[Peetwo]

Dick shames Halfwit on aviation safety webcams -

While on his SMA (Save My Ass) national tour JH apparently went to the AOPA Avalon gabfest bearing promised gifts...

Via Oz Flying:

Airservices Australia CEO Jason Harfield addresses the AOPA Australia Pacific Dialogue at Avalon 2017. (Steve Hitchen)

Airservices to act on Weather Cam Suggestion
7 March 2017

Airservices will create a network of weather cameras across Australia following a suggestion and $160,000 donation from aviator and entrepreneur Dick Smith.
Speaking at the AOPA Australia Pacific Dialogue at Avalon last week, Airservices CEO Jason Harfield said he expected the network to be delivered by May this year.

"Dick Smith donated $160,000 to Airservices to introduce weather cams around the country similar to the NavCanada and FAA model," Harfield told the gathering of pilots and AOPA members.

"We're proud to announce that we're working through that, and later this month a survey will go out to show the number of sites we've got selected and then the industry [consulted] to ensure the sites implemented are the sites that you, as industry, would like."

The money is currently quarantined in a special bank account to make it easier to track the spending, rather than absorb it into general revenue where it would be more difficult to allocate to the weather cams accurately.

Harfield said the speed the project was progressing at was due to an existing system and changes within Airservices that he says have streamlined the process.

"We've been able to join up with the Bureau of Meteorology, who have got an extensive weather cam network already and we'll have this all installed and accessed by May. And so, for an organisation that's been known not to deliver on a promise and take forever and a day to deliver something, we're going from suggestion to implementation in the space of about six months.

"We thought that it was a really good suggestion," Harfield later told Australian Flying.

"We went out and found that the bureau of met have got a network of cameras so we've been talking to them to get in, and with some of the capacity that Dick's provided we've said 'OK, we'll provide an additional X cameras as a result', and we're going out to industry to say 'this is where we've gotten to, have we got this right?' and are there any suggestions of where we put them in?"

Smith made the donation for the weather cams in December last year after selling his Citation jet in the USA and donating all the proceeds to charities and aviation foundations.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...Rce1iZt.99

 
"..And so, for an organisation that's been known not to deliver on a promise and take forever and a day to deliver something, we're going from suggestion to implementation in the space of about six months..."

Hmm..is that Harfwit's attempt at humour? Or is he once again trying to big-note himself for what is really an administrative facilitation of the Dick Smith donation for the aviation safety risk mitigation concept i.e. strategic placement of safety webcams...  

Now if JH and Sir A were each to match Dick's donation with one of their annual trough fund bonuses, then you would be talking about a serious 'gift' to the aviation industry...

  
MTF...P2


Ps While on matters of aviation safety and the three stooges (ASA, ATSB & CASA) bearing safety risk mitigation gifts and establishing industry trust quotient 'Olive branches':

1) Could we please have the ASA FOI disclosure log updated? - It is fast approaching two years in arrears...

 2) Could we please have the ATSB investigation page updated with interim statements/reports for all O&O'd active investigations? - Such as VARA ATR 'broken tail' investigation (3rd anniversary) and the PelAir cover-up (2+ year) re-investigation... (Reference: ATSB still taking the Mickey Bliss on ICAO Annex 13 ) 

3) Could we please have the CASA 'Enforcement Manual' updated so that the former sociopathic DAS McCormick is no longer the preface signatory and his 'blackletter' embuggerance dispo is also erased from the preface introduction - Download preface.pdf.

[Gobbledock]

Of matchfit speeches, turd polishing and safety

Oh Harfwit, looking splendid in his blue suit and blue tie with an almost 'matching' ASA lanyard, his smooth silver locks completed by a sagging buccular and a chin that looks like a pair of testicles!

Anyway, I agree with P2, if Harfy is feeling generous and in a playful in mood, why not deliver on P2's 3 other simple requests? For the sake of fostering trust in the industry and in the name of transparency surely Harfwit and Busdriver Houstoblame would be more than happy to deliver? No, of course they won't. Obsfucation and turd polishing is their prime directive. Transparency doesn't rate on their priority list.

But I am flummoxed over this comment in relation to Dick Smiths generous offer and improved safety initiative;

"The money is currently quarantined in a special bank account to make it easier to track the spending, rather than absorb it into general revenue where it would be more difficult to allocate to the weather cams accurately".

WTF? Quarantined? Special bank account?
Really? Is that the same account that the Executives bonuses come out of, the OneSky consultant payments come out of, the Busdrivers business class airfares for he and his wife to attend overseas training seminars and educational program's comes out of? Oh Harfy, master of the pony pooh, promulgator of corporate bonuses, Executor of the mighty trough - you suck!
Speaking of sucking, maybe Harfwit can save additional precious funds by borrowing some of Hoodys webcams!!

But once again Dick Smith should be congratulated and awarded with 3 choccy frogs and a 24 hour pass to attend the ASA trough! His generosity is, as always, appreciated. But it's the mans thought process that I like. The webcams are an initiative to improve safety. I don't believe you can put a price tag on that. Even though Dick has dug down into his own wallet.

GD

[Peetwo]

Dick shames Halfwit on aviation safety webcams -

While on his SMA (Save My Ass) national tour JH apparently went to the AOPA Avalon gabfest bearing promised gifts...

Via Oz Flying:

Airservices Australia CEO Jason Harfield addresses the AOPA Australia Pacific Dialogue at Avalon 2017. (Steve Hitchen)

Airservices to act on Weather Cam Suggestion
7 March 2017

Airservices will create a network of weather cameras across Australia following a suggestion and $160,000 donation from aviator and entrepreneur Dick Smith.
Speaking at the AOPA Australia Pacific Dialogue at Avalon last week, Airservices CEO Jason Harfield said he expected the network to be delivered by May this year.

"Dick Smith donated $160,000 to Airservices to introduce weather cams around the country similar to the NavCanada and FAA model," Harfield told the gathering of pilots and AOPA members.

"We're proud to announce that we're working through that, and later this month a survey will go out to show the number of sites we've got selected and then the industry [consulted] to ensure the sites implemented are the sites that you, as industry, would like."

The money is currently quarantined in a special bank account to make it easier to track the spending, rather than absorb it into general revenue where it would be more difficult to allocate to the weather cams accurately.

Harfield said the speed the project was progressing at was due to an existing system and changes within Airservices that he says have streamlined the process.

"We've been able to join up with the Bureau of Meteorology, who have got an extensive weather cam network already and we'll have this all installed and accessed by May. And so, for an organisation that's been known not to deliver on a promise and take forever and a day to deliver something, we're going from suggestion to implementation in the space of about six months.

"We thought that it was a really good suggestion," Harfield later told Australian Flying.

"We went out and found that the bureau of met have got a network of cameras so we've been talking to them to get in, and with some of the capacity that Dick's provided we've said 'OK, we'll provide an additional X cameras as a result', and we're going out to industry to say 'this is where we've gotten to, have we got this right?' and are there any suggestions of where we put them in?"

Smith made the donation for the weather cams in December last year after selling his Citation jet in the USA and donating all the proceeds to charities and aviation foundations.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...Rce1iZt.99

 
"..And so, for an organisation that's been known not to deliver on a promise and take forever and a day to deliver something, we're going from suggestion to implementation in the space of about six months..."

Hmm..is that Harfwit's attempt at humour? Or is he once again trying to big-note himself for what is really an administrative facilitation of the Dick Smith donation for the aviation safety risk mitigation concept i.e. strategic placement of safety webcams...  

Now if JH and Sir A were each to match Dick's donation with one of their annual trough fund bonuses, then you would be talking about a serious 'gift' to the aviation industry...

  
MTF...P2


Ps While on matters of aviation safety and the three stooges (ASA, ATSB & CASA) bearing safety risk mitigation gifts and establishing industry trust quotient 'Olive branches':

1) Could we please have the ASA FOI disclosure log updated? - It is fast approaching two years in arrears...

 2) Could we please have the ATSB investigation page updated with interim statements/reports for all O&O'd active investigations? - Such as VARA ATR 'broken tail' investigation (3rd anniversary) and the PelAir cover-up (2+ year) re-investigation... (Reference: ATSB still taking the Mickey Bliss on ICAO Annex 13 ) 

3) Could we please have the CASA 'Enforcement Manual' updated so that the former sociopathic DAS McCormick is no longer the preface signatory and his 'blackletter' embuggerance dispo is also erased from the preface introduction - Download preface.pdf.

Of matchfit speeches, turd polishing and safety

Oh Harfwit, looking splendid in his blue suit and blue tie with an almost 'matching' ASA lanyard, his smith silver locks completed by a sagging buccular and a chin that looks like a pair of testicles!

Anyway, I agree with P2, if Harfy is feeling generous and in a playful in mood, why not deliver on P2's 3 other simple requests? For the sake of fostering trust in the industry and in the name of transparency surely Harfwit and Busdriver Houstoblame would be more than happy to deliver? No, of course they won't. Obsfucation and turd polishing is their prime directive. Transparency doesn't rate on their priority list.

But I am flummoxed over this comment in relation to Dick Smiths generous offer and improved safety initiative;

"The money is currently quarantined in a special bank account to make it easier to track the spending, rather than absorb it into general revenue where it would be more difficult to allocate to the weather cams accurately".

WTF? Quarantined? Special bank account?
Really? Is that the same account that the Executives bonuses come out of, the OneSky consultant payments come out of, the Busdrivers business class airfares for he and his wife to attend overseas training seminars and educational program's comes out of? Oh Harfy, master of the pony pooh, promulgator of corporate bonuses, Executor of the mighty trough - you suck!
Speaking of sucking, maybe Harfwit can save additional precious funds by borrowing some of Hoodys webcams!!

But once again Dick Smith should be congratulated and awarded with 3 choccy frogs and a 24 hour pass to attend the ASA trough! His generosity is, as always, appreciated. But it's the mans thought process that I like. The webcams are an initiative to improve safety. I don't believe you can put a price tag on that. Even though Dick has dug down into his own wallet.

GD

[P7_TOM]

Kerrrr bloody istmas; this Halfwit should be seeking the village that lost him or running for a seat in parliament. I can see it all now, DDDD and the Halfwit, looking either wind swept and interesting or; sombre and concerned. while posing for the ever present ‘camera’ at every bloody airport in the country. The cameras to be located by ministerial decree in ‘exactly’ the right place: cc. direct to the press agent. We will all be able to dial up the latest opinion of the weather through ADSB – won’t we?  JBHCOAC. What next – spay on hair goop in the ‘mens’?

Yup; right here barkeep; my friends and I have great need of your services this night. Long may it last.

[Peetwo]

Harfwit cashes in his chips at the Oz -

Not wanting to be sin-binned for referring to a Ferryman quarantined 'ticked, flicked & published' aviation related MSM article, however I think in this case it maybe warranted...  : A new champion arises.

"..No wonder the public are confused; for a supposed ‘crack writer’ Cleary clearly has NFI.  He cites ‘reports’ – plural as being reprehensible and irresponsible. Both of ‘em, really? I can’t imagine Halfwit calling the soft, airbrushed report from the ATSB as such, not in a million. You’d reckon a ‘journo’ could parse (resolve) his statements better than that..."

Not only does the clearly inarticulate, ill-informed, lazy, Harfwit captured Cleary, appear to be having a free slap at the other Aunty, he is also having a swipe at our fellow aviation professionals the ATCOs...

 "...An air safety investigation has shown that air traffic controllers at Melbourne Airport allowed three aircraft to exceed safe distances because they “forgot” to inform nearby Essendon Airport and were distracted by idle chatter.

The report is timely because it follows the fatal crash last month at Essendon that killed five people, and it sheds light on the ­professionalism of some of the controllers..."    

To begin I note that in typical unprofessional and arrogant style Cleary has not included a link for his critiquing of the ATSB report. So for the record here it is: Loss of separation involving Boeing 737 aircraft, VH-YFN and VH-VZV and Robinson R44, VH-WYR near Essendon Airport, Victoria, on 26 January 2016

Now in reference to the "distracted by idle chatter" comment, I extracted the following from that report:

..The Melbourne controllers noted that, at the time of the occurrence, there were other controllers beginning their shifts and there was a slightly elevated level of non-operational discussion. As the traffic volume was low, they did not consider the discussion to be a distraction...

&.. from the 'Safety Analysis' section of the report:

Distraction

During the period when the runway and airspace change was being carried out, there were multiple instances of non-operational discussions. However, at the time, the traffic level was low and apart from the runway change, the workload was relatively light. The Tower and Terminal Control Unit Shift Managers believed that, while there was some conversation and non‑operational discussion, it was not sufficient to require intervention.

 
There was also no mention of the 'distraction' as being relevant as a 'contributory factor'; nor highlighted as needing to be addressed in the 'safety issues & actions'.

However the ATSB did identify a significant safety issue which was proactively addressed by ASA:

Absence of air traffic control procedures and tools for runway changes at Melbourne Airport

Airservices Australia did not provide procedures with associated local instructions to Melbourne air traffic controllers regarding how to coordinate runway changes at Melbourne Airport. Furthermore, an absence of system tools increased the risk of the controllers forgetting to coordinate those changes with the Essendon Aerodrome Controller.

ATSB Safety Issue: AO-2016-005-SI-01

 
I also note that, for a supposedly inquisitive investigative journalist, PGC has failed to note the section under "Other breakdown of co-ordination occurrences": 

..On 18 November 2013, the ATSB received a confidential report (REPCON) (reference number AR201300090) relating to a breakdown in communication between the Melbourne and Essendon controllers. The reporter stated that the breakdown in communication might have resulted in a loss of separation assurance or potentially a loss of separation between aircraft operating at Melbourne and Essendon Airports. The breakdown in communication occurred within Melbourne Tower, and resulted in the the Melbourne Approach East Controller being unaware of the need to identify aircraft approaching Essendon Airport to the Melbourne Aerodrome Controller. Airservices confirmed that there was no loss of separation assurance or separation due to this breakdown in communication.

As a result of this confidential report, Airservices tasked the Check and Standardisation Supervisors of the involved air traffic control group with reviewing the coordination requirements. The aim of the review was to identify potential opportunities to minimise the likelihood of a similar breakdown of communication reoccurring. In the interim, Airservices also created a temporary console display at Melbourne to highlight the separation responsibility for Essendon traffic arriving from Melbourne Terminal Control Unit airspace.

The circumstances of this REPCON, and the related safety action, did not have any direct bearing on the breakdown of coordination on 26 January 2016.

A review of the ATSB occurrence database for the 5 years prior to the occurrence on 26 January 2016 found no similar occurrences...

For PGC's historical reference (if he'd care to do his research), AP covered the above REPCON report when it was brought up by Senator X in the course of the 2015 Senate Estimates: see SMH post - More Beaker Bullocks MKII - Courtesy Senate Estimates - ATSB AQON.

On another ASA related matter, I note that the Kiwis have announced that over the next few years they will be upgrading their ATC system... :

NZ adopts new air traffic platforms

12:00amRebecca Howard

Airways New Zealand will ­replace its air traffic management platforms in a $53m upgrade over four years.

Airways New Zea­land, the state-owned air traffic control authority, will ­replace its air traffic management platforms in a $NZ58 million ($53m) upgrade over the next four years.

Airways awarded the contract to global science and technology company Leidos to collaborate on software development and the Leidos Skyline X system will replace Airways’ two ATM platforms that were installed between 2000 and 2003.

The system is expected to ­become operational in New Zealand’s domestic airspace in 2020 and in oceanic airspace in 2021, Airways said in a statement.

The authority’s chief operating officer, Pauline Lamb, said the system would allow Airways to implement a new operating model as well as take advantage of advances in tools to optimise the air traffic system and staff ­deployment.

“By 2020, the new platform will allow airspace sectors to be operated from two new air traffic control centres in Auckland and Christchurch, in addition to 19 control towers nationwide,” Ms Lamb said.

The development of the system will be a collaborative project between Leidos and Airways’s software development teams, with Airways purchasing the hardware and installing and testing the system. This successful partnership model previously saved Airways’s customers about $NZ2.6m a year, or $NZ36m across the life of the present ATM platform.

Leidos civil group president Angie Heise said: “Air traffic is forecast to grow by 50 per cent over the next decade. The expertise of Leidos and the ongoing development of our SkyLine X technology will support Airways New Zealand in their continuing effort to deliver safe and efficient air traffic management to meet the increased demand.”

Meanwhile, Australian and New Zealand airlines have joined forces to set up a new aviation industry group to lobby government on taxes, fees and access to infrastructure. Qantas, Air New Zealand, Virgin Australia, Jetstar, Tigerair Australia and Regional Express are all backing the Airlines for Australia and New Zealand group.
Former Australian Competi­tion and Consumer Commission chairman Graeme Samuel will chair the body.

AAP

    
Hmm...maybe we need a ASA OneSKY v Airways NZed tote board for bets on who will come in on time and under budget...


MTF...P2


Ps"..Meanwhile, Australian and New Zealand airlines have joined forces to set up a new aviation industry group to lobby government on taxes, fees and access to infrastructure. Qantas, Air New Zealand, Virgin Australia, Jetstar, Tigerair Australia and Regional Express are all backing the Airlines for Australia and New Zealand group..."

More on this interesting story from stuff.co NZed :

Air New Zealand, Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin join forces


ELLEN READ

LAWRENCE SMITH/FAIRFAX NZ

The airlines are unhappy with the "under investment and over recovery at key airports", says Air New Zealand chief executive Christopher Luxon.

Air New Zealand is teaming up with rival airlines to form a trans-Tasman aviation lobby group to tackle - among other things - the fees and facilities at the airports they use. 
Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin Australia, TigerAir Australia and Regional Express (Rex) will join Air New Zealand as founding members of Airlines for Australia and New Zealand (A4ANZ).
Airport services and charges are high on the agenda with Air New Zealand chief executive Christopher Luxon calling them out as the group was launched.

PAUL KANE/GETTY

"Aviation is one of the greatest enablers of tourism, trade and economic growth in our region," says Virgin Australia chief executive John Borghetti.

"Australia and New Zealand must compete for visitors on the world stage against many other attractive destinations," Luxon said.

"To be competitive we must continue to improve cost and quality in all parts of the travel experience but we are constrained by a legacy of under investment and over recovery at key airports. A4ANZ will add its voice to that ambition," he said.

DAVID GRAY

Airport fees and charges are rising while fares have fallen, says Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce.

Qantas boss Alan Joyce echoed the sentiment, saying: "Airport fees and charges continue to increase while airlines are offering fares at levels significantly cheaper than they were over a decade ago".

"A4ANZ's goal is to achieve regulatory reform that will promote a competitive and sustainable airline industry in the interests of Australian and New Zealand travellers," Joyce said.

In New Zealand, airports consult airlines on landing fees every five years. While the charges are a big cost for the airlines, they make up only a small part of most passenger ticket prices. 

Graeme Samuel, the former chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, has been appointed as chairman to lead a board made up of a representative from each member airline. He has 40 years of leadership experience in public service, law and investment banking.

A chief executive will be appointed in coming months.

Virgin Australia chief executive John Borghetti said : "Aviation is one of the greatest enablers of tourism, trade and economic growth in our region, so it's absolutely critical that airports operate efficiently and that investment in infrastructure benefits travellers".

A4ANZ will stand apart from airline lobby group Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand of which all airlines flying to and within New Zealand are members. The A4ANZ group was announced overnight and airports have not yet had a chance to comment.
Virgin and Air New Zealand currently work together on flights and rewards on trans-Tasman routes. Qantas has a global alliance with Emirates. 

About A4ANZ member airlines: 

-  Air New Zealand flies more than 15 million passengers a year and employs around 11,800 people.
-  The Qantas Group flies more than 50 million passengers each year and employs over 30,000 people.
-  Rex flies 1.2 million passengers each year and employs around 1100 people.
-  The Virgin Australia Group flies over 24 million passengers each year and employs around 9500 people.

 - Stuff

[Gobbledock]

P2, two comments on your above well delivered post.

1. Cleary; In regard to that boot licking Cleary, he is cleary another Creepy - a mainstream presstitute more interested in kissing puppet masters asses than portraying factual information. To have a shot at the ATCO's who are the nuts and bolts of ASA and the real hero's is despicable. He needs to extract his tongue out of Harwit and Houstoblame's anuses immediately.

2. Airlines vs Airports; It's always interesting watching the airline CEO's sook and whinge about airport fees and charges. For sure, bigger players like Perth, Sydney, Melbourne etc sting the user in a big way. But you could count up those airports on two hands. There is probably another 150 airports that get screwed over by the likes of Joyce and Borghetti who pay minimal fees an charges, and then jack up prices
and hold the airport and it's region to ransom. Go and see how much those pricks Qantas charge to fly from Devonport to Melbourne FFS. One airline = one high fee. I took a look at Devonports landing fees and charges etc and it is a pittance compared to other airports, yet the sole occupant, Qantas, charge more than what they do out of Launceston and Hobart.
So crybabies like Joyce and that other idiot Borghetti who is still yet to turn a decent profit need to pull their heads in. Jerks.

[Kharon]

What a piece of work is a man!

This Cleary is a piece of work though ain’t he. When I first read that ‘thing’ he wrote, I though ‘steady the Buffs’; only ‘skim’ read it, before second coffee, so it was not given the time it needed to be properly digested; read and destroy later.

P2 has saved me the time and aggravation (thanks mate, great job). I find it hard to believe an acknowledged ‘star’ journalist could stoop so low. One may expect the story to be ‘tweaked’, biased even, to make a point or get a message out, but to deliberately write a piece which could and probably has misled a few folk- WTD? We have come to expect that degree of ‘spin’ from the match fit ASA top team; but for a journalist to attack both the ABC and the ATCO’s out of spite – well, what can you say.

Only one thing, the article itself qualifies as both ‘reprehensible and irresponsible’. Shame on both Halfwit and Halfatale.  

Toot toot.

PS. I note Halfwit has not sprung to the defence of his hard working ATCO troops; wonder why? Had it been my crew words would have been spoken in defence. Text book example of 'foot-in-mouth' disease.

[Gobbledock]

Oakey residents closer to a class action

Tick Tock Halfwit, Houstoblame and Minister NFI.

"Lawyers representing residents in Oakey say they have the final clearance to commence a class action against the Department of Defence"

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-17...fmredir=sm

Might set a precedent for all the other airports that have polluted waterways, of which you arseclowns have tried to cover up.

Tick Tock

[Gobbledock]

ANAO audit report of ASA is ticking closer to being released

I noticed that the ANAO audit report of ASA is still labelled 'preparation stage', so it can't be long until it is released. Should be next week. 'Preparation stage' means Pumpkin Head, Sir Anus, Electric Blue and 6D are being briefed on the results and are preparing their bollocks response whatever that may be. I would like to think these bureaucrats are preparing their anuses for large pineapples, however I hold little faith in that prospect. It will probably be back-slaps, Hi-5's, reach-arounds and promotions for the ASA executive used car salesmen.

Million dollar contracts for a few days consultancy work, shonky tender processes, credit card fraud, a billion dollar monopoly being mismanaged and running at a loss, it should be an interesting result, after all the evidence has been quite damning to date. But there are some high level, influential non-accountable people wanting the report to be glowing and sparkling, and and remaining as hollow as an Easter egg! Speaking of Easter eggs, my money is on the Guv'mint, aka Minister NFI shit-for-brains receiving the report this month and then sneaking it into the archives sometime during the Easter 4 day break!!!

Tick Tock

[Peetwo]

Gold Coast airport on frogs, fogs & PFOS bogs.

While we wait with bated breath for the ANAO audit report to be tabled (presumably today), I note that last week 6D, M&M and his minions (in particular Harfwit & ASA) played significant parts in achieving a compromise with one applicant to the AAAT case - Gold Coast Lifestyle Association Incorporated and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development [2017] AATA 368 (21 March 2017) - and a potential win with the second applicant to the proceeding...

Why I find this particular case interesting is that it highlights some of the significant impediments to government encouraged infrastructure projects related to aviation safety, in this case the proposed construction of a RW32 ILS at GC airport. It also highlights how environmental issues, which include public safety risk involved with the PFOS contamination and aircraft noise exposure, lead to proactive aviation safety risk mitigation projects getting lost in the brouhaha -

However in this case it seems that sanity will in fact prevail...

Note to Harfwit - perhaps consider giving your Mr Hall a nice little sweetener for his contribution to this complicated but positive AAAT decision... :

37.We were also provided with evidence from Mr Neil Hall. Mr Hall was called to give evidence by Airservices. He provided a statement (exhibit 9). Mr Hall is the acting Strategic Stakeholder Manager and the Environment and Air Traffic Management manager of Airservices. In that role, he was involved in the preparation of the major development plan. He previously worked as an air traffic controller and had worked at one stage as air traffic control tower manager at the Gold Coast airport. His familiarity with the Gold Coast airport was of considerable assistance, as we will explain.

38.Mr Hall’s written statement focused on noise issues and options for noise abatement. His unchallenged evidence on those issues (especially the noise abatement proposals referred to in [39] of his statement) was explicitly informed by other available evidence, including a report prepared by Mr Raymond Romano of the Airport Group dated 24 October 2016.10 Mr Hall’s evidence provides a basis for the draft orders that were proposed following negotiations between the Lifestyle Association and the respondents. Mr Hall’s oral evidence focused on the public consultation process that occurred in connection with the draft major development plan and on the operation of the airport.

39.Mr Hall explained that an ILS was one of several precision approach aids in common use. He said the ILS was desirable because it allowed aircraft to get lower and closer to the runway in bad weather than some of the alternative aids. He pointed out that was an advantage at the Gold Coast airport where heavy rainfall was often an issue. The evidence was relevant in light of the suggestion that superior alternative technologies are available. We were invited to infer that an ILS was not an appropriate choice for the airport. But there was nothing in the material presented at the hearing or in submissions which persuaded us we should reject Mr Hall’s oral evidence that it is reasonable to favour installation of an ILS over (or in addition to) alternative aids at this airport at this point.


10 Mr Hall referred to that expert in his statement. A copy of the report was filed separately.

40.Ms Smith asked Mr Hall a number of questions about plans to extend the operational length of the main runway. We were invited to infer that the installation of the ILS was part of a larger undisclosed plan to extend the runway in ways that would impact on the local environment. Ms Smith pointed out the plans for the ILS anticipate the localiser antenna would be placed 300 metres short of the end of runway 14 (that is, on Crown land at the southern end of the main runway beyond the airport boundary), when it could be located closer. She also said the construction was more intrusive than it needed to be: more vegetation was being cleared and extra road and drainage works were to be constructed. Ms Smith speculated it only made sense to place the localiser antenna that far from the end of the runway if the GCAPL secretly planned to extend the runway.

41.Mr Hall confirmed GCAPL was considering an extension to the operational length of runway 32 by moving the landing threshold (that is, the point where aircraft actually touch down) to the south, closer to the boundary of the airport. He said there was no secret about that proposal: the possibility of an extension is mentioned in the master plan: exhibit one at p 611. But he also said the operational length of the runway could be extended without extending the bitumen. The change could be effected by repainting the markings on the runway and reconfiguring the landing lights. Major construction work was not required. He added the placement of the localiser antenna was irrelevant to that exercise because the ILS was being installed on runway 14, not runway 32. The installation of the ILS on runway 14 would occur independently of any plan to change the operational length of runway 32. Mr Hall said the plans with respect to runway 32 were subject to a separate approvals process, although he said it was unlikely a major development plan would be required in relation to that proposal given the small scale of the works required.

42.Mr Hall was an impressive witness. He has a breadth of experience that enabled him to speak authoritatively on the detail of airport operations, air traffic control and navigation aids. His evidence in relation to the proposed further developments at the airport and in relation to the installation of the ILS infrastructure on Crown land was not directly contradicted. His evidence was credible, reasoned and carefully explained; there is no basis for rejecting his expert evidence.

    
Fancy that a ASA executive that might actually know what he is talking about - probably just signed his death warrant...

MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Houston we may have a problem -

In follow up to:

Gold Coast airport on frogs, fogs & PFOS bogs.

42.Mr Hall was an impressive witness. He has a breadth of experience that enabled him to speak authoritatively on the detail of airport operations, air traffic control and navigation aids. His evidence in relation to the proposed further developments at the airport and in relation to the installation of the ILS infrastructure on Crown land was not directly contradicted. His evidence was credible, reasoned and carefully explained; there is no basis for rejecting his expert evidence.

    
Fancy that a ASA executive that might actually know what he is talking about - probably just signed his death warrant...

 Today for some strange reason the ANAO have notified that the ASA audit report has been delayed and will now be tabled sometime in April... :

Conduct of the OneSKY Tender
Due to table: April, 2017


Portfolio: Infrastructure and Regional Development; Defence; Finance
Entity: Airservices Australia; Department of Defence; Department of Finance

The objective of this audit is to assess whether the OneSKY tender was conducted so as to provide value with public resources and achieve required timeframes for the effective replacement of the existing air traffic management platforms.

Audit criteria

1. Was the OneSKY tender process based on a sound business case and appropriate Defence, Airservices and joint governance arrangements?
   
2. Did the tender process result in the transparent selection of a successful tender that provided the best whole-of-life value for money solution at an acceptable level of cost, technical and schedule risk, consistent with the Request for Tender?
   
3. Did negotiations with the successful tenderer result in constructive contractual arrangements that ensured continuity of safe air traffic services, the managed insertion of an optimum system of systems outcome within required timeframes, and demonstrable value?
   

TICK...TOCK Harfwit...
MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Amazing, even our capital, Can'tberra, has airport contamination.

Chemical crisis spreads to nation's airports

Mar 20, 2017

At least 22 airports across Australia are thought to be affected by legacy chemical contamination. Pictured is Canberra Airport, where contamination has been detected near the old fire fighting training ground.
The chemical contamination crisis hitting Australian military bases is now flaring up at commercial airports across the country, including Canberra.

Officials fear toxic chemicals from fire fighting foams have polluted the soil at 22 of the country's largest airports, which are stuck in a year-long deadlock with the federal government over how to clean them up.

From 1980 to 2003 the foams, which contained harmful polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), were used by government-employed fire fighters at dozens of airports and military bases.

The Environment Department has previously described the chemicals as "persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic".

Researchers find new way to deal with water contaminated with fire-fighting foam chemicals
Political chemistry
In 2008, the first preliminary site tests identified possible PFAS contamination at Canberra Airport's old fire fighting training ground.

Further investigations, which are ongoing, found PFAS residues in the soil and groundwater around another site at the airport's fire station.

A spokeswoman from Canberra Airport, which was leased from the Commonwealth in 1998 when little was known about PFAS, said the government needed to take responsibility for the pollution.

"The assessment and any remediation of pollution at Canberra Airport and other national airports is not the responsibility of the airport owners," the spokeswoman said.

"[It is] the direct responsibility of the Commonwealth and [government entity] Airservices Australia."

Major airports including Sydney, Gold Coast, Perth, and Brisbane are either known or thought to be affected by PFAS contamination.

In February 2016 the government wrote to affected facilities, warning them about PFAS and asking them to investigate contamination within their sites.

The Australian Airports Association replied four days later, saying it was the government's responsibility to front-up to the pollution.

Association chief executive Caroline Wilkie told Fairfax Media there were still major hurdles to solving the problem more than a year after the exchange.

"The Commonwealth government, in consultation with state governments, has a responsibility to establish and enforce a national regulatory framework for PFAS management to ensure responsible polluters implement practical remediation, containment and ongoing testing solutions," she said.

"Unfortunately, the finalisation of this national PFAS management regulatory framework has not yet been completed."

Airservices Australia is the government entity responsible for providing fire fighting operations at many of the airports where PFAS contamination is either known or suspected.

An Airservices spokeswoman said the government was committed to addressing the complex issue, however, it did not accept it was responsible for all instances of PFAS contamination across airport sites.

"Airservices…does not accept that it is the only source of any potential PFAS contamination on-airport or should have sole responsibility for detected PFAS contamination across the entire airport site," she said.

"Airservices takes responsibility for the management of its sites, and any contamination attributed to the historic use of PFAS-containing fire fighting foams, at airports nationally."

The government planned to remove contaminated soil from Canberra Airport but had so far failed to gain approval to dump it elsewhere, the spokeswoman added.

In November last year, a report commissioned by the Department of Defence examined PFAS contamination within water supplies near 12 Australian Air Force bases.

Contamination near an Air Force base in the Northern Territory town of Katherine was so bad the Department of Defence has started supplying 44 properties with bottled drinking water.

Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester said his department was working across government to formulate a solution to the PFAS issue at commercial airports.

"In the interim, guidance materials have been developed and provided to federally-leased airports," he said.

"These documents present a way to manage risk associated with legacy PFAS contamination."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news...uxeq9.html

Tick Tock Miniscule 6D NFI. You may need to increase Goldman Sachs Turnbulls $500b debt to pay for the cleanup and heavens forbid, some compensation.

TICK TOCK Government fools

[Gobbledock]

Interesting little twist in the never ending PFOS saga;

Army firefighting chemical exposure levels revised down by federal regulator

BY ISOBEL ROE
MON APR 03 16:29:39 EST 2017

Safe exposure limits for toxic firefighting foam chemicals that have contaminated land and water near Army bases across the nation have been dramatically reduced by the federal agency, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.

The chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) are contained in a firefighting foam that was used widely on the Oakey Aviation Base on Queensland's Darling Downs and RAAF Base Williamtown in NSW from the 1980s until 2003.

Last year, the Federal Health Department was widely criticised by residents in those towns when a review of the country's safety standards for the chemical maintained an exposure limit 78 times higher than the level set in the United States, where some towns have experienced similar problems with the chemicals.

Australian standards had dictated a safe level of PFOS in drinking water was 0.5 micrograms per litre, and the safe level of PFOA was 5 micrograms per litre.

But Food Standards today announced humans should not drink water with more than 0.07 micrograms of PFOS per litre or more than 0.56 micrograms per litre of PFOA-contaminated water.

The new standards are closer to US exposure limits, although still less stringent.

Oakey resident Brad Hudson, whose bore has chemical readings up to 400 times higher than the previously acceptable amount, said the new guidelines raised questions about years of information gathered by the Australian Defence Department.

"All their research ... nearly has to be invalid," he said.

"They were doing it with those other levels as the guidelines and if their guidelines have moved then they've got to go out and do a lot more research."
Mr Hudson said it made sense for Australia to follow the United States.

"It was inevitable would come on board with [lower safety standards] and stop keeping their heads in the sand," he said.

In a statement, the Health Department said the adoption of new safe levels did not mean the old levels were wrong.

"Both sets of values are precautionary and protective of public health," the statement read.
"An independent review in August 2016 confirmed that the [former] values, adopted by enHealth [the environmental health standing committee] were appropriate and, as an interim measure, protective of public health.

"The new Australian values take into account the data, parameters and methodology that are most suitable to Australia."

'Defence safety screen has been removed'. More than 400 Oakey landholders have signed up to a class action that will seek damages for loss of land value from the Defence Department.

Rory Ross from Shine Lawyers, which is running the class action, said the revised exposure limit was significant.

"They are a validation of the concerns that we and others have expressed about the findings of the Human Health Risk Assessment that was undertaken at Oakey," he said.

"The conclusions of that assessment ... I think that's all now undermined.

"It's gut wrenching, I think, for the people of Oakey because they've received assurances from the things the Commonwealth has said and done, that the previous levels were entirely protective.
"Now to say, 'well we're actually going to make this an order of magnitude stricter than the interim measures' ... it's gut wrenching.

"The Department of Defence has to some extent been hiding behind a screen of scientific uncertainty in regard to what does and doesn't constitute an appropriate level in drinking water. I think that screen is now gone."

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-03...1224092055

TICK TOCK Malcolm Turdball, Chief of Defence Mark Foreskin and Minister Payne (who looks like she has been snacking endlessly on cup cakes and Macca's laced with PFOS).

[Peetwo]

ANAO slap ASA with a wet lettuce - FDS!

Today the ANAO, with zilch fanfare, discretely tabled (out of parliamentary session) their 2nd audit report into the ASA OneSKY tender process. At first glance it would seem all's well in the Sir A & Harfwit ASA bubble of self-delusion and unlimited ATP funded trough funds:

Conduct of the OneSKY Tender

Published Monday, April 10, 2017


Report number: 46 of 2016-2017
Portfolio: Infrastructure and Regional Development; Defence; Finance
Entity: Airservices Australia; Department of Defence
Contact: Please direct enquiries relating to reports through our contact page.

The objective of this audit was to assess whether the OneSKY tender was conducted so as to provide value with public resources and achieve required timeframes for the effective replacement of the existing air traffic management platforms.

Summary and recommendations

Background

1. The civil air traffic management system operated by Airservices Australia (Airservices) and the separate system operated by the Department of Defence (Defence) for military air traffic are both due to reach the end of their economic lives in the latter part of the current decade. 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.
2. Under the OneSKY Australia program, Airservices is the lead agency for the joint procurement of a Civil Military Air Traffic Management System (CMATS). CMATS is intended to be delivered through contracts between Airservices and the successful tenderer, with a separate agreement being established between Airservices and Defence for the on-supply of services and goods/supplies. A Request for Tender (RFT) for the joint procurement was released on 28 June 2013. The RFT closed on 30 October 2013, with six respondents (including from the incumbent providers of both the Airservices and Defence ATM platforms).
3. On 27 February 2015, it was announced that an advanced work contracting arrangement would be entered into with Thales Australia, as a next step for the delivery of the OneSKY initiative.

Audit objective and criteria

4. The objective of the audit was to assess whether the OneSKY tender was conducted so as to provide value with public resources and achieve required timeframes for the effective replacement of the existing air traffic management platforms. To form a conclusion against the audit objective, the following high level criteria were adopted:

• Was the OneSKY tender process based on a sound business case and appropriate governance arrangements?
  
• Did the tender process result in the transparent selection of a successful tender that provided the best whole-of-life value for money solution at an acceptable level of cost, technical and schedule risk, consistent with the RFT?
  
• Did negotiations with the successful tenderer result in constructive contractual arrangements that ensured continuity of safe air traffic services, the managed insertion of an optimum system of systems outcome within required timeframes, and demonstrable value?
  

5. The Conditions of Tender had envisaged contracts would be signed in April 2015. As of January 2017, whilst a contract for the entire acquisition and support scope has not yet been executed, a number of contracts have been entered into through an Advanced Work Supply Arrangement for the acquisition contract scope, the first of which commenced in July 2015. Defence has advised its Ministers that contract signature for the entire acquisition and support scope is unlikely to occur before mid-2017. As such, this performance audit has not examined criterion 3.
Conclusion
6. The design of the OneSKY tender process was capable of producing a value for money outcome. The successful tenderer was assessed as significantly stronger in terms of technical capability as well as involving much lower schedule risk. The successful tenderer had also submitted significantly higher acquisition and support prices than the other tenderers. Adjustments made by the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) to tendered prices suggested that the successful tenderer offered the lowest cost solution. The TEC’s approach did not highlight to decision-makers the trade-off that needed to be made between the technical merits and cost of the competing tenders. There have also been significant delays with the conduct of the OneSKY tender process.
7. A two-stage tender process was employed involving a Request for Information (RFI) followed by a Request for Tender (RFT). This approach was appropriate for the scale, scope and risk of the joint procurement. It promoted a healthy level of competition for the procurement, with 23 responses to the RFI and nine tender responses received from six tenderers (two respondents offered a total of three alternate tenders). The RFT was released to the market in June 2013, 18 months later than the expected December 2011 release. This delay was further compounded by tender evaluation activities taking more than twice as long as planned. Contracts are unlikely to be signed prior to mid-2017, at least 40 months after tender evaluation commenced.
8. The evaluation governance arrangements were appropriate. They provided an approach that was capable of identifying the best value for money tender. They also guarded against the conflicts of interest issues identified in ANAO Report No.1 2016–17 impacting on the tender evaluation process and outcome.
9. Tender evaluation proceeded through the planned phases, with competitive pressure maintained until late in the process. The records of the evaluation process evidence that the successful tender was assessed to be better than the other remaining candidates from a technical and schedule risk perspective. It is not clearly evident that the successful tender offered the best value for money. This is because adjustments made to tendered prices when evaluating tenders against the cost criterion were not conducted in a robust and transparent manner. Those adjustments meant that the tenderer that submitted the highest acquisition and support prices was assessed to offer the lowest cost solution. It is also not clearly evident that the successful tender is affordable in the context of the funding available to Airservices and Defence.

Supporting findings

Design of the tender process

10. Airservices and Defence took sufficient steps to generate market interest in the procurement process including by running a two-stage tender process—an RFI followed by an RFT.
11. An overarching business case was not prepared for OneSKY. Separate business cases were developed by Airservices and Defence. The Airservices business case has not been reviewed or updated since 2011. In December 2016, Airservices advised the ANAO that it had commenced an update of its business case, which is due for completion in the first quarter of 2017. Shortcomings in Defence’s 2011 business case were identified by a review that was commissioned after Ministers became aware of a significant increase in the initial estimated acquisition costs when a 2014 business case was prepared (on the basis of tender responses).
12. Significant delays occurred with the conduct of the tender process in comparison to planned timeframes and when decision-makers had been told that the existing systems would need to be retired. Of note was that the RFT was released to the market in June 2013, 18 months later than the expected December 2011 release. This was compounded by significant delays during tender evaluation and contract negotiations. Specifically, there was a delay of four months during Phase 3 of the tender evaluation, and as of January 2017, contract negotiations continue to exceed the original timeframe, with negotiations running 18 months over the planned 11 month schedule. In July 2016, Defence advised its Ministers that contract signature was ‘unlikely to occur’ before mid-2017.
13. Appropriate evaluation governance arrangements were established. They provided an approach that was capable of identifying the best value for money tender. They also guarded against potential conflicts of interest impacting on the tender evaluation process and outcome. Of note was that evaluation findings and recommendations were built up from detailed evaluation work that reflected input from a large number of Airservices employees and contractors as well as Defence personnel.

Tender outcomes

14. The evaluation processes for the progression, shortlisting and exclusion of tenders proceeded as envisaged with competitive pressure maintained until the conclusion of the Phase 4 tender evaluation. Decisions were then taken to set-aside, and later exclude, the second-ranked tenderer from further consideration rather than enter into parallel negotiations with two tenderers. The reasons for this decision were adequately recorded.
15. An inadequate approach to summarising the evaluation of tenders was employed. Specifically, the approach of ranking each tender against the criteria did not provide a suitable means of identifying the extent to which one tenderer had been assessed as better, or worse, than other respondents, or how well each tenderer had been assessed as meeting the relevant criterion aspect.
16. The evaluation of tendered prices against the cost criterion was not conducted in a robust and transparent manner. There was not a clear line of sight across the phases of the evaluation and the work of the Tender Evaluation Working Groups and the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) in relation to the adjustments made by the TEC to tendered prices for evaluation purposes. Of particular significance was the lack of adequate records explaining the TEC adjustments. Those adjustments suggested that the successful tenderer offered the lowest cost solution when the acquisition and support prices it submitted were actually considerably higher than those of the other tenderers.
17. The records of tender evaluation activities and the outcomes did not demonstrate that sufficient attention had been given to whether the tendered acquisition and support costs were affordable for either Airservices or Defence.
Summary of entity responses
18. Airservices and Defence provided formal comments on the proposed audit report, which are included at Appendix 1. Airservices also provided a summary response, as set out below.

Airservices Australia

Airservices notes the report. Airservices welcomes the ANAO’s conclusion that the tender process design was appropriate and that the evaluation governance both provided an approach capable of identifying the best value for money tender and guarded against the perceived conflict of interest issues that had been identified in the ANAO’s previous audit report as requiring further investigation.

Airservices notes that the report does not make any recommendations for improvement.

Airservices has provided further clarity on some of the matters raised as an attachment to this report. Airservices remains firmly of the view that the tender process, having been appropriately designed, has identified the best value for money tender at an acceptable level of risk, having regard to all of the evaluation criteria.

So all the Joint & Senate Parliamentary inquiries, multiple Estimate inquests and 2xANAO audits were all for nought and the Senators were being just a tad overzealous and a little paranoid - yeah right...BOLLOCKS!


MTF...P2

Ps

CHAIR: We are obviously going to have more interaction with you guys over the next couple of months as we try and walk with you to get to the end of these changes that are occurring. Thank you for your attendance, Mr Harfield and Mr Logan.

Mr Harfield : As I said at the 1 December one: any time and any place; happy to answer questions.

CHAIR: We probably need to lift the frequency, because we are getting a lot of traffic.

Mr Harfield : It is understandable.

CHAIR: We will probably do that as a committee, because I know it is writ large in our minds. Thank you your attendance. We wish you all the best on your journey to wherever it is you are going.

[Gobbledock]

P2;

So all the Joint & Senate Parliamentary inquiries, multiple Estimate inquests and 2xANAO audits were all for nought and the Senators were being just a tad overzealous and a little paranoid - yeah right...BOLLOCKS!

The audit report lost me at the point where the 'Great White Elephant Paper' of 2009 was mentioned.....

All this shows is the depth and scope of the game in play. Governments and their bureaucrats are quite simply 'untouchable'.  It is an interesting game; inquiries, investigations, audits, reviews, recommendations, discussions, and always the same outcome - nothing wrong here, nothing to see here, move along people. I guess that's why we are $500b in debt, millions upon millions of that money can be attributed to the lengths of obsfucation, spin doctoring, stretching and covering that takes place just to ensure a Miniscule doesn't end up with egg on his well manicured face. I mean after all, Goldman Sachs Turdball was happy to saddle us with $70b in submarine debt just to save the ass of Pyne and win the election.

I wouldn't even agree that ASA received a slap with a wet lettuce leaf. It is more like they were masturbated with cotton wool.

[Peetwo]

Plug pulled on OneSKY trough fund -  



Fair comments Gobbles...  

However playing devil's advocate, the ANAO 2nd OneSKY audit was not scoped to discover where all the skeletons were buried, nor was ANAO tasked to follow the money trail to the Caymans:

The objective of this audit was to assess whether the OneSKY tender was conducted so as to provide value with public resources and achieve required timeframes for the effective replacement of the existing air traffic management platforms.

  
In fact after reading it a second time, I now believe this report has effectively signed the death knell of the whole OneSKY project:

Areas examined

The ANAO examined whether the tender process resulted in the transparent selection of a successful tender that provided the best whole-of-life value for money solution at an acceptable level of cost, technical and schedule risk, consistent with the RFT.

Conclusion

Tender evaluation proceeded through the planned phases, with competitive pressure maintained until late in the process. The records of the evaluation process evidence that the successful tender was assessed to be better than the other remaining candidates from a technical and schedule risk perspective. It is not clearly evident that the successful tender offered the best value for money. This is because adjustments made to tendered prices when evaluating tenders against the cost criterion were not conducted in a robust and transparent manner. Those adjustments meant that the tenderer that submitted the highest acquisition and support prices was assessed to offer the lowest cost solution. It is also not clearly evident that the successful tender is affordable in the context of the funding available to Airservices and Defence.

---

&..also under "Tender Outcomes":


...15. An inadequate approach to summarising the evaluation of tenders was employed. Specifically, the approach of ranking each tender against the criteria did not provide a suitable means of identifying the extent to which one tenderer had been assessed as better, or worse, than other respondents, or how well each tenderer had been assessed as meeting the relevant criterion aspect.

16. The evaluation of tendered prices against the cost criterion was not conducted in a robust and transparent manner. There was not a clear line of sight across the phases of the evaluation and the work of the Tender Evaluation Working Groups and the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) in relation to the adjustments made by the TEC to tendered prices for evaluation purposes. Of particular significance was the lack of adequate records explaining the TEC adjustments. Those adjustments suggested that the successful tenderer offered the lowest cost solution when the acquisition and support prices it submitted were actually considerably higher than those of the other tenderers.

17. The records of tender evaluation activities and the outcomes did not demonstrate that sufficient attention had been given to whether the tendered acquisition and support costs were affordable for either Airservices or Defence...

My OneSKY (Harfwit) death knell hypothesis would seem to be supported by the headline and OBS in the Oz today:

Air traffic plan ‘too dear’
12:00amSAM BUCKINGHAM-JONES

A billion-dollar project to combine the civil and military air-traffic-control systems may be too costly.

A billion-dollar project to combine the country’s civil and military air traffic control systems may be too expensive, the government’s audit agency says.

Despite being flagged in a ­national aviation white paper almost a decade ago, the OneSKY Australia program, which would see the Department of Defence and Airservices Australia’s aviation schedules controlled by a single system, has been bogged down by extensive delays.

A report by the Australian Nat­ional Audit Office into the tender process for the system, the bulk of which was awarded to Thales Australia in early 2015, found there were “significant delays”, tenders were not summarised well and evaluation of the tenders was not open and transparent. Thales was the second most expensive tender option, well above the cost offered by competitors Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

“It is not clearly evident that the successful tender offered the best value for money,” the audit office found. “It is also not clearly evident that the successful tender is affordable in the context of the funding available to Airservices and Defence.”

Thales has provided the civil air-traffic system since the late 1990s, but the contract was due to expire in 2015.

The price of the new air-traffic system is estimated at between $900 million and $1 billion, including a 35 per cent “harmonisation” cost for Airservices and Defence to integrate their information.

Although initially it was agreed the two bodies would share costs equally, that is in doubt, as Defence has said it will not pay more than $255m.

“The cost allocation between Defence and Airservices has not been settled. The cost allocation of 50-50 was an initial allocation,” Defence told the ANAO last month, according to the report.

The new joint system was predicted to begin next financial year, but the system’s contract is not due to be signed until later this year. Airservices has been in negotiations with Thales since September 2014 and has spent $75m with Thales since July 2015.

“Contracts are unlikely to be signed prior to mid-2017, at least 40 months after tender evaluation commenced,” the audit ­office wrote.

Although critical of some parts, the report found many aspects of the tender process had been well managed. “The design of the OneSKY tender process was capable of producing a value-for-money outcome,” it said. “A two-stage tender process ... was appropriate for the scale, scope and risk of the joint procurement.” The process also created a “healthy level” of competition.

A spokeswoman for Air­services said the question of the system’s affordability was “dimin­ished” because the body was funded by the airlines. She also said: “As Airservices is still in negotiations with Thales, we are unable to comment on total costs and how they will be shared with Defence.”

The Airservices website says OneSKY will be “the most advanced and integrated air-traffic-control system in the world”, with 200 consoles around the country and operational by 2021.

"..The new joint system was predicted to begin next financial year, but the system’s contract is not due to be signed until later this year. Airservices has been in negotiations with Thales since September 2014 and has spent $75m with Thales since July 2015..."

Just a reminder on who was the ASA Executive Manager that had a fundamental part to play in the OneSKY tender process and also had the oversight of the spending of that $75million (Note the dates)...

Executive General Manager, Future Service Delivery

Airservices Australia
July 2013 – August 2015 (2 years 2 months)

In this senior executive role I had the accountability for the delivery of Airservices’ next generation services and harmonised Australian Air Traffic Management system with the Department of Defence.

As a key member of the Airservices Executive Team, I am enabling the delivery of a world leading harmonised national Air Traffic Management system to ensure, through a holistic transformation program, Australian aviation remains at the forefront of technologically advanced air traffic management services.

This role also has the responsibility of the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the purposes of managing the portfolio and program complexity associated with delivery of the new Air Traffic Management system, and the associated benefits and services.

---

&..

Acting Chief Executive Officer

Airservices Australia

August 2015 – March 2016 (8 months)Canberra, Australia

---

&..

Chief Executive Officer

Airservices Australia

March 2016 – Present (1 year 2 months)Canberra, Australia

In this role I am accountable for the overall management and performance of Airservices Australia.

Airservices is a government owned organisation providing safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible services to the aviation industry. We manage air traffic operations for over 90 million passengers on more than four million flights every year.

With more than 4000 staff, Airservices provides the aviation industry and the community with aeronautical data, telecommunications, navigation services and aviation rescue fire fighting services.

   
MTF? - Definitely I would say..P2

Ps Again look at the video, from about 30 secs check the body language from M&M, to Senator Nash, to ASA CFO Paul Logan:

[Kharon]

To get the right response; write the ToR.

4. The objective of the audit was to assess whether the OneSKY tender was conducted so as to provide value with public resources and achieve required timeframes for the effective replacement of the existing air traffic management platforms. To form a conclusion against the audit objective, the following high level criteria were adopted:

• Was the OneSKY tender process based on a sound business case and appropriate governance arrangements?

• Did the tender process result in the transparent selection of a successful tender that provided the best whole-of-life value for money solution at an acceptable level of cost, technical and schedule risk, consistent with the RFT?

• Did negotiations with the successful tenderer result in constructive contractual arrangements that ensured continuity of safe air traffic services, the managed insertion of an optimum system of systems outcome within required timeframes, and demonstrable value?

The audit very carefully picks it’s way around the steaming piles of crud, sidesteps the glaringly obvious and, all in all, does a bloody good job of telling us that the paper trail was in order. Bully! The ‘perception of conflicted interest’ or; where has the money gone questions may be ignored under the clever ToR. You can’t blame the ANAO either; they simply properly did the job asked of them. Was the paper trail ‘kosher’? Course it was. Whostoblame will throw Halfwit under the next bus due down memory lane – after ensuring silence; which is, after all ‘golden’.

GD – “The audit report lost me at the point where the 'Great White Elephant Paper' of 2009 was mentioned.....”

Not me; never got past the ToR; ignore, locate bin - ‘thump’.

But where’s the ‘out’? Well there are a couple of options; the staggering cost being one and new technology being utilised by ‘advanced’ nations with privatised air services another.

P2’s top post – above – makes the necessary points, very clearly, from between the lines reading. Choc Frog mate.

The video there  is one of my all time favorites: immortal lines -  “Any place, any time” - sayeth the Halfwit. The place will be of the Senators choosing; in Fiona Nash’s time. Ye gods, if the minister I worked for gave me a look like the one Nash gifted Halfwit; I’d find another job, not be running around using ‘fighting talk’ to heavy duty Senators. O’Sullivan would knock his block off, without getting off his bar stool. It’s all good jolly fun at the tax payers expense, (unless you are a pot plant owner).

Aye; but taking a knife, to a gunfight ain't the best idea; never was.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

P2 reading the tea leaves (silicon chips) -

Further to my hypothsesis 

By that man 'Iggins in the Weekend Oz:

Air safety alarm as ANAO criticises OneSKY rollout

Airser­vices chief executive Jason Harfield.

Ean Higgins
The Australian
12:00AM April 15, 2017
https://plus.google.com/116716661262546957732
@EanHiggins
[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/0573acb566bb47c45e64e4c55a998aba/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Airline passengers and military ­pilots will have to endure antiquated air traffic control systems for years longer than expected, while cost overruns have led to plans for a $1.5 billion state-of-the-art network being scaled back, aviation insiders have revealed.

The associations representing airline pilots and air traffic controllers have expressed deep concerns at the lack of tangible progress and questionable tendering decisions exposed this week by the Australian National Audit ­Office in its report on the OneSKY national air traffic control system.

The ANAO report found OneSKY, a joint project of Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence to integrate their separate air traffic control systems into a new custom-designed network, was running behind schedule, might not have gone with the tenderer offering best value for money, and may not be affordable.

In February last year, Airser­vices chief executive Jason Harfield said “the new system, when completed in 2021, will allow us to provide operational efficiency improvements for future growth.”

However, Airservices spokeswoman Sarah Fulton this week told The Weekend Australian: “OneSKY will be implemented in phases starting in 2018 as scheduled, with full implementation expected in 2023.”

Pilots and air traffic controllers have warned this two-year delay in completion means they will have to put up with ageing systems that are far less efficient than their modern North American counterparts, and hardware getting so old it is difficult to find spare parts.

The warnings come as The Weekend Australian can reveal Mr Harfield has moved to rewrite the record regarding his previous role as the Airservices executive in charge of OneSKY, altering his LinkedIn profile to excise his declaration he was accountable for the “leadership and acquisition” of the project to “I had the accountability for (its) delivery”.

Airservices, which runs the nat­ion’s civilian air traffic control network and airport fire and rescue services, is owned by the federal government but funded by levies on the aviation industry.

The OneSKY project has been dogged by claims of cosy dealings and excessive expenditure on consultants, with senators across the political spectrum describing the transactions as appearing “dodgy”, “incestuous” or having conflict of interest “all over this”.

An ANAO investigation commissioned by a Senate committee into Airservices’ dealings with an obscure Canberra-based organisation with overseas military links, the International Centre for Complex Project Management, produced a report in Aug­ust saying Airservices had paid consulting fees far above the going rate and “was ineffective in providing value-for-money outcomes”.

The second ANAO investi­gation that reported this week looked at the tendering of the principal management contract for OneSKY, won by European aerospace group Thales. While it found some ­aspects of the project went well, it made several criticisms.

The initial tendering was 18 months late, it found, and “contracts are unlikely to be signed prior to mid-2017, at least 40 months after tender evaluation commenced”. The selection of Thales might not offer the “best value for money”, the audit report said, because “adjustments made to tendered prices when evaluating tenders against the cost criterion were not conducted in a robust and transparent manner”.

“Those adjustments meant the tenderer that submitted the highest acquisition and support prices was assessed to offer the lowest cost solution,” the report found.
“It is also not clearly evident the successful tender is affordable in the context of the funding available to Airservices and Defence.”

A senior Airservices insider said because the organisation had agreed the contribution of Defence would be capped at $255 million, and the estimated cost had blown out by hundreds of millions of dollars, planners were scaling back the project’s scope.

Mr Harfield declined a request for an interview. He has not said why he changed his LinkedIn profile but Ms Fulton said he did so when he became chief executive.

She said OneSKY “is not an off-the-shelf product” and “we will not apologise for taking the time to ensure we get it right. We are still negotiating … to ensure we reach a value for money outcome.”

  
The comment about Harfield changing his LinkedIn profile, is truly fascinating...  

Executive General Manager, Future Service Delivery


Airservices Australia
July 2013 – August 2015 (2 years 2 months)

In this senior executive role I had the accountability for the delivery of Airservices’ next generation services and harmonised Australian Air Traffic Management system with the Department of Defence.

As a key member of the Airservices Executive Team, I am enabling the delivery of a world leading harmonised national Air Traffic Management system to ensure, through a holistic transformation program, Australian aviation remains at the forefront of technologically advanced air traffic management services.

This role also has the responsibility of the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the purposes of managing the portfolio and program complexity associated with delivery of the new Air Traffic Management system, and the associated benefits and services.

Couple that with the attempted obfuscation of his responsibilities to the FOI Act...

On FOI requests & word weasel confections -  

In an effort to track down the documents released under the ABC's FOI request, I made a visit to the ASA FOI Disclosure Log. Unfortunately if you refer to the FOI Dislosure Log webpage - see

HERE - you will discover that the last entry was on the 28 August 2015 and in fact the last update ( website administrative visit) was on 30 September 2015.

'Passing strange' that the ASA FOI requests appeared to have either dried up or ASA were disclosing less at around about the same time that Harfwit took over from Margaret Staib in the Acting CEO role...

...gives you an idea of how truly deluded and narcissistic this joker is...

Oh well, least we know where to pin the tail on the OneSKY GWE (Great White Elephant)...




MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

There's a hole in the OneSKY bucket, Dear Angus..

P2 reading the tea leaves (silicon chips) -

Further to my hypothsesis 

By that man 'Iggins in the Weekend Oz:

Air safety alarm as ANAO criticises OneSKY rollout

Airser­vices chief executive Jason Harfield.

Ean Higgins
The Australian
12:00AM April 15, 2017
https://plus.google.com/116716661262546957732
@EanHiggins

  
The comment about Harfield changing his LinkedIn profile, is truly fascinating...  

Executive General Manager, Future Service Delivery


Airservices Australia
July 2013 – August 2015 (2 years 2 months)

In this senior executive role I had the accountability for the delivery of Airservices’ next generation services and harmonised Australian Air Traffic Management system with the Department of Defence.

As a key member of the Airservices Executive Team, I am enabling the delivery of a world leading harmonised national Air Traffic Management system to ensure, through a holistic transformation program, Australian aviation remains at the forefront of technologically advanced air traffic management services.

This role also has the responsibility of the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the purposes of managing the portfolio and program complexity associated with delivery of the new Air Traffic Management system, and the associated benefits and services.

Couple that with the attempted obfuscation of his responsibilities to the FOI Act...

On FOI requests & word weasel confections -  

...gives you an idea of how truly deluded and narcissistic this joker is...

Oh well, least we know where to pin the tail on the OneSKY GWE (Great White Elephant)...

Update via the PS News... :

Audit airs fears over air traffic tender


An audit of the tender process for delivering a joint civil and military air traffic control system to the Department of Defence and Airservices Australia has raised concerns with the Auditor-General questioning the final tender’s value for money and its timeframe.

In his report Conduct of the OneSKY Tender, Auditor-General Grant Hehir found that the lowest tender was not successful and the one that was could prove too expensive for Defence and Airservices to pay for.

“The objective of the audit was to assess whether the OneSKY tender was conducted so as to provide value with public resources and achieve required timeframes for the effective replacement of the existing air traffic management platforms,” Mr Hehir said.

“It is not clearly evident that the successful tender offered the best value for money.”

Value for money questioned

He found that the design of the OneSKY tender process was capable of producing a value for money outcome however the successful tenderer had submitted “significantly higher acquisition and support prices than the other tenderers” but that adjustments made by the Tender Evaluation Committee “suggested that the successful tenderer offered the lowest cost solution.”

“The successful tenderer was assessed as significantly stronger in terms of technical capability as well as involving much lower schedule risk,” he said.

Mr Hehir said it was not clear whether the final tender provided value for money “because adjustments made to tendered prices when evaluating tenders against the cost criterion were not conducted in a robust and transparent manner”.

He also expressed concern at the timeliness of the process.

“There have also been significant delays with the conduct of the OneSKY tender process,” he said.

“Contracts are unlikely to be signed prior to mid-2017, at least 40 months after tender evaluation commenced.”

Mr Hehir also reported that it was not clearly evident that the “successful tender was affordable in the context of the funding available to Airservices and Defence.”

The Auditor-General’s 60-page report can be accessed at this PS News link[b] [/b]and the audit team was Emilia Schiavo, Hannah Conway, Angus Hirst, Tina Long and Brian Boyd.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Don't mention the war? - Or OneSKY, Harfwits or Audits.

Just a bit of a ASA update...

First Harfwit has returned his AQON for the Additional Estimates (see attachment bottom of the page).

Not much to report on that front because the Harfwit was 'match fit' and overly prepared for any frontal assault...

Example: 

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Senator XENOPHON: Thank you very much, Mr Harfield, for doing that. I ask you to take the questions on notice about OneSKY and the state of the contract. The report that appeared on the ABC on 15 February by the national reporting team's Benjamin Sveen and national technology reporter Jake Sturmer made a number of allegations that referred to the author of the email that you provided public interest disclosure protection to. The report says:

"There was a high level of anxiety within the leadership team and the risk and assurance team about this, but all of the issues and concerns were ignored by the change managers and executive," the Airservices executive said.

This was an executive who was quoted within the report—an unnamed executive, not the author of the email.

The article continues:

"The organisation's risk system was not and still has not been used to assess or manage risk on an ongoing basis in relation to the changes or Accelerate program."

Again, this was referred to as coming from an unnamed senior executive. You rejected those allegations as totally incorrect. The documents obtained by the ABC and FOI, and the documents we have obtained through this estimates process, make reference to it on page 96 of this committee's Senate estimates on 17 October. You said, 'For each particular change we make a determination through what we call the safety case determination' and it goes on to talk about the safety plan. But on 21 October, four days after estimates, there was a whole series of documents from Steven Angus, the executive general manager, and from Steven Grundy about a model risk assessment statement, the corporate services target operating model change risk assessment 21 October.

And from you, Mr Logan, on 21 October was another document about the finance structure and capability systems. These documents seem to be signing off on the safety case four days after. Can you explain the context, because these seem to be after the event.

Mr Harfield: Yes, I can. There is confusion about the two phases of the program. I have a document and timeline here, which I am happy to table, which set it out much more specifically.

Answer:

Please refer to Mr Harfield’s explanation on pages 136-137 of Hansard, which explains the phases of the Accelerate Program.

P2 comment: Funny how Harfwit was full, frank and friendly when it came to the Senators, while totally forgetting to mention that he had made a Hood style sook in response to the ABC report:

News Item

Airservices statement on recent ABC coverage
15 Feb 2017
Any suggestion that Airservices is compromising on safety is totally incorrect and refused. There is no risk to the travelling public.

  

  
Next on the ASA news front was that the 8 month+ vacant ASA Board position..

See answer to Sterle Corporate Services QON 92: PDF 220KB 

..has now been filled.  The tightly scripted, low key announcement of this appointment by the miniscule is IMO fascinating more for what doesn't get said than what does...

Board appointment will help Airservices Australia deliver major reforms
Media Release
DC103/2017
01 May 2017

• John Weber's appointment enhances board's legal and governance expertise
  
• Appointment timely as Airservices undertakes a major infrastructure program and replaces its air traffic management system.
  

The Australian Government has appointed John Weber to the Board of Airservices Australia for a three-year term, bolstering the authority's public sector governance and legal expertise.

Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said Mr Weber previously worked extensively in the transport sector.

“In his previous legal roles, Mr Weber has provided advice to major Commonwealth departments, government business enterprises and the Auditor-General's Office,” Mr Chester said.

“That experience will be invaluable to the board as it continues to guide Airservices' delivery of safe and efficient air traffic and aviation rescue and fire fighting services to the industry and the community.

“Airservices is moving to replace its air traffic management system as part of a major capital expenditure program of more than $1 billion over the next five years.

“The program includes investment in critical air traffic infrastructure, facilities and services to enhance the safety, efficiency and capacity of the Australian air traffic network to meet anticipated continuing growth in the Australian aviation industry.

“Mr Weber's skills will complement the existing board members in oversighting Airservices delivery of this program.”

  
Hmm...interesting that Weber has previously done work for and behalf of the Auditor-General's Office. It is also passing strange that Harfwit, OneSKY & the OneSKY ANAO audit reports don't even rate a mention? This is despite the fact that one of Mr Weber's main tasks is to oversee what would appear to be at least part of the original 'OneSKY' project:
“..Airservices is moving to replace its air traffic management system as part of a major capital expenditure program of more than $1 billion over the next five years..."
Or maybe I am missing something...
What I also find strange is that Harfwit's media minion has not even acknowledged that there is a new Board Member: ASA Media releases or News.

Maybe, like the FOI Disclosure log, Harfwit is cutting costs and can only publish one news item a week...

Just on the FOI disclosure log I note the following blurb off Harfwit's website in regards to ASA's Policy in regards to complying with the FOI Act: Agency plan

4.3 Register of information required or permitted to be published under the Scheme

The organisation will develop and maintain a “disclosure log” of information released in response to FOI requests in accordance with the requirements of section 11C of the FOI Act.

---

&.. for OAIC/ASA Legal Service review:

 8. Review of information publication scheme

The organisation will undertake, in conjunction with the Information Commissioner, a first review of the operation of the Scheme within the timeframes set out in section 9(2) of the FOI Act.

Following this first review, the organisation will undertake, in conjunction with the Information Commissioner, a review of the operation of the Scheme:

1. as appropriate from time to time; and
   
2. in any case – within 5 years after the last time a review was completed.
   

 

Hmm...5 years? Wonder why last year's required review didn't pick up the zilch input/update to the FOI disclosure log since September 2015?

MTF...P2