|
REPORT FROM THE COURTROOM ON 21st September FROM CHARLES PAUKA (PERSONALLY PRESENT) See www.airsafety.com.au/charlesreport/ for an account of the first day’s proceedings.
This is an important point as Airservices (actually, their lawyer, as ASA was not present "in person") argued that the court case could delay/interfere with the printing and dissemination of the charts and educational material and lead to potential accidents by confused pilots. The ASA lawyer played the safety harp quite well and it was clear that the judge had no idea about airspace, IFR/VFR or anything else to do with aviation, but the important thing is that the court case is proceeding.
There was a large media contingent present both before and after the hearing (all TV stations plus papers and possibly radio), and Dick Smith had Mr. Henderson with him, some of whose family members perished in the Benalla crash. They made an excellent case for the safety aspects of the NAS and understandably recreational aviation and freedom was not the thrust of the argument. Dick Smith had simple, easy to explain diagrams with him to show the airspace advantages and also why the Benalla crash would not have happened if the NAS had been implemented earlier. Remarkable man. Interesting times. Dick Smith unequivocally stated that he is prepared to spend "hundreds of thousands of dollars" on the case and will see it out to the end.
What has still not been explained by ASA (among many other things) is how they can simply ignore Minister Anderson's directive that E class over D airspace not be reclassified C unless radar coverage is provided. ASA are simply ignoring him, and is no wonder that Dick Smith - and many others - are calling for the ASA Board to be sacked. Outside the Court - AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA member 2349 demonstrates how an Air Traffic Controller handles Class C airspace without radar
|
|