[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