[Gobbledock]

Safe aviation for all? BOLLOCKS. Unsafe aviation for all

The Government and 'team Harfwit' are proposing to lift the minimum annual passenger threshold for airport firefighting requirements from 350,000 to 500,000 pax.

Article in the Simply Marvellous Horsepooh;

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/fed...piuq5.html

Would love to see the comprehensive risk assessment that the muppets have undertaken to come to the conclusion that it is safe to raise the annual numbers to 500,000 pax per year before ARFFS are required. How convenient for the penny pinchers. More ridiculous toe cutting by imbeciles whose only understanding of safety is when they see a wet floor sign in front of a tiled floor in the Qantas Chairmans Lounge where some Grange Hermitage has been spilt!!

Are these asswipes purposely trying to endanger Australian passengers nationwide? The list of unsafe government and regulatory agency pony pooh decisions is becoming more frightening by the week.

TICK TOCK

[thorn bird]

Gobbles mate!!! where you been??
Hope you have a note>
We missed you.

[Gobbledock]

Thorny me old, there were some rumours flying around that Lookleft had me locked in a dungeon in Queenstown Tasmania - not true. There were also rumours flying about that I had gotten ill from swimming in the Georges River - also not true. Another rumour had me undergoing prostate treatment - utter bullshit.

I was in fact seconded back to ICAO where I put together the "2016 Obsfucation and Smoke and Mirrors Seminar". A lot of Australia's top regulatory and bureaucratic bulshitters and spin doctors attended. It was a fun 3 day jaunt which was followed directly afterwards by the 2016 Bilderberg.

Also, I was busy reconditioning the houseboats diesel motors. Seems all that beautiful PFOS which has eeked into the Styx river has been damaging the engine seals and corroding the bearings. And of course we still don't have NBN on the river so the internet has been pretty shitty mate. But don't worry, as long as I don't fly in Australian airspace I should at least live for a few more years. Cheers.

P.S As for the note, I had written one to Beaker while I was away which said 'farewell dipshit'. I didn't receive a reply.

[Kharon]

A consensus of disagreement.

One item 'airspace' seems to be begging solidarity attention and not receiving it. There exists a great rift within the Australian aviation community – that of airspace; the sides are equally determined that ‘their’ solution is the answer to a pagans prayer. The degree of animosity and determination are notable.

I see the alphabet groups are gearing up for the 100 day deadline, which is a fine thing and the solidarity is both impressive and admirable on all matters except that of ‘airspace’.  Seems to me this is a weak area, therefore exploitable by the powers of darkness.  

I wonder, would it not be sensible to call a meeting – a forum if you will – and thrash out exactly which ‘model’ suits best.  Call in ASA, call in ATSB, drag CASA to the table.  Discuss it, fight over it, shout each other hoarse; but FCOL come out of the meeting with a majority if not unanimous agreement which can be presented to government as a Concorde.  

As it stands, the only thing industry is likely to be stuck with is the incredible bill for ‘One-Sky’; which, IMO would be nice to have, but we don’t need it.  What we need is ‘efficiency’ in the form of reduced holding, infrastructure in the form of better operational management in bad weather; better weather information; better coverage from ATC etc.

So, before everyone is up in arms; let’s have a look at the worlds airspace models and see which one would suit our ‘unique’ conditions; the UK has a pretty good system; Canada has another; the USA same-same.  No matter which ‘system’ is favoured; nothing, except ‘One-Sky’ will happen while the industry is unable to reach a majority agreement.

That’s my two bob, spent as pleased me best.

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

Ferryman;

"As it stands, the only thing industry is likely to be stuck with is the incredible bill for ‘One-Sky’; which, IMO would be nice to have, but we don’t need. What we need is ‘efficiency’ in the form of reduced holding, infrastructure in the form of better operational management in bad weather; better weather information; better coverage from ATC etc".

That's the key word Kharon; EFFICIENCY, 'the state or quality of being efficient, or able to accomplish something with the least waste of time and effort; competency in performance'.

Spending a billion dollars on a system that; a) is not necessary, and b) is not the 'fix' for all our airpsace problems is a total waste of precious pennies. Considering that the economic boom is heading down the other side of the curve and we have several years of barrel scraping ahead of us it defies logic  that Harfwit, the limp wristed Houston and the rest of the Board and executive trough dwellers would sign off on this lemon. No wonder the pensioners and lower class will cop it in the ass with the winding down of Medicare and other services. Meanwhile Electric Blue and his conga line of boot lickers will spend copious amounts of money on a white elephant, not to mention the trips to France, corporate dinners and the odd hand shandy in a no-tell Motel.

Now for the steam - We need better infrastructure, the removal of curfews, introduction of initiatives, systems and efficiencies to help, as Kharon said; 'free up holding time'. An A320 from Mackay flying into Brisbane should not be held up every day and fucking night by ATC. It's utter bullshit. Planes flying into Heathrow and LAX have less holding time related delays!

The muppets governing Australia need to wake up from their slumber, grow a set of plums and make the call to fix things, NOW!


We are choking to death on red tape, bureaucracy, a lack of leadership and testicular fortitude, and agencies living in the 1960's. It's time to get rid of the old dross in government who are holding us back in a Sir Joh like timewarp and hire the young whipper snappers who have the balls of a Brahma Bull and the intelligence of an Einstein. Is it time for change? Hell yeah.

'Its good to be the king'.

[Kharon]

I'm dizzy doing nothing, holding the whole day through.

Agreed mate; it’s crazy to spend on ‘One-Sky’, considering the shortage of cash, the pathetic amount of ‘military’ traffic, the lack of ‘modern’ infrastructure and airspace management.  Your questions valid, why should it always be ‘delay’ or reduce speed, or get fined for landing after 2300 or before 0600.  It’s madness.  Open the bloody airport up to 24 hour traffic all of them, get shot of ‘sharing’ the noise; for pities sake let the ATCO’s move traffic, allow Lo-viz operations, get rid of the silly systems which create delay and make everything so complex.  I’ll never understand it; go anywhere in the first world, where they manage huge volumes of traffic with much worse weather and terrain and the delays are no worse than at any major Australian capitol city.  Got me beat.  Will ADSB and One Sky solve the riddle – I doubt it.

No matter I’ll just sit here, watching the fuel gauge and the clock, hoping I can get a slot which will keep me legal.  Tick Tock – How’s the Mildura weather by the way? – just in case.

[Peetwo]

ASA & the rapidly diminishing trough-  


I take it all back on Harfwit as ASA CEO, he is the perfect, pimped up little sociopath for the job, courtesy Binger on the Oz... :

Airservices Australia cost-cutting plan eyes 900 staff

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM July 8, 2016
  

[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/4c134add4c3a9e4881f7841b69d9ac85/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget[/img]
Airservices Australia chief Jason Harfield. Picture: Ray Strange

Airservices Australia has earmarked up to 900 jobs for redundancy as it begins a wide-ranging transformation process to slash costs more than $100 million.

The organisation will report a loss — its first in two decades — of more than $10m this financial year amid spiralling costs. It made a $4.5m profit last financial year.

Airservices, with more than 4400 staff, manages air traffic at the ­nation’s major airports as well as co-ordinating on-site rescue and firefighting services.

While it continues to pull in more than $1 billion a year in ­revenue — mostly fees paid by ­airlines — costs continue to eclipse its income, blamed on backroom ­inefficiencies and stalling airline fees.

A 12-month plan — internally titled “Accelerate” — to arrest the growth in costs has begun.

In an email to staff last week, Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield said the organisation would accept “at least” 600 voluntary redundancies.

“In support of your decision to express interest in pursuing other opportunities, the Airservices board yesterday resolved that, under the Accelerate Program, we will accept at least 600 voluntary redundancies from permanent Airservices staff excluding operational and rostered air traffic controllers and aviation rescue fire fighters,” it said.

The Australian understands Airservices has already cut more than 250 Level three and four managers from its ranks. Level three managers typically head up specific branches and departments in Airservices while Level 4 managers operate on a rung below that.

Insiders at Airservices say the cuts have come after an eight-year period of unsustainable growth in staff numbers.

Much of that growth had been a result of pressure to implement its $1.5bn OneSKY project to integrate the civilian and military air traffic control and navigation systems with new radar in a state-of-the-art system by 2021.

“Roles across special projects like OneSKY and corporate functions have grown out of control,” said one source. “Unfortunately, it’s a big number of people to go, but it could get bigger if the changes don’t start turning this battleship around.”

A spokeswoman for Airservices declined to confirm the loss of 900 staff, but said “streamlining” its corporate centre was necessary. “Our financial performance over the past five years has declined, and our current operating model and way of doing business that has served our industry well is no longer sustainable,” she said.

“There are no predetermined numbers for the reduction of staff, but up to 600 voluntary redundancies will be offered to permanent staff, excluding operational and rostered air traffic controllers and aviation rescue fire fighters.

“The new operating model has also significantly reduced the number of senior and middle management roles … We recognise this creates uncertainty for our staff and that is why we are moving ­forward with the necessary changes as quickly as possible.”

The cuts come as the organisation’s financial credibility was dealt a blow yesterday when ­Standard & Poor’s downgraded its ­outlook from stable to negative, following its decision to place ­Australia’s prized AAA sovereign debt rating on “negative” watch.

“Any movement on any rating or outlook on the commonwealth would have an identical impact on Airservices,” the ratings agency said.

“Airservices’ stand-alone credit quality could worsen if the ­company were to achieve an unfavourable outcome for the next long-term pricing agreement with airlines or if the timing of its OneSKY program were to ­increase its capital expenditure materially higher than our base case.”

 
If I were the PM in the next government, I'd be seriously considering the flogging off of ASA before Harfwit (& his grubby executive team) totally decimate the estimated sale price that the FER were originally working with:

ASA at Estimates 05/05/16 - Hansard

...Senator STERLE: Are you able to point us in what areas they are at this stage?

Mr Mrdak : In terms of the department itself, they predominantly range around some specific functions which could be considered for no longer continuing. Some areas that have been identified include the performance of some functions such as the administration of financial assistance to local government and other payment processes, which could be considered for centralisation in other areas of government such as the Department of Finance; and ceasing areas such as the department's performance of activities in maritime regulation, and whether that better sits with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. It also indicates areas where government may wish to consider larger structural changes, such as considering the future of Airservices Australia.

Senator STERLE: How?

Mr Mrdak : Whether the government wishes to consider future options for different governance and ownership arrangements for some of our statutory bodies, including Airservices Australia.

Senator STERLE: So that could be outsourcing?

Mr Mrdak : It could be or it could be looking at taking it into different ownership structures to what they currently are.

Senator STERLE: What could they be? The reason I am asking is: we all know for Airservices Australia there is no competition, and it is quite a bit of a money earner for the government. Could you shine a light for us on how that could be done in a different way?

Mr Mrdak : The Functional and Efficiency Review did look at international examples of where governments have placed their air traffic control provider—air services provider—in different governance structures, particularly the United Kingdom and Canada, where they have been placed in either part-private ownership or a not-for-profit government body. They were models that were looked at in the scope. The Functional and Efficiency Review recommended that we consider further options for the future of Airservices Australia..

   
While contemplating the sale of ASA it is also becoming quite obvious that the flow of funds to the OneSKY trough is rapidly drying up. This potentially could mean either a long drawn out and expensive project (much like the NBN) that never really matches expectations; or  the OneSKY project is doomed to be discretely but permanently shelf-wared, along with all the other grandiose infrastructure thought bubbles -  

This would still leave Airservices without a program of future development to be able to manage the forecast increase capacity of air traffic in the future. However perhaps with a little thinking outside the box, with far less trough-feeding going on, there is some very real & affordable options available: 

One of the major stumbling blocks to harmony seems to be the great airspace debate.  Lots of clear sky, little enough traffic and miles and miles of sweet bugger all.  A huge area with ego’s to match and no one willing to concede an inch of it.  I’m no expert – trying to stay out of bother is the best I can do; but there are some.  Anyway – as part of an exploratory gambit, prompted by the One-Sky white elephant I wasted a little time looking about the net and I found the UK CAA had some very informative stuff related.  

I can’t debate the ‘concept’ – not qualified – however as a well constructed, informative service to dunderheads I thought it terrific.  The Brits move a shed load of traffic and seem to have done the best they can with what they have.  Their attitude, approach, model and proposed changes make sense to me.

FWIW, the link will take you – HERE – if you have an interest in ‘airspace’ the site is worth a visit.

Toot toot.

Just saying -  



MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Update: Harfwit's shrinking (OneSky) trough fund -

By Binger, courtesy the Oz:

Airservices loses 523 to voluntary redundancy in bid to cut costs

"My balls are this big.." -
Airservices Australia's chief executive Jason Harfield. Picture: Ray Strange

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM July 22, 2016
  

Reporter
Sydney
@Mitch_Hell
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/4c134add4c3a9e4881f7841b69d9ac85/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Airservices Australia has accepted 523 voluntary redundancies from its staff as part of a wide-ranging transformation process to slash costs by more than $100 million.

The organisation will report a loss — its first in two decades — of more than $10m this financial year amid spiralling costs. It made a $4.5m profit last financial year.

Airservices, with more than 4400 staff, manages air traffic at the ­nation’s major airports as well as co-ordinating on-site rescue and firefighting services.

The organisation received more than 660 applications for voluntary redundancies but had to knock back more than 100 because they were roles involved with operational and safety matters.

“To ensure this process will not affect our ability to deliver our services to industry, now or in the future, we have worked through a detailed and rigorous process which saw every VR application assessed individually to determine any potential impact on the safety of our air traffic control or aviation rescue fire fighting operations,” Airservices chief Jason Harfield wrote in an email to staff today.

“This process saw our senior leaders identify actions which need to be completed prior to individuals departing the business while in some instances VR applications were declined where risks were identified. In other cases, required actions may take some time so departure dates will be later following the successful completion of actions to mitigate any risks.”

Eligible staff for voluntary redundancy will have two weeks to consider the offer and advise whether they accept. Once accepted, a departure date will be determined, taking into account any necessary risk mitigation actions.

“Again I wanted to recognise the uncertainty that this may have created for staff and I thank you for your patience as we work to progress through this as quickly as possible,” Mr Harfield said.

The cuts come as Airservices attempts to rein in costs that have pushed it into loss.
While the organisation continues to pull in more than $1 billion a year in ­revenue — mostly fees paid by ­airlines — costs continue to eclipse its income, blamed on backroom ­inefficiencies and stalling airline fees.

A 12-month plan — internally titled “Accelerate” — to arrest the growth in costs has begun.

The Australian understands Airservices has already cut more than 250 level three and four managers from its ranks. Level three managers generally head up specific branches and departments in Airservices while level four managers operate on a rung below that.

Insiders at Airservices say the cuts have come after an eight-year period of unsustainable growth in staff numbers.

The increase in staff had been a result of pressure to implement its $1.5bn OneSKY project to integrate the civilian and military air traffic control and navigation systems with new radar in a state-of-the-art system by 2021.

 
Why do I get the feeling that Harfwit is enjoying all this 'accelerating'? -



MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Let me emphasise a fact - Governments and/or government departments/agencies cannot effectively manage departments, business units or operations. It is a plain fact. Bureaucracy, red tape, plain waste of resources, corruption, antiquated and unworkable procurement policies, total incompetence and the fact that NOBODY is accountable for anything = financial mess and a situation such as ASA is in where they churn over $1b per year yet come out with a deficit of $10m! You can't make this shit up.

Any true business leader who has worked for both the private sector and government sector will testify to this fact. As for ASA at the moment, well say no more, they gouge and charge the 'user' at a rate worse than what a Mafia work too, and yet they still can't balance the books. An organisation which has a liscence to print money so to speak, have no competition, and charge ludicrous sums for some pithy services rendered, yet they can't turn a profit? No fucking wonder our country is now a half a trillion in the red.....

Once and for all - PRIVATISE ASA.

[P7_TOM]

Second the GD motion – in spades, redoubled.  This greedy, smug, complacent organisation has the only ice cream cart in town and still can’t make a decent return on the investment.  They’d starve in the real world.  Not only can’t they make a fist of a monopoly, they want to use the ADSB rort as a foil against their incompetency and then they want more money for ‘One-Sky’, then to top it all off, they have Halfwit running the ice cream cart.

The Canadians did a fantastic job of privatisation; realistic, affordable and no drain on the public purse. We get Houston and the hangers on, raiding the biscuit tin, eating the profits and doing sod all to clear up the mess and get rid of the dead, dead wood.

Privatise – way to go; only way to go.  Imagine no cost increase and improved efficiency.  I expect DDDD Darren thinks it’s all done with coloured lights, whistles and flags making a great photo opportunity.  Quick GD, send that bucket this way, there are those in great need.

[Gobbledock]

Institutionalisation and it's negative effect on business - Houston and Harfwit have to go.

Harfwit has no 'real world' experience. He is a corporate lapdog who has sucked his way through the agency and he has never worked in the real world. He has never had a spot of dirt on those manicured fingernails or on those electric blue suits. The closest he has come to getting his hands dirty is when he got escargot under one of his fingernails at a champagne and caviar breakfast held in honour of a fellow executive receiving an award for being 'match fit', or some other trivial pony pooh reason. As far as financial acumen goes this double chinned numpty couldn't turn a profit if he worked in a cash only Chinese massage parlour.

Houston is another waste of oxygen and taxpayer money. His CV includes oversight of failed projects which have cost Australia billions of dollars. Another legacy of this spineless human is presiding over a workforce which included more senior members initiating junior staff with all manner of objects inflicted upon their anuses. Yet for those services rendered and a life time of sliding himself up and down greasy poles this protected species enjoys the fruits of taxpayer monies and a Knighthood.

Now put these two conceited weener boys together and you have the financial leaders of ASA. No effing wonder the country is going broke and ASA as a business, which operates without competition, can pull in $1b dollars while making a deficit of $10m....can you imagine these two morons running one of Sir Frank Packer or Kerry Packers businesses like that? They would be turfed out on their asses and would end up running a lawn mowing business which is all they are 'match fit' for.

ADSB, OneSky, Chinese checkers it's all Bullshit and folly.

[Kharon]

FYI

My turn on UP duty: Radar Man posted the link – HERE – to a RAPC briefing, FWIW.

[Peetwo]

Near miss, and attempt to shoot the messenger, add to doubts about ATSB performance
The ATSB is there to make flying safer in Australia, not to bury or avoid matters that may embarrass the airlines and their regulator and air traffic services provider
Ben Sandilands
A Jetstar A320 similar to the one involved in the Gold Coast incident

Perspective
If Australia had an ATSB air crash investigator with the resources and courage to promptly deal with pressing incidents that exposed the public to severe dangers, our skies would be much safer.

The most recent example is reported in this Sydney Morning Herald account of an arriving Jetstar A320 and a departing AirAsia X A330 coming within 152 metres of each other close to the Gold Coast airport on July 21.

That specified lack of separation could not be independently confirmed earlier today, but the triggering of traffic collision avoidance system or TCAS  resolution advisory warnings in both airliners with a combined count of more than 520 seats near a high profile Australian airport demands more than an ATSB estimate of an inquiry report being issued by July 2017.

The quotes from a Jetstar spokesman in the media report make the official notification from the ATSB look like part of its apparent policy of downplaying all incidents that could have ended in major loss of life.

Does the ATSB really expect that public interest to be served by not identifying, very early, whether the airliners were directed to fly towards each other in such a dangerous manner, or whether instructions were not followed by one of the aircraft?  Or indeed, if some additional unexpected factor contributed to the situation? These questions could and should be answered in an interim or preliminary report no later than 30 days after the occurrence of such an incident.

Delays in reports, and downplaying of their importance, have become characteristic of the ATSB for at least nine years, after it failed to pursue a situation where a REX turboprop was flown almost all the way from Wagga Wagga to Sydney on a single engine, with passengers onboard.

The Pel-Air crash of 2009 led to the issuing of a totally discredited and subsequently withdrawn report into the ditching near Norfolk Island of a corporate jet performing a medical flight. Despite scathing Senate Committee findings into that scandal, which involved evidence of the covering up of failed regulatory oversight by CASA, and a damning independent review of the ATSB by its Canadian counterpart, and a direction by Government to conduct a fresh inquiry, Pel-Air is still a crash without a final investigative report.

The ATSB attitude to the directions of government is something like waiting for hell to freeze over.

More recently the ATSB issued a Correcting the Record attack on a Sydney Morning Herald account of the failure of Virgin Australia to keep track of the safe operations of one of its turbo-prop ATRs. (Scroll down on the above link to find the offending entry.)
While the Sydney Morning Herald seems happy to hang the author of a totally fair and accurate report out to dry,  the ATSB response is unacceptable, and avoids the core issue in the article by Aubrey Martin. Like numerous posts in Plane Talking before, Mr Martin points out that an Australian registered turbo-prop, with 68 passenger seats, was allowed to fly 13 sectors over five days following damage to its tail, before Virgin Australia discovered that it was so badly bent it had to be grounded at Albury.

It was nothing but luck that stopped Virgin Australia killing dozens of passengers through a failure to ensure the safe operational conditions of part of its fleet. This failure of oversight by the carrier would have been reason to suspend the regional turbo-prop arm of the airline by CASA, and shouts for a need for urgent attention by the ATSB.

No such action has been taken, adding to legitimate concerns that Australia has second world standards when it comes to the public administration of air safety.

Seen from outside, the ATSB is under resourced. It is also more than three years since the ATSB began inquiring into the circumstances which caused a Qantas and a Virgin Australia 737 to land in dense fog at Mildura with very little remaining fuel reserves when both had originally intended to complete flights to Adelaide.

That set of incidents raised significant questions about the regulations concerning the fueling of domestic flights in this country. Yet despite a detailed interim report, the ATSB has yet to deal with this critical underlying issue in the Mildura fog emergency that overtook flights by Australia’s major domestic carriers and put hundreds of lives in peril.

"..The ATSB is there to make flying safer in Australia, not to bury or avoid matters that may embarrass the airlines and their regulator and air traffic services provider..."
P2 - Ben nails it with that last comment

Update to Gold Coast near miss (LOSA).

Via the Oz:

Jetstar, AirAsia planes in near miss at Coolangatta airport

• James Madden
  
• The Australian
  
• 8:15AM July 29, 2016
  

Deputy National News Editor
Sydney

[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/2c3d50db57794368ebfa46801a16b95f/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Two passenger planes have come dangerously close to a midair collision near Coolangatta airport, prompting an investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

According to a report in The Herald Sun, an Air Asia plane taking off from the Gold Coast came within 152m of a Jetstar flight that was descending to land, causing alarms to sound in both planes’ cockpits.

The Jetstar pilots were forced to take evasive action as the Air Asia plane encroached on its flight path, putting their aircraft into a climb to avert a possible catastrophe.

The minimum vertical separation for major passenger aircraft in Australia is 305m.

The incident, at 11.42am last Thursday, happened about 6km off the coast, north of Coolangatta airport.

How the Jetstar and Air Asia planes came so close to each other. Graphic: Herald Sun

A Jetstar spokesman told the newspaper the pilots of their A320, which can carry 180 passengers, had received clearance from air traffic control to descend.

“During descent the aircraft warning system alerted our pilots to ­another aircraft approaching our approved flight path,’’ he said.

“Our pilots took corrective action to restore the safe distance between the two aircraft.

“The flight continued on to the Gold Coast and landed without further incident.

“It’s likely most passengers would not have been aware of the incident. Our crew did a fantastic job and responded to the situation as they are trained to do. At all times they followed the instructions of air traffic control.”

Air Asia representatives are yet to comment on the incident.

The Air Asia Airbus, which is an A330 and can carry a maximum of about 400 passengers, was taking off bound for New Zealand.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has confirmed it was investigating.

Sandy highlighted that he responded to this article with this typically insightful comment :

How can this happen? One government after another with a hands off policy for aviation. A policy that attempts to distance government for the responsibility of flight safety by the creation of 'independent' Commonwealth corporate bodies. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Air Services Australia and the Australian Transport Safety Board.

CASA has wrecked General Aviation, was the main training ground for home grown airline pilots. ASA riddled with union rules and outdated procedures. ATSB hand in glove with CASA to shift any taint of themselves to those who have little comeback. The three with massive budgets, they defy all of the recommendations of the numerous enquiries going back thirty years in regard to reform.

The Canberra disease: failure of policy on a huge scale built on the myth of Australia's aviation safety record, a record that has too much good luck to be plausible. The airline ATR with the tail that was close to falling off, the Boeing that was below lowest safe altitude on approach south of Canberra, numerous out of tolerance air traffic surveillance issues. Two of our airliners landing at Mildura in fog almost out of fuel. The fatal accident south of Benalla, traffic controllers were not obliged to advise the pilot that he was descending to land into high country way off track.

There's mountains more, search PAIN if you want, or don't worry, she'll be right mate! Alex in the Rises.

Sandy's excellent comment then invoked good responses from both Byron (Bailey) & Arlys:

Byron
1 hour ago

@Alexander CASA is not about safety it is about compliance to onerous ridiculously expensive regulations. Read Dick Smiths article RIP General Aviation. I wonder why the head of CASA is a former fighter pilot ( like myself ) with no commercial in house experience - just an ex air force pilot there to top up his pension on a huge $700,000/-? salary and a do not rock the boat mentality.

Our Part 61 Regs re pilot certification run to 3000 pages. US and NZ regs 100 pages. I am glad I fly a US registered private jet on my US Licence!





arlys
35 minutes ago


The Airforce has always had a grip on BASI, now CASA and it has always been a boys club. My pilot husband found that out the hard way, ending up there After the Airline Pilots dispute. Used to the discipline of the Flight Deck, he was nonplussed to say the least, didn't stay long, went back flying OS, where once more, it made sense. Jetstar is a exceptional airline, and follows the strict safety rules it parent company, Qantas insists on. Another reason for a ILS at OOL.

MTF?- Hmmm....reckon there might be...P2

[Peetwo]

ADS-B update: GA death knell fast approaching.

1st the ASA bollocks:

Release

Six months to go – Mandate for satellite technology fitment fast approaching
4 Aug 2016
Just six months remain for operators and owners of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft to ensure their aircraft are fitted with Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) technology, which improves safety and efficiency, ahead of a fast approaching industry mandate.

Next via Oz Flying:

1000 Aircraft still to be fitted with ADS-B
5 August 2016

    
Australia's avionics engineers will have to complete 5.5 aircraft per day if all of the current IFR fleet is to be ADS-B compliant before the mandate on 2 February 2017.

Airservices Australia revealed yesterday that 1000 aircraft were still not fitted with ADS-B out, with only 181 days to go before the new surveillance technology becomes compulsory.

According to Airservices' own figures, only 300 aircraft have been fitted in the last six months, putting pressure on the avionics industry to get the work done in time.

Airservices Executive General Manager Air Navigation Services, Stephen Angus, states 82% of Australia's IFR fleet is already compliant, and points out what he says are the advantages of ADS-B Out.

“I would like to congratulate those operators and owners who have already fitted with ADS-B and are seeing the real benefits the technology offers,” he said.

“I would also encourage those who have not yet fitted their aircraft with ADS-B to make sure they do before 2 February 2017.”

Airservices has used the experiences of CHC Helicopter's pilot Mick Perren, who is the Jandakot Base Manager for RAC Rescue in WA, as a case where ADS-B is delivering advantages.

“ADS-B has proven to offer a significant increase in situational awareness for our pilots,” said Perren.

“When operating out of Jandakot Airport, certainly one of the busiest airports in Australia, instead of just getting an icon on the traffic display, with ADS-B we get more information about the traffic. We get a much better picture of what is happening around us and this is where we have seen the biggest advantage.”

The mandate has caused signficant controversy with many owners and operators hitting back at Airservices and CASA over the cost of fitting compliant ADS-B when they say there is no advantage to general aviation.

CASA has granted exemptions to ADS-B fitment in the past, but anyone applying under Part 11 after the mandate will be asked to supply a safety case

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...Pc3xJ31.99

&..maybe a possible contender for QOTM..

David Long • 2 days ago

I have spent about $8,000 fitting ADS-B to my aircraft. I don't know what Stephen Angus is talking about, but the only benefit I've had is a closer relationship with my bank. Perhaps he has forgotten that most GA aircraft do not have traffic devices. I certainly can't afford it after paying for ADS-B. I find the implementation ahead of the US mandate extraordinary and wasteful.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Canucks set the benchmark for 1st class ATC -

Antiquated air traffic control systems are becoming a serious threat to safety
America could learn a few things from Canada
Aug 10th 2016 | LOS ANGELES | Science and technology

• 
  Add this article to your reading list by clicking this button
  
  
  
  

THERE is a strange disconnection between the way lawmakers in America go about protecting the country's airline passengers on the ground, and the way they abandon them to their fate once they are airborne. Nothing is too much trouble when it is a question of stopping bombs, guns and bad guys getting on board. But that contrasts with the deaf ear turned to calls to make flying safer, cheaper and less arduous by dragging the country's creaking, 1960s-era air-traffic-control (ATC) system into the 2010s.

Yet, such is what happened this summer when, before heading off for the beaches, Congress once again failed to address the question of how best to reform the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). An authorisation bill, passed on July 13th (two days before the FAA’s legal authority expired), merely extended the agency's finance for another year and included measures to reduce the length of queues at security checkpoints, acquire more bomb-sniffing dogs, tighten vetting of airport employees and let surplus screening equipment to be donated to foreign airports. But it studiously ignored the bigger question of how to get the FAA’s “NextGen” modernisation plan, which would shift ATC from relying on ground-based radars to a system called Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS–B), which uses satellites and transponders to follow aircraft movements, back on track—and thus bring the country’s antiquated ATC system up to international standards.

In February, the House of Representatives' Transportation and Infrastructure Committee proposed the Aviation Innovation Reform and Reauthorisation Bill. This would spin the air-navigation service out of the FCC and turn it over to an independent, not-for-profit organisation (to be called the ATC Corporation) set up explicitly for the purpose. Instead of relying on an excise duty levied on fuel and air tickets, this independent corporation would be self-financing, using a sliding scale of fees paid by airlines and other users. With its own revenue, the corporation could then get on with installing ADS-B gear without having to fight Congress each year for an apppropriation. The bill, eminently sensible on the face of things, remains stalled in the House of Representatives, having failed to garner bipartisan support. One side sees it as a giveaway of public assets; the other has difficulty finding agreement amongst its own divisions.

Hiving off air navigation is not exactly a new idea. Over the past couple of decades more than 50 countries, including Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand, have privatised (or at least “commercialised”) their ATC services, freeing them to innovate and modernise without government interference. The International Civil Aviation Organisation, the UN agency that oversees worldwide aviation standards, has urged all 191 of its member countries to extricate their air-traffic control from government bureaucracy and political micromanagement—so they can manage the explosive growth in air travel with greater safety and effectiveness.

America remains the biggest holdout. It is not that its airlines have balked at the proposal. Practically all are on board. So, encouragingly, are the unions—which have reversed their position since ATC liberalisation was first mooted back in the 1980s.

Insiders are aware that things simply cannot carry on as they are. The number of passengers flying around the world each year is expected to double, to 6.4 billion, by 2030. In America, this is happening as a staffing crisis threatens to bring the country’s ATC system to its knees. The FAA has missed its recruitment target for each of the past seven years. As a consequence, the number of certified air-traffic controllers (some 10,600) is the lowest it has been in 27 years. Making matters worse, some 3,000 of them are approaching retirement age.

Not all of America’s carriers think privatisation is the answer. Delta Air Lines has been particularly outspoken, arguing that it would raise costs and cause fares to rocket.

Competitors, however, reckon Delta’s objection has more to do with the age of its aircraft, which would be expensive to fit with modern transponders. Private pilots have misgivings, too. The cost of fitting ADS-B units to their small planes would hit them hard. For the rest of the industry, though, NextGen cannot come soon enough. And if that means privatisation, so be it. Most have watched Nav Canada, the non-profit company that has managed air traffic across Canada and the North Atlantic, for the 20 years it has been in business. Despite Delta's fears, Nav Canada’s costs reportedly dropped 30% following privatisation. The FAA's costs amount to $450 per flight hour, while Nav Canada's are $340.

All of which is hardly surprising. America’s patchwork of ground-based radio stations and radars dates back to the Kennedy era. Planes are guided to their destinations in a series of zig-zags, as they fly from one control point to the next. It can take ground controllers up to half a minute to get a fix on a plane’s echo transponder. Then there is the time it takes—typically, around 12 seconds—for a radar dish to update a plane’s position. By the time the dish has completed a rotation, an aircraft may have moved a couple of miles. That is why planes are required to fly at least five miles apart while crossing the country. Also, because radar operates by line-of-sight, controllers can "lose" planes that are flying at low altitude or behind mountains. In an age when digital communications are instananeous and ubiquitous, controllers often have to pass along a plane’s location and other important details on strips of paper.

Planes equipped with ADS-B transponders, by contrast, get a precise location from GPS satellites. This information is encoded with data providing the aircraft’s flight number, speed, heading and any manoeuvre it is making. These data are then broadcast automatically every second to all ground stations and other aircraft within a 150-mile radius. By knowing at any instant exactly where they are relative to other aircraft in the sky, planes so equipped can travel closer together without fear of colliding. They can also take more direct routes to their destinations, instead of zig-zagging their way from one control tower to the next. That saves fuel and time, while minimising aerial congestion.

The FAA claims to be more or less on target with the ground part of its ADS-B installation programme. But NextGen is still far from complete. Developing the software that lets air-traffic controllers see ADS-B positional data on their computer screens, as a superior digital version of the traditional radar blips, has proved tougher than expected, notes the Department of Transportation. The DOT’s inspector general is also sceptical about the FAA’s estimates of NextGen’s final cost and completion date. The original estimate put the amount the government and industry would pay at $20 billion apiece. The inspector general thinks it could wind up costing “two or three times” as much. Back in 2012, the FAA said all aircraft flying in American airspace would need to have ADS-B transponders installed by 2020. The completion date has since slipped to 2025—and even that could be off “by as much as a decade”, the Wall Street Journal recently reported.

Meanwhile, satellite-navigation technology has not stood still. ADS-B was first mooted in the mid-1990s. Prototype testing got underway in the early 2000s, with the aim of having the new ATC system in place by 2015. However, innovations that have taken place over the past decade have raised questions about what role (if any) ADS-B’s hugely expensive ground-based infrastructure may actually play.

Once again, Canada has shown the way. In terms of traffic volume, Nav Canada manages the second largest airspace in the world after America's. The vast distances over remote areas present special challenges. Pilots essentially fly blind once they are out of line-of-sight range of radars on the ground. For safety reasons, planes crossing oceans and remote regions must therefore be spaced well apart, restricting the flow of traffic.

To address the problem, Nav Canada teamed up with Iridium, a mobile communications supplier based in McLean, Virginia. Iridium provides data connections between any two points on Earth using its own satellite network. Aireon, its joint venture with Nav Canada, has installed ADS-B receivers in Iridium’s latest generation of satellites, which are beginning to replace the company’s existing constellation. The company is on track to have swapped out all 66 of the old Iridium satellites for new ones by 2018. Aireon will then be able to relay signals from ADS-B-equipped aircraft flying anywhere in the world to controllers on the ground. This will change things a lot. The ability to provide surveillance, second-by-second, of all the air traffic in the world—irrespective of whether the planes are flying over oceans or polar regions—will be available to air-navigation service providers without the need to install any additional infrastructure on the ground or equipment in the air. Had such a capability been available in 2014, Malaysia Airlines’s ill-fated flight MH370 would have been pinpointed instantly.

Aireon says, modestly, that its space-based ADS-B system will “complement existing [ground-based] surveillance systems” and provide a back-up service in emergencies. But the message is clear: when planning how best to meet future growth in traffic, independent air-navigation providers everywhere are going to find it cheaper, quicker and less fraught with uncertainty to sign up for a space-based ADS-B service off the shelf, rather than try to build NextGen-like gear on the ground. That may be the best reason yet why America needs to privatise its air-traffic control without delay.

When I read this line...

"...THERE is a strange disconnection between the way lawmakers in America go about protecting the country's airline passengers on the ground, and the way they abandon them to their fate once they are airborne..."

...I had a strange feeling of déjà vu??? Anyway the argument for ASA privatisation is well and truly enhanced by the many parallel comparisons between the Nav Canada & FAA management of their individual ATC systems...

Is it any wonder that Murky Mandarin and his minions are seriously looking at the function & efficiency of ASA and the future possibility of privatisation:

Mr Mrdak : The Functional and Efficiency Review did look at international examples of where governments have placed their air traffic control provider—air services provider—in different governance structures, particularly the United Kingdom and Canada, where they have been placed in either part-private ownership or a not-for-profit government body. They were models that were looked at in the scope. The Functional and Efficiency Review recommended that we consider further options for the future of Airservices Australia..

 
TICK..TOCK Harfwit & your fellow shonky, trough-feeding numbnuts TICK..TOCK indeed -  


MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

Even those mahogany seat warming PHD accredited wankers at ICAO acknowledged;

"The International Civil Aviation Organisation, the UN agency that oversees worldwide aviation standards, has urged all 191 of its member countries to extricate their air-traffic control from government bureaucracy and political micromanagement—so they can manage the explosive growth in air travel with greater safety and effectiveness".

As already mentioned elsewhere, Harfwit and Houston can't turn a profit from a billion dollar organisation that has no competition! What numpties! That's what happens when you have long term career bureaucrats that have never managed a private enterprise in the real world. KNOBS!

P2 said;

"TICK..TOCK Harfwit & your fellow shonky, trough-feeding numbnuts TICK..TOCK indeed"

Well something has to give. Australia's national debt is now over $400 billion, and the Government couldn't turn a profit from a gifted top shelf brothel. Surely Goldman Sachs Turnbull is eyeing off Australia's cash cow ASA! Either that or sell off CAsA, but I don't think that $3:00 and a bunch of 80 year old Inspectors is going to pay off many bills or pay for all those Government employees lurks and perks that build up each year.

I can just picture it now, the Bus driver driving off into the sunset with a fat payout. And poor old Electric Blue with his damaged ego and hand delivered DCM leaving the building and popping around to Mum's for a cup of green tea and a cry on her shoulder about how the worlds best CEO is no longer wanted. Boo hoo.

Tick tock Electric Blue and friends? Yes please. Tick tock most certainly.

[Kharon]

Pea green – well, just a little.

The article posted by P2 @ 354 is well worth a coffee and few moments.  You have to admire the Canadians and if a small twinge of envy creeps into that admiration, it’s only human.  There is a good solid business and safety case to support selling off the ASA. A bonus to that transaction would be avoiding the inevitable embarrassment to the government if the terrible waste and incompetency which dogs ASA is ever fully disclosed to the public.

To address the problem, Nav Canada teamed up with Iridium, a mobile communications supplier based in McLean, Virginia. Iridium provides data connections between any two points on Earth using its own satellite network. Aireon, its joint venture with Nav Canada, has installed ADS-B receivers in Iridium’s latest generation of satellites, which are beginning to replace the company’s existing constellation. The company is on track to have swapped out all 66 of the old Iridium satellites for new ones by 2018. Aireon will then be able to relay signals from ADS-B-equipped aircraft flying anywhere in the world to controllers on the ground. This will change things a lot. The ability to provide surveillance, second-by-second, of all the air traffic in the world—irrespective of whether the planes are flying over oceans or polar regions—will be available to air-navigation service providers without the need to install any additional infrastructure on the ground or equipment in the air. Had such a capability been available in 2014, Malaysia Airlines’s ill-fated flight MH370 would have been pinpointed instantly.

The quoted paragraph above, for me, spells out the future and denotes the end of the ADS-B ground infrastructure.  Surely we can delay a little longer for a better system - 2018 is not too many sleeps away.  The ‘latest’ technology being used to remove the need for the stone age thinking of ASA is an additional benefit.  Yes; it may upset some of the cosy deals and delay the ‘one-sky’ fairy story; but to bring in ‘one sky’ will cost a helluva lot more for a less efficient system.

Turnbull is, if nothing else, a business man.  The business case for ‘one-sky’ is a leaky bucket, oozing potential embarrassment; a system like the Canadians intend is a rock solid investment in 21st century good sense.  QED.

Toot (prayer to pagan gods) toot.

[P7_TOM]

There is great deal of difference between ‘professionals' and 'plonkers’.  The audio from – HERE – demonstrates the fact very well indeed.  Nicely done ATC; and well done the pilots who chipped in.  FWIW – from Dublin; no additional comment required - methinks..

[Gobbledock]

One 'pie in the sky'?

A senior AsA trough swiller was recently asked if Electric Blue's billion dollar baby and 'bringing together' of systems would eliminate TIBA. The answer was 'not sure, hope so'. That was it!! 'Not sure, hope so'.

So there you have it. Makes you wonder what Harfwit and the Bus Driver are actually doing, apart from signing off on VR's, bonus payments and enhanced executive salary packages.

"Airservices Australia executives - may your trough cups runneth other". Oink oink

[Peetwo]

One 'pie in the sky'?

A senior AsA trough swiller was recently asked if Electric Blue's billion dollar baby and 'bringing together' of systems would eliminate TIBA. The answer was 'not sure, hope so'. That was it!! 'Not sure, hope so'.

So there you have it. Makes you wonder what Harfwit and the Bus Driver are actually doing, apart from signing off on VR's, bonus payments and enhanced executive salary packages.

"Airservices Australia executives - may your trough cups runneth other". Oink oink

Update to ANAO ASA audit: Speaking of troughs running over yesterday PAIN received an email notification from the ANAO office:

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) audit status update
View this email in your browser

ANAO audit status update

You've subscribed to receive updates from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) website about Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist on the OneSKY Australia Program. This audit has published the status update listed below.


 
Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist on the OneSKY Australia Program

Report has been scheduled for tabling on Wednesday 31 August 2016.
Update published Aug 24, 2016 09:45 am
View on the ANAO website »

Twitter

Not that I'm holding my breath that anything really damning will come out of it but it will be interesting to see what lengths Harfwit & Sir A have gone to this time to obfuscate the trail of crumbs leading to the OneSKY trough...  

While visiting the ANAO website & twitter page I noted that the Auditor General recently replied to correspondence request (20 May 2016) from Senator Xenophon regarding the Future Submarine Project, see links in this tweep here:

 ‏@ANAO_Australia Aug 23

The Auditor-General responded to correspondence from Senator @Nick_Xenophon regarding the Future Submarine Project https://www.anao.gov.au/work/correspondence/xenophon-sea-1000-future-submarine-project …

 
In a passing strange coincidence, remembering that the OneSKY contractor Thales is also a major shareholder of the FSP contractor DCNS, I note the following 'eyebrow raising' article from Reuters...

World News | Wed Aug 24, 2016 9:12am EDT

France's DCNS says India submarine data leak may be 'economic warfare'

By Matt Siegel and John Irish | SYDNEY/PARIS

SYDNEY/PARIS French naval contractor DCNS said on Wednesday it may have been the victim of "economic warfare" after secrets about its Scorpene submarines being built in India were leaked.

India opened an investigation after The Australian newspaper published documents relating to the submarine's combat capabilities, raising concerns over another major contract with Australia.

The leak contains more than 22,000 pages outlining the details of six submarines that DCNS has designed for the Indian Navy.

"I understand there has been a case of hacking," Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar told reporters. "We will find out what has happened."

The submarines are being built at a state-run shipyard in Mumbai and the first one was expected to go into service by the end of the year, the first step in the Indian navy's effort to rebuild its dwindling fleet.

The leak has raised doubts about the security of DCNS's submarine project in Australia where it is locked in exclusive negotiations after seeing off rivals for a A$50 billion ($38 billion) contract to build the Barracuda next generation of submarines.

DCNS, which is 35 percent owned by Thales (TCFP.PA), said it was working to determine if any harm had been caused to clients with a view to drawing up an action plan.

Asked if the leak could affect other contracts, a company spokeswoman said it had come against a difficult commercial backdrop and that corporate espionage could be to blame.

left
right
File photo of Malaysia's first submarine, 'KD Tunku Abdul Rahman', a Scorpene-class diesel-electric submarine, docks in Port Klang outside Kuala Lumpur September 3, 2009. REUTERS/Bazuki Muhammad/Files

"Competition is getting tougher and tougher, and all means can be used in this context," she said. "There is India, Australia and other prospects, and other countries could raise legitimate questions over DCNS. It's part of the tools in economic warfare."

DCNS, which is also vying for submarine contracts in Norway and Poland, beat Germany's ThyssenKrupp AG (TKAG.DE) and a Japanese-government backed bid by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (7011.T) and Kawasaki Heavy Industries (7012.T) in Australia.

That was a major blow to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's push to develop defense export capabilities as part of a more muscular security agenda.

The leaked documents cover the Scorpene-class model and do not contain any details of the vessel currently being designed for the Australian fleet.

Thales (TCFP.PA), whose shares fell 3 percent before paring back some of the losses, declined to comment.

French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who finalised the Australian deal, also declined to comment.

MAJOR STRATEGIC PROBLEM

The breadth of detail in the documents creates a strategic problem for India, Malaysia and Chile, all of which operate the same submarine, an Australian political source with decades of experience in the global arms industry told Reuters.

Excerpts published in redacted form on the newspaper's website contained highly sensitive details of the submarine including technical manuals and models of the boat's antennae.

Related Coverage

• VIDEOMassive data leak hits French submarine maker
  
• VIDEOMassive data leak hits French submarine maker
  
• Source of submarine document leak 'from overseas': Indian defense ministry
  

"If it's 22,400 pages, it's a major stuff-up," the source said. "It's a huge deal.

"It allows them to understand everything about the submarines. What speeds it can do; how noisy it is; what speeds the mast can be raised at ... all of that is just devastating."

A French source close to the matter tried to play down the severity of the leak, saying the documents appeared to be "sensitive but neither critical nor confidential".

The Indian Defence Ministry said in a statement it was investigating the impact of the leak on the submarine program which it said had occurred from abroad. It gave no details.

Uday Bhaskar, a former naval officer, said that if the leak was established, it would amount to a significant compromise of the credibility of the submarines.

India has a fleet of 13 aging submarines, only half of which are operational at any time, opening up a gap with China which is expanding its maritime presence in the Indian Ocean.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull sought to deflect concern about the leak, touting the high security standards in Australia, where the submarine will be built. The Australian reported that the leak occurred in France in 2011.

"But clearly, it is a reminder that, particularly in this digital world, cyber security is of critical importance," he told the Seven TV network.

(Additional reporting by Gwénaëlle Barzic in Paris, Michel Rose and John Irish; Editing by Richard Lough and David Stamp)

 
Hmm...that Thales sure has it's fingers in lot of very sensitive individual State security, defence & infrastructure pies...
MTF...P2