CASA Imposes NO Fly Zone over Melbourne
https://www.australianveterannews.co...xq9YGmEVv_AiwI
An article about a veteran who attended and was brought to tears trying to get them to respect the shrine. The shrine was then cleaned by other veterans from the area.
An article about a veteran who attended and was brought to tears trying to get them to respect the shrine. The shrine was then cleaned by other veterans from the area.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm telling you, these Victorian public servants are the dumbest of the lot.
From
https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...23-p58u6m.html
From
https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...23-p58u6m.html
The state government wanted to keep some of its “big build” construction projects working as it imposed a two-week shutdown on the rest of the industry but trade union objections put a stop to the plan.
I listened to 2 politicians expressing their disgust and outrage about the behaviour of the protestors (a sentiment I 100% agree with, desecrating war memorials!, attacking police, trashing property, spitting on health care workers! - disgusting and totally unacceptable to our society) but when asked about the comments of one of their party members, who described the those same protestors as "freedom fighters" and who called the police under attack as the thugs, they respond "look I don't agree with him but it is a free society and he is entitled to his opinions" and "it is a matter for his electorate not the party to judge" and "that is just George being George".
Have some (upper case expletive removed) spine!! At minimum just say "those comments are completely unacceptable no matter if they are my party or not!".
Because those comments, from people in a mainstream political party, part of our government, deserved to be called out by the government, not excused.
That goes for any party, green, blue, red or yellow or whatever. If it is wrong it is wrong.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being called out and criticised and condemned vehemently for your speech if it deserves it.
It leaves me despairing of leaders who place allegiance to political party and spin over principle.
I would vote for someone of principle who was willing to admit fault and wear the consequences, over the spin merchants and party players that our system seems to encourage, no matter what their party was.
I nearly broke the radio in my car when I heard their response to the comments...
Have some (upper case expletive removed) spine!! At minimum just say "those comments are completely unacceptable no matter if they are my party or not!".
Because those comments, from people in a mainstream political party, part of our government, deserved to be called out by the government, not excused.
That goes for any party, green, blue, red or yellow or whatever. If it is wrong it is wrong.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being called out and criticised and condemned vehemently for your speech if it deserves it.
It leaves me despairing of leaders who place allegiance to political party and spin over principle.
I would vote for someone of principle who was willing to admit fault and wear the consequences, over the spin merchants and party players that our system seems to encourage, no matter what their party was.
I nearly broke the radio in my car when I heard their response to the comments...
Have some (upper case expletive removed) spine!
So they can’t discipline any member, even if it’s an extreme right anti-vaccine blowhard like Christensen.
My 2c. Clearly others may differ but I think most Australians would cheer and rally behind pollies who stopped playing politics and numbers and started acting like leaders.
If faced with the choice between turning a blind eye to a parliamentary member who encourages people to denigrate our war memorials, assault and intimidate health workers and police and... losing a majority, I would say, give me someone with enough spine to choose the latter.
Country or party? Give me someone who would choose country over party.
If faced with the choice between turning a blind eye to a parliamentary member who encourages people to denigrate our war memorials, assault and intimidate health workers and police and... losing a majority, I would say, give me someone with enough spine to choose the latter.
Country or party? Give me someone who would choose country over party.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 70
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jonkster
My 2c. Clearly others may differ but I think most Australians would cheer and rally behind pollies who stopped playing politics and numbers and started acting like leaders.
If faced with the choice between turning a blind eye to a parliamentary member who encourages people to denigrate our war memorials, assault and intimidate health workers and police and... losing a majority, I would say, give me someone with enough spine to choose the latter.
Country or party? Give me someone who would choose country over party.
If faced with the choice between turning a blind eye to a parliamentary member who encourages people to denigrate our war memorials, assault and intimidate health workers and police and... losing a majority, I would say, give me someone with enough spine to choose the latter.
Country or party? Give me someone who would choose country over party.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To bring this thread back on the subject - the implementation process for a Restricted Area for political reasons: The following from Australian Flying magazine this afternoon.....
The move handed control of the Class G airspace within the zone to Victoria Police, which enabled them to stop news helicopters from live-streaming the protests. Police did give permission for helicopters to film, but demanded that footage be broadcast on a one-hour delay.
News outlets were granted relief from the TRA by the Federal Court yesterday, which has allowed live-streaming until CASA's decision to grant the request can be reviewed by the court next week. The media outlets argued that Victoria Police has no power to enforce the live-stream ban.
AOPA Australia CEO Ben Morgan said move was concerning and the justification for the TRA was not based in aviation safety.
"Our association is genuinely concerned that access to Melbourne's CBD airspace has been closed without valid justification, preventing commercial and media aviation from accessing the area," he said.
"Commercial and media aviation users accessing and operating within the Melbourne CBD are well versed and practiced at operating safely.
"Access to the Melbourne CBD airspace should not be manipulated for the purpose of avoiding public scrutiny or for political reasons."
Temporary Restricted Areas (also called "No-fly Zones") are not uncommon and have been applied in situations such as the devastating 2019-20 bushfires and the Melbourne Commonwealth Games and the Sydney Olympics. However, creating a temporary restricted area for the purpose of controlling media coverage has proven controversial and raised questions of censorship.
Victoria's AvSEF (formerly RAPAC) team was also not informed that the TRA had been imposed.
A CASA spokesperson has told Australian Flying that CASA is unable to comment whilst the matter is before the courts.
This request should never have been approved by CASA.
A temporary restricted area imposed over Melbourne by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has raised the ire of many within the general aviation community.
The TRA was put in place on Wednesday at the request of Victoria Police who were combatting anti-lockdown and anti-vaccination protesters. The area covered a 3 nm radius centred on the Shrine of Remembrance from the surface to 2500 feet and was to be active for five days.The move handed control of the Class G airspace within the zone to Victoria Police, which enabled them to stop news helicopters from live-streaming the protests. Police did give permission for helicopters to film, but demanded that footage be broadcast on a one-hour delay.
News outlets were granted relief from the TRA by the Federal Court yesterday, which has allowed live-streaming until CASA's decision to grant the request can be reviewed by the court next week. The media outlets argued that Victoria Police has no power to enforce the live-stream ban.
AOPA Australia CEO Ben Morgan said move was concerning and the justification for the TRA was not based in aviation safety.
"Our association is genuinely concerned that access to Melbourne's CBD airspace has been closed without valid justification, preventing commercial and media aviation from accessing the area," he said.
"Commercial and media aviation users accessing and operating within the Melbourne CBD are well versed and practiced at operating safely.
"Access to the Melbourne CBD airspace should not be manipulated for the purpose of avoiding public scrutiny or for political reasons."
Temporary Restricted Areas (also called "No-fly Zones") are not uncommon and have been applied in situations such as the devastating 2019-20 bushfires and the Melbourne Commonwealth Games and the Sydney Olympics. However, creating a temporary restricted area for the purpose of controlling media coverage has proven controversial and raised questions of censorship.
Victoria's AvSEF (formerly RAPAC) team was also not informed that the TRA had been imposed.
A CASA spokesperson has told Australian Flying that CASA is unable to comment whilst the matter is before the courts.
Originally Posted by White Knight
Pretty much sums up what the rest of the world are now asking about Australia...
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 70
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by triadic
To bring this thread back on the subject - the implementation process for a Restricted Area for political reasons: The following from Australian Flying magazine this afternoon.....
This request should never have been approved by CASA.
This request should never have been approved by CASA.
There’s often a restricted area around aircraft accident sites… is the principle reason different?
Last edited by compressor stall; 25th Sep 2021 at 22:55. Reason: Added omitted word.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CS... what do you mean as "aircraft sites" please?
Designation of prohibited, restricted or danger areas1.
(3) CASA must not declare an area to be a restricted area unless, in the opinion of CASA, it is necessary to restrict the flight of aircraft over the area to aircraft flown in accordance with specified conditions in the interests of any of the following:
(a) public safety, including the safety of aircraft in flight;
(b) the protection of the environment;
(c) security.
(3) CASA must not declare an area to be a restricted area unless, in the opinion of CASA, it is necessary to restrict the flight of aircraft over the area to aircraft flown in accordance with specified conditions in the interests of any of the following:
(a) public safety, including the safety of aircraft in flight;
(b) the protection of the environment;
(c) security.
Last edited by triadic; 25th Sep 2021 at 06:17.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some fatal aircraft accident sites have in the past have had a restricted area popped on them.
Originally Posted by jonkster
I listened to 2 politicians expressing their disgust and outrage about the behaviour of the protestors (a sentiment I 100% agree with, desecrating war memorials!, attacking police, trashing property, spitting on health care workers! - disgusting and totally unacceptable to our society) but when asked about the comments of one of their party members, who described the those same protestors as "freedom fighters" and who called the police under attack as the thugs, they respond "look I don't agree with him but it is a free society and he is entitled to his opinions" and "it is a matter for his electorate not the party to judge" and "that is just George being George".
Have some (upper case expletive removed) spine!! At minimum just say "those comments are completely unacceptable no matter if they are my party or not!".
Because those comments, from people in a mainstream political party, part of our government, deserved to be called out by the government, not excused.
That goes for any party, green, blue, red or yellow or whatever. If it is wrong it is wrong.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being called out and criticised and condemned vehemently for your speech if it deserves it.
It leaves me despairing of leaders who place allegiance to political party and spin over principle.
I would vote for someone of principle who was willing to admit fault and wear the consequences, over the spin merchants and party players that our system seems to encourage, no matter what their party was.
I nearly broke the radio in my car when I heard their response to the comments...
Have some (upper case expletive removed) spine!! At minimum just say "those comments are completely unacceptable no matter if they are my party or not!".
Because those comments, from people in a mainstream political party, part of our government, deserved to be called out by the government, not excused.
That goes for any party, green, blue, red or yellow or whatever. If it is wrong it is wrong.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being called out and criticised and condemned vehemently for your speech if it deserves it.
It leaves me despairing of leaders who place allegiance to political party and spin over principle.
I would vote for someone of principle who was willing to admit fault and wear the consequences, over the spin merchants and party players that our system seems to encourage, no matter what their party was.
I nearly broke the radio in my car when I heard their response to the comments...
Oh I see.
So the phone footage I saw of people attacking police cars, smashing vehicle mirrors, throwing bottles and rubbish was all CGI generated?
The CEO of the Shrine of rememberence was lying about the rubbish and urine on the shrine? The photos I saw of people climbing and lounging on the shrine are not real?
The CEO of Cohealth was lying about the abuse and the spitting on health workers?
Which sources should I tune into for unbiased stuff?
So the phone footage I saw of people attacking police cars, smashing vehicle mirrors, throwing bottles and rubbish was all CGI generated?
The CEO of the Shrine of rememberence was lying about the rubbish and urine on the shrine? The photos I saw of people climbing and lounging on the shrine are not real?
The CEO of Cohealth was lying about the abuse and the spitting on health workers?
Which sources should I tune into for unbiased stuff?
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
That's usually been justified by heli downwash potentially presenting a bio and debris hazard and evidence disturbance to EMS personnel and others working at the sites.
Originally Posted by jonkster
Oh I see.
So the phone footage I saw of people attacking police cars, smashing vehicle mirrors, throwing bottles and rubbish was all CGI generated?
The CEO of the Shrine of rememberence was lying about the rubbish and urine on the shrine? The photos I saw of people climbing and lounging on the shrine are not real?
The CEO of Cohealth was lying about the abuse and the spitting on health workers?
Which sources should I tune into for unbiased stuff?
So the phone footage I saw of people attacking police cars, smashing vehicle mirrors, throwing bottles and rubbish was all CGI generated?
The CEO of the Shrine of rememberence was lying about the rubbish and urine on the shrine? The photos I saw of people climbing and lounging on the shrine are not real?
The CEO of Cohealth was lying about the abuse and the spitting on health workers?
Which sources should I tune into for unbiased stuff?
As far as recommending an unbiased source I can't help you, but your reaction to two politicians answering about their colleagues viewpoints tells me you don't want to know.
Originally Posted by John Eacott
Absolute horse droppings: helicopter downwash from orbits at 1-2,000ft couldn't be measured. More likely to be affected by the beating of a butterfly's wings
Originally Posted by deja vu
Pretty much yes.
pretty extroadinary claims.
based on what evidence?
Originally Posted by deja vu
As far as recommending an unbiased source I can't help you, but your reaction to two politicians answering about their colleagues viewpoints tells me you don't want to know.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Eacott
Absolute horse droppings: helicopter downwash from orbits at 1-2,000ft couldn't be measured.
But not to drivers of such machines, of course.
