There has been considerable debate in threads on this site about the motivation for moving ahead with an airspace reform program in your country. The web-site of the Department of Transport and Regional Services makes reference to a report to your Minister Anderson entitled “Review of the National Airspace System and Competition for Airport Related Services Report”. Minister Anderson tabled this report, prepared by Wes Willoughby and Associates, in the House of Representatives on 28 May 2003.
One of our team accessed a copy of that report and found a number of statements relating to air traffic control efficiency as being a substantial justification for proceeding with the National Airspace System.
We were also easily able to access the following document on the web, produced by your ATC service provider, Airservices Australia.
BENCHMARKING BROAD PARAMETERS ACROSS SERVICE PROVIDERS
The following table provides a high level comparison of broad parameters across the ATNS providers of the United States, Europe and Australia during the year 2000. This table was compiled by Airservices Australia utilising benchmarking data provided by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) in its Performance Review Report – An Assessment of Air Traffic Management in Europe during the Calendar Year 2000. The 2003 Performance Review Report (due in April 2003) will, for the first time, also include Australian data in its assessment. For further information please refer to the Performance Review System of the EUROCONTROL at its website -
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/index.html.
HIGH LEVEL COMPARISON FAA / EUROCONTROL / AIRSERVICES
Passenger departures (million) 641 / 450 / 41
Number of major hub airports 31 / 27 / 8
Size of en-route 9,820,000 / 10,545,000 / 11,830,000
controlled airspace (km2)
Size of core area (km2) 2,563,000 / 1,485,000 / 2,184,000
(high density traffic)
Number of en-route 9 / 17 / 2
centres in core area
Average number of sectors 37 / 8 / 36
per en-route centre
Average kilometres per flight 772 / 795 / 824
Average flight hours per flight 1.4 / 1.3 / 1.2
Total ANS costs (AUD) per IFR flight 590 / 1,126 / 347
Total ANS costs (AUD) per 1000km 763 / 1,416 / 421
ANS costs (AUD) per ATCO 530,844 /540,698 / 384,737
En-route ATCO/sector working position 9.8 / 17.9 / 6.1
IFR km flown/sector working position 15,908,254 / 14,091,342 / 12,231,662
IFR flights/total ATC’s 900 / 480 / 1,109
IFR km flown/total ATC’s 695,349 /381,747 / 914,156
Flight hours controlled/total controllers 1,254 / 621 / 1,331
By our assessment of this data, and with the benefit of some experience of current performance enhancement initiatives both in the United States and Europe, we would argue that the ATC efficiency of Airservices Australia is better, in all respects, that the so-called best practices of the United States, and substantially better than European practices. That is not to say that further efficiencies can’t – and should not – be pursued – but it is not a compelling argument for change in a hurried and unsafe manner.
In summary, and using the arguments and data we have provided previously, it is possible to draw the following conclusions:
1. SAFETY: The safety of your system, based purely on an analysis of incident and accident reports and statistics would appear to indicate that the current system of operation provides better levels of safety protection to fare-paying passenger operations, but exposes general aviation activity to higher levels of risk that those in the United States. This would prompt us to suggest a program to reduce risk to general aviation aircraft would better serve aviation in Australia.
2. PROCESS: From what we have been able to freely access on the web, and through your posts, the airspace design and implementation management process has been mishandled, and certain assumptions that have been used to underpin decisions in relation to the National Airspace System may be wrong. It would also appear that the comparative or reference system argument may not have been correctly applied.
3. COSTS AND EFFICIENCY: Comparative analysis – again freely available on the web – would appear to indicate that ATC service provision in your country is, at worst, as good as that in the United States, and most certainly better in many respects. It is also substantially better than European practice.
In short, there appears no safety or efficiency justification to have pursued the reform program and to have subjected your system to unnecessarily high levels of risk.
We must stress that we have formed these opinions on a limited source of information – but we are confident that a considered effort by participants in this forum to access more complete data would bear out our conclusions.