John Forsyth resigns, NAS where to from here?
Nunc est bibendum
A bouqet
Nice read 4,7,11. I haven't had time to really think the issues through but on first glance you have a decent synopsis of what has occurred and why.
Interesting times!
And now for the brickbats....
Interesting times!
And now for the brickbats....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anderson is an amateur in the role of transport minister and has proven such on a number of occasions…….perhaps one occasion too many.
I flew Mark Vaille around a couple of times and can say he impressed with his knowledge and answers to off the cuff questions that I posed to him. Perhaps he may have a new portfolio come the next sitting of parliament.
I flew Mark Vaille around a couple of times and can say he impressed with his knowledge and answers to off the cuff questions that I posed to him. Perhaps he may have a new portfolio come the next sitting of parliament.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the wise men promised has not occurred,
What the damned fools said has come to pass...
Regardless of 4711's excellent analysis, I think the main reason we have come to this is the structure of NAS S2B. It took away more than it gave.
If they had left the C airspace exactly where it was and just plastered around a bit more E I don't think there would have been the fuss there is. Regardless of the biscuit purveyor's fetishes the C was not the problem. It is only manic near-religious fervour that could rationally propose E as safer than C, mainly on the grounds that providing a C service to aircraft was distracting tower controllers from looking at the runway... But such attitudes deemed any ARG whim away from the US model as unchallengably safe, yet anybody elses opinions (whether whims or reasoned approaches) as "non-compliant".
Well done Dick, your crash through or crash attitude appears to have crashed again. At great cost to the industry and the political will of the idiots who tell the minister what to say. You have no credibility left.
What the damned fools said has come to pass...
Regardless of 4711's excellent analysis, I think the main reason we have come to this is the structure of NAS S2B. It took away more than it gave.
If they had left the C airspace exactly where it was and just plastered around a bit more E I don't think there would have been the fuss there is. Regardless of the biscuit purveyor's fetishes the C was not the problem. It is only manic near-religious fervour that could rationally propose E as safer than C, mainly on the grounds that providing a C service to aircraft was distracting tower controllers from looking at the runway... But such attitudes deemed any ARG whim away from the US model as unchallengably safe, yet anybody elses opinions (whether whims or reasoned approaches) as "non-compliant".
Well done Dick, your crash through or crash attitude appears to have crashed again. At great cost to the industry and the political will of the idiots who tell the minister what to say. You have no credibility left.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Credibility in airspace reform:
I'm sorry Karrank but he lost that some time ago in my book; G-NAF was a good start.. don't make me going back further...
Bottle of Rum
Well done Dick, your crash through or crash attitude appears to have crashed again. At great cost to the industry and the political will of the idiots who tell the minister what to say. You have no credibility left.
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest Airservices media release
The Airservices Australia Board has considered the status of the National Airspace System implementation and the Corporation’s review of E class airspace in light of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report on a recent aircraft separation incident in Launceston, the Corporation’s Acting Chairman, Air Marshal Les Fisher AO (ret) said today.
Air Marshal Fisher said the ATSB had identified areas where improvements should be considered by Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). “Airservices experts have undertaken a review which has identified a number of safety enhancements for immediate implementation,“ he said.
“This includes deployment of transportable radar to extend surveillance and the distribution of new charts indicating air traffic control frequencies.”
Air Marshal Fisher said the Board had also agreed to options to be tested over coming months, to further improve airspace.
“This will involve working with industry and other stakeholders to provide input into our safety analysis consistent with normal Corporation practice,” he said.
“I am satisfied that these initiatives give safety top priority and mean the public can continue to have confidence in the system and the program of aviation airspace reforms”.
Monday 16 February 2004.
Contact: David Gray Tel: 0418 487794.
So perhaps the ‘scaremongers’ who pointed out that lack of radar coverage, lack of frequency information on charts and the inappropriate classification of airspace were dangerous were right after all.
Question: Why did it take a near miss and the risking of hundreds of lives to ‘realise’ this, when Airservices and the government were told all of this, in advance, by their own air traffic controllers and the professional pilots concerned? Why was all of this expert advice ignored? Whose head should roll next?
Airspace Review Continues
The Airservices Australia Board has considered the status of the National Airspace System implementation and the Corporation’s review of E class airspace in light of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report on a recent aircraft separation incident in Launceston, the Corporation’s Acting Chairman, Air Marshal Les Fisher AO (ret) said today.
Air Marshal Fisher said the ATSB had identified areas where improvements should be considered by Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). “Airservices experts have undertaken a review which has identified a number of safety enhancements for immediate implementation,“ he said.
“This includes deployment of transportable radar to extend surveillance and the distribution of new charts indicating air traffic control frequencies.”
Air Marshal Fisher said the Board had also agreed to options to be tested over coming months, to further improve airspace.
“This will involve working with industry and other stakeholders to provide input into our safety analysis consistent with normal Corporation practice,” he said.
“I am satisfied that these initiatives give safety top priority and mean the public can continue to have confidence in the system and the program of aviation airspace reforms”.
Monday 16 February 2004.
Contact: David Gray Tel: 0418 487794.
Question: Why did it take a near miss and the risking of hundreds of lives to ‘realise’ this, when Airservices and the government were told all of this, in advance, by their own air traffic controllers and the professional pilots concerned? Why was all of this expert advice ignored? Whose head should roll next?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what does it mean? The second press release in a row that says nothing...
All of a sudden the transportable radar gets a gig... We've been asking for that for years... lousy sitting in the back buildings, where it occassioanlly turns in the breeze.
Bottle of Rum
All of a sudden the transportable radar gets a gig... We've been asking for that for years... lousy sitting in the back buildings, where it occassioanlly turns in the breeze.
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tues "The Australian"
Rush to restore faith in airspace
By Steve Creedy
February 17, 2004
AIRSERVICES Australia said last night it would immediately implement "safety enhancements" to restore public confidence in botched airspace reforms, amid indications the wrangle could stretch out for months.
The air traffic control corporation said last night its experts had identified "a number of safety enhancements for immediate implementation".
It said the fixes included deployment of transportable radar to extend surveillance in some areas and the distribution of new charts indicating air traffic control frequencies.
But Air Marshal Les Fisher, installed last week as acting chairman after the sudden resignation of predecessor John Forsyth, said the board also had agreed to "options to be tested over coming months, to further improve airspace".
It was not clear whether these options referred to the drastic rollback of the reforms explored by Airservices staff at a meeting with industry almost two weeks ago.
"This will involve working with industry and other stakeholders to provide input into our safety analysis consistent with normal corporation practice," Air Marshal Fisher said.
"I am satisfied that these initiatives give safety top priority and they mean the public can continue to have confidence in the system and the program of aviation airspace reforms."
The vague nature of the statement, on the eve of a Senate estimates committee expected to grill Airservices officials over their handling of the reforms, brought renewed criticism.
The November 27 airspace reforms replaced some class-C airspace, where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft, with class-E airspace, in which the onus is on pilots to look out for other planes.
Australian and International Pilots Association spokesman Richard Woodward warned that pilots would proceed with moves to slow down aircraft and activate seatbelt signs earlier unless Airservices met demands for a significant rollback of the reforms.
Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson accused the Government of failing to come clean on problems with the reforms.
"This is not about the minister being decisive and making decisions, this is about dribbling out a process of change to protect his backside," Mr Ferguson said.
But the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation, representing about 300,000 members, warned it would take legal action if Airservices attempted to summarily wind back the reforms.
ASFA president Hank Meertens said the confederation had made an enormous effort educating members and implementing the changes, and believed they could not be reversed without a similar process.
===========================================
Rush to restore faith in airspace
By Steve Creedy
February 17, 2004
AIRSERVICES Australia said last night it would immediately implement "safety enhancements" to restore public confidence in botched airspace reforms, amid indications the wrangle could stretch out for months.
The air traffic control corporation said last night its experts had identified "a number of safety enhancements for immediate implementation".
It said the fixes included deployment of transportable radar to extend surveillance in some areas and the distribution of new charts indicating air traffic control frequencies.
But Air Marshal Les Fisher, installed last week as acting chairman after the sudden resignation of predecessor John Forsyth, said the board also had agreed to "options to be tested over coming months, to further improve airspace".
It was not clear whether these options referred to the drastic rollback of the reforms explored by Airservices staff at a meeting with industry almost two weeks ago.
"This will involve working with industry and other stakeholders to provide input into our safety analysis consistent with normal corporation practice," Air Marshal Fisher said.
"I am satisfied that these initiatives give safety top priority and they mean the public can continue to have confidence in the system and the program of aviation airspace reforms."
The vague nature of the statement, on the eve of a Senate estimates committee expected to grill Airservices officials over their handling of the reforms, brought renewed criticism.
The November 27 airspace reforms replaced some class-C airspace, where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft, with class-E airspace, in which the onus is on pilots to look out for other planes.
Australian and International Pilots Association spokesman Richard Woodward warned that pilots would proceed with moves to slow down aircraft and activate seatbelt signs earlier unless Airservices met demands for a significant rollback of the reforms.
Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson accused the Government of failing to come clean on problems with the reforms.
"This is not about the minister being decisive and making decisions, this is about dribbling out a process of change to protect his backside," Mr Ferguson said.
But the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation, representing about 300,000 members, warned it would take legal action if Airservices attempted to summarily wind back the reforms.
ASFA president Hank Meertens said the confederation had made an enormous effort educating members and implementing the changes, and believed they could not be reversed without a similar process.
===========================================
But the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation, representing about 300,000 members, warned it would take legal action if Airservices attempted to summarily wind back the reforms.
Maybe the Australian tax payer can take legal action against ASFA to recover some of the public money wasted because of the introduction if this whole ill-conceived NAS BS that they and other like minded amateur organizations and individuals fooled the government into implementing.
Bottums Up
Re The Australian article posted by Wirraway 16/02 et al
The anti NAS side are still not getting their message across correctly in my view. The oft repeated line "class-C airspace, where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft" gives an incorrect understated value. We all know that Class C separates all traffic, hence its far higher level of safety.
By constantly referring to Class C separating light aircraft from commercial aircraft, I believe the impression formed by most of the non aviation savy, is that it's the big boys wanting more airspace for themselves at the expense of the poor little 'uns.
Had the true picture been painted, perhaps there would have been more public interest in the issue from the start.
By constantly referring to Class C separating light aircraft from commercial aircraft, I believe the impression formed by most of the non aviation savy, is that it's the big boys wanting more airspace for themselves at the expense of the poor little 'uns.
Had the true picture been painted, perhaps there would have been more public interest in the issue from the start.
But the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation, representing about 300,000 members, warned it would take legal action if Airservices attempted to summarily wind back the reforms.
Atlas
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Down among the dead men
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call me old fashioned...
Does anyone else see the real irony here? No-one in places of power seems to actually give a rat's @rse that the NAS arrangements were causing Virgin sphincters to pucker every time they set off into the wild blue yonder wondering when the near miss was going to become "well - they nearly missed". The philosophical problem I have is that the roll-back isn't happening for the right reasons. This is all about @rse-covering on a scale not seen since - since - well last week when Johnny back-flipped on Super for pollies. The Chairman of the Board of Airservices has resigned without a word from anyone as to why whilst the industry is in turmoil trying to avoid a mid-air and guessing what the spin-doctors are going to put up next week. Call me old-fashioned but was he getting out of the way and taking his golden handshake before the sh!t hits the fan?
The "enhancement" of the airspace that everyone's so glibly throwing about IS about rolling back. The result will probably be NAS dead in the water. I'm not personally upset at that prospect but am compis mentis enough to realise that a lot of people have invested a $hitload of dollars in trying to make it work and are going to be angry to have to spend more to get out of it. Meanwhile deafening silence from Dick Smith other than to lob a quick "the only reason we don't have a tower at Uluru is that controllers don't want to work there".
X-file-o-philes are no doubt beside themselves in orgiastic rapture at the benevolent "Voices of Reason" clearing things up for the rest of us but when is someone going to cop it on the chin for this god-almighty F@^%-up? Over 50 million AU$ before we start winding back. Although, on Dick's calculations it was going to save 70 mil so we're 20 mil in front. One third goes to the industry as discounts, one third to the government as dividend and the remainder to Airservices staff as a productivity bonus. Carry the 6 and divide by Dick's undy size, that means I've got $5714.28 (ish) before tax coming my way...
The "enhancement" of the airspace that everyone's so glibly throwing about IS about rolling back. The result will probably be NAS dead in the water. I'm not personally upset at that prospect but am compis mentis enough to realise that a lot of people have invested a $hitload of dollars in trying to make it work and are going to be angry to have to spend more to get out of it. Meanwhile deafening silence from Dick Smith other than to lob a quick "the only reason we don't have a tower at Uluru is that controllers don't want to work there".
X-file-o-philes are no doubt beside themselves in orgiastic rapture at the benevolent "Voices of Reason" clearing things up for the rest of us but when is someone going to cop it on the chin for this god-almighty F@^%-up? Over 50 million AU$ before we start winding back. Although, on Dick's calculations it was going to save 70 mil so we're 20 mil in front. One third goes to the industry as discounts, one third to the government as dividend and the remainder to Airservices staff as a productivity bonus. Carry the 6 and divide by Dick's undy size, that means I've got $5714.28 (ish) before tax coming my way...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some excerpts from a magazine called "Aero Australia" It arrived on my desk the other day with the editoral page highlighted. The editor by name of Stewart Wilson has some nasty comments about the resistance of certian sections of the industry against the airspace changes.
Under the head-line "Crying Wolf" we read
"Australias new airspace rules came into effect on 27 November, the occasion preceded and followed by an unprecendented campaign against them by certain sections of the aviation community, notably some airline pilots' and air traffic controllers unions."
Other comments include
"those involved have been waging basically a scare campaign designed to alarm the general public...........
started talking about how NASIG and others associated with the changes "will have blood on their hands", and similar opinions........................
creating the very definite impression that RPT aircraft had some kind of divine right to use Australia's airspace and that general aviation was a second class citizen and nuisance that gets in the way of the Mighty RPT. "
I wonder now after the event if his mouth is big enough to put his foot in. Funny how the ATSB found the same faults that the nasty scaremongering unions kept terrorising the general public with!!!!!!!!!!
Under the head-line "Crying Wolf" we read
"Australias new airspace rules came into effect on 27 November, the occasion preceded and followed by an unprecendented campaign against them by certain sections of the aviation community, notably some airline pilots' and air traffic controllers unions."
Other comments include
"those involved have been waging basically a scare campaign designed to alarm the general public...........
started talking about how NASIG and others associated with the changes "will have blood on their hands", and similar opinions........................
creating the very definite impression that RPT aircraft had some kind of divine right to use Australia's airspace and that general aviation was a second class citizen and nuisance that gets in the way of the Mighty RPT. "
I wonder now after the event if his mouth is big enough to put his foot in. Funny how the ATSB found the same faults that the nasty scaremongering unions kept terrorising the general public with!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just like to point out to those who reckon the reason there is no tower at Uluru is that ATCs wont go there is...a load of old ****e.
Controllers in Australia love working outstations. Its "real" aviation work, where you get to see the aircraft and crew you work with on a day to day basis.
The big centres are cold and remote working environments. They are pleasent working places, but you are remote from the aviation world. Aircraft are symbols on a screen, and you only communicate by voice on radio or by datalink.
There is no problem staffing outstation towers in Oz.
Controllers in Australia love working outstations. Its "real" aviation work, where you get to see the aircraft and crew you work with on a day to day basis.
The big centres are cold and remote working environments. They are pleasent working places, but you are remote from the aviation world. Aircraft are symbols on a screen, and you only communicate by voice on radio or by datalink.
There is no problem staffing outstation towers in Oz.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DP- yeah there is! The problem is that they are uneconomical, hence AsA, as a business, doesn't want to staff them. The whole idea of the CAGRO trial at AYE was to save money. All part of 'user-pays'.
I'm sure there would be no shortage of guys wanting to go.
I'm sure there would be no shortage of guys wanting to go.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staffing outstations
Ferris, you beat me to it!!
I seem to remember the pratt that just claimed that places were not staffed as the controllers didn't want to go there, was the same one that oversaw the closure of just about all the Flight Service and outstation towers?
I may be wrong and I'll happily apologise if proved incorrect.
Not about calling him a pratt though...certain things are self evident.
I seem to remember the pratt that just claimed that places were not staffed as the controllers didn't want to go there, was the same one that oversaw the closure of just about all the Flight Service and outstation towers?
I may be wrong and I'll happily apologise if proved incorrect.
Not about calling him a pratt though...certain things are self evident.
Can someone please let us all know what the Airservices plan actually is?
The press talk about portable radars and frequencies on charts.
Are they going to reclassify the E airspace into the major and regional airports into C airspace?
If they won't they will not be achieving a re-alignment of the risk, and the major risk factor will still be there.
If another incident occurs - or god forbid an accident occurs, AVM Fisher, Bernie Smith, the other two Smiths and Anderson should be held accountable.
Interesting that the common surname around this whole debacle is SMITH....maybe SMITH should be a synonym for stuffups
- "oh look - the tyre has picked up a nail and is SMITHED"
-" **** - I smithed that landing"
If AIPA and the AFAP want to gain some respect from the coal face troops, they should seriously investigate the possibility of taking legal action against the main protaganists in this debacle.... I certainly would be much happier to see the squillion of dollars I spend on union subs put to some decent use.
The press talk about portable radars and frequencies on charts.
Are they going to reclassify the E airspace into the major and regional airports into C airspace?
If they won't they will not be achieving a re-alignment of the risk, and the major risk factor will still be there.
If another incident occurs - or god forbid an accident occurs, AVM Fisher, Bernie Smith, the other two Smiths and Anderson should be held accountable.
Interesting that the common surname around this whole debacle is SMITH....maybe SMITH should be a synonym for stuffups
- "oh look - the tyre has picked up a nail and is SMITHED"
-" **** - I smithed that landing"
If AIPA and the AFAP want to gain some respect from the coal face troops, they should seriously investigate the possibility of taking legal action against the main protaganists in this debacle.... I certainly would be much happier to see the squillion of dollars I spend on union subs put to some decent use.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DHD, that's "portable radar". No "s", because from what I hear there's only one portable radar. Where would you like it?
Frequencies on charts? How would you like them? There's nothing produced that accurately depicts frequency boundaries. It could be a bigger safety issue to print the frequencies on the charts now.
Plan? What plan? The plan has just been shot to pieces and the head instigators are waving feathers from behind bunkers trying to convince us the thing will still fly.
Plan? They're scrambling trying to put one together now. It took us more than three years to get to this point. It might take us close to that time again to sort it out.
As for accountability, I have a feeling that "accountability" is behind the rapid backpeddling that is going on now.
Frequencies on charts? How would you like them? There's nothing produced that accurately depicts frequency boundaries. It could be a bigger safety issue to print the frequencies on the charts now.
Plan? What plan? The plan has just been shot to pieces and the head instigators are waving feathers from behind bunkers trying to convince us the thing will still fly.
Plan? They're scrambling trying to put one together now. It took us more than three years to get to this point. It might take us close to that time again to sort it out.
As for accountability, I have a feeling that "accountability" is behind the rapid backpeddling that is going on now.
Last edited by Lodown; 19th Feb 2004 at 06:20.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah! We could put the radar in Tassie one week, Uluru the next...
We could even have 'radar specials' for the customers - "Get extra safety this week on trips to Hobart", perhaps with a little extra something added to the airways charges. Or maybe we could auction off radar coverage to the highest bidder. Now there's 'growing the business' for you!
D'oh! That won't work - it takes at least a month to move it! Oh well, back to the drawing board.
We could even have 'radar specials' for the customers - "Get extra safety this week on trips to Hobart", perhaps with a little extra something added to the airways charges. Or maybe we could auction off radar coverage to the highest bidder. Now there's 'growing the business' for you!
D'oh! That won't work - it takes at least a month to move it! Oh well, back to the drawing board.
A river to my people
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No fixed abode, No 29a
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest from Bernie Smith, ASA CEO. I find the bit "The model would then be subjected to a full Design Safety Case and Cost/Benefit Analysis" interesting.
sep
Note to all staff from the CEO
National Airspace System (NAS)
In the Media Release I sent to all staff on Monday, the Acting Chairman referred to options to improve airspace which would be tested over the coming months.
In particular, the Board has agreed to specific options (others may emerge during the process) being tested over the next three months which could further improve the management of Class E airspace (this would be followed by a further three month implementation period of the recommended options). These are:
(a) reclassify portions of Class E airspace around Class C and D towers to ensure the three degree aircraft flight path profile for approach to these aerodromes is captured as Class C airspace;
(b) reclassify Class E airspace above flight level 125 to Class C, in additional to (a) above).
In addition to progressing the above temporary options, work will commence on fully specifying the 5 year “end state” airspace model that will be implemented, having regard to Government policy that we harmonise with the US model to the maximum extent possible within our statutory obligations. The model would then be subjected to a full Design Safety Case and Cost/Benefit Analysis. This work will be performed in strict compliance with our Safety Management System, and at this stage we estimate it will take 12 months to complete.
Further face to face briefings will be provided by senior management and me over the next week.
I also appeared before the Senate Legislative Committee on Tuesday night and my opening comments to the committee read as follows:
“The committee would be aware from a media statement by Airservices Australia that it has found a problem with the process used to put in place the changes to airspace implemented on 27 November 2003. Airservices wishes to put the following information on the record for this committee in order to clarify issues which we expect are of interest to it.
Airservices has a statutory responsibility to consider and approve changes to airspace design and management. In managing change, either on a day-to-day basis or in relation to reforms such as NAS, Airservices is always in a position where risks exist and need to be managed. This is clearly an integral part of the business that we are in. In considering such changes, Airservices takes very seriously its obligation in regard to safety as the primary consideration.
Airservices has recently formed the view that its process for considering the changes on 27 November 2003 may not have properly discharged all its responsibilities under the act. The nature of the gap in our process relates, firstly, to the extent to which Airservices may have relied on the work of other parties—the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Aviation Reform Group, the National Air Space Implementation Group as examples—rather than its own comprehensive research and analysis. And secondly, to the way in which we chose to manage an identified risk related to the implementation of class E airspace. The first issue is now being addressed by Airservices commissioning a full and comprehensive review and validation of the safety premises which underpin the NAS reform. This will take the form of a design safety case of the full NAS reform program. The second matter involves undertaking a more extensive risk analysis of the changes implemented last year. This review, which will be undertaken over the next three months, needs to be seen in the context of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommendations on the Launceston incident. At that point the board will decide the extent and the need for any change to the current E airspace.
Despite media speculation, Airservices continues to have insurance policies in place and there are no new operational risks that were not known when the decision to implement the changes was taken. The sorts of enhancements the board will be asked to consider after a full safety assessment involve changing certain portions of E airspace. The calls for reversal of some of the reforms implemented last November must be seen in the context that any change, even going back, carries risks. Airservices must properly assess all of this before making a final decision on the most appropriate way forward. “
sep
Note to all staff from the CEO
National Airspace System (NAS)
In the Media Release I sent to all staff on Monday, the Acting Chairman referred to options to improve airspace which would be tested over the coming months.
In particular, the Board has agreed to specific options (others may emerge during the process) being tested over the next three months which could further improve the management of Class E airspace (this would be followed by a further three month implementation period of the recommended options). These are:
(a) reclassify portions of Class E airspace around Class C and D towers to ensure the three degree aircraft flight path profile for approach to these aerodromes is captured as Class C airspace;
(b) reclassify Class E airspace above flight level 125 to Class C, in additional to (a) above).
In addition to progressing the above temporary options, work will commence on fully specifying the 5 year “end state” airspace model that will be implemented, having regard to Government policy that we harmonise with the US model to the maximum extent possible within our statutory obligations. The model would then be subjected to a full Design Safety Case and Cost/Benefit Analysis. This work will be performed in strict compliance with our Safety Management System, and at this stage we estimate it will take 12 months to complete.
Further face to face briefings will be provided by senior management and me over the next week.
I also appeared before the Senate Legislative Committee on Tuesday night and my opening comments to the committee read as follows:
“The committee would be aware from a media statement by Airservices Australia that it has found a problem with the process used to put in place the changes to airspace implemented on 27 November 2003. Airservices wishes to put the following information on the record for this committee in order to clarify issues which we expect are of interest to it.
Airservices has a statutory responsibility to consider and approve changes to airspace design and management. In managing change, either on a day-to-day basis or in relation to reforms such as NAS, Airservices is always in a position where risks exist and need to be managed. This is clearly an integral part of the business that we are in. In considering such changes, Airservices takes very seriously its obligation in regard to safety as the primary consideration.
Airservices has recently formed the view that its process for considering the changes on 27 November 2003 may not have properly discharged all its responsibilities under the act. The nature of the gap in our process relates, firstly, to the extent to which Airservices may have relied on the work of other parties—the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Aviation Reform Group, the National Air Space Implementation Group as examples—rather than its own comprehensive research and analysis. And secondly, to the way in which we chose to manage an identified risk related to the implementation of class E airspace. The first issue is now being addressed by Airservices commissioning a full and comprehensive review and validation of the safety premises which underpin the NAS reform. This will take the form of a design safety case of the full NAS reform program. The second matter involves undertaking a more extensive risk analysis of the changes implemented last year. This review, which will be undertaken over the next three months, needs to be seen in the context of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommendations on the Launceston incident. At that point the board will decide the extent and the need for any change to the current E airspace.
Despite media speculation, Airservices continues to have insurance policies in place and there are no new operational risks that were not known when the decision to implement the changes was taken. The sorts of enhancements the board will be asked to consider after a full safety assessment involve changing certain portions of E airspace. The calls for reversal of some of the reforms implemented last November must be seen in the context that any change, even going back, carries risks. Airservices must properly assess all of this before making a final decision on the most appropriate way forward. “