Planned Media Release re CASA Misinformation
My strong suggestion about making a MAYDAY call on area frequency was in response to Draggertail's post about the frequency management practices of the PPLs and RAAus pilots who fly into 'private' strips in Australia
It had nothing to do with international adventures to Outer Mongolia or beyond.
Of course you've a good chance of contacting someone on 121.5. I learnt last year's Melbourne Cup results on 121.5, while over the Simpson Desert. But the person who broadcast that result couldn't have arranged assistance for me any quicker than Centre or the aircraft I could hear communicating with Centre on the area frequency. And as I said, a 406 GPS ELT or PLB will make noise on 121.5 and provide accurate position information to professional responders, very quickly.
But, as usual, that's not the point.
When it comes to arguing for the banning of 'ordinary' broadcasts from VFR aircraft on area frequency, the number of those broadcasts will put at risk communications between air traffic control and aircraft under air traffic control.
(In the bizzarro world of aviation in Australia, nobody seems to be interested in facts, like how many movements there actually are, each day, of VHF carrying aircraft to and from strips that are not marked on aeronautical charts, or how often ATC instructions are over-transmitted without anyone knowing. Nup: Just assert that there are thousands of these places and 500 lives are at risk in a 30,000' death plunge, and let the cognitive bias of the punters do the rest. And you d*ckheads wonder why CASA gets away with imposing ever-increasing amounts of regulation on aviation.)
When it comes to arguing that it's OK for VFR aircraft to make requests to ATC for RIS or flight following, the number of those requests won't put at risk communications between air traffic control and aircraft under air traffic control. (At least in this case there are facts to show whether or not that's true.)
When it comes to arguing against using area frequency for MAYDAY calls, the risk is that Centre may not hear them at all. (Perhaps the person in distress could disguise the call as an ordinary taxi call, to increase the probabilities of being heard?) We could be in Outer Mongolia.
The point is that you change the circumstantial assumptions when the implications become inconvenient for your lost cause.
It had nothing to do with international adventures to Outer Mongolia or beyond.
Of course you've a good chance of contacting someone on 121.5. I learnt last year's Melbourne Cup results on 121.5, while over the Simpson Desert. But the person who broadcast that result couldn't have arranged assistance for me any quicker than Centre or the aircraft I could hear communicating with Centre on the area frequency. And as I said, a 406 GPS ELT or PLB will make noise on 121.5 and provide accurate position information to professional responders, very quickly.
But, as usual, that's not the point.
When it comes to arguing for the banning of 'ordinary' broadcasts from VFR aircraft on area frequency, the number of those broadcasts will put at risk communications between air traffic control and aircraft under air traffic control.
(In the bizzarro world of aviation in Australia, nobody seems to be interested in facts, like how many movements there actually are, each day, of VHF carrying aircraft to and from strips that are not marked on aeronautical charts, or how often ATC instructions are over-transmitted without anyone knowing. Nup: Just assert that there are thousands of these places and 500 lives are at risk in a 30,000' death plunge, and let the cognitive bias of the punters do the rest. And you d*ckheads wonder why CASA gets away with imposing ever-increasing amounts of regulation on aviation.)
When it comes to arguing that it's OK for VFR aircraft to make requests to ATC for RIS or flight following, the number of those requests won't put at risk communications between air traffic control and aircraft under air traffic control. (At least in this case there are facts to show whether or not that's true.)
When it comes to arguing against using area frequency for MAYDAY calls, the risk is that Centre may not hear them at all. (Perhaps the person in distress could disguise the call as an ordinary taxi call, to increase the probabilities of being heard?) We could be in Outer Mongolia.
The point is that you change the circumstantial assumptions when the implications become inconvenient for your lost cause.
Last edited by Creampuff; 1st Nov 2014 at 11:57.
Creampuff wrote:
"I learnt last year's Melbourne Cup results on 121.5, while over the Simpson Desert."
Some may see this as a throw away line but it isn't.
On that day, Creampuff flew his BE35 aircraft from YBAS to YLRE and return in support of the 'Cherokee Challenge' guys. (Andy Hardy and Sam Kidd who flew Andy's 1967 Cherokee 'C', G-ATYS from the UK to Australia.) Those guys needed an important structural item for their aircraft. A wreck was found at Longreach to cannibalise the part. So Creampuff, Margaret (from our crew) and Sam Kidd did the trip. I stayed on the ground at Lasseters Resort for the day.
And it was a mission accomplished. But a very long day of flying for Creampuff!
"I learnt last year's Melbourne Cup results on 121.5, while over the Simpson Desert."
Some may see this as a throw away line but it isn't.
On that day, Creampuff flew his BE35 aircraft from YBAS to YLRE and return in support of the 'Cherokee Challenge' guys. (Andy Hardy and Sam Kidd who flew Andy's 1967 Cherokee 'C', G-ATYS from the UK to Australia.) Those guys needed an important structural item for their aircraft. A wreck was found at Longreach to cannibalise the part. So Creampuff, Margaret (from our crew) and Sam Kidd did the trip. I stayed on the ground at Lasseters Resort for the day.
And it was a mission accomplished. But a very long day of flying for Creampuff!
Last edited by gerry111; 1st Nov 2014 at 14:51.
Thread Starter
So creamy. If we followed the NAS as approved by cabinet the frequency boundaries would not have been put back on the charts.
in this case it would not be possible to comply with the CASA NOTAM as a pilot would not know the " area " frequency to be on.
You conveniently also have ignored the evidence I gave re the serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline because a VFR pilot was giving postion reports on an ATC control frequency.
In the Sydney area on a weekend we have 100's of VFR annoucements being re transmitted on the Sydney approach frequency including parachuting at Wyong and Wollongong and announcements from aircraft at Brooklyn Bridge and other places. At the same time the controllor is giving separation instuctions to Airbus 380's and 747's and the crew of these aircraft are forced to listen to this irrellevent traffic. It's obvious that an Airline pilot from China Southern or other foreign airlines would most likely have no knowledge of where Brooklyn Bridge or Wyong was!
Imagine being an airline pilot flying a wide body into Heathrow or LAX and having VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with Position announcements. It would never happen as their airspace is properly planned .
Creamy. This is all rellevant to the current argument that you do not grasp - CASA advice to give taxiing and circuit calls on frequencys also used to separate airline aircraft will never be sensible - no matter how few calls you can childishly try and prove may or may not happen
in this case it would not be possible to comply with the CASA NOTAM as a pilot would not know the " area " frequency to be on.
You conveniently also have ignored the evidence I gave re the serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline because a VFR pilot was giving postion reports on an ATC control frequency.
In the Sydney area on a weekend we have 100's of VFR annoucements being re transmitted on the Sydney approach frequency including parachuting at Wyong and Wollongong and announcements from aircraft at Brooklyn Bridge and other places. At the same time the controllor is giving separation instuctions to Airbus 380's and 747's and the crew of these aircraft are forced to listen to this irrellevent traffic. It's obvious that an Airline pilot from China Southern or other foreign airlines would most likely have no knowledge of where Brooklyn Bridge or Wyong was!
Imagine being an airline pilot flying a wide body into Heathrow or LAX and having VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with Position announcements. It would never happen as their airspace is properly planned .
Creamy. This is all rellevant to the current argument that you do not grasp - CASA advice to give taxiing and circuit calls on frequencys also used to separate airline aircraft will never be sensible - no matter how few calls you can childishly try and prove may or may not happen
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A gentle stir.
I reckon we just persuade Griffo out of retirement; ASA made 100 million profit after spending another 90 million on bits and pieces. Shirley they could support and pay for a 'unit' to service flights, hold SAR, handle the HF, take position reports and pass on traffic.
Industry pays a truck load for piss poor service and is now stuck with the expensive 'all singing' transponder rip off.
FSU not FU, seems like a fair call......
Industry pays a truck load for piss poor service and is now stuck with the expensive 'all singing' transponder rip off.
FSU not FU, seems like a fair call......
Dick
We all know what you and triadic wanted.
The fact is that you didn't get it.
That fact is that you didn't get it because lots of people didn't want it.
You can call them concrete minded or whatever you like, but the outcome is the same.
Arguing with people on PPRuNe will make no difference.
If you and triadic want to advise VFR pilots to fly around with the VHF switched off, listening to music on the stereo: go for it.
Just bear in mind that it is open to other people to advise VFR pilots to use their VHF (if they have to carry one) in accordance with the current rules and the current guidance, and to help keep them and others safe.
My concern is that the tactic you're now using is detrimental to general aviation in Australia. When you say 500 people are at risk of the 30,000' death plunge, all the punters do is call for more regulation. Your solution is to cherry pick one characteristic out of a frequency and broadcast system that became cockie cage liner over a decade ago. Those nuances are lost on punters. They just want those dangerous little aircraft banned.
If you really want NAS, it's not the punters you should be scaring.
We all know what you and triadic wanted.
The fact is that you didn't get it.
That fact is that you didn't get it because lots of people didn't want it.
You can call them concrete minded or whatever you like, but the outcome is the same.
Arguing with people on PPRuNe will make no difference.
If you and triadic want to advise VFR pilots to fly around with the VHF switched off, listening to music on the stereo: go for it.
Just bear in mind that it is open to other people to advise VFR pilots to use their VHF (if they have to carry one) in accordance with the current rules and the current guidance, and to help keep them and others safe.
My concern is that the tactic you're now using is detrimental to general aviation in Australia. When you say 500 people are at risk of the 30,000' death plunge, all the punters do is call for more regulation. Your solution is to cherry pick one characteristic out of a frequency and broadcast system that became cockie cage liner over a decade ago. Those nuances are lost on punters. They just want those dangerous little aircraft banned.
If you really want NAS, it's not the punters you should be scaring.
You mean to say that you don't provide input to your representative association on airspace and other matters? If you have a view or an opinion, then may I suggest that you are the fool!
Like any representative body, they are only as good as the people on them that spend their time trying to make things better for all of us. The industry reps on the RAPACs come from every sector of the industry, from airlines to U/L's and probably know a lot more than you think. You are bound to have a rep somewhere if you bother to ask about.
Like any representative body, they are only as good as the people on them that spend their time trying to make things better for all of us. The industry reps on the RAPACs come from every sector of the industry, from airlines to U/L's and probably know a lot more than you think. You are bound to have a rep somewhere if you bother to ask about.
It became the stuff up which it now is because people at RAPACs
Captain. You are correct. The RAPAC members by in large resisted change and were not interested how the NAS was supposed to work
The thing with any proposed change is you must first get industry on side i.e. supportive of the change, understand why it is necessary, the benefits to be gained and address their issues and concerns. Without industry on board you're pushing it uphill.
FWIW that NOTAM expired 2 months ago. The content has been in AIP since then.
Thread Starter
Creamy. I have no doubt the necessary changes will be made- either back to duplicated FS and ATC or forward to the NAS.
I would like to see the changes made before an unecessary accident occurs.
Like to place a bet on my success? Say $100 ?
And I havn't scared one punter - just discredited those at CASA who never ask advice or copy the success of others- their minds are set in concrete- just like the Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom days!
I would like to see the changes made before an unecessary accident occurs.
Like to place a bet on my success? Say $100 ?
And I havn't scared one punter - just discredited those at CASA who never ask advice or copy the success of others- their minds are set in concrete- just like the Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom days!
Nah Dick - the only activity on which I make such "investments" is the Melbourne Cup.
If CASA being "discredited" is all that is required to precipitate change, CASA would be a very, very different place today, this zephyr in a thimble notwithstanding.
Good luck.
If CASA being "discredited" is all that is required to precipitate change, CASA would be a very, very different place today, this zephyr in a thimble notwithstanding.
Good luck.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So creamy. If we followed the NAS as approved by cabinet the frequency boundaries would not have been put back on the charts.
in this case it would not be possible to comply with the CASA NOTAM as a pilot would not know the " area " frequency to be on.
You conveniently also have ignored the evidence I gave re the serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline because a VFR pilot was giving postion reports on an ATC control frequency.
In the Sydney area on a weekend we have 100's of VFR annoucements being re transmitted on the Sydney approach frequency including parachuting at Wyong and Wollongong and announcements from aircraft at Brooklyn Bridge and other places. At the same time the controllor is giving separation instuctions to Airbus 380's and 747's and the crew of these aircraft are forced to listen to this irrellevent traffic. It's obvious that an Airline pilot from China Southern or other foreign airlines would most likely have no knowledge of where Brooklyn Bridge or Wyong was!
Imagine being an airline pilot flying a wide body into Heathrow or LAX and having VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with Position announcements. It would never happen as their airspace is properly planned .
Creamy. This is all rellevant to the current argument that you do not grasp - CASA advice to give taxiing and circuit calls on frequencys also used to separate airline aircraft will never be sensible - no matter how few calls you can childishly try and prove may or may not happen
in this case it would not be possible to comply with the CASA NOTAM as a pilot would not know the " area " frequency to be on.
You conveniently also have ignored the evidence I gave re the serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline because a VFR pilot was giving postion reports on an ATC control frequency.
In the Sydney area on a weekend we have 100's of VFR annoucements being re transmitted on the Sydney approach frequency including parachuting at Wyong and Wollongong and announcements from aircraft at Brooklyn Bridge and other places. At the same time the controllor is giving separation instuctions to Airbus 380's and 747's and the crew of these aircraft are forced to listen to this irrellevent traffic. It's obvious that an Airline pilot from China Southern or other foreign airlines would most likely have no knowledge of where Brooklyn Bridge or Wyong was!
Imagine being an airline pilot flying a wide body into Heathrow or LAX and having VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with Position announcements. It would never happen as their airspace is properly planned .
Creamy. This is all rellevant to the current argument that you do not grasp - CASA advice to give taxiing and circuit calls on frequencys also used to separate airline aircraft will never be sensible - no matter how few calls you can childishly try and prove may or may not happen
So let me propose how it might work, if the current rules were not already in place:
When I'm flying around in my lightie, I'd like to know that other aircraft in my piece of the sky were on the same frequency as I am. That way, if the need to talk arose, we could do so. Ideally, if we're in an area of radar coverage, we'd be on a frequency where a controller could call out potential conflicts if he sees them. (Given the level of VHF and ADS-B coverage across the country these days, such areas are pretty broad. And, yes, I have been the happy recipient of a few of these calls.)
Should I have a problem, I'd like to be already on a frequency where the best response will come to my distress call. I won't already be on 121.5 as I only have one VHF, and changing channels will be well down the list of things to do.
If I happen to be near one of the parachuting sites you mention, I'd like to know their intentions.
I occasionally go into a private strip, unmarked on any chart. So, on the off-chance someone is transiting the area as I approach or depart, I'd like him to know about me. Again, we'd need to be on the same frequency. But in all likelihood, I'd be the only one around that strip at the time, so one inbound or taxying call would be all I'd need.
In all the above cases, there's really only one frequency that would serve the purpose, and that's the documented ATC frequency for the area. How do I know what that is? Easy: it's constantly displayed on my OzRunways screen, which most people seem to have these days. Failing that, it'll be on one of the relevant charts which I'm required to carry.
If I go into a busy enough airport, it'll have its own CTAF frequency or, if not , we'll all use 126.7.
Now, let's address the potential for conflict with one of the RPT jets on the same frequency. Should a controller need to send an urgent message to separate two jets carrying hundreds of innocent punters, this implies that several cockups have already occurred. First, either the controller or at least one of the crews has gotten an instruction wrong. Second, the TCAS required on both jets has failed to do its job. And, for the appalling midair to occur, the controller's last-ditch instruction has to come at the same time as a lightie making a taxying or inbound call at an unmarked strip. (Or, for that matter, another jet making a routine report.) That's all incredibly remote.
From my other seat, in one of the aforementioned RPT jets, I can't help but notice the relative peace on the frequencies. That's even on a weekend, with the parachute aircraft and sightseeing lighties going flat out. (And the frequency used by these guys covers only a relatively small area; not the hundreds of miles of jet routes you've previously implied.) The China Southern guy doesn't need to know where Brooklyn Bridge is, because the traffic is not relevant to him. He's in at least Class C all the way, where he knows it's the controller's job to arrange separation for him.
I just don't hear the non-stop chatter of lighties broadcasting intentions at unmarked locations. That's either because they're choosing not to do so or, more likely, there just aren't that many of them.
I'll agree that the promulgation of the instructions on which frequency to be on, was not good. (I still managed to discover it, though.) But really, when bimbling along from A to B, or operating from a strip no-one else knows about, what is the only sensible frequency to use? I'd submit, it's the one everyone else in the area is on.
The alternative is, as seems to happen in areas of the USA, to be on some random frequency and listening to no-one in particular. That certainly fits better with the lofty goals of "free flight; go where you please and tell nobody." But my opinion is, if I have a working radio, and someone else is in my piece of the sky, I'd rather know about him and be able to communicate if really necessary.
So, to summarise, let's look at the ideal frequencies we could use in different areas down in the GA levels. Near an airport with a CTAF? Use that. Known airport with no discrete CTAF? 126.7. Neither of the above? Depicted ATC frequency.
Oh wait, that's what we're already doing.
What Agrajag said.....
Thank you, even the simplest mind can surely grasp his penultimate paragraph. Maybe that is how the rules should be worded.
Hopefully all users of our airspace will apply it.
Thank you, even the simplest mind can surely grasp his penultimate paragraph. Maybe that is how the rules should be worded.
Hopefully all users of our airspace will apply it.
Thread Starter
Agrajag. Don't you have any worries about the 747 incident I quoted where the controllers attention was taken by VFR announcements?
Obviously the controllers have to listen to all these VFR calls- are you convinced this can have no effect on there proper job of keeping IFR airline aircraft apart?
If so. Hope you are correct. Love to see the evidence.
By the way. When you fly through the training area west of BK or up the light aircraft lane do you rely on radio arranged separation? Do you make position reports every few minutes in these areas? If not how do you avoid a collision?
Or are you going to tell me that where the collision risk is greatest your system of radio calls does not work?
Obviously the controllers have to listen to all these VFR calls- are you convinced this can have no effect on there proper job of keeping IFR airline aircraft apart?
If so. Hope you are correct. Love to see the evidence.
By the way. When you fly through the training area west of BK or up the light aircraft lane do you rely on radio arranged separation? Do you make position reports every few minutes in these areas? If not how do you avoid a collision?
Or are you going to tell me that where the collision risk is greatest your system of radio calls does not work?
Thread Starter
The controllers may believe that those who have given them this system are competent.
They may not know that the present airspace system has come about by ignorance and resistance to change.
They may not know that the present airspace system has come about by ignorance and resistance to change.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies... This got stuck in the prune juice...
Which Cabinet and when, Dick? Cabinet doesn't make the rules under the present system of government and Parliament gave that responsibility to CASA. If Cabinet wants to change this it needs to change the law.
A bit awkward for all those aircraft flying from those unmarked airfields wishing to depart in CTA.
You gave anecdotal evidence, Dick. It would have more credibility if you provided information about the circumstances including when and where (sorry, it's the lawyer thing) and what actually occurred. Was the VFR pilot acting in accordance with the rules at the time?
Those parachutists are being dropped from 14,000 and 15,000 feet respectively. The jump aircraft are clearly in class C and are getting clearances precisely because of potential conflict with other Aircraft in that airspace. Bit embarrassing if one of the jumpers met up with an RPT on descent into Sydney.
The calls at Brooklyn Bridge are mandated (and have been for yonks) because they are aircraft entering the VFR lane below class C (2500) and it gives the RIS chappie a little peace of mind to know that they know they are there and where they are going.
Some may be irrelevant to the foreign captain but not to the controller working to ensure separation in, and avoid unauthorised incursions into CTA.
I don't know about these things, Dick but I like a good argument based on facts, not imagination. Where is the evidence that VFR aircraft are jamming area frequencies? How would you separate a jump aircraft flying at 14000 from an RPT descending through the same levels?
I can't speak for Creamy and he does very well speaking for himself, but I have appreciated the information flow that is provided by Area controllers as I have doddered along on my VFR flights.
I have been grateful for warnings that parachutists are about to drop into the rather busy environs of Point Ormond (midway along the busiest bit of The very busy coastal route between Moorabbin and Point Cook) while I transited same; or the Yarra Valley as I approached that beautifully scenic place from the north. I have heard JR calling in vain on Area to alert an errant pilot that he/she is heading directly into the Nagambie drop zone...they don't learn, Jack, that you try to keep them safe!
And I'm yet to hear anyone taxiing at an unmarked airstrip call anyone.
But the reality is, Dick, you don't have to convince me. I saw Dick Gower post a view similar to your own and I have huge respect for his contribution to GA over many years. So you seem to have RAPAC on side and you have a new DAS to lobby now.
I actually agree it would be better to have a separate FS for VFR and use 126.7 at all those unmarked LGs, but in this brave world of user pays it probably ain't gonna happen. If it does it will be the end of what is left of GA.
The fall back is the status quo.
Kaz
So creamy. If we followed the NAS as approved by cabinet the frequency boundaries would not have been put back on the charts.
...in this case it would not be possible to comply with the CASA NOTAM as a pilot would not know the " area " frequency to be on
You conveniently also have ignored the evidence I gave re the serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline because a VFR pilot was giving postion reports on an ATC control frequency.
In the Sydney area on a weekend we have 100's of VFR annoucements being re transmitted on the Sydney approach frequency including parachuting at Wyong and Wollongong and announcements from aircraft at Brooklyn Bridge and other places.
The calls at Brooklyn Bridge are mandated (and have been for yonks) because they are aircraft entering the VFR lane below class C (2500) and it gives the RIS chappie a little peace of mind to know that they know they are there and where they are going.
At the same time the controllor is giving separation instuctions to Airbus 380's and 747's and the crew of these aircraft are forced to listen to this irrellevent traffic. It's obvious that an Airline pilot from China Southern or other foreign airlines would most likely have no knowledge of where Brooklyn Bridge or Wyong was!
Imagine being an airline pilot flying a wide body into Heathrow or LAX and having VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with Position announcements. It would never happen as their airspace is properly planned .
Creamy. This is all rellevant to the current argument that you do not grasp - CASA advice to give taxiing and circuit calls on frequencys also used to separate airline aircraft will never be sensible - no matter how few calls you can childishly try and prove may or may not happen
I have been grateful for warnings that parachutists are about to drop into the rather busy environs of Point Ormond (midway along the busiest bit of The very busy coastal route between Moorabbin and Point Cook) while I transited same; or the Yarra Valley as I approached that beautifully scenic place from the north. I have heard JR calling in vain on Area to alert an errant pilot that he/she is heading directly into the Nagambie drop zone...they don't learn, Jack, that you try to keep them safe!
And I'm yet to hear anyone taxiing at an unmarked airstrip call anyone.
But the reality is, Dick, you don't have to convince me. I saw Dick Gower post a view similar to your own and I have huge respect for his contribution to GA over many years. So you seem to have RAPAC on side and you have a new DAS to lobby now.
I actually agree it would be better to have a separate FS for VFR and use 126.7 at all those unmarked LGs, but in this brave world of user pays it probably ain't gonna happen. If it does it will be the end of what is left of GA.
The fall back is the status quo.
Kaz
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agrajag. Don't you have any worries about the 747 incident I quoted where the controllers attention was taken by VFR announcements?
Obviously the controllers have to listen to all these VFR calls- are you convinced this can have no effect on there proper job of keeping IFR airline aircraft apart?
If so. Hope you are correct. Love to see the evidence.
If so. Hope you are correct. Love to see the evidence.
By the way. When you fly through the training area west of BK or up the light aircraft lane do you rely on radio arranged separation? Do you make position reports every few minutes in these areas? If not how do you avoid a collision?
Or are you going to tell me that where the collision risk is greatest your system of radio calls does not work?
As an option to my previous suggestions, perhaps we need a separate range of frequencies on which the low-level traffic could communicate, not bothering ATC at all. There could even be operators on the ground monitoring these frequencies and passing on relevant information.
Oh, wait...
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Media Releases, Journalism and Comments
Media Releases, Journalism and Comments by bloggers [which includes all of us] will be caught here:
Journalists' union criticises attorney general's power to prosecute them
That the attorney general would decide whether to prosecute under new security laws ‘gives us no comfort’, says MEAA
Under section 35P of new national security laws, the publishing of SIO information is punishable by up to 10 years’ jail. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian
The union representing journalists has criticised George Brandis’s announcement that prosecution of journalists under the government’s new national security laws would have to be cleared by the attorney general.
Paul Murphy, the director of media at the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), has told Guardian Australia “it gives us no comfort at all that politicians will sit and decide” who goes to jail under the laws.
Section 35P of the new national security legislation, which cleared both houses of parliament last month, states that the publishing of special intelligence operations (SIOs) information can be punishable by up to 10 years’ jail. The government can deem which operations can be defined as an SIO.
Civil Liberties Australia expressed its opposition to Brandis’s oversight provisions.
“Changing the ultimate decision-maker might advance political ends, but it is no extra or comforting protection for journalists or the Australian people. In fact, cynics would think such a proviso was capable of being used to threaten to prosecute a journalist so as to “encourage” them to reveal their source,” it said.
The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said Brandis’s decision to become “a sort of last sentinel on the wall of press freedom” was not satisfactory.
Greens senator Scott Ludlam said the provisions amounted to the “politicisation of national security”. He said the focus on journalists under 35P was a “remarkable deception” by Brandis, as the laws could apply to anyone.
“There are no protections for whistleblowers under this legislation, and that’s no accident. It’s designed that way,” Ludlam said. He said Australians may unwittingly find themselves on the wrong side of the law.
“Sharing a Facebook post on a national security story is enough to see you prosecuted,” Ludlam said. “It’s clear that 35P will be used to prosecute people,” Murphy said. “If not journalists, then whistleblowers and sources.”
He said the fact that Brandis mentioned American whistleblower Edward Snowden in the press conference he held on Thursday was “quite telling”.
Brandis said in that press conference that the prosecution of journalists was a “barely imaginable event”, and that 35P was “intended to deal with a ‘Snowden’ type situation.
“There is no possibility, no practical or foreseeable possibility, that in our liberal democracy a journalist would ever be prosecuted for doing their job,” Brandis said on Thursday.
“The prosecution can only be brought by the director of public prosecutions but this would add a very powerful safeguard by providing that the attorney general would be required to consent to and therefore accept personal and political responsibility for a prosecution, in the barely imaginable event that such a prosecution were brought.”
Shorten had a change of heart about the national security laws after the legislation was passed, saying Labor has “concerns” about the powers contained within 35P. He’s calling on the government to implement a review of the legislation, undertaken by the national security legislation monitor (NSLM), by the end of June.
The government had proposed to scrap the NSLM earlier in the year, but reversed the decision in August in light of national security changes.
Journalists' union criticises attorney general's power to prosecute them
That the attorney general would decide whether to prosecute under new security laws ‘gives us no comfort’, says MEAA
Under section 35P of new national security laws, the publishing of SIO information is punishable by up to 10 years’ jail. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian
The union representing journalists has criticised George Brandis’s announcement that prosecution of journalists under the government’s new national security laws would have to be cleared by the attorney general.
Paul Murphy, the director of media at the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), has told Guardian Australia “it gives us no comfort at all that politicians will sit and decide” who goes to jail under the laws.
Section 35P of the new national security legislation, which cleared both houses of parliament last month, states that the publishing of special intelligence operations (SIOs) information can be punishable by up to 10 years’ jail. The government can deem which operations can be defined as an SIO.
Civil Liberties Australia expressed its opposition to Brandis’s oversight provisions.
“Changing the ultimate decision-maker might advance political ends, but it is no extra or comforting protection for journalists or the Australian people. In fact, cynics would think such a proviso was capable of being used to threaten to prosecute a journalist so as to “encourage” them to reveal their source,” it said.
The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said Brandis’s decision to become “a sort of last sentinel on the wall of press freedom” was not satisfactory.
Greens senator Scott Ludlam said the provisions amounted to the “politicisation of national security”. He said the focus on journalists under 35P was a “remarkable deception” by Brandis, as the laws could apply to anyone.
“There are no protections for whistleblowers under this legislation, and that’s no accident. It’s designed that way,” Ludlam said. He said Australians may unwittingly find themselves on the wrong side of the law.
“Sharing a Facebook post on a national security story is enough to see you prosecuted,” Ludlam said. “It’s clear that 35P will be used to prosecute people,” Murphy said. “If not journalists, then whistleblowers and sources.”
He said the fact that Brandis mentioned American whistleblower Edward Snowden in the press conference he held on Thursday was “quite telling”.
Brandis said in that press conference that the prosecution of journalists was a “barely imaginable event”, and that 35P was “intended to deal with a ‘Snowden’ type situation.
“There is no possibility, no practical or foreseeable possibility, that in our liberal democracy a journalist would ever be prosecuted for doing their job,” Brandis said on Thursday.
“The prosecution can only be brought by the director of public prosecutions but this would add a very powerful safeguard by providing that the attorney general would be required to consent to and therefore accept personal and political responsibility for a prosecution, in the barely imaginable event that such a prosecution were brought.”
Shorten had a change of heart about the national security laws after the legislation was passed, saying Labor has “concerns” about the powers contained within 35P. He’s calling on the government to implement a review of the legislation, undertaken by the national security legislation monitor (NSLM), by the end of June.
The government had proposed to scrap the NSLM earlier in the year, but reversed the decision in August in light of national security changes.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No surprise in all this. Australia has been slowly turning into a Gulag for some time. Liberal governments changing the laws to suit themselves, the eradication of freeness of speach, the government circumventing parliament, hiding information on boat arrivals, trying to usurp our basic rights and now, effectively, gag Journo's. You might as well name our country North Korea.
And not to mention the way the government systematically stymies transparency and honesty by turning a blind eye to some highly critical and factual evidence of Government corruption and malfeasance in the public service sector which oversights and advises on the aviation industry.
It's a disgrace
And not to mention the way the government systematically stymies transparency and honesty by turning a blind eye to some highly critical and factual evidence of Government corruption and malfeasance in the public service sector which oversights and advises on the aviation industry.
It's a disgrace
Thread Starter
I get my area frequencies off the IFR charts when in remote areas
How does a VFR pilot obtain the area frequency boundary information when in an area not covered by a VTC or VNC?
Captain. NAS was the 747 of airspace and our present system is like the australian designed Nomad aircraft.
I agree. There are still a few who reckon the Nomad was OK
It's called delusion !
How does a VFR pilot obtain the area frequency boundary information when in an area not covered by a VTC or VNC?
Captain. NAS was the 747 of airspace and our present system is like the australian designed Nomad aircraft.
I agree. There are still a few who reckon the Nomad was OK
It's called delusion !