[Gobbledock]

Well said Kharon well said!! Two chocolate frogs and a large chocolate sex shop phallic treat!!

The tall lanky and overly confident Sir Anus was indeed on fire. Well dressed, dyed brown hair and large hands enthusiastically gesturing, leaning forward in body language and looking like he was ready to rumble, to take on the senators in a tables, ladders and chairs wrestling match. The knighted one has certainly been dusted in several layers of Teflon and he has proven why he has held lofty positions throughout his greasy pole climbing career. In true disloyal style he comfortably threw any and every human obstacle under the bus, comfortably and confidently, a little bit like how a Mafia Don puts bullets into the forehead of his opposites and then sits down to a pasta meal and reads the kids a goodnight story. In regards to what he offered the Senate I call bollocks.

Harfwit. Dear oh dear. An angry proud man who also held contempt for the senators. But didn't he dress well, and the swept silver Stefan hairstyle was meant to impress! But alas dear Halfwit it didn't. Your obsfucation and contempt for the Senators was not only unacceptable but it highlighted the fact that ASA has deep rooted issues. Again, what you offered the Senate I call bollocks.

Now for the Hoodmeister. Again he looked the part, a little crook still, but nice tie and suit. The 1950's ducktail is certainly odd, but perhaps he was going to watch the stage show Grease with his elderly Chairman, Sir An(g)us after the Senate? But at one point I thought Hoody was going to either puke or laugh at some of the pony pooh dribbling out of Sir An(g)us mouth.
But for at least half of what he spoke I call bollocks.

Herr Beaker. Although his turn is in a few weeks time I did enjoy how An(g)us also stepped on Beakers grave. But it will be enjoyable watching Beaker in a few weeks time mi mi mi-ing in front of the Senators. Will he have his safety net, the beard, to hide behind during the questioning? Dunno, but can't wait to see!!

Overall ASA failed to disappoint me as they performed exactly as I suspected they would! And most certainly the committee room cleaners would have been working overtime cleaning up the vast volumes of elephant dung, piles of the stuff, littered around the room, even over the walls. Tsk tsk.

"Safe spin doctoring for all"

[Farmer Joe]

Having just come in from the spud paddocks , thought I would indulge in some what my mother calls "NBN waste of time" and a Boags' liquid lunch.

Dazzlingly fast to the ATSB home page.

And now the missing double go round LAHSO incident at Melbourne listed on the investigations web page.

A third aircraft apparently involved that also got airborne, a 777 to Singapore.

Nick Xenaphon identifies and ATSB shamed into action.

Maybe he should be doing the SAFESKIES keynote, be a lot more interesting!

As for the Senate last week, I watched it with my father.

Well known for his wisdom, he commented after with a saying of Confucius:

"he who talks so much has something to hide"

Back to the bush paddocks to kill a few wallabies.

Farmer Joe

[Peetwo]

Having just come in from the spud paddocks , thought I would indulge in some what my mother calls "NBN waste of time" and a Boags' liquid lunch.

Dazzlingly fast to the ATSB home page.

And now the missing double go round LAHSO incident at Melbourne listed on the investigations web page.

A third aircraft apparently involved that also got airborne, a 777 to Singapore.

Nick Xenaphon identifies and ATSB shamed into action.

Maybe he should be doing the SAFESKIES keynote, be a lot more interesting!

As for the Senate last week, I watched it with my father.  

Well known for his wisdom, he commented after with a saying of Confucius:

"he who talks so much has something to hide"

Back to the bush paddocks to kill a few wallabies.

Farmer Joe

Good catch FJ, for the benefit of those interested...

[*]Summary
Summary
The ATSB is investigating simultaneous missed approaches involving two Boeing 737s (registered VH-VXS and VH-VYE) at Melbourne Airport, Victoria on 5 July 2015.
During Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO) on runways 27 and 34 (crossing runways), the two aircraft conducted simultaneous missed approaches. During VH-VYE’s missed approach from runway 34, air traffic control manoeuvred the aircraft to maintain wake turbulence separation with a departing Boeing 777.
The investigation is continuing.
 
General details
Date:
05 Jul 2015
 
Investigation status:
Active
 
Time:
18:20 EST
 
Investigation type:
Occurrence Investigation
 
Location   (show map):
Melbourne Airport
 
Occurrence type:
Flight below minimum altitude
 
State:
VIC
 
Occurrence class:
Operational
 

Occurrence category:
Incident
 
Report status:
Pending
 
Highest injury level:
None
 
Expected completion:
Jul 2016 
 
Aircraft 1 details
Aircraft manufacturer:
The Boeing Company
 
Aircraft model:
737-838
 
Aircraft registration:
VH-VXS
 
Serial number:
33725
 
Operator:
Qantas Airways
 
Type of operation:
Air Transport High Capacity
 
Sector:
Jet
 
Damage to aircraft:
Nil
 
Departure point:
Sydney, NSW
Destination:
Melbourne, Vic.


Aircraft 2 details
Aircraft manufacturer:
The Boeing Company
 
Aircraft model:
737-838
 
Aircraft registration:
VH-VYE
 
Serial number:
33993
 
Operator:
Qantas Airways
 
Type of operation:
Air Transport High Capacity
 
Sector:
Jet
 
Damage to aircraft:
Nil
 
Departure point:
Canberra, ACT
Destination:
Melbourne, Vic.


Aircraft 3 details
Aircraft manufacturer:
The Boeing Company
 
Aircraft model:
777-31HER
 
Aircraft registration:
A6-EBU
 
Serial number:
34484
 
Operator:
Emirates
 
Type of operation:
Air Transport High Capacity
 
Sector:
Jet
 
Damage to aircraft:
Nil
 
Departure point:
Melbourne, Vic.
Destination:
Changi, Singapore
 
 
 


Last update 10 September 2015

[*]

Well done Senator X...

MTF...P2

Ps Dear ATSB I think you have a typo on estimated completion date? July 2016 - Shouldn't that be July 2020?

[Farmer Joe]

P2,

Thanks for posting the details from the ATSB Website.

One interesting point.

Please note Occurence Type: Flight Below Minimum Altitude.

From the interplay of words between NX and Mr Hood I was expecting a LOS or LOSA, confirmed by rumours by the Devonport refuelers when I dropped off export potatoes last week.

If it was only a flight below minimum altitude surely only one flight should be listed and not three. Stranger and stranger?

Makes me wonder what Airservices submitted?

Farmer Joe

[Gobbledock]

Spud farmer;

"Nick Xenaphon identifies and ATSB shamed into action.
Maybe he should be doing the SAFESKIES keynote, be a lot more interesting"

Indeed, an excellent idea. Gets my vote. And while they are at it perhaps young Hannah who used to work in Nicks office could also give a safety speech! That kid did more analytical work, research and data reviews and understood investigative procedures more than Beaker ever will. Then again, the ATSB groundskeeper, the after hours dunny cleaner and the bloke who repaints the fire exit doors knows more about safety and investigations than the bearded freak.

Gobbles

[Peetwo]

Well it took a week (which is quite bizarre ) but finally Hansard is out - see here. Relevant to recent posts the following quoted transcript is Senator X questioning on the strange situation where an apparent 'serious incident' that ASA reported to the ATSB went unrecorded till NX brought it up..

Senator XENOPHON: Can I just go to the issue of LAHSO—the land and hold short operations—in Melbourne on 5 July 2015, which has been put to me. I think, Mr Hood, you conceded that that was a serious incident. I am not sure if my information is correct in respect of this, but it seems that there was a double go-around at Melbourne Airport on 5 July. You stated that the ATSB is investigating the matter. Is that right?


Mr Hood : That is correct.

Senator XENOPHON: This is probably a question for ATSB, but can you confirm whether that is the case? Are they looking at it?

Mr Hood : The ATSB advised us on 24 July that they are investigating the occurrence.

Senator XENOPHON: For some reason, I could not find the incident listed on the ATSB's current safety investigations and reports on its website. You do not know anything about that? I am not suggesting you should.

Mr Hood : No. They advised us on 24 July that they were investigating the incident and, obviously, they will be following that up as a matter of course.

Senator XENOPHON: Normally it would go up on the website, wouldn't it?

Mr Hood : As a normal matter of course, but I cannot answer for the ATSB.

Senator XENOPHON: No, and I do not expect you to. I would not dare suggest that you answer for the ATSB. I think we can ask them in a few weeks time.

     
Like much of Hansard the devil is always in the detail so enjoy...
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

“Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder”.  Plato.

The latest Hansard reflects how beauty is perceived and how the eyes of those ‘beholding’ see things differently.  

For example, we have a Senate panel, pushed for time, I wonder how they perceived the Houstoblame almost three pages ramble; which, despite the time constraints, was delivered in whole.  It could have been tabled; words to the effect that being aware of the time constraints, being used to sooth committee and open the floor to questions.  But no, this monologue is far more important than Senators questions as it sets up the escape hatch, for those fortunate enough to be sitting next to it.  The side benefit is that the monologue steals valuable time, which could have been used more effectively.  Your perception as to the beauty in this ploy will very much depend on point of view.  I have no idea what it costs, per minute, to run the committee in real numbers; time, staff, salary, transport etc.  But it’ll be significant, ASA like our other aviation service providers seem quite happy to burn up that cost.  Beautiful – I think not.

Some of the questions were, in my perception, beautiful.  But to others, the diverted, obfuscated, delaying answers may seem to be the pinnacle; again, perception.

To some, the tactics of the ASA may be laudable, to others disgraceful.   Then we have to risk of embarrassing the Minister and by extension the government who must find the fabulous sums of money the new ‘must-have’ system will cost, from industry.

Aye, old Plato knew, way back then what the game was and how best to play it.  

MTF, probably; it was an interesting session and as P2 remarks, the devil is in the Hansard details.

Toot toot.

In England we have come to rely upon a comfortable time-lag of fifty years or a century intervening between the perception that something ought to be done and a serious attempt to do it.  H.G. Wells

.

[Kharon]

Of perception - continued.

On page 4 (Hansard) Houston brings in the framework on which ASA are to dance:-

The word perception is used 16 times during the session, three times within the endless, time wasting Houston monologue

Houston - The issue of probity: immediately after the last Senate hearing, the board was very concerned. I guess we learnt some things too. We had concerns about some of the perceptions that were out there, so we put some terms of reference together and we employed Allens to do some work for us. Allens' work is ongoing, but I asked them to come and brief the board this afternoon on their interim findings, after about 10 days work. I will just run through what they have found, thus far, noting that there is still more work to be done.

Here, the notion of ‘perception’ is brought into the opening gambit, just ahead of the “Allens” bait. No doubt Allens is a fine company, reputable, honest and impartial – however, they are constrained within their terms of reference (ToR), the ones they are ‘employed’ under by Air Services.  So, if the cookie pot is off limits under their remit, no mention of the sticky finger marks on the lid will be made.  Neat ain’t it.  We see a lot of this; ToR being written shall we say, with a narrow focus.

Houston - Firstly, the probity framework for the OneSKY procurement process was adequate, robust, sound and consistent with market practice. Secondly, they agreed that there is a possible perception of conflict which requires additional management, but this possible perception did not have any actual effect on the tender process, including the evaluation of tenders and selection of a preferred tenderer. Thirdly, there is no evidence that the issues raised by the Senate resulted in any improper influence, bias, favour or breach of confidence or any incompatibility between duties to the program and the personal and financial interest of those involved.

Our perception dilution, begins here; no longer a ‘perception’, but a “possible” perception, and the ‘probity’ pawn is brought into play.  Confident that no evidence will be found - ToR strike again? Nah, not from ASA, they wouldn't do anything underhand, would they?

Houston - Firstly, the probity framework for the OneSKY procurement process was adequate, robust, sound and consistent with market practice. Secondly, they agreed that there is a possible perception of conflict which requires additional management, but this possible perception did not have any actual effect on the tender process, including the evaluation of tenders and selection of a preferred tenderer. Thirdly, there is no evidence that the issues raised by the Senate resulted in any improper influence, bias, favour or breach of confidence or any incompatibility between duties to the program and the personal and financial interest of those involved.

The masterful defence strategy is now in place; but - is it enough to take a the committee foot off the gas pedal?  Turn over, and Page 5.

CHAIR: Does the finance group have any say in any of that?

Sir Angus Houston: The process is a discrete process. It is an independent process. The way it happened at Airservices was exactly the same as for all of the processes that happen at Defence. I am familiar with a large number—literally hundreds—of projects in Defence. That tender process, where you assess the tenders, is always highly confidential and highly sensitive. I would doubt that the commentary you got comes from anybody on the inside. What I might do is get the person who is very intimate with the detail to—

Senator STERLE: Before you do, Sir Angus—I put the question to Mr Harfield, when he left last time, and Mr Logan, and I referred to meeting numbers. Could I just confirm that they are true documents?

Mr Harfield: Draft board papers.

Senator STERLE: Okay. So, Sir Angus, we have board paper copies here. I am sure they have not come from outside. That is what has raised the eyebrows in the commentary on OneSKY.

Sir Angus Houston: The point is that the board is not involved in that tender process.
Senator STERLE: I understand that, but I do not think that has fallen out of a Weeties packet in Civic.

Sir Angus Houston: What I am getting at is that I do not think anybody who was involved in the tender process would have been responsible for the leak.

Senator STERLE: In the process.

Sir Angus Houston: Yes. That is all I was getting at.

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

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

Senator XENOPHON: Thank you.

Mr Harfield: If I can just go back to Senator Heffernan's question about people from finance being involved, one of the tender evaluation working groups around the financial part of the evaluation was led by one of our senior managers from finance. They were on the tender evaluation committee, as well as a number of subject matter experts, and on the tender evaluation board which actually signed off. The chief financial officer was a part of that tender evaluation.

CHAIR: If I can just slip through this, with these sorts of documents we need to say, 'They're not right' or 'They are.' So:

• Having given the advantage to Thales, the Program is on the verge of incurring additional costs that would cost industry … at least $200M more than what it should.

• More importantly, the Thales group was selected on the understanding they already had an ATM product in the market. It is now obvious to the Program that significant investment in the development of a technical solution is required, thus negating any competitive advantage Thales may have had at the start of the tender evaluation.

• Because senior Program management sold the story Thales was the only viable option to the board, they are now covering up their actions to avoid embarrassment. This cover up will cost the Program hundreds of millions of dollars.

• The reason why they wish to cover up their actions is that—

This is open for you to tell me to go to hell on, because I am just reading a document that has come internally from your organisation—
… a private consultant, named Harry Bradford, is being paid $1.1 M per annum!! The Deputy lead negotiator, Andrew Pyke, is being paid $550k per annum. They are now protecting their positions at the detriment of the Program. These two senior consultants are being protected by the Executive General Manager of the Program— Which is you.

More importantly, the Thales Group has proved to be quite disorganized in their preparation of the Program. They have not met any of the scheduled milestones thus far. This has resulted in significant delay to the rollout of the Program.
And so it goes on. We have received this so we say,' Who do we believe?'

Mr Harfield: I can understand that. Let me take you through, point by point, as we have gone along. First of all, that anonymous note that was sent out and was actually sent to Lockheed Martin, at one stage, with the material attached to it.

It’s all pretty much downhill from here; IMO, the only thing saved ASA from another public flogging was the ‘in-camera’ session which took a little pace off the ball; well that and serious time constraints.   Doughty as the Houston defence was, I’m not convinced the Senate committee bought it, not all of it at least.  The repercussions, like the real evidence and promises made will occur behind closed doors, in-camera.

How would you like to be a fly on that wall?....... ....Probity and the perception thereof.

Toot toot.

[Kharon]

How the Senate 'perceived' the possibility of probity.

Page five: Sterle and Heffernan take us tantalizingly close the ‘nub’ and set up the board for a breach of the ASA Houstoblame defence: it is an interesting construct and for those interested in the finer points, worth reading.  The results of the construct, the realisation that the defence is breached slowly begins to dawn on page 7:-

CHAIR: As a competitive tender, if the $200 million goes on top, does that mean the selection of the tender process was inefficient in that someone else might have been able to do it for less? It appears to me that the proposition that they had an advanced down-the-road program was not true. The curious thing for this committee was the husband and wife on both sides of the fence proposition. Did you think it would have been good to err on the side of caution and say to the husband and wife team, 'You'd better remove yourself from the process'?

There is further development of strategy, Harfwit keeps using the shovel, digging the hole he’s standing in, ever deeper: Sen. Back chimes in with a soothing, soft question or two which exposes the distracted Harfwit flank:- then; the ‘Harfwit Anger Management’ symphony begins, softly, adagietto, at first; becoming allegretto

CHAIR: My advice is that the husband and wife team were involved in the assessment of the process rather than the actual process—is that right?

Mr Harfield: Your advice is incorrect. They had nothing to do with the tender evaluation process, or anything to do with the OneSKY tenderer selection.

CHAIR: So what did they have to do with it?

Mr Harfield: What they were involved in—

CHAIR: They were on both sides of the fence on some issue, I know that. So what was the issue?

Mr Harfield: The issue that you are referring to is the fact that the husband became an employee of Airservices Australia, and during my absence, and acting in my previous role, he signed off an invoice that had his wife's name on it. That was released as part of a freedom of information request; that was the issue that was brought up at the last hearing.

CHAIR: And why was his partner's name on the invoice? Who did she represent?

Mr Harfield: She was the chief executive of the International Centre for Complex Project Management.

CHAIR: I would have thought, for the person independently standing at the back of the room, that that was an issue.

Houstoblame rushes on stage waving the probity, perception cure-all Allen’s flag, as the Chair get the knife a little too close to sensitive areas of the boards anatomy.

Sir Angus Houston: If I could just finished that off, Allens will be looking at that particular issue in their probity review.

Sen. Back then pours a little more soothing oil, offering the time honoured ‘QoN’ get off the hook card, distracting and relaxing the victims while the ‘quiet achiever’, the softly spoken Bullock gets set for the overture.  Nobody’s fool this Bullock fellah –

Page 8. After a short softening up intro, to ensure the intended victims have underestimated his firepower:-

Senator BULLOCK: [The] International Centre for Complex Project Management, which is the organisation that Mr Hind worked for before he came to work for you and of which Mrs Hind has been CEO since July 2014, have had some input into this whole area. And they have been contracted for, I believe, a considerable amount of money—over $4 million?

Sir Angus Houston: No; I do not believe so.

Mr Harfield: Since 2011, it has been $4½ million—$20 million; this is for the contracting of everybody in the—

CHAIR: Everyone.

Sir Angus Houston: Yes; not just the Hinds.

Senator BULLOCK: The last time I checked it was a lot of money.

Sir Angus Houston: I know; that is fine.

Senator BULLOCK: This was what we covered last time. I will just give you an overview so we can get started. The International Centre for Complex Project Management has a board. The chair of that board is the managing director of Thales. So, to the extent that they have been involved in this process, the ultimate beneficiary happens to be the company that the chairman of that board runs. The negotiation of the contract details with the chairman of the board was given to a board member, Mr Harry Bradford, who, I think, is pulling down $1.1 million a year for his efforts. We have the husband and the wife, the board of this centre, the contract ultimately going to the chairman of the board, and the details of the contract being negotiated with that company by a member of the board.

I was asking questions about perception of conflict, because that just seems to be covered, and I would be very interested in reading the Allens report when it comes down, because it seems that you are alert to this, too. But given your heavy involvement in governing and oversight in OneSKY, you would have known all of this and presumably had some measures in place for dealing with it?

Sir Angus Houston: The board shares your concern about the perception issues. But the initial report from Allens has established that it is a perception issue. There is no activity from which people have made money, or classical—

Senator BULLOCK: A few people have made some money.

Sir Angus Houston: The Allens review will look at all of these aspects. The board was not aware of the relationship issues between the Hinds. The board was not aware—

Senator BULLOCK: Sir Angus, I am not a technologically sophisticated individual, and I got this off their website. It was not as if I was the world's greatest detective; I just looked it up.

Straight back to board and it’s cleverly exposed sensitivities.  Bravo Bullock.

Sir Angus Houston: The board had not been exposed to that. The board's job is to ensure that the framework is in place and that management look after the probity issues.

Senator BULLOCK: I would have thought the board would have been quite concerned about probity issues.

Sir Angus Houston: We are. We share exactly the same concerns that you have just verbalised. I have had the Hein situation explained to me by management. I am satisfied that it is unfortunate. It creates a perception of conflict of interest, but in actual fact there is no real conflict of interest there.

Senator BULLOCK: With respect to the role of Mr Hein in the awarding of a contract of this sort, I accept that. It was a loose thread that got pulled that got me to where the real money is.

Sir Angus Houston: Of course it was. It should not have happened. It is one of those things that we were concerned about, but we have looked at it. It is a lesson learned. It will not happen again.

Senator BULLOCK: Ah! That is where I was going to get to, because it is one thing to have Allens come in and say, 'Look, you got lucky. There's nothing to see here.' It is another thing to have the systems in place to ensure that it never happens again.

Sir Angus Houston: Hark back to my opening statement. I said that, essentially, Allens had given us the preliminary report. We are happy about that, but they still have a lot more work to do.

Senator BULLOCK: They have looked beyond the immediate Airservices role, deeper into the interplay of other parties?

Sir Angus Houston: We put together some terms of reference which means that they leave no stone unturned. They will go through the whole probity subject. They will speak to everybody. They will look at every single document, and they will make sure that there are no further problems, no further issues. They will make recommendations, and I promise you that the recommendations that they come up with will be implemented by the board. You will get visibility of the report and the way we implement the recommendations.

From page 8 through to 10, the layers of fancy wrapping are peeled off, subtly, by an astute Bullock using a very sharp knife.  Heffernan steps in and ends the allegro con brio.

CHAIR: Could I just pause you there. Obviously we have been concerned about Airservices for some time. You may recall, or you may not, that I told them to 'grow up' at one of these hearings, because they were obviously blueing with one another down below board level. But from the board's perspective, the Mr and Mrs issue should have rung a bell, down further from the board, that said, 'Hang on.' All human endeavour has failure and we see it every day, but apparently it did not ring the bell—otherwise it would not have happened. I mean, it is sort of basic.

One of my favourites - for the Senate crew.  Bravo.

[P7_TOM]

I find it truly alarming that a minister can continue to not only ignore all the facts presented by a Senate standing committee about his three aviation ‘safety’ agencies but continue to accept the ‘all’s well’ advice from those agencies; against well considered advice, backed by pure fact from his own Senators.  

The Senators are not spinning yarns – they are in there, working hard and earning their well deserved keep, constantly exposing the reefs, whirlpools and storms the ship of government must sail through.  No Sir, they are dealing with fact, testimony, evidence and the arrogant, deceitful ways the ‘untouchables’ work.

Perhaps Truss has forgotten his roots; country folk depend much more on ‘regional’ and charter aircraft than the cities ever will, his approach at the moment is set to deprive his own grass roots voters of these much needed services.  Gods help him if Smith and Xenophon hook up and decide to make AIR SAFETY and EFFICIENCY an electoral issue for folk on the land and country towns.  It will be the start of the demise of the NATS.

Bollocks says Wazza; -  No, not so; says I, talk to the folk you represent; or FFS wake up.

Your front line team is deceitful, untrustworthy and worst of all, unforgivably stone motherless useless.

Enough prose – I’m off to the houseboat for a couple of cold ones; could be a long session.

Enough prose – I’m off to the houseboat for a couple of cold ones; could be a long session.

[Kharon]

The pledge, where magician shows you something ordinary.

Page 10 - CHAIR: But there would be other issues besides this damn invoice.

Mr Harfield: No, that is the only issue to do with Mr and Mrs Hind. That was it and, as I said, that was picked up.

Senator BULLOCK: I get the feeling that it is the attitude of Airservices that once the matter hits the conflicts register there is nothing further to be done.

Sir Angus Houston: The point that I would make is that the board is addressing all of these probity issues. Again, I reinforce the point that we will be back with that report and it will look at all of these things in fine detail and it will be accompanied by recommendations that we will implement.

Senator GALLACHER: I accept everything you are saying. You get an investigator and you come back and fully disclose, but Mr Harfield seems to think that there is nothing wrong, that as long as you disclose that you are paying your wife you are good to go. Conflict, and managing it, is about perception.

Sir Angus Houston: Absolutely.

Senator GALLACHER: And that is just dumb. If I make a file note saying I am paying my missus a million dollars, that does not make it right. That does not remove the perception. But, Mr Harfield, you seem to think it does.

The turn -  the magician takes the ordinary something and makes it into something extraordinary.

Senator GALLACHER: Everybody on this side of the table would have just walked away and said, 'Someone else please make that payment.'

Mr Harfield: It was a quotation. The payment was not made by Mr Hind; the payment was approved by the Chief Executive Officer of Airservices at the time—they were not the financial delegate. There is a difference there; it is about understanding what the process was. The fact is that the issue was picked up, mitigated and managed. Real conflict of interest is about perception. These things can occur from time to time and it is about having the processes in place to manage those and mitigate those to ensure that it does not turn into an actual—

CHAIR: Can I just pause you there. The husband—Mr Hind, or whoever he is—he wrote the thing to authorise the thing to be paid further up the trail.

Mr Harfield: No, he did not.

CHAIR: So what did he sign?

Mr Harfield: What he signed was a quotation that had come in from ICCPM—

CHAIR: He approved it to be paid?

Mr Harfield: and signing a memo to the chief executive officer saying, 'This is the quote.' The chief executive officer then signed to say, 'This is okay.'

CHAIR: And the quote came from his missus's side of the fence?

Mr Harfield: Correct. The negotiation of that quotation was not done by Mr Hind; it was done by another member of the Airservices staff.

The prestige.  Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"

Page 11 -Senator XENOPHON: But would Mr Hind have had access to any of that information, in respect of the quotation, in respect of the negotiation? That is the obvious question and that is where the risk arises. 

CHAIR: You mean over tea, when you go home and have a yarn?

Mr Harfield: This was a quotation for services for two individuals based on utilising their services for the next six months. That is what the quotation was on, for services for two individuals saying, 'What would it cost for the next six months?' That was the quotation negotiated by another Airservices staff member. That quotation came in and then that quotation—

Senator XENOPHON: That was not my question, though. This is a matter that is being traversed by Senator Bullock as well. In respect of the negotiations, what safeguards and guarantees were there that the information between the related parties on different sides of the negotiating fence was not, in any way, conveyed to them and that there was not any leak of information? That, to me, would pose a very serious issue. Would you agree with that?

Mr Harfield: Senator—

Senator XENOPHON: Do you agree with the proposition that there is a potential there for a significant conflict while they are involved in negotiations? Because they are husband and wife, on the opposite sides of the commercial fence, there is a potential there for information to be leaked from one to the other. I am not saying it was, but how do you deal with that?

Mr Harfield: What negotiation are we talking about? We are not talking about OneSKY negotiation; we are not talking about anything to do with this. This was a quotation for services, for two individuals, for the next six months.

Senator STERLE: What was the value of it?

Mr Harfield: Off the top of my head, I think it was about $800,000 in total for the services of the two individuals over six to 12 months. I would have to take it on notice.

CHAIR: A person at the back of the room just said to me, 'I went home and saw mummy tonight and said, "By the way I signed off on that thing, $800,000 worth. I sent it up the line for you today."'

Mr Harfield: He did not sign off the approval for $800,000.

CHAIR: No, I understand what you are getting at. Say it again.

Mr Harfield: What I am getting at is that, for example, if you went out and said, 'I want the services of two individuals and I need a quote on how much that would be,' you would get a quote. That quote came in and the discussion about that quote was dealt with by another Airservices employee and then the individual signed off that quote and sent it to the financial delegate to decide whether it would be approved or not. That is what has actually occurred.

Senator WILLIAMS: It has a bad smell to it, doesn't it?

Mr Harfield: As I said, there is a perception thing and that is being reviewed, making sure that it does not

You know, I’m not sure which is worse; that the situation was allowed to develop whether by intent or accident being immaterial; or the strenuous efforts being made in an attempt to justify either.  The old cleft stick; damned and looking foolish for allowing the situation, the alternate damnation coming from being caught behind, on a 'perceived' dodgy, dirty, incestuous little deal (or two).

No matter, the Harfwit tirade, bluster and discomfort made it all worthwhile for me.  Cage rattled? Oh, you bet.

Perhaps I can impose on P2 and ask for the DVD part where anger management fails, to be posted.

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

The (My) bus runneth over

Half-inch has been let down by his own ego. It's now pretty obvious why Frau Staib shot through - this mess and other issues like credit card fraud. It also explains why the CFO went as well - both of them, be pushed under the bus or voluntarily throw yourself under the bus, your choice.

Then we have the smart one, Hoody, very quiet at the moment, including while he is at Estimates. Indeed Hoody has seen this game played out before and he clearly doesn't want to be victim to a Sir An(g)us bus hit and run!

Next we have half-inch, not quite smart enough to notice bus driver Sir An(g)us tearing along at full speed. Poor old half-inch has spent the good part of two decades coveting ASA's top prize - CEO. Tsk tsk, testosterone, ego and stupidity has seen him in a matter of weeks throw his career away. He is tainted goods and there is no turning back. His days are numbered, the bus has already clipped him and the bus driver will flatten him when the timing is right.

Now the bus driver is a wily one, good behind the wheel and has managed to escape getting caught for dangerous driving for decades. The question is will the Senate Police nab him? Are these Policemen good at setting up a covert sting to catch the bus driver with his foot planted firmly behind the wheel? Time will tell. But for the moment those giant moving hands are busy spinning the bus wheel. I believe it is currently travelling along route 666 looking to pick up ASA passengers such as half-inch.

Stay tuned for the next episode of 'On The Buses' (or should that be 'Under The Buses'?) Toot toot goes the bus! TOOT TOOT.

"Unsafe public road transport for all"

[Kharon]

Wllyleaks – special release.

Smuggled out the archives at great risk; provided as a public service advising people to very careful which bus they elect to step onto.  Ernie works part time as an advisor to the minister for Magic, smoke and mirrors department.  Travel at your own risk.

Can we get the same EGPWS voice retro fitted?

Yuk, yuk, Yak… …

[Peetwo]

The (My) bus runneth over

Half-inch has been let down by his own ego. It's now pretty obvious why Frau Staib shot through - this mess and other issues like credit card fraud. It also explains why the CFO went as well - both of them, be pushed under the bus or voluntarily throw yourself under the bus, your choice.

Then we have the smart one, Hoody, very quiet at the moment, including while he is at Estimates. Indeed Hoody has seen this game played out before and he clearly doesn't want to be victim to a Sir An(g)us bus hit and run!

Next we have half-inch, not quite smart enough to notice bus driver Sir An(g)us tearing along at full speed. Poor old half-inch has spent the good part of two decades coveting ASA's top prize - CEO. Tsk tsk, testosterone, ego and stupidity has seen him in a matter of weeks throw his career away. He is tainted goods and there is no turning back. His days are numbered, the bus has already clipped him and the bus driver will flatten him when the timing is right.

Now the bus driver is a wily one, good behind the wheel and has managed to escape getting caught for dangerous driving for decades. The question is will the Senate Police nab him? Are these Policemen good at setting up a covert sting to catch the bus driver with his foot planted firmly behind the wheel? Time will tell. But for the moment those giant moving hands are busy spinning the bus wheel. I believe it is currently travelling along route 666 looking to pick up ASA passengers such as half-inch.

Stay tuned for the next episode of 'On The Buses' (or should that be 'Under The Buses'?) Toot toot goes the bus! TOOT TOOT.

"Unsafe public road transport for all"

GOLD Gobbles absolute solid GOLD - love it

Ferryman - No matter, the Harfwit tirade, bluster and discomfort made it all worthwhile for me.  Cage rattled? Oh, you bet.


Perhaps I can impose on P2 and ask for the DVD part where anger management fails, to be posted.

Not sure if I've captured the moment exactly - there was several where the Sociopath JH nearly lost the plot - but going off the Hansard quote this is what I've captured so far...

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

A half dozen things Turnbull could do for aviation.

I believe it would take the PM less than a hour to earn some significant brown-eye points and settle the aviation ‘scuffles’.  Think of all the happy people associated with aviation telling their nearest, dearest and passengers how MT, the boy from Paddo turned it all around in a heartbeat; what great insight, fantastic leadership and the benefits to the economy beyond calculation.  Bravo that man of vision.

1) Appoint a junior Minister for Aviation; David Fawcett would do very nicely; in fact any of the Senate committee would do.  Anyone who has been through the Pel-Air debacle, the ASRR and TSBC reviews or the ASA performance inquiry would do just fine.  But give whoever the horsepower and a big stick.

2) Get shot of Beaker, Halfwit and Slydmore; then appoint Jeff Boyd, David Forsyth and a half dozen other industry savvy types to form a joint ‘oversight’ committee to enforce the directives of the Junior minister.  Let them set the terms of reference for hiring the new departmental leadership.  

3) Institute changes to the Navigation Acts.  One Act, clearly drafted, constitutionally acceptable, written by those a PM could trust with such a task, give them a time line – say 18 months – the whole thing could be over, done and dusted, by the next election.  Gold star from aviation.

4) Authorise a ‘proper’ redraft of the regulations, by professionals.  The previous money spent has been wasted, accept that and write off the loss.  Declare an amnesty on all ‘alleged’ breaches and appoint an impartial, independent judicial review board to assess, against criminal law tenets each case, on merit, as per CDPP rules.  Winnow out the ‘rubbish’, punish those who need it and FFS remove the ‘aberrations’ against the evidence standards demanded by the law, accepted by the AAAT, used by CASA.

5) Create an ‘accountability’ system for those who work for the government aviation agencies.  Much of the damage to industry/ Govt. relationships has been caused by those who have and continue to use the ‘system’ as a weapon against individuals and companies, without there being any hope, let alone chance of a ‘fair shake’.

6) Last, but by no means least; through leadership and a sense of common decency; remove the fear which is creating anxiety in aircrew; fear of being declared ‘illegal’ and ‘criminal’ without a hope in hell of ever getting a fair hearing – under the rules of evidence – for criminal case law.   If we must use the criminal code, then ‘administratively’ enforced, strict liability cannot be used in it’s stead.  Double jeopardy has not been a fair call for many a long year.  If you don’t think it exists, ask John Quadrio; or, any of another dozen I could name.

None of this is expensive; the tools are already in the box.  Put those powerful  tools in the hands of the right craftsmen and the transformation will take your breath away.  Leave them in the wrong hands and the demise of a once vibrant, profitable, beneficial industry will happen between now and the next election.

It is Sir, that serious, urgent and necessary.  Needs must, when the devil drives.

Selah.

[Gobbledock]

Kharon, I sort of agree. Turdball could use this opportunity to create a fresh aviation start, but I'm not confident. We probably have around 8 months to go until caretaker mode kicks in for a 2016 election. But not much will be done in that time frame as old crusty head Truss remains as DPM, so there goes any real opportunity. Truss cut a deal with Turdball in the hours before Slugger got rolled, and it was a deal that delivered for his National buddies as usual. Truss is active when it comes to those sorts of activities but not when it comes to aviation, he is lethargic, disengaged, obtuse and ignorant. Not to mention he wouldn't know aviation safety analysis from Kingaroy peanuts.

Anyway it's good to see Smokin Joe walk the plank as well as the amazon woman Crudlin and numerous other obsfucators and assorted dross and tosspots. However the question is what does all this means for Australian aviation? SFA I imagine.....

Tick tock Australian aviation.

[Gobbledock]

Wide world of Senates

I thought for a brief moment I would step back in time and post a couple of senate classics. Just a couple of my favourite moments (too many to choose from) but worthy of a laugh;

Kaboom. Pipe bomb moment;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc1gp5P6vek

Dipshits;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tzmN-by9wN8

Person at the back of the room;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=00G9Wfzv5cg

Pot plant Pete;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hoiy-F5gYpE

"Amusing footage for all"

[Kharon]

So many fingers, so few pies.

For the purist, from Hansard p12 – through to 18 there is some interesting ‘strategic’ by play, both Sterle and Gallacher, work the mob like a pair of top class working dogs, showing their stuff for an appreciative audience at the Easter show.  You could see the mob looking for a chance to breakaway and spoil the show, but there’s a reason we use smart dogs rather than another sheep to yard livestock.  QED.

NX was the last cab off the rank and paid the penalty for the previously wasted time, rushed, but not in a panic he asked a series of probing questions, to which he probably had the answers, but wanted the ASA response ‘on the record’.  Not a bad innings at all, as many runs as possible from a limited over match.  There was a part that set the curiosity bump itching.

Senator XENOPHON: Generally not. But are there any circumstances in which a note or memo has been given to CASA, to the Commonwealth or to the ATSB expressing concerns about a particular safety issue where you have, in effect, been overruled?

Sir Angus Houston: No I cannot recall a single instance where we have been overruled. We did have some concerns during Operation Skysafe about some of the airspace. Every proposal that we put forward in terms of airspace change for safety reasons was accepted by CASA. Of course, there is a process. They obviously need to review it for safety and so on.

Sir Angus Houston: Again, if I can take you back, you mentioned the role of CASA and Airservices. Essentially, the assessment that was made when the system was first brought in was that it would not be used for radar-like separation at the lower levels below 7,000 feet because that was the judgement CASA made. Let's just realise what we are talking about here; do you understand how many flights there are into Hobart on a daily basis?

Now, it’s probably me got the horse and cart arse about – again; but, it seems to me we have a very expensive ASA operation, which pays ‘experts’ top salaries to ensure that we purchase the ‘right’ equipment.  It is also apparent that the ASA is master of the airspace, air traffic and responsible for deciding how best to efficiently and safely move traffic between ports.  In short, it’s their show and they jealously defend their starring role.

So WTF has it got to do with CASA?  ASA decide the TASWAM is ‘the’ system, authorise the purchase after doing their homework, authorise the installation, train the ATCO to use the system; everything; except they need CASA to make sure it’s all hunkey-dory.  If the monolithic ASA monopoly needs CASA to hold it’s experts hands, why then are we paying for two sets of experts?   Why can air services not decide whether a thing is safe and efficient? If not, it’s time they were gone and CASA took over; or were told, firmly, to butt out   Passing strange to me, but then, I only know horses and carts.

Toot –. .- toot.

[Peetwo]

Raiders of the lost trough? - He's back, 'that man again'..

Airservices Australia was the major sponsor of the fun and frivolity of the Safeskies (..are deadset empty skies ) and Chair Sir A & AgCEO Harfwit both made major contributions to the gobfest:

Airservices talks technology at Safeskies 2015
23 Sep 2015
[url=http:://auntypru.com/forum/javascript:window.print()][/url]
Airservices Australia Acting Chief Executive Officer Jason Harfield focused on the safety and efficiency benefits that will flow from advances in aviation technology at this year’s Safeskies conference in Canberra.

Mr Harfield took part in the Aviation Policy Group panel session held this morning, which included the Chief of Air Force, Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

Department Secretary Mike Mrdak outlined the key aviation issues facing the Australian industry and Mr Harfield expanded on the role advanced technology will have in service provision, airspace and air traffic management and civil military aviation harmonisation.

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast had already resulted in significantly improved surveillance coverage of aircraft across the continent, including at lower altitudes, as well as closer tracking of oceanic flights across the Pacific, he said.

Meanwhile, Airservices Chair Air Chief Marshal Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC joined a distinguished list of great contributors to the field of Australian aviation by giving the annual Sir Reginald Ansett Memorial Lecture at the conference dinner on Tuesday September 22.

Previous lecturers have included astronaut Dr Andy Thomas, former British Airways CEO Sir Rod Eddington and Qantas CEO Alan Joyce.

Widely-recognised as a pre-eminent event in the Australasian aviation industry calendar, Safeskies is attended by key industry leaders, regulators, government, operators and academia and Airservices is a sponsor of the biennial event.

Under a theme of ‘training for change’, Safeskies 2015 highlighted the rapid and dynamic change occurring in aviation from the demographics of our aviation professionals to the growth of remotely-piloted aircraft.

 Shame that after such a good week of positive spin & bulldust for ASA it may all come to nought, because it would appear that at the last Senate Public hearing (09 September) there was more than a figurative 'person at the back of the room'...

Back from hols 'that man' again, courtesy the Oz:

Audit office looks into Airservices management  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• September 28, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter




Airservices chairman Angus Houston. Source: News Corp Australia



The Australian National Audit Office has secretly launched an investigation into Airservices Australia amid serious concerns about its financial management, executive use of corporate credit cards and alleged conflicts of interest in awarding big contracts.  

The move follows revelations in The Australian in recent months and disclosures at public hearings of the Senate’s rural and regional affairs and transport legislation committee.
Senators across the political spectrum have repeatedly grilled executives of the government-owned organisation that runs the nation’s air-traffic-control and navigation system, and fire and rescue services at airports.

This month, the committee called Airservices chairman Angus Houston to account for how much the board knew about what senators had described as “dodgy” and “incestuous” relationships among senior Air­services executives, a consultancy group hired to negotiate huge contracts on Airservices’ behalf, and the Thales aerospace group, which won a lead contract.

It is understood the ANAO considered a request from the Senate committee to investigate Airservices and came to a view the concerns were warranted.

“They’re doing a review of the whole thing because there are ­serious issues,” a source said.

It is understood ANAO officials attended an in-camera session of the Senate committee hearing this month.

In the public part of that hearing, Sir Angus admitted to some problems with a “perception” of conflicts of interest associated with the $1.5 billion program to integrate the nation’s civilian and military air-traffic-control systems, known as OneSKY.

These included a “husband and wife team” on opposite sides of a transaction between Airser­vices and the International Centre for Complex Project Manage­ment, the consultancy group it engaged in a multi-million-dollar contract to advise it on OneSKY.

Senators also pointed to the fact Chris Jenkins, the managing director of Thales Australia, is also chairman of ICCPM, which employs former Royal Australian Air Force officer Harry Bradford on an Airservices contract worth $1 million so far to negotiate on Airservices’ behalf with Thales.

Sir Angus told the committee “the board was very concerned” at the revelations and had commissioned an external consultancy to examine the issue.

“They agreed that there is a possible perception of conflict which requires additional management, but this possible perception did not have any actual effect on the tender process,” he said.

“There is no evidence that the issues raised by the Senate resulted in any improper influence, bias, favour or breach of confidence or any incompatibility.”

Sir Angus defended Airser­vices executives’ use of corporate credit cards but said at a recent meeting of the board’s audit risk committee, “a lot of the people, even those with very small amounts of credit card fraud, were referred to the police or had their employment terminated”.

Senate committee member Nick Xenophon yesterday said he was not wholly satisfied with Airservices’ responses to a range of allegations. “There are some critical issues of governance that need to be explored,” he said. “There is concern of whether this doesn’t impact on safety.”

Senators are expected to further question Airservices executives next month.
Airservices spokeswoman Vicki Huggins was unable to respond to questions by deadline.

 
Watch this space..

Who is next Murky perhaps?   MTF..P2

[thorn bird]

"Who is next Murky perhaps?"

Oh please, Oh please, Oh please!!

Even if its just for the corruption thats gone on at Bankstown.