Pick a number-
There's a Choc frog in it for the closest answer; how much per hour does an Estimates session cost - all up. The maths are complicated; start with the support 'staff' required; cleaners, tea lady, camera operators, Secretariat, security and so on. Then the Senator's crew, assistants, advisers, clerical and operational etc. Then we must add the cost of say the ASA motley crew for example. Average that to say Oh, six front row and a couple of backs. At an hourly rate which includes preparation for Estimates, travel time, waiting around time, time 'in session' getting back to the office and then preparing the answers to the questions they need to 'take on notice'. Those QoN need to be taken back to the 'office, research needs to be done, answers prepared, edited, massaged and returned to the Secretariat which ends one cycle and begins another. Behind the scenes the machine which does Hansard, collects the answers, collates and distributes those answers back to each Senator's crew. A very, very costly merry-go-round indeed. Multiply that number by three - ASA, ATSB and CASA and add it to cost of running those three departments.
The point? Well, whatever that number is, it is a shed load of public and industry money.
Money well spent? That depends on your point of view. But it begs some interesting sidebar questions though don't it? For instance the questions asked of ASA related to ICAO compliance with airspace management. One could be forgiven for imagining that an outfit - like ASA - would have 'experts' in airspace design and management; they are 'paid' at 'expert' rates. Then consider, if you will, the total cock up made of the 'new' Class E airspace; no too much expertise on show there. Or, the Brisbane approach debacle; for another classic. The ASA cannot produce an 'expert' to confirm or explain whether the designs mesh with ICAO compliance and world best practice. They have handed off those questions to CASA who have even less expert airspace folk on tap - let alone ICAO compliance specialists on airspace design.
Then, to cap the whole duplicitous bun-fight - a simple question relating to ICAO modelling must be taken 'on notice' because those sat in front of the Estimates committee cannot answer the question - :are we compliant'? Or, by extension - 'can it be shown that an equivalent level of safety, in line with world best practice, is 'safe' for those within and below the airspace design - with tangible proof?
So, sharpen your pencils - try to estimate the cost associated with alleged experts' struggling to honestly answer basic questions. Give up? So did I when I got past $100, 000 per minute. Handing over.
Toot - toot......
There's a Choc frog in it for the closest answer; how much per hour does an Estimates session cost - all up. The maths are complicated; start with the support 'staff' required; cleaners, tea lady, camera operators, Secretariat, security and so on. Then the Senator's crew, assistants, advisers, clerical and operational etc. Then we must add the cost of say the ASA motley crew for example. Average that to say Oh, six front row and a couple of backs. At an hourly rate which includes preparation for Estimates, travel time, waiting around time, time 'in session' getting back to the office and then preparing the answers to the questions they need to 'take on notice'. Those QoN need to be taken back to the 'office, research needs to be done, answers prepared, edited, massaged and returned to the Secretariat which ends one cycle and begins another. Behind the scenes the machine which does Hansard, collects the answers, collates and distributes those answers back to each Senator's crew. A very, very costly merry-go-round indeed. Multiply that number by three - ASA, ATSB and CASA and add it to cost of running those three departments.
The point? Well, whatever that number is, it is a shed load of public and industry money.
Money well spent? That depends on your point of view. But it begs some interesting sidebar questions though don't it? For instance the questions asked of ASA related to ICAO compliance with airspace management. One could be forgiven for imagining that an outfit - like ASA - would have 'experts' in airspace design and management; they are 'paid' at 'expert' rates. Then consider, if you will, the total cock up made of the 'new' Class E airspace; no too much expertise on show there. Or, the Brisbane approach debacle; for another classic. The ASA cannot produce an 'expert' to confirm or explain whether the designs mesh with ICAO compliance and world best practice. They have handed off those questions to CASA who have even less expert airspace folk on tap - let alone ICAO compliance specialists on airspace design.
Then, to cap the whole duplicitous bun-fight - a simple question relating to ICAO modelling must be taken 'on notice' because those sat in front of the Estimates committee cannot answer the question - :are we compliant'? Or, by extension - 'can it be shown that an equivalent level of safety, in line with world best practice, is 'safe' for those within and below the airspace design - with tangible proof?
So, sharpen your pencils - try to estimate the cost associated with alleged experts' struggling to honestly answer basic questions. Give up? So did I when I got past $100, 000 per minute. Handing over.
Toot - toot......