ATCs Stymie Progress?

[Dick Smith]

Readers of this site will no doubt remember how I travelled to Hawaii with owners of Avalon Airport to look at the Airservices Class D tower they were operating there.

It was fantastic to see how modern procedures can be used in facilitating lots of traffic movement by really friendly ATCs who were not hampered by 1950s Australian out-of-date rules! I came back enthused to see if these procedures could be introduced into Australia.

It’s well known that Airservices are losing huge amounts of our industry's money with these overseas towers – at least I thought one of the reasons they took out this US contract was so they could learn how modern procedures work and how they could benefit Australia. I still hope this belief is correct.

It’s also now well known that the Airservices Management as well as CASA support Australia moving to these modern international Class D NAS procedures as used in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and many other countries.

There will be great advantages to Australia. For example, a number of years ago I flew VFR into Tamworth with a low-time pilot. The complexity of the radio calls, including two lots of clearance limits, that all had to be repeated, were so complicated that the pilot said, “I wouldn’t be game to fly in here by myself”.

Of course, all of Australia is not like Tamworth was at the time. Earlier this year I flew in and out of Hobart numerous times in my helicopter, landing at the airport at Cambridge and also on a boat in the harbour. The air traffic controllers in Hobart at that time were as good as any in the world – absolutely fantastic culture of getting aircraft moving without unnecessary holding or sitting on the ground even though they had to cope with VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with unnecessary departure calls.

Now it’s obvious from reading this website that there are a small number of controllers – mainly older ones – who are doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision for all non-radar towers to go to US NAS Class D. They obviously don’t want the simpler user-friendly procedures that will encourage more flying and preventing pilots having to fly extra distances to land away from a Class D airport.

Let’s hope Civil Air gets behind these new procedures and the new young controllers who are coming along are happy to follow what Airservices controllers do so successfully in the United States.

[boree3]

I will only say this once my old friend so listen carefully.

Go away and enjoy life!:ok:

[Dick Smith]

Boree, I get great enjoyment from being a catalyst for change.

I love the idea of copying the best from around the world and incorporating this with what we presently do better!

I also believe I have a responsibility to put something back into a country I have done very well out of!

[4Greens]

I once did a light aircraft flight Hoxton Park to Bankstown and return. The process was more complex than taking a 747 to London and back!

[Starts with P]

Does it really matter what "some older controllers" think about the new procedures CASA want to bring in? If they want them, and management bring them in, then they are in and controllers work with them.

Besides, we are too busy doing overtime to do anything about it.

[ozineurope]

When you say stymie progress are you saying that Australian ATCs are deliberately delaying the implementation of Class D?

The current level of staffing within Airservices is diabolical and the reclassification of GAAP to D has the effect of requiring more controllers than currently staff these GAAPs. Airservices has no plan, no recruitment process and will blame any delay on the controllers rather than accept that the problem and the solution lie squarely with them.

Controllers make the current structure work, not ASA, and the fact that Australia still has many dedicated and professional controllers is testament to thier desire to provide a SAFE and efficient service. No I am not saying Class D is unsafe, just that it requires increased staffing at GAAP and maybe the other towers, to be done safely.

Oh and by the way - the controllers employed overseas are not ASA controllers, they are US citizens employed by the ASA branch responsible. The US will not allow other than US citizens to work American airspace. The training and rating of these people is done by the FAA.

You may find it amazing but working in Europe you realise how good the Australian ATC system is - when fully staffed - and how sound the procedures are. I recently heard tell that a certain European hub max's out at 60 per hour with parallels and a 3rd runway purely for arrivals. Compare that with SY and you will find that Australia is not the backwater for procedures and controllers you may paint Dick.

[Starts with P]

Don't forget the 'van Owen

[Balthazar_777]

boree3, mature and constructive post????

4greens, tell me about it. I still remember the 1 hour flights to Cessnock requiring 2 hours worth of radio calls. Full SAR VFR was Sooo much fun in the Sydney basin.

Owen Stanley, i am a bit confused by your numerous posts. Are you upset with the ineptitude of ASA with their staffing levels and incompetent management, or Dick, and his desire for change.

I left OZ a few years ago, and have seen so much overseas that is both good and bad. I used to fly in Bankstown back in the late 80's, and in restrospect it was a dangerous place. Seems like it hasn't got much better.

I believe we need change. Dick, please keep going.

edited for spelling

[Dick Smith]

Direct, could it be that they don't want to lose even more money?

[Starts with P]

Dick,

How can you post a comment like the one at the beginning of the thread saying that it is some controllers who need to change their attitudes and encourage the implementation of these new procedures and:

...hope Civil Air gets behind these new procedures and the new young controllers who are coming along are happy to follow what Airservices controllers do so successfully in the United States.

Yet, on the same day, you post on your own website a comment from an Air Traffic Controller which explains the current culture we deal with on a daily basis. Do you believe the comments you posted on your website? Or do you see it as an example to back up your comments posted here?

Air Traffic Control Culture? (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_56.php)

[twisties]

there are a small number of controllers – mainly older ones – who are doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision for all non-radar towers to go to US NAS Class D.

It is my understanding that CASA directed Airservices Australia (not a small number of controllers) on 21 July 2009 that by 21 April 2010 that the six GAAP aerodromes must provide ATS appropriate for Class D as well as a number of immediate changes that have been implemented.

I imagine a large amount of remaining work on procedures, training and staffing needs to occur first.

It would appear that it is Airservices Australia responsibility to make it happen. I would think that most (if not all) controllers are professional and smart enough to follow regulated changes.

[growahead]

Dear Dick. Thank you for the compliments regarding Hobart Tower. The age factor is not relevant; you will find that most of the controllers1at Hobart are close to or past 50 yrs.
Controllers love class D, so I don't really get your point. Class D procedures allow controllers the flexibility to use judgement in making separation decisions; ie, they can make decisions based on experience reference aircraft performance, profiles etc.
NAS 11, I think it was, was inefficient in many ways. An example; RPT jets on descent are for most of the time (about 90%, I'd say), level off at A090, with associated power adjustments, because the steps require them to stay at that level until past 30 miles. If there is a tail wind component, it becomes a bit of an issue. This is to allow for the once in a year occasion (maybe!) of a VFR to fly at A085 or thereabouts. Terrific, how much fuel is that, to allow a private pilot to not have to request a clearance for another 5-10 miles.
If you saw Aircrash last week, where a DC9 went in, due to 2 VFR aircraft that were violating CTA, in radar environment, you would have seen the limitations of seen and be seen. When people fly in commercial aircraft, they rightly expect to enjoy the level of safety provided by professionals. Betting my or my family's lives, on the competency of a pilot with maybe 50hrs total is not really what we should be considering. Class E over C or D, in a non radar environment is insane.
Growahead

[ARFOR]

Interesting thread.

The linked letter indicates a regulatory/liability issue rather than ATC's stymieing progress.

Regarding Class D, Mr Smith, what do you consider Class D to be? The question revolves around the 'actual' procedures and rules. The indications to date are that ICAO D 'with 2 or 3 FAAism's' is being considered [and it seems being consulted].

What will that change provide that GAAP [for GA non-scheduled ops] does not? In other words, what form of change will address safety or cost benefit at GAAP or indeed ICAO Class D airspace airports in a positive way? You suggest these changes are 'progress', therefore you should be able to show the 'positives' from both the cost & safety standpoints. Can you do that?

Perhaps as importantly, what effect will that change have on adjoining airspace ATS services such as IFR flow into and separation into and out of adjoining Primary Air Carrier and Military airspaces?

For fear of repetition, I will acknowledge [without asking again] your lack of response to the other FAA airspace and service queries.

[ozbiggles]

starting off with unproven, unnecessary, unsorced slander type comments.
And you still can't figure out why you get people offside?

[Dick Smith]

Oz, come on - I made very positive comments about the controllers at Hobart and I primarily blamed the outdated rules for the other problems.

ARFOR, have a look at the NAS document on my website for the answers - especially the simplified radio procedures in Para 2.5.

One common non radar tower system has to be better than our present GAAP/Class D "two" systems.

[ozineurope]

So Dick, are you saying that Australian ATCs are preventing the introduction of Class D or not?

Simple question - easy answer.

[max1]

Now it’s obvious from reading this website that there are a small number of controllers – mainly older ones – who are doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision for all non-radar towers to go to US NAS Class D.

Dick,
Can you please let us know, exactly, in your unfounded and undocumented allegation that some (old) controllers are "doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision" exactly what they have done?

Besides people attempting to debate with you the pluses or minuses on this anonymous forum, what other proof do you have for your comment above?

IF (I've no idea and I haven't) they have made submissions to CASA about concerns, do you not trust CASA to investigate these concerns?

You posted that It’s also now well known that the Airservices Management as well as CASA support Australia moving to these modern international Class D NAS procedures

Do you seriously believe that some controllers have the ability to stop something that CASA and ASA support just because they don't like it?

If you would like to look into how ASA could actually staff it, that might be a better use of your time. Making provocative and unfounded assertions ( even though you did add a question mark to make it seem like you were posing a question) does your credibilty no favours.

[Dick Smith]

I have been reliably informed that a very small number of ATC's are opposed to the introduction of this simpler "user friendly" system as directed by CASA.

Otherwise it would have come in years ago.

Growahead states that controllers love class D.

When D was first introduced some controllers were opposed and kept separating VFR from IFR in the way they did when the airspace was classed as a primary control zone.

As mentioned in my first post the controllers at Hobart used the full benefits of class D.

[Hempy]

Dick, I would have thought that a man with your intelligence and experience would be able to read through the propaganda by now.

This is off the top of my head and after 2 Italian Cabs so excuse the omissions, but in the last 10 years the average line controller has worked through LAMP, RVSM, NAS (1&2), ADS, and now SDE, as well as through the TAAATS transition the effectively changed the way the job is done (although not the thought process behind it), innumerable airspace changes, route restructures, and various glorious associated procedure changes. I would be very interested in acquiring a copy of AIP that is 15 years out of date (you probably have one laying about ;)), the difference would astound. Apparently, ATCs have attempted to stymie half of them, yet amazingly the system still works..

ATC's accept that change is inevitable, what you need to understand is that the reason changes are opposed is not necessarily because of the nature of the change itself, but because of the inept way it is being implemented.

You want Class D..whatever. May or may not make my job a bit harder for a while but hey, you know, staff it properly, give us resources for training and a good lead-in time to implement it all seamlessly and safely and a change is as good as a holiday I suppose.

What do we get?

[Dick Smith]

Hempy, I agree totally with your comments about adequate staffing and training.

AsA have an agenda which would appear to be putting profits in front of safety and I am working on this issue!

[max1]

I have been reliably informed that a very small number of ATC's are opposed to the introduction of this simpler "user friendly" system as directed by CASA.

Okay Dick now can you fill in the gap between the above and "doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision" and answer my post?

[Dick Smith]

Come on! If I named them I would be banned!

A hint -one comes from the northern part of an island and once had a problem with his diet.

[max1]

Dick,

I wasn't asking for names. I was asking what evidence you have that some controllers are doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision besides the fact that they have had the temerity to debate with you on this anonymous forum?

Also Dick you may find that the 'new young controllers' are waiting for their 5 year $70k training bond with ASA is up so they can head off O/S to pick up the big money.


Standing by for argument about not posting my real name.

[Dick Smith]

What type of evidence do you want posted on an anonymous rumour network?

[max1]

Sorry Dick I added this whilst you were posting.

Also Dick you may find that the 'new young controllers' are waiting for their 5 year $70k training bond with ASA is up so they can head off O/S to pick up the big money.

What evidence? You tell me. Maybe de-identified submissions to CASA, or anything that backs up doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision

I'll actually settle for anything that you think that 'some' controllers have been able to do that you think impedes the implementation that Airservices Management as well as CASA support

Also Growahead states that controllers love class D. and also stated that they thought that NAS was inefficient.


Standing by for "I believe", "I understand' and "I have been told" replies.

[Awol57]

I work at a GAAP. None of us have an issue with changing to class D. Is it going to be worth the hassle? Time will tell.

It does mean we will most likely require 4 people in the cab from now on (rather than 3) and our min staffing jumps 6 (and I believe most GAAP's are in a similar position).

Where these 6 people are coming from is very much up in the air, but ATC's don't just appear over night. For those not aware, a tower course takes about 11 months in Melbourne, then another 6 months of training (at least here) to get fully rated in the tower. This assumes you pass everything first time round. A rated controller cross training has 10 weeks of training to get up to speed - again assuming all goes well. Longer if not. I figure we have about 26 weeks. I haven't even mentioned actually needing line controllers to do the training.

The date is 6 months away now (more or less) and still no one knows how the training is going to be conducted, nor what training is even going to be required. Interesting times ahead, but I certainly would not say anyone here is against or even resistant to the change.

As a relatively new controller I hope its not a change for changes sake and that it isn't going to slow everything down (as seems to be the vicious rumours from industry at the moment).

I guess we will know the answers to all this in 6 months - if we have the staff to do it.

[mikk_13]

Well, I can tell you the culture is very very different overseas compared to Oz. The regulation in Oz makes it hard for the controller to act efficiently. You are not even allowed to direct track an aircraft. Yes, that's right. not allowed.

I don't think you are going to have a problem with old controllers any more anyway. I believe the Germans are about to increase their number of trainees significantly. And I also believe the Aussies in the college are doing a sterling job, and therefore job opportunities will be available for those who are blocking your desired and necessary progress to move overseas. The rest will retire.

Also Dick you may find that the 'new young controllers' are waiting for their 5 year $70k training bond with ASA is up so they can head off O/S to pick up the big money.

They are not even waiting for the 5 years. My information is that the Germans will take anyone who is qualified and licensed. This is for the guys under 40.

[peuce]

Dick,

Here's another one you need to follow up on ...

I have it on good authority that a motorist has actually put a submission to the Department of Mains Roads ... complaining about proposed changes to the traffic lanes in his area.

If we let one person get away with enforcing democracy, pretty soon the whole country will want to.

You must stop it NOW !

[ARFOR]

ARFOR, have a look at the NAS document on my website for the answers - especially the simplified radio procedures in Para 2.5.
From the NAS document on your website:
Procedures
Class D procedures will be aligned to the FAA application.
While VFR aircraft in Class D airspace are subject to an airways clearance (ICAO Annex 11, App. 4), the clearance may be implicit as is current practice at GAAP Zones and in US Class D airspace.
9 On advice of intent to the Tower an implicit clearance is assumed by VFR aircraft unless the Tower directs otherwise. This is consistent with FAA practice.
Interesting point made re: GAAP. You would be aware that the FAA are discontinuing ‘implied clearances’ on the surface areas due the number of Runway Incursions!

Are you aware of the number of Violations of CTA/R in the US and Canada as a result of implied clearances? I must admit that I was not adverse to ‘implied clearances' for VFR in D until I looked at the data. Now I’m not so sure.

Also contained in your NAS document;

SAFETY ANALYSIS
3.1 Methodology

ICAO provides two methodologies for “determining whether the system is acceptably safe:
a. comparison to a reference system, and
b. evaluation of system risks against a threshold.

Comparison with a reference system is a relative method, i.e. all the relative characteristics of the proposed system are compared with the corresponding characteristics of a reference system which has been judged to be safe. Provided that the proposed system can be demonstrated to be the same or better than the reference system in all safety aspects, then it may be assumed also to be safe…”
As the NAS draws on international best practice and the proven ATM system of North America, process a. above is the appropriate methodology.
This goes to the centre of the questions being put to you, which remain unanswered regarding the change, and the use of the US as a reference system. Class D rules, Airspace like for like, traffic mix and most importantly operating infrastructure i.e. Radar approach and departures to Air Carrier Class 1 airports.

The question of course remains, what does the reference system suggest should be in place in Australia? Non-radar D and E?, Class C?, Class B? Becuase the US reference system has quite a divergent application of services in different (but similar to Australian) Air Carrier Airports.
One common non radar tower system has to be better than our present GAAP/Class D "two" systems.
Has to be?? That is the point being repeatedly made, if it is better for all concerned, then it should be easily demonstrated.

Regarding the other thrust/s within this thread. It seems to me that ATC are caught in the middle, the victims if you like. Rather than blaming them, you should be asking your questions of the CASA CEO. After all, he is the author of the direction. Perhaps you need to invite him to another BBQ and ask him directly.

[Dick Smith]

ARFOR, in the 25 years I have flown from time to time in the FAA system I have never seen or heard of "implied clearances" in the surface areas.

No one else in the world has mandatory departure calls for VFR in class D.

-that change alone will reduce complexity and frequency overload!

It's the AsA senior management who are pushing for NAS class D - they can see how popular it is with their American employees!

The big safety advantage is that the airspace reverts to E when the tower is not manned and IFR aircraft get a proper control service- not our pathetic , amateur "do it yourself" "calling in the blind" non-service that nearly caused the Qantas crash at Canberra.

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith,

Perhaps I should have explained that in more depth.

In the US, When an aircraft called for taxi clearance, if the taxi route took the aircraft across a runway that was not in use, the pilot could cross without a separate clearance.
NTSB LTR DTD: 1/29/01

The FAA reports that its Flight Standards Service is reviewing pilot deviations for the last 3 years and evaluating how a revision to 14 CFR 91.129 as outlined in this safety recommendation would have affected these cases. The FAA further reports that its Air Traffic Service will evaluate local operations for any unintended consequences and conduct simulations to evaluate frequency congestion and possible system impact. The FAA states that it will initiate an appropriate regulatory change if the evaluation indicates that this is necessary.

This recommendation asks the FAA to require a specific clearance for all runway crossings, instead of the current practice of relying on an implied clearance. The current system allows for ground movements to proceed unless there is a specific direction to stop. The Safety Board believes this is the opposite of the appropriate procedure. Regardless of the outcome of the FAA’s review, the Safety Board believes that all runway crossings should be authorized only by a specific air traffic control clearance. Pending the FAA’s taking the recommended actions, because the FAA is studying pilot deviations as a first step towards regulatory action, Safety Recommendation A‑00‑67 is classified “Open Acceptable Response.”
FAA 2008 Runway safety Report, NTSB recommendation, Page C4
Amend 14 CFR section 91.129(I) to require that all runway crossings be authorized only by specific air traffic control clearance, and ensure that U.S. pilots, U.S. personnel assigned to move aircraft, and pilots operating under 14 CFR Part 129 receive adequate notification of the change.

Amend FAA Order 7110.65, “Air Traffic Control,” to require that, when aircraft need to cross multiple runways, air traffic controllers issue an explicit crossing instruction for each runway after the previous runway has been crossed.
Re: Departure reports, I would suggest this is due combined Tower and Approach services in a procedural environment. Supporting that is the specific note that they are not required when aircraft are 'identified'

AsA senior management? Did you say earlier AsA were profit motive driven? AsA have an agenda which would appear to be putting profits in front of safety
Who in AsA would put profit in front of safety? Besides, this is the CASA's change, AsA presumably will just impliment the rules as required.

Re: Class E? Is there another CASA direction regarding Class E when towers are closed? :confused:

[Dick Smith]

mikk 13, You state:

“The regulation in Oz makes it hard for the controller to act efficiently. You are not even allowed to direct track an aircraft. Yes, that's right. not allowed.”

Can you give me some information on this? Do you know if the ability to “direct track” is available to US controllers or controllers in Europe under similar circumstances?

I look forward to your advice.

[Dick Smith]

ARFOR, The profits in front of safety statement was made in relation to the necessity for more staff at AsA. I would suggest you direct any questions to CASA in relation to what directions they have given to Airservices in relation to airspace.

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith,

I don't follow.

If the CASA changes at GAAP introduce additional ATC functions such as Surface Movement Control, and that therefore requires additional ATC's, how does that fit with your claim that AsA put profit in front of safety?

Have AsA said they will not staff ATC functions such as the Surface Movement positions at GAAP?

You said Class E outside tower coverage. Is that a CASA direction or just you saying so?

[max1]

Mikk13

They are not even waiting for the 5 years. My information is that the Germans will take anyone who is qualified and licensed. This is for the guys under 40.
True. The Germans have actually paid out some training bonds to get Oz ATCs over there.

Also Dick, I'm still waiting for any evidence that some controllers are doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision

You have some respect from people who read these forums, they have the attitude that "if Dick says it, it must be true". These people then have the idea that controllers stand in the way of 'progress'.

As Hempy stated we have had myriad changes, we just get on and work the new rules,systems, airspace, etc. When things don't go according to plan due lack of consultation, staffing, training, foresight, etc don't lump it on the controllers.

We have very well paid managers who are supposed to plan these things. ASA have a self admitted culture of over-promise and under-deliver, and one they told industry at Waypoint 2008 that they wanted to move away from. I hope you see the irony in promising to move away from an over-promise and under-deliver culture.

There is very,very little hope they will have the CORRECT staffing in place for April 2010 for the mandated Class D towers, let alone for the opening of Broome and Karratha towers in November 2010. Don't let the 'we have enough Australian controllers, they are just in the wrong place' line cloud the issue.
There are enough Australian controllers they just happen to be in Ireland, Germany, Hong Kong,early retirement,management roles, Eurocontrol, Dubai, etc, with more leaving all the time.

Dick, if you are going to fire bullets try aiming them at the correct targets.

[ozineurope]

Hmmm..I would be careful about the 'not allowed to direct track' statement. Unless something dramatic has occurred in the last 8 months we had direct tracking written into our local procedures between 10pm and about 8am (outside RAAF hours).

Direct tracking was approved outside those times when economic benefit warranted and safety was not compromised. This was a full radar environment and I cannot comment for outside radar coverage where the changes to lat sep points and conflict entry and exit was more of a science!

[ozineurope]

Where I am now (Europe) direct tracking is available, traffic permitting. Much the same as in Australia.

In fact the more I see of different ATC structures and procedures the more convinced I am that the system I left in Australia is designed to be the safest and as efficient as the radar coverage allows.

Dick you speak about the Australian ATC system as if it were anachronistic and backward. I would refute this given my exposure to other systems and other controllers, including those from the US, Spain, India, UK and various other EU states.

If you took away the management of the ANSP (ASA in this case) Australia's system would indeed be 'world's best practice'. The controllers are sought after OS in locations mentioned by Max1 becasue they are amongst the best in the world. The sad fact that so many Australian ATCs have moved OS is nothing to do with the ATC system or procedures or rules and regulations. It is categorically, unequivocally to do with the shabby, mean, ignorant and distasteful treatment we received from Airservices.

I do not know of many of us who would have moved so far north of the equator had it not been for the buffoons and muppets who purportedly manage Australian ATC.

[divingduck]

Dick

Can you give me some information on this? Do you know if the ability to “direct track” is available to US controllers or controllers in Europe under similar circumstances?

It is certainly available in Europe (at least at the very Western edge).
They are training us up at the moment for "green routes" which will be pretty much as soon as identified off the Atlantic to the far side of the UK airspace.
Track direct is something that happens at least 75% of the time on first contact...the other 25% get it once they have missed the one going the other way:)

There is a guy coming back to Melbourne in the next few days who has all the Western Euro answers:ok:

[Atlas Shrugged]

http://uk.techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/broken_record.jpg

[Blockla]

AsA have an agenda which would appear to be putting profits in front of safety and I am working on this issue! Glad someone is taking them on... But they will claim they are simply following the reduce costs to industry model... The profits are just an element of driving down costs...

Unfortunately the only way out regarding staffing numbers is time... At the present time it's getting worse, retirements and resignations are still exceeding rated recruits.