[Gobbledock]

Harfwit vs Chester - the quest for manly perfection

I simply don't know what to say! At least with Carmody even when he was 'pleading dumb' or ever so skilfully obsfucating you could almost believe him, had you not seen the charade a thousand times before. But Purple Haze is beyond pathetic. This guy couldn't spin a decent yarn if the colour of his suit depended upon it. His persona, attitude, speech and body language reflects a man who likely masturbates over pictures of himself!

The pride and arrogance absolutely reflects his Master, Sir An(g)us. The difference is that Sir An(g)us is more like a cockroach and likes to hide in dark corners and come out late at night to do his thing. Whereas Purple Haze, like Herr Chester, loves the groomed hair, spiffy garb, Botox injections, fake tan and public limelight. Hell, I'm betting these two 'snapchat' each other whenever they get their nails done, trim some nose hairs, go to a solarium, buy a new pair of designer shoes or indulge in an anal bleaching. The consummate new age manscaped male specimen!

It's all too much for me. Please bring back the likes of Joan Kirner, Amanda Vandstone, Russ Hinze and crusty Warren Truss. All of them a lot less nauseating to look at.

The metamorphosis of Electric Blue into Purple Haze....but the game remains the same.

[Kharon]

For example.

The Airservices recording – Part 3 – from the four second mark; provides a good example of the story line Halfwit is trying so desperately to maintain.  He wants to keep the narrative restricted to the narrow ‘terms of reference’ the ANAO were restrained by.  The Senators are armed with additional knowledge and they let him know that; on several occasions, yet blindly Halfwit follows the script, as writ. Once Sterle gets into the nitty-gritty Halfwit is up on his hinds legs, barking at the front gate, chained to a lack of imagination, hamstrung by a lack of wit and fails, utterly, to see the back door being opened. Then the bully boy noises begin, trying to shout down folk like Sterle and O’Sullivan and Gallacher is a seriously flawed strategy.  Grown ups, like them know how to deal with the bullies and liars of this world.

But I digress (easy to do with the volume of data) – the point is that Part 3 provides a very clear example of how a narrow view of one part of a matter becomes the focal point, not the whole. This is reflected in the scripted work for the ‘Great shedding’. When Hansard comes out, I will find some better examples of how the head of ASA is using very narrow reference data to cover a very broad spectrum of increased risk and skating around the many small pieces which, while not dangerous per se, will have a huge impact on the cost, to consumer, who will end up paying for Halfwit’s vision splendid.  Unless of course the RRAT committee get sick to death of battering down the departmentally manufactured defence system and pull an inquiry on. It’s a racing certainty that a full, warts, hair and all investigation of ASA is needed; will it happen? Who knows, but I will, after Hansard be setting the tote board odds for this race.

Aye well, more ‘vision’ to study; glad I’ve got a new bucket, three solid hours of Purple Daze to sit through - ………

Edit – ANAO audit Part 3 – go to 06:40 then watch O’Sullivan at 07:06 – the short head shake – he has taken the measure of Halfwit. Priceless demonstration of a picture being worth a thousand words.  

[Gobbledock]

Looks like the gutless ASA bus driver Sir An(g)us and his lap dog Purple Haze Harfwit have been forced out from under their rock?

Government to hand over Gold Coast airport contamination documents

The Tugun Cobaki Alliance gained the result after a successful hearing at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) last week and means the government agency will need to hand over all documents pertaining to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination at Gold Coast Airport by October 24.

More here;

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news...775966ef2e

It's time to investigate the obsfucation and deliberate ducking and weaving by Purple Haze Harfield and the gutless footstool Houstoblame. Why did they stall?

TICK TOCK goes the chemical clock!

[Gobbledock]

Oh dear, Houston and Harfwit, the red flags are raised.

Investigation into Commonwealth government’s procurement, performance and risk including ASA

A raft of new inquiries will examine the Commonwealth government’s procurement methods, how it measures its own performance and the levels of risk it carries, including gauging the government’s success in reducing disability benefit claims, the reasons for cost blowouts at Nauru and Manus Island detention centres and Airservices Australia’s procurement of a new air traffic control system.

The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) will tackle some controversial issues on the back of a number of Auditor-General audit reports including:

Commonwealth procurement

Cost blowouts and “serious and persistent deficiencies” in the procurement of garrison support and welfare services at offshore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island
The delivery and monitoring of health services in offshore immigration detention centres
Shortcomings in Airservices’ procurement of the OneSKY Australia system, which replaces Airservices Australiaa’s civil air traffic system and a Department of Defence system dealing with military air traffic.
Commonwealth performance framework

Improving the reporting of performance by departments to strengthen their accountability, including in the Higher Education Loan Program
Commonwealth risk management

Evaluating changes to the Disability Support Pension (DSP), including tightening up eligibility requirements and work capacity assessments. The 2012 changes aimed to shift more people off DSP and limit new claimants

Assessing whether the federal government’s deregulation agenda has been successful.

The JCPAA is a central committee of Parliament and has the power to initiate its own inquiries on the Commonwealth public sector. It examines all the reports of the Auditor-General tabled in the Parliament and can drill down into anything connected with these reports.

Newly-elected Committee Chair, Senator Dean Smith, said that the JCPAA examined whether public money was used efficiently, effectively and ethically.

“The JCPAA has an important role in holding Commonwealth agencies to account and our inquiries further strengthen the performance and accountability of agencies entrusted with billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money,” Senator Smith said.

“The Committee is focusing on common audit themes identified by the Auditor-General. By taking a thematic approach to these inquiries, the Committee seeks to encourage improvements and shared learning in key areas of public administration.”

Auditor-General’s reports were valuable because they identified areas for improvement in public administration and detailed examples of good public administration, he said.

The deadline for submissions to the inquiries is Monday November 7. Public hearings will be held from late November 2016.

Link to the article below;

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2016/10...ance-risk/

TICK TOCK Sir An(g)us and Purple Haze. Muppets! Wasting taxpayer money, everyone can see that except for you two arseclowns. The sooner you are both gone the better.

[Peetwo]

Airservices H&H sausage sizzle.(H&H: Houstoblame & Harfwit) 

Where: APH Can'tberra When: Ongoing throughout 2016 & 2017 Charity: OneSKY trough fund...

Oh dear Houston and Harfwit, the red flags are raised.

Investigation into Commonwealth government’s procurement, performance and risk
By Marie Sansom on October 19, 2016


Airservices Australia’s procurement of a new air traffic control system
will be investigated.
 
 
A raft of new inquiries will examine the Commonwealth government’s procurement methods, how it measures its own performance and the levels of risk it carries, including gauging the government’s success in reducing disability benefit claims, the reasons for cost blowouts at Nauru and Manus Island detention centres and Airservices Australia’s procurement of a new air traffic control system.

The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) will tackle some controversial issues on the back of a number of Auditor-General audit reports including:

Commonwealth procurement

• Cost blowouts and “serious and persistent deficiencies” in the procurement of garrison support and welfare services at offshore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island
  

• The delivery and monitoring of health services in offshore immigration detention centres
  

• Shortcomings in Airservices’ procurement of the OneSKY Australia system, which replaces Airservices Australiaa’s civil air traffic system and a Department of Defence system dealing with military air traffic.
  

Commonwealth performance framework

• Improving the reporting of performance by departments to strengthen their accountability, including in the Higher Education Loan Program
  

Commonwealth risk management

• Evaluating changes to the Disability Support Pension (DSP), including tightening up eligibility requirements and work capacity assessments. The 2012 changes aimed to shift more people off DSP and limit new claimants
  

Public sector governance

• Assessing whether the federal government’s deregulation agenda has been successful.
  

 
The JCPAA is a central committee of Parliament and has the power to initiate its own inquiries on the Commonwealth public sector. It examines all the reports of the Auditor-General tabled in the Parliament and can drill down into anything connected with these reports.

Newly-elected Committee Chair, Senator Dean Smith, said that the JCPAA examined whether public money was used efficiently, effectively and ethically.

“The JCPAA has an important role in holding Commonwealth agencies to account and our inquiries further strengthen the performance and accountability of agencies entrusted with billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money,” Senator Smith said.

“The Committee is focusing on common audit themes identified by the Auditor-General. By taking a thematic approach to these inquiries, the Committee seeks to encourage improvements and shared learning in key areas of public administration.”

Auditor-General’s reports were valuable because they identified areas for improvement in public administration and detailed examples of good public administration, he said.
The deadline for submissions to the inquiries is Monday November 7. Public hearings will be held from late November 2016.

Link to the article below;

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2016/10...ance-risk/

TICK TOCK Sir An(g)us and Purple Haze. Muppets! Wasting taxpayer money, everyone can see that except for you two arseclowns. The sooner you are both gone the better.

P7 butt in - BLOODY BEAU-TI-FUL: GD. Double Choc Frog ration post.  Have a gold star.

When you are too deep in a hole; best stop digging.

Hansard; Monday, 17 October 2016 – pages 89 – 117 inclusive, become a remarkable document when viewed in hindsight and with the foresight of the JCPAA inquiries.  My six pages of notes and observations now redundant. Hoostoblame, Halfwit and the carefully workshopped ‘supporting’ documents are about to be subjected to a much more detailed scrutiny. About bloody time I say.  ASA is a very good place to start, IMO  it is the pinnacle of all things ‘wrong’ with the ‘autonomous’ system; having the ‘mystique’ of air safety as a trump card makes every hand an unquestioned winner. ASA has been taking the Mickey Bliss for many, many years now; the tales legend, the proof incontrovertible.

One would hope that the JCPAA take a peek at the CASA track record. AUD $300,000,000 and counting is not small change. The ridiculous Regulatory Reform ‘program’ has been a constant drain on meagre resources for decades; is still on going and has produced one the most diabolical, inutile, risible rule sets ever published. Providing both an international joke and a perfect example of how not to do it. Just the outrageous cost of this debacle, standing alone, should merit a full investigation which must start by tearing down the wispy curtain, around the ‘mystique’ which has, is and always will be used to terrify politicians who do not want even a hint of blood on their highly polished, best, #1 dancing boots.

It is disgusting that a series of ‘ministers’ have side stepped their very real responsibilities to the public and been more than happy to let CASA run the show, with unlimited, unchecked power and a key to the ATM of the public purse.

Aye well; I’ve not a lot of faith left to place in ‘official’ inquiries; too many important fingers in the money pie.  However, this latest seems to have a good pedigree; we shall see. But it will be interesting to see what the ASA come up with – in defence of their untenable situation. The Estimates committee did flag it – we should have, but didn’t pick up the clues; my own notes were heading toward a call for ‘an inquiry’ of some sort. But not the level we have been gifted; at best I hoped for Senate Inquiry (always fun).  I’ll own to being distracted by the volume of Halfwit ‘rhetoric’ (Latin for Pony-Pooh) and trying to isolate the howlers. I missed the clues. With hindsight – both O’Sullivan and Sterle almost forewarned us; even if that was ‘missed’ the unusually stony, normally ‘sunny’ countenance of Fiona Nash was a fine clue.  No excuses; I’ll go and sit with the other short, thick planks for a while.

I shall save the Halfwit’s bluster, bollocks and bullshit for Sunday rambles. Seems someone finally got the message and I may relax and simply enjoy debunking the myth of the legend and de-fluffing the faery tale. Much more fun.

Toot toot.

From JCPAA Parliamentary webpages:

Reviews of Auditor-General's reports

The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) is required by the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 to examine all reports of the Auditor-General which are tabled in the Parliament.

In performing its duties, the JCPAA works closely with the Auditor-General and the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). The ANAO supports the Auditor–General to provide the Parliament with an independent assessment of selected areas of public administration, and assurance about public sector financial reporting, administration, and accountability.

The JCPAA's review procedures are built around a series of public hearings. At these hearings evidence is taken from agencies which have been the subject of recent 'significant' audit findings. The Committee may also elect to conduct reviews of audit reports using other means.

You will find further information about the JCPAA's review procedures for reports of the Auditor-General at Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit - Reviewing Reports of the Auditor-General.

From the provided link above:

..The referral of audit reports to other committees is appropriate in some circumstances - for example, where an audit report is relevant to a subject already being considered by another committee, or where an audit report deals with an issue in which another committee has developed a particular expertise.

However, it is important to note that the requirement to review described in the PAAC Act is not satisfied by the referral of an audit report to another committee. The Act is specific in its requirement that the JCPAA examine all audit reports.

While the JCPAA is conscious of avoiding unnecessary duplication, it intends to fulfil its obligation by examining all audit reports, including those which have been referred to other committees. In most cases it is likely that the JCPAA's examination will show that the other committee has reviewed, or is reviewing, the major issues identified in the audit report. However, there may be occasions when the JCPAA decides that further review is needed...

 
In addition via RRAT Estimates QON/Tabled docs webpage:

5.) Document titled ' Summary of Airservices Improvement Actions Relevant to ANAO Recommendations'. Tabled by Airservices Australia on 17 October 2016.

(PDF 2.01MB)

---

Additional Information

View File
1.) Airservices Australia's Accelerate Program: List of Number of Roles at each Classification Level Proposed for 30 June 2017. Received 18 October 2016.
(PDF 38KB)

And today 'from that man' via the Oz:

Airservices-OneSky to face Senate
12:00amEAN HIGGINS
A Senate committee is considering a new inquiry into Airservices Australia’s OneSky air traffic control program.

A Senate committee is considering launching a new inquiry to get to the bottom of suspect financial dealings surrounding Airservices Australia’s $1.5 billion OneSky air traffic control program.

The move follows dissatisfaction among senators across the political spectrum over Airservices’ handling of contracts for OneSky and the performance of the government-owned organisation’s chief executive Jason Harfield at a Senate hearing this week.

Mr Harfield came in for a grilling in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on Monday, with senators accusing him of trying to talk over his interrogators.

The committee’s chairman, National Party senator Barry O’Sullivan, deputy chairman, Labor senator Glenn Sterle, and independent senator Nick Xenophon took turns demanding answers following a damning report by the Australian National Audit Office into one aspect of Airservices’ contracting for OneSky.

Senator O’Sullivan revealed the committee was considering launching an inquiry into the broader issues of Airservices’ handling of OneSky.

“This committee is very concerned about the operations of your body,” Senator O’Sullivan told Mr Harfield and Airservices chief financial officer Paul Logan.

“So I too would urge you to get to the point — hair on it and all — because this is an ongoing matter. The committee sits on a deliberation as to whether it will have an inquiry into these matters, and it would certainly assist us if you were able to get to the heart of the question without too much window-dressing.”

In August the Audit Office tabled its much anticipated report on contract arrangements between Airservices and an obscure Canberra-based group with military links known as the International Centre for Complex Project Management.

Among the findings, Airservices paid ICCPM consultants up to $5000 a day over 18 months to advise on the OneSky project, which is designed to integrate the military and civilian air traffic control systems into a single state-of-the-art network by 2021.

“Overall, Airservices’ approach to contracting ICCPM was ineffective in providing value-for-money outcomes,” the Audit Office said in its report.

The report was particularly critical of the appointment of one ICCPM consultant, Harry Bradford, dubbed “the Million Dollar Man”. Airservices had engaged him (and paid more than $ 1 million) to negotiate on its behalf with the lead contractor for the OneSky project, European aerospace group Thales.

“Airservices did not apply any consideration to potential, actual, or perceived conflict of interest,” the report said.

At Monday’s hearing, Senator Xenophon asked Mr Harfield if any individual had “got their backside kicked”. Mr Harfield responded that there had been “counselling taken on how practices were not adhered to”, but, said “no one has done anything untoward”.

Senator Xenophon: “A noncompliance on probity issues is not untoward?”

Mr Harfield: “They were what we would call authorised exemptions to the probity practices.”

Senator O’Sullivan yesterday told The Australian any decision on whether to launch a new inquiry would be guided by all members of the committee, and most likely after the Audit Office tabled a further report in May after investigating Airservices’ appointment of Thales.

But he said his impression was that senators across the committee were “dissatisfied with what they have before them” and that they would not rest until convinced its administration was “100 per cent right”.

Senator Sterle said he would “support any motion from the committee to have a further inquiry into Airservices”.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

The State Safety Program cup – Round one.

Sterle to bowl: Halfwit receiving at the river end.

P 93 – Hansard.  Sterle kicks off proceedings with a short question.  Then follows a torrent of – well - I just don’t know what to call it.  Clearly ‘work-shopped’, obviously rehearsed, probably while sharing a mirror with DDDDDDD; but a ‘jumble’ of buzz words, and nonsense words, which would make Lewis Carol envious. I must have read the Halfwit opening statement a dozen times now; sometimes I get a glimmer of sense. Only to have that feeble light snuffed out the next read through. For example – despite the ‘mining b’boom’ operational staff numbers remain static; so the front line troops managed the increased volume of traffic without needing additional ‘ operational support’ i.e. more controllers. Then our hero goes on to say that despite the ‘static’ front line non requirement; there was a growth in support staff.

Mr Harfield: During that same period of time, other than a couple of additional fire stations, our service provision in air traffic control and aviation rescue and firefighting had not grown. Over the last 10 years our staff numbers had grown 1,500 FTE while our service provision had not really changed. The operational staff numbers had stayed relatively static.

Why? Shirley it didn’t take an additional 1500 folks to draft that ridiculous poster.  

Mr Harfield: It was 1,500 over the last 10 years and, over the last five years, it would have been around 750. At the same time, as I said, our operational staff numbers, which are operational air traffic controllers and aviation rescue and firefighters had not significantly changed.

[All] this staff growth was in our projects and what we would call the back of house, our support areas.

This muppet do like to ‘badge’ things and use trite little descriptors; “headline increase” and the like. But; and I’m only guessing here – what he is trying to say is, that if the ‘support, back of house’ groups were to be retained, the price of service would increase and the majors told him to put it where the sun don’t shine.  “Unpalatable”.  Furry muff too; if the ‘front line’ is static and there is no increase in efficiency (reduced delays) then he must answer a couple or three awkward questions – like billion dollar earnings, but your broke? Or: what do we get for a five percent increase in charges? Or: WTF are you spending all thy billion dollar earning on – exactly?

[Considering] that this growth had been in back of house, not in our operational areas, obviously the airline industry found that completely unpalatable considering the current economic conditions. We revisited it and we went out with a five per cent price headline increase and consulted on that. Obviously that was unpalatable.

I don’t know who writes this stuff; there are enough swings and roundabouts in the opening ‘blurb’ to confound a barn full of boffins.  No matter – Sterle and his no so merry band keep rolling and do, what I should do; ignore the ‘workshop gobbledegook’ and get to the nitty gritty. I must keep reminding myself that the Senators, in all probability, had an inkling that the AG would be taking a close, if belated look at the ASA. I keep looking for clues, to see if the Senators did know; hard to tell; but what I do get is a clear message that the Estimates committee will be taking a look – and anyway.  

Halfwit reminds me of a couple in the CASA top lines; that Weeks for one. This sentence :-


“[In] restructuring the organisation, which was announced on 17 May, we have proceeded to work through the organisation to reappoint and realign that organisation under the new operating model and that will see a reduction of 900 positions across the organisation.

is a masterpiece in arrogance, ignorance and blarney used to say ‘nothing’. Pompous, pointless verbiage designed to impress.  Like those silly ‘coffee table’ books – tossers love to leave ‘casually’ about the place.  Here’s another – who the hell talks like this.

Mr Harfield: That is correct. This Accelerate Program is not touching our front-line service delivery, which is aviation rescue and firefighting and air traffic controllers. They are actually excluded from the Accelerate Program. As we work through the questions from Senator Xenophon about the interactions with CASA, I will go through that and what we have done in that space.

Enough, the new bucket is starting to look a little shop-worn and battered, courtesy Halfwit, so lets play spot the Senators clues. Halfwit was so busy spinning and weaving, proving that he’d done all his homework in anticipation of the questions; he failed to see the chasm opening up behind him.  

Senator STERLE: I will stay focused and get back onto the question I just want to ask you here first. What is the number of proposed changes to job classification level?

Mr Harfield: We can provide that on notice—all the specifics. We can provide all that.

Senator STERLE: That is easily got? That is no drama?

Mr Harfield: Absolutely.

All carefully prepared; the positive ‘absolutely’ giving the game away; that question was anticipated, homework done and the Senator ‘happy’.  “Must be winning” thinks Halfwit , “he swallowed all that without a blink”.

Senator STERLE: If you could provide that, that would be good. Is there a target that you want to achieve?

Senator STERLE: Okay, that is good—and at what level.

Mr Harfield: Absolutely.

This ‘feel good’ – ‘can-do’ – Absolutely –no worries Senator caper goes on for a page or so. Halfwit now firmly convinced he has the Senator in his back pocket; purring and completely satisfied; mollified by the assurances given, impressed with the Halfwit masterful use of buzz and spin. How thick can you be: ASA has been up to it’s proverbial ass in alligators for about two years now.  Every estimates session has been conducted in an atmosphere of suspicion, attempting to get the lid off this can of worms; yet Halfwit blithely continues his meaningless dialogue unable to see the shadow of a very large axe over his head. The shade of Heff swinging it.

CHAIR: I am really looking for the short answer, and then I will leave you alone. So, the assessment as to the risk profile of a need for these services at an airport has diminished per activities measured by you as passengers in and out. Forget about passengers in and out; to me that is a moot point. But the level of activity at an airport: you have decided that we can cope with more activity in terms of going from 350,000 passengers to 500,000, where we do not think we are going to see an increase in incidents.

Senator STERLE: That is great. We have got it from three of the four most senior people in the pyramid, that there is going to be no contracting out of Airservices work anywhere.

Mr Harfield: Correct. Contracting out in the sense of we are not privatising Airservices, but for me to contract out non-core services, some administrative service or whatever, it does not mean that we will not contract that out—which is normal. It gets undertaken today.

Senator STERLE: With the other 780 or 800 redundancies—you have your job family there—will there be any other contracting out in any of the other job family categories? We have had redundancies, and then will we find contractors coming in to replace them?

Mr Harfield: Not contracting. We may contract out a function—in the sense that there may be a service that we find is more appropriate and more efficient to contract out, and is not what we would call a core service—

Senator STERLE: I understand that.

Mr Harfield: An administrative service that we may be able to do it differently.

Senator STERLE: I do understand that. Mr Harfield, you and the board, and all your people are not dills—I do not say that trying to be smart, but I would hazard as a guess and have a stab there to say that we would be fooling ourselves to not think that work still needs to be done under these other job families, but not for full-time employees? Am I wrong?

About now, Sterle finishes his over and ambles off to boundary for a spell of fielding and passes the ball to NX. How will the increasingly nervous batsman handle the change of pace? See you back at page 95 to watch the rest of the Halfwit uninspiring innings. Too much blocking and letting the ball go through to the keeper, the run rate reflecting a defensive stance.

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

I think it's worth going back to an article in the Can'tberra Times from September;

Airservices callous and wasteful, say
unions

Airservices  Australia's approach to hiring consultants has been "callous and wasteful", according to its workplace unions.

Aviation industry figures were calling on Friday for "heads to roll" over the agency's lack of probity, cost control and its failure to get "value for money" from consultancies on the $1.5 billion One­SKY air traffic control system, revealed in a scathing National Audit Office report.

The Community and Public Sector Union, which has many members facing the loss of their jobs at Airservices, says the agency has been caught out by the National Audit Office after spending $9 million on external consultants ICCPM while moving to sack almost 1000 staff.

The consultancy rates were up to 30 per cent higher than the Defence Department was paying ICCPM, the auditors found, with one lucrative contract processed by a senior Airservices executive who was married to ICCPM's chief executive.

The probe by the ANAO looked into Airservices' use of a consultancy firm during its $1.5 billion OneSKY air traffic control and navigation project after a Senate committee alleged "dodgy dealings" with ICCPM.

Now Airservices is in the midst of sacking up to 1000 of its workers, saying it can no longer afford them.

The government's response to the audit was more muted than the unions' with Transport Minister Darren Chester saying he had met with Airservices and told its management he expected improvements in the wake of the Audit Office's report.

CPSU deputy national president Rupert Evans came out swinging on Friday, attacking Airservices' senior management and alleging "callous and wasteful" conduct.

"It beggars belief that they would be wasting millions of dollars on consultants, then turn around and sack hundreds of staff on the grounds that they're broke," the union official said.

"It's entirely unfair and unacceptable that staff are paying the price for the questionable practices of Airservices management.

"Hardworking people who have committed their careers to the safety of Australia's skies are being thrown on the scrapheap so a few consultants can cash in.

"There has been growing unease and disquiet for some time among our members about the way that Airservices' senior management is operating and this audit absolutely reinforces thatconcern.

"Management's inability to properly deal with consultants casts serious doubt on their ability to be trusted with anything, let alone the safety of Australia's airspace or management of money."

Technical union Professional Australia joined aviation identity Dick Smith in calling for the resignation of Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield.

"The failure to ensure the proper management of probity concerns and conflict of interest issues let alone get value for money fell within the remit of the current CEO," union official Dave Smith said.

"These failings shouldn't have made him a candidate for the CEO position and should see him resign."

Airservices, Mr Harfield and ICCPM have all declined to comment and maintained their public silence on Friday.

Mr Chester's office said in a statement that he expected to see improvements from Airservices in the wake of the ANAO report.

"The report highlights a number of areas where Airservices can improve its procurement and performance," the statement read.

"Airservices has accepted all of the report's six recommendations.

The minister has met with the CEO of Airservices to discuss the report and expressed his expectations on the timely delivery of any changes as a result of the report's recommendations."

Link here;

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national...r7i4c.html

My comments;

1. It's blatantly obvious that the ASA Board must be terminated. Under the current members tenure ASA has  dive-bombed into a loss making outfit, for no logical reason other than the fact that the entity has been mismanaged at an executive decision making advisory level - the Board.

2. Purple Haze has proudly boasted that he is the Grand Wizard of OneSly. A totally mismanaged billion dollar project at the CEO level of the organisation. There is no doubt the Board ducked up with his appointment, despite the never ending warnings. The ANAO report, numerous inquiries and public knowledge of mismanagement are proving that the Board and it's decision making abilities are flawed, unprofessional and amateurish.

3. The public (taxpayer), ASA unions, aviation industry and stakeholders and ASA's staff have lost all confidence in the CEO and the Board, with a lack of confidence growing by the day in Minister Selfie Chester's ability to handle the imploding mess. All Chester can do is 'meet with ASA' and 'discuss his expectations'!! Is this government serious?? Meet and discuss? What are you doing Goldman Sachs Turnbull and Piss Trough Joyce? How about trading 'meet and discuss' with 'sack and replace'? There is no longer any option. The spotlight is becoming brighter on ASA, the investigations more in depth and the trail of shit even wider.  If Sachs Turnbull and Joyce don't shuffle 'Chester the beautiful' to another portfolio and roll the ASA Board and CEO, soon, I believe the Senators and investigators will inevitably expose a sordid mess at such a high level that the Turnbull Government by default will be handing Bill Short'one and White Elephant Albanese an election golden goose. Chester and his wet lettuce leaf need to be composted.

TICK TOCK hums the ASA clock

[Peetwo]

Harfwit wastes yet more money on ADS-B myth-busting - FDS!

Via ASA Steve Creepy (propaganda spin doctor) controlled website:

Mythsbusted


Only months remain before all Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft and helicopters must be fitted with ADS-B to continue flying in Australian airspace.

To help owners, operators and pilots, we have compiled, and busted, some myths that have been circulating about fitment requirements and regulations.

Once 2 February 2017 comes I won’t be able to fly my aircraft at all

BUSTED – if you decide not to install ADS-B that does not mean you will be grounded. It means you will no longer be permitted to fly IFR. ADS-B gives you priority in the air and the freedom to continue flying IFR with optimal efficiency and safety benefits after 2 February 2017. If you have not installed ADS-B, you will still be able to fly, but only under VFR.

I hear there will be a number of IFR aircraft that will drop back to VFR status from 2 February 2017

Plausible – some operators and owners have said that, after a cost-benefit analysis, they will not be fitting ADS-B because they realised they only fly a small percentage of IFR hours, or they can reorganise their fleet into IFR-only and VFR-only  or they have new ADS-B equipped aircraft on order and can hold out until then.

The industry at large is not in support of the introduction of ADS-B

BUSTED – quite a number of airlines, operators and pilots have expressed their full support in the benefits ADS-B offers. These include, amongst many others, Virgin, Qantas, the Royal Flying Doctor Service – Queensland Section, Alliance Airlines, CHC Helicopters, Wings4Kidz plus a number of GA IFR operators.

Read some their testimonials on our website – www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/ads-b/testimonials

The reason we have a mandate is because ASTRA – a representative industry group, which includes ASAC, RAAA, AOPA, AAA and others – asked CASA for an ADS-B mandate to be applicable in February 2017.

ADS-B is going to cost me many thousands of dollars to install – more than the entire cost of my aircraft

BUSTED – there are a number of avionics products available that will meet required standards with some that cost less than A$4000. Available products include those that have an integrated GPS inside a transponder (like Garmin, L3, and Appareo) or transponders that connect to an existing GPS engine (like Garmin, Trig, Bendix King, Honeywell, Rockwell and Dynon).

Whilst installed price depends on numerous factors, the Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA) has indicated that simple installations can be as low as $6500.

Some avionics products also enable ADS-B IN through the use of tablet devices for added benefits.

Email the AEA, info@aea.net, to locate a LAME in your area who can quote to fit your aircraft with ADS-B. Don’t forget to shop around to ensure you are getting value for money.

I own/fly a small GA IFR aircraft. The airlines and operators of larger aircraft are the only ones who will benefit

BUSTED – ADS-B offers a number of benefits for smaller GA aircraft.
All aircraft and helicopters, large and small, will be visible accurately on our controller’s screens when they are flying within surveillance coverage. Our ADS-B coverage at lower levels is quite extensive.

If your aircraft is fitted with ADS-B IN capability, then you too will have increased situational awareness of traffic in your vicinity, which is particularly helpful when outside of controlled airspace.

Even if you are not fitted with ADS-B IN, airlines, operators of larger aircraft and anyone else who has fitted it will have much greater situational awareness leading to less reliance on see and avoid and ATC-provided traffic information.

Additionally, if you experience an emergency situation, our controllers can pass on accurate location information to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority for a swifter response.

You are forcing the ADS-B mandate on GA in Australia – you should have waited until 2020 like in the US

BUSTED – according to the FAA’s Chief Scientist (Surveillance) Doug Arbuckle, waiting until the US mandate will not provide a significant reduction in the cost for ADS-B equipment as some had hoped for due to the demand for the fitment of more than 250 000 aircraft in the US.

“From our point of view, all the products are that are going to be on the market are now on the market and we don’t see any forces that will drive the costs down any further,” said Mr Arbuckle. “Pricing is very aggressive. We have talked to several vendors who have said they have made mass buys of hardware to keep the costs as low as they are now, so we really don’t see anything that would cause prices to go up or down in the near future.”

Furthermore, from a business perspective, operators can currently borrow money at historical low interest rates and at a relatively favourable exchange rate. There could be a significant change in the purchase price of ADS-B equipment if either of those things change in the future.

The Australian aviation industry including AOPA, RAAA and the ASTRA Council agreed and asked CASA, in writing, to proceed with the ADS-B mandatory roll out for all IFR aircraft in 2017. The consultation process was well accepted and AOPA (and others) congratulated CASA on the consultation process at that time.

Unlike the FAA, Australia has not required fitment of ADS-B into VFR aircraft. The FAA rule captures all VFR aircraft operating into ADS-B airspace, or within 30 miles of major city airports.

Unlike the US and other countries, Australia did not have much electronic surveillance coverage before ADS-B with only around 18 per cent of its continental airspace covered by radar.

With ADS-B, we have continent wide surveillance coverage above FL290 which is more accurate, more reliable and cheaper than radar. Extensive coverage exists at FL200; and since Airservices is funded entirely by airspace users, those savings are reflected in your airspace charges.

ADS-B coverage is available to the ground level at many locations across the country and this coverage will improve in the future as more ground stations are rolled out.

For more than 11 years, ADS-B has been used to provide ATC separation services and has provided operators with safety and efficiency benefits which they otherwise not have had access to.

When you say “with ADS-B you will get increased access to airspace”, surely you mean for the larger aircraft

BUSTED – with increased surveillance coverage and ADS-B equipage comes reduced separation standards that allows for the increased likelihood of clearance to preferred flight levels, and unrestricted climbs or descents, for all aircraft.

Delaying the mandate to align us with the US mandate won’t hurt anyone

BUSTED – ADS-B has been introduced gradually since 2007 ensuring pilots and operators of IFR aircraft have had sufficient time to prepare. The ADS-B fitment rate is now extremely high. The more than 1,800 Australian registered IFR aircraft which are already fitted , plus a further 350 non-IFR aircraft which have also voluntarily fitted, will be disadvantaged by a delay to the mandate.

There are now fewer than 880 aircraft remaining to be fitted, of which a vast majority have indicated they are intending to fit before the mandate.

Airservices has also made investment decisions around not replacing radars based on the ADS-B mandates. Any delay would mean that radars need to be maintained longer or replaced which impacts on the costs back to airspace users.

Deployment of ADS-B is just a transfer of costs from Airservices to the industry

BUSTED – Airservices gets it funding from its customers via airways charges and not from the government. To provide equivalent surveillance across the continent would involve installing and maintaining radars and recovering the hundreds of millions of dollars from our customers through increased airways charges.

The total cost of ADS-B ground stations and having operators install ADS-B in their aircraft is significantly lower and provides better long term functionality including the option of ADS-B IN. This option also has synergy with the GNSS program and the recent removal of 179 conventional navaids.

If you have an ADS-B myth that you would like busted you can complete and submit an online form and one of our ADS-B fitment team will take a look.

If you require information about fitting ADS-B, call our ADS-B hotline: 1800 844 487

UDB? IMHO the best 'real' comeback to that bureaucratic PR spin'n'bollocks comes from Lead Balloon via the UP:

Lead Balloon: If they are myths, why bother wasting time (and the ANC/TNC payers' money) busting them?


Some of the points made don't address the "myth". What does the agreement of a bunch of alphabet soup organisations have to do with the costs of equipment and installation or the objective benefits of the mandate? Nothing. (And have the representations that were made to those organisations in order to obtain their agreement been delivered upon?)

Citing opinions of the ANSP in the US as authority for propositions about ASD-B is a joke. Here's what the independent Office of the Inspector General of the US Department of Transportation had to say about ADS-B: https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/defaul...%5E9-11-14.pdf

Just imagine how many very expensive lessons will be learnt and improvements made by the FAA leading up to and post-mandate, which costs could be avoided and improvements 'borrowed' by Australia if Australia waited.

When the highly-paid execs in Airservices can manage to build an organisation with around 900 excess staff out of around 4,000 and not make money out of a monopoly, just imagine what they'll do with ADS-B implementation. (And don't get me started on OneSKY....)

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Of corrective activities,
brown-nosers and 'mystique busters'

So first we had ATsB rolling out Hoodlum and his farcical 'we need to defend ourself page', which is total folly. Now we have ASA and their chief sphincter cleaner Creepy rolling out 'myth buster' style folly. Absurd! Just another form of 'correcting the record' pony pooh. What's next, CAsA's Peter Gobson to put out some correcting the record video productions which 'correct the myths' about the CAsA mystique? Twats!

Oh well Creepy, Gobbles will have a crack at it;

Creepy is a transparent unbiased writer who presents only the true facts about ASA?

BUSTED - Creepy is a corporate puppet who is so far up Houston and Harfields arses that the only thing you see hanging out of their ring gear is Creepy's toes.

Creepy understands the real life processes of an ATC and has a handle on complex airspace procedures and technical matters?

BUSTED - Creepy has no idea about the real aeronautical universe and relies on boardroom scribbles on coffee cup coasters and the occasional pat-on-the-head and some Smacko's from that other ninny Sir Anus, who himself wouldn't know OneSky from Skylab.

Creepy connects with specialised, knowledgeable and reputable Australian aviation writers and authors to compare analytical reports and share draft articles about aviation for peer review?

BUSTED - Creepy writes articles based on information sourced from Wikepedia, the back of shitter doors and from his equal Geoffery Thomas.

Creepy has penned biographies and world renown quality stories about the most famous, inspirational and interesting characters in the history of world aviation?

BUSTED - Creepy only writes glowing articles and testimonies about his ASA puppet masters who themselves are about as respected and qualified in aviation matters as Warren Truss or Justin Bieber.


"Safe mystique busting for all"

[Kharon]

A mighty conundrum.

I have, with some care and diligence, ploughed my way through the State Safety Program (SSP) with which Australia is obliged, under the ICAO agreement is to comply. I have even managed to define the loosely formed connections between what Australia has ‘scripted’ and the spirit and intent of the ICAO ‘vision’.  No matter.

As we have discussed many times recently on AP the Air Services debacle screams for the SSP to be initiated. The proposed dilution and privatization of 25% of an essential safety service is a prime candidate. All the trigger points are loaded, the alarum bells are ringing and yet the CASA boss Carmody, chooses to hide behind another, pointless, costly, time gaining review, making veiled threats and insulting expert industry leaders.

Halfwit should never have been allowed to continue running the operation; the conflict of interest and government audit should have forced him to stand down – at least until the entire ‘One Shy’ situation had been ‘properly’ investigated. If we must fund yet another useless inquiry, why not spend the dollars on sorting out ASA? Before someone gets hurt.

The SSP is there to be used in just such a situation – the public should be informed that there is system to analyse and dissect the risible ASA solution to their own problems; created out of greed, ego, arse covering and ‘mates’ being looked after. Both Angus Houston and Chester need to resign and take their entertaining Halfwit and Carmody with them, they are, IMO a national disgrace.  The only 'myth' that needs busting here is that of honesty, competence and how a billion dollar a year monopoly can be broke. The whole thing is a farce, in danger of becoming a tragedy.

CASA can initiate the SSP, in a heartbeat; the question begging is Why have they not?

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Airservices scuttlebutt hot off the Press -  

A mighty conundrum.

I have, with some care and diligence, ploughed my way through the State Safety Program (SSP) with which Australia is obliged, under the ICAO agreement is to comply. I have even managed to define the loosely formed connections between what Australia has ‘scripted’ and the spirit and intent of the ICAO ‘vision’.  No matter.

As we have discussed many times recently on AP the Air Services debacle screams for the SSP to be initiated. The proposed dilution and privatization of 25% of an essential safety service is a prime candidate. All the trigger points are loaded, the alarum bells are ringing and yet the CASA boss Carmody, chooses to hide behind another, pointless, costly, time gaining review, making veiled threats and insulting expert industry leaders.

Halfwit should never have been allowed to continue running the operation; the conflict of interest and government audit should have forced him to stand down – at least until the entire ‘One Shy’ situation had been ‘properly’ investigated. If we must fund yet another useless inquiry, why not spend the dollars on sorting out ASA? Before someone gets hurt.

The SSP is there to be used in just such a situation – the public should be informed that there is system to analyse and dissect the risible ASA solution to their own problems; created out of greed, ego, arse covering and ‘mates’ being looked after. Both Angus Houston and Chester need to resign and take their entertaining Halfwit and Carmody with them, they are, IMO a national disgrace.  The only 'myth' that needs busting here is that of honesty, competence and how a billion dollar a year monopoly can be broke. The whole thing is a farce, in danger of becoming a tragedy.

CASA can initiate the SSP, in a heartbeat; the question begging is Why have they not?

Toot toot.

Sometimes "K" your timing is impeccable -  

I'll let the "other" Aunty explain...

Pilots, air traffic controllers raise safety concerns over plan to axe 900 jobs

By national technology reporter Jake Sturmer and the National Reporting Team's Benjamin Sveen

Updated about an hour ago Sun 30 Oct 2016, 7:54am

Photo: Airservices insists the cuts will only affect back room support staff. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin)

Serious air traffic safety concerns have been raised by aviation workers over plans to axe 900 jobs at Airservices Australia, the organisation controlling skies at the country's major airports.

Key points:

• The cuts would reduce Airservices' workforce by almost a quarter
  
• Aviation experts say their concerns have fallen on deaf ears
  
• Airservices insists the cuts will only affect back room support staff
  

The concerns have been raised by air traffic controllers employed by Airservices, as well as pilots.

Unions representing the workers who are likely to be affected are seeking an urgent Fair Work Commission hearing to stop the job cuts.

Lawyers from the CPSU, ETU and Professionals Australia are requesting an immediate suspension of the Accelerate program, which will see a reduction of Airservices' workforce by almost a quarter over the next year.

Airservices, the government-owned organisation responsible for air traffic control, airway navigation and emergency services for airports, insists the cuts will only affect back room support staff.

However, the ABC has spoken to several Airservices insiders and aviation experts who claim that despite repeated attempts for clarification about how the Accelerate program will affect the security of the nation's skies, their concerns have fallen on deaf ears.

"We haven't seen any of the safety work that's being done to justify this being a safe course of action" said Melbourne-based air traffic controller Tom McRoberts.

"Airservices say they've done it all but we haven't seen any."

Do you know more about this story? Email investigations@abc.net.au

Mr McRoberts, who has more than a decade's experience working as an air traffic controller and is also president of Civil Air, fears the engineers responsible for keeping aeronautical equipment in working order could be among those facing redundancies.

"[They are] taking guys away from being able to fix my radar if the radar falls over. I'm yet to see any documentation to say that's a good thing," Mr McRoberts said.

Cuts only affect back office, technical staff: Airservices

But a spokeswoman for Airservices said that it had engaged in comprehensive consultation with the industry prior to announcing the job cuts, which would only affect back office and technical staff.

"We are not reducing the size of our operational and rostered air traffic control or aviation rescue firefighting staffing," the spokeswoman added.

Earlier this year, an ABC investigation revealed serious malfunctions in radar systems operated by Airservices Australia which led to some planes briefly disappearing from Sydney Airport's tracking system.

The CPSU is one of the unions calling for an urgent meeting in Canberra to address employees' concerns.

"When you get multiple faults happening that's where you get into trouble. So being able to fix faults as quickly as possible is really important," said CPSU president Alistair Waters.

"That's why those highly skilled technical staff are just so critical.

"One of the reasons why you absolutely need to have very high standards and low risk margins in aviation is because when you're talking about aviation risk, you're talking about catastrophic risk."

Some pilots have also approached the ABC, expressing outrage at Airservices for their lack of consultation about the Accelerate program and what it will mean for Australia's air traffic network.

Pilots group brands planned cuts 'utterly disgraceful'

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA), which represents over 3,000 general aviation pilots, is calling for the resignation of Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield.

"It's utterly disgraceful ... I find it almost incomprehensible that the senior executive team of this billion-dollar organisation have not been able to secure the futures of these people who they are now asking to leave," AOPA's executive director Ben Morgan said.

"The people that are going to feel this the most are the low end. This is going to be another exercise in the top end of the organisation band-aiding their problems and their mistakes by asking the people at the bottom end of the chain to sacrifice their day-to-day work."

The unions' dispute was lodged with the Fair Work Commission last Friday.

They are claiming that up to 40 workers are being pressured to move from enterprise agreements to individual contracts, or else face involuntary redundancies.

During a combative Senate Estimates hearing on October 17, Mr Harfield told the committee that some workers would be moved into leadership positions as a result of the restructure and these roles were typically covered by individual contracts.

An Airservices spokeswoman told the ABC that every application for a voluntary redundancy, or consideration of an involuntary redundancy, would be assessed individually to determine "any potential impact on the safety of our air traffic control or aviation rescue fire fighting operations".

"Appropriate actions have been taken to ensure that the implementation of the Accelerate program is managed in a way that assures operational safety is considered throughout the life of the change program," the Airservices spokeswoman said.

Airservices began providing routine safety assurance reports to the aviation regulator CASA regarding the progress of Accelerate program last May.

Ferryman here's your argument in two lines, from ATCO (> 10yrs) & CA President Mr McRoberts, that the SSP should now be activated...

"We haven't seen any of the safety work that's being done to justify this being a safe course of action"  

&..

"Airservices say they've done it all but we haven't seen any."

So what say you now Wingnut Comardy & Electric Blue Harfwit?? Show us your fully transparent safety case through the ASA SMS and the consequential audit/review by CASA, according to the requirements Chapter 2 section 2.2 of the SSP.

Mr Comardy in case your luxuriating beside a five star pool, here's a handy QR from the Mount NCN thread...

2.2 Safety management system obligations

Australia has introduced the requirement for the implementation of SMS in certain sectors of the aviation industry. CASA has introduced the requirement for the following civil aviation service providers to implement SMS:

• ...Air Operators—Civil Aviation Orders (CAO) 82.3 and CAO 82.5 require both high capacity and low capacity RPT operators to establish and maintain appropriate operations with a sound and effective management structure that uses an SMS approved by CASA....
  

• ...Air Traffic Service Providers—CASR Part 172 provides that an air traffic service provider must have, and put into effect, an SMS that includes the policies, procedures, and practices necessary to provide the air traffic services covered by its approval safely...
  

• ...Aerodrome Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (ARFFS)—CASR Subpart 139.H provides that the ARFFS provider must have an SMS consistent with the requirements in the Manual of Standards, including the policies, procedures and practices necessary to provide the service safely...
  

• ...Aeronautical telecommunication and radionavigation service providers – CASR Subpart 171.C requires service providers to have SMS processes in place to assess...
  

These requirements recognise the relevant ICAO SARPs outlined in ICAO Annex 19, Safety Management, and the safety benefits to be gained by the effective establishment by industry of an SMS. Where appropriate this requirement will be extended to additional sections of the industry.

CASA provides a range of support for the implementation of a SMS and continues to develop and review the guidance material to assist industry with their SMS.

More information on Australia's adoption of SMS can be found on CASA's website.

Links to more information about requirements for civil aviation service providers SMS implementation is at Appendix F. 

---

&..

Service providers’ safety performance

An important element of a mature system of safety management oversight is agreement between the safety regulator and service providers on the key performance indicators and expected level of performance to be achieved. In the Australian safety regulatory system this level of performance is in part judged by how the service provider delivers against its SMS, therefore oversight of a SMS is included in CASA's audit programme for the operators who are mandated to have a SMS.

(P2 - It would/should be safe to assume that there would also be significant organisational developments within a service provider, such as 900 odd redundancies, which 'should' automatically red flag a need for CASA to facilitate a special audit process.) 

   
MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

A Twiddle about some very serious problems

Kharon again raises a salient discussion points. TICK
P2 again outlays a succinct post including the relevant links and commentary. TICK

A wee breakdown below on the ASA smoke and mirrors game;

- Back of house redundancies: ASA have tried to use the old chestnut of 'it's only back of house admin and technical support getting the arse, ATC are fine'. Well folks, I hate to tell you this but back of house support is equal in importance to our fine friends working the towers and remaining glued to radar screens. Techies keep the technology and infrastructure working. Without them we would have blind ATC because for the majority of them, their screens would go BLANK!!!!

- Back of house includes safety personnel, admin rostering, trainers and compliance staff. All critical areas in nature. 'Crewing' controlled airports is no small task. Just wait til the rosters turn pear-shaped and staff start to burn out from fatigue in more than they are now. Trust me, the last thing a pilot or passengers ever want is a manned towered staffed with micro sleeping fatigued ATC's because Purple Haze and Angus Useless have trimmed what fat remains even more.

- Purple Haze lack of safety analysis data. These muppets have been caught out. They have no robust risk assessment to prove that they have assessed safety risks. CEO's never have them, or if anything they have a cobbled together lightweight pony pooh document. Their focus is not on safety, it's on the almighty dollar.

An(g)us Houston has been on the Board now for several years. Why has he been happy to allow ASA to supposedly operate 25% overstaffed? Why has this billion dollar business been allowed to go into the 'red' without the Board being rolled? Why was Harfwit appointed CEO against the wishes of most people who know him. A decision again supported by Houston and his Board? And what did we get? Senate grillings, damning audits and now investigations. WE WARNED YOU!

The chickens have come home to roost, and until DDDDDarren grows a set and does what needs to be done - wield an axe and create a bloodbath right now, things will only get worse.

TICK TOCK selfie boy, we warned you...

[Kharon]

A fair and timely warning.

GD – “TICK TOCK selfie boy, we warned you...”

Neatly if colourfully phrased GD.  The whole thing has got me beat – I can’t see how much clearer the ‘signs’ can be and yet, through arrogance or ignorance, probably both, ASA continue to ignore them.

Thing that makes me scratch my poor old wooden head is how both the department and the ASA can face down a Senate committee and continue to bluff and try to bamboozle the same. It is as clear as day that the Senators have tumbled the game and intend to do something about it. It is obvious that the media have picked up the tale and gods help the government if there is ever another accident and direct blame can be sheeted home to a lack of governance. The ATCO union, industry and even Blind Freddy (g’day mate) can see through the bizarre machinations of the Purple Daze half baked plot. Yet the ASA board and Halfwit still sit there trying to bluff their way out.

There is one ray of hope; the ATCO union. This is an efficient, effective organisation, with clout and if push comes to shove and they get involved, united with other ‘concerned’ bodies, then even a Muppet like DDDDDD Chester may just have to listen to their sound advice and wise counsel. It is likely to be the very best advice he ever had.

What sort of country are we becoming where a ‘professional association’ is the only hope for passenger safety. If a government will not act for the general good it makes a mockery of every public dollar poured into a system designed to keep folk safe, but will, one day, fail them.    The concerns being raised are not part of some ‘campaign’ for pay and conditions; they are the genuine concerns of professionals, at the coal face, for the safety of the travelling public.

The Halfwit and his mates are playing Russian roulette with passengers lives. Statistically only five out of six people enjoy the game

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Civil-military ATC interface - SSP Safety case Issue?

Kharon - "..What sort of country are we becoming where a ‘professional association’ is the only hope for passenger safety. If a government will not act for the general good it makes a mockery of every public dollar poured into a system designed to keep folk safe, but will, one day, fail them. The concerns being raised are not part of some ‘campaign’ for pay and conditions; they are the genuine concerns of professionals, at the coal face, for the safety of the travelling public.."

---

& on Mount NCN today:

"..Cheers P2; it is a long grind to winnow out the grist. But ‘twas in a worthy cause, the research clearly defines one man’s vision of how Australia views ICAO compliance; lip service, escape clauses and a gold plated platform, writ in weasel words, to ease the minds of ministers, baffle the public and sate the ICAO appetite for ticks in boxes..."

Yes "K" what a shameful situation...  The thing that gets me is if Australia, instead of  ticking boxes on supposed ICAO SARP compliance with Annex 19, were actually serious about embracing the very good concepts/principles of an ICAO defined SMS (and the evolving SSP), then the Department and it's Alphabets wouldn't get the constant distraction of independent/peer reviewers, parliamentary inquiries, awkward Senate Estimate questioning etc...etc.

Why? Well because by design an effective SSP would proactively identify significant safety issues/deficiencies and provide equally effective risk mitigation processes long before the likes of the TSBC or Forsyth and his fellow panel members ever would. Ironically the 'reviewers' would be the one's (honestly) ticking boxes.

Sadly that is still not the case and we are left with a seriously broken system that is being cynically and deceptively manipulated, not for the safety assurance of the travelling public but to protect the government and minister of the day from any potential political embarrassment - FDS!

And it seems the bureaucratic obfuscation of the SSP and ASRR recommendations continues...   Referring back to my post #390:

"We haven't seen any of the safety work that's being done to justify this being a safe course of action"  

&..

"Airservices say they've done it all but we haven't seen any."

So what say you now Wingnut Comardy & Electric Blue Harfwit?? Show us your fully transparent safety case through the ASA SMS and the consequential audit/review by CASA, according to the requirements Chapter 2 section 2.2 of the SSP.

Mr Comardy in case your luxuriating beside a five star pool, here's a handy QR from the Mount NCN thread...

Service providers’ safety performance

An important element of a mature system of safety management oversight is agreement between the safety regulator and service providers on the key performance indicators and expected level of performance to be achieved. In the Australian safety regulatory system this level of performance is in part judged by how the service provider delivers against its SMS, therefore oversight of a SMS is included in CASA's audit programme for the operators who are mandated to have a SMS.

(P2 - It would/should be safe to assume that there would also be significant organisational developments within a service provider, such as 900 odd redundancies, which 'should' automatically red flag a need for CASA to facilitate a special audit process.) 

   

Still some dots to join but unfortunately there is yet another example of the serious disconnection with our SSP as currently advertised and the current aviation safety framework. From the ASRR report: 

Military air traffic control of civil aircraft: As recently noted by the ATSB,25 the number of ‘loss of separation’ incidents involving civil aircraft in military airspace in Australia is disproportionately high. Air Traffic Control (ATC) services provided by Defence are not regulated by CASA, and the ATSB recommended CASA’s oversight role in this area be reviewed. To effectively deal with the ATSB’s recommendations, the Department should take a leadership role, including negotiating with the Department of Defence. As a portfolio-wide policy issue, the Department must identify and implement an acceptable policy position to help ensure the safety of the travelling public in military airspace.

Forsyth & Co went onto make the following observations and proposed recommendation 13 as a means to address this significant safety issue: 

3.3.5 Civil–military interface

With the forecast increase in aviation activity, the relationship between civil and military operations is critical for Australia’s aviation safety. With the major airports facing capacity constraints, there is a move to use some existing military airports to assist in meeting the increasing volumes of civilian air movements. One of the most critical issues in the interface of civil and military aviation is in relation to
air traffic control at joint-user and military aerodromes.

Defence air traffic control

In a 2013 ATSB report,52 it was reported that a disproportionately high number of loss of separation (LOS) incidents involving civil aircraft within Australia take place within military-controlled airspace. In the report, the ATSB focused on LOS incidents to understand how and why they occur and to identify any system issues or trends within the ATM system.

In particular, the report was critical of military-controlled civil airspace, noting that ‘military controlled terminal area airspace in general, and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular, had a disproportionate rate of LOS (for civilian aircraft). Most of these LOS occurrences were contributed to by air traffic controller actions.’53 The ATSB recommended that CASA ‘…review the results of this report and determine whether its current level of involvement with Military air traffic services (ATS) is sufficient to assure itself that the safety of civil aircraft operations while under Military ATS control is adequate.’ 54

The Panel reviewed the correspondence on safety issue AR-2012-034-SI-02 (Regulatory Oversight of Military Air Traffic Services), as published by the ATSB.55 While Defence and CASA made accurate and reasonable comments about the benefits of work between Defence, CASA and Airservices, the Panel is concerned that CASA’s response to the ATSB’s recommendation AR-2012-034-SR-015 stated:

CASA is limited in its ability to influence military ATS in relation to the safety of civil aircraft using military airspace as regulation 172.005 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 provides Part 172 does not apply to a person providing an ATS for the Defence Force, or any ATS provided by the Defence Force.

The focus of the ATSB’s recommendation is on the safety policy question of whether there is sufficient civil regulatory oversight of military ATM services provided for civil aviation. Properly addressing this policy question requires a higher-level response from government.

While it is true that, as the CASRs currently stand, Defence is not subject to CASR Part 172, government could decide to enable this. There are good reasons, steeped in international practice, as to why military aviation is not subject to civil regulation. However, there are also instances, including in Australia, where military or state aviation is subject to civil regulation. For example, CAR 136 bans any foreign state aircraft from operating within Australia without the express approval or invitation of CASA.

The structural separation of CASA and Airservices was effected to ensure that Airservices is an air navigation service provider and CASA is a regulator. Australia has two air navigation service providers providing ATM services to civil aviation: Airservices and Defence. However, only Airservices is subject to regulatory oversight by CASA. It would seem prudent for both providers serving the civil aviation market and managing the safety of the general travelling public to be subject to safety oversight by the civil regulator. The Panel notes that while the Manual of Air Traffic Standards used by both civil and military controllers is the same, there are differences in the training of controllers.

In the Panel’s view, air traffic controllers providing ATM services for civil aircraft should all be trained to the same level of expertise. In the future, the new OneSKY system, which will be used by both Defence and Airservices will be certified by CASA, contributing to an alignment of training and standards.

Issues arising from the crossover of activities at joint-user airports require policy coordination across the government. In the Panel’s view, the Department should provide policy leadership, using the APG and its work groups to agree on an Australian Government position.

The Panel recommends that:

13. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and Department of Defence (and appropriate agencies) establish an agreed policy position on safety oversight of civil operations into joint user and military airports.

ASRR on the advantages of OneSKY - "..In the future, the new OneSKY system, which will be used by both Defence and Airservices will be certified by CASA, contributing to an alignment of training and standards.."

However the Forsyth panel at 3.3.6 also went onto warn (in bold):

A major initiative between Airservices and Defence is the joint acquisition of a single ATM platform known as ‘OneSKY’. This project will aim to deliver harmonisation between the civil and military ATM interfaces, which should enhance the safety and efficiency of Australia’s skies to meet the future growth in air traffic.

While this aim is commendable and will realise significant benefits for industry and the nation if implemented effectively and on budget, the Panel considers that safety oversight for ATM services needs to be addressed in line with Recommendation 13, regardless of the potential benefits that flow from the implementation of OneSKY.

This was the Government response to R13:

Agreed

The Government has asked the Department to work with CASA and the Department of Defence to provide policy advice on improving the transparency of, and public confidence in, the safety oversight of services provided by the military to civil aviation at military air bases and in airspace controlled by the Department of Defence.

And this is the current status (25 August 2016) of the Government response:

Not Completed

The provision of this policy advice has been delayed until the September quarter 2016 to incorporate the outcomes of a related Defence air traffic services review and ongoing work in relation to the “OneSKY” future integrated civil-military air traffic management systems project.

Therefore this is a dormant significant safety issue that has been identified by both the ATSB and the Forsyth Panel.

The ATSB issued a safety recommendation to CASA - Regulatory oversight of military air traffic services - while Forsyth and his fellow ASRR colleagues suggested...

"..While it is true that, as the CASRs currently stand, Defence is not subject to CASR Part 172, government could decide to enable this..."

However, as can be seen from the Govt response to R13, the Government does not have the balls to enact such a legislative solution and yet again falls behind the protective screen of M&M and his minions.

Unfortunately this has created further impediments to effective risk mitigation of this safety issue. Note the following comment from a CASA officer (21 January 2016) in reply to the above ATSB SR :

..I would like to point out that while Safety Recommendation AR-2012-034-SR-015 has been issued to CASA, the subject is not solely CASA's responsibility. There is a significant military aspect and CASA will not be able to progress safety action without Department of Defence involvement and Airservices Australia. However it is my intention to continue further dialogue with the Department, Department of Defence and Airs~rvices to achieve a satisfactory outcome...

This dilemma/delay in proactive risk mitigation as highlighted, should again be an automatic trigger for the SSP, as all of the agencies and departments mentioned are responsible to or fall within the auspices of the SSP as service providers: Appendix C - Australian aviation safety—roles and responsibilities . 

It would be somewhat ironic if the SSP review suggested a legislative solution to the current (above) impasse. If that was the case at least the miniscule could claim the kudos for having an effective fully integrated SSP whose primary purpose is to provide a safety net for the air travelling, tax paying public  -


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Settle petal.

Bad P2 – whatchoo wanna go scare the good voters for? The minister reckons this is all a beat up– a scare campaign. ‘Tis true; the lounge lizard himself has pronounced all of this to be a mischief and we are all very naughty for scaring folks.

The undeniable fact that the Australian aviation administration is a bloody shambles is not important you see; all the ticks are in the right boxes, the ministers arse is covered and that, boys and girls  is all that really matters.

P2 – “It would be somewhat ironic if the SSP review suggested a legislative solution to the current (above) impasse. If that was the case at least the miniscule could claim the kudos for having an effective fully integrated SSP whose primary purpose is to provide a safety net for the air travelling, tax paying public  -

Nah mate – it would be a ducking miracle if this chump could learn to tie his own boot laces by Christmas and do joined up writing before Easter.

Toot – toot.

[Gobbledock]

Another potentially outrageous ASA issue under investigation.....more shame for Sir An(g)us and Harfwit?

Crystal methamphetamine found at Brisbane Airport Air Traffic Service Centre, AFP investigating

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-01...re/7985550

Wow. It's a good thing they dealt with it by sending out a wet lettuce leaf memo. FFS, it really is time for the CEO and Board Chair to be frog marched out of the building.


TICK what's next? TOCK

[Peetwo]

Another potentially outrageous ASA issue under investigation.....more shame for Sir An(g)us and Harfwit?

Crystal methamphetamine found at Brisbane Airport Air Traffic Service Centre, AFP investigating
By the National Reporting Team's Benjamin Sveen
Updated about 7 hours agoWed 2 Nov 2016, 6:49am

Photo: The AFP said the drugs find was reported at Brisbane Airport on October 4. (AAP: Dave Hunt)

Related Story: Air traffic safety fears raised over plans to axe 900 jobs


The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is investigating the discovery of crystal methamphetamine in a thoroughfare used by air traffic controllers at Brisbane Airport.

Key points:

• Ice found in air traffic controllers building
  
• AFP confirms probe under way
  
• Source claims Airservices Australia not conducting its own proper investigation
  

The ABC understands an Airservices Australia employee found a small quantity of the illicit drug in a secured area at Brisbane's Air Traffic Service Centre last month.

Airservices Australia is the Government-owned organisation responsible for managing aviation traffic at Australian airports.

Confirmation of the incident came after questions from the ABC on Tuesday morning about whether a bag of ice had been discovered in the centre.

The agency responded: "The AFP can confirm it received a referral in relation to this incident on 04 October 2016."

But a spokeswoman added that as the matter was currently under investigation, it would be inappropriate to comment further.

The matter came to light after an anonymous source, claiming to be a current Airservices employee, contacted the ABC to express frustration that not enough was being done by senior management to investigate the issue.

The source claimed the bag was found in a stairwell of the centre's foyer.

'All they have done is issue a memo'


"An employee who didn't understand what they had found … handed in the bag to the Brisbane security desk," the source said.

"Further investigation of the substance within the bag confirmed that what had in fact been found was a bag of ice.

"I am scared as an employee to know that we have ATCs who potentially work for us who are putting the lives of the travelling Australian public in direct danger.

"All they have done so far is issue a memo."

On Tuesday afternoon, Airservices confirmed that a drugs and alcohol management policy document was distributed to all affected staff.

While the AFP has confirmed they are investigating, the ABC has so far been unable to verify all the allegations made by the anonymous source.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Airservices Australia are responsible for drug and alcohol tests of personnel engaged in safety sensitive aviation activities.
Airservices Australia are in the process of cutting 900 jobs from the organisation under a radical restructure of the organisation.

More than 500 jobs have already been made redundant.

Dozens of employees have approached the ABC expressing concern about aviation safety since the impact of the job cuts was reported last Sunday.

Wow. It's a good thing they dealt with it by sending out a wet lettuce leaf memo. FFS, it really is time for the CEO and Board Chair to be frog marched out of the building.


TICK what's next? TOCK

[Gobbledock]

Coming to an airport near you

It was only a matter of time

RAAF Williamtown: Hundreds of NSW residents launch class action over groundwater contamination

AM By Katherine Gregory Updated Thu Nov 03 07:57:43 EST 2016



Photo
Contamination from the Williamtown RAAF base has effected hundreds.
1233 ABC Newcastle: Robert Virtue

New South Wales residents have officially launched a class action against the Defence Department, seeking compensation for contaminated groundwater from the RAAF Williamtown base.

More than 400 people from Salt Ash, Williamtown and Fullerton Cove say their property values have declined and they have suffered mental anguish since finding out their groundwater contains the toxins PFOS and PFOA.

Resident Lindsay Clout said residents wanted to force Defence to deal with the problem and clean up the area.

"Banks are withholding loans in the area, valuers are not coming to site when they find out it's in the exclusion zone," he said.

"Those people are locked into no-man's land. They have no future because they have no equity in their property."

Department's response a 'slap in the face'


Photo Residents were briefed about a possible class action back in April.
ABC News: Jackson Vernon

Lawyer Ben Allen, who is representing the residents, said he filed the proceedings yesterday on instruction from those unhappy with the Department's response to a letter of demand sent several weeks ago.

Mr Allen said that letter asked for remediation and compensation out of court.

"The response from Defence as far as my client was concerned was wholly unsatisfactory and a slap in the face for them," Mr Allen said.

"What we received from Defence was a one-and-a-half page response which indicated they aren't in a position to respond to demands being made, that they required a whole-of-government response."

Residents near Williamtown were told about 18 months ago their groundwater was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA, which were used in firefighting foam at RAAF Williamtown until about five years ago.

The contamination means residents cannot drink their bore water or eat home-grown vegetables or eggs from farmyard chickens.

Other communities 'similarly devastated'

Mr Allan said 17 other RAAF sites around Australia were similarly affected, including the Queensland town of Oakey in the Darling Downs, which is also working toward a class action.

"I think this means that other communities similarly devastated around the country will also need to look to how this is progressing and take action in their own communities, and Defence will need to engage in a serious way," Mr Allen said.

Law professor Vince Morabito from Monash University said he believed this was the first class action against Defence.

He said while the class action was significant in Australia, since environmental litigation is rare, it was too soon to determine if it would set a precedent.

"A class action is a procedural device that allows claims by numerous people, it makes those claims financially rational to be litigated," Professor Morabito said.

"At the end of the day the perception or the assessment by the plaintiff lawyers on how strong the substantive claims are is likely to become the most important factor.

The Defence Department has been contacted for comment

And on a separate legal update on Oakey;

Oakey residents secure funding for class action against local army base over contaminated groundwater
Katherine Gregory Thu Oct 06 08:24:20 EST 2016


Photo
The firefighting foam has contaminated land and ground water.
CRC CARE

Residents of a Darling Downs town affected by contaminated groundwater are one step closer to pursuing a class action against the Federal Government after securing funding, their lawyer says.

Toxic firefighting chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) have leached into groundwater beneath at least 30 Australian Defence bases, including the Oakey Army Aviation Centre in Queensland.

A recent United Nations report ruled the chemicals had significant human and environmental health effects.

Shine Lawyers' legal partner Peter Shannon said after receiving funding from litigator funders IMF Bentham, the firm now had the green light for legal action and to win residents compensation.

"The funding is approved but it has to be conditional upon enough people joining the action to warrant bringing what is an expensive and complex piece of litigation," Mr Shannon said.

"It's fantastic that an organisation as large and as experienced as IMF are willing to back funding and assure people of funding."

He said the process would be highly regulated.

"[It's] very different to normal litigation and widely misunderstood and that's why it will take us a while to explain to people before they make the decision whether they'll want to be involved," Mr Shannon said.

About 300 people are interested in the action.



Photo The light blue "plume" shows the extent of groundwater contamination over Oakey.
Supplied: Department of Defence

Now, let's watch as team Pumpkin Head and his motley crew try to covertly change some laws through parliament that ensures these folk (only the beginning) are denied natural justice and full compensation.

TICK  TOCK......most definitely

[Peetwo]

Miniscule 4D prattles out the bollocks -


Via Oz Aviation:

No plans to privatise Airservices: Minister
November 2, 2016 by australianaviation.com.au Leave a Comment
 
Airservices is to remain in public ownership.

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester has reaffirmed the federal government’s commitment to keep Airservices in public hands.

Industry groups such as The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) have called for Airservices to be privatised and the proceeds used to fund initiatives designed to support the sector.

The federal government has said previously it did not support the privatisation of Airservices and Chester said on Tuesday there was no change to that policy.

“There are no plans to privatise Airservices,” Chester told ABC Radio’s RN Breakfast on Tuesday.

“I’ve made those comments publicly before and I am making them here again today.”
Earlier in 2016, a government-commissioned report from KPMG recommended the consideration of “different ownership structures” such as “part-private ownership” for Airservices.

The comments come as Airservices continues its restructuring program, dubbed ‘Accelerate’, that includes about 900 positions being made redundant as part of efforts to cut costs.

The air traffic manager’s chief executive Jason Harfield told Parliament recently the job cuts would come from “back of house operations” and support areas.

“This Accelerate program is not touching our front-line service delivery, which is aviation rescue and firefighting and air traffic controllers,” Harfield told the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on October 17.

“They are actually excluded from the Accelerate Program.”

Harfield told the committee about 580 people had left Airservices via redundancy between January 1 and the end of September, with the figure expected to reach 709 by the end of calendar 2016.

“The further projected 200, or thereabouts, will be the result of either voluntary redundancies or potentially involuntary redundancies in areas that are assessed as such,” Harfield said.

Airservices CEO Jason Harfield. (Seth Jaworski)

AOPA, which represents the interests of the general aviation sector, Civil Air Australia, the professional association for air traffic controllers and the Virgin International Pilots Association have criticised the proposed job cuts citing safety concerns, according to a report on the ABC website.

Further, the ABC reported unions representing the workers had sought a hearing at the Fair Work Ombudsman to stop the job cuts.

Chester said he had “received assurances” from Airservices that the proposed job losses would not impact safety.

“As the Minister responsible I take the safety issue incredibly seriously, and since taking on this role I’ve met with the Airservices chairman, Sir Angus Houston, and the chief executive and sought assurances and received assurances that there’ll be no impact on safety as a result of the restructure,” Chester said.

“It’s important to note that Airservices Australia isn’t just doing this off its own bat, it’s actually overseen by CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and it has been consulted throughout the process.

“Now, if the union has some genuine concerns, they can certainly raise those with Airservices, they can raise them with CASA, or they can come to me directly.”
In August, Harfield told Airservices’ annual Waypoint industry conference the Accelerate program would address what he described as a “relatively fixed and inefficient cost base” that left the organisation unable to “fully offset the first downturn in our aviation revenues in 25 years”.

“Over the next 12 months the Accelerate program will deliver an annualised reduction on our cost base of 15 per cent. This will return Airservices profitability to more sustainable levels and allow for an appropriate dividend back to government,” Harfield said.

Airservices’ 2015/16 annual report showed the organisation posted an underlying net profit after tax of $1.8 million for 2015/16, which was “broadly in line with the previous year’s results”.

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Of cooking the books and feeding the chooks

"Airservices 2015/16 annual report showed the organisation posted an underlying net profit after tax of $1.8 million for 2015/16, which was “broadly in line with the previous year’s results”.

Get your hand off it Harfwit. There can only be two possible scenarios here;

a) ASA are absolutely 110% incompetent. It is inconceivable to run such a massive money churning monopoly and make only a pissy little $1.8m profit! That wouldn't even equal Houston and Purple Haze's combined salaries including bonuses, other incentives, superannuation, generous travel allowances and a host of other trough treats. If that is the case then it proves absolute incompetence which calls for the CEO and Boards heads on a platter. If they can pay Consultants $5k per day yet post such a meagre profit......well something really really stinks here. A royal commission is needed. Second scenario is;

b) Regardless of what dumbwit Darren says, they are cooking the books and making it appear that they are making no money. A trick from the Allan Joyce handbook - 'Oh dear, labour costs are high and we aren't making any money so it's time to cull and cull hard'. Then, once a quarter of the workforce are gone ASA will miraculously turn a $200m profit in its first quarter after the 900th redundant employee has joined the dole. BOLLOCKS BOLLOCKS BOLLOCKS.

It really makes you want to hit them all with some of Kharons 'Fuck Off Spray'!!

Dear oh dear, how will they ever cover the costs of all those expensive PFOS lawsuits??

TICK TOCK