---

Air safety investigators have raised concerns about the "relatively high" number of aircraft that have flown too close to one another in the country's military-controlled airspace.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has also warned that that existing laws do not give air safety regulator the Civil Aviation Safety Authority the teeth to provide sufficient oversight of civilian aircraft which fly under military air traffic control.

The disproportionately high number of so-called "loss of separation" incidents in military airspace has prompted the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to urge the Department of Defence to "review all processes and controls in place for aircraft separation".

In the wake of a spate of high-profile incidents, the ATSB released on Friday a 114-page report into so-called "loss of separation" cases between June 2008 and June 2012.
Advertisement

The bureau's report shows that a loss of separation incident between planes under air-traffic control in Australia occurs on average about once every three days.

But the ATSB has emphasised that the rate of near misses due to civilian air traffic control is one of the lowest in the world. In almost 90 per cent of cases, the bureau said there "was no or a low risk of aircraft colliding", while only about six cases a year "represent an elevated safety risk".

The report shows about half of the instances of aircraft flying too close to each other are due to air traffic controllers' actions, while the other half are the fault of pilots.

However, the ATSB said the number of near misses in military-controlled airspace was "relatively high and most are the result of controller actions".

"Darwin and Williamtown in particular were over-represented," the report said.

While Airservices Australia monitors the bulk of this country's airspace, the Department of Defence oversees both civilian and military aircraft in airspace at Newcastle, Townsville and Darwin.

The military controlled about a quarter of the total plane movements at airports such as Darwin and Townsville but were involved in 36 per cent of near-miss incidents during the period.

ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan said Defence did not face the same level of scrutiny as Airservices, despite the fact it had multiple responsibilities keeping watch over both military and civilian planes.

"CASA should be paying a bit more attention to military air traffic control," he said.

"We are not saying there is a huge safety problem here, but there is a notable variation, so a somewhat increased level of risk associated with that military air traffic control."

The ATSB has also released final reports into a near miss between a Virgin Australia plane and a Qantas 737 in South Australia in November 2011, and another incident involving an Etihad A340 and a Tiger Airways A320 in Western Australia two months later.

Following the investigation into the Etihad and Tiger planes flying too close, the ATSB has taken Airservices to task over the limited formal guidance of new controllers.

"We think more needs to be done ... [in how Airservices] monitor these newly endorsed controllers. We will wait to see how Airservices responds," Mr Dolan said.

A so-called loss of separation occurs when two planes are within 305 metres vertically and 9.26 kilometres on a horizontal axis of each other. The latest ATSB research report into near misses compared Australia's air traffic control with a number of jurisdictions, including Canada, the United States and Europe.

The release in July of a confidential report from CASA highlighted a spike in the number of aircraft that had flown too close to one another between late 2011 and early 2012.

That report by CASA into Airservices, the government-owned company that manages Australian airspace, also raised concerns about air traffic controllers' experience and supervision.

While Airservices has increased its total workforce by about 35 per cent in the past decade, the number of air traffic controllers has stayed static, at more than 900.

In the same period, the number of aircraft movements has surged by about 27 per cent.

Last week a preliminary report by ATSB investigators also revealed that the collision warning system on one of two Qantas A330s involved in a near miss near Adelaide last month was not working.

The two Qantas jetliners were flying in opposite directions between Sydney and Perth on September 20 when they were involved in a loss of separation incident in airspace near Adelaide.

However, the initial report made clear that the planes, which can carry up to 300 passengers, would not have collided even if they had continued on their paths before the alert.

Read more: More planes fly too close under military control, Transport Safety Bureau warns

---

---

While Airservices has increased its total workforce by about 35 per cent in the past decade, the number of air traffic controllers has stayed static, at more than 900.

In the same period, the number of aircraft movements has surged by about 27 per cent.

---

---

In terms of CASA’s mental barrier to crossing the military demarcation line, the reports says:CASA disagrees.The tricky bit above is the ‘effective benefits’ CASA refers to. They don’t appear to effectively exist going on the public record of persistent military air traffic control failures in handling civilian airliners.

---

---

This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of loss of separation incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular. As the function of CASA is that of maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation safety in Australia, the results of this investigation suggest that CASA’s influence is not as effective as it could be when it comes to the safety of civilian aircraft, including passenger transport aircraft, in military controlled airspace and some level of independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civil aircraft operations at DoD airports by CASA is warranted.

---

---

Recommendation
Action organisation:Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Action number:AR-2012-034-SR-015 Date:18 October 2013
Action status:Released

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should review the results of this report and determine whether its current level of involvement with Military air traffic services (ATS) is sufficient to assure itself that the safety of civil aircraft operations while under Military ATS control is adequate.

---

---

But civil access to military infrastructure comes at a price - either increased risk at times or significant inconvenience.

---

---

If the military want their own systems they can pay for it out of their own budget and have the benefit of Military only zones.

---

---

Finally, as for 'perpetual training', it's what tends to be necessary when an organisation's under-resourced/limited ATC staff do duties in Iraq/Afghanistan/disaster zones etc for long periods, and at their home base. All at the behest of a grateful nation.

---

---

And it's why, when they were built, military bases were generally where no other operator wanted to be; it also resulted in the benefit of their own CTZs.

---

---

They do pay for it from their own budget! And it's why, when they were built, military bases were generally where no other operator wanted to be; it also resulted in the benefit of their own CTZs.

---

---

Bit out of my knowledge base, but do the airlines pay the military for this stuff? I know they pay Airservices ( and handsomely, given the consistent monopoly profits) for all sorts of things, but I haven't heard of fees paid to the ADF - do you know what they're called or how they are designated?

---

---

With adequate resources, any problem has a solution. The point you seem to miss is that airlines and the tax payers would have to pay a lot more coin if it weren't for the ability to joint-use military facilities. (through either base relocations to even less desirable places, or completely new civil airports)

---

---

A report from research by the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau (ATSB) into loss of separation (LOS) incidents in Australian airspace has drawn immediate and strong defence from the operator of military airspace, in which the ATSB found a disproportionate level of LOS incidents over two years.

The Bureau said “military controlled terminal area airspace in general, and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular, had a disproportionate rate of LOS for civilian aircraft.

In an immediate response, Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown said the unique nature of military flying meant the ATSB report had unfairly compared civilian and military airspace.

“I am disappointed that the report has chosen to concentrate on the loss of separation incidents in military airspace, and does not address the 80 per cent of loss of separation incidents that occur in civil air traffic control space, which is outside of Air Force’s control,” Brown said in a statement.

The ATSB report showed that although there was an increase in the number of occurrences reported over the two years ending in June 2012, there were fewer LOS occurrences during that period than during 2005 to 2008. The Bureau noted that a LOS between aircraft under air traffic control jurisdiction happened on average about once every three days. “In almost 90 per cent of LOS occurrences, there was no or minimal risk of aircraft colliding,” the ATSB said. “On average, however, there are six occurrences per year where an elevated risk of collision exists.”

The ATSB has issued recommendations to the Department of Defence to review all processes and controls in place for aircraft separation in military air traffic services and to CASA to review whether its current level of involvement with military ATS is sufficient to assure the safety of civil aircraft operations.

“The factors which may make military airspace more dynamic and variable, do not necessarily make the airspace less safe,” Brown said.

“The nature of military flying requires multiple aircraft flying in formation, making the airspace particularly crowded for brief periods. Other training such as formation flights and training for hostile situations are not encountered by civilian aircraft.”

Brown noted the ATSB report found that military airspace only accounted for 20 per cent of LOS incidents and no evidence of fundamental deficiencies in the safety management of aircraft separation in Australia.

Notwithstanding the sharp defence of the RAAF’s performance, Brown has committed to a review of air traffic management plans and airspace design for RAAF Bases Darwin, Townsville and Williamtown. These three bases integrate a large number of military and civil aircraft types, and the review “will ensure military airspace is more error resistant”.

---