Things that go bump in the night,

About time.

A feeble glimmer of hope against a dark horizon; or, the spark which ignites the bonfire?  The 'quote' below is cribbed from Pprune; - HERE - . It is worth some thought and the support of industry.

ATC vote to take Protected Industrial action against Airservices Australia.

Outcome is inevitable.

Always the same technique."

Offer nothing. Delay, delay, delay.

Then blame the few remaining workers on 'disruptions to the travelling public ', when that has been the $hitshow for the travelling public for the preceding years anyway.

Good luck to the dozen or so people who still actually "work" there

A "Protected Industrial Action" - HERE - is a clever idea; and possibly a good way to bring in the changes so desperately needed. It is not just the ATCO's who need to get things sorted and back to some semblance of sanity; business and the travelling public will reap the benefits if the shambles we know as Air Traffic Control is set to rights.

Consider this; just for a convenient number; lets use $6000 per operating hour as a yardstick for measuring 'operating costs' :: $100 per minute. A six minute delay costs $600. 20 minutes in a holding pattern :: $2000. That 20 minutes can and often does knock on to other fleet aircraft or connecting flights. In short it becomes a significant cost, across a fleet which must be met. The delay also impacts scheduled maintenance: an aircraft may only operate a certain number of hours before mandatory inspection and maintenance is required. Each additional 'un-scheduled' hour it operates affects the bottom line of the balance sheet. No prizes for guessing where the additional dollars must come from; bums on seats pay for the delays. Airfares increased; investors need to see a healthy bottom line as a return on their money. QED....

One important element of a robust aviation industry is the Air Traffic service. Crucial to that service are the 'boys and girls' in the back rooms and at the coal face. These are 'dedicated', trained professionals who manage complex tasks as a matter of routine; well, mostly they do. But only when there are enough of 'em to manage the workload and the 'system' they use is 'effective' and fit for purpose.

But, that's not the case is it? Top level 'management' are doing very nicely, thank you. Afforded all manner of protections and get out jail cards; all care but zero responsibility. Any cruise through the Senate Estimates sessions will clearly demonstrate the great divide between bullshit and the cold hard facts.

It is about time the balance was restored, the system rectified. The public 'at risk' levels have increased, the financial burdens to operators have increased and, if the ATCO's were not a 'dedicated' bunch the 'system' would have ground to a halt years ago. Let's all hope the 'strike' action gets the message delivered; there's a big story there for the media if they can get off their beam ends and give this 'action' a push. It does, after all affect the travelling, tax paying public. They pay for it all at the end of the shift.

Toot - toot.


ATCOs threaten 1st strike in 22 years?? - Confused

Via YouTube:

Plus courtesy Senator McKenzie, via X:

Quote:[Image: ZGTiNVca_400x400.jpg]

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

Transport minister King must address poor senior management at AirServices Australia to prevent this Government agency being responsible for more flight cancellations and delays for Australian families
Air traffic staff threaten first strike in 22 years

[Image: b9b89c3769e45f65ec58a690fe883017]

Hmm...good luck with getting any sort of response from miniscule Dicky King, who is still MIA on matters of aviation safety, she does however seem to have plenty of time for self-serving, pointless, political point scoring with QWN and a WOFTAM Dorothy Dixer... Dodgy :

Quote:2,151 views  Feb 29, 2024
Dicky King the worst Minister oversighting Transport EVER?? comes next? Poindexter Parker - Dicky King and Betsy's anointed one (referral to the NACCAs)??  


2 days ago (edited)

3:32 "..the right vehicle for them and their circumcisers..." [Image: emoji_u1f605.png] Wrong kind of cuts.

God help the GA industry because this useless miniscule never will... Angry

MTF...P2  Tongue

PS: BRB tote is open for the worst Minister, oversighting Aviation, of all time??... Wink

TICK TOCK goes the Harfwit, Su_Spence & Betsy DOOMSDAY CLOCK?? -  Dodgy

Courtesy of the RRAT Senate Committee Inquiry into the 'Impact and mitigation of aircraft noise', there was a public hearing held in Bris Vegas on Monday that 'Belled the Cat' on the incompetence, soft corruption and misfeasance of Harfwit, Su_Spence and Betsy on matters to do with the bureaucratic (under the bubble) management of airspace, airports, aviation safety and international ICAO compliance... Rolleyes

The Bris Vegas PH had a huge turnout - reference Senator McKenzie X Tweets:

Quote:Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

Huge turn out to our senate aviation noise inquiry here in Brisbane thanks to everyone across the community who have been speaking out about this issue for years. Air Services Australia failure exposed #BFPCA

[Image: GLKeSvcbgAAEvWO?format=jpg&name=small]

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

@BFPCA_ says that while AirServices Australia boss Jason Harfield may claim that flight path design is ASA's "bread and butter" they are highly incompetent and unable to do the work ASA is required to do.

@BFPCA_ says that ASA, in all their technical expertise, has created a scenario that is not reducing noise but is creating an amphitheatre.

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

BFPCA Chairman Prof Marcus Foth says of AirservicesAustralia "The fish rots from the head" and calls for the Minister to take action against the CEO

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

@BFPCA_ says Airservices Australia is a "noodle mix" of conflicts of interest when regulating noise while also responsible for flight paths and airspace operations. #RRAT #noiseinquiry

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

@YourAFAP tells inquiry that the Minister has had time to host roundtables with airports and unions but not the community.

Albanese Labor Government ignoring the Brisbane community. #RRAT

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

@BFPCA_ has repeatedly been refused meetings with Minister Catherine King and have even travelled to Canberra without success. Where is the Minister?

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

In response to a question from inquiry on whether @BrisbaneAirport believe they are receiving a bad wrap for the incompetence of ASA, BNE CEO responded ‘Yes’ #rrat

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

Both @Qantas and @VirginAustralia have told the Inquiry they are frustrated that ASA is not allowing airlines to use technology to reduce noise and reform airspace management that has been installed on planes for twenty years. #RRAT

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

@VirginAustralia says it has raised this issue and the failings of ASA with Minister King directly. What is the Minister’s response? Radio silence.

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

Labor needs to meet with the local community and hear directly their concerns.
AirServices Australia boss should not be reappointed by Labor.
Thanks to all who came out to the inquiry.
[Image: MNaP9Dxd?format=jpg&name=small]

Linked Courier Mail article:

Quote:Ex-ombudsman floats ‘modest’ passenger levy to fund noise insulation for people under flight paths

Plane passengers would be slugged a special levy to fund noise insulation for people living under Brisbane’s controversial new flight paths, a Senate inquiry has heard.\

Brendan O'Malley

[Image: 5410a9d29c1dda1d51e36287cda5156d?width=1024]
A ‘modest’ passenger levy to fund noise insulation has been suggested as one fix for Brisbane’s new flight path problems. Picture: Brendan O'Malley

Plane passengers could be slugged a special levy to fund noise insulation for people living under Brisbane’s controversial new flight paths, a Senate inquiry has heard.

Former Aircraft Noise Ombudsman Ron Brent, now the Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board chair, told the inquiry in Brisbane on Monday, April 15, that compensation had not worked well overseas.

He instead suggested a “modest’’ passenger levy as one possible mechanism to help those worst affected by new flight paths introduced when the city’s second runway opened in 2020.

He also said community calls to divert more planes over Moreton Bay would not fix the noise problem because of a huge forecasted increase in flights in coming years.

Nor would SODPROPS, a flight mode where planes on the two runways simultaneously took off and landed.

[Image: b93b6f6feceff3e526ff2287f4ef452d?width=1024]
Brisbane Airport new runway. Aerial images taken on 23.4.20

“To suggest they are the solution or would have a major impact is unrealistic,’’ he said.

“There have been gains at the margins... but marginal gains are an important part of the overall mix.’’

“Even with a curfew there will be impacts.’’

Mr Brent also told the inquiry he faced three years of “push back’’ because ASA was focused on safety and not noise reduction, but added that safety was a very important priority for it.

He also conceded ASA had improved its focus on noise abatement towards the end of his term.

Under questioning from Senator Bridget McKenzie, he admitted federal Transport Minister Catherine King had never met with him despite personally appointing Mr Brent.

Senator McKenzie’s Coalition Senate colleague Matt Canavan also questioned why there had been no progress in diverting more flights over Moreton Bay since the second runway was built, despite claims it was the solution to Brisbane’s noise woes.

[Image: 0eba16158ad9dd22e790166d8ef20dd7?width=1024]
Aircraft noise has become a hot topic since the second runway opened in Brisbane in 2020. Picture: Liam Kidston

Senator Canavan pointed out several times that the public had been led to believe the second runway would lead to more flights over the Bay, but the percentage was still stuck at about 50 per cent.

Federal regulator Air Services Australia, which did not give evidence, copped a whipping from senators Canavan and McKenzie and an admission from BAC head Gert-Jan De Graaff that ASA was not operating flight paths as was intended at the time the new runway opened.

Senator Canavan at one point asked BAC future airspace strategy program manager, Tim Boyle, if it was true overnight flights would jump five-fold from the current 50 per night, by 2042.

Mr Boyle responded that the number “sounded about right’’ before Mr De Graaff asked to take the question on notice.

The Courier-Mail understands the senator’s figure was dramatically overstated and the forecast was 87 flights per night by 2042.

An ASA spokesman said in a statement after the inquiry that a mode called Independent Parallel Runway Operations had not yet begun.

It was a high-capacity mode in which aircraft land and depart simultaneously on both runways in a staggered manner using one runway and then the other. It was not specifically designed for noise-sharing.

“Airservices intends to begin using this runway mode in 2025, which is when Brisbane Airport have advised they will have the capacity to cater for the increased arrival rate, following upgrades to their baggage handling facilities,’’ he said.

“Achieving greater use of over water operations is a key priority of the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane and we have prioritised efforts to increase the use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS), under which planes arrive and take off over the bay.
“This includes making SODPROPS the priority runway mode 24/7 subject to weather and operating conditions.’’

Senator Matt Canavan said many of those present wanted answers after being promised there would be no extra noise impacts from the second runway.

He repeatedly asked about a curfew, including its impacts on regional airports.

He questioned why a curfew was being presented as an “all or nothing’’ option, rather than introducing more restrictions at night.

[Image: cd73d2db0636ca96f0b771aa4705d2c4?width=1024]
Virgin Australia chief executive Jayne Hrdlicka. Virgin and Qantas say they have invested heavily in quieter planes. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen/The Australian

The CEO of the Transport and Tourism Forum, Margy Osmond, said caps and curfews at Sydney Airport had had a major impact on the national network, not just Sydney.

“They are affecting our international reputation for reliability,” she said.

“The industry is amazingly focused on noise abatement. There are immediate solutions that could be made.”

That included taxiing with one engine, lowering reverse thrust on landing and reduced thrust on takeoff.”

Queensland Tourism and Industry Council general manager advocacy, Melanie Anderson, said any impact on Brisbane’s gateway status would harm the 206,000 jobs dependant on tourism.

She said there was no shortcut way to fix aircraft noise but it was vital air services were not disrupted ahead of the 2032 Games.

[Image: 2f77817ee319471a4508be7c40546f1d?width=1024]
BFPCA spokespeople Sean Foley, Marcus Foth and Tess Bignell. Picture: Brendan O'Malley

Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) spokesman, Prof Marcus Foth, said it was clear to him that ASA had allowed airlines and BAC to maximise profits at the expense of residents.

He said the airport had attracted Australia Post, DHL and Amazon as part of its push to boost freight operations, which he said “largely operated at night’’ and was designed to offset declines in passenger services since lockdown.

“We are now dealing with an airport with a city attached to it, rather than a city with an airport attached to it,’’ he said.

Senator Canavan asked him about a trial to change flight paths to allow planes to approach the airport and take off more steeply, minimising noise impacts.

[Image: 3e35d15e4c7d5327323578777036dc91?width=1024]
Senator Matt Canavan. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

But Prof Foth said that had not happened because airlines wanted to minimise taxiing and other changes that increased fuel burn and caused delays.

“We have now experienced (noise from the second runway) for four years, in some communities even longer, and we have not seen any compromise, any bone being thrown to the community whatsoever,” he said.

BFPCA committee member Sean Foley told the inquiry he had monitored flight heights of “hundreds” of plane movements using the Flight Radar 24 app and found planes in fact took a level approach for about 30km from Forest Lake to the CBD, with flaps lowered.

QUT air pollution expert Prof Lidia Morawska told the packed hearing that new studies showed ultra fine particles emitted by cars, planes and other sources affected every organ in the body, not just the lungs.

She said the particles were hard to detect and monitors currently in use could not pick them up.

However, they cost only about $20,000 and only a few were needed in key areas.

“There are no health guidelines or standards (on ultra fine particles),” she said.

[Image: 2d7e61913562fd58fc73abfa14e953e2?width=650]
Prof Lidia Morawska at the senate inquiry today. Picture: Brendan O'Malley

Prof Morawska, a co-chair on a 2021 WHO report into the particles and a Time Magazine person of the year recognised for her warnings at the beginning of Covid, said health impacts had been observed in studies at Los Angeles, Frankfurt, London and Amsterdam airports.

Qantas and Virgin pilots and technical experts wrapped up the day’s evidence.

Qantas said fleet renewal was the most effective way to reduce noise and “well meaning “ efforts to curb noise could cause reduced safety and increased fuel burn.

They said Qantas would take delivery of one new aircraft every three weeks, on average, for the next two years.

Virgin experts said aviation was essential for a large island nation but acknowledged the genuine impact of noise on some communities.

Virgin Australia actively took part in noise abatement measures including input to changes on tail wind speeds.

It had taken delivery of four new 737 jets, which were 40 per cent quieter than existing 737 models.

Haven't got the Hansard of the 'audio only' PH but here is the Submissions, Add Docs etc tabled so far:


1 Brisbane Airport Corporation (PDF 1153 KB) 
2 Tess Bignell (PDF 1931 KB) 
2.1 Supplementary to submission 2 (PDF 22113 KB) 

3 Professor John Quiggin (PDF 257 KB) 
4 Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (PDF 6330 KB) 
5 Australian Federation of Air Pilots (PDF 423 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 548 KB) 
6 Brisbane Airport Community Aviation Consultation Group (PDF 52 KB) 
7 Airservices Australia (PDF 1159 KB) 
8 Qantas Group  (PDF 517 KB) 
9 Name Withheld (PDF 5678 KB) 

Additional Documents
1 [Image: pdf.png] Appendices for Airservices Impact and Mitigation of Aircraft Noise Submission (received 12 April 2024)
2 [Image: pdf.png] Qantas, Chapter 7 Airport development planning processes and consultation mechanisms, 'Qantas Group to the Aviation Green Paper' (received 12 April 2024)
3 [Image: pdf.png] Slides – Aircraft emissions: focus on ultrafine particles, provided by Professor Linda Morawska, 9 April 2024
4 [Image: pdf.png] Slides – Brisbane Aircraft Noise Killing Us Slowly & Article - Brisbane - Aviation Noise Pollution, Public Health & Wellbeing, provided by Dr Sean Foley, 15 April 2024

Tabled Documents

1 [Image: pdf.png] Qantas Group, opening statement, tabled by Captain Alex Passerini at public hearing in Brisbane on 15 April 2024.


1[Image: pdf.png] Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board, response to written questions from Senator Waters (received 18 April 2024)

Finally here are some of the 'audio only' segments from the public hearing (the evidence given from Prof Foth Chair of the 'Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance' is well worth taking the time to listen to, the guy is well briefed and all over the subject matter and doesn't hold back when condemning Harfwit & CO... Wink ):



Qantas & Virgin:

MTF...P2  Tongue

Addendum: Hansard out - Rolleyes


Quote:Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

Huge turn out to our senate aviation noise inquiry here in Brisbane thanks to everyone across the community who have been speaking out about this issue for years. Air Services Australia failure exposed #BFPCA

[Image: GLKeSvcbgAAEvWO?format=jpg&name=small]

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

@BFPCA_ says that while AirServices Australia boss Jason Harfield may claim that flight path design is ASA's "bread and butter" they are highly incompetent and unable to do the work ASA is required to do.

@BFPCA_ says that ASA, in all their technical expertise, has created a scenario that is not reducing noise but is creating an amphitheatre.

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

BFPCA Chairman Prof Marcus Foth says of AirservicesAustralia "The fish rots from the head" and calls for the Minister to take action against the CEO

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

@BFPCA_ says Airservices Australia is a "noodle mix" of conflicts of interest when regulating noise while also responsible for flight paths and airspace operations. #RRAT #noiseinquiry

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

@YourAFAP tells inquiry that the Minister has had time to host roundtables with airports and unions but not the community.

Albanese Labor Government ignoring the Brisbane community. #RRAT

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

@BFPCA_ has repeatedly been refused meetings with Minister Catherine King and have even travelled to Canberra without success. Where is the Minister?

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

In response to a question from inquiry on whether @BrisbaneAirport believe they are receiving a bad wrap for the incompetence of ASA, BNE CEO responded ‘Yes’ #rrat

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

Both @Qantas and @VirginAustralia have told the Inquiry they are frustrated that ASA is not allowing airlines to use technology to reduce noise and reform airspace management that has been installed on planes for twenty years. #RRAT

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

@VirginAustralia says it has raised this issue and the failings of ASA with Minister King directly. What is the Minister’s response? Radio silence.

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie

Labor needs to meet with the local community and hear directly their concerns.
AirServices Australia boss should not be reappointed by Labor.
Thanks to all who came out to the inquiry.
[Image: MNaP9Dxd?format=jpg&name=small]

Finally here are some of the 'audio only' segments from the public hearing (the evidence given from Prof Foth Chair of the 'Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance' is well worth taking the time to listen to, the guy is well briefed and all over the subject matter and doesn't hold back when condemning Harfwit & CO... Wink ):



Qantas & Virgin:

Hansard: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 15/04/2024 - Impact and mitigation of aircraft noise or PDF version

Quote:Prof Froth: BFPCA's hope is that this inquiry will shine a light on the state capture of Australia's regulatory framework by the aviation industry, including unethical practices and misconduct by Airservices Australia. Airservices have repeatedly breached public trust. They have abused their powers to remove overwater operations without consultation or reapproval and they have failed to meet ministerial conditions imposed upon them under the EPBC Act. In the definition of Australia's National Anti-Corruption Commission, this constitutes corrupt conduct..

CHAIR: Thank you. I might ask a threshold question and then throw to Senator McKenzie. You've made some very strong allegations in your submission—and you repeated them then—about the conflicts, and I think you've used the word 'corrupt'. Can I clarify, though? Is the evidence that members of Airservices Australia are receiving a personal benefit associated with the regulation of airport and aircraft noise, or is it just that they receive extra funding to fund their organisation et cetera in a way that's conflicted and potentially colours their advice?

Prof. Foth : We speak here as representatives of the community. We are not lawyers who can ascertain whether the allegations of corrupt conduct are correct. That's why we have a National Anti-Corruption Commission. We read the information on the Anti-Corruption Commission's website. Our layman's reading is that they meet the definition of corrupt conduct.

CHAIR: I'm not asking a legal question, though. I, too, don't exactly know. I'm not a lawyer myself. I'm asking: is the allegation that they are receiving a personal benefit—they getting extra money or kickbacks or some such—or is it just that the advice they're giving is coloured by the industry funding they receive?

Prof. Foth : We definitely have sufficient evidence to ascertain that Airservices have a conflict of interest because they've been corporatised. They operate as a company in service of the aviation industry. That's actually something that they have publicly admitted in previous Senate estimates hearings. We believe there is an unmanaged conflict of interest with section 9 of the Air Services Act 1995 that stipulates that their main priority should be safety in the air and protection of communities on the ground. They are prioritising profits.

Senator McKENZIE: Thank you, everyone, for attending. It's great to see you again. My question essentially goes to Airservices Australia. You mentioned in your submission and in your opening remarks that the ombudsman in 2021 reported that Airservices Australia did not accurately model new flight paths for Brisbane Airport, or their noise impacts, before a parallel runway opened in July 2020. That's the ombudsman's reported finding. Your commentary around Airservices Australia, I think, continues along a well-worn path that we've all been on for a long time. It's a bit like cutting corners on your own homework, isn't it, if they're in charge of both doing the consultation and other aspects of that? Could you unpack that for the committee, because, as I understand it, the reappointment of the CEO, Jason Harfield, is in front of Minister King right now. I would really like your community's response to that now. I know she has refused to meet, but this is your opportunity.

Prof. Foth : Thank you for the opportunity to address this question. I would first refer the committee to our submission and, specifically, the chronology. Airservices submitted a referral under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for the airspace in Brisbane in 2007. Malcolm Turnbull, being environment minister at the time, attached ministerial conditions to that approval, and one of the conditions stipulated that Airservices was required to verify what was, at the time, draft forecast noise modelling in 2007 closer to the launch of the runway.

What we found through freedom of information requests and documents that are available to the committee via our submission is that Airservices did, as you say, cut corners and mark their own homework. Not only did they mark their own homework, but they asked their partner, Brisbane Airport Corporation, to do the assessment for them. So the scrutiny was outsourced to the project proponent. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, in his report in 2021, specifically mentions a noise comparison report that was fabricated by the airport. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, whilst it's beyond the charter of conducting a full investigation into administrative processes, did include a mention that suggests that this noise comparison report that the airport produced was very biased. It was obviously painting a picture of the project in their favour. Airservices then took that report, put it on their letterhead and sent it to the environment minister. Everything was approved without further consultation or scrutiny.

Senator WATERS: Mrs Bignell, I have some questions for you. I thought your observations about your involvement in the group that you've been appointed to represent the community on were really very disappointing, and I share your frustration. Can you give us a potted version of your experience of the so-called community consultation that you've been engaged in and the outcomes it's produced?

Mrs Bignell : As a brief note for an opening address, Minister King continues to neglect her responsibility as an elected politician by the people on this matter. Minister King has demonstrated that the AAB is the only mechanism that the Brisbane community have to bring their concerns forward. AAB's role, as per their terms of reference, is to implement the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane. Community representatives feel that we are there just to mark better engagement and to mark Airservices and BAC's homework.

The chair's role of independence is questionable to community reps. I was expecting more support from the AAB to bring about positive action for the community. I was not expecting to be requested to suppress information from my community. I was not expecting to feel like there was a bias—mainly the interactions with the chair and industry in favour of industry. My submissions include various examples.

AAB has resulted in zero outcomes for the community thus far. It has met basically four times in person and once online. To give you an example, we would have expected that the chair would investigate further the authenticity of the business case of Qantas and Jetstar to retrofit the A320 fuel vents, but we were given a letter from the chair that demonstrated this case. This case needed to be tested, and it wasn't. We also would have thought the chair would request the full-length runway departure trial to be done properly with a new SID and air service, because Airservices' modelling has proven over the last nearly four years to be incorrect.

The biggest impact on most communities is aviation noise. Noise impacts, such as the health issues, are a banned subject at AAB. BACACG is not the forum to be addressing such serious issues. Airservices' Noise Action Plan for Brisbane has no noise metric for the reduction in noise. Does their action plan mean one decibel less or 10 decibels less? Does it mean we can sleep at night?

So what is the end goal here? The airport is there for its efficiencies, and that equates to profits, which are ranked over our community. Industry has no consequences for not doing the right thing by community or incentives for doing the right thing by community. This is why the Senate inquiry committee must look at the London city noise action plan. This is a great example of the use of parliamentary regulatory framework in order to safeguard and protect the community for Brisbane as a whole and Australia. We need to strike a balance. We are thousands of families around Brisbane and Australia suffering at the hands of an unregulated industry. We are not their collateral damage. We are Australians, and we matter

Senator COLBECK: I just want to go back to the discussion around the restrictions at Sydney airport. You make your points in relation to the profitability of the airport and the issues of that matter, but I do have a concern that it's being presented as if there are no issues as a result of the restrictions at Sydney airport, and there are some issues that come from that. The pilots have put to us, for example, that they have some concerns that it raises some safety issues with requirements for them to operate outside international safety parameters. I just want to ask you how you see that being balanced. It goes back to the question that the chair asked at the outset of your evidence today. It is a really important matter, and I acknowledge that you have recognised it there in what you've said, but how do we effectively get a system that appropriately balances those matters? That also is important. You've acknowledged that there's a requirement for the airport to be there. The issue that you're looking to see is a fair balance in the operation of that and the consideration of your issue, as I see what you've said today. So how do we deal with those things, which are actually critical in the proper operation of the system?

Prof. Foth : Regarding the submission from the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, I've read it twice since it was uploaded. I believe that they do offer a fair critique, but the critique is aimed at the kinds of mechanisms and instruments that the airport is now clutching onto. For instance, one major part of the submission deals with the tailwind reductions. That is seen as only a minor change, if it were to come into effect, in terms of producing a noticeable impact on Brisbane communities, and we can see why they are arguing that there are safety implications around increasing the tailwind limitation back to 10 knots.

The submission is entirely comment free when it comes to flight caps and curfews. There's nothing of concern in not using the city ends of the runways, for instance, and only using overwater operations to avoid residential areas, as is done in Sydney. Sydney has pretty much operated incident free as a result of those measures that were introduced. But I think what we also need to acknowledge is the bigger picture of the state being captured here by the industry, as you outlined in the beginning. We're not just dealing with a regulatory framework that is not fit for purpose; we're actually dealing with a situation where there's a revolving door of board appointments—of public servants that go from the one side of the spectrum to the other. We're looking at board appointments at Airservices Australia and we see that the same person is also a director of the Western Sydney Airport and has come from an airline, and goes back to that airline.

So this entangled spaghetti mess of nepotism and corruption is something that we want to take further. The Senate inquiry is, obviously, a major achievement for this community, but we won't stop here. We will continue to put the blowtorch on the airport until all our demands are met, and those that have done wrong have been put to justice.

Senator COLBECK: I have no further questions, Chair.

CHAIR: I get a bit lost with some of the jargon here, but your contention is that this trial actually didn't change the flight path that was used for take-off and landing. Is that correct?

Prof. Foth : Correct.

CHAIR: Is my conclusion correct?

Prof. Foth : Yes, Senator, that is correct. In a nutshell, what happened was that in the lead-up to the 2022 federal election, the coalition government set up BAPAF, which was another entity, I suppose, similar to AAB. It had different membership on it.

CHAIR: Right.

Prof. Foth : That committee recommended that trials were supposed to be done in order to give the community much more immediate relief. Those members were not aviation experts. However, in the last round of Senate estimates, we heard from Peter Curran, who blamed the members for not giving Airservices proper instructions to increase the height markers in order to conduct a proper trial.

CHAIR: Right.

Prof. Foth : So they have disingenuously interpreted the task they were given by this committee. They have, in fact, prohibited intersection departures, but that is completely useless without increasing height markers because, as you would know, pilots would enter into the flight management system the length of the runway, the weight of the aircraft and where they have to head to. If they point into the sky in the same spot, they will always aim at that same spot and reach that same spot whether they use the full length of the runway or half of the runway. That is the actual reason why Airservices' trial produced no noise reduction whatsoever. We heard from Ron Brent, the chair of AAB, that this had the same result in Perth. We believe that is the reason why the trials in both Perth and Brisbane need to be redone with proper independent experts that are actually increasing these height markers. You don't have to be an expert to realise that if I fly at an altitude over people before and then I fly at the same altitude afterwards, there's no difference.

CHAIR: There's no difference. Yes, I'm just trying to make sure I'm fully across it. The contention is—or, I suppose, the theory of the trial is—that if you put the height marker higher and the plane reaches altitude quicker, that will reduce noise for some communities at least. But, presumably, the corresponding cost—does it cost more? Does it use more fuel to get the plane to that height? What's the resistance to doing that?

Prof. Foth : First of all: yes, it does reduce noise, and it does reduce noise anywhere in the world—except in Australia. We don't believe that the laws of physics are any different in this country from what they are elsewhere in the world. The reason for the resistance is, really, profit. Profit is the No. 1 criterion that the aviation industry operates by, and so the real point there is the taxi time. It takes longer for a plane to taxi all the way to the very beginning of the runway and to turn around, so it does create efficiencies. But this is just one of the examples where profits, commercial considerations and efficiencies are trumping the protection of communities on the ground.

CHAIR: So it's not so much the use of fuel that's the extra cost; it's the time taken. Is that the contention of the airlines, or is it both?

Prof. Foth : It is probably a bit of both. But, again, we have now experienced four years—and some communities even longer; since Kevin Rudd marched in Oxford Street in Bulimba in the lead-up to him entering parliament—and we have not seen any compromise, any sacrifice or any kind of bone being thrown to the community by the airport or Airservices whatsoever.

MTF...P2 Tongue

Surely it must be obvious by now that the real problem is having some arms of government outside of direct Ministerial and Departmental control.

The creation of such bodies as ASA and CASA with the notion of them being ‘Government Business Enterprises (GBE)’ is laughable at one extreme and disastrous in practice. The term GBE has gone out of fashion but the concept is well embedded.

The very idea of a government monopoly ‘service’ provider being akin to a business, let alone an enterprising one, is totally fanciful and a blatant expression of the Can’tberra arrogance.

Monopolies elsewhere are highly undesirable, if not unlawful, but here we have a wrong system with government protection.

TIBA in Oz: An international embarrassment??

Via the UP:

Quote:IFALPA Safety Bulletin

Operations in Australian Traffic Information Broadcasts by Aircraft (TIBA) Airspace
Operations in Class A, C, D or E Airspace without ATC Services

Safety Bulletin

This Safety Bulletin is to alert Member Associations to the possibility of TIBA activation in any class of the Australian airspace at a short notice, and to provide guidance on what to expect from operations in such airspace.

There are no ATC communication or surveillance services available in TIBA airspace, which means that flight crews will be required to maintain their own safety in such airspace.

Quote:To provide greater context, for aircraft proceeding into TIBA airspace the air traffic controller controlling the aircraft prior to TIBA airspace will clear the Cleared Flight Level (CFL) from the aircraft's label. ASA ATC TAAATS Eurocat safety net alerts such Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA) and Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (MSAW) require the current CFL (Cleared Flight Level) and Display State for processing and correct display.

ASA TIBA Fact Sheet

AIP Australia references - 21 MAR 2024.
11.1 Traffic Information Broadcast by Aircraft (TIBA)
11.1.1 TIBA procedures
TIBA procedures are intended to permit reports and relevant supplementary information of an advisory nature to be transmitted by pilots for the information of pilots of other aircraft in the vicinity.

11.1.2 Frequency Aircraft must maintain a listening watch on the appropriate TIBA frequency. Where VHF is used for air-ground communications with ATS and an aircraft has two serviceable VHF sets, one must be tuned to the appropriate ATS frequency and the other to the TIBA frequency. The appropriate TIBA frequencies are:
Flight Profile At or above FL200 TIBA Frequency 128.95 MHz
Flight Profile Below FL200
– In continental Class G airspace Relevant Area VHF
– Otherwise 126.35 MHz

11.2 Listening Watch
11.2.1 A listening watch must be maintained on the TIBA frequency 10 minutes before entering the designated airspace until leaving this airspace. For an aircraft taking off from an aerodrome located within 10 minutes flying time of that airspace, listening watch must start as soon as practicable after takeoff.

11.3 Time of Broadcasts
11.3.1 Broadcasts must be made:
a. 10 minutes before entering the designated airspace or, for an aircraft taking off from an aerodrome located with 10 minutes flying time of the airspace, as soon as practicable after takeoff;
b. 10 minutes prior to crossing a reporting point;
c. 10 minutes prior to crossing or joining an ATS contingency route;
d. at 20-minute intervals between distant reporting points;
e. 2 to 5 minutes, where possible, before a change in flight level;
f. at the time of a change in flight level; and
g. at any other time considered necessary by the pilot.

11.4 Acknowledgment of Broadcasts
11.4.1 Broadcasts should not be acknowledged unless a potential collision risk exists.

11.5 Changes of Cruising Level
11.5.1 Cruising level changes should not be made within the designated airspace, unless considered necessary by pilots to avoid traffic conflicts, for weather avoidance or for other valid operational reasons.
11.5.2 When changes to cruising level are unavoidable, all available aircraft lighting which would improve the visual detection of the aircraft must be displayed while changing levels.
11.5.3 When a change of level is anticipated or initiated, a change of level report must be made. When the new level is reached, a report advising that the aircraft is maintaining the new level must be made.

11.6 Collision Avoidance
11.6.1 If, on receipt of a traffic information broadcast from another aircraft, a pilot decides that immediate action is necessary to avoid an imminent collision risk to the aircraft, and this cannot be achieved in accordance with the right of way provisions or TCAS resolution, the pilot should:
a. unless an alternative manoeuvre appears more appropriate immediately descend 1,000FT if above FL410, or 500FT if at or below FL410;
b. display all available aircraft lighting which would improve the visual detection of the aircraft;
c. as soon as possible, reply to the broadcast advising action being taken;
d. notify the action taken on the appropriate TIBA frequency; and
e. as soon as practicable, resume normal flight level, notifying the action on the appropriate TIBA frequency.

11.7 Position Reporting
11.7.1 Normal position reporting procedures should be continued at all times, regardless of any action taken to initiate or acknowledge a traffic information broadcast.
11.7.2 A position report must be made on the next CTA/Area VHF 15 minutes prior to leaving airspace in which TIBA procedures apply to obtain a clearance or re-establish SARWATCH on the appropriate ATS frequency.

12.1 When ATS is temporarily not available, mandatory broadcast procedures may be specified in addition to TIBA broadcasts.
12.2 When arriving or departing from an aerodrome where mandatory broadcast procedures apply, pilots must monitor the appropriate mandatory broadcast frequency. Broadcasts must be made as follows:
Phrases not included due to formatting errors.
1. Broadcasts
When a pilot broadcasts intentions.
2. Taxi
3. About to Commence Takeoff
4. Departing
5. Inbound
6. Joining the Circuit
12.3 Pilot discretion should be used in making other than the prescribed calls to assist other traffic; e.g. executing a missed approach, or position in the circuit area, or leaving levels designated on TMA routes.

From Senate Estimates

Quote:Mr Harfield (ASA CEO): When we have a service variation in en-route airspace—it is not necessarily the tower—where
we don't have the qualified air traffic controller to provide the service, we set up what is called a temporary
restricted area. We have a person to sit there, an operational person, who monitors the airspace and decides
whether somebody can enter the airspace or not, and manage. At the same time they provide a flight information
service, which is no different. We add an additional protocol, which is the traffic information broadcast by
aircraft. That means that the aircraft need to broadcast their position, no different to when they are flying into
class G or some regional ports. It means there is an extra layer of safety because instead of the air traffic
controller, the person, being the only person who knows what's going on, it's making sure that everyone—

Plus via Mount NCN:  Things that make you go Hmmm! - Australian Non-compliance with Annex 11 TIBA??

And via OPSGROUP: 

Quote:TIBA in Australia: What’s Going On?

By Chris Shieff

Key Points
  • TIBA still seems to be an issue in Australia – shortage of ATC resulting in big bits of restricted Class G airspace, often at short notice.
  • We wrote about this last year, including guidance on what to do (see updated post below), but now IFALPA have published a Safety Bulletin saying the problem is still ongoing.
  • Amid accusations of understaffing, Australian ATC has announced they intend to strike. This process will take a few weeks to action, and so we’ll likely see disruptions from May. This may include full 24hr work stoppages and will be notified in advance via the YMMM/Melbourne and YBBB/Brisbane FIR Notams.

Since early in 2023, we’ve seen large sections of restricted TIBA airspace (traffic information broadcasts by aircraft) established by Notam up Australia’s East Coast in both the YMMM/Melbourne and YBBB/Brisbane FIRs.

In fact, there were 340 instances of uncontrolled airspace between June 2022 and April 2023 alone. And it’s still happening.

The cause here appears to be a fundamental shortage of air traffic controllers.

[Image: AUSTRALIA-12X8-1024x683.jpg]

Where has this been happening?

In the South, look out for TIBA airspace east of YSCB/Canberra airport, Australia’s capital city found inland from Sydney.

Further north there has been a greater effect as large portions of coastal airspace near YBCG/Gold Coast and YBTL/Townsville airports have been impacted. This is an extremely busy air corridor – 80% of Australia’s population live on the East Coast.

At the top end of Australia, YPDN/Darwin airport has also been affected which can result in re-routes for international traffic headed up into South-East Asia and beyond.

Here’s what those hotspots look like on a map:

[Image: hot-spots-1024x645.png]

It’s not all the time.

TIBA airspace is being activated by Notam, typically for hours at a time. A look at today’s batch indicated all is ops-normal. However, a local airline captain has advised OPSGROUP that it is currently a frequent occurrence.

Broadcast, or avoid?

The vast majority of airline traffic appear to be avoiding the TIBA airspace. This typically involves less direct routes at the expense of delays and fuel. Helpfully, for major city pairings the NOTAMs contain suggested routes that will keep you clear. But expect SIDs or STARs you may be less familiar with.

In fact, major carriers have policies in place that prevent them from using TIBA airspace anyway – unless they happen to be in it when it is activated.

That’s not to say there won’t be other traffic taking advantage of the more advantageous routes though. The East Coast is characterised by a huge variety of traffic including charter, skydiving, medevac and survey all of which may have valid reasons for using TIBA.

It can still be used safely, but with the procedures below (a heads up: dual comms are a requirement).

How on earth do I ‘do TIBA’?

First things first. Whatever you do, don’t enter without permission. Australia’s TIBA airspace is typically restricted – in the sense you will need PPR to use it. The relevant Notams are quite helpful, and provide all the information on how to get it. Here’s an example.

Your approval will typically involve a phone call beforehand, and a chat to a flight information service in adjacent airspace for traffic information.

Once you’re in, you are totally responsible for terrain and collision avoidance. Turn that radio up and make sure you’re both alert and monitoring both the TIBA frequency and the relevant ATS one – now is not the time for controlled rest. Whoever is on the radios is going to be busy.

The Australian AIP then takes over. You can find the procedures in full here (time saver: flick to ENR 1.1-91). We’ve also put together a summary of those in this handy little briefing card which may be useful to keep in your flight bag:

[Image: TIBA.jpg]

Other questions?

You can also get in touch with CASA via this link, or alternatively Airservices Australia here with questions. Both have been very helpful in answering our pesky conundrums in the past.

PDF version:

MTF...P2  Tongue

Meanwhile in the other hemisphere?? Rolleyes

Via Aviation Week:

Quote:Controller Fatigue Report Findings Prompt Immediate Change

Sean Broderick April 19, 2024

[Image: dfw_sunset_photo_source_dfw_airport.jpg?itok=kdoRoe6o]

A new FAA policy mandates longer minimum off-duty periods between air traffic controller shifts as soon as possible, addressing one of the near-term opportunities flagged in a new report on controller fatigue, Administrator Mike Whitaker announced April 19.

The change, unveiled via an agency memo to top safety and Air Traffic Organization (ATO) officials, modifies FAA Order 7210.3DD to require “at least” 10 hours between shifts, and 12 hours preceding a “midshift,” or work period “where the majority of hours fall between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.,” Whitaker wrote. Current standards allow as few as eight hours between shifts, depending on factors such as the type of work being performed—a variable the new policy eliminates.

The change must be put in place within 90 days, which gives facilities time to work it into controller schedules that are set at least a month in advance.

The memo also orders ATO to track “schedule exceedances ... and implement mechanisms to monitor and eliminate” them.

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), which represents air traffic controllers, said it learned about the changes shortly before the memo’s issuance. NATCA said that while it is “encouraged” that the FAA recognizes the “seriousness” of controller fatigue, it is “disappointed that the FAA did not collaborate with NATCA in advance of its decision and announcement.”

Whitaker’s memo was issued as the FAA released an expert-panel report on controller fatigue that flagged between-shift rest as one of many areas the agency should examine more closely. The FAA commissioned the report in December 2023.

Led by former NASA fatigue countermeasures program leader and NTSB board member Mark Rosekind, the three-person panel was asked to examine controller schedules, work patterns, and related information and develop near-term strategies to mitigate fatigue.

The report lists 58 “opportunities” for improvement and a “strong” recommendation to have a formal working group study next steps.
The panel flagged four of the 58 opportunities for “immediate action,” including the off-duty time expansion.

Another near-term focus should be working with NATCA to eliminate the compressed 2-2-1 “rattler” schedule that puts five shifts into less than four full days, ending with a midnight shift that starts the same day as the previous shift ends.

The FAA does not track controller scheduling trends. The panel’s work included analyzing work and off-day schedules for January 2024 based on FAA-provided data. It found that 69% of overnight shifts, or 487 shifts in an average 24-hour period, were part of a rattler schedule.

The other two recommended near-term actions are to develop a long-needed controller staffing model that matches demand and to analyze how the panel’s recommendations will affect staffing levels and scheduling.

NATCA in its statement noted the off-duty rest mandate’s effect on staffing has not been modeled “to determine what unintended consequences they may have to the already strained air traffic control staffing coverage.”

Rosekind and Whitaker both emphasized that the study did not look at staffing, adding that the FAA has other efforts in place to accelerate controller hiring.

“We met the 1,500 [new hires] goal last year,” Whitaker said during a media briefing. “We’re going to exceed the 1,800 goal this year, and we’re going to continue to try to exceed those expectations going forward.”

The report has little to say on mandatory overtime controllers must work due to a lack of qualified controllers in many key facilities. “I think the overtime issue is one that we’ll correct by continuing to increase our hiring and getting more certified controllers,” Whitaker said.

“The FAA knows about staffing issues that need to be addressed,” Rosekind added. “Fatigue issues—even if you had all the people you need, humans working at night are still biologically challenged by that.”

Along with Rosekind, the other two panel members were Erin Flynn-Evans, head of the NASA Ames Research Center Fatigue Countermeasures Laboratory, and Charles Czeisler, chief and senior physician, Division of Sleep and Circadian Disorders at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

MTF...P2 Tongue

A new hat - for the minister:-

"It may surprise some people to learn that the term hat trick actually originated in British cricket. A bowler who retired three batsmen with three consecutive balls in cricket was entitled to a new hat at the expense of the club to commemorate this feat."

Bowled - Halfwit - a long, expensive, lack lustre innings finally over; much to the relief  of those in the pavilion who like to see the batsman actually put some runs on the board.

At the other end of the wicket - the hapless Spence must now face the bowling, with the the inutile puffed up Popinjay in support as 'Last Man Jack', - less help and little hope of keeping Betsy's first XI innings alive. McKenzie bowling from the pavilion end, Fawcett behind the stumps, with Canavan at first Slip. 

"The last batter in the order (at position 11) is sometimes referred to as Last Man Jack, a term that has passed into everyday parlance. This is because if the batting order were arranged as a pack of cards numbers 9 and 10 would be followed by Jack."

Ayup, a bit of good news to go with a last Ale; bit of a party here at the BRB - just a 'small' celebration.

A new hat - for the minister:- Part II  Rolleyes

Courtesy Senator McKenzie, via X... Wink

Quote:Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie


[Image: GMiz0ZebAAAi2D7.jpg]

[Image: 240532813_4407943592574701_3684352315361...e=6639EE66]

We also have the Commie Greens trying to take credit for the Harfwit's demise... Dodgy   

Via Oz Flying: Jason Harfield to leave Airservices

Quote:According to Greens Spokesperson for Transport, Infrastructure and Sustainable Cities, Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP, Harfield was not reappointed because of pressure over noise complaints, particularly from Brisbane.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP, Greens spokesperson for Transport, Infrastructure and Sustainable Cities:

“Today’s announcement that Airservices Australia CEO Jason Harfield’s contract won’t be renewed by the Minister is clear result of pressure from the Brisbane community and the Greens who have highlighted ASA’s repeated failures, particularly in dealing with aircraft noise issues," Watson-Brown said.

“Minister King’s decision, overturning the board of ASA who recommended Mr Harfield’s reappointment, is clear recognition of ASA’s failures and the need for change. But this isn’t a PR crisis, it’s a real one affecting residents all across this country.

“More than just a CEO replacement is required for real change at ASA. While ASA continues to rely on fees from airlines for their funding, they can never be a truly independent body that makes decisions based on the safety and health of the community."

However I'm not buying it and I believe Senator McKenzie is the true hero of the hour, remember this??


7,036 views  Feb 13, 2024

Senator McKENZIE: Wow! Next time we will have to have the board here because you are taking the rope and running as hard and fast as you can with your million-dollar salary while you are presiding over an absolute shit show—let's be frank. And your board is reappointing you, despite the fact that, on every metric of what would be a successful chief executive officer's behaviour, you are failing. So that has gone up to Minister King?
Ref:  The Harfwit Shit Show rolls on in non-compliance with international aviation safety standards??
TGIF on the AP Forum: 16/02/24

Oh well enough of bragging rights and back to the 'shit show' that will IMO continue until you clean the whole Board and most of the current executive team and resolve to fix our non-compliance with ICAO.


(05-02-2024, 09:15 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Chalk & Cheese: Annex 11 notified differences - USA v Oz

...Here is the Oz ND list (a fairly reasonable 4 pages):

However I now want to focus on TIBA, which falls under Chapter 4 para 4.2.2:

Quote:4.2.2 Flight information service provided to flights shall include, in addition to that outlined in 4.2.1, the provision of information concerning:

a) weather conditions reported or forecast at departure, destination and alternate aerodromes;

b) collision hazards, to aircraft operating in airspace Classes C, D, E, F and G;

  c) for flight over water areas, in so far as practicable and when requested by a pilot, any available information such
      as radio call sign, position, true track, speed, etc., of surface vessels in the area.

Note 1.— The information in b), including only known aircraft the presence of which might constitute a collision hazard to the aircraft informed, will sometimes be incomplete and air traffic services cannot assume responsibility for its issuance at all times or for its accuracy.

Note 2.— When there is a need to supplement collision hazard information provided in compliance with b), or in case of temporary disruption of flight information service, traffic information broadcasts by aircraft may be applied in designated airspaces. Guidance on traffic information broadcasts by aircraft and related operating procedures is contained in Attachment B.

Here is the Oz ND for that paragraph:

Quote:Partially implemented. In Class E and Class G
airspace, a VFR aircraft is provided specific
information concerning collision hazards
(traffic information) only if: a. the aircraft is
within surveillance system coverage and b. the
pilot is receiving a surveillance information
service (the aircraft is identified)

This is the ICAO Annex 11 Attachment B - 1. Introduction and applicability
of broadcasts:

Quote:1.1 Traffic information broadcasts by aircraft are intended
to permit reports and relevant supplementary information of an
advisory nature to be transmitted by pilots on a designated
VHF radiotelephone (RTF) frequency for the information of
pilots of other aircraft in the vicinity.

1.2 TIBAs should be introduced only when necessary and
as a temporary measure.

1.3 The broadcast procedures should be applied in
designated airspace where:

a) there is a need to supplement collision hazard information provided by air traffic services outside controlled
airspace; or
b) there is a temporary disruption of normal air traffic

1.4 Such airspaces should be identified by the States
responsible for provision of air traffic services within these
airspaces, if necessary with the assistance of the appropriate
ICAO Regional Office(s), and duly promulgated in aeronautical information publications or NOTAM, together with
the VHF RTF frequency, the message formats and the
procedures to be used. Where, in the case of 1.3 a), more than
one State is involved, the airspace should be designated on the
basis of regional air navigation agreements and promulgated
in Doc 7030.

1.5 When establishing a designated airspace, dates for the
review of its applicability at intervals not exceeding 12 months
should be agreed by the appropriate ATS authority(ies).

This is the Skybrary reference for TIBA: Traffic Information Broadcasts by Aircraft (TIBA)

Quote:Designation of TIBA Areas

ICAO envisages that TIBA procedures should only apply in designated airspace where either it is necessary "to supplement collision hazard information provided by air traffic services outside controlled airspace" or "there is a temporary disruption of normal air traffic services". In the former case, if more than one Member State is involved in a designation, it is expected that it will be promulgated in ICAO Doc 7030. Airspace and frequency designation for TIBA is considered to be the responsibility of the Member State and should be promulgated by means of a NOTAM which details the message formats and procedures to be used. ICAO also expects that TIBA designations will be reviewed at intervals "not exceeding 12 months". It is accepted that if a TIBA procedure is being introduced because of a temporary disruption to the provision of ATS in controlled airspace, then one or more frequencies normally used for that purpose in the designated airspace may be used for TIBA. I guess legally Betsy, Su_Spence and Harfwit could argue that they are operating TIBA airspace within compliance of the ICAO SARPs. However whether they are operating TIBA within the original spirit and intent of the SARPs IMO should be severely scrutinised by ICAO and the FAA IASA, given the heightened potential for a safety incident occurring in such compromised self-separating airspace (or I quess, we could notify a further difference to Annex 11 Attachment B )??

On TIBA I note that Senator McKenzie has some outstanding QON (yet to be answered) on the subject:

Quote:Bridget McKenzie

[*]Asked Of Airservices Australia
[*]Proof Hansard Page/Written Written
[*]Portfolio Question Number SQ24-000236
1. How many TIBA events occurred in the past five years?
2. Can you please provide the date, times (hours and duration) and locations of all TIBA events that occurred over the past five years?
3. Please provide the details of the number of services disrupted by each event.
4. Please provide the cumulative total of the hours of TIBA events for each calendar year for the last five years.
TICK TOCK goes the Dicky King, Betsy and Su_Spence CLOCK, TICK TOCK INDEED!  Rolleyes

MTF...P2  Tongue

Addendum to last:

Courtesy Noodle on X, in reply to Senator McKenzie (above):


[Image: 24SAB03-AusALPA-Bulletin-on-ARFFS-1.jpg]
[Image: 24SAB03-AusALPA-Bulletin-on-ARFFS-2.jpg]
[Image: 24SAB03-AusALPA-Bulletin-on-ARFFS-3.jpg]

Plus missy again.. Rolleyes


Another couple of articles.

Government offloads Airservices boss

Board praises current CEO
ASA declined to comment on the circumstances of Mr Harfield’s departure but said he was finishing his role in line with his contract.

“The Board and I are grateful for Jason’s leadership, deep knowledge of, and passion for the organisation and the role Airservices plays in the industry,” ASA chairman John Webber said in a statement provided to Government News.

Jason Harfield to leave Airservices

He was appointed Acting CEO after the departure of Margaret Staib, and was promoted to the role full-time in 2016.

Harfield's appointment was immediately controversial as he embarked on the Accelerate program, which was designed to cut costs at Airservices. The program returned $177 million to the government, but cost 900 jobs.


Quote:Originally Posted by chopper.blade [url=][/url]

Time to get rid of the whole board and a few of his mates at the top who have been making AsA the worst place to work for years due to the ignorant, stubborn, micro-management of a place that once had a great culture. The culture has been toxic for years. Don't blame the air traffic controllers for the poor service we get as pilots, blame the CEO and the former ATC mates he surrounded himself with at the top. It won't get better until they are all gone.

A CEO who budgeted over $100mil in 2016 to get rid of staff with his Harvard Business School Chaotic restructure that hasn't stopped. Break it first and see what needs fixing. What a moronic idea. Try that in an aircraft. His next big idea was to get rid of some more staff with the Retirement Incentive Scheme (RIS) and spending 10s of millions more to do it out of government funding that was meant to keep staff. He admitted he new he'd loose 10 percent more but had no plan to replace them. Now when the aviation economy wants to soar, there's a staff shortage that will be years away from ending. Now I'm told the company is bleeding millions on overtime just to keep airspace open. I've been told of ATCs with over 500 hours of overtime. How is that safe for us and the travelling public?

There should also be an enquiry into the CMATS system; How it was sourced and purchased. Who did AsA contract/employ to source the new system. I'm happy to stand corrected, but wasn't it a subsidiary company of Thales? The company that was awarded the contract. Where there's smoke there's fire I say.
For the next company he takes on as CEO, good luck to you.

Enquiry into CMATS? Perhaps one for the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

MTF...P2  Tongue

ATCO's to strike??

Via the Oz:

Quote:Air traffic controllers vote yes to strikes over pay and conditions

[Image: 9fb74000f1c3da48f0885eb1667cb8b1]

Air traffic controllers have voted overwhelmingly in favour of industrial action for the first time in more than 20-years, paving the way for significant disruption of air travel.

A total of 825 out of 862 eligible voters had a say in the protection industrial action ballot, with 96 per cent voting yes.

It’s yet to be confirmed what form the industrial action will take, but the air traffic controllers’ union, Civil Air, must give Airservices Australia seven working days’ notice of any strikes.

Civil Air secretary Peter McGuane said members were unhappy with a new enterprise agreement offer which failed to address their concerns around staffing, culture and superannuation benefits.

He said they were remained hopeful industrial action would not be necessary, with a further meeting with Airservices scheduled for Friday.

“We’re certainly hopeful, and that’s how we’re approaching the meeting tomorrow,” said Mr McGuane.

Air traffic controllers voted on 28 different alternatives for industrial action, including two, four, eight, 12 and 24 hour stoppages, non-performance of overtime and a training ban.

All options were supported.

Any withdrawal of services by air traffic controllers would have a significant impact on airport operations, and cause widespread flight delays and cancellations.

An Airservices Australia spokesman said air traffic controllers had been offered an 11.2 per cent pay rise over three years worth a total of $78m, plus the retention of all current conditions.

He said Civil Air was seeking a 20 per cent increase over three years, but the union insisted most of its claims were related to staffing, culture and superannuation.

“Civil Air members have now voted in favour of a ballot seeking approval for a campaign of industrial action in support of a number of claims that would cost an additional $140m on top of our offer,” said the spokesman.

“As an industry-funded organisation, Airservices needs to balance any request to increase our operating costs with its potential impact on the industry and the travelling public.”

[Image: 1efe0427c8095d33bd6da85d035e8e2b]

He confirmed the industrial action approved by union members “could disrupt the travel plans of thousands of Australians and international visitors”.

“Airservices has not yet received notification from Civil Air of intentions to take any protected industrial action, which requires a minimum of seven working days’ notice,” the spokesman said.

“Airservices will take all available steps to minimise disruptions to flights as a result of industrial action, and will work with airlines and airports to maintain safe operations.”

The vote in favour of industrial action came as Airservices prepared to farewell long-serving chief executive Jason Harfield after the federal cabinet blocked his reappointment.

The Airservices board had recommended Mr Harfield continue in the $950,000 a year job, but cabinet decided a change at the top was needed, after issues with staff shortages resulting in widespread flight delays, findings of a toxic workplace culture and industrial strife.

Airservices confirmed a global search had begun to find a replacement for Mr Harfield, who was due to depart on June 8.

MTF...P2 Tongue

Chuckle -

"The vote in favour of industrial action came as Airservices prepared to farewell long-serving chief executive Jason Harfield after the federal cabinet blocked his reappointment."

'Preparations' to sing 'fare-thee-well' to Halfwit are slightly delayed while the troops gather the feathers, tar and a rail to run the bum and his 'mates' out of Dodge.

Nicely played Civil Air; top marks for patience and method. Bon Chance/...etc.

Users browsing this thread: 11 Guest(s)