[Peetwo]

Harfwit & the Peter Principle -

Extract from this week's SBG: A Tragic Situation Blossoming.

‘Promoted to a level of incompetence’; a phrased coined by L.J. Peter. “It states that the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence".

IMO for an even better example (than HVH) of the 'Peter Principle', one cannot go past the Airservices Board's glove puppet CEO Jason Harfield...

From the other Aunty today, here is further proof of the sheer incompetence of 'Electric Blue' Harfwit and his executive minions:  

Airservices Australia admits it did not 'consult sufficiently' over new Hobart flight paths
By Rhiana Whitson

Updated about 6 hours ago Mon 13 Nov 2017, 12:20pm



Photo: Residents say the changes are like "living under a superhighway". (Supplied: Julie Smith)

Airservices Australia has admitted bungling the consultation process for a new Hobart arrival flight path over Dunalley, saying it was unaware the area was still recovering from the 2013 bushfires.

There's growing anger about the decision to introduce a singular flight path into Hobart airport and on Saturday, more than 100 people attended an information session held by the Federal Government-owned company to demand answers.

Previously, planes flying in and out of Hobart were dispersed over a number of flight paths but now they fly over Copping, Boomer Bay, Dunalley and Connelly's Marsh, before turning into the airport.



Photo: The community meeting heard about alternative flight paths. (ABC News: Rhiana Whitson)

Airservices Australia southern operations manager Steve Clarke said the increase in the number of planes flying into the state and the availability of new technology meant a singular route was necessary.

"What we are doing is making it safer, because it is far more predictable and less complex, there is less air traffic controller intervention in the process," he said.

Residents at the meeting grilled Airservices staff, demanding to know why the change had been imposed on them without consultation.

Mr Clarke, who said the change would not result in air traffic control job cuts, added that Airservices Australia would review its internal procedures.

"I am here to acknowledge that we didn't consult sufficiently on these changes," he said.

"I can see that it's a close-knit community. They've been through some issues that we weren't aware of in terms of bushfire and other things. I have certainly heard their concerns."

Residents voiced concerns about the effect plane noise would have on tourism.
Tom Gray is starting a new business in the area but is considering pulling the pin because of the plan.

"No-one is going to want to get married under a flight path," he said.

"When you are trying to promote Tasmania's beauty, with its views, produce and serenity, I feel this will be majorly interrupted under 30 plus planes a day."



Photo: New flight paths over the bushfire-affected communities in Tasmania have residents devastated. (Supplied: Tam Joy Jansen)

Resident David Patman obtained Airservices Australia documents under Freedom of Information laws.

He said they showed a discrepancy between what the company knew and what it wanted to say publicly.

The environmental assessment for the Hobart Airport flight path plan said there would be newly overflown areas, and recommended stakeholder engagement.

"The proposed changes may result in visual change to aircraft tracking and/or noise levels," the assessment said.

In contrast, a document containing communications briefing notes repeatedly instructed the company to tell Hobart Airport, Federal MPs, and residents that "the proposed flight paths will not overfly new residents".

Mr Patman said he was considering lodging a complaint against Airservices Australia with the Commonwealth ombudsman.

"It really concerns me that they have misled and provided false information in order to get this through," he said.

"The first we heard of it was 30 planes flying overhead a day."

Resident Rachel Deane said the community was still getting back on its feet after 2013 Dunalley bushfires.

"We are only just starting to recover from that, emotionally and physically and to have this imposed on us is like insult to injury," she said.

"We don't want to live under a super highway."

Airservices Australia is accepting feedback on alternative flight path proposals until November 19

While on the hot subject of this week's SBG ( i.e. top-cover experts the ATCB); I note that over on the UP Dick asks the question - on the ATSB clearly holds back Mt Hotham incident report - whether the ATSB is providing O&O topcover on behalf of ASA:

...I have started a new thread on this because after reading an article in The Australian this morning, and also the editorial, it appears that it is going to be at least two and a half years from the incident to when the report actually sees the light of day.


A summary of the incident can be seen on the ATSB website here: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2015-108/

How could a report about such a simple incident take so long?

Could it be that the original report recommends that Airservices use the radar properly at Mt Hotham (let’s say bring in a bit of Class E airspace) and no one can bring themselves to actually put this in writing, as it may confirm what others have been saying for years?

This is a rumour network. Does anyone have a factually based rumour on why the delay has been so great?

It is also interesting that the report on Richard Green’s fatal helicopter crash, now two years ago, has still not seen the light of day. It keeps getting put off and put off.

What is going on here? It would be fascinating to know...

 
And Old Akro follows that up with this:

...Duck Pilot, If you look at the throughput of reports over the last 2 months, its slowed to a dribble. Thats not consistent with high workload.


And they seem to be able to fit collaboration with other bodies and especially overseas authorities into their schedule.

More likely, they are completely absorbed to the point of apoplexy by high profile political cases like the Pelair one. You'd think that if the ATSB mess that up yet again, then they're history.

The Mt Hotham incident that Dick highlights is the one involving Max Quartemain & VH-OWN. My guess is that this has been placed on hold so they can make it align with the Essendon Airport accident investigation. Which you would have to say represents very questionable ethics.

The Mt Hotham airport report was already past due when the Essendon airport accident occurred. My personal unsubstantiated, biased reasoning is that any ATSB report that criticises AsA is very slow coming, and (as Dick pints out) there are some pretty big questions for AsA to answer in this incident. One of which is that AsA claimed to not have radar coverage of the aircraft and yet FlightAware did on its public web page.

I can imagine that the delay in the Mt Hotham report coupled with the Essendon accident puts the ATSB in a difficult position. If they criticise the pilot, then I can imagine there is a gaggle of lawyers warming up in the wings in the USA who will be itching to add the ATSB to the list of litigants...

Hmm...no comment -

MTF...P2