Millions of dollars secretly lost by Airservices
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howabout don't confuse GRAS with GBAS 
GBAS (lower minimums for RPT multi-crew with HUD bit like/added to RNP) has been sucessfully trialed in a 'loned'
737. Whether it gets the go remains to be seen 
stay tuned for the next 'secret squirel' headline 
GBAS (lower minimums for RPT multi-crew with HUD bit like/added to RNP) has been sucessfully trialed in a 'loned'
737. Whether it gets the go remains to be seen stay tuned for the next 'secret squirel' headline
Thread Starter
GBAS, GRAS, or GRASS if there is to be money made in it why does a government owned air service provider have to risk our money on the design?
Or do the smart business people think there is no money in it?
Another Seasprite fiasco -luckily on a smaller scale.
Or do the smart business people think there is no money in it?
Another Seasprite fiasco -luckily on a smaller scale.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the 06/07 Annual Report financial notes.
s. Derivative financial instruments
Airservices Australia Group uses derivative financial instruments such as foreign currency
contracts and interest rate swaps to hedge its risks associated with foreign currency and interest
rate fluctuations. Such derivative financial instruments are stated at fair value.
The fair value of forward currency contracts is calculated by reference to current forward
exchange rates for contracts with similar maturity profiles. The fair value of interest rate swap
contracts is determined as the difference in present value, discounted using current market rates,
of future cash flows.
For the purposes of hedge accounting, foreign currency hedges are classified as fair value
hedges as they hedge exposures to changes in the fair value of a recognised asset or liability.
For foreign currency hedges that satisfy the conditions for hedge accounting, the gain or loss on
the hedging instrument is recognised directly in equity. In relation to foreign exchange hedges
that do not meet the conditions for hedge accounting, any gain or loss from remeasuring the
hedging instrument at fair value is recognised immediately in the income statement.
Don't know the amounts involved. There is also something in there about Airservices Pacific Incorporated (API)
Airservices Pacific Incorporated (API)
Airservices Australia has owned 100% of API, based in Delaware in the United States of America, since
December 2004. The investment comprises 1,000 shares at a nominal value of US$1.00 per share.
Airservices Australia previously made available a loan facility of US $0.700m to API at normal
commercial terms and conditions in December 2004 which was repaid with interest in December
2006. A second facility of US $0.700m was made available in September 2005. This facility was fully
drawn in December 2006 to repay the maturing issue and meet working capital requirements.
The new facility expires in December 2009 but can be repaid with interest at any time prior to
maturity. As at 30 June 2007 the principal amount of the loan equates to AUD $0.826m.
[i] Mr Russell is also the ongoing Chairman of the Board of Airservices Australia's wholly-owned subsidiary, Airservices Pacific Incorporated.
Special Purpose Entities
In accordance with the indicators of control for accounting purposes detailed in UIG Interpretation
112, Airservices Australia Group controls four special purpose entities which are involved in the
US cross-border arrangement in relation to equipment associated with 'The Australian Advanced
Air Traffic System' (TAAATS) and radar systems discussed in note 29. However the issued capital in
these entities, which totals US$4,000, is not owned by Airservices Australia Group but is held by
two finance companies. These entities are not consolidated due to materiality.
From some more trawling of the 06/07 Annual Report. Note 29 dicusses the $700+ million exposure.
As I have stated I don't know anything, but these big numbers thrown about may have their seeds in this.
s. Derivative financial instruments
Airservices Australia Group uses derivative financial instruments such as foreign currency
contracts and interest rate swaps to hedge its risks associated with foreign currency and interest
rate fluctuations. Such derivative financial instruments are stated at fair value.
The fair value of forward currency contracts is calculated by reference to current forward
exchange rates for contracts with similar maturity profiles. The fair value of interest rate swap
contracts is determined as the difference in present value, discounted using current market rates,
of future cash flows.
For the purposes of hedge accounting, foreign currency hedges are classified as fair value
hedges as they hedge exposures to changes in the fair value of a recognised asset or liability.
For foreign currency hedges that satisfy the conditions for hedge accounting, the gain or loss on
the hedging instrument is recognised directly in equity. In relation to foreign exchange hedges
that do not meet the conditions for hedge accounting, any gain or loss from remeasuring the
hedging instrument at fair value is recognised immediately in the income statement.
Don't know the amounts involved. There is also something in there about Airservices Pacific Incorporated (API)
Airservices Pacific Incorporated (API)
Airservices Australia has owned 100% of API, based in Delaware in the United States of America, since
December 2004. The investment comprises 1,000 shares at a nominal value of US$1.00 per share.
Airservices Australia previously made available a loan facility of US $0.700m to API at normal
commercial terms and conditions in December 2004 which was repaid with interest in December
2006. A second facility of US $0.700m was made available in September 2005. This facility was fully
drawn in December 2006 to repay the maturing issue and meet working capital requirements.
The new facility expires in December 2009 but can be repaid with interest at any time prior to
maturity. As at 30 June 2007 the principal amount of the loan equates to AUD $0.826m.
[i] Mr Russell is also the ongoing Chairman of the Board of Airservices Australia's wholly-owned subsidiary, Airservices Pacific Incorporated.
Special Purpose Entities
In accordance with the indicators of control for accounting purposes detailed in UIG Interpretation
112, Airservices Australia Group controls four special purpose entities which are involved in the
US cross-border arrangement in relation to equipment associated with 'The Australian Advanced
Air Traffic System' (TAAATS) and radar systems discussed in note 29. However the issued capital in
these entities, which totals US$4,000, is not owned by Airservices Australia Group but is held by
two finance companies. These entities are not consolidated due to materiality.
From some more trawling of the 06/07 Annual Report. Note 29 dicusses the $700+ million exposure.
As I have stated I don't know anything, but these big numbers thrown about may have their seeds in this.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if there is to be money made in it why does a government owned air service provider have to risk our money on the design
Oh dear, another unique Australian system?
EUROCONTROL Navigation Domain - GBAS
The Ground-Based Augmentation System (GBAS) is a safety-critical system that augments the GPS Standard Positioning Service (SPS) and provides enhanced levels of service
I think the first has a link to the FAA also.
Howabout - spot on, the trials were GBAS.
Reason Foundation: Air Traffic Control Reform Newsletter #53 (May 2008)
Approach with Precision - GPS Avionics & Transportation
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mod's.
Could we please separate the two subjects, GRAS and the errrm hedging
and might I suggest (as per max's info and d.n.s's point) that the later be 'stickied'
now that will be a story
Could we please separate the two subjects, GRAS and the errrm hedging
and might I suggest (as per max's info and d.n.s's point) that the later be 'stickied' now that will be a story
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GBAS, GRAS, or GRASS if there is to be money made in it why does a government owned air service provider have to risk our money on the design?
Or do the smart business people think there is no money in it?
Or do the smart business people think there is no money in it?
Another Seasprite fiasco -luckily on a smaller scale.
but if it floats your boat make revolutions to flank 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a number of issues here but the primary one is what Airservices Australia spends the money taken from the travelling public on.
Should Airservices Australia be speculating on foreign exchange rates with this money?
Should Airservices Australia be developing emerging technologies and procedures or buying proven ones?
Should Airservices Australia be involved in every scheme that an airheaded manager dreams up to justify their next bonus? Specifically those who fly in and out of Perth and Jandakot strap in tight for the 20th of November. When the Western Australian Route Review is implemented, at best you will need more holding fuel and route fuel. With the threat that ‘people will lose their jobs’ if it is not implemented when safety concerns are raised makes one wonder about the governance of the thing.
Airservices Australia - Projects & Services - Projects & Initiatives - Western Australia Route Review Project (WARRP)
But consider if Airservices Australia concentrated on the task at hand, the safe provision of an air traffic control service then Airservices Australia could provide staff for a tower service at Avalon, upgrade if required the radar feed in Bankstown tower and provide the radar approach service in Broome that the FAA would provide if Broome was in the USA.
Will those who pay the charges to Airservices Australia demand that their monies are used to provide the service paid for rather than be used on wasteful and risky frolics?
Will the minister act to control this out of control air traffic provider or pay a bonus to the architects of this diversion from being an air traffic service provider whose primary concern is the provision of a safe air traffic service?
Why was this not mentioned at Waypoint?
Airservices Australia - Projects & Services - Industry Forums - Waypoint 2008
Rat
Should Airservices Australia be speculating on foreign exchange rates with this money?
Should Airservices Australia be developing emerging technologies and procedures or buying proven ones?
Should Airservices Australia be involved in every scheme that an airheaded manager dreams up to justify their next bonus? Specifically those who fly in and out of Perth and Jandakot strap in tight for the 20th of November. When the Western Australian Route Review is implemented, at best you will need more holding fuel and route fuel. With the threat that ‘people will lose their jobs’ if it is not implemented when safety concerns are raised makes one wonder about the governance of the thing.
Airservices Australia - Projects & Services - Projects & Initiatives - Western Australia Route Review Project (WARRP)
But consider if Airservices Australia concentrated on the task at hand, the safe provision of an air traffic control service then Airservices Australia could provide staff for a tower service at Avalon, upgrade if required the radar feed in Bankstown tower and provide the radar approach service in Broome that the FAA would provide if Broome was in the USA.
Will those who pay the charges to Airservices Australia demand that their monies are used to provide the service paid for rather than be used on wasteful and risky frolics?
Will the minister act to control this out of control air traffic provider or pay a bonus to the architects of this diversion from being an air traffic service provider whose primary concern is the provision of a safe air traffic service?
Why was this not mentioned at Waypoint?
Airservices Australia - Projects & Services - Industry Forums - Waypoint 2008
Rat
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, tell me if I am wrong with my limited education.
If we had WAAS, presumably, and with an appropriate plate, I could do a precision letdown into Ungarlamarnafook in the GAFA. But with GBAS/GRAS I can't.
Is it that simple, or have I missed something?
If we had WAAS, presumably, and with an appropriate plate, I could do a precision letdown into Ungarlamarnafook in the GAFA. But with GBAS/GRAS I can't.
Is it that simple, or have I missed something?
Thread Starter
You are correct however as Leadsled pointed out, with WAAS AsA would not be able to charge you - thats why they would have no incentive to introduce such a system.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Dick,
That seems to me to be a total crock. Why should the likes of regional Australia, particularly like the guys in the RFDS, have to take a back seat?
If there's a serious medical case in, say, somewhere like Oodnattata, and all it takes is a properly designed plate, if the augmenation is available, then why in the hell are we settling for anything less?
That seems to me to be a total crock. Why should the likes of regional Australia, particularly like the guys in the RFDS, have to take a back seat?
If there's a serious medical case in, say, somewhere like Oodnattata, and all it takes is a properly designed plate, if the augmenation is available, then why in the hell are we settling for anything less?
Last edited by Howabout; 29th Sep 2008 at 11:54. Reason: crap spelling
I seem to remember getting bashed up some where around here for arguing for WAAS as opposed to GRAS. GRAS was a great idea for Honeywell and the AirServices guy who helped design the system. It did give CatIII approaches which are still badly needed in Perth, but at a price. Remember the argument so well, GRAS provides "soverign" control...read that as a toll!
Bob, We already have a reference station in Canberra and there is another one in Hawaii providing a signal for the MTSAT. This particular baby does fall right in the lap of DoTaRS, specifically, the Regional Services part of DoTaRS. The money spent on setting up the ref stations around the capitals to provide for a GRAS would go a very long way to supply enough ref stations around Aus and another uplink over in the West. CC is quite correct. WAAS would save far more lives than ADS-B. YHOT, YBLA and YLHR would all be a distant part of history if we had WAAS in the GAFA.
WAAS is a lot more than just a signal for aeroplanes. DoTaRS must look at this the same way the US does. How much economic benefit for the community can be derived by investing in a better road. I am sitting right next to myself just thinking I am on the same side as Leadsled
Dick, this is where your economic rationalist mates come unstuck. User pays and affordable safety does not equate with a government spending money on public works. That model of the ninties has doomed us to not accessing the likes of WAAS unless someone can be charged for it. Your fighting for the least cost to GA has precipitated and locked out neccessary technology gains. Even a capitalist US can see the benefit of allowing the technology free to the world.
Bob, We already have a reference station in Canberra and there is another one in Hawaii providing a signal for the MTSAT. This particular baby does fall right in the lap of DoTaRS, specifically, the Regional Services part of DoTaRS. The money spent on setting up the ref stations around the capitals to provide for a GRAS would go a very long way to supply enough ref stations around Aus and another uplink over in the West. CC is quite correct. WAAS would save far more lives than ADS-B. YHOT, YBLA and YLHR would all be a distant part of history if we had WAAS in the GAFA.
WAAS is a lot more than just a signal for aeroplanes. DoTaRS must look at this the same way the US does. How much economic benefit for the community can be derived by investing in a better road. I am sitting right next to myself just thinking I am on the same side as Leadsled
Dick, this is where your economic rationalist mates come unstuck. User pays and affordable safety does not equate with a government spending money on public works. That model of the ninties has doomed us to not accessing the likes of WAAS unless someone can be charged for it. Your fighting for the least cost to GA has precipitated and locked out neccessary technology gains. Even a capitalist US can see the benefit of allowing the technology free to the world.
Even a capitalist US can see the benefit of allowing the technology free to the world.
............dum-de-dum-de-dumHat, coat - I'm out of here
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez, I'll give it away from here, but:
Apparently WAAS has the potential to give us CAT 1 into every remote airfield provided we have an appropriate plate. GBAS/GRAS will not get me into anywhere other than where there is a ground based piece of kit, or a regional ground based piece of kit, that returns revenue to the owner.
Sometimes it's hard to sleep at night trying to make sense out of a seemingly simple proposition. Aviation used to be relatively understandable.
Apparently WAAS has the potential to give us CAT 1 into every remote airfield provided we have an appropriate plate. GBAS/GRAS will not get me into anywhere other than where there is a ground based piece of kit, or a regional ground based piece of kit, that returns revenue to the owner.
Sometimes it's hard to sleep at night trying to make sense out of a seemingly simple proposition. Aviation used to be relatively understandable.
Last edited by Howabout; 29th Sep 2008 at 13:28. Reason: inadvertant delete
Guys, WAAS is going to have to come, AsA won't provide it because they can't make money out of it because its a public good.
It's not going to be you guys that force this outcome. It's the farmers and miners who want it because it is precise enough for some automatic vehicle control applications that increase productivity. Picture your average cocky who has just laid out $500,000 for his latest John Deer toy and discovers that he can only use 60% of it's features because we don't have WAAS enabled GPS available.
Here is the link covering John Deares applications:
Receivers - How accurate are they
It's not going to be you guys that force this outcome. It's the farmers and miners who want it because it is precise enough for some automatic vehicle control applications that increase productivity. Picture your average cocky who has just laid out $500,000 for his latest John Deer toy and discovers that he can only use 60% of it's features because we don't have WAAS enabled GPS available.
Here is the link covering John Deares applications:
Receivers - How accurate are they
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: HK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, you are 100% on the money. General Aviation = small voice Wheat farmers with auto harvesters = big voice it is all to do with the commodities based economy.
And yes it is a common good , Airservices just upset they can't charge for it other than the issue of approach charts.
And yes it is a common good , Airservices just upset they can't charge for it other than the issue of approach charts.