CALM's Final Wilderness Policy in WA
Thread Starter
CALM's Final Wilderness Policy in WA
CALM Final Policy on Identification and Management of Wilderness Areas Policy Statement #62.
In 2003, CALM (WA) announced it's Draft Policy on Management of to be declared 'wilderness' areas. There was a 2 month comment period allowed.
Pilots attended a public meeting in Manjimup WA on 9/8/2003 to discuss aviation related items, including overfly heights AGL, and access to existing strips,with CALM staff - just ahead of the submission closure date.
39 written submissions were received, 16 private,16 community,7 government.
Contained in these were 21 seperate aviation related comments regards . Of these, 19 were rejected by CALM for a variety of reasons. 2 items were considered relevant, and changes were made to the draft policy:
(1) CALM accepted that 5000 AGL was impractical, but are asking CASA/ASA for 2000 ft 'limits'
(2) CALM have agreed to assess all existing strips and pads in respect of their safety value
There is, however, one sneaky piece of legal drafting contained in Section 5.6 of the Policy Statement........
Aircraft pilots and/or, commercial operators will be requested to abide by flight duidelines that may be developed for specific wilderness areas
This is very open ended for a policy statement, and it's of concern that, at the conclusion of the main 5.6 statement that they wish to
encourage flying at over 2000 ft for fixed wings and 1500 ft for helicopters
a catch-all phrase is included. It's my opinion that should CALM wish to encourage minimum heights over their wilderness, then they should make it consistent over all of their domain.
Now we are lead to beleieve that the intention of these aviation restrictions is to provide for the quiet enjoyment of the bush by the foot powered general public. All very well, except that included in this Policy Statement is the so called 'Malimup Communique of 1998', in which CALM has agreed in a treaty format with SW indigenous groups -that their unimpeded access to the proposed Walpole Wilderness Area shall include:
* the right to use vehicles &
* the right to use firearms
So, in conclusion, the quiet enjoyment of the wilderness area will not be broken by those nasty little aircraft, but a good roo shoot off the back of a Landcruiser is fine!
Is this, or is this not, the finest bit of PC you've ever heard?
Happy days,
In 2003, CALM (WA) announced it's Draft Policy on Management of to be declared 'wilderness' areas. There was a 2 month comment period allowed.
Pilots attended a public meeting in Manjimup WA on 9/8/2003 to discuss aviation related items, including overfly heights AGL, and access to existing strips,with CALM staff - just ahead of the submission closure date.
39 written submissions were received, 16 private,16 community,7 government.
Contained in these were 21 seperate aviation related comments regards . Of these, 19 were rejected by CALM for a variety of reasons. 2 items were considered relevant, and changes were made to the draft policy:
(1) CALM accepted that 5000 AGL was impractical, but are asking CASA/ASA for 2000 ft 'limits'
(2) CALM have agreed to assess all existing strips and pads in respect of their safety value
There is, however, one sneaky piece of legal drafting contained in Section 5.6 of the Policy Statement........
Aircraft pilots and/or, commercial operators will be requested to abide by flight duidelines that may be developed for specific wilderness areas
This is very open ended for a policy statement, and it's of concern that, at the conclusion of the main 5.6 statement that they wish to
encourage flying at over 2000 ft for fixed wings and 1500 ft for helicopters
a catch-all phrase is included. It's my opinion that should CALM wish to encourage minimum heights over their wilderness, then they should make it consistent over all of their domain.
Now we are lead to beleieve that the intention of these aviation restrictions is to provide for the quiet enjoyment of the bush by the foot powered general public. All very well, except that included in this Policy Statement is the so called 'Malimup Communique of 1998', in which CALM has agreed in a treaty format with SW indigenous groups -that their unimpeded access to the proposed Walpole Wilderness Area shall include:
* the right to use vehicles &
* the right to use firearms
So, in conclusion, the quiet enjoyment of the wilderness area will not be broken by those nasty little aircraft, but a good roo shoot off the back of a Landcruiser is fine!
Is this, or is this not, the finest bit of PC you've ever heard?
Happy days,
There is no legal mechanism to enforce this "policy" and if one were to be enacted it would as a matter of course have the safety clause of "unless due to stress of weather" or "if operationally required".
I think it is a storm in a teacup but you are right about the PC part. A little like "traditional" hunting up North using a "traditional" dinghy and outboard and a "traditional" rifle.
I think it is a storm in a teacup but you are right about the PC part. A little like "traditional" hunting up North using a "traditional" dinghy and outboard and a "traditional" rifle.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,111
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
2 Posts
Airspace is the domain of the Federal Government, not the States or any other authority.
The new Airspace Directorate will take responsibility for all airspace issues and should be involved with this proposal through the WA RAPAC, who I assume are aware of this.
The new Airspace Directorate will take responsibility for all airspace issues and should be involved with this proposal through the WA RAPAC, who I assume are aware of this.
Thread Starter
This Could Be a Better Little 'Earner' Than Native Title
Read the NT experience, and it all fits a pattern of these Depts of Conservation trying to ingratiate themselves with the indigenous 'owners' or 'dreamtime users'. Gives them tenure as recipients of consolidated revenue, a place to fly their little air force unquestioned by GA, and from the pollies viewpoint - keeps all the treehuggers, greens and social engineers in jobs.
We just need to be on the ball with this little tactic. They simply cannot be trusted to consult with 'outsiders' , ( aviation), on these matters. Transparency in government ? You're joking!
If noise is the issue - then I'm for asking for a detailed survey of the current aviation noise levels, then some details as to what levels of acoustic inconvenience will be caused by:
(a) C172 @ 500 ft
(b) clapped Landcruiser @ 500 ft
(c) .243 @ 500 ft
Just another example of devious PC thinking,
happy days,
Read the NT experience, and it all fits a pattern of these Depts of Conservation trying to ingratiate themselves with the indigenous 'owners' or 'dreamtime users'. Gives them tenure as recipients of consolidated revenue, a place to fly their little air force unquestioned by GA, and from the pollies viewpoint - keeps all the treehuggers, greens and social engineers in jobs.
We just need to be on the ball with this little tactic. They simply cannot be trusted to consult with 'outsiders' , ( aviation), on these matters. Transparency in government ? You're joking!
If noise is the issue - then I'm for asking for a detailed survey of the current aviation noise levels, then some details as to what levels of acoustic inconvenience will be caused by:
(a) C172 @ 500 ft
(b) clapped Landcruiser @ 500 ft
(c) .243 @ 500 ft
Just another example of devious PC thinking,
happy days,
