Things that go bump in the night,

It had to happen - another ASA  system stuff up, this time on camera - to make the 'news'.  Lets hope this idiotic rabble get sorted out BEFORE ASA really make the news headlines.

FWIW from Ben Sandilands - HERE.
Reply

Twin go-round 5 July 2015 - now on video.

Quote:Passenger video gives inside view of ATC screw up at Melbourne Airport


Ben Sandilands | Feb 07, 2016 5:00PM |
[Image: near-miss-lights-610x372.jpg]

The head on lights of one Qantas 737 from inside another in Melbourne ATC stuff up
ABC News, and possibly the commercial networks, will tonight air an inflight passenger video of a set of near collisions involving two Qantas 737s and an Emirates 777 at Melbourne Airport last July.

The Qantas jets were both about to land, while the Emirates wide body was making its take off roll for Singapore.

The TV news programs may also show portions of a flight tracking video showing one of the Qantas jets being diverted to fly over the airport’s terminal area 600 feet below the safe minimum altitude by an air traffic controller to avoid the imminent risk of colliding with the other Qantas jet.

At one point in the video taken inside one of the Qantas 737s the lights on the oncoming other Qantas jet flare into head on visibility before it they are obscured by the wing of the climbing jet.

This is not what is expected inside an Australian domestic airliner approaching the country’s second largest airport.

However that collision risk had arisen because the tower had coordinated the movements of the three jets in what appears to have been unprofessional and negligent manner causing a hasty decision to direct one of the Qantas jets to abandon its approach and climb away from the airport to avoid the risk of colliding with the Emirates jet where its position on the runway being used for the takeoff would meet the landing Qantas jet on the other runway at the point where the runways intersected.

In sequence, the tower was confronted with a situation of its own making where a Qantas 737 could have flown into an Emirates 777, followed by a double go-around panic in which the two Qantas 737s were then put at risk of hitting each other.

The tower’s action in telling the Qantas jet descending toward the runway being used by the departing Emirates jet to go around then put it at risk of running into the Qantas jet that had previously initiated a go around to avoid a collision at the intersection of the two runways.

This was a clusterf*ck of the first order, the dangers of which only become apparent when the video taken inside the cabin of one of the Qantas jets, and another showing the flight tracked paths of the three jets are viewed with the appropriate explanatory narrative.

Which of course, might or might not fit in with the news values of the commercial networks, or the attention span of their audiences.

The information about this incident was pulled together by independent SA Senator, Nick Xenophon following the discovery of the passenger video and embargoed until 5 pm eastern daylight time today, allowing ample time for the complexity, and seriousness of the incident to be considered by the news networks.

Senator Xenophon has been pursuing the safety risks of Melbourne’s simultaneous use of intersecting runways for some time, specifically the procedure called LAHSO or land and hold short operations.

LAHSO has been both much criticised, and defended by, a range of safety studies for many years, notably in Canada and the US, where it is used at some airports.

Senator Xenophon has criticised the private owners of Melbourne Airport for clinging to LAHSO as a way of avoiding the costs of constructing a parallel runway which would prevent such conflicts arising.

The lack of judgment exercised by tower control on that night is astonishing and alarming. The tower was manned by an on-the-job trainer and a trainee controller. As the ATSB noted in its don’t scare anyone with the blunt truth interim report, there were two other controllers performing other functions in the tower that night.

In its interim report the ATSB says the jets involved in the incident didn’t infringe safe separation distances.  However given the procedural breakdown it confirms in that preliminary document, this is less relevant than it might seem.

What doesn’t get highlighted by the interim report is the situation where the safe minimum altitude for aircraft to fly over the airport’s passenger terminal area is 2000 feet, but the Qantas 737 that had been about to land behind the departing 777 received urgent advice to divert across the terminal area, crossing it at the unsafe and illegally low altitude of 1400 feet, while it was under increased power to climb away for its go around.

This breaking of this safe minimum altitude rule underlines the lack of preparedness, judgment and exercise of professional control that occurred in the Melbourne tower that night.

It put the lives of large numbers of travellers at risk in the air, and it broke a rule intended to reduce the risk of an airliner that might for example, experience a sudden loss of power or control, and crash into a terminal.

This last Australia Day there was another incident at Melbourne Airport in which a traffic helicopter at nearby Essendon Airport and two other jets using the larger airport infringed safe separation rules in what the ATSB now says involved a failure of communications in relation to a sudden change of runway procedures.


To follow on from Ben's article there was also this from the Oz:
Quote:Xenophon calls for safety audit of Airservices Australia



Quote:“Airservices Australia agreed this was a serious incident, but it took more probing and letters from me before night time LAHSO operations were suspended at Melbourne Airport from 10th November 2015 — over four months after the incident,” he said.

Quote:“When it comes to safety there must be no scrimping of staff, and we should be adopting world’s best practice,” he said.


Senator Xenophon said the double go-around was described in risk assessment modelling as a one-in-175-year event, but that two such events had occurred in the last five years.


“It seems there is something seriously wrong with this so-called risk assessment modelling when it comes to aircraft hurtling along at 800km per hour,” Senator Xenophon said.

And this from the SMH:

Quote:'Potential disaster' at Melbourne Airport sparks calls for safety overhaul

Date February 7, 2016 - 5:10PM


[Image: 1417595957530.jpg]
Nicole Hasham
Environment and immigration correspondent

The fears relate to an incident on July 5 when two Qantas jets – one from Sydney and the other from Canberra – were simultaneously forced to abort their night landings after an Emirates plane bound for Singapore delayed its take-off.

Senator Xenophon said the two Qantas aircraft ended up 20 seconds from collision and less than one nautical mile apart. He claimed this was a third of the mandated minimum separation, posing a "potential disaster".

[Image: 1454825476112.png] Video footage taken by a passenger shows the plane approaching. Photo: Supplied

However, both Qantas and Airservices Australia, the corporate Commonwealth body responsible for airspace management, said the aircraft maintained the required minimum distance from each other at all times.

The incident involved two intersecting runways operating at the same time – a configuration critics say is a cheap option that is banned in most other countries, but still operates at Melbourne, Adelaide and Darwin airports – the latter for Defence operations. 

The situation was being controlled by a trainee controller on their fourth shift, who was being supervised. An investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which is yet to be finalised, found an air traffic co-ordinator was forced to intervene in the incident, telling the trainee and their instructor that the "scenario involving the three aircraft was not going to work".

[Image: 1454825476112.png] The plane disappears from view under the wing. Photo: Supplied

Senator Xenophon said air traffic controllers and pilots had contacted him "deeply concerned about the incident", adding that the Qantas aircraft were also at risk from air turbulence created by the departing Emirates jet. He called for an immediate safety audit of Airservices Australia.

"When it comes to safety, there must be no scrimping of staff, and we should be adopting world's best practice [of using more expensive parallel runways]," he said.

Video footage taken by a passenger on one of the Qantas planes shows the lights of another plane seemingly approaching close to the left side of the aircraft before disappearing from view under the wing.

[Image: 1454825476112.jpg] Independent senator Nick Xenophon has called for a review of safety at Airservices Australia. Photo: Daniel Munoz

When the plane finally lands, the first officer can be heard apologising for the initial missed approach, saying ground controllers gave another aircraft clearance to take off, but "the pilots of that aircraft didn't proceed with their take-off when they should have and consequently that was going to put us into an unhelpful position".

At a Senate hearing in August last year, Airservices Australia official Greg Hood conceded it was a "serious incident".

In a letter to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in December, Senator Xenophon said Airservices' risk assessment was "clearly inaccurate",  because it gauged the likelihood of simultaneous missed approaches at Melbourne Airport at as low as once in 175 years, but two such instances had occurred in just five years.

In a statement, Airservices Australia said passenger safety was never threatened during the incident.

"Air traffic systems are designed to be resilient with many layers of defence to ensure that in the rare cases where errors are made, these are detected and recovered without any compromise to safety," it said.

It said the intersecting runway set-up, known as "land and hold short operations" [LAHSO], safely managed high traffic volumes and was used "at many major airports, including more than 100 locations in the United States".

A safety authority spokesman said after an investigation into the incident it restricted LAHSO procedures to daytime use at Melbourne and Adelaide airports. The safety authority said the procedures were not "inherently unsafe" and were being monitored.

A Qantas spokesman said the pilots of both aircraft "responded quickly and followed standard procedure for a missed approach, landing safely shortly afterwards".

"Qantas is comfortable with the land and hold short procedure at Melbourne Airport, which is used by all domestic airlines at Tullamarine without incident every day," the spokesman said.

By Nicole Hasham
MTF..P2 Dodgy
Reply

Of smoking holes, spin doctoring and the need for audit

What is amusing is that Hoody agrees that there was a serious incident (last year), numerous ATC and pilots are expressing concern about what the hell is going on, industry experts are equally concerned about what is going on and so is the Senate. Yet Sir An(g)us, Harfwit and Hoody apprear nonchalant about doing a damn thing. The ATsB see the current malaise as no big deal, and mainstream media (apart from a couple of astute Journo's at The Australian) couldn't give a handful of monkey crap about it.

What I want to know is where are our ATC frontliners and our pilot fraternity? Why isn't the airspace over Melbourne being boycotted while this crap continues? I don't blame the ATC or the Pilots, it's the system and it is deeply flawed.

Tick tock PM Turdball, tick tock Sleepy Truss, tick tock Pumpkin (Zika) Head. It's all going to end in a smoking hole on your turf you assclowns.

Dear Senator Xenophon,
Once again you are a champion on behalf of aviation safety and the community. Thank you for being willing to front the media, call for an audit and expose the rot. At least you, dear Senator, will be able to sleep comfortably when the inevitable finally occurs.

Meanwhile more important issues are taking priority over aviation safety; appointing Krudd to the UN, Bishop Poncing around the world kissing leaders asses, Turdball choosing colour schemes and curtains for the lodge and the push for the Amazon Woman Crudlin to be the next sex discrimination commissioner.

TICK TOCK
Reply

(02-07-2016, 05:46 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Twin go-round 5 July 2015 - now on video.


Quote:Passenger video gives inside view of ATC screw up at Melbourne Airport


Ben Sandilands | Feb 07, 2016 5:00PM |
[Image: near-miss-lights-610x372.jpg]

The head on lights of one Qantas 737 from inside another in Melbourne ATC stuff up
ABC News, and possibly the commercial networks, will tonight air an inflight passenger video of a set of near collisions involving two Qantas 737s and an Emirates 777 at Melbourne Airport last July.

The Qantas jets were both about to land, while the Emirates wide body was making its take off roll for Singapore.

The TV news programs may also show portions of a flight tracking video showing one of the Qantas jets being diverted to fly over the airport’s terminal area 600 feet below the safe minimum altitude by an air traffic controller to avoid the imminent risk of colliding with the other Qantas jet.

At one point in the video taken inside one of the Qantas 737s the lights on the oncoming other Qantas jet flare into head on visibility before it they are obscured by the wing of the climbing jet.

This is not what is expected inside an Australian domestic airliner approaching the country’s second largest airport.

However that collision risk had arisen because the tower had coordinated the movements of the three jets in what appears to have been unprofessional and negligent manner causing a hasty decision to direct one of the Qantas jets to abandon its approach and climb away from the airport to avoid the risk of colliding with the Emirates jet where its position on the runway being used for the takeoff would meet the landing Qantas jet on the other runway at the point where the runways intersected.

In sequence, the tower was confronted with a situation of its own making where a Qantas 737 could have flown into an Emirates 777, followed by a double go-around panic in which the two Qantas 737s were then put at risk of hitting each other.

The tower’s action in telling the Qantas jet descending toward the runway being used by the departing Emirates jet to go around then put it at risk of running into the Qantas jet that had previously initiated a go around to avoid a collision at the intersection of the two runways.

This was a clusterf*ck of the first order, the dangers of which only become apparent when the video taken inside the cabin of one of the Qantas jets, and another showing the flight tracked paths of the three jets are viewed with the appropriate explanatory narrative.

Which of course, might or might not fit in with the news values of the commercial networks, or the attention span of their audiences.

The information about this incident was pulled together by independent SA Senator, Nick Xenophon following the discovery of the passenger video and embargoed until 5 pm eastern daylight time today, allowing ample time for the complexity, and seriousness of the incident to be considered by the news networks.

Senator Xenophon has been pursuing the safety risks of Melbourne’s simultaneous use of intersecting runways for some time, specifically the procedure called LAHSO or land and hold short operations.

LAHSO has been both much criticised, and defended by, a range of safety studies for many years, notably in Canada and the US, where it is used at some airports.

Senator Xenophon has criticised the private owners of Melbourne Airport for clinging to LAHSO as a way of avoiding the costs of constructing a parallel runway which would prevent such conflicts arising.

The lack of judgment exercised by tower control on that night is astonishing and alarming. The tower was manned by an on-the-job trainer and a trainee controller. As the ATSB noted in its don’t scare anyone with the blunt truth interim report, there were two other controllers performing other functions in the tower that night.

In its interim report the ATSB says the jets involved in the incident didn’t infringe safe separation distances.  However given the procedural breakdown it confirms in that preliminary document, this is less relevant than it might seem.

What doesn’t get highlighted by the interim report is the situation where the safe minimum altitude for aircraft to fly over the airport’s passenger terminal area is 2000 feet, but the Qantas 737 that had been about to land behind the departing 777 received urgent advice to divert across the terminal area, crossing it at the unsafe and illegally low altitude of 1400 feet, while it was under increased power to climb away for its go around.

This breaking of this safe minimum altitude rule underlines the lack of preparedness, judgment and exercise of professional control that occurred in the Melbourne tower that night.

It put the lives of large numbers of travellers at risk in the air, and it broke a rule intended to reduce the risk of an airliner that might for example, experience a sudden loss of power or control, and crash into a terminal.

This last Australia Day there was another incident at Melbourne Airport in which a traffic helicopter at nearby Essendon Airport and two other jets using the larger airport infringed safe separation rules in what the ATSB now says involved a failure of communications in relation to a sudden change of runway procedures.


To follow on from Ben's article there was also this from the Oz:

Quote:Xenophon calls for safety audit of Airservices Australia




Quote:“Airservices Australia agreed this was a serious incident, but it took more probing and letters from me before night time LAHSO operations were suspended at Melbourne Airport from 10th November 2015 — over four months after the incident,” he said.

Quote:“When it comes to safety there must be no scrimping of staff, and we should be adopting world’s best practice,” he said.


Senator Xenophon said the double go-around was described in risk assessment modelling as a one-in-175-year event, but that two such events had occurred in the last five years.


“It seems there is something seriously wrong with this so-called risk assessment modelling when it comes to aircraft hurtling along at 800km per hour,” Senator Xenophon said.

And this from the SMH:


Quote:'Potential disaster' at Melbourne Airport sparks calls for safety overhaul

Date February 7, 2016 - 5:10PM


[Image: 1417595957530.jpg] 
By Nicole Hasham

Follow up today from the Oz:
Quote:Xenophon call for Airservices safety audit after triple near miss
  • Joe Kelly
  • The Australian
  • February 8, 2016 12:00AM
[Image: joe_kelly.png]
Political reporter
Canberra


Independent senator Nick Xenophon is pushing for an urgent safety audit of Airservices Australia after two aircraft were forced to abort landings at Melbourne airport last year, avoiding a possible collision by seconds.

The incident occurred on July 5 when two Qantas Boeing 737s — QF449 and QF819 — were forced to perform “go-arounds” on their approach to the airport.

The situation arose when an Emirates Boeing 777 — UAE 405 — was late in taking off from an intersecting runway and was compounded by communication difficulties with the tower controller.

Senator Xenophon has obtained video of the incident from someone on board QF449 which was approaching runway 27 at Melbourne airport. It contains an explanation from the First Officer to passengers for the “go around”.

Runway 27 at Melbourne airport is intersected by runway 34 from which UAE 405 was departing and to which QF819 was approaching.

The video obtained by Senator Xenophon starts after the pilot of QF449 had initiated the go-around and highlights three potential collision scenarios.

The first collision scenario was that between QF449 and the Emirates Boeing 777 which can be seen taking off in the footage.

The second collision scenario was that between the second Qantas plane, QF819, and the late departure leaving runway 34.

The third collision scenario was between the two Qantas flights with both having performed their go-arounds to avoid UAE 405.

QF819 can be seen in the video footage obtained by Senator Xenophon performing a turn in close proximity to QF449.

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

(02-08-2016, 07:09 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-07-2016, 05:46 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Twin go-round 5 July 2015 - now on video.

Updated with Youtube video:





Quote:Passenger video gives inside view of ATC screw up at Melbourne Airport


Ben Sandilands | Feb 07, 2016 5:00PM |
[Image: near-miss-lights-610x372.jpg]

The head on lights of one Qantas 737 from inside another in Melbourne ATC stuff up
ABC News, and possibly the commercial networks, will tonight air an inflight passenger video of a set of near collisions involving two Qantas 737s and an Emirates 777 at Melbourne Airport last July.

The Qantas jets were both about to land, while the Emirates wide body was making its take off roll for Singapore.

The TV news programs may also show portions of a flight tracking video showing one of the Qantas jets being diverted to fly over the airport’s terminal area 600 feet below the safe minimum altitude by an air traffic controller to avoid the imminent risk of colliding with the other Qantas jet.

At one point in the video taken inside one of the Qantas 737s the lights on the oncoming other Qantas jet flare into head on visibility before it they are obscured by the wing of the climbing jet.

This is not what is expected inside an Australian domestic airliner approaching the country’s second largest airport.

However that collision risk had arisen because the tower had coordinated the movements of the three jets in what appears to have been unprofessional and negligent manner causing a hasty decision to direct one of the Qantas jets to abandon its approach and climb away from the airport to avoid the risk of colliding with the Emirates jet where its position on the runway being used for the takeoff would meet the landing Qantas jet on the other runway at the point where the runways intersected.

In sequence, the tower was confronted with a situation of its own making where a Qantas 737 could have flown into an Emirates 777, followed by a double go-around panic in which the two Qantas 737s were then put at risk of hitting each other.

The tower’s action in telling the Qantas jet descending toward the runway being used by the departing Emirates jet to go around then put it at risk of running into the Qantas jet that had previously initiated a go around to avoid a collision at the intersection of the two runways.

This was a clusterf*ck of the first order, the dangers of which only become apparent when the video taken inside the cabin of one of the Qantas jets, and another showing the flight tracked paths of the three jets are viewed with the appropriate explanatory narrative.

Which of course, might or might not fit in with the news values of the commercial networks, or the attention span of their audiences.

The information about this incident was pulled together by independent SA Senator, Nick Xenophon following the discovery of the passenger video and embargoed until 5 pm eastern daylight time today, allowing ample time for the complexity, and seriousness of the incident to be considered by the news networks.

Senator Xenophon has been pursuing the safety risks of Melbourne’s simultaneous use of intersecting runways for some time, specifically the procedure called LAHSO or land and hold short operations.

LAHSO has been both much criticised, and defended by, a range of safety studies for many years, notably in Canada and the US, where it is used at some airports.

Senator Xenophon has criticised the private owners of Melbourne Airport for clinging to LAHSO as a way of avoiding the costs of constructing a parallel runway which would prevent such conflicts arising.

The lack of judgment exercised by tower control on that night is astonishing and alarming. The tower was manned by an on-the-job trainer and a trainee controller. As the ATSB noted in its don’t scare anyone with the blunt truth interim report, there were two other controllers performing other functions in the tower that night.

In its interim report the ATSB says the jets involved in the incident didn’t infringe safe separation distances.  However given the procedural breakdown it confirms in that preliminary document, this is less relevant than it might seem.

What doesn’t get highlighted by the interim report is the situation where the safe minimum altitude for aircraft to fly over the airport’s passenger terminal area is 2000 feet, but the Qantas 737 that had been about to land behind the departing 777 received urgent advice to divert across the terminal area, crossing it at the unsafe and illegally low altitude of 1400 feet, while it was under increased power to climb away for its go around.

This breaking of this safe minimum altitude rule underlines the lack of preparedness, judgment and exercise of professional control that occurred in the Melbourne tower that night.

It put the lives of large numbers of travellers at risk in the air, and it broke a rule intended to reduce the risk of an airliner that might for example, experience a sudden loss of power or control, and crash into a terminal.

This last Australia Day there was another incident at Melbourne Airport in which a traffic helicopter at nearby Essendon Airport and two other jets using the larger airport infringed safe separation rules in what the ATSB now says involved a failure of communications in relation to a sudden change of runway procedures.


To follow on from Ben's article there was also this from the Oz:


Quote:Xenophon calls for safety audit of Airservices Australia





Quote:“Airservices Australia agreed this was a serious incident, but it took more probing and letters from me before night time LAHSO operations were suspended at Melbourne Airport from 10th November 2015 — over four months after the incident,” he said.

Quote:“When it comes to safety there must be no scrimping of staff, and we should be adopting world’s best practice,” he said.


Senator Xenophon said the double go-around was described in risk assessment modelling as a one-in-175-year event, but that two such events had occurred in the last five years.


“It seems there is something seriously wrong with this so-called risk assessment modelling when it comes to aircraft hurtling along at 800km per hour,” Senator Xenophon said.

And this from the SMH:



Quote:'Potential disaster' at Melbourne Airport sparks calls for safety overhaul

Date February 7, 2016 - 5:10PM


[Image: 1417595957530.jpg] 
By Nicole Hasham

Follow up today from the Oz:

Quote:Xenophon call for Airservices safety audit after triple near miss

  • Joe Kelly
  • The Australian
  • February 8, 2016 12:00AM
[Image: joe_kelly.png]
Political reporter
Canberra


Independent senator Nick Xenophon is pushing for an urgent safety audit of Airservices Australia after two aircraft were forced to abort landings at Melbourne airport last year, avoiding a possible collision by seconds.

The incident occurred on July 5 when two Qantas Boeing 737s — QF449 and QF819 — were forced to perform “go-arounds” on their approach to the airport.

The situation arose when an Emirates Boeing 777 — UAE 405 — was late in taking off from an intersecting runway and was compounded by communication difficulties with the tower controller.

Senator Xenophon has obtained video of the incident from someone on board QF449 which was approaching runway 27 at Melbourne airport. It contains an explanation from the First Officer to passengers for the “go around”.

Runway 27 at Melbourne airport is intersected by runway 34 from which UAE 405 was departing and to which QF819 was approaching.

The video obtained by Senator Xenophon starts after the pilot of QF449 had initiated the go-around and highlights three potential collision scenarios.

The first collision scenario was that between QF449 and the Emirates Boeing 777 which can be seen taking off in the footage.

The second collision scenario was that between the second Qantas plane, QF819, and the late departure leaving runway 34.

The third collision scenario was between the two Qantas flights with both having performed their go-arounds to avoid UAE 405.

QF819 can be seen in the video footage obtained by Senator Xenophon performing a turn in close proximity to QF449.

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Well Hoody must be in a panic. He took the unusual step of posting a link to yesterday's article in the Sydney Morning Horsepooh on his LinkedIn account. A source sent me a screen dump. Very odd.

Oh well, Harfwit and Sir An(g)us will be looking for a 'fall guy' to throw under the bus is my guess. Poor Hoody, he was the fall guy at Fort Fumble over Pelair, McComick and Terry sacrificed their lamb, so will he be the fall guy for Sir flappy hands An(g)us and the double chinned Harfwit?

Stay tuned for more instalments from this ongoing episode of 'unsafe skies for all', will;

• Hoody be thrown under the bus?
• Will Sir An(g)us slime his way out of another mess, and still get his bonus this July?
• Will Beaker investigate and in 4 years time return the usual result of 'no issues found here'?
• Will cancer head Truss expedite his retirement?
• Will Zika head Murky spin another beautiful story to get him, his Miniscule and his portfolios off the hook yet again?
• Will the vibrant hamlet of Essendon finally have a shower of molten metal and fleshy pieces fall down on its residents?
• Will the Prime Minister who does nothing, Turdball, take action before he loses yet another relative to a preventable aviation accident that ironically could be prevented?

Tick tock indeed
(Cue the 60 Mjnutes clock P2)
Reply

OH.  Bad Gobbles !!– you’ve been watching the Estimates not MKR.  Hey, Wadjathink of the Halfwit ‘bag-of-fruit’?  Stone the bloody crows, an electric blue ego suit and an ORANGE tie.  FFS, the ego gone nuts, screaming for attention; well he’s got it, in spades.  Not even my old mate McConvict would bury me dressed like that; perhaps his Mum hates him too?

Aye well, more later when the dust settles, and, there was some dust kicked up.

Toot .. Big Grin ..toot… Big Grin.... Big Grin
Reply

Ferryman, how true. Silly me for not watching My Kharon Rules! Tsk tsk. 
Also;

"Stone the bloody crows, an electric blue ego suit and an ORANGE tie.  FFS, the ego gone nuts, screaming for attention"

He looks like he got lost on the way to the Rio Carnival. Either that or he is trying to impress some HR shirt lifter in the PMC department to give him the CEO role? Then again the nauseating outfit could be an attempt to distract the viewer from seeing what a complete twat he is.

FFS Hoody, teach your boss how to dress properly, he looks like an ATC pimp! Maybe lend him a toga?

"Safe fashion for all"
Reply

"WOW! Look at that suit" Big Grin



Quote:"Stone the bloody crows, an electric blue ego suit and an ORANGE tie.  FFS, the ego gone nuts, screaming for attention"
Big Grin Big Grin - No comment required the Heff, "K" & Gobbles have got it covered Big Grin Big Grin
Moving on these segments from the CASA session are very much related to the trough feeders (in particular Harfwit) at ASA.. Dodgy
First from Sterle - who was in sterling form Tongue - on ADSB in West Oz:

&..


{P2 comment: The first part of this segment (above) is interesting because, seemingly unprompted, OST brings up the VARA exemption (which was tabled in Parliament last week - see HERE) & is in place while VARA offload the former SkyWest F50s - see F2016L00067 - by April 2016 apparently}     

Next we had NX on those YMML incidents etc. Confused



OK so that is OST's non-plussed, NFI on all these pesky, pain in the ass "GA issues" - with some input from the Witch Doctor stating the standard "small operators" don't signify mantra.
And this was the Harfwit - Creedy prepared - take on the same matters:
  

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Hansard is now out... Wink 

Here is the ASA HTML version - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee - 08/02/2016 - Estimates - INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO - Airservices Australia


The sheer arrogance of Harfwit is on full display right from the get-go with his flippant attitude regarding ICAO SARPS in response to Senator Cameron's line of questioning - UFB Dodgy :

Quote:Senator CAMERON: I just want to come to the issue of the Badgerys Creek EIS. You have had an engagement and involvement with that?


Mr Harfield : Yes.

Senator CAMERON: Australia has certain obligations under the ICAO resolutions—is that correct?

Mr Harfield : Sorry, I am just not sure what the—

Senator CAMERON: The International Civil Aviation Organization have resolutions that we follow, don't they?

Mr Harfield : ICAO do have standards of recommended practices that Australia can follow.

Senator CAMERON: 'Can' follow?

Mr Harfield : Can follow. We can file an exception, depending on the regulatory regime within the country.

Senator CAMERON: And Airservices Australia have determined that you will follow the ICAO balanced approach, haven't you?

Mr Harfield : We have to be consistent with ICAO. Part of our operations, such as our air traffic control and our aviation rescue and firefighting, come under the CASA regulations, which are also consistent with the ICAO guidance.
 
Fill your boots..MTF P2 Tongue
  
Reply

Quote:#Post255

Helicopter strays into jets’ airspace in Melbourne

#Post262-265 (previous page)

Passenger video gives inside view of ATC screw up at Melbourne Airport

NX Quotes:


Quote:
Quote:[b]“Airservices Australia agreed this was a serious incident, but it took more probing and letters from me before night time LAHSO operations were suspended at Melbourne Airport from 10th November 2015 — over four months after the incident,” he said.

“When it comes to safety there must be no scrimping of staff, and we should be adopting world’s best practice,” he said.
[/b]
Senator Xenophon said the double go-around was described in risk assessment modelling as a one-in-175-year event, but that two such events had occurred in the last five years.

“It seems there is something seriously wrong with this so-called risk assessment modelling when it comes to aircraft hurtling along at 800km per hour,” Senator Xenophon said.

Be forewarned & be prepared - Rolleyes
Hoodlum appears to have embraced the NX & RRAT Committee forewarnings prior to last Estimates, from ASA Hansard:
Quote:Senator XENOPHON: It is good to hear that. Can I just go to the issue of the question I put on notice about the incident that took place in Melbourne, in Essendon Airport, on 12 November 2013, which you are familiar with?


Mr Harfield : Correct.

Senator XENOPHON: You indicated in an answer that Airservices had reviewed coordination procedures and in July 2014 implemented a number of actions, which I will not have to repeat—although my understanding is that those questions were due in December and we did not get them until February. Is that right?

Mr Harfield : We provided the questions on notice in return in accordance with the time lines.

Senator XENOPHON: So, if we did not get them, that might have something to do with the department.

Mr Mrdak : I explained earlier there was some delay in having some of the questions completed but then also cleared by the minister.

Senator XENOPHON: So the minister did not clear them within the time required by the Senate. So you guys complied within the time frame. If it said by 4 December, for instance, you would have provided it to the department, to the minister's office, by 4 December, or whatever the time line was? I am satisfied with that. That is relevant in the following context. You answered that you implemented a number of actions about Melbourne Tower, keeping them informed in terms of the status of Essendon. Melbourne Tower was advised of aircraft conducting instrument approaches to runway 26 at Essendon. Melbourne Tower's was given increased awareness of potential conflicts which are operating on runway 16 for departures. In addition, an interim system enhancement has been implemented which involves a visual prompt. So all these safeguards were put in place. What I am trying to understand is—and I wrote to your chair, Sir Angus Houston, recently—you are aware of what happened at Melbourne and Essendon airports on Australia Day this year?

Mr Harfield : That is correct.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you just run us through that very briefly, because it concerns me that it has happened again, despite these processes that have been put in place.

Mr Harfield : It may be easier to run through a document I can table which actually has both the incident of 12 November 2013—the original incident—

CHAIR: Do you want to table that?

Mr Harfield : Yes. I have got that one to be tabled. It has got the actions taken but also the event of 26 January and the details associated with that.

Senator XENOPHON: Maybe we could get some copies through the secretariat.

Mr Harfield : I have got some copies here as well.

Senator XENOPHON: I move that it be tabled.

CHAIR: Yes; we—

Senator XENOPHON: I am trying to get through it, Chair. So you understand my concern in this regard? I obviously have not had an opportunity to look at this. You understand my concern that—

Mr Harfield : I very much understand your concern that there are two incidents that are very similar. As you will see from the document that we have provided and tabled, there are some extra circumstances that occurred differently from the first one that created the same event, and that is what we are investigating, to put in extra mitigation to ensure that it does not happen again.

Senator XENOPHON: It is a pity I did not see this beforehand, because I obviously will not be able to ask you questions about it. I may have to put some questions on notice or ask them at the following estimates or another committee hearing...

  
Okay so there were 2 ASA tabled documents & they are now publicly available:
Quote:2.) Document titled 'Information Brief: Melbourne Basin Coordination Incidents'. Tabled by Airservices Australia on 8 February 2016.


(PDF 1653KB)

3.) Document titled 'Information Brief: LAHSO at Melbourne Airport'. Tabled by Airservices Australia on 9 February 2016.

(PDF 4836KB
  
No 2) above was the one that Harfwit refers in Hansard:
[Image: YMML-1.jpg]
[Image: YMML-2.jpg]
The second briefing -  on the LAHSO & related double go round incident - by Hoody was equally as good & provides another concise timeline that doesn't paint CASA in a particularly - shall we say - proactive light... Dodgy
Well done Hoody - chocfrog mate Wink (shame Harfwit claims the credit though Undecided ).
MTF...P2 Tongue
 
Reply

Oh, the buzzing of the Bees.

Quote:GD – “After reading the above, for some unbeknown reason a mental picture of Hoody dressed up as a bumble bee came to mind”.

Greg Hood continues to shine quietly among the dross, despite the glare from the electric blue ego.  Perhaps a GD suggests, at the next family fancy dress party, he could turn out dressed as a bumble bee, they are hard working, modest types, essential to the well being of the planet (despite the propensity to explode when squeezed).  Hood typifies the conundrum though, don’t he.  Blamed and abused when things turn out badly and the ego is bruised; or, trampled in the rush to gather kudos for the good work done.  

Such is life in the ASA, unless you count the perks, such as long lazy afternoons at the Nevertell motel after luxury lunch.  That is not for worker bees though; no Sir, that’s strictly reserved for those who rob the hive and steal the honey.

Reply

(01-22-2016, 07:39 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Sir A's anointed one - UFB! Dodgy



'That man' is back and in fine fettle, as the ASA 'trough-feeders' ONE-Sky saga continues.. Wink (courtesy the Oz) :  

Quote:Warren Truss dismisses Airservices plea over new CEO

(01-26-2016, 05:41 AM)kharon Wrote:  All that glistens.


Quote:The committee chairman, Liberal Bill Heffernan, told the hearing the dealings would “not pass the public test … it sounds dodgy”

Looks like, smells like, feels like, tastes like; so glad I didn’t step in it.  


Quote:Asked whether Mr Truss — whose transport portfolio covers government-owned Airservices — would guarantee no CEO appointment would be made until the ANAO report is tabled, his spokesman said Airservices chairman Angus Houston had “comprehensively addressed those issues” {P2 - don't you mean comprehensively chucked everyone under the bus} at a Senate committee hearing last year.

The questions may well have been comprehensively “addressed”, but did the answers satisfy the examiners?  Clearly not.  A classic demonstration of departmental duck shoving followed by a comprehensive exhibition of the ‘bus stop’ game, covered by and endless stream of spinning rhetoric simply does not mean that ASA is off the hook.  Heff quite rightly suggests that the audit, when complete will provide a much safer, less jaded set of answers.  Hopefully, from that audit the truth may be winnowed.  ‘We’ may never see the implications raised by that audit but we may follow the breadcrumb trail from the Senate and departmental actions.  ASA is in a world of trouble and there are some hard, astute eyes watching.  Perhaps Halfwit should have taken Heff's advice and shuffled off to new pastures rather than attend keep fit classes.

Toot toot.

Another rock on the chook-shed roof - Now that Farmer Truss has been shuffled off to the back paddock, it will be interesting to see if, the new kid on the block, Chesty has a rouble of concern for the trough feeding shenanigans going on at ASA. Hopefully the Minister will be well briefed by the Senators, through Nash on Sir A's anointed one Harfwit... Dodgy

However in case DC is trying to get his head around all this, a good reference is this thread starting from post #245 & working your way backwards. 

While on the subject from 'that man' again in the Oz today Wink :
Quote:Airservices: secret memo exposes OneSKY sensitivities
  • Ean Higgins
  • The Australian
  • February 19, 2016 12:00AM
A confidential memo from ­aspiring Airservices Australia chief executive Jason Harfield to key lieutenants within the regulator has exposed the sensitivity of probity issues surrounding the $1.5 billion OneSKY program at the time he was responsible for the program’s delivery.

The memo, written by Mr Harfield in 2013 in his then role as head of future service delivery to “all executive general managers” at Airservices, instructs them on dealing with prospective or actual tenderers for OneSKY.

The move comes as the Australian National Audit Office will in coming months table a report on its investigation into what members of a Senate committee have in hearings have alleged were possible conflicts of interests in the contracting of work on OneSKY.

It also comes as the search continues for a new Airservices CEO, with Mr Harfield acting in that position and making clear he wants the job. Liberal senator Bill Heffernan and Labor senator Glenn Sterle have urged the ­government, which owns Airservices, to not make an appointment before the ANAO tables its report.

In the internal memo, leaked to The Australian, Mr Harfield tells top Airservices executives “the ­following considerations and ­responsibilities are to be read and understood by affected personnel” regarding OneSKY, which will ­integrate the nation’s civilian and military air traffic control and navigation systems.

The edicts include not discussing the OneSKY program with “any of your business as usual ­contacts unless prior approval has been sought”, and that “all invitations to corporate events and the provision of gifts, from the prospective tenderers provided at ­Attachment A, should be politely refused.” The attachment lists more than 100 aerospace and other consulting groups and suppliers internationally, including the group which eventually won the prime initial contract, Thales.

The memo also says: “If you are asked questions about the program or receive any unsolicited contact in relation to the program in addition to not answering the question you should let the One­SKY Program — Manager Acquisition know about the contact.”

“These decisions have been taken to protect both the individual and Airservices from any real or apparent conflicts of interest and the perceptions that may be created within the wider industry.”

Mr Harfield declined to answer questions, ­including whether his motive for writing the memo was he thought there was a risk of a breach of probity, and whether, to his knowledge, any breaches of his instructions occurred.

An Airservices spokesman said: “Airservices, consistent with the approach for handling of tenders for the supply of equipment and/or services to the commonwealth, adopted comprehensive probity measures for the OneSKY project.”

“The memo you refer to was part of the proactive communication.”

Mr Harfield’s LinkedIn page says he was executive general manager for future service delivery from July 2013 to August 2015 and that “in this role I have the ­accountability for the leadership, acquisition and delivery of Airservices’ next-generation services and harmonised Australian Air Traffic Management system with the Department of Defence”, and that he also held the role of senior responsible owner for OneSKY.

Despite the LinkedIn post and the leaked memo, the Airservices spokesman said it would be wrong to describe Mr Harfield as having principal carriage in Airservices of OneSKY because it would “not reflect how complex projects are managed within the governance structure of large ­organisations.”

As revealed by The Australian, the ANAO late last year launched an inquiry into contracts awarded by Airservices to consultants associated with an obscure Canberra-based organisation with international military links called the International Centre for ­Complex Project Management.

At a hearing in August, members of the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport legislation heard ICCPM managing director Deborah Hein is the wife of Steve Hein, who worked for ICCPM until hired by Airservices in a senior role.

One contract Airservices struck with ICCPM was processed by Mr Hein.
   
The Libs maybe pushing the Heff off into retirement but I get the feeling Sterlo & NX have no intention of letting the 'anointed one', ego-blue suit or not.. 


..slide right into the top job without objection - nope Sir A time for some new blood in the ranks I reckon.. Big Grin

 

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Quote:As revealed by The Australian, the ANAO late last year launched an inquiry into contracts awarded by Airservices to consultants associated with an obscure Canberra-based organisation with international military links called the International Centre for ¬Complex Project Management.

Despite all the rhetoric (spin, smoke and mirrors) IMO it would be a very risky move to award the top job to anyone from within the ASA until that audit is complete.  If (IF) things can be made to resemble ‘Kosher’ (Halal) then; perhaps, the lunatic may be given control of the asylum.  However, if matters fiscal cannot be made into an acceptable package, then heads are going to roll. 

Hell of a call to make before the evidence is in and tested; risk mitigation rules and those who make these decisions will, always, emphatically protect their own rice-bowl before looking to someone else’s’. The propensity within the ASA for throwing others under the bus is well demonstrated, much to our amusement.

To quote the inestimable Heff – “Duck, that’s risky shit!”

Toot toot Halfwit; ask not for who the hooter toots; it toots for thee
Reply

CASR 175 certification?

Apparently in a quiet moment less than a week ago, after a year of transition, the CASA AAD officially rubberstamped...err certified ASA under CASR 175.

Strangely this was done with little to no fanfare and with only a Hoody & Cromarty handshake happy snap taken for posterity:
[Image: ASA-CASR-Part175-Cert.jpg]

Maybe it is just me but I would have thought this was a proud moment in the history of ASA.. Huh

I also find it 'passing strange' that Cromarty did not mention, while under questioning from the Senators at Estimates, that the AAD had (presumably) recently audited ASA in preparation for the rubberstamping of the CASR 175 certificate.. Huh  If he had of done that it may have allayed some of the Senator X recent lack of oversight concerns by CASA of ASA:



From the Senate Estimates it would also appear that everyone - ASA, CASA, Dick Smith & the Senators - except for the ATSB totally missed the incident reported in the Senate Estimates thread today:
(02-23-2016, 11:40 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-23-2016, 11:09 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  [Image: untitled.png]


TICK..TICK..TICK - What will it take?

From off the 'bump in the night' thread post #269

Quote:"..Compared with other countries, in Australia you are almost in complete silence all the time. I have said to the air traffic controllers, 'But couldn't you do a little bit more of a workload and actually give us an air traffic control service where we need it?' And quite a few of the controllers have said to me, 'Well, of course we can, but don't tell anyone I told you that'! I fly to Ballina from time to time, and you get this superb service from Bankstown's air traffic control; you just do what you are told. You get told to taxi out to the runway, and you ask for a clearance for take-off, and you take off, and the controller says 'Turn right to 120 degrees', and you meet the airway, and he or she says 'Turn left' and you follow the airway under air traffic control. The most amazing thing is that as you get to 8½ thousand feet, that is the only place on the whole trip where you can actually run into somebody. Up at 45,000 feet the airways are separated, going towards Brisbane and to the right by about 10 miles, from the one coming the other way, and up at 45,000 feet where I fly it is very unlikely for anyone to be there anyway. But when you actually get down to below 8½ thousand feet, the statistics show that is where the mid-air collisions can happen and it is where you can run into a mountain. I then get told, as the pilot—and I am a single pilot when I fly the plane; I do not have a copilot to start writing down call signs—'Traffic is'. In the worst situation, I was given four other aircraft, because the Lismore approach happens to be mingled up with the approach to Ballina. I write down on my pad, 'Four planes', and then I change off onto the aerodrome frequency and I start calling these planes and trying to sort out where they are.


To an Aussie pilot, that is just normal; that is the way we do it. But if you are a pilot from another country you simply cannot believe that a leading aviation country in the world can have something that is so archaic. If we brought in some class E airspace, as planned 20 years ago, instead of the en route controller—it is not an additional controller—giving you traffic information on three or four aircraft the controller would look at his or her radar screen down to about 3,000 feet and below the radar screen they would look at their flight strips on the electronic display, and they would separate you. It is called procedural separation. They would say, 'Hold at 6,000 feet' or 'Do the approach', and they would say, 'I'm holding an aircraft on the ground to depart.'

What I find incredible is that after 20 years we have not gotten even one airport in. And I have said to people who are against it—because resistance to change is staggering—'Let's just try one; if it is going to require hundreds of extra controllers then we obviously cannot afford it.' But my advice is that it will not. To the pilots who say they do not need it I say that I think after flying in it for three or four months you will find that it is a fantastic system.."


 

Now using Dick's example with the Ballina/Byron Gateway Airport & airspace, let's refer to a statement from local MP Mrs Elliott in yesterday's Hansard from the Federation Chamber:

Quote:Ballina is a very exciting, vibrant town. It has been experiencing growth, and part of the reason for that is the fact that it has a very busy airport which services the entire Ballina-Byron region. The future of Ballina's airport continues to look very promising, with much growth in tourism meaning record numbers of visitors and also an increase in capital to the local economy.

Whilst we hear stories of many regional airports that are struggling financially, the Ballina airport pays for itself. In fact, it generates a small operating surplus of $1.3 million a year for the Ballina Shire Council. The Ballina airport has been growing at about 10 per cent year on year and indeed will challenge Gold Coast Airport as a domestic hub for southern Byron Shire and Ballina Shire. It had a record summer which saw 46,000 passengers in January alone, which is quite a lot for a regional airport. In fact, the Commonwealth Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics data last year highlighted that Ballina Byron Gateway Airport is among the fastest growing airports in Australia, and the airport has many great hopes for the future. There are plans to triple the size of its terminal building, a project costing $7.2 million.

Of course, the growth is driven by an ever-increasing number of holiday-makers to, of course, the best address in Australia, the North Coast of New South Wales. In fact, our local economy is sustained by our tourism growth, and the Ballina Byron Gateway Airport plays an important role in that.

Okay now reflect on the summary from ATSB investigation AO-2016-003:

Quote:In preparation for departure from Ballina/Byron Gateway Airport, New South Wales the crew of Airbus A320, registered VH-VQS, was in radio contact with the crew of two arriving aircraft. After establishing the intentions of the arriving aircraft, VH-VQS entered the runway and lined up. While holding prior to take-off, the crew of VH-VQS clarified their plan for maintaining altitude separation with the crew of one of the arriving aircraft. This delayed the departure of VH-VQS and resulted in the second arriving aircraft being closer to VH-VQS than anticipated as it commenced take-off. During the initial climb out, the crew of VH-VQS realised the second aircraft was closer than anticipated and reduced the rate of climb in response. After re-establishing the separation plan, the crew recommenced the climb and departed.

The investigation is continuing.
This incident may turn out to be a storm in a teacup, however the fact that the ATSB is actually investigating would seem to indicate there is a little more to it than the summary suggests??

Oh but that's a CASA issue right??? Dodgy


TICK...TICK....TICK...TICK...Minister?? MTF...P2 Tongue   
  
 
Reply

Can't we do better than this?

It’s a typical example of how quickly a dynamic situation can develop into a potential incident.  It also highlights the flaws in the system, where a crew is ‘busy’ with pre departure checks and briefing, negotiating a clearance on a busy frequency; a short taxi out to either block the holding point or runway and multiple aircraft inbound, one of two pilots dealing with RT and little else.  Another small, ignored point is the ‘ownership’ of the runway, in terms of priority.  The Airbus had ‘sorted’ some rough separation based on estimated times, position and altitude; got moving, then propped on the runway (resolution equation changed).  In a dynamic situation, where things are changing any alteration to intentions, as announced, creates potential for conflict.  TCAS and CTAF are a great asset and although the delay did cause some inconvenience and colourful language the crews did manage to resolve the situation – on the run.  

Where there are more than two aircraft in conflict the risk factor increases exponentially, three is difficult, four is border line high risk, add a little bad weather a couple of missed radio calls and it’s fairly easy to see why provision of positive separation to low level traffic is a desirable service.  Unicom is useless in this situation; in potential ‘hot spots’ like the Ballina/ Casio/ Lismore junction I believe ASA should provide a positive separation service to RPT and ‘heavy’ traffic, it would cost little and we pay a good plenty for safe service.  As long as the legal onus for separation rests with the flight crew, nothing will change.  Passenger safety is a joint effort ASA, ATSB and CASA should be analysing the situation to determine what they can do to provide an increased level of protection; for the public, not their own rice bowls.



More - HERE

Toot toot.
Reply

Is Hobart airport to become a GAAP?

Today in the Oz that happy little chappy from the Apple Isle is back... Wink

Quote:Hobart airport safety fears spark tighter controls
  • Matthew Denholm
  • The Australian
  • March 2, 2016 12:00AM
[Image: matthew_denholm.png]
Tasmania correspondent
Hobart

[Image: Hobart-tower.jpg]
The air-traffic control tower at Hobart airport. Picture: Roger Lovell

New rules will tighten control of air traffic in Hobart following concerns about the reliability and use of the state’s radar system.

Airservices Australia yesterday told The Australian it planned to formalise set flight paths for light aircraft to and from Hobart Airport and neighbouring Cambridge Aerodrome from May 26. The formal visual flight rules are designed to give pilots and air-traffic controllers greater clarity on the routes used by small aircraft, ­reducing the need for radio contact and keeping them separated from large jets.

“It will provide a level of surety for VFR pilots that they can take the same route each time, depending on the direction they are arriving or departing,” said Airservices spokesman Rob Walker. “It will also reduce the amount of radio-communication traffic ­required.”

The move follows concerns about the reliability of the radar-like surveillance system used in Tasmania and criticism from pilots that it is not used to its full potential.

The $6 million Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration system, funded by federal taxpayers, was designed to guide planes right down to the runway, but is being relied on only to separate aircraft above 8500 feet; below this it is used as a tool to assist air-traffic controllers in the local tower.

Last year, The Australian revealed failures in the TASWAM system — including planes disappearing from radar screens for minutes — happened almost monthly, and some air-traffic controllers believed the system to be “unreliable”.

Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority are reviewing airspace in Tasmania, with reports due later this year. Mr Walker said the flight rule changes for small aircraft had ­arisen from the review as a measure that could be implemented now to improve safety and ­efficiency.

Yesterday, pilots expressed support for the VFRs but said they were no substitute for properly using TASWAM to provide radar control of aircraft to low level.

Veteran aviator Dick Smith said the VFRs still left Tasmania with a “1930s-style” air-traffic control system — of controllers in a local tower guiding planes via “procedural separation”.

Instead, he said Airservices should use TASWAM to provide safer, full radar control from its Melbourne radar centre. “They’re just tinkering around the edges,” Mr Smith said.
Airlines of Tasmania managing director Shannon Wells said the new set routes for small aircraft should help to manage growing air traffic in Hobart.

However, he said his company had made a submission to the current ­reviews urging full use of ­TASWAM to provide radar control to the ground. “We have this equipment so we should use it,” Mr Wells said.

Mr Smith also questioned the safety of having only one air-­traffic controller on duty in Hobart. Mr Walker said the Hobart tower had between one and three controllers, depending on traffic at different times of the day, and Airservices was confident staffing levels were adequate. However, they would be monitored as traffic levels increased. Air traffic to Hobart is expected to double by 2035.
 
MTF..P2 Tongue
Reply

(11-27-2015, 07:15 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(11-26-2015, 06:03 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  ONESky trough wars & the Empire of the RAES - Confused

Yet another instalment in the long running saga of the ONESky trough wars from 'that man'.

However before we do, to get up to speed, it is worth reviewing this Wink :


Quote:Keeping it in the family? Dodgy

From the No 1 member of the AEF (Airservices Executive Fanclub) Dougy...  Confused


Quote:...And next week is Waypoint,  Airservices’ annual hosting of its customers in Canberra. It’s always informative and the interactions in and around it are always interesting to observe. It will another strong platform for acting CEO Jason Harfield to strengthen his claim for the full-time job. So far he’s done admirably at a string of official appearances. 

There was also this vomitus bit of news on Fort Fumble's favourite journo Creepy.. Undecided

Quote:...Airservices has acquired the services of the guru of the Aviation Section of Friday’s Australian, Steve Creedy. So someone else will have to fill those (literally and figuratively) big shoes at the Oz. I’ll bet there’s a bit of a bun fight for the job underway, though scribe Lisa Allen seems to have the early running. Clearly Steve will be doing something with words at Airservices. Speechwriting perhaps?...
Hmm...wonder if the writing was already on the wall?? Here are Thorny & P7's thoughts on this development:


Quote:TB:  ..May interest a few out there that the CAsA resident glove puppet at the Australian Newspaper is departing the rag for his reward, an appointment with ASA no less. Well all those years of regurgitating CAsA spin had to lead somewhere...


 P7:  [Image: OH-NO--oh-no-wow-smiley-emoticon-000448-huge.png]




This would be on account of his vast knowledge of providing ‘services’ to ASA; expertise and the like.  Just what Air services Australia needs; another clapped out sycophant.  Good call miniscule, glad to see you have a firm grip on the important things we really need to spend an outrageous amount of money on – nice one.

Getting match fit.. Rolleyes
Here they are Harfy, Hoodlum & Dougy with a bit of male bonding in FNQ... Smile


Quote:[Image: ASA-Harfy-Hoodlum.jpg]

....err whoops, wrong Dougy apparently Blush

Oh well Dougy can possibly add to his ASA Fan-club photo album - err maybe Tongue
Good news for the ASA Exec Futures (Trough) Fund 

On the subject of glowing loaded endorsements for Harfwit's loaded pitch for the top job, it would seem that under his leadership (fiefdom) that the ASA Execs have been able to schmooze over the previously highly critical Public Works Committee.. Dodgy :
"Safe trough-feeding for some" Dodgy  

OK so here we go again, from 'that man' Higgins, courtesy the Oz Wink :  
Quote:‘Conflict’ case clouds Airservices CEO appointment

  • Ean Higgins
  • The Australian
  • March 4, 2016 12:00AM
[Image: ean_higgins.png]

The government body investigating allegations of possible conflict of interest in Airservices Australia’s dealings over the OneSKY air traffic control program could report in weeks, applying pressure on Transport Minister Darren Chester to hold off on appointing a new Airservices boss until it has been considered.

The move comes as a senior Australian business executive told The Australian his repeated efforts to make contact with the executive headhunting firm Spencer Stuart, hired by the Airservices board were rebuffed.

Businessman and aviator Dick Smith claimed Airservices only wanted to be seen to go through the motions of an international recruitment process, when the board’s real intention all along has been to appoint long-serving Airservices air traffic controller, senior executive, and now acting chief executive Jason Harfield.

“It doesn’t look as if Airservices is at all genuine about getting a proper CEO for Airservices,” Mr Smith said.

As revealed by The Australian, the Australian National Audit ­Office late last year launched an ­investigation into contracts awarded by Airservices to consultants associated with an ­obscure Canberra-based organisation with international military links called the International Centre for Complex Project Management.

The move followed revelations in the Senate rural and regional ­affairs and transport legislation committee of dealings in the $1.5 billion OneSKY program, which senators allege could involve conflicts of interest.

The committee heard that ICCPM managing director Deborah Hein is the wife of Steve Hein, who worked for ICCPM until hired by Airservices in a senior managerial role.
One OneSKY contract Airservices struck with ICCPM was processed by Mr Hein.

Airservices hired an ICCPM consultant, Harry Bradford, to negotiate on its behalf with the prime contractor on the OneSKY project, aerospace group Thales Australia, when the managing ­director of Thales, Chris Jenkins, was also the chairman of ICCPM.

Mr Bradford, who has been paid more than $1 million by Airservices, is a former RAAF officer, and has since replaced Mr Jenkins as ICCPM chairman.

An Audit Office spokeswoman told The Australian the organisation plans to table its report in parliament in May.

The Senate committee’s chairman, the Liberals’ Bill Heffernan, and the deputy chair, Labor’s Glenn Sterle, have publicly called for the government to commit to not making an appointment to the CEO’s position until the report is tabled and considered, though making clear this is not to make any implication against any individual.

Mr Harfield was Airservices executive general manager for ­future service delivery from July 2013 to August 2015 in which role, he says on his LinkedIn profile, he had “accountability for the leadership, acquisition and delivery” of OneSKY’’ and was its “Senior Responsible Owner”.

A spokeswoman for Mr Chester declined the opportunity to provide the assurances sought by Senator Heffernan and Senator Sterle.

However the spokeswoman said “the appointment is currently under consideration by the government”.

The former managing director of a major mining company, who had run its aviation division and who now sits on the board of a major bank, told The Australian he had late last year tried to contact Spencer Stuart to express an interest in the job by email.

“I phoned the Spencer Stuart Sydney office inquiring about the role after the failed attempt at electronic communication and was put through to the Melbourne office,” the executive said.

“My details were taken … he would call me back — never did.”

Spencer Stuart spokeswoman Sharon Miles said that as a matter of policy, the firm would not comment. Airservices spokesman Graham Robinson said: “Spencer ­Stuart is considering best applicants comprising both internal and external candidates.”

Perhaps the former Mining company MD should have led with..

"..I'm a financial member of the Australian division of the RAES and I was wondering where to send my ?? K donation to the ASA (RAES) Board, to help facilitate my application..."   Big Grin


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Democracy? Why bother.

It’s a sad state of affairs when a couple of ‘honest’ hard working Senators get told to piss off – again by the ‘crats.  CASA do it regularly, it’s the default setting for ATSB and now the ASA seem to be untouchable.  We could save a shed load by getting shot of the Senate; or, conversely we could ensure the Senate has some real teeth and horsepower.  For some reason the safety watchdog outfits seem to be immune from censure or criticism and despite some serious questions and implications, feel able to ignore it all.  Business as usual.  It’s a long drawn out goalless draw, the public servant defenders never getting beyond their 25 yard line, concentrating on defence only; the Senate crew mounting attack after attack only to be beaten by a solid line of defenders, not even a penalty shootout to look forward to, which would at least bring the farce to an end.

An attack is mounted:-

Quote:The Senate committee’s chairman, the Liberals’ Bill Heffernan, and the deputy chair, Labor’s Glenn Sterle, have publicly called for the government to commit to not making an appointment to the CEO’s position until the report is tabled and considered, though making clear this is not to make any implication against any individual.

A signed confession:-

Quote:Mr Harfield was Airservices executive general manager for ¬future service delivery from July 2013 to August 2015 in which role, he says on his LinkedIn profile, he had “accountability for the leadership, acquisition and delivery” of OneSKY’’ and was its “Senior Responsible Owner”.

The defence swings into action and the referee ignores the foul.  No penalty awarded. 

Quote:A spokeswoman for Mr Chester declined the opportunity to provide the assurances sought by Senator Heffernan and Senator Sterle.

Stalemate.  Perhaps the cheerleaders at half time will provide some value for money.

Toot toot.  
Reply

(03-08-2016, 05:20 AM)kharon Wrote:  Democracy? Why bother.

It’s a sad state of affairs when a couple of ‘honest’ hard working Senators get told to piss off – again by the ‘crats.  CASA do it regularly, it’s the default setting for ATSB and now the ASA seem to be untouchable.  We could save a shed load by getting shot of the Senate; or, conversely we could ensure the Senate has some real teeth and horsepower.  For some reason the safety watchdog outfits seem to be immune from censure or criticism and despite some serious questions and implications, feel able to ignore it all.  Business as usual.  It’s a long drawn out goalless draw, the public servant defenders never getting beyond their 25 yard line, concentrating on defence only; the Senate crew mounting attack after attack only to be beaten by a solid line of defenders, not even a penalty shootout to look forward to, which would at least bring the farce to an end.

An attack is mounted:-


Quote:The Senate committee’s chairman, the Liberals’ Bill Heffernan, and the deputy chair, Labor’s Glenn Sterle, have publicly called for the government to commit to not making an appointment to the CEO’s position until the report is tabled and considered, though making clear this is not to make any implication against any individual.

A signed confession:-


Quote:Mr Harfield was Airservices executive general manager for ¬future service delivery from July 2013 to August 2015 in which role, he says on his LinkedIn profile, he had “accountability for the leadership, acquisition and delivery” of OneSKY’’ and was its “Senior Responsible Owner”.

The defence swings into action and the referee ignores the foul.  No penalty awarded. 


Quote:A spokeswoman for Mr Chester declined the opportunity to provide the assurances sought by Senator Heffernan and Senator Sterle.

Stalemate.  Perhaps the cheerleaders at half time will provide some value for money.

Toot toot.  

The Empire of the RAeS strikes back - Up yours Heff, Sterle & Nick Dodgy  

Hot off the Yaffa Press c/o Hitch:

Quote:[Image: jason-harfield-airservices-ceo_05029370-...AD441F.jpg]
Airservices Australia CEO Jason Harfield. (Airservices Australia)


Jason Harfield appointed Airservices CEO
09 Mar 2016

The Airservices Australia board announced today that it has appointed acting Chief Executive Officer Jason Harfield to the position full-time.

Harfield has been acting CEO since August 2015, when his predecessor Margaret Staib resigned citing health reasons.

“The Board reviewed an extensive field of candidates and concluded that Mr Harfield offered the right blend of experience, skill and drive to lead the organisation,” Airservices Australia Chair, Air Chief Marshal Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC (Ret’d) said.

Harfield has over 25 years experience in the aviation industry.

UFB!  Well no actually, totally duckin' believable Dodgy

Guess that means the ANAO audit will also be a white-wash, still I do suggest that Harf-wit gets his ducks in a row prior to next Estimates because he can't rely on Beaker providing top-cover beyond June this year Shy :
Quote:QON 193 - Go-around incident of 22 December 2015


Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps you could take that on notice in relation to the first report. I go now to the issue of the LAHSO operations. There is a report being undertaken in respect of the 5 July incident 2015. Do you have an approximate time line of when that report will be completed?



Mr Dolan: We expect that report will be complete by July this year.



Senator XENOPHON: I ask you to take on notice information I received from constituents today about go-arounds including a touch-and-go, one that occurred on the 14 December 2013, and I will refer you to the Hansard.



Mr Dolan: We have been listening to those previous exchanges.



Senator XENOPHON: And if you could also provide information relating to the incident of 22 December 2015, that JQ 710 flight. Again, I am not being critical of the pilots at all. The passengers said that they appeared to be very close calls. Could you let us know (a) whether you were aware of it and (b) whether it is being investigated.



Mr Dolan: We are not currently aware of it. They are the sorts of incidents that if there had been a serious concern we would have been aware of it and paid attention to it.



Senator XENOPHON: In relation to that first incident, where the passenger described it as a Top Gun manoeuvre to accelerate and climb sharply on 14 December 2013, if an aircraft touches the runway, as this passenger reported, and needs to take off, is that the sort of thing you would investigate?



Mr Dolan: It would depend on the nature of the report that was given to us. It is at the extreme end of a go-around. As I say, it is the sort of thing that would have got our attention, which is why am surprised that it did not.



Senator XENOPHON: Can you please take on notice whether you were aware of these incidents and if you were not aware of them whether you are able to make inquiries through Air Services or CASA in respect to them because these matters have been brought to my attention.



Mr Dolan: Yes.

Quote:Adelaide TCU


Timeline

1. I understand from your previous submission to this Committee that the Adelaide TCU consolidation into Melbourne is "proposed to commence from 2017". (Airservices Australia, Terminal Control Unit Integration Initiative, Submission to the RRAT Committee, August 2015, pg 4)

2. Is Airservices Australia on schedule to deliver this outcome.

3. If not, why not.


Business Case

4. At Budget Estimates last year, you released a copy of the business case.

5. Do you stand by all financial assumptions which underpin this case, particularly for efficiencies related to staffing, supervision and co-location for technology and hardware. (Airservices Australia, 2015 BE, QoN 107)

6. If not, will you now provide an updated business case – on notice if necessary.


Safety Case

7. I refer to the Air Services Australia Terminal Control Unit Integration submission to this committee which states that "prior to implementation, the CASA will need to approve the safety case which includes documented evidence that safety impacts have been adequately considered and addressed". (Airservices Australia, Terminal Control Unit Integration Initiative, Submission to the RRAT Committee, August 2015, Appendix B)

8. Can you advise the Committee of the current status of the safety case relating to the relocation of air traffic controllers from Adelaide to Melbourne.

9. Has it been finalised.

10. Has it been presented to CASA.

11. Has CASA evaluated and/or approved the proposal.

12. If it has not been finalised, when will it be finalised.

13. Will the Safety Case be made public. If not, why not.


Additional processes

14. How much has been spent on the TCU integration project so far. Is it running on budget or over budget.

15. Is the Airservices Australia Board required to formally approve funding for the project.

16. Has that occurred. If not, when will it occur.

17. Is this project required to go before the Public Works Committee.

18. Has this occurred. If not, when will it occur.


TCU Controllers – Adelaide

19. How many Air Traffic Controllers are in Adelaide - including the TCU and both towers.

20. How many Air Traffic Controllers will remain after the transition.
21.Does this mean there will be job losses of highly skilled jobs in Adelaide following the transition.
22. What consultation have you had with the local member for Hindmarsh, Mr Matt Williams, regarding these job losses.


Career Opportunities

23. I refer to your submission to this Committee which states that "career development opportunities for air traffic controllers will be improved" (Airservices Australia, Terminal Control Unit Integration Initiative, Submission to the RRAT Committee, August 2015, pg 10)

24. I also refer to the statement that "all controllers who wish to remain at their current location will be accommodated – no one will lose their job". (Airservices Australia, Terminal Control Unit Integration Initiative, Submission to the RRAT Committee, August 2015, pg 10)

25. What career opportunities will be available for those air traffic controllers who choose to remain in Adelaide, if the majority of operations are moving to Melbourne.

26. Will they be eligible for further career diversification or promotion if they choose to remain in Adelaide.  
Sir A on Harfwit as CEO - "Safe trough feeding for all" Big Grin
MTF..P2 Tongue
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)