Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

OneSky -- At least we are consistent

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

OneSky -- At least we are consistent

Old 8th Feb 2018, 01:42
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
OneSky -- At least we are consistent

Folks,
Below are just two of many articles that have appeared on media, across the political spectrum, in recent days, from News Ltd. organs to the ABC.

It would be churlish to suggest that, to those in Canberra in the know, this is only the tip of the iceberg with the so-called OneSky project, which is years behind schedule, way over budget, and has been the subject of some interesting investigations into ways and means.

This is not rocket science, just an air traffic control system, but our desire to reinvent the wheel in Australia, because "the air is different" is at least consistent, when was the last time anything done by CASA or Airservices was on time, on budget, and accepted by reasonable people, instead of being virtually universally condemned, usually on all three counts.

Tootle pip!!

  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM February 6, 2018
  • Save
·
Reporter
Sydney
@EanHiggins
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/WilliamJ/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.png[/IMG]
The public expenditure watchdog has issued a damning review of the ambitious $1.5 billion One*SKY project designed to integrate the nation’s military and civilian air-traffic-control and navigation systems, warning it is running alarmingly late and risks not delivering value for money.
The Australian National Audit Office has found OneSKY, a joint venture between Defence and government-owned Airservices Australia, is running almost 2½ years behind schedule, meaning more federal government money will be needed to keep ageing military air-traffic-control equipment going longer than planned.
The project was approved in 2014 but a final contract has not yet been signed. This is despite individual consultants having been paid up to $5000 a day — including former RAAF officer Harry Bradford, who was dubbed the “million-dollar man” for receiving that fee to negotiate on behalf of Airservices with French aerospace group Thales,
“The offer and negotiation process has been protracted, in part due to misalignment of customer-approval processes through two separate governance structures, but also due to Thales not yet producing an acceptable offer that represents value for money for Defence and Airservices,” ANAO reports.
South Australian senator Rex Patrick has called for an independent review and warned the government against signing the contract given OneSKY is now listed by the government as a “project of concern”.
“It’s incredible that the government is even contemplating signing a contract to move this project forward when it’s in the state that it is,” said Senator Patrick of the Nick Xenophon Team.
The project’s original initial operational capability, set for late next year, has been pushed back to mid-2022, and full operational capability from late 2022 to early 2025. In a report assessing the progress of large defence projects, ANAO says Defence’s contribution to the project cannot remain capped if it is to achieve its objectives from OneSKY, and the federal government will soon have to decide whether to dish out more money to rescue it.
It says Airservices and Defence have failed to co-operate *efficiently because of “organisational differences” and that 1000 redundancies ordered by Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield gutted the cohort of top managers running it.
“Delivery of (OneSKY) may be impacted by dependent Airservices and Defence organisational inefficiencies, driven by divergent goals, or lack of oversight and control,” ANAO says.
Among other identified risks, ANAO warns the project “may not satisfy the requirements for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority accreditation” and may not meet “security requirements”.
A spokeswoman for Airservices said yesterday the final contract with Thales was expected to be signed by the end of March. Mr Harfield declined to comment.




Fears of delay over air traffic system overhaul
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM February 7, 2018
  • Save
·
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/WilliamJ/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png[/IMG]
Reporter
Sydney
@EanHiggins
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/WilliamJ/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.png[/IMG]
The union representing air traffic controllers has expressed *unease at further delays in the $1.5 billion OneSKY program to integrate military and civilian airspace management, warning the existing equipment has *already “reached its use-by date”.
Civil Air also alleges Airservices Australia, which runs the *nation’s air traffic control and navigation system and leads the OneSKY program, has largely shut out its representative from the planning process, which the union claims has deprived planners of practical input from serving air traffic controllers.
The concerns follow the revelation from The Australian yesterday that the Australian National Audit Office has determined the project is running nearly 2½ years behind schedule, and will not be fully operational until early 2025, instead of late 2022 as originally planned.
The joint project of Defence and federal government-owned Airservices has not yet even *entered into a contract with the preferred lead contractor, French aerospace group Thales, despite millions being spent over the years on consultants.
While Airservices says a contract will be signed by the end of next month, the ANAO has warned that without it there is no guarantee the final completion date will not blow out further.
In September, airline passengers got a taste of the chaos breakdowns in the air traffic control system can produce, when Sydney airport suffered what Airservices called a “system software failure” and only a limited number of flights were able to land and depart. “There are concerns that the current equipment has reached its use-by date, and if it is blown out further, there would need to be measures put in to maintain its integrity, ” Civil Air’s executive secretary, Peter McGuane, told The Australian.
An Airservices spokeswoman said: “The current air traffic control system, Eurocat, continues to perform at the required standard to provide a safe and *effective service for our customers, and there are support *arrangements in place to ensure its safe operation through to 2024.”
Mr McGuane claimed Civil Air’s nominee to the OneSKY design planning sessions had been given the cold shoulder, told at some stages there was no need for him to attend because the project had moved into the “engineering phase”.
Airservices’ spokeswoman said the organisation “continues to work with staff from across Airservices, including experienced air traffic controllers, *engineers and representatives from Civil Air”.
South Australian senator Rex Patrick, of the Nick Xenophon Team, has called on the federal government to establish an independent review of OneSKY before allowing the contract with Thales to be signed.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 05:42
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,268
Received 31 Likes on 23 Posts
The circus is being run by the clowns again it seems..
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 07:36
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 684
Received 81 Likes on 25 Posts
The circus is being run by the clowns again it seems.
As far as I can see TBM, it's been that way for years, so 'still' might be more descriptive than 'again'?

And 'lunatics' running the asylum might also be a better description here for the management of OneSKY.
SIUYA is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 08:11
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don’t expect anything to happen. The guy who was in charge of the mess got promoted to CEO and the mess gets worse. Must be time for Angus to make another appearance at senate estimates to put them off the scent for a while.
Pavement is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 09:30
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 511
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Interesting to note the reference to the "Million dollar man" in the first article. I seem to recall his name was solidly linked to the history of the Nomad especially in its military use.

CC
Checklist Charlie is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 12:34
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,837
Received 16 Likes on 6 Posts
And we're so far behind the "worlds best practice" for wasting money on ATC systems - we need to look to the US for that. Must be their special air......
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2018, 03:44
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's well known that when they got rid of the 1000 they got rid of all the good people and kept the old firm that stuffed it all up in the first place...looked after their mates and not surprising that they can't get this project up. Bit off much more than they will ever be able to chew. Air traffic controllers running a $ 1billion business...no wonder its stuffed.
1703 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2018, 03:52
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angry Leave it to experts ...Defence out

The project undertaken by Airservices is a first, in that, a large complex rigid old gov agency in partnership with a income producing enterprise that wants to modernise. I blame Defence for the delays and the inability to make a decision. Airservices through years of having a entitlement mentality in particular with the voice of their selfish union, had to change. 920+ staff received very generous redundancies...a lottery win, for those that found a job within a month.

The place was losing money and Jason who is a career Airservices guy, Harvard Grad, made the hard calls and saw it through. On Friday afternoons after 3pm you could drive a mini (not a bus but a mini car) through the six floors in Canberra and hit no one. That has changed I am told.

YES they now need to re-employ people in areas perhaps which they cut too many staff...but any large restructure will have this issue.

OneSky was a problem from the start. It was not Jason's best days...he was its first real EGM. But Jason or any EGM would have issues with not only Defence but the staff that came over to One-Sky and acted as managers within Airservices. The CEO at the time was from defence and supported project managers who had no idea about commercialism, just politics. Currently the lead at one sky is an expert who is frustrated with Defence, I am certain he is.

One sky will work if Defence is a 49% partner and has no say.

Leave it to the experts Airservices NOT Defence.
Cheers
Ex Airservice - the lottery winner
Lodomal is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 02:25
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,161
Received 126 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by Lodomal
The project undertaken by Airservices is a first, in that, a large complex rigid old gov agency in partnership with a income producing enterprise that wants to modernise. I blame Defence for the delays and the inability to make a decision. Airservices through years of having a entitlement mentality in particular with the voice of their selfish union, had to change. 920+ staff received very generous redundancies...a lottery win, for those that found a job within a month.

The place was losing money and Jason who is a career Airservices guy, Harvard Grad, made the hard calls and saw it through. On Friday afternoons after 3pm you could drive a mini (not a bus but a mini car) through the six floors in Canberra and hit no one. That has changed I am told.

YES they now need to re-employ people in areas perhaps which they cut too many staff...but any large restructure will have this issue.

OneSky was a problem from the start. It was not Jason's best days...he was its first real EGM. But Jason or any EGM would have issues with not only Defence but the staff that came over to One-Sky and acted as managers within Airservices. The CEO at the time was from defence and supported project managers who had no idea about commercialism, just politics. Currently the lead at one sky is an expert who is frustrated with Defence, I am certain he is.

One sky will work if Defence is a 49% partner and has no say.

Leave it to the experts Airservices NOT Defence.
Cheers
Ex Airservice - the lottery winner
What a load of crap?
sunnySA is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 02:28
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Lodomal. Thanks for the posting. Seems commonsense what you say. It’s a pity so much secrecy. Possibly because of the defence involvement with different prime aims.

Sunny. Sad that you are anonymous. We don’t know if you have a vested interest.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 03:13
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think the previous comment may have had the vested interest Dick and I notice you didn’t worry about that person being anonymous. I’m not sure how it’s all wrapped up to be the fault of Defence. Defence have a record of being able to procure complicated assets.
How this procurement got to be so hard is a bit beyond me. It simply needed a core specification with two separable portions. Each could then negotiate to their hearts content on their own portion knowing that the core specification would allow the interoperability that is required. This would have addressed the governance issues for both organisations.
Where do I line up for my $1M?
Pavement is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 07:12
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Pavement. I think it’s probably about what I consider fair. If anonymous people are going to say positive things they don’t do a lot of damage!

However if a person makes statements that are critical of named people I reckon they should put there own name to the post. It’s about the Aussie way I reckon.

You mention defence and purchasing assets. Was that the Super Seasprite? $1.4 billion lost. No one held responsible. Some claim that some moved to the OneSKY project. Hope not!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 07:50
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You’re now making suppositions about individuals without providing supporting evidence. Seasprite and OneSKY - long bow to say the same teams were involved in both. Most of the acquisition of OneSKY has been (mis)managed by Airservices.
The post you thought to be credible was a first poster.

The facts are that this will be a case study for how not to procure and project manage. Don’t try to make this the sole fault of Airservices or Defence.

Just as an aside Dick, I will happily give you my mobile to have a chat.
Pavement is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 09:30
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question First hand

My previous post my first👍 Was posted because I do respect Jason Harfield and what ATC DO. I don’t like the poorly informed comments when my comments are first Hand.
It is true I don’t like their union and the entitlement mentality. The organisation is profitable again and payind dividends to the Australian government - ie us. We as managers were paid very well. That’s the truth ! Our salaries for what we did was above market. So I don’t get the hatred as non managers were paid just as good.

The OneSKY project is a failure sure it is I agree! but the truth with this project is the partenership with defence was never going to work!
I have friends in Defence and I know they run good projects in building things! But this project is a lot more complex and procrastination is a cancer.

nomatter how hard it is to take for many of you posters, the truth is what it is , mistakes were made at start but could have been fixed if Airservices was alone and did not have a large internal and external anchor ie defence and defence people with Airservices. This was never a defence project ... sorry if you are offended it is my earnest opinion based on my first have experience.
Cheers
Lodomal is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 09:52
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 605
Received 13 Likes on 3 Posts
A Harvard grad, well thats where it started to fall apart.

The Harvard MBA is at the centre of many a cocked up decision.
Snakecharma is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 21:06
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lodomal, like you I think there is a huge entitlement mentality in Airservices. Unlike you, I have no respect for the leadership at Airservices. I do not agree with your statements about Defence being the problem. I know this from first hand experience from within Airservices. There is a lot of blame being shifted. This is a common management technique for some of the individuals within the organisation.
I could go on but it’s really not worth my while.
Pavement is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 18:49
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
First Hand

PAVEMENT, I accept you have an opinion however by definition your comments are second or third hand. You did not work on the one sky project. I mention this simply to reinforce my credentials. I am not a blogger and reluctant to continue as it is difficult defending something that is clear within, the difficulty with defence. As I said and restate defence build things well, this project is so different for them and two different organisations trying to form a commercial partnership was always problematic. I hope if nothing my few words this last couple of days will offer a different view, one that is first hand- even if I am no longer there or have no associated with Airservices any longer what so ever.
It is an ex employees view. Nice chatting.
Lodomal is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 21:58
  #18 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Utopia
Posts: 7,395
Received 181 Likes on 108 Posts
Lodomal, did you miss this in Pavement's post?

I know this from first hand experience from within Airservices.
You may be correct in blaming Defence, but with the parlous reputation of AirServices Australia, you will find it very difficult to convince anyone in the commercial aviation industry to believe you.
tail wheel is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.