[thorn bird]

Well if anyone was in any doubt where the new Pres. of the AOPA stood in regard to the mismanagement of our world leading government owned monopolies page 7 of todays Australian should well and truly put those doubts to bed. It would seem Mr DeStoop is pulling the AOPA out from under CAsA's skirt and telling it like it is, well done Marc.

[P7_TOM]

From the Oz, page 7 by ‘that man’ Ean Higgens with an exclusive from Mar De Stoop, president AOPA.  [My Bold].

The association representing general aviation has called for a moratorium on forcing aircraft owners to spend considerable amounts of money to introduce a new navigation system championed by Air· services Australia chairman Angus Houston.

Marc De Stoop, the president ol the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, says while aviators support the G PS-based system, the costs have proved exorbitant for little practical gain.

AOPA has adopted a new policy calling on air regulators to delay the compulsory introduction of the avionics for Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast by at least four years.

Such a policy would allow the US to catch up to Australia's accelerated introduction of the technology, and reduce equipment costs as American economies of scale and mass production gear up. Owners of aircraft that operate under instrument flight rules - generally bigger, higher-flying commercial aircraft- have been progressively required to install ADS-B equipment on their planes, with all to be equipped by 2017.

AOPA wants a moratorium on this requirement, until a year after full introduction in the US, currently set for 2020.

Sir Angus has been a strong promoter of the rapid roll-out of ADS-B.

"Austra1ia is a world leader in the implementation of satellite based technology because it provides enormous safety and service benefit,'' he said last week.

Under ADS-B. aircraft are equipped with satellite GPS systems, which determine their position, direction, speed and altitude with great precision, with that information relayed in real time to air traffic controllers via ground stations.

AOPA says ADS-B could enable controllers to "see" aircraft in areas not covered by radar.

"We see safety benefits in having more of Australian airspace under air traffic control with positive aircraft separation by ATC staff," Mr De Stoop, a private pilot who runs a medical evacuation service with two Dassault Falcon 20 jets, said.

But in practice AOPA members had seen few practical gains from ADS-B, which cost Mr De Stoop $75,000 to install per aircraft and other owners as much as $120,000perplane.

The problem, he said, is that since they are often the first worldwide to install ADS-B, Australian owners are having to pay for specialised "first of type" engineering.

Might be time to dust off the application form and re-join the AOPA; this is a breath of fresh air coming from what has been a moribund organisation for the last few years.  Good on you Marc; full support from Aunty Pru.   

Anyone got the ministers private number?

Then there's some waffle from Houston on the same page:-

From the Oz, page 7 by ‘that man’ Ean Higgens and Houston.

Airservices Australia chairman Angus Houston has declined an opportunity to justify almost $800,000 in bonuses to II executives for their performance in 2013-14 as profits halved, key air safety indicators deteriorated and employment of women, indigenous people and the disabled moved backwards.

The bonuses will be examined by a Senate committee that is also investigating a corporate credit card rort and claims, which have not been denied by Airservices, of some executives being on travel allowances of$90,000.

Ms Staib said her bonus, for her performance in 2013-14, was "linked to delivery of industry supported outcomes" including "the successful introduction of advanced technology along with new infrastructure and services".

There’s a lot of puff and wind in the Oz today; perhaps the latest hot air balloon has just been released; can’t wait for the Senators to put a rather large hole in the ASA bloated blimp.

Safety,(bonuses)  Alignment, (bonuses) Harmonisation, (bonuses) Courage, (bonuses) and Flatulence (no bonus).  Cui bono - Only way to go.

MTF - Oh; you bet.

[thorn bird]

wholeheartedly agree with Mr DeStoop's statements.

It beggars belief why?  considering the traffic volumes in Australia that we went and jumped the gun on the rest of the world, especially the one place where almost all our avionics and aircraft are derived from and also has the highest volume of GA aircraft.

Aircraft and avionics manufacturers are currently not even considering ADSB "Fixes", and why should they? Australia makes up about 0.00001 of their market, if we are that stupid we want to be the first in the world why should they expend their capital?

I'm told the cost benefit studies allegedly constructed by CAsA to justify ADSB are completely flawed, the imaginary benefits for airlines a Myth, and GA was not even considered in the equation.

So who made the decision and why?

When you tie in the Houston article one starts to smell a rat.

Quote:
Ms Staib said her bonus, for her performance in 2013-14, was "linked to delivery of industry supported outcomes" including "the successful introduction of advanced technology along with new infrastructure and services".

Yup, there it is, as my old Pappy used to say, "Want a reason? look for the money"

America which at any one time has about 6000 aircraft in the air across a country the approximate size of Australia, and that doesn't include all the VFR traffic.
ASA boast we control, hell read it somewhere, 17% or something of the worlds airspace, where we are responsible for  about 300 aircraft, on a busy day,

Couldn't it could be said "why the hell did we need ADSB?"

Exactly what are the cost benefits to the GA industry?

To me it seems all cost with no benefit.

But ASA managers reap a nice benefit.

Hefty bonuses, in Ms Staib's case a hundred grand, hell I wouldn't mind earning half that for the year.

Seems like the so called cost benefit analysis heaped all the costs on industry and all the benefits on ASA managers.

What a nice little earner.

[Gobbledock]

Thorny, I love breaking down the term 'cost benefit anal-us'. The cost is passed on to us to to wear and bare, the benefit in this case appears to be ASA bonuses, and in general we the industry cop it in the ass!

Thorny;

"ASA boast we control, hell read it somewhere, 17% or something of the worlds airspace, where we are responsible for about 300 aircraft, on a busy day",

Yes indeed you read that somewhere, that was part of Houston's justification spin as to why Frau Staib is paid the generous giant salary she gets.

The only logical next step from here is for the Senators to do their homework about this entire ASA debacle and then at the next Senate Estimates start methodically slicing through this steaming pile of monkey pooh!

P666

[Peetwo]

Sorry TB etc. was on the road yesterday so couldn't get to this but thanks P7. Here is the article in full courtesy of the Oz & that man again...

ADS-B navigation system early adopters face sky-high costs  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 01, 2015 12:00AM
  

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association president Marc De Stoop says the new system is expensive but brings little practical gain. Picture: Renee Nowytarger Source: News Corp Australia
 
The association representing general aviation has called for a moratorium on forcing aircraft owners to spend considerable amounts of money to introduce a new navigation system championed by Airservices Australia chairman Angus Houston.  

Marc De Stoop, the president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots ­Association, says while aviators support the GPS-based system, the costs have proved exorbitant for little practical gain.

AOPA has adopted a new policy calling on air regulators to delay the compulsory introduction of the avionics for Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast by at least four years.

Such a policy would allow the US to catch up to Australia’s accelerated introduction of the technology, and reduce equipment costs as American economies of scale and mass production gear up.

Owners of aircraft that operate under instrument flight rules — generally bigger, higher-flying commercial aircraft — have been progressively required to install ADS-B equipment on their planes, with all to be equipped by 2017.

AOPA wants a moratorium on this requirement, until a year after full introduction in the US, currently set for 2020.

Sir Angus has been a strong promoter of the rapid rollout of ADS-B.

“Australia is a world leader in the implementation of satellite-based technology because it provides enormous safety and service benefit,” he said last week.

Under ADS-B, aircraft are equipped with satellite GPS systems, which determine their position, direction, speed and altitude with great precision, with that ­information relayed in real time to air traffic controllers via ground stations.

AOPA says ADS-B could enable controllers to “see” aircraft in the vast majority of Australia not covered by radar.

“We see safety benefits in having more of Australian airspace under air traffic control with positive aircraft separation by ATC staff,” Mr De Stoop, a private pilot who runs a medical evacuation service with two Dassault Falcon 20 jets, said.

But in practice AOPA members had seen few practical gains from ADS-B, which cost Mr De Stoop $75,000 to install per aircraft and other owners as much as $120,000 per plane.

The problem, he said, is that since they are often the first worldwide to install ADS-B, Australian owners are having to pay for specialised “first of type” engineering.

A spokeswoman for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said ADS-B “has not been rushed” and followed widespread consultation and industry support, and stated “it is inaccurate to suggest there are no benefits for smaller operators”.

  
Hmm...old Farmer Truss is getting a bit tetchy...

MTF..P2

[thorn bird]

Thanks P2, getting that in a post was beyond my feeble cyber skills.
one quote stuck in my mind:

"But in practice AOPA members had seen few practical gains from ADS-B, which cost Mr De Stoop $75,000 to install per aircraft and other owners as much as $120,000 per plane.

The problem, he said, is that since they are often the first worldwide to install ADS-B, Australian owners are having to pay for specialised “first of type” engineering."

The inconvenient truth is having spent all that money, and I know one or two have spent a lot more, if you need to dispose of your aircraft, and considering the market in Australia for these is about as minuscule as the minister, you'll have to spend it all again to have it removed. See, because our world leading maintenance reg's are not recognised by anyone else in the world Australian EO's just ain't Kosher.

ASA and CAsA's brain fart to lead the world gets you coming and gets you going.

No wonder the GA industry is in its death thro's

[Kharon]

ADS-B: is for Bonus. 

I think McComic had some passing interest in getting ADS-B out there first, gave him a drum to bang at ICAO indaba's.  

Very serious call, from the BRB to change the title of this thread to ‘Shake, Rattle and Roll’.   The stories coming out of the wood work, ahead of an inquiry; well! – seems someone’s been very clever and taught the mates how to do the same.   Who’d a thunk it?
 
I just wonder if the ‘accounts’ should have been frozen, before the numbers get shuffled about a bit; rumour has it that this has been done before, quietly, although quite legally, to relocate embarrassing amounts.  Is the Auditor General allowed to peer under carpets of these quasi government organisations?   Their web site – HERE – has some interesting information.  Although I could not find a direct reference to link to the Heffernan questioning where the ‘Crimes Act’ is repeatedly mentioned, or directly to forensic audit and public interest disclosure.  It’s all very complicated, but I reckon if the inquiry gets going it will be an interesting event, particularly if submissions are called for.  I wonder what tales will be told, under oath and in camera.     FWIW.
 

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (PID Act) came into effect on 15 January 2014. The purpose of the Public Interest Disclosure Scheme is to provide an avenue for public officials to report suspected wrong doing in the Australian public sector.

 

The scheme provides for employees (including former employees) of the ANAO, contracted service providers and all public officials and former public officials to make a public interest disclosure of suspected wrong doing either anonymously or openly, in writing or verbally. The ANAO has an obligation to assess the disclosure and decide whether to investigate the matter or not.

Toot toot.

[P7_TOM]

This maybe some thread drift but I don' think so as many have queried why ADSB.

Moving NAS from last millennium to this has been guided by ASTRA and Australian aviation's participation in International bodies, our membership of ICAO, IFATCA, IATA, CANSO.

Specifically in relation to ASTRA, the ASTRA Council represents a broad cross section of the aviation industry, and is responsible for the development and reporting of industry policy in relation to ATM matters, and for the running of ASTRA.

ASTRA has established a charter that aims to define the role, structure and necessary business rules to enable Council members to fulfil the Government’s and industry’s expectations to provide formal advice on air traffic management directions for the future.

ASTRA Role
The role of ASTRA is to:
- develop whole-of-industry position on the development, implementation and periodic review of the Australian Air Traffic Management Strategic Plan and related technologies and procedures,
- assist with coordinating the activities of all stakeholders in the implementation of the Australian Air Traffic Management Strategic Plan, and
- provide Government and industry with well considered strategic industry advice on ATM related matters.

To fulfil its role, ASTRA will aim to:
- provide a forum for coordinating integrated ATM planning, development and implementation effort, and for the continuing education of all ATM stakeholders on ATM related developments,
- develop a whole of industry view of what Australia’s air traffic communications, navigation and surveillance systems should be capable of achieving in the short, medium and long term, and identify key milestones and objectives,
- identify how best to incorporate and coordinate the adoption, where appropriate, of new and emerging technologies,
- develop a recommended Target Operational Concept to form the basis of the Australian Air Traffic Management Strategic Plan,
- identify the required policy, investment, service, regulatory and procedural changes needed to implement the Target Operational Concept,
- review and make recommendations regarding continuing investment in, maintenance, or disposal of, key air traffic infrastructure, including facilities and both ground-based and airborne equipment,
- identify, and seek funding for, any research and development necessary to support various activities or decision making,
- develop sustainable performance cases to support optimum ATM investment and implementation recommendations, and
- regularly review and make recommendations for the updating of the Australian Air Traffic Management Strategic Plan.

Industry Associations
Airports Association of Australia (AAA)
Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia (AAAA)
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Australian Business Aircraft Association (ABAA)
Australian Sport Aviation Confederation (ASAC)
Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA)
Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus)
Board of Airline Representatives of Australia (BARA)
Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia (RFACA)
Individual Companies
Qantas Group
Virgin
Service Providers
Airservices Australia

Permanent Observers
In addition, a number of Permanent Observers have standing invitations to attend meetings of the ASTRA Council, providing expertise and assistance with coordination of ATM related matters within the industry.
Professional and Industrial Organisations
Australian Airline Pilots' Association (AusALPA)
Civil Air Traffic Control Australia (CivilAir)
Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators (GAPAN)
Government Agencies
Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Transport (DoIT)
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
Australian Maritime Safety Agency (AMSA)
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
Australian Defence Force (ADF)
Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)

ASTRA Working Groups relevant to this discussion.
Surveillance Technologies Working Group (STWG)
The Surveillance Technologies Working Group (ST WG) supports the ASTRA Council’s deliberations on what new ATM surveillance technologies need to be deployed in Australia to support the industry’s safety and efficiency objectives. In particular, the ST WG is tasked with ensuring the diverse elements of ADS-B, Mode S and Multilateration deployment proceed efficiently and in a timely manner through coordination and sharing of experiences between all stakeholders. These technologies are closely related and use similar frequencies and equipment both airborne and ground based.
ASTRA Appointed Chair
Chair: Greg Dunstone
Deputy Chair: Capt Peter Randell

Future ATM Requirements Working Group (FARWG)
The Future ATM Requirements Working Group (FAR WG) supports the ASTRA Council as the focal point for the principle ATM operational strategies and to review and propose updates to ASTRA’s recommended Target Operational Concept. In particular, the FAR WG will assume responsibility for the development of User Preferred Trajectory (UPT), Flexible Use Airspace (FUA), System Wide Information Management (SWIM) and Conflict Management strategies identified in ASTRA’s ATM Strategic Plan.

Where the FAR Working Group has identified the need for a study, trial, evaluation or assessment to address a particular technical or operational problem or issue related to ATM operations the ASTRA Council can support the establishment of a sub-group.
ASTRA Appointed Chairs
Chairs: Mr John Crane and Mr Walter Dollman

Performance Based Navigation Working Group (PBNWG)
The Performance Based Navigation Working Group supports the ASTRA Council on technical issued related to the adoption of Performance Based Navigation (including Approach with Vertical Guidance), through fostering a cooperative approach to the development of standards, systems, procedures and regulatory approvals appropriate to the needs of the Australian aviation community. Using the advice of the PBNWG, the ASTRA Council aims to ensure Australian operators receive the benefits of satellite navigation technology, through timely and effective implementation while maintaining high standards of safety
ASTRA Appointed Chair
Chair: Mr Ed Williams
Deputy Chair: Capt Alex Passerini

My understanding is that Airservices is responsible for delivering the wants and desires of Industry, of making the investments (as approved within the pricing regime) to support a future for Australian aviation. I don't think anyone wanted to see an Australian aviation system lag behind the rest of the world.

ADSB technologies are world leading, provide radar like surveillance across the mainland Australia (high level airspace as dictated by line of sire from the ADSB site).

Yes, RVSM provided a significant increase in system capacity for suitability equipped and serviceable aircraft, ADSB is the next technology (for suitability equipped and serviceable aircraft) to bring a quantum leap in efficiency across mainland Australia and adjacent airspace (ADSB sites in Indonesia and PNG).

ADSB was requested by ASTRA, Airservices has delivered as supported by other agencies including CASA approval for the separation standards that can be applied.

ADSB also provides redundancy across the J-Curve. You may remember the strong winds that Sydney experienced earlier in the year. Airservices did a risk assessment to cover the possible loss of all radar data if the radars turned themselves off (to avoid structural damage). The ADSB network that was in place across Sydney was the mitigator that permitted normal operations to continue. Procedural separation standards being applied across the Sydney basin, yeah, I'd like to see that...

The post above has been lifted from the UP site; (my turn).  There is a lot of chatter about ADSB, the cost, the value, the fact that ASA was supposed to defray the costs, but converted that saving into bonus.  The  'Sunny SA' post is up to 'his/hers' usual quality and gives depth and perspective to the discussion.  IMO well worth the time and a Choc frog.  

[P1_aka_P1]

Shortly followed by the counter argument, which maybe the crux of the matter.  Interesting discussion.

Folks,
RE. ASTRA:

ASTRA has never had a choice about ADS-B, yes or no!

Nor has ASTRA had any decisive say in the ADS-B mandate.

In early days, some several members of ASTRA raised questions about the AsA/CASA proposals, not limited to requesting formal justification (risk based) of the proposals, and far more important, a cost/benefit justification.

In the two major CASA attempts at cost/benefit, "benefits" of ADS-B were in fact benefits to AsA from the move to GNSS and the closing a large proportion of the ground based nav. aid system. Nothing to do with ADS-B.

A one senior Flight Operations rep. from Virgin said to me, at an ASTRA meeting; "I love the idea, but how am I going to justify the cost to my board".

That remains true to this day, it is not possible to identify savings from ADS-B, as opposed to other changes in airspace management in recent years over Australia.

Tootle pip!!

Lead Sled on target, as usual.

[Peetwo]

Shortly followed by the counter argument, which maybe the crux of the matter.  Interesting discussion.

Folks,
RE. ASTRA:

ASTRA has never had a choice about ADS-B, yes or no!

Nor has ASTRA had any decisive say in the ADS-B mandate.

In early days, some several members of ASTRA raised questions about the AsA/CASA proposals, not limited to requesting formal justification (risk based) of the proposals, and far more important, a cost/benefit justification.

In the two major CASA attempts at cost/benefit, "benefits" of ADS-B were in fact benefits to AsA from the move to GNSS and the closing a large proportion of the ground based nav. aid system. Nothing to do with ADS-B.

A one senior Flight Operations rep. from Virgin said to me, at an ASTRA meeting; "I love the idea, but how am I going to justify the cost to my board".

That remains true to this day, it is not possible to identify savings from ADS-B, as opposed to other changes in airspace management in recent years over Australia.

Tootle pip!!

Lead Sled on target, as usual

   Typical, the industry foots the bill, with little to no benefit. But that's OK cause ASA do get a major benefit with reduced costs with the closing of old ground based NAVAIDs & other operational efficiencies etc.; which means ASA profits will be up & the government coffers will grow. 

Which would be great if ASA was legitimately re-investing the profits back into either better infrastructure (example: CATIII ILS or radar coverage for Ballina); or increasing industry subsidies for struggling regional carriers; the list goes on & on.

Ahh but according to Dougy it's all good because ASA quite literally have an ATC system 2nd to only one in the world & the ASA execs are the most talented individuals that money can buy - Editor's Insights 2 July 2015

"..However, the bigger issue by far around Sir Angus’ appearance in the Australian is the seemingly unrelenting campaign to sully Airservices’ reputation. The attacks have been on the mandating of ADS-B for GA aircraft, the salaries paid to Airservices executives, the lack of unicom-type services at airports and more. And because it’s been played out in the public arena it has to have had an effect on the travelling public’s perception of air safety in this country. I believe that makes it irresponsible. The fact is that Airservices is at the cutting edge of air traffic management globally - and is recognised as such by ANSPs everywhere. Only a year or two ago Airservices was ranked Number Two in the world with only Canada’s ANSP edging it out of top place. And those well-paid Airservices executives include some of the finest talent around in the industry. It’s a top team and it’s doing very good things. But instead of being allowed to get on with the job, Airservices is about to be put through the Senate Estimates wringer yet again. Unnecessary at the very least..."

  Dougy, not sure what you're on mate or where you have been hiding but I reckon I could go to my local & find more honest, non-backstabbing talent, at about 1/50th of the price of the current crop of executive management at ASA. 'Get on with the job' - FFS..hmm maybe Dougy meant get on with the job of filling the bloody trough?? 

Anyway moving on & from that man again... :

Tasmanian pilots told to switch off $6m radar system  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 06, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney


A multi-million-dollar, state-of-the-art navigation system installed by Airservices Australia in Tasmania still leaves pilots at the mercy of pre-radar, 1950s-era, air traffic control procedures which are considered inefficient and not as safe.  

Aviation industry figures say the failure to use the system for radar-style surveillance approaches to Launceston and Hobart makes it a waste of money and makes those airports virtually unique among big Australian cities.

Some sources said Airservices had intended to use the system for surveillance approaches but was knocked back by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority because it was not reliable enough, while others said Airservices did not want to take on the air-traffic controllers union, which would resist such a move. Airservices has denied both these suggestions.

The Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration system, or TASWAM, was introduced after a near midair collision at Launceston between a Virgin Blue airliner and a light aircraft years ago.
After the near miss, CASA insisted on the installation of transportable radar at Launceston, while Airservices worked towards a long-term solution.

In 2006, Airservices announced TASWAM, which uses triangulation from radio transmitter ground stations to pinpoint aircraft through their transponders, and the system was made operational five years ago.

But rather than guide aircraft all the way to the runway, pilots are told as they descend through 7000 feet that they are no longer covered by radar-standard surveillance. Instead, they are required to switch to the local towers in Launceston and Hobart for procedural approaches.

Whereas under “radar certif­ied surveillance approaches” aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers using precise positioning on radar screens, procedural approaches require the controllers to rely on the pilots informing them of their positions.

Procedural separation is far less efficient because controllers have to allow much greater distance between aircraft, often about 20 nautical miles, rather than five miles under radar surveillance separation.

The president of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, airline captain David Booth, said procedural separation meant it was more likely aircraft would exper­ience air-traffic delays in Tasmania.

While he insisted the procedural standard was entirely safe and equipment on modern airliners provided excellent and reliab­le situational awareness, he said “a radar environment would probably give you a higher level of safety”.

Captain Booth, who has been flying to Tasmania for more than a decade, said he understood TASWAM had been commissioned to introduce radar-­style air-traffic control in Tasmania, but “it never worked well enough for CASA to sign it off”.

A CASA spokesman said the authority had approved Air­services to use TASWAM above 7000 feet, but “the surveillance coverage below this altitude does not meet the coverage requirements to allow air-traffic control to apply surveillance procedures”.

When TASWAM was announced, media releases from Airservices and the manufacturers of the system, Sensis Corporation — which is now part of the Swedish Saab group — gave a clear impression that surveillance approaches were the objective, talking about “accurate coverage of 150m or better from the ground level”.

“Sensis WAM’s precise surveillance of aircraft enables air traffic controllers to implement five nautical miles of aircraft separation for safer, more efficient use of the airspace in a region that was previously controlled with procedural separation standards,” a Sensis press release said.

Asked the separation standard in Tasmania below 7000 feet, an Airservices spokesman said “in most cases, 20 nautical miles”.

However, Airservices said it had never intended to use TASWAM, which cost $6 million, for surveillance approaches, saying it had achieved the goal of “improved situational awareness for controllers”.

Saab spokesman Sebastian Carlsson declined to comment.

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

ASA said;

"However, Airservices said it had never intended to use TASWAM, which cost $6 million, for surveillance approaches, saying it had achieved the goal of “improved situational awareness for controllers”.

Oh well, it was only a small outlay of $6 million. Surely somebody in ASA must have met a KPI by introducing this technology, and received a bonus as a reward for meeting that same KPI??

[Peetwo]

From that man again in today's the Oz...

Rural airport fights cost-cutting plan to axe beacon  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 07, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney




Flying instructor Hugh Brownlee has joined the campaign to save Horsham’s non-directional beacon. Picture: Aaron Francis Source: News Corp Australia
 
Against traditional civic action campaigns such as “Save Our School”, “Save Our Park”, or “Save Our Library”, the catchcry “Save Our Non-Directional Beacon” sounds a bit esoteric.  

But that’s the slogan with which the people of Horsham in western Victoria are lobbying politicians in their battle to keep an air navigation device at their local airport.

In a bid to save money, Airservices Australia, the government-owned body that runs the nation’s air-traffic-control and navi­gation system, is soon to decommission about half the 415 fixed navigation aids across the country.

According to Hugh Brownlee, the chief flying instructor at the Wimmera Aero Club, it is an ­example of how Airservices ­focuses on the interests of the big airlines rather than the many small businesses of general aviation. Non-directional beacons are radio transmitters that send out signals picked up by automatic direction finders on aircraft.

They can be used to home in on an airfield for a landing ­approach, or, in combination with other NDB signals, give the pilot a fix on the aircraft’s position. Horsham is not an airline destination, but it has considerable general aviation activity.

Airservices says old-style fixed aids such as NDBs are redundant with the introduction of new technology, particularly satellite global positioning system navigation aids.

But the aviators at Horsham, backed by the Horsham Rural City Council, say the NDB, which also provides the signal for weather information, represents a critical safety feature.

The council’s director of technical services, John Martin, said Airservices was attempting to shift costs by suggesting if the council thought it needed the NDB, it could pay for it.
“We have implored them to maintain it,” Mr Martin said.

Aviators and the council have lobbied local Nationals MP Andrew Broad, a pilot, and Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, who is Transport Minister.

“In our view, Airservices’ plans compromise our safety for the sake of their convenience and cost,” Mr Brownlee wrote in a letter to Mr Broad.

GPS is not infallible: a Victorian coroner found a faulty GPS aid on a light aircraft was to blame in 2004 for a crash in bad weather that killed six people near Benalla.

Under new regulations, aircraft rated for instrument-flight rules can get by with a basic GPS system as long as they have an “alternate” positioning system like automatic direction finders.

But with fewer fixed navigation aids to make the ADF work, aviators say they will lose their “alternate” system and be forced to install much more expensive GPS systems costing between $10,000 and $40,000.

A spokesman for Mr Truss said the Horsham NDB’s fate was sealed, and referred to “the better capability provided by satellite-based technology and the cost savings from not having to replace and maintain the older nav­aid network in its entirety”.

Dear miniscule....tick..tick..tick..tick..tick

MTF...P2
Ps Love you work Higgo...

[Peetwo]

From that man again in today's the Oz...

Rural airport fights cost-cutting plan to axe beacon  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 07, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney




Flying instructor Hugh Brownlee has joined the campaign to save Horsham’s non-directional beacon. Picture: Aaron Francis Source: News Corp Australia
 
Against traditional civic action campaigns such as “Save Our School”, “Save Our Park”, or “Save Our Library”, the catchcry “Save Our Non-Directional Beacon” sounds a bit esoteric.  

But that’s the slogan with which the people of Horsham in western Victoria are lobbying politicians in their battle to keep an air navigation device at their local airport.

In a bid to save money, Airservices Australia, the government-owned body that runs the nation’s air-traffic-control and navi­gation system, is soon to decommission about half the 415 fixed navigation aids across the country.

According to Hugh Brownlee, the chief flying instructor at the Wimmera Aero Club, it is an ­example of how Airservices ­focuses on the interests of the big airlines rather than the many small businesses of general aviation. Non-directional beacons are radio transmitters that send out signals picked up by automatic direction finders on aircraft.

They can be used to home in on an airfield for a landing ­approach, or, in combination with other NDB signals, give the pilot a fix on the aircraft’s position. Horsham is not an airline destination, but it has considerable general aviation activity.

Airservices says old-style fixed aids such as NDBs are redundant with the introduction of new technology, particularly satellite global positioning system navigation aids.

But the aviators at Horsham, backed by the Horsham Rural City Council, say the NDB, which also provides the signal for weather information, represents a critical safety feature.

The council’s director of technical services, John Martin, said Airservices was attempting to shift costs by suggesting if the council thought it needed the NDB, it could pay for it.
“We have implored them to maintain it,” Mr Martin said.

Aviators and the council have lobbied local Nationals MP Andrew Broad, a pilot, and Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, who is Transport Minister.

“In our view, Airservices’ plans compromise our safety for the sake of their convenience and cost,” Mr Brownlee wrote in a letter to Mr Broad.

GPS is not infallible: a Victorian coroner found a faulty GPS aid on a light aircraft was to blame in 2004 for a crash in bad weather that killed six people near Benalla.

Under new regulations, aircraft rated for instrument-flight rules can get by with a basic GPS system as long as they have an “alternate” positioning system like automatic direction finders.

But with fewer fixed navigation aids to make the ADF work, aviators say they will lose their “alternate” system and be forced to install much more expensive GPS systems costing between $10,000 and $40,000.

A spokesman for Mr Truss said the Horsham NDB’s fate was sealed, and referred to “the better capability provided by satellite-based technology and the cost savings from not having to replace and maintain the older nav­aid network in its entirety”.

From Higgo today...

Flyers burnt by air safety U-turn  

by: EAN HIGGINS

• From: The Australian
  
• July 08, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney




Brad Edwards at Ballina airport in northern NSW. Picture: Renee Nowytarger Source: News Corp Australia

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority promised charter aircraft operators an exemption from having to install a cripplingly expensive new air navigation system, but backed down after Airservices Australia reversed its position and insisted on no such breaks.  

Documents obtained by The Australian show that two years ago, the then head of CASA, John McCormick, told one charter ­operator, Brad Edwards, that CASA as the safety regulator had reached an understanding with Airservices, the government body which runs the country’s air traffic control and navigation system, for exemptions to a mandate requiring the installation of the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast system.

ADS-B is an advanced air navigation system based on satellite GPS, which relays aircraft positions via ground stations to air traffic controllers.

Airservices has sought to have all required aircraft carry the new system by 2017, three years before its full introduction in the US.

Aviation figures say that for smaller general aviation operators, the cost of installing ADS-B is at present prohibitive, because it requires aircraft owners to do complex engineering work.

Mr Edwards, who runs charter service Edwards Aviation with seven aircraft based in Armidale, NSW, sought along with other smaller operators to be exempted from installing ADS-B for a few years, until the economies of scale and mass production of the equipment in the US brought it down to a fraction of the cost.

“I could see it was going to cost me a big whack of money,” Mr ­Edwards said. “For one of my aircraft there were still no engineering solutions out there, so we said, ‘What are we going to do, we want an exemption’.”

Engineers had told him it would cost $125,000 to equip that aircraft with ADS-B, because the equipment manufacturer, Honeywell, had not designed the adaptation engineering for the aircraft type, and would not be doing so until the market developed in the US. “In five years, it would cost a tenth as much,” Mr Edwards said.

Mr McCormick met Mr ­Edwards in Armidale, and said CASA would arrange for an exemption for him and others in his sector of the aviation industry.

Soon after, Mr McCormick wrote to Mr Edwards. “I have spoken to (an aviation industry officer representing smaller air operators) and Airservices and the ­approach they have spoken of ­between themselves is to treat biz jets that are not ADS-B compliant in the same manner as Airservices dealt with non RVSM compliant aircraft when that initiative was introduced,” Mr McCormick wrote. RVSM refers to an advanced altimeter system, in relation to which exemptions were granted, and are still granted, to small operators, who are only required to ­accept occasionally being placed in second priority for flight clearances by air traffic controllers.

Mr Edwards said once he ­received the letter from Mr McCormick, “I went, you beauty, we can relax.”

But on a flight from Launceston to Uluru with Russian tourists, air traffic controllers kept his aircraft below 29,000 feet instead of the preferred cruising altitude of 37,000 feet, meaning it was burning twice the fuel. The controllers said he could not fly at the higher altitude ­because he had not installed ADS-B, and ignored his protestations that he had been granted an exemption by CASA.

Knowing the aircraft would not make it to Uluru, Mr Edwards touched down at Whyalla in South Australia to refuel.

“We were not going to make it,” Mr Edwards said.

He then spoke to CASA, but could not immediately get a ­response to what had happened to his promised exemption.

He spoke to businessman and aviator Dick Smith, who contacted Mr McCormick. Mr McCormick told Mr Smith that Airservices had changed its mind and decided it did not want the ­exemptions granted. In a subsequent letter to Mr Smith, Mr McCormick wrote:

“CASA took into consideration and accepted Airservices Australia’s safety ­arguments against exemptions.”

Mr Smith yesterday said: “CASA is the safety regulator, why are they letting a profit-making business decide safety issues?”

A CASA spokesman said: “CASA assesses all relevant information in making a decision about exemptions. In this case a relevant safety argument was made by Airservices that was accepted by CASA.”

Mr Edwards said, in all, he had been forced to spend $250,000 to equip his aircraft with ADS-B, with none of the benefits CASA and Airservices promised, such as more direct routes for aircraft.

“It’s had a very big impact of the viability of this business,” Mr Edwards said.

A spokesman for Airservices said CASA had put in the ADS-B mandate “following comprehensive consultation and support from key sections of the aviation community”.

“We have also spoken individually to a number of operators, including Mr Edwards,” the spokesman said.

Dear miniscule....tick..tick..tick..tick..tick



MTF...P2

Ps Love your work Higgo...

Pps Oh and in case you missed it...

From AP thread..Senate Estimates - 2015 #70

Just an update to the ASA Performance inquiry, the following is fresh off the Senate Committees: Upcoming Public Hearings webpage:

18 August 2015

• Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
  Contact: Committee Secretary, Tim Watling (02) 6277 3510
  Performance of Airservices Australia
  CANBERRA ACT: Committee Room 2S3, Parliament House, 5.00pm - 7.00pm
  

[Kharon]

Interesting snippet.

CASA was noticeable by it’s mass attendance at a talk given by internationally recognised air space expert- Jeff Griffith.   Several luminaries were in attendance to hear the News Corp sponsored speaker.  Interesting, when you consider the inestimable Higgins (that man) series of articles and the impending Senate inquiry into ASA.  

MTF – over to you P2.

[Peetwo]

Interesting snippet.

CASA was noticeable by it’s mass attendance at a talk given by internationally recognised air space expert- Jeff Griffith.   Several luminaries were in attendance to hear the News Corp sponsored speaker.  Interesting, when you consider the inestimable Higgins (that man) series of articles and the impending Senate inquiry into ASA.  

MTF – over to you P2.

The plot thickens.

Good catch Ferryman...   That name rung a bell for some reason, so doing a cursory look-see on the net and surprise, surprise I came across a pdf link from Ol'Pumpkin head's department titled - aviation_Griffith_ Report.

This very damning and insightful review report by Mr Griffith's strenuously warned against deviating from the tried & proven (US) NAS 2(b). Unfortunately it would appear that various ASA Executive teams, over the eleven years since, has not heeded the Griffith warnings and have gone off half-cocked on their own bastardisation of the US NAS model. 

Hmm...all very interesting

However putting those revelations aside for a minute or two but referring to that report, I came across another disturbing revelation..


Is there no limit on what Mr Dolan has had his sticky fingers all over...FFS!

Kind of makes you wonder about Senator Xenophon's line of questioning to Dolan & the ATSB at last Estimates... 

Nah that wouldn't be a conflict of interest would it??

Definitely a lot MTF with this..P2  (ps I reckon Higgo & the Oz think so too )

      

[Peetwo]

Tasmanian pilots told to switch off $6m radar system  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 06, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney


A multi-million-dollar, state-of-the-art navigation system installed by Airservices Australia in Tasmania still leaves pilots at the mercy of pre-radar, 1950s-era, air traffic control procedures which are considered inefficient and not as safe.  

Aviation industry figures say the failure to use the system for radar-style surveillance approaches to Launceston and Hobart makes it a waste of money and makes those airports virtually unique among big Australian cities.

Some sources said Airservices had intended to use the system for surveillance approaches but was knocked back by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority because it was not reliable enough, while others said Airservices did not want to take on the air-traffic controllers union, which would resist such a move. Airservices has denied both these suggestions.

The Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration system, or TASWAM, was introduced after a near midair collision at Launceston between a Virgin Blue airliner and a light aircraft years ago.
After the near miss, CASA insisted on the installation of transportable radar at Launceston, while Airservices worked towards a long-term solution.

In 2006, Airservices announced TASWAM, which uses triangulation from radio transmitter ground stations to pinpoint aircraft through their transponders, and the system was made operational five years ago.

But rather than guide aircraft all the way to the runway, pilots are told as they descend through 7000 feet that they are no longer covered by radar-standard surveillance. Instead, they are required to switch to the local towers in Launceston and Hobart for procedural approaches.

Whereas under “radar certif­ied surveillance approaches” aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers using precise positioning on radar screens, procedural approaches require the controllers to rely on the pilots informing them of their positions.

Procedural separation is far less efficient because controllers have to allow much greater distance between aircraft, often about 20 nautical miles, rather than five miles under radar surveillance separation.

The president of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, airline captain David Booth, said procedural separation meant it was more likely aircraft would exper­ience air-traffic delays in Tasmania.

While he insisted the procedural standard was entirely safe and equipment on modern airliners provided excellent and reliab­le situational awareness, he said “a radar environment would probably give you a higher level of safety”.

Captain Booth, who has been flying to Tasmania for more than a decade, said he understood TASWAM had been commissioned to introduce radar-­style air-traffic control in Tasmania, but “it never worked well enough for CASA to sign it off”.

A CASA spokesman said the authority had approved Air­services to use TASWAM above 7000 feet, but “the surveillance coverage below this altitude does not meet the coverage requirements to allow air-traffic control to apply surveillance procedures”.

When TASWAM was announced, media releases from Airservices and the manufacturers of the system, Sensis Corporation — which is now part of the Swedish Saab group — gave a clear impression that surveillance approaches were the objective, talking about “accurate coverage of 150m or better from the ground level”.

“Sensis WAM’s precise surveillance of aircraft enables air traffic controllers to implement five nautical miles of aircraft separation for safer, more efficient use of the airspace in a region that was previously controlled with procedural separation standards,” a Sensis press release said.

Asked the separation standard in Tasmania below 7000 feet, an Airservices spokesman said “in most cases, 20 nautical miles”.

However, Airservices said it had never intended to use TASWAM, which cost $6 million, for surveillance approaches, saying it had achieved the goal of “improved situational awareness for controllers”.

Saab spokesman Sebastian Carlsson declined to comment.

Further to this from the Hobart Mercury today (Ps With a quote from CASA spin-meister  Pinocchio ):

Dick Smith says radar systems at Hobart and Launceston airports a safety risk  

• by: NICK CLARK
  
• From: Mercury
  
• July 09, 2015 12:00AM
  

Dick Smith Source: News Corp Australia
 
ENTREPRENEUR Dick Smith has labelled the $6 million radar system at Hobart and Launceston airports a “lemon” that poses a significant public safety risk.  

Mr Smith, former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman, said the radar system, known as Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration [TASWAM], was unacceptable for a capital city, particularly one surrounded by mountains.

He said the system, introduced by Airservices Australia in 2010, did not operate below 7000 feet, after which pilots were forced to switch to local towers for procedural approaches — a method he described as a “1930s pre-radar procedural control system”.

“Under this system a pilot has to tell controllers where they are and if the pilot makes an error everyone could die,’’ he said. “Tasmania is one of the rare locations in Australia where there are high mountains on the approach to airports.”

Mr Smith called on the group’s chairman, Sir Angus Houston, to “go to Tasmania and explain to people that the radar doesn’t work as was claimed”.

But an Airservices Australia spokeswoman said TASWAM had been successful and provided surveillance better than that previously provided by radar over Tasmania.

“It also provides additional coverage at lower levels at Hobart than previously possible with a Launceston-based radar,” she said. “It is false and irresponsible to assert that air traffic control services which do not use radar are considered inefficient and not safe.”

Satellite-based technology would be fitted to most aircraft from 2016 that would ensure pilots would be able to safely and efficiently navigate the skies, she said.

Airservices Australia said Broome, Rockhampton, Alice Springs, Karratha, Coffs Harbour, Tamworth and Mackay had similar service levels.

CASA manager of corporate communications Peter Gibson said there were “no safety issues as procedural air traffic measures are commonly used”. But Mr Smith said: “Every other capital city in Australia has radar right to the runway — why not Hobart?”

Tasmania has had a number of close calls. In 2003 a Boeing 737 came within 60m of a five-seater Tobago. Five years later an Airbus A320 and a Boeing 737 came within 5km of each other in fog.

Hobart and Launceston have about 45,000 aircraft movements each year.

Plus in today's the Oz from that man again - Upgrades hit razor-thin margins

And to balance the ledger just a little-- --here was ASA's response to recent attacks from the Oz:

Letter To The Editor

Response to The Australian
8 Jul 2015
[/url] [url=http:://auntypru.com/forum/javascript:window.print()]
Dear Mr Mathieson,

This week two articles in The Australian, ‘Pilots told to switch off $6m radar system’ (Monday 6 July 2015) and ‘Rural flyers in revolt over bid to scrap beacon’ (Tuesday 7 July 2015) continue to make inaccurate and misleading claims about Airservices and aviation safety in Australia.

These articles imply that decisions by Airservices have reduced safety for the flying public, which is incorrect and damaging to the reputation of Airservices.

It is incorrect and misleading to suggest that the Tasmanian Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) system reduces air safety in Tasmania. This successful project provides surveillance better than that previously provided by radar over Tasmania. It also provides additional coverage at lower levels at Hobart than previously possible with a Launceston-based radar. It is false and irresponsible to assert that air traffic control services which do not use radar are considered inefficient and not safe.

It is also misleading to imply that Airservices made a cost-based decision on which navigation aids to maintain as part of the back-up navigation network. This network of ground-based navigation aids was selected by industry working groups in 2004 and formed part of consultations undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Airservices has subsequently been working to implement these industry-supported decisions and continues to consult closely with stakeholders.

Satellite-based technology that is available today, and will be required to be fitted to most passenger aircraft from 2016, ensures that pilots are better able to navigate Australia’s skies, providing safety and efficiency benefits.

We have responded to numerous questions from your journalist on both of these issues over several days. Despite extensive information being provided by Airservices, these articles do not give a fair and balanced perspective, which is contrary to News Limited’s own Code of Conduct.

We ask that you refrain from repeating these inaccurate and misleading claims and publish corrections at the earliest opportunity.

Safety remains Airservices number one priority. Airservices is among the best in the world for our safety performance and we continue to work with industry to deliver safety enhancements.
Yours sincerely
 
Mairi Barton
Executive General Manager
Corporate and Industry Affairs
8 July 2015

MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

ASA Chief Spin Doctor Mairi Antoinette has been busier than Hoody at a Toga party this week! Naturally Frau Staib and Angus 'I say nothing' Houston have remained at arms length and are avoiding the fire. I'm amazed that Hoody hasn't been thrown under the bus yet well and truly. People like Staib and Houston always make sure that a sacrificial lamb is on hand to appease the Gods of pumpkins if and when a sacrifice is called for......

TICK TOCK ASA TICK TOCK

[Peetwo]

Dick Smith says radar systems at Hobart and Launceston airports a safety risk  

• by: NICK CLARK
  
• From: Mercury
  
• July 09, 2015 12:00AM
  

Dick Smith Source: News Corp Australia
 
ENTREPRENEUR Dick Smith has labelled the $6 million radar system at Hobart and Launceston airports a “lemon” that poses a significant public safety risk.  

Mr Smith, former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman, said the radar system, known as Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration [TASWAM], was unacceptable for a capital city, particularly one surrounded by mountains.

He said the system, introduced by Airservices Australia in 2010, did not operate below 7000 feet, after which pilots were forced to switch to local towers for procedural approaches — a method he described as a “1930s pre-radar procedural control system”.

“Under this system a pilot has to tell controllers where they are and if the pilot makes an error everyone could die,’’ he said. “Tasmania is one of the rare locations in Australia where there are high mountains on the approach to airports.”

Mr Smith called on the group’s chairman, Sir Angus Houston, to “go to Tasmania and explain to people that the radar doesn’t work as was claimed”.

But an Airservices Australia spokeswoman said TASWAM had been successful and provided surveillance better than that previously provided by radar over Tasmania.

“It also provides additional coverage at lower levels at Hobart than previously possible with a Launceston-based radar,” she said. “It is false and irresponsible to assert that air traffic control services which do not use radar are considered inefficient and not safe.”

Satellite-based technology would be fitted to most aircraft from 2016 that would ensure pilots would be able to safely and efficiently navigate the skies, she said.

Airservices Australia said Broome, Rockhampton, Alice Springs, Karratha, Coffs Harbour, Tamworth and Mackay had similar service levels.

CASA manager of corporate communications Peter Gibson said there were “no safety issues as procedural air traffic measures are commonly used”. But Mr Smith said: “Every other capital city in Australia has radar right to the runway — why not Hobart?”

Tasmania has had a number of close calls. In 2003 a Boeing 737 came within 60m of a five-seater Tobago. Five years later an Airbus A320 and a Boeing 737 came within 5km of each other in fog.

Hobart and Launceston have about 45,000 aircraft movements each year.

Plus in today's the Oz from that man again - Upgrades hit razor-thin margins

And to balance the ledger just a little-- --here was ASA's response to recent attacks from the Oz:

Letter To The Editor

Response to The Australian
8 Jul 2015
[/url] [url=http:://auntypru.com/forum/javascript:window.print()]
Dear Mr Mathieson,

This week two articles in The Australian, ‘Pilots told to switch off $6m radar system’ (Monday 6 July 2015) and ‘Rural flyers in revolt over bid to scrap beacon’ (Tuesday 7 July 2015) continue to make inaccurate and misleading claims about Airservices and aviation safety in Australia.

These articles imply that decisions by Airservices have reduced safety for the flying public, which is incorrect and damaging to the reputation of Airservices.

It is incorrect and misleading to suggest that the Tasmanian Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) system reduces air safety in Tasmania. This successful project provides surveillance better than that previously provided by radar over Tasmania. It also provides additional coverage at lower levels at Hobart than previously possible with a Launceston-based radar. It is false and irresponsible to assert that air traffic control services which do not use radar are considered inefficient and not safe.

It is also misleading to imply that Airservices made a cost-based decision on which navigation aids to maintain as part of the back-up navigation network. This network of ground-based navigation aids was selected by industry working groups in 2004 and formed part of consultations undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Airservices has subsequently been working to implement these industry-supported decisions and continues to consult closely with stakeholders.

Satellite-based technology that is available today, and will be required to be fitted to most passenger aircraft from 2016, ensures that pilots are better able to navigate Australia’s skies, providing safety and efficiency benefits.

We have responded to numerous questions from your journalist on both of these issues over several days. Despite extensive information being provided by Airservices, these articles do not give a fair and balanced perspective, which is contrary to News Limited’s own Code of Conduct.

We ask that you refrain from repeating these inaccurate and misleading claims and publish corrections at the earliest opportunity.

Safety remains Airservices number one priority. Airservices is among the best in the world for our safety performance and we continue to work with industry to deliver safety enhancements.
Yours sincerely
 
Mairi Barton
Executive General Manager
Corporate and Industry Affairs
8 July 2015

And now from Dougy from off the Yaffa:

Editor's Insights 9 July 2015

09 Jul 2015
Doug Nancarrow

The Dick Smith ‘push’ has brought out a US ATC expert Jeff Griffith to review our airspace and ATC services this week.  I believe the consultant, no doubt highly paid, and at least two reporters were flying around eastern Australia to places like Ballina to examine what’s happening and report on the problems as he sees them.

Also included was a session at Bankstown Airport where assembled GA was ‘briefed’ on the issues.

And the assault continues in the media, with News Limited journos getting at least three pieces published prominently in the past week, the latest today. The ‘push’ is seeing Dick Smith staying out of the headlines, but one after another GA people are trotted out to instance the dangers inherent in our airspace management or the cost burden of mandatory fitment of ADS-B etc. This week we even got a serve about the phasing out of NDBs, something that’s been around for the last 10 years.

And the blowtorch has been turned on CASA now too, with some of the chatterers declaring this week that DAS Skidmore has failed to live up to expectations and has been captured by the CASA culture. Whether or not such comments are on the mark, once again I’d like to see the debate held face to face and not ‘off stage’.
 
With Airservices, ATSB and CASA all being hammered one way or another now you’d have to wonder how long the Minister can stay out of the fray.

(In bold above) - Don't we all Dougy, don't we all... 

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

ASA Chief Spin Doctor Mairi Antoinette has been busier than Hoody at a Toga party this week! Naturally Frau Staib and Angus 'I say nothing' Houston have remained at arms length and are avoiding the fire. I'm amazed that Hoody hasn't been thrown under the bus yet well and truly. People like Staib and Houston always make sure that a sacrificial lamb is on hand to appease the Gods of pumpkins if and when a sacrifice is called for......

TICK TOCK ASA TICK TOCK

Hmm...think you might just be right Gobbles, caught this off the Senate Committees RRAT site today from Frau Staib:

4.) Correspondence received 7 July 2015 from Ms Margaret Staib, Chief Executive Officer, Airservices Australia, clarifying evidence given on 28 May 2015. (PDF 276 KB)

 




 


Now in my humble opinion there is only one person - out of the ASA executive numpties - who is possibly being lined up for a future pineapple, & that person is Hoody.

However I also make the observation that it would appear that Hoody is still very much in favour with Frau Staib at least

Here was evidence of Hoody filling in for Frau Staib back in January:

1   Correspondence from Mr Greg Hood, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Airservices Australia to committee clarifying a statement made at 28 November 2014 hearing, received 8 January 2015.

 And as recently as 3 days ago:

Release

Airservices marks milestone in Australia’s aviation history
6 Jul 2015
[/url] [url=http:://auntypru.com/forum/javascript:window.print()]
Australia’s provider of air traffic control and aviation fire fighting will today mark 20 years of delivering world-class air navigation services and one of the best aviation safety records in the world.

Airservices and the aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), were both established from the division of the former Civil Aviation Authority on 6 July 1995.

Airservices Acting Chief Executive Officer, Greg Hood, said that Airservices and its predecessors have a long and shared heritage in the delivery of civilian air traffic control services dating back to 1938 when the Department of Civil Aviation was established.

“We now manage more than four million flights carrying more than 90 million passengers, with two of the top 10 busiest air routes in the world,” Mr Hood said.

“We have long been at the forefront of embracing new technology, from the introduction of an advanced air traffic management system back in 2000, through to being the first country in the world to introduce continent-wide satellite surveillance in 2009.

“Now, through our OneSKY Australia program, we are moving towards becoming a world-leader in civil and military harmonisation, with the development of a joint air traffic management platform that will enable a new level of operational and cost efficiency and safety, while reducing delays for the travelling public and improving environmental outcomes.”

Over the past five years Airservices has invested more than $1 billion in Australian’s aviation infrastructure to ensure the delivery of safe and efficient services and deliver value for customers.

This has also included investing in new control towers, new fire stations, and replacing critical aviation infrastructure such as radars. Other technology improvements include transitioning away from paper strips in control towers and towards using integrated digital tower technology to deliver safety and efficiency improvements.

“Today also gives us an opportunity to recognise more than 4000 people for their professionalism, dedication and contribution to keeping our skies safe,” Mr Hood said.
“We have an integral role in an aviation industry that, in Australia, supports more than 300 000 jobs and directly employs more than 149 000 people.

“This places us in a unique position at the heart of the aviation industry, which enables us to bring together the various industry stakeholders and deal collectively with the challenges of growth the aviation industry is facing.”

But I guess all that means is that Hoody is more of an attractive target when Angus & the Board are looking for a scapegoat to appease the Senators & the miniscule...

MTF...P2    

[Gobbledock]

It would be, and is, a normal logical choice to place Hoody in the A/g CEO role when Frau Staib is on annual leave or participating in an 'International high level engagement' (rort) somewhere overseas. To not put him in that role would raise eyebrows as he is second in command. Now that still doesnt mean that they aren't lining him up for the sacrificial altar, it could just be that de'Staib'ilizer and Anus Houston are playing a very succinct game. Remember, those two nimrods Herr Skull and Farq'u'hard'son did the same thing to the chiselled Hoodster back at Fort Fumble - they treated him like royalty while behind the scenes setting him up as the Pelair fall-guy. 

Anyway, as most would be aware, there are some serious factions fighting it out at the higher echelons of ASA. Some of the newish blood and some of the old Russelite crew are playing their own State of Origin match internally, and so far it has been brutal. Who wins the series is anyone's guess as it won't be decided for some time yet.

This ASA game has a long way to play yet...ding ding goes the bell.