Hi Callum & I have replied via email to Noel on this query but so everyone is up to date a copy of emails is below explaining the current situation:
What can I say…Nothing happens quickly in Government……. AIMS have met with both QLD Mining Advisory Council (metals and coal) over the last 12 months to update the competencies for surveyors to what is current under the SBQ. (These are incorrect in the Acts and on the Committee competency listings). This is our priority at the present time and there are many hurdles to even getting this important item changed.
In regard to your query, if you were to meet the Class of Survey described in the GN19 then you have executed your obligations under law. The fact it is now PU and SU instead of Class and Order is important and we are aware of the need for change to stay with SP1.7 but it will take part of a larger submission. NSW have updated their Survey & Drafting Direction for Mines to this effect to reference SP1.7 but due to politics it will take longer in QLD.
There is more than this ICSM reference that needs updating with both the GN19 for metals, RS10 for coal and the Acts and Regs for Coal and Metals. We have the ear of the Inspectorates although what we propose doesn’t always get adopted or takes a long time to go through due process.
At present we have had greater adoption of our suggestions by the Coal Advisory Council than the Metals, despite the same number of meetings and communication. We are working on digital lodgement of plans and soft copy plans with Tillman Rasche, Senior Inspector of Metal Mines, who is championing this project.
We are working on a larger submission to the Coal Advisory Committee to cover all legislation and standards at their request and will do the same for Metals. Your suggestions into the required updates for Metal both the Act & Regs and GN19 would be welcome so we can get appropriate input from metals professionals. If interested in getting involved you should also talk to Dave Ericson and your Glencore colleagues to review all the aforementioned to put forward something for AIMS to take to the Advisory Council.
Regards Mick Harris
Mick has pretty much covered it all. The guidance note is what it is at present and anything you do that meets QGN19 is perfectly fine. AIMS is fully aware of the differences but at this stage, as mick identified, our focus is on the current statutory requirements of both coal and metal mines with regard to Registered Surveyors with mining endorsements. Mick and I have discussed the need to review both the coal and metal surveying and drafting standards and hope to start moving on this later in the year.
Both QGN19 & RS10 essentially mirror each other re SP1 and essentially both have some issues in regard SP1 class/order since day 1. Both documents refer to Class only without any reference to Order and in essence class alone does not define accuracy hence is rather meaningless in meeting the intent of the legislation.
I don't see any urgency to suddendly fix things at this moment as any fixes probably wouldn't become official until after some up coming underlying datum and reference frame changes.
If you curently meet class B standards but misclose by (for example) say 5 metres (as such) then you essentially meet the requirements (??) as per the legislation/standards/guidelines etc as currently written which relates to SP1 (v1.7)
In less than 18 months time (Jan 1, 2017) will see the introduction of GDA2020 which essentially will replace GDA94 and will go a long way to being better able to meet Position Uncertainity & Survey Uncertainity due to reducing the distortion that currently exists in GDA94 including survey layers below the defining datum.
Prior to Jan 1, 2017 may be a good time to review as a whole the past/present and future requirements of the legislation and these particular documents?
Last edit: 4 years 10 months ago by Kerry Matthews.
In short nothing was presented. It was identified to the committee that aims would be presenting a list to the committee on what we thought would be the changes to RS10. They were going to table at the meeting and AIMS will provide something in the future.
There was little response from those that I had sent the email out to therefore no real reason to present anything to the committee. In the new year I will send out a request for members and Mine surveyors to review RS10 to comment on changes and also the draft digital data standard, which will be an addition to the standard.
So look out in the new year for a review of RS10 and digital submission information.