[Peetwo]

From the ANAO & 'that man again'...

Finally from off the ANAO website:

Airservices Australia's Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist with the OneSKY Australia Project

Portfolio: Infrastructure and Regional Development

Agencies involved: Airservices Australia

Audit Objective: To examine whether Airservices Australia has effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with ICCPM in association with the OneSKY Australia project were effectively administered.Due to Table:Autumn 2016

Apparently we (the IOS) can even put in our 2 bobs worth:

Contributions to the 'Airservices Australia's Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist with the OneSKY Australia Project' audit in progress

The ANAO welcomes members of the public contributing information for consideration when conducting performance audits.

Performance audits involve the independent and objective assessment of the administration of an entity or body’s programs, policies, projects or activities. They also examine how well administrative support systems operate.

The ANAO does not have a role in commenting on the merits of government policy but focuses on assessing the efficient and effective implementation of government programs, including the achievement of their intended benefits.

The audit you have selected is currently collecting audit evidence and is seeking input from members of the public. We particularly value information that deals with significant matters or insights into the administration of the subject of this audit.  We anticipate accepting contributions to this audit until 24 December 2015.

Information can either be submitted by uploading a file, or by entering your information into the comments box below.

The confidentiality of your contribution is protected by law. Information you provide can only be disclosed for defined purposes (see Sections 36 and 37 of the Auditor-General Act 1997).  In addition, any personal information gathered by the ANAO is also subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1998 (see our website Privacy Statement and the ANAO Privacy Policy at: http://www.anao.gov.au/Privacy).

While your contribution will be considered, and handled with care, you will not automatically receive further feedback after the acknowledgement of your contribution. However, if you provide your contact details, you may be contacted regarding your contribution.

Before we get to TMA's latest, courtesy the Oz, I need to issue a couple of WOFTAM NOTAMS related to the latest posts off the QOTM thread...

P2 - ..don't tell "K" but this Quote from Dougy's weekly wrap had me ROFLMFAO... 

"...Also new in a sense was Airservices Jason Harfield, who’s filling in as CEO right now while there’s a search underway for a replacement for Margaret Staib. He spoke with real authority and justified my belief that the organisation has a couple of serious contenders for the top job already within..."  

P666 - ...Oh Lordy P2, the Ferryman is going to pop a foofer valve when he reads that love poem Dougy wrote about Half-inch! When does Dougy and Harfy get married?...

P9 - ...Nah, not at all.  Confess when P2 read the ‘thing’ out to me over the blower; there was a mild reaction (mild?) but after mature consideration and a couple of ‘Genius’ (to loosen up the keyboard fingers) I’ve decided, I don’t give a rats.


If Dougy’s conscience can stand being part of one of the greatest atrocities ever foisted on an innocent travelling public and his soul can withstand the shame of selling snake oil to the natives; then why should I care.  He is ‘editor’ of a once fine magazine which has done a deal with the devil; and we all know how that turns out... 

 
...Nah on 2nd thoughts just bring a bucket...

{Ps Gobbles on Dougy's insider intel.."There has been (and will no doubt continue to be) lots of talk behind the scenes at the AAA, but much of it is the kind that I can’t share in the public domain. Suffice to say, the interesting times look like continuing - and not just at and around airports". Perhaps this helps join the dots - }

Airservices’ ‘dodgy dealings’ under watchdog probe  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• October 16, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter




Airservices Australia’s acting chief executive Jason Harfield. Source: News Limited

The government watchdog which investigates public spending has confirmed it has launched a special probe into Airservices Australia and says it will focus on what has been described as “dodgy” and “incestuous” dealings with an obscure “not-for-profit” organisation.  

The move comes as speculation mounts in aviation circles that the Airservices board and Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, whose portfolio covers aviation, are leaning towards appointing acting chief executive Jason Harfield to the position permanently.

As revealed last month, the Australian National Audit Office will investigate Airservices following reports in The Australian and Senate committee hearings, which raised serious questions about the organisation’s governance.

The ANAO has confirmed on its website that the investigation is under way. It will be specifically directed at Airservices’ dealings with the International Centre for Complex Project Management over the $1.5 billion OneSKY program which will integrate the nation’s civil and military air traffic control and navigation systems.

The ANAO website says the investigation’s objective is: “To examine whether Airservices Australia has effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with ICCPM in association with the OneSKY Australia project were effectively administered.”

The move follows an urgent request from the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport legislation committee.

A Senate committee hearing in August 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 contract Airservices struck with ICCPM was processed by Mr Hein.

Senators also expressed incredulity that Airservices had 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, is also the chairman of ICCPM.

“The perception of conflict of interest is all over this,” Labor senator Joe Bullock told the hearing, while the committee chairman, Liberal Bill Heffernan, said the dealings were “incestuous” and would “not pass the public test … it sounds dodgy”.

Mr Bradford, who has been paid more than $1 million by Airservices thus far, is a former RAAF officer.

On its website, ICCPM describes itself as “an independent, international, not-for-profit organisation that would support both government and industry’s ability to better deliver complex projects”.

Ms Hein declined to speak over the telephone, but in an email said ICCPM “looks forward to the opportunity to engage in the ANAO audit”.

Sources told The Australian the ANAO regarded the matters raised about Airservices as serious, and would expedite the inquiry.

While former Airservices chief executive Margaret Staib resigned in late July citing health issues, aviation industry figures said they had not seen any advertising for the position.

Airservices spokeswoman Vicki Huggins and Mr Truss’s spokeswoman Kate Barwick would not answer questions about the process of appointing a new Airservices chief executive, including whether the position had been or would be advertised, with Ms Barwick only saying “the appointment will go through a recruitment process”.

Former Civil Aviation Authority chair, businessman and aviator Dick Smith said he had been contacted by “a number of people who would be really excellent for the job” but they had not seen the position advertised. “If they are thinking of doing an inside job that would be a disaster; they have a lot of problems and need a new person from outside,” Mr Smith said.

“This is a billion-dollar-a-year business; they should be advertising it around the world”. [b]{ Well said Dick.. }[/b]

Battlelines are drawn up, popcorn is ordered - BRING IT ON!

MTF..P2  

[Gobbledock]

Of Dick and 'dicks'

'That man';

"The move comes as speculation mounts in aviation circles that the Airservices board and Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, whose portfolio covers aviation, are leaning towards appointing acting chief executive Jason Harfield to the position permanently".

Surely not? Now, considering that Mr Truss is not capable of passing comment of his own accord, nor could he manage the sale of one 5kg bag of peeled potatoes, I will direct my comment towards the actual Minister, Mr MrDak - Minister MrDak, surely the CEO role will be advertised globally in a transparent manner from which the best suited person out of a robust pool of applicants will be selected to manage this billion dollar business? Surely an executive recruitment process which is undertaken independently and in an unbiased manner by a reputable world leader in recruitment practises would be engaged so as to ensure that no collusion, nepotism, cronyism or cynicism can be levelled against Prime Minister Turnbull, who is after all ultimately accountable for what takes place in his ministries?

The vegemite kid;

"Former Civil Aviation Authority chair, businessman and aviator Dick Smith said he had been contacted by “a number of people who would be really excellent for the job” but they had not seen the position advertised. “If they are thinking of doing an inside job that would be a disaster; they have a lot of problems and need a new person from outside,” Mr Smith said.
“This is a billion-dollar-a-year business; they should be advertising it around the world”

I agree wholeheartedly Dick, well said. Half-inch serves as part of the ASA executive management team. Now, with recurrent morale issues, credit card fraud, questionable tendering, senate concerns and pure waste of taxpayer monies, why would you recruit internally from the executive team who would be across these issues or even part of these issues? An organisation that has raised the eyebrow of the ANAO who have actioned an urgent audit. Why reuse damaged goods? Worlds best practise? Ha. I don't think so. The place needs fresh blood, not putrid old clotted blood. And while they are at it how much longer can Houston stay, what a complete joke.

Now I understand that Warren Truss wouldn't have a clue who would make a good CEO because the only thing he understands about business is the 'business of plonking his head in the trough', however his Boss, Mr Turdball knows about business, he has been there done that. So I would suggest that PM Turdball keep an eye on Warren and Minister MrDak and ensure that ASA gets a real CEO, not some Armani wearing trough ingrained nupty.

After all, you don't promote a sufferer of cigarette caused lung cancer to the role of CEO of Phillip Morris, and you don't promote Jeffrey Dhamer to GM Human Resources!!

Tick tock ASA, the IOS grow restless

[Peetwo]

Risk mitigation Oz aviation (ASA/CASA/ATSB) style - Part I

 Joining the Swiss cheese craters..err dots...

Remember this? - Day 12 - Well I'll be buggered...  :

"..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.."  

 
Well in the course of a current PAIN research project - - while trolling Google, I came across some very interesting info that relates to  (a.) of a 2013 written QON from Senator X:

 Senator Xenophon asked:


The ATSB recently completed a review of loss of separation incidents in Australia, and concluded that issues with military ATS were primarily to blame.

a. How does this compare with the CASA review of Airservices Australia, which found serious regulatory breaches and resulted in CASA revoking ASA’s ongoing approval? Isn’t this in contrast to the ATSB’s findings?

b. Given the findings of the Pel-Air report, what confidence can the Australian public have that the ATSB was thorough and rigorous in its investigation, and did not seek to mitigate any impact the investigation may have on CASA or Airservices Australia?

c. Does the ATSB acknowledge that the significant failings of the Pel-Air report, and the lack of response to those failings, puts the ATSB’s reputation at risk?

 
This was answered by the ATSB like this (warning bucket may be required.. ):

Answer:

The ATSB’s review did not conclude that issues with military ATS were primarily to blame for loss of separation incidents in Australian airspace.

a. The CASA Part 172 audit solely looked at Airservices Australia and used an audit methodology concerned specifically with regulatory compliance.

In contrast, the ATSB’s Loss of separation (LOS) between aircraft in Australian airspace, January 2008 to June 2012 research report analysed safety data in relation to reported incidents and associated ATSB investigations. Using an evidence-based approach, it aimed to document the level of safety in relation to aircraft separation across all controlled airspace. In doing so, the ATSB examined CASA’s involvement in aircraft separation as well as that of Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence.

The ATSB research report found that most (80%) LOS incidents involved aircraft under the control of Airservices. The report highlights areas of concern relating to Airservices in relation to these occurrences; it also identified a safety issue relating to Airservices not actively monitoring or investigating LOS occurrences deemed attributable to pilots. This resulted in a recommendation to CASA, who currently do not require Airservices to report on pilot-attributable LOS occurrences. The research report also makes reference to other safety issues involving Airservices that were concurrently identified in ongoing ATSB occurrence investigations, two of which were released on the same day and identified a range of safety issues relating to Airservices and included recommendations to Airservices (AO-2011-144, AO-2012-012). The research report also noted that:

While a number of the above investigations are ongoing at the time of writing this report, and more detailed findings and associated safety actions will be included in those reports when published, most of the issues are consistent with some of those identified in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Review of CASR Part 172 Air Traffic Service Approval of Airservices Australia, which was finalised in January 2013.

The ATSB research report also examined LOS occurrences involving military air traffic control, which is currently not regulated or overseen by CASA. Analysis found that there was a disproportionate rate of LOS incidents in military terminal area airspace, and that these occurrences involved contributing air traffic controller actions more often than for equivalent civil airspace occurrences. The ATSB considers that, although small in terms of the volume of aircraft controlled, military airspace currently carries a higher risk of a separation loss than civil airspace and attention should be directed to reducing this risk. Two recommendations were made in relation to this, one to the Department of Defence, and the other to CASA.

Still with me? Okay this bit - Review of CASR Part 172 Air Traffic Service Approval of Airservices Australia - was in fact the subject of my research. However to actually find a full and complete (not redacted or pc'd) version of the CASA audit is proving to be a bit of a challenge..

Anyway I did come across the following courtesy of the former DAS McComic's regime - Civil Aviation Safety Authority report- Part I :






As can be seen the letter to 'Dear Margie' from J'Mac only has the first 10 pages of the 113 page audit report. Okay still trolling, I then discovered that the other Aunty ( i.e. the ABC) apparently also had a passing interest in seeing a lot more of that report...

How did I discover this?- Well apparently on the 4 March 2013 the ABC made a formal FOI request to CASA for that audit report & 'other' associated documents. However certain parts of the ABC request were rejected by CASA LSD under certain exemptions. The ABC not happy with this outcome then took the matter to OAIC review.

On 10 April 2015 - from what was probably one of the former OAIC Commissioner Prof McMillan's final review decisions (see here) - the OAIC decision was handed down:

Decision

1. Under s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I vary the decision of the  Civil Aviation Safety Authority  (CASA) of 29 May 2013 to refuse access under the FOI Act to the documents referred to in [3] below. I substitute my decision to provide access to all documents except an email dated 4 December 2012 (incorporating an earlier email dated 12 November 2012). That email is conditionally exempt under s 47E(d) of the FOI Act and to give access at this time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest (s 11A(5)).
   
2. This decision rejects an exemption contention that public release of segments of a report and related documents would impair a government regulatory function, by causing government officials to be less cooperative in providing information for the purposes of this regulatory function. The exemption contention rested principally on s 47E (certain operations of agencies exemption). The decision affirms the exemption of a document that discussed a draft of the report.
   
   

Scope of IC review

1. The CASA decision under review refused access to two categories of documents:
   • Parts of a report prepared by CASA, Review of CASR Part 172 Air Traffic Service approval of Airservices Australia (January 2013) (specifically, pages 11-13, 17-20, 22-23, 40, 49-51, 52-53, 56, 77-79 and recommendation 11 on pages 6 and 82). The remainder of the report has either been published by CASA or released in response to the FOI request considered in this matter.[1]
     
   • Communications between CASA and Airservices Australia (Airservices) relating to the report (comprising five emails/letters and attachments).
     
2. The relevant stages in this matter are:
   • 4 March 2013: the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) made a request to CASA under the FOI Act for access to the documents referred to in [3] and for other documents.
     
   • 25 March 2013: CASA undertook third party consultation with Airservices, as required by s 27 of the FOI Act; Airservices made a submission on 8 April 2013 that the documents were exempt under s 47C (deliberative processes exemption) and s 47E© (management or assessment of personnel).
     
   • 15 April 2013: CASA made a decision to release the report in its entirety, and to release the communications between CASA and Airservices subject to the redaction of the names and identifying details of persons mentioned in the report under s 47F (personal privacy exemption).
     
   • 29 April 2013: Airservices sought internal review of CASA’s decision under s 54A of the FOI Act. The submission raised two additional grounds of exemption – s 45 (breach of confidence exemption) and s 47G.
     
   • 29 May 2013: CASA made an internal review decision not to release the pages of the report referred to in [3] or the communications between CASA and Airservices. The decision was based on s 47E of the FOI Act, but did not specify which of the four paragraphs of s 47E was relied upon. CASA did not accept Airservice’s submission that the documents were exempt under s 47G.
     
   • 26 July 2013: the ABC sought IC review of CASA’s internal review decision under s 54M of the FOI Act. The ABC’s submission addressed the application of s 47E.
     

  
P2 comment: My personal fav from the Prof McMillan decision:

29. It is not necessary that I fully consider the application of s 11A(5) to the remaining documents in light of my earlier findings that those documents are not conditionally exempt. I note, however, that had this arisen for decision there would be weighty public interest factors in favour of disclosure. They include that air safety is a matter of substantial public interest, and that the findings of a government regulator about the performance of another government agency are equally a matter of substantial public interest. The public debate that could ensue from release of those findings would be a healthy development that is more likely to enhance rather than impair air safety.

Well done that man & well said..

From that I assumed (wrongly apparently) that the additional information released should now be publicly available via the CASA FOI Disclosure log.

Hmm...maybe someone from the 'other Aunty' can help me out??

MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

One of Herr Skull and LSD's favourite tricks when requests under FOI are/were received was to stretchhhhhhhhh the process out at all costs, especially when/if some sensitive or damning information might be revealed. An old trick was to release some info, a few pages for example, but not the whole lot. Then another FOI request would be submitted, and the same process followed by Fort Fumble, over and over and over!! Sometimes the info being requested under FOI could take up to 2 years or more to be released, and even then lots of info is redacted, blacked out, smeared in horse pooh etc etc. These clowns are masters at the game. Very few people will EVER take on a government agency and win.

"Carefully crafted, scripted and manipulated skies for all"

[Kharon]

Perfidious ? You betcha.

That master P2 is a bloody good bit of research; Tim Tam quality.  It would be very nice to pick up the missing 103 pages of the audit, perhaps the Senate SC could request and require the document.  It makes a mockery of the ASA self aggrandising at the last Safe Skies Stropathon.  With a skeleton that hideous left in the cupboard and no intention of doing the first thing about it, or the stench – you wonder at the hide of these people.  Make no mistake, Half-wit (title contender) had a fair bit to do with the negative  ‘findings’ in the CASA audit.  Be great if the RAeS had released the audit to the Safe -Skies audience, what a hoot.

One of many ‘things’ which caught my attention was the repetitive use of the word ‘should’ in the McConvict missive. What, there’s 35 items listed there that ASA ‘should’ do; not must or will – but should.   Fascinating word – SHOULD – lots of time and effort go into and 113 page audit reports and they don’t come cheap.   Is it just me but the McComic sound, fury and table thumping seems to have been window dressing – “You really should get off your arse dear” – is not quite the same as “get up – now”.  A politely framed suggestion as opposed to a direct order.  The PIC should ensure sufficient fuel etc. as opposed to the pilot shall ensure :etc.   Aye, no doubt ‘Margaret and John-boy had a cosy afternoon tea and a laugh discussing what they should or should not do and how to convince the paymasters that they were doing much, while doing nothing.  

So, when you next hear Houstoblame spouting (with testiculations) that CASA is his lord and master and he must obey – remember he only should, not must.   Even so, the ‘it’s not our fault’ (Nuremberg) defense starts to look a bit silly.  

“Oh CASA said we should, but Half-Wit and I decided to ignore their suggestions, told ‘em to bugger off actually”.

Nice work – if you can get it.  What say you ABC? Want to share that audit or wait to see it in the PAIN submission to the ANAO?

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Perfidious ? You betcha.

That master P2 is a bloody good bit of research; Tim Tam quality.  It would be very nice to pick up the missing 103 pages of the audit, perhaps the Senate SC could request and require the document.  It makes a mockery of the ASA self aggrandising at the last Safe Skies Stropathon.  With a skeleton that hideous left in the cupboard and no intention of doing the first thing about it, or the stench – you wonder at the hide of these people.  Make no mistake, Half-wit (title contender) had a fair bit to do with the negative  ‘findings’ in the CASA audit.  Be great if the RAeS had released the audit to the Safe -Skies audience, what a hoot.

One of many ‘things’ which caught my attention was the repetitive use of the word ‘should’ in the McConvict missive. What, there’s 35 items listed there that ASA ‘should’ do; not must or will – but should.   Fascinating word – SHOULD – lots of time and effort go into and 113 page audit reports and they don’t come cheap.   Is it just me but the McComic sound, fury and table thumping seems to have been window dressing – “You really should get off your arse dear” – is not quite the same as “get up – now”.  A politely framed suggestion as opposed to a direct order.  The PIC should ensure sufficient fuel etc. as opposed to the pilot shall ensure :etc.   Aye, no doubt ‘Margaret and John-boy had a cosy afternoon tea and a laugh discussing what they should or should not do and how to convince the paymasters that they were doing much, while doing nothing.  

So, when you next hear Houstoblame spouting (with testiculations) that CASA is his lord and master and he must obey – remember he only should, not must.   Even so, the ‘it’s not our fault’ (Nuremberg) defense starts to look a bit silly.  

“Oh CASA said we should, but Half-Wit and I decided to ignore their suggestions, told ‘em to bugger off actually”.

Nice work – if you can get it.  What say you ABC? Want to share that audit or wait to see it in the PAIN submission to the ANAO?

Toot toot.

Bus Route 666 - Express to Purgatory or Styx River crossing?

Well said Ferryman..

 P9 - "..So, when you next hear Houstoblame spouting (with testiculations) that CASA is his lord and master and he must obey – remember he only should, not must.   Even so, the ‘it’s not our fault’ (Nuremberg) defense starts to look a bit silly.."

'Should' seems to be a common bureaucratic, claptrap, spin & bulldust legislative obfuscation, commonly deployed by Machiavellian Mandarins, when they have absolutely no intention of either enforcing or complying with the original intent of the legislation...

Here is a classic example of how it works from the archives..

On the ABC, I think they intend to also 'do nothing' as the trail of crumbs have disappeared; also since then there has been a change of government & yet another change of PM..

Besides if you look at the stories this generated at the time, you get the impression that this was merely a 'thought bubble' from some harf-assed ABC producer to fill in a vacuous moment on the 24/7 media stream..

Surprisingly from off the Yaffa:

Airservices Australia's Brisbane tower. (Airservices)


CASA Report Raises Concerns about Airservices
17 Jul 2013
By Denise McNabb

After coming in for sharp criticism at a recent Senate inquiry over its own safety deficiencies in the wake of the Pel Air crash in 2009, CASA has turned the blowtorch on Airservices Australia’s airways and aerodrome branch, highlighting “critical” shortcomings in the country’s air traffic control services that threaten safe flying.

The Regulatory Review of CASR Part 172 Air Traffic Service Approval of Airservices Australia points to seriously deficient operational, safety and management services in the monopoly air navigation service provider.

Of prime concern is a spike in late 2011 and 2012 in the number of incidents where the recognised separation between aircraft had broken down or loss of separation assurance (LOSA) had been incorrectly applied by air traffic controllers.

This, said CASA, had resulted in increased public concern and media exposure, particularly because these incidents were in high-level Class A airspace where “the consequences of these can be high.”

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau details 10 such incidents in 2012, four involving air traffic services (ATS).

Of further concern to CASA was the fact that Airservices had not been able to determine the root causes of the increase in these incidents.

The 113-page review, dated 21 January 2013 has only just come to light after the Australian Broadcasting Corporation sought its contents under Freedom of Information laws.

The review highlights so many flaws and shortcomings that CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick, told Airservices Australia’s chief executive, Margaret Staib, that CASA had considered the option of withdrawing Airservices’ approval to operate air traffic control services, but had instead decided to put a finite date on renewal of the licence of three years. During this time it will require frequent audits and oversight to fix the shortcomings.

The review highlights a 35.8 per cent increase in Airservices staff (2,861 to 3,886 between 2001 and 2012), yet in that same period the number of air traffic controllers had declined from 951 to 922 even though three new air traffic towers had been added to the network since 2001. There had also been a marked increase in air traffic in the period, especially in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia because of the mining boom.

Between May 2003 and June 2012 Airservices was issued with 233 non-compliance notices (NCNs).

“The recurring nature of the NCNs suggests Airservices’ senior management is either unaware of issues or has not taken sufficient action to address the root causes,” said CASA.

It has made 35 recommendations, the majority addressing deficiencies in Airservices’ management responsibilities, particularly its safety management system and the effectiveness of supervision at some air traffic control locations.

Recommendations focuses on staffing levels, training, the application of the safety management system, breakdown of separation incidents, traffic information broadcasts by aircraft incidents and the ability to provide air traffic services.

Specific issues that needed addressing include:

• The lack of direct supervision at some ATS locations.
  
• Inadequate resourcing or management of air traffic control staff.
  
• Internal audits failing to deliver the results required by either the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) or CASA in terms of internal surveillance.
  
• Inadequate document control processes.
  
• Greater compliance with the operations manual.
  
• Training and checking processes.
  
• Fast-tracking improvements to the ATS re-sectorisation of airspace in the Brisbane Basin, Western Australia and South Australia, including a review of air routes, holding patterns, workstations and staffing.
  
• More suitably trained ATS incident investigators
  
• Review of the ATS risk management processes so that operational staff have better visibility of hazards and present risk levels
  

 
Hmm...wonder if Denise got anymore published stories after that..

Next from the ABC:

Report finds serious safety, management problems with Australia's air traffic control system

By Will Ockenden

Updated 15 Jul 2013, 12:37pm
Mon 15 Jul 2013, 12:37pm

 

An internal report into Australia's air traffic control system has found serious deficiencies with the operation, safety and management of the country's skies.

Documents released under Freedom of Information laws show Australia's monopoly air traffic control provider, Airservices Australia, has overseen a system where problems go unsolved amid an organisational culture which employees say is "dysfunctional".

The report, written by Australia's air safety regulator the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and obtained by the ABC, lays out hundreds of incidents, ranging from training shortcomings to mismanagement of staff.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority report

• Letter to Airservices Australia from the Aviation Safety director, John McCormick
  
• Report sections on safety performance, regulatory compliance, staffing and service
  
• Report's recommendations and sections on training and supervision, procedures and facilities
  
• Glossary of terms and appendices
  

Frustrated by an ever-growing number of serious incidents where the root cause was never properly identified, CASA considered withdrawing Airservices' approval to operate the network.

CASA however pulled Airservices' ongoing approval to operate the air traffic control system, and imposed a rolling three-year licence, which comes with regular audits and more oversight.

The air safety regulator also wants the current regulations strengthened, giving it the ability to issue fines or take other enforcement actions to force Airservices to improve its operations.

Pilots and controllers alarmed

Non-compliance issues
Melbourne
30+Adelaide
30
Brisbane
29
Perth
25
Sydney
12
Cairns
12
Canberra
17
Alice Springs
17

This table details the number of "non-compliance" notices issued per region, including issues ranging from documentation problems, safety management and training.

Air traffic controllers have expressed concern about the report, with one telling the ABC that he "couldn't believe that Airservices had failed to comply with so many things".

The ABC has spoken to several current and former controllers, all of whom wished to remain anonymous due to fears of retribution and being blacklisted by the monopoly air traffic provider, which is the only real employer of air traffic controllers.

One controller called the company he works for "dysfunctional", saying he was worried about an entrenched culture of mismanagement and bureaucracy.

"If you've got a monopoly and you're making money, and if no-one really cares what you're doing, then why would you improve?" he said.

Australian and International Pilots Association vice president Captain Richard Woodward said the report was concerning.

"I think the system has shown some fairly severe cracks, and the report identifies that," he said.

"It was a concerning report because it's not nice to see the Australian system has that many faults.

"When you read it closely you clearly find there's been a bunch of management issues that have brought this about, and also a lack of trained controllers."

Air traffic controllers are paid well - senior, experienced employees can receive about $200,000 per year.

But many controllers are frustrated at the inadequate levels of training provided for new staff.

"Airspace closes if Airservices can't find enough staff," one of the controllers said.

"Management tries to get around it by moving shifts forward and leaving airspace vacant and uncontrolled."
         
Audio: Listen to AM's report (AM)

The ABC has been told controllers have to ask for annual leave up to four years in advance.

One controller said he had worked more than a month of extra shifts over a year, backfilling for other controllers who were sick or were not qualified to operate certain parts of Australian airspace.

He said Airservices relied on people to agree to extra shifts, rather than finding and training new people.

"All of us have huge amounts of leave, we're all carrying leave credits," he said.

"Airservices is pretty dysfunctional. They're not planning for what's going to happen, but why would they when they're making the money?"

More planes in the air, ever-increasing workload
There are more planes in Australia's skies than ever before.

The mining boom has seen a huge increase in air traffic in areas that have not traditionally experienced large numbers of flights.

Perth has seen a 57 per cent jump, Brisbane a 34 per cent increase, and overall traffic is expected to grow around 3 to 4 per cent per year.

But the number of air traffic controllers has remained the same, all while the Airservices bureaucracy has ballooned.
The report found that over the last decade Airservices increased its employee numbers by about one third.

Air traffic controllers have told the ABC the growth has been mostly in the area of middle-management.

Overworked and stressed conditions have led to a growing number of mistakes.

The 2012 Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) audit detailed 10 "serious incidents" involving air transport in so-called separation events.

Separation refers to the minimum distance between planes required to remove the risk of a collision.

Four of the ten incidents involved air traffic services.

"Near misses are unacceptable in a modern air traffic environment so those items should definitely be fixed and that's directly related to the quality and standard and training and availability of the air traffic system," Mr Woodward said.

"Controllers are working very hard, long hours, long shift hours. It would be good to see them recruit a new breed of controllers and fill all those gaps that they've clearly got."

Despite repeated requests, the union which represents air traffic controllers, CivilAir, declined an interview with the ABC, but did provide a letter.

MTF?- Definitely! P2

[thorn bird]

All those NCN's?? Then again if the roles were reversed I wonder how many NCN's CAsA would attract??

Oh sorry Forgot CAsA's theme song...

"Oh Loorrd it is hard to be humble, when your perfect in every way"
Kenny Rodgers.

[Gobbledock]

Thornmeister;

"All those NCN's?? Then again if the roles were reversed I wonder how many NCN's CAsA would attract??"

Easy old chap, none! I would issue them a 'safety alert', faxed to them on Friday at 16:59.

Ferryman;

"One of many ‘things’ which caught my attention was the repetitive use of the word ‘should’ in the McConvict missive. What, there’s 35 items listed there that ASA ‘should’ do; not must or will – but should.   Fascinating word – SHOULD – lots of time and effort go into and 113 page audit reports and they don’t come cheap".

Yes old mate, interesting indeed. It's a bit like the difference between 'approve' and 'accept'. CAsA will 'accept' a manual from an Operator but they won't 'approve' said manual. They will never commit to anything out of fear. Tools!

[Peetwo]

Supplementary Estimates 19/10/15 - Airservices & the BSW

[quote pid='2455' dateline='1445324081']
[quote pid='2454' dateline='1445320045']

First impressions from rough notes.

An outbreak of domestic tyranny prevented careful study of the entire session, so we will be obliged to wait for Hansard and the ‘vision’ for details.  From some of the comments received and the parts I did manage to watch, there are some points of interest which will merit further attention.

Sir Gallacher continues to impress, you get the notion that he’s plugged in and switched on; works hard and terrier like, keeps worrying the prey.  I want to watch the ASA session again, I got the impression he was kicking the crap out of ‘em (big job – lots of it to kick) on money matters.   Doughty Joe Bullock was in the ruck and maul, quiet, assuming but no less lethal for that.  Choc frogs for effort.  MTF.

The best bits of the ASA session were towards the end; there’s one small piece which is a must see.  Heff seemed, for the most part to stay out of the scrums, ran the session with a rod of iron with only a few barbed comments made regarding cowardly bastards waiting for their turn and writing nasty notes; someone made a serious error and Heff ain’t forgiving or forgetting; I digress.  Heff pops up with a question about advertising the ASA ‘top job’. MM jumped in to protect the anointed Half-wit.  It was a small passage of play, but Heff left no doubt in my mind that the Merde’k selection was out of the running – when you see the recording – watch carefully – Heff makes his final comment – Merde’k looks down the table at Half-wit, that look says ‘you’re ducked mate’.  The smile on the Heff dial – priceless.   MTF.

CASA – Oliver Slymore Twist, not so laid back and cool this time, the happy-clappy façade slipped a couple of times.  The session is worth a revisit, from my notes, the Montreal excuse was trotted out again, McComic got thrown under the bus and a gaunt, tense Anastasi was very uncomfortable at a line of questions which asked – basically – “are you taking the Mickey out the Senate ?”  This related to Part 145 being turned away and CASA running around the back of it to continue with their version of reform.  NX kicked that one off; as said – need a replay.  Fawcett condescended to pull on a strip and boots; there was a passage of play where he locked horns with Slymore; only an impression and a scribbled note, but some of it seemed ‘rehearsed’ (for wont of better), the chime of probity just a little off beat – need a replay.  Bullock did well again precision kicking.  MTF.

Which only leaves ATSB and a hapless, re bearded Beaker – one texted comment cracked me up – it suggested the beard is used as cover for telling the really big Porkies ("talking through his hairy arse").  Foley did well on MH 370 – he seems to be across the brief and manages to give an impression of honesty.  The session is worth reviewing – Norfolk and Pel-Air were mentioned and the bearded one looked distinctly uncomfortable during that interlude.  MTF.

Only a half baked twiddle; impressions more than solid observations; more to follow I expect. But for the amount of difference it will all make, judging from the complete lack of tangible change so far; maybe MKR is a better program.  At least there you can at least see the result of effort.

Toot toot... ...

Good summary Ferryman, it wasn't a long session but it was obvious there were many subtle inner sanctum allegiances & departmental issues that will no doubt feature in the coming months of the BSW (Bus Stop Wars)...

The following is the committee secretariat summary of the day's proceedings:

Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Supplementary Budget Estimates 2015 – 16

Monday, 19 October 2015

Daily summary

The committee met from 9.00am until 10.35pm.
The committee called:

• the department and agencies of the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio, commencing with the Corporate Services Division and moving on to the Infrastructure Investment Division, Infrastructure Australia, the Australian Rail Track Corporation, Airservices Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Aviation and Airports Division, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Office of Transport Security, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the Policy and Research Division, the Surface Transport Policy Division, the Local Government and Territories Division, the Western Sydney Unit, the National Capital Authority and the National Transport Commission.

Among other issues, the following matters were discussed:

• current and planned infrastructure projects in states and territories, with a particular focus on matters surrounding the WestConnex and the Perth Freight Link projects;

• the work of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on the search for MH370; and

• the distribution of ministerial responsibilities within the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio in light of the recent ministerial reshuffle.

The Committee set Friday 30 October 2015 as the deadline for senators to submit written Questions on Notice, and Friday 4 December 2015 as the due date for answers to Questions on Notice. 

    
[/quote]

[/quote]

Update: Hansard now released in full - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee - 19/10/2015 - Estimates - INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO - Airservices Australia

MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

Of pots of dodgy business plan money, bus drivers and passengers

Thanks for posting the Poohtube clips P2, good work. Just a couple of comments;

Video 1 - A little bit of scripted business in this clip, some general housekeeping comments and things started out nice and slowly like a bride on her honeymoon. Sir Galahad was very poised, slow and methodical. Pumpkin Head certainly looked uncomfortable and then made eye contact with Half-inch when 'search for a CEO' was mentioned. One gets the impression that the ASA Board was going to anoint Half-inch but have changed their tactic due to IOS and Senate scrutiny and the Board are now going to 'advertise' the position. Halfy old mate, you didn't really look "match fit"! Toot toot Jase, here comes the bus, don't slip as you jump on it! Toot toot

Video 2 - Again, more good Senate work by Sir Galahad calling out Logan's Run and his dodgy figures. Gold! The business case is littered with more holes in it than are what are in Half-Inch's brain or Beakers 'Beyond Reason' Swiss cheese model. The expression on Half-Inch's face and the tone in his voice when Mr Dick Smith was mentioned was priceless. It was if he just ate a fresh turd wrapped up in barbed wire! Tsk tsk no ASA Xmas card for you this year Dick! I look forward to the senate regularly questioning ASA over those particular project figures in the coming years! Logan's Run was woeful, blundered his way through the folly and I would imagine strengthened the Senators and IOS's resolve that he is yet another piece of flotsam that should be put out to pasture. If his performance didn't catch the eye of Sir Flappy Hands Houston then I don't know what will. If Logan's Run keeps performing like that he may as well punch out now and buy his one way bus ticket! Toot toot Logan, the bus might be coming for you also. Toot toot.

Video 3 - I couldn't help but notice that Hoody started out a little scratchy at the beginning of the estimates but he picked up and performed well, even though the main spotlight wasn't on him. The fact that Senators X and Heff never usually tear his balls off, so to speak, realistically speaks volumes in itself. Out of all the Muppets, suckholes, egomaniacs and shit dribblers lined up in the front row Hoody would be the pick for CEO. However my source tells me that his preference for a 'brown wedding' knocks him out of the contest.
Hoody, no toot toot for you old son, you missed the Number 69 and the Bus Driver said he won't be coming back for you, yet. And it's good to see you looking a bit better after the surgery on your ticker mate.

My highlight though was Heff's little dig at the writer of the dipshit shit-o-gram! Good work Heff, loved it. Subtle but funny.


As P2 says, MTF!

[Kharon]

Setting the tone:-

Opening remarks 

Senator GALLACHER: Mr Mrdak, have you ever thought of winding up this crew and rolling them back into the department?

Mr Mrdak: No.

Senator GALLACHER: No study has been done on bringing it back into the department?

Mr Mrdak: No.

Translation – Emphatic - Not bloody likely and no choc frog for guessing why; far too smart is the MM.


Closing remarks:-

CHAIR: I am going to go to Senator Xenophon, but before I do that, have you advertised for a new CEO yet?

Mr Mrdak: That is a matter for the board. My understanding is that the board is—

CHAIR: It is such an incestuous set-up that the board will probably say, 'Oh, we will get one of our own little pet cats in there.' Why would you not advertise publicly?

Mr Mrdak: My understanding is that the board is about to publicly advertise the position.

CHAIR: Good.

In between, Sir Gallacher took ‘em round and round the garden, see Part II  from 0530:- smacked their silly bottoms and sent them off to do their homework before dinner.  No wonder MM don’t want a bar of them, certainly not back under his wing.  No doubt the audit will uncover at very least the incompetence and lack of concern for the public purse.  Oh dear..  

You have to watch the small segment when Mrdak gives Half-Wit ‘the look’. Part II from 0640 - 0721.  Priceless - had it made into a screen saver, with a music overlay.  Going to send it to Glen Sterle, he'd hate to miss the fun bits.

Toot toot..

[Peetwo]

From the ANAO & 'that man again'...

Finally from off the ANAO website:

Airservices Australia's Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist with the OneSKY Australia Project

Portfolio: Infrastructure and Regional Development

Agencies involved: Airservices Australia

Audit Objective: To examine whether Airservices Australia has effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with ICCPM in association with the OneSKY Australia project were effectively administered.Due to Table:Autumn 2016

Apparently we (the IOS) can even put in our 2 bobs worth:

Contributions to the 'Airservices Australia's Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist with the OneSKY Australia Project' audit in progress

Airservices’ ‘dodgy dealings’ under watchdog probe  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• October 16, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter




Airservices Australia’s acting chief executive Jason Harfield. Source: News Limited

The government watchdog which investigates public spending has confirmed it has launched a special probe into Airservices Australia and says it will focus on what has been described as “dodgy” and “incestuous” dealings with an obscure “not-for-profit” organisation.  

The move comes as speculation mounts in aviation circles that the Airservices board and Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, whose portfolio covers aviation, are leaning towards appointing acting chief executive Jason Harfield to the position permanently.

As revealed last month, the Australian National Audit Office will investigate Airservices following reports in The Australian and Senate committee hearings, which raised serious questions about the organisation’s governance.

The ANAO has confirmed on its website that the investigation is under way. It will be specifically directed at Airservices’ dealings with the International Centre for Complex Project Management over the $1.5 billion OneSKY program which will integrate the nation’s civil and military air traffic control and navigation systems.

The ANAO website says the investigation’s objective is: “To examine whether Airservices Australia has effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with ICCPM in association with the OneSKY Australia project were effectively administered.”

The move follows an urgent request from the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport legislation committee.

A Senate committee hearing in August 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 contract Airservices struck with ICCPM was processed by Mr Hein.

Senators also expressed incredulity that Airservices had 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, is also the chairman of ICCPM.

“The perception of conflict of interest is all over this,” Labor senator Joe Bullock told the hearing, while the committee chairman, Liberal Bill Heffernan, said the dealings were “incestuous” and would “not pass the public test … it sounds dodgy”.

Mr Bradford, who has been paid more than $1 million by Airservices thus far, is a former RAAF officer.

On its website, ICCPM describes itself as “an independent, international, not-for-profit organisation that would support both government and industry’s ability to better deliver complex projects”.

Ms Hein declined to speak over the telephone, but in an email said ICCPM “looks forward to the opportunity to engage in the ANAO audit”.

Sources told The Australian the ANAO regarded the matters raised about Airservices as serious, and would expedite the inquiry.

While former Airservices chief executive Margaret Staib resigned in late July citing health issues, aviation industry figures said they had not seen any advertising for the position.

Airservices spokeswoman Vicki Huggins and Mr Truss’s spokeswoman Kate Barwick would not answer questions about the process of appointing a new Airservices chief executive, including whether the position had been or would be advertised, with Ms Barwick only saying “the appointment will go through a recruitment process”.

Former Civil Aviation Authority chair, businessman and aviator Dick Smith said he had been contacted by “a number of people who would be really excellent for the job” but they had not seen the position advertised. “If they are thinking of doing an inside job that would be a disaster; they have a lot of problems and need a new person from outside,” Mr Smith said.

“This is a billion-dollar-a-year business; they should be advertising it around the world”. [b]{ Well said Dick.. }[/b]

Raiders of the lost trough - Part II

While we were analysing & dissecting all the juicy moments from the Senate Estimates hearing the Secretariat was quietly getting on with business and updating the ROTLT (ASA performance inquiry) webpage with some additional info/AQON etc.

First there was an additional, very informative submission from a Mr Robert Hamilton- see here. His background, much like Mr Bennett, does IMO classify him as an 'expert witness' infinitely qualified to comment. Mr Hamilton's concerns:

MY CONCERNS

I make this submission because I am concerned:

• That too many recent comments about Airservices, air traffic control and air traffic controllers appear misinformed, uninformed, inappropriate and at times

misleading-I seek to provide history and context to the comments and correct the public record where appropriate and to the extent that I can.

• That Airservices has not accurately provided to the aviation industry and the Australian taxpayer specific details about how ADS-B will be used in Australian airspace, whether it will benefit Australian aviation and what the costs and benefits will be-I seek to ensure, to the extent that I can, that Australia recognises and maximises the benefits obtainable from introducing at significant expense a 4th generation air traffic services system.

• About the risk to air safety when history is disregarded in favour of short term narrow objectives-I seek to provide an accurate history of radar in Tasmania and show how public funds were easily spent for no public benefit.

• About Airservices public image problems-I seek to point out the consequences of Airservices’ inaccurate public statements and inability to respond to irresponsible and ignorant statements too readily provided by so called ‘experts’.

 
Of main interest to most, will be the RH analysis of the ADSB mandate introduction from paragraphs 10-20.

From page 5:

A dream or a plan?
 
11.It seems to me that this is Mr Smith’s question, and it’s a fair one. But permit me to widen its scope and ask: What’s in it for the entire industry, not just general aviation? Mandating a short period for equipment purchase and installation is a first step toward avoiding the issues of the past but it increases the front end costs to the industry. The danger, though, based on past experience, is that the industry will bear high initial costs for benefits that will arrive only slowly and will never be maximised.

12.The industry’s objective now is the same as it was previously: it will have the new equipment and it will want to maximise the benefits that it will bring. And once again, any benefits and the extent of any benefits can only be provided by and known to Airservices, for it is the Australian air traffic system manager and it appears the only organisation that seems to know what the benefits will be for Australian users. But does it?

13.My reading so far suggests that Airservices and CASA demonstrate some knowledge of what ADS-B can do generally, but Airservices has not revealed its capacities or limitations within Australian airspace, how it will be used, what the benefits will be and when any benefits will be realised. Airservices plan, to me, appears more visionary than detailed.

14.Permit me to provide 4 real world examples of my concern. For the last 45 years aircraft departing Sydney for Brisbane have flown a track to West Maitland then Casino then Brisbane, or it seems recently to Casino, then Coolangatta, then Brisbane. Will this new equipment enable pilots to routinely plan and ATC to routinely permit a normal flight track from 5 miles east of Sydney direct to an 8 or 10 mile final approach at Brisbane? If not, then where is the gain to industry?

15.Or, aircraft are landed 3 miles or 2 minutes apart at our major airports. Will this equipment improve on that and the chronic holding delays over Coolangatta? I doubt it and the result-no cost saving. Or, there used to be a separation standard for properly equipped aircraft of 10 miles either side of planned track. Will the new system permit a lesser standard? If not, then no gain to industry. And another example: basic radar separation is 5 miles plus tolerances, or sometimes 3 miles. Can this be bettered? If not, then no gain to industry.


16.Airservices needs to show what changes it intends, not what changes it believes are possible. And then it needs to accurately, reliably and in greater detail cost and report to industry and government on the savings that it intends to deliver and on what time period it intends these savings will occur. 

 
TBC..

[Peetwo]

From the ANAO & 'that man again'...

Finally from off the ANAO website:

Airservices Australia's Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist with the OneSKY Australia Project

Portfolio: Infrastructure and Regional Development

Agencies involved: Airservices Australia

Audit Objective: To examine whether Airservices Australia has effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with ICCPM in association with the OneSKY Australia project were effectively administered.Due to Table:Autumn 2016

Apparently we (the IOS) can even put in our 2 bobs worth:

Contributions to the 'Airservices Australia's Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist with the OneSKY Australia Project' audit in progress

Airservices’ ‘dodgy dealings’ under watchdog probe  

• Airservices Australia’s acting chief executive Jason Harfield. Source: News Limited The government watchdog which investigates public spending has confirmed it has launched a special probe into Airservices Australia and says it will focus on what has been described as “dodgy” and “incestuous” dealings with an obscure “not-for-profit” organisation.  

Raiders of the lost trough - Part II

While we were analysing & dissecting all the juicy moments from the Senate Estimates hearing the Secretariat was quietly getting on with business and updating the ROTLT (ASA performance inquiry) webpage with some additional info/AQON etc.

First there was an additional, very informative submission from a Mr Robert Hamilton- see here. His background, much like Mr Bennett, does IMO classify him as an 'expert witness' infinitely qualified to comment. Mr Hamilton's concerns:

MY CONCERNS

I make this submission because I am concerned:

• That too many recent comments about Airservices, air traffic control and air traffic controllers appear misinformed, uninformed, inappropriate and at times

misleading-I seek to provide history and context to the comments and correct the public record where appropriate and to the extent that I can.

• That Airservices has not accurately provided to the aviation industry and the Australian taxpayer specific details about how ADS-B will be used in Australian airspace, whether it will benefit Australian aviation and what the costs and benefits will be-I seek to ensure, to the extent that I can, that Australia recognises and maximises the benefits obtainable from introducing at significant expense a 4th generation air traffic services system.

• About the risk to air safety when history is disregarded in favour of short term narrow objectives-I seek to provide an accurate history of radar in Tasmania and show how public funds were easily spent for no public benefit.

• About Airservices public image problems-I seek to point out the consequences of Airservices’ inaccurate public statements and inability to respond to irresponsible and ignorant statements too readily provided by so called ‘experts’.

 
Of main interest to most, will be the RH analysis of the ADSB mandate introduction from paragraphs 10-20.

From page 5:

A dream or a plan?
 
11.It seems to me that this is Mr Smith’s question, and it’s a fair one. But permit me to widen its scope and ask: What’s in it for the entire industry, not just general aviation? Mandating a short period for equipment purchase and installation is a first step toward avoiding the issues of the past but it increases the front end costs to the industry. The danger, though, based on past experience, is that the industry will bear high initial costs for benefits that will arrive only slowly and will never be maximised.

12.The industry’s objective now is the same as it was previously: it will have the new equipment and it will want to maximise the benefits that it will bring. And once again, any benefits and the extent of any benefits can only be provided by and known to Airservices, for it is the Australian air traffic system manager and it appears the only organisation that seems to know what the benefits will be for Australian users. But does it?

13.My reading so far suggests that Airservices and CASA demonstrate some knowledge of what ADS-B can do generally, but Airservices has not revealed its capacities or limitations within Australian airspace, how it will be used, what the benefits will be and when any benefits will be realised. Airservices plan, to me, appears more visionary than detailed.

14.Permit me to provide 4 real world examples of my concern. For the last 45 years aircraft departing Sydney for Brisbane have flown a track to West Maitland then Casino then Brisbane, or it seems recently to Casino, then Coolangatta, then Brisbane. Will this new equipment enable pilots to routinely plan and ATC to routinely permit a normal flight track from 5 miles east of Sydney direct to an 8 or 10 mile final approach at Brisbane? If not, then where is the gain to industry?

15.Or, aircraft are landed 3 miles or 2 minutes apart at our major airports. Will this equipment improve on that and the chronic holding delays over Coolangatta? I doubt it and the result-no cost saving. Or, there used to be a separation standard for properly equipped aircraft of 10 miles either side of planned track. Will the new system permit a lesser standard? If not, then no gain to industry. And another example: basic radar separation is 5 miles plus tolerances, or sometimes 3 miles. Can this be bettered? If not, then no gain to industry.


16.Airservices needs to show what changes it intends, not what changes it believes are possible. And then it needs to accurately, reliably and in greater detail cost and report to industry and government on the savings that it intends to deliver and on what time period it intends these savings will occur. 

 
TBC..

ROTLT Part II - Cont..

Next is 61 pages of AQONs from the 9 Sept hearing - see here. Some of which is fascinating, but most is just more bollocks & smoke'n'mirrors.. 

Examples:

Q1/

Senator XENOPHON: Was the draft the actual board papers? Can we get a copy of the final board papers that were published?

Mr Harfield: There will not be too much difference from the draft to the final, but we can provide the final.
Answer:

The unauthorised release of the draft Board papers is the subject of an active Australian Federal Police investigation.

Airservices can confirm the final Board papers are similar to the draft documents.

The Board papers relate to advanced work packages for the ongoing procurement of the joint civil-military air traffic management system and contains commercial-in-confidence information of both Airservices and the Commonwealth (Department of Defence). Further public disclosure could damage the negotiating positions as the contracts for the full scope of the OneSKY program have not yet been awarded.

Airservices would be pleased to provide a confidential briefing on the content.

 
Q4/

Senator STERLE: What you were talking about, Mr Logan, with these other payments is that what you— would you call them executive remuneration arrangements?

Mr Logan: What part of that?

Senator STERLE: The different payouts and non-performance—

Mr Logan: In the case of the senior management team, my understanding is that it was the result of restructuring of the organisation.

Senator STERLE: Okay, so you are going to supply us with that information.

Mr Logan: We are happy to supply—

Answer:

As previously advised, there were three executive separations during this period. Total

payments amounted to $909,736 which comprised an agreed separation payment along with standard employee entitlements (accrued annual leave, long service leave and payment of notice period).

AQON 10 relates very much to this quote etc. 

Bus Route 666 - Express to Purgatory or Styx River crossing?

 P9 - "..So, when you next hear Houstoblame spouting (with testiculations) that CASA is his lord and master and he must obey – remember he only should, not must.   Even so, the ‘it’s not our fault’ (Nuremberg) defense starts to look a bit silly.."

'Should' seems to be a common bureaucratic, claptrap, spin & bulldust legislative obfuscation, commonly deployed by Machiavellian Mandarins, when they have absolutely no intention of either enforcing or complying with the original intent of the legislation...

Airservices Australia's Brisbane tower. (Airservices)

 

Senator XENOPHON: So there has never been a circumstance where Airservices have said, 'We areconcerned about the safety aspects of this', but you have been overruled by government policy?

Sir Angus Houston: Not to my knowledge.

Senator XENOPHON: Could that be taken on notice. I might be surprised if there was.
Mr Harfield: We can take that on notice to find out. But not to my knowledge.

Answer:

In 2007, airspace regulatory function transferred to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) reinforcing Airservices role as a service provider.

CASA makes the ultimate decision on issues of aviation safety as the responsible regulator.

In addition, Airservices works very closely and effectively with CASA and the Aviation
Policy Group, consisting of key aviation related agencies, to ensure effective inter-agency
coordination on strategic policy issues.

Hmm..beg to differ when you look at the historical context - paragraphs 1-9 - of the RH submission.

Next AQON 11:

Senator XENOPHON: In the case of the Adelaide TCU it has been put to me that the physical presence of the TCU in Adelaide is relevant. Unlike in Canberra and the Gold Coast, Adelaide Tower has no permanent air space, thus the TCU controls aircraft from the surface level up to 24½ thousand feet, and local knowledge is a big factor. Because of time constraints, could you take that assertion on notice and respond to it accordingly?

Mr Harfield: Yes, I can.

Answer:

The physical location of a Terminal Control Unit (TCU) is not relevant to the services provided.

Air traffic control towers predominantly provide visual control services as opposed to TCUs which provide surveillance-based services. The services provided by TCUs are delivered entirely by electronic means (predominantly radar) and are not dependent on controllers visually seeing the aircraft.

A core part of the training and assessment process for air traffic controllers is familiarity with the airspace that they control, including knowledge of relevant geography and local traffic patterns.

Hmm...interesting comments from the Hamilton submission which relate to the Adelaide TCU:

58.Mr Bennett’s expressed local concerns raise a more serious issue, however, and that is the national need for physical security of Airservices sites, high levels of communication system security, operational redundancy and failover.

59.Australia’s air traffic service is of national importance. It not only services air traffic from halfway across the Indian Ocean to halfway to Hawaii and halfway to New Zealand, but it also provides a highly adaptable nationwide surveillance and communications system of military standard operated by highly disciplined and operationally flexible personnel able to rapidly respond to serious and sometimes unusual national crises and local emergencies.

60.Airservices provides a vital national service to Australia that far exceeds ordinary air traffic control, and decisions relating to consolidation of units, protection of facilities, redundancy of service and the need for rapid failover involve issues of national security as well as system security. The extent of proposed consolidation suggests an increasing need for Airservices to particularly emphasise physical security at its Melbourne and Brisbane centres. Brisbane centre is of immediate concern as it seems vulnerable to any determined physical threat.

Finally Sir A had some 'clarification issues' from his appearance at the last hearing :

2. Correspondence from Sir Angus Houston, Chair, Airservices Australia to committee clarifying statements made at 9 September 2015 hearing, received 15 October 2015

Read it & weep..

MTF..P2
Ps Chocfrog 4 Rob Hamilton - I am much more enlightened now

[Gobbledock]

Must've been hard for the tall lanky spin doctor to chow down on that shit sandwich
Hopefully if the ANAO conduct a robust audit of Sir Anus's organisation, in light of all the recent malaise, Sir Anus will get to dine on several more sandwiches, and some pineapple fritters. Perhaps Harfwit will also get to dine from Sir Anus's table. One would imagine there is plenty to share around!

[Gobbledock]

Apply within: Wanted, one ASA CEO who isn't a Harfwit.

A 'match fit' ASA have appointed a recruitment agency to find a new CEO and CFO;

"Spencer Stuart, an executive search firm, has been appointed by the Board of Airservices Australia to assist with a search for candidates for key leadership roles.
Spencer Stuart is assisting the Board with a process that will consider internal and external candidates for the roles of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.
The process is already well underway".

https://newsroom.airservicesaustralia.co...eo-and-cfo

One can only hope that Nick Xenophon be on the interview panel!

And for those of you with bulimia the next article will help you purge your last meal, Harfwits 'match fit' folly;

https://newsroom.airservicesaustralia.co...the-future

"Transparent interview processes for all"

[Kharon]

GD - Started to respond – I really did; but the poor old keyboard was getting a pounding, the cat buggered off, following the dogs who tried to look ‘cool’ as they headed for quieter quarters.  But, it was a 'well briefed'  ‘head-hunting crew’ that gave Truss (and us) Skidmore.  No matter - Steam off.  (Breathe).  

But I am still sat here, wondering – how can Truss ignore the advice the Senators must be giving him? And justify ignoring that advice? – How dare he?.  Can Truss with any hope of political impunity continue to discount the advice of Forsyth, Boyd and our own stalwart RRAT team.  It’s preposterous when you think about it; Beaker still standing; Oliver Slydmore Twist untouchable, despite the howls of outrage, protest and rock solid advice available from the likes of Fawcett et al.

It the Senate crew can’t penetrate the ‘advice’ defences, then what can?

“Nuff: safe keyboards for all.

Toot toot.

[P7_TOM]

I wonder, how many ATCO sitting at consuls offer a small prayer, during the quiet periods, to the gods of change – for the better.  A powerful union and an intelligent membership is one thing, but serious political will in support of sensible change makes things so much easier.  

ATC, much like flying is a vocation rather than ‘a job you do to pay the rent’.  The troops have been patient, worked their OT and tolerated the excesses of the management levels without moaning and groaning (not too much anyway).    I guess the question is will the new CEO be able to break the cycle, reign in the obscene, self indulgent spending and provide an environment where the troops work willingly in full support of sanity.  

Mind you, anyone who will tear up the idiotic posters and bin the outrageous, demeaning, insulting courage badges would be an improvement.  Let’s hope the selection criteria have been set properly and a level playing field prevails.

[Peetwo]

ASA bottom line? - FY 2014-15

Lisa Allen, from the Oz Business, has been reviewing the ASA Financial statements from their recently released Annual Report.

First:

Airlines seek new horizons as mining downturn clips wings  

• by: LISA ALLEN
  
• From: The Australian
  
• November 05, 2015 12:00AM
  

Property & Tourism Reporter
Sydney



The softening mining boom is cutting sharply into air traffic volumes. Source: Supplied
 
The softening mining boom is cutting sharply into air traffic volumes as carriers reduce flights and switch from dedicated long-haul mining routes to more lucrative commercial services on key leisure routes.  

Airservices Australia reported total income for the 2015 financial year at $1.012 billion, marginally below its 2014 performance because of reductions in air traffic volumes as the major domestic airlines reduced and consolidated services.

Linc Energy’s executive chairman, Peter Bond, himself a pilot, says there’s been a number of reductions in flights since the height of the mining boom.

“Charter work has slowed down and stopped. The sheer volume of fly-in and fly-out work has reduced, as has a lot of the short-term flights. I would say traffic has definitely reduced.”

Airlines such as Qantas have reacted to the loss of some FIFO mining routes by redeploying planes from the resources states of Western Australia and Queensland.
Qantas recently introduced special Boeing 737 Sydney to Denpasar flights for Bali’s peak Christmas and New Year season in December and January.

“In response to changes in the resources sector we have moved some capacity on to the east coast, including leisure markets like Melbourne and the Gold Coast where we are seeing good levels of demand,” said Qantas spokesman Andrew McGinnes. “We are still serving resource markets and resource clients but our focus has been using smaller gauge aircraft with a similar level of frequency,’’ he said.

Airservices Australia’s financial report reveals the organisation produced lower finance incomes, as cash holdings and interest rates reduced during the year. Business revenues also reduced, while one-off contracts that had generated additional income in the previous year disappeared, Airservices said in its 2014-2015 annual report.

“These reductions were partially offset by scheduled price increases averaging 0.4 per cent for the year as endorsed by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission under the five-year pricing agreement that was set in 2011,” Airservices said.

The report’s financial statements do not reveal individual salaries but total executive remuneration dropped from $5.407 million in 2014 to $4.84m in 2015. Full-time executives earned an average $537,777 in 2015, down from $551,734 in 2014.

Termination benefits of $655,000 were paid out in 2014, as opposed to $494,000 the following year.

And today (bucket maybe required - i.e. Harf-wit smug phot):

Airservices cuts airport delays to save $18m in fuel

• by: LISA ALLEN
  
• From: The Australian
  
• November 06, 2015 12:00AM
  

Airservices Australia acting chief executive Jason Harfield. Source: News Limited

Reducing delays at major airports by 8700 hours helped cut airline fuel costs by $18 million this financial year and Airservices Australia says it is continuing to drive fuel efficiencies and reduce emissions as the nation’s air traffic continues to increase.  

The federal air traffic control body produced a net profit after tax of $4.5m for the year, reflecting an after-tax return on average equity of 0.7 per cent, well below the planned target of 6.4 per cent. “This outcome was mainly due to the limited short-term flexibility in our cost base to respond to short-term changes in revenues which are outside our control,” Airservices recently released annual report said.

On a brighter note, Airservices reported its air traffic flow management program — one of a number of measures implemented to drive fuel efficiencies, reduce emissions and enhance safety for airlines and operators — continued to deliver savings to Airservices Australia customers such as Qantas and Virgin Australia.

An independent study reported the air traffic flow management ground delay program, which streamlines air traffic management, had driven a combined annual saving of about 8700 hours in airborne delay time across four major airports — Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.

“The study suggests that with a 60 per cent increase in Australia’s air traffic expected by 2020, these savings could increase to 14,300 hours, or 1.3 minutes per flight, and $37.3m in annual fuel savings by 2022,” Airservices acting chief executive Jason Harfield said.

“Other important initiatives this year include greater use of flexible air traffic routes and user preferred routes allowing airlines to maximise their flight routes.”

 
Note there is no mention of the mortal wounds inflicted on the vital GA industry by ASA or CASA - look here for a dose of reality: Sky Wars - The Force awakens


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Wriggle room and parachutes.

The downturn in the mining sector has provided a convenient and no doubt welcome bolt hole for the ASA – revenue down – costs up – not our fault.  Solution even more agreeable, more money and higher rates.  No mention of trimming the excess top layers.  Why is it that these people need so many ‘panels’ and committee’s and all the other layers - ?  Listen to some of the Estimates tapes – there is a cast of thousands involved at each and every step in any process.  Bloated, inflated and all designed to cover the tail end of whoever signs off on a deal.  Unrequired – surplus.  The man taking the big bucks takes the blame – it is that simple.

The ASA version of ‘management’ top and ground cover costs a bloody fortune; then there are the consultants.  Now here’s a question – why do these highly paid “experts” need additional “expert” advice?  They are paid – as experts – small fortunes.  If they are not expert then:-

Why are we employing ‘non-experts’?

Why are we paying them ‘expert salaries’?

It’s Bollocks – they know it, we know it and the Senators know it.  So why are we still tolerating it?  Any fool can whistle up an expert; Yellow pages are full of them, but routine day to day efficient ‘management’ a few less obscene pay packets and efficiencies could almost bring the ASA out of the red into break-even territory.  What a lovely concept – break even costing from user pays – not indecent profits, screwed out of the taxpayer. Fat chance right.

Aye well, back to my knitting.

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

The Ferryam said;

"Now here’s a question – why do these highly paid “experts” need additional “expert” advice?  They are paid – as experts – small fortunes. If they are not expert then"

Nice point 'K'. In my career I've worked closely with some astute CEO's, mostly private sectors. Those same CEO's would have kicked my arse to high heaven had I paid a Consultant to do the very work I am paid to do as an employee and manager within the executive team. But this is the problem - government departments, in general, have endless buckets of money that pretty much can be spent, as desired with no recourse Value for money you say? Pfffft. Not required. Accountability for how the bucket of money is spent you say? Pfffft. Not required.

You need to take these clowns like wannabe CEO Harfwit (who in incidentally believes a CEO role is inherited due to long service, not won due to a person being qualified or skilled), take the Skid'Marks, Beakers and Chairman Hawkes and stick them in the private sector. That will define the men from the boys. These blokes would crumble like a cheap deck of cards. Can you imagine them having to get their hands dirty, having to be accountable for their actions or decisions, rather than having soft pink palms sitting in an office and being promoted and highly remunerated for their skill in doing nothing, producing hot air and mastering the game of smoke and mirrors? Ha