[Peetwo]

From the ANAO & 'that man again'...

Finally from off the ANAO website:

Airservices Australia's Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist with the OneSKY Australia Project

Portfolio: Infrastructure and Regional Development

Agencies involved: Airservices Australia

Audit Objective: To examine whether Airservices Australia has effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with ICCPM in association with the OneSKY Australia project were effectively administered.Due to Table:Autumn 2016

Apparently we (the IOS) can even put in our 2 bobs worth:

Contributions to the 'Airservices Australia's Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist with the OneSKY Australia Project' audit in progress

Airservices’ ‘dodgy dealings’ under watchdog probe  

• Airservices Australia’s acting chief executive Jason Harfield. Source: News Limited The government watchdog which investigates public spending has confirmed it has launched a special probe into Airservices Australia and says it will focus on what has been described as “dodgy” and “incestuous” dealings with an obscure “not-for-profit” organisation.  

Raiders of the lost trough - Part II

While we were analysing & dissecting all the juicy moments from the Senate Estimates hearing the Secretariat was quietly getting on with business and updating the ROTLT (ASA performance inquiry) webpage with some additional info/AQON etc.

First there was an additional, very informative submission from a Mr Robert Hamilton- see here. His background, much like Mr Bennett, does IMO classify him as an 'expert witness' infinitely qualified to comment. Mr Hamilton's concerns:

MY CONCERNS

I make this submission because I am concerned:

• That too many recent comments about Airservices, air traffic control and air traffic controllers appear misinformed, uninformed, inappropriate and at times

misleading-I seek to provide history and context to the comments and correct the public record where appropriate and to the extent that I can.

• That Airservices has not accurately provided to the aviation industry and the Australian taxpayer specific details about how ADS-B will be used in Australian airspace, whether it will benefit Australian aviation and what the costs and benefits will be-I seek to ensure, to the extent that I can, that Australia recognises and maximises the benefits obtainable from introducing at significant expense a 4th generation air traffic services system.

• About the risk to air safety when history is disregarded in favour of short term narrow objectives-I seek to provide an accurate history of radar in Tasmania and show how public funds were easily spent for no public benefit.

• About Airservices public image problems-I seek to point out the consequences of Airservices’ inaccurate public statements and inability to respond to irresponsible and ignorant statements too readily provided by so called ‘experts’.

 
Of main interest to most, will be the RH analysis of the ADSB mandate introduction from paragraphs 10-20.

From page 5:

A dream or a plan?
 
11.It seems to me that this is Mr Smith’s question, and it’s a fair one. But permit me to widen its scope and ask: What’s in it for the entire industry, not just general aviation? Mandating a short period for equipment purchase and installation is a first step toward avoiding the issues of the past but it increases the front end costs to the industry. The danger, though, based on past experience, is that the industry will bear high initial costs for benefits that will arrive only slowly and will never be maximised.

12.The industry’s objective now is the same as it was previously: it will have the new equipment and it will want to maximise the benefits that it will bring. And once again, any benefits and the extent of any benefits can only be provided by and known to Airservices, for it is the Australian air traffic system manager and it appears the only organisation that seems to know what the benefits will be for Australian users. But does it?

13.My reading so far suggests that Airservices and CASA demonstrate some knowledge of what ADS-B can do generally, but Airservices has not revealed its capacities or limitations within Australian airspace, how it will be used, what the benefits will be and when any benefits will be realised. Airservices plan, to me, appears more visionary than detailed.

14.Permit me to provide 4 real world examples of my concern. For the last 45 years aircraft departing Sydney for Brisbane have flown a track to West Maitland then Casino then Brisbane, or it seems recently to Casino, then Coolangatta, then Brisbane. Will this new equipment enable pilots to routinely plan and ATC to routinely permit a normal flight track from 5 miles east of Sydney direct to an 8 or 10 mile final approach at Brisbane? If not, then where is the gain to industry?

15.Or, aircraft are landed 3 miles or 2 minutes apart at our major airports. Will this equipment improve on that and the chronic holding delays over Coolangatta? I doubt it and the result-no cost saving. Or, there used to be a separation standard for properly equipped aircraft of 10 miles either side of planned track. Will the new system permit a lesser standard? If not, then no gain to industry. And another example: basic radar separation is 5 miles plus tolerances, or sometimes 3 miles. Can this be bettered? If not, then no gain to industry.


16.Airservices needs to show what changes it intends, not what changes it believes are possible. And then it needs to accurately, reliably and in greater detail cost and report to industry and government on the savings that it intends to deliver and on what time period it intends these savings will occur. 

 
TBC..

ROTLT Part II - Cont..

Next is 61 pages of AQONs from the 9 Sept hearing - see here. Some of which is fascinating, but most is just more bollocks & smoke'n'mirrors.. 

Examples:

Q1/

Senator XENOPHON: Was the draft the actual board papers? Can we get a copy of the final board papers that were published?

Mr Harfield: There will not be too much difference from the draft to the final, but we can provide the final.
Answer:

The unauthorised release of the draft Board papers is the subject of an active Australian Federal Police investigation.

Airservices can confirm the final Board papers are similar to the draft documents.

The Board papers relate to advanced work packages for the ongoing procurement of the joint civil-military air traffic management system and contains commercial-in-confidence information of both Airservices and the Commonwealth (Department of Defence). Further public disclosure could damage the negotiating positions as the contracts for the full scope of the OneSKY program have not yet been awarded.

Airservices would be pleased to provide a confidential briefing on the content.

 
Q4/

Senator STERLE: What you were talking about, Mr Logan, with these other payments is that what you— would you call them executive remuneration arrangements?

Mr Logan: What part of that?

Senator STERLE: The different payouts and non-performance—

Mr Logan: In the case of the senior management team, my understanding is that it was the result of restructuring of the organisation.

Senator STERLE: Okay, so you are going to supply us with that information.

Mr Logan: We are happy to supply—

Answer:

As previously advised, there were three executive separations during this period. Total

payments amounted to $909,736 which comprised an agreed separation payment along with standard employee entitlements (accrued annual leave, long service leave and payment of notice period).

AQON 10 relates very much to this quote etc. 

Bus Route 666 - Express to Purgatory or Styx River crossing?

 P9 - "..So, when you next hear Houstoblame spouting (with testiculations) that CASA is his lord and master and he must obey – remember he only should, not must.   Even so, the ‘it’s not our fault’ (Nuremberg) defense starts to look a bit silly.."

'Should' seems to be a common bureaucratic, claptrap, spin & bulldust legislative obfuscation, commonly deployed by Machiavellian Mandarins, when they have absolutely no intention of either enforcing or complying with the original intent of the legislation...

Airservices Australia's Brisbane tower. (Airservices)

 

Senator XENOPHON: So there has never been a circumstance where Airservices have said, 'We areconcerned about the safety aspects of this', but you have been overruled by government policy?

Sir Angus Houston: Not to my knowledge.

Senator XENOPHON: Could that be taken on notice. I might be surprised if there was.
Mr Harfield: We can take that on notice to find out. But not to my knowledge.

Answer:

In 2007, airspace regulatory function transferred to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) reinforcing Airservices role as a service provider.

CASA makes the ultimate decision on issues of aviation safety as the responsible regulator.

In addition, Airservices works very closely and effectively with CASA and the Aviation
Policy Group, consisting of key aviation related agencies, to ensure effective inter-agency
coordination on strategic policy issues.

Hmm..beg to differ when you look at the historical context - paragraphs 1-9 - of the RH submission.

Next AQON 11:

Senator XENOPHON: In the case of the Adelaide TCU it has been put to me that the physical presence of the TCU in Adelaide is relevant. Unlike in Canberra and the Gold Coast, Adelaide Tower has no permanent air space, thus the TCU controls aircraft from the surface level up to 24½ thousand feet, and local knowledge is a big factor. Because of time constraints, could you take that assertion on notice and respond to it accordingly?

Mr Harfield: Yes, I can.

Answer:

The physical location of a Terminal Control Unit (TCU) is not relevant to the services provided.

Air traffic control towers predominantly provide visual control services as opposed to TCUs which provide surveillance-based services. The services provided by TCUs are delivered entirely by electronic means (predominantly radar) and are not dependent on controllers visually seeing the aircraft.

A core part of the training and assessment process for air traffic controllers is familiarity with the airspace that they control, including knowledge of relevant geography and local traffic patterns.

Hmm...interesting comments from the Hamilton submission which relate to the Adelaide TCU:

58.Mr Bennett’s expressed local concerns raise a more serious issue, however, and that is the national need for physical security of Airservices sites, high levels of communication system security, operational redundancy and failover.

59.Australia’s air traffic service is of national importance. It not only services air traffic from halfway across the Indian Ocean to halfway to Hawaii and halfway to New Zealand, but it also provides a highly adaptable nationwide surveillance and communications system of military standard operated by highly disciplined and operationally flexible personnel able to rapidly respond to serious and sometimes unusual national crises and local emergencies.

60.Airservices provides a vital national service to Australia that far exceeds ordinary air traffic control, and decisions relating to consolidation of units, protection of facilities, redundancy of service and the need for rapid failover involve issues of national security as well as system security. The extent of proposed consolidation suggests an increasing need for Airservices to particularly emphasise physical security at its Melbourne and Brisbane centres. Brisbane centre is of immediate concern as it seems vulnerable to any determined physical threat.

Finally Sir A had some 'clarification issues' from his appearance at the last hearing :

2. Correspondence from Sir Angus Houston, Chair, Airservices Australia to committee clarifying statements made at 9 September 2015 hearing, received 15 October 2015

Read it & weep..

MTF..P2
Ps Chocfrog 4 Rob Hamilton - I am much more enlightened now