AMSA flights would suggest that CASA intends to hold the industry accountable against this section of the act.
The effect would be widespread, with the core business of many operators being over routes crossing and or air working outside the territorial sea. Assuming each operator complies with the other regulations and with the instructions contained in the orders, it is difficult to see how any interest in enhancing safety can be claimed.
Despite what common sense would expect, the chart on the Australian Government website (glekichi’s link above) shows the waters of greater Bass Strait are NOT included in Australia’s Territorial Sea.
Before the AOC search feature of the CASA website went offline for maintenance last week, I had a look at a few AOCs:
* A couple of AWK fish spotters operating in the bite & off WA - authorised for operations "In Aust" only.
* A few RPT and or Charter operators going between Melbourne and ports in TAS/FLI/KII - AOCs limit their Charter operations to "In Aust" only.
For RPT the AOC’s just authorise operate between ports #X,YandZ# within Australia. I suppose an operator could argue a case for that being an authorisation to leave and re-enter Australian Territory for the purpose, but it would be at the discretion of their CASA field office as to how much it would end up costing the operator for the privilege of trying.
I did here from one someone near the start of this debate that, after opening this can of worms and suffering a crucifixion from the senate committee; CASA/The Director had issued a moratorium of three months for operators to apply for a variation to their AOC’s.
Has anyone actually received CASA’s “written” clarification regarding operations outside Australian Territory? I can find nothing other than the article in The CASA Briefing on their website.
Cairns via BARIA
I think CASA would only be happy if the skies were empty. It is time to scrap this organisation, make ALL of it's staff redundant, and start again without re-hiring any of them. In fact why stop there, the Govt. next
.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia - (far away from Mum and her wooden spoon)
Age: 55
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon its better to not "shoot the messenger" trojee.
Let us spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on a referendum/royal commision etc...
The constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia first.
Roger R Abbot
The Ranga ( and the next stabbing victim)
Damm outta time, boss says I gotta fly this 70's time machine to the mission with Senator X and his "neice' pronto.
niece spullin' ererror (
public school system of 76)
Let us spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on a referendum/royal commision etc...
The constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia first.
Roger R Abbot
The Ranga ( and the next stabbing victim)
Damm outta time, boss says I gotta fly this 70's time machine to the mission with Senator X and his "neice' pronto.
niece spullin' ererror (
public school system of 76)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: YMEN
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
Sorry to be dredging up an old thread, but I'm interested to hear how this legislation is effecting operators in 2013. For example, for offshore marine spotting operations, is it as simple as applying to CASA for an operational exemption within particular boundaries or is an international AOC required?
Any ideas or comments would be helpful. I'm also waiting to hear back from CASA- but who knows when that will happen.
Sorry to be dredging up an old thread, but I'm interested to hear how this legislation is effecting operators in 2013. For example, for offshore marine spotting operations, is it as simple as applying to CASA for an operational exemption within particular boundaries or is an international AOC required?
Any ideas or comments would be helpful. I'm also waiting to hear back from CASA- but who knows when that will happen.
I guess that more than a couple of helo operators operating out of YKPA, YBRM etc to the various rigs situated well off the coast, not to mention our beloved 'Coastwatch' flights....
Would be more than interested - as would a son-in-law who travels quite regularly via the said helos to his job of choice.
How would the insurances stand up I wonder in the unhappy event of ....
Are these helo flights actually illegal flights then..??
Would be more than interested - as would a son-in-law who travels quite regularly via the said helos to his job of choice.
How would the insurances stand up I wonder in the unhappy event of ....
Are these helo flights actually illegal flights then..??
Griffo,
Thye AOCs of offshore helo. operators are quite specific, and very detailed, I think we can take it that, for the purposes of the operation, the "international" bit is covered.
There are now many charter AOCs that are "international", with little more than a supplement in an FCOM that details the "details" that have to be covered, in addition to a domestic operation (ie; a PIC signature on the Flight Plan to satisfy CAR 233, not required for domestic flights) and a few more magic words on the AOC itself.
Thye AOCs of offshore helo. operators are quite specific, and very detailed, I think we can take it that, for the purposes of the operation, the "international" bit is covered.
There are now many charter AOCs that are "international", with little more than a supplement in an FCOM that details the "details" that have to be covered, in addition to a domestic operation (ie; a PIC signature on the Flight Plan to satisfy CAR 233, not required for domestic flights) and a few more magic words on the AOC itself.
a PIC signature on the Flight Plan to satisfy CAR 233
But off the top of my head, doesn't 233 refer to other FIRs, not "outside Australia"?
compressor stall,
Regardless of what you think the wording might mean, the practical effect of the regulation is that, pre-flight, the PIC or his designate must sign a certificate to the effect that CAR 233 has been complied with.
Don't ask me for an ICAO reference, but somewhere in the back of my mind something tells me it is an ICAO requirement --- which, of course, refers to international flights.
Whether a country requires the same for a domestic operation is a domestic matter. Australia does not, US/FAA does for RPT and any other operation subject to an IFR flight release/Operational Control.
Tootle pip!!
Regardless of what you think the wording might mean, the practical effect of the regulation is that, pre-flight, the PIC or his designate must sign a certificate to the effect that CAR 233 has been complied with.
Don't ask me for an ICAO reference, but somewhere in the back of my mind something tells me it is an ICAO requirement --- which, of course, refers to international flights.
Whether a country requires the same for a domestic operation is a domestic matter. Australia does not, US/FAA does for RPT and any other operation subject to an IFR flight release/Operational Control.
Tootle pip!!
Maybe they worked out that the substance of the problem was flying into the territory of another signatory to the Convention, rather than flying outside of and back into the territory of Australia without entering the territory of another signatory to the Convention.
I doubt whether any signatory to the Convention would give a (diplomatically-expressed) toss about flights that extend beyond the limits of Australian territory and into international airspace, in accordance with proclamations of the Australian Governor-General in accordance with UNCLOS and the Commonwealth Seas and Submerged Lands Act, if those flights return without entering the territory of another signatory to the Convention.
The claimed EEZ around Australia’s claim to the AAT causes complexities, but most of those complexities are irrelevant to operations that originate from the mainland of Australia and end in the mainland of Australia.
I doubt whether any signatory to the Convention would give a (diplomatically-expressed) toss about flights that extend beyond the limits of Australian territory and into international airspace, in accordance with proclamations of the Australian Governor-General in accordance with UNCLOS and the Commonwealth Seas and Submerged Lands Act, if those flights return without entering the territory of another signatory to the Convention.
The claimed EEZ around Australia’s claim to the AAT causes complexities, but most of those complexities are irrelevant to operations that originate from the mainland of Australia and end in the mainland of Australia.
Last edited by Creampuff; 13th Oct 2013 at 10:01.