Things that go bump in the night,

Of PFOS, Government dross and a PM that couldn't give a toss

And so it goes on.....QLD Firies are now stepping up to demand and receive testing as the PFOS debacle grows larger than Malcolm Turdball's nose every time he opens his million dollar mouth;

Free blood tests for firefighters amid toxic chemical scare

Past and present firefighters in Queensland who have been exposed to toxic firefighting chemicals are receiving free blood tests, as part of a policy just signed by State Government.

The tests will examine if the firefighters have the toxins in their system and will go towards a baseline study to discover any long-term effects.

The chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) are contained in a firefighting foam that was widely used on Defence bases and during firefighting drills until 2003.

Retired firefighter Peter Campion used firefighting foams containing perfluorinated chemicals during practice drills in Cairns in the late 1990s.

He said in those days its risk was regarded at the same level as "dishwashing detergent".

It is a sentiment shared by United Firefighters Union's Billy Mantaris, who used the foam during bi-monthly practice drills in Cairns around the same time.

"It would soak through to our skin. In our hands. In our hair. We were just soaked," Mr Mantaris said.

He has not been tested for exposure, however planned to go this month after being alerted to the new policy.

"I'd like to see everyone tested," he said.

"Everyone that's done 15-plus years service should have it in the back of their minds to go and get tested.

"I don't know what the plan is to deal with this if our levels come back abnormal."
'Nothing unusual expected'
While Queensland Health and the State Government said there was no consistent evidence that PFOA caused adverse health harm in humans, international peer-reviewed studies showed it was associated with testicular cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis.

The Queensland Fire and Emergency Service has been offering free blood tests to firefighters since late 2016.

However, its assistant commissioner John Watson would not say how many firefighters had actually come forward for testing yet and acknowledged the long-term ramifications of exposure were still unclear.

CRC CARE
He said management has signed-off last month on formal policy to offer widespread testing.

It also agreed to use the blood testing for a baseline study.

Mr Watson said they were "not expecting anything unusual" to come back from its firefighters' bloods tests.

"We don't know [what the long-term ramifications are]," he said.
"I guess that's the biggest problem with this particular chemical."

Medical expert Andrew Jeremijenko said the substances could linger in the body for years.

He cited studies completed nationally on Aviation Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) staff who also used the foams, which found elevated blood levels up to 10 times higher than the general Australian population.

Dr Jeremijenko welcomed the QFES tests and said the results should be used for further longitudinal studies.

"Then we can actually look statistically at what diseases they have and whether those substances are associated with those diseases."

Here is the link;

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-02...on/8485846

TICK TOCK Goldman Turnbull Sachs
Reply

Sir A & Harfwit caught diddling the books - Confused

From law firm 'Chamberlains' online publication - the RiotACT... Wink :

Quote:Airservices faces potential class action over staff contracts

By Charlotte Harper - 12 May 2017


[Image: airtrafficcontroltower.jpg]

Current and former staff of Federal Government-run navigation service provider Airservices Australia are working with Chamberlains Law Firm to advance a potential employment claim with an estimated value of up to hundreds of thousands of dollars per worker.

The potential claim focuses on superannuation losses and employment contracts the firm says unlawfully stripped away redundancy entitlements.

Management staff joining Airservices Australia between 1996 and 2017 were allegedly obliged to sign individual contracts that, while offering high pay rates and bonuses, capped their redundancy entitlements. This was allegedly in contrast to standard redundancy rights contained in the collective agreement between all other staff and the organisation.

Rory Markham, Chamberlains’ Director, Litigation – Employment and Risk Management, said the firm was currently working with several potential claimants, with that number likely to grow substantially by the time legal proceedings against Airservices Australia were to commence in a few weeks.
“We know that at any one time there would have been at least 150 to 200 individuals that were on these management contracts,” Mr Markham said.
“It is of great concern that according to our instructions, these management contracts were an attempt to circumvent the Fair Work approved entitlements and the enterprise agreements, in a plan to lower liability in the event of a large redundancy pay-out.”
He said the firm will allege the contracts had been presented in strictly closed human resources meetings as a way of offering lucrative bonuses to selected staff without transparency or disclosure.

The solicitor said that Airservices Australia could have offered its staff lawful individual flexibility agreements under a collective agreement in order to negotiate different hours of work or higher pay.

“But that didn’t appear to be the purpose of the management contract,” he said.

“It appeared to have nothing to do with flexibility, regardless of who you were, you tended to have the same terms, and the redundancies were capped.”

The RiotACT approached Airservices Australia to ask whether they were still using individual management contracts that imposed caps on redundancy payments and/or requiring new staff to move to retail superannuation schemes, and whether they stood by those contracts signed previously.

A spokeswoman for Airservices Australia provided the following statement in response.
“Airservices Australia complies with its obligations as an employer, including those set out by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and other relevant legislative and industrial instruments.

“It would be inappropriate to comment on individual matters.

“Airservices is willing to engage with relevant parties to resolve any outstanding employment issues.”

With many of the management staff in question having arrived from other areas within the Australian Public Service, signing up to the contract allegedly meant surrendering rights to years of service that would otherwise have been factored into any redundancy payout at a time when they were joining an organisation in which Chamberlains will argue redundancies were a strong possibility due to uncertain budgets.

When one of the largest redundancy rounds in public service history took place in 2016, the employees allegedly received a fraction of the redundancy payments they would have had they not signed individual management agreements upon joining Airservices Australia.

Their packages were capped so that years of public service in other departments or agencies played no role in calculating the payments, according to Mr Markham.

All staff joining Airservices during the period from 1996 until 2017 were allegedly told they could not con---??

Chamberlains has also been instructed that workers joining Airservices Australia during the years in question were advised they must switch to their superannuation to Airservices’ own retail superannuation fund, AV Super.

In the case of those moving from other parts of the public service this meant they could not continue to participate in the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme or Public Sector Superannuation Scheme preserved benefits schemes.

“What our claimants will argue is that Airservices employees were entitled to continue with their very generous superannuation schemes but were wrongfully told by Airservices that they had to participate in a retail super fund,” Mr Markham said.

“Their losses are really quite considerable because they were wrongfully told that they couldn’t stay in their preserved fund.”

The claims will seek compensation for those losses as well as in relation to the redundancy shortfalls.

The claims could run individually into the hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the individual’s circumstances, Mr Markham said.

He said the firm was looking into whether there may have been similar incidents elsewhere in the government sector in recent years and would welcome information from the public that may assist with these investigations.

While few of the current and former Airservices Australia staff eligible to participate in the claim through Chamberlains were members of a union, the Deputy National President of the CPSU, Rupert Evans, told the RiotACT his organisation had worked with affected staff in recent months.

“We have supported members who were incorrectly put in contract positions to return to the enterprise agreement,” he said.

“The enterprise agreement, which was negotiated by the CPSU and others, ensures Airservices workers receive proper rates of pay and important rights around issues such as redundancies.”

Are you a current or former Airservices Australia staff member who may be eligible to claim workplace entitlements through the Chamberlains-run claim? Find out more here or email Chamberlains at airservices.action@chamberlains.com.au

Meanwhile in a parallel hemisphere Trump is talking up privatising, the equally antiquated FAA ATC system, along the lines of NAV Canada...  Rolleyes

Via the International Airport Review Shy :

Quote:The necessity of liberalising our skies | It’s time to talk ATC

Posted: 27 April 2017 | David McMillan

In the first of a series of articles entitled ‘It’s time to talk ATC’, David McMillan, Chair of the ATM Policy Institute think tank asserts the importance of liberalisation of our airspace.

[Image: atc-atm-policy-institute.jpg]

It is hard to realise it now, but in fact the history of air traffic control is a vital part of the history of airports.  At first, airlines each provided their own ATC services, at airports.  It was seen as an airport operational function. Croydon, then London’s airport, took over those services for its customer airlines and built the first ATC Tower in 1916.  A fine structure it was too. 

However, it was only in 1936 that ATC was, in effect, nationalised, with the creation of what is now the FAA in the USA.  Give or take, it has been that way ever since, even as airlines and airports are increasingly commercial entities.

Happily, safety is well managed, but operational, environmental and economic challenges continue to emerge for airports as air traffic continues to grow.

For ATM, meeting the challenges can be slow. With an historic monopoly status, weak economic regulation, and government control the ATM industry has weak incentives to improve performance, and it is notoriously resistant to change.  Management tend to respond to the needs of government, rather than its airline and airport customers. The resulting under-performance can include high prices, inefficient expenditure, a lack of transparency and slow adoption of new technologies and processes.

"The ATM industry has weak incentives to improve performance…"

In February this year, a number of air navigation service providers (ANSPs) founded the ATM Policy Institute, aiming to focus discussion about improving the efficiency and performance of the ATM industry through liberalisation.

Liberalisation has transformed the broader aviation industry, driving growth and innovation at a notable pace. The Institute argues that liberalising the ATM industry can also achieve significant benefits, including reducing the cost of ATM service and increasing the customer focus and responsiveness of the ANSPs, while maintaining or improving safety.

There is evidence to support this.  Several nations have some competition for supply of aerodrome control services, including Germany, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the UAE, the UK and the US.  Where competition for terminal ATM navigation services (TANS) exists, the benefits of liberalisation are clear.

Competition to supply aerodrome control services in Spain reduced the cost of ATM by 50%; in Sweden the costs reduced by 30-40%.  In the UK, it has been reported that the successful competitors have reduced costs and maintained highly efficient operations, whilst the previous incumbent has become more customer-centric, adopting cost-saving measures and accepting performance-linked payments in a range of markets.

"The benefits of liberalisation are clear."

Another important point that comes out of these examples, as well as examples of liberalisation of other infrastructure based industries is that for competition to be successful, several “health factors” must be in place.
  • The operational aspect of the ANSP needs to be separated from the state’s safety regulation function, to avoid conflicts of interest. Like other safety crucial industries, the State has a duty to its citizens to ensure that safety performance of ANSPs is not compromised.
  • ANSPs need to act like commercial entities. This is best achieved through corporatisation, or commercialisation, where the organisation is given greater management and financial authority and encouraged to behave more like a private firm, with good governance.  This does not require the organisation to be privately owned – nor does it rule it out.  Several ownership options exist and are used around the word.  The key characteristic is that the organisation has sufficient autonomy and flexibility to respond to competition.
  • Selected ATM services must be open to genuine competition, such as through a tender process for the right to operate an aerodrome control service for a specified period of time.  Genuine competition means that any tendering process must present a level playing field to both the incumbent and any new entrants, for example by making sure that all parties have adequate information about the market and the cost of transition.  It also means that the barriers to entry must be low enough to encourage several contenders to apply.  Such barriers include access to technology, buildings and facilities, current expert staff, and the ability to train new staff for the location.
Liberalising ATM services represents opportunities for airports.  Birmingham International Airport in the UK decided during a routine tender for TANS service that self-supply was more economic than any of the suppler offers, and established its own ATM unit, reducing the cost of ATM service, which it could pass on to its customer airlines through the provision of better facilities or services – and indeed, through lower charges.

ATM can also be an expansion of the services the airport offers to its airline customers.   Over time, it might also be a means of attracting airline customers, as they realise that the ATM services offered add value to their network operations.  Airports can start to offer tailored services.

The ATM service can supply not only the separation safety service, but also information and data exchange, and perhaps local flow control.  This means the airport could be in a position to offer premium, or priority services to airlines or flights, or collaborate with origin or destination ports to offer route-long flow management or priority services. The advent of competition in other industries has promoted differentiated products and services.  It is reasonable to expect the same effect for airports when liberalising ATM services.

Liberalisation has the potential to disrupt the ATM industry. Some ANSPs may see this as a threat, with concerns about risking jobs, the viability of supply of ATM services (especially in un-economic airspace) or safety.  Similar concerns were raised in the lead up to liberalising the airline industry; the vast majority of which later proved to be unfounded.

Liberalisation of the airline industry is generally seen as a success. In the ATM industry, liberalisation presents opportunities for those ANSPs willing to adapt and innovate, including opportunities to expand into new markets, work collaboratively, and secure rewards for better serving airline and airport customers.  Perhaps it is enough to note that the ATM Policy Institute itself has been founded by ANSPs.

Astute airports might also want to look at the work being done and see what might be in it for them. They would find us very willing interlocutors

&.. via @BREAKINGVIEWS... Wink :

Quote:Standby

2 May 2017 By Gina Chon, Lauren Silva Laughlin

 
U.S. air-traffic control badly needs first-class treatment. Donald Trump’s administration wants to privatize the organization that coordinates flights and manages often antiquated systems. The Federal Aviation Administration, currently in charge, has faced obstacles in trying to upgrade its 1940s-era technology, a project estimated to cost about $35 billion. Canada pioneered a self-funding, stakeholder-governed model. A similar approach could work for the more complex American system if carriers, politicians and the like can dump their baggage.

In most ATC operations across the United States, flight patterns are still organized on paper strips and passed by hand from one controller to another. The old-school radar used to mark planes with dots on screens can be off by as much as three miles.

There were nearly 40 million flight movements in the United States in 2015, according to the FAA. Of the much smaller number of commercial flights, over 80 percent arrive on time, according to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, but that’s still a lot of delays. Though the FAA is gradually upgrading its technology, almost a quarter of the late arrivals are attributed to air-traffic control – and that doesn’t include late-arriving aircraft, some of which may be delayed by ATC, as well. Those advocating for a new system – including airlines as well as the administration – say that the GPS capabilities of cell phones are more sophisticated than the technology that organizes U.S. air traffic.

An overhaul has been proposed multiple times since the 1990s, but policy and funding have been at the mercy of a dysfunctional Congress. The FAA was partly shut down in 2011 because of political budget squabbles, and in 2013 more than 15,000 employees, including 3,000 safety inspectors, were temporarily put on leave. Right now, Washington will probably rely once more on short-term budget extensions, and without a longer-term deal something similar could happen again.

Trump has likened U.S. airport infrastructure to “a third-world country,” while U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said at the Milken Institute conference on Monday that action on air-traffic control was overdue. It’s true that plenty of other nations have jumped ahead with ATC technology. Dozens have upgraded their systems in recent decades. The UK is the only one that now has air traffic managed for profit within a public-private partnership, a model dating back to 2001. Other countries such as Germany and Australia have adopted government-owned company models, though Australia is considering a shift to something more like Canada’s private, non-profit structure. A key feature that differentiates all of them from the FAA is that all of them are self-funded.

In Canada, legislators worked with the airline industry and other stakeholders to put air-traffic control into a private corporation. Nav Canada, as it’s called, started in 1996 with a $2.3 billion bank loan, overseen by a board made up of airlines, government representatives, unions and other stakeholders. Roughly 6,000 employees were plucked out of the public sector and moved into the corporation.

Nav Canada has since shed 25 percent of those workers. The company is self-funded through user fees and bonds, and profit is plowed back into improving infrastructure and services. In 2016, Nav Canada reported revenue of C$1.4 billion ($1 billion) and net income of C$37 million.

The shift meant Nav Canada no longer had to rely on the government for funding, and the accompanying upgrades in technology and efficiency improved the ATC picture in several ways. Required distances between airplanes have been reduced, helping to relieve bottlenecks, according to Nav Canada. Routes have gotten shorter too, decreasing fuel usage. It develops software inhouse, which Nav Canada sells to other ATC operators.

The FAA has more than nine times Nav Canada’s roster of air-traffic controllers and a much bigger budget, but Nav Canada is more productive. It clocks 1,900 flight hours per controller each year versus just above 1,800 hours for the FAA, according to the Civil Air Navigation Services Organization. The U.S. air network is bigger and more complicated than Canada’s – Nav Canada handles about 12 million flight movements each year – but similar improvements ought to be there for the taking.

The problem is getting the various U.S. stakeholders to agree. Even airlines, all of which want improved technology, don’t see eye-to-eye on how this should be achieved. Bill Shuster, who leads the U.S. House Transportation Committee, has proposed a similar structure to Canada’s. His initiative has fresh momentum thanks to the administration’s backing. Some U.S. airlines like Southwest and American Airlines support Shuster’s plan but Delta, for one, has publicly opposed it, preferring upgrades within the existing FAA framework.

One issue is cost. Delta argues that air travelers would end up covering ATC fees which could rise by 20 percent or more in a privatized system versus the existing system. Direct comparisons are hard to come by, but an Eno Center for Transportation study in February suggested the all-in cost in privatized markets is lower than the full U.S. tax burden for equivalent flights.

Another point of contention is the control of a new U.S. ATC system. Shuster’s proposal last year – he is working on a new one – was for a 13-member board representing the government, air-traffic controllers, pilots, four airlines and others. One danger of this allocation would be an even greater concentration of airline-industry power with the largest U.S. carriers, which already have big market shares.

One way or another, tens of billions of dollars are needed to upgrade air-traffic control across the United States. Because the beneficiaries – air carriers and, ultimately, passengers – are easily identified, it’s also a good candidate for a full or partial privatization that removes the funding burden from government and the political drag from air-traffic management. The benefits would far outweigh the costs of any compromises airlines, lawmakers, unions and everyone else involved might have to make.
 

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

Good news story for Harfwit - err maybe?? Rolleyes

Via Oz Flying today:

Quote:[Image: http%3A%2F%2Fyaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com%...ercams.jpg]The weather at Kingscote Airport on Kangaroo Island as seen by weather camera. (Bureau of Meteorology)

Airservices opens Weather Camera
17 May 2017

Airservices Australia today launched a new portal that features camera views of weather conditions at locations around Australia.

The live portal, which can be found on the Airservices website, enables pilots to view actual weather conditions, and currently contains only six sites.

Airservices CEO Jason Harfield said Airservices will add more locations to the portal in the near future.

“With valuable assistance from the Bureau of Meteorology the new portal features cameras at Archerfield, Kilmore Gap, Kingscoat [sic], Launceston, Norfolk Island and Parafield," Harfield said, "and now we will work to implement cameras at other sites based on results of an online survey.”

Airservices has been working closely with the Bureau of Meteorology and airports to identify sites with existing power, communication infrastructure and camera equipment to provide the new service.

Airservices called for site suggestions in an on-line survey that attracted 540 responses over four weeks, nominating 230 different locations for the cameras.

According to Airservices, the weather camera network will be set-up in locations that will deliver the greatest safety benefit.

The weathercam network idea was adopted quickly by Airservices after aviation identify and entreprenuer Dick Smith donated $160,000 from the proceeds of selling his Citation jet to fund the project.

The Airservices weather camera portal can be accessed via the Airservices Australia website

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...w4rEBe3.99

& via Oz Aviation:

Quote:Airservices rolls out weather camera live views
May 17, 2017 by australianaviation.com.au
[Image: Launceston-camera-views.jpg]Airservices has launched a website portal that allows pilots to check live camera views of weather conditions at six locations around Australia.

The portal initially features camera views at Archerfield airport, Kilmore Gap, Kingscoat airport, Launceston airport, Norfolk Island airport and Parafield airport, while Airservices says further camera locations will come online as it continues to work with the Bureau of Meteorology and airport operators to identify sites with the required existing power, communication infrastructure and camera equipment to allow the new service.

Apart from having the necessary infrastructure Airservices says the camera locations were based on a survey of pilots who were asked to rank locations where having realtime camera views would provide the greatest safety benefit.

In all 826 suggestions were submitted nominating 230 different locations, with both Kilmore Gap and Archerfield ranking highly in the survey, according to Airservices.

“I want to thank all those who participated in the online survey to identify those locations that the aviation community feels would most benefit from up-to-date visual weather assessments,” Airservices chief executive officer Jason Harfield said in a statement on Wednesday.

“This knowledge will help us with the next phase of the project in the coming months when we will focus on delivering camera infrastructure to the next round of sites.”
 
Hmm...knowing personally how our EAL (editor at large) feels about the wx webcam idea (or maybe it is the legality of such webcams - I forget Huh ) - I am expecting there will be incoming on this.
Personally, given this was a Dick Smith initiative, I don't like the half-baked, sociopathic Half-wit receiving any kudos - but that's just my personal OP (Ps read previous post)... Dodgy
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

P2;

Personally, given this was a Dick Smith initiative, I don't like the half-baked, sociopathic Half-wit receiving any kudos

I couldn't agree more. This is a 'Dick Smith initiative' made possible solely due to Dick Smiths generosity and more importantly - his dedication and passion about aviation safety! Full credit to Messr Smith. There needs to be more like him.

P.S I wonder if they have put any of the webcams near Hoody's spa?? Just asking...
Reply

First, last and only comment.

Dick is, no doubt about it, a fine advocate for aviation – a statesman if you will and while I appreciate the gesture; I wonder, how many can spot the humorous irony of Dicks little Mickey taking exercise. If Halfwit thinks they’re a good idea, then that’s all that needs to be said about the Flaming Ridiculous Electronic Devices (FRED’s). Darren 6D will probably want to sell advertising time on the stupid things; and, reserve a slot for the selfie hour and of course ‘election fluff, puff and nonsense’. He could even rope Halfwit into performing. The dynamic duo of Donuffin – live, on a weather camera stream in your cockpit. GD– where’s that bloody bucket?

At least installing one near Hoody’s little swamp would provide entertainment value; which would be one of the more practical uses for these foolish toys. For any practical aeronautical purpose these toys are absolutely bloody useless – unless you happen to be within 20 minutes flight time – provided you can access the ‘service’ from the cockpit; even then – apart from gaining a distorted ‘personal’ assessment of the general conditions, can you measure the cloud base or the visibility; accurately enough to say ‘Yup, I’m legal’. Will you bet ‘your’ assessment against the TAFOR or METAR when CASA haul your sorry arse into court for operating below minimums?  Well, good luck with that.

There are sound, very solid reasons for the TAF using terms like ‘INTER’ and ‘TEMPO’ then adding ‘buffers’. Ever wonder why so much is invested in ‘forecasting’ rather than ‘actual’? Well the weather can change fairly quickly and just because Kickinatinalong’ looked great at -0700; there is no guarantee it will OK when you get there two hours; or even a hour later. But you knew that….

That’s it, life is far too short to be concerned about irrelevant trivialities such as a Halfwit presser.

Toot – retch – toot.
Reply

Seems its not just “K” questioning the relevance of the ‘Halfwit Channel’ – ASA have quietly issued their own cautionary tale, as a rider to rhetoric. I can with little difficulty ‘see’ the weather in many parts of the world – now – but, without a crystal ball, etc…

"This webpage and its images are not provided as part of a regulated service. This webpage and its images may be useful to assist in assessing actual weather conditions at the available locations, but do not replace official forecasts or observations. This webpage or its images should not be relied upon to be available, or up to date, for the purposes of flight planning, or decision making in flight. Airservices has taken all reasonable care in producing this webpage, and republishing the supplied images, but it does not warrant they are free from error. Airservices accepts no liability arising from errors contained on this webpage or in the images provided."
Reply

Harfwit match fit & ready for Estimates - Dodgy




In an exclusive Oz Aviation article today, Harfwit defends the ASA OneSKY tender process and some of the negative findings from the ANAO audit report... Confused :


Quote:Airservices chief says OneSKY tenderer chosen on value for money and technical risk

May 22, 2017 by Gerard Frawley 
[Image: Airservices_JasonHarfield_waypoint_2016.jpeg]
Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield speaking at Waypoint 2016. (Airservices)

Thales’ bid to supply Australia’s new air traffic management system under the $600 million OneSKY program was selected on the basis of best value for money when technical risk was taken into account, Airservices Australia chief executive Jason Harfield says.

Last month the Australian National Audit Office warned that Australia could end up paying too much for the new combined civil and military air traffic management system (or CMATS), finding in a report into the OneSKY tender process that it “is not clearly evident that the successful tender offered the best value for money” and that “the tenderer that submitted the highest acquisition and support prices was assessed to offer the lowest cost solution”.

However, in an interview with Australian Aviation Harfield defended the robustness of the OneSKY tender evaluation process while conceding that contract negotiations had taken longer than anticipated.

“Value for money… is not just the price that you pay. You’ve actually got to have the thing work and operate, and there are much more greater considerations with value for money,” Harfield told Australian Aviation earlier this month.

The Airservices chief noted there were five different assessment criteria in the OneSKY tender: safety, technical risk, transition arrangements, long-term relationships and financial and commercial considerations.

“With an air traffic control system, you can’t say that all of those are equal … in a ranking. You’ve got to put it all together and look at it,” Harfield said.

“So you could have somebody really strong technically but very weak on the transition between the two systems. Well, that transition is just as important as making sure that the system works.”

Another bidder could offer a comparatively more expensive tender but still offer better value for money, he said.

In that case, “there would be better value for money in a proposition with an acceptable level of risk than one that is not as strong on the safety piece, not very good with the transition, not [the best] long-term support, but it’s really cheap.”

Harfield also stressed that the decision to downselect Thales was unanimous across Airservices and the Department of Defence.

“All of the decisions at all of the levels all the way through the process were unanimous between Defence and Airservices executives. If there were really big issues in there, you would see that, you wouldn’t get that unanimity.”

The decision to select Thales for OneSKY was announced in February 2015, but the main acquisition contract for the project is still yet to be signed.

Negotiations to finalise that contract are still on-going but should be completed in the third quarter of this year, if not before the end of June 30, Harfield said.

“Our issues have all been around the commercial rather than the actual technicalities of it,” he said of contract negotiations.

“We originally thought that we would end up with more than one tender going into the last phase of negotiations, and have parallel negotiations. But as it turned out, there was only one tender that went into the negotiations.

“We were quite concerned with that at the time, because you’ve got somebody that has been technically superior, [but] having only one tender though, you end up losing commercial or competitive tension in the tender,” Harfield explained.

Instead, Harfield said, initial work to implement OneSKY was initiated under advanced work supply agreements.

“We can work through all of those issues while not committing to a big fixed price contract [prematurely], and then working out there’s a whole lot of issues and risks,” he said.

“In doing that, the negotiations have gone longer than what we have expected, and that’s really because we haven’t actually got to the commercially acceptable parameters that we’ve actually wanted to achieve.”

Thanks to those advance work agreements, initial transition work to the new system will still commence in 2018, starting with new voice switches. However, final delivery of the system is now likely to occur in 2023, rather than 2021 as originally planned.

“The plan is we begin transition activities next year. We were hoping, originally, that in defence terms, to have FOC [full operating capability] around 2021, 2022, but we’ve given ourselves a bit of room out the back to 2023, knowing that we’re possibly going to come across some more problems in the rollout.”


[*]
 
Hmm...interesting timing especially when you consider... Huh
"...Harfield told Australian Aviation earlier this month..."

Oh well it looks like Harfwit will be 'match fit' and ready for all comers tomorrow at Senate Estimates - straight up after the 1.5 hrs of ANAO Q&A session of course... Rolleyes

Meanwhile in another hemisphere and another Parliament far, far, away - Wink

Via wpxi.com:


Quote:House chairman pushes privatizing air traffic control in US
by: KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Updated: May 17, 2017 - 3:21 PM

WASHINGTON (AP)
- A House Republican committee chairman called on lawmakers Wednesday to turn the nation's air traffic control operations over to a new, non-profit corporation, saying no other infrastructure change has as much potential to improve travel for the average American flyer.

President Donald Trump has also called for privatizing air traffic control operations, suggesting placing them under an "independent, non-governmental organization" to make the system more efficient while maintaining safety.

Pennsylvania Rep. Bill Shuster, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, told colleagues his top priority this year is to overhaul the Federal Aviation Administration along those lines. He said the effort he'll pursue will fund the new corporation through fees assessed for air traffic services and will free the operations from government dysfunction and the uncertainty of the annual appropriations process.

He said the FAA has been trying to put in place a high-tech system for air traffic controllers for nearly three decades, but progress has been incremental. Ultimately, he said, it makes sense to remove the FAA as a transportation service provider and maintain its role as a regulator of air safety. He said that would lead to a decrease in flight delays and ease congestion.

"The true risk lies in doing nothing," Shuster said.

But Shuster faces opposition from the committee's Democratic members and unions representing air traffic controllers. They fear that turning financing decisions over to a corporation would subject the system to economic hardships and particularly could hurt flight operations at smaller airports.

Airlines have been lobbying vigorously for the changes Shuster seeks. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., pointed out they were not invited to testify Wednesday, alluding to recent controversies such as the dragging of a passenger off a United flight. He said their absence shows that supporters of privatization know Americans aren't interested in giving more control over to the airlines.

DeFazio said the biggest obstacle to updating air traffic systems has been the broken budget process in Congress and unstable funding from lawmakers.

The privatization debate has been going on for decades. The Clinton administration proposed moving air traffic control operations out of FAA to a corporation owned by the government in 1995. Dorothy Robyn, a special assistant to the president on economic policy, told lawmakers that only four nations at that time had moved traffic control operations outside of traditional government operations, and Clinton's proposal was "dead on arrival on Capitol Hill." Now, some 60 countries have transferred their air traffic control operations, she said.

"I think it is a mistake to view this proposal as ideological," Robyn said.

Paul Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said the association will consider supporting a new entity to run air traffic control operations, but it cannot be a for-profit corporation. He said the new system would also have to ensure that air traffic control workers' pay and benefits are protected, and that it continue to serve rural communities, which are worried that privatization would lead to less money for their airports.

"The last thing we want to do is create a system that's unfair to different users," Shuster told reporters after the hearing.

The congressman said he expects the committee to hold one or two more hearings before voting on a bill. A similar effort stalled last year, but Shuster is counting on an "engaged" White House to enhance prospects this year.


[*]&.. via the Hill.com:

Quote:Defense secretary backs plan to spin off air traffic control
BY MELANIE ZANONA - 05/17/17 03:57 PM EDT  11

Proponents of separating air traffic control from the federal government have picked up a new supporter: the Department of Defense (DOD).

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in a recent letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that the department is “supportive of a possible privatization of ATC services and recognizes the potential risks.”

Mattis said DOD has formed an ad hoc committee to assess the agency’s relationship with air traffic control, delineate any linkages that would be necessary and “ensure privatization efforts going forward preserve our national security interests.”

The support from Mattis removes one major hurdle for proponents of the spin-off plan, as critics have long cited national security concerns from the defense community as a major reason for opposing the idea.

“It’s a huge deal,” Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, told reporters. “You have senators running around saying that’s one of the reasons not to do it. And Secretary Mattis is saying we support it.”

But the spin-off proposal, which President Trump voiced support for in his budget blueprint, has long been divisive on Capitol Hill and is still likely to face an uphill battle in Congress.

Efforts to advance the idea in a long-term reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) stalled on the House floor last year.

And lawmakers continued to clash over the contentious policy proposal during a heated hearing on the issue Wednesday.

The plan — a top priority for most of the nation’s major airlines — would transfer air traffic control operations from the FAA to a nonprofit or non-governmental agency.

The corporation, which would have a board appointed by users of the system, would raise money through user fees and the private sector. The spinoff model would also remove 30,000 FAA employees from the federal payroll, where workers are subject to salary caps.

While the FAA would still maintain safety oversight and regulate the national airspace, the plan would represent a dramatic shift in how the country manages its air traffic control operations.

Supporters say it’s necessary to speed up long-stalled modernization efforts and to avoid the financial and political uncertainty of the annual appropriations process. Shuster showed off stacks of paper strips at the hearing to demonstrate how air traffic controllers track flights.

“The fact is, the FAA’s infrastructure is increasingly obsolete, and its technology is still cemented in the last century,” Shuster said at the hearing. “As a result, shocking amounts of tax dollars and time have been wasted over the last 35 years.”

But many Democrats and GOP tax writers and appropriators have major reservations about the spin-off idea.

Their chief concern is handing over the power to collect fees to a nongovernmental agency and removing operations from congressional oversight.

Critics also fear that the spin-off model would give major airlines outsize power over air traffic control operations.

“Who is not testifying today? The airline CEOs,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), ranking member on the panel. “Perhaps they recognize that the American people are not interested in giving more control to the airlines when, between dragging a passenger off a plane and massive computer failures, they can't even get their own houses in order.”

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

"..Enough of the monkey give us the organ grinder.." - Rolleyes

Unless requested I am not going to regurgitate the vision and sound, with not much fury, from the conjoined ANAO/Airservices Senate Estimates inquisitions but here is some short noteworthy segments that say enough of the delirious, narcissistic, unreality that is Harfwit's world, with his firm belief that the OneSKY contract is a total work of art and beyond all redemption - Confused   

Sir Gallacher... Wink :



And Harfwit pleads ignorance on FOI disclosure log:



Finally the Senators decide to dispense with the monkey and calling for the presence of the organ grinder... Big Grin




MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Update to ASA FOI Disclosure Log

Reference:

(05-24-2017, 08:46 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Don't mention the war? - Or OneSKY, Harfwits or Audits.

...Maybe, like the FOI Disclosure log, Harfwit is cutting costs and can only publish one news item a week... [Image: huh.gif]

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

Quote: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.




And Harfwit pleads ignorance on FOI disclosure log:


Passing strange then that after nearly two years of zilch entries on the ASA FDL, yesterday there was an update with a back entry from 2016... Huh

Quote:25 August 2015 Primary radar data for Cairns International Airport for 18 August 2015.
28 August 2015 Primary radar data for Tullamarine Airport Melbourne for 23 August 2015.
16 December 2016 (stage 1) and 22 December 2016 (stage 2) Documents related to branch assurance assessments, DRE assurance assessments, OLR unit assurance assessments and ToM (Target Operating Model) risk assessments.

Last updated: May 25, 2017


Hmm...no comment -  Big Grin


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Update on Trumps plan to 'make air traffic control great again'

In a parallel world still far far away, Trump Announces Plan To Privatize Air Traffic Control

In part, the article about the FAA and El Presidento said;

President Trump announced Monday a plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system — a move that would remove the job of tracking and guiding airplanes from the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration. "Today we're proposing to take American air travel into the future, finally," Trump said.

The nation's air traffic control system was designed when far fewer people flew, Trump said, calling it "stuck, painfully, in the past." He also called the system "ancient, broken, antiquated" and "horrible" and said his reforms would make it safer and more reliable.
The FAA has worked to upgrade its system, but Trump and other critics say it was taking far too long. "Honestly, they didn't know what the hell they were doing," Trump said. "A total waste of money."

Link here;

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531574945/...ic-control

Interesting article as the similarity with Australia's issues are comparable. I guess the difference is that at least Trump seems to understand the issues. That's what happens when a real businessman knows his shit from the ground up, unlike the pole sliding Houston, blue blooded Turdball and the sheltered workshop pedicure loving Harfwit. These Muppets wouldn't to know an ATC controllers screen from a barium enema!

Can you imagine the spineless Malcolm Turdball, the trough addicted Houston or the conceited Electric Blue Harfwit bowing to such a proposal?? I agree, very unlikely...

"Safe, protected, bureaucratic troughs for all"
Reply

(06-06-2017, 11:51 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  Update on Trumps plan to 'make air traffic control great again'

In a parallel world still far far away, Trump Announces Plan To Privatize Air Traffic Control

In part, the article about the FAA and El Presidento said;

President Trump announced Monday a plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system — a move that would remove the job of tracking and guiding airplanes from the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration. "Today we're proposing to take American air travel into the future, finally," Trump said.
The nation's air traffic control system was designed when far fewer people flew, Trump said, calling it "stuck, painfully, in the past." He also called the system "ancient, broken, antiquated" and "horrible" and said his reforms would make it safer and more reliable.
The FAA has worked to upgrade its system, but Trump and other critics say it was taking far too long. "Honestly, they didn't know what the hell they were doing," Trump said. "A total waste of money."

Link here;

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531574945/...ic-control

Interesting article as the similarity with Australia's issues are comparable. I guess the difference is that at least Trump seems to understand the issues. That's what happens when a real businessman knows his shit from the ground up, unlike the pole sliding Houston, blue blooded Turdball and the sheltered workshop pedicure loving Harfwit. These Muppets wouldn't to know an ATC controllers screen from a barium enema!

Can you imagine the spineless Malcolm Turdball, the trough addicted Houston or the conceited Electric Blue Harfwit bowing to such a proposal?? I agree, very unlikely...

"Safe, protected, bureaucratic troughs for all"

Good catch Gobbles - Wink

Here is another article courtesy USA Today:

Quote:In infrastructure push, Trump seeks to privatize air traffic control system

David Jackson and Bart Jansen , USA TODAY Published 10:25 a.m. ET June 5, 2017 | Updated 10 hours ago



President Donald Trump plans to lay out his vision for overhauling the nation's air traffic control system, outlining his goals to privatize the system. USA TODAY

[Image: 636322520798810950-AP-TRUMP-FINANCIAL-RE...391236.JPG]

President Trump(Photo: Alex Brandon, AP)

WASHINGTON – As President Trump braces for potentially explosive congressional testimony this week from ex-FBI Director James Comey, the White House on Monday kicked off a week-long promotion of various infrastructure proposals, starting with a long-shot plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system.

Hailing "a great new era in American aviation," Trump said his plan would reduce the number of flight delays and wait times that cost consumers millions of dollars. "We live in a modern age," Trump said during a ceremony at White House, "but our air traffic control system is stuck, painfully, in the past."

While specifics on how to upgrade the nation's roads and bridges are still being developed, Trump on Monday said he would urge Congress to pass a plan to put the nation's air traffic control system in private hands. It calls for creating a private, nonprofit corporation, with airlines contributing fees rather than the taxes they now pay the government to cover the approximately $10 billion annual cost for air-traffic control.

“After billions and billions of tax dollars spent, and the many years of delays, we’re still stuck with an ancient, broken, antiquated, horrible system that doesn’t work,” Trump said. “Other than that it’s quite good.”

In the coming days, Trump and other administration officials will call on states, cities, and private companies to pay more for rebuilding roads, bridges, railways, airports, and other types of infrastructure. The schedule includes meetings with members of Congress, a Wednesday speech in Cincinnati, and an "infrastructure summit" Thursday with various governors and mayors at the White House.

Some Democratic lawmakers said Trump really doesn't have an infrastructure plan. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said in a tweet that Trump "is NOT proposing money for infrastructure. It's tax cuts for financiers, privatizing public property. Not infrastructure."

And the Senate's top Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Trump's infrastructure ideas boil down to "privatization," which means "less construction and far fewer jobs, particularly in rural areas. It means Trump tolls from one end of America to the other."

Thursday is also the day Comey is set to testify before Congress, a high-profile event likely to center on the ongoing investigation into links between Trump's presidential campaign last year and Russians who sought to influence the election by hacking Democrats.

In firing Comey last month, Trump cited performance issues, while critics accused him trying to close down the Russia investigation. The Justice Department later appointed ex-FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the investigation.

Associates of Comey said the former director kept notes of his conversations with Trump, including of a February meeting in which the president asked Comey to lay off an ongoing investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn – a topic that is sure to come up at the hearing.

Trump, meanwhile, reportedly told Russian officials in an Oval Office meeting that Comey was a "nut job," and that his dismissal would help get the Russia issue behind him.
With Comey on Capitol Hill, the White House appears to be trying to change the conversation.

Moving air-traffic control out of the Federal Aviation Administration has been debated periodically since the 1990s, but never approved by Congress. Trump’s proposal would be modeled on Canada’s system, which is run a private board of industry stakeholders rather than the government.

Trump’s principles seek to improve legislation approved in 2016 in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that never got a vote in the full House or Senate. The debate resumed as part of renewing FAA legislation that expires Sept. 30.
Hearings are scheduled Wednesday in the Senate and Thursday in the House.

The corporation’s 13-member board would begin with eight members appointed by the transportation secretary, with two representing airlines, two for unions, one for airports, one for general aviation and two for the government. Those eight would choose a chief executive officer, and then that board would choose another four independent board members. But no seats would be assigned to specific interests after the initial board is seated.

“There will not be designated seats by interest group," said D.J. Gribbin, special assistant to the president for infrastructure.

Airlines and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association supported the 2016 bill as a way to have more predictable funding than provided by annual spending fights in Congress that have led to furloughs and shutdowns in recent years.

“I strongly support the president’s continuing recognition that modernizing our country’s air traffic control service is one of the most important infrastructure investments we can make,” Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., whose 2016 bill laid the groundwork for Trump’s proposal, said May 24 of Trump’s budget.

Besides smoother funding, airlines and supportive lawmakers contend that the corporation would modernize equipment and training faster than FAA. Government watchdogs have criticized FAA for slow progress on shifting controllers from directing planes by ground-based radar to satellite-based GPS.

But the proposal has critics among airlines, general-aviation groups and in Congress.

“There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between President Trump’s plan and Chairman Shuster’s proposal, both of which would hand over America’s skies to a private corporation, free of charge,” said Rep. Donald M. Payne Jr., D-N.J.

The top Democrat on Shuster’s committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., worried about how the corporation would set fees on airlines, general aviation and business jets. While FAA had problems a decade ago, the agency is modernizing now in ways that could be hurt by privatization, he said.

“The bottom line is this could be very disruptive,” DeFazio said.  “I fear that actually this could set us back in deploying new technology.”

Delta Air Lines opposed the 2016 bill because of concerns it would disrupt air-traffic control at a time when FAA is making improvements.

General-aviation groups opposed the legislation because of concerns about how they would be charged under the private system and the possibility that airlines would be favored over private pilots at busy airports.

In describing the plan, a statement from the Trump administration said all users of the system would pay their fair share, but it assured access to general aviation and to rural communities.

The leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which decides with House counterparts how much to spend each year on FAA, said the proposal doesn’t appear to make sense. Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in a Feb. 28 letter that consumers would have no recourse for complaints or mistreatment as they currently enjoy through the Transportation and Congress

Meanwhile in a parallel hemisphere where (much like the "A-word") it is not PC to talk about the "P-word"... Dodgy - Muppet 6D effectively announces that the government has full faith in the Harfwit administration & Sir A oversight of Airservices, while giving the green light to more wanton, ATP funded, OneSKY trough feeding Undecided :

Quote:Sir Angus signs to stay with Airservices Australia
Media Release
DC150/2017
02 June 2017

  • Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC (Rtd) reappointed to Airservices Australia (Airservices) Board as the Chair.
  • Mr David Marchant and Mr Tim Rothwell reappointed for two-year terms.
The Australian Government has reappointed Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC (Rtd) as the Chair of the Board of Airservices Australia for a further one year term.

Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said Sir Angus Houston brought extensive aviation experience to this critically important role, ensuring Airservices future delivery of safe and efficient air traffic services.

“In addition, Mr David Marchant and Mr Tim Rothwell have been reappointed for a further two years, to help the Board oversee the acquisition of a new air traffic management system for Australia,” Mr Chester said.

“These reappointments will also ensure valuable finance, safety and governance expertise is retained. - Code for the OneSKY trough fund will be nurtured and greedily protected... Dodgy

“Airservices is moving to replace its air traffic management system as part of a major capital expenditure and investment program of more than $1 billion over the next five years, to enhance the safety, efficiency and capacity of the national network, and meet anticipated growth in the industry.

“That is why having strong leadership will be essential in meeting the goals of Airservices Australia and why I am delighted to make this announcement,” Mr Chester said. - UDB! Does this Muppet have the first blind clue about what's been going on in the other house... Huh

Here is a reminder: Hansard 2nd Estimates session Australian National Audit Office


Quote:Senator GALLACHER: The CEO's contention was that specialist people looking at specialist areas discussing these matters did not resolve that, but they had had the appropriate discussions at their level but did not actually minute it and say why they were going a particular way.

Ms Mellor : That is clearly what we found. The organisation proffered to you that we did not talk to anyone. We are looking for records in procurement that evidence decision making and are contemporaneous to the decision-making process. Interviewing people after the fact—there were many involved—is not quality evidence against our standards.

Senator GALLACHER: That is exactly what I was trying to capture when I had that line of questioning. If you ask me for my recollections of a meeting six months ago, without contemporaneous notes they are unlikely to be accurate. That is just human nature. That is why we have minutes of notes.

Dr Ioannou : The key is the contemporaneous record of course. While the procurement rules do not apply in this case they set some good guidance, even for entities of this sort, around how to maintain transparency and accountability. In these sorts of processes, good record keeping is the basis for that and contemporaneous record keeping is, of course, the basis for an evidence based process such as an audit.

Mr Simpson : If I could just elaborate on that specific issue of monetising the risk assessment. The relevant section is on page 38 of the report. What we were looking for were clearly defined processes and communicated processes about how that would be undertaken and then the documentation of the delivery of that process—so the two elements that you would expect in a procurement process. Tender evaluation plans generally set out quite detailed arrangements and requirements to be complied with and then normally they are assessed against that.

In relation to the exercise undertaken by the tender evaluation committee, we found that there was no planned methodology for how this analysis would be undertaken. We could not identify that it had been clearly flagged to tenderers or set out in the tender evaluation plan that such an analysis would be undertaken. Further, the risk adjustment activity undertaken by the committee was not subject to probity scrutiny—so another key control in a procurement process that if you are undertaking an activity, then it is part of the probity considerations. As we mentioned earlier in the report, that element was not considered. When we raised this matter with Airservices, they advised us that there was limited evidence that the tender evaluation committee members agreed to the method of the cost risk adjustment activities. Again, not just going on paperwork; we went back to the organisation to confirm the understanding that we had and the confirmation we got that there was limited evidence to indicate that that had been the agreed methodology.

We also go on to highlight some of the inadequacies in the records in paragraph 3.57, where we lead-in by saying:

Further, the TEC's adjustment of tenderer prices to reflect its assessment of risk and contingency was not undertaken through a transparent and accountable process.

While there were minutes taken of those meetings, they were generally setting out 'the duration of each meeting, the people involved and the decisions reached'.

Importantly, 'The meeting minutes provided little insight into the analysis that was undertaken, or the factors taken into account.' So we can see a decision that has been taken from the records, but what informed that decision was not available from those records.

I think the other point that I would make is that later on, when a board member questioned the process, that board member was advised that the relevant information that he needed to refer to was in the attached spreadsheets. As part of this audit, we analysed those spreadsheets, and there is quite a detailed table, table 3.1 on page 40, which highlights what the financial evaluation working group's findings were and then the changes made by the tender evaluation committee. We can see, in a number of cases, no evidence to indicate why amounts were changed or why risks were changed between those two assessments. As Ms Mellor and Dr Ioannou indicated, our understanding is that, for a procurement process of this complexity, there are a number of requirements around contemporaneous record keeping, and we were not able to see those to form our judgement. On that basis, we cannot confirm the appropriateness of those processes, because we do not know the underlying decision-making process.

Senator GALLACHER: Was the board member satisfied at the direction to go to the spreadsheet?

Mr Simpson : We say in paragraphs 3.61 and 3.62:

In response, the TEB was advised by a member of the TEC that: 'the complete analysis was presented in annexes to the Phase 3 TEC Report' … The TEB relied on the TEC member's assurance for the criterion 4 evaluation method and subsequently approved the TEC's recommendation.

That highlights that they relied on that advice.

Senator GALLACHER: All board members are different, but they might have seen that as validation of a correct protocol which you found not to be substantially visible. It might be visible and it might be appropriate, but you cannot see it in hindsight. There are no notes or decision-making records.

Mr Simpson : Again, the end decision is not enough in itself unless you can understand what factors contributed to that decision.

CHAIR: The only people, it would seem, who could mount the case for the process despite the lack of transparency and the failure to communicate properly would be those individuals who are defending their own decision. There is no way to independently evaluate. We know that, because you have given evidence to that effect. So, even if we go back now to interrogate individuals on this issue to try to dig down, we can only work with individuals who made the decisions.

Ms Mellor : I think that is part of the difficulty when you do not have clean records with reasons for decisions in them. People's recollections are framed against the passage of time.

CHAIR: Confession is good for the soul, but it is not often practised. I think we have to ask some serious questions here. Let me ask these question, first of all, before I put something to you. Knowing what you know about the evaluation process, can this process be backed up—before I ask you whether it should be backed up—without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, if they have to go back to a point where, up until then, everyone is reasonably satisfied that due process has delivered a fair and equitable assessment? I have a thing that I do with my son in business. We get a blank sheet of paper and one of those big black felt pens and, for everything bad about something we are about to make a decision on, we put a dot on the page. It soon becomes evident that maybe this is not something you should pursue. This here has so many features, going all the way back to the governance issues in the first tranche of your work. I am just at a point where I am concerned. With a billion-dollar tender, we are now negotiating with the only one left standing. We do not even have competitive tension left in the place. Is there a way that this process could be rewound back a notch, or two or three notches, back to phase 2, and for us then to move forward again with better processes?

Ms Mellor : I might get Dr Ioannou to speak to that. I think the difficulty is that we cannot call it either way because of the lack of evidence. Whether a procurement can be unwound is a difficult sort of technical question for procurement specialists that work in the law and the guidelines more deeply. Dr Ioannou might have a view about that. The difficulty is that it is hard to see without the evidence about the pricing adjustments what actually went on other than that there were prices or amounts put against different risk factors as per table 3.1.

CHAIR: Do you know whether Mr Bradfield is still involved in this part of the process?

Ms Mellor : I think we can cross-reference between the timings on the two reports—

CHAIR: I think there is evidence that he was and that it was only—

Ms Mellor : I think Mr Harfield said in his earlier evidence that the contract with that person ended in October 2015. Some of this was happening in that time frame.

CHAIR: I think he said he was there past phase 4. There is some talk that he—as a consultant.

Ms Mellor : I have to say against the background that the governance structure—by having multiple committees, multiple people, evaluation criteria et cetera—puts in place some risk mitigation for some of the issues that were raised before.

CHAIR: It does Ms Mellor, but wouldn't you agree that if you were designing a system—and they have been alerted to the potential conflict; I do not want to reflect upon Mr Bradfield; he may be a wonderful man—to leave someone in the process all the way to the end, you can influence processes without apparently having a conflict or demonstrating a conflict of interest? You can build relationships and subtly do things and make a suggestion, plant seeds and do all sorts of things.

It is of real concern to me that we are now about to spend a billion dollars that this process is here to oversight and we have got all these features left in it. I used the term earlier that it was 'untidy'. You cannot give us an assurance that we got value for money. You cannot give us an assurance whether there was subjective behaviour on the part of decision makers because you do not have sufficient records to do it. There are important issues in your evidence that is contradicted by Airservices. They are not in total agreement with your findings. We are not going to ask you to express an opinion but—

Ms Mellor : I certainly would not give you one.

CHAIR: No, I appreciate that, otherwise I would have asked you by now. The fact of the matter is, I suppose, technically can it be rewound to a point where we think we are back onto safe sand?

Remember that particular ANAO session ended with this:

CHAIR: All right, thank you ladies and gentlemen. We appreciate your attendance, and safe travel back to wherever you are going. Just before you call Airservices back, Mr Mrdak, we have had some private discussions about this. We do not want to just go round and round in circles, and so I think we might elevate this and invite the board of Airservices to come along and discuss this national audit report. I do not see any benefit in going round with the Airservices personnel at the moment.

 


More information about Airservices Australia is available at www.airservicesaustralia.com.
   
Hmm...I would suggest that Muppet 6D's scriptwriters should be given the bureaucratic 'long drop' because they have now effectively got the miniscule to sign a confession of complicity on the government's ownership of the OneSKY tender duck-up... Confused

MTF...P2 Cool  

Ps
Quote:Senator XENOPHON: ...I just want to go to the question of the publication of documents on your website. If you had documents that have been released under FOI, there is a protocol that you are required by law to publish them on your website; is that right?

Mr Harfield : I am unfamiliar with that, but it is supposed to be that, once you have published them, they should be available to everyone.

Senator XENOPHON: Isn't there a legal requirement? Maybe, when Senator Rice is asking some questions, I will do a quick bit of research to find the relevant section if there is.

Mr Harfield : If there is, we need to comply.

Senator XENOPHON: The stories that were published by the ABC on the accelerate program, back in February of this year—they do not appear to be online, as I understand they are required to be.

Mr Harfield : I will check that, because there should be no reason that they are not.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us go back a step, though. Is there a protocol to ensure that documents that have been released under FOI are on your website?

Mr Harfield : There should be a protocol that we should be publishing them as per the FOI legislation.

Senator XENOPHON: And who can tell me what that protocol is? Is anyone here—

Mr Harfield : I do not have the FOI protocol in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide an explanation as to why the documents that were released under FOI that the ABC obtained for their stories earlier this year do not appear to be on the website? If they are on the website and I have not been able to find them, I apologise, but they do not appear to be on the website.

Mr Harfield : We will find them, and we will give you an explanation of that.
 How any Crown miniscule in their right mind would blindly state that they have full faith in the governance procedures and executive administration of ASA when the CEO can't even demonstrate compliance and/or transparency with his obligations to the FOI Act is beyond me... Undecided
Reply

The cleanest anus in Parliament House

Minister for Bryl cream, selfies, pedicures and manscaping said;

"Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said Sir Angus Houston brought extensive aviation experience to this critically important role, ensuring Airservices future delivery of safe and efficient air traffic services.

“In addition, Mr David Marchant and Mr Tim Rothwell have been reappointed for a further two years, to help the Board oversee the acquisition of a new air traffic management system for Australia,” Mr Chester said."


Yes Miniscule NFI 6D, the Board have done a wonderful job - issues with Staib, issues with Electric Blue, credit card fraud, a monopoly LOSING money, One Sky farce, unflattering audit reports, a gutting and restructure of the organisation in which virtually no safety risk assessment was undertaken, million dollar Consultants, fu#ked up Tender process and damning evidence of antiquated and non conforming infrastructure in various parts of Australia. And what does the Minister do? APPOINTS HARFWIT AS CEO, AND THEN REHIRES HOUSTON AND TWO OF THE OTHER BOARD MUPPETS AGAIN!!

The only two things Harfwit and the Board have achieved is a) taking a profitable organisation into the red, and b) making sure Chester has the cleanest Ministerial anus in Can'tberra and certainly Parliament House. If you did a DNA swab of 6D's anus you would find traces of the Board's saliva.

The wheels on the bus go round and round.........
Reply

The wheels on the bus go round and round........Looking for a suitable 'bump'; the ASA bus stop is looking good. Class action for a ' no class' act.
Reply

Spokesmuppet said;

"It would be inappropriate to comment on individual matters. Airservices is willing to engage with relevant parties to resolve any outstanding employment issues."

The old chestnut of 'no comment' gets pulled out of the pile yet again. It's a weasel method that the gutless Houston has used many many times throughout his bottom cleansing career. I wonder if that other corporate arse licker and author of complete shite, Creepy, has a rock solid contract just like ASA's executive tier?? I'm sure he does.....

Tick 'lick lick' Tock
Reply

But; it’s last years model dear,.

When the time comes to look at the maintenance bills for your old car, you do the sums. Particularly when the needed repairs will come at serious cost; then, even when you have spent the money; you still have the same old vehicle with a new transmission and tyres and a grim forecast for the next needed repairs. Two options; complete refit, rebuild and paint – or a new machine; with a warranty, compared to the uncertainty of reliability from the old machine.  Yep: trade in time – provided you can finance the new model.

When you take a long, realistic look at ASA you realise it is decision time. The time, labour and expense required to return the service to what it was, to finish up with the same vehicle; seems pointless. The ‘government’ was quite prepared to support the finance for a brand new one, with all the latest bells and whistles; so, unless the vehicle is a ‘classic’ and restoring it to mint condition improves the value – why would you contemplate restoration?

ASA is in a complete shambles - from soup to nuts; tea  lady to top brass – disarray. There will never be a better time, politically or operationally to draw a line on the ledger and start again. Estimates makes mention of some AUD 84 millions invested in ‘investigating and assessing’ a new system of air traffic management. I say that amount and more, is wasted through inefficiency every year. ASA lay claim to 11% of the worlds airspace - it does not manage 11% of the worlds traffic – far from it. In fact, if you took the total area of ‘airways’ managed, the picture would show a different proportion. ASA manage lots of wide open, thinly trafficked airspace – which hardly ever has an aircraft operating in it; let alone ‘traffic’.  I am certain Alan Joyce could magic some figures to show what delays and holding cost his company, across the fleet, on a daily basis – I’d even bet the ‘numbers’ would shock even Darren 6D into action.

There is a veritable fortune spent on the ‘top layers’ of management for this decrepit system. Yet the ‘big savings’ are made by reducing staff numbers; provided the mooted class action does not get up; which will, if it gets up, take the shine off even that small, faux saving.

I could rattle on about ineptitude, cronyism, perks, waste, loss of revenue, costs to air services etc. there is quite a long list of repairs needed. Would it not be better to put together a small panel to simply sit at home and review the modern systems available now and even some of those slated for the future; develop a plan, get government approval and ‘financial’ backing for the company which came up with the best deal and then privatise the thing as a not for profit enterprise. Can’t work you say; well, let me direct your attention to Canada a very similar nation – aviation wise – but with lots more ‘terrain’ and weather considerations than Australia. No, not ‘the’ perfect system – but streets ahead of this sorry wreck Australia should be ashamed of.

Can the minister provide a master plan for taking Australia into the 20th century, if he can’t envision the 21st.  Wacha mean – wrong tree – bark where it best pleases me, least I’m not chasing cars anymore…..

Toot – woof – toot.
Reply

(06-07-2017, 08:33 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(06-06-2017, 11:51 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  Update on Trumps plan to 'make air traffic control great again'

In a parallel world still far far away, Trump Announces Plan To Privatize Air Traffic Control

In part, the article about the FAA and El Presidento said;

President Trump announced Monday a plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system — a move that would remove the job of tracking and guiding airplanes from the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration. "Today we're proposing to take American air travel into the future, finally," Trump said.
The nation's air traffic control system was designed when far fewer people flew, Trump said, calling it "stuck, painfully, in the past." He also called the system "ancient, broken, antiquated" and "horrible" and said his reforms would make it safer and more reliable.
The FAA has worked to upgrade its system, but Trump and other critics say it was taking far too long. "Honestly, they didn't know what the hell they were doing," Trump said. "A total waste of money."

Link here;

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531574945/...ic-control

Interesting article as the similarity with Australia's issues are comparable. I guess the difference is that at least Trump seems to understand the issues. That's what happens when a real businessman knows his shit from the ground up, unlike the pole sliding Houston, blue blooded Turdball and the sheltered workshop pedicure loving Harfwit. These Muppets wouldn't to know an ATC controllers screen from a barium enema!

Can you imagine the spineless Malcolm Turdball, the trough addicted Houston or the conceited Electric Blue Harfwit bowing to such a proposal?? I agree, very unlikely...

"Safe, protected, bureaucratic troughs for all"

Good catch Gobbles - Wink

Here is another article courtesy USA Today:

Quote:In infrastructure push, Trump seeks to privatize air traffic control system



Meanwhile in a parallel hemisphere - Muppet 6D effectively announces that the government has full faith in the Harfwit administration & Sir A oversight of Airservices, while giving the green light to more wanton, ATP funded, OneSKY trough feeding Undecided :

Quote:Sir Angus signs to stay with Airservices Australia
Media Release
DC150/2017
02 June 2017

  • Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC (Rtd) reappointed to Airservices Australia (Airservices) Board as the Chair.
  • Mr David Marchant and Mr Tim Rothwell reappointed for two-year terms.
The Australian Government has reappointed Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC (Rtd) as the Chair of the Board of Airservices Australia for a further one year term.

Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said Sir Angus Houston brought extensive aviation experience to this critically important role, ensuring Airservices future delivery of safe and efficient air traffic services.

“In addition, Mr David Marchant and Mr Tim Rothwell have been reappointed for a further two years, to help the Board oversee the acquisition of a new air traffic management system for Australia,” Mr Chester said.

“These reappointments will also ensure valuable finance, safety and governance expertise is retained. - Code for the OneSKY trough fund will be nurtured and greedily protected... Dodgy

“Airservices is moving to replace its air traffic management system as part of a major capital expenditure and investment program of more than $1 billion over the next five years, to enhance the safety, efficiency and capacity of the national network, and meet anticipated growth in the industry.

“That is why having strong leadership will be essential in meeting the goals of Airservices Australia and why I am delighted to make this announcement,” Mr Chester said. - UDB! Does this Muppet have the first blind clue about what's been going on in the other house... Huh

Here is a reminder: Hansard 2nd Estimates session Australian National Audit Office

Quote:
 
   
Hmm...I would suggest that Muppet 6D's scriptwriters should be given the bureaucratic 'long drop' because they have now effectively got the miniscule to sign a confession of complicity on the government's ownership of the OneSKY tender duck-up... Confused

Ps
Quote:Senator XENOPHON: ...I just want to go to the question of the publication of documents on your website. If you had documents that have been released under FOI, there is a protocol that you are required by law to publish them on your website; is that right?

Mr Harfield : I am unfamiliar with that, but it is supposed to be that, once you have published them, they should be available to everyone.

Senator XENOPHON: Isn't there a legal requirement? Maybe, when Senator Rice is asking some questions, I will do a quick bit of research to find the relevant section if there is.

Mr Harfield : If there is, we need to comply.

Senator XENOPHON: The stories that were published by the ABC on the accelerate program, back in February of this year—they do not appear to be online, as I understand they are required to be.

Mr Harfield : I will check that, because there should be no reason that they are not.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us go back a step, though. Is there a protocol to ensure that documents that have been released under FOI are on your website?

Mr Harfield : There should be a protocol that we should be publishing them as per the FOI legislation.

Senator XENOPHON: And who can tell me what that protocol is? Is anyone here—

Mr Harfield : I do not have the FOI protocol in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide an explanation as to why the documents that were released under FOI that the ABC obtained for their stories earlier this year do not appear to be on the website? If they are on the website and I have not been able to find them, I apologise, but they do not appear to be on the website.

Mr Harfield : We will find them, and we will give you an explanation of that.
 How any Crown miniscule in their right mind would blindly state that they have full faith in the governance procedures and executive administration of ASA when the CEO can't even demonstrate compliance and/or transparency with his obligations to the FOI Act is beyond me... Undecided

Update: US ATC privatisation debate rages on - Shy

By Joan Lowy, via the Washington Times:


Quote:Q&A: The pros and cons of privatizing air traffic control

[Image: trump_air_traffic_control_36517_c0-434-5...0a96408f18]
President Trump is looking to shift responsibility for the air traffic control system from the government to a private, nonprofit corporation run by airlines and other aviation interests. (Associated Press)
Print
By JOAN LOWY - Associated Press - Tuesday, June 6, 2017

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. air traffic control system, the world’s largest and most complex, is in the midst of an era of unsurpassed safety. There has not been a fatal crash of a domestic passenger airliner in the U.S. in eight years.

Now President Donald Trump is looking to shift responsibility for the system from the government to a private, nonprofit corporation run by airlines and other aviation interests. The handover of about 300 airport towers and other flight tracking centers would be one of the largest transfers of U.S. government assets. About 35,000 workers, including 14,000 controllers and 6,000 technicians, would be affected.

Privatization supporters, including some Republican lawmakers, say it would improve efficiency and modernize the air-traffic system. But congressional approval isn’t certain. Some lawmakers in both parties are reluctant to give up oversight. Some politically influential business aircraft operators, private pilots, small aircraft manufacturers and medium- and small-sized airports fear airlines will dominate the corporation’s board, resulting in higher fees for them and less service.

There are also concerns about whether the air traffic system would suffer during the transition.

Some questions and answers about what’s at stake:

WHY MESS WITH A GOOD THING?

The idea is to remove air traffic control from the vagaries of the government budget process, which has limited the Federal Aviation Administration’s ability to commit to long-term contracts and raise money for major expenditures.

That’s hampered the agency’s “NextGen” program to modernize the air traffic system by switching from radar and radio communications to GPS surveillance and digital voice and text communications. Recent controller furloughs and government shutdowns have worsened the problem.

___

WHAT IS THE SITUATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES?

Many countries have created government-owned corporations, independent government agencies or quasi-governmental entities. Canada is the only country to create what is clearly a private nonprofit air-traffic corporation. NavCanada can raise private capital, make long-term financial commitments, and it recently lowered the fees it charges airlines.

But the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported last month that there appears to be no conclusive evidence that any of those approaches is better or worse than government-run services, including the FAA’s, in terms of productivity, cost-effectiveness, service quality, and safety and security.

___

WHO WANTS TO DO THIS?

The U.S. airline industry has been campaigning since the 1980s to privatize air traffic control to try to gain greater control over the system, reduce their costs and replace airline passenger ticket taxes with user fees based on takeoffs, landings and other operations. The Clinton administration proposed spinning off air traffic operations into a government corporation but ran into congressional opposition.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., has proposed using NavCanada as a model. But he couldn’t win enough support to bring legislation to the House floor last year, and he faced even greater opposition in the Senate. Trump administration officials have cited Shuster’s bill as a starting point for their efforts.

Shuster received $148,499 in airline industry campaign contributions last year, making him the industry’s top recipient in the House, according to the political money tracking site Opensecrets.org.

___

IS NEXTGEN IN TROUBLE?

The FAA has been working for more than a decade on NextGen. Early on, it predicted the program would be completed by 2025, but officials now describe NextGen as an evolving effort with no end date.

The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2015 that the original vision for NextGen of transforming the air traffic system has devolved into a series of incremental changes that primarily emphasize replacing aging equipment and systems.

But FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said recently the agency has made “tremendous progress” revamping the system with the latest technology, and is poised to switch from ground-based radar to GPS surveillance. The switch is expected to save time and fuel and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Huerta has predicted $13 billion in benefits to the government and aircraft operators by 2020, with greater gains after that.

Calvin Scovel, the Transportation Department’s inspector general and a frequent NextGen critic, recently told the House transportation committee that even though the program hasn’t met expectations, it’s not broken.

___

WOULD PRIVATIZATION HELP?

Privatization supporters complain that the FAA’s procurement process is so cumbersome that new equipment is no longer the latest technology by the time it’s acquired. Also, delays in updating landing and takeoff procedures to incorporate technological advances make the system less efficient. Airlines say that costs them billions of dollars in flight delays each year.

A corporation would be free of such government regulations and could act faster and with more flexibility, supporters say. The FAA would still provide safety oversight.

Opponents say there’s no evidence a corporation run by airlines would do a better job. Major U.S. airlines have suffered massive computer outages in recent years that have roiled air travel.

___

WHERE DO AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS STAND?

Their union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, endorsed Shuster’s bill after winning assurances that controller wages, benefits and collective bargaining rights would be protected. Union leaders say controllers are tired of working with outdated equipment and are concerned about government shutdowns and furloughs

Still got a long, long, way to go but unlike our NFI, AIOS inflicted miniscule and government..
Quote:AIOS - & the 21st Century??

...The industry has "acquired institutionalised ostrichitis syndrome" (AIOS).

[Image: crisis.gif]

 ...at least they're having the debate... Dodgy  



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

Harfwit's FOI disclosure log update -  Blush  

Reference:

(03-02-2017, 08:19 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  


Quote: Wrote:Senator XENOPHON: ...I just want to go to the question of the publication of documents on your website. If you had documents that have been released under FOI, there is a protocol that you are required by law to publish them on your website; is that right?

Mr Harfield : I am unfamiliar with that, but it is supposed to be that, once you have published them, they should be available to everyone.

Senator XENOPHON: Isn't there a legal requirement? Maybe, when Senator Rice is asking some questions, I will do a quick bit of research to find the relevant section if there is.

Mr Harfield : If there is, we need to comply.

Senator XENOPHON: The stories that were published by the ABC on the accelerate program, back in February of this year—they do not appear to be online, as I understand they are required to be.

Mr Harfield : I will check that, because there should be no reason that they are not.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us go back a step, though. Is there a protocol to ensure that documents that have been released under FOI are on your website?

Mr Harfield : There should be a protocol that we should be publishing them as per the FOI legislation.

Senator XENOPHON: And who can tell me what that protocol is? Is anyone here—

Mr Harfield : I do not have the FOI protocol in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide an explanation as to why the documents that were released under FOI that the ABC obtained for their stories earlier this year do not appear to be on the website? If they are on the website and I have not been able to find them, I apologise, but they do not appear to be on the website.

Mr Harfield : We will find them, and we will give you an explanation of that.

How any Crown miniscule in their right mind would blindly state that they have full faith in the governance procedures and executive administration of ASA when the CEO can't even demonstrate compliance and/or transparency with his obligations to the FOI Act is beyond me... [Image: undecided.gif]   


..Yet when it comes to the FOI Act it would appear he (Harfwit) firmly plants his middle finger to both the Act and Airservices responsibility to the Act...
Quote:Description of Documents

07 June 2011 Flights conducted by private jets in 2010

10 June 2011 Radar Terrain Clearance Charts

21 September 2011 Radar information in relation to aircraft VH-CIV

24 October 2011 Flight plans for various aircraft

08 December 2011 Flight plans for various aircraft

19 December 2011 Flight plans for various aircraft

15 March 2012 Flight plans for various aircraft

18 June 2012 Documents in relation to UFO sightings

21 June 2012 Flight data over Kurnell NSW

20 July 2012 Environmental assessments carried out by Airservices in relation to flight paths over Fingal Head

13 August 2012 Documents in relation to ATC short break procedure

16 August 2012 Documents in relation to Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS)

29 August 2012 Flight plans for various aircraft

12 September 2012 Documents in relation to radar and radio transmitter sites

30 November 2012 Documents in relation to the report into the review/audit the board carried out into the expenses of the former CEO of Airservices

5 December 2012 Flight plans for various aircraft

3 December 2013 Documents in relation to Air Traffic Control local instructions and training material used by Air Traffic Control.

23 December 2013 Details of the remuneration rates for all senior leadership team members (3rd level managers) in Airservices Australia, including their total remuneration and total.

9 January 2014 Documents in relation to Air Traffic Control local instructions.

11 March 2014 Correspondence from Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston of Airservices Australia to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development – since 8 September 2013 to January 2014.

9 April 2014 Documents relating to the radar replay in relation to the “near miss” event between an aircraft and an “unknown object” over metropolitan Perth at 0913 WST on the 19th of March, 2014.

30 September 2014 Documents relating to any primary and secondary radar contacts over the town of, and regional area surrounding Armidale, New South Wales on the night of Sunday the 21st of September, 2014.

1 October 2014 Documents relating to consultation done regarding changes to Airservices work performance framework.

20 October 2014 Documents relating to noise monitoring around Busselton Regional Airport (BRA).

6 December 2014 Documents relating to Airservices tender number ASA RFT PRN4811 (ARFF modular fire station) Port Hedland WA.

9 February 2014 Documents relating to the contract and relationship between International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) and Airservices Australia.  
2 July 2015 Transcript of audio between air traffic control and pilot in command.

14 July 2015 Documents relating to aircraft noise around Ashgrove QLD.

30 July 2015 Documents relating to Geelong Planning Permit PP879 2014 helicopter landing site (Victoria).  

25 August 2015 Primary radar data for Cairns International Airport for 18 August 2015.

28 August 2015 Primary radar data for Tullamarine Airport Melbourne for 23 August 2015

(P2 comment - Note date of last input to the ASA FOI disclosure log, this roughly corresponds to when Harfwit took over in the acting CEO role at ASA.. Dodgy  )

Now it could be that Harfwit has received NIL FOI requests since 28 August 2015?? Unfortunately for Harfwit we already know that the other Aunty's Sveen & Sturmer have already had a successful FOI request, that by (FOI Act) definition should already be fully disclosed? So where the duck is it??

Now it could also be the ASA FOI crew are part of match fit Harfwit's accelerate (cull) me program?? However IMO this would appear to be a direct conflict of interest with the ASA SMS and the ICAO approved Australian SSP. This is because, as everyone in the SMS world knows, the integrity and effectiveness of an SMS is dependent on the full and frank disclosure of all safety sensitive information or reports as per ICAO/CASA endorsed 'just culture' principles... Rolleyes  

In the last couple of days Harfwit's FOI minion has been bizarrely busy adding yet more entries to the previously neglected ASA FOI disclosure log... Shy

(Recent entries in red)

Quote:28 August 2015 Primary radar data for Tullamarine Airport Melbourne for 23 August 2015.

03 September 2015 Primary radar data from Cairns International Airport.

14 September 2015 Primary radar data, tracks, returns, sourced from Tullamarine Airport, Melbourne.

30 November 2015 Flight plans and/or flight records for January 2014 onward for:
– the helicopter VH-FOX
– the aircraft VH-LEP, VH-LEF and VH-LZP
– the aircraft VH-CCD, VH-CCX and VH-CCV.

07 December 2015 Guidelines under which an environmental assessment is completed and documents related to the incomplete trial over Canning Vale.

02 March 2016 Instructions/procedures and correspondence in regards to how air traffic controllers at Melbourne airport should respond to ‘double go-arounds ‘ situations during Land And Hold Short Operations (LAHSO).

02 March 2016 Copies of all advice provided by Airservices to Hon Warren Truss MP, Deputy Prime Minister on the now approved Gold Coast ILS.

10 March 2016 Documents between elected members, Perth Airport, Airservices and AECOM.

22 March 2016 Documents related to Tethered UAV Operations.

19 April 2016 Documents related to Trips Airservices Australia staff have made to France for discussions regarding OneSKY.

27 May 2016 Expenditure details of corporate credit card or cards on the Airservices Australia account held by acting CEO at the time.

23 June 2016 Airservices Australia ATC Workplace Assessment Brisbane Operations Room.

09 November 2016 Radar replays and flight information for Saturday 9 Jan 2016 (4.20pm to 5pm) and Friday 26 August 2011 between 5.30 pm and 5.40 pm.

12 November 2016 Flight plan lodged and any recordings with air traffic control regarding a private helicopter.


16 December 2016 (stage 1) and 22 December 2016 (stage 2) Documents related to branch assurance assessments, DRE assurance assessments, OLR unit assurance assessments and ToM (Target Operating Model) risk assessments.
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

(06-15-2017, 08:09 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Harfwit's FOI disclosure log update -  Blush  

Reference:

(03-02-2017, 08:19 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  


Quote: Wrote:Senator XENOPHON: ...I just want to go to the question of the publication of documents on your website. If you had documents that have been released under FOI, there is a protocol that you are required by law to publish them on your website; is that right?

Mr Harfield : I am unfamiliar with that, but it is supposed to be that, once you have published them, they should be available to everyone.

Senator XENOPHON: Isn't there a legal requirement? Maybe, when Senator Rice is asking some questions, I will do a quick bit of research to find the relevant section if there is.

Mr Harfield : If there is, we need to comply.

Senator XENOPHON: The stories that were published by the ABC on the accelerate program, back in February of this year—they do not appear to be online, as I understand they are required to be.

Mr Harfield : I will check that, because there should be no reason that they are not.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us go back a step, though. Is there a protocol to ensure that documents that have been released under FOI are on your website?

Mr Harfield : There should be a protocol that we should be publishing them as per the FOI legislation.

Senator XENOPHON: And who can tell me what that protocol is? Is anyone here—

Mr Harfield : I do not have the FOI protocol in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide an explanation as to why the documents that were released under FOI that the ABC obtained for their stories earlier this year do not appear to be on the website? If they are on the website and I have not been able to find them, I apologise, but they do not appear to be on the website.

Mr Harfield : We will find them, and we will give you an explanation of that.

How any Crown miniscule in their right mind would blindly state that they have full faith in the governance procedures and executive administration of ASA when the CEO can't even demonstrate compliance and/or transparency with his obligations to the FOI Act is beyond me... [Image: undecided.gif]   


..Yet when it comes to the FOI Act it would appear he (Harfwit) firmly plants his middle finger to both the Act and Airservices responsibility to the Act...
Quote:Description of Documents

07 June 2011 Flights conducted by private jets in 2010

10 June 2011 Radar Terrain Clearance Charts

21 September 2011 Radar information in relation to aircraft VH-CIV

24 October 2011 Flight plans for various aircraft

08 December 2011 Flight plans for various aircraft

19 December 2011 Flight plans for various aircraft

15 March 2012 Flight plans for various aircraft

18 June 2012 Documents in relation to UFO sightings

21 June 2012 Flight data over Kurnell NSW

20 July 2012 Environmental assessments carried out by Airservices in relation to flight paths over Fingal Head

13 August 2012 Documents in relation to ATC short break procedure

16 August 2012 Documents in relation to Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS)

29 August 2012 Flight plans for various aircraft

12 September 2012 Documents in relation to radar and radio transmitter sites

30 November 2012 Documents in relation to the report into the review/audit the board carried out into the expenses of the former CEO of Airservices

5 December 2012 Flight plans for various aircraft

3 December 2013 Documents in relation to Air Traffic Control local instructions and training material used by Air Traffic Control.

23 December 2013 Details of the remuneration rates for all senior leadership team members (3rd level managers) in Airservices Australia, including their total remuneration and total.

9 January 2014 Documents in relation to Air Traffic Control local instructions.

11 March 2014 Correspondence from Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston of Airservices Australia to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development – since 8 September 2013 to January 2014.

9 April 2014 Documents relating to the radar replay in relation to the “near miss” event between an aircraft and an “unknown object” over metropolitan Perth at 0913 WST on the 19th of March, 2014.

30 September 2014 Documents relating to any primary and secondary radar contacts over the town of, and regional area surrounding Armidale, New South Wales on the night of Sunday the 21st of September, 2014.

1 October 2014 Documents relating to consultation done regarding changes to Airservices work performance framework.

20 October 2014 Documents relating to noise monitoring around Busselton Regional Airport (BRA).

6 December 2014 Documents relating to Airservices tender number ASA RFT PRN4811 (ARFF modular fire station) Port Hedland WA.

9 February 2014 Documents relating to the contract and relationship between International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) and Airservices Australia.  
2 July 2015 Transcript of audio between air traffic control and pilot in command.

14 July 2015 Documents relating to aircraft noise around Ashgrove QLD.

30 July 2015 Documents relating to Geelong Planning Permit PP879 2014 helicopter landing site (Victoria).  

25 August 2015 Primary radar data for Cairns International Airport for 18 August 2015.

28 August 2015 Primary radar data for Tullamarine Airport Melbourne for 23 August 2015

(P2 comment - Note date of last input to the ASA FOI disclosure log, this roughly corresponds to when Harfwit took over in the acting CEO role at ASA.. Dodgy  )

Now it could be that Harfwit has received NIL FOI requests since 28 August 2015?? Unfortunately for Harfwit we already know that the other Aunty's Sveen & Sturmer have already had a successful FOI request, that by (FOI Act) definition should already be fully disclosed? So where the duck is it??

Now it could also be the ASA FOI crew are part of match fit Harfwit's accelerate (cull) me program?? However IMO this would appear to be a direct conflict of interest with the ASA SMS and the ICAO approved Australian SSP. This is because, as everyone in the SMS world knows, the integrity and effectiveness of an SMS is dependent on the full and frank disclosure of all safety sensitive information or reports as per ICAO/CASA endorsed 'just culture' principles... Rolleyes  

In the last couple of days Harfwit's FOI minion has been bizarrely busy adding yet more entries to the previously neglected ASA FOI disclosure log... Shy

(Recent entries in red)

Quote:28 August 2015 Primary radar data for Tullamarine Airport Melbourne for 23 August 2015.

03 September 2015 Primary radar data from Cairns International Airport.

14 September 2015 Primary radar data, tracks, returns, sourced from Tullamarine Airport, Melbourne.

30 November 2015 Flight plans and/or flight records for January 2014 onward for:
– the helicopter VH-FOX
– the aircraft VH-LEP, VH-LEF and VH-LZP
– the aircraft VH-CCD, VH-CCX and VH-CCV.

07 December 2015 Guidelines under which an environmental assessment is completed and documents related to the incomplete trial over Canning Vale.

02 March 2016 Instructions/procedures and correspondence in regards to how air traffic controllers at Melbourne airport should respond to ‘double go-arounds ‘ situations during Land And Hold Short Operations (LAHSO).

02 March 2016 Copies of all advice provided by Airservices to Hon Warren Truss MP, Deputy Prime Minister on the now approved Gold Coast ILS.

10 March 2016 Documents between elected members, Perth Airport, Airservices and AECOM.

22 March 2016 Documents related to Tethered UAV Operations.

19 April 2016 Documents related to Trips Airservices Australia staff have made to France for discussions regarding OneSKY.

27 May 2016 Expenditure details of corporate credit card or cards on the Airservices Australia account held by acting CEO at the time.

23 June 2016 Airservices Australia ATC Workplace Assessment Brisbane Operations Room.

09 November 2016 Radar replays and flight information for Saturday 9 Jan 2016 (4.20pm to 5pm) and Friday 26 August 2011 between 5.30 pm and 5.40 pm.

12 November 2016 Flight plan lodged and any recordings with air traffic control regarding a private helicopter.


16 December 2016 (stage 1) and 22 December 2016 (stage 2) Documents related to branch assurance assessments, DRE assurance assessments, OLR unit assurance assessments and ToM (Target Operating Model) risk assessments.

Breaking News:

Houston we may have a problem - again... Blush


Extract from today's Senate Hansard:


Quote:COMMITTEES

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Reference

 Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (12:29): At the request of Senator O'Sullivan, I move:

That—
(a) in accordance with standing order 25(2) (a), the performance of Airservices Australia be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report; and
(b) in conducting its inquiry, the committee have the power to consider and use the records of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee appointed in the previous Parliament.

Question agreed to.

MTF...P2 Confused
Reply

How many re-re's does a clusterduck make?

Going back in time there has been many a re-iteration of inquiry/review of the performance of CASA, with the Forsyth review being the latest to suffer from delay, obfuscation and a total Iron Ring rejection of reform... Dodgy

The ATSB has also its share of broken reform action and re-investigation with PelAir after nearly 8 years still on the books, again for little or no noticeable positive change.

Now we have the ASA entering the ranks of rejected review with a re-referral/rerun of the Senate performance inquiry:

Quote:Performance of Airservices Australia

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is conducting an inquiry into the performance of Airservice Australia under Standing Order 25 (2) (a).

On 9 May 2016, the inquiry lapsed with the dissolution of the Senate and House of Representatives for a general election on 2 July 2016.  

On 15 June 2017 the Senate agreed to re-refer the inquiry.

Submissions and additional information received are available on the inquiry webpage.

Committee Secretariat contact:
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3511
Fax: +61 2 6277 5811
rrat.sen@aph.gov.au
  
Totally UDB!  Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

PFOS contamination remains a concern at Cairns airport and further testing will commence soon;

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns...8df68033e2

I hope Harfwit and Bus driver Houston have a bucket of money tucked away somewhere for when the contaminated airports issue finally explodes because it is going to cost Air Shortages Australia a heck of a lot of money. And when you consider the current Board and CEO are presiding over a money printing machine that is now running in the red after losing 90% of its profits in less than 3 years it seems unlikely they will be able to pay for this giant national clusterf#ck....

TICK TOCK
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)