[Gobbledock]

GOLD COAST PFAS AGAIN REARING IT’S UGLY HEAD

An update from the OOL fiasco. From the article;
“PFAS chemical contamination risk at Gold Coast Airport not explained, workers claim”.

- How long until ASA including its Board and CEO Harfwit actually accept accountability?

- How long until the Miniscule and Government accept accountability? Indeed, how long Miniscule McCormack?

Link below;

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31...t/10052982

Indeed, the soft imbecile Sir Anus always knows when to bail. The slippery poke slider bailed from Defence after endless internal problems. The Teflon coating worked well. Now he has bailed from ASA just as Nonesky and PFAS issues start ramping up. Again, the weak muppet takes a golden handshake and a knighthood into the ether under the cloak of darkness!

TICK TOCK ELECTRIC BLUE and Deputy Slime Minister

[Gobbledock]

PFAS HITS MICHIGAN....THE YANKS SEEM TO CARE

Funny, the Yanks seem to be concerned about their toxic PFAS water;

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-3...-emergency

Welcome to Australia, where the Government gives away billions in aid to other countries each year but then covers up issues that are potentially killing its own people. FFS.

The current Government in Australia needs to be removed. The system needs to be torn down....

[Peetwo]

PFAS the next human contaminate 'asbestos' disaster?

By Martin Bunyard, via the QLD Country Life:

Oakey PFAS firefighting foam inquiry brings out landholders emotions



Martin Bunyard @martin_bunyard
17 Aug 2018, 6:35 p.m.
News

[img=565x0]https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/3AYKBMnFjcWGESVJQNBfejj/5827cb98-c2fd-42e4-a1b5-0fb723f80544.JPG/r0_307_6000_3907_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg[/img]
 Oakey cattle breeder Dianne Priddle gave an emotional address about her impact concerns of PFAS contamination.

Toowoomba Regional Council has admitted taking no action to stop the use of potentially contaminated bore water for agriculture. 

The primary responsibility for on-property private bores in Queensland’s Oakey region, impacted by Perfluorooctane sulphonate and Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFAS) firefighting foam use at the local army airbase, lies with Queensland’s natural resources, mines and energy department. But, Toowoomba Regional Council representatives, who faced questioning at a parliamentary inquiry in Oakey on Friday, admitted the local council had taken no action to prevent the use of bore water by private landholders and had not asked for state government help to deal with the problem since PFAS water and ground contamination were flagged back in 2012.   

[img=565x0]https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/3AYKBMnFjcWGESVJQNBfejj/be5cc20d-f2b2-4366-a223-c49189c1209d.JPG/r0_307_6000_4000_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg[/img]
 Toowoomba Regional Council representatives Andrew Murray, principal scientist, John Mills, manager water operations, and Damian Platts, general manager water and waste services.

The federal government’s defense representatives confirmed during the inquiry the department was aware of potential PFAS contamination issues impacting surrounding properties and water aquifers outside Oakey’s defense airbase boundary in December 2012. 

In a statement to Queensland Country Life a spokesperson from the Queensland department of natural resources, mines and energy said it continues “to work with the federal government to ensure landholders in the Oakey region have been notified of PFAS contamination, and continues to provide advice around water quality monitoring as well as alternative water supply options”.

The spokesperson also said any landholders concerned about water quality should contact the department directly.

[img=565x0]https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/3AYKBMnFjcWGESVJQNBfejj/02da4d7e-8708-4b49-ac44-2d1da1fd139a.JPG/r0_187_6000_4000_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg[/img]
 Oakey PFAS inquiry committee members Senator Claire Moore, Chairman Andrew Laming and Senator Malarndirri McCarty.

Oakey stud and commercial cattle producer Dianne Priddle, Berwick Stud, south west of the Oakey airbase said they stopped using their bore water and started bring in hay to feed cattle at the start of 2014 due to PFAS contamination concerns. 

“Oakey as a region is sitting on a water alluvial aquifer (underground water), so potential contamination to bore water is a real issue for us in agriculture who rely on maintaining high standards of eating safety for our products in the food supply chain, such as beef people buy at the supermarkets,” Ms Priddle said. 

[size=undefined][size=undefined]“It’s a flaming mess, I’ll be dead if the government and it’s defence department doesn’t get this sorted soon.”

The last testing of Ms Priddle bore water showed no PFAS contamination in her bore water but the family’s property does receive overland water flow of potentially contaminated water from Oakey airbase. 


 Jennifer Spencer (left) addresses the Oakey PFAS contamination inquiry on Friday.

According to the latest health guidelines, a tolerable daily intake of PFOS chemical is 0.02 micrograms and 0.16 micrograms of PFOA, which are the two chemicals combined to make PFAS in firefighting foam. 

A total of 30 local residents and surrounding property owners attended the PFAS parliament joint standing committee’s examination of the contamination management in and around Oakey’s defence airbase.

[img=565x0]https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/3AYKBMnFjcWGESVJQNBfejj/e7cbdc8c-8445-47c5-a9aa-d43011e7e1a9.jpg/r300_127_4088_2725_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg[/img]
 Doctor Eric Donaldson has a cattle property in the PFAS contaminated zone at Oakey.

Local retired aviation doctor and a rural property owner in the contamination zone, Eric Donaldson, said much of the immediate human health impact has been “negative anxiety” experienced by those potentially impacted from the chemicals, which still has some potential unknown health implications.

The use of PFAS chemicals in firefighting foams has now been stopped due to Queensland government regulation.  

Related story: Oakey left out of PFAS report

Doctor Andrew Jeremijenko, who works as a occupational physician at Mater Private Hospital, said during his address to the inquiry “it’s really time to start risk managing over wise the federal government may face massive compensation bills”. 


 Doctor Andrew Jeremijenko addresses the Oakey PFAS federal government inquiry on Friday.

“In all parts of Australia, except Western Australia, the use of PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam has been stopped,” Dr Jeremijenko said.
PFAS inquiry chairman Andrew Laming said it’s to early to make links between PFAS and health outcomes, but conceded there are associations between PFAS and potential human health impacts. 

Related story: Toxic fears; farmers warned not to eat the beef they sell

A federal government’s report on Oakey’s potential PFAS firefighting foam contamination inquiry will be delivered by mid-October.  

Related story: National coalition launches for residents of Australia's 90 toxic sites[/size][/size]

MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

INCOMPETENT FOOLS

And there you have it;

“Toowoomba Regional Council has admitted taking no action to stop the use of potentially contaminated bore water for agriculture”.

So not only do you have an incompetent Federal Government along with an incompetent agency (ASA) you now have a prime example of an incompetent Council at Local Government level. Regardless of whether they are Federal, State or Local, all levels of Government are nothing short of useless bureaucracies staffed by some of the dumbest assholes on the planet. Any currently serving Toowoomba Councillors and Council management should be shown the door for doing nothing regarding this water crisis. If Stirling Hinchcliff is going to sack the Ipswich Council for malfeasance then surely he can throw in the Toowoomba Council and make it a two for one deal.

I hope ASA are watching this unfold. Lawsuits a plenty coming your way Jason Harfwit. Of course the Federal Government should also be watching young Jason’s portfolio closely as this steaming turd is gathering more flies every day. Then again, our Honourable trough dwellers are too busy donating billions to the Clinton foundation, tongue bathing the UN’s sphincters and fighting amongst themselves for prestige and prominence  than to deal with such petty issues now affecting tens of thousands of Australians.

Tick Tick? Oh you bet it is.......
Tick - Tox-ic ?

[Gobbledock]

WARNING: Toxic chemicals detected in more Ipswich creeks

The problem is spreading at one of Jason Harfwits RAAF bases - Ipswich;

https://m.qt.com.au/news/fresh-warnings-...k/3500945/

TICK TOCK

[Peetwo]

Two ATCOs have a sickie and the system can't cope - WTD?

Via the Oz:

Airports in meltdown after two staff call in sick

Long queues of frustrated passengers at Sydney Airport yesterday. Picture: Luke Drew

• EMILY RITCHIE
  REPORTER
  
  
• 11:00PM OCTOBER 7, 2018
  
• 28 COMMENTS
  

Thousands of travellers were left stranded at various Australian airports yesterday after two air traffic control staffers called in sick at Sydney Airport.

At least 26 outbound domestic flights were cancelled at the airport, affecting Qantas, Qantas Link, Tiger Air, Jetstar and Virgin passengers and causing a domino effect of delays at interstate and regional airports.

At least another three flights were delayed in Sydney during the chaos, which was exacerbated by heavy rain and thick cloud that covered the city all day.

A spokeswoman from Airservices Australia confirmed the day’s flight schedule had to be reorganised after two staffers reported at the last minute they were ill, meaning fewer staff were available to organise the airport’s busy school-holiday schedule. “As safety is our first priority, we had to slow down traffic while we worked with the airlines to resolve the issue,” the spokeswoman said.

“We were able to get in extra staff to return to full capacity and reworked the schedule but ­unfortunately the impact on services could not be fully recovered and some flights had already been cancelled.”

All inbound flights were due to reach their destination by ­curfew last night.

Airservices Australia, a federal government agency, is responsible for airspace manage­ment and ensuring safe airspace navigation around the country.

Passenger volumes were heavier than usual, given it was the middle weekend of the NSW October school holidays and the end of the school holidays in Victoria.

Airlines dealt with the backlog of passengers by either finding spare seats on later flights or delaying trips until today.

Qantas issued a statement saying everything was being done to “get customers moving” yesterday afternoon.

“But the reduced take off and landing rates meant we’ve had to cancel some flights,” the statement said.

“Some customers were moved to flights on Sunday evening but as it’s school holidays, we have limited spare seats so others won’t travel until ­Monday.”

Disgruntled travellers vented their frustration on social media and in many cases it was the airlines copping the blame over the cancellations. “First Jetstar cancel my 7am flight on Friday to Sydney without notifying me and then our flight at 4pm today to go back to Melbourne is cancelled with no notification. What a waste of money and points,” one person wrote.

Alana Vouroudis took to Twitter to write: “Thanks @SydneyAirport — my flight home to Sydney has been cancelled due to lack of staff/ a strike. Now I’ve been told by @Qantas that we will only be compensated for the room (up to $200; which is nothing) and not for dinner tonight or transfer tomorrow. NOT HAPPY!!”

MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

If the information published is correct regarding the nations ATC coming to a grinding hault due to two ATCO’s being off sick at short notice then the system is a dismal failure. But of course, it is Government a d not private enterprise who are managing our ATC so of course it is doomed to fail. Totally inept morons. How much inconvenience to the passengers and airlines and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars were lost in the process?

Heaven help us if someone farts in the operations room of Onesky when it comes on line, or if someone spills a teaspoon of coffee on a mousepad!

I hope none of Turdballs or Barnbabys ghost flights were delayed?

Tick tock

[Gobbledock]

PFAS/PFOS DRAMA CONTINUES........

Third-generation Melbourne market gardener David Wallace is one of dozens of landholders who have been told to stop using water from the Maribyrnong River after toxic chemicals from firefighting foam were detected in runoff from Melbourne Airport. More here;

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victo...506c7.html

And;

The EPA has issued a warning to the public to stay away from a number of Brimbank waterways.
The agency recommended that people avoid swimming in the water and keep pets away from Arundel Creek,  Deep Creek and Maribyrnong RIver.
Anglers have been advised not to fish in the Maribyrnong River upstream of the Calder Freeway to Deep Creek at Bulla and within all of Arundel Creek

http://www.starweekly.com.au/news/epa-is...s-warning/

And;

Preliminary site investigation results for Hobart airport’s exposure to toxic chemicals is expected to be released by mid-October;

https://www.examiner.com.au/story/567727...aunceston/

Oh well, I guess Electric Blue has too many other issues on the boil at the
moment for him to be bothered by a bit of dirty water, things including the potential ASA industrial action by staff, the need for him to purchase new hair products, the need to run a cash producing monopoly into the red and the need to spend quality time tongue cleansing new Board Chair Mark Foreskin’s rectum.

Tick tock

[Peetwo]

TICK...TOCK goes the Harfwit Hobart air routes clock -   

Via the Hobart Mercury...  :

Flight safety alert after ‘multiple incidents’ spark warning over new routes

JACK PAYNTER, Mercury
October 9, 2018 10:27pm

THERE are safety concerns over new flight paths at Hobart airport after planes twice flew too close to each other and nine other flights failed to stick to height restrictions.

The incidents have required Hobart’s air traffic controllers to revert back to manually specifying the altitude to pilots, rather than using the satellite guided aircraft flight management system.

The measures were necessary so that planes did not accidentally collide at the crossover point for incoming and outgoing flights.

The two close calls, referred to as a loss of separation, happened in airspace over Richmond.

In December 2017 two approaching aircraft flew within about five kilometres of one another and in January this year two departing planes were about eight kilometres apart.

In Australian airspace aircraft must be separated by 305m vertically unless they are 9.26km from each other horizontally.


Federal Labor Lyons MP Brian Mitchell. Picture: Rob Blakers

Between September 2017 and March this year, nine departing flights also failed to stick to height restrictions at the point where they would have crossed paths with an approaching aircraft.

The incidents followed changes to Hobart airport flight paths in September last year when Airservices Australia implemented satellite guided paths for arriving and departing aircraft.

Federal Labor Lyons MP Brian Mitchell this week hit out at Airservices Australia saying there were no clearance issues under the old system.

“I can’t recall the last time we had a clearance issue under the old system,” he said. “Airservices say it’s safer but there’s no data to suggest that it is.”

He said from his experience people in the industry preferred the old system where they had more control over environmental factors such as wind speed.

“My fear is it’s about saving money … by having fewer staff in the tower,” he said.

“They should bite the bullet and go back to the old flight paths.”



Airservices Australia chief executive Jason Harfield.

Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield said the satellite technology was safer because it ensured aircraft flew predictably and consistently.
An Airservices spokeswoman said the new routes also reduced the workload on pilots and air traffic controllers.

Airservices said there had been no incidents reported since March.

Mr Harfield told a Senate Committee earlier this year pilot error was to blame for the two losses of separation, not the new flight paths.

“We do see a heightened risk of those when there is a change in the system … associated with a potential for a failure to comply,” he said.

He said the new routes were needed to manage increased air traffic at Hobart.

 
MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

Aagh Harfwit looking splendid in his purple tie. But he really should get some liposuction done on that buccula.

[Gobbledock]

THE GROWING ANGER AGAINST PFOS/PFAS AND GOVERNMENT OBSFUCATION

The United Firefighters Union is putting the heat back on the Defence Department by calling for a national approach to chemicals used in firefighting foam.

I hope that the buccular boy in the blue suit is listening to our lads in the fire trucks;

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/firefighters...-chemicals

Tick tock Harfwit

[Gobbledock]

GOVERNMENT COOKING THE PFAS BOOKS?

Some questions being raised about the Guvmint’s so-called PFAS/PFOS ‘testing methods’. The reliability of a national blood sampling program for toxic firefighting chemicals is under question, after a private test showed more than double the level of a contaminant in a man’s blood compared to a government sample taken on the same day.
Yes Full article from the Simply Marvellous Horse Pooh;

https://www.smh.com.au/national/toxic-ch...p509e8.htm

Now, had this been PNG or Indonesia our ‘honourable ones’ would be spending tens of millions on those affected. Had the Clinton foundation or that other puerile organisation the U.N. asked for a PFOS contribution our political dross would be tripping over themselves to hand over millions upon millions. But nope, not for our Australian citizens, its BOHICA time.

TICK TOCK

[Peetwo]

Miniscule 8G McDo'Naught gets ignored on Hobart flightpath request? 


From that happy little chappy in Tassie, via the Oz...

Airservices ‘stonewalls’ on safe landings


Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack

• MATTHEW DENHOLM
  TASMANIA CORRESPONDENT
  @MatthewRDenholm
  
  
• 11:00PM OCTOBER 14, 2018
  
• 1 COMMENT
  

Three months after the Deputy Prime Minister promised changes to ease noise caused by Hobart’s new flightpaths, Airservices Australia has been ­accused of stonewalling and ­ignoring its own safety advice.

In May, The Australian revealed bungling of new standardised flightpaths, based on satellite guidance, had seen a spike in ­safety breaches, including two cases of passenger jets travelling too close to each other.

An Airservices review of the new flightpaths, known as STARs (standard instrument ­arrivals) and SIDs (standard instrument departures), is ongoing.

In July, Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister Michael McCormack requested Airservices to allow pilots to make visual approaches to Hobart. This would allow pilots to deviate from the new flightpaths when they believe a visual approach was safe, quicker and easier, such as in good weather. It would also reduce noise pollution for affected communities.

Mr McCormack wrote to community group South East Coast Lifestyle Association on July 23 confirming that visual approaches would be allowed, with “the ­potential to reduce the number of flights flying overhead for some communities”.

However, residents report ­little or no change and do not believe Airservices is genuinely ­offering visual approaches, available before standardised flightpaths were introduced in September 2017.

In response to questions from the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman in November last year, Air­services confirmed the reactivation of a ground navigation beacon, temporarily removed during runway extensions, could “facilitate alternative approaches including visual approaches”.

But the response, released under Freedom of Information laws, suggests Airservices has no intention of doing so because it would be an abandonment of the new flightpaths design. “Air­services will not roll back SIDs and STARs because these provide safety improvements,” it said.

This is despite Airservices’ “post-implementation” report into the new flightpaths recommending reinstating the beacon and visual approaches to reduce risks to an “acceptable level”.

This is because not all aircraft are equipped to use the new ­satellite guidance needed to fly SIDs and STARs.

“It looks like Airservices is willing to sacrifice safety and ­efficiency in Hobart to shore up its one-size-fits-all bureaucratic agenda,” a spokesman for the lifestyle association said.

Airservices said pilots could request a visual approach to Hobart “provided certain safety conditions are met” and that the beacon was an “unrelated issue”.

However, residents believe that without the beacon, the new flightpaths are too inflexible to allow visual approaches in all but a few cases. It is understood pilots have been denied permission to fly visual approaches.

 


Not sure where Matty Denholm cribbed that pic of our NFI DPM and miniscule McDo'Naught but can anyone else now see the resemblance to Muppet Norman (Mc)Ram...anyone??? 



Hint - it's all in the eyes...P2

[Gobbledock]

P2;

can anyone else now see the resemblance to Muppet Norman (Mc)Ram...anyone???

Herr Miniscule also looks like one of the Thunderbirds. Mind you, the article says 8G wrote to the local residents whinges association. I didn’t think Muppets or cardboard cutouts could write? Either way, just looking at him makes me want to fall asleep. Watching paint dry or grass grow in the backyard in ‘real time’ is more stimulating. Then again, at least his skin appears to be moist and smooth, unlike the previous Freddy Krueger’s Truss and Joyce!

[Peetwo]

Things that (almost) go bump in the night - 

Via HVH ATCB HQ: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2018-070/

Summary

The ATSB is investigating a loss of separation involving a Virgin Australia Airlines Boeing 737 aircraft, registered VH-YFW, and a Qantas Airways Boeing 737 aircraft, registered VH-VZD, near Amberley, Queensland, on 11 October 2018.

The controller issued a weather diversion and approach clearance to the inbound Boeing 737, which resulted in a loss of separation with the departing Boeing 737.

As part of the investigation the ATSB will conduct interviews and gather additional information.
A report will be published at the completion of the investigation. However, should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify relevant parties.
 

And via Ironsider in the Oz today:

Twin inquiries into close call
ROBYN IRONSIDE
Dual investigations are under way into why Qantas and Virgin Australia aircraft came dangerously close over Brisbane last week.

---

Dual investigations are under way into why Qantas and Virgin Australia planes came dangerously close in bad weather over Brisbane last week.

According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, a Qantas 737 was flying into Brisbane from Melbourne on Thursday afternoon, as a Virgin Australia 737 ­departed Brisbane for Proserpine in north Queensland.

Over Amberley, about 66km from Brisbane Airport, the air traffic controller issued a weather ­diversion and approach clearance to the Qantas aircraft, resulting in a loss of separation with the ­departing Virgin flight.

Under Australian airspace regulations, aircraft flying in controlled airspace up to 8800m must maintain a vertical separation of at least 305m, or a horizontal separation of 9.26km.

The Australian understands that at the time of the incident, both the Qantas and Virgin Australia aircraft were following ATC directions.

Loss of separation incidents are not unusual in controlled airspace, with about one every three days, but investigations are limited to those where there is an elevated risk of collision.

As part of its investigation, the ATSB said it would conduct interviews and gather additional information. If a critical safety issue was identified during the investigation, the ATSB would immediately ­notify relevant parties.

Airservices Australia is also investigating the incident due to the involvement of air traffic controllers. The investigations were flagged as Airservices released its annual report citing “zero significant safety occurrences” in the 2018 financial year.

The government-owned authority also announced a $74.5 million net profit, up from $59m the previous year, and reaffirmed its commitment to hold prices at 2015 levels until 2023.

Although the number of people employed by Airservices fell from 3711 to 3534, air traffic controllers increased by 30, to 1067 across 29 airports.

An Airservices Australia spokeswoman said a national recruitment program was in place to ensure an “adequate supply of controllers at all our locations”.

She said each year, more than 50 new recruits were selected and then placed in locations across the country.

“For example, eight new air traffic controllers have joined the Sydney tower in the last 18 months,” she said.

Staffing of the towers has ­recently been in the spotlight following the cancellation of dozens of flights from Sydney when two controllers called in sick on the last day of school holidays.

President of Civil Air Australia, Tom McRobert, said just like ­pilots, controllers were in short supply worldwide.

“The Middle East and places like Hong Kong have a very significant shortage and it takes time to recruit and train air traffic controllers,” he said.

“We have lost some ­people overseas, and when ATC (air ­traffic control) was taken off the 457 visa list, that created ­issues for some international ­recruits.”

The Airservices spokeswoman denied it was understaffed.

TICK...TOCK miniscule 8G, TICK...TOCK indeed -  


MTF...P2  

[Bumaye]

Via the SMH: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/...50cwg.html

Airservices Australia staff to strike for 24 hours as talks break down


By Doug Dingwall
30 October 2018 — 5:57pm

Talking points

• Talks for a new workplace deal at Airservices Australia have reached an impasse
  
• Staff will begin a full-day stoppage from 10pm on Tuesday
  
• Airservices says the strike won't disrupt flights
  

Airservices Australia staff will strike for 24 hours after a breakdown in talks with their bosses over pay and conditions amid claims support workers are being treated as second class citizens.

Support staff will begin a stoppage at 10pm on Tuesday in a move the main public sector union says will leave managers scrambling to contain the disruption.

The agency, which manages the nation's airspace and provides air traffic control, said flights would not be affected and that it had negotiated in good faith with staff.

Community and Public Sector Union deputy national president Lisa Newman said Airservices bosses had refused to improve their offer to its members despite warning they could strike unless there was compromise.

Airservices was using a double standard in negotiating a new workplace deal for support staff by agreeing to better pay and conditions for air traffic controllers and firefighters, she said.

"Support staff deserve the same job security and other rights, and to get the same pay rises at the same time as other Airservices workers,” Ms Newman said.

“Airservices workers haven’t had a pay rise in more than a year, yet they are being expected to agree to a low pay offer in exchange for unreasonable cuts.

"If we cannot settle on a fair agreement we will have no choice but to take further industrial action, which would be regrettable.”

Airservices said it was trying to negotiate a simpler agreement that aligned with the federal government's workplace bargaining policy capping pay rises at 2 per cent.

"We have continued to adjust our offer to staff during negotiations," a spokeswoman said.

Different enterprise agreements cover Airservices Australia staff, depending on their work. Unions representing engineers, administrative workers and technical support staff say recently-negotiated agreements for firefighters and air traffic controllers are more generous.

Professionals Australia, a union for engineering staff and scientists, said its members would strike for two hours on Wednesday.

Union organiser Brendan Forde said members rejected a plan to strip rights of union delegates from the enterprise agreement.

"Negotiations are getting nowhere. Part of the reason is the same old story, it's the same old play book about how this government has decided to handle enterprise bargaining. They are really dragging their feet," he said.

Ms Newman said in the case of a critical system failure, relevant staff would stop striking to resolve the problem. Electrical Trades Union members working at Airservices will also take industrial action this week, and air traffic control instructors represented by Civil Air will strike for a day.

Unions and Airservices had failed to reach agreement after 24 bargaining meetings, Civil Air said, blaming the government's "hardline" approach.

Professionals Australia told Fair Work earlier this year it asked Airservices to start negotiations in February 2017 but waited six months for talks to begin, leaving a month before the old agreement expired.

[Peetwo]

While on the latest ASA clusterducks under the Electric Blue Harfwit - 

Also via the SMH:

Coding error sends extra jets over angry residents


By Helen Pitt
29 October 2018 — 11:39pm

A coding error has sent departing flights from Sydney Airport over angry eastern suburbs residents until the end of November.

Planes taking off north from Mascot’s third runway are being sent over Coogee, Randwick and Kingsford rather than the usual flight path further south over Maroubra, Eastgardens and Pagewood.


Sydney Airport changes: The temporarily suspended flight path, left, and the current situation.CREDIT:AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA

Airservices Australia, the government-owned corporation responsible for aviation safety, said the problem was caused by a third party provider’s coding of flight path data into aircraft flight management systems. It said air traffic controllers would direct planes individually for take off while it undertakes “an investigation into the safety implications”.

“Airservices Australia is working with the third-party provider and airlines to identify and address the safety issues as quickly as possible to allow the flight path to be reinstated. It is expected this will not be completed until late November,” the corporation told local residents.

“There will be no other changes to noise sharing arrangements while this problem is investigated."

The change to the departure flight path began a few weeks ago and will continue until the end of November, totalling close to seven weeks.



A number of local residents have called the change “outrageous” given it affects residents in suburbs which are already impacted by planes landing and taking off from the east-west runway.

Randwick resident Paul Ireland said not only has the flight path changed due to the error by the third party provider, but planes were flying much lower than they usually do.

“This is increasing noise levels even more over an area which is already badly impacted by aircraft noise from two other flight paths," he said.

“This seems contrary to the promise of sharing the pain of aircraft noise across the city.

“They could have moved it further to the north over Clovelly, Bronte or Bondi so that people already suffering from aircraft noise did not have this noise increased but this would have affected people in the seat of Wentworth which is largely free of flight paths,” Mr Ireland said.

 
Don't know what EB Harfwit has on the rest of the Board et.al but what ever it is it has to be good because how can you explain someone being so inept and incompetent..
Example:

 
...stumbling from one clusterduck to the next and still siphoning huge taxpayer funded monies from the seemingly bottomless pit of the Onesky trough fund...  

MTF...P2 - 

[Peetwo]

Harfwit and the Hobart airspace clusterduck continues -  


Via the Hobart Mercury...  

Talking Point: Flying into stormy weather

DAVID PATMAN, Mercury
November 14, 2018 12:10am

HOBART’S skies are getting busier. Whether it’s flights from new destinations bringing in visitors, tourist flights to the South-West, Antarctic traffic, international freight or a swag of trainee pilots, it’s a positive sign that Tasmania is booming. Hobart Airport, as the main gateway to Hobart, is a key enabler of this economic activity.

Coincidentally, Airservices Australia, the federal government business responsible for air traffic management, has released a shortsighted 20-year plan which makes some of the most significant changes to Hobart airspace in 60 years, citing increased air traffic. This has major public interest implications for Hobart, yet Airservices has badly mishandled the process.

The changes Airservices is seeking to make are not directly driven by Hobart’s growth, but by a larger agenda designed to replace older, human-centred air traffic control procedures with low-cost satellite-guided systems. This supports Airservices program OneSky, which will result in the centralisation of Tasmania’s air traffic control in Melbourne.

This is not just a few flight path changes, but a whole new system, and one seemingly out of synch with Hobart Airport’s five-year Master Plan.

The changes introduced to Hobart in September last year — which underpin the current plan —seek to remove the model of local air traffic controllers assigning sectors of airspace to pilots to ensure a safe distance between aircraft. Instead, an automated satellite-guidance system now steers aircraft on a set of fixed paths (highways in the sky) by interacting with the on-board computer.

Why is this a problem? Firstly, things can go wrong with automated systems, as illustrated by the Lion Air disaster. An unprecedented spike in safety incidents (Mercury, October 10) resulted from on-board computers being unable to follow satellite guidance. Although Airservices has referred to these issues as teething problems, documents released under freedom of information laws show it is so worried about them that it has reverted back to human control.

Secondly, according to documents obtained from Airservices underFOI, the system is intended for smaller regional airports with little jet traffic. Hobart is now one of the top 10 busiest airports in Australia, according to Department of Infrastructure and Transport figures.

All other capital city and major airports use a range of air traffic management tools to ensure safety, includingRADAR, ground-based navigation and the opportunity to fly visual approaches (which allow pilots to look out the window rather than relying on the computer). None of these is included in the Airservices plan for Hobart. Why not?

Thirdly, the new system concentrates air traffic at low altitude, often a long way from the airport, rather than offering a wide spread of airspace and allowing pilots to select the safest, most efficient route.

The resulting noise footprint can drastically change the character of a whole area, eg from a sleepy coastal town, peaceful tourist retreat or pristine wilderness area with low ambient noise to a noisy dead zone.

Finally, given the larger distances required between paths for safety in the new system, the more available airspace the better. Yet the plan places most of the flight paths in a small sector of airspace to the southeast of the airport, creating complexity, retaining the risky crossover point, and requiring longer flight times, since most connecting destinations are to the west (eg Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Antarctica, South-West Tasmania). Why hasn’t Airservices proposed opening up airspace to the west of the airport?

Following the disastrous implementation of the current paths in September last year, an investigation by the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman criticised Airservices’ cavalier approach to community stakeholders and recommended major changes to its consultation process. To address the recommendations, Airservices appointed a Canberra-based social planner without aviation experience to conduct workshops with people newly overflown by the current paths. The consultant’s main contribution has been to facilitate a series of emotionally harrowing sessions which dredged up memories of bushfire survival and the psychological impact of aircraft noise from participants.

Designed to identify social impact and affect the selection of more appropriate air routes, Airservices’ new proposal leaves current paths largely unchanged, and adds a new eastern route over Maria Island and Bangor, an option vehemently rejected as unsuitable by community stakeholders in November last year. Airservices has engaged the same consultant to run community information sessions beginning this week.

Who else has had an influence on the plan? Our group, the South East Coast Lifestyle Association, is aware that five safe and workable greenfield designs developed over the past year were reduced to just one, following a private meeting with an unrevealed stakeholder group on August 13. This leads to a perception of undue influence, especially given that following this meeting, public consultation was inexplicably delayed by three months. Airservices’ Stephen Angus referred to “net benefit” (Mercury, October 31). He should spell out where the benefits and costs fall.

This is a 20-year plan with implications for safety, the economy, tourism assets, social and environmental impact. Tasmanians are entitled to expect a thorough and transparent process which evaluates all the options, in which all stakeholders get to have their say through public hearings or submissions, so a well-informed decision can be made. This is part of accepted planning practice for major public infrastructure decisions, such as roads and large-scale developments, and a key part of the democratic process. This should not be left in the hands of a private consultant beholden to Airservices, and a narrowly focused government bureaucracy which clearly doesn’t get it.

Airservices’ inept and shortsighted handling of its 20-year plan poses significant public interest risks for Hobart into the future, and our parliamentary representatives must step in to get the plan back on the right track.

Some reasonable questions asked by the Mercury but IMO credibility was lost when the author said this...  

Why is this a problem? Firstly, things can go wrong with automated systems, as illustrated by the Lion Air disaster. An unprecedented spike in safety incidents (Mercury, October 10) resulted from on-board computers being unable to follow satellite guidance.

 
It is a bit a stretch and over dramatisation to use the Lion Air JT610 crash as an example of what can tragically go wrong if automated systems fail. But I'll let Shannon Wells, who is far better informed on this matter, straighten out the flaws in the Mercury article...  
Via Twitter:
 

Shannon Wells
@shannon_wells

Ugh southwest Tasmania flights are NOT IMPACTED by SID/STAR into Hobart - ugh cant anyone at @themercurycomau do some basic fact checks before publishing an opinion piece of which is potentially inflammatory? @ItsMeChrisJones @AirservicesNews #politas

---

The amount of lives saved due to progression with automation in aviation is mind blowing and the author to cite these as problematic is stupid - this is a noise issue - nothing more, nothing less - the planes have to go somewhere

Ref: https://twitter.com/shannon_wells/status...4745480192

  
Still not a good look for the seemingly totally unnacountable Harfwit and his pack of OneSKY trough feeding executives...  


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Hot off the Press: PFOS contamination downstream of Amberley RAAF base - 

Via the Oz tonight: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa...Australian

Produce grown around Amberley air base could be contaminated with firefighting chemicals

A Super Hornet from No 1 Squadron practicing for Townsville Airshow at RAAF Base Amberley.

• By RORY CALLINAN and MICHAEL MCKENNA
  
• 20 MINUTES AGO NOVEMBER 14, 2018
  

Produce grown around a Queensland air force base could be contaminated with toxic firefighting chemicals with Defence today confirming tests were needed to gauge the potential risk to consumers and local residents.

A new Defence site investigation report at the Amberley air base, southwest of Brisbane, also confirmed that thousands of tonnes of earth used as fill on the base last year was found to contain levels of per-and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals above “cleanfill criterion”.

It follows a warnings this year that fish in neighbouring waterways were toxic with the chemicals.


The report recommended a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and an Ecological Risk Assessment would be undertaken to assess risks raised in the site investigation.

Investigators said complete exposure pathways have been identified for human and ecological receptors and require further assessment through the risk assessments.

“The consumption of home grown produce has been identified as a potentially complete exposure pathway for residents,’’ the report said.

The investigation said the HHRA would examine risk to base personnel, agricultural workers and off base landowners through direct contact with soil and water, the consumption of homegrown produce such as beef, fruit, vegetables and eggs and the consumption of rainwater from water tanks at a limited number of properties.

Further testing of fish in the waterways will also be undertaken.

Another finding related to Defence’s relocation of material from construction sites on the base to a grassed area on the compounds southern end.

Earlier this year using satellite imagery, The Australian revealed how Defence had relocated thousands of tonnes of material from a construction site in a contaminated area of the base to a flat plain at the southern end of the compound, just metres from the banks of Warrill Creek in early 2017.

The Defence site investigation report today confirmed the material had been relocated and revealed that 12 samples from stockpiles had detectable levels of PFOS that were “above the clean fill criterion”.

The report found that surface and groundwater were the two main transport pathways for PFAS off the base and that levels of the chemicals in the Bremer River along the eastern boundary of the base and Warrill Creek on the southern base exceeded water and recreational guidelines.

Defence dumped thousands of tonnes of soil from the base just metres from the creek banks early last year.

“Potential off-base primary sources include landfill, fire stations and extractive industries,’’ said the notation in the report alongside a diagram showing the movement of the chemical from the base.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

SENATE INQUIRY INTO THE MANAGEMENT OF PFAS CONTAMINATION IN AND AROUND DEFENCE BASES - Final report.

Reference link: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...S/Report_1  

List of Recommendations

Recommendation 1
5.76
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government appoint a Coordinator-General to coordinate the national response to the PFAS contamination issue, supported by an appropriately resourced office. The Coordinator-General’s role should include:

ongoing monitoring of PFAS levels in all management areas, using a range of sampling methods, and publish the results as soon as practicable in a publicly accessible format;

providing leadership to drive effective, transparent and consistent responses to PFAS contamination at sites across the country;

identifying gaps and priorities for investigation and remediation, based on the extent of contamination and risk to human and environmental health in each area;

working across portfolios, and with state, territory and local governments, to overcome barriers to cooperation, coordinate actions and to clearly communicate outcomes and advice to the public; and

providing a national point of contact and accountability for the Government’s response to the PFAS issue, including annual reporting to the Parliament.
Recommendation 2
2.128
The Committee recommends that the Government continue to upscale its investment in the containment of PFAS contamination plumes, and the remediation of contaminated land and water sources. The Coordinator-General (see Recommendation 1) should:

publish draft remediation and management plans for each investigation area, and seek public input before finalisation;

continue support for research into remediation technologies, including disposal of contaminated soil and residue from water treatment plants;

continue to engage with international stakeholders, including past manufacturers of PFAS chemicals, to ensure best practice approaches are taken to the remediation and disposal of PFAS contamination;

in collaboration with states and territories, review the effectiveness of current advice regarding the use of contaminated bore water for irrigation purposes and to consider whether restrictions should be put in place; and

ensure a consistent approach to PFAS contamination across non-Commonwealth sites in consultation with state, territory and local governments.
Recommendation 3
3.75
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review its existing advice in relation to the human health effects of PFAS exposure, including to acknowledge the potential links to certain medical conditions.
Recommendation 4
3.79
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, as soon as possible, undertake measures to improve participation in the voluntary blood testing program for PFAS. This should include measures to:

increase community awareness about the purpose and importance of the tests, and the associated epidemiological study;

simplify the testing process;

extend the program to be available in additional areas; and

ensure Australia’s testing strategy is comparable to international studies.
Further, the Committee recommends that the Government consider the potential value of blood testing to monitor the effectiveness of measures being used to break PFAS exposure pathways in affected communities. This will necessitate longitudinal analysis of those who have been previously tested and additional tests being made available, after an appropriate period, to persons who have previously been tested.
Recommendation 5
4.62
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government assist property owners and businesses in affected areas for demonstrated, quantifiable financial losses associated with PFAS contamination that has emanated from Defence bases. Priority for compensation, including the possibility of buy backs, should in the first instance be given to the most seriously affected residents, including:

property owners who have suffered losses as a result of being unable to use their land for a specific purpose that it was intended for at the time of purchase;

persons who invested in land between the time that it was known by the Australian Government to be contaminated and the time of that contamination being made public; and

businesses and other owners of property in the most highly contaminated areas.
The compensation scheme should be flexible enough to accommodate a variety of individual circumstances.
Acceptance of an offer for compensation in respect of their property’s utility or value should not preclude the person from a future claim in relation to any human health effects that may be found, as a result of future research, to be attributable to PFAS exposure.
Recommendation 6
4.66
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government make available free, individualised case management and financial counselling services to those affected by PFAS contamination.
Recommendation 7
6.69
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government implement legislation and policies to:

ban nationally the use of, contain, and ultimately safely destroy, long chain PFAS-based firefighting foams (including those containing PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS);

place appropriate restrictions on the non-essential use of shorter chain PFAS-based foams; and

continue to encourage the use of PFAS-free alternatives wherever possible.
Recommendation 8
6.70
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government urgently ratify the listing of PFOS under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
Further, the Committee recommends that the Government expedite the process for ratification of PFOA and PFHxS in the event that they are listed under the Stockholm Convention in the future.
Recommendation 9
6.74
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government initiate an independent review of environmental regulation of Commonwealth land. The review should consider:

the adequacy of current and proposed arrangements to ensure that responses to contamination events originating on Commonwealth land are given appropriate regulatory oversight;

possible measures to enhance the regulatory response to contamination events that cross jurisdictional boundaries;

the relative advantages and disadvantages of establishing a Commonwealth Environmental Protection Agency, or similar body, to regulate Commonwealth lands; and

possible alternative options to enhance regulatory oversight of Commonwealth land, and contamination events emanating from Commonwealth land

MTF...P2