AuntyPru Forum

Full Version: Things that go bump in the night,
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
The quote from the P2 post – HERE - seems like a good way to introduce the unbelievable machinations of the Air Services Australia management. 

Quote:A couple of years ago Planetalking did a series of reports on the increasing number of loss of separation assurance breakdown of separation incidents – that by their very nature classified them as serious incidents & therefore reportable to ICAO. Also – at that time – there was much commentary by Air Traffic Controllers on Prune/ Ben’s blog etc. that highlighted many instances where controllers forwarded incident reports either direct to ATSB or through ASA SMS on LOSA events, that received in some cases no response/ or response with no further action or no further investigation (reference: Thread titled – ASA does it again – 2011 OOL near miss investigation released ).

{Note: that even when the ATSB decide not to investigate further they are still required to notify ICAO of this fact} With further digging I was able to get a brief snapshot from the ICAO incident/accident database which in most cases showed no record for the many ATC notified LOSA/BOS incidents that didn’t escalate to a full blown investigation/prelim & final report. -
  
For those who routinely operate or travel by air in skies Downunder, the following links do provide an insight into just what the benighted ATCO are burdened with and who is running the show.



Start with –Sarcs - on the UP and finish up - HERE - with my own humble offerings, it's worth the time.

Then follow the bouncing ball to – HERE; it may amaze you, it may amuse you; but it scares me half to death.  All at great expense to the public, who provided a nice 100 million untaxed revenue to the Quango last year.
Ferryman there is much unfinished Senate RRAT committee business when it comes to AirServices Australia  i.e. the forensic inquisition will continue - Performance of Airservices Australia -  & maybe the consequential actions will remain largely unseen & behind closed doors but I do think the good Senators well & truly called the bluff on Ms Staib & Co:



However the revelations that were made in that Pprune thread are - as far as I am aware - still very much outstanding which leaves one very big hole in a mouldy old lump of Swiss cheese.. Undecided :

Quote:"...Do you think ATSB investigates every BOS and LOSA that they receive from AsA? And if they don't how would we know given that the list is only from BOSs and LOSAs investigated by ATSB..."  

That would be very disturbing GF that the ATSB would choose to not investigate a BOS/LOSA event, which by ICAO definition is a 'serious incident'. However the bureau has a notified difference that does allow them the option of not investigating[Image: eusa_wall.gif]:

"...Reference:
AIP SUPPLEMENT (SUP) [b]H12/11 DATE: 5 MAY 11
[/b]

PG 65 Para 5.1.1
Australia may not institute an investigation into all foreign or
Australian-registered aircraft involved in serious incidents.
Decisions on whether particular serious incidents will be
investigated will depend on resources and the likely benefit to

future safety..."

Even if the bureau was crazy enough or in such current disarray that they chose not to investigate a BOS/LOSA they would still be obligated under Annex 13 section 4.1 to fwd the occurrence notification to ICAO. If they haven't done that wweeell that would be something the good Senators and ICAO would (or should) be extremely interested in.
   
Talk about disarray have you seen the latest promo for ASA...WTF??

[Image: air-services-australia-poster-edited.jpg]

I'll be back with much MTF... Tongue
Well...well last night for Ms Staib AVM (not retired) & crew just like the pic...

[Image: air-services-australia-poster-edited.jpg]
..was pretty much a total clusterf*#k and as a consequence the Senators were fairly lining up from Wong to Mea Culpa himself to give it to ASA... Undecided  But the inquisition of most interest was right on cue that of Senator Xenophon - RRAT Est 24 Feb '15 Xenophon questioning ASA Part 1

Hmm...Part two will be of most interest to Ben & Co Wink :



The full session with ASA went for nearly 1.5 hrs...quite obviously the Senators could smell blood....MTF... Tongue  

 
Planetalking article on Airservices at Estimates - AirServices Australia grilled over integrity and competency issues


Quote:Ben Sandilands

  • [Image: INTAS-Melbourne-610x529.jpg]
A photo handout of INTAS in use at Melbourne Airport

While media attention was understandably diverted elsewhere in Senate Estimates hearings yesterday,  AirServices Australia was given a grilling that raised some very serious safety, competency and integrity issues.

The only way to appreciate what transpired, short of being there, would be to watch a high quality YouTube , or set of same, conveying the hearing before the Senate’s committe on Rural and Regional and Transport affairs, but unfortunately for frustrating technical reasons, such a link is currently not available, and the news clock is ticking on a busy day on other projects and pending announcements.

Two critical failures of the air traffic control system were raised by Senator Nick Xenophon, (Independent, South Australia.)  The most recent, on 13 February, involved a failure of the newly introduced Integrated Tower Automation Suite or INTAS at Melbourne’s main airport to track nine jets that had landed during an interval disrupted by a thunderstorm but been delayed in reaching their gates, which had to be closed because of the close proximity of lightning strikes.

A YouTube of that part of the hearing is available here. The quality of that video is vastly superior to what you will get on the Parliamentary broadcast site.  In it Greg Hood, Airservices Executive General Manager, Air Traffic Control, acknowledges the problem and explains why it will never happen again, unless something inconceivable happens to delay landed jets more than five hours in reaching their gates.
Melbourne Airport may get bad weather, but it isn’t like it’s JFK (New York) or Dulles (Washington DC), where such a weather calamity isn’t unknown.

The more intriguing part of the hearing not available on YouTube came when Senator Xenophon asked Mr Hood about the 12 November 2013 incident in which there was a complex failure of air traffic oversight involving both Melbourne Tullamarine and its smaller and older neighbour Essendon Airport, which is today used by much smaller aircraft including privately owned corporate jets.

This resulted in what AirServices had insisted was a three hour period of a communications breakdown when in fact, it also meant three hours during which aircraft arriving or departing on a particular and well used path at the main airport would not have had assured separation from any movements at nearby Essendon.

The clear direction of Senator Xenophon’s examination of AirServices was that the insistence on calling this a communications breakdown deflected any risk that the public might be told it was a continuous and unacceptable breakdown of safe separation of flights, which continued to use both airports.

A lot of questions on notice were served on AirServices concerning this issue.

As an observation, AirServices needs to be hauled up when it delivers second or third world standards of air traffic control, the more so if it attempts to conceal the severity of the situation in terms of compromising safety.

The old repetitive PR ansewer, safety wasn’t compromised, ought never be accepted until it is tested.

If you want to see that part of the RRAT estimates hearing follow this link, and set the controls to start at 8.50 pm.  
The Heff's introductory salvo to AirServices Australia at Senate Estimates 24 Feb 2015:



 The following is an amusing summary (courtesy of Crikey - Tips & Rumours) which goes some way to explaining the cartoon (above) & the recent inept history & tales of woe that the ASA Executive team - led by CEO Ms Staib - have been experiencing at the hands of a fired up Senate RRAT committee.. Angry

Quote:Visualise your success. It wasn’t a great day for Airservices Australia on Friday, when CEO Air Vice Marshal Margaret Staib and her senior executives were grilled by Senator Nick Xenophon at a Senate hearing into the country’s airspace regulator. While it’s been reported that there are issues with safety at Melbourne Airport, we hear the regulator is facing internal pressure over a cartoon of the company’s direction:


Quote:“This special Senate committee hearing follows on from what most observers rate as a ‘dreadful’ appearance at the Senate estimates hearing on October 20th. At that hearing Staib was mercilessly grilled by Senators [Bill] Heffernan, [Glenn] Sterle and [Alex] Gallacher over failure to notify the Public Works Committee of almost $100 million of project spending and corporate credit card abuse within the nation’s air traffic control organisation. Ms Staib also is under scrutiny from the Airservices board after the disastrous internal public relations stunt where she introduced a ‘visualisation’ of the organisation’s future direction during a nation-wide video conference with most of the staff. Staff were astounded to be presented with a ‘Where’s Wally’ like graphic depicting self-congratulatory-like messages representing supposedly the result of thoughts from staff focus groups over the last six months. One recently employed staff member from the UK stated after seeing the graphic that it was like the ‘Monster Raving Loony Party’ had taken over Airservices Australia. Staff are reported to be extremely angry at the reported million-dollar cost for the production/presentation at a time when there are rumours of significant staff cuts soon to be announced.”
The poster in question does indeed look like it belongs to a children’s book:
[Image: air-services-australia-poster-edited.jpg]
It’s a bit blurry, but yes it does feature a plane saying “love this service”. We asked Airservices Australia about the poster and the rumoured job cuts, but were told they couldn’t get back to us today. If we do hear back, we’ll let you know the story behind the poster.
Well after the previous ASA inquisition hearing of Ms Staib & the ASA Exec crew on the 28 November last year you would have thought they would have come to Estimates a little bit better prepared?? Well...not to be I'm afraid... Confused

The Heff started proceedings relatively gently (see above) but there was no mistaking that he was merely setting the agenda for a mammoth hour and a half kicking by various Senators from both sides of the political divide and somewhere in between.

Here is just one example from Hansard the questioner Senator Wong:
Quote:Senator WONG: And you advised them by email, or CEO—sorry, what was your position again?



[ltr]Ms Staib : I am the chief executive officer.[/ltr]


[ltr]Senator WONG: Yes. Did you do a CEO note or something like that?[/ltr]


[ltr]Ms Staib : There was extensive consultation—[/ltr]


[ltr]Senator WONG: No, I have not asked that question. I will ask that question, but I am actually asking how you informed them of your decision.[/ltr]


[ltr]Ms Staib : Of the board's decision?[/ltr]


[ltr]Senator WONG: Correct.[/ltr]


[ltr]Ms Staib : I would have to check that.[/ltr]


[ltr]Senator WONG: Did you or did you not post a CEO message in which employees were informed, on 12 December?[/ltr]


[ltr]Mr Hood : Each of the employees were advised by their line managers, both in Cairns and in Adelaide.[/ltr]


[ltr]Senator WONG: When?[/ltr]


[ltr]Mr Hood : I believe it was one or two days after the board meeting. I will confirm that on notice.[/ltr]


[ltr]Senator WONG: Do we have the date of the board meeting? You cannot possibly believe that you were not going to be asked questions about this, given the level of controversy in Adelaide and the media attention. You have come along without knowing the dates of these issues? You cannot tell me when the meeting occurred, when the decision was made? Can you at least confirm to me that you posted a CEO message to staff on 12 December in which you advised them, Ms Staib?[/ltr]


[ltr]Ms Staib : Sorry—can you say that again?[/ltr]


[ltr]Senator WONG: Did you or did you not post a CEO message on 12 December in which you advised employees that a decision had been made to close the Adelaide TCU?[/ltr]


[ltr]Ms Staib : I would have to go back and check the date, but I know we did release information after the board had considered the matter.[/ltr]


[ltr]Senator WONG: I would like a copy of whatever correspondence you as CEO or another person in line management provided to employees to advise them of the decision. I want all communications with employees about this. Can you do that?[/ltr]


[ltr]Ms Staib : Yes. [/ltr]
After Senator Wong it really just got worse for Ms Staib, in the end I almost..almost felt sorry for her, could someone please..please put the poor lady out of her misery... Angel  

Ps One of the funnier interplays of this session occurred between Senator Gallacher and Mrdak... Rolleyes :

First part:
Quote:[ltr]Senator GALLACHER: I know that other senators have some questions, but I want to briefly touch on a really horrific coronial inquiry report. Mr Mrdak, I note in the government's statement that it says: 'Airservices is accountable to the Australian parliament through the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.' Where do you sit in all that? Do you have any authority over this organisation or not?

Mr Mrdak : No. My department provides advice to the minister in relation To Airservices governance matters, but the board has a direct line of accountability to the minister. [/ltr]


[ltr]Senator GALLACHER: So you may as well not be here for these purposes.[/ltr]


[ltr]Mr Mrdak : There are questions about what I do, most days! [/ltr]


[ltr]CHAIR: Don't worry; it is the same with me![/ltr]


[ltr]Mr Mrdak : We provide government advice. We also ensure coordination across the portfolio in relation to aviation policy and regulatory matters. That is the role the department plays.[/ltr]


[ltr]Senator GALLACHER: There are some findings in the coronial inquiry which are quite damning of Airservices Australia's lack of adherence to proper training and proper procedures, down to the fact that an oversized vehicle, not registered for Northern Territory roads, travelled through an intersection at significantly higher speed than would be expected. Three people are dead. There is a news article saying that Comcare is going to sue Airservices Australia. You have no role in any of that?[/ltr]


[ltr]Mr Mrdak : We do have a role in providing advice to the minister in relation to these matters. Primarily, the responsibility rests with Airservices. Obviously our role is to ensure that proper governance takes place in relation to the organisation.[/ltr]


[ltr]Senator GALLACHER: Clearly there has been a failure of governance, as per the coronial findings, and an indication that another Commonwealth entity is going to sue Airservices Australia.[/ltr]


[ltr]Mr Mrdak : I am not aware of that comment from Comcare but I will take it on notice and check that out. [/ltr]
  
Second  Part:
Quote:Senator GALLACHER: No, my question is very clear. It has been put to me by people who pay your charges that consolidating into Brisbane and Melbourne will inevitably have them pay more in charges, whereas, if it continued to be decentralised, charges would not rise as much.



[ltr]Senator STERLE: You got that one wrong, Sean![/ltr]


[ltr]Mr Mrdak : If you look at the remuneration, my understanding is—[/ltr]


[ltr]Senator GALLACHER: I did not think you had anything to do with this crew. [/ltr]

Gold! Big Grin
From Ben Sandilands, a Plane Talking must read – HERE.  

I was impressed.  Wow! I thought– but wait, there's nary a mention of a four hole punch being delivered along with the new binders.  Blinding efficiency, indeed. Now the new hole punch question will need serious consideration.   One can only hope the new binders are colour coordinated to match the now famous 'courage' wrist bands and designed by the same children who did the new 'feel good' ASA promotional poster (P2 personal favourite).  Money well spent, dontcha think?  

The kindergarten style, feel good, sloppy, happy clappy psycho-babble just keeps rolling out from this dysfunctional crew.  NO, it's Sunday and I flat out refuse to visit the ASA saga of greed, scandal, stupidity and corruption; it will keep.  

Toot toot........ Rolleyes  
Probably much to the relief of Ms Staib & the Board, ASA in recent weeks (pardon the pun.. Big Grin ) has dropped off the radar somewhat - however I do not believe this status quo will remain.

Recently there was another rather embarrassing ATSB investigation report released - which again took over two years to complete - that fortunately (other than Planetalking) escaped any real MSM comment - Loss of separation assurance involving Boeing 737-8BK VH-VUM from south of Williamtown to north of Grafton, NSW on 28 September 2012

Quote:What happened

On 28 September 2012, an en route air traffic controller acknowledged a Route Adherence Monitor (RAM) alert in respect of a Boeing Company 737‑8BK aircraft, registered VH-VUM (VUM), on a scheduled passenger service between Sydney, New South Wales and Brisbane, Queensland. Believing that VUM was destined for Newcastle Airport under Department of Defence air traffic control jurisdiction, the controller erroneously inhibited the flight data record (FDR) for VUM. This action cancelled the RAM alert.

The inhibition of the FDR, in combination with the controller’s altitude filter being set at a lower flight level than appropriate to the combined sectors under the controller’s jurisdiction, meant that VUM’s FDR registered as a ‘not concerned’ aircraft track. Subsequently, due to this ‘not concerned’ status, the controller did not see or interrogate VUM’s FDR for the rest of the time it was under their jurisdiction. Similarly, the FDR did not attract the attention of two Inverell sector controllers after it entered and crossed their sector until they responded to a frequency change request from the flight crew of VUM.

There was no loss of separation with other aircraft for the resulting period that the aircraft operated without the active provision of ATC services and, during the course of the occurrence, two-way communications in controlled airspace remained available. However, maintenance of the minimum aircraft separation standards during this period was not assured. There was a loss of separation assurance.
Okay, other than the extraordinary length of time for what should have been a pretty routine investigation, a bit of leeway here for the ATSB (not exactly sure why??) but it would appear that from the investigation findings two significant safety issues have been identified and proactively acted on by the addressee i.e. ASA:
Quote:Controller training for black ‘not concerned’ track awareness

Controllers were routinely exposed to ‘not concerned’ radar tracks that were generally inconsequential in the en route environment, leading to a high level of expectancy that such tracks were not relevant for aircraft separation purposes. Training did not emphasise the importance of scanning ‘not concerned’ radar tracks in jurisdiction airspace.
Issue number:
AO-2012-132-SI-01
Who it affects:
All Airservices Australia en route air traffic controllers providing surveillance services
Status:
Adequately addressed





 
Limited system features for protection against inhibited tracks
The limited interoperability between The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System and Australian Defence Air Traffic System increased the risk of error due to the need for a number of manual interventions or processes to facilitate the coordination and processing of traffic.
Issue number:
AO-2012-132-SI-02
Who it affects:
All Airservices Australia en route air traffic controllers providing surveillance services
Status:
Adequately addressed
  
As can be seen both of the proposed safety actions by ASA has been given the ATSB tick (seal) of approval...
 "Status justification: The ATSB is satisfied that the safety action, when fully implemented, will reduce the risk associated with this safety issue." 
However IMO the part in bold (above) does raise concerns/suspicions?? Okay so lets have a closer look at the 2nd Safety Issue because it raises a common safety concern that of the interaction between Civil & Military ATC:
Quote:Proactive Action

Action organisation:
Airservices Australia
Action number:
AO-2012-132-NSA-048
Date:
12 March 2015
Action status:
Closed

Airservices and the Department of Defence are currently working towards implementing a harmonised joint civil military air traffic service system via the OneSky Program. Once implemented, the new harmonised air traffic service system will increase the interoperability between both organisations and address the identified safety issue.

ATSB response:
The ATSB is satisfied that the safety action, when fully implemented, will reduce the risk associated with this safety issue.
  WTF...so for the however many years OneSky Program takes to implement this identified latent safety risk will remain not properly addressed & not even monitored because the ATSB has effectively closed the matter of identified concern...FFS are these incompetent fools for real??? Angry
Moving on & back on the ongoing RRAT Senate Estimates Inquiry - Performance of Airservices Australia - which surprisingly is still yet to be resolved?? However on viewing the inquiry webpage I noticed there was a private submission listed under a Mr Scott Bennett (see here)...

"...I have recently retired from Airservices after thirty five years of employment as an air traffic controller including twenty years working in the Adelaide Terminal Control Unit (TCU)..."

This excellent short but concise submission from a concerned former ASA ATCO (i.e. no longer any skin in the game) should be required reading by not only the miniscule but all pollies & industry stakeholders; because it highlights the difference between reality at the coalface & the spin, weasel words, bulldust & obfuscation being fed to us by a bloated self-preserving bureaucracy.. Dodgy 

Quote:
I would question why any business would proceed with a project that involves redundancies to staff or holding extra staff for an unknown period of time while at the same time they are training new controllers internally, to presumably capacity, and still requiring to recruit from overseas to meet their controller workforce demands.

Removal of many hundreds of years of combined Adelaide TCU experience


Again because of the almost total lack of current Adelaide TCU controllers expressing any wish to relocate permanently to Melbourne, if the planned relocation goes ahead, it will be staffed by an almost totally inexperienced Adelaide TCU workforce.

I don’t believe this has ever been attempted on this scale, certainly in Australia and probably in the world. Again one has to ask, for what valid reason.

Conclusion

The TCU consolidation project would seem to be a prime example of Airservices Management proceeding with something that is very difficult to justify, has a number of components to it that have no guarantee of going to plan, involves considerable payouts for redundancies or payment of staff to hold supernumerary positions for an indeterminable length of time while still training new controllers at maximum capacity and when it is impossible to see how it can provide a better service to the aviation community than present.

Combine this with the need to staff a Melbourne located Adelaide TCU with pretty much no Adelaide TCU experienced controllers and I would urge the committee to challenge Airservices and the Minister on this move.

Scott Bennett



MTF...you bet P2 Tongue  
Reading the first class submission by Scott Bennett takes a very worthwhile five minutes.  It is the work of someone who, gifted with a full working knowledge of a system, can in a couple of pages hit every nail, on its head, every time.  

Apart from making good operational and fiscal sense, the submission speaks volumes about the rotten culture which prevails within ASA.  The estimates Hansard and even more the digital recording show, quite clearly, the level of deceit, petty corruption and a willingness to stonewall the Senators with work shopped answers and delayed response to a QoN.  No wonder the 'courage' wrist bands were dished out, you'd need lots of the stiff to work under the creatures sat on their plush rumps, dodging bullets, passing the buck and conveniently forgetting 'stuff'.  Seems that the primary school notion that a little plastic band will cure a deep seated malady has failed, dismally.   Scott Bennett probably tore his off the day he retired and once the euphoria of being free from the dreadful tyranny had become normal, he wrote his submission.  

The questions mount up:  why wait until retirement to draft the submission? why was that submission not part of the internal decision process? why was it not given serious consideration during Bennett's working days?.   Finally, why is ASA persisting in the face of logic with 'their' plan?

Aye well, no doubt the panel we see at estimates are slowly deciding that eventually they may, or may not get around to addressing the both the old and the new 'challenges', between paid holidays, sorry training courses, working out how to not quite exceed credit card limits and generally living off the back of the public; who as part of their ticket price assist in making a government monopoly a AUD 100, 000,000 gouge a year, after salaries, scams and credit card rorts are paid out.  I wonder if the public knows just how safe their money is and of the risks which are statistically escalating every day.  The ASA cynical management attitude toward the safety of Joe Public is only possible through the hard work and dedication, despite all obstacles of the hard working front line on the consoles, 24/7, in sickness and in health.  

It is truly disgraceful.  Truss of course remains firmly fixed in the ostrich position.  

Now the sexual life of the ostrich, is hard to understand.
At the height of the mating season, it buries its head in the sand.
Now whenever another ostrich, sees this arse stuck up in the air,
Does he up it and duck it with relish; Or doesn't he ducking well care.
(04-06-2015, 06:24 AM)P7_TOM Wrote: [ -> ]Reading the first class submission by Scott Bennett takes a very worthwhile five minutes.  It is the work of someone who, gifted with a full working knowledge of a system, can in a couple of pages hit every nail, on its head, every time.  

Apart from making good operational and fiscal sense, the submission speaks volumes about the rotten culture which prevails within ASA.  The estimates Hansard and even more the digital recording show, quite clearly, the level of deceit, petty corruption and a willingness to stonewall the Senators with work shopped answers and delayed response to a QoN.  No wonder the 'courage' wrist bands were dished out, you'd need lots of the stiff to work under the creatures sat on their plush rumps, dodging bullets, passing the buck and conveniently forgetting 'stuff'.  Seems that the primary school notion that a little plastic band will cure a deep seated malady has failed, dismally.   Scott Bennett probably tore his off the day he retired and once the euphoria of being free from the dreadful tyranny had become normal, he wrote his submission.  

The questions mount up:  why wait until retirement to draft the submission? why was that submission not part of the internal decision process? why was it not given serious consideration during Bennett's working days?.   Finally, why is ASA persisting in the face of logic with 'their' plan?

Aye well, no doubt the panel we see at estimates are slowly deciding that eventually they may, or may not get around to addressing the both the old and the new 'challenges', between paid holidays, sorry training courses, working out how to not quite exceed credit card limits and generally living off the back of the public; who as part of their ticket price assist in making a government monopoly a AUD 100, 000,000 gouge a year, after salaries, scams and credit card rorts are paid out.  I wonder if the public knows just how safe their money is and of the risks which are statistically escalating every day.  The ASA cynical management attitude toward the safety of Joe Public is only possible through the hard work and dedication, despite all obstacles of the hard working front line on the consoles, 24/7, in sickness and in health.  

It is truly disgraceful.  Truss of course remains firmly fixed in the ostrich position.  

Now the sexual life of the ostrich, is hard to understand.
At the height of the mating season, it buries its head in the sand.
Now whenever another ostrich, sees this arse stuck up in the air,
Does he up it and duck it with relish; Or doesn't he ducking well care.

[Image: ostrich20ignorance-resized-600.png]

Comment: Maybe the miniscule is too busy celebrating with Sharpie & his Rex mates after their recent monopolisation of all FNQ & Central QLD RPT routes??  

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_091814_034431_PM.jpg]

Excellent stuff Old Man... Wink  I find it truly remarkable that even when the 'man at the back of the room' can smell the elephant excrement emanating off these corrupt, incompetent ASA executive stooges that the likes of the miniscule or Angus & the Board don't see the need to chop them off at the knees??  FFS miniscule why do you think the Senators at last Estimates were lining up like happy bluebottle blowies waiting for the scraps from the carcass?? Maybe miniscule, you think the golden egg promise of Onesky will fix all the ASA woes??

[Image: untitled_1.png]

However if I were you - outside of your Mandarin's circle of influence - I'd take the time to read the concerned Scott Bennett submission, read the Hansard from the RRAT 28 November 2014 ASA Performance hearing; or if you prefer watch the video version e.g:

   

 After that then consider the P7 questions...

"...The questions mount up:  why wait until retirement to draft the submission? why was that submission not part of the internal decision process? why was it not given serious consideration during Bennett's working days?.   Finally, why is ASA persisting in the face of logic with 'their' plan? "

...and consider that they will be representative of the many more questions that will be put to you in various forums for the rest of your tenure as the miniscule for non-aviation... Tongue   

Gobbledock

So many intiguing past and present issues don't you think?

- ASA got away scott free after Russell decided to flee when placed under scrutiny by the senate. Of course he ended up working for the same contractor that supplied ASA with a billion dollar system. Coincidence?

What about the current leadership and it's handling of a $100k 'act of mischief'?
- Or CAsA who has had staff 'accidentally' walk past Paywave machines and had non-approved items 'inadvertently' billed to their corporate credit cards?

- And who could forget CASA and it's lemon called Sky Sentinel? We are yet to see any scalps claimed over this shonky mischief.

- Please let's not forget some individuals receiving fully funded academic qualifications, aircraft endorsements, international training and qualifications, all at the expense of the taxpayer. This occurs across all three alphabet soup organisations.

- Then we have the 'development of Bankstown' and the scope of this has raised some serious eyebrows nationwide.

- Add to this the relationship between some politicians and aviation big business and the amazing approvals and support that many of those businesses magically receive.

When it comes to money, business, politics and mates it would appear that some Pollies and sectors of aviation seem to benefit rather well don't you think? All courtesy of the taxpayer of course.

As Mel Brooks said in History Of The World - "It's good to be the king"!

Oink oink indeed!
ASA - A trough feeders haven?? - Part I

Reading through the happy, clappy, Dougy's Insights for this week I almost twice choked on my beer in sheer satirical delight on Dougy's apparent blinkered view of the 'good' job AirServices Australia executive management is doing... Big Grin

One word Dougy BOLLOCKS!

1st reference:

Quote:Airservices’ Jason Harfield told delegates that there’s $19 billion of airport infrastructure booked for the next decade.

And he lightheartedly compared getting the big OneSKY project up and running as akin to performing a heart/lung transplant on a marathon runner - while the race is in progress. 
    
Not sure if the Harfield analogy is meant to engender a whole lot of confidence when the ASA executive marketing team consider this toddlers cartoon {sorry "K" have to repeat it again, from Crikey Insider.. Wink }...

Quote:The poster in question does indeed look like it belongs to a children’s book:


[Image: air-services-australia-poster-edited.jpg]
It’s a bit blurry, but yes it does feature a plane saying “love this service”. We asked Airservices Australia about the poster and the rumoured job cuts, but were told they couldn’t get back to us today. If we do hear back, we’ll let you know the story behind the poster.

....as depicting what it is that ASA actually do. However with some of the performances of the executive team at the ongoing Senate Inquisition  - tongue in cheek - maybe it is a very honest depiction of the dysfunctional executive management at ASA.. Blush    

2nd reference:

Quote:And Sir Angus Houston gets another two years as chair of Airservices. Also good news, but maybe a tad surprising given the length of his tenure already and the other workloads on his desk. Maybe it’s a case of seeing OneSKY through to some maturity. Whatever, it works for me. There’s a hell of a lot of talent in Airservices top ranks right now, almost too much if such a scenario is conceivable. What a sweet spot to be in at such a critical phase of the ANSP’s development.
Hmm...let's see that last part again in bold & bigger...
"...There’s a hell of a lot of talent in Airservices top ranks right now, almost too much if such a scenario is conceivable. What a sweet spot to be in at such a critical phase of the ANSP’s development..."
Come on Dougy I know you've got a rice bowl to protect..


Quote:And speaking of Airservices, they have just signed up to be a corporate sponsor of the Australian Division of the Royal Aeronautical Society, joining Qantas, Airbus, Virgin Australia, Boeing, AMDA and the RAAF. This support is underpinning a drive by the local RAeS to deliver more value to members and to the industry in general in Australia.

...but REALLY.. Huh  Do you really expect us to swallow that line after this (one example)...




Or this..



Ah but all's good the ASA 'Team' are all armed with 'courage badges'.. Rolleyes



MTF soon with QON etc..P2 Tongue  
(05-15-2015, 10:26 AM)Peetwo Wrote: [ -> ] Peetwo
ASA - A trough feeders haven?? - Part I

Reading through the happy, clappy, Dougy's Insights for this week I almost twice choked on my beer in sheer satirical delight on Dougy's apparent blinkered view of the 'good' job AirServices Australia executive management is doing... Big Grin

One word Dougy BOLLOCKS!

1st reference:


Quote:Airservices’ Jason Harfield told delegates that there’s $19 billion of airport infrastructure booked for the next decade.

And he lightheartedly compared getting the big OneSKY project up and running as akin to performing a heart/lung transplant on a marathon runner - while the race is in progress. 
    
Not sure if the Harfield analogy is meant to engender a whole lot of confidence when the ASA executive marketing team consider this toddlers cartoon {sorry "K" have to repeat it again, from Crikey Insider.. Wink }...


Quote:The poster in question does indeed look like it belongs to a children’s book:


[Image: air-services-australia-poster-edited.jpg]

It’s a bit blurry, but yes it does feature a plane saying “love this service”. We asked Airservices Australia about the poster and the rumoured job cuts, but were told they couldn’t get back to us today. If we do hear back, we’ll let you know the story behind the poster.

....as depicting what it is that ASA actually do. However with some of the performances of the executive team at the ongoing Senate Inquisition  - tongue in cheek - maybe it is a very honest depiction of the dysfunctional executive management at ASA.. Blush    

2nd reference:


Quote:And Sir Angus Houston gets another two years as chair of Airservices. Also good news, but maybe a tad surprising given the length of his tenure already and the other workloads on his desk. Maybe it’s a case of seeing OneSKY through to some maturity. Whatever, it works for me. There’s a hell of a lot of talent in Airservices top ranks right now, almost too much if such a scenario is conceivable. What a sweet spot to be in at such a critical phase of the ANSP’s development.

Hmm...let's see that last part again in bold & bigger...

"...There’s a hell of a lot of talent in Airservices top ranks right now, almost too much if such a scenario is conceivable. What a sweet spot to be in at such a critical phase of the ANSP’s development..."

Come on Dougy I know you've got a rice bowl to protect..


Quote:And speaking of Airservices, they have just signed up to be a corporate sponsor of the Australian Division of the Royal Aeronautical Society, joining Qantas, Airbus, Virgin Australia, Boeing, AMDA and the RAAF. This support is underpinning a drive by the local RAeS to deliver more value to members and to the industry in general in Australia.
...but REALLY.. Huh  Do you really expect us to swallow that line after this (examples)...




Or this..(see above post)
A trough feeders haven?? - Part II (written QoN) Blush

From the QON index the ASA QON start on page 55 and finish on the top of page 64. Of the 20 QON to ASA, questions 154 - 160 are written and for me they hold the key to how hard the Senators will go in the next Estimates (27-28th May) inquisition. Here are those written QON, which are still devoid of answers??? Confused

Quote:154 RICE - Aircraft noise

Does Airservices Australia have a process or approach for exploring new or additional regulatory options regarding aircraft noise?

155 Xenophon - INTAS technology

1. Noting that Airservices has entered into a further contract to install INTAS technology in more Control Towers, is there a provision in the contract for Airservices customers to be compensated for any extra expenses incurred as a result of a similar number of defects/failures being encountered as occurred at Rockhampton, Broome, Adelaide and Melbourne? If so, does the contract stipulate that the contractor shares Airservices compensation risk?

2. In terms of its answers to QoN #245 (Budget Estimates May 2014) can Airservices Australia provide an update on the number (if any) of additional INTAS issues beyond the already reported 2,467 that have occurred at Rockhampton, Broome, Adelaide & Melbourne Towers and how many remain outstanding?

{Comment: 2,467 INTAS issues??- Nah it’s got to be a typo Shirley??}

156 Xenophon - Cirrus report #ATS-0125061

Cirrus #ATS-0125061 states that the ML TAC received coordination from Essendon Tower that it was unable to separate its Runway 26 aircraft from Melbourne’s departures but the ML TAC did not subsequently pass the coordination to the Melbourne approach controller. LOA_3263 para 4.5.3 (as provided in answer to QoN 237) indicates that a number of parties have responsibilities when Melbourne is using Runway 16 for departures and Essendon Tower is unable to separate its Runway 26 instrument approach from the Melbourne departures:

1. What is the “MPL” and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC?
2. What is the “MLC” and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC?
3. What is the “MAE” and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC?
4. What is the “MLA” and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC?

5. Did Melbourne Tower receive coordination that Essendon Tower was unable to separate its Runway 26 instrument approach aircraft prior to further Melbourne departures being approved (i.e. the provisions of LOA-3263 para 4.5.3 (3) had become effective)?

6. What event occurred that triggered the detection of the breakdown of communication some 3 hours prior?

7. Can Airservices provide a copy of the radar tapes it gave ATSB regarding this incident?

8. Can Airservices explain why the provision of the radar tapes requested in QoN #237 (5) is complex and would require a significant diversion of resources?

9. Can Airservices explain why the provision of the relevant Essendon Tower, Melbourne Tower and Melbourne Approach Airways Operation Journal entries for the incident is complex and would require a significant diversion of resources?

{Comment: The three hour ‘undetected’ time frame QON was also asked of CASA & the ATSB e.g QoN 161

Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps you could take on notice whether the ATSB's views would have been different if they were aware that, for three hours, the INTAS failed. I will clarify these questions on notice for you, to assist. The concern I have is that both CASA and the ATSB may not have been, for whatever reason, fully appraised of the circumstances of that night of 12 November 2013.

Mr Dolan: Happy to take it notice. The only point I would make is we did receive a REPCON on this which we looked into very carefully, including obtaining a copy of the radar tapes, and we are satisfied that there was no loss of separation.}

157 Sterle – Sydney Airport

1. Is there a staff member dedicated to managing the Airservices Australia relationship with Sydney Airport?

2. If yes, what is their title, and where do they sit in the reporting structure? Which other customers do they manage?

3. If none, what other customers have a dedicated staff member? If none, why Sydney Airport?

158 Sterle -  Sydney Airport – post-curfew flights

1. Please list the type of aircraft that have landed at Sydney Airport between 11pm and 6am since (date).

2. What impact on flight numbers has the change in types of aircraft permitted to land at Sydney Airport?

159 Sterle - Adelaide Airport – post curfew flights

1. Please list the type of aircraft that have landed at Adelaide Airport between 11pm and 6am since (date).

2. What impact on flight numbers has the change in types of aircraft permitted to land at Adelaide Airport?

160 Sterle - Harper Review – Airservices Australia charges

The Department of I&RD submission notes the Review says that Airservices charges should be a focus for review.

1. Has Airservices taken note of these comments?
2. What does Airservices say about its charging?
3. How does Airservices ensure that it is providing a service at reasonable cost to airlines and passengers?
 
I get the feeling the Senators have much unfinished business when it comes to the ASA executive team??- Angel

MTF...Yep! P2 Tongue
It's the Cool-aid, must be.

That bloody awful poster pretty much defines the kindergarten approach ASA take to their view of the ATCO and the public; both viewed as children who can be easily lead.   That notion is supported by those appalling "Courage" badges which smack of an Americanised home made version of reverse psycho babble for retarded goldfish or vertically challenged Dachshunds.   

Has Dougy been drinking the same Cool-aid as Hitch? or, as P2 hints, do they have a rice bowl to protect.  For surely neither can actually believe that everything in the garden is suddenly all rosy.  It's fair enough to pedal a soft line, even acceptable to publish the latest word weasel spin from the unshriven; but to actually try to sell the whole thing as a 'wonder fix', without comment, to people who will believe anything those two write is, IMO a step too far.

A quick, open minded glance through any of the Estimates ASA tapes will soon remove any blinkers; a fast read of Part 61; or, the Chambers report or even the iniquitous CAIR 09 will soon disavow both of any serious belief in fairy tale endings.  We are at the start of a long hard road to reform; a journey which has been attempted before, only to see those travelling turned back, defeated.

Disappointing I'd call it; to try and sell the notion that "alls well" when it's nowhere near bloody right, not by a long shot.   Benefit of the doubt, I'll blame the Cool aid.

Toot toot.

See - Clarity.

Quote:I will reiterate, the Senate Pel-Air inquiry only exposed the tip of a very ugly, sinister ice berg.  
The DoIT, under Merdek running both the CASA and ATSB top dogs has successfully smothered and minimised the impact not only the damning FAA audits of CASA, the Senate inquiry recommendation, the Ministerial review recommendations and the Canadian TSBC peer review recommendations, but have also managed to beat off a once furious, hostile industry with endless delays, meaningless promises and no bloody action whatsoever.  

This, all before the multitude of Coronial recommendations which have been fobbed off with 'promised changes or simply ignored are examined; or, the disgraceful ATSB reports into fatal accidents.  Let's just not mention the non reporting of loss of separation incidents or non publication of Safety Recommendations, Mildura or Air North; etc. etc. etc...

Gobbledock

In the past few weeks I think Dougy and Hitch have either been hypnotised by the mystique of aviation or they have been abducted, probed and 'mind masturbated' by a UFO that has snuck through our ATC undetected! Me thinks that at the moment they speaketh much shisen.

Anyway, in preparation for the next round of Senate shennanigans I have bought a bigger bar fridge and upgraded the camp chair to a second hand Jason recliner! I'm set and ready to ruuuuuuumble! 

But speaking of 'Jason', I am hoping the Senators will dig a little deeper into this mysterious somewhat faceless man that lurks around ASA at a high level, while not actually assigned to do......anything......except receive executive remuneration???? As with all mysteries, there is always a logical and quantifiable answer, you just need to dig deep enough to find it. 

Oh, and as for that robust role in which one person is assigned by ASA to provide hand relief to Sydney Airport, that is a very good QON. Perhaps the Senators will call for a copy of that persons job PD, remuneration details, copies of work undertaken by said 'liaison' such as executive reports and work scope statements, minutes of meetings, expenses incurred, you know all that insignificant stuff.

MTF do you ask? Oh yes, much much more.

"Sneaky skies for all"
(05-15-2015, 11:52 AM)Peetwo Wrote: [ -> ]A trough feeders haven?? - Part II (written QoN) Blush

From the QON index the ASA QON start on page 55 and finish on the top of page 64. Of the 20 QON to ASA, questions 154 - 160 are written and for me they hold the key to how hard the Senators will go in the next Estimates (27-28th May) inquisition. Here are those written QON, which are still devoid of answers??? Confused



Quote:154 RICE - Aircraft noise

Does Airservices Australia have a process or approach for exploring new or additional regulatory options regarding aircraft noise?

155 Xenophon - INTAS technology

1. Noting that Airservices has entered into a further contract to install INTAS technology in more Control Towers, is there a provision in the contract for Airservices customers to be compensated for any extra expenses incurred as a result of a similar number of defects/failures being encountered as occurred at Rockhampton, Broome, Adelaide and Melbourne? If so, does the contract stipulate that the contractor shares Airservices compensation risk?

2. In terms of its answers to QoN #245 (Budget Estimates May 2014) can Airservices Australia provide an update on the number (if any) of additional INTAS issues beyond the already reported 2,467 that have occurred at Rockhampton, Broome, Adelaide & Melbourne Towers and how many remain outstanding?

{Comment: 2,467 INTAS issues??- Nah it’s got to be a typo Shirley??}

156 Xenophon - Cirrus report #ATS-0125061

Cirrus #ATS-0125061 states that the ML TAC received coordination from Essendon Tower that it was unable to separate its Runway 26 aircraft from Melbourne’s departures but the ML TAC did not subsequently pass the coordination to the Melbourne approach controller. LOA_3263 para 4.5.3 (as provided in answer to QoN 237) indicates that a number of parties have responsibilities when Melbourne is using Runway 16 for departures and Essendon Tower is unable to separate its Runway 26 instrument approach from the Melbourne departures:

1. What is the “MPL” and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC?
2. What is the “MLC” and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC?
3. What is the “MAE” and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC?
4. What is the “MLA” and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC?

5. Did Melbourne Tower receive coordination that Essendon Tower was unable to separate its Runway 26 instrument approach aircraft prior to further Melbourne departures being approved (i.e. the provisions of LOA-3263 para 4.5.3 (3) had become effective)?

6. What event occurred that triggered the detection of the breakdown of communication some 3 hours prior?

7. Can Airservices provide a copy of the radar tapes it gave ATSB regarding this incident?

8. Can Airservices explain why the provision of the radar tapes requested in QoN #237 (5) is complex and would require a significant diversion of resources?

9. Can Airservices explain why the provision of the relevant Essendon Tower, Melbourne Tower and Melbourne Approach Airways Operation Journal entries for the incident is complex and would require a significant diversion of resources?

{Comment: The three hour ‘undetected’ time frame QON was also asked of CASA & the ATSB e.g QoN 161

Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps you could take on notice whether the ATSB's views would have been different if they were aware that, for three hours, the INTAS failed. I will clarify these questions on notice for you, to assist. The concern I have is that both CASA and the ATSB may not have been, for whatever reason, fully appraised of the circumstances of that night of 12 November 2013.

Mr Dolan: Happy to take it notice. The only point I would make is we did receive a REPCON on this which we looked into very carefully, including obtaining a copy of the radar tapes, and we are satisfied that there was no loss of separation.}

157 Sterle – Sydney Airport

1. Is there a staff member dedicated to managing the Airservices Australia relationship with Sydney Airport?

2. If yes, what is their title, and where do they sit in the reporting structure? Which other customers do they manage?

3. If none, what other customers have a dedicated staff member? If none, why Sydney Airport?

158 Sterle -  Sydney Airport – post-curfew flights

1. Please list the type of aircraft that have landed at Sydney Airport between 11pm and 6am since (date).

2. What impact on flight numbers has the change in types of aircraft permitted to land at Sydney Airport?

159 Sterle - Adelaide Airport – post curfew flights

1. Please list the type of aircraft that have landed at Adelaide Airport between 11pm and 6am since (date).

2. What impact on flight numbers has the change in types of aircraft permitted to land at Adelaide Airport?

160 Sterle - Harper Review – Airservices Australia charges

The Department of I&RD submission notes the Review says that Airservices charges should be a focus for review.

1. Has Airservices taken note of these comments?
2. What does Airservices say about its charging?
3. How does Airservices ensure that it is providing a service at reasonable cost to airlines and passengers?
 
I get the feeling the Senators have much unfinished business when it comes to the ASA executive team??- Angel

Okay AQON have finally been released, see here for ASA.

AQON for QON 156 (Cirris report) is IMO the pick of the bunch... Big Grin
 

Quote:Question no.: 156


Program: n/a

Division/Agency: Airservices Australia

Topic: CIRRIS Report

Proof Hansard Page: Written

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Cirrus #ATS-0125061 states that the ML TAC received coordination from Essendon Tower that it was unable to separate its Runway 26 aircraft from Melbourne’s departures but the ML TAC did not subsequently pass the coordination to the Melbourne approach controller. LOA_3263 para 4.5.3 (as provided in answer to QoN 237) indicates that a number of parties have responsibilities when Melbourne is using Runway 16 for departures and Essendon Tower is unable to separate its Runway 26 instrument approach from the Melbourne departures:

1. What is the "MPL" and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC?

2. What is the "MLC" and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC?

3. What is the "MAE" and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC?

4. What is the "MLA" and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC?

5. Did Melbourne Tower receive coordination that Essendon Tower was unable to separate its Runway 26 instrument approach aircraft prior to further Melbourne departures being approved (i.e. the provisions of LOA is the 3263 para 4.5.3 (3) had become effective)?

6. What event occurred that triggered the detection of the breakdown of communication some 3 hours prior?

7. Can Airservices provide a copy of the radar tapes it gave ATSB regarding this incident?

8. Can Airservices explain why the provision of the radar tapes requested in QoN #237 (5) is complex and would require a significant diversion of resources?

9. Can Airservices explain why the provision of the relevant Essendon Tower, Melbourne Tower and Melbourne Approach Airways Operation Journal entries for the incident is complex and would require a significant diversion of resources?

Answer:

As noted in Airservices response to QoN 237 from October 2014, this incident related to a breakdown of communication where a documented procedure was not correctly followed.

The Melbourne Terminal Area Coordinator was advised that weather conditions at Essendon had deteriorated to a level where Essendon Tower would not be able to visually separate aircraft in the event that there was a missed approach (go around) by an arrival to Runway 26 at Essendon at the same time as a departure or missed approach from Runway 16 at Melbourne, but did not communicate that to Melbourne approach controllers.

In this type of weather scenario, Melbourne Approach controllers would normally sequence Runway 26 arrivals for Essendon with additional spacing from Runway 16 departures at Melbourne and also Runway 16 arrivals to account for the possibility of a missed approach.

Air traffic systems are designed with many layers of defence to ensure that in the rare cases where errors are made, these are detected and recovered. While the breakdown of communication did not cause any loss of separation to occur, the event did highlight an opportunity for making the system safer which has been acted upon.

Despite the breakdown in communication, additional coordination requirements were in place and were effective, which ensured that safety was not compromised:


i) Melbourne Tower was using an operating mode where normal departures were off Runway 27 and not off Runway 16. This required every 16 departure (referred to as an ‘off mode’ departure) to be individually coordinated with Essendon Tower. This coordination would have identified any potential conflict between an Essendon and Melbourne flight and would have resulted in a separation strategy being agreed upon. This requirement is outlined in the LOA.

ii) If there had been an unexpected missed approach by an aircraft landing on Runway 16 at Melbourne (and there were none during the period in question), that would also have required coordination from Melbourne Tower directly to Essendon Tower to agree upon a resolution. This requirement is outlined in the LOA.

The event that triggered the breakdown of communication being detected was an ‘off mode’ departure from Melbourne being identified as a potential conflict with an arrival to Runway 26 at Essendon during one of these coordination events between Melbourne and Essendon Tower. There were a total of six arrivals for Runway 26 at Essendon during the period in question.

With respect to roles, Melbourne Planner (MPL), Melbourne Approach East and Melbourne Terminal Area Coordinator (ML TAC) are air traffic control positions in the Melbourne Terminal Control Unit. ML TAC and MPL are sometimes combined. Melbourne Tower Coordinator and Melbourne Tower Aerodrome Controller are air traffic control position in the Melbourne Tower.

The incident was reported and reviewed in accordance with Airservices normal safety management processes which also include routine notification to both the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
As outlined in Airservices’ responses to Questions on Notice from October 2014 (and Airservices’ response to the REPCON), an interim system enhancement was implemented while coordination procedures were reviewed to look for further opportunities for improvement. An enhancement to local documentation to reinforce coordination requirements was subsequently identified and implemented in 2013.

Neither the ATSB nor CASA considered any further action was required in relation to this event.
The part in bold (above) - Q/ Was that statement made before or after they were made aware that 3hrs had elapsed before the BOC was detected?
The PC'd.. Big Grin .. AQON 166 from the ATSB:

Quote:Question no.: 166


Program: n/a

Division/Agency: Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Topic: REPCON – Cirrus report

Proof Hansard Page: Written

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:
 
1. At the time ATSB reviewed Airservices Cirrus report #ATS-0125061 was it aware that approximately 3 hours had elapsed between the time the reported breakdown of communication occurred and the time it was detected and corrected?

2. At the time ATSB reviewed REPCON AR201300090 relating to Cirrus report #ATS-0125061 was it aware approximately 3 hours had elapsed between the time the reported breakdown of communication occurred and the time it was detected and corrected?

3. When and how did ATSB become aware of the three hour time delay between the error referred to in Cirrus #ATS-0125061 occurring and its subsequent detection and correction?

4. Can ATSB provide a copy of the request it sent to Airservices for the radar tapes relating to Cirrus #ATS-0125061?

5. When did ATSB seek the radar tapes relating to Cirrus #ATS-0125061 – after the CIRRUS report was received or after the REPCON report was received?

6. When did ATSB review the radar tapes – after the CIRRUS report was received or after the REPCON report was received?

7. What period of time did the radar tapes provided by Airservices Australia cover?

8. Can ATSB provide a copy of the radar tapes it reviewed?

Answer:
 
1. No.

2. No – the REPCON reporter advised in their report to the ATSB of 18 November 2014 that the event lasted several hours.

3. In response to a request by the ATSB for clarification of the Airservices Australia response to the REPCON report, Airservices Australia advised the ATSB on 5 December 2014 that the error was not detected for 3 hours.

4. The ATSB reviewed the radar data using Webtrack, which is publicly available on the Airservices Australia website.

5. See question 4 above– the review of radar data was undertaken after the REPCON report was received.

6. See question 5 above.

7. See question 4 above.

8. See question 4 above.
And CASA?- All care Don't care and not liable responsible... Dodgy :
Quote:Question no.: 174


Program: n/a

Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Topic: Cirrus Report #ATS-0125061

Proof Hansard Page: Written

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:
 
1. At the time CASA reviewed Airservices Cirrus report #ATS-0125061 was it aware that approximately 3 hours had elapsed between the time the reported breakdown of communication occurred and the time it was detected and corrected?

2. At the time CASA received ATSB’s advice that no loss of separation or separation assurance had occurred as suggested in REPCON AR201300090 was it aware that approximately 3 hours had elapsed between the time the reported breakdown of communication occurred and the time it was detected and corrected?

3. When and how did CASA become aware of the three hour time delay between the error referred to in Cirrus #ATS-0125061 occurring and its subsequent detection and correction?

4. Did CASA independently review the Cirrus #ATS-0125061/REPCON AR201300090 radar tapes or did it rely on the advice of Airservices and ATSB that no loss of separation or separation assurance had occurred over the three hour period?

5. CASA’s response to ATSB with regards to REPCON AR201300089 states in part, "…CASA is aware that the Melbourne Surface Movement Control (SMC) position is a complex and high workload area. CASA has recommended that Airservices conduct a review of the SMC position post INTAS transition. CASA will be monitoring the results of this review." CASA’s answer to QoN #257 regarding its recommended Melbourne Surface Movement Control review states, "…CASA is aware Airservices Australia conducted a Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the Melbourne Tower Integrated Tower Automation Suite (INTAS) and was not specifically required to provide it to CASA". The answer further states, "…CASA is satisfied that the PIR conducted by Airservices Australia covers the intent of CASA’s recommendation for a review as stated in REPCON AR201300089".

6. How did CASA satisfy itself that the INTAS PIR conducted by Airservices covered the intent of CASA’s Melbourne Surface Movement Control review recommendation and also fulfil its monitoring assurances without obtaining a copy of the Airservices PIR?

Answer:

1. No.

2-3. CASA became aware of the three hour period when it received the REPCON AR201300090 from the ATSB on 9 December 2013.

4. CASA relied upon the advice from Airservices.

5-6. CASA sought a copy of the PIR from Airservices, which was received on 5 May 2014, which satisfied CASA that Airservices had undertaken the recommendation for a review.
MTF...P2 Tongue  

Gobbledock

P2 bolded this bit;

"Neither the ATSB nor CASA considered any action was required in relation to this event".

What an absolute farce. Neither CAsA or ATSB saw issue with the event? Are you serious? Please keep in mind that CAsA, the so called promoter of 'safe skies for all' have been known to persecute an operator or individual into submission for minor offences such as an incorrectly dated logbook, hi-vis vest infractions, forgetting to put a shoulder epaulette on correctly or breaking wind on the flight deck before reaching 10,000 feet. Yes those doyens of safety, Fort Fumble, the bastions of air safety and 'keepers of all things safe' viewed the Essendon malaise as 'not worthy of investigating further'? What can one say other than 'go get em Senators'. What a disgrace.

"Unsafe skies for all"
(05-19-2015, 09:41 PM)Gobbledock Wrote: [ -> ]P2 bolded this bit;

"Neither the ATSB nor CASA considered any  action was required in relation to this event".

What an absolute farce. Neither CAsA or ATSB saw issue with the event? Are you serious? Please keep in mind that CAsA, the so called promoter of 'safe skies for all' have been known to persecute an operator or individual into submission for minor offences such as an incorrectly dated logbook, hi-vis vest infractions, forgetting to put a shoulder epaulette on correctly or breaking wind on the flight deck before reaching 10,000 feet. Yes those doyens of safety, Fort Fumble, the bastions of air safety and 'keepers of all things safe' viewed the Essendon malaise as 'not worthy of investigating further'? What can one say other than 'go get em Senators'. What a disgrace.

"Unsafe skies for all"

There was more on this farce today at Estimates, still need to copy some footage off the ASA session (must admit to getting a bit over it). However NX again questioned CASA & ATSBeaker about the YMML incident etc. 





MTF...P2 Tongue
Okay finally, here is the ASA Estimates session (well most of it.. Rolleyes ) broken into three parts:







MTF...P2 Wink
A little Steam? - On please.

Liability, extended by osmosis.  The implications of the Xenophon v Dolan hit up needs to be examined, with some care.  On the surface – you could be forgiven for thinking "Ah, Nick's just got his panties in a bunch, storm in a tea cup".  Make no mistake, that is exactly the way Dolan would want it to be viewed, if he could and had any credibility to back it.  But he's a little short in that area, ain't he? (rhetorical).

But; think on: you get booked for speeding 105 in an 100 zone and you pitch up in court.  The Judge says "Well, how do you plead?"    You - " Well Mlud; I have examined my speedometer and I can state that my speed was, 98.9999, the police have it wrong".  "Okey dokey" says M'Lud  "thank you, case dismissed".   

Now, if you think that's silly, listen to what Dolan is really saying.  That Repcon are low priority for starters; even a serious one.  Secondly, that those who have the most skin in the game, ASA this time, have been allowed to 'investigate' their own stuff up: not speeding they say.  Both CASA and ATSB are 'happy as Larry' with the home spun result.  BOLLOCKS, even if it was not self excusing, it's still a BOLLOCKS.

Then, there's Dolan whining about and hiding behind 'lack of resources'.  BOLLOCKS a quick call to the Miniscule and a request for additional funds toward an investigation, to which he is fully entitled under law and which the Minister is obliged to allocate, could have easily 'funded' a proper investigation, if he is (outside KPI reality) that strapped for dollars.  Tapes pulled and full analysis, proper report provided by an 'independent' (of ASA) ATSB expert.   But no, Dolan, with his vast experience of ATC decided to dismiss it as tendentious; do a fast, cheap, desk top analysis using a commercially available soft ware ATC 'system' designed for the anoraks, just because ASA say "no wukkers mate– all good here".  BOLLOCKS.  Why not be able to say:-

"Senator we took this Repcon very seriously as we do all Repcon".  We did do a full analysis and here is the report". - Presents report – "The additional safety measures of TCAS and 'see and avoid' training reduced the apparent risks, further, mathematical modelling demonstrates that the percentage chances of a high risk scenario developing were so low as to be considered negligible".  "However, we have now agreed a system which ASA have executed and we can, with some certainty state that the chance of a reoccurrence is now negligible; herewith the CASA independent conclusions which fully support our own"   Gold star - Dolan takes a bow and walks off head high with the praises of the Senate - for doing his ducking job properly.   

But worst of all, IMO, Dolan, he knew in advance that NX was hot for this episode and Dolan had not even the respect or courtesy to at least make a fist of defending his parsimonious rulings.  Basically he tried to bluff and bluster and hide being some 'policy' which says that Repcon are just second class, unsubstantiated tales of woe, embellished as required to suit the writer and way beneath the contempt of a world class air safety investigator, such as himself.   Listen to the babble and spin; Repcon dismissed; investigation – token at best; total acceptance that ASA were telling the truth.  Aye well, at least Hood had the brains, balls and fortitude to explain the 'situation'; but even he stopped well short of admitting it was ASA who said to ATSB, nothing to see, move along.  Clever fellahin that one.

Does Xenophon know what it was in reality and skilfully using the event to allow the world to see exposed the utter contempt which the ATSB, beyond all reason, pinch-penny school clearly has for doing the job 'properly' and those who dare question how they are doing of it?  You bet.

A little steam – Off;  but he has to go; FFS he can't even tell a fairy story without tripping over his beard; and where was Sangston and the Invisible Man-ning? off fixing up the Norfolk report I expect.  Dolan does not want Karen involved does he; I wonder why the resident shrink is involved, if he don't talk to Karen? perhaps it's the FO who needs to be shrink wrapped.  We shall, no doubt see – eventually.

There, better now and just enough left in the boiler for a Toot toot.
Top post "K" & good vent, feel better now... Rolleyes

Off the Planetalking blog, Ben has found time in his jet-setting to intercept a youtube video sent courtesy of NX.. Wink : ATSB admits failing to investigate serious ATC blackout in Melbourne



He has also kindly moderated a comment that I submitted on that post... Big Grin

Quote:
  • [Image: 9e6a100682b43262d442628f4a9eaeeb?s=32&d=identicon&r=G] PAIN_P2
    Posted May 29, 2015 at 10:49 am | Permalink
    With your indulgence Ben? A couple of comments off the Aunty Pru Forum (censored of course) in regards to this matter at Senate Estimates yesterday (28 May 2015):

    “…IMO the best example of Dolan’s sheer bloody-minded arrogance & contempt for the Senate Committee & industry, was his response to Xenophon’s questioning on the YMML/YMEN 3hr BOS/LOSA (Cirrus report) incident…

    ..For the Chief Commissioner – of the so called transport safety watchdog – to totally discount the NX relayed concerns of professional ATCOs & Pilots is simply unforgivable, IMO this should be solid grounds for his instant dismissal…”

    The point should be made that in all probability this was a non-event, as pointed out by ASA EM Greg Hood – later in the Estimates session {refer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQABsEYWLMI} – there are many checks & balances that are in place that helped to prevent this escalating to a full blown LOSA/BOS incident, or God forbid an airborne collision.

    IMO the following comments (off AP forum) more than adequately highlight what the real issues are:

    “…The following points should make the public, PM’s office and ICAO cringe;
    a) No formal investigation was initiated

    b) The ATSB used an inaccurate and non formal web tracking tool to determine if a potential issue existed/occurred.

    c) Once again shoddy department work that is based upon saving money rather than performing proper investigations. Dolan himself, yet again, made his point about a lack of resources. So if this is true, who should be accountable – Dolan? Department Head? Joe Hockey? Old mother Hubbard?

    d) ATSB failure to check the radar images when this alone would have been the most reliable and accurate source of evidence.

    e) ATSB relying upon ASA to do its own investigation.
    This wasn’t a case of somebody spilling hot coffee in their lap. There was the potential for an aircraft conflict or worse.

    f) Dolan, as the Chief Commissoner personally felt comfortable with the decision to not formally investigate!

    ICAO doesn’t need any more motivation to act than this.
    The state (Australia) has an investigative authority unable or unwilling to perform it’s function under the Chicago convention and ICAO annexes due to incompetence, mismanagement and supposed financial/resource problems. ICAO are happy with this? The FAA are happy with this?…”


    {For the slightly more colourful version of the above quoted comments visit here: http://auntypru.com/forum/–ATSB-Aberrations}

    Finally the following is a reference from the newest ICAO SARP – i.e. Annex 19 (State SMS), Attachment A para 1.3:

    “..1.3 Accident and incident investigation

    The State has established an independent accident and incident investigation process, the sole objective of which is the prevention of accidents and incidents, and not the apportioning of blame or liability. Such investigations are in support of the management of safety in the State.

    In the operation of the SSP, the State maintains the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations…”


    As a signatory to ICAO does anyone seriously believe we are meeting our obligations in regards to the above?

    Cheers

    P2
 
Thank you Ben & safe travels.. Smile

MTF...P2 Tongue

   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35