New Air Traffic Control System – Secrecy?

[Dick Smith]

I notice on the AusTender website that Airservices Australia have released a request for tender for an air transportation support system and equipment.

Can those ‘in the know’ advise if this is for a complete replacement of the TAAATS displays as well as the radar sensor heads?

I also notice that you have to have “a signed Deed Poll of Confidentiality” before receiving the tender documents. What would this be for? I would imagine there are going to be suppliers from all around the world who would be interested in tendering, so how is anything going to be kept confidential? Surely some of these other countries will have no interest in Australia other than for the purposes of making money from us – that’s how business works.

I always reckon these things should be kept as open as possible. What do others think?

[004wercras]

Dick, this is Australia mate. Transparency is the furtherest thing from the Australian government, ASA, CAsA or the ATSB's minds. The equivalent in other countries is a whole different ball game and certainly in the USA or NZ there is less smoke and mirrors.
You worked for CASA Dick so you should know how our industry's 'iron rings' work! Some of the same secret squirrels are still around. Don't be surprised if the company Russell works for pops into the equation!
If all else fails just give Staib a call, she might be able to clarify the process :ok:

[le Pingouin]

I wouldn't say I'm "in the know" but it would be the combined replacement for TAAATS and ADATS, i.e. the hardware and software to run Australia's ATC systems. I don't think the actual radars come into it.

Given the RAAF is involved I'd imagine there might be some secret squirrel reasons for keeping things confidential.

[Pavement]

Complete replacement for civil(TAAATS) and military (ADATS) systems. I believe there could be some radars in the mix but not sure if under this tender or a seperate one.

The question Dick is what does this new system deliver for the $$. TAAATS, and to a much lesser extent ADATS, were a quantum leap in technology. There is no real next generation system out there. So in essence a lot of money for shiney new gear so civil and defence systems can talk to each other. Could actually do that now by spending a much smaller amount on improving ADATS to allow inter system messaging.

But what do lesser mortals know. Much more fun adding a lot of $M to the capital budget for people to make careers out of and have lots of meetings. Realistically, $500M + !

[mustangranch]

Pronounced....."tell us"

[Jack Ranga]

Dick,

I think the radars are a separate tender, quite a few of them have been replaced already.

And Dick worked for ASA & CASA. should know how it works by now, remember Franky Baldwin & the Thompson/Hughes scandal?

TFN's chops would have been quivering with delight at the thought of a huge contract if he was still in the trough :cool:

[sunnySA]

Oh dear...

Both from AsA site.

OneSKY Australia

A key strategic priority for Airservices, and one critical for success, is to deliver the future.

OneSKY Australia’s primary role is to plan, develop and implement a new air traffic management platform to meet our future needs, and to enhance our business continuity capability and environmental sustainability.

OneSKY Australia also manages the delivery of component systems and infrastructure, and the coordination of the necessary organisational and operational changes, including liaison across the organisation and with internal and external stakeholders. It also presents an opportunity to realise a level of harmonisation with Defence in the development of a joint operational concept and national solutions to replace or enhance current systems.

With air traffic in the region expected to grow by more than 50 per cent in the anticipated life of the new platform, and with the introduction of new concepts to improve airspace organisation and airport operations, the upgrade will be a significant milestone in Australian aviation.

And the press release
Tender for future ATM system released to market
28-06-2013 -
Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence have released a Request For Tender (RFT) for an air traffic management (ATM) platform which will deliver the next generation of air traffic control to Australian skies.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity which will align the needs of Airservices and Defence through the implementation of a unified national solution and comes as both organisations’ systems are approaching their end of life.

Airservices Chief Executive Officer, Margaret Staib and Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown, have consistently said that both organisations were committed to the successful harmonisation of civil and military air traffic management, which will bring a wide range of benefits, including greater operational efficiencies, seamless systems compatibility, and better investment in personnel and infrastructure.

“This future ATM system will ensure that Australian aviation remains at the forefront of technologically advanced air traffic management and safety,” Ms Staib said.

“It will reduce overlaps, increase cooperation, improve communication, and deliver better training and expertise across the workforce,” said Air Marshal Brown.

The streamlining of equipment and processes will bring with it shared expertise and facilities, creating economies of scale whilst delivering greater flexibility meeting the needs of airspace users.“

A truly national harmonised ATM platform will remove the inherent limitations from separately managed volumes of airspace and the constraints of operating different systems,” Ms Staib said.

“Through more flexible use of airspace, it will enable better management and prioritisation of an increasingly complex traffic mix. In an environment of projected growth, it will also allow us to connect the Australian aviation industry to deliver world-best industry performance."

Airservices is the ‘lead agency’ for the project, meaning that Airservices will lead the procurement of the future system for both Airservices and the Department of Defence. The RFT is a product of the joint team, in which both organisations have demonstrated their commitment to a harmonised air traffic management system – truly representing one team, one system, and one sky.

The Request For Tender opened on 28 June 2013 and closes on 30 October 2013. It follows an industry Request For Information in April 2010, and industry briefings in December 2011 and December 2012.


Seems pretty clear and transparent to me, replacing ageing Eurocat and ADATS systems with a single platform for the TCUs and En-route Centre(s).

“a signed Deed Poll of Confidentiality” before receiving the tender documents
I would have thought that this is standard business practice in such circumstances. An enormous amount would have gone into the tender document and why should they be handed over to other ANSPs.

[Dick Smith]

So what part of the tender would be confidential? And confidential to who? Wouldn't dozens of staff from foreign owned companies have to know the details?

Or am I missing something?

[Hempy]

So what part of the tender would be confidential?

Or am I missing something?

A cynical person would jokingly suggest it might be possibly something to do with an agreed labour saving over the present system?

[Pavement]

Hempy

If you look at the cost and try to make a business case work then I think you may be very close to the truth. This has been going for five years and by my back of the coaster estimate that would make circa $5-10M so far just in wages (assuming a decent accounting system). Given implementation in 2020 and a corresponding ramp up in staff for the project and then training Im thinking around $100M before youve even bought the kit. I hope we get a lot of harmonisation for that!

[illusion]

Dick,

It is no different to YOU requiring Australian food manufacturers/growers to sign similar confidentiality agreements :mad:BEFORE you start negotiations with them.

I think you will find the answers you seek are with....:hmm:

[ATM30]

Several replies here...

1) The radars are, I believe, under a different tender.

2) $300-$500M program according to a recent press article.

3) The secrecy may be in large part due to the government's worry over the Hughes/Thompson ordeal last time around. Everyone is probably being told to stay quiet.

I just wonder whether anyone besides the incumbents (Thales on TAAATS and Raytheon on ADATS) stands a chance here. And who, between the two of them, is viewed more positively. I don't have a good enough sense for how they've each performed on their respective programs.

[Dick Smith]

Illusion. I have never ever asked a supplier - or anyone - to sign a confidentiality agreement as it would not be worth the paper it's written on.

For such a large tender up to 100 people could be involved in the quote. Are they supposed to erase their minds when they go and work for someone else?

Sounds very strange to me. I have always believed that anything to do with aviation safety should be totally open.

[Jabawocky]

Dick, it could be that certain information is necessary to hand over but is not desired to be in the public domain just yet So maybe it is a temporary thing. No need to erase minds, just keep card close to thy chest until the bidding is over.

If you want in, you sign up.

What i really means perhaps is they do not want to have the contents posted on Pprune! :}

[Nautilus Blue]

The question Dick is what does this new system deliver for the $$. TAAATS, and to a much lesser extent ADATS, were a quantum leap in technology. There is no real next generation system out there. So in essence a lot of money for shiney new gear so civil and defence systems can talk to each other. Could actually do that now by spending a much smaller amount on improving ADATS to allow inter system messaging.

Harmonisation is a byproduct, not an aim. Both TAATS and ADATS need replacing anyway. Buying two different systems was a mistake last time, we're just not repeating it.

By the time oneSKY is in, TAATS will have been in operation for 20+ years, designed 25+ years ago. Thats pretty old for a computer system. Existing, operational systems can do lot more than TAATS does. The are flight tracking apps/websites that can do more than TAATS does!

[Pavement]

NB

20+ years old is not quite true as there have been numerous software and hardware updates over the years. The software that is on the system now is pretty much what is being sold around the world.

You raise a good point about what you can see, via ADS B, on your phones or tablets. Is a whiz bang system going to be obsolete in 7-8 years? Just putting it out there but you could almost do Enroute ATC using Flightradar 24 (tm) now! Of course Im being a bit facetious but if we tender for a system now at $500M + is it actually going to be relevant in 10 years?

I may seem negative but I think the airlines may get sold a pup. Unless AsA goes to a single centre (and ffs move the sea anchors out of CB) and RAAF consolidates it Approach units there will be no significant staff savings. Anyone who believes there will be great automation bringing about huge staff savings needs to take a cold shower.

[Nautilus Blue]

Pavement I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. As a parting shot however, I don't think ASA's pup sales team is good enough to get one over on the likes of Messrs Joyce and Borghetti.

[Flying Binghi]

...but if we tender for a system now at $500M + is it actually going to be relevant in 10 years?...

At the current rate of computer hardware and software development - probably not. IMO, the longer we can drag our heels on any new tech the better for the national wallet. ...that empty wallet..:hmm:






.

[Pavement]

NB

Yep youre probably correct. Once they see the cost the meetings will get interesting. Hopefully they are smart enough to tie in some performance guarantees - now that would be a new concept for an ASA project.

[Pavement]

FB

Fortunately most will not come out of the national wallet. ASA will put it on their CAPEX plan (which is a misnomer because they never borrow the capital) and the airlines will pay out of their Nav charges. RAAF have it on their programme and when you compare it to the JSF project cost no one will blink.

[le Pingouin]

Pavement, the only hardware upgrade of particular significance was to the computers (servers and workstations) and that was how many years ago? There will be no more as Alpha processors are long gone. That is one big reason we need something new.

[Pavement]

Yes the Alpha chip has been gone since 2007 (effectively some years before that) but that does not limit you to a full blown system replacement.

Any ATC wants the best and greatest system. It may also be the case that everything is about to fall apart - Im not privy to the ins and outs of both systems. What Im asking is what will be delivered for a not insubstantial amount of money.

I could be wrong and there may be real benefits. Throw the business case out there.

Do I care? Not really as I'll be soaking up my pension by 2020.

[Dick Smith]

With the $1.2 Billion written of by the Canberra bureaucracy on the Super Seasprite tender I hope this will be different.

I notice no one was ever held accountable for that.

What happened to those people- were they all promoted?

[Dick Smith]

Shouldn't we just go to one system. That is get the military to run it all. That's got to save money for the industry - as the RAAF don't charge ASA or the industry at the present time- just continue with that!

[004wercras]

C'mon Dick, of course those people were promoted or at the very least moved to another department on equal pay. Again I say that you of all people should know how the system works, you worked for CASA mate, c'mon don't be shy, don't feign innocence :=
And Dick, don't forget the other billion dollar white elephants that came in with a bang and great fanfare, the billion dollar pink bats scheme, billion dollar BER folly, then you have $5 billion handed to the IMF to help bail out Greece - the land where tax avoidance is a national pass time, multi billion dollar Collins submarines fiasco, and of course a modest $200 million in chump change spent on failed regulatory reform, close to a billion spent on ASA infrastructure and then the CEO jumps ship to the very company they got the majority of that tender, and the endless list continues etc etc etc.....

[sunnySA]

Dick, why don't you put together a consortium to bid on the system.

[Dick Smith]

No way. But who does TFN work for now? What contract did they do?

[le Pingouin]

The Metron CDM tool: CDM Stage 1 ? ATFM | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/collaborative-decision-making-cdm/cdm-stage-1-atfm)

Metron: Metron Aviation - Metron Aviation Appoints Greg Russell as Executive Aviation Advisor (http://www.metronaviation.com/news/press-releases/424-metron-appoints-greg-russell.html)

Departed ASA May 2012, appointment to Metron August 1012......

[sunnySA]

Dick, why don't you put together a consortium to bid on the system.
No way.

But Dick, if you truly interested in aviation and safety then you'd put together a 'not for profit' consortium to deliver the best ATC system, what a great legacy to leave...

[4Greens]

It may be long forgotten but when ASA went for TAATS the military for some unknown reason picked a different system.

[Showa Cho]

4 Greens - from what I understand the RAAF's requirement for 11 remote towers and 9 TCUs was all too much for the builders of TAAATS at that time. Apparently they didn't bid as they were having enough trouble with Airservices' remote locations.

SC.

[4Greens]

Showa Cho thanks for that info. That is when the Gumnut should have banged some heads together.