[crankybastards]

It gives me cause for concern that the deal done with the French, (Thales), submarine tender went ahead at breakneck speed for something that many of us will never see, and the Crews for the vessels aren't even born yet. Fifty Billion for something that isn't designed yet but it keeps a mob of Union hacks in Moet and caviar.
Three times the price of off the shelf Japanese boats. Yes it's a worry these Thales deals.

[Peetwo]

ASA at Estimates 05/05/16 - Hansard

To begin with, something I should of noticed before; Hoody was not in attendance.  Now of course we know why.. :Hoodlum to take over from Beaker
 
Besides Harfwit in his flash blue suit (again) - and still on a "I'm the boss" high - probably wouldn't have allowed him to get a word in edgewise.

One thing I noted from that Oz article was a comment from a "Boyd", that would seem to indicate that Hoody had kept the ATSB CC job close to his chest: 

Boyd  - 4 days ago

He is actually a current Airservices manager... And nothing has been announced to his staff yet. Nice.

 
- Bitter chips perhaps?
Anyway, here is the small passage of the latest Estimates Hansard from with NX asking questions on the YMML LAHSO Ops etc., which ironically Hoody would have been far more qualified to answer..    

Airservices Australia

[18:48]

Senator XENOPHON: I want to ask about land and hold short operations at Melbourne airport. You wrote to me on 28 April 2016; there was a voluntary suspension of those night-time operations in November 2015. Has that now been reinstated?

Mr Harfield : That is correct.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide the committee with details of the basis of that reinstatement of those land and hold short operations in airports?

Mr Harfield : We voluntarily suspended land and hold short operations at Melbourne last year, and as a result of that we undertook a reassessment and analysis of the procedure. In doing so, we improved the controller training in regard to what we would call compromised separation in regard to aircraft in a double go-around situation. We did further risk assessment and, included with that, a concept called the stagger was introduced. The stagger means that when we are flowing aircraft in LAHSO operations—

Senator XENOPHON: Is the new concept the stagger?

Mr Harfield : The stagger means we ensure that the arrival over the threshold of each aircraft is staggered.

Senator XENOPHON: It sounds like someone is over the limit, but anyway.

Mr Harfield : What it means is that the event of two aircraft—even in a go-around situation—coming to the intersection of the runway at the same time is reduced because of the fact that we have a different timing from when the aircraft are landing on the runway.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide documents in respect of that to the committee in due course.

Mr Harfield : Absolutely.

Senator XENOPHON: I previously raised a couple of specific instances where people wrote to me saying, 'I was on this flight at this time, and it looked awfully close.' Can you just remind me whether you got back to me on that.

Mr Harfield : Yes, we did: back on the questions on notice. Off the top of my head, there was one that we could track down that was due to a go-around situation from the controller, and the other one we could not actually track down.

Senator XENOPHON: Okay. I will follow that through. Will there be an ongoing monitoring of the LAHSO?

Mr Harfield : Absolutely.

Senator XENOPHON: Okay. Your air traffic controllers have had extra training in respect of this?

Mr Harfield : Yes

Hmm...how come everyone else seems to have a copy of the AQON?? 
One other passage of more than passing interest, which I almost missed & on the subject of ASA, trough feeding, conflicts of interest and dodgy deals, occurred between Sterlo & Murky right at the start of the DoIRD session:

...Senator STERLE: Are you able to point us in what areas they are at this stage?

Mr Mrdak : In terms of the department itself, they predominantly range around some specific functions which could be considered for no longer continuing. Some areas that have been identified include the performance of some functions such as the administration of financial assistance to local government and other payment processes, which could be considered for centralisation in other areas of government such as the Department of Finance; and ceasing areas such as the department's performance of activities in maritime regulation, and whether that better sits with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. It also indicates areas where government may wish to consider larger structural changes, such as considering the future of Airservices Australia.

Senator STERLE: How?

Mr Mrdak : Whether the government wishes to consider future options for different governance and ownership arrangements for some of our statutory bodies, including Airservices Australia.

Senator STERLE: So that could be outsourcing?

Mr Mrdak : It could be or it could be looking at taking it into different ownership structures to what they currently are.

Senator STERLE: What could they be? The reason I am asking is: we all know for Airservices Australia there is no competition, and it is quite a bit of a money earner for the government. Could you shine a light for us on how that could be done in a different way?

Mr Mrdak : The Functional and Efficiency Review did look at international examples of where governments have placed their air traffic control provider—air services provider—in different governance structures, particularly the United Kingdom and Canada, where they have been placed in either part-private ownership or a not-for-profit government body. They were models that were looked at in the scope. The Functional and Efficiency Review recommended that we consider further options for the future of Airservices Australia...

   
Hmm...I wonder if in light of the AOPA Project Eureka & TAAAF Policy 2016 whether the FER recommendations are being more closely looked at?

MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

Of PFOS, Darwin and two-headed fish

Looks like Darwin is the latest airport to be havin it's local waterways tested;

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-12...ms/7408862

No wonder the Hooded one bailed. I reckon Hoody can see the writing on the wall with this snowballing issue.

Tick tock environment tick tock

[Kharon]

I reckon two headed fish that glow in the dark don’t trouble Hoody as much as the two faced bastriches that lurk in the corridors of ASA.  But I agree, this is starting to shape up as a real issue, another pathway to the MM door, maybe they’ll use pink bats to soak up the mess.    Good thing they sold off the assets, won't be able to give 'em away once this 'blip' is fully understood.

Bastrich?  What you get when you cross a bastard with a son of a bitch; attributed to Twain – I think?

[Peetwo]

Latest on uniquely Australian ADSB debacle. 

From off 'CASA meets the Press' thread:

Skid'Mark;

“The pace of change may not be as fast as some would prefer, but real change is underway,” he said. “Like any worthwhile task everything cannot be achieved at once and foundations must be laid before the structure can be constructed.”

Horsehit mate. 28 years + $300 million dollars, hundreds of lives lost, businesses going broke, billions of potential economic dollars lost over the decades, G.A dead and the future of potential aviation apprentices lost forever! We've been more than fuc#king patient mate.

Off with their heads

The aviation industry says it's going to the wall because of over regulations by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Around 300 pilots and members of the industry met with Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and the Minister for Transport Darren Chester on Friday afternoon to raise their concerns.

---

 Geoff Boyd CASA.

Hitch yesterday in Oz Flying regurgitated some of the more significant statements made from BJ, DC, JB & Dick Smith - Inside Tamworth: What they said. From that here is part of what Jeff Boyd said on the ADSB issue in regards to Skidmore's comments at Estimates (note the word CAN'T ):

"..I know Mark [Skidmore] copped a hard time for holding the company line last night in Senate Estimates. I think he was a bit set-up there, which was unfortunate, because we had a conversation as recently as yesterday about what we can do to alleviate the problems of ADS-B being brought in. When I was chairman of the RAAA [Regional Aviation Association of Australia], I was one of the biggest protester of ADS-B. I think it's a stupid idea to bring it in three to four years ahead of the country that manufactures this kit. But, I came in afterwards and now I'm trying to unpick it. Things have happened; things are moving. Just rolling it [the February 2017 mandate] back doesn't work; it's impossible, it can't work.

There are people who are co-operative in the organisation [CASA]. You bring the case [for ADS-B exemption] to us, we'll look at the case, and providing we can make it work, we'll make it work. We're not in the business of putting people out of business ... I want to see this industry prosper.." 

Skidmore ambushed by Xenophon? - BOLLOCKS Jeff  If you or "Mark" had done your homework and considered the previous Estimates & QON, you would have noted that NX has fielded many questions on behalf of Dick Smith & industry on the subject of the ADSB rollout.

Now I can understand the Skidmore attitude for he has shown nothing but contempt for industry concerns, ever since he said that the Forsyth review was "just another person's opinion..", that was despite the massive uptake by industry (269 submissions representing 1000's of stakeholders) on providing input to the Reverend's 'opinion'.

However coming from the industry - "Great White Hope" - for a true industry advocate finally at the helm of the CASA board, I'd expect much..much better -

It is worth reflecting on the Hitch quote statement from Dick Smith:

Dick Smith - Aviation identity and former Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Jeff [Boyd], you've made the same error that I made when I was Chairman, and that is you've been told that this mandate is some requirement from Airservices, and in fact, the predecessor of Mark Skidmore, John McCormick, told the industry that in fact the particular mandate would not come in; he'd make sure it didn't come in because there was no safety reason for it. And Airservices wouldn't budge. Now, I've really studied this, I've really looked into it, I have a lot of inquiries with Airservices ... I've spent a lot of time with them and I really believe the only reason they're doing it is so some of their boffins can win an international award for being the first country to introduce ADS-B.

If it does come in in February, it will completely destroy the general aviation industry. 

  

Show us your safety case?

"..Skidmore ambushed by Xenophon? - BOLLOCKS Jeff ...If you or "Mark" had done your homework and considered the previous Estimates & QON, you would have noted that NX has fielded many questions on behalf of Dick Smith & industry on the subject of the ADSB rollout..."

To back up my statement above, the following is copied across from the latest PAIN email chain...

I am reliably told that Boyd no longer replies to or acknowledges any form of telecommunication messages or even written correspondence. However maybe someone may bring this to his attention. The following is Hansard from the February 2016

Senator XENOPHON: Can I just go further to Senator Sterle's line of questioning about the ADSB. I spoke to Dick Smith—the solvent one—earlier today.

CHAIR: You mean that quiet young bloke that has a farm out here and flies occasionally?

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, that is the one. Not to be confused with the company. He is concerned about the implementation of the ADSB. Within 12 months—as I understand it, by February 2017—there is a requirement for ADSB to be fitted to every small plane that flies in cloud. Is that your understanding?

Mr Skidmore : February 2017 is the mandate for all IFR aircraft to be fitted with ADSB, yes.

Senator XENOPHON: Does that include small planes?

Mr Skidmore : All IFR aircraft.

Senator XENOPHON: Dick Smith advised me earlier today that it is in the region of $49,000 for that for a small aircraft.

Mr Skidmore : I do not know the numbers. I have seen the quote that Mr Smith has provided to me several times for his Citation jet. That is in the order of $55,000. I do not know the numbers for other small aircraft.

Senator XENOPHON: I am just relaying a conversation I had. I have his permission to relate it. He says, 'This will be the death knell of general aviation.' He goes on to say that there is no safety case, because this relates to avoiding collisions in cloud. Is that right? That is what it is about.

Mr Skidmore : It is an enhancement to a surveillance system. You can use a number of different methods to do surveillance. Radar is one of them, but we do not have radar all over Australia. ADSB is another way of providing it, by having stations around Australia. I understand—you would have to get the exact number from Air Services—there is in the order of 73 ADSB stations around Australia providing coverage anywhere from 20,000 upwards or thereabouts, but it will drop down to 10,000 in most areas and down to the ground in a lot of areas. So we are starting to get a surveillance system around this great country that will actually be providing us with information to be able to do air traffic management.

Senator XENOPHON: Because I have a whole range of other questions, could you take on notice the safety case? Mr Smith advises me that he does not think there has ever been a case of two aircraft colliding in cloud in this country.

Mr Skidmore : And let's stop it. Let's make sure we have a system in place that stops that from happening.

Senator XENOPHON: But it has not happened because, and the point was made by Mr Smith to me, there are already rules in this country in that you have to do a flight plan if you are flying in light cloud and you have to give full position reporting—something that does not happen in other countries. There are whole range of safeguards in place.

Mr Skidmore : There are currently procedural methods in place—and, again, this is more a discussion with Airservices, I suspect, to talk about how these things work—that operate in regard to an area without surveillance coverage. We are trying to provide surveillance coverage for Australia.

CHAIR: If I have Cherokee 140 or a Cessna 150, I am not likely to want to do IFR in cloud with that equipment on board, am I?

Mr Skidmore : If you are flying in instrument-flight conditions, I think you would like to have a surveillance system on board. As of February 2017, you will have to have it on board.

CHAIR: What proportion of people who have a Cessna 150 do IFR now?

Mr Skidmore : I do not have that figure.

CHAIR: I do not think there would be too many. Dick might, but I don't think I would.

Mr Skidmore : I do not think he flies a Cessna—

CHAIR: No, he does not—but a very nice caravan.

Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps I could ask you on notice about the safety case. My understanding is that we have procedures in place for flight plans in cloud and full position reporting and the like which is different from other countries such as the US and other vast countries. Dick Smith and others have questioned the safety case for that and also the impact on general aviation.

Additional Estimates:

In that passage, in typical arrogant contempt by this individual, Skidmore  effectively ducked the QON, NX QON 165: http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees...AE1516.pdf

Senator XENOPHON: Because I have a whole range of other questions, could you take on notice the safety case? Mr Smith advises me that he does not think there has ever been a case of two aircraft colliding in cloud in this country.

Unfortunately due to the DD & the inept Department this QON is yet to receive an AQON. Therefore maybe we can get a straight answer from Chairman Boyd on the documented safety case for the ADSB being necessarily implemented at least 3 yrs before the rest of the aviation 1st World?

Next, apparently after having no heart or justified safety case for inflicting ADSB (3 years ahead of the US on an already struggling GA industry), the Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group (ASTRA) has finally made a concession for VFR aircraft owners to only voluntarily equip their aircraft with ADSB - UFB!

The Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group (ASTRA) has proposed that aircraft flying under Visual Flight Rules be encouraged to fit ADS-B Out systems voluntarily.

Under the current regulations, ADS-B is being mandated from February 2017 for only IFR aircraft.

In an ASTRA paper developed in March 2016, the group states that fitting ADS-B to VFR aircraft would increase safety because the aircraft would be visible to ATC, on traffic collision avoidance systems (TCAS) and to other aircraft fitted with ADS-B In.

The paper also acknowledges that VFR aircraft owners are unlikely to fit voluntarily unless the systems got a lot cheaper to buy and install.

"Maximising voluntary fitment of ADS-B technology in VFR aircraft will enable air-air traffic awareness methods and technologies, and significantly improve aviation safety," the ASTRA document states.

"Whilst regulated mandatory fitment is not indicated, widespread equipage can be encouraged through the adoption of appropriate standards and installation process simplification.

"The CASA Director has instructed staff to examine means to encourage voluntary installation of ADS-B into the general aviation (GA) fleet and reduce the costs of equipping GA aircraft with ADS-B.

This is ongoing work but the findings to date have been included in this paper for completeness."

ASTRA proposes that CASA should accept FAA Technical Service Order (TSO) C199 as acceptable for VFR, or that CASA allows non-TSO approve avionics in VFR provided the manufacturer has a statement of compliance with the TSO.

Most importantly, ASTRA has proposed that CASA changes the requirements for installing some avionics to lower the cost of design, installation and maintenance, which is sees as vital if ADS-B Out is to become widespread in VFR aircraft.

"Alternative approaches, based on TSO approved equipment and individual installations being subject to modification approval, seem certain to ensure that ADS-B fitment does not become widespread – and the benefits of widespread equipage and air-air awareness will not be provided," the paper states.

"By bringing ADS-B OUT fitment within reach for VFR aircraft, the approach proposed in this paper enables ADS-B IN technologies and methods for traffic awareness and alerting by pilots of all equipped aircraft. It is expected that products which combine ADS-B OUT and IN functions, including those with wireless links to handheld portable tablets and EFBs, will proliferate in GA markets."

It is believed the ASTRA paper is being circulated to selected aviation associations for comment.

Full ASTRA proposal

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...wbqkiJL.99

   
Well that's big of them because the word is if the status quo remains till 2020, it will all be over for GA by then - FDS!



MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

If Skid'Mark thinks he was ambushed by Nick then he is softer than my grandfathers doodle! Nick doesn't ambush people. All he does is know his subject, researches it concisely, gets the full facts and even talks to REAL INDUSTRY EXPERTS!!

Technically speaking Skid'Mark as the Director of Aviation Safety, the 'top dog' of our Nation should be able to run circles around Nick at Estimates, piece of piss! Not unless Skid'Mark is not the font of regulatory knowledge that he makes out that he is. Perhaps he is just another bureaucrat who climbed decades worth of greasy poles to be rewarded with a plum $600k retirement job in which all he has to do is look smart yet do SFA except keep a seat warm for 3 glorious years while his super is topped up? Nah, surely not!

TICK TOCK still....

[P7_TOM]

Bit 'Techo'?  I know – but it's spot on.

From an associate ‘expert’ in the field:-

I have been reading the ASTRA paper on mandating ADS-B for VFR. I am surprised at the number of regulatory “misunderstandings”, ie; “Present” charter will be under CASR 121 in the future --- doesn’t ASTRA know about CASR Part 135??

There are some serious technical fubars, ie; ADS-B will make aircraft visible to TCAS ---- it will but only because there is a Mode S transponder, a Mode C transponder in an aircraft that is not fitted with TCAS 11 (a large majority of current VH- GA aircraft) produces the same functionality.

I am not aware that any of the manufacturers of TCAS have implemented the “ADS-B IN” standard, because there is no airline demand, because it produces no additionality functionality between two TCAS 11 equipped aircraft, compared to TCAS 11 without ADS-B IN.

With the complete lack of any risk analysis, the whole ASTRA paper is a nonsense, and complete lack of serious cost/benefit justification, it is even worse than the original CASA attempts at risk analysis and cost/benefit justification (first and second attempts) for the original ADS-B proposals.

OK: Ok, - keep regulatory reform, keep the ASRR; keep the lot; but for crying out loud; give us logic.  That mysterious quantity CASA lost, many, many moons ago.  

2021 for all that makes sense; the rest  - PONY-POOH.

[Peetwo]

ASA AQON - 254 pages

The Airservices AQON from the Additional Estimates have been released and they are the biggest file by far with some 22 attachments (141 pages total):

174-185

Airservices Australia
(PDF_13.6MB)

04/05/2016

Those 22 attachments are all in supplement to the Senator Xenophon QON 181:


Reading through the additional 22 supplements I get the impression that one Greg Hood, as a parting gesture, has thrown all three of the aviation safety Stooges under the bus and left one Harfwit completely vulnerable to much further scrutiny from Nick Xenophon and the Senate RRAT committee..  
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

ANAO Audit & the OneSKY/Thales trough that keeps on giving?

Still waiting on the ANAO audit report, according to the webpage they have only two working days (today & Monday) to make public:

Airservices Australia's Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist with the OneSKY Australia Project
Report preparation
Contribution has closed
Due to table: May, 2016

Portfolio: Infrastructure and Regional Development

Entity: Airservices Australia

Contact: Please direct enquiries relating to reports through our contact page.

The audit objective is to examine whether Airservices Australia has effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) in association with the OneSKY Australia project were effectively administered.

  
Of course there is a possibility that because of the DD election that the report will be delayed till the new government takes up office. Although theoretically ASA is independent of government influence and has it's own board that provides governance & oversight, so there should be no real excuse to delay. That is of course depending on there being no outstanding issues that require further ANAO investigation...
   

While on the subject of OneSKY/Thales etc. and the seemingly incestuous relationship with not only ASA but the Defence department, unfortunately I have been a little slow on the uptake but some 3 weeks ago the Australian Independent Media Network published the following short article - Why are we still searching for Flight MH370 . Which included links to two Kangaroo Court articles:

I’m sure I’m not the only one with this burning question, “why did Abbott insist on using tax payers money on a futile search?”

About a week ago I received two emails with links to the following articles:
Bribery allegations against Australia’s $50 billion submarine contract winner
Australian Senate corruption inquiry investigating $50 Billion Submarine contract winner

The first article was the entree to solving my burning question and in the second article  (third paragraph) there is a link titled ‘tipped off‘ which leads one to the AuntyPru website where upon reading I came across a comment that the search vessels for MH370 was conducting surveys of the ocean floors and asked who is going to benefit from this massive survey.

Which I confess to again totally missing (I am sorry Shane ), no excuse but between having to work for a crust, the Tamworth rally and the calling of the election, I was somewhat swamped at the time. However the following is a quote from part of the 2nd excellent KC article (please visit the site to read full article & donate to help SD also earn a crust -  ):

This has been known to the federal government for quite a while as they started their Senate investigation in 2014 and also had hearings last year. The Australian reported in September 2015:

In the public part of that hearing, Sir Angus admitted to some problems with a “perception” of conflicts of interest associated with the $1.5 billion program to integrate the nation’s civilian and military air-traffic-control systems, known as OneSKY.

These included a “husband and wife team” on opposite sides of a transaction between Airser­vices and the International Centre for Complex Project Manage­ment, the consultancy group it engaged in a multi-million-dollar contract to advise it on OneSKY.
Senators also pointed to the fact Chris Jenkins, the managing director of Thales Australia, is also chairman of ICCPM, which employs former Royal Australian Air Force officer Harry Bradford on an Airservices contract worth $1 million so far to negotiate on Airservices’ behalf with Thales. (Click here to read more)

The Senate enquiry apparently hasn’t stopped the ICCPM rorting with Airservices Australia but with the National Audit Office due to report this month let’s wait and see what happens with it.

The corrupt dealings between Airservices Australia, ICCPM and Thales is almost identical to DCNS appointing former Liberal Party crony Sean Costello as CEO of DCNS to negotiate the $50 billion Submarine deal as I reported last post. And it must be remembered that Thales is accused of bribing the Malaysians over $100 million in a contract worth $2 billion. So if bribery is going on here how much would it be worth? (Click here to read more)

  
Perhaps the issues highlighted by KC would be another possible reason for the ANAO to reflect and stall/obfuscate till at least some of the dust has settled from the election...

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

  

The Senate enquiry apparently hasn’t stopped the ICCPM rorting with Airservices Australia but with the National Audit Office due to report this month let’s wait and see what happens with it.

The anticipation far exceeds the reality of what will be ‘discovered’ and disappointment looms large.  The smoke is within the ToR, the mirrors within the structure.  The ANAO may well unearth some minor credit card indiscretions, the great biscuit tin scandal or even some lunch voucher ‘fraud’ but the ToR will prevent them getting to the ‘juicy’ stuff. You wait, you shall see.

ASA have been ‘at it’ for years at all levels, all very legal and within their remit.  They have built a layer of top cover which is almost impervious to attack, again all kosher and within their ‘charter’.  This is easily seen in Estimates where the obfuscation of disingenuous people is reflected in the contempt displayed, the arrogance revealed in the answers to open questions and the smug satisfaction on those faces as they emerge from the hearings.  

There is, I’m told an election to be held soon; neither side will want a scandal to break out, as both sides of politics are culpable; guilty of neglect and hiding behind the 'mystique' of the 'safety' net.  This is hardly a ‘recent’ discovery.  I wonder just how much of the national debt has found it’s way into the back pockets of those who have unfettered access to the public purse?  I’ll die wondering, for the real truth will never emerge.

Audit – phooey – business as usual says the sign on the gold plated doors.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Sunday dots & the Mc-QON-dary - 

Evil Archbishop of GA purgatory

In 60 moves. 

Pawn to Rook 9.  Check mate.



..The Skidmore missive reflects this and the duplicity of which CASA are capable.  Behind the scenes, the minister and department are fed a story line ‘all’s well’, which they believe.  Meanwhile additional defences are being reinforced against the Forsyth review, which is almost a forgotten whisper, the CVD pilot matter, the ADSB matter, the Part 61 matter and the CAO 48.1 matter, which are all baited distractions to cover the lack of reform of the regulator.  There is no intention, none whatsoever within CASA to take a backward step on all or any of these aberrations.   Skidmore fully supports this, said so publicly, on the record.  I mean, Forsyth was just ‘an opinion’; CVD case wins can be appealed; the list goes on and on...  

...The world and it’s wife knows who is the whispering voice behind the throne, the ventriloquist; the only thing that changes is the Dummy used to deliver the twisted logic and clear directions on how to reach Perdition – (a small hamlet, three miles South of Hell’s gate, see either Minnie, GD or myself to buy a one way ticket; there is no return service).

"Importantly, it will build stronger and more effective internal relationships ..."

Aye, but who has captured whom?  Exemptions anyone? They are free but you need to sing the little song printed on the back, OK.  There you go minister, another happy convert.  

Toot toot.

QON in isolation?

Strangely, even though the question on notice was previously asked of Skidmore and therefore should have made the question of JA null & void, a QON was registered (& answered with the obligatory 'refer to' reply), not in amongst the other associated QON but almost as an after thought, tacked onto the end of the CASA AQON:

QON 173

Senator Sterle, Glenn asked:

Dr Aleck: What I will tell you is that in the normal course, when a regulation is made, it has an effective date in it. When that regulation is published then anyone who knows of the regulation—it is incumbent upon an operator to be aware of it—knows what is the effective date. But I will add that our process has always been that when we are introducing new legislation—generally well before the legislation is made, let alone when it comes into effect—there is a campaign to make sure that those who are going to be affected by it are made aware of it. We can put it out there. We can hold events and we can put it on the website. But whether it gets into somebody's brain or not ultimately is their responsibility. I should be very surprised if a major operator were unaware of the fact that a particular regulation that will affect their operations comes into effect on a certain date. What I cannot tell you offhand is what that date was.

Senator STERLE: Okay. But someone will be able to find out.

Dr Aleck: I am sure that is so, yes.

Answer:

See response to 163.

 
Ok and the response to 163:

Answer:

As indicated on page 120 of the Committee Hansard, CASA published the ADS-B booklet on its website and distributed it to industry in November 2012. The relevant Civil Aviation Order 20.18 Amendment Instrument 2012 (No.1) was signed on 16 August 2012.

This bit from Dr A IMO almost encapsulates the true (evil) underlying intent of the Iron ring puppet-master...

"..We can put it out there. We can hold events and we can put it on the website. But whether it gets into somebody's brain or not ultimately is their responsibility..."

In other words dare to question the Civil Aviation Safety big A-authority you will suffer the consequences...

In following the strangely isolated Dr A-QON - - & the references made in AQON 163 in the above quoted M&M thread post, a couple of large dots are starting to appear on the horizon - 

First the reference - Civil Aviation Order 20.18 Amendment Instrument 2012 (No. 1).  For some strange reason this was signed by McComic's deputy dog Tezza: 

I, Terence lindsay farquharson, Acting Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under regulation 207 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
[Signed T. Farquharson]

Terry Farquharson
Acting Director of Aviation Safety
16 August 2012

Maybe JMAC was in Montreal or R&R; or maybe the ADS-B/GNSS mandate dates were deemed to have potential to cop bad PR flack, so therefore Tezza was delegated as the go to man to deflect the crap?? However in reference to the NPRM DRAFT it would appear that was never the original intent: 

DRAFT

I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under regulation 207 of the

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.

John F. McCormick Director of Aviation Safety
Date 2012

Civil Aviation Order 20.18 Amendment Instrument 2012 (No. x)

1 Name of instrument

This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 20.18 Amendment Instrument 2012 (No. x).

2 Commencement

This instrument commences on the day after registration.

3 Amendment of Civil Aviation Order 20.18

Schedule 1 amends Civil Aviation Order 20.18...

 
So why couldn't the CASA LSD have gotten McComic to sign the instrument prior to his R&R or trip to Montreal??
This got me thinking back to the onslaught last year by Dick Smith & the Australian on Airservices Australia & (by default) CASA. In particular there was two articles:
1) Flyers burnt by air safety U-turn

Mr Edwards, who runs charter service Edwards Aviation with seven aircraft based in Armidale, NSW, sought along with other smaller operators to be exempted from installing ADS-B for a few years, until the economies of scale and mass production of the equipment in the US brought it down to a fraction of the cost.

“I could see it was going to cost me a big whack of money,” Mr ­Edwards said. “For one of my aircraft there were still no engineering solutions out there, so we said, ‘What are we going to do, we want an exemption’.”

Engineers had told him it would cost $125,000 to equip that aircraft with ADS-B, because the equipment manufacturer, Honeywell, had not designed the adaptation engineering for the aircraft type, and would not be doing so until the market developed in the US. “In five years, it would cost a tenth as much,” Mr Edwards said.

Mr McCormick met Mr ­Edwards in Armidale, and said CASA would arrange for an exemption for him and others in his sector of the aviation industry.

Soon after, Mr McCormick wrote to Mr Edwards. “I have spoken to (an aviation industry officer representing smaller air operators) and Airservices and the ­approach they have spoken of ­between themselves is to treat biz jets that are not ADS-B compliant in the same manner as Airservices dealt with non RVSM compliant aircraft when that initiative was introduced,” Mr McCormick wrote. RVSM refers to an advanced altimeter system, in relation to which exemptions were granted, and are still granted, to small operators, who are only required to ­accept occasionally being placed in second priority for flight clearances by air traffic controllers.

Mr Edwards said once he ­received the letter from Mr McCormick, “I went, you beauty, we can relax.”

But on a flight from Launceston to Uluru with Russian tourists, air traffic controllers kept his aircraft below 29,000 feet instead of the preferred cruising altitude of 37,000 feet, meaning it was burning twice the fuel. The controllers said he could not fly at the higher altitude ­because he had not installed ADS-B, and ignored his protestations that he had been granted an exemption by CASA.

Knowing the aircraft would not make it to Uluru, Mr Edwards touched down at Whyalla in South Australia to refuel.

“We were not going to make it,” Mr Edwards said.

He then spoke to CASA, but could not immediately get a ­response to what had happened to his promised exemption.

He spoke to businessman and aviator Dick Smith, who contacted Mr McCormick. Mr McCormick told Mr Smith that Airservices had changed its mind and decided it did not want the ­exemptions granted. In a subsequent letter to Mr Smith, Mr McCormick wrote: “CASA took into consideration and accepted Airservices Australia’s safety ­arguments against exemptions.”

Mr Smith yesterday said: “CASA is the safety regulator, why are they letting a profit-making business decide safety issues?” P2 comment- Exactly, that is the multi-billion dollar question  

2) Airservices resisted safety drive, says ex CASA boss John McCormick

The former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority says his five-year campaign for safer skies came up against repeated resistance from Airservices Australia, which dragged its heels against ­reforming airspace management along US lines.

John McCormick, who stepped down from CASA last year, said that he met opposition each time he moved to have Airservices, the government-owned body that runs the nation’s air traffic control and navigation system, extend controlled airspace.

In his first interview since ­leaving the aviation watchdog, Mr McCormick said Airservices seemed reluctant to implement measures that involved its air ­traffic controllers directing aircraft over a wider range of airspace where reliable radar was available. “Their objections were not based on safety; to my belief, they were internal Airservices ­issues,” Mr McCormick said.

In one case, Mr McCormick said, he had to issue a directive to have Airservices’ air traffic controllers take charge of aircraft around Avalon airport in Victoria, a move he believes may have ­prevented a potential serious air accident...

...Mr McCormick said he did succeed in some reform, such as improving airspace arrangements at the main secondary airports used for general aviation in each mainland capital.

At Avalon, not far from Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport, the situation was absurd, Mr McCormick said, because the radar coverage of the area was so good “you could see aircraft on the ground” but it was not being used for air traffic control down to the runway.

“I said that this was unacceptable. For various reasons, there was a bit of objection,” Mr McCormick said, referring to Airservices.

He said Airservices did not move fast to implement the CASA directive to bring Avalon under controlled airspace. “It took them a year. They hybrided their way towards it,” Mr McCormick said.

It was after controlled airspace was introduced at Avalon that air traffic controllers helped avoid what potentially could have been a major air accident, Mr McCormick said, after a Tiger Airways airline pilot decided on a go-around of the runway at night.

“In the subsequent missed approach procedure the radar controller noticed they were descending when they shouldn’t be,” Mr McCormick said. “The controller told them, then they arrested their descent. If that airspace wouldn’t have been changed, he or she would not have had the requirement to monitor that aircraft.”

It was a further example, Mr McCormick said, of how controlled airspace should be extended at least wherever reliable radar coverage was available.

In 2004, air traffic controllers did not intervene when a radar alarm warned them an aircraft was off-course in uncontrolled airspace, and it crashed into terrain near Benalla in Victoria with the loss of six lives.

 
Finally in relation to the ADS-B/GNSS mandates - considered to be possibly the final nail & a huge financial impost to GA industry; i.e. the straw that broke the camel's back - was quietly set in parliamentary legislative motion 8 days before Xmas 2014 and was signed by guess who??

I, TERENCE LINDSAY FARQUHARSON, Acting Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under regulations 207 and 232A of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and subsection 33 (3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

[Signed T. Farquharson]
Terry Farquharson
Acting Director of Aviation Safety

16 December 2014

9B.10 On and after 2 February 2017, an aircraft:

(a) that is first registered before 6 February 2014; and
(b) that is operated under the I.F.R.;

must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved
equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in
Appendix XI.

9B.11 On and after 4 February 2016, an aircraft that is operated under the I.F.R. in airspace:

(a) that is Class A, B, C or E; and
(b) that is within the arc of a circle that starts 500 NM true north from Perth
aerodrome and finishes 500 NM true east from Perth aerodrome;

must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved
equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in
Appendix XI.

Unless of course you can (afford to) pay the piper and are quite prepared to sell your soul to the Devil...

9B.12 Paragraphs 9B.8 to 9B.11 do not apply to an aircraft if:

(a) the aircraft owner, operator or pilot has written authorisation from CASA, based
on a safety case, for the operation of the aircraft without the ADS-B transmitting
equipment; or...

MTF...P2  

[P7_TOM]

Once you plough your way through the above post, you realise two things – (i) P2 is a crafty bugger and wants a puzzle solved (ii) there is a Choc frog in it; it’s a real head scratcher.

P2 has nearly teased all the dots out; it’s fun to watch him do this, like a dog with two rabbit holes to watch and three rabbits down there.  “K” will probably have a melt down, but we may yet need to acknowledge that JMac – ex DAS – actually tried to do something ‘right’ and ‘good’.  Depends how you want to do the dots and how deep you perceive the systemic corruption within ASA to be; they are fair options and valid points of view.

Buts lets cherry pick bits off the McComic interview:-

In his first interview since ¬leaving the aviation watchdog, Mr McCormick said Airservices seemed reluctant to implement measures that involved its air ¬traffic controllers directing aircraft over a wider range of airspace where reliable radar was available. “Their objections were not based on safety; to my belief, they were internal Airservices ¬issues,” Mr McCormick said.

Hint 1:  JMac consistently supported radar coverage to ‘as low as possible’ within the reasonable limitations of radar coverage.  Now Hobart and TASWAM still, to this day begs many unanswered questions.  There is suspicion that ASA were fully funded to purchase the whole shooting match – masts and all, which would have given JMac the coverage he thought should be made ‘normal’,  ASA ‘bought’ equipment with the capability, the manufacturer acknowledges that is, absolutely, what they sold; but either the money or the will to install the ground stations was not available.   Many believe that’s just a wee bit too coincidental and are curious as to where the funding was actually allocated, most certainly it did not go to TASWAM.  

“said that he met opposition each time he moved to have Airservices, the government-owned body that runs the nation’s air traffic control and navigation system, extend controlled airspace."

At Avalon, not far from Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport, the situation was absurd, Mr McCormick said, because the radar coverage of the area was so good “you could see aircraft on the ground” but it was not being used for air traffic control down to the runway.

“I said that this was unacceptable. For various reasons, there was a bit of objection,” Mr McCormick said, referring to Airservices.

He said Airservices did not move fast to implement the CASA directive to bring Avalon under controlled airspace. “It took them a year. They hybrided their way towards it,” Mr McCormick said.

So puzzle part one: why did terry Farq-u-Hardson sign off in 2014, not JMac?  Probably a good bet that JMac flatly refused to sign off on a system which essentially made his previous objections nugatory “Oh well, when they’ve all got ADS-B we won’t need to fulfil out Tasmanian promise and the saved money may be kept in the general revenue slush fund – or wherever the ASA keep their ‘savings’.  

As dear old John would say – “it’s passing strange”; all of it, but it does, in a round about way explain the ‘urgent’ need and uncompromising stance for ADSB, if ASA have spent or ‘saved’ the pennies allocated to provide low level coverage, where possible, then did not;-

“[Their] objections were not based on safety; to my belief, they were internal Airservices ¬issues,'

- and now must keep running ahead to cover a shortfall – not in pennies, but in the ability to provide the service the public payed for.

Well, that’s my Sunday CF bid; thing is, the more you wonder about that last QoN, the curiouser and curiouser it all gets.   Nice one P2, now I shall have ale to help my poor old wooden head.

[Kharon]

No disagreement from me; in fact one of the very few things that I could respect McComic for was his stance on ‘airspace’ matters.  Clearly he was on a hiding to nothing, but he did try to maximise the facilities available.  I often wondered why it was not an Estimates topic; there were a couple of occasions where the matter could have been raised; that would have piqued the interest and ire of the Senators.  It says much; that a hard driving DAS, head of ‘Safety’ could not improve coverage and service, must have driven him nuts.

Perhaps it was simply that JMac did not want to acknowledge a situation existed over which he could not enforce his will.  Nope, but fair’s fair, a hard man to respect in anyone’s money, he lost that round and never whined about it.  That I can respect.  Leaves you wonder just who was pulling the strings though, don't it?

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Sunday dots & the Mc-QON-dary - 

1) Flyers burnt by air safety U-turn

2) Airservices resisted safety drive, says ex CASA boss John McCormick

The former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority says his five-year campaign for safer skies came up against repeated resistance from Airservices Australia, which dragged its heels against ­reforming airspace management along US lines.

John McCormick, who stepped down from CASA last year, said that he met opposition each time he moved to have Airservices, the government-owned body that runs the nation’s air traffic control and navigation system, extend controlled airspace.

In his first interview since ­leaving the aviation watchdog, Mr McCormick said Airservices seemed reluctant to implement measures that involved its air ­traffic controllers directing aircraft over a wider range of airspace where reliable radar was available. “Their objections were not based on safety; to my belief, they were internal Airservices ­issues,” Mr McCormick said.

In one case, Mr McCormick said, he had to issue a directive to have Airservices’ air traffic controllers take charge of aircraft around Avalon airport in Victoria, a move he believes may have ­prevented a potential serious air accident...

...Mr McCormick said he did succeed in some reform, such as improving airspace arrangements at the main secondary airports used for general aviation in each mainland capital.

At Avalon, not far from Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport, the situation was absurd, Mr McCormick said, because the radar coverage of the area was so good “you could see aircraft on the ground” but it was not being used for air traffic control down to the runway.

“I said that this was unacceptable. For various reasons, there was a bit of objection,” Mr McCormick said, referring to Airservices.

He said Airservices did not move fast to implement the CASA directive to bring Avalon under controlled airspace. “It took them a year. They hybrided their way towards it,” Mr McCormick said...

It was after controlled airspace was introduced at Avalon that air traffic controllers helped avoid what potentially could have been a major air accident, Mr McCormick said, after a Tiger Airways airline pilot decided on a go-around of the runway at night.

“In the subsequent missed approach procedure the radar controller noticed they were descending when they shouldn’t be,” Mr McCormick said. “The controller told them, then they arrested their descent. If that airspace wouldn’t have been changed, he or she would not have had the requirement to monitor that aircraft.”

It was a further example, Mr McCormick said, of how controlled airspace should be extended at least wherever reliable radar coverage was available.

In 2004, air traffic controllers did not intervene when a radar alarm warned them an aircraft was off-course in uncontrolled airspace, and it crashed into terrain near Benalla in Victoria with the loss of six lives.

Fort Fumble v ASA rumble - Prelude to a smoking hole? 

Apologies P7 didn't mean to addle your brains on a quiet Sunday arvo..

In my defence it was the Senate RRAT committee that inexplicably placed the Dr A-QON answer to QON 172 out on its Pat Malone...    

The trouble is the web of conceit is long and intricately woven to typical bureaucratic CYA (cover your ass) protocols. The clues are tantalisingly close, however even if unearthed (like with PelAir) the Mandarins & minions will still arrogantly, defiantly stare down and 'flip the bird' to all their critics & accusers.  Therefore it is a long read but I think necessary in the process of placing dashes between the dots...

Okay so continuing..

This bit of the JMAC Oz article..

"..At Avalon, not far from Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport, the situation was absurd, Mr McCormick said, because the radar coverage of the area was so good “you could see aircraft on the ground” but it was not being used for air traffic control down to the runway..."

 ..followed by the Tiger incident to prove his point..

"..“The controller told them, then they arrested their descent. If that airspace wouldn’t have been changed, he or she would not have had the requirement to monitor that aircraft.”

It was a further example, Mr McCormick said, of how controlled airspace should be extended at least wherever reliable radar coverage was available..."

As fate would have it late yesterday there was an online article from News Corp that further highlights the disconnection between JMAC's comments above and the ASA seemingly adverse philosophy of adopting enhanced (i.e. safer) ATC oversight of aircraft operating en-route and on approach to regional & secondary airports:

New air scare fires up Tasmania’s airspace surveillance stoush
May 29, 2016 1:16pm
DAVID BENIUK Sunday Tasmanian


A Sharp Airlines Fairchild at King Island Airport.


CALLS are growing louder for changes to Tasmania’s airspace surveillance after two planes carrying as many as 23 people came within seconds of disaster near King Island.

A Sharp Airlines 19-seater en route from Melbourne was narrowly missed by a privately owned Cessna 150 as the passenger plane descended on February 28 this year.

Sharp’s Fairchild SA227 had commenced its descent when the two-seater Cessna came within 300m before turning as it departed King Island Airport around 4.50pm.

The near miss, 31km north of the island, is being investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

Neither Sharp nor the bureau were able to confirm how many people were aboard the dual turboprop Fairchild.

The SA227 is capable of carrying 19 passengers and two crew.

The ATSB said the pilots involved would be interviewed and it expected to release a report on the incident next month.

Sharp chief executive Malcolm Sharp said his pilot had already been cleared by a Civil Aviation Safety Authority investigation.

Mr Sharp has added his voice to calls for improved radar coverage in Tasmanian skies, saying King Island traffic would increase with the destination’s burgeoning golf tourism.

“There is going to be a large increase in recreational pil­ots using the airfield because of the popularity of the golf courses,” Mr Sharp said.

“We would certainly support any further investigation by CASA or Air Services Australia and what they can do to further reduce risk in that area.”

The King Island near miss is the second Tasmanian airspace incident to be classified as “serious” by the Transport Safety Bureau since 2010.

The Sunday Tasmanian reported last year that 27 airspace incidents had occurred since the installation of a new $6 million radar system known as TASWAM.

MORE: CASA DISMISSES CONCERNS OVER RADAR SYSTEM
MORE: AIR SCARE ISSUE ESCALATED

In the same period, radar failed 98 times in Tasmania, with outages ranging from “momentary” to two hours.

Three airspace-related scares have occurred since last year’s story, including the King Island near miss.

In April last year a Boeing 737 passenger jet aborted a landing after air traffic control forgot to warn of a Cessna 172 using Cambridge aerodrome.

Former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chair Dick Smith, who regularly flies his own jet to Tasmania, has long held concerns that TASWAM is used only to 8500 feet, when tower controllers take over.

“As I flew my jet in, it reminded me of going to a third world country,” Mr Smith said.
“To not have radar at a capital city is just unbelievable, considering it’s all there but not being used.”

The King Island incident occurred outside controlled airspace where pilots use the “see and avoid” method and did not involve TASWAM, which stands for Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration.

CASA was due to deliver a draft report on Hobart airspace in February and it is expected to finally arrive in coming weeks.

A spokesman said Australians could have a high level of confidence in the safety of their airspace.

“Tasmania is no different, with very safe airspace,” he said.

“The Civil Aviation Safety Authority conducts regular assessments of airspace arrangements to ensure they continue to deliver the appropriate level of safety for the current volumes and types of air traffic.”

Airservices Australia traffic control head Greg Hood flew to the state last year to reassure leaders the combined use of TASWAM, radio and visual contact was best suited to Tasmanian conditions.

Meanwhile, Mr Smith said the major parties should use the election campaign to pledge TASWAM would be used to ground level from a Melbourne radar centre rather than the “1930s” system of pilots radioing their positions.

“You should get one of the politicians to announce that they are going to use that radar properly,” he said.

 Now this incident may end up being just another storm in a teacup, however the list of similar airport terminal (ATSB classified) 'serious' incidents is growing and in normal circumstances would be suggesting a growing trend of concern. Especially when you consider they are happening in areas where available radar coverage, with minor ATC procedural or equipment enhancement, could have helped mitigate the safety risk already.

Example from JMAC Oz article - "..It was a further example, Mr McCormick said, of how controlled airspace should be extended at least wherever reliable radar coverage was available.

In 2004, air traffic controllers did not intervene when a radar alarm warned them an aircraft was off-course in uncontrolled airspace, and it crashed into terrain near Benalla in Victoria with the loss of six lives..."

And by extension in that neck of the woods:

Them holes are aligning

Very disturbing report that perfectly highlights all the major problems with an aviation safety system that is totally rooted beyond redemption and will remain so while the current crop of inept, self-serving, ass-covering,  aviation safety bureaucrats is allowed to continue unabated covering up potentially embarrassing serious safety issues & occurrences...



Courtesy the Oz:

Near miss for planes carrying 18 people  

• by: Matthew Denholm
  
• From: The Australian
  
• September 17, 2015 12:00AM
  

Tasmania Correspondent
Hobart




Too close for comfort. Source: TheAustralian

An “unsafe” close encounter ­between two planes near Mount Hotham Airport in Victoria allegedly placed up to 18 lives at risk, fuelling demands for better use of radar at Australia’s regional airports.  

 It is also worth noting that none of these occurrences could have been mitigated with the addition of ADS-B coverage, for it is the airspace designation & ATC procedures that would have helped to mitigate the risk of airborne collision in these areas. Plus there is no guarantee the ADS-B will have any further enhanced coverage in these already radar covered areas. 


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Just the where and the when now.

You have to wonder how much longer the farce can continue.  No, I’m deadly serious now, it is daily becoming more and more apparent that in a cynical, bonus driven, self indulgent, smug, satisfied manner ASA management are robbing the Australian public blind.  The ADSB rollout is a classic, huge costs to industry without either infrastructure or system in place except where there is little need for the service – in the upper flight levels on major trunk routes, which were already well served with radar coverage.  Tasmania remains subject to procedural separation, where it matters most i.e. at the one place where all aircraft are bound to go – the airport approach paths.  Think about it, miles and miles of uncluttered airspace in cruise, all neatly separated, hand held by ATCO until the last critical 30 miles of descent; then you are on your own through the clouds and traffic to a very small terminal area. – Unfortunate choice of words that – terminal.

I fail, miserably, to understand why full service to the low levels cannot be provided, where practicable.  ASA seem to get through enormous amounts of money paying consultants for this, experts for that – it begs the question; ‘if those employed by ASA are not ‘expert’, then what the duck are they doing working there?  It’s madness; it’s like telling a patient that the diagnosis was provided by someone who, in reality, is the tea lady and they will need to bring in a qualified expert to do the operation.  

Aye, no matter, Darren will no doubt take a selfie in front of the burning wreckage, big smile, with caption, ‘great opportunity to try out the new Lycra hi-viz gear’.

Out flew the web and floated wide-
The mirror crack'd from side to side;
"The curse is come upon me," cried
The Lady of Shalott.

[Peetwo]

The trough no longer runneth over -  

Courtesy of the Canberra Times... :

More public service pain as axe falls at Canberra based Airservices Australia


June 1 2016

• [url=http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/by/Henry-Belot-hvf38][/url]Henry Belot
  

Unions fear up to 60 jobs will be axed from Canberra based Airservices Australia as the government owned corporation prepares to launch a wholesale restructure amid declining profitability and increasing costs. 

Internal briefings from chief executive Jason Harfield to his senior leadership team, obtained by Fairfax Media, reveal profitability fell by 90 percent from $45.5 million in 2013 to $4.5 million in 2015.

Jobs will be shed at Airservices Australia.  Photo: Jamila Toderas

The group is expected to post its first financial loss of $13.6 million this year, and hopes to slash $100 million from its cost base in coming years.

The internal briefing outlined a plan to align pay with performance, eliminate the duplication of certain functions, break "a silo mentality" and use automation to improve office productivity.

"Costs have grown substantially faster than projections over the past two years," the briefing said. "Revenue growth has flattened due to a decline in traffic in the last year."
Professional Australia campaign director Matt Harris, whose union represents public servants at Airservices Australia, said the scale of the job losses was unclear although most were likely to be through voluntary redundancies.

"Our figures indicate there will be close to 32 job losses across the middle management ranks and that's a bit over 50 per cent of the cohort," he said.

"There are additional job losses in the international programs and airport relations sections, which takes the total job losses to between 55 and 60."

An Airservices spokesman said staff and unions were briefed on Wednesday morning but would not confirm the total job losses. 

"While we have already made some progress on our broader transformation agenda, we are not moving fast enough," he said. 

Mr Harris said the majority of job cuts would be in Canberra although changes were likely in Melbourne and Sydney.

"We are not being properly consulted about the processes behind these departures but we have heard is they are generally voluntary redundancies, but this remains unclear," he said.

A new management structure will be launched on July 1 with Professionals Australia concerned the number of level 3 management staff will fall from close to 80 to 33. 

The Airservices spokesman said management roles would be spilled to ensure the most capable candidates were rewarded.

"The new structure has significantly reduced the number of senior managers reporting directly to the executive," he said. "However it does not mean that all individuals not appointed to roles reporting to the executive will leave Airservices, with a number of roles open for applications and which will be contested and advertised."

The restructure comes before the implementation of the $1.5 billion OneSKY program, which will combine civilian and military navigation systems by 2021.

Mr Harris said he was concerned some of the roles could be outsourced with employee expenses increasing by $13.1 million last year to $667.1 million.

"We are in the process of completing reviews of our productivity and contracted arrangements and are seeking opportunities for more flexible sourcing arrangements," Airservices latest annual report said.

"We believe these will provide the basis for a strategic realignment of the cost base."
Airservices Australia employs more than 4400 staff and manages 11 per cent of the world's airspace. It has 29 towers and 1000 air traffic controllers around the country. Last year it managed the movement of 4.5 million flights carrying 90 million passengers.

The network is coordinated from the national operations centre in Canberra, with 15 to 20 staff trying to smooth the passage of about 11,500 flights a day – working to minimise the risk of collisions, while allowing the maximum number of aircraft to fly safely in our skies.

Hmm...perhaps now might be an excellent time to consider flogging off ASA before Harfwit & his fellow executive trough dwellers, completely hive anything of remote value at ASA...   
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Bangs and bucks.

I can’t believe any government wants to be responsible the ‘One-Sky’ project currently being considered, if it is to be run by the incompetents currently running ASA.  The track record – to date – clearly and unequivocally demonstrates a lack of judgement, modesty and expertise.  The need for ‘consultants’ at a million a pop says it all.  The current crop of Muppets and Wombills are PAID at ‘expert’ level, to run an essential monopoly, which still manages to loose money, yet at every turn outside experts must be hired.  

One Sky is a multi billion dollar project – it needs expensive professional, private industry expertise.  Why not privatise ASA?  Canada did and Oh boy, did that work out as a win-win. Why persist with this publically funded fantasy that ASA can get it done? Do we need it all; or, could the money be better spent?  Hells bells, they have trouble keeping track of credit card rip offs and the tea money.  

One Sky needs professional help, government needs the dollars and there will, be absolutely certain of it, be big blow out costs.  So why take the chance – flog off ASA a.s.a.p. enjoy the benefits; it’s much better and safer than to field more and evermore awkward questions directed to the minister at Estimates.  The RAAT committee will tear DDD Darren apart; if he don’t break his leg while dancing (mincing) with the Stars.

Arrgghh. Toot toot.....

[Peetwo]

Bangs and bucks.

I can’t believe any government wants to be responsible the ‘One-Sky’ project currently being considered, if it is to be run by the incompetents currently running ASA.  The track record – to date – clearly and unequivocally demonstrates a lack of judgement, modesty and expertise.  The need for ‘consultants’ at a million a pop says it all.  The current crop of Muppets and Wombills are PAID at ‘expert’ level, to run an essential monopoly, which still manages to loose money, yet at every turn outside experts must be hired.  

One Sky is a multi billion dollar project – it needs expensive professional, private industry expertise.  Why not privatise ASA?  Canada did and Oh boy, did that work out as a win-win. Why persist with this publically funded fantasy that ASA can get it done? Do we need it all; or, could the money be better spent?  Hells bells, they have trouble keeping track of credit card rip offs and the tea money.  

One Sky needs professional help, government needs the dollars and there will, be absolutely certain of it, be big blow out costs.  So why take the chance – flog off ASA a.s.a.p. enjoy the benefits; it’s much better and safer than to field more and evermore awkward questions directed to the minister at Estimates.  The RAAT committee will tear DDD Darren apart; if he don’t break his leg while dancing (mincing) with the Stars.

Arrgghh. Toot toot.....

From off the Senate Estimates, yet another reason why ASA is fast becoming a liability and therefore prime for privatisation.. :

Defence & ASA attempted O&O of PFOS/PFOA contamination issue?

Back to the inquiry, I note that Keith Campbell (Bankstown fame) has recently made a submission - 126 Mr Keith Campbell    -  (PDF 13220 KB) :

 

Defence ignoring Qld toxic water: Xenophon
AAP on May 29, 2016, 6:59 pm

Senator Nick Xenophon has called on Defence to stop ignoring Oakey's "toxic water nightmare".

Independent senator Nick Xenophon has taken his campaign into the southern Queensland seat of Groom, calling for Defence to stop ignoring Oakey's "toxic water nightmare".

7 News can reveal a cancer causing toxin is leaching into groundwater at Adelaide Airport. http://www.7news.com.au 

http://snpy.tv/1TMQg5t 

7 News | Adelaide airport
7 News - 7 News | 6pm nightly

  

Update 05/06/16 courtesy SMH:

Potentially cancer-causing contaminant PFOS found at Sydney Airport

Date June 5, 2016

• (29)
  
• Read later
  

Michael McGowan

Two men fishing at Botany Bay as planes come into land and prepare to take off at Sydney Airport. Photo: Kate Geraghty

A potentially cancer-causing chemical that led to bans on commercial fishing and depressed housing values when it was discovered north of Newcastle has been found at dozens of sites across Sydney, including Sydney Airport and the Richmond RAAF Base.

A report commissioned by the Baird government has revealed that legacy contamination from perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoic acid exists at sites across Sydney.
Also known as PFOS and PFOA, the toxic perfluorinated compounds were used for decades in firefighting foams and household products like non-stick pans.

Aerial view of the area surrounding Sydney Airport, in Mascot. Photo: Google Maps.

Prepared by Mark Taylor of Macquarie University, the report says that Airservices Australia, a Commonwealth body responsible for airport firefighting, has told the NSW EPA of "issues" surrounding the historical use of the foams at Sydney and Bankstown airports.


It revealed that Airservices Australia wrote to the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage as early as 2011 to advise it that "preliminary results of a contamination and risk assessment investigation at current and former fire training ground sites at Sydney Airport" had found "contamination" from the chemicals "in on-site soils and groundwater" and "aquatic fauna".

"PFOS and PFOA were also found in water and sediments in waterways adjacent to current and former fire training ground sites," Professor Taylor's report states.

It has prompted a call for a wider study into the spread of the chemicals throughout the Sydney basin.

Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith, a senior advisor with the National Toxics Network, said it was "certainly likely" that it would have spread to locations throughout Sydney.

"The government should be funding PFOS and PFOA exposure studies, particularly in major cities," she said. "At a place like [the Airport] we simply do not know how it has spread."

Sydney Airport is bordered by the Cooks River and Botany Bay. A legacy of industrial contamination in the area means the use of groundwater from much of the Botany aquifer is banned.

Dr Rob Weaver, the general manager of safety at Airservices Australia, told a Senate hearing in April that tests of ground and surface water outside of Sydney Airport did not find "likely significant human health risks".

"What we find is that, where we go and test on-airport, off our sites, the soil is broadly below US residential levels," Dr Weaver said.

"We know PFCs are in the environment [and] we know that we have them in our blood.

"What we find around airports is that the levels are generally below the US EPA levels for residential soil."

However, those levels are based on interim short-term exposure standards that were significantly lowered in a long-awaited decision by the US EPA in May, and Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon said they needed to be updated "as a matter of course".

"If a level of uncertainty exists with a contaminant, that's a reason to act," she said.

"It's certainly concerning, we've already seen in the communities that have been affected by this contamination they've really been devastated."

Professor Taylor's report also found that studies had discovered PFOS and PFOA contamination in a number of Sydney waterways.

At Richmond, where Defence has known about contamination from the base since at least 2013, the contaminants have been found in the Hawkesbury River, as well as in the Georges River near a former Defence site at Moorebank.

Air Vice-Marshal Greg Evans, Defence's national spokesman on PFOS and PFOA, said he could "only predict that there probably will be some [contamination at Richmond] because foam firefighting practices were conducted there".

A 2011 study also found PFOS and PFOA in water, soil and animals in Homebush Bay and the Parramatta River estuary, but the authors concluded that low concentrations measured in mussels and oysters would not pose a risk to humans, and NSW Fire and Rescue has previously used foam containing the contaminants at its training college in Alexandria.

PFOS and PFOA contamination has become an increasingly widespread issue after it was revealed to have leached into surface and ground water at homes surrounding the Williamtown RAAF Base near Newcastle last year.

Since then, commercial fishing has been closed in two major waterways, and banks have restricted lending on properties within the contamination "red zone" surrounding the base.

The crisis prompted a Senate inquiry that recommended Defence compensate home owners, and forced Defence to launch a nation-wide investigation of the contamination at 18 Defence sites, including Richmond.

The health impacts of the two contaminants remain an issue of debate globally.

Studies have found links between PFOS and PFOA and a number of diseases, including thyroid disorders and kidney and testicular cancer, and the US EPA says the "weight of evidence" from human studies "supports the conclusion that exposure to the chemicals was a human health hazard".

However, Assistant Defence Minister Michael McCormack has repeatedly stated there are "no links" between the contaminants and health risks.

On Saturday, the Labor Party announced it would fund 10,000 voluntary blood tests for residents living in areas affected by the contamination, an issue on contention in Williamtown where NSW Health and Defence have refused make them available.

Shadow Defence Minister Stephen Conroy said he was "absolutely shocked" that Mr McCormack "has gone around this country saying there is nothing to worry about, there is no issue here".

"If his family was in one of these red zones, he wouldn't be saying that." 

 Harfwit....tick..tick..tick

[Peetwo]

To the best of their ability.

In a change of pace the following is an excellent article, originally published in AVWeb's IFR magazine, that IMO perfectly highlights the typical duty of care & responsibility that the average ATCO uphold in their day to day employment... :

ATC Watches - You Fly

Major problems often start with minor issues. ATC minds the details of the big picture and steps up when pilots find themselves in tricky situations.
By Tarrance Kramer | June 2, 2016



Standing to get a closer view of my tower’s radar display, I said, “That doesn’t look right.”

Somewhere in the dense, ragged and choppy 300-foot overcast outside the tower windows, there was a Piper Matrix inbound on the ILS. Well, supposedly on the ILS. His target was crossing the final approach fix several hundred feet lower than published and a half mile to the right.

The minimum safe altitude alarm started chirping ominously as I keyed my mic to let him know. “Piper Six Eight Papa,” I said. “Low altitude alert. Check altitude immediately.
Altimeter three-zero-zero-one. Final approach fix altitude was two thousand. Verify you’re established on the approach. It appears you’re right of course.”

“Roger.” There was no tone of alarm in his voice. And, there was no change in his course either. In fact, he continued his descent, sinking lower into the muck and continuing well below glideslope.

My gut was telling me to keep a close eye on this guy. This situation was quickly highlighting the conundrum we air traffic controllers face: among all the services we provide for a pilot, flying their plane isn’t one of them. Nonetheless, our training, experience, and resources make us far more than just passive observers.

Raising the Alarm

The first thing we can do? Communicate that something appears wrong, either to the pilot or possibly to other controllers. Timely, accurate safety information is central to our business.

If a plane reports a flock of birds persistently flitting around on short final, we’ll pass that on to subsequent aircraft and put bird advisories on the ATIS.

Does an IFR airplane have an unidentified VFR target bearing down on him? We’ll issue traffic calls, safety alerts or even vectors to the IFR aircraft. Is a student pilot flying erratically on his first solo? We’ll warn subsequent controllers to keep an especially close eye on the struggling newbie.



The measure of a good pilot isn’t the equipment flown or even the mistakes made, but in the attitude expressed when handling those mistakes. Do you confess and ask for help, or clam up and hope for the best?

I’d already voiced my concerns about the deteriorating approach to the Matrix pilot. Now my buddy down in radar called me on the landline. He had given the Matrix good vectors to the ILS, but he was also watching the developing problem and wanted to ensure I was aware of it. “Man, are you watching—?”

“Oh, yeah, I’m watching. I even called him about it.” I’d seen plenty of botched approaches before, but never had a pilot persisted this long into one in IMC conditions. The Matrix was approaching two miles from the field, still descending well off to the right and somewhat below the glideslope.

I again advised the pilot of my observations. My concern was again rewarded with a nonchalant, “Roger.”

Making the Call

Dispensing information does nothing if the person receiving it can’t—or won’t—act on it. I’m sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists out there, but ATC can’t just remotely commandeer a civilian aircraft from the ground and steer it out of danger, much as we might occasionally want to.

Imagine yourself and a friend standing on a city sidewalk. He bends down to tie his shoe. Suddenly a car loses control and careens towards you both. You see it, but your friend still has his head down. Do you tap your friend on the shoulder and calmly tell him about it, or do you grab him and pull him out of the way? Actions matter more than words when things go critical.

Not liking the Matrix situation so far, I grabbed my handset to instruct him to execute a missed approach. However, as I did so, I noticed his target begin correcting back towards the localizer. His altitude was now reasonably well aligned with the published glideslope. Had he salvaged the approach? It appeared so. I lowered my handset and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

“Here he comes,” I said to my ground controller. We scanned the ragged clouds above the runway threshold. I glanced at the radar target’s location. The aircraft should be visible at his current distance and altitude. We waited anxiously.

The Matrix burst out of the cloud deck, not lined up with the runway, but instead lined up perfectly with our crowded general aviation ramp. He swooped three hundred feet above parked airplanes. His nose was pointed right at our tower, less than a half mile away, clocking 120 knots. You do that math. My ground controller took two big steps back from the suddenly fragile windows.

This had gone on long enough. “Piper Six Eight Papa, go around. Maintain two thousand. Fly heading one-eight-zero.” In the back of my mind, I hoped even that simple instruction wouldn’t upset his apparently tenuous balance, and that it might even give him a little relief.

“Roger. Two thousand. One eighty.” The Matrix faded back up into the clouds over the tower. I switched him back to approach for another attempt. The ground controller and I looked at each other, eyebrows raised, listening to the all-to-close sound of the Piper’s engine.

Dodging the Cells

Every day working as a controller brings its own unique challenges. As the Matrix was demonstrating, weather days in particular usually involve some degree of squirrely flying as pilots and ATC contend with storms and low ceilings.

A controller’s priority is separating and sequencing air traffic, but directly in trail of that primary responsibility are “additional services,” the first of which is disseminating weather information to pilots.

Cockpit access to weather is light years ahead of what it was even just a few years ago. Much can be gleaned from NEXRAD feeds on cockpit glass, ever-advancing mobile device applications, ATIS broadcasts, ADS-B receivers, and even onboard weather radar.

Sometimes, though, it takes a pair of trained eyes on the ground to fill in the last pieces of the meteorological puzzle. 

Controllers poll multiple resources to sketch a complete weather picture. Approach control facilities and towers typically see real-time precipitation intensity returns on their radar displays. Centers see modified NEXRAD precipitation radar feeds that can be five minutes old. This is overlaid onto the traffic display. Gaps in the data can be addressed through pilot reports and the METAR and SPECI data from local airports.



Your iPad's battery is dead. The only weather you have is what you see with your eyes, and you're wishing you knew what weather evils might be lurking in and below those clouds. Just ask ATC.

While we’re working with a big-picture perspective, we can’t see the most important detail—the immediate weather right outside your own windshield. If I’m vectoring you between thunderstorms, it’s up to you to tell me if you need further deviations left or right, or even a 180-degree retreat if things are getting too hairy up ahead.

Is your destination’s weather below minimums? If so, do you press on and give it a shot?

Do you divert to an alternate? That’s not our call. It’s yours. But we can help you make it by giving you the information you need.

While it’s your decision, it’s our job to ensure it can be executed safely. Let’s say you decide to divert to your alternate. Your request sets us into a flurry of activity to get you on your way. We’ll issue you a new clearance, verify there are no airspace, obstacle, or traffic conflicts, provide relevant route weather information, and get you headed in the right direction. You take care of the flying. We’ll watch the big picture.

Pattern Recognition

In a single eight-hour shift, a controller can work hundreds of airplanes. Multiply that by five days a week, 50 or so weeks a year. That’s a whole lot of time spent overseeing the comings and goings of aircraft. When one starts to act a little funky, it sticks out from the normal flow like the proverbial squeaker in church.

If something appears amiss, we’re trained to speak up about it. Maybe it’s something mechanical. A coworker saved a Bonanza from a gear up landing the other day. “Verify gear down,” he said, and the potentially expensive landing suddenly became an impromptu low approach. Another friend noticed a departing King Air was streaming fuel as it lifted off. He cleared it back in to land and had airport operations find its missing $700 fuel cap after a brief search around the fuel island. It’s all in a day’s work.

Perhaps there’s something strange in the movement of an aircraft, like a gradual altitude change or an unexpected heading change. Its cause might be a major issue like a failing vacuum pump leading an unaware pilot astray in IMC without reliable attitude or heading indicators. Alternately, it could be an improperly programmed navigator or autopilot. (Ever misspelled a fix on your navigator and gone heading to another country? Yeah, like that.) Of course, it could be that the pilot is simply behind the curve and just needs a gentle prodding.

Speaking of the latter, the Matrix came back around for another ILS. This time he nailed the approach and gently rolled it on, directly on the 1000-foot marks on the runway.
As he taxied off the runway, I was surprised when he thanked us for looking out for him. Apparently he was very rusty, hadn’t set up his instruments right, and fell behind the airplane. “No worries,” I told him. I was simply relieved he was safe on deck. The next time a controller warns him about a problem, I just hope he listens.

If ATC advises you that something seems off, give it a careful and thorough look on your end to understand the cause of what the controller is worried about. It could be the first indication of a failing airplane, a dangerous situation or simply a mistake. If it is indeed a problem, tell us what’s going on, what you need, and we’ll use our resources to help you however we can. You may be the only one in the plane, but when it comes to your safety, you’re certainly not alone.

A Helping Headset

Over the years, I’ve heard several pilots dismiss ATC’s ability to help them in an emergency and even just in a difficult situation. “If my plane’s on fire, what the hell is a some controller in an air-conditioned building miles away going to do to help me?” Well, if you don’t tell us about your emergency situation and if it’s not something we can see on radar or with our own eyes, or hear with our ears, the answer is simple: There’s nothing we can do to help and you’re on your own. Hopefully, your luck didn’t get left back on the ramp.



The entire chapter 10 of our operations rulebook, FAA Order 7110.65, is dedicated to emergencies. Section 10-1-2 instructs controllers to,“Obtain enough information to handle the emergency intelligently. Base your decision as to what type of assistance is needed on information and requests received from the pilot because he/she is authorized by 14 CFR Part 91 to determine a course of action.”

The 7110.65 is quite clear. By the regulations we are to defer to you, the pilot, and accept but facilitate your choices whenever possible. If we’re kept in the dark, it makes it all the more difficult to provide assistance. Talk to us. We’re coordinators and communicators who have a vast arsenal of resources at our disposal, and we’ll gladly bring any of them to bear to help you out of a jam.

The next paragraph is equally unequivocal: “Provide maximum assistance to aircraft in distress. Enlist the services of available radar facilities operated by the FAA, the military services, and the Federal Communications Commission, as well as their emergency services and facilities, when the pilot requests or when you deem necessary.” We can point you to the nearest usable airport, provide all applicable approach information, have rescue vehicles waiting if necessary, and clear other traffic out of your way. In other words, we’ll do everything within our power to help you achieve a safe outcome.

Our resources even include other aircraft. One cold winter day, a civilian helicopter I was working had an engine failure. He reported he was autorotating into a field. I informed my supervisor and he notified the local fire and rescue services of the location. Soon enough, the helo dropped below radar and radio coverage.

I had a military UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter on frequency a few miles away. I asked him if he could overfly the field. He gladly did so. Not only did he spot the helo surrounded by its occupants, but it turned out the UH-60 was from a medevac search and rescue unit. He landed, offered medical aid to the downed helo’s crew, and waited until the local authorities arrived.

You never know what resources ATC has on hand until you ask. If you’re in trouble, get us involved as soon you can.

Tarrance Kramer is a detail-oriented big-picture fellow working traffic somewhere in the southern U.S.
This article originally appeared in the June 2014 issue of IFR magazine.

 

MTF...P2

[P1_aka_P1]

Tarrance Kramer is - 'a professional'.