What’s happening with OneSKY?
Thread Starter
What’s happening with OneSKY?
It is interesting that this issue has been completely silent. Whilst there have been some claiming that it will end up another Super Seasprite fiasco, where $1.4 billion of taxpayers’ money was lost, in this case it will be mostly the aviation industry’s money that would be lost if it doesn’t stick to budget and provide a viable, safe system.
Are there any deadlines that have to be met, and have these been met? Does anyone have any information on this?
Are there any deadlines that have to be met, and have these been met? Does anyone have any information on this?
See if you can track down copies of the presentations from this year's ALAANZ conference.
One of the presentations had a diagram of the agreements that are proposed to be negotiated between Airservices and Defence, and between the contractor and Airservices and Defence.
That one diagram shows why OneSky will be another Seasprite.
To modify slightly old saying: A picture paints a billion wasted dollars.
One of the presentations had a diagram of the agreements that are proposed to be negotiated between Airservices and Defence, and between the contractor and Airservices and Defence.
That one diagram shows why OneSky will be another Seasprite.
To modify slightly old saying: A picture paints a billion wasted dollars.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aug 2016..
Airservices criticised over OneSky contracts | Australian Aviation
and back in Feb 2016...
Airservices: secret memo exposes OneSKY sensitivities
A confidential memo from *aspiring Airservices Australia chief executive Jason Harfield to key lieutenants within the regulator has exposed the sensitivity of probity issues surrounding the $1.5 billion OneSKY program at the time he was responsible for the program’s delivery.
The memo, written by Mr Harfield in 2013 in his then role as head of future service delivery to “all executive general managers” at Airservices, instructs them on dealing with prospective or actual tenderers for OneSKY.
The move comes as the Australian National Audit Office will in coming months table a report on its investigation into what members of a Senate committee have in hearings have alleged were possible conflicts of interests in the contracting of work on OneSKY.
It also comes as the search continues for a new Airservices CEO, with Mr Harfield acting in that position and making clear he wants the job. Liberal senator Bill Heffernan and Labor senator Glenn Sterle have urged the *government, which owns Airservices, to not make an appointment before the ANAO tables its report.
In the internal memo, leaked to The Australian, Mr Harfield tells top Airservices executives “the *following considerations and *responsibilities are to be read and understood by affected personnel” regarding OneSKY, which will *integrate the nation’s civilian and military air traffic control and navigation systems.
The edicts include not discussing the OneSKY program with “any of your business as usual *contacts unless prior approval has been sought”, and that “all invitations to corporate events and the provision of gifts, from the prospective tenderers provided at *Attachment A, should be politely refused.” The attachment lists more than 100 aerospace and other consulting groups and suppliers internationally, including the group which eventually won the prime initial contract, Thales.
The memo also says: “If you are asked questions about the program or receive any unsolicited contact in relation to the program in addition to not answering the question you should let the One*SKY Program — Manager Acquisition know about the contact.”
“These decisions have been taken to protect both the individual and Airservices from any real or apparent conflicts of interest and the perceptions that may be created within the wider industry.”
Mr Harfield declined to answer questions, *including whether his motive for writing the memo was he thought there was a risk of a breach of probity, and whether, to his knowledge, any breaches of his instructions occurred.
An Airservices spokesman said: “Airservices, consistent with the approach for handling of tenders for the supply of equipment and/or services to the commonwealth, adopted comprehensive probity measures for the OneSKY project.”
“The memo you refer to was part of the proactive communication.”
Mr Harfield’s LinkedIn page says he was executive general manager for future service delivery from July 2013 to August 2015 and that “in this role I have the *accountability for the leadership, acquisition and delivery of Airservices’ next-generation services and harmonised Australian Air Traffic Management system with the Department of Defence”, and that he also held the role of senior responsible owner for OneSKY.
Despite the LinkedIn post and the leaked memo, the Airservices spokesman said it would be wrong to describe Mr Harfield as having principal carriage in Airservices of OneSKY because it would “not reflect how complex projects are managed within the governance structure of large *organisations.”
As revealed by The Australian, the ANAO late last year launched an inquiry into contracts awarded by Airservices to consultants associated with an obscure Canberra-based organisation with international military links called the International Centre for *Complex Project Management.
At a hearing in August, members of the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport legislation heard ICCPM managing director Deborah Hein is the wife of Steve Hein, who worked for ICCPM until hired by Airservices in a senior role.
One contract Airservices struck with ICCPM was processed by Mr Hein.
Airservices criticised over OneSky contracts | Australian Aviation
and back in Feb 2016...
Airservices: secret memo exposes OneSKY sensitivities
A confidential memo from *aspiring Airservices Australia chief executive Jason Harfield to key lieutenants within the regulator has exposed the sensitivity of probity issues surrounding the $1.5 billion OneSKY program at the time he was responsible for the program’s delivery.
The memo, written by Mr Harfield in 2013 in his then role as head of future service delivery to “all executive general managers” at Airservices, instructs them on dealing with prospective or actual tenderers for OneSKY.
The move comes as the Australian National Audit Office will in coming months table a report on its investigation into what members of a Senate committee have in hearings have alleged were possible conflicts of interests in the contracting of work on OneSKY.
It also comes as the search continues for a new Airservices CEO, with Mr Harfield acting in that position and making clear he wants the job. Liberal senator Bill Heffernan and Labor senator Glenn Sterle have urged the *government, which owns Airservices, to not make an appointment before the ANAO tables its report.
In the internal memo, leaked to The Australian, Mr Harfield tells top Airservices executives “the *following considerations and *responsibilities are to be read and understood by affected personnel” regarding OneSKY, which will *integrate the nation’s civilian and military air traffic control and navigation systems.
The edicts include not discussing the OneSKY program with “any of your business as usual *contacts unless prior approval has been sought”, and that “all invitations to corporate events and the provision of gifts, from the prospective tenderers provided at *Attachment A, should be politely refused.” The attachment lists more than 100 aerospace and other consulting groups and suppliers internationally, including the group which eventually won the prime initial contract, Thales.
The memo also says: “If you are asked questions about the program or receive any unsolicited contact in relation to the program in addition to not answering the question you should let the One*SKY Program — Manager Acquisition know about the contact.”
“These decisions have been taken to protect both the individual and Airservices from any real or apparent conflicts of interest and the perceptions that may be created within the wider industry.”
Mr Harfield declined to answer questions, *including whether his motive for writing the memo was he thought there was a risk of a breach of probity, and whether, to his knowledge, any breaches of his instructions occurred.
An Airservices spokesman said: “Airservices, consistent with the approach for handling of tenders for the supply of equipment and/or services to the commonwealth, adopted comprehensive probity measures for the OneSKY project.”
“The memo you refer to was part of the proactive communication.”
Mr Harfield’s LinkedIn page says he was executive general manager for future service delivery from July 2013 to August 2015 and that “in this role I have the *accountability for the leadership, acquisition and delivery of Airservices’ next-generation services and harmonised Australian Air Traffic Management system with the Department of Defence”, and that he also held the role of senior responsible owner for OneSKY.
Despite the LinkedIn post and the leaked memo, the Airservices spokesman said it would be wrong to describe Mr Harfield as having principal carriage in Airservices of OneSKY because it would “not reflect how complex projects are managed within the governance structure of large *organisations.”
As revealed by The Australian, the ANAO late last year launched an inquiry into contracts awarded by Airservices to consultants associated with an obscure Canberra-based organisation with international military links called the International Centre for *Complex Project Management.
At a hearing in August, members of the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport legislation heard ICCPM managing director Deborah Hein is the wife of Steve Hein, who worked for ICCPM until hired by Airservices in a senior role.
One contract Airservices struck with ICCPM was processed by Mr Hein.
Last edited by Slugfest; 1st Sep 2016 at 03:58.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told that when one of the project members was asked to give a brief on Onesky, he replied, " I can brief you on half sky, I can brief you on two sky, but there is no Onesky". Because DoD has basically taken over hte project, citing security etc etc.
Would the ANAO please run an audit over CASA with emphasis on the millions wasted on the rewrite of the rules? Are some cold winds blowing through the well heated offices of Aviation House? Is there a connection between the departure of CEO Skidmore and the highly critical report by the ANAO of Airservices Australia?
Why are we not given a true reason for the departure of Skidmore? Surely the investment and public expenditure on his $600k salary demands a little more explanation than "personal reasons". The finding of a replacement will cost many thousands more.
The lack of truthfulness and accountability, let alone the inefficient use of public money, is disgraceful. Both ASA and CASA prove beyond doubt that the independent Commonwealth corporate body model of governance is seriously flawed.
The concept of a government business unit incorporating 'user pays' in a monopoly framework was always false. Characterising these bodies as anything like real businesses, businesses that have all the strictures and incentives of true commerce, including competition and accountability, was and remains false.
The diminution and hoped for dilution of Ministerial responsibility is at the heart of the problem and the 'user pays' concept has lead to the whole country losing out through waste and inefficiency.
Why are we not given a true reason for the departure of Skidmore? Surely the investment and public expenditure on his $600k salary demands a little more explanation than "personal reasons". The finding of a replacement will cost many thousands more.
The lack of truthfulness and accountability, let alone the inefficient use of public money, is disgraceful. Both ASA and CASA prove beyond doubt that the independent Commonwealth corporate body model of governance is seriously flawed.
The concept of a government business unit incorporating 'user pays' in a monopoly framework was always false. Characterising these bodies as anything like real businesses, businesses that have all the strictures and incentives of true commerce, including competition and accountability, was and remains false.
The diminution and hoped for dilution of Ministerial responsibility is at the heart of the problem and the 'user pays' concept has lead to the whole country losing out through waste and inefficiency.
Last edited by Sandy Reith; 1st Sep 2016 at 15:22. Reason: Syntax and additions
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In order to keep the fantastic "schedule" straight AirServices may have to accept an initial version of the OneSky with far inferior functionality to the current TAATS system in a "phased" program approach.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing is met
It is interesting that this issue has been completely silent. Whilst there have been some claiming that it will end up another Super Seasprite fiasco, where $1.4 billion of taxpayers’ money was lost, in this case it will be mostly the aviation industry’s money that would be lost if it doesn’t stick to budget and provide a viable, safe system.
Are there any deadlines that have to be met, and have these been met? Does anyone have any information on this?
Are there any deadlines that have to be met, and have these been met? Does anyone have any information on this?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The seasprite wasn't a waste of billions of taxpayers dollars..thanks Aussie's you saved the kiwi taxpayer billions. Some of that avionics works quite well too. You just keep what works, and stick something garmin in the holes that the Aussie Star Wars stuff was supposed to go. Great success!
Thread Starter
Matty. Are all the Super Seasprites that could not be made to work here operating in NZ?
Or did you just get a few going?
Are they safe for the crew? Are they an effective fighting machine?
Or did you just get a few going?
Are they safe for the crew? Are they an effective fighting machine?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seasprite helicopter project approved | Scoop News
In essence; the NZDF didn't require a hands off autopilot so a fully functional computer afcs isn't an issue which seems to be the only thing in the project that wouldn't work
In essence; the NZDF didn't require a hands off autopilot so a fully functional computer afcs isn't an issue which seems to be the only thing in the project that wouldn't work
Thread Starter
So Kaman sold them twice!
And not one person was ever held accountable for the $1.4 billion loss to Australian taxpayers.
I wonder what overseas owned company will make twice the possible amount from one sky!
And not one person was ever held accountable for the $1.4 billion loss to Australian taxpayers.
I wonder what overseas owned company will make twice the possible amount from one sky!
And werent the undelivered airframes kept in an aircon hangar at $4mil p.a while the ones here were dicked around with ?
And wasnt the Oz taxpayer expected to get a $ cut of any airframes that were sold on.? Did we?
And in Afghan news clips I see Sprites ? "Our" airframes? being used as autonomous freight carts delivering stores to the troops out in the boonies.
Ah the heady days of Wamira, PC7s to 9s, Seasprites.
Cash to splash
Whats next I wonder, NoSky?
And wasnt the Oz taxpayer expected to get a $ cut of any airframes that were sold on.? Did we?
And in Afghan news clips I see Sprites ? "Our" airframes? being used as autonomous freight carts delivering stores to the troops out in the boonies.
Ah the heady days of Wamira, PC7s to 9s, Seasprites.
Cash to splash
Whats next I wonder, NoSky?
If I remember correctly, the Australian seasprites were "remanufactured" airframes, so in essence they were sold thrice!
We paid 1.4 bill for used, reconditioned airframes that in the end we're not put into operational service.
Don't mind spending my tax dollars in defence but I do object to gross wastage, I would rather spend it on subsidising medicines via the pbs or actually helping people, or we could spend the 1.4 billion funding casa, which as a government department should be funded by the government and not applying user pays, particularly when the service the user is paying top dollar for is usually crap
We paid 1.4 bill for used, reconditioned airframes that in the end we're not put into operational service.
Don't mind spending my tax dollars in defence but I do object to gross wastage, I would rather spend it on subsidising medicines via the pbs or actually helping people, or we could spend the 1.4 billion funding casa, which as a government department should be funded by the government and not applying user pays, particularly when the service the user is paying top dollar for is usually crap
