I'm sure their are many within the ranks of ASA (especially those on the coalface) that have reserved feelings about their CEO. Some of which is totally justified given the recent history of spotlighted workplace and executive/middle management issues.
However, outstanding issues aside, IMO it was totally refreshing to see the Staib front foot approach, ably supported by Hood, at last Monday's Senate Estimates hearing. Stark contrast to the arrogant, 'nothing to see here', defensive diatribe deployed by the Angry Man/GWM politburo..
In Ms Staib's opening statement (post #1648) she doesn't beat around the bush or get defensive about a very public interest topic (that the Senators were bound to have questioned ASA over anyway).
The chalk:
Instead Ms Staib draws attention to the significant safety incident, gives a full and frank summary, then gives assurances that ASA is treating the matter very seriously. Finally Ms Staib outlines a ASA MAP to proactively address the safety risk implications that fall within the ASA responsibilities in regards to this incident.
Ms Staib : In response to this incident I have established a task force to undertake a focused review to understand and address the factors which may have contributed to this incident. We are looking at four areas: technology, air space design, training and human performance. The task force is led by an air traffic controller who is reporting directly to me.
{Note: Detractors aside there is a lot to admire about the positive (proactive) management style that Ms Staib appears to be deploying...
}
The cheese (mouldy Swiss variety):
Enter stage left ozfuscation Fort Fumble style and at the tailend of Senator Fawcett's questioning on the Barrier destruction
:
Mr McCormick : Yes, we will take that on notice and provide you with all the documentation we can. I am cognizant that the committee had a discussion earlier today with Mr Mrdak about FOI versus committee requests, and we acknowledge that anything we give to you will be in confidence. We will do our utmost to give you anything we have available on that, and we will certainly find the reports you refer to and the recommendation paperwork that came to me which led to the serious and imminent risk decision. Is it satisfactory that we go up to that decision point?
And from Kharon's post and in context of the PelAir government reply:
Mr McCormick: I acknowledge your request, Senator, and we will take it on notice and check the legal advice. If it concurs with what we have heard today then we certainly will provide it.
Senator XENOPHON: What has legal advice got to do with it?
Hmm..all about covering backsides and playing games with potentially damning information that might shine a light into some deep, dark crevasses in the FF warren..
On a final note and relevant to this post, it is good to see the MMSM, like the inestimable Ms Staib, are doing their job objectively (for a change) and reporting some of the real issues that matter to the aviation industry..
. Here SC gives credit where IMO credit is due
:
Taskforce digs deeper into Qantas near miss
AIRSERVICES Australia has set up a taskforce into the circumstances behind an incident where two Qantas jets flying in opposite directions got close enough to activate a traffic collision-avoidance system alert.
The incident near Adelaide generated intense media coverage, speculating the two jets were within seconds of colliding. However, it turned out they were on offset reciprocal tracks and the closest they came to each other was 700ft vertically and 1.6 nautical miles laterally.
The separation breach occurred in en route space when one aircraft requested a change in altitude and was given clearance to climb while the jets were too close to each other.
The breach generated a short-term conflict alert at Airservices and prompted the controller to immediately cancel the clearance to climb and ordered the aircraft to descend while the other aircraft climbed in response to a TCAS resolution advisory.
Airservices chief executive Margaret Staib said the incident showed human error could sometimes occur in a complex system. "In response to this incident, I have established a taskforce to undertake a focused review to understand and address the factors which may have contributed to this incident. We are looking at four areas: technology, airspace design, training and human performance. The taskforce is led by an air-traffic controller who is reporting directly to me."
Ms Staib told a Senate estimates committee this week that aviation growth continued to be the most strategic challenge faced by Airservices, with the Melbourne-Sydney route listed as the second busiest air corridor in the world in terms of aircraft movements and Sydney-Brisbane the 12th busiest.
"On October 11 this year we achieved 1004 movements in Sydney in a day. This was the busiest day since the 2000 Olympics."
On the OneSky Australia project set to replace the existing national air-traffic control system with joint systems with the Defence Department, Ms Staib said tenders had closed and were being evaluated.
She was asked by South Australian senator Nick Xenophon about the scathing Civil Aviation safety Authority report that found there were 233 non-compliance notices between May 2003 and June last year.
The report made 35 proposals, about 20 aimed at management problems, in areas such as staffing levels, air-traffic control training, traffic information broadcast by aircraft (TIBA) incidents and the ability to provide air-traffic services. Senator Xenophon said it made disturbing reading and as a passenger he had a vested interest in what had been done to address the report.
Ms Staib said she received the report about a week after starting her job at Airservices and was also "very concerned about the report".
"Some of the detail in the analysis one could argue with, but I took the approach that the recommendations certainly could not be argued with," she said.
The Airservices chief said she implemented a plan to address the recommendations and all but one, the introduction of the Metron traffic flow software at Melbourne Airport, were complete.
She said a Nav Canada review found Airservices' staffing and rostering was sound and that it had an appropriate number of air-traffic controllers to provide the service. But it also said the way Airservices employed its workforce could be improved.