[Peetwo]

Airservices Australia 'not fit for purpose': Inquiry hears.

For those interested, another public hearing for the 'Senate Inquiry into impact and mitigation of aircraft noise' occurred today at Penrith Sydney. For today's program see - HERE - and to listen to the full audio here is the APH YouTube live session recording:

Plus from Senator Bridgett McKenzie and the Daily Telegraph, via X:

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

Dear Minister King your inaction in aviation ✈️continues to hurt Australian travellers and communities. Please act. Thanks to all who spoke at today’s senate hearing in Penrith. Airservices Australia ‘not fit for purpose’: Inquiry hears

---

"..The government owned corporation responsible for managing Australia's airspace and flight paths is 'not fit for purpose' and 'has been failing Australians for decades', a senate inquiry has heard. Sydneysiders have just one week left to weigh in on the proposed flight paths for the Western Sydney Airport..."

Western Sydney airport reps booed at inquiry into aircraft noise

"..Representatives of western Sydney airport were subjected to boos and jeers during a trainwreck senate grilling into aircraft noise. Here’s the latest..."

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

ANAO to review (slap with a wet lettuce) the Harfwit administration of the OneSky GWEP?? -

Today, via the ANAO office: Ref - https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance...y-contract

The objective of this audit is to assess the effectiveness of Airservices Australia’s management of the OneSKY contract.

Audit criteria:

The ANAO proposes to examine:

• Has Airservices Australia developed appropriate governance arrangements to support contract management?
  
• Has Airservices Australia managed the contract effectively to achieve value for money?
  

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

French connection?

Oh ho! This ANAO audit should be fun to watch as it muddles through the 'official' data – as supplied by ASA. Probably got the wrong crew doing the investigating though, tame, house trained puppy auditors scratching away in the front garden, the carefully watered one, liberally dosed with horse pooh.

Those with long memories will be wondering how far back the 'audit' will stretch; perhaps beginning with the Hoose-to-Blame departure and the French connection; maybe even take a look at the time and money invested and the resultant improvement provided for all of that.

'There's a shocker in the locker, if you care to take a look”.

Toot toot..

[Peetwo]

Dicky King OnePie GWEP MKII mention: "NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!"

From the GWEP MKII: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/depart...wards-2050

OneSKY is on the way - Err..what century might that be?? 

OneSKY is a joint partnership program between the Department of Defence and Airservices Australia to
replace Australia’s separate and ageing air traffic management systems with a single national system,
known as the Civil Military Air Traffic Management System.

Australian authorities are responsible for managing 11% of the world’s airspace:

• Airservices Australia manages the majority of Australian airspace and provides air traffic control for
civil aviation services, including tower services at 29 airports.
• The Australian Defence Force manages military airspace. Defence provides air traffic services at
12 Australian aerodromes, including for civil operations at Darwin, Townsville and Newcastle airports.
Defence also manages military-designated restricted airspace to separate hazardous military activity –
for example, live firing or combat flying – from non-compatible airspace users.

OneSKY will combine these separate operations under a single system. It is expected to deliver more
than $1.2 billion in economic benefits to airspace users over 20 years through route optimisation,
trajectory-based operations, shared use of airspace, business continuity benefits and productivity
improvements.164 Other benefits include:

• supporting growth in air traffic
• facilitating advances in aviation technology
• reducing the complexity of Australian airspace
• supporting national security by providing a secure operating area to deliver Defence’s required approach
services at the joint civil-military airports in Darwin and Townsville
• increasing flexibility for air traffic controllers to move between roles and locations, enabling better
workforce utilisation.

Now 'let's do the time warp again..'; from the 2009 GWEP MKI:

Ref: pg 122:

Greater civil/military cooperation and harmonisation

Airservices and Defence are the two government agencies charged with the provision of air
navigation services in Australia and together provide the air traffic services and infrastructure
underpinning our national ATM system.

There is now an ideal opportunity to synchronise the ATM capability and support requirements
of these two agencies, as both organisations will be undergoing major equipment upgrades and
replacement programs from 2013.

Enhanced civil and military ATM system harmonisation will produce benefits in terms of improved
safety, better investment in personnel and infrastructure, seamless systems compatibility, and
smarter procurement practices.

The Australian Government, while recognising particular systems are optimised for different roles, will support a more harmonised approach to the future development and maintenance of our national ATM system. Airservices and Defence will implement a collaborative governance structure to manage the harmonization process. This will be guided by the two organisations developing and implementing a joint operational concept and synchronising capability development.

The joint operating concept will cover:

> system interoperability requirements; > systems sustainment and follow up development;
> future service delivery methods and infrastructure;
> cooperative workforce planning;
> a sound governance framework;
> military principles, international civil treaties and global standards; and
> common operational and technical requirements (and any particular unique Defence requirements).

Key to the implementation of a comprehensive, collaborative approach to nation-wide air traffic management will be a range of activities to provide synergies and economies of scale in system procurement, infrastructure development, regulatory oversight and national workforce accreditation and training.

These activities will include:
> the procurement of a national ATM solution to replace the legacy civil and military elements of the national ATM system including ATM automation systems, tower automation systems, radar and navigational aid equipment, and training and simulation systems;
> upgrades and refurbishment of civil and military infrastructure, including consideration of a common tower facility design;
> facilitating greater commonality of civil/military regulatory standards where feasible;
> national alignment of workforce accreditation and training, including national accreditation for air traffic controllers and technicians, and the development of a national curriculum for air traffic controllers;
> interoperability of the discrete air traffic control (ATC) training facilities at East Sale and Tullamarine;
> sharing of technical training resources for common systems;
> supporting and promoting joint ATC operational procedures and standards; and
> the development of a national infrastructure redundancy plan commensurate with the critical nature of ATM systems and facilities in a way that caters for business continuity and national security requirements.

Ref: Summary of Actions, pg 133 - 

> The implementation of a number of major joint civil and military aviation initiatives by Airservices and Defence including:

– developing and implementing a national, harmonised civil-military ATM system,
enabling economies of scale for the upgrades and refurbishment of civil and military
ATM infrastructure;

And so the OnePie project began to evolve...  

Next reference is from the Summary to the last (2019) ANAO OneSky audit report:

Background

1. The December 2009 National Aviation White Paper identified expected benefits from synchronising civil and military air traffic management through the procurement of a single solution to replace the separate systems of Airservices Australia (Airservices) and the Department of Defence (Defence). The OneSKY Australia program involves the procurement of a Civil Military Air Traffic Management System (CMATS). Airservices is the lead entity for the procurement.
2. The procurement process commenced with a Request for Information issued to industry in May 2010, with 23 responses received. A Request for Tender (RFT) was issued in June 2013. Six tenders were received, four of which proceeded to detailed evaluation, during which one was set aside on the basis that it was clearly not competitive. The two highest ranked tenderers proceeded to the final evaluation stage. Decisions were then taken to set-aside, and later exclude, the second-ranked tenderer from further consideration (on the basis that it was ‘clearly non-competitive’) rather than enter into parallel negotiations with two tenderers.1
3. Negotiations with the successful tenderer (Thales Australia) commenced in September 2014. Offers were submitted by the successful tenderer in October and December 2014. On 27 February 2015, it was announced that an advanced work contracting arrangement would be entered into allowing discrete parcels of work to be performed while negotiation of the acquisition and support contracts was progressed. The earlier offers (including the response to the RFT) expired in October 2015. Another offer was submitted in June 2016, with a final offer submitted in September 2017, followed by further negotiation on scope, price and commercial terms.
4. In February 2018:

• an acquisition contract was signed by Airservices and the successful tenderer (as well as a support contract). The acquisition contract had a target price of AUD$1.22 billion and a ceiling price of AUD$1.32 billion (applying exchange rates on the date the contract was signed);
  
• Defence obtained Government approval for a $243 million increase to its project budget (including $90 million identified as relating to CMATS) to enable it to afford its share of project costs. Associated with the budget increase, Airservices and Defence were to undertake cost reduction measures, including capability offsets, to enable work to be delivered within the revised Defence budget for CMATS; and
  
• cost sharing arrangements between Airservices and Defence were updated and formalised through the execution of an On-Supply Agreement. For a fixed price of $521 million, CMATS will be provided to Defence along with an alternative air traffic management tower solution at four sites2 and the voice control switch developed under Advanced Work Order 3. Defence’s contribution to program management costs are also included within this agreed amount. Airservices and Defence are each responsible for their own personnel and resourcing costs.
  

5. In February 2018 when the decision was taken by Airservices to enter into the acquisition contract, it estimated its acquisition program costs to be $1.517 billion. This figure does not include the fixed acquisition price of $521 million agreed between Airservices and Defence.

Hmm...this extract:

"..Negotiations with the successful tenderer (Thales Australia) commenced in September 2014. Offers were submitted by the successful tenderer in October and December 2014..."

That timeline was around about the same time that the new ASA CEO Ms Staib was being staibbed in the back - remember this?

+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0mdJUX4LFk + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQYWQGfucg&t=35s + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PedLVRhf8Q0

And again in August 2015 when Harfwit had began as the Acting CEO...   

+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siiMWoct-Mg&t=94s + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns0VdfeJsCY&t=213s + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erX566DJV-M&t=10s + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYZrPjU_05k&t=6s + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qS5cwA1m9g&t=7s + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv7M1jKNSFA&t=50s

Followed by former former ASA Chair Houston-blame a month later:

+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPzh4sE613U&t=11s + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jx-DL8kksw&t=8s

What then followed was ANAO OnePie audit No.1, which was requested by former Minister Warren Truss:

  
This was the ANAO response:

24 September 2015

The Hon Warren Truss MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

Request regarding audit of OneSKY Australia programme

Thank you for your letter of 31 August 2015 in which you requested that the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) examine the probity and conflict of interest arrangements in place for the OneSKY Australia programme being led by Airservices Australia (Airservices).

As you noted in your letter, the OneSKY programme is of significant importance to Australian civil and military aviation. The ANAO is also aware of matters of relating to the OneSKY tender process that have been raised in the course of the inquiry into the performance of Airservices currently being undertaken by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.

In that context, I have decided that the ANAO will undertake two performance audits in relation to the OneSKY programme.

The first audit will examine whether Airservices has effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with the International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) in association with the OneSKY tender process were effectively administered. That audit will include consideration of the management of probity and conflict of interest matters. We will be commencing this first audit shortly and expect it to be completed by April 2016.

Following completion of the first audit, ANAO will move to a second performance audit involving a comprehensive examination of the OneSKY programme to assess whether it has been effectively administered so as to provide value with public resources. The scope of this second audit will involve the conduct of the OneSKY project from initiation to finalisation of the source selection and contracting process for the delivery of the project.

Yours sincerely

Rona Mellor PSM
Acting Auditor-General

This led to 2 audit reports, one in 2016: Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist on the OneSKY Australia Program & https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance...sky-tender

The 2016 audit report was reviewed by the RRAT Committee in Estimates:

etc..

Plus the 'Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit' conducted a report review inquiry:

+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er2Q5vnLITk&t=4s + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQCISTuIRXk&t=26s + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M9VW3f_YTM&t=169s + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QGBe7V_d4U&t=5s

And then of course came the 2019 audit, to which despite all the non-partisan concern an agreement (over the preceding years) that the ASA management of the OnePie project was a complete 'shit show' (see above), the former Labor Shadow Minister (now Miniscule DK) playing politics, responded to the audit report with this load of bollocks...  

COST AND TIME BLOW OUT ON ONESKY PROJECT UNDER GOVERNMENT’S WATCH

The OneSky Project is becoming another complete failure of this Liberal National Government, with an ANAO report confirming costs have more than doubled and delivery is due ten years late.

What has this Liberal National Government been doing for the past six years to oversee such a large a blow out in delivery time and cost?
In its scathing report, the ANAO has said in relation to the contractual arrangements of OneSky:

‘If the current contracted timeframes are achieved, there will be a more than ten year delay (from 2015 to 2026) in the replacement of the existing separate civil and military systems compared with the timeframe envisaged at the start of the procurement process.’

‘The ceiling price under the target cost incentive model that was then adopted is more than double the price submitted by the successful tenderer in its response to the 2013 request for tender.’


‘There is inadequate assurance that the contracted acquisition price is consistent with a value for money outcome for the capability being acquired.’

When Labor first initiated this project from the 2009 National Aviation White Paper – we identified benefits from synchronising civil and military air traffic management through the procurement of a single solution to replace the separate systems of Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence.

Under this Liberal National Government’s watch this project has seen failure:

‘Negotiations took so long that the offer submitted by the successful tenderer expired…’

After failure:

‘Negotiations also resulted in a late change in the contracting model from the one that had been presented to the market in June 2013.’

After failure:

‘The delays in negotiating and finalising an acquisition contract … required the lives of the existing systems to be extended beyond that which was originally envisaged.’

This Liberal National Government has overseen a massive ten year blow out with contracts having to be constantly renegotiated leading to ANAO concern over inadequate assurances of value for money.

Labor expects that the powerful Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit will seriously consider this report and the government’s failure to demonstrate value for money.

Hardworking Australians who pay their taxes, rightly expect the Government not to waste their money.

In a failure of Government, the Liberals and Nationals incompetence and inability to demonstrate value for money has once again been exposed by the Auditor-General.

 
Now ffwd to December 2023 where the Miniscule was attributed to saying this in a 'Concern Summit' of the OnePie project:

Quotes attributable to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Catherine King MP:

“I thank officials from Airservices and Defence and all other representatives for their work today in discussing the Civil Military Air Traffic Management System project. Top-level focus is essential to ensure we can remediate areas of deficiency.

“There have been considerable efforts over the past 12 months to develop a robust remediation plan to get this project back on track. The Government is confident this project will deliver a key capability system to Defence.”

Which brings me full circle back to the top of the page:

"..It is expected to deliver more than $1.2 billion in economic benefits to airspace users over 20 years through route optimisation..."

And DK signed off on that fictional bureaucratic dribble? God save our industry because the Albo government never will - FDS!

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Happy Go Lucky responds to: Budget Estimates 29/05/24 - ASA SHIT SHOW! Part III  

Via AP's YouTube channel:

@HappyGoLucky20

15 hours ago

As much as I respect Senator Canavan and McKenzie in this committee and ato ppreciate them going after Airservices. This CEO of AA can’t explain to the senators the fundamentals of a SID and that the waypoint they are referring to is an “at or above” the airplane’s FMC is going to help the pilots ensure they fly above this waypoint. If they want to fly higher then the aircraft need to climb slower with full power to increase altitude. This full power also creates more noise.

Look at KSNA airport in California. This is the epitome of aircraft noise abatement where planes take off at full power get to a certain altitude then level off and reduce power to reduce noise. I’m not suggesting going down this path. But if this committee wants to maximize their ability they can reduce noise then look at this airport where some of the richest people in the USA live under this flight path.

This procedure takes special training and familiarisation. It does reduce noise but requires more risk by changing engine power settings at critical altitudes.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

ASA reduces traffic at YMMB - err WHY?? - 

Via the UP:

CIC
Moorabbin Airport reducing amount of traffic

---

The Royal Vic Aero newsletter of 3rd October contains a note of reduction of traffic at the Airport.
I remember when I learnt to fly there were three parallel runways in operation for 17/35 to cater for traffic. Seems the new breed of ATC cannot cope....
Airservices has decided to reduce the amount of traffic at Moorabbin to reduce the quantity of safety deviations. This change has been implemented with little to no consultation. My personal opinion is they do not fully understand the problem before determining the solution and Airservices has little scope for solutions other than to keep aircraft out of controlled airspace. Their decision will impact you and your flying as the restriction on the quantity of aircraft in the circuit will create additional hazards for aircraft trying to get into Moorabbin, especially at Carrum. As daylight hours increase this problem may not be apparent but be prepared to ask to hold at an approach point or have your circuit request rejected.
The club is preparing a response to Airservices

---

Squawk7700
I thought they had already started today when I approached from Carrum and I got “remain clear of Class D airspace” !
I think the controller was on work experience and couldn’t handle the slight rise in traffic at the time.

---

Capt Fathom

Originally Posted by Squawk7700 [url=https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/661788-moorabbin-airport-reducing-amount-traffic.html#post11746049][/url]
when I approached from Carrum and I got “remain clear of Class D airspace”

Just declare ‘min fuel.’ 

---

Lead Balloon

Or make it TIBA...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

ASA reduces traffic at YMMB - err WHY?? - 

Via the UP:

CIC

Moorabbin Airport reducing amount of traffic

---

The Royal Vic Aero newsletter of 3rd October contains a note of reduction of traffic at the Airport.
I remember when I learnt to fly there were three parallel runways in operation for 17/35 to cater for traffic. Seems the new breed of ATC cannot cope....

Airservices has decided to reduce the amount of traffic at Moorabbin to reduce the quantity of safety deviations. This change has been implemented with little to no consultation. My personal opinion is they do not fully understand the problem before determining the solution and Airservices has little scope for solutions other than to keep aircraft out of controlled airspace. Their decision will impact you and your flying as the restriction on the quantity of aircraft in the circuit will create additional hazards for aircraft trying to get into Moorabbin, especially at Carrum. As daylight hours increase this problem may not be apparent but be prepared to ask to hold at an approach point or have your circuit request rejected.

The club is preparing a response to Airservices

---

Squawk7700

I thought they had already started today when I approached from Carrum and I got “remain clear of Class D airspace” !
I think the controller was on work experience and couldn’t handle the slight rise in traffic at the time.

---

Capt Fathom

Originally Posted by Squawk7700 
when I approached from Carrum and I got “remain clear of Class D airspace”

Just declare ‘min fuel.’ 

---

Lead Balloon

Or make it TIBA...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

YBBN SODROPS a political con job?? - 

As a means for placating those pesky Brissy residents who dare to complain about aircraft noise, SODROPS is being put forward as part of the solution. However the reality is SODROPS has too many restrictions and limitations to be any real use in the effective mitigation of aircraft noise, rather it would appear that is more part of a political panacea for Dicky King and Albo to stem the flow of Labor votes to the Greens...

Via the UP... : 

missy
From another thread.

Originally Posted by AusATC 
Don’t worry. There are so many conditions on sodprops being able to be used during the day that it will almost never happen.

Originally Posted by BN APP 125.6 
I think you are right.
This will just mean the Greens party can say look what we have done. Which is effectively nothing. Which is what the Greens always do (or dont do).

Nothing x Nothing = Nothing.

Perhaps Minister King is trying to kill 2 birds with the same stone, stemming the flow of seats to independent, Teals and Greens across Queensland and Federal elections.

---

And:

ER_BN

I heard rumours the Greens had a private members bill that included YBBN curfew, YBBN hourly caps and a YBBN LTOP similar to YSSY.

Based on what’s good for YSSY is good for YBBN, I’d say the BN community had a pretty good chance, especially when SODPROPS is seen for what it is, I.e a smoke and mirrors show presented by a sleazy snake oil salesman whose boss was brought up in a council flat…

I mean we may soon see millions of dollars spent on roads facilitating access to a certain clifftop mansion??

Funny, I thought Albo would arrange for a Vertiport?

Umm are there any Teals seats in BN?

---

sunnySA

Originally Posted by ER_BN 

I heard rumours the Greens had a private members bill that included YBBN curfew, YBBN hourly caps and a YBBN LTOP similar to YSSY.

Perhaps this one...

Brisbane Airport Curfew and Demand Management Bill 2023, private members bill sponsored by Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP, Greens, House of Representatives member for Ryan.

The bill imposes a curfew and certain related restrictions on aircraft movements at Brisbane Airport; provides for the development of a long term operating plan for managing aircraft movements and airspace at Brisbane Airport; and provides for consultation procedures in certain circumstances. Also makes consequential amendments to the Airports Act 1996 and National Emergency Declaration Act 2020.

Status = Not Proceeding

Brisbane Airport Curfew and Demand Management Bill 2023

Plus for an excellent historical reference, for how all this YBBN airport 'SHIT SHOW' has come about, you can't go past this Geoff Fairless post...
  

Geoff Fairless

Originally Posted by 26left 

Has Airservices carried out a full Safety Case on the proposed opposite direction runway operations?. As a person with 30 years in Airport Air Traffic Control, in the UK, i believe that ‘ greater use of simultaneous opposite direction parallel operations’ inherently increases the risk factor. It would also reduce the runway capacity because of the increased spacing requirements for the runway use direction changes.

It is fascinating to sit back and read the rubbish being peddled by vested interests over BNE airport operations.

Forty years ago I was the ATC Association (Civil Air) rep in Brisbane (old centre/old tower) and we were invited to the machinations associated with the proposed extension to the airport. (I call it an extension because parts of the old RWY 04/22, taxiway and International Terminal are still in use today)

• First of all, we produced expert ATCs who argued that the extension, with across prevailing wind runways was a mistake. We proposed that a new airport should be built around the Jacob's Well area between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. This would have provided into-wind runways (approx 13/31), and allowed the closure of Gold Coast and Brisbane airports. Eventually there would be a need for a second Brisbane airport but this was envisaged, by us, as being between Brisbane and the Sunny Coast. (Maroochy, at the time, was an uncontrolled GA airport with the occasional East/West F27 operation) Even we could see that area was going to develop. (But then, we lived here, not in Canberra!)
  
• However, the old DCA had already acquired all of the ground north-east of the old airport, and their bureaucrats/engineers were not about to be told by a bunch of radar operators what was good for the people of south-east Queensland. After all they knew that due to prevailing winds we were able to operate RWY 22 for the arrivals and switch to RWY 04 for the subsequent departures. The old airport did not even have an ILS on RWY 04 because it was used for arrivals in bad weather so infrequently. Naturally this would continue on the new runway, hence the myth that they all jumped onto that the majority of operations would be over Moreton Bay!
  
• As it turned out the new runway had a different wind pattern from the old. We immediately encountered a sea breeze effect at night, which resulted in a tailwind of 5-10 knots on the new runway 01, during virtually all of the night hours. This prompted the then DCA QLD Regional Manager (no names no pack drill) to allow RWY 01 to be nominated with up to 10 knots tailwind including gusts. It turned out that this was fine for all of the aircraft then operating at night, very few complained, and the rules allowed ATC to depart any aircraft that could not take the tailwind to depart from RWY 19. (A Kiwi operation refuelling in BNE using old Ilyushin cargo jets, bucked the system, but was quickly shut down by BAC under Stage 2 noise regs). This 10 knot tailwind rule allowed the myth to continue.
  

When the new parallel 19/01 was built, I was then working for CASA. I recall a conversation with the younger ATC folk, now in charge, when they said BAC wanted them to apply for a 10-knot tailwind for the new RWY 01L. Over the intervening forty years ICAO had issued guidance that ATC was not allowed to nominate a runway for operations when, amongst other things, the tailwind exceeded 5 knots. Yet, they argued, CASA had never, raised an objection, during audits, to the runway nomination on what was now RWY 01R. They were correct. This was because the 10-knot tailwind had been properly authorised way-back, had been used safely for 30 odd years, was published for operators to read, and had not been subject to any complaints. We cautioned, however, that any new application would be subject to current regulations and automatically rejected by CASA.

The rest is history, yet Canberra politicians, regardless of the facts, still push the myth of SODPROPS. Conversely to many opinions in this forum, I believe SODPROPS can be operated quite safely on wide spaced parallels such as BNE, it is the ICAO regs that stand in the way. And-oh, a Safety Case for a seven knot tailwind would be very easy to write, given BNE airport's history with a 10-knot limit. But over-riding an ICAO regulation, for a country that already ignores so many others, is a big decision for Canberra bureaucrats, who have no skin in the game, and are financed by the aviation industry. (Both CASA and Airservices). Best of luck with that!

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Budget Estimates QON finally answered - except for one??

A week out from the Supp Estimates and I note that ASA QON are finally answered. To review go to this page - HERE - click on 'More Options'/ Input RRAT Committee/Portfolio Infrastructure/Agency ASA/Estimates Round 2024-25 Budget Estimates.

You will see that there was 28 QON, 27 of which have now been answered...

The one QON that hasn't been answered theoretically should have one of the easiest to answer:

Question on notice no. 148

Portfolio question number: SQ24-000588
2024-25 Budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts Portfolio

Senator Bridget McKenzie: asked the Airservices Australia on 29 May 2024—

Senator McKENZIE: [...] What are the long service provisions for the CEO? How
much long service has he got on the books that you're having to account for in your
balance sheet?

Mr Logan: I don't have that specific detail with me.

Senator McKENZIE: But you do keep that detail?

Mr Logan: We do.

Senator McKENZIE: I would like that detail.

Mr Logan: Understood.

Senator McKENZIE: And not just in days. I would like to know how much it will cost
you to pay out Mr Harfield for his long service.

Hmm...perhaps, in the current economic and political climate, the figure was significantly eye watering to be a possible embarrassment to Dicky King and Albosleazy?? -

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Oh; The endless beating of 'expert' gums.

And yet, in other grown up aviation countries, for years they have had a tried and true system, which has many times, assisted in the prevention of the 'Oaks' situation. It ain't 100% bullet proof; but then what system is? The 'Oaks' is perfectly located to provide the service, indeed, perhaps even made mandatory. It could be organised on volunteer roster basis; only manned during (ahem) 'peak' periods and would serve the traffic very well – when needed. Airline companies and many charter companies have a 'base' radio; bloody handy sometimes. But now I digress.  This link – HERE – to WIKI paints the picture; worthy of consideration at least.

"UNICOM is employed at airports with a low volume of general aviation traffic and where no control tower is active.[4] UNICOM stations typically use a single communications frequency. Some airfields always offer UNICOM service while others revert to UNICOM procedures only during hours when the control tower is closed. Under this protocol, aircraft may call a non-government ground station to make announcements of their intentions. Pilots who join the frequency later can request field advisories, which may include "weather information, wind direction, the recommended runway" and any previously reported traffic"

Good enough for the grown ups; so why not for the pitiful level of traffic Australia carries (in fine weather, when the fuel price is sustainable and the landing fees are not outrageous, on top of the air-nav charges. Traffic numbers are as low as they have ever been – and yet, even in broad daylight airborne things keep hitting other airborne things.. Flight Service was a great help and valued. Ever wonder why some fool shut it down with what we have today as a replacement  Oh, I do; indeed, I do........

Toot toot.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Betsy's minions squeak out AAPS 2025 consult?? -  

Via Betsy's media minions:

Have your say on the future of Australian airspace

Feedback on the proposed Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2025 is being sought as part of the Aviation White Paper.

Have your say on the future of Australian airspace

25 November 2024

Feedback on the proposed Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2025 is being sought as part of the Aviation White Paper.

As part of the Aviation White Paper, the Australian Government has committed to reforming airspace management by 2030.

We’re seeking feedback on the proposed Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) 2025 which outlines the Australian Government’s strategic policy direction for the administration of Australian airspace.  

The AAPS outlines key priorities and strategic objectives for managing Australia’s airspace, providing guidance to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and other aviation agencies.

The proposed AAPS highlights 8 priority areas:

1. Safety
   
2. Australian Future Airspace Framework
   
3. Regulatory certainty for new aviation technologies
   
4. Enabling flight testing
   
5. Airspace review
   
6. International consistency
   
7. Regional aerodromes
   
8. Future-focused collaboration to support national security
   

Submissions close at 11.59pm (AEDT) on Friday 20 December 2024.

For more information and to share your views visit our Have your say page.

Also Oz Flying reference: Government seeks Feedback on Airspace Policy Statement

Plus LMH's take...

"..Although the phrase "do as I say, not do as I do" is most often attributed to sergeants and flying instructors, it can equally be applied to government departments. This week the department opened consultation on the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) with all the fanfare of a muted kazoo; the minister sent out no press release and the news appears on neither the CASA nor the Airservices news feeds. Do they not want us to know about it? If you flick through the AAPS it is full of motherhood statements about making sure airspace is managed fairly and efficiently, which is a complete contradiction to what they are really doing as evidenced by the new airspace design proposals for Sydney. To look at the Sydney proposals and compare them to the AAPS you would swear the two weren't produced by the same government. The AAPS says one thing, the Sydney proposal does another. That's nearly impossible for the GA community to reconcile whilst simultaneously giving fair and balanced feedback. But are we expecting too much from something that admittedly is only policy? Policies are good until they are inconvenient, then they are discarded quicker than a losing Tattslotto ticket. So in the end, the aviation community is being asked to comment on a policy that may or may not be put into effect, which is why it contradicts so much with the Sydney airspace proposals..."

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Civil Air on Washington Mid Air CTA/ATC overload??

Courtesy the Oz, via CW..

Australian air traffic controllers urge Airservices to learn from Washington tragedy

Australian air traffic controllers have urged Airservices Australia to learn from the Washington crash, particularly with regards to staffing of airport control towers, and fatigue management.

The union representing air traffic controllers, Civil Air, has been in contact with their US counterpart NATCA, to express sympathy and concern about the mid-air collision.

Hours after the shocking crash between an American Airlines’ regional aircraft and a US military helicopter at Reagan Airport, the Federal Aviation Administration noted the air traffic control tower was understaffed by up to a third below targeted levels.

It was unclear as yet whether that contributed to the tragedy, with an air traffic control source suggesting it was not unusual for one controller to deal with both helicopters and jets.

Air traffic control communications revealed the helicopter was told to “go behind” the incoming Bombardier CRJ700 as it approached the runway.

However it continued to fly into the path of the CRJ, prompting speculation the pilot may have believed the controller was referring to another aircraft approaching the airport, which has three runways.

The Blackhawk and jet collided, sending both into the icy Potomac River, triggering a major search and rescue operation throughout the night.

No survivors were found with all 64 passengers and crew on the American Airlines’ flight and three soldiers on board the Blackhawk presumed dead.

Communications between the two aircraft and air traffic control were expected to be the focus of the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation into the collision, which occurred 5km from the White House



Civil Air president Scott Nugent said it was of the utmost importance the investi­gation was allowed to play out to its completion “without premature or unjust inference being drawn against the individual involved”. He said air traffic controllers were “highly trained, dedicated and professional individuals committed to the highest standards of air safety at all times”.

“Locally, Civil Air has been on the record for many years now, including to the air navigation provider Airservices and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, about the chronic shortage of air traffic controllers that not only has an unquestionable affect on the efficiency in Australia’s aviation network but in our view may lead to reduced safety margins when air traffic controllers are asked to handle more traffic with less ­people,” he said.

“Civil Air will continue in its efforts to advocate for improved staffing, safety and culture.”

Airservices declined to comment in relation to the Washington tragedy.

A spate of mid-air crashes in Australian airspace in recent years all occurred in uncontrolled airspace where pilots relied on radio communications with each other to maintain separation.

Following a collision at Mangalore that killed four people in February 2020, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it “supported enhancements to the Australian air traffic system”.

Since then there have been several other mid-air crashes, including at Sea World on the Gold Coast, Belimbla Park in Sydney’s southwest, and over Port Phillip Bay.

Plus:

Washington’s jam-packed airspace has prompted warnings for years



More than 700 planes had already taken off and landed at Reagan National Airport on Wednesday when American Airlines flight 5342 approached it through one of the nation’s most congested air corridors.

Shortly before 9pm, the passenger jet collided in a fireball with an Army Black Hawk helicopter on a routine training mission, leaving no survivors.

As officials scramble to determine the cause of the crash, the catastrophe is drawing new attention to longstanding safety warnings about the increasingly busy airspace above the nation’s capital.



Reagan sits on just 297ha of land along Potomac River, across from downtown Washington and the military’s Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling. Space is so tight that federal regulators dole out takeoff and landing rights.

The airport’s convenience and close proximity to the Capitol have made it irresistible to Washington’s politicians. Over the years, lawmakers have lobbied to open access and add more flights, often to make quick jaunts to their home states easier. Last year, after a fierce debate over whether the airport could absorb more flights, Congress authorised more, which were awarded to five airlines proposing to fly to San Antonio, San Diego, Seattle, Las Vegas and San Francisco.

Adding to the crowded airspace are helicopters that crisscross the Potomac every day, many of them military flights from the Pentagon and other government agencies ferrying officials or other passengers and cargo around Washington.

Officials and commercial and military pilots have warned that the airspace leaves little margin for error.

“We’re dealing with an extraordinarily complex airspace system that has been complicated even worse by the addition of flights to National Airport,” said Keith Meurlin, a retired Air Force major general and head of the Washington Airports Task Force. “At what point is enough enough?”



Pilots have been complaining for decades about the presence of military and other aircraft around Reagan.

“I cannot imagine what business is so pressing that these helicopters are allowed to cross the path of airliners carrying hundreds of people!” one pilot wrote in a 2013 report filed to the Aviation Safety Reporting System, or ASRS, after a near-collision with a helicopter. “What would normally be alarming at any other airport in the country has become commonplace at DCA.”

In his Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday, army secretary nominee Daniel Driscoll referred to the disaster as “an accident that seems to be preventable,” adding that the Pentagon may need to rethink its training flights around an “airport like Reagan.”

A 2021 Government Accountability Office report found that 88,000 helicopter flights took place within 50 miles (80km) of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport from 2017 through 2019. About 37 per cent of those flights were conducted by the military, the report said.

The Black Hawk involved in the midair collision was carrying three Army aviators on a training mission, according to Pentagon officials. The pilot and instructor had a combined 1,500 hours of flight time between them, earning many of those hours in the very corridor they were flying on Wednesday night.

A third Army pilot on board was getting an annual check ride to determine whether he or she could keep flying the aircraft, according to the Army, which hasn’t identified the service members.

Doug Rice, a former American Airlines captain who landed many times at Reagan National, said helicopters in that airspace are restricted to flying 200 feet (60m) above the ground. On Wednesday, the plane and the military helicopter collided about 400 feet in the air.

The helicopter “was in the wrong place at the wrong time,” said Rice. “The regional jet was doing what it was supposed to do.”



Rice said he believed the flight from Wichita was correct on its landing approach. The pilots of the regional jet, he said, might not have seen the helicopter due to backlighting, and the aircraft’s collision-avoidance system would have less functionality under 700 feet. The soldiers flying the Black Hawk might have spotted the wrong plane, Rice continued, or there may have been some mechanical error with the helicopter.

Whatever the reason, Rice said, the passengers, crew and pilots on the American Airlines flight “got put in a box, and it wasn’t their fault.”

Over the years, the number of such flights has grown. The helicopter involved in the crash belonged to the 12th Aviation Battalion out of Fort Belvoir in Virginia, which is responsible for flying generals, cabinet secretaries, congressmen and VIP visitors to Washington at least once a day.

Army pilots have been involved in a number of air mishaps over the past year, including some involving Black Hawks. In fiscal year 2024, at least nine troops, one contractor and one civilian died in collisions involving Army aircraft, according to a January 2025 report.

Last April, one pilot reported coming dangerously close to a military helicopter while coming in to land. “Suggestion: Need to have better separation for DCA traffic on the river visual to the helicopter traffic that is flying up and down the river,” the pilot wrote.

Such warnings are nothing new. “Why does the tower allow such nonsense by the military in such a critical area?” wrote another pilot in 2006, according to records reviewed by the Journal. “This is a safety issue, and needs to be fixed.”

But Washington powerbrokers clamoured to add routes. Some cities far from Washington were largely shut out, following a 1960s-era rule that limited how far planes could travel from then-National Airport. In turn, long-haul flights were shifted to newly built Dulles International Airport farther from the city, although exceptions have been made over the years.



The late Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), for instance, pushed for a nonstop flight from Reagan to Phoenix, though he personally avoided flying it to avoid the appearance he had pursued the flight for his own convenience.

Reagan National was designed for about 15 million passengers a year, but by 2023 its volume has grown to more than 25 million a year, and a daily average of 820 takeoffs and landings. To increase the number of flights, there was a steady “chipping away” at a Transportation Department rule that prohibited airlines from flying from Reagan to destinations beyond 1250 miles, said Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.).

While this led to complaints about the increasing number of flight delays, there were underlying safety concerns. “I’m thankful that there’s no loss of life, but it’s just plain unacceptable,” Warner said on the Senate floor in April, one day after a near miss between two flights when the Southwest and JetBlue planes nearly ran into each other as they crossed over the same runway.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) beseeched his colleagues last April to stop adding more flights to the area.

“Some members of Congress view this package as an opportunity to jam even more planes for their own personal convenience into a runway at DCA that is already overburdened and can’t handle extra planes,” Kaine said, referring to Reagan National by its airport code. “The gamble is exactly the opposite of improving public safety.”

Despite the pleas of Kaine and Warner, the Senate authorised the FAA to increase flights by as many as 10 per day.

Finally I note that RS has been gifted the fulltime ASA CEO gig...

Via Oz Flying:

Airservices appoints New CEO

28 January 2025


The board of Airservices Australia last week appointed Rob Sharp to the position of permanent Chief Executive Officer.

Sharp had been interim CEO since May last year when the board elected not to review the contract of then CEO Jason Harfield.
Airservices chair John Weber said Sharp's performance in as interim CEO was a factor in the decision to appoint him permanently.

"Since joining Airservices as Interim CEO in July 2024, Rob has demonstrated exceptional leadership in enhancing the organisation’s operational performance and laying the foundation for long-term financial sustainability," Weber said.

"Under his guidance, Airservices has made significant strides in delivering improved outcomes for the aviation industry and the travelling public.
"Rob’s extensive experience across the aviation and transport sectors, coupled with his deep understanding of stakeholder engagement, has already proven invaluable.

"The Board is confident that his expertise and vision will continue to drive the organisation forward as we navigate the opportunities and challenges ahead."

Sharp is a former CEO of both TigerAir and Virgin Australia, and Secretary of Transport for NSW.

Former CEO Jason Harfield's term expired on 8 March last year, and only the day before the Airservices board told him his term would be extended to 8 June. However, on 17 April, he was told cabinet had decided not to re-appoint him.

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts has declined to give reasons for Harfield not being re-appointed, citing "limitations around sharing information relating to cabinet processes".

According to Greens Spokesperson for Transport, Infrastructure and Sustainable Cities, Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP, Harfield was not reappointed because of pressure over noise complaints, particularly from Brisbane.

Plus from Dicky King (note the para in bold - ):

New Airservices Australia CEO announced

I welcome the substantive appointment of Rob Sharp as the Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia.

Mr Sharp has been appointed as the CEO following a worldwide search undertaken by the Airservices Board to fill the role. 

He brings over 25 years of senior executive experience in the aviation and transport sectors, having previously served as Secretary of Transport for New South Wales and CEO for both Virgin Australia Airlines and Tigerair Australia.

Mr Sharp’s experience in these sectors spans leadership, strategy, commercial and operational roles – including advancing aviation technology development and innovation. 

Building on his tenure as the interim CEO since last July, Mr Sharp’s appointment will provide continuity to Airservices Australia as it navigates future opportunities and aviation growth.

Airservices Australia is responsible for managing 11 per cent of the world’s airspace and delivering aviation rescue firefighting services at airports across the country. It plays a pivotal role in supporting Australia’s aviation industry to grow.

Airservices Australia also supports consultation and local engagement with communities, airports and industry stakeholders around the country on operations, development, planning and aircraft noise matters.

While the previous Coalition Government encouraged the retirement of highly skilled air traffic controllers and hollowed out Airservices Australia, the Albanese Government continues to work to rebuild this important organisation.

I congratulate Mr Sharp on his appointment and look forward to working closely with him and Airservices Australia to ensure our aviation industry remains among the safest in the world.

For more information on the work of Airservices Australia visit www.airservicesaustralia.com.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

TICK TOCK goes the Oz ATC doomsday clock: Sharp's challenge??

Quote: “Locally, Civil Air has been on the record for many years now, including to the air navigation provider Airservices and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, about the chronic shortage of air traffic controllers that not only has an unquestionable affect on the efficiency in Australia’s aviation network but in our view may lead to reduced safety margins when air traffic controllers are asked to handle more traffic with less ­people,”

Next, via the Oz last night:
 

Air traffic controller shortage causes flight cancellations and delays at Sydney Airport

The absence of a single air traffic controller at Sydney Airport, along with bad weather, resulted in Friday afternoon chaos for travellers after flight arrivals were slashed from around 40 to just 20 an hour.

At least 16 Virgin Australia flights, 10 Jetstar services and six Qantas flights were cancelled across arrivals and departures, and dozens more delayed.

Qantas was hopeful of reaccommodating passengers on flights first thing Saturday if spare seats could not be found on Friday night.

A Jetstar spokeswoman said they had been able to get customers on alternative services while Virgin Australia was still racing to inform customers and reaccommodate them if possible after late notice from Airservices gave airlines little opportunity to rework schedules.

“Airservices Australia has implemented a ground delay program at Sydney Airport this afternoon due to a shortage of air traffic controllers, which is impacting all airlines,” a Virgin Australia spokesman said.

“We regret this has required the cancellation of some Virgin Australia services to and from Sydney today.”

He said guests booked to travel to and from Sydney between 2pm and 11pm on Friday “should monitor their flight information closely”.

In peak periods at Sydney Airport, there were normally about 70 aircraft movements an hour on the gateway’s three runways.

Slashing the rate of arrivals was designed to ensure the reduced air traffic control workforce could control the normally busy Sydney airspace safely.

It is understood the arrivals rate was initially reduced to 24 movements an hour because of poor weather, and then by a further four flights after a staff member of the air traffic control tower called in sick at late notice.

“We have since sourced replacement staff to fill the position, however in the interim flight cancellations did occur,” an Airservices spokesman said.

“We are working on all measures to minimise further impact, including accommodating additional flights wherever safe.”

The disruption appeared confined to domestic services, with international flights operating fairly well to schedule.

The spokesman apologised to passengers affected by the delays and cancellations, saying Airservices was disappointed this occurred after a strong performance over the Christmas period.

It was noted that ground delays were at “record lows” in recent months following a horror run coming out of the pandemic as air traffic increased faster than expected.

Generous redundancies handed out to 140 controllers during the Covid crisis left the air traffic regulator ill-equipped to manage the sudden ramp up in flights with remaining controllers left exhausted from constant callouts on days off.

As a result air traffic controllers frequently went ill or fatigued, causing widespread disruption for flights across the country.

A Senate Estimates hearing last February heard the unavailability of just two air traffic controllers in Sydney was enough to “stop the whole country”.

Airservices was in the process of recruiting more people for its towers and operations centres with an additional 85 controllers expected to be endorsed in 2025.

MTF...P2