[Gobbledock]

Just two sleeps to go until Team ASA are shirt-fronted by an armed and dangerous group of Senators on August 18, 2015; - HERE 

So apart from the obvious scope of the grilling which should include ASA's answers to QON's and other such morsels, will the following points be raised by the Senators;

- Will An(g)us respond in full to previously raised issues about credit card fraud, CEO and CFO incompetence, excessive salaries and bonus blowouts?

- Will An(g)us confirm whether a OneSky consultant is on a 12 month $1.1 million fee? And if so, can Houston justify the amount being paid?

- Will Frau Staib appear before the Senate? If not, why won't she?

- Will An(g)us muster up the testicular fortitude to even front the Senators himself?

- Will the Senators pull a few extra goodies out of their bag of ASA confiscated goods and throw them down on the table? (rumour has it that the Senators are sitting on some explosive evidence!)

- Will there be iced tea, cucumber cruskets, mineral water and nougat rolls served up for lunch???

And to warm you up for Tuesdays fun and games here is an oldie but a goodie, I call this the 'Get Knotted' piece.

Anyway, I better get back to the Houseboat and finish stocking the fridges, setting up the Ouija Board and printing off the special occasion "Dipshit" t-shirts (they come in size S M L XL XXL and Lardarse.

Gobbles

[Kharon]

Of farts in hurricanes.

All good questions GD; but the one I’d like to see answered is will the Senators actually achieve anything - this time?   ATSB walked away giggling, CASA blew them off then had a party, why should ASA be remotely concerned.   In terms of heinous crime detection, they have done quite well; but their conviction rate is very, very poor.  If they were on a bonus system for putting away ‘black-hats’, there would not be much to throw about at Christmas.  Look at the wrongs they exposed during the Pel-Air pantomime; no prosecutions from that, not a sacking, scarcely a resignation; not even the odd censure.  And there was, you’ll admit some pretty fancy charges to be laid; all for naught.

Now they are thundering off in hot pursuit of the likes of Clark and his underlings.  Staib and co. will probably front, contempt not to, but they have had a good long while now to get their stories straight, the AG was never a contemplated option.  The cleaners should have been put through the whole operation; forensic audit of everything and any serious questions raised from that answered in full public view.   The press won't give a toss; the public is now so used to being ripped off they are inured to it.  Tut, tut and back to MKR or the 'footy' for them.

I’ll probably sit through it; only because it’s slightly more interesting than MKR; but not too excited about ‘explosive’ evidence’ they’ve had that before and failed to achieve anything or even use it.  Anyway, now that CASA legal have found a way to utterly destroy parliamentary privilege,  most of the 'juicy' stuff will be withdrawn, or remain 'in-camera'; useless for any or all practical purpose. If aviation oversight, accident reporting and the criminal venality of those bodies cannot, with empirical evidence be cleaned up in the public interest; then another few million; down the Swany one way or another ain’t going to signify.  The Murky Machiavellian crew will either roll ‘em; or ignore ‘em, brushing off the irritating insect bites with open contempt.  

Nah mate, tinplated, forgone conclusion Senate 0 – MM Crew 10.  But popcorn, beer and good company are always appreciated, as are the laughs.

Comedy relief Tuesday, 18th August, 2015; see you there.

[Gobbledock]

Comedy relief Tuesday, 18th August, 2015; see you there.

Boys, I got here early to reserve the front row Houseboat seats for some distinguished V.I.P's. Everything is in order however I forgot to bring the ASA mock cardboard cutouts and the Jaffa's. Could you please bring them with you?

Regards
Gobbles

[Peetwo]

Comedy relief Tuesday, 18th August, 2015; see you there.

Boys, I got here early to reserve the front row Houseboat seats for some distinguished V.I.P's. Everything is in order however I forgot to bring the ASA mock cardboard cutouts and the Jaffa's. Could you please bring them with you?

Regards
Gobbles

Dick to give evidence

Overnight that 'man is back' again and maybe, just maybe there is more to this than horse pooh & giggles...

Airservices project under scrutiny in Senate  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• August 18, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney

A Senate committee is today ­expected to investigate the ­administration of an ­Airservices Australia project integrating the nation’s civilian and military air traffic control systems, along with performance bonuses paid to executives.  

The move comes amid claims of big payments to consultants for the OneSKY program, originally costed by industry sources at $600 million but for which neither the government nor Airservices will disclose a current figure.

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss whose transport portfolio covers aviation, Airservices, and the consultants concerned declined to comment yesterday.

The Senate committee has called the executives of Airservices to a public hearing today to answer a range of questions about financial management of the government-owned organisation which runs the country’s air traffic control system, and airport fire and rescue services.

Committee chairman Liberal Bill Heffernan and deputy chairman Labor’s Glenn Sterle originally called the hearing after revelations in The Australian in June showed the executives ­received bonuses of up to $100,000 each, which were paid in a financial year when profits halved, return on equity targets were not met, air safety benchmarks deteriorated and workplace diversity went backwards.

Late last year the committee grilled then Airservices chief executive Margaret Staib about why she did not report to police an alleged credit card fraud by a manager, and over her organisation’s failure to canvass capital works proposals with ­another Senate committee as ­required before commissioning them.

Ms Staib told the committee she had taken steps to deal with the capital works reporting issue, and later wrote saying she had received legal advice that it was within her discretion to not ­report the ­alleged credit card fraud, which she said turned out to be not as large as she had first indicated.

Ms Staib ­resigned this month, citing health reasons, and will not appear before the committee. The committee is also still interested in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of corporate credit card spending by top officials.

In what is likely to be a lively hearing, businessman and ­aviator Dick Smith will give ­evidence on the financial ­pressures in the general aviation ­industry and the nation’s air ­traffic control system.

The OneSKY program, to be implemented between 2018-21, envisages 200 radar consoles ­operated by civilian and RAAF controllers displaying the same information in real time.

Mr Smith has said the program would be a waste of money until the introduction of an airspace system along the lines of that in the US where commercial aircraft were always directed by air traffic controllers.

A spokesman for Mr Truss said the government fully backed OneSKY as a program which would ultimately save “several hundred million ­dollars”, and was “satisfied that the ongoing negotiation and ­acquisition of OneSKY are being managed appropriately”.

  
For the amended agenda & Dick Smith's submission etc. see here - Performance of ASA - take two. 

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

'That man';

"Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss whose transport portfolio covers aviation, Airservices, and the consultants concerned declined to comment yesterday".

Of course he declined to comment, the guy won't comment or commit on anything aviation. And it is also one of the reasons why the Liberals are on the road to receiving a hiding come next election. The constituents who pay these 'public servants' out of our own back pockets are sick of the misuse and mismanagement of our money, lies, fraud, secret service attitude, deception, and obtuseness.

Go the Vegemite Kid (Dick Smith), shove it up their asses and expose the rot. Then 'that man' and Sandilands can run some succinct factual reporting in the media that will hopefully be picked up by other mainstream journalists. Hopefully.

P_666

[thorn bird]

Hot off the rumor control press!!!
Signage by the Spa at a well known rendezvous frequented by the Can'tberra hoi paloi.

"Females not employing active birth control use this spa at their own risk"

Now I wonder which one that is??

[Peetwo]

From 'that man'...

Senators query air project alliances  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• August 19, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney




Senate committee chairman Bill Heffernan. Source: News Corp Australia


Senators last night alleged an ­“incestuous” relationship among consultants, contractors and Airservices Australia executives ­involved in the ambitious $1.5 billion program to integrate the ­nation’s civilian and military air traffic control systems.  

At a Senate committee hearing, senators claimed a web of personal and corporate interconnections cast doubts over One­SKY, the flagship project of government-owned Airservices, which runs the nation’s air traffic control system and airport fire and rescue services.

These included a “husband and wife team” on opposite sides of a transaction ­between Air­services and the consultancy group it engaged in a multi-­million-dollar contract to advise it on OneSKY, the International Centre for Complex Project Management.
Senators also pointed to the fact Chris Jenkins, the managing director of the project’s successful prime contractor, the inter­national airspace group Thales, is also chairman of ICCPM.

The Senate’s rural and region­al affairs and transport legislation committee heard Air­services had outsourced the role of lead negotiator in its dealings with Thales to an ICCPM consultant, former RAAF officer Harry Bradford.

“The perception of conflict of interest is all over this,” said Labor senator Joe Bullock.
The committee chairman, Liberal Bill Heffernan, joined Senator Bullock in describing the arrangements as “incestuous” and said they would “not pass the public test … it sounds dodgy”.
Airservices acting chief executive Jason Harfield denied any conflicts of interest.
“It’s a small community,” he said of the airspace management business, but insisted it was not a case of “just being a web of mates”.

The OneSKY program, to be implemented between 2018 and 2021, envisages 200 radar consoles operated by civilian and air force controllers displaying the same information in real time.

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, whose transport portfolio covers aviation, has strongly supported OneSKY, with a spokesman saying he was “satisfied that the ongoing negotiation and acquisition of One­SKY are being managed appro­priately.”

Senator Heffernan, deputy chairman Glenn Sterle and other committee members expressed serious concerns.

Senator Sterle repeatedly asked Mr Harfield whether the board had known of the personal and professional relationships when it signed off on Thales as the principal contractor for OneSKY.

“I can’t speak for the board,” Mr Harfield eventually said.

Senators raised the prospect of calling board members, including chairman Angus Houston.

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

“He was acting in my role … while I was away in the US,” Mr Harfield said, adding Mr Hein’s involvement was limited to getting sign-off from a more senior manager.

He said to ensure probity, the Heins had been excluded from the tender evaluation ­process.

MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

Financial incest - a game the whole community can play!!!!

Jason Red Tie;

"Airservices acting chief executive Jason Harfield denied any conflicts of interest.“It’s a small community,” he said of the airspace management business, but insisted it was not a case of “just being a web of mates”.

FFS people, it's time that 'he who likes to hide', An(g)us was dragged before the Senate to answer some questions. The spiralling issue relating to 'mates rates', credit card fraud, bonuses, salaries, wasted money and profit decline leaves much to be desired when it comes to the ASA Board and executive management team.

TICK $$$$$ TOCK Miniscule

[P7_TOM]

Funny you spotted that GD; I will wait for the Hansard before jumping in too hard; but, I got the distinct impression that the ‘board’ were building a case for “we were in Montreal”.  In other words, there was a ‘by-pass’ of normal procedure (much like the appropriations scandal) where the board can claim ‘immunity through ignorance’.  WTF it’s only Six Hundred and Sixty Million dollars, the paper work all neat and tidy, quick scamper through the prepared paperwork, sign her, sign there and your on the first tee, by morning tea.  Paid full whack for doing your job.  Oh, how I wish life was that good for everyone.

Do the board not have a ‘duty of care’? The convoluted rules deem to make it appear that they do, but only at arms length.  

Anyway, FWIW, I felt that there was an escape legend for the board being built during that first 40 minutes or so.  Hansard may help.

My best, most sincere congratulations to Dick Smith; good man, run hard, done strong.  

The senators were great, every one; the BRB has called a special indaba to decide the Man of the Match, the votes are flooding into the AP email loop, looks like being a good night.  

MTF; good job Dick, and bravo that man ‘Iggins.  Voted honorary BRB status, well done Ean..

[Peetwo]

Sir Angus to be called before Senate Committee?

From..you guessed it .. that man:

Airservices chairman Angus Houston to face Senate grilling  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• August 20, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney




Airservices Australia chairman Angus Houston. Picture: Alf Sorbello Source: News Corp Australia

A Senate committee will call Airservices Australia chairman Angus Houston and other board members before it to explain how much they knew about allegedly “dodgy” and “incestuous” dealings surrounding contracts awarded for a $1.5 billion state-of-the-art national air traffic control system.  

The Australian can also reveal the rural and regional affairs and transport legislation committee will write to the National Audit Office seeking an urgent “serious audit” of Airservices.

On Tuesday, the committee examined revelations in The Australian about executive bonuses of up to $100,000 that were paid in a financial year that saw profits halved and return on equity targets unmet.

Labor and Coalition senators, along with independent Nick Xenophon, grilled acting Air­services chief executive Jason Harfield. Liberal senator Sean Edwards asked how a government-owned monopoly with no competitors could justify paying bonuses.

The hearing canvassed evidence of a complex web of persona­l and corporate connec­tions among Airservices executives, consultants and contractors, variously described­ by senators as “incestuous” and “dodgy”.

It emerged Airservices has paid a consulting group, the Inter­national Centre for Complex Project Management, several million dollars to advise it on the program to integrate the civilian and military air traffic control systems by 2021, called OneSKY.

An ICCPM consultant, former RAAF officer Harry Bradford, has already been paid $1 million to act as Airservices’ lead negotiator in talks with the successful prime contractor, international aerospace group Thales.

Thales Australia’s managing director, Chris Jenkins, is also chairman of ICCPM, prompting senators to ask why there was not a conflict of interest with Mr Bradford paid by Airservices to negotiate on its behalf a deal with the head of his own consultancy group.

In addition, a former ICCPM officer now employed by Airserv­ices, Steve Hein, helped process a payment of contract services provided by ICCPM, whose managing director is his wife, Deborah Hein. Mr Harfield told the hearing he could see no conflict of interest, and said “we have very stringent probity and procedures”.

Labor senator Joe Bullock told Mr Harfield “you occupy a parallel universe”. Mr Harfield eventually admitted he could not guarantee that the Airservices board knew of the interconnections when it signed off on giving the prime contract to Thales. The deputy chairman of the committee, Labor senator Glenn Sterle, said the whole scenario left him “gobsmacked”.

Senator Xenophon said: “It’s imperative that the chair of Airservices Australia, Sir Angus Houston, be called, together with any board members that he wishes to bring with him. The buck stops with the board, and there were many unanswered questions.”

The Australian has been told the committee intends to seek an investigation by the Auditor-General. The committee chairman, Liberal senator Bill Heffernan, said “it may be appropriate for the committee to not only call the board, but also have consideration with regard to the Australian ­National Audit Office”, but he declin­ed to comment further.

Airservices spokesman Rob Walker did not answer questions put to the organisation.

 Hmm...wonder what happened to 'Marie Antoinette'....

For mine a comment from 'Alexander' nails down the current 'elephant' in the Minister's office.. :

Alexander

5 hours ago

This is just another example of a failed experiment, that is the creation of 'independent government business units' coupled with 'user pays'. Air Services Australia and its twin Civil Aviation Safety Authority both demonstrate that being removed from direct Ministerial control is disastrous for the industries they are supposed to service and actually cost the taxpayer more even with their excessive fees. The nonsense is of course that without competition any relationship to 'business' is just fanciful.

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

You can run but you can't hide.....

"Senator Xenophon said: “It’s imperative that the chair of Airservices Australia, Sir Angus Houston, be called, together with any board members that he wishes to bring with him. The buck stops with the board, and there were many unanswered questions.”

Oh dear, secret squirrel An(g)us won't like that. He hates being out of the bunker and sitting in an open field! However this would be highly appropriate to have him and his co-Board members made to front the Senate. I mean they are accountable for taxpayer money that has in some cases been fraudulently misappropriated, wasted, spent on bonuses, spent on shonky items, and all done in an 'incestuous and dodgy' manner. Plus the fact that a CFO and CEO have departed recently is indicative of some major issues inside the organisation. The Chairman has lost control of his ship.

"The Australian has been told the committee intends to seek an investigation by the Auditor-General. The committee chairman, Liberal senator Bill Heffernan, said “it may be appropriate for the committee to not only call the board, but also have consideration with regard to the Australian ­National Audit Office”, but he declin­ed to comment further".

Absolutely. Bring it on. Let's see just how murky the ASA waters are! I think the ongoing sham under Pumpkin Heads leadership is an abomination. Successive leadership issues, poor department and management practises, never ending stories of incompetence, bullying, obsfucation, and utter lies are rife within the alphabet soup agencies must surely make his reign untenable?

And as for the Miniscule, well ultimately he is the one presiding over this entire circus act. I wonder what the Amazon Woman Crudlin and 'One term Tony' think about this unfolding tautological mess? Oh well, the IOS warned you all when you came into power that you would be expected to live up to your aviation promises (which you haven't) and now you are reaping what you have sown!

Heck, you never know, maybe sections of the IOS community have other 'secret documents' ready to be shared around? It would be good wouldn't it. Let's just hope so.

Tick tock dipshits.......

[Peetwo]

ASA, OneSKY contractor, dodgy records & Malaysian connection??

Slight change of tack courtesy of some links sent to me via our friendly, Google-fiend frog - oceankoto...

Altantuya and Malaysia’s 13th general elections

By
Greg Lopez
– 9 June 2012Posted in: Elections, Malaysia, Najib Razak

As Malaysia’s thirteenth general elections draw near, the ghost of Altantuya appears to haunt the Prime Minister.
On 19 April, 2012, a Paris court began inquiry into the Scorpene submarine deal from when Najib Razak was the Defense Minister:

Suaram (Malaysia’s leading human rights organisation) has announced that an inquiry into the alleged corruption linked to the purchase of the two Scorpene class submarines, back in 2002 will commence on Thursday, 19 April 2012, at the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI), a court that deals with civil litigation matters.

John Berthelsen, the editor of Asia Sentinel, has extensive coverage of the intricasies of this case in this article:

French investigating magistrates probing the US$1.2 billion sale of submarines to the Malaysian Defense Ministry are targeting, among other things, a Hong Kong-based company called Terasasi (Hong Kong) Ltd., whose principal officers are Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s close friend and the friend’s father.
Investigators believe that at least some of the €36 million funneled through Terasasi ended up in the pockets of Najib, who was Malaysia’s defense minister and deputy prime minister when the two Scorpene submarines were purchased from Thales International or Thint Asia. The state-owned defense giant DCN, later known as DCNS, and Thales established a joint company named Armaris to manufacture the submarines in 2002.

Most shocking to date has been this article by Roger Mitton in the Phnom Penh Post:

Soon after meeting her in Hong Kong, Razak took her off to tour Europe in his red Ferrari, wining and dining at all the best spots and finally ending up in Paris where they met Najib.

Multilingual Tuya, as well as being drop-dead gorgeous, was also smart and quickly learned about the huge bribe for the sub deal and doubtless envisaged a handsome cut for herself.

But succumbing to “fatal attraction syndrome”, she clung relentlessly to Razak, and he, fearing that her indiscretions might bring him down, tried to end the affair.

She would not have it, and in desperation, he spoke to Najib and the police were called in to keep her away.

Two aggressive Special Branch officers took their assignment literally and kidnapped her.

Then they raped her, shot her in the head and blew up her body with C4 explosives from Najib’s defence ministry — and for good measure, erased her entry into Malaysia from immigration records.

While it is unlikely that the court case in Paris and the media reports will have much influence on the United Malays National Organisation’s (UMNO) hard core supporters as well as large traction of rural poor and indigenous people at the coming general elections, the case itself will have far reaching implications for Malaysia’s leadership and its international relations, if Prime Minister Najib Razak is ultimately found guilty.

  
..& also here (English translation) - When Thales torpedo the campaign of the Malaysian Prime Minister



Hmm...Thales certainly have their fingers in a lot of big pies - connection? Maybe or maybe not, but there is no doubt they are very used to making dodgy deals---   TY OK

 Alright thread drift over...ziiipp P2  

[Kharon]

Hmm...Thales certainly have their fingers in a lot of big pies - connection?

Not quite the way I'd frame it, but 'twill suffice.. .. .

[Peetwo]

ASA in the real world??- God forbid!

Well enough of multi-national corporations their gluttony, incest & government bribery tales - err..for now maybe??
Since the Hansard release is still-- -- strangely delayed, we will have to continue with the picture record...

Top of the 1st Act we had A/CEO JH still (at that stage) full of bullshite & bluster head to head with, a sometimes bumbling, Senator Bullock...   

Ding!   First choc frog for Joe I reckon but key for the Tim-tam cupboard for NX, for quietly ensuring a vital cog of the evidence chain will now be forth coming...

That youtube vid also perfectly lines us up for the latest News Corp coverage of the ASA trough feeders inquisition. And with another development it looks like this potentially embarrassing stand off has now escalated to the attention of the PMC - err TICK...TOCK Minister.. :

Let Airservices Australia feel heat of competition: Maurice Newman  

• by: ANNABEL HEPWORTH
  
• From: The Australian
  
• August 22, 2015 12:00AM
  

National Business Correspondent
Sydney

Tony Abbott’s top business ­adviser says the government should consider exposing key functions of Airservices Australia to compet­ition. Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business ­Advisory Council and a former ASX and ABC chairman, said greater competition was “an area that governments should consider very seriously”.  

He noted that Britain’s air traffic control was now operated via a public-private partnership in which the government owns a 49 per cent stake. “If anything could be done to free up or make more efficient Australia’s transportation, be it in the air or coastal shipping, it’s something to be ­considered and, if found to be plausible or reasonable, be implemented,” Mr Newman said.

“I think anything which leads to greater efficiency in transport­ation, anything that makes us more competitive internationally, has got to be looked at.”

Investment bankers have pitched the idea, while businessman and aviator Dick Smith told a Senate committee this week that Airservices’ functions of rescue, firefighting and air traffic control should be opened up to competition. Airservices is a government-owned monopoly provider of air traffic control and aviation firefighting and rescue.

“The problem with Airservices is, it’s the reason the Soviet Union collapsed,” Mr Smith told the ­inquiry. He said “all of the air traffic control towers could be opened to competition”, and was critical that aviation rescue and firefighting services here were run as a government-owned monopoly.

“The problem with Airservices is, it’s the reason the Soviet Union collapsed,”

Mr Smith has been arguing for fire crews at regional airports without control towers to man the Unicom radio to provide pilots with air traffic and weather information, though Airservices chairman Angus Houston has said the focus should be on readiness to respond.

The office of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss said the government had no plans to privatise Airservices and noted that its primary function was air safety. Rescue and firefighting staff “need to be able to respond within time-critical deadlines to safety incidents”, his spokesman said.

Also, air traffic control functions operate as an integrated national network and if this is split into separate entities, it has “potentially adverse safety, ­efficiency and ­operational impacts”.

A draft policy review of the ­requirement for aviation rescue and firefighting services at Australian airports is due before the end of the year. United Firefighters Union Australia national secretary Peter Marshall warned privatisation could pose a clear conflict between shareholder interests and public safety, which could be a “recipe for disaster”.

Nevertheless, the ­National Commission of Audit said there was potential to outsource some of Airservices’ activities. The Productivity Commission last year recommended a government scoping study into the merits of privatising some or all of Airser­vices’ business activities.

“Reforms of previous governments have ensured Airservices Australia is a pure service provider and undertakes no safety regulatory functions — indeed it must hold licences from the air safety regulator,’’ the report stated. “It is common in Europe for aviation fire and rescue services and air traffic control around airports to be provided by individual airport operators or their contractors.”

  
"..Warren Truss said the government had no plans to privatise Airservices and noted that its primary function was air safety. Rescue and firefighting staff “need to be able to respond within time-critical deadlines to safety incidents”, his spokesman said.."

Umm...Minister once again I don't think your Mandarin, minders & minions are doing you any favours..

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

“Sen. Bullock calls Bollocks”

Solid gold, an AP classic from P2 and that’s without the picture.  Have a look at those faces in the still shot.  Red tie looks like a rabbit about to get hit by a bus, a priceless “Oh shit” moment; and, purple tie looks like he’s the one just thrown red tie under it.   Did you ever see such a look as the one PT is giving RT; if looks could kill eh?

What a pair they make; but watch the purple tie closely through the clips and listen carefully when it condescends to speak; what a singularly unprepossessing pair they make.

Toot toot.  Speaking of troughs' and matters Porcine.

[Peetwo]

Nothing to see here, move along...tick...tick...tick   





Short interlude while we continue to wait for the Hansard record to be released

Firstly from that happy little chappy from Tassie...

Tasmania air radar system failed 22 times in a month  

• by: Matthew Denholm
  
• From: The Australian
  
• August 24, 2015 12:00AM
  

Tasmania Correspondent
Hobart

Tasmania’s $6 million air radar system has failed up to 22 times in a month, prompting demands for an ­inquiry.  

Veteran aviator Dick Smith said yesterday an independent probe was needed to find out why the TASWAM system appeared to have been a costly failure.

Introduced in 2010 after several near misses, the Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration system uses signals received by 14 ground ­stations to triangulate aircraft ­positions.
Pilots, including Mr Smith, say the system should — and was meant to — provide radar control to guide planes to the ground at Hobart and Launceston airports.

Instead, below 8500 feet it is used only as a “situational awareness” tool by tower-based air traffic controllers, who rely on radio contact with pilots and visual ­observations to keep planes apart.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s online database shows more than 90 failures in the TASWAM system between its introduction in mid-2010 and May 2013. Although no failures appear since then, Airservices Australia suggested yesterday this was likely to be because of an administrative problem and that more failures were likely to be occurring.

Mr Smith, a former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman, said an inquiry had to determine who to blame for the $6m system failing to deliver reliable radar guidance to the ground.

“One or two reports of a system failure may not be a safety concern, but when you get more than 90 that is an unbelievable safety issue because it shows that the system is not working,” he said.

A planned CASA review of Hobart and Launceston airspace was revealed last month, after The Australian ran a series of articles about TASWAM’s limitations and pilots’ frustrations at the lack of full radar control.

However, Mr Smith and other pilots are sceptical a review will result in major change. Airservices failed to implement a 2010 CASA recommendation for radar control to low altitude in Tasmania.

Mr Smith said he did not trust the agencies to find out why TASWAM had failed. “There has been a cover-up; the inquiry must be ­independent,” he said.

He called on Airservices to say whether the reports had ceased in May 2013 because management had directed air traffic controllers to stop lodging the paperwork.

Airservices spokesman Rob Walker denied this, suggesting failures still were reported but inexplicably did not appear online.

He said the number of failures was within a “normal range” and reports generally referred to temporary outages involving one of 14 ground stations, rather than a complete system-wide failure.

He said the most significant month was March 2012, when 22 outages were recorded.

“Most months it’s one to three (failures) ... across the 14 stations,” he said. “To have one or two out­ages a month, and some months with no outages, would be within the normal range of operational serviceability and reliability for any of our surveillance equipment ... around Australia.”

He said none of the failures was judged by the safety ­bureau as warranting investigation and insisted Tasmanian airspace was safe and well managed. Of 26 airspace incidents in Tasmania since 2010, only seven had related to air traffic control and none was linked to radar surveillance. Airservices contests the claim TASWAM was intended to provide radar control to the ground.

And then from the local MMSM rag another 'Dear Wazza'...

Air scare issue escalated: Rene Hidding writes to Deputy Prime Minister over Tassie safety failings

August 24, 2015 12:00am
MICHELLE PAINE Mercury

Aviator Dick Smith says he has warned Tasmania about its aviation safety.

INFRASTRUCTURE Minister Rene Hidding has written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss about Tasmanian air safety.

The Sunday Tasmanian yesterday revealed 27 breaches in the state’s airspace had been recorded since a monitoring system was installed in 2010.

Ten of the lapses involved commercial passenger jets, Australian Transport Safety Bureau data showed.

Aviator Dick Smith warned Tasmania risked a major accident if air traffic control flaws were not addressed.

Mr Smith, who said he was “horrified” by the findings, has warned Tasmania before about its aviation safety.

Mr Hidding said he had raised the issue with Mr Truss.

“I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister in July to raise these concerns with him,” Mr Hidding said.

“I am pleased that this issue will be considered as a matter of priority by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.”

Labor leader Bryan Green also weighed in yesterday.

“We’d urge the Federal and State Governments to consider the comments made by Dick Smith very carefully,” Mr Green said.

“Mr Smith has a wealth of experience in aviation and his remarks should be taken seriously.

“We’ll be seeking a briefing on the safety concerns raised by Dick Smith.”

Controversy has dogged Tasmania’s $6 million multi-lateration system, considered better technology than convention radar, which was installed five years ago.

Critics said the system was not being used below 8500 feet, compromising safety on Hobart and Launceston routes.

Mr Smith said radar to ground level was essential in mountainous areas including Tasmania and he believed the state had been short-changed.

Tower controllers in Tasmania use a process called “procedural separation” involving radio and visual contact below 8500 feet, which Mr Smith said was a “1940s system”.

 
....Lockhart River (CFIT)...Norfolk Island (wx unforecast)...Melbourne (stuffed up approaches x ??)...Mildura (Fog un-forecast)...Adelaide (LOSA)...Darwin (LOSA x ??)...Newcastle (BOS/LOSA x ??)...Melbourne again (BOC..YMEN v YMML & LAHSO..WTF??)...Albury/Sydney (birdstrike or ???)...Newcastle (Coal loader arrival - WTF??)...Moranbah (Duck'n'dive)...Hobart/Launceston (ATC system fail x ???) etc..etc..etc.
ASA/ATSB/CASA - All good..nothing to see here move along....tick..tick..tick 

MTF...P2   

[Gobbledock]

Of risks, red flags, ridiculous responses and a rooted system

Firstly this unpalatable response from cash cow ASA;

"The Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s online database shows more than 90 failures in the TASWAM system between its introduction in mid-2010 and May 2013. Although no failures appear since then, Airservices Australia suggested yesterday this was likely to be because of an administrative problem and that more failures were likely to be occurring".

So, we have untold amounts of safety occurrences for 3 years, unmitigated. Then all of a sudden the reporting just stops!! Magic?? Then they tell us 'well the incidents are probably still occurring'!!! Are these people serious??? This is an absolute disgrace and an obvious case of burying an issue.
So what are CAsA doing? Why haven't they picked this up during an audit of ASA? Why does an operator get smashed for covering up safety issues yet the Regulator and it's 'client' ASA can ignore/bury/circumvent safety on a whim? This is a crock of pooh.

And this;

"He called on Airservices to say whether the reports had ceased in May 2013 because management had directed air traffic controllers to stop lodging the paperwork.
Airservices spokesman Rob Walker denied this, suggesting failures still were reported but inexplicably did not appear online".

Read the above in bold. What an absolute load of shite. They may as well say 'the dog ate the reports from 2013 onwards, so sorry'! Well one thing is for sure, the Senators won't be fooled by such infantile make-believe pony pooh.  

Please Mr ICAO and Mr FAA, come back and audit our Australian nupties. As Derryn Hinch would say 'SHAME SHAME SHAME'.  

Tick tock Miniscule, your minions and mandarins are really showing themselves and you up for how competent you really.....aren't!!

Doc

[Peetwo]

ASA in the real world??- God forbid!

Let Airservices Australia feel heat of competition: Maurice Newman  

• by: ANNABEL HEPWORTH
  
• From: The Australian
  
• August 22, 2015 12:00AM
  

National Business Correspondent
Sydney

Tony Abbott’s top business ­adviser says the government should consider exposing key functions of Airservices Australia to compet­ition. Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business ­Advisory Council and a former ASX and ABC chairman, said greater competition was “an area that governments should consider very seriously”.  

He noted that Britain’s air traffic control was now operated via a public-private partnership in which the government owns a 49 per cent stake. “If anything could be done to free up or make more efficient Australia’s transportation, be it in the air or coastal shipping, it’s something to be ­considered and, if found to be plausible or reasonable, be implemented,” Mr Newman said.

“I think anything which leads to greater efficiency in transport­ation, anything that makes us more competitive internationally, has got to be looked at.”

Investment bankers have pitched the idea, while businessman and aviator Dick Smith told a Senate committee this week that Airservices’ functions of rescue, firefighting and air traffic control should be opened up to competition. Airservices is a government-owned monopoly provider of air traffic control and aviation firefighting and rescue...

  
"..Warren Truss said the government had no plans to privatise Airservices and noted that its primary function was air safety. Rescue and firefighting staff “need to be able to respond within time-critical deadlines to safety incidents”, his spokesman said.."

Umm...Minister once again I don't think your Mandarin, minders & minions are doing you any favours..

Follow up to Maurice Newman's opinion, today there is this from off the Yaffa...

Regional Association backs call for Private ATC
25 Aug 2015

The Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) has backed calls to open up Australia's air traffic control to competition from private companies.

In a statement released yesterday, the RAAA said they fully supported Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council in his call to open up key functions of Airservices Australia to competition.

“Airservices Australia is a government monopoly service provider in serious need of an independent review”, said RAAA Chair Jim Davis. "There is no reason why functions such as control towers and airfield fire-fighting services should not be opened up to competition.

“If Airservices Australia was opened up to private sector competition, or even private/public partnerships, there could be more efficient air traffic control and significant public savings, with no decrease in safety.”

Currently, Airservices Australia has a monopoly as the only entity CASA has licensed to provide air traffic and fire-fighting services. In many other countries, including the UK, services are open to tenders from private companies.

"Monopolies inevitably take advantage of their market position to the detriment of their customers," the RAAA statement concludes. "Airservices Australia is no different and should be exposed to the mitigating influences of the market."

In November 1999, then Minister for Transport and Regional Services John Anderson promised to phase in competition for air traffic services, a policy that seems to have since been abandoned by successive federal Coalition governments.

Estimates in the aviation industry suggest that the cost of providing air traffic services could be halved if the system was open to competition.

Here is the full RAAA Media Release:

MEDIA RELEASE

Opening up Airservices Australia

24 August 2015

The RAAA fully supports Maurice Newman, the federal government’s most senior business adviser, with his call to open up key functions of Airservices Australia to competition.

Similar moves in other countries have proven that government monopolies can be improved significantly when they are subject to the market place forces. Recent Senate Hearings into a range of worrying tender probity issues and the high turnover of senior executives have also raised concern across the regional aviation industry.

“Airservices Australia is a government monopoly service provider in serious need of an independent review”, said RAAA Chair Jim Davis.

“There is no reason why functions such as control towers and airfield fire-fighting services should not be opened up to competition.”

He concluded “If Airservices Australia was opened up to private sector competition, or even private/public partnerships, there could be more efficient air traffic control and significant public savings, with no decrease in safety.”

The RAAA also notes the significant turmoil within senior leadership ranks of Airservices Australia over recent weeks. This has raised questions across industry as whether the $1.6b OneSky project, that will replace the current air traffic system, is being managed optimally.

It must not be forgotten that every dollar Airservices Australia receives comes directly from industry, including a guaranteed 10% dividend paid to the Government. When industry sees exorbitant bonuses being paid to senior executives at the same time that a senate hearing is questioning the probity of the OneSky project, serious questions must be asked.

Monopolies inevitably take advantage of their market position to the detriment of their customers. Airservices Australia is no different and should be exposed to the mitigating influences of the market.

Media Enquiries:

Paul Tyrrell, CEO

Mob: 0438 114 372

Strewth the pile in the Miniscule's  aviation in-tray must quite impressive by now??---


MTF...P2

Ps Passing strange that Hitch's take on the RAAA MR is minus any reference to OneSKY or the Senate Hearings 

[Peetwo]

Houston (Skidmore & Boyd) we have a problem??

Fresh off the Yaffa (cheers Hitch.. ):

(K. Lovell)


AOPA demands Compensation for ADS-B Mandate
28 Aug 2015

AOPA Australia has demanded full compensation for aircraft owners if CASA and Airservices continue with the ADS-B fitment mandate for aircraft in all classes of air space.

In a letter sent to CASA boss Mark Skidmore dated 25 August, AOPA president Mark De Stoop says the organisation will withdraw support because the original Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has proven to be flawed, and the cost of fitting the equipment is much higher than stated.

"AOPA's position has always been to support new technology that improves safety," De Stoop says. "We believe that ADS-B in areas that previously had no radar coverage has the potential to improve safety in controlled air space.

"We provided this support, however, on the clear understanding from the CASA Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) and the Joint Consultation Paper (JCP) circulated at the beginning of the planned implementation that the financial impact to the GA community would be at very worst cost-neutral.

"We now find ourselves in the situation that the costs of the final developed policy are very substantial to our members."

In the initial RIS, it was estimated that ADS-B would stand to save general aviation $4.1 million in fuel costs every year, but last week Dick Smith presented figure to a Senate inquiry into Airservices Australia that put the cost position to GA at negative $62.2 million.

"We as an organisation took the financial assumptions stated in the RIS to be correct and hence we provided our support for the policy," De stoop said. "If these assumptions are in fact not correct then AOPA will withdraw its support.

"The fact that our members are indeed significantly cost disadvantaged, at the end of the policy formulation, suggests the RIS financial assumptions, or modelling, are indeed incorrect."

De Stoop goes on to call for CASA and Airservices Australia to adopt the US ADS-B policy where the Federal Aviation Administration will not mandate ADS-B for flights in Class E and G airspace below 10,000 feet.

"If CASA/ASA continue to mandate that all GA in the IFR category be fitted in all air space, that AOPA's position is, it will insist on behalf of its members, full financial compensation for costs incurred to aircraft owners as per the original Joint Consultation Paper and Regulatory Impact Statement."

CASA has mandated that all aircraft flying under Instrument Flight Rules be fitted with ADS-B Out equipment by February 2017.

Dick on the ADSB RIS etc.:

Senator XENOPHON: The regulation impact statement that you refer to—was that done in about 2008 or 2009? What year was it?

Mr Smith : I understand it was done in 2009. If I could just explain automatic dependent surveillance broadcast to you, it is a great idea. It is a little black box which sits in the aeroplane and transmits the GPS position. We all know of GPS in someone's motor vehicle. It transmits their position back to air traffic control. In Australia we have two major centres—Brisbane and Melbourne. So the position of your aircraft will appear there.
That, you would think, adds to safety. In fact, Sir Angus Houston in an article in The Australian a couple of weeks ago, where he was rebutting my criticism, said, in effect, 'Dick Smith is wrong. We don't need to do airspace change because we've leapfrogged into automatic dependent surveillance broadcast and Australia is leading the world.'
Unfortunately, what was not mentioned is that most of our aircraft in country areas fly in non-controlled airspace. We are very unusual. I did send this document to every senator. It is a document from when I was involved, believe it or not, way back on 12 December 1991, with the AMATS airspace changes. It says 'stage 4 IFR to IFR separation provided in low-level airspace'. That means instrument flight rule planes, which are ones in cloud, are going to be separated, which means they are going to be controlled by air traffic control, in low-level airspace. You might think, 'That's very strange—aren't they now?' But no. In Australia we had a system where air traffic control basically controlled the high-level airspace and the major airports.
Senator XENOPHON: What is 'high level'? Is that 10,000 feet and above?

Mr Smith : Above about 24,500 feet en route and stepping down to the major airports—Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane. Then there was a separate union, the flight service officers, that gave radio information to pilots, and pilots became their own air traffic controllers.

I was the chairman in 1991, when the board decided that the first step in moving to a more modern airspace system was to increase controlled airspace. So aeroplanes at busy country airports would indeed be controlled from the centre in Melbourne or Brisbane.

Unfortunately, that never happened. We have never actually done the upgrade of the airspace, and there is a good reason for this. First of all, most airline pilots, having learnt on the uncontrolled do-it-yourself system, like that system. It has so far not resulted in a midair collision. We have had some very near problems with it and we did have an accident at Benalla that could possibly have been solved by controlled airspace. But pilots are normally picked psychologically to follow rules. The best pilots are the ones that follow the training they have had. That is what we want. If you do decide to change the rules, people naturally resist, unless there is some really good leadership and communication. That unfortunately failed, and so as of today—and you can work it out: from 1993 to now is 22 years—we still have no low-level, class E controlled airspace, as it is called.

By the way, we managed to get the controlled airspace down to 8,500 feet from 24,500 feet, so that was a start. But where the collision risk is greatest is close to the airport and where there is a chance of running into a mountain, which air traffic control can prevent, because if you are on a radar screen there can be an alarm system which rings an alarm for the controller if you are off track. But in Australia at places like Ballina, and every non-tower airport in Australia—and there would have to be 50 or 60 that take airline traffic—they are in completely uncontrolled airspace. That means when the pilots are in cloud, they call each other and hopefully self-separate.

Just yesterday, there was a terrible accident Irian Jaya. Fifty passengers were killed in that plane crash. It won't have been flown by Stone Age people; they will be competent, internationally AKR rated pilots. The plane would have been equipped with an enhanced ground proximity warning system. But the most likely cause of the accident because it is the most common accident by professional pilots around the world is that it will be a controlled flight into terrain. We will find that that is non-controlled airspace in Irian Jaya and someone has possibly made an error which is not hard to do and descended off the track below the minimum safe altitude.

Just to give you an example of how ridiculous our system is, Airservices have put an ADSB transmitter in at Horn Island, not very far from where this accident site was. Below 18,000 feet at Horn Island there is no controlled airspace. So the pilots change onto the aerodrome frequency and talk to each other in the way they would have in the 1930s to separate. That is an ideal airport to put controlled airspace as we now have automatic dependent surveillance broadcast and all the airline traffic coming in from 18,000 feet and above has had equipment fitted now for over a year.

What I am commenting about with this regulatory impact statement is that the document was done six or seven years ago. It was originally based on the fact that they were going to subsidise general aviation aircraft. They were going to pay for the equipment to go in the general aviation fleet of about 8,000 aircraft. That would be the only way you could justify it because fitting ADSB equipment has some savings to the airlines when it comes to direct tracking in controlled airspace that would give them probably some millions of dollars per year savings, but general aviation really can get no measurable saving out of it.

Senator XENOPHON: Sorry, but that is inconsistent with what the regulatory impact statement said. It said there were savings across the board.

Mr Smith : Yes. The regulatory impact statement is severely flawed. It is a completely dishonest document.

Senator WILLIAMS: Who put that statement out?

Mr Smith : The statement was put out by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. It is quite amazing, because what happens in the bureaucracy is that if someone makes an error, and it is quite simply that there has been a serious made, then everyone closes ranks and says, 'No, don't even discuss it.' I have even had a special meeting with the minister, Warren Truss, over a year ago about this and he finally came back to me and said, 'It was done in 2009, so it can't relooked at.' I am sure he would have been told by the bureaucracy, 'Minister, we can't relook at that,' and he would have been given all these reasons. I even asked Jeff Boyd, who is now the chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and I said: 'You've got to get the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to relook at this. There are serious errors in it. It needs to be done accurately.' The CASA expect pilots to be honest and I said that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has to be honest. But, so far, Jeff Boyd, has not been able to get this relooked at.

The problem is in about 18 months time, a requirement will come in that every single aeroplane in Australia that flies in cloud—and that is every little plane that flies at Bourke or Broken Hill, or Bathurst,, at the flying school—will have to spend anything between $10,000 and $20,000 on fitting this equipment, but they will get no measurable advantage at all because they are in uncontrolled airspace. Even though if there happens to be an ADSB transmitter close by—and to save money Airservices have put in hardly any—the number they have put in gives coverage above about 29,000 feet. But America is putting them right across the country to give coverage down to 2,000 feet. Airservices have not done that because that is the way maximising profits but saying, 'We're the first with ADSB,' when, in effect, at low level where you need it to prevent planes running into mountains, we do not have any coverage.

But let's say I happen to know there is coverage with ADSB at Birdsville; there is a transmitter there. The positions of the small planes will appear very accurately on the air traffic control screen in Brisbane, but because the pilots are in uncontrolled airspace the controller will call the pilot and say—as they did in the 1930s—'Traffic is; aircraft and Metroliner doing an approach', and the pilot then will have to change off the air traffic control frequency, become the air traffic controller, call up the plane and self-separate. Let me explain. If it was the American system—or in fact the system in just about every other country I have flow in, and I am fortunate enough to have done five flights around the world and studied airspace everywhere—then the plane in cloud would be under air traffic control and would not necessarily be told about the other plane but would just be told, 'Commence the approach' or 'Hold at 5,000 feet' or 'Turn left' or 'Turn right' and would in effect be vectored to the approach or told to do the instrument approach which is in the flight plan. A plane departing might be told to hold on the ground for two or three minutes until the plane coming in is visual.

The problem, and the reason I have linked this regulatory impact statement with OneSKY, is that they are purchasing the OneSKY system for the old airspace system. We have not gone to the airspace system that was government policy under the Hawke government and Kim Beazley as minister in 1991 and then 1993 because of a number of claims. One is that it will require a huge number of extra traffic controllers. You have already heard that the cost is nearly $1 billion a year for our air traffic control now. But the interesting thing is that when you fly in Australia—and I fly all the time; I flew my aircraft down today—a lot of the time you fly—

Senator Xenophon interjecting—

Mr Smith : I happened to fly a helicopter today, but it can be—

CHAIR: We will not say which one it was like!

 
Or if you prefer...

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

Dick, SAAB Sensis & Co call Bullocks on ASA..

From that 'happy little chappy' from Tassie..

Airservices Australia ‘lying’ over use of Tasmania’s radar system  

• by: Matthew Denholm
  
• From: The Australian
  
• August 29, 2015 12:00AM
  

Tasmania Correspondent
Hobart

Airservices Australia has been accused­ of lying about why Tasmania’s radar system is not used to control aircraft at low altitude, after the company behind the system revealed it was designed precisely for that purpose.  

The government-owned air traffic controller has repeatedly suggested the $6 million TASWAM radar-like system introduced in 2010 was not intended to provide radar control of planes below 8500 feet.

Instead, it has suggested its limited use of the system below this level — as an aid to assist “procedural separation” by tower-based controllers relying primarily on radio contact with pilots — is in line with TASWAM’s objectives.

However, The Weekend Australian has obtained a press release­, issued in the US by the company that supplied the system, which categorically states that it was intended to replace procedural separation with full radar control to the ground.

The release by Sensis Corporation, made to global media on November 1, 2010, after TASWAM began operating, says the system means Tasmanian airspace is “now controlled”, allowing radar controllers to “separate aircraft in both en route and (in) terminal airspace”.

It describes this as a “safer, more efficient use of the airspace in a region that was previously controlled with procedural separation”.

However, five years on, airspace below 8500 feet at the Hobart and Launceston airports is still controlled by procedural separation, described by the Virgin Indepen­dent Pilots Association as “nowhere near” as safe as radar control and by aviator Dick Smith as a “1930s” system.

Airservices has accused The Australian of inaccurate reporting in suggesting that TASWAM was not being used to the extent originally intended.

However, yesterday, Sensis — now called Saab Sensis — stood by its 2010 statement that TASWAM was intended to provide radar control to 150 metres from ground level, allowing a “safer, more efficient” system to replace procedural separation.

“From a technical perspective, the system is capable of that (radar control to the ground): at the end of the day, it’s up to Airservices and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to determine how they use it,” a Saab Sensis spokesman said.

“We’ve never had any concerns or issues raised by Airserv­ices Australia in relation to TASWAM operational function.”

Airservices insists procedural separation is safe and appropriate for the level of traffic at Hobart and Launceston airports, althoug­h CASA has ordered a new review of Tasmanian airspace in light of a rise in traffic.

Mr Smith, a former CASA chairman, said the revelations from Saab Sensis showed Airservices had been “lying” to the public to “cover up” its failure to use TASWAM, which uses signals­ to triangulate plane pos­itions, as intended.

“It just shows that Airservices are not telling the truth,” Mr Smith said.

“We are going to end up with an accident before anything happens­. Someone has made a serious­ mistake here.”

CASA has said it will not approve­ the use of TASWAM below 8500 feet because it does not provide sufficient coverage.

Airservices air traffic control general manager Greg Hood did not directly respond yesterday to Mr Smith’s claims, or suggestions that Airservices had misled the public, but insisted Tasmanian airspace was safe.

While not commenting direct­ly on whether TASWAM was originally intended to provide radar control to the ground, he suggested it had allowed safer, more efficient use of Tasmanian airspace as stated in the Sensis press release.

“Airservices uses the TASWAM system to safely and effic­iently manage over 70,000 aircraft movements in Tasman­ian airspace each year,” he said.

A CASA report in December 2011 quoted air controllers and managers complaining that TASWAM was “worse” the previously patchy old-style radar based in Launceston that it replaced.

Minutes of a May 2012 meeting with stakeholders suggest Airservices representative Kent Quigley discussed “coverage issues­” with TASWAM and “the infrastructure required to improve­ surveillance”.

The 2 comments from Rod and old mate Botswanna O'Hooligan are worth regurgitating..

Rodney

2 hours ago

there has to be something involved in this issue that is outside the technical changes happening in the air control system, my guess is that there are union or company vested interests being looked after before they consent to newer and safer tech being used to the full, now, I don't know if unions are involved- they usually are- or if the air services -company has an agenda for its people all of its own, but if wee read of such issues in many other company's we would immediately think, union or company self interest before the general public's safety was the reason. this could range from govt entity's to insurance issues, or even manufactories interests, I certainly don't know, but this is an issue that has been coming up for decades over air services actions. the real reasons for this perception of background noise needs to be exposed.
rod qld

Botswana O'Hooligan

50 minutes ago

Think unions and bureaucratic dinosaurs and you get fairly close to the nub of the matter. Way back when runway 07-25 in Sydney was the main runway and it had the latest in technology with a red white vasis for visual glideslope guidance and a brick chimney was a bit of a hazard to think about when on the ILS on to runway 16, they spoke about an alternate airport, and fifty years later they are still talking about it. That's basically where Airservices are too, fifty years behind and the distance is increasing.

 
MTF...P2