PDA

View Full Version : ATSB competency?


Dick Smith
9th Aug 2007, 01:14
I have recently been contacted by a professional pilot who mentioned that after the Benalla crash (where 6 people died) the only recommendation from the ATSB was as follows:

Recommendation R20060004
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), review the requirements for the carriage of on-board recording devices in Australian registered aircraft as a consequence of technological developments. I agree that this is truly amazing. Rather than make a strong recommendation in relation to using the radar correctly, the only recommendation is to review the requirements for recording devices. Most rational people would understand that installing recording devices in small aircraft will result in even less money to have other improvements (such as Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems) which stop the accident from happening in the first place.

Many will remember that this was the accident where the Cheyenne aircraft with a professional pilot gradually moved off course when in Class A airspace (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/unsafe/12chapter11.pdf)). The air traffic control alarm system went off many times and the controllers turned off the alarm without telling the pilot.

This is the present system. It is not Airservices’ responsibility if a pilot is heading into uncontrolled airspace – even when it is under excellent radar coverage, and there is an alarm system which could be used to help to prevent controlled flight into terrain accidents.

Now before the usual posters start rubbishing me as the messenger, why not come up with some positive views on how we can prevent this type of accident from happening in the first place. We already have good radar coverage, so by providing Class E airspace, or by providing a better service in Class G, the controller could be used to assist the pilot by advising when off course or when below the minimum safe altitude in cloud.

I know there are plenty of good investigators at the ATSB, so it sounds as if the bosses are somehow preventing the investigator from making a recommendation which will affect another Government entity. That is, recommending to Airservices that they actually use their radar for IFR aircraft when in IMC in a way that will prevent needless fatalities.

kam16
9th Aug 2007, 01:35
Dick

While your suggestion for better use of current radar coverage is admirable, as it has been pointed out many times previously AsA do not have the ATC staff to cover current rosters. What you are suggesting WILL require an increase in ATC numbers.
Who is going to fund these extra controllers let alone where are they going to come from???

Kam16

jumpuFOKKERjump
9th Aug 2007, 02:54
:zzz: Done this. Argued it out. Nothing new here.

If you or your "professional" mate can't be bothered to read the replies last time I'm not typing them out again.

Dick Smith
9th Aug 2007, 03:11
Kam16, isn’t it more a matter of allocating the sectors correctly? When I fly I notice that some sectors are reasonably busy – not as busy as those in the USA, but that is good – while in other sectors you could fly for 20 minutes in complete silence.

If you have Class E airspace at a place like Benalla (where you are likely to get one or two IFR movements per day), the only extra workload is advising an aircraft if it is going below the minimum safe altitude before it is on the approach or declared visual. This would just be a couple of extra radio calls in many cases.

If this requires extra controllers, well so be it. When I was responsible for the AMATS introduction in 1991, it was clear that air traffic control would take over the low level sectors, and that these would be adequately staffed. There was never a suggestion that the whole of flight service should be removed and there should be no consideration to the workload created in giving a proper radar service at the lower levels.

Why don’t we try it? If we tried this at one location (say, Benalla, Charleville or Port Macquarie) we might actually find that it would work without undue delays, with improved safety and with no measurable cost increase.

rodney rude
9th Aug 2007, 03:36
I'm with Mr Smith on this one.

Kam - how many extra controllers re required for a guy to say "hey mate, you're drifting toward some pretty big hills."

And if it does take some more controllers to save some lives., then lets do it. I'll argue the same case I use with criminal repeat offenders - how much of our cime is repeat offenders?? dead set low life vermin. I don't know exactly but from mates in the force its well over 50%. So lets keep 'em locked up and reduce the crime. But our gaol system can't cope I hear you say.

Well we have a government hell bent on running huge surpluses in the name of looking good to the voters. Well how about using that money where its needed, build some freakin gaols with my tax money you have taken from me, and train some more ATC's to utilise the radar coverage we have if it is going to save lives.

Maybe I'm too simplistic.

PS Johnny Howard is .........


Yes Rodney, it is off topic, irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent, inapplicable, unrelated, pointless and a personal attack on individuals. I acknowledge and accept your democratic right to express your opinion – but on a soap box in Hyde Park, not in this professional pilots forum!

Consider yourself warned – first and last time.

:mad:

Moderator

kam16
9th Aug 2007, 04:04
Hey don't get me wrong I am all for increasing the service provided but if you want ATC to monitor approaches into E or G airspace the scale of the map that they are looking at for most sectors is way to large, but if you go to an appropriate scale your not monitoring the remainder of your traffic.
How is this safe or workable? :ugh:
This has been argued by many over the years. I am yet to see how it can be done with out increasing the numbers of ATC hence increasing the costs to the industry.
If someone can come up with a workable cost effective solution by all means present it to Mr. Vaille I have a feeling he would like the votes at the moment.

Kam

maxter
9th Aug 2007, 07:32
"This has been argued by many over the years. I am yet to see how it can be done with out increasing the numbers of ATC hence increasing the costs to the industry.
If someone can come up with a workable cost effective solution by all means present it to Mr. Vaille I have a feeling he would like the votes at the moment.

Kam"

Not aimed at you Kam but as a general statement.

Has anyone figured the cost to society from the Benalla accident. Substantial I bet. How do we cost the true impact of avoiding another Benalla, or Lockhart river or some of the other high profile accidents for that matter. Maybe a small charge shared by society and the industry would look very good value, especially if you were in the back of either of these 2 planes.

Of course you can never cover all cases, as there will always be someone somewhere pushing the boundaries too often and it turns around and bites them.

Just a thought

peuce
9th Aug 2007, 08:48
Hey guys, I wouldn't be holding my breath for the new Sectors and new Controllers .... as a cost cutting exercise, Airservices has just ordered the removal of all pot plants from its premises Australia wide.

No SAR No Details
9th Aug 2007, 12:53
That's not cost cutting, that's part of their Drug and Alcohol Management Plan (DAMP).

peuce
9th Aug 2007, 22:46
:= xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Buster Hyman
10th Aug 2007, 00:16
New ATC course going thorugh at the end of the year...or so they've told me!:ok:

SM4 Pirate
10th Aug 2007, 03:23
Probably right Buster, but the recruits currently don't exceed the retirements and lets not mention the pass rate of recruits; which is just horrible in the last few years; are we recruiting correctly? Good interviewees don't make good controllers (usually); bad interviewees don't get jobs; hence problem = massive.

The hole were are in staffing/airspace wise will be resolved by technology; but it's many many years away from actually working; seems that some bright enterprising ladder climbers made a few too many promises about 2 years ago.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. But we do have a just do it attitude from the top; hang the safety risk as long as there is a buck of saving in it. Cost vs Risk, bring it on.

The ten + years of surveillance neglect is biting in the west; but hey they did put the temporary radar in LT; to counter that one 'idget' flying stupidly in E; where exactly is the biggest safety risk now; I'd bet a lazy $100 it aint friken' LT. Now I read ADS-B is on the cards and no enroute radars will be needed at all; gees that means nothing until 2012-14; get a grip people.

rodney rude
10th Aug 2007, 03:56
Ouch......................

Scurvy.D.Dog
10th Aug 2007, 04:11
SM4The ten + years of surveillance neglect is biting in the west; … yup! but hey they did put the temporary radar in LT; to counter that one 'idget' flying stupidly in E; …. Hmmm … yep Class E (AusNAS 2b) and its inherent flaws ….and marginal seats …. Inevitable!where exactly is the biggest safety risk now; I'd bet a lazy $100 it aint friken' LT. .. I’d agree now that C exist over D again …. But that is not to say that with 925,000 pax through LT, and 1.2mill through HB last year (and Tiger coming to LT from Nov) that TAS should not have surveillance! … or does the mainland deserve it as a priority ..care to identify a greater risk area?
.
.. besides, you can have that (single gun) piece of shite back in July … once WAMLat is commissioned :E ….. viva la revolution! :}

permFO
10th Aug 2007, 13:09
Mr Smith being flexible with the truth again and having another go at the ATSB for what reason I don't know. The Benalla report included safety action that Airservices were going to implement which included better monitoring of the alarms generated by the TAAATS system. There was also a recommendation issued in March 2006 for TAWS equipment to be fitted to turbine aircraft and helicopters of 6 seats or more. Not all reports generate recommendations if the agencies involved have already implemented changes that will prevent the same accident happening. I would have thought that you would be aware of that Mr Smith.:=

tp86
12th Aug 2007, 03:24
Good Grief Dick,
why would you be surprised about a government agency employing incompetent personnel? They put YOU in charge of CASA didn't they!!:eek:

SOPS
12th Aug 2007, 12:29
well.. I know Dick will hate it...but I am of the old school...we HAD a good system, Flight Service Units where we needed them..Towers where we neded them, staffed with people that had knowledge, where we needed it.

But I know..I am one of the old people..what would I know......!!!

Dick Smith
21st Aug 2007, 06:52
SOPS, I apologise for the delay in replying. The old system you seem to love so much resulted in a situation where pilots operating in low level airspace in good radar coverage between Melbourne and Cairns were talking to a flight service officer who did not have a radar screen.

If you wanted to check your transponder you would have to call flight service, who would then call ATC, transfer the message and arrange the test – but pilots would never dare to call ATC directly.

Nothing much has changed. We have given the low level airspace to air traffic controllers with radar, but we have not written any procedures so that the air traffic controller can share the responsibility for controlled flight into terrain accidents.

No doubt we will make the changes after a few more dozen deaths.

Scurvy.D.Dog
21st Aug 2007, 07:37
but we have not written any procedures so that the air traffic controller can share the responsibility for controlled flight into terrain accidents.
.
... if you are not competent to fly IFR or cannot afford GPWS/TAWS/EGPWS ... then don't fly IFR! :=
.
Because until ATC have surveillance, alarms, and sectors small enough to monitor your low level IFR op's without distraction ... forget it ... and to have that will cost the industry a motsa .. fact :ugh:

bushy
21st Aug 2007, 08:57
John Howard has got lots of money by taking Qantas, Telstra etc, that Australians owned, and selling them back to them.
It seems that our ASA and the airlines are not happy unless they have airspace that is idiot proof, but they want someone else to pay for it.
Money up or shut up.

emu787
21st Aug 2007, 09:19
They like the power, they like to control, they like OUR money but guess what NO BLOODY RESPONSIBILITY....typical of Australian Aviation.

The alarms sounded and they did not tell the pilot. Well anywhere else in the world somebody would go to gaol.

Put the shoe on the other foot.....if WE did it we would certainly go to gaol.....oh well nothing has changed since Captain Cook arrived...they are the untouchables...obviously GOD like creatures well above the law or even life!! They pretend to be a commercial business UNTIL they cockup then scurry back to their hovels and say we are the Government now...

Goodonya Dick for telling the world! We must expose these bureaucratic morons more often.:D

Scurvy.D.Dog
21st Aug 2007, 13:33
until ATC have surveillance, alarms, and sectors small enough to monitor your low level IFR op's without distraction ... forget it ... and to have that will cost the industry a motsa .. fact .. is what I said, how does that translate to ASA wanting idiot proof airspace and someone else pay for it .... isn't it you folks that want idiot proof airspace and .. AsA are offering to pay for it?! :ugh: .... as I said, give us the right gear and resources .. what is unreasonable about that??
.
EMU really
.
- have you any idea what the system track alarms work on (RNC routes and waypoints) and what they don't (IAF points particularly OCTA)?
- have you any idea what communication occured between pilot and ATC?
.
.. and as for the rest of your bile .. you are a loony :mad:

Dick Smith
21st Aug 2007, 23:25
Scurvy.D.Dog, once again, another error from me – I have to admit it. I should have said, “so that the air traffic controller can share the responsibility for the prevention of controlled flight into terrain accidents.”

I’m sure everyone will agree that it is better to act before the accident.

Scurvy.D.Dog
22nd Aug 2007, 01:44
Thankyou Dick, no argument with the intent :ok:

PLTOFF4LIFE
22nd Aug 2007, 03:05
New poster, old issue

Currently writing an assignment on the old LAMP vs NAS debate and are encouraged to "identify the major impact the changes have made to their work through actual experience" since it is an old debate. I fell there weren't many changes since NAS stopped at 2b and was then partially retracted. Only been an ATCO for 3 yrs so perhaps I am ignorant in my youth - what do others think about 'changes?'

Personally I see Dick's argument (except for calling YBPN a 'black hole', that is just lame), I think NAS is a good system, but like everyone else has said where will the money come from. It won't work with the current large sectors.

Re: UNICOM/CAGRO, do any other TCU ATCO's hold CAGRO ratings. My TCU doesn't do it routinely but have controllers rated to do it.