Good on you Dick! Like you, I seldom have the need to use Flightwatch, but, when I do need it, it is usually to help me to make a safety related decision by having timely access to weather or other operational information. More often than not, the times I would like to use Flightwatch are when the weather is bad and controllers are managing more IFR operations, with less time available to them to provide Flightwatch services.
As many have observed in other posts on this forum, even with the current VHF outlets available and with the current staffing level, actually contacting Flightwatch can be difficult. There is no doubt that this has led to a situation where many pilots are deterred from even attempting to contact Flightwatch, either because they have little faith that they will get through at all, or the extra workload associated with repeated (often futile) attempts to establish contact cannot be safely accommodated by the pilot.
It is true that many of the accidents we have in Australia each year could be averted if the pilot made a different decision. What we will never know is how many better decisions would have been made had the pilot accessed timely information from Flightwatch. I’m sure most of us reading this post can think of recent accidents where a pilot may have made a different decision if he or she had had better operational information at the time.
Your example of a controller working five frequencies at a time is interesting because, when workload permits, we ought to be doing this, it does make economic sense when safety levels can be maintained. What is disturbing is that it appears to be happening more often, at a time when ATC staffing levels are so low that even TIBA procedures are being used routinely. It is difficult to accept that Airservices are able to maintain the required safety levels and this will certainly get worse if the controllers now have to provide the complete VHF Flightwatch service.
It would appear that Airservices have again ignored their own safety system and not done any proper consultation, hazard assessment, safety case or cost benefit analysis. I suspect any methodology they chose would show that, for a cost of only $500,000.00 annually, the safety benefits are substantial.
Let’s hope that some common sense prevails and you do not get to court. If you do have to go to court though, I’ll donate $1000.00 to the RFDS.
Last edited by SCE to Aux; 12th Nov 2007 at 08:57.
Reason: Improved readability