The ACMA wrote to the WIA in August, formally advising of their decision, making a number of observations on the Trial and listing four detailed reasons for their decision.
In September, the WIA responded in writing, putting forward rebuttals to the ACMA's observations on the conduct of the Trial, and asked these questions:
The ACMA's response is now posted on the WIA website, here: http://www.wia.org.au/newsevents/news/2 ... /index.phpQ1. As “an evidence based regulator”, is the ACMA’s concern with the use of higher power by amateurs based on a formal risk assessment/management methodology?
(a) And if so, how did the outcome/s derived from that methodology influence the ACMA’s decision?
Q2. Noting that the ACMA wrote to 90 Advanced Licensees that participated in the Trial, what was the basis and methodology used by the ACMA in choosing these 90 participants, and:
(a) what criteria were used to conduct the assessments?
Q3. What level of compliance from the desk audit would have been considered acceptable?
Q4. Noting that, of the 90 licensees that were audited, 17 did not meet the ACMA’s expectations on compliance, would the ACMA please provide a breakdown of those 17 into defined categories?
Q5. Noting that the ACMA wrote to those 17 participants inviting them to provide new records to demonstrate compliance with the current EME requirements, what has been the outcome?
Q6. Concerning station inspections in relation to the Trial:
(a) how many were conducted?;
(b) in what states?; and
(c) would the ACMA please provide details of the outcomes?
Posted in the interests of disseminating the news.
