[Peetwo]

A new hat - for the minister:- Part II 

Courtesy Senator McKenzie, via X...

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie
???

We also have the Commie Greens trying to take credit for the Harfwit's demise...   

Via Oz Flying: Jason Harfield to leave Airservices

According to Greens Spokesperson for Transport, Infrastructure and Sustainable Cities, Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP, Harfield was not reappointed because of pressure over noise complaints, particularly from Brisbane.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP, Greens spokesperson for Transport, Infrastructure and Sustainable Cities:

“Today’s announcement that Airservices Australia CEO Jason Harfield’s contract won’t be renewed by the Minister is clear result of pressure from the Brisbane community and the Greens who have highlighted ASA’s repeated failures, particularly in dealing with aircraft noise issues," Watson-Brown said.

“Minister King’s decision, overturning the board of ASA who recommended Mr Harfield’s reappointment, is clear recognition of ASA’s failures and the need for change. But this isn’t a PR crisis, it’s a real one affecting residents all across this country.

“More than just a CEO replacement is required for real change at ASA. While ASA continues to rely on fees from airlines for their funding, they can never be a truly independent body that makes decisions based on the safety and health of the community."

However I'm not buying it and I believe Senator McKenzie is the true hero of the hour, remember this??

7,036 views  Feb 13, 2024
Senator McKENZIE: Wow! Next time we will have to have the board here because you are taking the rope and running as hard and fast as you can with your million-dollar salary while you are presiding over an absolute shit show—let's be frank. And your board is reappointing you, despite the fact that, on every metric of what would be a successful chief executive officer's behaviour, you are failing. So that has gone up to Minister King?
Ref:  The Harfwit Shit Show rolls on in non-compliance with international aviation safety standards??
TGIF on the AP Forum: 16/02/24 https://auntypru.com/tgif-on-the-ap-forum-16-02-24/

Oh well enough of bragging rights and back to the 'shit show' that will IMO continue until you clean the whole Board and most of the current executive team and resolve to fix our non-compliance with ICAO.

 Continue/- 

Chalk & Cheese: Annex 11 notified differences - USA v Oz

...Here is the Oz ND list (a fairly reasonable 4 pages): https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...EP2023.pdf

However I now want to focus on TIBA, which falls under Chapter 4 para 4.2.2:

4.2.2 Flight information service provided to flights shall include, in addition to that outlined in 4.2.1, the provision of information concerning:

a) weather conditions reported or forecast at departure, destination and alternate aerodromes;

b) collision hazards, to aircraft operating in airspace Classes C, D, E, F and G;

  c) for flight over water areas, in so far as practicable and when requested by a pilot, any available information such
      as radio call sign, position, true track, speed, etc., of surface vessels in the area.

Note 1.— The information in b), including only known aircraft the presence of which might constitute a collision hazard to the aircraft informed, will sometimes be incomplete and air traffic services cannot assume responsibility for its issuance at all times or for its accuracy.

Note 2.— When there is a need to supplement collision hazard information provided in compliance with b), or in case of temporary disruption of flight information service, traffic information broadcasts by aircraft may be applied in designated airspaces. Guidance on traffic information broadcasts by aircraft and related operating procedures is contained in Attachment B.

Here is the Oz ND for that paragraph:

Partially implemented. In Class E and Class G
airspace, a VFR aircraft is provided specific
information concerning collision hazards
(traffic information) only if: a. the aircraft is
within surveillance system coverage and b. the
pilot is receiving a surveillance information
service (the aircraft is identified)

This is the ICAO Annex 11 Attachment B - 1. Introduction and applicability
of broadcasts:

1.1 Traffic information broadcasts by aircraft are intended
to permit reports and relevant supplementary information of an
advisory nature to be transmitted by pilots on a designated
VHF radiotelephone (RTF) frequency for the information of
pilots of other aircraft in the vicinity.

1.2 TIBAs should be introduced only when necessary and
as a temporary measure.

1.3 The broadcast procedures should be applied in
designated airspace where:

a) there is a need to supplement collision hazard information provided by air traffic services outside controlled
airspace; or
b) there is a temporary disruption of normal air traffic
services.

1.4 Such airspaces should be identified by the States
responsible for provision of air traffic services within these
airspaces, if necessary with the assistance of the appropriate
ICAO Regional Office(s), and duly promulgated in aeronautical information publications or NOTAM, together with
the VHF RTF frequency, the message formats and the
procedures to be used. Where, in the case of 1.3 a), more than
one State is involved, the airspace should be designated on the
basis of regional air navigation agreements and promulgated
in Doc 7030.

1.5 When establishing a designated airspace, dates for the
review of its applicability at intervals not exceeding 12 months
should be agreed by the appropriate ATS authority(ies).

This is the Skybrary reference for TIBA: Traffic Information Broadcasts by Aircraft (TIBA)

Designation of TIBA Areas

ICAO envisages that TIBA procedures should only apply in designated airspace where either it is necessary "to supplement collision hazard information provided by air traffic services outside controlled airspace" or "there is a temporary disruption of normal air traffic services". In the former case, if more than one Member State is involved in a designation, it is expected that it will be promulgated in ICAO Doc 7030. Airspace and frequency designation for TIBA is considered to be the responsibility of the Member State and should be promulgated by means of a NOTAM which details the message formats and procedures to be used. ICAO also expects that TIBA designations will be reviewed at intervals "not exceeding 12 months". It is accepted that if a TIBA procedure is being introduced because of a temporary disruption to the provision of ATS in controlled airspace, then one or more frequencies normally used for that purpose in the designated airspace may be used for TIBA.

Hmm...so I guess legally Betsy, Su_Spence and Harfwit could argue that they are operating TIBA airspace within compliance of the ICAO SARPs. However whether they are operating TIBA within the original spirit and intent of the SARPs IMO should be severely scrutinised by ICAO and the FAA IASA, given the heightened potential for a safety incident occurring in such compromised self-separating airspace (or I quess, we could notify a further difference to Annex 11 Attachment B )??

On TIBA I note that Senator McKenzie has some outstanding QON (yet to be answered) on the subject:

Bridget McKenzie

[*]Asked Of Airservices Australia
[*]Proof Hansard Page/Written Written
[*]Portfolio Question Number SQ24-000236
[*]Question
1. How many TIBA events occurred in the past five years?
2. Can you please provide the date, times (hours and duration) and locations of all TIBA events that occurred over the past five years?
3. Please provide the details of the number of services disrupted by each event.
4. Please provide the cumulative total of the hours of TIBA events for each calendar year for the last five years.

[*]  
TICK TOCK goes the Dicky King, Betsy and Su_Spence CLOCK, TICK TOCK INDEED! 

MTF...P2