Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Things that go bump in the night,
To get the right response; write the ToR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Toot toot.
Reply
P2 reading the tea leaves (silicon chips) - Rolleyes

Further to my hypothsesis  Smile

By that man 'Iggins in the Weekend Oz:
Quote:Air safety alarm as ANAO criticises OneSKY rollout

[Image: 6765bcc44e7c2ba3d88aa3d92397260a?width=650]Airser­vices chief executive Jason Harfield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She said OneSKY “is not an off-the-shelf product” and “we will not apologise for taking the time to ensure we get it right. We are still negotiating … to ensure we reach a value for money outcome.”
  
The comment about Harfield changing his LinkedIn profile, is truly fascinating... Shy 

Quote:Executive General Manager, Future Service Delivery


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

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

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

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

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

Quote:On FOI requests & word weasel confections - [Image: dodgy.gif] 

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

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

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

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

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

[Image: imagesME7VEK5X.jpg]


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
There's a hole in the OneSKY bucket, Dear Angus.. Dodgy


(04-15-2017, 08:50 AM)Peetwo Wrote: P2 reading the tea leaves (silicon chips) - Rolleyes

Further to my hypothsesis  Smile

By that man 'Iggins in the Weekend Oz:
Quote:Air safety alarm as ANAO criticises OneSKY rollout

[Image: 6765bcc44e7c2ba3d88aa3d92397260a?width=650]Airser­vices chief executive Jason Harfield.

Ean Higgins
The Australian
12:00AM April 15, 2017
https://plus.google.com/116716661262546957732
@EanHiggins
  
The comment about Harfield changing his LinkedIn profile, is truly fascinating... Shy 

Quote:Executive General Manager, Future Service Delivery


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

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

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

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

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

Quote:On FOI requests & word weasel confections - [Image: dodgy.gif] 

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

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

[Image: imagesME7VEK5X.jpg]

Update via the PS News... Confused :

Quote:Audit airs fears over air traffic tender


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

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

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

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

Value for money questioned

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

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

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

He also expressed concern at the timeliness of the process.

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

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

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

The Auditor-General’s 60-page report can be accessed at this PS News link[b] [/b]and the audit team was Emilia Schiavo, Hannah Conway, Angus Hirst, Tina Long and Brian Boyd.
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Don't mention the war? - Or OneSKY, Harfwits or Audits.

Just a bit of a ASA update... Rolleyes

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

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

Example: 
Quote:Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

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

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

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

The article continues:

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

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

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

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

Answer:

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

P2 comment: Funny how Harfwit was full, frank and friendly when it came to the Senators, while totally forgetting to mention that he had made a Hood style sook in response to the ABC report:
Quote:[Image: 308Z26F6K16OGK-400x266.jpg]
News Item

Airservices statement on recent ABC coverage
15 Feb 2017
Any suggestion that Airservices is compromising on safety is totally incorrect and refused. There is no risk to the travelling public.
  
  
Next on the ASA news front was that the 8 month+ vacant ASA Board position..
Quote:See answer to Sterle Corporate Services QON 92: PDF 220KB 
..has now been filled.  The tightly scripted, low key announcement of this appointment by the miniscule is IMO fascinating more for what doesn't get said than what does... Huh
Quote:Board appointment will help Airservices Australia deliver major reforms
Media Release
DC103/2017
01 May 2017

  • John Weber's appointment enhances board's legal and governance expertise
  • Appointment timely as Airservices undertakes a major infrastructure program and replaces its air traffic management system.
The Australian Government has appointed John Weber to the Board of Airservices Australia for a three-year term, bolstering the authority's public sector governance and legal expertise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.
 

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

MTF...P2 Cool


Attached Files
.pdf   07_Airservices.pdf (Size: 189.86 KB / Downloads: 1)
Reply
OFDS.

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

Now there’s a fine statement; considering it was the boards ‘skills’ which has allowed ASA to degenerate into the pathetic state in which it now exists, on life support and comatosed . One can only hope Weber’s skills clash with board ‘skills’; and fail to ‘complement’, that way something may be saved from the wreckage.

If ASA were a ship, foundered on a reef the board on inquiry would find that each of the seven deadly sins and a couple of their mates were on deck at the time.

[Image: 698px-Boschsevendeadlysins.jpg]
Reply
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


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)