[P7_TOM]

Could someone Please - Explain.



Here is a relatively 'simple' question from an elected Senator; asked in a Senate Estimates session. Pay particular attention to the 'question'. #No 32.



Portfolio Question Number - 279.



Question: - Senator RICE:-



Preamble - "I want to go to issues with Brisbane airspace design and the use of dependent separation approaches in Brisbane's airspace design."



This question is being raised by a 'Senator' who would not: not ever: understand "dependent separation" if her very life depended on it. Consider that.... here it is:-



"What can Airservices Australia say about whether the use of dependent separation approaches is compliant with ICAO standards?




The Halfwit's eyebrows creep up to his hairline and then: the immortal words :-



Mr Harfield: I will ask Mr Curran to answer those questions  - if he can.



Halfwit - rapidly hand balls the question to a lower pay grade (cannon fodder in the ASA vernacular).



Mr Curran: If I may, I would like to take that on notice with regard to the ICAO compliance.



'Tis but a simple question - are we, or; are we not ICAO compliant in this matter? Yet, there sits Curran - top table ASA with absolutely NDI about ICAO compliance - non, zero, zilch - Nada. And, his salary is???. Even at ten bob an hour he is overpaid; that, boys and girls is a no brainer question. It is either ICAO compliant - or it is not.  - Explanation as to why it is - or ain't - to follow. Nope = NDI and a QoN taken. Why?



Senator RICE: Have you done any review of whether it is compliant with the ICAO standards?



Mr Curran: As a part of the process to implement the Brisbane new parallel runway, there was both a design and an implementation safety analysis undertaken.



But by whom??



"It was to assess the safety of the design and whether it could be implemented safely."



But by whom??



Ah! - the 'great escape' clause, or; the best buck to pass emerges:-



"It was committed to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for endorsement. Whether that actually directly linked to ICAO I would have to take on notice."



Now then; let me get this straight in my old addled head. ASA is 'the' multi million dollar 'Guru' of all matter related to 'airspace'. CASA is their master in matters which require approval/sanction and; is the world wide 'acknowledged' expert on air space design. NOT!!



So, for a million bucks a year - Halfwit cannot answer the question; his off- sider has NDI; but, expects the CASA 'Boffins' to confirm that the 'design' is Kosher?



BOLLOCKS -



On 'airspace design' and dare we mention ICAO compliance - let alone 'world best practice' in the same breath as CASA having an expert airspace designer on staff who can; with authority - sign off Brisbane as 'compliant. BOLLOCKS.



Will someone, with a command of law and the Queen's (bless her) English please FCOL sort out this endless fiasco that our penniless Halfwit is trying to flog off as "best practice".



Hell's Bells Senator: please consider the indecent amount of public money being forked out every month to these 'experts' - who just keep passing the responsibility parcel around - with dizzying speed. Consider the simplicity of the question asked: is this ICAO compliant? Yes/ No (with reasons why not). P.S. If you want the plain facts - ask Civil Air - for therein lays expert knowledge and coal face performance - unrivalled.



ICAO compliant - What's that?



Well, Dear Senator, I shall, with your indulgence, tell you: in a plain man's words. Consecutive ministers, governments and Senators have been fed the biggest load of horse pooh since Hercules tackled the Augean Stables. Get with it or shut up; two choices - limited options. Fact......



"Oh. Yes please M' dear - same again - and don't bother to ask next time; we have a load of bull-dust to wash away here; all of us. But I will raise a glass to the 'good' Senator who had the courage and integrity to ask the most telling of questions.