Project SHHHHH!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24248226-31477,00.html

Traffic controller merger plan stalls

Cameron Stewart | August 27, 2008 

AN ambitious plan to save taxpayers more than $300million by ending the wasteful separation of the nation's civil and military air traffic management systems has stalled.

$300million, wow what a headline.  Where is this money coming from?  Facilities management, reduced wages, location costs?  Or is it a total furphy?  

Defence has backed away from any rapid implementation of the plan to create a unified national system, declaring it wants to move only at "a measured pace, cognisant of the requirements to maintain Defence capability". 

Defence doesn’t trust Airshambles to deliver, they think putting the fox in charge of the hen house is a silly idea; they like their hens.

This is despite Defence claims, made in a 2002 document signed by the current Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston, that "Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical Air Traffic Management systems". 

Afterwards they wised up, will Airshambles provide ‘critical’ military airspace services when there’s commercial revenue to be chased; what faith has airservices demonstrated where they currently provide a service to military airspace, the Richmond RAAF base is provided an approach service by the civil controllers in the Sydney TMA.

The Defence go-slow has angered civil air traffic control manager Airservices Australia, which wants to push ahead with the unification plan, arguing it would produce savings of more than $300 million. 

They can’t understand why the RAAF is restricting their plans to save their own staffing crisis. 

Airservices spokesman Richard Dudley told The Australian: "Airservices and Defence have both been discussing an improved, national air traffic management system for a decade, but Defence concerns over loss of its own 'capability', difficulties with funding models and no real incentives for change have precluded real progress. 

The RAAF are right to be concerned, Airshambles can’t get it’s own house in order, why would you give them more control? What “guarantees” would there be about service provision?

"The existence of two independent air traffic control and airspace management systems driven by different objectives, priorities and cultures hampers the delivery of a better product for Australia. Improving the inter-operability has the potential to produce savings in the order of $300 million plus." 

There’s that figure again.  We don’t believe that figure is a ‘true cost’ at all.  Think about the numbers, 258 controllers in the RAAF.  Cost = $300,000 each (way too much) total  $77.4M; so are we saying the RAAF spends over $223.5M on their system and facilities?

If so giving them TAAATS consoles and sharing development costs would be much more efficient than merging the organisations. ADATS (the system used by the RAAF) is no doubt expensive to buy and maintain and change, but it was a ‘customised’ product for RAAF use, do they need it, probably not, but will TAAATS give them what they want, definitely not.

No wait, NEWS FLASH, the $300M is not ‘annualised’; it’s a total.  Over how long?  25 years? 10 years? 

Australia developed separate civil and military air traffic management systems because it was considered necessary to meet the separate specific requirements of civil and military flying. 

Well not quite, all military forces had or have had their own controlling workforce, there are not too many in the world who do not.  

Primarily because the substantive differences in deployment and defence capabilities; but also there are substantive differences in ‘dealing’ with military operations, that civil controllers do get involved with occasionally, but very rarely.

A 2002 study, obtained by The Australian, found that having separate systems was no longer essential and that the duplication was a waste of taxpayers' money. 

No doubt the duplication wastes costs in terms of systems and facilities, but essentially the ‘body cost’ is identical.  The RAAF is right to not trust Airshambles to deliver the ‘right bodies’ for their needs; they can’t delivery enough bodies for it’s own needs. 

In 2005, the Air Force and Airservices set up a program called Genesis to integrate military air traffic control into the civil system. 

They have transferred the PEARCE RAAF TCU to TAAATS and the Perth Terminal Unit, but the ‘blue shirts’ still have their blue shirts. They are just co-located; but still very separate units.

Defence now says Genesis failed to deliver viable reforms and although it remains committed in theory to a unified national system, major obstacles remain. It is understood to believe that integration proposals have not paid sufficient attention to its need to have tactical and strategic air traffic control in a time of crisis.

Whose crisis?  Airshambles would love to deploy the remaining RAAF controllers where it needs them, you could immediately see RAAF deployment/capability/services significantly reduced as the ‘free’ controllers (cross paid by the RAAF) would get them out of the huge staffing hole that Airshambles has manufactured.  

What is Airshambles ‘urgent’ motivation for fast tracking Genesis; it’s not about saving the tax payer or the government money you can bet your last cent on that.

Maybe they are more concerned about having to spend serious money to provide a 'Civil' facility at Williamtown (Newcastle) because CASA has told them to provide the service there outside RAAF hours, and the RAAF have said not using our kit (national security etc.) or staff (they are ours) you don't.