Substantial $1.1 Million Per Annum for OneSKY Consultant
Thread Starter
Substantial $1.1 Million Per Annum for OneSKY Consultant
Documents that are in the hands of the media and some politicians claim that the Airservices OneSKY project is paying an ex-RAAF test pilot (including the Nomad) and previous Manager of the Hawker De Havilland Australian Aviation College $1.1 million per annum as a lead negotiator and private consultant. Mr Bradford must be pretty good at his job!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extraordinary, if true.
I remember a Bradford. Good bloke, good pilot; but if he's the same, then I doubt his credentials to consult at $1.1 mill when it comes to a next gen ATC system.
Can I do the same job for a few free coffees, $30k to subsidise my pension, plus a free car-park?
I'd say that I have a damned sight more experience in ATM systems.
I do not often agree with you Leady, but that's a very fair call
I remember a Bradford. Good bloke, good pilot; but if he's the same, then I doubt his credentials to consult at $1.1 mill when it comes to a next gen ATC system.
Can I do the same job for a few free coffees, $30k to subsidise my pension, plus a free car-park?
I'd say that I have a damned sight more experience in ATM systems.
I do not often agree with you Leady, but that's a very fair call
Thread Starter
Why would AsA have to employ an outside party to negotiate the deal?
Is there a lack of suitable skills within the organisation?
Appears there may have been an additional contractor involved being paid over $500,000 PA
Is there a lack of suitable skills within the organisation?
Appears there may have been an additional contractor involved being paid over $500,000 PA
Chickenfeed, compared with the tens of millions that Thales will likely extract in out-of-scope work.
This is merely the most recent attempt to combine the civilian and ADF ATC systems. http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafn...es/story16.htm
The structural problem is that the project should not be run by either Defence or Airservices. It should be run by someone who knows what they're doing.
This is merely the most recent attempt to combine the civilian and ADF ATC systems. http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafn...es/story16.htm
The structural problem is that the project should not be run by either Defence or Airservices. It should be run by someone who knows what they're doing.
Thread Starter
And they are purchasing OneSky for the existing half wound back 1950s airspace system.
One day AsA will be forced to have their en route controllors provide a proper Class E separation service for IFR aircraft as per the Governments NAS policy.
Surely the new ATC system should be purchased with this in mind. I wonder if Mr Bradford has been properly informed. I bet not.
Are the Military charged to fly in the AsA en route system? Or is it still a barter system with no actual accounts or charging done.?
One day AsA will be forced to have their en route controllors provide a proper Class E separation service for IFR aircraft as per the Governments NAS policy.
Surely the new ATC system should be purchased with this in mind. I wonder if Mr Bradford has been properly informed. I bet not.
Are the Military charged to fly in the AsA en route system? Or is it still a barter system with no actual accounts or charging done.?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 11th Aug 2015 at 09:14.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You see, Dick, this is but one of the problems with your arguments. You raise a valid point as to competency and consultancy costs and then go off at a tangent to pursue one, or several, hobby-horses all the time. To wit:
You want NAS, supposedly in totality, but you cherry-pick the bits you want. You want the 'super-friendly US system,' but you conveniently ignore the reality.
One straight answer, Dick. Does the US airspace system you want to import holus-bolus charge the US military??
You can't have it both ways, and a simple yes or no will do. If you can't answer 'yes,' then your arguments fail in respect of NAS. For a bright bloke, you leave holes that a bus could drive through. Same for Leady.
I am sure you will agree.
Finally, Porter, it's not about ex-RAAF, it's about competence to do the job no matter the background. Personally, I do not agree that the (alleged) appointee has the skills to consult on modern ATM systems. But that's just my take.
Are the Military charged to fly in the AsA en route system? Or is it still a barter system with no actual accounts or charging done.?
One straight answer, Dick. Does the US airspace system you want to import holus-bolus charge the US military??
You can't have it both ways, and a simple yes or no will do. If you can't answer 'yes,' then your arguments fail in respect of NAS. For a bright bloke, you leave holes that a bus could drive through. Same for Leady.
I am sure you will agree.
Finally, Porter, it's not about ex-RAAF, it's about competence to do the job no matter the background. Personally, I do not agree that the (alleged) appointee has the skills to consult on modern ATM systems. But that's just my take.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Dick; am I left with nothing other than to conclude that you don't actually want NAS, despite all of your traffic to the contrary?
Am I forced to conclude that you want a hybrid called DSAS, despite your advocacy that goes back to 11/1. Advocacy that has caused such division through the agony of AS 2000, Son of AS 2000, NAS and your ongoing campaign of cherry-picking by your own admission?
Sorry, Dick, but I just don't understand how the 'logic-circuit' works. On the one hand you want NAS; and on the other you don't.
Please explain.
Am I forced to conclude that you want a hybrid called DSAS, despite your advocacy that goes back to 11/1. Advocacy that has caused such division through the agony of AS 2000, Son of AS 2000, NAS and your ongoing campaign of cherry-picking by your own admission?
Sorry, Dick, but I just don't understand how the 'logic-circuit' works. On the one hand you want NAS; and on the other you don't.
Please explain.
Thread Starter
I have never believed we should have every IFR approach in a minimum of class E airspace as per the USA.
Look at the NAS as approved by John Anderson.
A place like Bourke clearly does not need class E. A place like Ballina does.
Copy the best I always say!
Look at the NAS as approved by John Anderson.
A place like Bourke clearly does not need class E. A place like Ballina does.
Copy the best I always say!
You're the one making claims of miraculous separation standards and want us to take your word for it.
And now you resort to an ad hominem attack to avoid doing so. Really? What are you hiding?
And now you resort to an ad hominem attack to avoid doing so. Really? What are you hiding?
Thread Starter
There are no miraculous separation standards in the USA ,Canada and France - all countries that have non radar terminal airspace to low levels- typically 700' agl.
Just sensible standards that more closely reflect what Aussie pilots now do in practice in class G.
Under AMATS the low level terminal class E was coming in at certain airports in 1993. You and others have been telling us for over 20 years that it won't work and you have prevented any trial or demo.
But you will eventually fail and when Ballina gets going successfully no doubt you will drift into obscurity .
ANZA no problems with made up names if you don't want to have any real effectiveness. Nothing to stop posters using their real names when they have self belief in what they are saying!
Just sensible standards that more closely reflect what Aussie pilots now do in practice in class G.
Under AMATS the low level terminal class E was coming in at certain airports in 1993. You and others have been telling us for over 20 years that it won't work and you have prevented any trial or demo.
But you will eventually fail and when Ballina gets going successfully no doubt you will drift into obscurity .
ANZA no problems with made up names if you don't want to have any real effectiveness. Nothing to stop posters using their real names when they have self belief in what they are saying!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: QLD
Age: 34
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing at all stopping them. Apart from wanting a job in an industry where agitators are frowned upon and where whistle blowers are moved on. You ought to know how it is in the charter shops and schools. Get yourself a rep on here and you're done. Not to mention those who are still loyal employees of small, or big, companies who could lose their jobs if they are deemed to be talking on their companies behalf or against their company.
Thread Starter
Good point and I stand corrected.
I havnt worked for anyone since I started DSE at 25.
That's given me the freedom to say things without the threat of damaging my career.
I apologise.
I havnt worked for anyone since I started DSE at 25.
That's given me the freedom to say things without the threat of damaging my career.
I apologise.