Albizia, you state:
Dick
What a brilliant idea! Never happen though, overseas trips are the reserve of management.
Well, they weren’t in the past. If you remember, when I was Chairman of the CAA I organised overseas trips for coal face controllers – they were incredibly successful. It was agreed that the controller would write a report when back home explaining what was perceived to be “better”, and what was perceived to be “worse”, than what happened in Australia. I still have a number of those reports - they were fantastic. Unfortunately however, no changes were made. This is because of the resistance to change of many people.
I can assure you that if I had any direct responsibility for the management of airspace since I retired as Chairman of the CAA in February 1992, I would have made sure that coal face controllers were involved directly during every step of the way.
I’m amazed how Airservices just send managers overseas and don’t send the coal face controllers. It is utterly crazy. It would be a bit like Qantas ordering a new Boeing jet and sending the management over to check it out, but not sending the pilots to even do a familiarisation or sim check in the new aircraft.
****su_Tonka, you state in relation to Airservices communicating to pilots:
Agreed - an excellent idea. You just need to find someone who can communicate this to management. The Air Traffic Controllers would be all for it. They like providing the service.
I can understand there are many times when we need whistleblowers and it is important for them to remain anonymous.
However what I find fascinating is that somehow the Airservices management has prohibited their controllers from stating what they genuinely believe about airspace. This is extraordinary. It is not a state secret, it is not party political – it simply needs to be a scientific equation of allocating the ICAO categories commensurate with risk. It really shows that the air traffic controllers at Airservices are being severely let down by being prevented from stating in an open way what they really believe.
Mingalababya, in relation to US controllers coming to Australia you state:
Or in the short term, why not invite some US controllers to this thread and have them join the debate? It should be interesting.
Mingalababya, that has happened previously. A US air traffic controller from Juneau tower came to PPRuNe. I had spoken to this bloke a number of times on the phone and he had even been out to Australia as a guest of the President of the Civil Air union. I’m sure he is still there in the Juneau tower, but I doubt if he’d come back on the forum again because controllers in Australia universally rubbished him and said he didn’t know what he was talking about.
By the way, Juneau tower is situated in the capital city of Alaska and has over 100,000 movements per annum, with no radar below about 11,000 feet.
****su_Tonka, I tend to agree about the problems in the new CTAFs. I personally don’t even understand how they actually work. Remember, we were going to have stock standard US CTAF procedures but at the last meeting Warren Truss agreed to meet with a dozen or so Chief Pilots from the regional airlines, and other small airlines. He agreed that “compromises” would be made. This resulted in a mish-mash of old Australian 1930s Flight Service procedures with modern US CTAF procedures.
I agree that the result is a nightmare – but don’t blame me for it. I had nothing to do with it and was not involved in any way – other than being on the original ARG panel (with the current Chief of Defence, Angus Houston) and making a decision to go to the proven US system. I’m sure no one on the Aviation Reform Group ever envisaged that pilots who had never flown in the US system would be allowed to make changes so the whole thing became a mess.
CaptainMidnight, you mention the LLAMP project (Low-Level Airspace Management Plan) and state:
but when it was heading in a direction a certain individual didn't agree with it was overturned
I thought PPRuNe readers should look at some of the points about the LLAMP project – i.e. below 12,500 feet you moved off the radar frequency and went on to a giant Designated Area Frequency where every pilot became their own air traffic controller.
Chimbu chuckles, yes, I know – you want me as a wealthy Australian to campaign for a system where general taxpayers (many PAYG workers) subsidise my flying. No, I won’t be doing that. You will need others to be involved.
Scurvy.D.Dog, thanks for your great long post. I can see that you have a tremendous interest in this. Unfortunately I can’t help you in relation to getting operational controllers over to the USA to see how the system works. All I can say is that if I were the Chairman of Airservices it is the first thing I would organise. The cost would be next to nothing compared to the goodwill it would put in place.
Fortunately I travel a lot and I have been able to stand beside the controllers in non-radar towers in many countries in the world. I have also been able to fly in the airspace. From this experience I genuinely believe that the US system is simply the best in the world. Why wouldn’t it be? They have an unlimited amount of money to throw at it, they have a litigious society, and they have an extremely high standard of living and some of the lousiest weather conditions. It is obvious that the airspace would evolve like a Boeing 747 to be incredibly safe and move a tremendous amount of people/aircraft.