[Peetwo]

Hooded Canary's mob to topcover latest YSSY LOSA occurrence - 

By Ironsider, via the Oz:

Close call at Sydney airport sparks inquiry




A close call involving two Qantas aircraft has prompted an investigation into air traffic control at Sydney airport. Picture: AAP

• ROBYN IRONSIDE
  AVIATION WRITER
  @ironsider
  [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/6e7c15929181150836944cea1b4d0979/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/broadsheet/components/article-author/widget&td_bio=false&td_location=none[/img]
  
  
• 3:22PM AUGUST 9, 2019
  
  
• 26 COMMENTS
  

Air traffic controllers at Sydney Airport will be questioned over a close call involving two Qantas aircraft on Monday.


The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has launched an investigation into the incident, in which an A330 taking off from the airport received a traffic avoidance collision alert, as a B737 approaching the runway turned across its departure path.
An incident summary by the ATSB said the B737 arriving from Brisbane was issued with a go-around instruction from Air Traffic Control due to the A330 taking off on a flight to Melbourne.

But the turn instruction conflicted with the A330’s departure track, and the pilots received the collision alert.

The Australian understands the B737 was in the A330’s line of sight and there was never any danger to passengers or crew.

The ATSB is treating the matter as a “loss of separation” incident, because the safe minimum distance between aircraft was breached.

A Qantas spokesman said “our crew followed air traffic control directions at all times”.

“We will assist the ATSB with its investigation,” he said.

As well as air traffic controllers, investigators will interview the flight crews, and review recorded surveillance and flight data.

A final report is expected by mid-2020.

The incident followed a report by Airservices Australia showing a spike in loss of separation occurrences at Sydney Airport in the last year, which prompted a workplace wellbeing assessment.

& via the Oz:

Sydney air traffic safety lapses ‘spike’



The control tower at Sydney Airport. Picture: AAP

• ROBYN IRONSIDE
  AVIATION WRITER
  @ironsider
  [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/6e7c15929181150836944cea1b4d0979/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/broadsheet/components/article-author/widget&td_bio=false&td_bylinetitle=Aviation%2520Writer&td_location=none[/img]
  
  
• 12:00AM AUGUST 7, 2019
  
  
• 3 COMMENTS
  

Airservices Australia did a workplace wellbeing assessment of air traffic controllers after a worrying increase in safety lapses at Sydney airport, a report reveals.

The operational safety and performance report, released by Airservices, showed a “spike in loss of separation occurrences ­attributed to air traffic control (ATC)” in 2018-19, primarily driven by one unit, Sydney. The Sydney ATC tower had 13 more close calls in 2018-19 than the previous year. In response to the “increasing trend”, a workplace wellbeing assessment was conducted.

As reported by The Australian on February 18, that assessment found widespread low morale among air traffic controllers, with 93 per cent saying they had ­experienced bullying, harassment and/or discrimination.

Airservices denied a “toxic workplace culture” had posed a threat to passenger safety. Responding to a report commissioned by the air traffic controllers union, Civil Air, a statement from Airservices said it “unequivocally rejected the suggestion its workplace culture was negatively affecting safety”.


“Airservices’ safety performance is demonstrably among the best in the world and always improving. There is no factual basis for these false and alarmist claims,” Airservices said.

The Civil Air report, written by former federal court judge ­Anthony North QC, analysed the findings of the workplace wellbeing assessment.

It described the workplace culture within Airservices as “so pervaded by bullying and sexual harassment it poses a possible threat to the safety of air travellers”. “Short of permanent or temporary absence, employees so affected are likely to be distracted at work and lack motivation and commitment,” the report says. “Although present at work, they cannot engage ­actively in their work tasks.”

Civil Air national secretary Peter McGuane said the issues were not confined to the Sydney air traffic control tower, but were “widespread across the industry”.

“I think there’s a variety of reasons (for the bullying and harassment),” Mr McGuane said. “Obviously it’s a heavily male-dominated industry and there’s a culture that’s developed over a period of time, and management has not taken practical steps to change that.”

He said the report was not intended to embarrass Airservices, but rather trigger action.

Airservices said it engaged cultural change consultant Elizabeth Broderick to “conduct a broad and independent review of Airservices’ workforce culture”.

Airservices said the findings would be shared and “any recommendations adopted to ensure that Airservices offers a safe, diverse and inclusive workplace for all of our employees”.

That assessment exposed high levels of low morale among air traffic controllers, with 93 per cent revealing they had experienced bullying, harassment and/or discrimination.

As a result, Airservices has commissioned a workplace culture consultant Elizabeth Broderick to undertake an in-depth review of the agency’s organisational culture.

The review is expected to take eight months, and result in a range of recommendations on how the workplace culture can be improved.

Comments of interest:

Rob03

4 HOURS AGO

On 28 April 2018 QF582 was halfway down the runway when it stopped so hard my eyeballs nearly popped out. Right outside my window I could see the wide eyes of the crew of another Qantas 737, the Coonawarra, also on the runway. One of them is pointing at our winglet. Haven't heard a peep about it since.

---

email

20 HOURS AGO

Final report by mid 20-20? These planes and air traffic controllers have every word, flight and radar details recorded. It would take a few day’s investigation to determine the root cause of this mix up. A collision between these 2 planes on or near a runway, let alone a populated area or airport would have been Australia’s worst ever aviation disaster. A lot of time and thousands of planes will pass between now and mid 20-20. Sort it out now because these things don’t happen unless there is a problem with procedures.

---

Richard

22 HOURS AGO
(Edited)

The Australian understands the B737 was in the A330’s line of sight and there was never any danger to passengers or crew. The ATSB is treating the matter as a “loss of separation” incident, because the safe minimum distance between aircraft was breached.

If safe minimum distance was breached, then by definition there was danger to the aircraft. You can’t have it both ways. And if you’re relying on particulars of the situation, they may not exist next time, so the incident doesn’t get the attention it deserves. The recipe for not learning. How many 737 Max 8 near misses were there before the two fatal accidents? More than zero, I understand.

---

Ian

23 HOURS AGO

A year to do a report?

These are potentially dangerous incidents. Give them a month, max.

---

Edward

1 DAY AGO

Final report due mid 2020. By then we will have forgotten all about it, and our good public servants will once again pat themselves on the back.

---

Adam

1 DAY AGO
(Edited)

Sydney is a sub-standard facility. Everybody in the industry knows it. Departures off 34R are fail dangerous when there is a go-round or somebody busts an altitude arriving from the north or east. Everybody knows that as well. The inquiry already knows the answer, it just cant admit the solution.

---

Adam

22 HOURS AGO

It’s bad enough just having to taxi out to 34R; it feels like you’re driving to Melbourne.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

UFUA Aviation Branch Secretary highly critical of Airservices...  

Via the UFUA: https://mailchi.mp/ufuav/united-firefigh...vg7uc1gyaw

FROM THE BRANCH SECRETARY 

 
So another eventful month for the UFUA. There has been a lot happening and we have been working hard to keep up the pace. There has been a termination of one our members which has been typically heavy handed, over the top and in the words of our general counsel disgusting behaviour by Airservices towards our member. As your union has always stated, actions speak so much louder than words and Airservices actions say it all about what they think about you their staff. 

Civil Air shares our concerns about the behaviour of Airservices Management. They enquired about sexual harassment policies at the NCC before the last one and were met with an angry and quite aggressive response by the CEO basically telling them to get lost we don't need a sexual harassment policy.  Well as any good union should Civil Air took the matter up to their members and the overwhelming response was Airservices has a massive problem with their treatment of staff. Everyone of you should read the North QC Report. 

Airservices reaction to over 241 of their valued staff saying there is a real problem? Scream loudly that it is all false and alarmist. Oh and by the way they also take all allegations of bullying and harassment seriously. Supposedly???

Our ARFFS Senate Inquiry report is out with some substantial recommendations to Airservices and CASA to lift their game in regard to the provision of ARFFS. We all know that is unlikely to happen unless we drag them there kicking and screaming. Several TRA's have been conducted, the first three were done with a loaded scenario that did not require CABA interventions or rescue to be conducted. We pulled CASA in on the Canberra TRA and surprisingly they agreed with your union. Plausible worst case scenario is what ICAO and NFPA call for. Oh you may want to keep a very close eye on the new CABA procedures? In fact you may want to ask your LOM to explain the delays in implementation.

The TRA was just completed in Sydney and it now has a rescue component and an internal fire so all we can say is for all our members to make themselves experts in the TRA process and don't get led astray by people with agendas to save money by putting our members and passengers in harms way.

Have a good look at what the timings are by the ARFFSWG, the examples in ICAO and the examples in NFPA 403. There is no point making entry to a burning fuselage in 15 to 18 mins after arrival it will flashover if you are not in there and controlling it in just over 5 mins. Don't believe us? Check the FAA fire protection ratings for fuselages and what they are designed to withstand. Its time Airservices actually did some real ARFFS research and stopped flying by the seat of their pants.

So watch this space we are working on the Senate Report part of the strategic plan going forward. Your Union has reached out to our minister Mr McCormack who has totally ignored us. Great work by an elected representative of the people. Considering the great benefits an expanded ARFFS would have for regional Australia, its sad that a National Party leader is just not interested enough to even respond.

So your Union has written to Airservices about their plans to use Elizabeth Broderick to do a review on Airservices staff. Our concerns are the same as our concerns for the Employment Opinion Surveys. That is that the Terms of Reference will exclude the people who we, and all the other unions see as responsible for the toxic management culture that thrives in Airservices. Having sat through several hours in the last NCC while Airservices management tried polish the turd that was the last EOS, we can't see it being anything different with a cultural review. Spin it, bury it or blame it on the workers, is their modus operandi.

We don't expect them to include or consult with us about the Terms of Reference, why change their contempt for their staff seeing its working out so well for them. Your union will keep trying to engage and consult and get a TOR that looks hard at the underlying cause for the toxic workplace our members are forced to endure.

Our members also need to be aware that these reviews never paint fire services in a good light and your UFUA expects to cop it as well. But if we have done the wrong thing, we will take it on the chin, learn from it and try and fix it. Hopefully our female and diverse culture firies see us as their union, and see us as trying to help and would tell us if we were stuffing up and not supporting them or understanding their issues properly. Our offer has been clear to all members for a while now, we want you to help us and inform us, its the only way to grow and get better.

Our Federal Court Case has been on hold due to the excessive workload but don't despair its going ahead soon. We have a bunch of FWA cases to run shortly as well which should clear up some reinterpretation of the EA by some managers. One way or the other we will have a ruling and then we need you to ensure you always get what you are entitled to, don't just give in because they make it hard or threaten to harm you in another way.

The EGM has informed me they intend to have a crack at our members over the low loaders and they have no intention of fixing their chronic EVT shortage. So let us know as soon as it happens and we will lodge an injunction ASAP.

We have started monthly meetings with your workplace Delegates and the BCOM. If your Workplace Delegate has not yet attended give them a nudge and ask them what was discussed. We are trying hard to build an effective team in both the Industrial and WHS areas which are so important to our members. So take an interest help and support your local HSRs and Workplace Delegates or volunteer to take on a role. We really need some of our female and culturally diverse members to help us if that's you, call me anytime, we can make it happen.

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Well done all - great result.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/western-...52mww.html

Vision and sound; splendid job by the ATCO. Choc frogs all around.

[P7_TOM]

Considerations and Courtesy.

With a Mooney and a Chopper down in the vicinity of RAAF Williamstown; I sneaked a look at the Unspeakable Prune. The poor old ATCO’s are, once again, in the gun. Anyone who would care to take the time to actually ‘read’ the restrictions and liabilities and punitive oversight rules these folk work under would actually be more inclined to congratulate ‘em for turning up to work every shift. It is a tough job; and, in busy sector/area like Sydney or Melbourne; it is fair to say that they are every bit as frustrated and hacked off as the aircrew.

Back in 2017 the ABC tried to get the message out – without much luck. Halfwit wanted a new system; couldn’t pay for it, so the ‘Bean counters’ set to work and (pardon the hated expression) ‘down sized’ to the bone and a little beyond. Profit was needed to bring on the now outdated “One Sky”. Consultants cost lot’s and lot’s; and, if only ‘consultants’ were the problem cost then it could have been managed. Alas, there was more; much more draining the budget – but we’ll never see that exposed to the light of day. All gone and forgotten now; well, until there’s a ‘proper’ inquiry.  Anyway – FWIW, try and deal politely and professionally with the boys and girls manning the consoles; it ain’t their faulty towers shit fight. Not by a long shot.

Updated 15 Feb 2017, 10:25am

Job cuts have left the government body responsible for air-traffic control in Australia in crisis, with senior Airservices officials providing damning accounts that the organisation is now "a huge risk to public safety".

Key points:

• Airservices staff fear it could take 'blood on their hands' before changes are made
• More than 700 jobs have been cut from the organisation to date as part of cost-cutting
• Senator Nick Xenophon is demanding an immediate cease of the retrenchments

"It's only a matter of time before we have a major aviation incident," one Airservices executive has told the ABC.

We captured the Halfwit, his accountant mate and a mystery guest leaving the Never Tell Motel on camera.

[Peetwo]

In a Harfwit's world -

I note that ASA dodged a slap with a Senate wet lettuce last night, so to help get everyone up to speed with the latest from the raiders of the OneSKY trough fund...

Via the Oz: 

‘Unsafe’ airport in line for upgrade


Hobart airport. Picture: Zak Simmonds


MATTHEW DENHOLM
TASMANIA CORRESPONDENT
@MatthewRDenholm

12:00AM OCTOBER 21, 2019


Hobart Airport has had another spike in air safety breaches, as regulators finally ­accept calls to upgrade the city’s increasingly busy airspace.

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws show between the end of May and the end of July there were 15 occasions when aircraft, including passenger jets, breached altitude restrictions.

These “operational deviations” mean planes are not at the height they are supposed to be, and are no longer guaranteed safe separation from other aircraft. Airservices Australia said the incidents related to new set departure flightpaths but none resulted in aircraft straying dangerously close to others.

“This was an anticipated transitional issue that did not involve any losses of separation or risk to safety,” a spokeswoman said.

Residents under the flightpaths expressed alarm at the breaches, which follow a spate of more serious “loss of separation” incidents in the months after the flightpaths — known as SIDs (standard instrument departures) and STARs (standard instrument arrivals) — were introduced in September 2017.

“We are alarmed to hear about yet another string of safety breaches,” said Joseph Holmes, president of the South East Coast Lifestyle Association.

“These are clearly not teething problems, or the fault of pilots, as Airservices has previously stated. This seems unbelievable, given the safety problems that have already occurred. Along with their concentrated and damaging noise impact, it is obvious that SIDs and STARs alone are not sufficient to ensure safe and efficient air travel at an increasingly busy capital city like Hobart.”

Documents reveal the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has decided to give in to pressure from pilots, air traffic controllers and residents to upgrade Hobart’s airspace from “class D” to “class C”. This means satellite or radar surveillance is used to guide aircraft to the ground, rather than relying on “procedural control” by the local tower. It would bring Hobart into line with other capitals and busier regional centres.

The move has been resisted by CASA, but its latest ­review of Hobart airspace, completed in recent days, recommends Airservices submit a plan to make it happen “within 12 months”.

Hobart passenger movements increased by more than 400,000 to 2.7 million in the 12 months to February, 1.7 million above the trigger for an upgrade.

The CASA review finds 107 safety “occurrences” at Hobart between December 2016 and May this year, an increase it blames in part on aircraft failing to comply with SIDs and STARs height requirements. “There were some … where increased (aircraft) surveillance or changing the airspace classification may have prevented the incident,” it concludes. In one anonymous submission, a Hobart air traffic controller warns the current system is unsafe.

And via the SMH:

Air traffic control boss 'Mr Mintie' stalked trainee, asked for kisses
By Richard Baker
October 15, 2019 — 11.50am
A senior Airservices Australia manager who dubbed himself “Mister Mintie” repeatedly stalked and sexually harassed a female air traffic control trainee, including asking if he could attend hospital when she gave birth.
The man’s conduct is outlined in a series of emails from 2016 included as part of a compensation claim lodged in the Federal Court by law firm Maurice Blackburn, which is representing the woman.

The woman was a trainee air traffic controller.CREDIT:MICHAEL BUNN

The woman, who worked in Melbourne, was unable to complete her training and developed significant health problems due to her treatment by her former boss, who no longer works for Airservices.

The revelation of the legal action comes two months after Airservices announced it had engaged the nation's former sex discrimination commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, to conduct an extensive review of its workplace culture.

Airservices Australia is a statutory federal agency responsible for ensuring the safety of air travellers. When it announced Ms Broderick's review, Airservices said it had "zero tolerance" for all forms of workplace harassment.

The female trainee was bombarded with emails from her boss in which he called her his “fav girl"and asked for a "private dance". He signed off some emails “amore per sempre” (love always).

He also repeatedly asked the female trainee to provide him with a photo of her before he went on holiday to Italy. When the woman told him, "F--- off, that is not on," he later that day emailed to apologise: “Hey, sorry if I acted like a goose today about the photo and things. I promise tomorrow I’ll be back to being a gentleman. But boy, did you look pretty today … I’ve never believed about pregnant women ‘glowing’ until now.

“See you tomorrow – can’t send amore tonight because my heart rate is still up …”
While the manager focused his attention on the young woman, he spent less time with other trainees he was responsible for educating and monitoring.

On the manager’s last day of work before his Italian holiday, he left a Minties wrapper from a sweet he had given the female trainee weeks earlier under her windscreen wiper. It had a love heart drawn on it.

He continued to email the woman while he was on holiday, signing off many emails with “MM”, which was shorthand for "Mister Mintie".

Upon his return his attention became physical, with requests for hugs, kisses, directions for her to sit closer to him and him trying to press his fingers to her lips.

In one exchange, he said: “I clean shaved for you.”

The man, who was married, also insisted on giving the trainee a bracelet he bought in Italy. But he told her he really wanted to buy her underwear.


During a discussion about her parental leave arrangements, the heavily pregnant trainee had to physically insist her manager remain across the table. He responded by saying: “What? Do you think I’m going to molest you?”

The man later in the same meeting asked if he could come to hospital when the trainee gave birth. He was told “most certainly not” by the younger woman.

A consultant’s report into the man’s conduct delivered in early 2017 confirmed he had stalked and sexually harassed the female trainee by requesting physical contact, asking for dates, taunts of a sexual nature and asking intrusive questions about her personal life and body.

Airservices Australia's decision to engage Ms Broderick for the workplace culture review came after former Federal Court judge Tony North, QC, warned public safety could be at risk because of the severity of its workplace problems.

Mr North's opinion was sought by the air traffic controller's union.

His opinion that public safety could be at risk is strongly disputed by Airservices.


Former sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick.CREDIT:ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN

Since the announcement of Ms Broderick's review, a small number of senior Airservices managers decided to resign or retire.

The case involving the female trainee and Airservices Australia will go to trial at the Federal Court in Melbourne in April next year after mediation talks failed.

The woman’s lawyers are seeking compensation from Airservices Australia for alleged breaches of the Sex Discrimination Act through the senior manager’s harassment.

They also accuse the federal agency of breaching the terms of an agreed return to work plan after the woman returned from leave.



In its defence filed in the Federal Court, Airservices has admitted many of the facts pleaded in connection to sexual harassment. However it has said it was not responsible for the manager's emails when he was holidaying in Italy.



In regards to alleged breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act, Airservices has taken a more aggressive stance, stating that many of the woman's claims did not have a proper legal basis.
Maurice Blackburn principal Kamal Farouque said Airservices was relying on a highly technical statutory defence which if accepted would mean thousand of public servants would be prevented from suing the Commonwealth for damages under the Sex Discrimination Act.

Finally, very much ASA related, the PFAS spectre refuses to be ignored...

Via the other Aunty:

Erin Brockovich sounds alarm over PFAS contamination after more Queensland sites revealed

Exclusive by Josh Bavas

Updated Mon at 11:41am


[b]PHOTO:[/b] American activist Erin Brockovich is urging governments to do more about PFAS contamination. (ABC News)

American activist Erin Brockovich has warned all levels of government in Australia to act swiftly to prevent the spread of PFAS chemical contamination, with more affected sites coming to light.

Key points:

• More than 60 sites in Queensland are believed to be contaminated by PFAS
  
  
• A university campus and a residential development are being built on two of the contaminated sites
  
  
• Erin Brockovich says Australia is behind in dealing with the issue
  

ABC News has obtained a list of more than 60 locations identified by authorities in one state alone believed to be contaminated by the synthetic compounds.

They include a prime parcel of riverfront real estate in Brisbane slated for a high-end residential development and a university campus currently under construction to the north of the city.

PFAS chemicals are found in firefighting foam and other products manufactured for their resistance to heat, water and oil.

Authorities overseas, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency, have found PFOA and PFOS chemicals (a type of PFAS) can cause reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects in laboratory animals.

Queensland authorities said PFAS can persist for a long time in the environment and tend to accumulate in the bodies of animals and people.

A study is currently underway by the Australian National University looking at the health impacts on people who have come into contact with high levels of the chemical.

Ms Brockovich said the details from Queensland alone were "alarming".

"I'm coming over here having dealt with this in every state in America," she said.

"The sites that you're looking at here in Queensland — these didn't just happen this morning, this has been going on for a very long period of time.

"Imagine your whole country and how many sites you have in other territories — you could be looking at hundreds and hundreds of locations and what is in fact happening to your water supply and to your people.

"You really need to wake up to these issues in this country — here in Australia you are bigger and better than this."

New developments among PFAS sites

The list of locations includes 26 fire stations, eight current or former defence sites, six airports, four ports, three town water supplies and several waste facilities.

It took more than a year for ABC News to access the documents from Queensland's Department of Environment under Right to Information.

Some locations on the list have been well publicised — like the contamination of a Bundaberg reservoir last year and the accidental release of 22,000 litres of the toxic firefighter foam at the Brisbane Airport in 2017.

But several others appear to have had little or no previous media coverage, including the former Bulimba Barracks which is earmarked to become one of Brisbane's newest residential precincts.

View the full list of locations obtained by the ABC

The Department of Defence is in the process of selling the site to a developer but began an investigation into the extent of the contamination last year.

A Defence spokeswoman said the developer would take responsibility to "remediate" the land once the settlement is finalised.

"In August 2019, Shayher Group was selected as the preferred purchaser of the site following a competitive open market sale process," she said.

"Shayher Group is an experienced Australian developer that has demonstrated its capacity to successfully remediate, develop and protect the heritage values of the site.

"The contract of sale for the site has provisions to ensure that Shayher Group will commence work to remediate and develop the site in a timely manner."


[b]PHOTO:[/b] The Bulimba Barracks will soon be transformed into a major residential precinct. (ABC News: Craig Andrews)

Also on the list is a former paper mill at Petrie, to the north of Brisbane, which is being converted into a new campus for the University of the Sunshine Coast (USC).

Documents show the Department of Environment issued a notice to the operator Orora after PFAS chemicals were detected in soil and leaking into the adjacent Pine River in 2017.

A final response commissioned by the company itself in response to the Department found there is an "unacceptable risk to birds and animals" in the surrounding waterways popular with recreational fishers.

It also found that some parts of the land would not be suitable for residential development or open public space.

In the report, the company said it was in the process of conducting remediation work and a DES spokesman said it found "no unacceptable risk for people".

"A final investigation report, including a human health and ecological risk assessment, indicated that there was no unacceptable health risk for people on the site or nearby as a result of PFAS," he said.

"Following the investigation, Orora has set up a PFAS treatment facility on site, which is licenced by DES as part of remediation activity associated with current site development."


[b]PHOTO:[/b] The USC Moreton Bay campus is expected to open early next year. (ABC News: Craig Andrews)

'Shame on you': Brockovich smacks down local councillor

The Sunshine Coast Regional Council recently came under fire after announcing plans to release millions of litres of PFAS-tainted water from the airport straight into the ocean off the coast.

Councillor Jason O'Pray released a video online putting some of the water into his mouth saying it was "clean".

[b]VIDEO:[/b] Councillor Jason O'Pray drinks 'clean' PFAS contaminated water (ABC News)

"There's no foaming, there's no discoloration, it's certainly not toxic," he said in the video.

Ms Brockovich viewed the video and said the councillor should be "ashamed".

"You look really stupid because you're taking water that's tainted that you're trying to clean up and throw it in your mouth and say, 'Oh see it's perfectly safe'," she said.

"There's no comparison to that and swimming in it every day over a course of time — so folly it is. Shame on you.

"We're literally going to crap in our own mess kit if we just keep dumping and dumping into our water and our rivers.

"I said years ago we need to get ahead of this and they're not."

Ms Brockovich was flown to Australia by Shine Lawyers for a speaking tour on PFAS contamination and other industrial relations issues like silicosis.

The legal firm has already filed class actions against the Department of Defence on behalf of residents in Oakey on Queensland's Darling Downs and Katherine in the Northern Territory who are claiming to have been impacted by PFAS contamination in their communities.



[b]PHOTO:[/b] Katherine residents have undergone blood testing following concerns their water supply was contaminated with chemicals. (ABC News: Sally Brooks)

Special counsel for Shine Lawyers Joshua Aylward said the legal firm was also investigating other sites around the country.

"I'm a bit shocked because we all know about the Defence bases which have used a lot of this foam that have contaminated the sites around them — there have been a few other sites that have leaked out over time … but personally I didn't realise there were 60 or so sites just in Queensland.'

"The contamination has spread quite widely off many of these defence bases and I would say the list of 60 that you have here in Queensland there will be some of those sites where the contamination has well and truly left the airports or the ports."

Department tracking a number of sites

A spokesman for the Department of Environment and Science (DES) said potential PFAS contamination is monitored by a number of government agencies.

"When these PFAS amounts are small and under the national guidelines they are not considered to be a risk," he said.

"In instances where guidelines are exceeded, the public is advised, any required human health precautions are led by the Queensland Department of Health and investigations to determine the cause of the contamination are undertaken.

"DES is currently tracking a number of sites in Queensland where the potential for PFAS at higher levels may exist.

"The list provided to the ABC includes sites where PFAS has been identified, but this does not necessarily mean PFAS guidelines have been exceeded.

"The Queensland Government was the first government in Australia to ban the future use of firefighting foam containing PFOS and PFOA in July 2016, and has implemented a policy to phase out stocks of firefighting foam containing these chemicals."

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Recession leads to Depression.

Or; the old chicken and egg argument. Without ‘air services’ operating into and out of aerodromes, it is understandable that Councils feel reluctant to commit to upgrade or even full licencing. Without facilities, it is understandable that aircraft will not want to use the airfield.

Hitch – “Those airports owned by councils have been under crucible-like pressure in the recent past with many threatened with closure or being subject to sudden, significant rises in fees and charges.”

In the USA the City Fathers bid and compete for aircraft to operate into their airfields. They realised that air travel was an efficient, effective tool for business and a good thing for the local economy. Business recognised the time/ cost savings and of benefits of using aircraft. But then, they have a greater population base in the more ‘remote’ areas of the country. Australia does not have this benefit. Services in Australia by such outfits as Rex, Qlink etc, are dependent, for sustainability on ‘traffic’ people in, people out, for business of pleasure. They provide a service which may be sustained only on a ‘minimum’ passenger load basis and price the fare accordingly to cover that limiting factor.

The problem Councils have is a simple one: To make the airport viable they need traffic – people in – people out. To achieve that there needs to be a reason for folks to want to go there; business or pleasure. How to attract people and business and development to ‘their’ town? A good place to start would be a ‘local’ air service; but how? Councils will not ‘chip in’ to support the huge set up costs, business interests will shy away from the horrendous, risky process of establishing a service and the uncertainty of a return on the investment. This hurdle to be met before the battle of compliance is dealt with. It can be done, in has been done, quite successfully; but – those services were established a long while ago, back when such things were ‘do-able’. Before red-tape and compliance lunacy strangled development. There was a time when many country airports had a direct service to a major hub. Population has grown in the rural areas, air services have diminished, yet the need for service still exists. It is an ever increasing tangle. Always a wry smile when I see 100 million causally flicked to the ‘land rights for gay whales’ lobby; yet nary a penny put toward ‘development of air services to rural and regional air services. Never a question raised about why the potential for development, at an entry level is made so difficult, that investors quietly fold their cheque books and by a McDonalds franchise instead. For a ‘developing’ wealthy nation we seem not to care too much about getting matters aeronautical sorted and back on track. Then we hear things like this:- 

Hitch - “According to Morgan, AOPA has learned how to deal with the councils and found a way to show them how to keep their runways. The secret, he says, is that councils generally have no aviation experience and really don't understand that there are options for airports other than adhering to CASA's rules on registered or certified airports.”

It is, I’ll grant you one solution. Perhaps once or twice a week a light aircraft will land on an ALA, provided fuel is available and depart. It may even deposit some passengers to visit for a while. But will those landing fee cover the cost of maintaining the aerodrome? The RFDS will use it, but who else? Would a potential Regional air service be prepared to bear the cost burden of upgrading an ALA to standard? I don’t think so. This notion may preserve the airport, but in the long run, the weeds or the developers will claim it. In the USA an airfield is not too bad an investment – as it stand now, here in Australia, an airfield is simply an expensive liability; neither use nor ornament. A national problem no one seems to give a Tinkers cuss about.

Hitch – “The problem with downgrading regional airports to ALAs is that you can now forget your aspirations about getting a regional air service. For those country towns that will never support RPT, the downgrade to ALA status is a logical step. For the others that have RPT or are agitating to get one, keeping the airport registered or certified is crucial: airlines hate landing on goat tracks and hate the goats that use them. But with RPT comes the cost of security, terminals and associated infrastructure that RPT income rarely covers completely. It is to the private owners and hangar lessees that the airports turn to make up the shortfall. Right now there is no answer to that one, and if one is not found soon, I can see a future where the private owners will have to decamp to the ALAs and leave the major regional airports to the airlines. If AOPA has a panacea for that one, I will be very impressed indeed”.

Bang on the old button Hitch. Short sighted, limiting and counter productive; at all levels of government. Much could be done to alleviate the decline; the place to begin would be within the Regulations governing aviation. Simple things like the cost of placing an aircraft into a higher category and the surety of keeping it there. Like entry level Air Operator Certification process; which would terrify an investor, just on a time/cost basis. City Fathers need to be encouraged to attract aircraft and air services. I’m certain that in every council chamber across this wide brown land there is a collective groan every time ‘the airport’ is mentioned. You can hear the developers licking their lips as Council flounders and curses.

It is not a matter of where to lay the blame for the present sad state of affairs; but where to lay the blame for restrictive practice which prevents investment in aviation ventures and development. Time this government got real, got off it’s arse and dealt with the problem – in a Bi-partisan way; for it is crippling aviation development, outside of mining, in this country. Take a look at the incredible problems at Hobart – then; ask how did we ever descend to third world status? We can’t even manage our major hubs properly – what chance has the Kickinatinalong’ town council got?

My two bob, spent as pleased me best.

Toot – toot.

[Kharon]

I wonder who is going to pay for this - and is a clean up approaching - and who will pay for that?

From the - ABC

"Up to 40,000 people who live and work on land contaminated by the chemical compound PFAS are suing the Australian Government, arguing their property values have plummeted."

[Peetwo]

On or under the bus??



I note that last week the CASA OAR released their review into Hobart airspace:

Airspace Review recommends Class C for Hobart
29 October 2019
    

...An Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) review has recommended that Hobart Airport and the surrounding airspace be upgraded to Class C...

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...tt89LFp.99

Then today in the Weekend Oz that happy little chappy from Tassie came out with this...

Flight breaches ‘risking passengers’


A Qantas flight arrives home at Hobart Airport. Picture: MATT THOMPSON


EXCLUSIVE
MATTHEW DENHOLM
TASMANIA CORRESPONDENT
@MatthewRDenholm

12:00AM NOVEMBER 2, 2019

Safety breaches linked to new flight paths at Hobart Airport are continuing regularly, despite being dismissed by Airservices as a “transitional issue”, prompting claims passengers are at risk.

Documents obtained by The Australian reveal five incidents during August and September in which passenger jets failed to comply with altitude restrictions imposed by new fixed flight paths.

These “operational devi­ations”, occurring soon after takeoff, meant the jets were no longer guaranteed of safe distance from other aircraft.

They follow 15 similar incidents between the end of May and the end of July, exposed by The Australian, after which Airservices suggested they were a thing of the past.

On Thursday, Airservices did not address questions about why the incidents were continuing, or what was being done to rectify the problem. A spokeswoman ­appeared to blame pilots for the incidents and insisted none had resulted in a near miss.

“At no time have these pilot-attributable operational devi­ations resulted in any loss of separation between aircraft,” the spokesman said.

Residents living under the flight paths, however, expressed concern. “These ongoing safety incidents, which have never ­occurred before (the flight paths), put us all at risk,” said Joseph Holmes, president of the South East Coast Lifestyle Association.

“Airservices can no longer blame pilots — it’s clearly a problem with the system. Without ­remedial action, it’s just a matter of time before a more serious breach occurs. While Airservices originally said that these fixed paths were introduced to improve safety, its recent submission to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority finally acknowledges that radar surveillance is required.” #P2

Some pilots and air traffic controllers are concerned about the model of air traffic control at Hobart Airport, which reported a 117,237 growth in passengers in the year to last December.

Hobart retains a “Class D” ­regional-style airspace system, despite having 2.7 million passengers a year, 1.7 million above the threshold for an upgrade to “Class C” airspace of the kind at Canberra and the Gold Coast.

After years resisting such an upgrade, CASA accepted the idea in October, also backed by a ­recent Airservices review.

Airservices proposes using a satellite-based tracking system known as ADS-B to provide surveillance of aircraft to the ground. This should reduce the need for jets to stick so closely to the set flight paths, first introduced in September 2017.

In one anonymous submission, a Hobart air traffic controller warned the current system was not safe. “It is too busy for procedural control,” the controller said.

#P2 comment: 

Holmes - “..Airservices can no longer blame pilots — it’s clearly a problem with the system. Without ­remedial action, it’s just a matter of time before a more serious breach occurs..."  

ASA and the ATSB might not be able to publicly blame and shame pilots but apparently it is A-OK for the Patron Saint of Australian aviation safety to do so...  

 ST Commode - “My colleagues in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau won’t and can’t call out pilot error; it’s not their role,” he pointed out. “But that restriction doesn’t bind me..."   

Hmm...now combining those two articles and the revelations within one has to wonder are we seeing a classic case of 'On/Under the buses?' 

For shits and giggles and to add more grist to the mill -   - I now draw your attention to page 6 and post #102 of this thread  : 

Day 12 - Well I'll be buggered...

After reading the latest from that 'man again', I'm still thinking about the possible permutations, strange bedfellows etc., it certainly might explain why McComic was sighted at the Pumpkin's Patch in Can'tberra...  

Airservices resisted safety drive, says ex CASA boss John McCormick  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 22, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney





John McCormick Former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, at Canberra Airport. Picture: Kym Smith Source: News Corp Australia
  

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

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

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

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

Mr McCormick said he supported calls from businessman and aviator Dick Smith and others for Airservices to have its fire and rescue crews at regional airports without control towers to provide pilots with basic local air traffic and weather information via radio, as do their counterparts in the US.

Airservices chairman Angus Houston has vigorously opposed the suggestion.
Mr McCormick said it made sense because Airservices’ prime responsibility was air safety and the firefighters were its employees. “You have to say, ‘What are they there for … what do we want them to do’,” Mr McCormick said.

Mr McCormick, who started his career as a RAAF fighter pilot before becoming a Qantas pilot and later a senior executive with Cathay Pacific, put his weight behind restarting the effort begun in the early 2000s to move to the US and Canadian national airspace system.
In those countries, whether radar is available or not, commercial aircraft are always under direction by air traffic controllers almost right to the runway. “They say they have implemented it, but of course they haven’t,” Mr McCormick said of the unfulfilled plans to introduce the North American system.

Australia still has a mishmash of regimes in which some airports are in designated controlled airspace, but most others, including some with significant airline traffic, are not, requiring pilots in cloud to talk to each other to work out their relative positions and avoid collisions.

The Airservices media unit yesterday refused to provide information or comment.
Mr McCormick’s decision to speak out follows a sustained campaign by The Australian raising issues of air safety and the administration of government aviation organisations.

While the new CASA chairman, Jeff Boyd, recently unveiled to this newspaper a reform agenda to embrace the US model, Mr Smith suspects he will encounter push-back from Airservices because of what he claims is a misguided assumption on its part that it would mean hiring more air traffic controllers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
Someone pinch me...   Oh well at least Higgo hasn't been permanently sin-binned...
The 2 comments from Pete & Ted summarise quite well this strange development:

Peter
51 minutes ago

I always got the impression that Mr McCormick was not much chop in his job...now this revelation explains why. May I personally now apologise to him. I have posted my total support for Jeff Boyd and my amazement why Houston can't explain his role in this matter ??

He should be replaced with someone who is prepared to communicate seriously with CASA and hang his head in disgrace if he does not....he is a much honoured Australian and this attitude of his seems way out of character and the puppeteers hand must be removed !!

Ted
19 minutes ago

@Peter Totally agree with all your statements including your apology to Mr Mc Cormick, so here's mine.

Although Sir Angus is to be much admired, helicopter flying in the weeds is quite different from airline flying in controlled airspace, and he should take heeds of his peers.

Now keep in mind that the Oz article is over 4 years old and that McComic's tenure as the DAS/CEO at CASA began over a decade ago - 


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Supplementary Estimates - WQON.

(N.B AQON for Sup Estimates are due 06/12/19)

Airservices:

Question on notice no. 366

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Airservices Australia on 8 November 2019—
In August 2019, Airservices Australia announced that a review into organisational
culture was to be commissioned and performed by Elizabeth Broderick.
Can you provide a status update?
What are the initial findings from the review, if any?
Please provide a copy of the review's Terms of Reference.
Will the review process incorporate staff from all functional areas of Airservices?
What is the timeline for the different review processes within the review period?
A report issued in August 2019 by Tony North QC which initiated this review noted
that 50% of all respondents to the report's survey (75% for women) reported
inappropriate touching, bullying, discrimination or sexual abuse over the past decade.
Over the last 10 years, what has been done at a corporate level to address bullying,
harassment and discrimination?
Does Airservices Australia's employee assistance provider provide reportable data
that would allow you to proactively address specific problem areas for staff health and
wellbeing?
o If yes, please provide the numbers on how many staff have accessed EAP services
and a breakdown of what services were accessed, for the past three financial years?

---

Question on notice no. 367

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Airservices Australia on 8 November 2019—
The Accelerate Program was due to be completed by 30 June 2017 with a postimplementation
review due by 30 December 2017. Could you please provide a copy
of that review?
Airservices Australia performs a variety of technical functions, including the
operation and sustainment of air navigation services and its infrastructure. Over the
past five years, has the amount of work for technical staff increased or decreased in
that period?
Can you provide a progress update on the Network Enterprise Modernisation Project
(NEMP) ?
What is the projected total impact upon full-time equivalent (FTE) levels for APS
staff through the NEMP?

---

Question on notice no. 368

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Airservices Australia on 8 November 2019—
Is it correct that under the new harmonised, automated civil and military air traffic
control system (CMATS) under OneSky, the idea would be that an air traffic
controller in Brisbane Airport could take over operations in Tullamarine Airport?
o Are there plans for situations such as this to be a regular occurrence, or only used as
a backup in exceptional circumstances (e.g. network equipment failures or local
incidents) ?
o In those circumstances, is there a risk of human error, should an air traffic controller
monitoring the air space of half the continent to be able to identify a potential
localised event in the other half?
o Is it realistic to expect this system to be effective, with so much responsibility
concentrated in one place?
With the centralisation of air traffic control operations in one tower, could such
circumstances have an impact to either the aviation industry or aviation safety?
With this remote tower technology, is there a planned reduction of staff in air traffic
control towers across the country?

---

Question on notice no. 369

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Airservices Australia on 8 November 2019—
How much has the Chief Executive Officer received in bonuses since his appointment
to the position in 2016?
In each financial year, what were those bonuses tied to?

[Peetwo]

Back to ToRs - 

After that short but pleasant interlude, unfortunately it is back to Airport SOP...  

From McDermott Aviation Group, via FB:

McDermott Aviation Group
November 20 at 11:41 AM

Our future at the #sunshinecoast #sunshinecoastairport is being jeopardised as operational flexibility and future growth opportunities disappear by what seems to be a commercial development deal.

McDermott Aviation Group is the largest employer of aviation apprentices in Australia ??

PHOTO (A) Is what was shown to our business as the finished product originally when we decided to purchase two long term leases at the airport.

- Allowed for diversification and future growth by having two fully integrated runways.
- Allows our aeromedical aircraft access to the Sunshine Coast hospital facilities for returning Sunshine Coast patients even when one runway could be closed due to maintenance or an incident.
- Allows our new fire fighting helicopters to train unrestricted procedures without interruption to the Airlines.
- The Red squares are possible High rise buildings said to be on the cards now they have allowed the closure of our existing runway.

PHOTO (B) Seems to be what we have ended up with.

- Lost a full operational runway, the existing 18/36 community funded valued at $200million
- Airlines could face daily delays IF any incident or accident occurs on the ONLY runway, with two runway operations would remain on schedule by switching to the back up runway.

- No upgrade to any of the taxi lanes (plane roads) to any existing tenant sites allowing for their own growth to use the new $400 million dollar community funded runway.

- Code C parking bays ( For large VIP jets ) is disappearing and no replacement is incorporated into the not so “Master Plan”

So at the end of the day why are our very important year round services like the Aerial Fire fighting helicopters and Aeromedical services being forced away from our rapidly growing region???

The community has been misled in a major way.

While we are on ASA and the Sunshine Coast Airport...

From PH, via Twitter:

Paul Howard
@Paul_playwright

@PAIN_NET1 Hi guys, have u seen the proposed YBSU SIDS for new rwy 13/31? I ask cos I estimate SYD/MEL departures from 31 will cost extra $1300 in fuel & I can see no reason for R turn out except to save Airservices changing existing airways structure.

---

&..

This is the current airway system around YBSU & how it joins the proposed 13/31 sids/stars. I thought Airservices were supposed to provide a service to airspace users but that makes no sense to me !

Cheers PH, chocfrog is in the mail -

[Kharon]

FWIW – I reckon this type of training is extraordinarily valuable. Way back, it was always worth a trip to the ‘tower’ or centre – even to the FSU (dodo). I can even remember a senior ATC ‘chap’ doing an impromptu blackboard briefing at a hanger party one night. All part of understanding both sides of the microphone. Anyway –

[Peetwo]

Harfwit & Houstoblame back on the radar??

In the lead up to next month's Senate Estimates Aunty Pru will drag out the usual suspects up for scrutiny inside of the Can'tberra aviation safety bubble...  
To kick it off I note that Sir A is back from Golden parachute obscurity and recently stuck his head above the parapet...   

Sir Angus Houstoblame calls for cockpit cams - 

Via Sky News:

Angus Houston calls for cockpit cams to film commercial pilots
13/02/2020|5min



Former Defence Chief Sir Angus Houston has called for cockpit cams to be installed in all commercial flights as an added security measure.

News Corp Senior Correspondent Charles Miranda told Sky News it was now six years since the MH370 plane tragedy and there was now better technology which would allow live streaming from cockpits.

Mr Miranda said the initiative was getting push-back from pilots who were concerned about being “spied upon effectively for the entire flight".

He said some pilots argued they should be "trusted" and should not be "scrutinised".

Sky News investigates the mysterious disappearance of MH370 and reveals ground-breaking new details in a two part documentary "MH370: The Untold Story".

Watch or stream on Foxtel at 8pm AEDT on Wednesday 19th and Thursday 20th February.

Image: Getty

  

This coming from the man who was instrumental in creating the Great White Elephant OneSKY trough fund and who helped facilitate the Malaysian/ATSB cover-up of the MH370 disappearance...

Perhaps he is craving some attention; or maybe he is trotting out yet another smoke'n'mirrors dog and pony show -   

Hmm..maybe it has something to do with this?   





Tony Abbott told ‘early on’ MH370 pilot had committed mass ­murder

Next I note that Harfwit in recent times has slipped below the radar. However going on the last round of Supp Estimates QON (see post #689 above), plus  the committee's obvious disdain for the smirking, arrogant Harfwit I doubt he'll be getting off totally Scot free at next Estimates...



Anyway in the interests of refocusing the Senators oversight of ASA, the following is an archived CASA AQON and AP blog piece which IMO totally encapsulates the problem with ASA being a monopoly Air Traffic Service provider...

Senator Xenophon asked:

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, the 172 report was quite critical. It was quite significant that you renewed ASA's license on a conditional basis. That is right, isn't it?

Mr McCormick: Yes.

Senator XENOPHON: During this investigation, were you sharing information with the ATSB about your investigation into Airservices Australia?

Mr McCormick: The review that we were doing with Airservices was looking at the fact that we also have difficulty in regulating the government entity, as Airservices, in that there is not too much we could do.

Senator XENOPHON: Because of a head of power?

Mr McCormick: That is a legal issue as well, which I could ask to give you some more information on if you would like.

Senator XENOPHON: Maybe, because of time constraints, if we could get that on notice from you about issues of heads of power with respect to your ability to regulate or to give directives to Airservices Australia.

Answer:
CASA may cancel or suspend an Air Traffic Service (ATS) provider’s approval in certain circumstances, as set out in Division 172.F.5 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR).

However, the only offence provision in Part 172 is CASR 172.020 (that a person that is not an ATS provider must not provide an air traffic service). Therefore there are no offence provisions in Part 172 for not complying with required standards when providing an ATS. This means that CASA cannot issue, for example, infringement notices for such non-compliance.

However CASA can, and has, issued directions to employees of Airservices Australia in accordance with the general direction making power in CASR 11.245. A contravention of such a direction is an offence against CASR 11.255.

One well remembers McCormick's obvious frustration with CASA not being able to properly oversight the ASA, with Sir A and Co basically telling they can go boil their bottoms...

Reference: Day 12 - Well I'll be buggered... 

However, the Patron Saint of Australian Aviation Safety had no such issues with rubber stamping the ASA Part 72 and allowing the keepers of the Great White Elephant OneSKY trough to do as and when they please...

---

Senate committee ‘baffled’ and very concerned. NSS.

by admin | Oct 20, 2016 | Accidents and Inquiry, ASA, ATSB, CASA, Minister for Transport, Senate Estimates - Unplugged



Senator:”I’m a little baffled – 25% staff reduction at Air Traffic HQ? He’s not alone;

Glib, slick and parodied?

Mr Carmody: Airservices and the CASA actually had a joint board meeting last week—which happens infrequently, I understand. There was a discussion. One of the questions that was asked between the two organisations was about what the impact of the redundancies was. We work very closely with Airservices in looking at what they are doing in managing the regulatory framework, so we have been aware of where they are going for some time.

Senator STERLE: What was the outcome? Can you share that with me?

Mr Carmody: The outcome of the discussion was that there would be no impact on aviation safety.

Senator STERLE: Where I get a bit baffled—I understand these things happen from time to time—is how you can have 1,000 people that are surplus to requirements. How does that work?

“Where I get a bit baffled” Sterle said. Well FWIW, that makes two of us.  The slippery answer to a very big question is a glib, throwaway line – “[that] there would be no impact on aviation safety”. Just like that – nothing to see here. Sterle battled on for while; he actually missed his natural ‘trigger’ by a whisker. CASA ‘regulate’ ASA – anything major ASA do, like, letting up to 1000 people go, may rightfully be classed as a ‘major’ shift. Now I ain’t boss of CASA; but, if I were, I’d want a bloody site more assurance than “there will be no impact etc.” In fact I’d want a ‘tiger team’ on the ball 24/7 to absolutley, hand on heart, guarantee , assure the minister and anyone else who cared to examine the process that CASA had 100% confidence in the holistic ASA safety case. A simple sit down, with a couple of questions asked would just not do. Imagine, – CASA are looking at an operation you run; in walks the sleek, chubby FOI team to have a little look at your proposal; can you, in your wildest fantasy, imagine #1 Bully-boy saying “ Well mate, will this have any impact on operational safety?” Then you reply “Oh no, the changes are rock solid safe, no worries”; then; the CASA crew saying “Well, that’s just great; thank you, see you next year then; we’ll send the approval through tomorrow; have a nice day”.  BOLLOCKS.

Mr Carmody: That is a matter for Airservices, who are on after me, but I think the point that they made very clearly was that there would be no impact on the frontline services that they are responsible for—air traffic control, and aviation rescue and firefighting services.

But, but, CASA ‘regulate’ and licence ASA; CASA is even supposed to ‘audit’ ASA once every blue moon. Suddenly, the airy assertion that not only ASA but ‘air safety’ has little to do with CASA. BOLLOCKS.

Mr Carmody: I presume that they have contracted out some non-core services. I do not personally know the answer, because I have only been in the chair a few days. What I did seek was an assurance on aviation safety.

Ah, see here, now we have it “non core services”. It begs the questions; if those services were not ‘core’ WTF what were they there for? Why do they even exist? Why have ‘non-core’ services been allowed to grow to where there are 900 jobs, all of a sudden not there any longer? And WTD are ‘core services’ anyway and WTD are ‘front line services; definition required? Hell yes.– Slick, glib – BOLLOCKS.

Then Sen.Gallacher (bless) weighs in; he looks as baffled as Sterle does, but he has a swing at it anyway and scores a couple of  solid hits which were, alas, once again, not capitalised on. The devil, dear Senator, resides in the detail.

You see, the percentage chance of a large passenger aircraft crashing and burning on a runway are pretty slim; let’s face it. It costs the proverbial arm and leg to keep the RFFS on site, in fact a statistics realist would say the entire service is not required. However, where would you find a politician, of any stripe, brave enough to remove the service? Short answer; their ain’t one, not on the face of this planet at least. So we have a situation where a monopoly with a licence to print money is going down the fiscal tubes.  Savings must be made, due to incompetence and over spending on consultants and such like. So the easy answer is to up the numbers threshold for providing RFSS; statistics support it and it ensures the bonus payments keep rolling in. If the unthinkable happens and there is, one day, a pile of crispy critters at the end of a runway without RFSS everyone’s arse is neatly covered, even the toasted ones; probably with a blanket donated by St Vinnies.

Mr Mrdak: The intention, were the threshold to change, is that the existing services would be grandfathered, subject—

Senator GALLACHER: So the trigger would not apply to them—there would not be any additional redundancies?

Mr Mrdak: There would be a view to establishing threshold points at which, if traffic fell, then the airport provision would be reviewed through a risk assessment—if traffic levels fell below a certain parameter.

Bound to be a reduction in traffic over the next few years; not like the last few where it has increased.

Well, its getting late, dinner smells about ready and I’ve been through this Hansard a couple of times now; so I’ll stop, with MMTF, later. But I will leave you with some immortal words to consider.

Mr Carmody: If I may, I do not need to manage their business for them; I need them to maintain a safe operating environment.

BOLLOCKS, CLAP TRAP, RUBBISH, PONY POOH.  I did say I’d enjoyed my first ‘Wingnut’ experience; perhaps now you can see why.

Toot – thirsty hungry –  toot.
 

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

UP QOTM - 

By Hoosten, via Squawk7700: 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosten 

Don't make excuses for a piss-poor airspace system. Four people are dead in an easily avoidable accident. Unfortunately the complexities of airspace design and systems are beyond a simple explanation to a coroner, a politician or anyone else that makes the decisions to properly administer and regulate an airspace system.

Admit it, you are a 3rd rate airspace admin. You are the pig with lipstick, you look shiny and new to anyone with little knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors. Too lazy, too ignorant to go out into the big wide world and see how a modern, properly resourced 'not for profit' administration keeps the public safe.

It's all well and good to say it's pretty simple to arrange your own separation on a CTAF frequency in IMC. I have been in that holding pattern with 3 others while one is shooting an approach. Of course if you rip VOR's and NDB's out of the ground, where else are you going to go? The nature of the IFR training done in Australia is that VOR's and NDB's are required by those who pay for it.

But you'll come back with, 'no one wants to pay for it' You're on the Kool-Aid, it's paid for many times over.

There are some fairly straight forward solutions, Class E being one of them. Airservices doesn't want a bar of it, Your CEO can't staff the airspace you've got let alone any new classifications. It all fits in nicely with CASA's in-action on this front.

Where is the like button!!

+1

 

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

UP QOTM - 

By Hoosten, via Squawk7700: 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosten 

Don't make excuses for a piss-poor airspace system. Four people are dead in an easily avoidable accident. Unfortunately the complexities of airspace design and systems are beyond a simple explanation to a coroner, a politician or anyone else that makes the decisions to properly administer and regulate an airspace system.

Admit it, you are a 3rd rate airspace admin. You are the pig with lipstick, you look shiny and new to anyone with little knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors. Too lazy, too ignorant to go out into the big wide world and see how a modern, properly resourced 'not for profit' administration keeps the public safe.

It's all well and good to say it's pretty simple to arrange your own separation on a CTAF frequency in IMC. I have been in that holding pattern with 3 others while one is shooting an approach. Of course if you rip VOR's and NDB's out of the ground, where else are you going to go? The nature of the IFR training done in Australia is that VOR's and NDB's are required by those who pay for it.

But you'll come back with, 'no one wants to pay for it' You're on the Kool-Aid, it's paid for many times over.

There are some fairly straight forward solutions, Class E being one of them. Airservices doesn't want a bar of it, Your CEO can't staff the airspace you've got let alone any new classifications. It all fits in nicely with CASA's in-action on this front.

Where is the like button!!

+1

 

MTF...P2 

I will wholeheartedly support Hoosten’s comments. He get’s it pretty well straight down the line.



2nd the Choc Frog.

[Kharon]

Busy, busy, busy.

The following is a boilerplate catchall ATSB put out for media benefit. For a Choc frog – who can tell me what essential, specific part of the ‘scheduled’ investigation missing?

“As part of the investigation, ATSB investigators will analyse available flight path data and audio transmissions, review weather information, aircraft maintenance and flight crew records, and conduct witness interviews.”

I’ll give you a hint – HERE –

I’ve probably got three years to save up for the CF prize; there will be no ‘book’ running for the result of the ATSB deliberations; however, for the closest in ‘word count and conclusion to the final ATSB report there is a liquid prize on offer.

Toot – toot.

[thorn bird]

"Hoosten we have a problem"

Why won't the rest of the world accept, they are wrong, only Awstralya is right?

[P7_TOM]

Vag 277. From the UP.

"In the '80s there was a government policy that there should be a tower at every aerodrome with jet RPT services. Those services spread faster than the Tower program! The tower at Gove was built but never manned. Dick Smith took control of the CAA and started the cost benefit analysis of towers resulting in the closure of many including Mt Isa, Wagga, Karratha, Port Hedland (until the Shire offered to pay to keep it open), closure of briefing offices, closure of Flight Service etc. This eventually resulted in development of a structured approach to airspace collision risk analysis, involving ALL sectors of industry. An evolved version of that process is now used by the Office of Airspace Regulation, within CASA but with its own establishing legislation and Ministerial direction."

Every once in a while, the catastrophe of 'unintended consequence' kicks a goal. Removing FSU saved pennies, now we must spend pounds to return to what was a good system. Not perfect - but... I'd vote for it's return with modern equipment and 'horse power'. I would.

[thorn bird]

I am truely perplexed Tom,

So much of the way we do things here and the motivation behind it is so often hidden in the smoke and mirrors of our so secretive bureaucracy.

I recall a few years ago, descending into Inverell, weather was forecast at the minima. Gave a thirty mile call on CTAF, inbound, no response from any other aircraft, but up came the totally illegal, at the time, Inverell unicom.

He reported overcast with low cloud, appears lighter to the north, wind calm, caution aircraft heard overhead.

I immediately entered a hold on the inbound track, tried a call to any aircraft Inverell on CTAF, no response, so I tried centre. Centre stomped on a reply to tell me I was on Centre not CTAF, but I caught a callsign, called him and it was an ambo shooting the approach. I held at twenty miles until his missed approach and departed for his alternate.

I always wondered why CAsA was so vehemently opposed to unicom's. In the US many small local airports have unicoms, centre over there will hand you off to them with "Cancel on the ground", the system works very well, try flying into a small regional called Fernandina beach on a Friday afternoon around four PM and you'll see how well unicom works with multiple heavy medal corporates inbound from New York for a weekend of golf. The Unicom guy was an ex navy pilot in a wheel chair, the unicom was not just a hobby, it was his life, all voluntary.

I have been told CAsA's objection to them is largely driven by the union movement trying to protect their bailiwick, so a layer of protection that could be available in Australia is not, bound up with smoke and mirror requirements to prevent it.

The above anecdote is just one example of why our system needs reform, not just our reg's and airspace management but our whole way of viewing aviation. The Yanks have got it as close as "Right" as you can get I believe, their system works very well and is very safe, ours flounders around with competing "opinions" pulling it this way and that by inept influences trying to protect their rice bowl, the industry, its needs and well being totally ignored, drowned in the cacophonous noise.

[P7_TOM]

Ayup TB: It is a puzzle.

One notion I’ve been mulling over, quietly – as the ‘experts’ would probably tear it apart in a moment – for all kinds of reasons – still, it makes some sense to me. Take Coffs or Tamworth as an example – both ‘control zones’ but “busy”? Not really. There is potential conflict North of Coffs – Ballina etc. with not too many services a day – but enough to warrant some type of service.  Now an extra chap or chapess on shift with a ‘feed’ of some sort and a link to the local frequency could provide ‘positive separation – I can talk to Melbourne 100 mies north of Alice at 8000’ – so why cant I talk to a ‘controller’ 30 miles out of Ballina? Not a ‘tech’ savvy sort of chap – but it seems to me that with a little money and some effort – the occasionally busy airports should be able to get some comfort inside ‘the zone’ of close encounters.

Willy could cover a few; Tamworth could cover a few; Coffs could cover a few; all the way up the East coast – how hard would it be? As stated nowhere near an ATC guru – philistine still grappling with ‘alphabet’ airspace more like; and, a long time lover of positive separation – even then I’ve had the odd moment of terror. I remember one fellah nearly in the ashtray one late afternoon – he was wearing green socks. Hell, I’d bring back mandatory position reporting if I could. The ‘silent majority’ worries me, particularly those avoiding landing fees after sunset (three close calls on that one).

Yet the system does work well when all plugged in – recently landed after hours, after last light – 3 inbound (plus me), one on the runway, one waiting, one taxi-ing – not a problem in the world – all came and went safely - polite, professional, safe as houses and a pleasure to do business with.

Dunno mate, your guess as good as mine. That’s all, my glass is empty and needs must when the Devil drives. Cheers….

[Peetwo]

OneSKY trough fund to contribute to ScoMo COVID-19 stimulus package??  

Have been monitoring the Mangalore crash thread on the UP which surprisingly, despite some heated exchanges, has not been closed (YET)?? 

There are a couple of main players, including Lead Balloon and Mr Approach, however the one that really perks my interest is Hoosten who seems to have a very intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Airservices and the Australian ATC/Airspace system. Plus some of his exchanges with resident troll Cap'n Bloggs are priceless...  

Examples:

Hoosten Class E at Avalon was a political load of crap, it was implemented to appease certain people.


As I said the controllers do a remarkable job given what has been thrown at them. But the point remains that it is not Class E in reality, it has been modified and Australianised (in other words, effed up).

Put E where it will significantly improve and enhance safety, YMNG.

If Class E is not justified at YMAV, re-classify it, easy.

(I am Porter)

---

What service would have prevented this accident?

E Base 1200 would have prevented it. Australian ATC, despite the morons running the place, have never put 2 together.

(I am Porter)

---

I challenge you to tell the families of those killed that this country can't afford to implement solutions that would 100% prevented the MNG accident.

Captain Luddite,

How about posting an example of the letter you'd write to the families of the 4 people killed telling them that Australia can't afford Class E.

And how would you explain that the 4 million lost to the community was wasted and could have been spent providing probably 6 years of Class E in the sectors concerned?

Shit, forgot,

(I am Porter)

Capn Bloggs WTF? Get a life, Hoosten you troll.

Hoosten You can't take it can you? You can dish the trash out but when it comes to answering the hard stuff. You wilt. We have a name for people like you.


(I am Porter)

I'm not really, but whatever rocks your boat.

---

Run along Captain L,


Report to moderator.

My job here is done. People are now discussing Class E and a modern airspace system. Most of them get it, you? Keep livin' in the dark ages old son.

You are unable to discuss any points, it's your way or the highway.

Tootle Pip

(I am Leadsled)

---

What defences [i]are[/i] there in place to prevent a midair between a VFR and an IFR in E?

The same defences you have in your beloved Class G, EXCEPT.......You are being positively separated with other IFR.

If you hit a VFR who happens to be in IMC (as I know one PPRuNe VFR regular who likes to boast that his home made panel is fine in IMC) then what can you do about a criminal and deliberate negligent act (VFR flying in IMC)?

Balloon, Class E at Avalon was implemented to appease and shut one particular person up.

Capn Bloggs Originally Posted by Hooson

The same defences you have in your beloved Class G, EXCEPT.......You are being positively separated with other IFR.

You obviously don't know how G works then. I talk to VFRs in G, they talk to me, and we avoid each other. That doesn't happen in E.

If you hit a VFR who happens to be in IMC (as I know one PPRuNe VFR regular who likes to boast that his home made panel is fine in IMC) then what can you do about a criminal and deliberate negligent act (VFR flying in IMC)?

No relevance to the discussion. Have you reported said person to CASA?


Originally Posted by Balun

But surely a regulator with any integrity wouldn’t designate airspace just to shut one person up? Surely

You never did like taking orders, did you Balon?

Hoosten

You obviously don't know how G works then. I talk to VFRs in G, they talk to me, and we avoid each other. That doesn't happen in E.

Oh, I know how G works, I've spent plenty of time flying in it. Uhhhm, what prevents you from talking to a VFR in E? You obviously don't know how E works.

---

megan, regarding the MAX, I'm sure the lawyers involved from all party's will get the letter composition right. And I'm also sure that the regulator or Boeing won't get too many opportunities to go down that path again. That's what happens most of the time in the US.


In the case of MNG, what opportunity will there be to lawyer up? NONE, because the profit making ANSP was acting within its purview. The OAR will also sit there fat dumb and happy, nothing to see here. And CASA will simply say it was an accident.

Your talk about under resourcing, there is none when a profit is being made. Except when the resourcing is sacrificed for a return to government.

Well done you mate for your thoughtful reply that doesn't take away from the fact, your airspace is hopelessly inadequate in a number of high traffic areas.

Didn't you know

(I am Porter)

except when

(I am Leadsled)

Tootle Pip

---

But surely a regulator with any integrity wouldn’t designate airspace just to shut one person up? Surely.

Of course not, politics doesn't come into airspace management, only safety.

---

Dick, from my recollection the surveillance went down to around 2500-ish. That was before ADSB became more widespread. I don't think it has improved significantly since the introduction.

I'll give you another act of stupidity in CTAF's and whomever has propogated and perpetuated it, the 'downwind' 'base' & 'final' calls. For Godsakes. It is ridiculous.

---

As for what would have most likely prevented this, well Hoosten is correct. E at 1200ft AGL would have done the job and is probably achievable.

I'll guarantee you, it would not have happened, simply wouldn't have. Australian ATC haven't put two together. Worldwide it is an incredibly low occurrence of ATC caused collision whether inside or out of controlled airspace.

I’m assuming the inbound aircraft was inbound for air work, so probably what would have happened for the separation would be clear the inbound to a level 1000ft above the outbound aircraft LSALT, and then procedurally clear the outbound aircraft. They would have been separated while in IMC. I’m not totally certain, but I believe that is something like what Hoosten is suggesting. Nobody would have been unduly delayed, it isn’t particularly difficult, and the separation is done by the professional paid $200k per year to do it.

Procedural radial separation is one way of doing it, another way is to delay the aircraft on the ground. Yet another way is to improve the surveillance to lower levels, less delay. If anyone wants to bang on about costs, yes, putting radar surveillance out there would be prohibitive. But guess what's come along and is being used more and more in GA cockpits, all while your ANSP is feeding the trough in Canberra.

Speaking of that 'trough' I was wondering when some of the Alphabets may suggest some sort of 'stimulus package' for the 
critical effects of COVID-19 on the already depressed aviation and tourism industries?

Question?

I note the following from ScoMo's stimulus package announced yesterday (note part in bold):

Assistance for severely-affected regions

• $1 billion to support those sectors, regions and communities that have been disproportionately affected by the economic impacts of the Coronavirus, including those heavily reliant on industries such as tourism, agriculture and education. This will include the waiver of fees and charges for tourism businesses that operate in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Commonwealth National Parks. It will also include additional assistance to help businesses identify alternative export markets or supply chains. Targeted measures will also be developed to further promote domestic tourism. Further plans and measures to support recovery will be designed and delivered in partnership with the affected industries and communities.
  

Has anyone from industry suggested that perhaps such fee and charges waiver should be extended to GA charter and aviation tourism businesses paying service charges/fees for ATC enroute and terminal services provided by Airservices Australia?

Or even extend that to a waiver for the extra fuel excise charges for CASA services? 

But of course that won't happen because that would eat into Harfwit and his fellow OneSKY trough feeding team's KPI bonuses etc...etc 

MTF...P2