Airservices writes off $15.4 million on GRAS

[Dick Smith]

On a previous thread it has been mentioned that Airservices decided to can the GRAS (Ground-based Regional Augmentation System) project. No one has been able to find out how much was actually written off (i.e. lost by our industry).

After making some further enquiries, it looks as if I have been able to break the code and find out how much was lost. In the Airservices 2007-2008 report, on page 26, it says:

In March 2008 Airservices and Honeywell reviewed progress on GBAS and GRAS and decided to suspend work on the GRAS component of the GNS program because of current and emerging technology. Technology changes undermine the viability of the GRAS development.

On the notes of the financial statements in the report, it mentions under “Impairment” that the amount written off is $15.441 million. An expert on such accounts advised me that this impairment is most likely a code word for the money written off on GRAS.

So now we know – over $15 million. Imagine if that had been spent assisting the GA businesses at Bankstown in coping with the privatisation of the airport. They would still be going, employing people, and possibly even expanding.

Hopefully there’s a lesson to be learnt for Airservices from this major loss of our industry’s money – stick to the core business of air traffic control, let others risk money on design and manufacturing!

[jeta108]

So this is the result of the September 08 rumour is it?

Have we also forgotten the "hedging" fiasco rumour of about the same era or was that a "cross border financing arrangement" that we haven't heard the results of yet?

[QSK?]

Don't know why you suddenly have a conscience about the loss of $15m, Dick.

We probably wasted that (and more) on the NAS debacle in Nov 05. That money could also have been better spent on developing GA in Australia (or more aged care homes, or more hospitals, or increased pensions etc etc).

[jeta108]

This loss is quantifiable.

How do you quantify your statement that the NAS (debates)/ debacle "probably cost that and more", or is that just an inaccuracy like the 15 million you quote and the actual $15.4 million.

Can I have the loose change QSK?-?

[Dick Smith]

QSK, I also had a conscience about the “NAS debacle” as you call it. It looks to me as if that debacle was for the same reason as the “GRAS debacle” – incompetence.

If you remember, the claimed reason for the reversal of NAS 2b was that the Airservices management did not follow the correct process for the introduction. I had no control over this, as I was not involved in Airservices in any way.

I understand there was no measurable increase in airspace incidents during the year of NAS 2b. NAS 2b allocated the airspace on objective safety criteria – not “upside down” as it is now.

It also made it quite clear where air traffic controllers were responsible for separation, and where they weren’t.

Some people disagreed with Class E, however remember the famous quote from Voices of Reason. (See here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Is_Class_E_safe.php)).

I agree they were both stuff-ups by Airservices. One day we will get some competent people and we will be able to go ahead with an airspace system which is scientifically based – not based on prejudice and perception.

[max1]

QSK,

The money came from the airlines and the passengers, I would struggle to see how we could condone the airlines cross-subsidising aged facilities,hospitals or pensions. GA is another matter.
ASA management believe that they have somehow achieved the increase in profits and that has not been due to the incredible growth in Air Traffic.
From the Annual Reports:

--------Total Revenue----Airways Revenue-----Profit------Staff Costs

2004------$600.3m---------$529.1m--------$46.6m-----$341.6m

2005------$645.8m---------$614.4m--------$58.2m-----$402.8m

2006------$683.5m---------$643.4m--------$93.6m-----$383.7m

2007------$716.6m---------$676.7m--------$106.8m----$395.8m

2008------$744.0m---------$707.3m--------$92m-------$402.3m

In the five years we have seen Airways Revenue increase nearly $180m. Even taking into account the $61m extra in staff costs $46m increase in profits we are still $70m shy.

In the last three years alone, ASA have taken about $290 million extra from Industry and given around $175m to the government( shareholder).
ASA are now crying poor and that they have large infrastructure costs pending(around $500m over the next 5 years is quoted, bugger about ADS-B). Maybe they should go back to the shareholder and ask for an injection of funds? At least we now know where $15m has gone.

Exactly whose back pockets have swelled on the back of these record dividends to the government. Is it the same individuals who forget to check if they had enough staff to deliver the core services that account for approximately 95% of ASAs income.

As much as management would like to spruik that they alone have been responsible for the increased income, I think we can lay those kudos solely at the feet of the airlines who HAVE grown THEIR business.

Maybe some people from the airlines would like to comment on some of the extra benefits TFN and co. have delivered for the $3.17 BILLION dollars they have paid ASA in Airways Revenue in the last 5 years.
Aquaducts, safe to walk the street at night,education??????

[QSK?]

Dick:

the claimed reason for the reversal of NAS 2b was that the Airservices management did not follow the correct process for the introductionNo, Dick, that wasn't the reason why NAS2b was reversed. That's your convenient revisionism trait on display again.

The reason it was reversed is because the industry had no confidence in the integrity of the NASIG implementation process primarily due to the fact that no proper safety case had been done and, despite repeated requests (in this fora and elsewhere) by industry participants to see such a safety case it would appear you, along with NASIG, were hell bent on ensuring that one was never going to see the light of day.

Once a few serious near misses had occurred in NAS2b airspace, Airservices had no choice but to pull the plug if it was to avoid potential litigation because it was obvious that the NASIG implementation process was flawed as no proper safety case analysis had been done on the changes.

That's why I now find it so ironic that you are accusing CASA of conducting "fake safety cases" with respect to CA/GRS at Newcastle and requesting them to release details.

[Dick Smith]

QSK, a full and detailed safety case had been undertaken.

I will give the facts tomorrow as to why AsA reversed NAS 2b. The material is in my office.

It was all driven by a fear of change. Are you really suggesting that the airspace system used in North America is not safe?

Do you really believe that at busy jet airline airports such as Proserpine and Avalon that it is logical to have class G airspace in the low level terminal area where the risk of collision is clearly higher and then class C airspace in the lower risk link airspace above?

Surely not!

Fortunately there are a new young controllers appearing who have an ability to think rationally about airspace.

After all , it is a science!

[tail wheel]

QSK? and Dick Smith.

This thread topic is:

"Airservices writes off $15.4 million on GRAS"

You want to go back in history to NAS 2b, you are welcome to start a new thread - in the Aviation History & Nostalgia Forum (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia-86/).

[triadic]

I think if you go back and look at the numbers over the past 15 years or so, then the various attempts to introduce a new airspace system in Oz (NAS) has cost the industry both directly and indirectly well over M$100.

Dick is correctly highlighting yet another area where our funds are being mismanaged.

The mismanagement in ASA should be subject to a Royal Commission or similar high level inquiry. You watch the heads roll then! But would it improve?? who knows!

Maybe when the controllers stop work in Feb, some people in high places might take some notice......:ugh::ugh:

[undervaluedATC]

Dick Smith: It was all driven by a fear of change. Are you really suggesting that the airspace system used in North America is not safe?

Dick, if you'd actually spoken to any controllers over the last few years you'd know the change is constant in our working environment - just because the change you want is not happening does not mean other change isn't.

And again, for your edification: USA has something like 80-90% radar coverage - Australia has 15-20% coverage - of course our airspace systems are going to be different.:ugh:

[QSK?]

tail wheel:

Quite correct; sorry mate. Now back on track.