Here We Go Again - Reinventing the Wheel
Thread Starter
Here We Go Again - Reinventing the Wheel
Folks,
It only took 5 years to fight WWII??
And what will come out of the end of this $$$$ and time eating process ---- based on past performance, an Australia unique system that doesn't work.
At least TAAAAATS was essentially an "off the shelf" system,Eurocat, but remember the predecessors ---- I remember ---- the home built lashup that always lost a B747 in the Epping hold, but did a great job of tracking trucks on the Geelong road.
Tootle pip!!
Air traffic struggles to end waste
The government's air traffic control manager, Airservices Australia, admits progress has been slower than expected for the plan that has been mooted for more than a decade but was formalised by the Rudd government in 2009.
Known as ATC Future Systems, the plan aims to create a unified national air traffic control system for the first time, ending the wasteful separation between the military and civil systems.
It was planned that the unified system ultimately would save more than $300m, but so far it has only cost money as Airservices and Defence stumble over the complexity of the merger. Under the present system, air force air traffic controllers direct military aircraft while civilian controllers direct commercial aircraft, sometimes from the same airport.
The Australian understands that in the four years since the merger project began, about $50m has already been spent on it, directly and indirectly, with more than 100 people working on it.
Airservices disputes the $50m figure but admits that almost $30m has been spent. Despite this expenditure, the project was put out for tender only on June 28, four years after its inception.
"While substantial progress has been made to define the requirements of a harmonised solution, progress has been slower than expected due to the complexities of the program," an Airservices spokesman said.
"A program of this magnitude takes time to specify all the detail.
"Replacing the nation's air traffic management system requires prudent and detailed planning. The new system will need to safely manage the significant growth in air traffic that will occur over the next 20 years."
Airservices declined to say whether the project was already over budget, saying only that the budget would be reviewed once tenders had been received.
Insiders have told The Australian that the project has been conspicuous for its lack of achievement so far and that it is proceeding at a snail's pace.
Airservices says contracts are expected to be awarded in 2015 with the merged system finally becoming operational in 2020. The plan to merge the civil and military air traffic control systems has been mooted for more than a decade but previously has fallen victim to bureaucratic infighting.
In 2002, a document signed by former chief of defence force Angus Houston stated: "Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems."
Civil and military systems are merged in many countries such as Germany and Britain.
In 2005, Airservices and the RAAF set up a project called Genesis to merge the two systems but the program stagnated because of Defence's reservations. At that time, Defence feared it would lose tactical and strategic control of its aircraft in times of crisis -- one of the reasons the military system historically has been isolated from the civil system.
The impetus to finally merge the system has been the fact Defence's air traffic system is ageing and will need replacing, so it was considered the right time to integrate it with the civil system.
Airservices maintains that the money spent so far on the project has not been wasted. "Expenditure has covered such things as staffing, research and development, document production, specification production, legal and commercial advice and external reviews," the spokesman said.
It only took 5 years to fight WWII??
And what will come out of the end of this $$$$ and time eating process ---- based on past performance, an Australia unique system that doesn't work.
At least TAAAAATS was essentially an "off the shelf" system,Eurocat, but remember the predecessors ---- I remember ---- the home built lashup that always lost a B747 in the Epping hold, but did a great job of tracking trucks on the Geelong road.
Tootle pip!!
Air traffic struggles to end waste
- by: Cameron Stewart
- From: The Australian
- September 10, 2013 12:00AM
The government's air traffic control manager, Airservices Australia, admits progress has been slower than expected for the plan that has been mooted for more than a decade but was formalised by the Rudd government in 2009.
Known as ATC Future Systems, the plan aims to create a unified national air traffic control system for the first time, ending the wasteful separation between the military and civil systems.
It was planned that the unified system ultimately would save more than $300m, but so far it has only cost money as Airservices and Defence stumble over the complexity of the merger. Under the present system, air force air traffic controllers direct military aircraft while civilian controllers direct commercial aircraft, sometimes from the same airport.
The Australian understands that in the four years since the merger project began, about $50m has already been spent on it, directly and indirectly, with more than 100 people working on it.
Airservices disputes the $50m figure but admits that almost $30m has been spent. Despite this expenditure, the project was put out for tender only on June 28, four years after its inception.
"While substantial progress has been made to define the requirements of a harmonised solution, progress has been slower than expected due to the complexities of the program," an Airservices spokesman said.
"A program of this magnitude takes time to specify all the detail.
"Replacing the nation's air traffic management system requires prudent and detailed planning. The new system will need to safely manage the significant growth in air traffic that will occur over the next 20 years."
Airservices declined to say whether the project was already over budget, saying only that the budget would be reviewed once tenders had been received.
Insiders have told The Australian that the project has been conspicuous for its lack of achievement so far and that it is proceeding at a snail's pace.
Airservices says contracts are expected to be awarded in 2015 with the merged system finally becoming operational in 2020. The plan to merge the civil and military air traffic control systems has been mooted for more than a decade but previously has fallen victim to bureaucratic infighting.
In 2002, a document signed by former chief of defence force Angus Houston stated: "Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems."
Civil and military systems are merged in many countries such as Germany and Britain.
In 2005, Airservices and the RAAF set up a project called Genesis to merge the two systems but the program stagnated because of Defence's reservations. At that time, Defence feared it would lose tactical and strategic control of its aircraft in times of crisis -- one of the reasons the military system historically has been isolated from the civil system.
The impetus to finally merge the system has been the fact Defence's air traffic system is ageing and will need replacing, so it was considered the right time to integrate it with the civil system.
Airservices maintains that the money spent so far on the project has not been wasted. "Expenditure has covered such things as staffing, research and development, document production, specification production, legal and commercial advice and external reviews," the spokesman said.
Last edited by LeadSled; 18th Sep 2013 at 06:50.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airservices may make some savings with a new system but it will have nothing to do with Airservices and Defence having the same system. Defence will operate the same way and access through their airspace will be the same as it is now.
If someone says there will be $300M of savings by integrating Defence and Airservices to the same system show us where and be accountable for delivery. I thought not.
Airservices will make savings, which they could do now but a new system is a nice trigger, however it will have nothing to do with Defence.
Watch the rabbit because this will be a magic show with rubbery figures.
If someone says there will be $300M of savings by integrating Defence and Airservices to the same system show us where and be accountable for delivery. I thought not.
Airservices will make savings, which they could do now but a new system is a nice trigger, however it will have nothing to do with Defence.
Watch the rabbit because this will be a magic show with rubbery figures.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder if its possible to subcontract to the Yanks, or the best in the world the Brits?I so enjoyed flying into Heathrow.
Last edited by thorn bird; 18th Sep 2013 at 08:50.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Count de money
It's only money friends. $50 mil here, $300 mil there, $800 mil under Mr Russell's term!
Houston, Staib, these bureaucrats are Nupty's. All talk and no substance.
I feel sorry for Hoody, he has gone from the poison chalice of regulatory reform at CAsA into a role at ASA where yet again he gets lumped with a poison chalice!
Perhaps ASA should hire the ATSbeakers chief accountant, Commissioner mi mi mi mi Dolan, to come and sort out their finances? He is good at saving money by simply doing nothing
The arrival of Beaker;
Houston, Staib, these bureaucrats are Nupty's. All talk and no substance.
I feel sorry for Hoody, he has gone from the poison chalice of regulatory reform at CAsA into a role at ASA where yet again he gets lumped with a poison chalice!
Perhaps ASA should hire the ATSbeakers chief accountant, Commissioner mi mi mi mi Dolan, to come and sort out their finances? He is good at saving money by simply doing nothing
The arrival of Beaker;
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont confuse delivery of this project with ATC provided. Given the limitations of the organisational culture they work under Aussie ATCs do a pretty good job.
The role of GM ATC (sorry executive GM) does not have responsibility for this projects delivery. Still waiting for a permanent apointment to GM ATC.
Given the talent left in managerial ranks after TFN left (i will make an exception for Hoody, but he left and came back) I would be looking at an external into the role.
But I digress, this project will not deliver some of the stated benefits.
The role of GM ATC (sorry executive GM) does not have responsibility for this projects delivery. Still waiting for a permanent apointment to GM ATC.
Given the talent left in managerial ranks after TFN left (i will make an exception for Hoody, but he left and came back) I would be looking at an external into the role.
But I digress, this project will not deliver some of the stated benefits.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Owen Stanley's "Real World"
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 004wercras
$800 mil under Mr Russell's term!
Originally Posted by Pavement
Aussie ATCs do a pretty good job.
Very true. Any and every international pilot will tell you that you are most confident under Aussie control. Try declaring a PAN PAN overseas and see where you get.
Thanks to the local guys who do such a wonderful job, Military and civilian.
Last edited by Pass-A-Frozzo; 18th Sep 2013 at 09:39.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$600M rings a bell but to be fair Im pretty sure that included a couple of buildings, refitting TCUs and it was a quantum leap forward in technology/systems.
Read between the lines and you would have to assume a new building or extensions for this contract as well.
Read between the lines and you would have to assume a new building or extensions for this contract as well.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Frozzo, The Russelite is no longer, been gone a while now.
Just pointing out the amount of money that has been spent with not the desired return on investment.
If, and I say if, Hoody is given some additional power and Staib leaves him to sort out the mess then you could see a turnaround for the better, so to speak.
He made inroads last time, but was denied access to the top rung of the ladder, hence his going to CAsA. Of course, once again, he started to make some inroads at FF but the 'three blind mice' decided to hang him over the Norfolk mess, hence his bailing back to ASA.
I am wondering however about the $50 mil blown to date, as mentioned above. Could most of that have been spent on pot plants and cab fares??
Just pointing out the amount of money that has been spent with not the desired return on investment.
If, and I say if, Hoody is given some additional power and Staib leaves him to sort out the mess then you could see a turnaround for the better, so to speak.
He made inroads last time, but was denied access to the top rung of the ladder, hence his going to CAsA. Of course, once again, he started to make some inroads at FF but the 'three blind mice' decided to hang him over the Norfolk mess, hence his bailing back to ASA.
I am wondering however about the $50 mil blown to date, as mentioned above. Could most of that have been spent on pot plants and cab fares??
Last edited by 004wercras; 18th Sep 2013 at 12:48.
You guys make me laugh. How many decades has the US been attempting to upgrade their 1960s vintage equipment? How many billions have they spent with next to nothing to show?
Eurocat off the shelf? Snort.
Eurocat off the shelf? Snort.
Re:....
At least TAAAAATS was essentially an "off the shelf" system,Eurocat, but remember the predecessors ---- I remember ....
Oi remember the 'FISADS' which was the 'Predecessor' of it all....
A very 'humble' / basic system which was rejected by Flight Service as being a too slow computerised version of what we were doing wif 'mental gymnastics' then....
And so the wheel continues to turn.... pushed by....WOT..??
The push for POWER / GREED...???
At least TAAAAATS was essentially an "off the shelf" system,Eurocat, but remember the predecessors ---- I remember ....
Oi remember the 'FISADS' which was the 'Predecessor' of it all....
A very 'humble' / basic system which was rejected by Flight Service as being a too slow computerised version of what we were doing wif 'mental gymnastics' then....
And so the wheel continues to turn.... pushed by....WOT..??
The push for POWER / GREED...???
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shart 61
I have been studiously reading Part 61 and I must say it is 500 pages of pony pooh! It is riddled with shanties (and I just know how that will upset those who don't enjoy shanties, riddles or 'covert secretly coded language'!).
It is a shocker, and it has the DNA of Witchdoctory all over it.
Never mind though, once the Consultants out there have cracked the code to understanding Fort Fumbles latest riddle there will be money to me made
Sorry Leadie, I feel the urge to end with a 'tootle pip'. (Incidentally is 'tootle pip' a shantie ?
)
It is a shocker, and it has the DNA of Witchdoctory all over it.
Never mind though, once the Consultants out there have cracked the code to understanding Fort Fumbles latest riddle there will be money to me made
Sorry Leadie, I feel the urge to end with a 'tootle pip'. (Incidentally is 'tootle pip' a shantie ?
)
Last edited by 004wercras; 23rd Sep 2013 at 12:33.
Australia has no hope of developing and implementing any sophisticated IT based ATC system, not a shred, not a chance, but they will spend at least Two billion trying and make some people very very rich in the process.
How do I know this? Because I spent Two years as "group general manager - systems integration" for an IT company delivering systems to the public sector until the predators nailed me.
The core of the problem is Twofold:
1. The public service tender process.
2. Lethally effective multi level marketing, originally pioneered by IBM Fifty years ago.
The public sector procurement system requires that there be:
a) A request for tender - a statement of the exact operational requirements the system must fulfill.
b) A contractors response to tender - followed by an evaluation process about how (b) meets (a) and the cost.
Problem 1: Determining the operational requirements is a continuously moving target thanks to new technology, changes to demographics and operating procedures, let alone organisational changes and shifting responsibilities.
Given that four years has elapsed while AsA and the Defence try and nail down the requirements, and given that it will take at least Five years to deiver the system, then by definition, all that will be delivered is what you think you needed Ten years ago. Do you think technology. politics, organisations, rules and procedures will be the same? Of course not!
Since we are firing at a moving target, there will have to be "variations" to the contract and they become very, very, very expensive as time goes on because this is where the contractor makes his money, through multi level marketing.
Problem 2: The principle of multi level marketing is to play on Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt from the top to the bottom of Government. It is devastatingly effective, I've had it done to me.
Step (a) - At each level of the Government and public service, from the Minister down, the contractor designates a relationship manager right down to sub project team leader level.
The relationship managers are all intelligent, beautifully dressed, often attractive if sex might be a factor and they all have gold credit cards. They are tasked with discovering the target persons innermost thoughts about life, their job, the project, their coworers and of course their boss. To do this they use wine, women, song, flattery, bribery, the best restaurants and of course corporate boxes at football, tennis, the races, Opera, golf, you name it.
Of course, what the targets don't know is that the relationship managers objective is to develop a complete picture of the strengths and weaknesses of every decision maker in the target Department. They pool their information. If you gossip that your boss is boffing his secretary, for example or that person A hates person B, they will store that information for future use.
Step (b) Is where the rubber meets the road. When the first requests for a changes (variation) appear, you will receive simply monstrous quotes for them from the contractor. So what happens next? Do you scream and yell? Do you cancel the project? Do you argue? No, you meekly accept the quotes and pay the money. Your relationship manager will force you to.
There is nothing more chilling for a manager to be told casually by his relationship manager: "Your boss was our guest at the tennis last night and I told him how well we were getting along.". Do you not understand that your idle gossip about person A hating person B and your boss boffing his secretary can be used to destroy A, B, your boss, his secretary and of course you?
Do you not understand that the Minister knows that if he tries to cancel the project, the contractor will leak to the press and opposition about the amount of money wasted in a microsecond?
There is no defence against this marketing technique, at least in Government.
There is only one sensible way of dealing with this matter. Select a system from somewhere that most closely resembles what you think you want. Buy it and install it without fiddling with it or trying to modify it because that will deliver you straight into the jaws of the contractor.
The second step is to change your procedures, regulations and if necessary laws to match the capability that your system can deliver.
How do I know this? Because I spent Two years as "group general manager - systems integration" for an IT company delivering systems to the public sector until the predators nailed me.
The core of the problem is Twofold:
1. The public service tender process.
2. Lethally effective multi level marketing, originally pioneered by IBM Fifty years ago.
The public sector procurement system requires that there be:
a) A request for tender - a statement of the exact operational requirements the system must fulfill.
b) A contractors response to tender - followed by an evaluation process about how (b) meets (a) and the cost.
Problem 1: Determining the operational requirements is a continuously moving target thanks to new technology, changes to demographics and operating procedures, let alone organisational changes and shifting responsibilities.
Given that four years has elapsed while AsA and the Defence try and nail down the requirements, and given that it will take at least Five years to deiver the system, then by definition, all that will be delivered is what you think you needed Ten years ago. Do you think technology. politics, organisations, rules and procedures will be the same? Of course not!
Since we are firing at a moving target, there will have to be "variations" to the contract and they become very, very, very expensive as time goes on because this is where the contractor makes his money, through multi level marketing.
Problem 2: The principle of multi level marketing is to play on Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt from the top to the bottom of Government. It is devastatingly effective, I've had it done to me.
Step (a) - At each level of the Government and public service, from the Minister down, the contractor designates a relationship manager right down to sub project team leader level.
The relationship managers are all intelligent, beautifully dressed, often attractive if sex might be a factor and they all have gold credit cards. They are tasked with discovering the target persons innermost thoughts about life, their job, the project, their coworers and of course their boss. To do this they use wine, women, song, flattery, bribery, the best restaurants and of course corporate boxes at football, tennis, the races, Opera, golf, you name it.
Of course, what the targets don't know is that the relationship managers objective is to develop a complete picture of the strengths and weaknesses of every decision maker in the target Department. They pool their information. If you gossip that your boss is boffing his secretary, for example or that person A hates person B, they will store that information for future use.
Step (b) Is where the rubber meets the road. When the first requests for a changes (variation) appear, you will receive simply monstrous quotes for them from the contractor. So what happens next? Do you scream and yell? Do you cancel the project? Do you argue? No, you meekly accept the quotes and pay the money. Your relationship manager will force you to.
There is nothing more chilling for a manager to be told casually by his relationship manager: "Your boss was our guest at the tennis last night and I told him how well we were getting along.". Do you not understand that your idle gossip about person A hating person B and your boss boffing his secretary can be used to destroy A, B, your boss, his secretary and of course you?
Do you not understand that the Minister knows that if he tries to cancel the project, the contractor will leak to the press and opposition about the amount of money wasted in a microsecond?
There is no defence against this marketing technique, at least in Government.
There is only one sensible way of dealing with this matter. Select a system from somewhere that most closely resembles what you think you want. Buy it and install it without fiddling with it or trying to modify it because that will deliver you straight into the jaws of the contractor.
The second step is to change your procedures, regulations and if necessary laws to match the capability that your system can deliver.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have not seen a decent tender document in about 20 years, private or public.
What makes this any better. The tender process now days is so convoluted I am sure it is corrupt by nature, and even greater chances for a corrupted outcome. In whatever sense you wish to use the word corrupt.
You have little chance of getting what you actually want or need.
What makes this any better. The tender process now days is so convoluted I am sure it is corrupt by nature, and even greater chances for a corrupted outcome. In whatever sense you wish to use the word corrupt.
You have little chance of getting what you actually want or need.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Wherever required
Age: 79
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Myki and airport leases?
Sunny, sounds very much like the progress of the Myki system in Victoria.
Makes one wonder about the sale of airport leases, individuals involved now in high places? Don't think this involved tickets to the opera.
Makes one wonder about the sale of airport leases, individuals involved now in high places? Don't think this involved tickets to the opera.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you have idiots in core jobs then you get nonsense out of them.
I have written tenders that were entirely contained in the terse advertisement.
they took the form of 'I want a system to do this in this environment.'
we would provide them with a complete system map annotated with the relevant info. answer any and all questions honestly.
we shocked quite a few with the approach but the time they would have wasted trying to make sense of the waffle it turns out was devoted to sorting out the problems and achieving a system that worked.
of course if you are evaluating a tender you really need to be on top of the game.
I once used the accountant's style of tick the boxes to look at a tender that had been dumped in my lap. The industry best were Toshiba laptops but they didnt fare as well against a singapore made machine.
the singapore made machine turned out to be a disaster.
tickbox evaluations can't be used to better advantage than a sixth sense understanding.
we're all just humans and the logistics of organising large groups of humans can exceed the abilities of the best of us at times.
thankfully now I'm retired from all of that pressure.
the process will never be perfect. you just do the best you can.
I have written tenders that were entirely contained in the terse advertisement.
they took the form of 'I want a system to do this in this environment.'
we would provide them with a complete system map annotated with the relevant info. answer any and all questions honestly.
we shocked quite a few with the approach but the time they would have wasted trying to make sense of the waffle it turns out was devoted to sorting out the problems and achieving a system that worked.
of course if you are evaluating a tender you really need to be on top of the game.
I once used the accountant's style of tick the boxes to look at a tender that had been dumped in my lap. The industry best were Toshiba laptops but they didnt fare as well against a singapore made machine.
the singapore made machine turned out to be a disaster.
tickbox evaluations can't be used to better advantage than a sixth sense understanding.
we're all just humans and the logistics of organising large groups of humans can exceed the abilities of the best of us at times.
thankfully now I'm retired from all of that pressure.
the process will never be perfect. you just do the best you can.
Last edited by dubbleyew eight; 24th Sep 2013 at 01:16.
