Dick Smith's open letter to John Anderson
I stand by my statement.
CASA OAR does not operate under the 1988 CAR, they were created as a stand-alone office within CASA and are governed entirely by the ICAO-compliant Airspace Act and Regulations. Section 11A of the CAR 1988 does, however, require the rest of CASA to operate in accordance with the above act and regulations or advise the Minister why they are not so doing.
Those laws do not include resorting to ancient CARs such as 99A, or Part 139 - CA/GRS or the Airspace legislation would say so.
Once again we see CASA, including OAR, not understanding their own legislation, or if they do, being too clever by half in their continued endeavours to re-create the "OCTA" of the pre-TAAATS era.
As many have written, in many different threads, they are a law to themselves.
CASA OAR does not operate under the 1988 CAR, they were created as a stand-alone office within CASA and are governed entirely by the ICAO-compliant Airspace Act and Regulations. Section 11A of the CAR 1988 does, however, require the rest of CASA to operate in accordance with the above act and regulations or advise the Minister why they are not so doing.
Those laws do not include resorting to ancient CARs such as 99A, or Part 139 - CA/GRS or the Airspace legislation would say so.
Once again we see CASA, including OAR, not understanding their own legislation, or if they do, being too clever by half in their continued endeavours to re-create the "OCTA" of the pre-TAAATS era.
As many have written, in many different threads, they are a law to themselves.
Midnight, in the days of yore we were able to fall back on "multiple IFR traffic" if workload made a full traffic service unworkable, again a very rare event. I'd suggest you'll miss out on traffic due to workload under the current system about as often as "multiple IFR traffic" was used by Flight Service.
Until I left FS in 1988, in an AFIZ all traffic got full info on all other traffic. Outside AFIZ, IFR always received full traffic info on IFR and known VFR, except when really busy, you could pass the VFR traffic as multiple VFR traffic in your area. Only ever used it during Birdsville Races weekend. One I remember was an FK27 taxying Moomba for Adelaide, pilot responded with give me a hint, I said don't go East, as most were tracking via Innamincka or thereabouts.
Doubt those rules changed before the demise of FS.
Doubt those rules changed before the demise of FS.
I stand by my statement.
CASA OAR does not operate under the 1988 CAR, they were created as a stand-alone office within CASA and are governed entirely by the ICAO-compliant Airspace Act and Regulations. Section 11A of the CAR 1988 does, however, require the rest of CASA to operate in accordance with the above act and regulations or advise the Minister why they are not so doing.
Those laws do not include resorting to ancient CARs such as 99A, or Part 139 - CA/GRS or the Airspace legislation would say so.
CASA OAR does not operate under the 1988 CAR, they were created as a stand-alone office within CASA and are governed entirely by the ICAO-compliant Airspace Act and Regulations. Section 11A of the CAR 1988 does, however, require the rest of CASA to operate in accordance with the above act and regulations or advise the Minister why they are not so doing.
Those laws do not include resorting to ancient CARs such as 99A, or Part 139 - CA/GRS or the Airspace legislation would say so.
CAR 1988 is still in force (the last amendment was last year) and covers many things not yet covered in other legislation.
My experience over the years has been many CASA employees don't know or understand their own legislation.
I reckon there's only one person on the planet who knows or understands the whole of civil aviation safety rules in Australia. After all, he made most of them up!
At least CAR 1988 will be gone by the year 2003. That's when things will get simpler.
At least CAR 1988 will be gone by the year 2003. That's when things will get simpler.
If the Coroners Court of Victoria has a clue about airspace arrangements and procedures in Australia, I'll give money to charity. If the Coroners Court of Victoria is inclined to learn anything about airspace arrangements and procedures in Australia, we can safely predict that the Coroner will 'reach out' to none other than Airservices and CASA, both of whom will fall over backwards to show that the pilots were entirely at fault.
The families of the deceased need to engage Counsel who has some experience in aviation in Australia and that Counsel needs to engage someone like alphacentauri to provide qualified expert submissions to the coronial inquiry. But even then, a Victorian Coroner's recommendations about airspace arrangements and procedures will gather dust in Canberra.
The families of the deceased need to engage Counsel who has some experience in aviation in Australia and that Counsel needs to engage someone like alphacentauri to provide qualified expert submissions to the coronial inquiry. But even then, a Victorian Coroner's recommendations about airspace arrangements and procedures will gather dust in Canberra.
The Coroner might not hold an inquiry at all. They can simply accept the findings of the ATSB report. I don't recall the Victorian Coroner having an inquiry into the crash at Mt Hotham as an example.
True, LL. The Victorian Coroner is compelled to conduct an inquest only if:
- a person dies (not of natural causes) in custody or care
- a deceased person’s identity is not known, or
- the Coroner suspects homicide and no one has been charged in relation to the death.
- a person dies (not of natural causes) in custody or care
- a deceased person’s identity is not known, or
- the Coroner suspects homicide and no one has been charged in relation to the death.
TIS/B AND FIS/B
From another thread - https://nats-uk.ead-it.com/cms-nats/...UGUST_2021.pdf
The proposal to conduct a similar trial on the Mornington Peninsular in 2009 was torpedoed by the Airservices/CASA cabal.
The technology and potential use was also detailed in the report CASA withheld from publication following completion of the study under RFQ 09/342.
Gne
The proposal to conduct a similar trial on the Mornington Peninsular in 2009 was torpedoed by the Airservices/CASA cabal.
The technology and potential use was also detailed in the report CASA withheld from publication following completion of the study under RFQ 09/342.
Gne
I don't know too many IFR pilots who understand that the IFR/IFR traffic information service in G in Australia is effectively 'workload permitting'. Maybe the pilots involved in the Mangalore tragedy made an assumption that turned out to be invalid?
The insurance litigation will be the 'main game' with the Essendon tragedy. Very rich yanks involved.
The coronial will nonetheless be interesting, punctuated by the kinds of sensational headlines as are at the link in your post.
The coronial will nonetheless be interesting, punctuated by the kinds of sensational headlines as are at the link in your post.
Let's not forget the ADS-B mandate propaganda.
The contrasts in the system perplex me somewhat. I always appreciate the effort to which Centre will go to alert a couple of VFR aircraft of our proximity to each other in G, but wonder why it's considered necessary. If it's 'necessary' in the case of two VFR aircraft in G because of the collision risk, it seems to me that it should be 'more necessary' in the case of two IFR aircraft.
It reminds me of why the crew of VH-NGA made assumptions about the weather at YSNF. Repeatedly fed good (and mistaken) news, but no one thought to double check that the crew had received the worst news about their destination (which news, even then, split the CASA FOIs down the middle as to whether diversion was required).
As soon as something goes wrong, everyone 'walks backwards' chanting 'pilot responsibility'.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 22nd Sep 2021 at 22:05.
Hate to revive an older thread, but.........
le Pingouin and CaptainMidnight have both made statement in this thread to the effect that IFR traffic information service is a 'workload permitting' scenario. Acknowledged that its a rare occurrence. Not withstanding the information in the AIP, the Australian Airspace Policy Statement as released today contains a note in part 17 "North of 65°S IFR flights are considered to have on ongoing flight information request and receive traffic information on other IFR flights and known VFR flights."
It sounds like the Departments expectations for a traffic information service differ from the expectations published in the AIP. It reads to me that the Dept expects that IFR flights can expect flight information and traffic information, workload is a not a consideration.
Alpha
le Pingouin and CaptainMidnight have both made statement in this thread to the effect that IFR traffic information service is a 'workload permitting' scenario. Acknowledged that its a rare occurrence. Not withstanding the information in the AIP, the Australian Airspace Policy Statement as released today contains a note in part 17 "North of 65°S IFR flights are considered to have on ongoing flight information request and receive traffic information on other IFR flights and known VFR flights."
It sounds like the Departments expectations for a traffic information service differ from the expectations published in the AIP. It reads to me that the Dept expects that IFR flights can expect flight information and traffic information, workload is a not a consideration.
Alpha
It was also in the preceeding AAPS of 2018, and 2015, and 2012 etc etc. They all also say that CASA is to determine how it applies and publish the difference in the AIP. Which they do.
Then why have it in there if its never been complied with?
Defeats the purpose of having an expectation, if its never going to be met........dont worry the entire document is obsolete and its only been in force for 4 days.
Defeats the purpose of having an expectation, if its never going to be met........dont worry the entire document is obsolete and its only been in force for 4 days.
The old OCTA rules governing the passing of traffic were complicated by the full-reporting used by a lot of VFR flights. I recall lots of traffic having to be passed and I believe each pilot also had to acknowledge that the traffic message had been received.
Post FS the Class E requirements were different, and as far as I am aware ATC passes IFR / IFR traffic information in accordance with the N of 65S rule dictated by the Minister In the AAPS.
PS. Alphacentuari - Not sure about a newly released AAPS, the current one <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01386> (two months out of date) is still linked on the CASA, DIRD and FRLI web sites.
Perhaps you guys in CASA have seen the new one already?
Post FS the Class E requirements were different, and as far as I am aware ATC passes IFR / IFR traffic information in accordance with the N of 65S rule dictated by the Minister In the AAPS.
PS. Alphacentuari - Not sure about a newly released AAPS, the current one <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01386> (two months out of date) is still linked on the CASA, DIRD and FRLI web sites.
Perhaps you guys in CASA have seen the new one already?
Here's the new one (linked in the old one at the link you posted, Geoff): Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2021 (legislation.gov.au)
(Full reporting being "used" by a lot of VFR flights is not quite the right word. Full reporting was mandatory for VFR (at or?) above 5,000'.)
(Full reporting being "used" by a lot of VFR flights is not quite the right word. Full reporting was mandatory for VFR (at or?) above 5,000'.)
Thread Starter
In those days IFR and VFR flew at the same levels in uncontrolled airspace using the quadrantal rule so FS gave traffic on everyone above 5000'
It sure employed a lot of people!
It sure employed a lot of people!
