[Peetwo]

COVID-19 aviation industry downturn: Perfect time for a purge?

Reference Mr A off the UP:

Lead Balloon,


Airservices has a Board, see here for details <https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/about/our-governance/our-board/>
Boards do not get bonuses, contracted managers do, supposedly tied to "performance".

Targets are set each year (I think though it should be longer) and if you meet the target the CEO decides how much of the bonus you get.

It is however a flawed concept, particularly in the Public Service where performance is not very important, because the manager then concentrates on whatever generates the bonus instead of other "non-bonus attracting" activities.

From an online document <https://hbr.org/2016/02/stop-paying-executives-for-performance>

"As the incoming Chief Executive of Deutsche Bank, John Cryan, recently said in an interview: “I have no idea why I was offered a contract with a bonus in it because I promise you I will not work any harder or any less hard in any year, in any day because someone is going to pay me more or less."

Combined with my previous post, got me thinking that perhaps there is a silver lining in the dark COVID-19 clouds massing over the Oz aviation industry? Maybe the 'Luck Country' 's luck has finally run out? However IMO, this could also be a perfect opportunity to reset and rationalise all the normalised deficiencies and excesses of the aviation safety bureaucracy that accumulated over the better part of three decades. Because to be frank, despite the Government's best efforts with stimulus measures, if the current status quo remains beyond the COVID-19 pandemic disaster there will be no miraculous recovery for most sectors of the aviation industry.

IMO the obvious place to start is to clean out the top echelon of bureaucrats of both the aviation safety agencies and the department while completely overhauling/rationalising/reviewing (as per Mr A above) the executive basis for remuneration and reward for performance. 

The following links are from the transparency portals for ASA, CASA and the ATSB executive remuneration for financial year 2018-19:

https://www.transparency.gov.au/annual-r...18-2019-23

https://www.transparency.gov.au/annual-r...18-2019-66

https://www.transparency.gov.au/annual-r...18-2019-86

Certainly gets you contemplating murderous thoughts when you consider Harfwit's obscene salary ([color=#000000][size=small][font=source-sans-pro, Arial, sans-serif]$769,824) before possible bonuses ($113,100); or the fact that St Commode believes working part time earning 500k+, gives him the right to Lord it over small industry players like Angel Flight or Glen Buckley with inflammatory comments like..."I have the power"; or "Because it's easy".





Then consider that there are many industry advocates and subject matter experts who could fill any of the executive trough feeder's shoes; and within a short time frame out perform the current incumbents with a fair, considered and expert approach to their roles, while receiving a greatly reduced base salary and without the requirement of KPI based bonuses.

Hmm...how much would that save the Govt , while ensuring the industry was firmly set on a positive road to recovery??

Much..MTF! P2

[Peetwo]

For the record: UP thread heating up - 

Ref:

Hooded Canary releases Mangalore mid-air prelim report - 

Via HC central yesterday:

Warning: Bucket may be required for the Hooded Canary segments -   

Read the preliminary report AO-2020-012: Mid-air collision involving Piper PA-44-180 Seminole, VH-JQF, and Beech D95A Travel Air, VH-AEM, near Mangalore, Victoria, on 19 February 2020

For a more damning assessment of the ATSB's findings so far IMO you can't go past the 'Advance' post off the UP -   

  US vs Australian airspace

---

In the USA ALL IFR aircraft are separated by ATC.

Dick Smith has been trying to bring Australian safety standards up for at least 30 years by insisting on the same ATC separation here.
The ATSB report confirms what this forum has known for some time => both aircraft were visible to ATC via ADS-B tracking.
Airservices have a flow chart that demonstrates the workload of providing separation is LESS than the workload of only providing traffic.
WHY?
Each task requires ATC considering the trajectory of every aircraft in the sector.

To separate aircraft, the ATC makes a decision and issues an instruction.

If the ATC passes traffic then the pilot may respond with his decision to change altitude or track or otherwise avoid the conflict.

BUT then the ATC has to assess this change to determine if a different conflict will occur and perhaps pass further traffic.

So let us stop accepting the nonsense argument that it costs more to provide separation compared to traffic information - it does not.

What is the total cost of this accident going to be?

Almost two decades ago Dick organised a trip by both Airservices and CASA staff to the United States with flights arranged to demonstrate the ease of use and safety of Class E airspace.

A very experienced US ATC from the Southern California Terminal Radar Control Unit addressed the team and pointed out how easy it was to provide separation and how safe the result.

John and Martha King of King schools tried very hard to educate the team on why US airspace is as safe as Australian airspace in terms of collisions per flight hour but has so much greater traffic density and thus greater actual safety.

A lot of very experienced pilots and controllers in this country know Dick was right back then and he is proven right again by this accident.

CAN WE LEARN FROM IT THIS TIME???

Given the obvious subject matter expertise on display over on the UP, I thought it was about time I dragged the Mangalore Mid-air Elephant in the sky across to where it belongs. as the passion and sentiment heats up on the UP - 

Mr Approach: From the interim Report (my underlining):


The investigation is continuing and will include further examination and analysis of:

• weather conditions at the time of the accident
  
  
• recovered radios from the aircraft
  
  
• recorded radar data, as well as recorded area frequency calls and recollections of CTAF radio broadcasts.
  
  
• pilot qualifications, experience and medical histories
  
  
• aircraft maintenance and operational records
  
  
• air traffic services actions, procedures and practices
  
  
• traffic density in and around Mangalore Airport
  
  
• classification of the airspace around Mangalore Airport
  
  
• Class G and CTAF operational and communication processes and procedures around Mangalore Airport
  
  
• visibility from both aircraft.
  

Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify relevant parties so appropriate and timely safety action can be taken.

Come on ATSB, should a critical safety issue be identified - FOUR PEOPLE DIED!

Why is this not a safety problem when it could have been prevented with an airspace model and ATC services that were accepted by CASA back in the '90s?

Why was the Federal Government provider of ATS allowed to then argue with the regulator and have the plan overturned? (At a time when it was managing the FAA Pacific Towers that used exactly the separation services they were rejecting for Australia!)

Even the State Safety Programme starts off with complacency:

"Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety, among the best in the world, which has been built on a strong safety governance system, forged over many years."

That's OK then we don't really have to try any harder, do we?

I believe I could guarantee that if the two aircraft at Mangalore had been airliners, with or without passengers, then action would have been taken.

There is a better way, Minister! For the sake of a few dollars and a few more controllers, those four men need not have died.

---

Advance: Responsibility in ATC

---

Let me prefix these remarks by saying I lay no blame at the foot of the unfortunate ATC who had to sit and watch two blips merge and vanish.

That person was doing precisely what they were paid to do and acting in accordance with both training and written instructions.

On 5th October 1999, a train went through a red light at Ladbroke Grove near Paddington London.
31 dead, 417 injured. This signal was known to be problematic - it had been passed eight times in six years though the driver had not been told of this.
This particular signal was almost impossible to see with the sun behind it, and on curved lines, it was not immediately obvious which of a myriad of signals related to the particular line this train was on.
All of this was known to management but nothing was done to rectify the safety deficiencies.
Other known but not corrected safety issues came out at the inquiry.
This is one of the major contributing factors to the UK enacting the offence of Corporate Manslaughter.“Section1. The offence

1. An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised—
   

1. causes a person's death, and
   
   
2. amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased............................
   

So far as I know we do not have an equivalent offence in Australia - yet - but let me tiptoe very gently here.

Airservices is an organisation that provides a service known as Air Traffic Control whose function is to prevent collisions between aircraft...............
CASA has an Office of Airspace Regulation which is required to operate in accordance with a policy statement issued by Michael McCormack and Para 47 reads:

The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government’s airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems include a range of characteristics to be considered, and implemented as appropriate.

Aviation has two sets of rules; VISUAL for those who can see other aircraft and visually separate themselves from others, and INSTRUMENT for those who may not be able to see other aircraft as they are permitted to operate in cloud and conditions where visual separation is not possible.

VERY PLAINLY any system of airspace administration that is able to separate IFR aircaft but does not do so, in the full knowledge that those aircraft may be operating in conditions where they can not visually separate themselves is NOT applying any form of international best practice nor proven international systems.

The CEO of Airservices and the Manager of the OAR are both controllers and should both be thinking very carefully about their responsibility as individuals, let alone as the persons responsible for their respective organisational functions.

May I also most respectfully commend the Chief Commissioner of ATSB, himself an ex-controller and ex Safety Manager of Melbourne Center to consider whether this ongoing unsafe mode of airways operation be permitted to continue or is deserving of an immediate safety recommendation to both CASA and AA.

---

ACMS: You guys can argue about the rules for when ATC are supposed to advise traffic all you want...


BUT, why did ATC wait soooo long to tell AEM about JQF and also to tell JQF about AEM when they should have realized it could be a separation issue quite a while earlier?

JQF taxied at 1111 but AEM wasn’t advised at all until 1119......8 minutes later
JQF taxied at 1111 while AEM was inbound but they weren’t advised of AEM until they became airborne at 1122 .....2 minutes before impact.....why did ATC wait 11 minutes to advice them of AEM descending inbound across their departure track...

So experts can quote required times all you want but to me THEY WERE BOTH ADVISED WAY TOO LATE.....

AEM had a whopping 5 minutes notice of JQF before the impact
JQF had a whopping 2 minutes notice before the impact.

That’s supposed to be the whole idea of calling on the ground, you get given traffic so you can plan BEFORE getting airborne.....otherwise why bother...

---

Lead Balloon: Yep, they were advised way too late.


But we’ll now have to sit through a few years of the unedifying and expensive pantomime of the conflicted ATSB coming up with a report as to why the tragedy was not a consequence of anything other than pilot error. So very ... Australian.

---

Hoosten:

BUT, why did ATC wait soooo long to tell AEM about JQF and also to tell JQF about AEM when they should have realized it could be a separation issue quite a while earlier?

I really don't know how many times it needs to be explained to you? And the others posting similar.


The sector boundaries do not allow traffic to be passed any earlier to AEM than it was. This accident is a combination of airspace classification and airspace (sectorisation) boundary issues.

- The Departures North Controller would have handed the aircraft off to Dookie Sector as soon as Dep North had no separation issues, AEM would have been in controlled airspace when this hand off had taken place. The rules of a handover of aircraft are many. You can't just hand an aircraft off to another controller on a whim. Nine times out of ten the Dookie Controller will launch straight into the traffic statement. 9 times out of 10 the aircraft will acknowledge the traffic and advise the airwork details then switch straight to the CTAF.

- When it is busy at MNG it is virtually impossible to monitor both fequencies when you are conducting an IFR training flight.

- It doesn't matter how many times you say 'they should have had traffic earlier' it CANNOT change unless there is a sector boundary change (virtually impossible given that the terminal needs the boundary where it is to process traffic into ML, AV & EN). Stomping your feet and demanding that traffic be given earlier is analogous to a 6 year old child asking her mother why she can't go to the pub.

OR

- There is an airspace classification change that would have seen these two aircraft positively separated.

---

Advance: Hoosten we have a problem exactly as your last line identifies.

Thanks

---

Nomde plume:

Originally Posted by Hoosten 


Stomping your feet and demanding that traffic be given earlier is analogous to a 6 year old child asking her mother why she can't go to the pub.

4 people aren’t dead because a 6 year old couldn’t go to the pub.

JQF needed that traffic info at taxi because that’s when they had an opportunity to do something about it.

The moment you take off and enter IMC you can do nothing other than climb to LSALT/MSA at an absolute minimum. That’s exactly all they did.

The only thing(sans TCAS) that stops an IFR-IFR collision in IMC in class G airspace is accurate, clear and timely traffic information. The report offers nothing to the first two parameters but is damning of the third.

People are rightfully upset about this. Many pilots on here have lost friends and mentors in this accident.

Go and jump in the driver’s seat of your car on a rainy night with a blindfold on and think about who you’re going to ask to sit in the passengers seat giving you directions.

Don’t try and play down the seriousness of this accident and say all pilots here are 6 year olds. We place an incredible amount of trust in ATC. I have no problem placing my trust in the guys and girls on the other end of the radio. I will continue to place my trust in them.

But something happened here that let them down. It’s not going to be put down to the fact that a CTA boundary 20nm away meant it was all too hard.

---

Hoosten: Nomde plume, I think you need to go back to the start of this thread, read it all the way through. I was accused of being too emotional as I lost a friend and acquaintances as well.

The only thing (sans TCAS) that stops an IFR-IFR collision in IMC in class G airspace is accurate, clear and timely traffic information. The report offers nothing to the first two parameters but is damning of the third.

You know what would have prevented this accident? The appropriate class of airspace for the level of traffic in a supposedly first world country.

You are blaming the controllers when you should be blaming a third world airspace system. You are blaming the controllers when you should be blaming the inability of aviators and public servants in this country to see past their egos and jingoistic belief that we have 'one of the best safety records in the world' so let's just leave things the way they are, the way things were done 20 years ago. Cos nothing has changed right? Oh, except the traffic levels right?

You don't know how a traffic assessment is done by an ATC, you don't know how and when that information is displayed and just when it becomes available. And you most certainly won't get all of that information in the accident report in 2023 sometime.


Yes, we do trust the ATC's. I do too, any time I head up that way. But I also know what goes on on the other side of the mike. So I can give you a heads-up, you are focusing on one part, a small part in the great scheme of things here.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

From the school of 'passing strange' coincidences - cont/-

I note the following from Advance's 'Responsibility in ATC post: ...CASA has an Office of Airspace Regulation which is required to operate in accordance with a policy statement issued by Michael McCormack and Para 47 reads:

The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government’s airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems include a range of characteristics to be considered, and implemented as appropriate...

Now referring to this post extract off Mick Mack's thread:

Not sure about home to roost TB but I think it is about time "K" started up a TAB on how long it'll be before the witless, wonder from Wagga will pause to change feet again?? 

In the meantime this via the other Aunty yesterday...

---

Flying school for Chinese pilots reports racial abuse, laser pointer attacks and jammed radio signals

ABC Mildura-Swan Hill 
By Christopher Testa

Posted yesterday at 5:01pm

PHOTO: QantasLink is among those to have raised concerns about increased activity at the airport. (ABC News: Christopher Testa)
RELATED STORY: Flying school allegedly funded with embezzled Chinese loans

Reports of interference with aircraft radio communications and the use of laser pointers at one of regional Victoria's busiest airports, where a flying school trains pilots for Chinese airlines, are being investigated.

Key points:

• International Aviation Alliance CEO Simon Clemence said tensions over the academy's presence meant it had become "reluctant to even let [the students] out"
  
  
• Mr Clemence, who is also Mildura's mayor, said unknown persons had jammed radio frequencies
  
  
• A spokeswoman for the Australian Communications and Media Authority said it was investigating a complaint
  

The International Aviation Alliance academy has been subject to a number of complaints about noise, however CEO Simon Clemence said tensions over its presence in Mildura had escalated to the point where the academy had become "reluctant to even let [the students] out".

Mr Clemence, who is also Mildura's mayor, said unknown persons had jammed radio frequencies to prevent its aircraft from operating, and aimed laser pointers at its planes.

And, he added, Chinese student pilots aged in their 20s had been subjected to racial abuse on aircraft radios and in public.

"All the rednecks are coming out and quite literally attacking us," he said.

Academy helping amid covid-19: Clemence

The flying school opened to much fanfare in 2019, when Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack announced the Federal Government would contribute $2 million toward the installation of an instrument landing system at the airport.

Mr McCormack at the time said the funding was allocated because Anne Webster, then the Nationals candidate for Mallee, "continually rang me and rang me and rang me" and said the region needed the landing system to attract flying schools to Mildura.

PHOTO: The academy has been subject to a number of complaints about noise. (ABC News: Christopher Testa)

But in recent weeks, enough "distressed" constituents had written to Dr Webster angry about noise from late-night training flights that the MP had written to the flying academy to ask it to consider changing its schedule.

Part of the school's plan to alleviate those concerns involves expanding to places like Swan Hill, whose council this week voted to pursue negotiations that could eventually lead to 200 Chinese student pilots learning to fly at the Swan Hill Aerodrome, despite some councillors' concerns.

Mr Clemence said the academy's presence had helped some businesses in Mildura survive the downturn associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it was even courting interest from the Tasmanian Government.

But while business leaders and local councils were attracted to the academy's promise of an economic boost, Mr Clemence said the students had been subjected to vigilante behaviour in the community.

A spokeswoman for the Australian Communications and Media Authority said it was investigating a complaint about interference to licensed radio communications services at Mildura Airport and had encouraged the airport's management to report the matter to police.

Mr Clemence said while there were genuine community concerns about aircraft noise and foreign ownership, he felt "anti-Chinese sentiment" was fuelling much of the outrage at a time when coronavirus was spreading.

"If this was Qantas, would anyone really be making all the complaints and allegations they are making now? I don't think so," he said.

ATSB found no need to investigate report

QantasLink is among those to have raised concerns about how increased training flights have made Mildura Airport a more difficult place to fly to.

In a recent airspace review, the carrier told the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) it had begun to find radio traffic at Mildura "challenging", with pilots commonly encountering "poor or miscommunication" on radio calls.

Virgin Australia, another of the three commercial airlines to service Mildura, also told the review none of CASA's recommendations would address the risk of "insufficient or ineffective communication" involving student pilots whose first language was not English.

Peter Guest, a recreational pilot from Mildura, said he had encountered communication issues on multiple occasions, and felt it was "just pure luck that there hasn't been a collision yet".

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) contacted Mr Guest this week after learning of an incident last Sunday (April 19) in which he claimed a pilot from the flying school failed to respond to his radio call as he prepared to land.

The ATSB decided no further investigation was warranted.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said more education about radio use at Mildura was planned but stressed the airspace was safe, with three incidents recorded over the past year out of almost 20,000 flights...

---

...And this bit: ...also told the review none of CASA's recommendations would address the risk of "insufficient or ineffective communication" involving student pilots whose first language was not English...

Not the first time interested parties (Airservices/big developers/ local & state govts) to an identified airport/airspace safety risk issue have completely ignored the proposed risk mitigation proposals/recommendations put forward by either our inept aviation regulator; or the ATSB, State Coroners and even the Australian Senate...

Extract from the December 2019 Mildura Supp airspace review:

9 Recommendations The supplementary review does not recommend a change to the airspace classification or architecture.

To enhance and improve the level of service operating in the review area the following recommendations have been made:

Recommendation 1 Airservices Australia should publish a Visual Terminal Chart for Mildura by May 2021.

Recommendation 2 Flying training organisations based at Mildura and Wentworth aerodromes should consider the benefits of developing and submitting an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) for the identification of flying training areas and where gliding or other activities are undertaken.

Recommendation 3 CASA Flight Operations Inspectors should complete a Request for Change to change the Mildura Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF).

Recommendation 4 CASA Aviation Safety Advisors should assist to establish an Aviation Safety Forum at Mildura.

Recommendation 5 CASA Aviation Safety Advisors should conduct a seminar at Mildura by March 2020 providing information targeted towards flying instructors, flying students and airspace users. Subjects such as ineffective or improper radio communication, standard phraseology and others matters identified be included. Mildura should be included as a location for the yearly AvSafety pilot seminar.

Recommendation 6 Mildura Airport should amend the Mildura En Route Supplement Australia entry, to advise visiting aircraft are not to conduct circuit training at any time.

Conclusion The OAR has conducted a supplementary airspace review of Mildura. The airspace review ensured that the airspace complied with the requirements of the Airspace Act (2007), Airspace Regulations (2007), the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (2018), the Minister’s Statement of Expectation (2017) and CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy. The recommendation from the Mildura Airspace Review 2018 is closed. The supplementary review has made six recommendations. The OAR will continue to monitor aircraft and passenger movement data, reported incidents and assess information to determine the appropriateness of conducting the next review.

Keeping the above OAR Mildura Airspace review extract and the 'Advance' OBS in mind, it is worth contemplating what the legal standpoint would be if (God forbid) there was another mid-air collision within /or in the close proximity/ or crossover of Class G/E airspace into a busy CTAF; given the concerns of the RPT operators and the ATCO SMEs on the UP.

QLink had commenced engagement with stakeholders and were seeking feedback on changing the CTAF at Mildura due to the same frequency being used at Horsham and Shepparton. Pilots on descent from flight levels into Mildura require heightened situational awareness due to broadcasts being made on the frequency at different locations. The commencement of flying training at Mildura has further increased this awareness. The current workload has meant this CTAF issue has not progressed and it is requested that it be handed to another agency to complete.

QLink and Virgin Australia provided examples of occurrences when their aircraft experiences issued with a number of aircraft operating in the circuit at Mildura at the time of their arrival. These included an instructor on the ground, providing direction to a training solo pilot over the CTAF, aircraft not responding to radio calls, numerous aircraft in the circuit resulting in an unstable approach and over transmissions from users at Horsham and Shepparton.

This is the Airservices response to the OAR Mildura review findings:
 

ATC was satisfied with the current airspace arrangements.

Back to Advance:

---

..VERY PLAINLY any system of airspace administration that is able to separate IFR aircaft but does not do so, in the full knowledge that those aircraft may be operating in conditions where they can not visually separate themselves is NOT applying any form of international best practice nor proven international systems.
 

---

         
And finally Mr Apporoach with the last word:

---

...Come on ATSB, should a critical safety issue be identified - FOUR PEOPLE DIED!

Why is this not a safety problem when it could have been prevented with an airspace model and ATC services that were accepted by CASA back in the '90s?

Why was the Federal Government provider of ATS allowed to then argue with the regulator and have the plan overturned? (At a time when it was managing the FAA Pacific Towers that used exactly the separation services they were rejecting for Australia!)

Even the State Safety Programme starts off with complacency:

"Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety, among the best in the world, which has been built on a strong safety governance system, forged over many years."

That's OK then we don't really have to try any harder, do we?

I believe I could guarantee that if the two aircraft at Mangalore had been airliners, with or without passengers, then action would have been taken.

There is a better way, Minister! For the sake of a few dollars and a few more controllers, those four men need not have died...

---

MTF? Yes I believe so! - P2 

[Peetwo]

Mr Approach in a nutshell - 

Since the UP Mangalore smash thread has all but ceased in participation, the ATC SME's have migrated to this previously archived thread: How does CASA and Air Services decide whether an airport has a Control Tower?  

As he seems to have a knack for doing (with some obvious inside knowledge - ), IMO Mr Approach nails it for the current deficiencies/status quo of the Australian Aviation safety system (SSP)...

Mr Approach: You are correct Traffic, but the major difference is cost recovery, not cost/benefit.

The US and others are more concerned with providing the services where they are needed, and then working out how they can be provided at a reasonable cost.

• The US does as you describe but does not pass on it's bureaucratic costs to the VFR towers, or insist on using Government employed ATCs. Hence over 60% of the VFR Towers are staffed by retired FAA ATCs on much lower wages than they were getting from the Government.
  
  
• Canada has a not-for-profit Civil ATC organisation, so users know they are paying only what it costs to provide a service. Any windfall surplus is returned to industry.
  
  
• The UK has about 160 ANSPs, all providing services in a contracted system where market forces operate. (Gatwick even employs a German company to provide it's Tower and Approach - but I'm not sure that will survive Brexit!)
  

Australia, on the other hand, has a Government-mandated cost recovery system. Government agencies such as Airservices and CASA are required to charge their customers to recover costs. Airservices charges by the weight of an aircraft, as if that had anything to do with the cost of providing ATC, and CASA charges $190 per hour, which is way beyond what they pay anybody.

Whether the Minister will admit to it or not, (and it is all under the Government's control) this type of regime, in order to fulfill the Government mandate, has to organise itself around where the most money can be extracted. In Airservices case this is over the oceans, the upper flight levels and major terminal areas. With CASA it means dumping all responsibility for GA onto 'self-managing" entities such as RAus and the Glider Federation, while concentrating on AOCs and the big end of aviation. (Yes - I know about the Chicago Convention)

Either the US or UK model would work fine in Australia and indeed, about 20 years ago, the Coalition started down that road of divesting Airservices (that is itself) of aerodrome ATC and Fire Services. There were many vested interests that stopped the process, however then air traffic at our non-controlled airports had not increased to current (non-COVID) levels so there was breathing space.

The mid-air at Mangalore is what, in the safety business, is called a leading indicator, or if you like a warning. Do nothing and it will inevitably happen again

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Dick pitches in on Mangalore midair -

Ref from ATSB delays:

Hooded Canary releases Mangalore mid-air prelim report - 

Via HC central yesterday:

Warning: Bucket may be required for the Hooded Canary segments -   

Read the preliminary report AO-2020-012: Mid-air collision involving Piper PA-44-180 Seminole, VH-JQF, and Beech D95A Travel Air, VH-AEM, near Mangalore, Victoria, on 19 February 2020

Not sure exactly why the Hooded Canary feels the need to put his 2 bob's worth in? Why can't he just leave it to his experts? Perhaps HC is just trying to justify his existence and bloated (nearly 500k) base salary but I do wonder if there isn't some hidden (singing Canary) message behind this?

For a more damning assessment of the ATSB's findings so far IMO you can't go past the 'Advance' post off the UP -   

  US vs Australian airspace

---

In the USA ALL IFR aircraft are separated by ATC.

Dick Smith has been trying to bring Australian safety standards up for at least 30 years by insisting on the same ATC separation here.
The ATSB report confirms what this forum has known for some time => both aircraft were visible to ATC via ADS-B tracking.
Airservices have a flow chart that demonstrates the workload of providing separation is LESS than the workload of only providing traffic.
WHY?
Each task requires ATC considering the trajectory of every aircraft in the sector.

To separate aircraft, the ATC makes a decision and issues an instruction.

If the ATC passes traffic then the pilot may respond with his decision to change altitude or track or otherwise avoid the conflict.

BUT then the ATC has to assess this change to determine if a different conflict will occur and perhaps pass further traffic.

So let us stop accepting the nonsense argument that it costs more to provide separation compared to traffic information - it does not.

What is the total cost of this accident going to be?

Almost two decades ago Dick organised a trip by both Airservices and CASA staff to the United States with flights arranged to demonstrate the ease of use and safety of Class E airspace.

A very experienced US ATC from the Southern California Terminal Radar Control Unit addressed the team and pointed out how easy it was to provide separation and how safe the result.

John and Martha King of King schools tried very hard to educate the team on why US airspace is as safe as Australian airspace in terms of collisions per flight hour but has so much greater traffic density and thus greater actual safety.

A lot of very experienced pilots and controllers in this country know Dick was right back then and he is proven right again by this accident.

CAN WE LEARN FROM IT THIS TIME???

(PWP and cranky).

The 'accidents' we had to have.

A Pipistrel crashed and burned; quite recently. One killed, one badly mauled by the old enemy – fire. Now the culprit is alleged 'engine failure' – an accident happened. Could have been any engine on any aircraft. An unpredictable occurrence, part of the risk matrix, bus, truck, car and even lawn mower motors occasionally quit – without notice – results directly in relation and proportionate to circumstances. Unavoidable.

But what of those accidents which were clearly and inexcusably preventable? How do we come to terms with those? Essendon – entirely preventable. The bloody DFO building should never, not ever been allowed. Six dead, with a potential for many, many more.  And yet?

Now four dead in an entirely preventable mid-air collision -

Old Akro (legend) "By definition, IFR aircraft can not separate themselves visually and giving them traffic does NOT solve the problem. IFR aircraft are frequently constrained to fly one flight path and one only - they have no choice; consider an instrument approach for example."

Advance (Choc frog candidate) - “Get on to Worksafe, the Victorian Police, the AFP, your local MPs and point out that the Airservices organisation responsible for separating aircraft had the means to do so but did not; that the CASA OAR organisation charged with implementing international best practice in airspace administration has failed to do so.

Thing that really bunches my panties is the incredible difference in the 'take' between the highway death of four Coppers and the mid air collision between two aircraft. Same ducking body count. The world, his wife and every bleeding heart halfwit on morning TV is wittering on about an explainable road accident, of which we have many. Yet non of these talking heads seem to be in the slightest concerned that a major infrastructure, aircraft separation system has a gaping hole in it; several holes in fact. An allegedly 'fail safe' public transport system has failed four pilots.  No one apart from the responsible ATCO' (bless 'em) and those few remaining flying public transport aircraft, within that deeply flawed monopoly system seem to give a toss that this event occurred despite many, many warnings, issued by experts to several governments that Australia has got airspace wrong.

Four Bobbies killed in the line of duty – a national outpouring, gnashing of teeth and much wailing; furry muff. BUT. Four dead in a mid-air – page three for 12 hours and forgotten. In this day and age of whiz-bang technology the mid air collision should never have been even a remote possibility – and yet, there it is. Done, dusted and waiting down the three years required for ATSB to eventually finish smoothing it all away, under the ever hungry bipartisan carpet.

Will these accidents spur government to come to grips with real 'air safety'? No reason it should – it never has in the past, despite millions spent on gaining the right answers –only  to be obfuscated, manipulated and diluted to a fare thee well. Sickening waste.

Shame, shame on the lot of ya. Disgusting don't cover it, but 'twill suffice for now.

Toot – Aye, Full steam – Toot.

Via Skynews:

'We are flying blind': Dick Smith calls for urgent air safety reforms after fatal mid-air collision
18/05/2020|6min

Former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Dick Smith is calling for the reform of Australia’s air traffic control regulations, following the fatal mid-air collision of two planes at Mangalore in February which killed four people.

Most airports, excluding those in major cities and regional areas, operate in uncontrolled airspace where the responsibility for aircraft to communicate is left to the pilots.

Mr Smith told Sky News “you’re absolutely flying blind up there” and more crashes are likely to occur unless changes are made.

Former US Airforce pilot Richard Woodward was commissioned by the Howard government 20 years prior to reform the country’s low level airspace, but was unable to complete the task due to costs and sector complacency.

Mr Smith’s most recent attempt to prevent introduce safety regulations was brushed off by Deputy Prime Minster Michael McCormack last year, who saw no cause to review Australia’s air traffic regulations and was backed by Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick.

“We’ve operated across Australia for decades without controlled airspace at these airports and we’ve had very few accidents and what I don’t want to see happen is we burden the industry with additional costs, particularly when general aviation is in fact a struggling industry,” Mr Patrick told Sky News.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-1-03-20-quatrai...n-sadness/

..Then, we also had a mid-air collision which killed double the train wreck list; just a country mile from the train wreck. Did the minister and his entourage show up there in suitable costume? No? Then why not? The problems are the same – an unsafe operating environment – ignored and obfuscated by a series of transport ministers. “Your safety is our primary concern”. BOLLOCKS it is. Ducking responsibility is; giving a city swimming pool the money (10 Mill) which would have fixed the track; and, provided another ATCO or two which may have saved four more lives. Six dead in totally preventable accident? WTD are the politicians thinking?

 

The clock is ticking on Mangalore Midair warning??

Following on from the Dick Smith Skynews segment, over on the UP thread, I note the following contributions to the debate summed up perfectly by Leadballoon on all that is wrong with what is essentially a ministerial arse-covering exercise when it comes to Federal Government oversight of Airspace policy and Airservices Australia:

---

Lead Balloon: 

Originally Posted by Mr Approach 
Folks - It is great to see some hitherto unknown names joining this crusade, so please read the Minister's Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) and reflect on the fact that, regardless of his words, we do not provide Class E airspace for any uncontrolled airports with RPT services, never mind those that do not have RPT:

• Para 34 - The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations. Airspace administration should also seek to deliver good safety outcomes to all aviation participants.
  
  
• Para 35 - The Government expects that CASA will continue to review Australia’s airspace as required and continue to move towards closer alignment with the ICAO system and adoption of proven international best practice
  

No point in blaming Airservices or CASA, they are both overseen by the DIRD's general manager Air Traffic Policy, on behalf of the Minister Michael McCormack. The GM's name and address are:
Mr Jim Wolfe
General Manager
Air Traffic Policy
[i]Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
GPO Box 594
CANBERRA CITY 2601
Phone: (02) 6274 7611
Fax: (02) 6274 7804[/i]

From the Airspace Act https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00178:

Part 2—Australian Airspace Policy Statement

8 Minister must make Australian Airspace Policy Statement

(1) The Minister must make a statement (the [b][i]Australian Airspace Policy Statement[/i][/b]).

Note: Generally, CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions in a manner consistent with the statement: see section 11A of the [i]Civil Aviation Act 1988[/i].

Contents of statement

(2) The statement must:

(a) specify and describe the classifications to be used to administer Australian‑administered airspace; and

(b) specify and describe the designations to be used for the purposes of restricting access to, or warning about access to, particular volumes of Australian‑administered airspace; and

© describe the processes to be followed for changing the classifications or designations of particular volumes of Australian‑administered airspace; and

(d) outline the Commonwealth Government’s policy objectives for the administration and use of Australian‑administered airspace; and

(e) include a strategy for the administration and use of Australian‑administered airspace in the future.

(3) The statement may also include any other matter the Minister thinks appropriate.

Consistency with Chicago Convention

(4) The statement must be consistent with the Chicago Convention. However, if Australia has notified differences under Article 38 of that Convention, the statement must be consistent with those differences.

Legislation Act 2003

(5) A statement made under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument, but section 42 (disallowance) of the [i]Legislation Act 2003[/i] does not apply to the statement.

Note: Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the [i]Legislation Act 2003[/i] does not apply to the statement: see regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 54(2)(b) of that Act.

9 Consultation before making Statement

(1) Before making the Australian Airspace Policy Statement, the Minister must consult:

(a) CASA; and

(b) Airservices Australia.

(2) The Minister may also consult any other person or body the Minister thinks appropriate.

10 Statement must be reviewed every 3 years

The Minister must cause the Australian Airspace Policy Statement to be reviewed at least once in each of the following periods:

(a) the period of 3 years after it is made;

(b) the period of 3 years after the completion of the last review.

Summary: Just make shit up. - 

---

MTF...P2 

PS: Shame Senator REX appears to have missed the point, perhaps someone?? would do well to provide a better briefing to REX on what the real underlying safety issues are here before the real wake up call message the Mangalore midair tragedy has so far provided get's lost in another ministerial arse-covering exercise until the next preventable disaster occurs - 

[P7_TOM]

Misquoted – Oh, I do hope so.

Sen. Patrick - “We’ve operated across Australia for decades without controlled airspace at these airports and we’ve had very few accidents and what I don’t want to see happen is we burden the industry with additional costs, particularly when general aviation is in fact a struggling industry,” Mr Patrick told Sky News.

P2 - PS: Shame Senator REX appears to have missed the point, perhaps -someone?? - would do well to provide a better briefing to REX on what the real underlying safety issues are here before the real wake up call message the Mangalore midair tragedy has so far provided get's lost in another ministerial arse-covering exercise until the next preventable disaster occurs 

BOLLOCKS and Yes. 'Someone' should inform the good Senator of a few, very simple facts; for instance:-

ASA is NOT a 'for profit' business. It is an essential national infrastructure which keep the travelling public a bloody sight safer than any 'screening' at regional airports ever will or is ever likely to.

ASA is not a for profit business. It is, essentially, an expensive national AIR safety system which separates aircraft – avoiding mid air collisions; the attendant press lunacy and political sound bite grabbing.

ASA is not a for profit business. The cost of ADSB and the obsolete white elephant of 'one big pie' have failed – dismally -to prevent two aircraft, in cloud, colliding.

What more ducking proof do the Bi Part Insane mutts in parliament need before they realise that Australia is about 20- years behind the current world best practice? Putting aircraft and passengers 'at risk' and all that just to support a bottom line and KPI bonus – Nah. Bullshit.

Dear Senator – with respect, you are talking out of your fundamental orifice – there are areas which 'demand' positive separation of aircraft. If ASA broke even or even ran at a small loss; surely the Bipartisan parliament would appreciate that is all in aid of providing the very, very best system – for their safety.

OA – (legend) “Either way, the cause of this accident lies at the feet of AsA and / or OAR. And I think if previous submissions were reviewed, it would be found that they had warnings. There is not the faintest hint in the preliminary report that either aircraft crew has contributed as was speculated by many on this forum (the UP)  imimmediately after the accident.



OA – (legend) - 4 people are dead because they put their trust in a deficient system that failed them. Compare the attention that 4 police officers who died on the Eastern freeway is getting. It would appear that at least 1 person will go to jail for a long time for the Eastern Freeway incident. This is an event of greater significance and should get the same attention.


There – free of charge (and without expectations).

Talking to windbags always make me thirsty – so you see, boys and girls; every cloud does, indeed, have a silver lining. "Two here please – yes, I know I'm drinking alone, but not for long".

[Peetwo]

Ref: http://dicksmithaviation.com.au/

To the tea lady.

It only seems fair, diplomatic and caring to share some thoughts from industry with the Witless Wonder of Wagga Wagga - about his 'aviation safety agencies'. Now that he's asked ATSB to write a glowing report on themselves, just so he can say what a fine job they are all doing – and how the ATSB can find no fault with Air Services or CASA, it only seems right to warn him here that there are some pockets of fury, masquerading as the discontent of malcontents. But, no doubt the ATSB soppy questionnaire can be parlayed into some kind of ministerial credit to save face and fool the general public - I mean what does it matter what the industry experts say in the face of such official evidence.

“K” has provided a pro forma series of answers for the ATSB – HERE. 

Dick Smith has had a chat (you want the video) - with the Air Services boss; HERE

And Old Akro over on Pprune pretty much sums up the ATSB response to an ASA cock up.

And Phil Hurst from AAAA delivers a universally applauded assessment of the CASA present worth and future value.

AAAA - “CASA still does not understand the difference between safety and compliance and continually considers itself to be the creator of safety, when in fact it is a well informed, safety motivated and guided industry – flying, maintaining and organising aviation operations – that creates safety. CASA clearly has an industry-accepted role in rule-setting, surveillance and enforcement – but it is industry that delivers safety. The dimension of the daunting task facing anyone in GA in simply absorbing, recalling and using the vast amount of written regulation of the industry, is now a safety impediment in its own right.”

Ayup, the ATSB touchy-feebly effort may just be final insult. It is creepy and crude, no doubt exactly the right tenor for a ministerial no action policy speech, one worthy of a third rate journalistic spin doctor.

Heh, heh (chuckle) – perhaps we could invite him to the next BRB indaba and see how he manages the real deal; that children, would be classified as real fun. Can he play darts I wonder? Maybe bring St Commode, Halfwit and Hoody along as a team -! Best stop there;  its BBQ night, time to light the fires etc...

---

---

#reformcasa



Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-31-05-20-whos-t...-to-blame/

[Peetwo]

The origins of the MOAS bottomless bucket??

P2 - Challenge - Find the Bosch Report - Choc frog in it

You're right Ol'Tom a complete copy of the report is impossible to find off the online Parliamentary library website...  

However there is a reference link - see HERE - from the National Library of Australia for which you can loan an electronic copy if you are a library member. I know that is not quite the same thing as obtaining a full electronic copy of the Bosch Report but I have referred the matter to my other sources and will let you know Ol'Tom how I get on -   

In the meantime while trolling Google for various connections to the Bosch Report, I did come across several references and extracts from that report. One of those references was from a CASA submission (refer sub 75 - HERE) to the 2000 Productivity Commission inquiry titled Cost Recovery by Commonwealth Agencies.

P9...
 

1993 - “Also, on this matter of the supervisory or safety functions of the authority, Bosch argued that there was an unequivocal case for that to be classed as the public interest and that it should be funded out of consolidated revenue. The government agreed with that; there was no ambiguity about it. It said, `Yes, we accept the findings of the Bosch committee'. A couple of years later, when the financial irresponsibility and deficits were mounting, the government said, `We are going to walk away from that'. The proposition we have at the moment is that there will be a recovery of 50 per cent of the regulatory costs this financial year and 100 per cent in the next financial year, 1994-95.

Remembering that this submission is approaching 20 years old, the following is a quote from the submission which IMO perfectly highlights how multiple Governments and indeed the CASA Iron Ring have obliterated and spun around the original findings of the Bosch Report to their own self-interest/self-aggrandisement/self-survival/self perpetuating (make work) bottomless MOAS trough - : 

Cost recovery has been a feature of the provision of aviation regulatory
services since 1956. The first in-depth approach to develop a policy for
recovery of aviation fees and charges was the 1984 Report of the
Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery, known as the Bosch report
after its Chairman, Mr Henry Bosch. The review considered all Government
aviation costs of which the costs generated by the safety regulation function
was only a small component. This component was specifically addressed by
the review and their conclusions (Chapter 19 of the Bosch Report) are
attached (Attachment 1). In summary, the Bosch Report recommended that
the Government continue to fund the standards setting and compliance
functions of the regulator and to increase the level of cost recovery for
aviation safety regulatory services, achieving full cost recovery over a ten
year period.

Attachment 1 (Chapter 19) should be required reading for those who are interested in the historical context of the now 30+ year Regulatory Reform Program and how that program has led to the almost complete decimation of the once vibrant flight training and General Aviation sectors of the industry.

(Refer to sub-para 2 'Views put to the inquiry' (from page 243 to 246) and reflect on the current situation - how things have changed - NOT!)

This was the summary and recommendations of the committee Chaired by Henry Bosch:

Now compare that to to the last paragraph of the CASA Iron Ring submission to the Productivity submission...

CASA has prepared a draft Regulatory Reform Plan for consideration by the

Minister. The objective of this Plan is to rewrite the Regulations and Orders
with the development of appropriate clear and concise aviation safety
regulations which reflect best practice in aviation regulation. This significant
programme of development work is currently scheduled for completion in
September 2002. The existing Fees Regulations will become obsolete with
the advent of the new aviation regulations and a new listing of regulatory
services attracting a fee will be developed and identified in the Fees
Regulations. This process will take account of the review by the Regulatory
Services Division of what regulatory services should be provided by CASA
and what the appropriate fees should be.

Hmm...no comment - 

MTF...P2 

ps Also from the submissions it is interesting to read the Airservices Australia submission - see HERE - which in summary is basically a defensive submission in reply to assertions/criticism by industry stakeholders in the submissions - eg. :

Dick Smith, via the UP: 

I have spent quite a lot of time in preparing this video on airspace. 

I believe it has a message that we should at least do a costing for bringing the Class E airspace down to cover the approach – especially at airports that have ADS-B coverage and/or airline traffic.

I believe we have been lucky not to have had an airline accident in this 1930s style uncontrolled airspace.

For those who are interested, could I ask you to send an email to minister.mccormack@infrastructure.gov.au advising the Minister of your views – either supportive or not supportive.

Both CASA and Airservices have stonewalled the media on this issue. They just don’t comment, so the media can’t write a story.

Anyone who has flown in the US system would know just how well the Class E airspace works. It is not a 1930s system, it is a 2020 system.

Thanks in advance.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Harfwit The (million dollar man) called out on proposed firies redundancies -   

Via the Age:

Grounded aircraft and high fuel loads equals danger, union claims

---

By Richard Baker

July 26, 2020 — 11.30pm

Grounded aircraft with high fuel loads are still a serious fire risk at Australia's major airports even though they are flying radically reduced schedules due to COVID-19, the United Firefighters Union of Australia has said while warning against further staffing cuts.

But Airservices Australia countered that it would "always ensure it has the appropriate staffing numbers to meet [Civil Aviation Safety Authority] requirements and to ensure the safety of the travelling public".



Qantas planes grounded at Avalon Airport.CREDIT:JASON SOUTH

Federal agency Airservices Australia has foreshadowed job cuts among emergency staff in its Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting Services after already reducing numbers by enforcing leave to lower costs.

The union claims further cuts would mean firefighting capacity at Australia's airports would fall below international best practice.


With the coronavirus strangling domestic and international air travel, Airservices is facing a revenue crisis because its funding is dependent upon levies paid by airlines under a system tied to passenger movements.

The chair of economics at the University of Newcastle, William Mitchell, said in a recent report commissioned by the union that the grounded aircraft contain higher than usual fuel loads "to stabilise them against wind shifts and remain susceptible to weather events and wildlife and insect invasions".


Qantas regional aircraft mothballed at Sydney domestic airport.CREDIT:STEVEN SIEWERT

Professor Mitchell said more than $16 billion worth of Qantas, Virgin and other carriers’ aircraft – 200 planes – were grounded in Sydney, Brisbane, Avalon outside Melbourne, and Adelaide. They were still being started, moved and maintained on a regular basis.

UFUA president Greg McConville said that, despite the decline in air travel, the 858 fire crew working for Airservices at 26 airports around Australia had still responded to 700 incidents between March and mid-June.

He described the high volume of aircraft in close proximity to each other at airports as a "powder keg" that could affect nearby residential areas if something went wrong.


"This risk is compounded by the fact that our airports now have larger than normal fuel reserves. Ground damage is an underappreciated aviation safety hazard. An aircraft full of fuel at the gate is akin to a bomb in a confined space," Mr McConville said.

"Aviation firefighters are a specialised workforce trained and equipped in immediate response to any incident at an airport within two minutes. It’s work that civil brigades can’t do. The public isn’t necessarily aware of just how significant the reduced number of crews are, but it can be the difference between a minor event being contained or becoming catastrophic."

Professor Mitchell said the Australian government’s financial support for the aviation sector, including airports, during the COVID-19 pandemic had been lower than other comparable nations such as the USA, Japan and Germany.



He said given how important the resumption of domestic air travel would be to economic growth, the public would accept extra government funding to maintain specialist firefighting services at airports.

"Given what is at stake, the cost of maintaining [Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting Services] intact pale into insignificance. It is recommended that the subsidy from government has to increase to maintain the integrity of the essential services that protect our airports,” Professor Mitchell said.

The Senate’s standing committee on rural and regional affairs and transport last year called for enhancement of Australia’s aviation firefighting system to bring it into line with international standards.

In Australia, the number of firefighters at each airport is dependent on a category rating by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in relation to the size and number of aircraft using it. With airlines already moving away from bigger aircraft such as the Airbus A380 before the arrival of COVID-19, the category ratings for various Australian airports was reducing.


Qantas and Virgin were both approached for comment.

The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald can also reveal that three air traffic controllers at Sydney Airport were recently given termination notices for allegedly bullying colleagues.

The proposed sackings in air traffic control are the first after management in May promised zero tolerance for bad behaviour in the workplace following a damning external review of its culture.

Hmm...reckon I can see a couple of areas of where money could be saved within the aviation safety bureaucracy...

Hint:



MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The Harfwit chucks St Commode under the bus on Sunny airport - 

Via the Senate RRAT committee website: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus..._estimates

Ref: 1) AQON 227 2) AQON 228

Answer —

1. The Targetted Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA) was completed in March
2019 using the confirmed operational assumptions at the time, which included the
continued limited use of Runways 18/36.

In August 2019 Sunshine Coast Airport completed their Master Plan consultation,
which was based on more contemporary operational assumptions, including their
decision to decommission Runway 18/36. This included a program of consultation.

The Master Plan was approved by Sunshine Coast Council in October 2019.

As part of the Master Plan, a new Aircraft Noise Exposure Forecast was prepared
accounting for the decommissioning of 18/36 with a future noise forecast to 2040.
Airservices is not required to complete a new TEIA based on the decision of the
airport to change its operations.

2. The TEIA includes a detailed assessment of flight numbers in 2040. These are
provided in Sections 5, 6 and Appendix A.

3. During the consultation period, Airservices received a range of alternative flight
path suggestions from the community. These were considered within the context of
safety, feasibility and environmental obligations.

4. In considering potential flight paths, safety is the most important consideration.

Airservices did not receive any representation or submission from Sunshine Coast
Council regarding community perceptions.

5. The TEIA was prepared in accordance with Airservices’ National Operating
Standard for Environmental Management of Changes to Aircraft Operations.

The TEIA was not referred to the Commonwealth Environment Minister for advice,
as the findings of the assessment of the proposed changes were consistent with the
findings of the 2014-2016 EIS, which had already been referred to the Minister, and
was already the subject of ministerial advice.

6. Airservices is not responsible for assessing the environmental risks associated with
the Yandina Quarry.

Airservices is responsible for considering the impacts of flight paths on migratory
species, as defined in Airservices National Operating Standard for Environmental
Management of Changes to Aircraft Operations and in accordance with the Matters of
National Environmental Significance (MNES) defined by the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The MNES includes
consideration of migratory species and wetlands of international importance.

7. The approach crossing the coast at Marcus Beach, over Lake Weyba is a Required
Navigation Performance – Authorisation Required (RNP-AR) approach.

RNP-AR approaches provide lateral and vertical guidance in all weather conditions,
and enable continuous descent approaches which improve safety, increase efficiency,
reduce emissions and can minimise the noise impact on the community.

Airservices has not received any recommendation or requests to restrict the use of this
approach at Sunshine Coast Airport.

8. Continuous Descent Approach is an industry standard for all arrival flight paths.
The RNP-AR approach is designed in accordance with international standards and
provides for consistent and predictable, safe and environmentally responsible aircraft
operations.

The quarry site is located near the extended centreline of the new runway. All aircraft
flying instrument approach to RWY 13 will overfly the site regardless of the type of
the approach flown.

CASA’s Office of Airspace Regulation advised Airservices that, in 2015, they
determined there was no aviation safety risk associated with the proposed operations
at the quarry. The quarry is not currently operational.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The Harfwit gets grilled over ASA toxic culture - 

Yesterday Harfwit appeared before the RRAT committee, the following was the basic ToR and tabled documents:

 

Oversight of Airservices Australia

Background Information

• In May 2020, Airservices released the report A Review of Culture at Airservices Australia, following a broad and independent review of the workplace culture undertaken by Elizabeth Broderick & Co. (PDF)
  

• Correspondence to Senator Susan McDonald from Mr Jason Harfield, Cheif Executive Officer of Airservices Australia. Received by the secretariat on 21 August 2020. (PDF)
  

Public Hearing

• Friday 28 August 2020, Parliament House, Canberra - Program (PDF)
  

  

To view the hearing click HERE and once the Hansard is published I will put up.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Electric Blue lights – and the dumping thereof.

Like many folk, I've worked with fellahin I – personally – did not like; not remoteley interested in having an Ale with 'em; any excuse would do. BUT I did have 'respect' for 'em and; in many cases, I still do – even had an Ale with one or two – later. 'Liking' is neither here nor there when there is a 'job' to be done – but 'respect' is essential.

I wonder, how many our 'brother' ATCO have any respect (of the genuine kind) for their 'leader'. It is certain that they and their very effective union follow the 'Estimates' sessions. Within the BRB and even the IOS we have 'mates' who are 'coal face' hands on; the people who have to work within the Electric Blue world of Air Services. It is 'educational' - to say the least – to play a recording of the 'Estimates' show at a BRB session. Our Halfwit seems to be most uncomfortable during his recent (last) turn at the microphone –Now, I wonder why?

Perhaps; he realises that the respect for his 'authority' simply ain't there. ATC could have a much better 'leader' at a third the cost and we may even begin to move air traffic at half the world standard pace – save a fortune and liberate a talented bunch of people to do what they do best – move aircraft; swiftly, effectively and even safely.

I have a dream – that of the fun of a tailwind (and savings) not be lost in the all too familiar – reduce speed – hold at – etc.  Anyone who has operated out of London or New York or San Francisco or even Tumbleweed Nebraska – will understand how terribly slowly, painfully and anally Australia processes traffic. Wanna make an American pilot crazy? Let him operate Sydney – Melbourne for a while – basket case within 36 sectors. The final question the Halfwit should be asked is a simple one. 'Why stay where no one wants you? - Oh, there's a million reasons – all dollars.

[Peetwo]

The Harfwit gets grilled over ASA toxic culture - 

Yesterday Harfwit appeared before the RRAT committee, the following was the basic ToR and tabled documents:

 

Oversight of Airservices Australia

Background Information

• In May 2020, Airservices released the report A Review of Culture at Airservices Australia, following a broad and independent review of the workplace culture undertaken by Elizabeth Broderick & Co. (PDF)
  

• Correspondence to Senator Susan McDonald from Mr Jason Harfield, Cheif Executive Officer of Airservices Australia. Received by the secretariat on 21 August 2020. (PDF)
  

Public Hearing

• Friday 28 August 2020, Parliament House, Canberra - Program (PDF)
  

  

To view the hearing click HERE and once the Hansard is published I will put up.

It took a while(??) but finally the Hansard Transcript is out - see HERE. 

 An extract of interest and intrigue...

CHAIR: That's fine. Thanks, Senator Antic. I have some questions. I have been looking at Elizabeth Broderick's report and the progress update. I assume that, given the amount of work you've done in this space, you're conducting surveys of the workforce to understand their engagement with this process and how they feel it's going?

Mr Harfield: One of the changes that we've also started to introduce is that we will be doing rolling surveys with the organisation on a regular basis. We used to do a quite extensive employee opinion survey once every two years, with a pulse in the interim year. We are now moving to do this on a continued rolling basis rather than on an annual basis, for that very reason.

CHAIR: That's very good. I want to ask you about the impact that COVID has had on the organisation. How are you going with maintaining your staffing levels? Has government funding assisted you in that?

Mr Harfield: Yes. If I could step you through it, it was an organisation that was set up to be fully funded by industry charges. With the reduction in air traffic that has occurred, not only have we seen a 90 per cent reduction in air traffic; we've seen a comparable reduction in our revenue as well. What the government assistance and funding that we have been provided with has assisted us in doing is—we need to work over three time horizons. Not only are we dealing with the traffic that is still there and operating today; we have to operate and provide our services whether there is one aircraft flying or whether there are a thousand aircraft flying. We don't have the ability to determine that we are only going to service Sydney to Melbourne, for example. We still have to continue to provide those services over 11 per cent of the earth's airspace. We also have to be in a position to ensure that when the industry does start to recover we're there and able to manage that increase, because if we are not in that space and we hamper that recovery then it will have a flow-on impact on what's going on. We also need to start repositioning the organisation over time to what I would call the new normal, where all our predictions et cetera, with the changing shape of the industry, are that, in a few years time, post COVID, we will be probably at 80 per cent of what we were. The government assistance, which we are grateful for, has allowed us to do this in a very measured and controlled way so that we can balance these issues in an environment that is changing on a monthly basis. It's allowed us to manage this and retune our operations to move into what we call a COVID-safe environment, so that, if we have an infection, for example, we are able to minimise the flow-on effect so that we can continue providing services while at the same time ensure the health and wellbeing of our staff.

CHAIR: Alright. So you've not had any job losses?

Mr Harfield: No.

CHAIR: Is Airservices responsible for monitoring parked aircraft? Mr Harfield: No, in the sense that that's the airline and the airport. We would be there to deal with it, if they were being moved around—that is, controlling from an air-traffic perspective—and potentially turning out if there's an incident involving that parked aircraft. CHAIR: What are the risks with aircraft parked up? Are they as dangerous as some people claim?

Mr Harfield: From our perspective, the risk profile depends on the advice we are given from and through our dialogue with the airline as well as the airport. The reason I say that is that how they configure and how they do the parking of the aircraft would define what our knowledge is. It depends on how the airline decides, and what procedures they put in, to put the aircraft into storage. Have I explained myself? I don't know what the risk is unless the airlines have advised us, 'This is the profile of what the parking is,' and we'd assess the risk from there.

CHAIR: I assume that you're talking to the airlines and the airports on an ongoing basis on these matters?

Mr Harfield: Absolutely.

CHAIR: Are you planning on laying off staff in the future? Mr Harfield: The reason for the hesitation is that, unfortunately, I can't predict what the future holds at this moment in time. We do know that we have to be a different organisation, in the sense that we are sustained and funded by industry and how we are sustainable in that way, going forward, in a different operating environment. We need to balance that against providing services today. The issue is that we are continuing to work through it. I can't rule anything in or out, but there are no definitive plans at this stage.

CHAIR: Is this the first time that Airservices has received government assistance? It seems a very novel situation—

Mr Harfield: Sorry; I missed the last part, unfortunately.

CHAIR: I was just asking if this was the first time that you'd received government assistance since the organisation was established?

Mr Harfield: I don't know. I can't recall the early days, but I'll correct the record. I'll go back and check, but this is the first time that we've received this level of assistance, because we've been set up to be totally funded by industry and make a return, and we pay a dividend back to government each year. We're a tax-paying entity as well. CHAIR: You receive a fee from airlines for your operations.

Mr Harfield: Yes.

CHAIR: What do you expect the future holds? Do you expect the domestic airline industry to return to some proportion of normality in the next 12 months? What are you forecasting?

Mr Harfield: At the moment, from the forecasting that we use, we were—I'll call it three months ago—basing it on seeing around 80 per cent domestic recovery by about Christmas time. Now we've seen that slide out to be probably the middle of next year; that's where we would see that. Internationally, where we were originally seeing a recovery to around 80 per cent by mid to late next year, we're seeing that it will probably take another couple of years to get back to those levels. Our planning that we have done, which is conservative, is that we will not return to about 80 per cent of our revenue, which doesn't directly equate to activity but is an approximation of it, until around the end of 2021 or into 2022-23. It will probably take until then before we get back to those levels.

CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Sheldon, I might go back to you and I'll come back to any more questions if we have time at the end.

Senator SHELDON: On 18 March this year the government announced a $715 million package to support the Australian aviation industry. I understand that included funding for Airservices. There were a couple of rounds, as I understand it. Can you detail for the committee how much of the $715 million was directed to Airservices?

Mr Harfield: I can't tell you exactly, just off the top of my head, how much of the $715 million—I think, at that stage, it may have been about $400 million of that. The funding that we've received out of the packages that have been agreed to so far—from March through to the end of this financial year, to June next year—has a total in the order of about $850 million.

Senator SHELDON: Could you send me the details of that as a follow-up?

Mr Harfield: Yes.

Senator SHELDON: This is an important issue, of course. This follows through from some of the previous answers you were giving as well. Are there sufficient funds to meet the shortfall in revenue collected by Airservices as a result of the aviation industry being significantly grounded over the past several months and into the foreseeable future?

Mr Harfield: The way that I'd like to answer the question is this: our normal annual revenue is about $1.1 billion a year; the government funding is $850 million over 15 months, so it obviously doesn't cover all. As we said, this will sustain our business. As a result of the way that we are structured, we have the use of debt facilities. For example, our capital program is completely debt funded et cetera. With that funding, we are in a fortunate position of being able to deal in a measured way with the issues that we've got. The reason I'm structuring my answer that way is that it doesn't return us to the exact same revenue levels that we were at pre-COVID, but there is enough to be able to sustain the business, work forward and working through this particular period in a controlled, sustained way. We're not in a position like other businesses that have to make a short-term cut because they've obviously lost 90 per cent of their revenue.

Senator SHELDON: You don't see the shortfall due to the revenue loss impacting on Airservices in regard to the services they provide now?

Mr Harfield: Absolutely not, because we have facilities to be able to maintain the cash flow and operations. Obviously, longer term, we need to reposition to an environment where—we're not there, but it doesn't affect the services that we provide.

Senator SHELDON: When you say to me that it doesn't affect the services, does that mean there is a continuation of the same levels of employment?

Mr Harfield: As this stage, yes.

Senator SHELDON: And into the foreseeable future?

Mr Harfield: As far as I can predict, yes.

Senator SHELDON: I appreciate that you answered the question earlier about redundancies—that includes of course no redundancies foreseen or planned?

Mr Harfield: One of the things we are considering at this stage is whether we may potentially have voluntary redundancies for people who want to elect at this stage to go for it. However, I say that on the premise that it's something we are considering, because we haven't landed anything yet and we would have consultation and obviously obligations to discuss those things before we actually considered it. But it would be on a voluntary basis only.

Senator SHELDON: I respect the fact that you're raising it on a voluntary basis. If I understand correctly— correct me if I'm wrong here—there is consideration that there may be redundancies and if there were it would be on a voluntary basis. Going back to your earlier answer, you've mentioned that services are still going to be maintained, and I asked the question about staff providing those services. Doesn't it then fall to a shortfall of staff and a shortfall of services? Isn't that a logical conclusion?

Mr Harfield: That's why if we did consider and then had a voluntary redundancy program—the reason it's voluntary is that we could decide what areas would be allowed to go, to ensure that we would continue to provide the right level of service and staffing. There may be capacity in certain areas, but it would not be to the stage where we would compromise on the required level of service that needed to be provided—not only now, with the reduction in traffic, but also for the recovery, and that for the sustainable future there could be the possibility that we may be able to release some people.

Senator SHELDON: Have you considered the areas where there may be voluntary redundancies? These are serious issues, of course—

Mr Harfield: Absolutely.

Senator SHELDON: I'm not suggesting that you're not considering them as serious, but these are serious issues for the committee—questions of services and provision of services and public confidence in those services being provided. Also of course there was the August 2019 Senate report, which raised serious concerns at that time that Australia wasn't meeting—and Airservices weren't meeting, in the Senate committee's view—the international standards for providing, certainly in the case of firefighting facilities. And I want to explore that a bit further. But have you considered which areas you may be asking voluntary redundancy from?

Mr Harfield: That's part of the considerations that we're having a look at. I can give assurance to this committee that if we do go down a voluntary redundancy path we will not compromise the requirements, the regulations and the staffing levels required to provide the level of service required. That includes the aviation rescue and firefighting service, which we continue to staff at the level required by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Senator SHELDON: The Senate committee drew comparisons in 2019 in a committee report that Australia wasn't meetings its commitments—international standards—on provision of firefighter services on airport. One of the questions I'd like to ask you about this is: will you be meeting international standards of firefighter requirements for the airports?

Mr Harfield: We meet the requirements set out by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, which are the required ones. The issue about whether those regulations applied in exactly the same way as some of the international regulations is a matter for the department as well as CASA.

Senator SHELDON: You have the capacity to meet international standards if you so wish?

Mr Harfield: First and foremost, we have to meet the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. If they are above that, that would be a decision that we would require based on the fact that we have to charge for our services and whether the risk warrants it. But, from what I understand, the minimum requirement that is required by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is that, first and foremost, we have to meet.

Senator SHELDON: So the point is you're able to meet standards, if you so wish, above the standard set by—

Mr Harfield: In the end—

Senator SHELDON: You could meet the international standards if you so wished and it was above the services that other departments are requiring.

Mr Harfield: And there was what I call a business imperative, and it worked out—considering that, even without charging, because we are a monopoly provider it's regulated by the ACCC and there is an ongoing discussion of our prices with those that pay them, such as the airlines. So to go above the minimum standard that is required from the civil aviation, we could meet that, but there would have to be a discussion with industry at the time as well.

Senator SHELDON: Could I get a breakdown of the costs for running the aviation rescue firefighting services specifically—an overall cost but also a breakdown for each of the 27 stations as well as their headquarters and training school? You can take that on notice. I'm not expecting you to have that at hand right now, but if you have I would be very pleased!

Mr Harfield: So, just for clarity, we will provide the cost of providing services for our aviation rescue and firefighting—

Senator SHELDON: Yes, the running of the service.

Mr Harfield: The running of the service. We will also provide what we would take in in a normal charging regime, previously—the revenue that that service earns.

Senator SHELDON: And can break it down to the 27 stations, the headquarters the training school?

Mr Harfield: Yes, we can—the cost, yes.

Senator SHELDON: Airservices is under financial pressure, as you mentioned. Obviously, you're deciding to make some structural changes. If you're not receiving the same revenue, it's right to say it's a financial pressure.

Mr Harfield: We do need to run as efficiently as we can.

Senator SHELDON: Have you been considering that there should be voluntary redundancies amongst the firefighters?

Mr Harfield: As I said before, we are considering the potential, and if there are voluntary redundancies and there is the capacity to provide voluntary redundancies within the firefighter area, we would do that. However, as I said, that is under consideration. If we get anywhere near a landing, we have consultation requirements that we need to pay. So I don't want to give a fait accompli; there's a lot of work to be done and there are, as I said, consultation requirements. We need to have discussions with the appropriate people about that. But it is something that we have to consider.

Senator SHELDON: So what action has Airservices taken to reduce any foreseeable risk that a potential reduction in staff would create in the firefighting area?

Mr Harfield: If we get to the stage where we are thinking about or actively wanting to go down that path, then we would have to assess that risk, and that would be part of the decision-making as to whether we would do it or not.

Senator SHELDON: Has that risk been assessed?

Mr Harfield: Not at this stage.

Senator SHELDON: Are Airservices aware of a report by the University of Newcastle that outlines a significant danger posed with any reduction in the number of staff in the aviation rescue firefighting services? Are you aware of that?

Mr Harfield: I'm aware of the report. I think it was chased down within the organisation.

Senator SHELDON: Do you agree that an unprecedented risk to aircraft assets has been created by the mass grounding of aircraft at Australian airports?

Mr Harfield: No, I do not. I would say that the risk profile at our airports has changed, but our assessment, at this stage, is that those risks are adequately managed, and I wouldn't call them unprecedented.

Senator SHELDON: But with the type of risk that you're now confronted with, with having so many planes parked at our airports, that's unprecedented, though, isn't it—that aspect of the risk?

Mr Harfield: For example, what I will call the risk profile has changed. Having static aircraft versus aircraft that are continually on the move is a different type of risk. That's why I'm saying 'the risk profile'. The fact that we have got a lot of aircraft parked is a different situation to what we had previously, but 'unprecedented' is just too strong a word. It is different to what we've had before.

Senator SHELDON: So this difference is that large numbers of planes—I could go through the figures, but I won't—are now at airports that are under your responsibility, particularly under the responsibility of your air firefighting services. These grounded aircraft—not idle but parked—

Mr Harfield: Static, yes.

Senator SHELDON: Static but not idle. They still pose a number of fire and other safety risks—is that correct?

Mr Harfield: They do pose a risk, and that goes to Senator McDonald's question before. We are in constant dialogue with the airlines, who are the ones that are putting the parking and storage, as well as the airports to make sure that we're in a position to manage those risks.

Senator SHELDON: Those discussions with the airlines obviously include discussions about, as you mentioned before, positioning of the planes.

Mr Harfield: Yes.

Senator SHELDON: Of course, as we've seen, we've had a situation where air routes have been opened up domestically and then closed down and then opened up and closed down. So the level of risk on that particular profile could obviously vary from time to time.

Mr Harfield: Yes, if you have an airport that's in a sense dormant and then suddenly has a level of activity et cetera—a profile. That's why we're in constant discussion. For example, there are two areas where we did reduce our services completely—Ayers Rock and Hamilton Island—because there was just no activity. In Hamilton Island, that included the air traffic control as well as the firefighting. But, as services returned, we reinitiated the service. So we flex our services depending on what the profile is at the airport, because it's forever changing. That was no different to what we had even pre COVID, when you would have change in schedules and change in aircraft types flying in and out of different airports. We would adjust the services we would provide in accordance with what was required.

Senator SHELDON: At this point—you might be able to tell me the difference—is it correct to say there's approximately $16.2 billion in grounded aircraft being protected by the fire services?

Mr Harfield: I'm unaware of what the value is. There are a number of aeroplanes that are on the ground. Ostensibly, the majority of the Qantas and Virgin fleets are on the ground.

Senator SHELDON: It would seem logical, putting the figure to one side, that there is substantially higher monetary value of assets now under the protection, for want of a better word, of the fire services provided by Airservices than would normally be the case.

Mr Harfield: Not necessarily. The difference is that we probably would have had a higher amount pre COVID because the traffic was moving in and out of the airport. In other words, the same value that's sitting on the ground would have been in the air previously.

Senator SHELDON: But the risk profile for ground staff is substantially higher, and logically—

Mr Harfield: I'm not qualified to determine the difference. That's why we are in dialogue with the airports and the airlines to ensure that we know what they are doing with those aircraft and how, when and where they're doing it so that we can make the assessment...etc..etc..waffle and weasel words...

Hmm...basically put it is business as usual for the Harfwit and his oversight of the OneSKY trough fund...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The Harfwit gets grilled over ASA toxic culture - 

Yesterday Harfwit appeared before the RRAT committee, the following was the basic ToR and tabled documents:

 

Oversight of Airservices Australia

Background Information

• In May 2020, Airservices released the report A Review of Culture at Airservices Australia, following a broad and independent review of the workplace culture undertaken by Elizabeth Broderick & Co. (PDF)
  

• Correspondence to Senator Susan McDonald from Mr Jason Harfield, Cheif Executive Officer of Airservices Australia. Received by the secretariat on 21 August 2020. (PDF)
  

Public Hearing

• Friday 28 August 2020, Parliament House, Canberra - Program (PDF)
  

  

To view the hearing click HERE and once the Hansard is published I will put up.

It took a while(??) but finally the Hansard Transcript is out - see HERE. 

 An extract of interest and intrigue...

CHAIR: That's fine. Thanks, Senator Antic. I have some questions. I have been looking at Elizabeth Broderick's report and the progress update. I assume that, given the amount of work you've done in this space, you're conducting surveys of the workforce to understand their engagement with this process and how they feel it's going?

Mr Harfield: One of the changes that we've also started to introduce is that we will be doing rolling surveys with the organisation on a regular basis. We used to do a quite extensive employee opinion survey once every two years, with a pulse in the interim year. We are now moving to do this on a continued rolling basis rather than on an annual basis, for that very reason.

CHAIR: That's very good. I want to ask you about the impact that COVID has had on the organisation. How are you going with maintaining your staffing levels? Has government funding assisted you in that?

Mr Harfield: Yes. If I could step you through it, it was an organisation that was set up to be fully funded by industry charges. With the reduction in air traffic that has occurred, not only have we seen a 90 per cent reduction in air traffic; we've seen a comparable reduction in our revenue as well. What the government assistance and funding that we have been provided with has assisted us in doing is—we need to work over three time horizons. Not only are we dealing with the traffic that is still there and operating today; we have to operate and provide our services whether there is one aircraft flying or whether there are a thousand aircraft flying. We don't have the ability to determine that we are only going to service Sydney to Melbourne, for example. We still have to continue to provide those services over 11 per cent of the earth's airspace. We also have to be in a position to ensure that when the industry does start to recover we're there and able to manage that increase, because if we are not in that space and we hamper that recovery then it will have a flow-on impact on what's going on. We also need to start repositioning the organisation over time to what I would call the new normal, where all our predictions et cetera, with the changing shape of the industry, are that, in a few years time, post COVID, we will be probably at 80 per cent of what we were. The government assistance, which we are grateful for, has allowed us to do this in a very measured and controlled way so that we can balance these issues in an environment that is changing on a monthly basis. It's allowed us to manage this and retune our operations to move into what we call a COVID-safe environment, so that, if we have an infection, for example, we are able to minimise the flow-on effect so that we can continue providing services while at the same time ensure the health and wellbeing of our staff.

CHAIR: Alright. So you've not had any job losses?

Mr Harfield: No.

CHAIR: Is Airservices responsible for monitoring parked aircraft? Mr Harfield: No, in the sense that that's the airline and the airport. We would be there to deal with it, if they were being moved around—that is, controlling from an air-traffic perspective—and potentially turning out if there's an incident involving that parked aircraft. CHAIR: What are the risks with aircraft parked up? Are they as dangerous as some people claim?

Mr Harfield: From our perspective, the risk profile depends on the advice we are given from and through our dialogue with the airline as well as the airport. The reason I say that is that how they configure and how they do the parking of the aircraft would define what our knowledge is. It depends on how the airline decides, and what procedures they put in, to put the aircraft into storage. Have I explained myself? I don't know what the risk is unless the airlines have advised us, 'This is the profile of what the parking is,' and we'd assess the risk from there.

CHAIR: I assume that you're talking to the airlines and the airports on an ongoing basis on these matters?

Mr Harfield: Absolutely.

CHAIR: Are you planning on laying off staff in the future? Mr Harfield: The reason for the hesitation is that, unfortunately, I can't predict what the future holds at this moment in time. We do know that we have to be a different organisation, in the sense that we are sustained and funded by industry and how we are sustainable in that way, going forward, in a different operating environment. We need to balance that against providing services today. The issue is that we are continuing to work through it. I can't rule anything in or out, but there are no definitive plans at this stage.

CHAIR: Is this the first time that Airservices has received government assistance? It seems a very novel situation—

Mr Harfield: Sorry; I missed the last part, unfortunately.

CHAIR: I was just asking if this was the first time that you'd received government assistance since the organisation was established?

Mr Harfield: I don't know. I can't recall the early days, but I'll correct the record. I'll go back and check, but this is the first time that we've received this level of assistance, because we've been set up to be totally funded by industry and make a return, and we pay a dividend back to government each year. We're a tax-paying entity as well. CHAIR: You receive a fee from airlines for your operations.

Mr Harfield: Yes.

CHAIR: What do you expect the future holds? Do you expect the domestic airline industry to return to some proportion of normality in the next 12 months? What are you forecasting?

Mr Harfield: At the moment, from the forecasting that we use, we were—I'll call it three months ago—basing it on seeing around 80 per cent domestic recovery by about Christmas time. Now we've seen that slide out to be probably the middle of next year; that's where we would see that. Internationally, where we were originally seeing a recovery to around 80 per cent by mid to late next year, we're seeing that it will probably take another couple of years to get back to those levels. Our planning that we have done, which is conservative, is that we will not return to about 80 per cent of our revenue, which doesn't directly equate to activity but is an approximation of it, until around the end of 2021 or into 2022-23. It will probably take until then before we get back to those levels.

Via the other Aunty - 

---

Airservices Australia staff sacked for bullying and harassment amid warnings of cultural problems

Exclusive by defence correspondent Andrew Greene



A review of the company in May found it had unacceptable levels of bullying and sexual harrassment.(Reuters: Tim Wimborne)

Air traffic controllers have been dismissed from the agency that controls Australian aviation, amid a crackdown on bullying and harassment, but insiders warn poor behaviour by senior managers continues to be covered up.

Key points:

• Five employees, including controllers, have been sacked
  
• Current and former staff say senior management who behave badly are escaping punishment
  
• They say victims are signing non-disclosure agreements once they reach a settlement
  
• Airservices Australia has launched 36 investigations into possible breaches of its workplace Code of Conduct since an inquiry earlier this year revealed deep cultural problems within the organisation.
  

In May, a review by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick found Airservices Australia had unacceptable levels of bullying and sexual harassment, posing a threat to workers' psychological safety.

The ABC can reveal five employees, including air traffic controllers, have since left the troubled organisation following complaints raised by staff after the release of the Broderick report.

In a statement, Airservices Australia said it held a zero-tolerance approach to breaches of its staff code of conduct.

"Our staff are required to strictly comply with the code of conduct, which explicitly prohibits all forms of bullying and harassment," a spokesperson said.

"Breaches of the code of conduct may result in disciplinary action, including dismissal."

Current and former staff who spoke to the ABC on the condition of anonymity acknowledged the recent crackdown had removed some troublemakers, but claim senior managers who had behaved badly were still escaping punishment.



The air traffic control tower at Cairns Airport, as seen from the ground.

Airservices Australia has been the subject of two reviews into workplace culture.(ABC Far North: Mark Rigby)
A Sydney-based worker said rumours persisted inside the agency that some members of the management team exchange pornographic images across the country through a shared computer drive known as the "P-drive".

Another Airservices Australia employee, who recently left the organisation, said on several occasions confidential settlements had been reached with victims who had been harassed or bullied by bosses.

"The use of non-disclosure agreements ensures that the bosses can cover up bad behaviour and no-one gets to know about it," the woman said.

Labor senator Tony Sheldon, a former Secretary of the NSW Transport Workers' Union, said it would be disturbing if Airservices Australia was insisting on non-disclosure agreements being signed.

"That really goes to the heart of protecting people in leadership rather than dealing with a workplace culture that is toxic," he said.

"Airservices Australia has already been the subject of two extensive reviews into workplace culture, these new allegations suggest they may not have learnt anything from those reviews."

---

TICK TOCK goes the Harfwit play school clock...

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

My two bob's worth of idle, random thoughts;

In any form of activity where there is a need for 'discipline' that must come from the 'leadership' – the easy way is lead by example, set the standard and make it stick. I'm not certain I fully understand this 'sexual harassment' imbroglio – worked with lots of women folk – and always found them well able to take a well intentioned joke and accept a compliment – but there is a limit and probably a fine line between the ridiculous and the sublime. Of course, there's always the ancient game of Adam and Eve being played; which is fine – away from the workshop. Problem there lays with the aftermath – many outfits have a ban (unless notified) on workplace relationships – which, in theory, should prevent the situation of a warring ex-couple bringing the venom into the workplace. I did say – in theory; alas – human nature being what it is etc..

Aye, boys and girls; the oldest conundrum since the garden of Eden was closed for renovations. But 'Air-Services' do seem to have an ongoing problem in this area, which IMO stems from a 'leadership' failure. You cannot prevent Adam and Eve from getting together; you have little chance of stopping Adam chancing his arm and thinking his thoughts about Eve. It gets even more complex when Eve's bottom is placed in just the right place gets patted or pinched (two in every Tango). Personal relationships should be left at the door when you clock on – I know a very happy couple 'She' is his boss at work 'He' does as he does as asked (or tasked) without rancour – outside of work they get along just fine. People do get together – it don't always work out – the aftermath sometimes horrendous – furry muff – but if there is not enough self discipline to prevent open warfare breaking out at work, then managers have a responsibility to the rest of the crew to 'balance' and reduce the friction. Ego and libido left in the parking lot – self discipline enforced by management example. Same – same for 'perceived' or reported complaint – nipped in the bud - that is why they are management – to manage and keep the show on an even keel. Oh, I remember one long flight – misery - but that is a story for the pub.....

Does anyone remember the ridiculous 'Courage' wrist straps Hoody dreamed up; and wondered why they ever saw the light of day – there had to be a reason. No one would bring in a childlike solution to a very grown up problem without a sound purpose. The fact that it achieved SFA is nugatory – I fail utterly to see how 'bullying' can be a feature of ATC operations – sign on, do the shift – sign off. The rules for dealing with a Bully were cast in stone – centuries ago. Back to management again; sort the 'bully' out – if that person is a manager – take the beef higher. It would be 'unsafe' in the highest degree to have an ATCO under any form of 'threat' - distracted; the need for a clear balanced happy mind is essential. The daily grind of life creates enough disturbance without a 'Bully' lurking in the corridor. It is all coming down to the RRAT proving 'in-camera' facilities with full protection to get to the radical of the ASA problems – damn the 'non-disclosure' – let's sort this ongoing mess out, before Eve issues a descent clearance as Adam issues a climb instruction while they're throwing paperclips at each other. For a million a year Halfwit should be able to clean this up before morning tea with the One Pie support crowd.

Sen. Sheldon - "That really goes to the heart of protecting people in leadership rather than dealing with a workplace culture that is toxic," he said.

Spot on -

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

AQON of incredulity?? 

Via RRAT committee webpage:

Public Hearing

• Friday 28 August 2020, Parliament House, Canberra - Program (PDF) - Transcript (PDF)
  
  
• Opening statement provided by Airservices Australia. Tabled at 28 August 2020 public hearing in Canberra. (PDF)
  
  
• Questions taken on notice by Airservices Australia. Recieved on 11 September 2020. (PDF)
  

Senator Tony SHELDON asked:

Senator SHELDON: How many code of conduct or other disciplinary proceedings have been initiated since the announcement of Ms Broderick's cultural review?

Mr Harfield: For the period since the initiation of the cultural review, I would have to take it on notice, but Ms Gemmell, I think, has the information on how many have been undertaken since we published the review. There were ones being undertaken during that time, but, in answering the question, the number that we give is the number since we published the review.

Senator SHELDON: If Ms Gemmell could tell us those ones and also if there are ones—

Mr Harfield: We can provide the full details on that.

Senator SHELDON: That would be great.
…
Senator SHELDON: How many employees, excluding the executive and senior leadership team, have been investigated under the code of conduct or other disciplinary procedures since Ms Broderick's cultural review was announced?
Mr Harfield: Can we take that on notice to give that precise number, Senator?
…
Senator SHELDON: What is the current cost of engaging external law firms for code of conduct investigations? What is the 12-month budget for that as well?

Mr Harfield: Can I take that on notice, Senator? I'll provide that.

Answer:

Since August 2019, 87 Code of Conduct complaints have been initiated. Of those, 36 employees and 18 managers (excluding the senior leadership team and executive) have been formally investigated.

We spent approximately $111,480 (2019-20) and $56,265 (YTD 2020-21) engaging our two external, independent workplace investigation services providers.

---

Senator Tony SHELDON asked:

Senator SHELDON: Also what is the cost of engaging the new Chief People and Culture Officer and the team of cultural officers?

Mr Harfield: I don't know off the top of my head the remuneration of Ms Gemmell, but, being an executive position, we report that in our remuneration report. It's in line with our normal executive remuneration. We're in the process of introducing eight people for our Safe Place piece. We can give the cost of that to you on notice. They are external appointments. Because of the Safe Place requirement of independence they weren't open to internal people. We can provide that cost.

Answer:

The total remuneration (salary and superannuation) for the Chief People and Culture Officer is $490,000 per annum and eight staff in Safe Place is $1.2m per annum.

---

490k? - Not a bad gig if you can get it. Refering to Ms Gemmell's CV it would appear that she has certainly landed on her feet...

Chief People & Culture Officer
Company Name Virgin Australia
Dates Employed Oct 2017 – Apr 2020
Employment Duration 2 yrs 7 mos
Location Sydney, Australia

Group Executive, People - Member of Virgin Australia Executive Committee. Lead HR function for Virgin Australia - Virgin Australia Airlines, Tiger Air, Virgin Australia Regional Airlines & Virgin Australia Cargo, Velocity Frequent Flyer. Lead Talent & OD, Leadership & Culture, Organisational Effectiveness, Learning & Development.

   
Ref: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lucinda-gemm...bdomain=au

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Harfwit under the pump on Airservices 25 year toxic culture - 

Via APH Hansard: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Plus: 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Greens review of ASA Annual Report - 

From Senator Rice in the Senate Chamber yesterday:

---

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (16:01): I rise to take note of the Airservices Australia annual report. There are several important issues that are canvassed in this annual report, and one is the extremely concerning cultural issues in relation to Airservices Australia. The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport has been considering this issue—in fact, a private briefing on it is about to begin right now—but that's definitely not the end of the story.

In talking tonight I want to recognise the important work on this issue that's been done by the unions, in advocating for the workers and for safe workplaces. We've heard so much this week about unsafe workplaces here in parliament. Everyone deserves a safe workplace, no matter where they work. We've heard accounts from the management of Airservices Australia of the steps they're taking, but the crucial thing is the implementation—the environment they create and whether people actually feel safe after these processes have been implemented. It's a central issue for every worker in Airservices Australia, because they deserve a safe workplace and they deserve to be supported in their work. In turn, of course, it matters for every one of us who catches a plane. So much of what Airservices Australia does is behind the scenes, but getting it right is crucial for the safety of planes and passengers.

I turn to another matter raised in the annual report, which is the important issue of aircraft noise. For many years I've been hearing the accounts of concerned groups around the country about the impact of noise from aircraft. It's precisely for that reason that I introduced the Air Services Amendment Bill in 2018. As I said when I introduced that bill:

… community members and groups have raised with me their frustration at the lack of clarity when it comes to which authority (or authorities) is responsible for response and action.
The rules that govern flight paths and community consultation are written for businesses and operators, not for the communities that live with aircraft noise every day.

Sadly, based on what we hear from those who are still impacted by the noise of flights around airports, it's still the case.

We urge government to take practical action. The bill that I introduced is there, it's ready, and it could be debated and implemented by the end of the year if the government wanted to do it. I want to thank the many community groups around the country who have organised and are working to make their voices heard. The work they do is so important. It's only through communities standing up and pressuring their politicians that we're going to see some action.

In this report, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman notes that over the past 18 months Airservices have improved their community engagement capacity but they are 'facing serious challenges posed by the major airport infrastructure developments planned for the next decade'. The report acknowledges:

Airservices will need to ensure its evolving approach to community engagement allows flight paths and other airspace changes to be designed with a more internally integrated approach that involves community engagement from the beginning, and a more collaborative approach …

So we've got a recognition of the problem—that's a good start—but I'm yet to be convinced. The proof of the pudding is going to be in the eating as to whether this more collaborative and consultative approach actually gives communities power to influence the level of noise around their homes, which has such an impact on their quality of life.

Another issue raised in this report that is of relevance is the scandal of the land purchase at the Leppington Triangle. We now know that the department ignored the impact of noise controls when requesting the valuation. So we think some of the work that's been done on aircraft noise for Western Sydney Airport definitely deserves further scrutiny, and we're going to be seeking further information on where corners may have been cut.

This annual report captures the preceding year for Airservices Australia and highlights real issues of concern. Culture is an important and ongoing central issue that needs future work, and we want to hear more from Airservices about how they are protecting the rights of people who live near airports and how they are making sure those people's voices are heard and really listened to.

I want to conclude by noting that I've written to the Deputy Prime Minister about plane safety and adequate support for aviation firefighters where planes have been grounded in the pandemic. It's another important issue and is reflective of the range of issues that are covered by the operation of aircraft across Australia. This parliament needs to be paying more attention to making sure things are being done appropriately. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Million dollar Harfwit's (non-)consultation on East Coast lowering of Class E - WTF?   

Via Oz Flying:

 

Airservices proposes Lower Class E for East Coast
27 January 2021

Airservices Australia last week released a proposal to lower the base of Class E airspace between Cairns and Melbourne to 1500 feet above ground.

Currently, the lower level of the Class E is 8500 feet in most places.

IFR flights in Class E get a separation service from other IFR flights, but not from VFR flights, which don't require a clearance to transit. This has caused concerns among commercial IFR operators in the recent past because it is seen as being high-risk during approaches to regional airports.

"Airservices is seeking to change their service provision at 15 regional airports and across thousands of miles of low level airspace as part of the Airspace Modernisation Program," Airservices states in the consultation documents.

"Benefiting the entire east coast and regional Australia, they are leveraging Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) and radar surveillance assets to enhance their service delivery.

"It is proposed to lower the base of Class E airspace to 1500 ft (AGL) in medium and high density en route airspace between Cairns and Melbourne in 2021. This will replace the Class G airspace segments, while enhancing services provided to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft, similar to the changes we introduced in 2020."

Among the benefits Airservices has listed are:

• greater alignment to ICAO system and US practice
  
  
• improved safety for RPT operations
  
  
• reduced complexity for pilots and ATC
  
  
• CTA containment for IFR flights.
  

Airservices points out also that VFR flights can operate in Class E without restriction and believes the proposal "fosters equitable access" and caters for the current and future needs of airspace users.


However, some sectors of the GA community have expressed misgivings about the proposal because the change appears to have significant ramifications through the loss of large amounts of Class G airspace.

Among the many concerns is that radio carriage is mandatory for VFR flight in Class E, which may force non-equipped aircraft to fly closer to the terrain to remain in Class G, and that VHF radio coverage in some areas may not go down far enough to ensure reception at 1500 feet.

There are also fears within the GA community that safety will be compromised because ATC has no power to issue an IFR clearance through G class where most VFR traffic has been. With VFR now forced to operate in Class E, IFR flights will be given clearances through airspace where VFR traffic is unknown.

The full proposal and feedback process is on the CASA AvSEF website.

Hmm...in the House of Passing Strange coincidences when you consider this: Mooney Crash ATSB + (via the Oz) Airspace changes ‘would have stopped fatal crash’

And even this (still outstanding) ATSB investigation: Hooded Canary releases Mangalore mid-air prelim report 

MTF...P2