There have been discussions on this website in relation to the Airservices decision to close down 27 VHF Flightwatch transmitters and transfer the workload to ATC. There have been various suggestions that could stop this from happening.
On 2 September 2007,
Bendo stated:
Ok guys - we are in the lead-up to an election.
Surely someone can pull a Dick Smith or a Boyd Munro (sorry Boyd) and put themselves in a situation where they needed the information from FW and couldn't get it …
Anyone flying Warren Truss or Mark Vaile around in a Metro of Chieftain any time soon?.....
Bendo is suggesting some type of action to stop this safety reduction madness (which is only driven by cost) from going ahead.
Personally, I’m not into pulling stunts, but after talking to a number of senior air traffic controllers (including a union official), I’m horrified with this dictatorial decision by Airservices. There has been no consultation with the air traffic controllers who are now responsible for the extra workload, and no consultation with the industry that is to be affected.
Like many, I only use Flightwatch occasionally – but when I use the service it is a safety imperative. I agree that there are many times when the existing air traffic control outlet can provide the Flightwatch information. However there are times when air traffic control is busy – especially in bad weather – where it will be impossible to get Flightwatch information from ATC.
Yesterday I was flying back from my farm, and when I came onto the Sydney Radar frequency of 124.55 (the frequency which is now to be used for Flightwatch) the operator was amazingly operating 5 different frequencies. I asked her, and she said that she had Sydney Approach, Sydney Departures, Sydney Terminal, Sydney Radar, and one other. I just couldn’t believe it. Imagine then requesting Flightwatch information on weather – it would be simply impossible.
The frequencies were being retransmitted. There were parachuting operations at different places, Qantas and British Airways approaching and departing, floatplanes giving announcements in the Broken Bay area, and a rescue helicopter requesting a direct clearance to Coffs Harbour. Imagine, on top of this, trying to change flight plan details or get detailed weather on the same frequency!
There has been no consultation, and no safety cost benefit study, when making the decision to close the 27 transmitters. The claimed savings (look at the letter from Mark Vaile
here) are only $500,000 per annum. Yes, that is less than 1/10th of 1% of the Airservices income – almost immeasurable for the potential major reduction in air safety.
Following are some other comments which have appeared on this site in relation to the closure of Flightwatch.
On the D & G General Aviation and Questions thread “Flightwatch VHF gooooooone!!!!”, on 29 October 2007
JackoSchitt said in relation to the closing of Flightwatch outlets:
You hit the nail on the head. As your busy doin' vectorin' victor an' stuff as the Wx clags in, like say a ring of TS around MEL, and everyone wants the Wx at MEL and for their alternates - something has to give.
How the hell it is going to be "effective and more efficient" than a standalone function that can be accessed in parallel to the traffic service rather than instead of a traffic service is beyond me. I don't need to have vested interest to see that surely?
Go back to the creation of the Flightwatch function in the first place, It was to take away the distraction or providing in-flight information from ATCs on TAAATS. How exactly has THAT necessity changed?
On the same thread, on 25 October 2007,
Direct.no.speed, an air traffic controller, posted the following:
Mate, I work as an ATC, and I don't understand it. Nor frankly do I have time to provide a FIS.
I don't like how all this is going to end.
Well, it is obviously going to end in an unnecessary accident, isn’t it?
It is a most extraordinary situation. I have today taken action against Airservices in an attempt to prevent this crazy safety reduction with no real resultant benefit. See
here for a copy of the letter sent to Airservices. If they do not agree to consult properly with the industry and do a proper cost benefit study, we will be in court by the end of the week. I’m sure a responsible judiciary will make a decision to ensure that the law is followed.
I’m personally angry that I have to spend my money on this type of thing. I would rather donate it to the Salvation Army or the RFDS.
Before everyone starts abusing me, please come on side on this important issue. I have never, ever supported the closure of a separate Flightwatch system, or passing on higher workload to air traffic controllers, whom I understand are understaffed at the present time. The situation in Sydney on Sunday would clearly show that there is an understaffing issue, or some other problem.