Too close for comfort
THE pilots of the Virgin Australia Boeing 737 with more than 100 passengers on board heard the collision alarm go off moments before they saw the business jet flash before them.
They had just taken off from Newcastle airport, climbing to 5000 feet (1524m), but the pilots were unaware that a business jet coming in to land had just been granted permission by military air traffic controllers to descend to 5000 feet.
Both jets were being handled by separate air traffic controllers as they hurtled towards one another, but these controllers were not communicating with each other — resulting, in the words of investigators, “in both aircraft being assigned the same level (altitude) and with conflicting tracks (flight paths)”. To make matters worse, an automated near-miss alert function on the controllers’ screens had been deactivated because, with military aircraft in formation also using the airport, it had set off too many false alarms.
It was only the anti-collision warning in the cockpit that led the Virgin Australia crew to take evasive action, and both jets passed with only 112m vertical separation and 1300m horizontally — one-third of the minimum safe clearance levels.
In March 2012, when the Australian Transport Safety Bureau delivered its report into this February 2011 incident, it was scathing of the training and procedures used by air force air traffic controllers at Newcastle airport.
“Overall the controllers did not resolve the situation effectively, and this was due at least in part to the Department of Defence not providing its air traffic controllers with compromised separation recovery training.”
What’s more, the ATSB noted there had been no fewer than nine so-called “breakdowns of separation’’ of aircraft at Newcastle airport in the previous 18 months.
What was going on?
Last October, when the ATSB examined the national pattern of so-called loss of separation incidents, it came to a disturbing conclusion. Three major airports in Australia that were run by military air traffic controllers had a poorer safety record than their civilian counterparts. Put simply, Newcastle, Darwin and Townsville — each of which is run by military ATCs because of their proximity to air force bases — had more LOS incidents, where passenger planes pass too close together, increasing the risk of midair collisions.
The ATSB report found that between 2008 and 2012 military controllers were involved in 36 per cent of all LOS incidents, despite controlling only 25 per cent of air traffic near terminals.
“This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of LOS incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown (Newcastle) in particular,” the ATSB said.
It was a damning finding and one quietly supported by some pilots of passenger planes using these military-controlled airports, who tell
The Australian they have observed discrepancies in the handling of planes compared with civilian-controlled airports.
But when the ATSB’s findings came out, it was clear the agency had stepped on some powerful toes. Defence fired back saying it simply did not accept the ATSB’s findings and claimed that LOS incidents were not an accurate indicator of safety levels. The air safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, also challenged the report, saying that while it did not have oversight authority over Defence ATCs, it had a close relationship with Defence that the ATSB “fails to acknowledge”.
Perhaps this internal squabble over safety is why the Coalition government appears to have all but ignored the report and its implications for the safety of travelling Australians.
Which is why during the past week key aviation figures have spoken out in frustration, demanding the government set up an inquiry into Australia’s ATC system and review whether it remains a good idea for military air traffic controllers to direct passenger jets at Australian airports.
Former Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning says while the three main airports operated by military ATCs are not unsafe, they are clearly less safe that the country’s other major airports.
“It is safe, but according to the ATSB report there are more incidents per (flight) movement in military airspace,” he tells
The Australian. “There should be no difference in the level of safety at all towered aerodromes.”
Manning’s call for an independent inquiry into these safety issues carries weight. As a veteran pilot, and chief Qantas pilot from 2003 to 2008, he is well regarded in the industry. He has previously lauded Australia’s aviation safety record and, when Tiger Airways was facing safety issues in 2011, the airline turned to him for advice.
Manning says it is time the regulations were changed to allow CASA to have formal oversight of military air traffic controllers. “I would much prefer to see one standard that was audited by CASA throughout Australia,” he says.
Paul Tyrrell, head of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, is concerned there does not appear to have been any robust response to such findings. “The ATSB report was a serious report but regional airline operators haven’t seen any serious response from the military or the government, so we would ask the question, what will their response be?”
The acting chief of Air Force, Air Vice-Marshal Leo Davies, says he fundamentally disagrees with the implication in the ATSB report that military air traffic controllers are less safe than civilian ones.
“We (RAAF) control a couple of hundred thousand civil flights each year and we do that safely,” Davies says. “If I felt there was something that required immediate attention I would address that. I am a military aviator myself, I have flown in civil and military airspace in Australia, and I have no concerns with Australian military air traffic control standards.”
Former CASA chairman and aviation safety activist Dick Smith has also joined the fray, writing to Defence Minister David Johnston and Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss.
“Minister, this is a shocker,” Smith wrote to Johnston. “I am sure you do not want to be responsible for the first jet airline fatalities in Australia’s history.
“After 30 years of experience in our civil aviation industry, my view is that the military simply do not have the efficiencies of scale to be able to adequately operate an acceptably safe air traffic system for civilian aircraft.
“They also have a real problem with change; that is, it is obvious they find it nearly impossible to move forward and follow the very latest safety procedure and airspace classifications in the world.”
That civilian and military air traffic controllers direct passenger aircraft in Australia is a quirk of history, reflecting the fact airports in some locations were shared by civilian and military planes. The military planes needed military ATCs so it was decided they might as well direct civilian planes also.
Defence has about 250 controllers looking after its 11 air bases, but in Newcastle, Townsville and Darwin these controllers also direct civilian planes, including large passenger jets, some operated by Virgin Australian and Jetstar. Military controllers operate completely different computer systems to their civilian counterparts and have different skills because their jobs go beyond just directing civilian aircraft.
Defence makes the brazen argument that military airspace at these airports is tight and less predictable so it should not be judged using the same safety criteria as civilian airports.
“Defence does not agree with an implication that the number of LOS per number of aircraft movements directly correlates to safety,” a Defence spokesman tells
The Australian. “Military-controlled airspace is inherently different to civilian-controlled airspace — with high traffic peaks but low overall aircraft movement statistics, diverse aircraft types and constrained airspace — which makes the statistical comparison flawed.”
Smith says this is cold comfort for civilian passengers and is not good enough when Australian aircraft movements are forecast to grow by 60 per cent across the next 20 years.
“The concern about military airspace is that the procedures and airspace classification have not been updated for many decades, and what might have been OK in 1950 can’t be accepted now because aircraft move much faster and carry more people,” he says.
Smith emphasises he is not criticising the abilities of military ATCs, just the system and procedures under which they operate.
“You simply have to have the most experienced controllers guiding passenger jets and there is no way that the small number of military controllers can get that level of experience and training.”
Defence maintains that its controllers “have common qualifications and apply the same standards and procedures”, saying while CASA does not have oversight of military ATCs, CASA has a significant input into Defence’s safety policies.
But the ATSB says this is not enough.
“A reliance on Defence sharing the same operations manual as (the civilian ATC operators) Airservices and internal auditing and oversight, including involvement, guidance and advice by CASA, will not guarantee an equivalent level of safety is provided to civilian aircraft operating in and out of Defence-operated aerodromes as for civilian aerodromes,” the ATSB says.
Most disturbing is the ATSB’s belief that the closed nature of Defence is not allowing proper scrutiny of its safety levels, despite the fact the safety of civilian passengers is at stake.
“At present there is no comprehensive and independent assessment of the levels of safety and compliance with respect to civil aircraft operations at these airports and no transparency for industry in respect to any differences in the levels of service provided or safety afforded.”
Although Defence was angered by the ATSB report and does not agree with its key findings, it is now reviewing its traffic management plans at Darwin, Townsville and Williamtown to improve its techniques for separating aircraft.
It also has stepped up training for its controllers on how to recover from an LOS situation.
CASA was also hostile to the ATSB report, believing it to be an attack on CASA’s own dealings with Defence, but it has since initiated a joint safety study of Newcastle airport due for release later this year.
Smith says these measures are too little, too late, and that if there were a mid-air accident at any of these airports today the government would have blood on its hands for failing to act despite receiving ample warning.
Smith wants a new system whereby military air traffic controllers are responsible only for military aircraft while civilians ATCs are responsible for civilian aircraft. He points out that former Defence chief Angus Houston said in 2002: “Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems.”
Both military and civilian ATCs will use the same systems by 2020 under a plan called OneSKY but there is no plan at present to limit military controllers to military aircraft.
Former Qantas chief pilot Manning simply wants an independent inquiry to reassess the manner in which Australia manages its airspace to ensure it is as safe as it can be. “My suggestion would be to have a panel of three to review the ATSB report and have a real look at the airspace requirements of the military as well as civil so that both can be accommodated as efficiently as possible,” he says.
“The panel might say the current system is the best, although somehow I doubt it.”