More RAAF intransigence YBWW/YBOK

[LeadSled]

Australia can take action against a VH-registered aircraft for things done anywhere.

Creamie,
You know that is not strictly legally correct, once an Australian aircraft is outside Australia's territorial limits.

----- such as Creampuff, who clearly have substantially more knowledge of Australian aviation law than you guys sure have?

Gerry 111,
Creampuff and I have known each other for a long time, whilst I respect his legal (and other) opinions, I do not always agree, and he is not always right. As to the B.M mentioned, he is a man of brilliant intellect, with substantial legal studies behind him, not to mention many years of experience in the field of contentious air law, it would be a brave man, lawyer or not, who took him on head to head.

As to why I don't put my views to a practical test as suggested, the answer is pragmatic. I simply do not have the funds to fight such a case through to the High Court, where it would at least get to leave to appeal.

I don't know what the starting price would be for the series of actions, but I should imagine something like $1.5M would barely cover it.

As to my views on airspace management, I have pretty wide experience, on a variety of aircraft, I know from personal experience just how third grade the Australian system is in practice, measured not just by the inefficient traffic handling, but the rather high rate of loss of separation incidents.

I simply do not buy the excuse that there are "cultural" differences in Australia that preclude fully ICAO compliant airspace management, as per US, Canada or western Europe, "working" in Australia.

Indeed, ever Australian pilot I have ever met, and who has actually done some GA flying in US, marvel at how simple, straightforward and pleasurable it is.

And a world where "clearance not available, remain clear of controlled airspace" is unheard of. And anybody who tells you it is only because of radar coverage doesn't know what they are talking about.

Our RAAF ATC could really learn something from the RAF, whose approach to civil traffic is exemplary, including the volume of R or P airspace, compared to the "Australian experience".

Tootle pip!!

PS: Remember recently, how fast CASA was to enforce the effect of Australia's territorial limits on AOC holders, demanding "international" AOCs for anybody operating outside the 12 mile limit, including to some islands in the Torres Straight, and some direct tracking, but conveniently ignoring SID/STAR routes that are outside said 12 miles.

[Creampuff]

Australia can take action against a VH-registered aircraft for things done anywhere.

You know that is not strictly legally correct, once an Australian aircraft is outside Australia's territorial limits.

It is strictly legally correct. Full stop.

BTW: I (still) agree that the vast volumes of airspace locked up for ADF activities are unnecessarily large.

[LeadSled]

It is strictly legally correct. Full stop.

Two examples you might like to comment on:

(1) Australian aircraft operating in international airspace, if there is any consistency between Australian rules and ICAO, which takes precedence?
(2) A aircraft operating within another state, whether or not it is an ICAO signatory state, where there is an inconsistency in the rules, which takes precedence?

An example of (1) would be separation standard, which in many areas widely vary from Australian separation standards.

Another would be the rules for a visual approach, the Australian "rules" promulgated by AIP may be very different in other countries.

IFR minima vary greatly from Australia, as does their application. This can get to be a very big deal, operationally, when negotiating the terms of an Operating Specification with FAA or elsewhere.

An example of (2) would involve insurance regulations that vary from country to country, you better comply, regardless of Australian "rules" or lack thereof.

It is not simply a matter of complying with which ever rules is the most restrictive, Australia or wherever you happen to be, and I believe the "the law" says you can operate to the rules of the state where you are.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

(1) Australian aircraft operating in international airspace, if there is any consistency between Australian rules and ICAO, which takes precedence?

The Australian rules.

But it’s a false dichotomy.

International Conventions, like the Chicago Convention (happy birthday) bind countries, not people.

Laws bind people.

The laws that bind the operation of an aircraft in international airspace are those of the country of the aircraft’s nationality. (That’s why you cannot lawfully tootle around in a VH-registered aircraft in an active Romeo declared by Australia, 13nms on the seaward side of the territorial sea baseline….)

(2) A aircraft operating within another state, whether or not it is an ICAO signatory state, where there is an inconsistency in the rules, which takes precedence?

Neither. You comply with both, or you’re in trouble.

However, the examples you provided are of differences, not inconsistencies. For rules to be inconsistent, it has to be impossible to comply with both simultaneously. Australian law can provide that when an Australian aircraft is in Roman airspace, do what the Romans do…

[thorn bird]

All of which says, if you can afford it, just to be on the safe side, if you want to go stooging about beyond 11NM 5281 ft off our coast, register your aircraft in a sane country, like NZ, then our world famous 1st class, admired across the universe regulator, that other regulators beat a path to our door begging to adopt our regulations, can go stick it up their nose!!..

Oh... okay creamie, sorry.... rush of blood to the head, I forgot about Reg 222 didn't I?

You know I faced this conundrum many years ago. Some guy had ditched in Bass straight with a Folker circling above, powerless to do much except plead.

I was on the ground in Launceston about twenty minutes away. I had a raft and someone to toss it out.

Trouble was it was the only Navajo in our fleet without a FM supplement for door off operation.

The powers that be flatly refused to sanction the drop without the supplement.

I very nearly just went and did it anyway, but the threats prevailed.

Whether it would have made any difference I have no idea, but I have spent many years filled with guilt that I didn't.

This is the face of prescriptive bull**** we call regulation, people die and the assholes that cause or create it it get off blameless.

Think of the Longreach angel, who, in the dead of night, went and picked up a critically ill pregnant woman when the RFDS was committed elsewhere.

Saved her's and her unborn child's life.

A hero in anyone's language, but it had to be a private operation. All good except...

Did that stop the dirt bags in CAsA from destroying his business and his life on a technicality that any sane, honorable person would have chosen to ignore.

His crime??..he reluctantly accepted money from the woman's husband to cover the cost of his fuel and a private operation suddenly became commercial. SHOCK>>>HORROR>>>GASP>>>>A BREACH...much like the pregnancy.

Prescriptive regulation!!..

I often pray that the assh..les that did that have trouble sleeping at night, but somehow I doubt it, people like that have no conscience. If I was religious I'd hope that one day they would have to face their maker, rumor has it there's a clique of religious nutters embedded in CAsA, but from what I've seen of religious nutters is it's always about the money.

So what does a private pilot do?

When he owns the only 172 for a thousand miles, there's a boat floundering 12 and a 1/2 miles off the coast, people are in danger of drowning and the new SAR jets are hours away, even if they could drop a raft.

Sorry guys afraid you'll just have to drown, cos CAsA says I cant go beyond 12 miles.

Prescriptive regulation??

Rapacious, completely untrustworthy, BIG R regulator looking for notches on their gun???

Declare a mercy flight??..forget it, not without consent signed by the DAS and witnessed by the devil himself, because you cannot in any way shape or form trust CAsA. You have to accept that today, all our aviation pioneers from yesteryear would be in Jail, or grounded as not fit and proper persons.

[Howabout]

Here we go again Leady.

I simply do not buy the excuse that there are "cultural" differences in Australia that preclude fully ICAO compliant airspace management, as per US, Canada or western Europe, "working" in Australia.

Jeezus, just like God's gift to aviation you continue to ignore the inconvenient truths. And, as I've said before, this has buggered rational debate - zealotry that chooses to ignore fact to push a barrow.

Once again, and once again, Leady, and in reference to your quote, check out Canadian AIP and associated charts. There's Class F out there off the NE coast, and outside the 12 nm limit. It's designated D and Class F, with the rider that 'clearance is required.'

I have no issues with passion when it comes to airspace - I'm all for it. My beef is with those that peddle fiction as fact in support of their agendas.

You also conveniently ignored my previous reference to NZ offshore MOAs requiring clearance.

[gerry111]

Howabout wrote:

"My beef is with those that peddle fiction as fact in support of their agendas."

[Heady1977]

... why they are vital to separate civilian IFR traffic, he was stumped when I asked why they don't need separating after 4 pm on Friday until Monday morning.

They are so paranoid about gliders infringing during contests...

Why so scared of a few UFOs in their space when they are training for war zones?
...

I had the privilege of flying gliders in that part of the world a year or so ago. At the time I could not understand why the shear size of the restricted zone around Oakey during the week especially since it disappeared during the Christmas holiday season.

I fly gliders in the SW area of England which has maybe some of the most dense air traffic anywhere in England, maybe even Europe with Southampton zone, London TMA, Gatwick TMA, Farnborough zone, Odiham MATZ, Bension MATZ, etc...
BBC News - Why air traffic control still needs the human touch

It is quite common to be thermalling or running cloud streets and seeing these below you in the weeds:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/92107259@N03/14001886376/
Or something I will never forget is being orbited by one of these at 6000':
_B6O3106.jpg Photo by 2012images | Photobucket
Or climbing with a couple of these:
http://www.skylarkparagliding.co.uk/...ing_caburn.jpg

So if all these airspace users can coexist reasonably happily in a space smaller than the Oakey - Toowoomba area. I could not see how or why there was such a need for the huge protected airspace area around Oakey?

Also in the UK - military airfields can be alternative landing places. I have landed at RAF Lyneham before. So I was again surprised when I was told Oakey was totally out of bounds.

I will admit that I'm not an airspace expert - but it sure seemed overkill at the time.

[LeadSled]

Once again, and once again, Leady, and in reference to your quote, check out Canadian AIP and associated charts. There's Class F out there off the NE coast, and outside the 12 nm limit. It's designated D and Class F, with the rider that 'clearance is required.'

My principal reference was to Class F, not D, if I have not worded my message adequately clearly, I apologize. A "clearance" in Class F, for all aircraft, means one of two things, either it is not Class F, or somebody is not understanding the definition of Class F. Civil airspace designations are not appropriate for military training operations, where R, P or W is appropriate. There is no issue about a state declaring civil airspace designations in international airspace, over which it has jurisdiction, but mil. airspace is a different issue.

Again, my primary remarks were about Australian R beyond the 12 mile limit, the proper designation for an MOA beyond the 12 mile limit is a Warning Area, W.

The US treatment of such airspace is the best example I know, of a country complying precisely with the relevant treaties.

As those of you who are ex-military may or may not know, the US Navy, from time to time, conducts air exercises in airspace that Australia declares as R, but never requests any kind of "permission" from Australia. They very politely advise of their intentions, but they do not "request a clearance" The legal framework is exactly the same as US naval operations in the South China Sea, claimed as territorial waters by RP China. The US Navy does not ask Chinese permission to sail ( or fly) these waters, outside the RP China 12 mile limit.

Fortunately, aviation is not a democracy, if a majority think something that is wrong, is right, they are still wrong, the majority does not rule in this case.

Jeezus, just like God's gift to aviation you continue to ignore the inconvenient truths.

An just what inconvenient truths would they be, pray tell??

You also conveniently ignored my previous reference to NZ offshore MOAs requiring clearance.

Same comment applies, the airspace should be designated as W. The demand for a "clearance" has no legal validity. Maybe the NZ cousins are taking a leaf out of the Australian bureaucratic lexicon, fortunately something that they do not generally do in aviation matters. Just what airforce has NZ got, that it needs extensive MOAs offshore, I wonder.

And, as I've said before, this has buggered rational debate - zealotry that chooses to ignore fact to push a barrow.

We should start with the facts, and the facts are, in this case, and it is quite clear legally, R and P areas outside the 12 mile limit ( it can be still 3 miles in some areas of the world - depending on who has signed -- or not -- which treaty) has no legal validity.

Amazing, "pushing a barrow" for efficient airspace usage, proper risk assessment and management of Australia airspace for the benefit of all, is somehow "zealotry.

What am I supposed to accept, that Australia continues to blunder along (been reading any Senate Hansard recently??) with significant segments of the aviation population seriously disadvantaged as a result ----- because this is the "Australian way".

If the debate is around fictional straw men, it is an irrational debate, far too much "discussion" about airspace matters in Australia is irrational, because rational risk management is usually ignored, in favour of "no change" because "that's what we have always done" and the continued claims that, because of some kind of "cultural differences" to UK, western Europe, US, Canada, NZ etc., what "works" -- ie ICAO compliance in spirit, not by notifications of differences) "won't work here".

Tootle pip!!

International Conventions, like the Chicago Convention (happy birthday) bind countries, not people.
Laws bind people.

Creamie,
Would you like to comment on how the Commonwealth makes laws for aviation, given that aviation is not mentioned in the constitution, the relevance of the Commonwealth's treaty making powers, and just what is the Commonwealth's power to establish such as CASA, as a result of such treaties, and not a direct power under the constitution.

[CaptainMidnight]

Excuse my ignorance, but where in ICAO SARPs are "Warning" area defined and the usage described?

I recall definitions and usage of PR&D areas (DOC4444 I think) but don't recall seeing anything about Warning areas, MOAs etc.

[Creampuff]

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make by making pointless points, Leaddie.

My view is that the constitution is invalid and that the Commonwealth of Australia doesn’t exist. I’d run a case in front of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but I can’t afford it.

So, in the interim, I’m going to tell everyone to run their lives on the basis that the Commonwealth of Australia doesn’t exist, that no law purportedly made by the Commonwealth of Australia is valid and that no decision purportedly made by the High Court of Australia is binding. Helpful, yes?

[Howabout]

Leaddie, for all his wonderful attributes and passion, can't abide losing an argument, and he's lost this one.

My point, going way way back, is that we in Australia have been portrayed as troglodytes by the zealots.

Along with his fellow zealots, IMHO, Leaddie (Airspce 2000, NAS and related embuggerances - the list is too long) have cost this country millions of taxpayer dollars for no gain based on false argument.

If one must craft an argument, any argument, that argument rests on what are referred to as 'underlying assumptions.' This is Philosophy 101.

Put it this way - you either have fact, or an argument that's based on credible assumptions. If the underlying assumptions to your argument are flawed, then your argument crashes and burns.

The underlying assumption, that we are 'unique,' has been the basis of the zealots' argument for God knows how long.

I won't go through the stuff again that proves that assumption false. But Leady and the zealots get an F for using that underlying assumption to support an argument that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[LeadSled]

The underlying assumption, that we are 'unique,' has been the basis of the zealots' argument for God knows how long.

I won't go through the stuff again that proves that assumption false. But Leady and the zealots get an F for using that underlying assumption to support an argument that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Howabout,

You have certainly got the above back to front.

Underlying the position of us zealots is that there is nothing unique about Australian aviation or those involved in it to justify the argument that "cultural differences" dictate that what works in the rest of the world (or most of Australian industry, for that matter) will not work in Australian aviation.

Sadly, this is not limited to airspace matters. I, for one, do not accept the proposition that participants in Australian aviation (both regulator and regulated) are not sufficiently mature to work to outcome (performance) based rules, but must have absolutely prescriptive rules with draconian penalties. This latter is the position put by CASA Legal Services branch, some time ago, when "explaining" why Government guidelines preferring outcome/performance based regulation were not suitable for aviation regulation.

Back to airspace classification, most of Australian industry (and most aircraft design, certification and continuing airworthiness) works to risk management based standards, and I hope you accept that the basis of ICAO airspace classification is based on CNS/ATM service levels that ensure an acceptable separation assurance standard in any classification of airspace.

If you don't accept that basic proposition, we are in real trouble, and you do not understand or accept (or both) the basis of the ICAO airspace classification.

The real zealots here are those of you who refuse to accept that the rest of the world has something to offer, and whether it is matters CNS/ATM or many other areas of Australian aviation, in any valid comparison, Australia does not shine.

As Australia's rather poor air safety outcomes, particularly compared to US, illustrate.

It is the true zealots who maintain a position that Australian aviation is unique, and somehow different to the rest of the world, and have fought tooth and nail to maintain costly and inefficient system that, by definition, cannot produce the best safety outcomes, because they are not based on rational risk management.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Creamie,
You know the long history of disputation about the power of the Commonwealth to regulate Australian aviation, at least as well as I do, you well know that these powers stem from the Commonwealth's treaty making powers, and have absolutely nothing to do with the general validity of the Australian Constitution.