[thorn bird]

What I don't understand is why they don't privatise the whole damned thing. Most of the middle east when I worked there ATC was run by private companies contracted by the state. Ran into one or two Aussie and Kiwi controllers working for them. Great bunch of guys,which one or two memorable hangovers can attest to. Generally great ATC service and I would imagine a heck of a lot cheaper than OZ.
I am extremely "Suss" about these so called "Privatised" government corporations especially when "bonuses are concerned. To me they are recipes for corruption and ineptness, which is perhaps why we are in the situation we are in.

[P7_TOM]

Spot on - as it happens and has been proven - world wide. Why persist; flogging a a dead horse, when the proven method has saved the 'punter' squillions. GMF.

[Peetwo]

Update from off the Senate Estimates thread:

More on this and the Stevie Easton Mandarin article that kharon quotes from here, very soon because IMO we need to call out the King (M&M) Mandarin & the Department that he rules, as either incompetent or acting contrary to the public & industry interest.

For now there is much to sift through with the ASA performance inquiry set to continue, probably with the calling of certain members of the Board to a further public hearing.

Tabled the other evening :-

Documents tabled at a public hearing in Canberra on 18 August 2015. &..

Additional information received from Airservices Australia on 18 August 2015.

..Dick on the record does a great service to GA. It behoves all of us to publicise the totally unnecessary destruction of what should be a healthy Aussie industry. 

There have been those who may have thought that a strict regime would provide a marginal increase in safety. I dispute this concept, with modern avionics such as synthetic vision coupled with recency (healthy industry) and a suite of real time flight information unheard of twenty years ago, there is every reason to realise a greater degree of safety in GA than ever before. 

In any event don't we progress by being a free country? This is certainly the country that I would prefer both for myself and my children and grandchildren. Personal responsibility should rightly be the prerogative of the individual, most private GA flying does not impinge upon the interests of the public at large.

The 'independent government business unit' of CASA and ASA is a fatality flawed concept. Firstly they are virtually unaccountable and secondly 'user pays' with no competition is a complete nonsense. It is now proven to cost the taxpayer and the health of the nation dearly, irrespective of the exorbitant fees collected. ASA is down the drain even as the monopoly provider. CASA talked Minister Albanese into an extra $89.9 million increase in fuel excise, a special one off four year job for 'safety' somethings, a 40% increase in staff results, Minister Truss rolls it on and not a peep is heard. 

Meanwhile, out there in real land.....faint cries in the distance....

Industry is swamped in the latest quagmire and more likely sinking in the quicksands of Part 61. As Dick said half a million moves at BK 20 years ago, a dismal 270k now in spite of population and wealth growth.

Sandy

 
& the Ferryman response to that (& above) sums it up (slightly edited for sensitive info)..

"..Dick is indeed to be congratulated and thanked.  But how is his contribution to be transmogrified into "CHANGE".   Every time there is an opportunity the industry weighs in, provides excellent, professional analysis and options to the govt.  Countless man hours spent drafting submissions etc.   But nothing ever changes, except the stranglehold tightens..   

..Lets hope ASA are the catalyst.  Bravo Dick, well done and thankyou.."

Hmm...'no comment'     

Finally the Hansard is out, fill your boots...

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee - 18/08/2015 - Performance of Airservices Australia or PDF
Well..well it would seem that the Senators are not prepared to let moss grow underfoot, nor let Murky & his mates begin obfuscating an out for the under siege Harfy & his trough swilling crew...

Upcoming Public Hearings

09 Sep 2015
Canberra, ACT

Unfortunately the program and who is to appear is yet to be firmed up, however given next week is in the sitting week my bet is it will be much like last time. Big question is will Sir Angus be appearing and will we get encore from Dick?

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Of risks, red flags, ridiculous responses and a rooted system - PartII

Still stewing over that absolutely UFB, piece of shite - ATSB Corporate Plan . Summed up nicely in this quote by the Ferryman...

Kharon quote:


"..But ATSB should know better; this ‘thing’ Dolan has signed off is another escape route, crafted by experts with the sole aim of changing sod all, while looking good.  You can easily picture it; there’s Beaker, fresh from another failed attempt at swimming lessons; feeding his face on the best of Toulouse tucker, when a text pings in – “Sign this Mate, all will be well, enjoy your break, L&K MM”.   “OK” texts Beaker; “Use the one on record”.  And so the legend of the ATSB is continued; unabated, unashamed and unrepentant.."

However after reading the following - from that little chappy from Tassie - sadly I believe that it is only getting worse and the relentless tick..tock of the doom clock, is gradually getting louder, & louder...  

{Note: The most disturbing bits are in red bold}

Tasmania air surveillance: Unreliable radar sees planes go ‘missing’  

• by: Matthew Denholm
  
• From: The Australian
  
• September 02, 2015 12:00AM
  

Tasmania Correspondent
Hobart
Failures in Tasmania’s $6 million air surveillance system — including planes disappearing from radar screens for minutes on end — are still occurring ­almost monthly, as air traffic controllers warn the system is “unreliable”.  

Reports previously missing from the public record but provided to The Australian show the Tasmanian Wide Area Multilateration (TASWAM) radar-like surveillance system failed 38 times between June 2013 and last month.

There have been 14 failures reported this year, including on June 18 when an aircraft near Launceston disappeared from radar screens “for several minutes”. That was the third such ­occurrence since June 2013, ­including an August 9, 2013, ­report of an aircraft departing Hobart not being visible on screen for 20 minutes.

These latest failure reports are in addition to more than 90 faults reported between 2010 and May 2013 and revealed last month.

They include blunt assessments from clearly frustrated and concerned air traffic controllers that TASWAM’s “unreliability” is sapping “confidence in their surveillance ability”, adding to their workload and even delaying flights.

While the earlier data was publicly available on the website of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the more recent data — post-June 2013 — had not been made publicly available.

It was released on request to The Australian, with the bureau saying it no longer classified such radar failures as “incidents” ­requiring inclusion in its incident reports database.

“In 2013, the ATSB changed its Australia-wide coding practice for classifying infrastructure reports,” a bureau spokesman said. “As a result, notifications of infrastructure failures are only included in the aviation safety occurrence data if the event ­affected the safety of an aircraft.”

The 38 post-May 2013 ­failures in TASWAM occurred in June, July, August, October and December of 2013; every month of 2014 except August through to October, and; every month of 2015 up until and including July. Outage times varied from one minute to seven hours.

Bureau media manager Marc Kelaart said none of the reported TASWAM failures — even where planes disappeared from radar screens — were regarded as having compromised aircraft safety.

“The aircraft were still under full communication and control by ATC and there were no losses of separation (planes flying too close to each other) or other ­safety related incidents,” he said.

The failure reports made by air traffic controllers show a level of frustration and concern about the apparent fragility of the TASWAM system, introduced in 2010 after concerns about several near misses. One report, dated January 25, 2013, relating to intermittent failures, warns “controllers are losing confidence in their surveillance ability” because of the frequent faults.

Further failures a day later led a controller to report: “Controller confidence in the system is very low. They’re basically using procedural techniques for separation (of planes) due to the unreliability of TASWAM.”

On December 19 last year, the system’s failure forced controllers to delay all flights between ­Tasmania and Melbourne by five minutes as a “mitigation” strategy.

In May last year, controllers complained that TASWAM’s 14 ground stations were not monitored for power failure, unlike other radar or radar-like systems, and that a failure in just one or two receivers was enough to down the entire system. On July 8 this year, Hobart airport reported 11 of the ground receivers went down at a time of high air traffic, with “complete loss” of surveillance across the state.

Mr Kelaart said some of the failures were due to problems with aircraft transponders, which send signals from planes to the TASWAM ground stations, rather than the infrastructure itself. “In addition, Airservices has advised the ATSB that controllers were encouraged to report everything, regardless of whether the TASWAM was being used at the time, and that some reports were associated with lack of controller awareness around the areas of coverage,” he said.

Airservices Australia, the government business that is responsible for TASWAM, said it was “confident that Tasmanian airspace is safe”. “In the past five years the TASWAM network availability has consistently exceeded 99.95 per cent,” said Greg Hood, an Airservices air traffic chief. “There have only been three instances where the target was not achieved and the lowest level of service availability was 99.80 per cent.

“Of the TASWAM faults ­reported by Airservices to the ATSB, none were assessed as ­impacting on aircraft safety or ­requiring further investigation.”

There were 14 ground stations, using signals to triangulate aircraft position, and “multiple layers of redundancy in place to safety manage any technical faults”. “In the event of a single ground station fault, there are ­numerous other ground stations fully operational to ensure surveillance is maintained,” he said.

The number of failures had ­declined over time as controllers grew “more aware of the system parameters”.

UFB....  

This is further proof that the system is absolutely rooted - possibly beyond redemption - & in dire need of some external examination. To quote "K"...

"..Aye, nothing to see, move along, the new whitewash will cover the blood stains and the cloak of mystique will vanish all trace of the aberrations and indecency inflicted on the public, who have a right to expect better..."

It is now obvious that the mandarins & minions in charge are air-brushing over a significant crater in the mouldy - aviation safety - Swiss Cheese. Instead of mitigating safety risk they are perpetuating and adding to the risk...FFS - ICAO...FAA..NTSB..TSBC anyone??- SOS     
MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Of risks, red flags, ridiculous responses and a rooted system - PartII con't.......

The Toga Boy said;

"Airservices  Australia, the government business that is responsible for TASWAM, said it was “confident that Tasmanian airspace is safe”. “In the past five years the [b]TASWAM network availability has consistently exceeded 99.95 per cent,” said Greg Hood, an Airservices air traffic chief. “There have only been three instances where the target was not achieved and the lowest level of service availability was 99.80 per cent".[/b]

Lame!! I call pony pooh on that statement Greggles. Good thing Hoody that during that other 0.5% of the time the PM's 737 and let's say a QF 737 didn't play mid-air dodgem? Might be time to listen to your ATC, the coal face, the blokes and blokettes that are concerned and outing in reports, the same reports that have been conveniently downplayed, downgraded and diluted the ATSBeaker. Pretty convenient huh? Today a risk but tomorrow no longer a risk, not through mitigation, but by changing a tick box and some paperwork at Pooh Central - ATsB. A miraculous fix that would even have The Lord feeling proud!

ATsB excrement churner said;

"Of the TASWAM faults ­reported by Airservices to the ATSB, none were assessed as ­impacting on aircraft safety or ­requiring further investigation.”

Says who? Beaker? Beakers mum? The Melbourne control tower cleaner? Miley Cyrus? Linda Lovelace? FFS this entire thing is the largest growing sordid mess one could not hope for. Only one piece of the jigsaw left to fit - smoking hole.

Tick tock Australian public tick tock

[Peetwo]

Of risks, red flags, ridiculous responses and a rooted system - PartII con't.......

The Toga Boy said;

"Airservices  Australia, the government business that is responsible for TASWAM, said it was “confident that Tasmanian airspace is safe”. “In the past five years the [b]TASWAM network availability has consistently exceeded 99.95 per cent,” said Greg Hood, an Airservices air traffic chief. “There have only been three instances where the target was not achieved and the lowest level of service availability was 99.80 per cent".[/b]

Lame!! I call pony pooh on that statement Greggles. Good thing Hoody that during that other 0.5% of the time the PM's 737 and let's say a QF 737 didn't play mid-air dodgem? Might be time to listen to your ATC, the coal face, the blokes and blokettes that are concerned and outing in reports, the same reports that have been conveniently downplayed, downgraded and diluted the ATSBeaker. Pretty convenient huh? Today a risk but tomorrow no longer a risk, not through mitigation, but by changing a tick box and some paperwork at Pooh Central - ATsB. A miraculous fix that would even have The Lord feeling proud!

ATsB excrement churner said;

"Of the TASWAM faults ­reported by Airservices to the ATSB, none were assessed as ­impacting on aircraft safety or ­requiring further investigation.”

Says who? Beaker? Beakers mum? The Melbourne control tower cleaner? Miley Cyrus? Linda Lovelace? FFS this entire thing is the largest growing sordid mess one could not hope for. Only one piece of the jigsaw left to fit - smoking hole.

Tick tock Australian public tick tock

Exactly Gobbles says who?? Well judging by last Estimates under questioning from NX it would appear it is the MH370 super sleuth himself making these judgement calls...FFS!

Here he is watering down yet another in a growing list of ASA 'nothing to see here' incidents:

Senator XENOPHON: ...I go to question on notice 166. This relates to the issue of Essendon and Melbourne airports and the concerns about the loss of communication repeated at three hours. The question was:


At the time ATSB reviewed Airservices Cirrus report #ATS-0125061 was it aware that approximately 3 hours had elapsed between the time the reported breakdown of communication occurred and the time it was detected and corrected?

The answer was no. That is not a criticism, because I think the Cirrus had very little information contained in it. There was subsequently a REPCON. I am basing this on information from air traffic controllers and pilots who had been very concerned about that particular incident. They are concerned that the ATSB stated it reviewed the radar data using Webtrack, which is publicly available on the Airservices Australia website. Those I have spoken to have been quite concerned about that. A journalist told me this morning Webtrack is what they use to track the PM's plane. It is publicly available. It has been described to me as a bit of an infotainment site; it has all sorts of disclaimers that you cannot use Webtrack as it may include inaccuracies and typographical errors. The website says Webtrack provides a visualisation of the traffic flow in and around the airspace and it is uncertain and subject to error—'Do not use this for safety requirements' and the like. It is quite a comprehensive disclaimer.

Mr Dolan : And I understand the disclaimer.

Senator XENOPHON: Are you satisfied that Webtrack was used given the concerns that have been expressed about that three-hour period of aircraft taking off from runways at Essendon and Melbourne? Has the ATSB looked at the radar tapes on this rather than simply relying on Webtrack?

Mr Dolan : No. Perhaps we could take a step back and differentiate, as we should, REPCON from our normal investigation work. If this had been an ATSB investigation, we would have got the tapes, analysed them, taken a close look at them, understood them—checked them.

Senator XENOPHON: But you have not done that?

Mr Dolan : No, because we did not open an investigation into this event.

Senator XENOPHON: Why not though? I have air traffic controllers and pilots saying there is a period of three hours where there was no communication between the Essendon and Melbourne towers as there should have been. That is correct? You accept that there was a three-hour period?

Mr Dolan : Yes.

Senator XENOPHON: And you had runways, one in a southerly and one in a westerly direction, where the aircraft could have intersected?

Mr Dolan : There was a possibility of it, yes.

Senator XENOPHON: We are talking about aircraft flying at a few hundred kays an hour. That can be quite a significant possibility in terms of risk management, can't it?

Mr Dolan : It can. We looked at the initial serious report and, based on that and other information, did not think that, given the limited resources we have to review a whole range of air traffic control events, this was one that required our attention. We then received a REPCON. The REPCON is designed not as a basis for our formal investigation but as a basis for us to review a safety concern raised by someone and to bring it to the attention of the relevant organisation, in this case Airservices, and to bring the results, if necessary, to the attention of the regulator. We did.

Senator XENOPHON: But there was a REPCON, wasn't there?

Mr Dolan : There was.

Senator XENOPHON: Eventually there was a REPCON. You can still look at radar tapes—they are available, aren't they?

Mr Dolan : I am trying to explain and I apologise for not doing it well enough. A REPCON is not the same as an investigation.

Senator XENOPHON: I know that, but you make the decision as to whether there is an investigation or not?

Mr Dolan : That is correct.

Senator XENOPHON: You do not think that the REPCON warranted an investigation—given that there was a three-hour period when there was no appropriate communication between the Melbourne and Essendon towers?

Mr Dolan : Yes. Our key question is understanding what is potentially systemic and what might be relevant in terms of future safety.

Senator XENOPHON: Sure, but is loss of—

Mr Dolan : Under the REPCON, as we are required to, we reviewed and worked with Airservices to understand the nature of the event and what led to it—which was a breakdown in communications and a breakdown in the system, with a particular human factor. We were advised of the steps that had been taken to reduce the likelihood of this occurring again.

Senator XENOPHON: I am really alarmed by your answer in this respect. There are two airports close to each other. There is one runway going southerly and one westerly. Pilots and air traffic controllers say that, unless you have constant communication between the two, there is a real issue when those particular runways are operating. There was a REPCON initiated. What these air traffic controllers and pilots have put to me is that there was a real loss of separation assurance. Isn't that something that would concern you as the safety investigator in this country?

Mr Dolan : If there had been a loss of separation assurance, yes, that would be a matter of concern.

Senator XENOPHON: But you do not know, do you? You relied on this infotainment site.
Mr Dolan : No, we reviewed the material and we discussed it, but—

Senator XENOPHON: But you have not reviewed the radar? You have not reviewed the radar tapes, have you?

Mr Dolan : No, we asked Airservices to review the radar tapes.

Senator XENOPHON: And you won't review them? You have relied on Airservices—you won't review the radar tapes?
Mr Dolan : That is the nature of the REPCON system, yes.

Senator XENOPHON: You have the power to review the radar tapes, haven't you?
Mr Dolan : If I open an investigation, then yes I have.

Senator XENOPHON: But you are not going to open up an investigation into a three-hour period when there would have been dozens and dozens of take-offs and landings at these two runways?

Mr Dolan : From what we understand from our review of the REPCON, there was no loss of separation assurance.

Senator XENOPHON: But how do you know that there was no such loss of separation?
Mr Dolan : In our priorities for investigation, we did not see this as a high priority.

Senator XENOPHON: But you do not know whether there was loss of separation assurance or not, do you? In the absence of the ATSB looking at the radar tapes, you have no idea whether there was a loss of separation assurance or not—which is a very serious issue?

Mr Dolan : We have worked in a range of investigations with Airservices over a considerable period of time. We have confidence in what they provide to us in terms of assessment of losses of separation and loss of separation assurance. We asked the question of Airservices, we asked them to review the tapes and we, as a result, took it that there was not a loss of separation.

Senator XENOPHON: Are these radar tapes publicly available? If, say, an independent expert wanted to look at these tapes, are they publicly available—or do only you, the regulator, have access to them? Would CASA have it?

Mr Dolan : They are actually held by Airservices. I am not quite sure for how long. They are not publicly available. We have access to them where we need them for the purposes of investigation.

Senator XENOPHON: You did not know initially that there was a three-hour breakdown in communication between the two towers, did you?

Mr Dolan : No.

Senator XENOPHON: Have you checked WebTrak, that publicly available website which has all sorts of disclaimers as to its accuracy? Have you actually checked the WebTrak for the entire three hours out of the two runways?

Mr Dolan : No. We—

Senator XENOPHON: You have not even done that.

Mr Dolan : We reviewed WebTrak to understand the context of the repcon—the concern that related to a potential loss of separation or separation assurance in this event.

Senator XENOPHON: Okay. Let us leave the radar tapes, which seems to me to be the gold standard. But in respect of WebTrak, with all its flaws, did you do an analysis of WebTrak for that three-hour period where there was a loss of communications? Have you done that?

Mr Dolan : No, Senator.

Senator XENOPHON: You have not even done that. Will you? It is publicly available. When Senator Rice asked questions in estimates about some matters relating to noise complaints, I think you said that you could go back a number of years with WebTrak. I do not want to be verballing Senator Rice, but I think it was Melbourne. I think there were some issues that—

CHAIR: You are starting to do circle work.

Senator XENOPHON: No. I am not trying to do circle work. This is important. Will the ATSB at least look at the publicly available information on WebTrak out of the two airports for that three-hour period to see whether there was a loss of separation assurance?

Mr Dolan : We thought it was more effective to ask Airservices to take a look at the tapes and to provide us with their view as to whether there had been a loss of separation assurance.

Senator WILLIAMS: How long would it take you to look at what Senator Xenophon is requesting? How long would it take you to look at that information? A couple of hours?

Mr Dolan : Possibly. It would need to be done by someone with air traffic control experience so that they could understand it, and we have a range of priorities that we have got our limited air traffic control expertise focused on. This is a matter of the management of limited resources.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you please, Chief Commissioner, take on notice whether the ATSB will be taking this matter any further, at the very least, to look at the WebTrak for that three-hour period out of the Essendon and Melbourne airports, and also whether it would look at radar tapes? Also, it appears, from what has been put to me, that there is a fundamental issue that Airservices did not give you the full story initially.

Mr Dolan : In terms of not being informed of a three-hour period, that is true.

Senator XENOPHON: Does that not worry you, Mr Dolan?

Interesting that the coalface ATCOs obviously believed the YMML/YMEN incident serious enough to confidentially report through the seriously flawed REPCON system, although after this particular REPCON and the way it was handled - plus the flippant attitude of the Chief Commissioner - one has to ask why would they bother ever again??

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Chocolate frog to you P2;

"Interesting that the coalface ATCOs obviously believed the YMML/YMEN incident serious enough to confidentially report through the seriously flawed REPCON system, although after this particular REPCON and the way it was handled - plus the flippant attitude of the Chief Commissioner - one has to ask why would they bother ever again".

Let's consider your worthy statement for a moment regarding the ATC. These guys and gals do a stellar job under extreme pressure and fatigue, battling management bullshit and nepotism, enduring snipes and sometimes bullying because they report, they report into a flawed crappy REPCON system and then have their concerns pooh poohed by their executives, diluted and slam dunked into the black hole. Just culture? Hmm just culture my ass. Then to top it off they get to see executives earning $700k per year excluding bonuses, they see
Consultants earning a $1 million per year, they see a flawed illogical and dangerous system protected by management, they have to fight for crumbs during EBA negotiations, they are under resourced, under appreciated and undervalued!

My hat goes off to you boys and girls. Chocolate frogs and smith crisps for all of you.

Affectionately
Gobbledock

[Kharon]

GD – “Consultants earning a $1 million per year, they see a flawed illogical and dangerous system protected by management, they have to fight for crumbs during EBA negotiations, they are under resourced, under appreciated and undervalued!”

Second the motion.  Now I know the Senate committee members have many calls on their time and a wide range of topics which are equally important to people who have nothing to do with aviation, however.  As the committee seem to be determined to untangle the scrum at the ASA trough IMO they would do well to find an hour and talk to the people who carry the top heavy system and know how the whole thing works.

People like Gallacher, Heffernan, Sterle, Xenophon, etc. seem to get better ‘context’ and connection with practical folk who are not of the ‘professional bull shitter’ class.  The committee knows (categorically) that the top tiers are expert wriggle room finders, masters of saying sod all and obfuscating the amount of sugar in the tea room.  Quite correctly, they start off with the assumption that who ever is being questioned is full of it.  Not so with industry folk.  

Look back over some of the sessions, those who have provided information, in plain language which succinctly explains a complex issue have always had the genuine thanks of the committee.  

My point being that some of the senior ATCO and their union representatives do know exactly and precisely where the skeletons are kept, who buried ‘em, why and how much it all cost.  They also understand the system, where and why the system is failing.  Take this ‘Procedural separation’ malarkey as an example and add in the purported failure levels of the TASWAM.

Three points which the ‘crats won’t be rushing to divulge (i) what happens when the system does fail and there are aircraft operating in it; (ii) when more than one aircraft are running into a port, procedural separation costs one of them time; which is translated into money i.e. passed on cost to the punter; (iii) the ATSB has cynically removed it’s self from investigating the system errors and is part of the pass the responsibility parcel game.

Bring in the troops Senators, hear what they have to say and be afraid; very afraid.  We are.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Of risks, red flags, ridiculous responses and a rooted system - PartII con't.......

The Toga Boy said;

"Airservices  Australia, the government business that is responsible for TASWAM, said it was “confident that Tasmanian airspace is safe”. “In the past five years the [b]TASWAM network availability has consistently exceeded 99.95 per cent,” said Greg Hood, an Airservices air traffic chief. “There have only been three instances where the target was not achieved and the lowest level of service availability was 99.80 per cent".[/b]

Lame!! I call pony pooh on that statement Greggles. Good thing Hoody that during that other 0.5% of the time the PM's 737 and let's say a QF 737 didn't play mid-air dodgem? Might be time to listen to your ATC, the coal face, the blokes and blokettes that are concerned and outing in reports, the same reports that have been conveniently downplayed, downgraded and diluted the ATSBeaker. Pretty convenient huh? Today a risk but tomorrow no longer a risk, not through mitigation, but by changing a tick box and some paperwork at Pooh Central - ATsB. A miraculous fix that would even have The Lord feeling proud!

ATsB excrement churner said;

"Of the TASWAM faults ­reported by Airservices to the ATSB, none were assessed as ­impacting on aircraft safety or ­requiring further investigation.”

Says who? Beaker? Beakers mum? The Melbourne control tower cleaner? Miley Cyrus? Linda Lovelace? FFS this entire thing is the largest growing sordid mess one could not hope for. Only one piece of the jigsaw left to fit - smoking hole.

Tick tock Australian public tick tock

Mr Dolan : We thought it was more effective to ask Airservices to take a look at the tapes and to provide us with their view as to whether there had been a loss of separation assurance.

Senator WILLIAMS: How long would it take you to look at what Senator Xenophon is requesting? How long would it take you to look at that information? A couple of hours?

Mr Dolan : Possibly. It would need to be done by someone with air traffic control experience so that they could understand it, and we have a range of priorities that we have got our limited air traffic control expertise focused on. This is a matter of the management of limited resources.

Gobbledock:

"Interesting that the coalface ATCOs obviously believed the YMML/YMEN incident serious enough to confidentially report through the seriously flawed REPCON system, although after this particular REPCON and the way it was handled - plus the flippant attitude of the Chief Commissioner - one has to ask why would they bother ever again".

Let's consider your worthy statement for a moment regarding the ATC. These guys and gals do a stellar job under extreme pressure and fatigue, battling management bullshit and nepotism, enduring snipes and sometimes bullying because they report, they report into a flawed crappy REPCON system and then have their concerns pooh poohed by their executives, diluted and slam dunked into the black hole. Just culture? Hmm just culture my ass. Then to top it off they get to see executives earning $700k per year excluding bonuses, they see Consultants earning a $1 million per year, they see a flawed illogical and dangerous system protected by management, they have to fight for crumbs during EBA negotiations, they are under resourced, under appreciated and undervalued!

My hat goes off to you boys and girls. Chocolate frogs and smith crisps for all of you...

kharon:

...My point being that some of the senior ATCO and their union representatives do know exactly and precisely where the skeletons are kept, who buried ‘em, why and how much it all cost.  They also understand the system, where and why the system is failing.  Take this ‘Procedural separation’ malarkey as an example and add in the purported failure levels of the TASWAM.


Three points which the ‘crats won’t be rushing to divulge (i) what happens when the system does fail and there are aircraft operating in it; (ii) when more than one aircraft are running into a port, procedural separation costs one of them time; which is translated into money i.e. passed on cost to the punter; (iii) the ATSB has cynically removed it’s self from investigating the system errors and is part of the pass the responsibility parcel game.

Bring in the troops Senators, hear what they have to say and be afraid; very afraid.  We are...  

Money talks but at what risk??

Further to the TASWAM story in the Oz today:

Tasmanian tourism fears backlash from air traffic controversy  

• by: MATTHEW DENHOLM
  
• From: The Australian
  
• September 03, 2015 12:00AM
  

Tasmania Correspondent
Hobart



‘Our concern is to ensure there are no negative perceptions that flying to Tasmania is not as safe as it should be,’ says Tourism Industry Council Tasmanian chief executive Luke Martin. Picture: Sam Rosewarne Source: News Corp Australia

Tasmania’s peak tourism body fears controversy surrounding air traffic management in the state may hamper its booming tourism trade.  

Following revelations about ­repeated failures of the state’s air surveillance system, Airservices Australia yesterday met the to reassure it that air travel to and from Tasmania was safe.

TICT chief executive Luke Martin told The Australian the ­industry wanted to ensure the controversy did not give rise to perceptions that might deter tourists from visiting the island. “Our concern is to ensure that there are no negative perceptions that flying to Tasmania is not as safe as it could or should be,” he said.

“The industry has significant growth projections and if we meet the target of 1.5 million visitors (a year by 2020), there will be a significant increase in air passengers at both ends of the state.

“We’re talking another six daily flights at the busiest times of the year and a 30 per cent to 40 per cent increase in passengers into Hobart over the next five years.”

He said the tourism industry, one of the powerhouses of the Tasmanian economy, would want to see air traffic management keep pace with the rapid increase in ­visitors.

“Tasmania has become a major destination and is no longer a backwater — it is a growing destination,” he said.

The Australian yesterday revealed faults were still frequently being reported in Tasmania’s Wide Area Multilateration (TASWAM) surveillance system, with planes disappearing from radar screens for minutes at a time on several occasions.

Airservices and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau say the failures are not regarded as safety incidents because the TASWAM radar is only one tool used by local tower controllers to guide planes using “procedural separation”.

This primarily involves the use of radio contact with pilots, as well as visual observations, to ensure aircraft are kept a safe distance from one another.

However, The Australian has revealed that some pilots and the company that supplied TASWAM believed it could and would provide full radar-controlled separation to the ground, replacing procedural separation.

That has still not occurred five years after the $6 million system was installed, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has advised it will not approve TASWAM’s use for radar control below 8500 feet because of inadequate coverage.

Airservices insists TASWAM’s use as a “situational awareness” tool to assist tower controllers using procedural separation is safe and appropriate, but the Virgin Independent Pilots Association says it is “nowhere near as safe” as full radar control to the ground.

Last month, The Australian revealed a CASA audit of Tasman­ian airspace management had resulted in the commissioning of two reviews, one by Airservices and another by CASA’s office of airspace regulation.

Airservices has stressed it was aware of Hobart Airport’s plans to expand and double passenger movements by 2035 and the need to keep “ahead of the game” by making air traffic management changes as required.

 
I can truly understand the concern of the TICT, however if they want to see tourist numbers plummet, try having a smoking hole in some suburb of Hobart; or having the majors parking aircraft because the FAA have bumped us down to level 2...

No the simple solution is to upgrade/fix the TASWAM system so it performs as originally intended & advertised - Dick, SAAB Sensis & Co call Bullocks on ASA

However, The Weekend Australian has obtained a press release­, issued in the US by the company that supplied the system, which categorically states that it was intended to replace procedural separation with full radar control to the ground.


The release by Sensis Corporation, made to global media on November 1, 2010, after TASWAM began operating, says the system means Tasmanian airspace is “now controlled”, allowing radar controllers to “separate aircraft in both en route and (in) terminal airspace”.

It describes this as a “safer, more efficient use of the airspace in a region that was previously controlled with procedural separation”.

However, five years on, airspace below 8500 feet at the Hobart and Launceston airports is still controlled by procedural separation, described by the Virgin Indepen­dent Pilots Association as “nowhere near” as safe as radar control and by aviator Dick Smith as a “1930s” system.

Airservices has accused The Australian of inaccurate reporting in suggesting that TASWAM was not being used to the extent originally intended.

However, yesterday, Sensis — now called Saab Sensis — stood by its 2010 statement that TASWAM was intended to provide radar control to 150 metres from ground level, allowing a “safer, more efficient” system to replace procedural separation.

"From a technical perspective, the system is capable of that (radar control to the ground): at the end of the day, it’s up to Airservices and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to determine how they use it,” a Saab Sensis spokesman said.

“We’ve never had any concerns or issues raised by Airserv­ices Australia in relation to TASWAM operational function.”

To do otherwise will put at risk a whole industry and threaten the economic well being of a currently economically depressed Tassie State for perhaps the next twenty years.


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Mr Dolan : We thought it was more effective to ask Airservices to take a look at the tapes and to provide us with their view as to whether there had been a loss of separation assurance.

Senator WILLIAMS: How long would it take you to look at what Senator Xenophon is requesting? How long would it take you to look at that information? A couple of hours?

Mr Dolan : Possibly. It would need to be done by someone with air traffic control experience so that they could understand it, and we have a range of priorities that we have got our limited air traffic control expertise focused on. This is a matter of the management of limited resources.

Money talks but at what risk??

Tasmanian tourism fears backlash from air traffic controversy  

I can truly understand the concern of the TICT, however if they want to see tourist numbers plummet, try having a smoking hole in some suburb of Hobart; or having the majors parking aircraft because the FAA have bumped us down to level 2...

And today in the Oz:

Air chiefs assure Tasmanian air safe as Dick Smith blasts ‘cover-up’  

• by: Matthew Denholm
  
• From: The Australian
  
• September 04, 2015 12:00AM
  

Tasmania Correspondent
Hobart





Tasmanian Infrastructure Minister Rene Hidding met with Airservices chiefs after raising concerns about Tasmania’s radar system. Picture: Luke Bowden Source: News Corp Australia

Airservices chiefs have assured the Tasmanian government the state’s airspace is safe, as former air safety boss Dick Smith wrote to the organ­isation’s chairman alleging a “cover-up”.  

State Infrastructure Minister Rene Hidding said he met Air­services chiefs on Wednesday after raising concerns about the state’s radar system with Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss.

Led by Airservices Australia air traffic control chief Greg Hood, the delegation also met tourism leaders on Wednesday and state Opposition Leader Bryan Green yesterday.

All received assurances that air traffic control at Hobart and Launceston airports was safe, after a series of revelations in The Australian about failures in the $6 million Tasmanian Wide Area Multilateration surveillance system.

In a letter to Mr Hidding last month, Mr Truss repeated assurances from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that Tasmanian airspace was safe, and that CASA would review the situation this year.

Mr Green said he had also received assurances from Airservices but had asked to inspect some of the TASWAM infrastructure. The radar-like system was introduced in 2010.

Many involved in aviation, as well as Saab Sensis, the company that supplied TASWAM, believed it would be used to provide full radar control of aircraft to the ground at Hobart and Launceston airports, replacing procedural separation, which relies on tower controllers communicating with pilots.

But five years later, TASWAM is being used only for radar control above 8500 feet, with CASA saying the system’s coverage is inadequate to approve its use to separate planes below this. Instead, below 8500 feet it is used only as a “situational awareness” tool to assist local tower controllers.

Yesterday, Mr Smith wrote to Airservices chairman Angus Houston accusing his organisation of a “cover-up”.

“It’s now obvious that the system didn’t work as planned,” he said. “The people of Tasmania are being let down. To ever think that pro­cedural separation — developed in the 1930s before radar was invented — could be as safe or as efficient as a separation using radar, as we do in every other capital city in Australia, is simply ridiculous.”

No the simple solution is to upgrade/fix the TASWAM system so it performs as originally intended & advertised - Dick, SAAB Sensis & Co call Bullocks on ASA - to do otherwise will put at risk a whole industry and threaten the economic well being of a currently economically depressed Tassie State for perhaps the next twenty years.

Fun'n'games...err no comment...
 

MTF?- You bet!...P2

[Kharon]

Mr Dolan : We thought it was more effective to ask Airservices to take a look at the tapes and to provide us with their view as to whether there had been a loss of separation assurance.

Farmer: “Looks like something got into the hen coop last night; slaughtered some of our best birds”.  “Could you just pop in there and see what happened, perhaps suggest a solution?”

Fox: “Certainly Farmer, leave it up to me; you run along and have your breakfast”.

Not even my aging, giddy Aunt would believe Beaker, not for a second.  ASA have some serious, deep seated problems; the Repcon system proves it; the ATCO know it, which is why they make the reports (or don’t out of fear and or frustration), but jolly old Beaker is happy to have those who created the mess investigate that mess and report back to him.  His own in-house’ expert (singular) is starved of information and told not to worry about it. FFS.

Mr Dolan : Possibly. It would need to be done by someone with air traffic control experience so that they could understand it, and we have a range of priorities that we have got our limited air traffic control expertise focused on.  This is a matter of the management of limited resources.

And yet a mere 50 millions is conjured out of thin air, so Beaker can play nice with the Malaysians, who also seem to have adopted the Beyond all Reason method of playing at silly buggers with air investigation.  What a pair, Pel-Air for a warm up to the MH 370 event.

Aye, aberrations for all until they come back to haunt, then it will be Abbotations all around.  Good thing they’re all too busy fussing with coabbotation to see a real election issue in the making.

Australia, a land where gender confusion takes precedence over aluminium rain.  Well, as Thorny says, “at least we can still drink the water”.

Toot (FCOL) toot.

[P7_TOM]

I claim moderator Sunday indulgence.  I have lifted the 'Sunfish'  post below from the UP, simply because it seems to me that the questions and construct are valid.  Most of us know SFA about the 'technical' side of the ADS-B rort; only the staggering costs of no option compliance.  Anyway - FWIW - from Sunny:-

ADS-B and Air Traffic Control Systems - a Financial and Operational Disaster?

I will preface this post by a disclaimer: I know SFA about ATC and the finer points of ADS - B, I have however been up to my neck in large expensive complex IT projects.

It started off at Ausfly as an innocent question over a beer to what I assume was a knowledgeable ADS - B person: "Dynon has announced a $US590 ADS -B conforming GPS for the USA, what chance it could be used here instead of a $5000+ certified GPS navigator for ADS - B?".

The answer to that, I was told was "Not a snowballs chance in hell". The discussion then turned to things technical. microseconds, thronomisters, and the like, about how ADS - B works with radar sets interrogation and suchlike.

"Couldn't ADS - B work with a reduced accuracy GPS with the integrity/accuracy bits set to low levels?" I asked innocently.

"Oh No!" chimed in an ATC person. "If we get ADS - B signals that aren't of the required accuracy, then we are going to have to put 25 mile buffers around the source aircraft to ensure separation". I thought I heard him say. According to him, one aircraft transmitting BS ADS - B signals will cuts a swathe through traffic as ATC has no way of knowing exactly where they are if the system relies on ADS - B alone! The discussion then turned to the vagaries of GPS and we all told our horror stories.

I think however I understood his point: if there are any dubious ADS-B returns in the system then the entire separation schemes, fuel cost savings from reduced separations, direct routings, etc., etc. breaks down. ATC can't just exclude an aircraft from its system and carry on as normal, because it can't be sure where that aircraft really is and thus can't guarantee separation. Of course this is a probability argument, it won't happen every time but you understand the drift.

I then thought of Thales and the new air traffic control system. I thought of the comments from knowledgeable people: "biggest crooks unhung". I thought of the recent disclosure in the Senate of apparent conflicts of interest in the project management. I thought of the CEO of AIrservices slightly unusual departure after only one term.

I thought of what I know about how contractors work on complex IT projects - how you bid low and then add on "variations" until the cost is triple the original budget. I thought of how the request for tender documents are always Five years out of date and behind todays technology and the window for profit that opens for the contractor.

Then I started to wonder: What are the chances of Thales delivering an ATC system that relies solely, or almost solely on ADS - B? What are the chances that any cost savings from the new system are reliant on a perfect implementation of ADS - B? Letting my mind wander, I asked what happens if an ADS - B aircraft has equipment failure in flight, or some butter fingered idiot stuffs up the setting on an ADS - B transponder?

Where is the resilience in the new ATC system? Does it rely almost solely on ADS - B? What is the backup? WHere is the redundancy? Is ATC effectively going to be blind if someone stuffs up ADS - B?

If I were a contractor, would I care if the new system was fragile as glass? No. Would I build in backups and resilience? No, those things are at extra cost. I would then generate more revenue and profit, building in the resilience and capacity to cope without ADS - B.

Such were my musings as I froze to death in my sleeping bag at Ausfly. Could I be forgiven for wondering if Australias new Air traffic control is going to be dangerously over reliant on a perfect implementation of a single technology - bearing in mind that no implementation is ever perfect?

Nice one Sunny - here,  have a CF.

[Gobbledock]

Sunny's comment;

"I thought of what I know about how contractors work on complex IT projects - how you bid low and then add on "variations" until the cost is triple the original budget".

Absolutely.
ASA will have allowed for variances of at least 10%. If you calculate that that on top of a $1 billion dollar project you get a tidy sum of $100 million in extra costs burning through the taxpayers pockets. And keep in mind that blowouts on top of the total project and variance costs are more than likely! A project of this scale should be micro-managed by the client, but I doubt if ASA could be bothered or has any incentive to do so. Why? Well it's not 'company money' they have to worry about, it's only taxpayer money so who cares as it is the 'bucket of money that keeps on giving', plus ASA have proven that they are untouchable so why care about transparency and accountability?

I would also guess that by the time the OneSky project is finished and all the dirty secrets start leaking out and hitting the fan, the current mob of muppets over-sighting the organisation will be long retired and will have moved on, possibly working for Thales as Consultants or retired to their own private island in the Maldives!

I have a project background that I keep under wraps for good reason, but I can assure you that someone, somewhere will be cleaning house with this project. Any tender that government advertises will always be milked by a savvy contractor and OneSky will be no different. I would like to see our very astute Senators use the senate estimates structure to demand forensic reports and analysis of the ASA OneSky project moving forward.

Oink oink for all

[P1_aka_P1]

Counterpoint - but only operational.

Sunfish has constructed a balanced, reasoned question based against data recieved and a knowledge of 'how the game is played'.  The respected le pinqouin, NB, AC etc. all seem able, competently and professionally to allay the 'operational' fears and false assumptions.  LP has posted a reply to the Sunfish offering which is operationally helpful, but fails to address the holistic approach taken by Sunfish:-

Sunfish, radar use and coverage in the new system will be exactly the same as in the current system. Why would you think such a fundamental feature wouldn't be included with the specification for the new system? We managed to include it last time.....

The "entire separation schemes, fuel cost savings from reduced separations, direct routings, etc., etc" doesn't break down if there is an aircraft with broken ADS-B. We just have to resort to using procedural separation between that aircraft and any others it crosses paths with. A 1000ft works quite well. The miscreant aircraft with the dodgy ADS-B is the one who will get shafted if he can't be accommodated. Exactly as happens today.

You're confusing two systems. The first is the hardware and software, the second is the separation standards and controllers.

The new system will not be inherently more or less resilient than the current one to failure of radar or ADS-B equipment.

You've been listening to too many Dick Smith conspiracy theories

 
- in an operational sense, the address goes some way to soothing Sunny's concerns in that area.  We may have to wait for the Senate committee to address the financial and contractual 'worries' which Sunfish raises; they are indeed as valid, experienced based and equally as important as the operational ones. 
 
(Sunday UP Indulgence claimed)....

[P7_TOM]

I must apologise for bringing in another UP post; but, there is a certain ring to the truth.  An implacable, irrefutable ring, like the doorbell to hell – unmistakable.   Without comment:-

NextGen heading for a $40B Failure with severely flawed ADS

FAA's NextGen is heading straight for a massive $40B failure. A big part of that problem is a severely distorted, misguided, ADS-B concept (far from the original ADS-B intent), that is now overspecified in key aspects (e.g., overspecified NIC and NAC), while failing in other critical areas... (all vehicles need to see each other directly, even UAVs - not via using ADS-R [ADS ridiculous] or UAT [Useless Aircraft Transponder]). ATC advocates claiming that ADS-B [in the US] needs WAAS level of accuracy and integrity are simply wrong. That's because FAA has NextGen's balance for C-N-S completely mis-designed and wrong, incorrectly assuming that ATS's future is based on and depends on essentially using PastGen's 1940s "pseudo radar" vector concept. FAA's ADS-B is simply not going to work, at any cost (which is still substantial, and well over $5K for any reasonable installation - don't believe one word of the commercialPR blitz now being put out by the ADS "junk dealers" and avionics shops for $1999 units, that aren't installed, and aren't even anywhere on the path to future [real] ATS modernization needs).

Instead, FAA should scrap 91.225/91.227, allow for the airline delay of ADS equipage to at least 2025 (which FAA has all but already agreed), and focus on design of a proper NextGen, based on RNP based trajectory [state vector] exchanges [with any data link], and use of a redefined ADS-A, ADS-B, and ADS-C criteria, that are more relevant, practical, affordable, and not massively overspecified, as the present absurd TSO and RTCA specs written by the avionics manufacturers, largely to cater to seriously misstated FAA (false) requirements, while unnecessarily driving up avionics equipment complexity, cost, and ultimately profit.

Caution is warranted for any Navaid shutdowns

"Is this jumping the gun?" Likely for most cases, YES - it is jumping the gun.

The human factors interfaces with most (if not all current) low end GA RNAV systems (and many RNAV systems even in BizJets) is still marginal, if not even awful, making them difficult and vulnerable for any serious IFR IMC use. Until and unless these RNAV systems (e.g., GPSs) have their HF user interfaces substantially improved in later generations for serious IFR flying, except for air carrier aviation that uses modern exceptionally good FMSs with RNP, and aids like ILS and GLS, ...it is a very risky proposition (safety wise) to shut down any significant number of classic Navaid facilities that are currently being used by low end GA.

That's why it is so critical that GA finally get access to low cost high quality RNP based FMS like navigators soon (driven by a GNSS + low cost inertial component engine), and be able to dump this current generation of very difficult to use GPS panel mount navigators (WAAS and LPV are virtually useless), that no amount of initial or recurrent training can ever adequately satisfy, ...short of a pilot staying current by having to fly with them for hours every, every single day.

Just about say’s it all, don’t it.

[Gobbledock]

"NextGen heading for a $40B Failure with severely flawed ADS"

Oh c'mon now, that's in the USA. Australia is different, that won't happen here, Sir An(g)us knows what is best! We have a greasy pole climber, yes man, and secret squirrel running the show here, what he says goes! Yes sir. I salute you sir. Please may I use the bathroom your eminence!

All heil the holy ADS-B, all bow down to the almighty OneSky.... LONG LIVE ASA!!!

[Gobbledock]

A violin for An(g)us

The Canberra Symphony Orchestra's chief executive officer, Henry Laska, will retire at the end of December. He has led the organisation since 2007.
Sarah Kimball, Laska's deputy, will take over the role of chief executive officer in January, the orchestra's chairman, Air Chief Marshal Sir Angus Houston, said on Tuesday.

http://m.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/c...jhgew.html

Perhaps that is why An(g)us has a private meeting with the Senators Wednesday night, he is going to lead a private orchestral concerto for them, a performance  of 'Dipshit Lake', a beautiful poetic story delivered by an orchestra. (Keep a close eye out for Hoody dressed in a tutu and displaying a giant bulbous package!!

Folly An(g)us Folly

[Peetwo]

Houston (Skidmore & Boyd) we have a problem??

Fresh off the Yaffa (cheers Hitch.. ):

(K. Lovell)


AOPA demands Compensation for ADS-B Mandate
28 Aug 2015

AOPA Australia has demanded full compensation for aircraft owners if CASA and Airservices continue with the ADS-B fitment mandate for aircraft in all classes of air space.

In a letter sent to CASA boss Mark Skidmore dated 25 August, AOPA president Mark De Stoop says the organisation will withdraw support because the original Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has proven to be flawed, and the cost of fitting the equipment is much higher than stated.

"AOPA's position has always been to support new technology that improves safety," De Stoop says. "We believe that ADS-B in areas that previously had no radar coverage has the potential to improve safety in controlled air space.

"We provided this support, however, on the clear understanding from the CASA Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) and the Joint Consultation Paper (JCP) circulated at the beginning of the planned implementation that the financial impact to the GA community would be at very worst cost-neutral.

"We now find ourselves in the situation that the costs of the final developed policy are very substantial to our members."

In the initial RIS, it was estimated that ADS-B would stand to save general aviation $4.1 million in fuel costs every year, but last week Dick Smith presented figure to a Senate inquiry into Airservices Australia that put the cost position to GA at negative $62.2 million.

"We as an organisation took the financial assumptions stated in the RIS to be correct and hence we provided our support for the policy," De stoop said. "If these assumptions are in fact not correct then AOPA will withdraw its support.

"The fact that our members are indeed significantly cost disadvantaged, at the end of the policy formulation, suggests the RIS financial assumptions, or modelling, are indeed incorrect."

De Stoop goes on to call for CASA and Airservices Australia to adopt the US ADS-B policy where the Federal Aviation Administration will not mandate ADS-B for flights in Class E and G airspace below 10,000 feet.

"If CASA/ASA continue to mandate that all GA in the IFR category be fitted in all air space, that AOPA's position is, it will insist on behalf of its members, full financial compensation for costs incurred to aircraft owners as per the original Joint Consultation Paper and Regulatory Impact Statement."

CASA has mandated that all aircraft flying under Instrument Flight Rules be fitted with ADS-B Out equipment by February 2017.

 

Puppet master back in control - Murky Mandarin pulls Oliver's strings. 

From off the UP Sunfish again predicts how the next year will run in the lead up to the next Fed Election:

Sunfish: ..From what I heard Truss say at the opening, the Government has allegedly ordered CASA to implement the Forsyth Review recommendations. However he did not mention them by name and he said that CASA had been given some sort of schedule or time limit. A video deconstruction would be needed to see if he said anything concrete at all, which I doubt. I didn't hear Skidmore so I don't know if he said anything more positive.


My take on the situation is that CASA will simply make appropriate noises and wait the government out. Delay is a powerful tool.

Once an election is called, all work (if any) on Forsyth will immediately stop. A new government is not bound to implement any of the previous governments policies and Forsyth can then be safely put in the archive to gather dust.

Another Albanese clone who hates general aviation will then be appointed and the embuggerisation of all those who had the temerity to complain to Forsyth will resume.

To put it another way: It will take more than honeyed words to convince me that the Leopard has changed his spots...

So according to Sunny in a little over a year Murky & his IR cronies will resume their original  campaign of embuggerance of what's left of the GA industry refreshed & with the backing of an Albo clone - i.e. another hater of aviation miniscule...   

 Backed by an individual who has first hand knowledge/experience in the ways of the bureaucratic Mandarins & their minions, is this a pessimistic or a realistic prediction for the next year in the spin & bulldust politics of aviation safety regulation & administration??

Well going off the following article from Steve- 'the regurgitator' - Creedy I believe we are seeing the first signs that Murky Mandarin is reining in control of his minions and within 6 months putting to the sword the Forsyth recommendations - "Hasta la vista baby!" 

CASA backs its cost estimates for satellite tracking system  

A review by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of cost estimates to introduce satellite-based technology in general aviation aircraft has found its original assumptions were “adequately sound’’.  

The Aircraft Owners and ­Pilots Association wrote to CASA boss Mark Skidmore about concerns that cost estimates in the regulation impact statement for the mandatory introduction of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast equipment in all instrument flight rules planes by 2017 were incorrect.

Operators have complained the costs can be crippling and ­AOPA wants the RIS to be ­re-evaluated.

It also wants CASA to adopt the US Federal Aviation Administration’s approach not to require ADS-B in Class G or E airspace below 10,000ft.

Some operators, including airspace campaigner Dick Smith, have also called for the introduction of ADS-B to be delayed in Australia until after it has been introduced in the US and cheaper equipment becomes available.

In a letter to AOPA, Mr Skidmore listed a series of safety improvements he expected to accrue over time due to the introduction of ADS-B, including increased ­accuracy of directed traffic information, quicker alerting when aircraft vanish from surveillance, narrower search and rescue areas and a number of advantages from air traffic management automation.

He rejected accusations that Australia was “conducting an R&D exercise for the world’’ and said ADS-B development had been going on for many years and was part of the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s Global Air Navigation Plan.

On the cost issue, he said the RIS had not claimed the introduction of ADS-B would be cost neutral for general aviation and the internal review said it was now common for general aviation installations to use equipment combining multiple avionics functions in one box.

He said the cost of the ADS-B component should be ­apportioned across the various other functions in the box.

“The internal review considered that, in general, the original RIS assumptions were adequately sound in terms of current ADS-B costs, with the exception of those costs used for the modifications to some integrated avionic systems under aircraft type certificates — these had relatively higher costs than those contained in the RIS,’’ Mr Skidmore said, noting that the US dollar exchange rate had also fallen since the RIS was published.

“The review also noted the view expressed by some, including the Aircraft Electronics ­Association, that ADS-B equipage costs may well increase as the US and European mandates approach and global demand for equipment stretches supply and installation capacity.’’

Turning to the call to adopt the 10,000ft rule, the CASA boss pointed to differences between US and Australian airspace as well as in the way the two countries were introducing ADS-B.

The FAA would require aircraft to have ADS-B to fly in most airspace requiring a Mode C transponder, including classes A, B or C as well as within 30 nautical miles of a Class C ring around a Class B primary airport to ground level and most Class E airspace above 10,000ft.

“Significantly, the FAA mandate applies to both IFR and VFR operations,’’ he said.

"Pawn to Bishop four..."
No comment except to say..."Boyd you need to take that Pawn ASAP" - FCOL
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

CASA backs its cost estimates for satellite tracking system

Well, DM! - that article certainly settles any argument about which side of the reform fence Skidmore sits, facts – ignored, real costs – ignored, CASA in the ascendancy, once again.  Oh, there are some weasel words which, in a trite, legal fashion could be construed to justify the CASA conditions and definitions of the parameters they set and then used to justify their efforts.  Basically though, it says – sod off; we still do exactly as pleases our master, the grand vizier of soporific enchantment.

I can see the picture emerging, there sits Skidmore ‘on his watch’, staring vacantly at the half full coffee cup (mugs is for plebs), fascinated by the pictures within, entrapped by Voodo, seduced by Hoodoo and made catamite to mighty system, patiently waiting the seductive voice of reason.  Softly a shadowy figure enters the darkened room; “Mark, Mark” it croons, “sign this for me, comrade Dougy and Steve will slip it into the media and you may be at peace, returned to land of make believe, houri’s, to smoke and gaze into mirrors”  “There’s a good chap; now here’s your pen, that’s it: thank you O’ great one”.  Exeunt stage left into shadow.

One more for the next run GD; best warm his seat up, get him used to the temperature down there.

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

Just taking a moment to turn right and backtrack a few miles to the August article in The Genitalian;

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/business/a...7503320170

So here is a thought that a new friend put to me; 'What if the real issue is that the system is quite simply not up to spec, can't be brought up to spec and never will be brought up to spec? It's a simplistic thought, but let's just say hypothetically  this is true. What kind of light would that put ASA, Young Jason, Hoody and Sir An(g)us and the software supplier in when they are all preaching from the ASA pulpit that all is safe, the system does what it is meant to do, nothing to see here, all go home?

You see, at the moment, the only ones saying that TAS'SHAM works fine is the people listed above. So why can't a third party review/audit be commissioned with a team of experts brought in from the USA, ICAO and perhaps New Zealand? An independent audit at arms length from Australian interests, with the audit scope, contents and executive summary to be shared transparently and openly with the Australian aviation community? Surely Sir An(g)us would agree to this? Especially if there is nothing to hide and the system works as safely as they have been advising us? It is important that if safety is to evolve through the change management process such a request should be embraced by ASA, yes?

In the meantime if ASA has been doing it's job properly they will have already been conducting risk assessments, audits, done a comprehensive post implementation safety review of the system etc, so why can't they share this information publicly? Let's see if the system measures up to the specs. 

Or surely CAsA has done all of this itself, after all it does oversight ASA, why don't the Senators ask CAsA for all of the above mentioned information? And hell while we are at it, seeing that the chief beard wearer is fronting the Senate in a few weeks perhaps the Senators can request from Herr Beaker a copy of any investigation reports included what was investigated when, why and how? Plus copies of executive summaries, recommendations, whether any investigations were closed out and whether ASA mitigated those investigation findings? I mean surely nobody will say 'we implemented the Tasmanian system and have never done anything further'? Surely not??

Now Miniscule, please make sure that your boys aren't taking the piss out of you (yet again!). Things could get much much worse than they have been!

Tick tock