Lost - 2000+ airfields
Leadsled,
Your comments on here only indicate that you don't know what you are talking about and don't understand the reg you are reading.
Responsibility to publish does not mean responsibility for accuracy or data custodianship...
You amongst others have been calling for privatisation of AsA on here for a while. Now you have the beginnings of it, and start crying about obligation. What a joke
Your comments on here only indicate that you don't know what you are talking about and don't understand the reg you are reading.
Responsibility to publish does not mean responsibility for accuracy or data custodianship...
You amongst others have been calling for privatisation of AsA on here for a while. Now you have the beginnings of it, and start crying about obligation. What a joke
Just imagine a letter turning up to:
The Approved Aeronautical Data Originator,
Upper Kikatinalong Shire Council,
PO Box 1,
GAFFA.
The Approved Aeronautical Data Originator,
Upper Kikatinalong Shire Council,
PO Box 1,
GAFFA.
Aeronautical Data Originator,
Upper Kikatinalong Shire Council,
PO Box 1,
GAFFA.
Airservices would like to continue to publish information about your aerodrome/HLS/ALA. Before you provide the information, and before Airservices publishes the information, please note the following:
You must appoint a single senior manager within your organisation as the AIP responsible person for your organisation. If you do not, you commit a criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.
If the person you appoint does not have knowledge and competence to carry out the responsibilities of an AIP responsible person, you commit a criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.
Equivalent requirements and offences apply to your NOTAM authorised person, if you have one.
You must provide Airservices with the name of the AIP responsible person (and your NOTAM authorised person, if you have one) and notify Airservices of any changes. If you do not do so, you commit a strict liability criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.
You commit a criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units if you do not notify Airservices of the need to change aeronautical information, as soon as practicable after you become aware of the need.
The data or information you provide must be in accordance with specifications Airservices gives you, or you commit a strict liability criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.
You must review, at least annually, the data and aeronautical information published in the AIP for which you are responsible, keep a record of that review and provide a copy of the review to CASA on request. If you do not do so, you commit a strict liability criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.
Yours in aviation safety and love and kisses
Airservices Australia
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 18th Oct 2017 at 03:11.
alphacentauri,
You must have me confused with somebody else, I have not recently or any other time, been calling for the privatization of Airservices.
Contestability for RFSS and small airport towers ( as per the contract towers Airservices operated in US) but not wholesale privatisation. Rejigging to something like the Canadian model would do very well - that is not privatisation.
As for chains of responsibility and legal liability, as seen by the courts, I understand that all too well.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Lead Balloon,
Too close to the truth for comfort.
You must have me confused with somebody else, I have not recently or any other time, been calling for the privatization of Airservices.
Contestability for RFSS and small airport towers ( as per the contract towers Airservices operated in US) but not wholesale privatisation. Rejigging to something like the Canadian model would do very well - that is not privatisation.
As for chains of responsibility and legal liability, as seen by the courts, I understand that all too well.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Lead Balloon,
Too close to the truth for comfort.
This is the driving regulation.
175.140 AIS providers—aerodromes not covered by Part 139—removal of references in AIP
(1) This regulation applies if an AIS provider becomes aware of an aeronautical data originator:
(a) who is responsible for aeronautical data or aeronautical information about an aerodrome that is not:
(i) a certified aerodrome; or
(ii) a registered aerodrome; or
(iii) an aerodrome to which Subpart 139.D applies; and
(b) who has not complied with Subpart 175.D in relation to the aerodrome.
(2) The provider must remove any references to the aerodrome that the provider has published in the AIP from the AIP when the AIP is next amended.
Note: The aeronautical data or aeronautical information for which the aeronautical data originator is responsible must be specified in a data product specification: see paragraph 175.160(4)(a).
(1) This regulation applies if an AIS provider becomes aware of an aeronautical data originator:
(a) who is responsible for aeronautical data or aeronautical information about an aerodrome that is not:
(i) a certified aerodrome; or
(ii) a registered aerodrome; or
(iii) an aerodrome to which Subpart 139.D applies; and
(b) who has not complied with Subpart 175.D in relation to the aerodrome.
(2) The provider must remove any references to the aerodrome that the provider has published in the AIP from the AIP when the AIP is next amended.
Note: The aeronautical data or aeronautical information for which the aeronautical data originator is responsible must be specified in a data product specification: see paragraph 175.160(4)(a).
And yes, LB, spot on. 50 penalty unit fine for each airfield's contact (The Aeronautical Data Originator) for a whole raft of things.
175.455 Aeronautical data originators—requirement to provide updated aeronautical data or aeronautical information published other than in NOTAMS
(1) This regulation applies if an aeronautical data originator becomes aware of a change that is needed to aeronautical data or aeronautical information:
(a) for which the originator is responsible; and
(b) that has been published by an AIS provider:
(i) in the Integrated Aeronautical Information Package (other than in NOTAMS); or
(ii) on an aeronautical chart.
Note: The aeronautical data or aeronautical information for which the aeronautical data originator is responsible must be specified in a data product specification: see paragraph 175.160(4)(a).
(2) The originator commits an offence if the originator does not, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the need for the change, provide the AIS provider with the following:
(a) updated aeronautical data or aeronautical information;
(b) the date the updated data or information becomes effective.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(1) This regulation applies if an aeronautical data originator becomes aware of a change that is needed to aeronautical data or aeronautical information:
(a) for which the originator is responsible; and
(b) that has been published by an AIS provider:
(i) in the Integrated Aeronautical Information Package (other than in NOTAMS); or
(ii) on an aeronautical chart.
Note: The aeronautical data or aeronautical information for which the aeronautical data originator is responsible must be specified in a data product specification: see paragraph 175.160(4)(a).
(2) The originator commits an offence if the originator does not, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the need for the change, provide the AIS provider with the following:
(a) updated aeronautical data or aeronautical information;
(b) the date the updated data or information becomes effective.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Folks,
Lead Balloon knows whereof he speaks ---- this would scare off most people.
Who from the local council or hospital or wherever would want to put their hand up for an ADO "job".
Australia's oh! so friendly and easy to use aviation regulation.
There has to be a better way.
For those of you who don't know, or have forgotten, 50 penalty point is near as makes no difference AUD $9000.
Tootle pip!!
Division 175.D.1—Aeronautical data originators—general
175.445 Aeronautical data originators—AIP responsible person and NOTAM authorised persons
AIP responsible persons
(1) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator provides aeronautical data or aeronautical information to an AIS provider; and
(b) the originator has not appointed a single senior manager within the originator’s organisation as the AIP responsible person for the originator.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An AIP responsible person is responsible for the provision of aeronautical data or aeronautical information, other than in NOTAMS, from the originator to an AIS provider.
(3) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator appoints a person as the AIP responsible person for the originator; and
(b) the person does not have the knowledge and competence to carry out the responsibilities of an AIP responsible person.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
NOTAM authorised persons
(4) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator asks an AIS provider to issue, review or cancel a NOTAM; and
(b) the originator has not appointed a person in the originator’s organisation as a NOTAM authorised person for the originator.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(5) A NOTAM authorised person is responsible for requesting the issue, review and cancellation of NOTAMS for the originator.
(6) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator appoints a person as a NOTAM authorised person for the originator; and
(b) the person does not have the knowledge and competence to request the issue, review and cancellation of NOTAMS. Authorised Version F2017C00742 registered 15/09/2017
Aeronautical information management Part 175
Aeronautical information management—aeronautical data originators Subpart 175.D
Aeronautical data originators—general Division 175.D.1
Regulation 175.450
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 317
Compilation No. 77 Compilation date: 12/9/17 Registered: 15/9/17
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
175.450 Aeronautical data originators—telling AIS provider of AIP responsible person and NOTAM authorised persons
(1) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator provides aeronautical data or aeronautical information to an AIS provider; and
(b) the originator has not told the AIS provider, in writing, of the following:
(i) the name of the AIP responsible person for the originator;
(ii) the names of the NOTAM authorised persons (if any) for the originator;
(iii) any changes (if any) to the persons who occupy the positions mentioned in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) since any previous provision of aeronautical data or aeronautical information to the AIS provider.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
175.455 Aeronautical data originators—requirement to provide updated aeronautical data or aeronautical information published other than in NOTAMS
(1) This regulation applies if an aeronautical data originator becomes aware of a change that is needed to aeronautical data or aeronautical information:
(a) for which the originator is responsible; and
(b) that has been published by an AIS provider:
(i) in the Integrated Aeronautical Information Package (other than in NOTAMS); or
(ii) on an aeronautical chart.
Note: The aeronautical data or aeronautical information for which the aeronautical data originator is responsible must be specified in a data product specification: see paragraph 175.160(4)(a).
(2) The originator commits an offence if the originator does not, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the need for the change, provide the AIS provider with the following:
(a) updated aeronautical data or aeronautical information;
(b) the date the updated data or information becomes effective.
Penalty: 50 penalty units. Authorised Version F2017C00742 registered 15/09/2017
Part 175 Aeronautical information management
Subpart 175.D Aeronautical information management—aeronautical data originators
Division 175.D.1 Aeronautical data originators—general
Lead Balloon knows whereof he speaks ---- this would scare off most people.
Who from the local council or hospital or wherever would want to put their hand up for an ADO "job".
Australia's oh! so friendly and easy to use aviation regulation.
There has to be a better way.
For those of you who don't know, or have forgotten, 50 penalty point is near as makes no difference AUD $9000.
Tootle pip!!
Division 175.D.1—Aeronautical data originators—general
175.445 Aeronautical data originators—AIP responsible person and NOTAM authorised persons
AIP responsible persons
(1) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator provides aeronautical data or aeronautical information to an AIS provider; and
(b) the originator has not appointed a single senior manager within the originator’s organisation as the AIP responsible person for the originator.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An AIP responsible person is responsible for the provision of aeronautical data or aeronautical information, other than in NOTAMS, from the originator to an AIS provider.
(3) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator appoints a person as the AIP responsible person for the originator; and
(b) the person does not have the knowledge and competence to carry out the responsibilities of an AIP responsible person.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
NOTAM authorised persons
(4) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator asks an AIS provider to issue, review or cancel a NOTAM; and
(b) the originator has not appointed a person in the originator’s organisation as a NOTAM authorised person for the originator.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(5) A NOTAM authorised person is responsible for requesting the issue, review and cancellation of NOTAMS for the originator.
(6) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator appoints a person as a NOTAM authorised person for the originator; and
(b) the person does not have the knowledge and competence to request the issue, review and cancellation of NOTAMS. Authorised Version F2017C00742 registered 15/09/2017
Aeronautical information management Part 175
Aeronautical information management—aeronautical data originators Subpart 175.D
Aeronautical data originators—general Division 175.D.1
Regulation 175.450
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 317
Compilation No. 77 Compilation date: 12/9/17 Registered: 15/9/17
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
175.450 Aeronautical data originators—telling AIS provider of AIP responsible person and NOTAM authorised persons
(1) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator provides aeronautical data or aeronautical information to an AIS provider; and
(b) the originator has not told the AIS provider, in writing, of the following:
(i) the name of the AIP responsible person for the originator;
(ii) the names of the NOTAM authorised persons (if any) for the originator;
(iii) any changes (if any) to the persons who occupy the positions mentioned in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) since any previous provision of aeronautical data or aeronautical information to the AIS provider.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
175.455 Aeronautical data originators—requirement to provide updated aeronautical data or aeronautical information published other than in NOTAMS
(1) This regulation applies if an aeronautical data originator becomes aware of a change that is needed to aeronautical data or aeronautical information:
(a) for which the originator is responsible; and
(b) that has been published by an AIS provider:
(i) in the Integrated Aeronautical Information Package (other than in NOTAMS); or
(ii) on an aeronautical chart.
Note: The aeronautical data or aeronautical information for which the aeronautical data originator is responsible must be specified in a data product specification: see paragraph 175.160(4)(a).
(2) The originator commits an offence if the originator does not, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the need for the change, provide the AIS provider with the following:
(a) updated aeronautical data or aeronautical information;
(b) the date the updated data or information becomes effective.
Penalty: 50 penalty units. Authorised Version F2017C00742 registered 15/09/2017
Part 175 Aeronautical information management
Subpart 175.D Aeronautical information management—aeronautical data originators
Division 175.D.1 Aeronautical data originators—general
Whats wrong with making a aerodrome licence certificate holder responsible for the provision and accuracy of the information pertaining to their aerodrome?
There are aerodromes who up until recently had threshold coordinates that were wrong by hundreds of meters with no response from the aerodrome for years.
If aerodrome licence certificate holders are not taking their responsibilities seriously then why should AsA? All this reg does is pressure aerodrome operators to take it seriously. And if they dont then damn straight they should be removed from the book as well as the approaches.
Its not Airservices responsibility to do it for them.
Yes the restructure forced the hand but the publication if CASR175 means it was coming eventually. I didn't hear anyone screaming when the NPRM was issued.
There are aerodromes who up until recently had threshold coordinates that were wrong by hundreds of meters with no response from the aerodrome for years.
If aerodrome licence certificate holders are not taking their responsibilities seriously then why should AsA? All this reg does is pressure aerodrome operators to take it seriously. And if they dont then damn straight they should be removed from the book as well as the approaches.
Its not Airservices responsibility to do it for them.
Yes the restructure forced the hand but the publication if CASR175 means it was coming eventually. I didn't hear anyone screaming when the NPRM was issued.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be interesting to see reactions from RFDS and other providers of emergency response if half the regional aerodromes are wiped from databases.
Most of the GA stops across the southern continent are in the list as are large numbers from WA and NT. Most of the remote Aboriginal communities are listed and I guess the forms might be a tad hard to follow if English is your fourth or fifth language?
I can see one hell of a negligence suit down the way.
Kaz
Most of the GA stops across the southern continent are in the list as are large numbers from WA and NT. Most of the remote Aboriginal communities are listed and I guess the forms might be a tad hard to follow if English is your fourth or fifth language?
I can see one hell of a negligence suit down the way.
Kaz
Whats wrong with making a aerodrome licence certificate holder responsible for the provision and accuracy of the information pertaining to their aerodrome?
There are aerodromes who up until recently had threshold coordinates that were wrong by hundreds of meters with no response from the aerodrome for years.
If aerodrome licence certificate holders are not taking their responsibilities seriously then why should AsA? All this reg does is pressure aerodrome operators to take it seriously. And if they dont then damn straight they should be removed from the book as well as the approaches.
Its not Airservices responsibility to do it for them.
Yes the restructure forced the hand but the publication if CASR175 means it was coming eventually. I didn't hear anyone screaming when the NPRM was issued.
There are aerodromes who up until recently had threshold coordinates that were wrong by hundreds of meters with no response from the aerodrome for years.
If aerodrome licence certificate holders are not taking their responsibilities seriously then why should AsA? All this reg does is pressure aerodrome operators to take it seriously. And if they dont then damn straight they should be removed from the book as well as the approaches.
Its not Airservices responsibility to do it for them.
Yes the restructure forced the hand but the publication if CASR175 means it was coming eventually. I didn't hear anyone screaming when the NPRM was issued.
But whoever it was who decided that a substantial number of accidents and incidents have been caused by incomplete or inaccurate information published in relation to the thousands of aerodromes/HLSs/ALAs on the list has no grasp on reality. That disconnection from reality is confirmed by the fact that whoever it was also decided that the way to deal with the risk of incomplete or inaccurate information is to get people to nominate the ‘criminals’ responsible in advance.
What a surprise that the outcome is instead crickets chirping and unintended consequences including a reduction in safety.
alphacentauri, I'm pretty sure if there is an Approach then the information should be very accurate, I HIGHLY doubt the Aerodrome has moved much from year to year and doubt the information used for the approach is provided by an ADO and if it doesn't have an approach it shouldn't be an issue either then.
AlphaC,
Now who doesn't know/understand what they are talking about --- most of the places on the list are not certified (or even registered) airfields --- CASA regulatory requirements (CASR Part 139, complexity and cost) have meant that many local councils ( and others) have dropped out of that system, unless they have RPT of the size where they have to maintain same.
As has been made clear, a substantial proportion are EMS hospital helipads.
There has to be, there must be, a better (and affordable) way.
Tootle pip!!
Now who doesn't know/understand what they are talking about --- most of the places on the list are not certified (or even registered) airfields --- CASA regulatory requirements (CASR Part 139, complexity and cost) have meant that many local councils ( and others) have dropped out of that system, unless they have RPT of the size where they have to maintain same.
As has been made clear, a substantial proportion are EMS hospital helipads.
There has to be, there must be, a better (and affordable) way.
Tootle pip!!
Ixixly, you'd be mistaken
Leadsled,
Let's just say that if I sat down with you over a beer I'm sure we'd both end up in fierce agreeance. I think your frustrations at Airservices are misguided. They have no obligations and are doing what they are allowed to do under the regs. It's the reg and CASA mindset that has to change first.
Do I like Airservices attitude toward the whole thing? No. Do I agree with reg as written? Not entirely. But there are still major airports that don't/can't/won't hand over important infrastructure information which can and does compromise safety. Should they be penalised for it? Not initially, but how long do you let it remain an issue and how else do you get them to hand it over? Some aerodrome operators in ERSA/DAP don't even know they have responsibility for an aerodrome.
Why I stated that I didn't think you knew what you were talking about was because if you understood the reg framework you wouldn't have come out all guns blazing at AsA. Part 175 requires them to do what they are doing.
Alpha
Leadsled,
Let's just say that if I sat down with you over a beer I'm sure we'd both end up in fierce agreeance. I think your frustrations at Airservices are misguided. They have no obligations and are doing what they are allowed to do under the regs. It's the reg and CASA mindset that has to change first.
Do I like Airservices attitude toward the whole thing? No. Do I agree with reg as written? Not entirely. But there are still major airports that don't/can't/won't hand over important infrastructure information which can and does compromise safety. Should they be penalised for it? Not initially, but how long do you let it remain an issue and how else do you get them to hand it over? Some aerodrome operators in ERSA/DAP don't even know they have responsibility for an aerodrome.
Why I stated that I didn't think you knew what you were talking about was because if you understood the reg framework you wouldn't have come out all guns blazing at AsA. Part 175 requires them to do what they are doing.
Alpha
Alphacenaturi, care to explain further as to how I'm mistaken? I'm genuinely curious.
I was under the impression that an Instrument Approach design requires the area to be well surveyed for it and that any drift in the coordinates would be extremely minimal from year to year which is why they don't need a new survey conducted? And if the coordinates are off for a VFR flight by a couple of hundred metres then what's the major issue there?
Can anyone tell me if Part 175 is something new as well? Or has someone spied their eye over it and decided that even though nothing has changed and they could continue status quo that doing so would leave them open in legal sense and required this fairly drastic move?
I also think alpha that most us aren't necessarily against them trying to get the data current and checked, most of us are aghast at how so many that shouldn't be an issue suddenly are, I don't see how removing so many Hospitals Landing Sites for instance is of any use to anyone?
I was under the impression that an Instrument Approach design requires the area to be well surveyed for it and that any drift in the coordinates would be extremely minimal from year to year which is why they don't need a new survey conducted? And if the coordinates are off for a VFR flight by a couple of hundred metres then what's the major issue there?
Can anyone tell me if Part 175 is something new as well? Or has someone spied their eye over it and decided that even though nothing has changed and they could continue status quo that doing so would leave them open in legal sense and required this fairly drastic move?
I also think alpha that most us aren't necessarily against them trying to get the data current and checked, most of us are aghast at how so many that shouldn't be an issue suddenly are, I don't see how removing so many Hospitals Landing Sites for instance is of any use to anyone?
Part 175 has been around for a while. Most have been ignoring it for the obvious reasons, and now bad things are going to happen as a consequence of it. If I were a betting person, I reckon the usual bandaid will be rolled out: exemptions.
I wonder whether the people who came up with the masterpiece considered that maybe the person who has the knowledge and competence to carry out the responsibilities of an AIP responsible person for e.g. YBHI is not and never will be a “senior manager” within the Broken Hill Council, and therefore it’s impossible to comply?
Or whether they considered the possibility that when all information about and chart markings of places like YBHI disappear completely from the AIP, people will still operate in and out of those places, simply using whatever old and ‘bootleg’ information they can get a hold of. What a terrific outcome for safety.
If I were to dedicate time to responding to and explaining the disconnection from reality, the overkill, the unintended consequences and the impenetrable complexity of proposed civil aviation regulations, I would do nothing else until I went mad. Alas, I have a day job and would prefer to stay sane.
I wonder whether the people who came up with the masterpiece considered that maybe the person who has the knowledge and competence to carry out the responsibilities of an AIP responsible person for e.g. YBHI is not and never will be a “senior manager” within the Broken Hill Council, and therefore it’s impossible to comply?
Or whether they considered the possibility that when all information about and chart markings of places like YBHI disappear completely from the AIP, people will still operate in and out of those places, simply using whatever old and ‘bootleg’ information they can get a hold of. What a terrific outcome for safety.
If I were to dedicate time to responding to and explaining the disconnection from reality, the overkill, the unintended consequences and the impenetrable complexity of proposed civil aviation regulations, I would do nothing else until I went mad. Alas, I have a day job and would prefer to stay sane.
I have put all of the coordinates into google maps so that people can see which points are in their local area, from the names it is hard to work out sometimes.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...90&usp=sharing
A lot of them are Helicopter sites and a few are seaplane sites but there are also some site that I would have thought there was enough activity to warrant remaining listed eg Broken Hiil and "The Oaks"
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...90&usp=sharing
A lot of them are Helicopter sites and a few are seaplane sites but there are also some site that I would have thought there was enough activity to warrant remaining listed eg Broken Hiil and "The Oaks"
Consider when I'm around there I hear "The Oaks" at least twice a day, I concur no_one, there's a lot of places up in the NT that are frequented as well in Arnhem land.
Lead Balloon, sanity is overrated, let's face it, if we were all truly sane we probably wouldn't have gotten into Aviation, let alone stuck around!
Lead Balloon, sanity is overrated, let's face it, if we were all truly sane we probably wouldn't have gotten into Aviation, let alone stuck around!
Lead Balloon, sanity is overrated, let's face it, if we were all truly sane we probably wouldn't have gotten into Aviation, let alone stuck around.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's also a few listed serviced by RPT flights, with IAP's designed and published by Airservices. Can only hope the AIP is trying to sling some responsibility back to CASA after a industry backlash.
Ixixly,
Understood, aeronautical data in Oz suffers from inaccuracies over time mainly due to the different datums they have been surveyed in.
Eg. Many airfields were originally surveyed in AGD66 and the conversion to WGS84 is epoch based. Some agd66 positions have been published as wg84 and can be up 200m in error. We are still recieving data from Perth in Perth Coastal Datum and Adelaide in SA local.
175 has been created to try to solve some of these problems, but there is a long way to go.
Eg try telling the aboriginal elder at Kalkgurung that his data is incorrect.....they just dont understand
Understood, aeronautical data in Oz suffers from inaccuracies over time mainly due to the different datums they have been surveyed in.
Eg. Many airfields were originally surveyed in AGD66 and the conversion to WGS84 is epoch based. Some agd66 positions have been published as wg84 and can be up 200m in error. We are still recieving data from Perth in Perth Coastal Datum and Adelaide in SA local.
175 has been created to try to solve some of these problems, but there is a long way to go.
Eg try telling the aboriginal elder at Kalkgurung that his data is incorrect.....they just dont understand