Flightwatch – 27 VHF outlets being closed

[Dick Smith]

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 (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_46.php)) 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 (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_46.php) 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.

[Wanderin_dave]

Right behind you Dick. :ok:

[tail wheel]

This thread has been "stickied" as there are very important safety issues involved.

It appears AsA staff are being burdened with ever increasing workload, particularly whilst ATC numbers appear to be under strength.

A recipe for disaster?

A professional, rational debate please.

Tail Wheel

[Dick Smith]

Thanks for the support so far.

I would imagine that Airservices Australia Board members are looking at this thread to see whether the industry agrees that there has not been proper consultation in relation to closing down 27 radio transmitters.

[SM4 Pirate]

I support you fully on this Dick.

But the $500Kpa seems a little light on; that might be the physical costs, but having the FW operators plugged in on the other side (and wages there of, plus facilities on costs etc.) would be a significantly larger number than that.

Such is the nature of the ASA beast at present, consultation = announcement or briefing, the elephant doesn't change course unless whacked. See the thread on night shift operations; 5 TIBAs in 14 days since the change; controllers reporting doing the whole night without a single break, excluding mad dash to toilet, because they have no faith in their employer and or the regulator.

DTI is next though Dick? There are no coins in that either... Did someone say SARTIME?

[Dick Smith]

SM4 Pirate, thanks for the support. I think the $500,000 per annum is correct, as it is basically the cost of the satellite links and the power etc for the transmitters. Remember that the HF Flightwatch remains open, and I understand this means the same staffing levels – maybe someone else can elaborate.

By the way, there is money in the DTI (Directed Traffic Information). Everyone pays a full IFR enroute charge for DTI – the same as if you are flying in controlled airspace. It certainly is an earner for Airservices.

[SM4 Pirate]

...It certainly is an earner for Airservices. That IMHO doesn't pay its own way. and I understand this means the same staffing levelsWell no, more than 1/2 the consoles in FW will close, thus 1/2 the staff will go (I would guess, some already have cashed in their VR cheques); then there is the great HF plan, to shut it down too... HF on ATC consoles maybe?

[Jabawocky]

SM4 Pirate

controllers reporting doing the whole night without a single break, excluding mad dash to toilet

I am sure I am stating the obvious, but that situation scares the :mad: out of me. Does anything in your story sound familiar to the loss of a Russian airliner and a freighter a few years back........:uhoh:

All of us should get some support behind these things being challenged and fixed, from GA bugsmashers like me through to the heavy metal drivers.

J

[WannaBeBiggles]

All the way behind you dick! :ok:

On a side note (question). I believe airlines use a rough rule of thumb that every sole on board is worth $10mil USD, should they loose an aircraft. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

Does ASA have any such figures? I'm sure if (god forbid) an incident should occur and ASA is dragged in to court by the coroner the $500,000 p.a. they saved removing this service will seem like a drop in the ocean?

[JackoSchitt]

From what I do know

Flightwatch has 6 consoles.

2 do HF for 3 international type areas - 24/7

3 do HF for 3 domestic type areas - but close to only 1 console on overnight shifts.

the last one does VHF Flightwatch daytime, M-F only and the frequencies move to the open domestic type HF consoles for weekends and overnights.

I could be wrong but the staffing requirement for Flightwatch VHF as done by the Flightwatch people is only for the daytime, M-F, so I'd say 3 people absolute tops (and those people are paid less than ATCS)

As for saving money on turing off the equipment, I'm told that equipment is going to be handed over to ATC to enable them to do the function in some areas.

You do the math but I think $500K is on the high side.

As for "Money in DTI" - If only you said that some 8 years ago Dick!:hmm:

[peuce]

Although I back you Dick ... (as I support the principle that Controllers are there to keep tin apart... and FSOs/FISOs/Briefers, or whatever you want to call them, are there to provide information for pilots to base decisions on) .. the chooks have flown the coop. The majority of those who were providing Flightwatch have been shown the golden door.

There ain't nobody left to provide the service ... except Controllers.... and there's bugger all of those left too.

[SCE to Aux]

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.

[apache]

totally agree with you on this one Dick.

You have my full support!

[vans]

Right behind you on this Dick.

Yet another Airservices decision which reduces services and safety without adequate consultation with those most affected.

[Creampuff]

Dick

Airservices Australia has done the wrong thing, and I support the principle of your argument.

However, and unfortunately, the ‘Australian government’ is now so deeply infected by spivs and camp followers, second-rate Pollyanna graduates who either know no better or barely touch the ‘stepping stone’ on the way to a real job, and drones who are too scared and lacking in self-esteem to walk away, that it doesn’t really matter what’s right and wrong any more.

This government’s run by people who don’t comprehend the difference between right and wrong, or if they do, they’re either ambivalent or too scared to do anything about it. In any event, they’re ready and able to spend loads of taxpayers’ cash to defend their position. The government’s flush with cash as a consequence of its unparalleled capacity to tax on one the hand but spend little on infrastructure on the other, and it’s happy to use that cash to defend the indefensible, litigate people into the ground, and trash people’s reputations – it’s all a part of ‘good government’, don’t you know.

It must be in the public interest to shut down dedicated FIS: the government decided to do it, or at least decided to allow a government agency to do it. The government is, by definition, the only body in a position to determine what the public interest is.

No, that last sentence isn’t a quote from Orwell’s 1984: it’s what Dr Peter Shergold, the current Secretary of the Australian Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, believes.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Everybody concerned needs to stop covering up the holes in the system by working around the holes. If a pilot needs weather and a dedicated flightwatch frequency is not there anymore, then make sure you get it through the ATCO. Don't just try and manage without the weather cos that means you are covering up the problems in the system.

Similarly if a pilot is forced to fly through airspace classified as TIBA due to ATC staff shortage, don't just pay for the service that you did not recieve, refuse to pay. If you pay, you are covering up the problems in the system.

Its easy to say from outside, but if the controllers are being forced to combine sectors above what they would like due to staff shortages, refuse to. By combining the sectors inappropriately, you are just covering up the problems.

If controllers keep working overtime to cover up the staff shortages the staff shortage will never be acknowledged by management, and hence will never be fixed. By working overtime, you are just covering up the problems.

If controllers provide break relief on single manned positions they are not rated on, ASA will think it is acceptable practice not to have rostered break relief on nightshifts.

If everyone stops covering up the problems, all those in charge cannot continue to plead ignorance, and will have to face up to ramifications of their past decisions. They will be forced to fix the problems, otherwise all these problems will one day line up like the holes in the swiss cheese and we will have another Uberlingen, heaven forbid.

[Ref + 10]

From a personal point of view, I used the FIS service at Kalamunda regularly in order to save asking on the lower level frequencies as congestion on those can be down right unbelievable (ask anyone around leonora/leinster/wiluna on any day around 3/4pm). I was advised the other day that this FIS was being closed and to ask the area controller in future... Are you for real!!!???? That was the whole point of asking this guy in the first place. I intended on easing the burden on the poor S.O.B on area. I then get six people trying to make a departure call on the same frequency when departing a non VHF equipped aerodrome but not getting a look in because some other eejot is getting a metar. Now, we are being told that this is how it's done now??!!?? Sorry, but the person deciding how to run the show has never ever sat in my seat. If they had and gone ahead anyway they should be hauled up immediately in the interest of the greater good.

I will bet anything that the airservices charges have not dropped a dime in the past 10 years. The service however has changed remarkably and it hasn't been going up as has our workload and frustration due to our lives being made harder for no seemingly good reason.

Dick, I hope you and us a community succeed in ending this depreciation in support conditions especially when it is one that we pay through the nose for.

[WALLEY2]

This is the second time that there has appeared to be a change by the provider without consultation with stakeholders or any comment from the regulator.

What is the proper procedure if the provider reduces or ceases a service such as this, surely it is a change in airspace requiring a safety study and stakeholder imput?

What is the actual action required? Is it simply we are not going to do it any more because we ...statement of relevent facts etc....? or a simple straight decision taken by senior management.

Does anyone know the procedure used?

Cheers Mike

[nomorecatering]

This week I tried to cal MEL centre with a flight plan ammendment as per company SOPs due Wx and was told to call back later as the ATCO was flat out with IFR aircraft wanting diversions due to multiple CB's etc etc. After landing we couldnt cancel our SARTIME as reception was crappy, on top of that mobile coverage was non existant and the only public phone at the airport had long since been vandalised and was not going to be fixed.....Telstra cost cutting??

By the time I hitched a lift to the nearest servo, and begged to use their phone, our SARTIME had expired by 45 mins and a SAR uncertainty phase had been intitiated. Because we couldnt give the flight plan ammendment they wouldnt have known where to go looking for us.

I wonder how many hrs in the SAR Do328 $500,000 will buy.

So now we have lots of non english native speaking students on area frequency trying to give flight plan ammendments, clogging up the frequency.

I guess now we shouldnt bother with flight plans at all.

Hmmmm, just how much per hour is the SAR Do328?

Pratts!!!

[aussie027]

Dick,
I too am behind you 110%.

I am absolutely outraged at the situation described above in a previous posts.

AirnoservicesAustralia said

Everybody concerned needs to stop covering up the holes in the system by working around the holes. If a pilot needs weather and a dedicated flightwatch frequency is not there anymore, then make sure you get it through the ATCO. Don't just try and manage without the weather cos that means you are covering up the problems in the system.

Similarly if a pilot is forced to fly through airspace classified as TIBA due to ATC staff shortage, don't just pay for the service that you did not recieve, refuse to pay. If you pay, you are covering up the problems in the system.

Its easy to say from outside, but if the controllers are being forced to combine sectors above what they would like due to staff shortages, refuse to. By combining the sectors inappropriately, you are just covering up the problems.

If controllers keep working overtime to cover up the staff shortages the staff shortage will never be acknowledged by management, and hence will never be fixed. By working overtime, you are just covering up the problems.

If controllers provide break relief on single manned positions they are not rated on, ASA will think it is acceptable practice not to have rostered break relief on nightshifts.

If everyone stops covering up the problems, all those in charge cannot continue to plead ignorance, and will have to face up to ramifications of their past decisions. They will be forced to fix the problems, otherwise all these problems will one day line up like the holes in the swiss cheese and we will have another Uberlingen, heaven forbid.Everybody should take the time to reread his post again and take his message completely to heart and act upon it literally every time we go flying and run into the situations he describes.

In particular for the pilots among us his first two paragraphs.

When asking for weather information or other critical safety information and you do not get from the controller because he is too busy to provide it and yet this is the situation air services has forced him and us into and the system they want us to follow then speak your mind on the radio so it is on the tapes and on the record!!!!

Normally of course we are trained to not argue with the controller nor question his decisions as to why maybe he cannot grant us a request such as a new level or routing etc and and of course it must be this way during the course of normal operations or the system would not work.
The situation we are talking about is NOT a normal operation if we ask for critical operational information, such as latest weather and it is denied to us due to the particular controller having too many responsibilities or frequencies.
I will certainly tell the controller exactly what I think if he tries to blow off my request for some necessary information.
If the situation so demands than the pilot can advise him an emergency is likely if the information is not forwarded as requested.

We then need to write down the frequency and time when such incidents occur so that we can then send in details to the Briefing Office and say on the recorded tapes you wish a formal complaint filed, then on to ASA, CASA, or the ATSB as required. If they start getting enough phone calls and formal complaints from pilots every single day when such things occur that should bring more attention to bear on the subject.

His second paragraph re not paying for services not provided is also absolutely critical !!
Make a note of time and frequencies and areas where services are not being provided and then pass them on to your employer and strongly suggest or insist (as you are able) that at the end of the month when they send ASA their cheque that payment for the following flights was withheld because services charged for were not provided.
Every Pilot working for every company needs to do these two things on daily basis as they occur so that more and more bureaucratic attention is drawn to these faults in the system instead of just being covered up because we are too apathetic to spend a few minutes acting on our frustrations at the situation.
If enough phone calls are made, e-mails sent, letters written and Air Services en route charges not paid on a daily basis things will surely be changed.
All the controllers out there need to follow his suggestion is in his other points on a daily basis as the situation demands.

If we let the cracks in the system start appearing every day instead of trying to cover them up to keep things moving along, despite some initial frustrations by both pilots and controllers then attention will be brought to bear and we can fight to have the situation changed.

As far as the situation nomorecatering describes, which is outrageous in itself, if it happened more and more often and SAR phases were declared unnecessarily the cost and paperwork involved by those CASA and ASA along with the pilots report of the situation and circumstances to them and or the ATSB will start raising awareness levels of everyone including hopefully the idiots who made such a decision as cutting out Flightwatch to begin with. I certainly hope you did file a report/compaint describing the situation you described to everybody who is relevant. If not PLEASE DO SO TODAY!!!
To sum up, both pilots and controllers need to be proactive in the circumstances described above in order to get things changed or as we all know the bureaucrats and managers involved will never change anything except for the worst has appears to have happened in this case.
If we don't we all know that at some future point despite the best efforts of everyone who will be involved to prevent it,a smoking hole in the ground and God knows how many dead will be the result.
Too late then to have the findings of coroner's inquest and ATSB sent to ASA and CASA etc.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Aussie027, while I agree with a lot of what you are saying, I want to clarify one thing. I don't advocate speaking your mind on the radio. We are all professionals and as such should conduct ourselves that way no matter what situation we are forced into.

What I would suggest is that rather than going without weather due to radio congestion you wait till there is a pause on the radio and politely make the request. If told to standby, then standby. If told that is not available then request an alternative frequency where that service will be available. If none is forthcoming then there is always the possiblilty of filing a report as this is now a serious safety issue.

Bottom line, don't argue on the radio, as while that may get your point across, you may end up causing something bad to happen with someone else, and that is not what anyone wants. After all it is not the ATCOs fault that he is left to carry the can from other peoples visions of affordable safety. :mad:

[Sunfish]

I've only ever used Flightwatch once - and when I did, I really needed it.

I left Kerang VFR for Melbourne at about 1300 when YMEN and YMMB were still closed by Fog, with enough fuel to divert to Bendigo or Ballarat, or even back to Kerang if necessary.

Decision point was Mangalore and when I overflew, Flightwatch told me they were just open.

Now what chance have I got of getting this information out of a busy Melbourne Radar frequency???? Absolute zilch! And especially when you start adding in the non english speakers you are simply asking for trouble!

Professionals please take note, as a simple VFR pilot with no ACRS, HF and god knows what else, this is a promise.......

If, through lack of timely and relevant weather or safety information through AsA, I feel that my safety and that of my companions, has been, or is compromised during flight, then I'm busting your carefully crafted system of regulation wide open.

That means: Flight through controlled airspace, unplanned landings by light aircraft at what ever airport is available - and that includes YMMB and YMAV.

Expect to see very large commercial aircraft not getting clearances or having to divert as a result of VFR traffic (altitude unverified) getting in your way as they poke about trying to get themselves sorted with no help available.

This is not a threat, its whats going to happen, I watched an Emirates 777(?) burn a stack of fuel a few months ago thanks to "VFR traffic" the wrong side of the West Gate bridge, expect much more of this, and the costs incurred by just one diversion, and the subsequent investigation, report and perhaps legal proceedings, will dwarf AsA 's savings.

Bear in mind that with the one frequency, a non english speaking student in trouble is going to blanket the entire Melbourne basin and no one is going to get any clearance for anything.

And here is the threat AsA, if you start acting as if my life as a private pilot is somehow worth less than someone travelling in an airliner, then I assure you you are going to pay for it....and a first step will be a sudden lack of the
cooperation and the give and take that currently makes the system work (for example, getting out of someone's way and passing information, Wx etc.), the second step will be that I won't be "requesting" weather or change of details, I'll be requiring it.

To put it another way, why the **** should I carry a radio, or even bother to switch it on if there is no point in talking to anyone?

I'm 100% behind Dick.

[rep]

100% agree with you Dick. What a joke.

[Pundit]

Dick,

I have just watched your interview in Ch7 Sunrise. Congratulations.

Where are all the organisations / bodies that are supposed to be safety focussed - AIPA, AFAP, CAOetc, RAAA, Gapan, ASFA, HAA, Qantas, QantasLink, Jetstar, Virgin, Rex, RFDS etc. etc. Isn't their silence golden

I have never really looked at the AsA Board, but you are right Dick, I can understand why they don't understand........



http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/images/board/n_burtontaylor.jpg


Nick Burton Taylor, AM BEc(Syd) FCA, FFIN, FAICD, ASIA


Chairman
Mr Burton Taylor was appointed to the Board on 28 January 2005 and his current term expires on 27 January 2008.
Mr Burton Taylor is a farmer living at Boorowa, NSW, with an extensive career as a professional director with a broad background in accounting, agriculture, aviation, commerce and small business.
Mr Burton Taylor is currently Chairman of the Australian Agricultural Company Ltd and the Country Education Foundation of Australia, a Director of Hamilton James and Bruce Ltd and a member of Rabo Bank Board of Advice.


http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/images/board/c_goode.jpg


Christine Goode, PSM

Deputy Chair
Ms Goode was appointed to the Board on 28 January 2005 and her current term expires on 30 April 2009.
Ms Goode has extensive public sector experience in transport, communications and executive management, working at Federal Department Deputy Secretary and Chief Executive Officer levels.
Ms Goode is currently a member of the ACT Public Trustee Investment Advisory Board.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/images/board/d_forsythe.jpg


David Forsyth, BE (Aero), GradDip, FRAeS

Mr Forsyth was appointed to the Board on 28 January 2005 and his current term expires on 27 January 2008. He is Chairman of the Board Safety & Environment Committee.
Mr Forsyth is an aeronautical engineer with over 30 years experience in airline operations and aviation engineering. He is a former Qantas Airways Executive General Manager responsible for flight operations, engineering and maintenance and previously General Manager, Qantas Regional Airlines covering four wholly-owned subsidiaries to 47 destinations Australia-wide.
Mr Forsyth is a Board Member of Aviation Australia, the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (South Eastern Section) and President of the Royal Aeronautical Society Australian Division.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/images/board/r_maher.jpg


Robert Maher, AM, BA (ANU)

Mr Maher was appointed to the Board on 8 August 2006 and his current term expires on 7 August 2009.
Mr Maher is a graduate of the Royal Military College, Duntroon and the Australian National University in Canberra. He served with the Australian Army in Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam. For the past decade Mr Maher provided consulting advice to investment banks and to the commercial defence sector. He has wide experience in both the public and private sectors and has extensive knowledge of Australia's economic, business, political and legislative structure.
Mr Maher is a director of Brooker Consulting Company Pty Ltd.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/images/board/h_merteens.jpg


Henk Meertens, BArch

Mr Meertens was appointed to the Board on 28 January 2005 and his current term expires on 27 January 2008.
An architect, Mr Meertens has been actively involved in recreational and sport aviation for 25 years and has logged over 3000 hours flying time in gliders. Mr Meertens was President of the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation from 1996 to 2004 and he has represented the Australian sport and recreational aviation industry at international level and on a number of national forums and committees including Civil Aviation Safety Authority Regulatory Reviews.
Mr Meertens is a director of Rhibrae Pty Ltd, Wesky Pty Ltd and Cudgegong Soaring Pty Ltd.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/images/board/r_mclennan.jpg


Roxley McLennan, AO, AVM (Rtd)



Air Vice-Marshal Roxley McLennan retired from the Royal Australian Air Force in March 2006, after a distinguished military career that culminated in him serving as Deputy Chief of Air Force. He was appointed to the Board on 1 May 2006 and his current term expires on 30 April 2009.
Roxley has over 6,000 flying hours, the majority being on C130 Hercules aircraft in operational, check and training roles. He is committed to the vision of a single, national air traffic management system for Australia.
Roxley is Chief Executive of the South Australian Government’s Defence Unit.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/images/board/a_williams.jpg


Alice Williams, BComm, CFA, FAICD, FCPA

Ms Williams was appointed to the Board on 28 January 2005 and her current term expires on 27 January 2008. She is Chair of the Board Audit Committee.
Ms Williams has over 20 years of senior management and Board level experience in corporate and Government sectors and investment banking, specialising in strategy and policy development, corporate advisory and funds management, competition policy and regulation. Ms Williams has also been a consultant to domestic and international airlines.
Ms Williams is a Director of Strategic Analytics (Australia) Pty Ltd, State Trustees Limited and State Trustees Financial Services Limited, VLine Passenger Corporation, Guild Insurance & Financial Services Holding Limited, Telstra Sale Company Limited, and is a Commissioner of the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/images/board/g_McGowan.jpg


Gerry McGowan

Mr McGowan was appointed to the Board on 23 August 2007 and his current term expires on 22 August 2010.
Mr McGowan is a former executive of TNT and Mayne Nickless. He launched Impulse Airlines, Australia's third airline in 1992 which was acquired by Qantas in 2001. Currently Gerry is Executive Chairman of CBD Energy, Executive Chairman of TRW Holdings Pty Limited and Executive Chairman of Pacific Aviation Pty Limited.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/images/board/g_russell.jpg


Greg Russell

Mr Russell was appointed Airservices Australia Chief Executive Officer on 19 July 2005.
Mr Russell was Chief Operating Officer at Athens International Airport until June 2005 and from 1999 to 2003 Director, Aviation Sydney Airport Corporation. Prior to that he was an executive with regional operator Hazelton Airlines for six years and became General Manager of the company. He has also held a range of management positions in private companies and Government organisations.
Mr Russell is Chairman of Airservices Australia’s wholly-owned subsidiary Airservices Pacific Incorporated.

[max1]

Peuce wrote this in regard to un rated controllers giving breaks on night shifts. By changing scenarios it equally applies to this thread, and this is what makes the controllers angry.
Quote- 'They have all their eyes dotted and their tees crossed.

You are confusing working conditions with safety & operational outcomes.

They would have done all their safety cases, hazids and would have contingency plans in place. They have fatigue management systems and policies in place. Point to one thing that they are doing that is illegal. I'm sure even the one man doggo has been covered off. They aren't silly.

Now, consider ... what if the proverbial DOES hit the fan. I can only see the finger pointing at the troops. "But I was too tired after doing lots of overtime Your Honour"... "Did you abide by the employer's Fatigue Managamnent Policy, son?" ... "Ah ... but ..."

That's just one scenario. I'll leave it to you to consider every situation that could go wrong. Then consider what Airservices has in place to cover itself off. Then consider what you have in place to cover yourself off.

Oh, the working conditions .. that's another story ... there are ways to go about getting them re-modelled' End quote.

For ' I was too tired' put in frequency congestion, or high and complex traffic levels due weather. Not too worry, when the investigation is done the controller and pilot will share a hell of a lot more blame than the system. Because the proper hazids, safety cases etc etc were done in the back offices.

[To infinity & beyond]

Congratulations for standing up for aviation and not just taking it lying down like everyone else, airlines included. Why don't they say "NO our PILOTS will need access to that service!!!!"

If you fly VFR or IFR in Australia the Flight Watch Service was just that, a SERVICE. Problem is that AsA couldn't work out how to charge for it so they just got rid of it instead.

We will be stuffed when the drought finally brakes and there is some serious widespread weather to deal and there is simply no one to talk to at the end of the line.

Try teaching students to be proficient and obtaining current information when the ATC don't really want to deal with our requests.

[Sunfish]

Max1 A certain very large oil company tried the same technique when an oil facility blew up - blame the (dead) staff for not following procedures.

Guys, if the system says you have to do something a certain way then do it. Don't fall for the trap of working in a corporate culture that has wonderful systems on paper - but that nobody can follow because of the workload.

If you do you are asking for grief, tell the world about it, blow the whistle.

[Walrus 7]

Dick,

Thanks for the offer of taking on Airservices over the closure of Flightwatch, but it's not really needed. Most of us small plane fliers have been doing without it for some time, and can easily do without it for a long time to come as well.

Firstly, we could rarely raise Flightwatch when we needed them; secondly, most of the important information we need for the safety of the flight can be obtained from AERIS and AWIS sites. The non-weather things we can get from Centre, which they have always been more than happy to give.

My point is that getting Flightwatch back in the same form it left us is a waste of time. It either needs to be upgraded to be of value or closed completely.

Thanks again,

Walrus

[swc]

To infinity & beyond - please don't think that ATC's don't want to help. On the DTI sectors the problem we have is that there is no control over the workload and it can take just one aircraft in difficulty, a frequency problem (all too common), a flight plan amendment or some other non-routine situation to cause havoc. Add to this a weather request or some other type of request that would normally be done through Flightwatch and you can expect the controller to start sounding a little frazzled (please don't take it personally). We pride ourselves on providing a professional and efficient service, but unfortunately those above (multi-layered management) have a tendency to drop us in it leaving us floundering. ATC is struggling with ongoing and long-term staff shortages and a management team that treats us with contempt.
Good on you Dick for taking this on. As a controller I appreciate it, and they sure aren't going to listen to us...:ugh:

[Dick Smith]

JackoSchitt, you state:

As for saving money on turning off the equipment, I'm told that equipment is going to be handed over to ATC to enable them to do the function in some areas. If this is so, it is good and mitigates the problem slightly. However, if this equipment is going to be used by ATC, surely the AIP Supplement would have mentioned that the Flightwatch frequencies were now being changed to ATC frequencies. The AIP Supp makes not mention of this at all. It looks to me as if Airservices plans to make a clean sweep of removing all of those frequencies and the transmitters so they cannot be used in any way.

Does anyone have any further information on this?

[Dick Smith]

Walrus 7, thanks for your view regarding Flightwatch. One of the main reasons I am attempting to get Airservices to consult and do a proper cost benefit study is that we will then see just how many people use it, and what value it is.

On this thread you will see that there are many pilots who use Flightwatch and need it for safety.

More to the point, air traffic controllers have now had Flightwatch responsibilities thrust on them, but sometimes when they are very busy they may not be able to cope. Also, the air traffic controllers have not been consulted in relation to this.

I would at least like to see a paper which puts the pros and cons to the industry – especially the controllers and professional pilots.

Possibly there is a case to upgrade Flightwatch so it is more effective. From my experience, I have found that when I use Flightwatch it has always been very effective in giving weather and other information when I cannot obtain it from an AERIS site.

Thanks again for your view.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It appears that Airservices are just finishing the job that Dick started when he ran the show. I find it ironic that he is so upset about it now.

[F111]

Dick,
Although I haven't agreed with some of your actions in the past, I'm with you on this one. We need Flightwatch!

[Former AusFICer]

Dick,

After reading Pprune for years, this is my first post and it is on a matter that used to be close to my heart. As you can see by my user name I am a former AusFIC staff member having retired a while back. I still keep in touch with a couple of the staff occasionally, and the following is offered for the “debate”.

The real issue is not about saving a mere tuppence on equipment costs. It is about a change in philosophy about delivery of Fight Information Service (FIS) and how that presented an opportunity to cut staff.

The original situation where way back we had a real Flight Service that was to be done away with the role out of AMATS (and much at your own hands) had to be sold with the idea that it was safer to have FIS external to the new TAAATS and ATC environment. So the external FIS evolved from the remains of FS into the “FIS” and ultimately into the Australian Flight Information Centre (AusFIC). It was staffed by about 120 former FSO and ADSO staff at the time.

You say that the concept of NAS requires that pilots have access to safety information in flight from such an external (to the controller) source. This move by Airservices is effectively putting the provision of inflight FIS back into the ATC environment. There has been much discussion that this is really the pure ICAO idea, but I believe that our own Australian system of having FIS parallel to ATC is just like the USA system of having FSS parallel to ATC Centres. And it worked as well as it could. There was simply not enough low level coverage on VHF. There should have been 127 outlets, not just 27.

I am informed that for better or worse, the current ATC Management have seen an opportunity to cut the staff in the AusFIC and THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE SO!

My informant tells me that the decision to cut FIS staffing was taken first, as part of the infamous internal AusFIC Review back in Mar 2005. Apparently the coalface AusFIC staff are on the record (through their union reps) of opposing the review as lacking rigour and having the consequences of reduced safety. Such concerns obviously fell of deaf ears at the time.

I recall that the AusFIC Review was mentioned in several threads on AusFIC, Sartimes, and Flightwatch on Pprune, in the last couple of years but didn't seem to gain much traction.

I'm informed that the target staff cut in the AusFIC review of 19 was sought by an offer of Voluntary Redundancy in September 2006. A full swathe of VRs was obtained and just about all have already departed. I gather that the staff number is down to about just 70 now.

I also understand that AusFIC at the same time as cutting staff from aviation safety services embarked on Marine Safety HF without any dedicated Human Resources for it in Dec 2006. Staff again highlighted the problem of staffing and again has been ignored by Airservices.

I must conclude that the closure of the VHF Frequencies for a few hours in the mornings from 27 Sep (?) 07 was an emergency step because the AusFIC staffing had reached a critical point.

I'm told that it appears that the standalone Flightwatch VHF Service to be HAS transferred/integrated to ATC Low Sectors or otherwise totally abandoned because the AusFIC staff have already been let go. In fact, the remaining 70 staff are working overtime to continue even the current reduced level of services.

The HF service remains but the staffing for that is also reduced because of the requirement for Marine HF service. I understand tha the staff savings in AusFIC through cessation of standalone Flightwatch VHF is effectively only approx 4 Full Time Effective Staff. The cut of 19 has to be absorbed throughout the rest of the AusFIC through efficiency increases or in actual practice – through additional staff overtime!!

I believe that there has been some efficiencies in the Briefing Office, but the notion of the AIP SUP that claimed that delivery of FIS would be more efficient through ATC is simply a fraud and a safety fraud at that. As had been alluded to elsewhere, most of the Frequencies will be transferred to ATC and it is highly likely that this will result in the need for more ATC Consoles and more controllers. All this would cost more than it does now. I believe that because of the systems that AusFIC uses, such as NAIPS and CENSAR permits the Flightwatch officers to be truly efficient when it comes to information requests, Flight Plan Changes and SAR Alerting. The ATC does not have direct access/input to these systems and must relay through either a busy HF Flightwatch operator or another 3rd party.

The bottom line is that working ATCs will be forced to abandon the safety of FIS provision in favour of the higher priority of the Safety of Traffic
Information/Separation when the chips are down (literally). This will put themselves at risk. This needs to be sorted in a real safety analysis.

As far as Industry consultation, from what I can tell, there was none, merely information that the change was to occur. Industry through its lack of attention on this subject will now need to fight a rear guard action. Our political and industrial climate for our flying community works against anyone who complains. Just look at all the issues about pilot wages. Maybe this is the reason that Airservices has got as far as it has on this issue. The climate of the election should not be wasted, though I am not hopeful. I wish you luck in your campaign.

As for the morale of my former colleagues, well – it is at rock bottom. I’ve heard they recently had some internal employee opinion survey thing and the staff are not “engaged”. Perhaps that is why we have not heard much from them. They are beaten already.

As for my own aviation practices, I can tell you that as a baby boomer such as yourself, like you I am enjoying my travels in retirement. However, I will never catch an airline that flies OCTA anymore. I can’t see how our regional Airlines can adequately keep an operational watch over their flights without and effective FIS system to back up their pilots. The heavy metal that I travel on has Datalink, HF Coms, ACARS and dedicated company Flight Following provided by dispatchers with satcoms direct to the pilot.

Lets hope that for just once, the unholy dollar is ignored and commonsense reigns, roll back this move Airservices, recruit staff and spend some of your profit on general aviation.

Dick, if you can do something as an individual, it speaks volumes about how public policy is formed in Australia, (but that is another debate). In this case, I will grant that the benefit will not be for you individually, but for the totally un-empowered in Regional, General and Recreational Aviation. After-all, it was the passion for aviation that brought us all here.

AusFICer

[fixa24]

This could be a world first. Most ATC'ers agreeing with Dick Smith. Write it in the AOJ's people....

[Capt Wally]

........"user pays"........words that has forever changed the aviation industry whether it be for good or bad.
Flying across the world now has become more common than ever & as more & more people travel the costs associated with it increase as technology moves just as fast. Let's work together on this with Dick (who still has influence) & bring about change for safety sake. Remember, we the people own the world & the air above it, let not any one individual or controlling body take that away from us.
Rejoice in the fact that we as Aussies are amongst the best trained & responsible pilots on the planet, that alone may be our last defence.
I thank the guys at the other end of the radio for doing their best in a very trying industry.


Capt Wally :-)

[MACH082]

Im with you on this one also Dick,

I was leaving PH the other week and needed to amend my plan, P&CD advised me my plan didnt have a return leg, some type of glitch through champagne into Naips, so i asked them to ammend my plan, they said stand by, contacted me about 5 mins later telling me to ammend through flightwatch. Couldnt get them on ground with VHF so used HF...

Also what about all the Training aeroplanes in the southwest from JT doing diversion prac, there are swarms of them down there, are they going to be jamming MC with div prac?

What about remote areas in WA where you can't get ATC be in MC or BC on VHF? I could never raise Flightwatch in the Kimberley and often used BC, which at times was pretty busy, imagine if everyone is using ATC instead.

Things to ponder.

[Driscoll]

Dick,

Some former flightwatch frequencies are being transferred to ATC when the sectors are realigned under the ill conceived SDE transition.

[Dick Smith]

Former AusFICer, a most important post. I hope the Airservices Board members read it. I will print out a copy and post it to some of the addresses I have – here’s hoping.

I agree with everything you have said. I know there has been criticism directed at me because of my involvement in AMATS in 1991. I still have the video which went out with AMATS and it showed quite clearly that whilst we were changing the traffic information services to ATC, there would also be two automated Flight Service stations and a Flight Service system in parallel – exactly as per the North American system. Note – that is not just the USA, it is the USA and Canada.

I’m absolutely amazed to read what you have put into this post. I (and many others) would have had no idea that there was a plan to basically change everything to ATC and not have a separate Flightwatch/Flight Information Service system at all.

I point out that virtually everything that you have said in your post is news to me – and will be news to many other people in the industry. For some reason proper consultation has not taken place regarding these changes.

We are a very wealthy country and we can afford to have a duplicated ATC/Flightwatch/Flight Service system. I believe we can afford to have more than the 27 VHF outlets. I also believe that we can afford to have a proper automated Flight Service station where briefing officers are actually trained to give weather advice to pilots – not just quote met reports. This is no criticism of the people who give the briefings now – I find that they are excellent. However they simply do not have the training of their equivalents in the North American System, who will actually advise whether VFR flight is recommended after an interpretation of the forecast.

I am very disappointed to see a vision that I had (as did others – including many Flight Service Officers) being completely abandoned. I fear that it has been abandoned because of ignorance and a lack of vision, not because of any real ulterior motive.

My aim with the changes was to re-allocate the resources so they had the maximum affect for safety. My aim was never to remove all of the resources – that would be ridiculous.

I don’t like the fact that I have to try to do something to stop this as an individual. As you have stated, it is probably the only way to stop this reversal at the present time, and have some proper consultation.
I believe it all goes back to a total lack of leadership in aviation. I’m sure you will agree that the old system was ridiculous – that is, where Flight Service Officers gave traffic information in airspace which was covered by radar, but were not allowed to use the radar. I would have been happy to have the Flight Service Officers trained to use the radar. As it was, the Board decided we would follow the North American system, where the air traffic controller provided both separation and traffic information using radar where it was available. The FSO – or Flightwatch person, or whatever you call him or her – gave the important Flight Information Service.

[flyingfox]

'User pays'; 'cost recovery'; 'affordable safety'! Once these words became part of the aviation lexicon it was obvious that safety would be the loser. The old idea of providing a safe environment for aircraft has evolved to the 'big sky' principle of traffic separation. Many of the procedures now used OCTA and in class E airspace would have been condemned as dangerous twenty years ago. Now finding the basement for safety in the skies is done by the 'white cane' method of detection. It will be normal from now on to have to fight each misguided proposal as it arises due to the lead in safety coming from financial razor gangs rather than aviators. Many pilots don't bother fighting the regulators anymore as the exercise is so fruitless. They concentrate on dealing with the safety issues as they are, day to day, out in the real world. The reduced ATC services around primary airports is just a frustration, whereas the lack of FIS services is a definite risk. Furthermore, congestion on many frequencies OCTA often makes gathering required traffic information and organizing separation difficult or impossible. That's just how it is already.
Now where is a phone box. I need some weather ....

[Bell_Flyer]

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.

Hi Dick,

Could I pony up a small contribution towards your legal costs? Indeed, I feel many others would be happy to also do so - maybe a trust account by your attorney?

Many Thanks,
Bell_Flyer

[Duff Man]

Civil Air, the union which represents the professional and technical interests of Australian Air Traffic Controllers has come out in support of recent calls for the retention of a standalone Flightwatch service.

“Airservices Australia’s proposal to transfer the Flightwatch responsibilities to Air Traffic Control adds pressure to already extremely busy and staff critical Air Traffic Control positions” President Michael Haines said today.

“Airservices statement of the benefits provided is misleading. Flightwatch is categorised as the lowest priority of Air Traffic Control duties. In times of bad weather, when the service is most relevant, controller workload will almost certainly preclude Air Traffic Control provision of Flightwatch information.” Mr Haines said.

He added “For an organisation which provided the Federal government with a record dividend of $56 million dollars last year, the removal of the service is unjustified on both safety and financial grounds.”

Civil Air calls on the Minister for Transport, Mr Mark Vaile, to direct Airservices to retain the independent Flightwatch service for the safety and benefit of Australia’s air travelling public.

13 November 2007

[No Further Requirements]

Although I agree 100% with retaining Flightwatch as a separate entity, I think the horse has already bolted. Good luck with the fight.

Cheers,

NFR.

[nomorecatering]

A quick chat to the other instructors in my joint, we're all happy to contribute cash to the fighting fund. If we could get a Tenner from every working CPL /ATPL in the country, would could come up with a sizeable fighting fund.

Good work Dick, very glad to see the industry finaly right behind you.

[Moniker]

without prejudice

Dick doesn't need a fighting fund, in fact he's using his own money to the detriment of charitable organisations. (his words Channel 7 - Sunrise program - this date)

I would suggest that all you well intentioned folk put your $'s into the various charitable funds that are otherwise missing out.

Ausficer .. very eloquently put ...

I can't help feeling that something along the lines of 'reap what yea sow' is appropriate given the complaints now of a lack of service by a lesser being than an ATC rated one.

[CaptainMidnight]

NFR
I think the horse has already bolted. I think you are right.
Based on the inclusion of a letter dated August 07 from ASA to RAPAC that has been included in RAPAC minutes over the last few months, it would appear that the industry were at least made aware of the impending consolidation of flightwatch to ATC, and an AIP SUP was issued in September. Maybe the implications were not understood.

Reading between the lines of some of the posts here re. ATC taking over FW frequencies and some not, would suggest that discussions were held with ATC at some point? Maybe so and you didn't have any choice in the matter?

Unfortunatly if industry & ATC union concerns (at least publically) weren't raised forcefully enough earlier if at all, then this exercise now comes across simply as someone's excuse for a pre-election embarrassment stunt.

To put things in perspective in case I'm coming across as defending anything, I concur that it is highly likely problems of frequency congestion and workload will occur at times (and probably at the times the FW service is most needed), and think this consolidation isn't a good idea. As someone said, ATC are there to monitor and keep tin apart, not be distracted by acting as online briefers.

[Crosshair]

I agree with you, Dick.

What can we all do to assist the cause?

[clapton]

Quote:
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.
Hi Dick,

Could I pony up a small contribution towards your legal costs? Indeed, I feel many others would be happy to also do so - maybe a trust account by your attorney?

Many Thanks,
Bell_Flyer


I agree with you 100% Dick. And I also read your letter to Airservices on your web site.

The thing that puzzles me is that if Airservices has breached section 30DB of the Civil Aviation Act as a result of its decision, then where the hell is CASA?? Why should you be spending your money doing the job that Byron and all his yes men are meant to be doing. The Government provides CASA with significant funding to regulate aviation safety (and that includes regulating Airservices) so why isn't CASA doing anything about this? Why does it take a private citizen to do what the regulator should be doing?

For too long CASA has been a lame duck regulator that lacks any credibility and that continually fails to perform its statutory functions. Byron has passed his used by date and the fact that you have to do his job simply highlights the fact.

And where is the Minister? Why hasn't the Minister taken a stick to CASA for its failures and to AA for failing to comply with its legal obligations? After all the Minister is ultimately responsible for managing CASA (Byron only manages CASA "under" the Minister).

The whole thing is disgraceful. But full marks to you for doing what neither Byron nor the Minister seem capable of doing.

:ugh:

[clapton]

Creampuff wrote:

"Dick

Airservices Australia has done the wrong thing, and I support the principle of your argument.

However, and unfortunately, the ‘Australian government’ is now so deeply infected by spivs and camp followers, second-rate Pollyanna graduates who either know no better or barely touch the ‘stepping stone’ on the way to a real job, and drones who are too scared and lacking in self-esteem to walk away, that it doesn’t really matter what’s right and wrong any more.

This government’s run by people who don’t comprehend the difference between right and wrong, or if they do, they’re either ambivalent or too scared to do anything about it. In any event, they’re ready and able to spend loads of taxpayers’ cash to defend their position. The government’s flush with cash as a consequence of its unparalleled capacity to tax on one the hand but spend little on infrastructure on the other, and it’s happy to use that cash to defend the indefensible, litigate people into the ground, and trash people’s reputations – it’s all a part of ‘good government’, don’t you know.

It must be in the public interest to shut down dedicated FIS: the government decided to do it, or at least decided to allow a government agency to do it. The government is, by definition, the only body in a position to determine what the public interest is.

No, that last sentence isn’t a quote from Orwell’s 1984: it’s what Dr Peter Shergold, the current Secretary of the Australian Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, believes."


Spot on as usual Creampuff.....

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Unfortunately, like all the other reductions in service over the past years, in a year or two what you are left with will become the norm, few will remember what you had, and even less will care.
Pilots will stop using the service because it is impossible to use, after a while the bean-counters will ask why provide a service that few use and what is left will be scrapped also.
I'm still amazed that people are surprised when it happens.
Sorry to sound bitter and twisted, but that's only because I is_er_was.

[Track Coastal]

And where is the Minister?


Today: Announcing $34M in road upgrades in the bell-weather seat of Flynn and a new tech college for Emerald (also in Flynn).
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Vaile-announces-roads-education-funding/2007/11/13/1194766656981.html


Maybe its time for some ads US election style?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsbsp_TpzHQ

[SM4 Pirate]

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/media/press_releases/pr.asp?id=pr11_07

Airservices' Flightwatch service ... is not closing, but simply shifting to new radio frequenciesMeans, we are making it part of a different job.

"The transfer ... will not affect the overall safety of the air traffic management system,Means, we won’t make controllers do FIS when they are too busy.

Flightwatch delivers ... primarily for Visual Flight Rules pilots which include many General Aviation pilots.VFRs don’t pay for it.

Following a review of Flightwatch in 2006, undertaken in accordance with Airservices’ Safety Management SystemThere’s that reliance on the "robust SMS" again, glad they’ve got one of those.

Flightwatch’s method of delivery has been changed to air traffic control frequencies That’s right, added more tasks onto quiet enroute sectors, approach and tower frequencies.

Airservices advised the industry through the Regional Airspace Users Advisory Committee (RAPAC) of the proposed changes in August 2007, and continues to consult with industry through RAPAC and other regional forums. It was presented as a fait accompli, a briefing doesn’t equal consultation; but this mob wouldn't and doesn't know that.

...a full Post Implementation Report will be available in March."because they are always without compromise and often require services to be restored right? Huh? Want some coastal swamp land?

Airservices considered historical data which showed that calls from pilots for flight information and alerting services across all 29 dedicated Flightwatch frequencies around Australia averaged in total only 50 calls per day across all frequencies. Responses usually took less than 10 seconds. So 3 calls one day 97 the next, averages 50, right?

"Airservices is not closing the 29 VHF transmitter stations previously used by Flightwatch," Mr Russell said.Not throwing the equipment out, just turning it off; it's more expensive to remove the equipment than just turn it off.

"These stations will be used for normal air traffic control...."Turning 27 of 29 off is normal? Or is that wrong?

Mr Russell said the change of Flightwatch frequencies would give pilots operating in Class E and Class G airspace access to flight information on the same air traffic control frequency they would use to monitor other aircraft activity in their vicinity.What about A, D and C airspace? Do they admit that it will ‘clog’ up the area frequencies, without affecting the ATM system?

He said that the change would also lead to enhanced collision hazard information to pilots, through the improved situational awareness available to air traffic controllers.WTF does that mean, AUSFICers don’t know sh!t? Or controllers know more? Or maybe it’s just BS?

I hear the Minister was on the radio today saying he would look at stopping ASAs plans?

[clapton]

SM4 Pirate....

Loved your post. What a great demolition job.........

[Walrus 7]

Maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, but from a VFR PPL point of view, we rarely ever use Flightwatch because either we didn't need it or couldn't raise it. The amount of extra work that would be transferred over to controllers is negligible because largely they're doing Flightwatch's job already. We have to go to the controllers now.

The question we should be asking is: how much work are the controllers currently picking-up because VFR traffic can't raise Flightwatch? Only by answering that question can we measure how much the service (not the frequency) is really needed.

Walrus the lonely

[Driscoll]

If CASA are willing to approve unrated controllers providing breaks what makes people think that they would give a second thought when AsA tells them they're shutting flightwatch, but don't worry, the service won't change? They just say yes and stick their heads back in the sand.

[JackoSchitt]

All,

I have consulted some people in the know and their comments follow:


“flight information and alerts to pilots is not closing, but simply shifting to new radio frequencies”

Currently, Flightwatch is provided on
Discrete VHF,
ATC FIA Frequencies and
HF.

After the changes, Flightwatch will be provided on
ATC FIA Frequences and
HF.

The discrete VHF as described in ERSA will be, in the main, turned off.

There are no new frequencies being introduced for the provision of Flightwatch.


“The transfer of Flightwatch to air traffic control frequencies”

There is no “transfer” of Flightwatch to ATC. ATC have always been providers of the flightwatch function on ATC FIA frequencies but have had the option of referring a call to the specialist Flightwatch officer with ALL the tools at their disposal to respond to the call on a frequency separate from the PRIMARY control function of separation.

The provision of Flightwatch on discrete VHF networks will be abandon.


“Flightwatch delivers an on-request service to pilots of current weather and operational information, primarily for Visual Flight Rules pilots which include many General Aviation pilots.”

Many IFR and Heavy Jet RPT pilots utilise the Flightwatch system and significantly so in times of inclement weather when controller workload is increased. Demanding that Controllers provide separation services, weather avoidance and in-flight information in these circumstances is a recipe for disaster. Something will not be provided…the VH-PYN Condobolin incident pointed to the abject failure to provide information in a proper manner and was the impetus for an overhaul of the In-flight information service as provided by ATC.


“Following a review of Flightwatch in 2006”

Please supply the review documentation and not that rubbish “AusFIC Review” completed in early 2005.


“Other than the change of frequencies, the procedures for pilots requesting and receiving Flightwatch information remains unchanged"

There is no change of frequencies only a removal of the standalone ones.

The procedures have changed. Pilots no longer are able to call “flightwatch” on any frequency for in-flight information. When on an ATC FIA frequency, they need to prefix their call with “XXX Center”.
Requests on ATC FIA frequencies will be afforded 0 priority.


"Airservices will ensure the transition runs smoothly, including continued consultation with general aviation pilots and other industry groups, and that a backup service will continue to 'ghost' the new Flightwatch as an additional safety measure throughout the implementation phase," Mr Russell said.

This ghosting phase ends before Christmas and the Flightwatch frequencies will be turned off and the service solely provided on ATC FIA frequencies and HF – regardless of outcome – because of Ausfic staff shortages.

Flightwatch VHF are still receiving significant numbers of requests for information from all over the country, even though stage II of the implementation is in effect.


“In deciding to introduce the change, Airservices considered historical data which showed that calls from pilots for flight information and alerting services across all 29 dedicated Flightwatch frequencies around Australia averaged in total only 50 calls per day across all frequencies.”

There are 27 Frequencies and 29 Sites where those frequencies are used. Only one of those sites is not co-located with an ATC frequency and it will go over to ATC for their use - eventually. Maybe some other Flightwatch VHF will transition but that will only be one or two others in Queensland and is certainly not going to be the norm.

Prior to the transition process started in October 2007, the dedicated Flightwatch VHF console operating Monday to Friday, took well in excess of 250 messages per day and that was with the morning hiatus between 8am and 11am – this solely due to an Airservcies created STAFF SHORTAGE; 19 people out of a staff of 103 were made redundant since Dec 2006 AND the provision of Maritime HF services only exacerbate the situation!

IF there were the staff available to operate it all day, then the figure would easily top 300+ calls per day EVERY week day.

No numbers are able to be produced for weekends for the VHF workload as it is incorporated onto the 3 HF consoles for these periods.

On the staff front, it only takes two (2) (II) staff to operate the position – a morning and an afternoon shift - 5 days a week. Given that those staff need rec leave etc, then the requirement is about 2.5 staff in total.


“Responses usually took less than 10 seconds.”

Responses are vastly different between “ABC Go Ahead” and the delivery of an amended ARFOR or the workload associated with a SARTIME nomination and they in no way begin to describe the workload that is involved in dealing with a series of calls for a flight plan amendment or In-flight emergency.


“These stations will be used for normal air traffic control.”

Control/separation services cannot be provided on any of the Flightwatch VHF because none of them have the required secondary or tertiary backup equipment installed.


“He said that the change would also lead to enhanced collision hazard information to pilots, through the improved situational awareness available to air traffic controllers.”

Aircraft normally operate on the control frequencies and only go to the Flightwatch VHF for a request or when directed by ATC to receive ATC-Initiated FIS. Then they are supposed to (and DO) return to Control Frequencies. WHAT increased situational awareness is there for ATCs if the Flightwatch VHF network is not present?

Oh, I get it, more aircraft on frequency requesting more information forcing the ATC to focus on a broader area of responsibility.

[Sunfish]

I keep thinking of the two guys who didn't file a flight plan and died in the Blue Mountains after surviving a forced landing.

I wonder how many people are going to be killed before this decision is reversed?

Alternatively, we the **** should I keep paying CASA for a licence, current charts, ersa, flight reviews, ASICS if I'm going to be treated like ****?

[JackoSchitt]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22755467-23349,00.html


TRANSPORT Minister Mark Vaile yesterday ordered Airservices Australia not to proceed with plans to shut down 27 Flightwatch transmitters after former aviation watchdog Dick Smith warned the move could threaten public safety.

Mr Vaile called for Labor transport spokesman Martin Ferguson to support his caretaker decision to ask the Department of Transport and Regional Services to put a hold on the decision until after a new review of the transmitters.

The transmitters provide weather and safety information to pilots, and Mr Smith - a former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman, who is threatening to sue over the matter - says their closure would pose "an intolerable risk to public safety and (be) a clear contravention of government policy".

The air navigation authority has estimated that closing the transmitters would save $500,000 a year - a decision that Mr Smith said had been taken secretly and without consultation or detailed study of cost and safety benefits. Airservices plans to transfer the Flightwatch service to air traffic control.

Mr Smith has given Airservices chief executive Gregg Russell until 10am tomorrow to wind back the decision or face a Federal Court injunction. He has said the decision is a substantial danger because pilots using air traffic control frequencies to seek Flightwatch-type updates could be blocked by others requiring instructions for landing and separation.

He also says it is at odds with the Government's National Airspace System policy, which would eventually require a separate Flightwatch system so air traffic controllers could provide separation in presently uncontrolled "Class E" airspace.

Mr Vaile said he was aware of Mr Smith's concerns but had been assured the decision to shut down the transmitters was "necessary and wasn't going to jeopardise safety".

He said: "Because we're in caretaker mode, I'm calling on Martin Ferguson to agree with this move, just for the duration of the election, so we can guarantee the safety in the aviation industry (and) so we can get further advice from Airservices Australia about their decision."

[Dick Smith]

I would like to thank everyone for their support, and also for the offers to assist with the legal costs. I will certainly accept these offers if required. The main advantage of having other people involved is that Airservices will not be able to claim that this is just one sole individual with a bee in his bonnet.

I can assure you that I will match any donated money going towards the court case with a donation to the Royal Flying Doctor Service at Broken Hill.

The Airservices press release is extraordinary. The posts by SM4 Pirate and JackoSchitt on the inaccuracies/spin/dishonesty of this press release really give support for Creampuff’s post about “people who don’t comprehend the difference between right and wrong.”

The following claim in the Airservices press release is extraordinary:

Mr Russell said that Airservices undertook a full safety assessment before transition to the new frequencies. If this safety assessment exists, why wouldn’t they have told the Minister before he answered my letter of 21 February 2007?

Does this so-called “safety assessment” answer the claim by Civil Air in their press release that there will be times when:

… controller workload will almost certainly preclude Air Traffic Control provision of Flightwatch information I would be confident enough to say that there has never been a proper safety study done. That is, looking at the benefits such as the claimed $500,000 per annum saving to Airservices, as well as the down side – i.e. the fact that there will be times in bad weather when pilots will not be able to get a Flightwatch service.

There also seems to be a belief by some people on this site that Flightwatch is only used by VFR aircraft. This is not true. IFR aircraft use Flightwatch all the time – including charter and commuter operators.

The key to the problem is clearly shown in the media release from Civil Air. That is, Airservices has decided unilaterally to remove a “standalone Flightwatch service”. Later, Civil Air calls on the Minister for Transport, Mr Mark Vaile, to:

…direct Airservices to retain the independent Flightwatch service for the safety and benefit of Australia’s air travelling public. (My underlining).

Last night I checked my world Jeppesen charts and I cannot find any modern aviation country without a separate Flightwatch/Flight Service/Flight Information Service. I phoned a professional pilot in New Zealand, who assured me that the 12 transmitters operating under the title “Christchurch Information” (which cover all of New Zealand – both the North and South Island) are being retained, and there is not the slightest suggestion that the New Zealand separate Flightwatch system shall be closed down or combined with air traffic control.

It is clear that the management who made the decision to abandon the independent Flightwatch have not communicated to the Airservices Board, or to the industry, that this is a major change that has never been attempted anywhere in the world previously.

By sending out documents implying that it is simply changing a few frequencies, people have been misled.

We should all be indebted to PPRuNe – for first of all pointing out this proposal way back in February (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/DS_to_Vaile_re_Flightwatch_Feb_07.php)), and also for this particular thread.

Finally, JackoSchitt has posted an announcement from The Australian newspaper. This at first sight looks good, but I believe we should be very careful. In the past, Airservices Australia have ignored official directives from the Minister – why wouldn’t they do it this time? I think you will find they will say something like, “Oh, we still have the Flightwatch transmitters there and we are going to put them in ‘ghost mode’, so everything is OK.” Of course, everything will not be OK. You need a week of bad weather to show the problems, and that could be many months away.

I do not believe for a second that this problem has been solved. It will only be solved when Airservices agree to the quite reasonable requests I made in my letter of 12 November 2007 (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Mark_O_Brien_to_Greg_Russell_re_Flightwatch.php)).

[greenslopes]

Well you don't have to draw too long a bow, to realize that money saved on 27 Flightwatch transmitters will be spent at some later date on the ATSB inquiry/accident report and the ensuing witch hunt when the accident occurs.
Dick have you started lobbying the majors(airlines) and the unions representing the pilots?
I will call the AFAP and ask if they will voice their opposition on behalf of their pilot body.
Lets hope we can stop this madness

[Dick Smith]

If someone can get hold of the order or direction given by the Minister to Airservices (as per the article in The Australian), can they publish it here on PPRuNe? It should hardly be a document covered by national secrecy!

[tobzalp]

Dick also worthy of mention again is that there is no staff to run these flight watch frequencies when they are retained. ATC doing the full flight watch function is already occurring Do a quick notam search and you will find one that lists all of the flight watch VHFs as not available due staff shortage. This notam has been out for many weeks now. AsA really have ballsed this one up and someone MUST be held accountable for it. The gave VR a while ago and by stealth have pushed the function onto ATC due staff shortage.

So when/if AsA do as they are told they will just roll back to what we do now which is provide flight watch from ATC positions which is what this whole thing is trying to stop. Wouldn't this be illegal industrially? Making a person redundant when a requirement for their position still exists and there is noone else to do it? Hopefully you can do something about that as well.

[Dick Smith]

Tobzalp, you make a very important point. Can I ask here if there are people who have taken voluntary redundancy, but could come back in an emergency and provide the Flightwatch service? I know this is generally not allowed under voluntary redundancy agreements, however in the case of an emergency (and surely this is a safety emergency) the Government can make any decision it likes.

It appears that only about 5 staff would be necessary to monitor the 27 dedicated Flightwatch frequencies. Obviously they could be Air Traffic Control licence holders or Flight Service licence holders. In the short term they could even be professional pilots – for this is not rocket science. Flightwatch does not provide a separation or a traffic information service, it basically relays important safety information that is on a screen in NAIPS, which a professional pilot can obtain anyway.

What I’m basically saying is let’s think laterally about this.

Airservices will probably say there is nothing they can do now because there are no staff available. Can we on PPRuNe come up with an alternative? There is lots of expertise here. Surely there must be some retired people who could provide this service for the next few weeks while the issues are resolved.

I look forward to advice from anyone who has any knowledge.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Well Dick,

Just what did you expect after your initial efforts....12/12/1991, 11/11/1993,...etc etc

After deleting services to / for VFR aircraft in '91/92, then further 'rationalising' services in '93, we now have the result of the 'natural progression' of those decisions.

Unfortunately, most of today's aviators will have no idea of what I am talking about - but the more mature of us are certainly very much aware!

'Flight Service' in 'The Old Days' certainly was 'Top Heavy' ala the Public Service system of the times...but...after several 'reconstructions' / 'rationalisations' etc following the GBE (Govt Business Enterprise) model of the times, we evolved into quite a lean and rather efficient operation - especially following the adoption of satellite technology which allowed the closure of all of those 'inefficient' outstations...

FIS, which included DTI OCTA, as well as all forms of weather, NOTAM, NAVAID, Flight Following information etc etc was
'par for the course' , and efficiently delivered.

From memory - Perth FSC alone went from some 130 staff to prior to '91, to around 35 or so just prior to our 'final demise' when we were STILL delivering
a FULL SERVICE!

THATS EFFICIENCY FOR YA!

And now, for the sake of a measly $500K - which is really bugger-all in the overall scheme of things, the economic rationalists have further dismantled what used to be a fine, well run, and SAFE system!

Reap what YOU sowed!!

I too am deeply disappointed - I still have my CPL, but don't do much in commercial these days - but I have learned to adopt 'new' ideas and leave my SARTIME with 'MUM', and get my weather via my MOBILE PHONE!!

That way, it doesn't cost ASA ANYTHING, I don't clutter up busy ATC freqs, and I get the level of service I expect!!

CHEERS:yuk::yuk:

p.s. Once again, many thanks for the redundo opportunity - I do now get the chance to persue my other interests.......:ok:

p.p.s. The post by 'Former AusFICer' simply told it like it IS!

NO CONSULTATION etc etc - just like the 'OLD DAYS' when we even then presented with a 'fait accompli' and expectd to 'wear it'.....

Well, it is now a matter of history that FS took the then ASA to the Industrial Tribunal 5 times over lack of consultation - and won our case 5 times - so what has changed in their thinking????

N O T H I N G ! ! !:(:(

[Jabawocky]

Probably plenty of CPL's looking for a job, even if its 3 days a week part time. Allowing them to still fly also.

I am sure they could be up to speed in less time than most would think possible if they are bright enough!

This might be an overly simplistic view and get shot down by the ATC'ers.....

J:ok:

[Spaz Modic]

;) Dick - Ya gotta remember the Minister is a Dick H. Unfortunately, it is possible he might be replaced by an even larger double Dick H. called Mumbles.
Last year, an old friend found himself in a situation wherein his medical costs as a PPL doubled 'cos the department's medico demanded annuals. He didn't have a problem with the medical requirement, but objected to having to pay the admin costs of having the medical stamped at the department. He sent a letter to the current Dick H., who got one of his junior clerks to reply with a three page letter explaining why cost recovery was a wonderful way to enhance aviatoin safety. Apparently no mention or response to the request to reduce this admin cost was included in the reply.
Let's face it, since Charlie (Jones), the aviation administration in this country has been nothing short of crap.:yuk:

[Dick Smith]

Ex FSO GRIFFO, point taken and I accept the criticism. However at least when you fly today in Class G radar airspace, you can talk directly to an air traffic controller and get a radar service (workload permitting). In the old days, the Flight Service Officer wasn’t allowed to sit in front of a radar screen, so there was no chance of using the advantages of radar. Therefore, I think we have moved slightly forward.

I have always agreed that the old mandatory full position VFR service was great, however I was concerned about how the VFR pilots would pay for this. If you remember, there was something like 26 cents per litre on Avgas – that would have meant Avgas would be even more expensive than it is today.

I’m sure I’ve made mistakes in the past, but let’s at least work together on this present situation. Just about everyone agrees that we should have a separate Flightwatch system which is independent. As stated previously, we can afford this and there is no reason for us to have a lesser service than countries like New Zealand.

[Driscoll]

Dick,

I can understand that this issue is of significant concern to Pilots as it is to ATC's also, a controllers workload increases significantly when controlled traffic requires off track diversions & holding due weather to the point where VFR requests are likely to be put on hold until all other actions are complete. Unfortunately I too feel that the horse has bolted and the fact that AsA need some ex flightwatch freq's to make the Nov 22 airspace changes leads me to believe little can be done now.
However an issue of greater concern to most controllers and I would think Pilot's who are aware of the full ramifications of the decision is AsA's break provisions where on nightshifts unrated controllers monitor airspace without actually providing a control service for up to 20 min at a time. This means any requests including level changes / off track wx diversions will be told to standby until the rated controller returns. Heaven help you if you have a mayday during this time. To make matters worse pilots aren't informed when these breaks take place so they will still be of the belief that they are receiving a full control service when that is not the case.
Controllers weren't consulted on this decision so I doubt it was put to industry either. Just another example of AsA management being blinded by the almighty dollar.

[Walrus 7]

I can't help but feel that there is something else happening here, and that people like me are going to get the wrong end of the stick again. We've convinced Vaile to stop the Flightwatch transmitters from being shut down (presuming the Shadow Minister agrees). Now AsA will say that the directive from the minister will do them out of $500K and the government (regardless of which one) will have to allow them to recover the cost. In line with the 'user pays' policy (which Labor won't roll back), an extra charge will be levied on PPL for the privilege of having a Flightwatch service we don't use.

Yes, I know that commercial flights use it too, but they have the luxury of claiming it all on tax. Those of us who pay out of our own pockets are flying less and less because we have to pay so much to the government (which AsA and CASA are still!)

Sorry, I keep forgetting that most of the people on this forum are CPLs or controllers who don't have to pay for their flying and therefore wouldn't understand the concept.

Walrus

[Dick Smith]

Walrus 7, you have just made out the case of why it should be properly consulted with the industry, and why a paper should have been prepared showing the pros, the cons and the cost.

Also, if Flightwatch provides a safety benefit and has a cost, it is very simple to do a cost benefit safety study (which can be totally transparent and public) to convince people in the industry of the Airservices point of view.

Driscoll, your post is simply mind boggling! If what you are saying is true – and I have no reason to doubt it – it is criminal that the rated controller leaves the console for up to 20 minutes and doesn’t inform the pilots in the controlled airspace which is being serviced.

I wonder if the Board members of Airservices Australia realise the implications of that? As someone recently mentioned, they probably don’t read PPRuNe or even know what it is.

[SM4 Pirate]

RHS, here is a thread on ATC night shift staffing, see post 13 for the 'official docs' http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=297788

[mjbow2]

One of my first experiences with Flight Watch in Australia involved calling up on VHF looking for information on a line of thunderstorms so I could plan the next 150nm routing and refile my return flight plan via a new routing clear of the Wx. For several minutes there was no reply from FW then Brisbane centre came back to me asking how he could help. I found out the hard way that Flight Watch in Australia does not have NeXRad/Wx radar.

The pursuing dialogue with Brisbane Centre to get the info I needed took several minutes (ie cell movements, speed, echo tops etc, their position relative to specific airways/navaids). I got the information I needed but the time spent distracting the controller from an already busy work environment with the widespread foul Wx I thought was completely unnecessary if only Flight Watch had Wx radar like they do in the US.

As a rule I will always try and get in-flight Wx info from sources other than a controller, especially when they are busy. Now one of those sources appears to be in jeopardy and as my own experience of getting Wx info from ATC shows, when we need it the most, is when ATC can least afford to provide it considering their increased workload.

I note with interest that Dick Smith is putting up his own hard earned cash in support of an issue that is also supported by controllers. Once again Dick you have my support and gratitude for your efforts and it appears you have the same from our controllers.

AFAP, JPC, AIPA, your turn.

MJ

[Moniker]

still #1 ticket holder of the PH Misogynist Society :E you old reprobate :p

[JackoSchitt]

Something is bugging me about the releases from Airservices and Vaile.

As reported by the Australian, Vaile simply said don’t turn off the transmitter sites until after “a review” and “just for the duration of the election”.

Which means only 10 days time in reality.

The Australian also reports that the pause is so that Vaile “can get more advice from Airservices Australia about their decision”.

We know that Airservices Australia has no plans to turn all the VHF off until just before Christmas and Flightwatch will be ‘ghosted’ until the turn off date by ausfic.

Bingo! That’s IT!!! There is going to be absolutely NO CHANGE!!!

Everyone has put out press releases and therefore they look good for the constituents but nothing is actually going to veer from the present course.

What a mob!!!

[Pinky the pilot]

Dick; I wonder if it would be worth raising this issue with The 7.30 Report and/or some of the commercial TV 'current affair' shows.

Obviously, if the observation by Jacko is correct and the decision has already been taken, the only thing that will obtain a backdown would be public pressure via a fairly large media campaign.

[JackoSchitt]

Trolling the Airservices Website and I found a picture of the actual Flightwatch VHF console in operation.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/facilities/centres/ausfic/fwd.asp

Not what a I'd call an extravagant setup but seems functional

[BeGoneTFN]

Hate to say it, but once again I will for those that didn't take note the first time.

BEGONE TFN, and all the problems created since your arrival can be rectified by someone competent. :ugh:

Despite what TFN thought of BS and his efforts, he has nothing on BS, or Buck or .... gee there's been a few now.

Maybe we need someone who really cares about aviation to stick around and actually add value to ASA not suck it out!

[Baileys]

Also consider the numerous, currently Expat Australian ATC's that applied for Australian ATC positions during the Global Search for ATC's that were told that they were 'unsuitable' candidates. After recent substantial overseas ATC payrises they might be a little happier now with being unsuitable.

Airservices staff planning has been poorly managed for many years now for three main reasons:

1. The software/excel spreadsheet used to calculate required FTE's (full time equivalents) to run ATC and FW functions was fundamentally flawed in that it failed to take into consideration things such as Long Service Leave, training, pending retirements etc. etc.

2. The Managers that rigidly stuck to this application were and probably still are told about this and then stick their heads back into the sand where their productivity bonuses are buried.

3. Any Managers or staff that are truely bright and very competent, and there are quite a few of them, are generally bad mouthed into falling into line with the incompetents or end up resigning so that they can actually fulfiull their potential.

This incompetence spreads deep and wide within the organisation and leads to situations such as the current accelerating staffing issue and others such as this - there are many, many others (is the MATS rewrite finished yet?).

I applaud Dick Smith and all other contributers to this discussion and hope that some positive changes can be made.

Slightly off topic, so I am sorry.

[JackoSchitt]

Airservices CEO, Greg Russell, states that for “flight information and alerting services” there are only 50 calls per day made to Flightwatch.

But we know that there are many many times that number of calls made to Flightwatch VHF in the course of a day.

What accounts for the disparity? :suspect:

Surely Airservices would not leave themselves so open like this? So WTF is going on?

:hmm:

Eureka! SARTIMES!

Airservices is going to do away with SARTIMES!

Yes, that has to be it.

Airservices will remove the separate Flightwatch VHF network thus shifting the in-flight responsibility totally onto the ATCs and then ATCs will force sartimes out of the system entirely.

Blackadder would see that as a cunning cunning plan I’m sure.

There is no charge for sartimes (unlike DTI hey Dick!) so why not “terminate with extreme prejudice” the whole sartime system.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, we are only seeing the opening salvos of a significant raft of changes to come.

[idb]

This latest flurry of press relaese and counter press release has acheived nothing. As JACKO mentioned, as directed, ASA will not turn off the transmitters until they have advised the Govt that they have conducted a review. "Gee we look good now guys". ASA senior management are champions of the weasel word and their lateset bucket of spin is proof in point. They must be sitting back in their offices patting each other on the back congratulating themselves on how clever they are & how good they appear in this latest chapter of the "GR - An oddessy in mismangement and company destruction":ugh:
The transmitters were not being "turned off" till after christmas anyway. The have been "switched" to ATC consoles since 25OCT as there are no more people to occupy the Flightwatch consoles. The transmitters can be left on till the 10th of whenever but this will not address the core of the problem. ASA need to reinstate staffing of the seperate flightwatch fuctions and remove it from the controllers.

[Dick Smith]

It is now the morning of Thursday 15 November, 9.08 am Sydney time. That is, less than one hour before the deadline my solicitor has given Airservices Australia. So far, there has not been any communication from Airservices in relation to my letter of 12 November 2007 (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_46.php)).

Pinky the pilot, you mention public pressure by contacting people like The 7.30 Report. Unfortunately I think everyone knows that Airservices will simply ignore anything like this – they have in the past. They have set themselves on a path which they will stick to as far as they can.

I hope it will be quite different when we get to the Federal Court. When the Judge in the Court hears the facts – especially in relation to the lack of consultation and the lack of any real safety case, that a proper decision will be made.

I have a feeling that the Chief Executive and Board of Airservices do not really understand what they are doing. I don’t believe they thought that the proposal to place Flightwatch on ATC frequencies actually meant the complete close down of an independent VHF Flightwatch system. If you look at the documents which were sent out, anyone could easily be misled.

This is where we will see if there is any real leadership in the place. That is, a real leader will change the course and keep the independent Flightwatch while a truly honest safety case and truly honest consultation takes place. Here’s hoping.

By the way, the Airservices press release states that they advised RAPAC of the changes in August 2007. I have spoken to the convenor of the NSW RAPAC, who was at a complete loss to understand that there had been any proposal to close down an independent Flightwatch. He said that Airservices did not even send a representative to the last RAPAC meeting, and he had complained to them about this.

Does anyone have a copy of the Airservices advice which was sent to RAPAC in August 2007 (as per the Airservices media release - see here (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/media/press_releases/pr.asp?id=pr11_07)) in relation to the changed Flightwatch frequencies? Can they please post it on this website?

I understand that it wasn’t a true consultative paper, it was basically a paper announcing what was happening.

[vans]

These forums have only just appeared on the “Aeroclubs.com.au” website as of today and are scheduled for a number of regional centers.

Is this Airservices belated attempt to consult the industry on the loss of FIS frequencies, and thereby shamefully thwart the claim of lack of consultation?



"Airservices Regional Consultative Forum (ARCF)
When: Nov 21, 2007

Start Time: 19:30
Event: Airservices Regional Consultative Forum (ARCF)
Cost:
Airfield: Temora YTEM
Location: Temora Aero Club
Host: Temora Aero Club Ltd

Contact: Rob Maslin

Phone (BH): 0427 494-464 Website:
Phone (AH): Email:
Mobile: Fax:

Submitted: Nov 14, 2007 Last Updated: (modify)

Description:
Airservices Australia is the national civilian provider of air traffic management (ATM), and communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) systems. Airservices is constantly seeking to improve the safety of air traffic, and actively seeks industry input.

Airservices will hold an open forum on current ATM / CNS issues at the Temora Aero Club, commencing at 7.30pm on Wednesday 21st November 2007".

[Hypo]

What an absolute disgrace. The "services"part of airservices no longer exists. Profit , profit and nothing but profit .
Under National Party of Australia Ministers (Anderson. Truss, Vaile) total failure to take responsibility for the timely provision of services.
Ferguson (ALP)no better. I bought some issues re aviation safety to his attention and his only reply was to ask how much my aircraft was worth.???????
I dont always agree with Dick but at least he tries which is more than our elected reps do.

[ollie_a]

Dick, look at http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/rapac/minutes/nsw071011.pdf section 8.5 (NSW RAPAC minutes), and http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/rapac/minutes/vic071004.pdf section 6.6 (VIC RAPAC minutes, this one contains a bit more detail). I believe this may be the information you requested.

[Crosshair]

The case for Flightwatch services is strong.

* Someone has already raised the problem of congestion. When there's a front approaching, or other weather conditions exist that make everyone interested in conditions at their destination and alternates, there's going to be a lot of traffic on the VHF Centre frequency. The congestion will make it that much harder to get in a call about separation (or even a mayday). A discrete information frequency (Flightwatch) is an obvious help.

* We should not underestimate the intimidation factor. A low-time VFR pilot, or even an inexperienced charter pilot, listening to an area frequency populated by people calling themselves Qantas A, Singapore B, and Falcon C, is going to be reluctant to pipe up and ask for the wind at the podunk aerodrome he's heading for. Anyone who's done their flight training in the past six or eight years has been told that Centre really doesn't want to hear from you unless you're on an IFR plan, and that you're impinging upon the safety of others if you tie up the frequency. Has that changed?

* Local weather knowledge is in decline. Plenty of pilots flying in Australia grew up elsewhere, and so have little intuitive knowledge of Australian weather. Flightwatch provided valuable assistance to these people.

* No equivalent alternative to Flightwatch exists. If we had XM satellite service, or some sort of 3G mobile data service that we could rely upon in the bush, then they'd have a case for taking away the "old" voice service. But there is no equivalent.

Certainly, the service (such as it was) could be better. The Flightwatch operators should have weather radar, for example. But to get rid of Flightwatch and replace it with basically nothing is dangerous. It's going to be a cause of a crash -- quite possibly of a charter aircraft containing six or eight passengers -- before long.

[tobzalp]

Good point about educating low time pilots not to call. Anyone remember the full page ad with a certain AsA center manager arms crossed and words to the effect of 'If you call on area for anything, planes will crash'. :ugh:

[Dick Smith]

Following is the text of a letter my solicitor received from the Airservices solicitors at about 3 minutes to 10 today.

Dear Mr O’Brien

Dick Smith and Flightwatch Transmitter closure

We act for Airservices Australia.

Our client has provided us with a copy of your letter dated 12 November 2007. That letter raises important safety issues and serious allegations against our client.

We are currently taking instructions from our client in order to respond to your letter. We will not be in a position to respond by 10.00 am today, as requested in your letter. We expect to be able to provide you with a substantive response to your letter by the close of business this afternoon.

Yours faithfully
MINTER ELLISON

John Weber
Partner To see the letter of 12 November 2007, click here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Mark_O_Brien_to_Greg_Russell_re_Flightwatch.php).

[Jabawocky]

Dick

I reckon ASA are watching PPRUNE and your post at 9.08 had them scurrying...Ohhh ****, he is serious, better get a stop gap letter out from our legals....and fast!

Don't let go of this. 99% of us are behind your actions here!

J:ok:

[The Voice]

there are legal rep's and then there are legal tacticians - what you really need is someone who is across both.

Tactics are equal to showmanship in other arenas' ..

[IMHFO]

Great to see something constructive happening with Aviators funds - Minter Ellison!! Probably better wasted than on the AA Board, CEO or Execs:}

[Led Zep]

Good point about educating low time pilots not to call. Anyone remember the full page ad with a certain AsA center manager arms crossed and words to the effect of 'If you call on area for anything, planes will crash'. :ugh:Oh yes - "Don't ask for QNH on area." I could block an IFR call. :=

[JackoSchitt]

Interesting thread from May 2006

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2587212#post2587212



I have heard vague rumour (hey, its PPRUNE!!!!) of some sort of safety panel/board paper on the future of sartimes with them becoming a non-radio service in the near future and totally phased out by 2008/2009.

Does anyone have more information on this that they can post to the forum?

It could be interesting in consideration of Dick's consultation band wagon?





Leafing through my old tatty copy of the AusFIC Service Review and I note the Summary Of Recommendations that may be of interest in forecasting the future ‘developments’.

1. Integrate stand alone HF position into Brisbane ATSC; and integrate VHF function onto ATC workstations

2. Transfer SARTIME management from Airservices to aircraft operators / owners.

3. Phase out personal phone briefings to pilots.

4. Merge the Briefing role with TFDC role in Brisbane and Melbourne ATC Centres.

5. Management of the Communications Centre (COMC) be transferred to Brisbane ATSC Systems Supervisor.

6. The NAPIS interface be modified to increase efficiency of the flight notification process.

7. Establish a new organisational structure for data management which emphasises the operational imperative and separates the commercial aspect of AIS provision. The NOTAM Office (NOF) should be part of the operational management structure.

[Sunfish]

Wot Crosshair said:

And wait for the first C172 with a frightened student pilot with no apparent alternatives, and no one to talk to, mess up the travel plans of 20,000 people, as he fumbles his way through controlled airspace and tries to land at YSSY or YMMB because he sees bad weather coming towards him and no one is available to advise him.

* We should not underestimate the intimidation factor. A low-time VFR pilot, or even an inexperienced charter pilot, listening to an area frequency populated by people calling themselves Qantas A, Singapore B, and Falcon C, is going to be reluctant to pipe up and ask for the wind at the podunk aerodrome he's heading for. Anyone who's done their flight training in the past six or eight years has been told that Centre really doesn't want to hear from you unless you're on an IFR plan, and that you're impinging upon the safety of others if you tie up the frequency. Has that changed?

To put it another way, if AsA really don't want to engage with GA and provide them any services, then its AsA and RTP operators who are going to pay the price.

To put it yet another way, if AsA and RTP operators tell GA to **** off and die, then there goes the consideration, cooperation, and give and take that makes the current system workable. Expect more inadvertant violations of controlled airspace with consequent disruption to RPT operations because whats the point of monitoring the area frequency if no one wants to hear from you and no one wants to provide you any advice? It's already hard enough trying to get some student pilots to communicate with you (especially non English speaking types), and I've had to do orbits on more than one occasion because I could not arrange separation with one of these jokers.

To put it yet another way, simply remove radio voice procedure, and operations in controlled airspace from the VFR syllabus and drop the requirements for carriage of a current ERSA and Charts.

Ohhh, and I guess "flight following" is dead too.

[Sunfish]

Dick, by the way I hope you have briefed your lawyers and get them to court before 10.00am, because Minters letter to you at 10.00 am is going to be a beauty.

[Crosshair]

Anyone remember the full page ad with a certain AsA center manager arms crossed and words to the effect of 'If you call on area for anything, planes will crash'.

Does anyone have a copy of this? I ask because that's precisely the kind of visual a general-interest paper or TV show would need to understand and run a story on this.

If you have it, please scan and post it.

[SM4 Pirate]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22765350-23349,00.html?from=public_rss

From today's Oz.

Steve Creedy, one of your worst bits of press release "cutting and pasting" I've seen in all these years of reading your stuff, shame shame, shame.

[Dick Smith]

Just on 5.00 pm last night my solicitor received an answer from Minter Ellison, the solicitors for Airservices.

I was very encouraged by the letter. The reason it was more than I expected is because I had asked (through my solicitor’s letter) that Airservices review their decisions and perform proper consultation, however this is now to be performed by an external review into the arrangements for the delivery of Flightwatch.

The advantage is obvious. An external review does not have the conflict of interest of a review by Airservices – where any decision which reduces costs gives their organisation a commercial advantage.

I am assured by the Department (and I believe them) that the external review into Flightwatch will be with wide participation of all interested parties and with wide consultation. From looking at the almost total support for a stand alone Flightwatch system, I feel sure that this is what the recommendation will be.

I even believe that an external review could result in a better VHF Flightwatch system, with transmitters in more suitable locations and – believe it or not – the Flightwatch operators actually equipped with a proper terminal that can show the Bureau of Meteorology weather radar graphics.

Thanks everyone for their involvement. It certainly shows what can happen when the whole industry gets together with a common aim.

I also believe it will be quite a while before Airservices makes major changes without consultation – especially with their own staff.

For a copy of the letter from Minter Ellison, see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_46.php).

[LeadSled]

Dick,

Well done, amazing what a blaze of publicity will do, where air safety is concerned.

On the face of it, there doesn't seem to be much recognition within Airservices, that NAS is/was a Cabinet level Government policy decision, and that Flightwatch is/was integral to the NAS plans.

There seems to be a trend here, the recent JCP proposals for ADS-B, in my opinion, don't really comply with the quite specific requirements of the Airspace Act 2007 for risk assessment and cost benefit justification, not to mention a raft of other really serious ?????

Tootle pip!!

[bluerider777]

Dick,

The work you have done on this issue has been great - well done (another ATC surprised to be writing this!).:D

However, how does the external inquiry help in the short term when the function is already being performed by ATC and all the Flight watch people have exited stage left? The inquiry could take some months...:confused:

On another topic - have you had a chance to check the thread on unqualified controllers giving breaks at night???

Blue

[greenslopes]

Dick,
Thanks for the grind you went through. I look forward to the forum and hope good comes out of it.
Cheers

[Dick Smith]

Bluerider777, the external inquiry won’t help in the short term. As has been pointed out a number of times on this thread, virtually all of the Flightwatch staff have already gone – so it wouldn’t have mattered what the Court ordered, there is simply no way of instantly turning the independent system on again. That is the reality of the situation.

The inquiry will take a number of months, but the fact that Airservices has agreed to leave all the equipment in place means that there is a very good chance of re-instating an independent system that is properly thought out, properly managed, and staffed with people who are properly trained.

I think there is a chance now of getting a better result than if this had never happened. I believe this because Airservices had allowed Flightwatch to run down until it was so ineffective, many people didn’t really care if it remained or not.

Now there will be a focus on the type of Flightwatch/Flight Information Service given in other leading aviation countries such as the USA and Canada. In both of these countries the service is fantastic, with trained operators who can actually give weather advice to both IFR and VFR pilot – not just repeat a weather forecast.

We all have to make sure now that this external inquiry is given the correct information. I believe it is very important that we allow all of the facts to come out so a rational decision can be made on this.

If an independent stand alone Flightwatch doesn’t add to safety in a cost effective way, then I will support it being combined with ATC. We would then be quite different to other leading aviation countries, and that is why I think a proper cost benefit study will show that the independent service should not only remain, but should be enhanced.

On the other topic, yes I have checked the thread on unqualified controllers during breaks at night. I’ve also spoken to a number of controllers about this and had a number of emails/private messages on PPRuNe.

The only thing I can suggest is that those concerned try to contact the Airservices Chairman, or a Board member, directly. I would imagine that the Board is exposing itself to grave risk in having non-qualified people manning a sector when the pilots in the controlled airspace have not been told.

As an example, a pilot may need to request a diversion around a Cb at the last moment, but the controller is not at the console, so the remaining person has to say, “Standby.” This could result in the difference between a safe flight and an aircraft being torn apart in turbulence.

Just why Airservices would allow this risky system is beyond me. I know that they are not getting pressure from the Government to constantly improve profits or to reduce staffing levels. The Government (especially the Minister) is paranoid about aviation safety. If someone communicated that additional controllers were needed, it would clearly be supported by the Minister.

[corowacomet]

Dick, :D.
The Comet.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Dick, as some of the other ATCO's have said on here it goes against the grain to say this, but well done.

On the ATCO unqualified break relief and staffing issue (not wanting to hijack this very important thread just explaining one quick thing), it needs to be understood that ASA have not intentionally ended up with not enough ATCOs. Yes some management decisions in the past have meant they have been misguided into thinking they weren't short staffed when they actually were but over and above that there is a chronic world shortage of ATCOs and it is only getting worse.

The reality is that when a suitable person looks at ATC as a career, they look at a failure rate of at least 50%, shift work on horrible rosters for the next 25 years, extremely low training salary that just keeps you above the poverty line (in the US the trainees actually have to get a second job to try to stay above water), and for the most part these people have so many other high paid options with less risk that they forget about ATC as a career.

Anyway sorry for the diversion from the thread, well done and hopefully this may be a wake up call for ASA (but don't hold your breath!)

[Dick Smith]

AirNoServicesAustralia, I do not understand why the Airservices Australia management does not publicly state that they are having difficulty in getting enough ATCs.

For example, many airlines in the world are stating this known fact in relation to pilots. Rex has stated that they have had to close down routes because of a shortage of pilots. Why then isn’t Airservices stating that they are having difficulty in obtaining an adequate number of air traffic controllers?

I can assure you that if I was involved in the management or Board of Airservices, I would be making this very clear. After all, as you state it wasn’t an intentional situation that Airservices Australia has got itself into, but it is a fact of life. Surely there is an obligation to the Minister (and to the people who fly in Australia) to explain the real situation. That is what I’d do anyway.

[JackoSchitt]

the Flightwatch operators actually equipped with a proper terminal that can show the Bureau of Meteorology weather radar graphics.

Flightwatch already has access to the Bureau of Meteorology weather radar.

Is that what you are asking about Dick?

What will a proper terminal do differently?

The met site only show rainfall and not cloud in anycase.

[JackoSchitt]

Dick, I have been asked to pass on the following from my sources and connections.

As has been pointed out a number of times on this thread, virtually all of the Flightwatch staff have already gone

No; this is not the case. A large number have left but there are still sufficient staff to perform the flightwatch function as a stand-alone entity.

There are 75 staff working quite happily in ausfic and who do you think is do the ghosting?

The same staff who run the VHF console are capable of working the HF consoles and in the Briefing Office, the NOTAM office and the communications centre. The ausfic staff are in the main, multi-function people and this has enabled the rosters to be cut to the bone.

As a result of VRing 19 people this year, there significant amounts of overtime being performed and there is a pool of very capable people available but the replacement of absences is very very difficult.

The VHF function is being done with exactly the same staff on exactly the same console using exactly the same frequencies as before any of this “transition” started – just now it is on overtime with a 3 hour lack of service in the morning as merely an attempt to do some “load shedding” and a result of poor long term planning.

If you think this is going to change you really need think this through again.


very good chance of re-instating an independent system that is properly thought out, properly managed, and staffed with people who are properly trained

Dick, You really are dreaming.

You might get an independent system but you have no chance of any more staff or facilities because of the mammoth that is the “wonderful” SDE project and the fact that they just VRed 19 people out of the place!

There will be no more people doing the job than what you have available now. The old’n Bold retired ATCs that Civil Air proposed is a fanciful notion I’m afraid.

Many arguments have been made for new staff but there is not going to be recruitment into the Flightwatch function and if there was, there is a significant training requirement for both systems and procedures.

And I’m sure that the Flightwatch people will not appreciate your insinuation that they are not properly trained at this point.


with trained operators who can actually give weather advice to both IFR and VFR pilot

Clearly you do not understand the recent change to the provision of FIS by ATC as a result of the VH-PYN in-flight break up.

Because ATC screwed up issuing a SIGMET, (and 3 times in fact to VH-PYN) ATC can no longer make assessment of weather and must now merely pass on any new weather information so that the pilot makes all the operational decisions.

If an ATC is not able to do this, it will be interesting to see you get up a proposal for some other entity to do so.

Besides that, you have wanted and fought for autonomy for years and now you want other people “in the cockpit” – make up your mind Dick!


Flightwatch to run down until it was so ineffective,

What is ineffective about the Flightwatch function?

It is an on-request service and not able to crystal ball your needs.

More VHF coverage would be good apparently but they are only running the remnants of the old Flight Service system that the aviation community, and as orchestrated by you, was happy to see the end of.

You don’t want to pay for services but yet you want the services. Interesting concept.

[SM4 Pirate]

The old’n Bold retired ATCs that Civil Air proposed is a fanciful notion I’m afraid.How so? There are about 6 people in the fighting for their careers due LOEQ in the system right now, it's not always about retirements. failed trainees, or those who have medical issues etc; but more than capable enough to provide flightwatch.

[JackoSchitt]

Pirate,

Civil Airs (dismissive?) statement was that the old retired ATCs could simply turn up an start work - and that was where my statement was directed.

You are taking things in another direction with using ATC Failures and the medically unfit.

Why are they undergoing LOEQ? - performance issues perhaps? gee, that's nice, dump 'em into someone elses lap to sort out? someone say "MR BEAN"

They possibly could be used but they would certainly have to undergo training and assessment the same as any other operational staff.

Ausfic staff are multi-position capable and utilise knowledge from more than one area to perform any particular specific function. There really is no such thing as "simply doing VHF" I'm told.

Depending on their level of knowledge (how long they been training for?), and given that even most long term ATC know stuff all about ausfic and its services (or even where ausfic is by most accounts) and it would certainly not happen overnight.

All this is a moot point really beacuse Dick has swallowed Airservice's filibustering and taken home a cur from the pound.

[Blip]

Dick Smith said:
As an example, a pilot may need to request a diversion around a Cb at the last moment, but the controller is not at the console, so the remaining person has to say, “Standby.” This could result in the difference between a safe flight and an aircraft being torn apart in turbulence.

If I found myself in that situation, I would quickly come to the conclusion that penetration of the CB represents a much greater risk to the aircraft than an un-authorised deviation from the planned track.

I would remain on track as long possible. I would then turn the aircraft to pass around the weather and follow it up with a "PAN PAN" call.

Please don't tell me there are Pilots in Command out there that would choose to fly through a CB and risk "being torn apart in turbulence" never mind the possible hail, lightning, and severe icing!! :uhoh:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... hook ..... line ...... AND ..... sinker! :hmm:
.
... who can see where all this is headed? ..... more than a few I suspect!:ok:
.
Leadsled .... Oh do please enlighten us!?
.
.... then again :yuk:.I think there is a chance now of getting a better result than if this had never happened. ... strap on the plastic boys and girls!! I believe this because Airservices had allowed Flightwatch to run down until it was so ineffective, many people didn’t really care if it remained or not ..... transplant AMATS and the summary removal of FLight Service (OCTA) ..... :suspect:
.
Griffo ... I know without knowing you, that you cringe like I do reading this crap!
.
So the Messiah (is seen to) save part of FW (until after the election) ... OOW AHH :rolleyes: ....fabie!
.
....... now what about the nationwide FS (that provided FW and directed traffic information) ... you know ... the service Dick removed!?
.
.... anyone got the CBA or RA for those changes??
.
....... Hmmm yeh, we know the drill ....... operational folks signed off on it so it is not the fault of the water walking feckwit! :yuk:
.
Flightwatch (like so many aspects of your ATS service/s) has been GBE'd, corporatised, restructured, resized, remade, into less and less for no tangible result except (Liberal) Federal Government Profit!
.
..... but keep going Lead et al ....... less for more is a nice legacy thus far ...... well done!
.
as for me .... I could not give a rats testicle anymore .... Roll on retirement!
.
Dick
.
Check your PM’s

[Hoss2310]

Dick, I congratulate you on your efforts thus far. As an ATC in Melbourne Centre, I never thought I'd see the day when I would be agreeing with you on anything! Your voice on this matter is a victory for common sense.

Today was a crappy day weather-wise on the East Coast. TS all day long to the west of YSSY neccessitating in never-ending diversions and level changes. On top of that it was a Friday afternoon :sad:! To state the obvious, we were flat out all day. Towards the end of the day a VFR pilot flying low level OCTA requested numerous wx information for enroute and destination. Without going into detail, it took quite a few minutes between separating and coordinating the rest of my traffic, which was all over the place, before I could give this poor bugger the info he needed. In the end I was getting a bit exasperated with this guy, who was of less importance in the priority heirarchy. I eventually got around to getting him what he wanted, and he was happy. No doubt he was aware of how busy I was.

When I unplugged, I thought about it. This punter needs the correct information on which to operate safely, and there should be someone, somewhere who can give that to him. On days like today we are flat out looking after the traffic we can see, let alone the VFRs we can't. It's on days like today that these guys need updated wx information, yet ironically we can't provide it because we're too busy. I fear for the day that some poor bugger spears in because he requested the latest thunderstorm information and we kept pushing him to the back of the queue because we are busy handling wx diversions with international and domestic jets. It's madness in my book. I just hope I'm not the bunny sitting in the chair that day.......

[Crosshair]

Hear Hear, Hoss! Well said, and thank you for posting that story.

[JackoSchitt]

HOS2310 wrote:

Dick, I congratulate you on your efforts thus far

But don't fall for the three card trick and stop now. Keep going because your getting a right royal snowjob!


As for the rest of Hos's post...........


:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[vans]

Your pessimism is simply breathtaking. At the very least, one person is attempting to do something about the situation instead of sitting back bitching and moaning constantly.

But your are right……..it is time you retired!

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Pessimism is built on reality! .. hypocracy and ideology are built on other things! ;)
.
As I have said in earlier threads on the FW subject, I (like most others) agree standalone FW is a necessity. My concern is what exactly Dick thinks FW should be, thus the quotes above.
.
Having spoken with him this morning about this issue, he has undertaken to spell out here how he sees the future of FW. If it is as suggested, then of course he has my support.
.
My pessimism is built on ‘once bitten twice shy’, maybe that is misplaced this time around?! … time will tell!But your are right……..it is time you retired! ... concensus ..... and happy to oblige!

[Jabawocky]

Back from Holidays SDD?

Good to see you back!

J

[tobzalp]

BOM Wx radars and actual diversions apart from obvious lines of cells, have very little to do with each other. Totally useless and displaying the info on the screens would not assisst anyone in any way.

[Maggott17]

Leave the LOEQ guys out of the equation, unless and until they are qualified to do flightwatch.

Airservices passed a couple of LOEQ guys into SAR in the early 90's, no quals, no desire, no nothing.

No wonder that Aviation SAR did not rescue a single pilot out of Bass Strait.

Remember "Search without Rescue"?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Thanks Dave!
.
Check your PM's :ok:

[Former AusFICer]

Dick,

I was having a coffee with a colleague from my former work today and after talking to them, I decided to have a read of the letter from Airservices Lawyers to your Lawyers.

Sorry to tell you, but from my experience of the Management of Airservices , they are spinning you a line right out of “Yes Minister”. (Their response has 3 elements that could be called a 3 card trick!)

It is a SOP for before any review is started that one already has determined the result of the review. It is pointless to have the result uncontrolled.

Any review will validate what Airservices has have already done (and continue to do), else they will have to recant their stance thus far, and this would never do.

1. On the question of safety. This comes back to the question of why FIS was established external to traffic (ATC) as part of the NAS architecture in the first place? Answer: To make it all (the ATS system) safer/better.

Putting FIS back to Traffic (ATC) when they are busy makes it less safe. Civilair certainly understands it and I reckon blind Freddy can see it too.

One shouldn’t need to make the safety need in an adversarial way, but it will probably work out that the side with the cleverest spin doctors (Airservices) will be uppermost. E.g Look at the comments about the figures they have quoted already on the number of calls per day.

§ I used to work on the Flightwatch consoles and I can tell you, we had hundreds of contacts per day. These contacts and other tasks made the operator very busy at times, e.g. processing electronic data associated with Sartimes, taking phone and intercom calls (yes phones on an air-ground console) that the pilot never hears and then at the same time taking the radio calls.

§ And the radio calls were not just for weather briefings on a specific location. The calls were for diversions, delays, amendments to Flight Plans and occasionally to pass a company message such as an ETA and a fuel requirement. I doubt that they counted these.

§ I always felt that after the in-flight weather information that I passed, (being the most important after traffic information) that the pilots really appreciated it when I was able to give that little bit of service, especially if they were looking at alternatives when the weather was crappy. And despite my masters objections – I has happy for it to be “free”.

2. On the External Review. I think you will really need to use your good auspices with the next government to get the right people on the review, and to get good terms of reference. There is still a big job of work for you here.

3. On the “hold of further transition” pending the review outcome.

The hold is no big deal to get excited over - I understand that the ghosting was planned to end on 20 Dec. One would assume that the ghosting will continue until the review is sorted. Given possible new government, new minister, low priority, XMAS close down of Airservices – it will be months away unless you or RAPACs can put a fire under Airservices/.DOTARS in the meantime.

I understand that the next RAPAC is South Queensland at Archerfield on 20th November. I’m sure you can find the coordinator’s contact from the CASA website.

The AusFIC needs to keep only one person per day on the roster, weekdays only - to keep the reduced hours that they have been doing since 27 Sep. Flightwatch VHF merges onto the HF consoles outside core daytime hours. So do not think that all the staff have gone and it can not continue or even be rolled back to full service. It can, but it is an ask of the remaining staff.

I understand that if you really pushed for it, there is scope to make a full roll back of external Fightwatch on VHF except for one Frequency that was changed to ATC about a week ago. I think this rollback could be achieved very quickly with minimal fuss as the facilities are still there and (barely) enough staff to do it. There is still a couple more to take their redundancy in the next few months.

On the morale of the remaining AusFIC staff, I guess most of them are appalled at the whole thing, but their dedication to doing overtime to keep it going is amazing. There have been only a handful of times that Flightwatch on VHF has not been available due to a shortage of staff. Contrast this with the number of occasions of TIBA because ATC staff have not been available.

Where are we at today? From what I understand, in the meantime, in absence of advice to the contrary – Pilots still being told by those ghosting the Flightwatch VHF that the service is soon to be no longer available as standalone.

On the assertion by Airservices that notice would be provided to industry that the remaining “15%” of the transition is deferred, - I understand that at the time of writing there are no specific NOTAM or corrections to the AIPSUP yet.

Another thing. The cut of 19 staff in AusFIC was understood to be part of overall cuts of 200 in ATC during 2007 as part of the efficiency gain delivered by Service Delivery Environments (SDE). In reality, this cut of controllers was stymied and indeed 30 controllers were recruited from overseas. One might ask what gives here? But that would be a whole new issue for you to get your teeth into!

And a final observation. 100% safety would be achieved if no one flew. Pilots make a choice to fly and it is a calculated risk underpinned by good training, good maintenance and Air Traffic Services. The last is the responsibility of Airservices and is not up to the individual pax/pilot. IF these changes go ahead, that balance changes too.

AusFICer

[rabbit123]

To AIRNOSERVICES

I disagree with your comment that ASA has 'not intentionally understaffed ATC'. ASA has been fully aware for years how many controllers were/are needed and has continued to rely heavily on overtime to continue operations instead of recruiting and providing the appropriate number of controllers. A world wide shortage of controllers is only a small part of the equation here.

[Gunnadothat]

Ex FSO Griffo & SDD (a number of posts back) have the right viewpoint on this issue.... This problem has been over 15 years in the making.

Well done Dick, you have done good work in saving the FW service (this time). However the analogy is that of a farmer taking the lamb to the abattoir, only to give it a reprieve just before the knife hits the throat.

If only there were a better base from which to provide a truly cost-effective FS service, together with a Pprune to spread the word (as in this sort of thread) , back in '91 things might have panned out differently. As it was then, nothing could stop the media circus that is Dick from driving headlong into the start of what we see today.

<Insert lift operators, DC3s and the word anachronistic here>:E:E:E

Dick, The affordable safety snowball that you threw over 15 years ago has grown into an avalanche, blanketing all in it's path.

Nothing is going to change history, but sometimes we need to look back in order to make sense of current events. It may not be your fault the whole cost reduction strategy is so flawed today, but yours is the point it started at.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Rabbit123, I can see where you're coming from but I think that they relied on overtime to overcome the staff shortages in the misguided belief that the next airspace change would resolve the staffing problems. All the controllers on the floor knew this not to be the case but noone asked them, and surprise surprise, the usual outcome from these airspace changes and reshuffles of sectors has been a need for more controllers not less.

Now that the crunch has come, they are trying to recruit from overseas only to find the shortage of controllers worldwide means they are in fierce competition with other ANS providers.

[mmciau]

IMHO, all this "shortage" of experienced staff in Australian Government Departments and Agencies can be traced back to PM and C and Treasury decisions from the early 1980s.

Some "brightspark" suddenly realised that the "unfunded superannuation" for all the APS was so horrendous and potentially financially crippling, that firstly "we" will change the APS over to new Super scheme (PSS) from the "old" CSS. The smart ones didn't budge!

Then because the "take up" was so poor, "we'll" embark on a program of VR's so that we will shed all oldies between 45 and 55.

I was in a Section of a department where one VR exercise saw over 1000 man-years of experience pushed out the door!!

Subsequent "fly-by-night" managers have continued this exercise until the departments now are without "experience and history".

All that counts now for a senior manager is "Risk Management" (will I get hauled before the Coroner if it goes pear -shaped), their Performance Agreement and their salary package. Public Service can go take a running jump!!!

Governments like taxing the people but they hate spending money!

Good luck Pilots - you are being "risk managed!!"

Mike McInerney

[Quokka]

At the risk of receiving a life-time ban from PPRUNE for naming names... the one man responsible for this is John Maynard Keynes.

There, I've done it, I've named the man... and now I humbly prostrate myself and accept the consequences... ;)

[Dick Smith]

Gunnadothat, you state:
Dick, The affordable safety snowball that you threw over 15 years ago has grown into an avalanche, blanketing all in its path. Just to get the facts right, it was the Labor Government in the late 1980s (before my involvement in any way with aviation reform) who decided that air traffic control should not only pay its own way, but also make a profit for the Government.

I simply said, “In that case, if all of air traffic control and a lot of safety regulation is to be paid for by the industry, the costs levied will have to be ‘affordable’ – otherwise the industry will go broke and we will have no industry.”

It is all pretty basic kindergarten stuff.

I, and many others, could see that having three Flight Service Officers stationed (with houses provided) in a place like Cooma, was pretty well unaffordable if it was to be charged to the people who flew to Cooma – which was the plan. However to have 27 Flightwatch outlets (or maybe even more) right across Australia, which are evenly paid for by the industry, would most likely be affordable.

By ‘affordable’ I mean the extra amount loaded onto the air ticket – which is where it ends up – doesn’t put up the air ticket to such a high price that people decide not to fly.

I’ve heard it all before – “Dick Smith introduced affordable safety,” “Dick Smith has a concept of affordable safety.” All of this is rubbish. I just pointed out a fact of life, as simple as 2 + 2 = 4. That is, if the Federal Government is going to force the industry to pay its own way, the costs have to be reasonable so the participation in aviation does not drop.

I didn’t ask for these Flightwatch outlets to be reinstated without any cost benefit study. I asked that proper industry consultation took place, and that a proper cost benefit study be performed. I even said on this thread that if this does not show that Flightwatch is a cost effective way of providing safety, I would support (to be consistent) its closure.

I remain totally convinced that a proper expanded Flightwatch is a very cost efficient way of providing higher levels of safety to our industry. I believe the costs are so small that it will not affect the number of people flying – privately, in business aviation, and in the airlines.

I can assure you that people lose credibility if they deny a basic fact of life. That is, those who pay for a service have to be able to afford to pay for it – otherwise the service will cease to exist.

Blip, what happens if you turn around a Cb and collide with another aircraft? Surely it would be better for the controller to advise that TIBA procedures apply before he or she leaves the console – so an aircraft wishing to divert around a Cb can simply make an announcement and see if any other traffic is present. It is not an ideal system, but it is certainly better than not telling the pilot that there is no rated controller present and you are just going to get the words “Standby.”

Former AusFICer, yes I am very happy with the results. I believe that with the rejection of the standalone Flightwatch system closure in Australia from almost the entire industry, and knowing that all other countries have a separate VHF Flightwatch system, will result in us keeping – or possibly improving – our system.

I have a feeling that the people in the Department, within CASA, and many people within Airservices, didn’t really realise that changing Flightwatch from a standalone VHF frequency, to combining it with ATC, had a number of serious implications. Now that many understand this, I believe that we will retain our separate system. It will all depend on rational objective information being provided to the external reviewer.

As I’ve said before, I have confidence that the officers of the Department will genuinely look at this and not be overly influenced by those at Airservices who are trying to improve profits.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... so, on average, IYHO are GA operators paying more or less nowadays with Location Specific Pricing when compared with the Avgas Levy it replaced (taking into account the number of aircraft and their owners who relocated from towered airports after the LSP intro)? :p
.
Hands up those paying more per annum and those who moved because of the additional costs of LSP ..... and lets not even mention the billings and collections empire created as a result :suspect::mad:

[max1]

Dick
Thanks for picking up the ball on this one,your comments that -'and many people within Airservices, didn’t really realise that changing Flightwatch from a standalone VHF frequency, to combining it with ATC, had a number of serious implications' is being very nice to ASA management.
The people in ASA making these decisions are being paid BIG money to 'realise ' the implications of what the changes to FW mean. It took about 2 seconds for controllers and pilots to realise this. What the hell would we know?, we only use the system everyday.
However, unless they continue to shrink costs and increase profit, they won't stay on their BIG contracts and AWA's. Meanwhile they will fight tooth and nail to make sure the people doing the coalface work get bugger -all (or less) for the added workload and stress.
They then get safety cases , hazard IDs and risk mitigation, and pseudo industry consultation, in an effort to show interested third parties i.e. the Board and media that they have ticked all the boxes , and done the right thing in case it bites them down the track.
An example is the demise of FW as a stand alone entity.
As I have stated previously, if the faeces hits the fan, the controller and pilot will wear most of the blame as the instigators of this cost saving ( ie bonus building ) exercise would have tinplated themselves.
Dick, unfortunately ASA see you as white noise, they will push on regardless. Money talks.

[JackoSchitt]

Dick and all,

Some time ago I was passed a letter written by the CPSU members to Airservices Australia a little over a year ago that I think has some relevance to this fantastic realisation that putting Flightwatch onto ATC has serious implications.

The second half of the letter goes like this:

CPSU will take the following opportunity to add its comments regarding the review and change. With the transition to TAAATS and the cessation of Flight Service, it was determined that several functions were best placed outside the ATC environment. These functions are the core of the Flight Information Service (FIS) and are provided by a specialist group of staff employed in the AusFIC.

The CPSU asserts that the establishment of the AusFIC enhanced the safety of Australian aviation by enabling the rapid dissemination of pertinent information directly to pilots.

The CPSU believes that proposed changes in work arrangements will result in less timely, delivery of operational and safety information and may contribute to a failure to provide traffic information and/or separation services.

The CPSU has not been formally advised or included in any safety assessments relating to proposed changes.

The CPSU members are proud of their track record of professionalism and service provision since the establishment of the AusFIC. AusFIC in an extremely flexible and cohesive work area; from data storage and manipulation functions to the tactical delivery of In-Flight information, AusFIC is an integrated an effective work unit.

Members have made significant continuous improvements during this period and are disappointed that their contribution is not recognised. Multi-skilling across AusFIC disciplines produces efficient and effective operation and one measure of this is the ratio of AusFIC console hours to rostered hours per officer as compared to ATC.

Members completely reject the AusFIC Services Review. The simple fact is that AusFIC is worth more than the sum of its parts that could be partitioned off elsewhere and this has not been identified or considered.

As is the case with the TCU consolidation reversal, the financial case for this ill-considered shuffle of services is marginal and enacting recommendations of the AusFIC Services Review will:

• have minimal, if any savings;
• increase the cost and complexity of ATC functions;
• result in dislocation of AusFIC staff.

There is less training for AusFIC to incorporate new functions than for other areas to undertake the specialist AusFIC functions and that therefore reduces both expense and time.

The re-alignment of AusFIC products into Service Delivery Lines is readily achievable and if retained within the existing AusFIC management structure, will retain multi-skilling and multi-disciplinary efficiencies.

[Sunfish]

This may not be appropriate or pertinent at this time, but is it possible that a lack of FIS or other AsA services could be a contributing factor in the loss of a Cessna 303 with 4 POB this weekend somewhere (we think) near Orbost?
I note that no flight plan was filed, nor SARTIME specified. I'm unclear as to whether here was any communication with the aircraft.

The aircraft still hasn't been found and grave fears are held.

I wonder what the search will cost? I wonder if the old flight services regime might have reduced search costs?

[Maggott17]

Spot on Sunfish.

The missing C337 is another "Coffee Royale" but this time not because services were not developed yet, but the aviation administrator took away the SAR alerting service that full reporting to FS provided along with its amended weather updates, etc.

Lets all hope that no search aircraft goes missing during this search.

How long did it take you to find KOOKABURRA Dick?

[Dick Smith]

You can actually still go “full reporting” – it is called IFR. That requires extra training, and I do accept that some pilots do not want to make the effort to do the extra training but want the full position service. That is human.

In the old days, if you flew below 5,000 feet there wasn’t even a requirement to have a radio – let alone go full reporting. Maybe we should change that so people are protected from themselves!

Maggott17, it took me two years to find the Kookaburra, but in all it was something like 49 years between the time it first went missing and was found again.

By the way, even when aircraft are in full radar coverage (as the aircraft was that disappeared over Barrington Tops a few decades ago) and IFR, they can still go missing for a very long time.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'day 'SCURVY'.......

Check ya PM's.....:ok::ok:

[JackoSchitt]

Dick Smith said

You can actually still go “full reporting” – it is called IFR.

Yes you can do that but Dick, really, that is not what he is getting at and you know it.

What you can do as a VFR pilot is what many many pilots do and give Ausfic a SARTIME for each leg of your flight like what they do in the Territory and north Queensland and all for free unlike the IFR charges.

[Roger Standby]

Won't the controllers be happy with that idea!:{

[Spodman]

Won't the controllers be happy with that idea!Erm, wot's the problem? Was it this? ...give Ausfic a SARTIME for each leg of your flight... Rather common practice & nothing wrong with it. And in an ideal world nothing to do with ATC coz it would be handled on the magnificent and extensive network of FW outlets or telephone or HF only.

No relevance to the unfortunate occupants of the C303 (sic) as it still would have been a sartime for YMER...

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Well, well, well,.....

An unsolicited memo from an 'interested person or persons'........

Re: the Integration of FW to ATC.


CEO Direct - Flightwatch


You may have been aware of some discussion about our Flightwatch service in the media last week. The decision to change the method of delivery of Flightwatch was the result of an overall review of AusFIC which reported in March 2005.

Airservices decided on the change following a safety assessment as part of this review. The implementation of this change was, as at last week, more than 85% complete. However, following a request from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, we will defer the remaining changes pending the outcome of the external review that the Minister has requested.

This decision only affects the four remaining separate Flightwatch frequencies that were due to transfer [two each on 23 November and 20 December]. We will issue a NOTAM and an AIP SUP to this effect.

Pilots should continue to use the relevant ATC frequency to access the Flightwatch service, except in the four sectors [Tindal, Darwin, Thursday Island and Argyle 118.4] in which the transfer is yet to occur, where the original Flightwatch frequency will be retained until the review outcome is known.

Further, as an added safety measure during transition, Airservices had previously decided to retain a backup service to 'ghost' those frequencies already transferred to the new Flightwatch arrangements. We will now retain this ghosting service until the review outcome is known.

Decisions on the timing, terms of reference, and the individual or organisation to conduct the review will be agreed by the Board of Airservices in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services.

Greg Russell
CEO

4 Freqs....SHESH!!!....Methinks the Barn Door is open...the horse has GORN,
and, sorry to say, I think you may have been 'snowed' Dick.

'Tis indeed a great pity that the opinions of the 'So many', who have a vast experience, have been listened to by 'so few'.....

And, further, the industry is now so 'fractured', that 'they' in ASA can now do whatever 'they' want to.... :(:(



To all colleagues, past and present...:ok::ok:

[Roger Standby]

aahhh, in an ideal world...

[The Voice]

oh Griffo .. the 'So many', ... have been listened to by 'so few' .. that'd be a novel concept - don't you think? :ugh:

as for the freq's left - good to see the 4 cover tiger country - you know - where NOTHING never happens - particularly this time of the year :sad:

[JackoSchitt]

Interesting article on Crikey.com.au

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20071120-Intimidation-and-exhaustion-dog-air-traffic-controllers.html

Now while this relates to tired ATCs, the reasons bolded at the bottom ring true to this discussion.


Intimidation and exhaustion dog air traffic controllers

Ben Sandilands writes:

The issue of fatigue in air traffic control is pushing way past the levels that pilots have recently complained about to a point where urgent attention seems called for from whomever becomes Minister for Transport after the poll.


But it is also about more than air safety. It is also about family values. What is the point of keeping a job if you lose your wife or neglect your children?

This in full ( http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=297788&page=4 ) is a tirade posted on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network, or PPrune.org, under the Downunder section.

Here's a taste:

Some argue a gross dereliction of duty. Excessive overtime is now the only vehicle and strategy left to prop up a system that is close to breaking point. So stretched, that intimidation is now a widely used and desperate tactic to implore controllers to come to work on their rest days.

Fatigue management as a principle has been abandoned by an executive who have recklessly implemented mind-boggling pointless restructure upon restructure without having the staff to do it. Fatigue management has been effectively left up to you – as such it is time to act in your own best interest, and that of your colleagues.

However tired and emotional industrial relations has become in the air transport sector, there are core issues that can’t be ignored.


Air traffic controllers claim the business of keeping jets "separated" in the sky is no longer compatible with taking a toilet break, having a good night’s sleep, or being a parent.


Are they just in the same category of labour as nursing, or emergency service workers, which is vital, yet systematically underpaid, and unworthy of a decent life beyond the obligations of a workplace agreement?


Is the country that poor that it can have one of the most technologically advanced air traffic control systems in the world, yet not ensure it is adequately manned?


The problem isn’t unique to Australia, and it isn’t a function of a low cost air travel revolution either. It is a function of the cost cutting bonus culture, which has captured the air transport industry worldwide in just over a decade.


The system depends on section managers who get $X thousand in bonuses for carving $Y millions from costs. And who keep doing it year after year, until the very issues of safety and decency are stripped down to breaking point.


It is as rife in legacy carriers as much as low cost carriers, and found in the various regulators of safety or standards.


Without any dilution of greed by commonsense it is a process that inevitably ends in collapse or disaster.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I dunno 'Jack'......

Sounds just like 'AFFORDABLE SAFETY' to me...and WE all know it just ain't.............:}

:ok:

[peuce]

And they'll keep doing it Lagrange, not just in Aviation but in plenty of other Industries, as long as the job keeps getting done .... why wouldn't they?

[JackoSchitt]

Peuce,

How many TIBAs constitues not getting the job done?

[peuce]

Obviously not enough yet .... or, more correctly, obviously not enough at the right time yet !

[penash]

Right behind you Dick!Your a good man.:ugh::ugh:

[Dick Smith]

Scurvy.D.Dog, on 17 November you said:

Having spoken with him this morning about this issue, he has undertaken to spell out here how he sees the future of FW. If it is as suggested, then of course he has my support. I confirm our discussion. I believe Flightwatch should offer a service similar to the service that is received in North America – i.e. both the USA and Canada. In North America there are many hundreds of VHF RCOs (Remote Communication Outlets) which a pilot can call to talk to an operator who can provide extensive information that is required to maintain and improve air safety.

These outlets are normally manned from the Automated Flight Service Stations – I think there are about 20 of these Automated Stations in the USA alone – and the operator is trained to not only provide the relevant weather and NOTAM information, but also to interpret this information to advise the pilot if the planned flight is recommended.

I am not in any way criticising our people, but I have spoken to a number of our Flight Service Officers, and they have said that they are not trained (nor allowed) to interpret the weather forecast and give advice to pilots. In North America it is completely different – and this is what I would like to see.

Obviously it will be too expensive to cover all airspace with a separate VHF Flightwatch frequency for operation below 5,000 feet. I would imagine that a proper independent review would decide on a figure - i.e. to provide coverage for 80% of flights when above 3,000 feet. This would probably mean that there would be a relatively high number of VHF outlets between Tasmania and Cairns, and also in the major capital cities, with a lesser number in remote areas.

I look at Flightwatch as I would look at the funding of the country fire authorities. That is, there are times when for many years, some consider that the funding is wasted as there are no bushfires to put out. After even a 10 year lag, there is extensive use of the system and it was well worthwhile.

The same situation exists with Flightwatch. When we have extensive dry weather and droughts there is less need for weather information than when the weather conditions change – which they could do at any time.

I see the Flightwatch system being manned from Brisbane, or even a dual system from Brisbane and Melbourne using the people we have now – but with additional training.

What do you think of this?

By the way, my solicitors have answered Airservices – see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_46.php).

[En-Rooter]

Dick,

I'm glad you can acknowledge you made a mistake with affordable safety. Don't forget most of the ATC's posting here were around when you were at asa. If you didn't coin the phrase you certainly embraced 'affordable safety'

Now it's coming back to bite big time :=

[Dick Smith]

En-Rooter mate don’t make me cry!

How can I acknowledge, that I made a mistake with “affordable safety” when
it is a fact of life and not an error.

Are you suggesting that back in the good old days we had “unaffordable safety”? I can assure you back then it was affordable because the taxpayer was paying 50% of the aviation industries costs. By denying, the fact of “affordable safety” or claiming that a person made a mistake by telling the truth will simply result in resources being misallocated and lives being lost.

En-Rooter, I have made many mistakes in my life but telling the truth about affordable safety is definitely not one of them.

[Dick Smith]

En-Rooter, another point - don't your personal expenses have to be "affordable"? Or do you believe that the aviation industry is so different and so unique that the expenses do not have to be "affordable"?

I would love to get your answers to this one.

By the way, I am sure that the ATCs who were working with me back in the days when I was Chairman of CAA will well remember that even though I wanted all traffic information/separation to be done by ATC, I always supported a separate Flightwatch system. All the documentation clearly shows this, and that is why we have had Flightwatch for 16 years since my AMATS changes.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'day Dick,

It is obviously all 'academic' now......but the reason that Flight Service Officers were NOT ALLOWED to give an interpretation or even 'advice' on weather related matters was that the then Dept / Authority was absolutely **** scared of any LITIGATION which may / may not result from a matter where a clever lawyer MIGHT be able to show that the passing of such info had any bearing in the case of an accident / incident.

It is a matter of record that I was chastised more than once for offering advice to a pilot experiencing problems - e.g. with the U/C 'Gear Down' lights, in an aircraft in which I had extensive experience.....I advised him to check the NAVLIGHTS switch, and lo! When he turned the navlights OFF, the gear light became visible - thus negating the need for aerodrome A.E.P's....

And other cases where a LARGE CB was near one end of the strip, and a pilot was offerred the advice accordingly and the FSO, who also held a CPL, suggested he approach from the OTHER end........and was temporarily suspended for his trouble!

These 'general' instances are but mere examples of the type of thinking that existed / exists??.......

All FSO's were in fact adequately 'trained' - all held a CPL Met exam equivalent and were Accredited Met Observers - e.g. who did you see giving and doing ALL the MET functions in Derby for instance when you visited??
(All those years ago....)

Unfortunately, I am not sure that the current FW Officers are similarly trained.
So, in that respect, you are currently correct.

I did note that in a previous post you were suggesting an 'Advanced FLIGHT WATCH Function' ....to provide a better SERVICE perhaps?

Now there's a thought....why not call it FLIGHT SERVICE??

Regards, and all the very best to you in this venture.
I mean it!! Because The Industry needs it....IMHO......

[JackoSchitt]

Dick,

Why are you not pushing for a roll back of the post 27 Oct 2007 changes to the provision of Flightwatch VHF services as near as possible to what they were?

Barring the small number of frequencies physically transitioned, for the majority of them it is as simple as cancelling the re-direction of calls to ATC FIA frequencies.

The Flightwatch officer that was working pre 27 Oct is still at that same console but with a lot less work to do.

So again, why have you not pushed for roll back?

[Dick Smith]

JackoSchitt, I thought I was pushing for a roll back – at least temporarily until a proper safety study (looking at both the costs and the benefits) was performed.

As you may know, Airservices management has claimed that they can’t possibly roll it back to what it was because they have removed a large percentage of the staff. Whether this is true or not, it is a fact of life that the Airservices management controls this particular issue at the present time.

As I have said before, I have confidence that the external review will uncover the truth and we will be able to get a standalone VHF Flightwatch going again – either the same as before, or possibly even better.

[ROARING RIMAU]

Dick's suggestion of Advanced Flight Watch sounds a bit like.............

A roll-back to OPERATIONAL CONTROL.............which went out in the early 90's.

But OPS was not available for VFR aircraft.

[JackoSchitt]

Dick,

What you think you are doing and what is being done to you are two wildly different things.

Airservices has told you load of bullsh1t as they did at the QLD RAPAC meeting yesterday when they said that flightwatch only gets 50 calls per day and that includes cancellation of Sartimes and Flight Plan amendments.

The staff that are required for the onwards ghosting till the review is complete is the exact same number of staff that have been performing the function for the last few months. One. So why not roll back?

As has been explained to me, outside 8am to 7pm weekdays, the Flightwatch function is ghosted and is fully done by the HF consoles.

The only way to save the One (1) officer per weekday that is doing the ghosting on the stand-alone VHF console……..is to not do the ghosting. So why not roll back?

My contacts tell me that overall, the Ausfic (covering Flightwatch Domestic HF, Flightwatch VHF, International HF, Briefing Office, NOTAM office and Communications Center) is short of staff but because of the nature of the multi-capable people that work there, they are able to manage shortfalls on a day to day and workload permitting basis – with no fat at all.

All the facilities for Ausfic to do the full Flightwatch function are still in place and the staff is there. If need be, then staff from other ausfic areas can plug the gaps.

Staff saving of one (1) officer is meaningless when the ausfic is 8-10 staff short overall and in association with that, the only “saving” of moving the function to ATC was two (2) (II) staff to begin with!

So again, why are you not pushing for the full rollback?

I thought you were smarter than to fall for airservices’s sucker-punch.

[Dick Smith]

ROARING RIMAU, no, it is quite different to operational control. Remember, in operational control, “control” is the definitive word. The air traffic controller could order an aircraft to divert to another airport.

Flightwatch, Flight Service, or whatever you call it is a user friendly information service that is normally provided on request so that the pilot can make a better safety decision.

[Jabawocky]

Another victim perhaps????

What will be happening to VFR Flight following? Nothing I hear you say, its still available on request workload permitting:E.

Just had the pleasure of flying from one side of the country to the other and back, and while I flew VFR and the FTDK did a couple if IFR's to show me how real flying is done:8 we had much time to listen to the radio and joke about asking Flightwatch for weather info etc.......then it hit me, what happens if I want to have Flight Following when in radar coverage.

In the past its always been available except once when I could hear a very stressed and obviously learning student at the console, so I accepted that as it was. But maybe that was as a result of F/W being ditchedon VHF.

So is there going to be a flow on effect. Anybody within ASA care to comment?

J:ok:

[peuce]

It's just a matter of mathematics ....

A Controller has x number of cubits of workload availability ...

If he has to juggle Controlling, DTI, FIS, Hazard Alerts, Flight Following & Flightwach .... he's gunna run outta cubits at some stage ... or he ditches some of the ingredients.

Which is okay, unless one of those ingredients was particularly important to my operation :{

[En-Rooter]

Now Dick,

We both know what I am talking about now, the cutting of ASA services to the bone. I was there mate.

I sat in a meeting with the GM ATC where he was asking us for solutions to our present staffing problems. We've been telling him and his cohorts for 6 or 7 years now! The cuts started with you mate.

What a mess, if you think it is bad now, give it a month or two. :*

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Gee Dick,....

"Flightwatch, Flight Service, or whatever you call it is a user friendly information service that is normally provided on request so that the pilot can make a better SAFETY DECISION".........

Now THAT IS UNFAIR!!!:{:{

THAT really did bring a tear to this 'old eye'........:ugh::ugh:

I can only substitute the word 'WAS'.............BTN 'that' & 'normally'...

Additional to those small instances of which I wrote earlier, I can only add that, in the 'Premier Years' when we (ME and several others) were in the 'Manager's Seat', we did sometimes extend the Service to 'As Required' to cover some REAL emergency situation which required IMMEDIATE assistance...and then had to 'clear it' with the SAR office of the times....LIVE, as it was happening!

Yep! THOSE were the days we felt we had earned our 'bread'.

But, not to worry.......:ok::ok:

[BeGoneTFN]

EnRooter,

Bit of a concern when the GM ATC starts asking the staff for ideas regarding the current resourcing crisis, me thinks we are all in the crapper.

Agreed, the writing has been on the wall for years and these clowns are only just working it out.

Time for wholesale management change before its really to late!

Cheers

BGTFN :(

[Sunfish]

Jacko:

All the facilities for Ausfic to do the full Flightwatch function are still in place and the staff is there. If need be, then staff from other ausfic areas can plug the gaps.

Dick and others, I wouldn't put it past AsA to get out the pliers and screwdrivers this weekend and carefully remove said "facilities' down to the last terminal and office chair and send them to the local tip.

That makes the cuts a "Fait Accompli" on Monday morning and of course it then becomes financially impossible to restore the system doesn't it?

I've seen it deliberately done this way in the IT industry to force the adoption of a new computer system.

[Dick Smith]

Sunfish, the letter from the Airservices solicitors to my solicitor dated 15 November (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_46.php)) stated:

(c) until the review is concluded, continue to monitor those frequencies which have to date been consolidated. This will also involve the retention of all relevant infrastructure. (My underlining).

I believe they would be very game (and very stupid) to remove any of the relevant infrastructure after making this statement. If anything like this happens (and I don’t believe it will) let’s hope someone will post details on PPRuNe and I’ll be in the Federal Court quicker than you can believe.

[En-Rooter]

Be Gooorn,

It's a little bit late for KM to be asking staff how to fix :ugh: Our group which is already short staffed is about to lose ANOTHER controller. Depending on circumstances we will lose another one in Mar/Apr. I haven't heard whether we are getting any replacements. Our roster runs at high FAID levels WITHOUT any additional shifts considered, how are we going to fill the gaps? And if we do what will be the thanks we get for keeping the group running? Fukcall! A big $11 per head for a chrissy party? You beauty!! :D Love ya work KM!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From 'The Grapevine'...or maybe it was the Townsville refueller's sister in law...

From a 'Memo' dated WEF 21 NOV...

- DOTARS will be conducting the external review into the transfer of the 'remainder of the FW freqs (TN, DN, TUD, ARG)'.

- And the result not expected until 'Late January'.

(So, is it good 'economics' or 'common sense' or even 'world's best practice
business plan'....to try and retain just the 'Fab Four' freqs??
Additionally..)

....."the review conducted by AsA and DOTARS to date on the processes and procedures undertaken for the transfer of VHF to ATC has proven the project to be robust and sound.
Feedback at the DN and BN RAPACS over the last week provides no safety or reasonable service concerns.
The AOPA Board has been consulted and expressed the same view.
In other words the delay is not an operational issue but rather a political one."


So there! Its just politics....Will the results of "THIS WEEKEND" make any difference???

And NO FEEDBACK from either the RAPAC or AOPA 'Interested Parties'?:confused: :{

So there you go Dick...all verifyable...4 freqs left to 'argue about' - That's the 'REVIEW'!!!

The rest of the freqs seem to G-O-R-N-E....GONE!:yuk:

Edited due 'new' info........:ok:

[Pinky the pilot]

Mr Speaker; I move that the organisation which had been known as Flight Service be reinstated in its entirety!

Is there a seconder to the motion?

[Moniker]

oh Pinky - if only!

The biggest problem with AsA staff and redundo, if they rejoin the fold within 12 months of taking their first steps outside, they lose the benefits.

Therefore to have the experience levels required, they need to regather some of the old buggers like Griffo, and he ain't leaving the west for no-one.

Me - on the other hand, I'd consider it. It isn't as if you can stick up a notice on seek or career.one or even the local centrelink office and have them walk through the door.

A properly trained FSO had completed subjects to CPL standard, was a trained BOM weather observer, a licenced ground/air communicator and also held a licence to validly provide an information service including DTI to IFR acft Flight Service, or whatever you call it is a user friendly information service that is normally provided on request(oh Dick, that bit was without having to request it! Oh, and then there was the weather that was usually provided to acft operating in an area that went from you beaut to uh oh - and, hang on - that was also done quite a lot of the time without requesting it, because of what did they call it again, flight following and a flight SERVICE)

[EZY AIR]

Go Hard DICK.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey 'Mon'........

I'll bring the coffee,....you bring the biccies.......

ONE TO GO ! ! ! ...........:D

p.s. I C O U L D be bribed to come.....You KNOW that!...:}

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'day 'Pink'....

Pls check yr pm's....:ok:

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Depending on the conditions/pay etc, I'd consider going back in myself. Although I've not been one longer than I was one, I reckon the bug is something you never lose.

[peuce]

Pinky,

They used to say that when the world is destroyed ... "the only things left will be cockraoches and FSOs .."

If someone, with the appropriate smarts and resources put forward a proposal for a FS organisation ... you'd be surprised who'd put their hands up to help start it up.

As the other guys said ... " ... you can't ever get rid of the FSO bug (sic)":{

I daresay even some of the folks who went on to be Controllers, still have a soft spot for the "Service":hmm:

And I still think there's some potential opportunity to somehow develop the new Unicom into something more.:confused:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... never was one (BK and CN don't count) :E
.
... enjoyed the Flight Service System as a pilot .... :D
.
... CTA (ATC) and OCTA (FS) .... the way it should be!!
.
Pinky, I second the motion!!! :ok:

[Jamitupyr]

Well, Dick,

I see that Labor's aviation policy is to remove the "inappropriate parts of NAS" and not let policy be driven by "powerful individual". This will make your Flightwatch Review all that more problematic, such is a pity. Flightwatch, already dead, would find it hard to do a Lasarus act without oxygen provided by yourself.

Flight Service long dead.

Flightwatch recently dead.

Any service to GA, just about completely dead already.

Good luck with Marn Ferson, but I suspect you've burnt too many bridges.

Jamit.

[Pinky the pilot]

The motion proposed by the honourable Pprune member is that the organisation which had been known as Flight Service be reinstated in its entirety.

Those of that opinion say aye,:ok: to the contrary no.:mad:

I think the ..............:hmm:

[Flying Binghi]

Aye
Aye
Aye
- are there any restrictions on how often I can vote.

The way its going with ATC in general, I can see one dark and stormy night when I radio for help there will be this recorded voice answer me saying... please hold....

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Here's a scenario .

VFR aeroplane with 1 VHF does a diversion, wants to know latest METAR for destination or wants to amend sartime; used to contact flightwatch never had trouble getting through.

Now has to try and raise Mel Centre...no response. Too busy, or just can't hear us. Try climbing higher, cloud allowing, for better reception. Still no response. In any case he or she is flat out with IFR stuff. Thank god I'm not trying to make a mayday call.

In last five attempts at this have only been able to raise Mel Centre once.


Later asked the nice man who I cancelled SARTIME (on the phone now :ugh:) how to solve above problems. Suggestions were:

1. Use HF - nah, don't have one.
2. Use NAIPS - erm, I'm in the sky at the moment
3. Call the 1800 number - see above.
4. Contact airservices and raise your concerns.

So now if a VFR has to divert, due wx and can't get back to base or get phone reception or is in a paddock somewhere...too bad. So there's a great safety outcome.

Also, flight plans lodged through NAIPS keep disappearing and not getting to the controller who needs to know. The SARTIME has vanished as well. :ugh:

[peuce]

A quick quiz ....

(a)When the WX turns to ****e, who is in greater need of assistance?

Steel tube with IFR crew/FMS/WX Radar/Direct link to base?
Bugsmasher ... low on fuel/unsure of position/cloud closing in around him/desperate for some ideas?


(b)Who will get priority in this situation?

Steel tube requesting diversion?
Steel tubes holding and sequencing into Sydney?
Bugsmasher ... too timid to interupt "important business going on"?


(c) Is this the way that we want Australian Aviation to head?

Yes
No

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

A quick quiz a) - 2. This is an IFER situation and the bugsmasher would take priority. The controller would only pause to stare into space and ask, "Why did this f^%$ng idiot wait until now to open his f^%$#g mouth, instead of thoroughly terminating himself first, gasp, grumble..."

b) priority 2, then 1 (unless advises a requirement to divert) and no service to 3 until he works up the nerve to TX. Then 3, 2, 1.

c) 1. Use it or lose it I say. If you show an optimist a half a glass of water he will say it is half-full. A pessimist will say it is half-empty. A manager of a Government Business Enterprise will spend 5 times the original cost of the glass on consultants who will report a 50% excess in glass capacity. New glasses of smaller size and revolutionary design will be ordered, earning a fat bonus for the manager. Two years later the new glasses are found to be water soluble, releasing poison gas as they melt. The manager doesn't even hear about it as he now works for Telstra.

The point of that rant is you can't expect ASA to pay people to hunch over radios all day doing nothing, the box-heads in charge really think they are running a business and are eagerly eying ways of trimming costs and generating bonuses for themselves. If pilots don't use the service it is taken away.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey 'Fokker'.....

""c) 1. Use it or lose it I say. If you show an optimist a half a glass of water he will say it is half-full. A pessimist will say it is half-empty. A manager of a Government Business Enterprise will spend 5 times the original cost of the glass on consultants who will report a 50% excess in glass capacity. New glasses of smaller size and revolutionary design will be ordered, earning a fat bonus for the manager. Two years later the new glasses are found to be water soluble, releasing poison gas as they melt. The manager doesn't even hear about it as he now works for Telstra.""

How TRUE!!!

And, the FIRST part of your Tx would be.......

"Pan" ....followed by ....VISA Card Number 5432 1234 9876 ....the acft C/S!:}


Cheers:(

[JackoSchitt]

Dear Dick Smith,

Any comment as to why you have not pushed for the revision to the pre-27 Oct flightwatch service pending the outcome of the review?

The service is now in no mans land - neither all done by ATC or all done by Ausfic. What a fantastic outcome! :rolleyes:

Fer C sake, don't let the system wallow about while you play around waiting for a review that will never do anything but vindicate AA's position.

[Dick Smith]

Jacko, the reason I have not pushed for the reversion to the pre-27 October Flightwatch service is that I have been told by people at Airservices (and also by posters on this thread) that the staff are no longer there to man an independent VHF Flightwatch system. I know there have been some people claiming that this is not true, however I can only accept this with evidence on such an issue – and I do not have this.

I think you are being facetious when you say:

What a fantastic outcome! I don’t believe it is a fantastic outcome; it was just the best outcome under the circumstances – i.e. an external review of Flightwatch.

I understand that all but one of the separate VHF transmitters are still in place, and the communication lines (or sat links) are still in place – so it is possible to get the separate VHF Flightwatch system going again if that is what the external review recommends.

At least we will have a chance to get involved in this and be properly consulted. No doubt everyone will lobby the new Minister with their particular view. This is healthy.

I am personally confident in retaining a separate VHF Flightwatch system. I realise there are others with a completely different view, and I realise there will be major pressure from the management of Airservices to continue with its abolishment.

I agree that generally the Airservices management has won in the past. However there is always a first time for people in the industry to get together and prevent this from happening when it is against the interest of aviation in our country.

I suggest that everyone who has a strong belief on the retention of an independent VHF Flightwatch should immediately drop a line to the new Minister – when we know who it is. Hopefully this will have influence.

[Dick Smith]

I received the following email from a commercial pilot last night. It brings up some important points. What do others think?

Dear Dick,

This afternoon I was monitoring the Flightwatch frequency 134.85Mhz when I heard what turned into a distress situation due to the weather. The pilot of VH-XMV a PA-28 was not sure of her position north of Mudgee, with thunder storms to the S/E of her and a ceiling estimated by her of 3000 to 3500'. The Flightwatch operator asked her to call a number of Centre frequencies for radar ident, but no contact could be established. After being advised by Flightwatch that a rescue helicopter had been dispatched to her general position, she decided to make a precautionary out-field landing and was advised to monitor the Flightwatch frequency and activate the aircraft's ELT manually after the landing. I don't know the final outcome
to this situation, I hope it was a happy one?

This incident is proof positive that Flightwatch is absolutely necessary as this pilot had only one effective avenue to call for help at low level. As far as I'm concerned Flightwatch is still a service and not a business!!!

Kind regards

[JackoSchitt]

Dick said:

the staff are no longer there to man an independent VHF Flightwatch system.

I reply:

Dick,

Considering only the daylight hours (as the HF people do all the function overnight)

Prior to 27 Oct, flightwatch VHF was done by One (1) officer on a single console.

Post 27 Oct, Flightwatch is ghosted by that same One (1) Officer on exactly that same console using exactly the same facilities as pre-27 Oct.

Very simple to cancel the relevant AIP SUPs and go back to pre 27 Oct.

Surely a mere phone call to flightwatch would confirm this?


We disagree, the best outcome is to roll back then conduct a full review using persons external to the entire process.



If there was a was a distress phase, there will be an incident report submitted.

[Dick Smith]

Jacko, we are in violent agreement – even though you don’t seem to understand this. You state:

We disagree, the best outcome is to roll back then conduct a full review using persons external to the entire process. I agree totally – that is the best outcome. However at the present time we can’t obtain that outcome because the Airservices management refuses to roll back.

You seem to believe I have powers which I do not have. I’m sure you would agree that any reasonable person making decisions at Airservices would have kept the independent Flightwatch going (especially if it only requires such a low number of staff) and then do the external review – but this is not going to happen.

“Saving face” is not just an Asian expression. It is common in all of us.

I would imagine that there will be an incredible fight by the Airservices management to continue with their decision to abolish the separate VHF Flightwatch service. This will be primarily because they don’t want anyone else – let alone myself, other people in the industry, or (dare I say it) their air traffic controllers – pressuring them into changing their course of action.

I agree with you. It would be better to wind back and keep the independent VHF Flightwatch going whilst the external review takes place. How do you believe I can achieve this if you can’t?

[Dick Smith]

Here is a bit more information that was sent to me regarding the XMV incident in relation to Flightwatch. The 134.85 frequency is on Mt Canobolas. We are indeed fortunate that my solicitor’s letter (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_46.php)) was instrumental in preventing this frequency from in effect being turned off on 22 November.

At 200711260552 VH-XMV advised Flightwatch Domestic on 134.85 unsure of position and request assistance, Uncertainty Phase declared and attempts made to transfer XMV to Centre Frequencies for IFER assistance.

XMV was unable to communicate with Centre and remained on Flightwatch
134.85 for IFER assistance.

Attempts made by Aussar, Brisbane Centre and Melbourne Centre to fix position of XMV based on information provided by pilot unsuccessful other than a general fix in the Mudgee area.

Due deteriorating weather XMV was prevented from climbing to gain radar based assistance.

Weather and options available to XMV continued to deteriorate until Aussar recommended that XMV force land at a suitable position if one could be found.

Rescue helicopter enroute from Sydney now 75nm or 30 minutes from the area XMV thought to be in and XMV to maintain listening watch on
134.85 as the helicopter would call XMV when closer.

At 0650 XMV advised 'have to land'. Nil further heard despite calls by Eastern 2047 to XMV until at 0718 Aussar advised XMV had made successful forced landing in a paddock at Elong Elong (3207S 14901E 23NM NE Dubbo).

Pilot unhurt and being assisted by nearby station owners while Aussar organized further assistance

[Former AusFICer]

Dick,

You point out the "loss of face" and resistance by Airservices Management to overturn their current position. Well, take legal action that makes them comply with an "umpire's direction" to roll back til pre 27 Oct. It is obvious that Airservices do not have the moral maturity to do the right thing on their own in the face of all this opposition.

If you get a judgement in your favor, it lets Airservices off the hook, albeit it will make them look even more stupid.

AusFICer

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Well Dick,

For once, you have asked 'What do OTHERS think?'

The 'Affordable Safety' syndrome was / is still, an absolute 'CROCK'!

As your Commercial Pilot e-mailer stated,
"As far as I'm concerned FW is still a SERVICE and not a BUSINESS!!!"
(My SHOUTING....)

FLIGHT SERVICE ALWAYS WAS ABOUT 'THE SERVICE' and NOT about the 'business'!

FS was always the last frequency a pilot descending OCTA, H E A R D!

Imagine, a Regional turbo, experiencing an engine failure and descending to his 'stable' level from FL 240 (or whatever..),
"Contact FS passing FL200....."
Then, it became a FS problem. So, FS got pretty 'smart' at handling these 'sudden' emergency sits.
(ALL still had to be referred to the SAR Centre, of course, but when we did, it was often pretty much under control of a good course of action, developed by FS..)

We ALL pay our taxes, and we are ALL entitled to the BEST emergency services available....Are we not???

Even under the Guise of a 'Community Service Order' if needs be, I reckon.
But...NO! IT WAS NOT SEEN AS an AFFORDABLE SAFETY!!!

So, all of that expertise built up over many years, just HAD TO GO!!

Now, in answer to your question..."What do others think?"

I think you have a moral obligation to try to 'undo' much of what you have done. NOT everything can be a 'cost recovery' service.

Thank whichever God you may believe in, that SAR is not cost recovery....yet???

How about the service which may actually prevent the SAR, by providing all possible assistance before the situation becomes a SAR??

Search And Rescue, by definition implies that the 'bad' event has already occurred.

What about the prevention of same PRIOR TO?

NOPE!! ITS G O R N E....GONE!!!

I believe it is time that ALL AsA was thoroughly 'reviewed' to the point of providing a 'Community Service' funded 'In Flight Service' of S O M E kind to provide such 'assistance' service so that the more costly outcome - often in terms of human life / aircraft / property / litigation / etc etc - is negated.

And, this SERVICE to be READILY available to MOST of the flying population.....
Around the infamous "J" curve is a good place to start, then progress to places like WA - not even the 'full stop' of the "J" curve, but where we do have LOTS of aviation activity .........

It will all be 'political'...we all know that!

Any 'contacts' in the 'new broom'?????......

Well, that's MY opinion anyhow.

Cheers to all:ok::ok:

[Dick Smith]

Former AusFICer, you want me to take legal action, however I know what Airservices would do. They would throw a dozen of the top QCs (and an absolute fortune of the industry’s money) at it. The Judge would be so bamboozled by the “facts” brought forward by Airservices – on how safety would undoubtedly be reduced if they were forced to roll back – that the Judge would most likely not support the action I have taken.

If Airservices had refused to do what I asked for in my solicitor’s letter, I would most certainly have been in Court. I believe that despite the money they would have thrown at the case, I had a good chance of a win. Most reasonable people would say that any major change such as this should have been properly consulted – as per the law – and a proper safety case completed.

At the present time Airservices has stated that they will cooperate with an external review to look at these points. That is why it would be difficult for me to get a court to support a roll back.

Perhaps Creampuff would like to comment, and may like to volunteer his services free. In that case, I will certainly go ahead!

[Dick Smith]

Ex FSO GRIFFO, the change of the directed traffic service from Flight Service to ATC was about maximising the use of our $350 million radar system.

Yes, you are remembering the positives about Flight Service – which I agree with. However, what about the negatives? When flying in a good radar environment in the J curve below 12,500 feet in the enroute airspace, the pilot was forced to monitor and talk to a Flight Service Operator who did not have a radar screen.

Are you really suggesting that we should hand this airspace back to Flight Service who operated without radar? I hope not.

The original AMATS plans made it clear (in writing and in the video) that whilst the directed traffic service would be changed to air traffic control – so the maximum use could be made of radar – there would still be a complete Flight Service VHF system across Australia. This was called Flightwatch, and would replicate the Flight Service system in North America.

In North America the Flight Service system (which duplicates ATC) does not provide a directed traffic service. It provides a service similar to our Flightwatch.

I cannot believe that many pilots would want to go back to a system where they are flying in uncontrolled airspace in close proximity to a major capital city, but the person that they are mandated to talk to sits in a separate room with a microphone and some flight strips, but no radar screen. This was incredible madness.

You discredit your argument by constantly misquoting “affordable safety.” Affordable safety is a truism. It had nothing to do with me. Fortunately there are lots of young people coming along who understand that. Possibly it is their schooling.

In the old days, Flight Service and ATC were 50% funded by the general taxpayer. I’ll say it again – I had nothing to do with the change. I simply said that if the industry was going to pay the whole whammy, that the costs would have to be affordable by the industry, otherwise it would not exist.

How about a bit of balance on this thread? Does anyone believe that handing the radar covered airspace to air traffic controllers has had a safety advantage? I certainly do.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Hey Dick while I very much applaud what you're presently attempting to achieve a few points if I may.

n the old days, Flight Service and ATC were 50% funded by the general taxpayer

What % of people (not just pilots-people) airborne on any given day were/are taxpayers?

My memory of an AOPA article in the days leading up to 'user pays' is that revenue collected from the industry via air nav charges, fuel tax etc more than covered all the cost of the infrastructure but it all dissappeared into consolidated revenue. The rest was just spin to achieve a political end which was user pays.

[Dick Smith]

Chimbu chuckles, the report into cost recovery written by Henry Bosch – which was done well before my time – purported to show that after all the adjustments were made, the air nav and other charges covered about 50% of the cost of the Department’s aviation activities. I believe this is reasonably accurate.

This meant that when we moved to full cost recovery plus a profit to the Government for air traffic control services, the industry costs more than doubled.

When the Government forced the industry to pay its own way, I was the President of AOPA and introduced the slogan “Pay our own way and have our own say.” (If I remember correctly). That meant that we should be able to say what we wanted to pay for - i.e. what was necessary for GA.

Of course that completely failed as the Government forced GA to pay for services that were there for airline passengers alone. For example, at the moment the control tower at Hamilton Island (which is required by Qantas) has very substantial funding coming from the GA operators at Hamilton Island.

[Chimbu chuckles]

And my feelings about Govt depts being corporatised and privatisation of natural monopoly infrastructure have been made very well known in this place.:ugh::yuk::mad::mad:

As I said...what % of people airborne on any given day are taxpayers?

The big problem with 'user pays' is the 'user' is very narrowly and incorrectly identified for reasons of political expediency...ie the Govt wanting to charge more for less.

[Dick Smith]

Chimbu chuckles, hopefully just about every person airborne on a given day is also a taxpayer. That is not the problem. The problem is the taxpayers who can’t afford to fly. There are many working people who pay their taxes but don’t travel much by air – let alone own a private aircraft.

Under the old system, a percentage of the tax of these people was going towards those who fly. I agree that this happens with many things, but Governments around the world (especially those with a social conscience) try to move towards a system where those benefiting from a particular system pay for it.

Whether it is right or wrong is a different issue. The fact is that we now live with it. It all seems to be part of globalisation.

If I remember rightly, the first I knew of the CAA being a user pays system and having to make a profit from air traffic control for the Government was when I was invited to join the CAA Board by Gareth Evans. This was in about May of 1988. If I remember correctly, at my first Board meeting I noted that the CAA legislation had words to the effect that “the CAA must give primacy to safety.” At that Board meeting I said if that was the case we wouldn’t be able to give a profit to the Government, because clearly that profit could be used to further improve safety. I was laughed at by the other Board members and I have been laughed at ever since.

This “primacy to safety” myth has been carried over into the Airservices Australia Act. It is a is a total con because everyone running Airservices knows that the $50 million they pay as a profit to the Government each year could easily be spent to improve safety.

It is sort of system that the Canberra bureaucracy relies on – i.e. living a lie, and everyone accepting that lie.

Every time it was mentioned on the CAA Board (and it was mentioned often) that we must give primacy to safety, I always said, “Well, we don’t do that, do we?” Everyone laughed and we moved on to the next item.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I rest my case:ugh::(

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thanks for the response Dick,

I thoroughly agree with you on a couple of points -

- Maximising the use of our $350M Radar System....Imagine the FULL MAXIMUM use that could have been made if.....the lowly FSO had access to it at the lower levels where it was sorely needed - as you are well aware.

- Am I suggesting 'we hand it back to FS to operate without Radar?'

NO! What I am suggesting is a 'common sense' approach making full use of all available resources - thats staff and equipment - to provide the best possible outcome, for ALL areas where it can be utilised.

Radar Coverage.... in WA....Ah Yes!

Depending on altitude, it could be anywhere from 60nm to the east of Perth for the bugsmashers, to 200nm YPPH for the Jet set.

Darwin, probably ditto.

Between YPPH & DN ? NUTHIN'. WA is a RADAR Vacuum. We do have a couple of elevated sites from where it could be effectively utilised.

- 'There would be a complete VHF FW system across OZ'....
Maybe that is the reason we were left with just 3 VHF's to cover ALL of WA!
- Kalamunda
- Pt Hedland
- Argyle
And, those, only because they were surplus to ATC reqs.

You asked for other opinions.

Mine is to utilise ALL available resources - both staff and facilities - to achieve the best possible outcome.

I'm not really interested in the 'nitpicking' - I remember well your 'Docco'
"Search, But No Rescue".
Well, what has changed?
EVERYTHING - we have gone backwards.

'They' failed to use common sense and all available resources then.
And, it is happening again now...

Regards to all

[peuce]

I don't get Child Care Allowance
I don't get the dole
I don't get a War Veteran's pension
I don't get public housing
I don't get a Wheat subsidy
I don't get a Training Allowance or Coupons
I don't get an Indigenous Housing Allowance
I don't get Drought assistance
I don't get Youth Allowance
I don't participate in the Adult Migrant English program
etc etc etcetera


But I do get to pay for them :confused:

[Dick Smith]

It is interesting that Airservices has put out an AIP Supplement H86/07 (see here (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/sup/s7-h86.pdf)) which says that final transition of Flightwatch to ATC frequencies “has been delayed”. Note that no explanation is given.

[crisper]

Dick,
Firstly, I am also with you 100% on this one.

Just a couple of issues re- the demise of flight service. If I recall - it was a long time ago - this all started with the Australian democrats who had the power in the senate at the time, refusing to allow the cross-subsidisation between the airports and ATC/FS. When the Federal Airports corp was formed, the main income stream for the C.A.A was lost and they were forced to generate there own revenue to run both ATC and Flight Service. Now we all know that no one likes to pay for a "safety service", as most would prefer to take the risk and save themselves the expense - until they needed it of course and then it is too late ! History now tells us that the the F.A.C became a very profitable organization and as such, was promptly sold off for a massive profit by money hungry governments with little foresight on the implications all this would have. Now we have no flight service, a bare bones ATC and an organization called Airservices who continually cut services to GA and Air Traffic Services to in an attempt to hide their own mis-management.

If fact, Airservices seem to think they are unanswerable to anyone as recent events with Flightwatch and the Unicom proposal show - no consultation with the "users" , there own "in house surveys" and even the failure to advise the regulator CASA of their intentions as in the case of the Unicom proposal. This seems to be an organization out of control, with little regard for safety and a lot of regard for profits. Add to that the regulator CASA , who have watched all this happen with little intervention, and we have the mess that the system is in now. I hope that your action can prompt a full independant review of the provision of Air Traffic "Safety" Services in Australia as this is long overdue in my opinion.

And lastly, with reference to radar services and flight service, I agree on providing a better service where there is radar coverage - but just remember, Flight service provided traffic information where there was NO radar coverage and this is still the case in most of Australia's regional areas and aerodromes and probably always will be - There is no traffic/weather services in these areas now, except for the CAGRO services at Broome and Ayers Rock, yet more and more of these airports now have B737/FK100/E170 etc. large capacity passenger jet services and it is increasing all the time. When Flight service was disbanded these services were lost and never replaced and now it has come back to bite us bigtime .

I hope that your efforts start to bring some commonsense back in the industry to put safety before profit.

[Jabawocky]

Dick

Sorry to thread drift here.....The woman in XMV (in the future) could easily have ADSB low level coverage if that is done properly too.

How about we get ASA to get that fully implimented while we are at it!

J

[ICAO-Delta]

With you on that one Jaba. :ok:

As a taxpayer, I too want my tax revenue used efffectively and efficiently. I understand that such revenue must provide relief in many areas. But I do not want a return to the Flight OverService days of the past.

Bugsmasher users (and the like) must bear a higher burdon of the infrastructure that they expect will be there for them (ie they must accept the need for ADSB equipment). If they are not prepared to pay for a service (as appears to be the case) then they should not moan and groan when that service is reduced or removed. Thankfully, bugsmashers are much more reliable than in the past - not so sure about the people who now fly them who I liken much more to an average motorist who expects everything to work for them. Adequate preflight preparation is much less prevalent amongst todays pilots than those from the days of yore.

ID

[Creampuff]

Dick said:Perhaps Creampuff would like to comment, and may like to volunteer his services free. In that case, I will certainly go ahead!To take the last issue first: I doubt whether a wheelchair-bound, acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA could match it with real lawyers.

On the substance of the issue, I’m afraid that if the incoming Minister/Government is not inclined to intervene, AA will, as a matter of practicality, get away with almost any reduction in service to GA it is inclined or talented enough to think of.

Much criticism is leveled against Dick for his advocacy of ‘affordable safety’. Both Dick and his critics are correct in my view, without quite understanding where their respective opinions diverge.

At the heart of the disagreement about ‘affordable safety’, which is indeed a fact of life, is:
-the price put on a life and
-the timing of the cost paid for the loss of a life.

That’s where the profound shift has occurred in the last couple of decades.

It used to be the case that society was prepared to spend substantial amounts of money, year after year, to reduce the risk of loss of life in all sorts of activities. Flight Service was one of those risk reduction institutions.

But how to measure the ‘value’ of the reduction in risk? Answer: impossible.

It’s:

1. not possible, first, to quantify the number of lives saved (how do you ‘prove’ that Pilot Bloggs’ aircraft wouldn’t have ‘crashed’, or that he and his injured pax would have been saved, if he’d just had the benefit of Flight Service info and timely ‘guidance’ when things got tense?) and

2. not possible, secondly, to ‘prove’ the expenditure was ‘worth’ the lives saved (how do you ‘value’ the life of, for example, an innocent child whose life is saved as a consequence of timely assistance from Flight Service?)

In the short term, the service is taken away and someone says: “Nothing’s changed, therefore the service wasn’t worth its cost.”

There’s no balance sheet line item for the potential value of lives saved today or in the future, and even if there were, governments (plural) aren’t inclined to fund the preservation of lives unless an election outcome might turn on the issue.

That’s a recipe for the ‘short-termism’ that pervades infrastructure planning in the quaint third world polity that is Australia.

[concernaviat]

Do you think the change of government will affect the potential rollback?

Any bets on how long until the new Labor Minister for Aviation removes AirServices Australia chairman and staunch National Party supporter, Mr Nick Burton Taylor? Is he the one who had been driving these changes???

[Flying Binghi]

concernaviat,

N. B. Taylor's airservices contract expires in a few months... Do you think He really cares..

[peuce]

In reality, what is likely to change Airservices' position on Flightwatch?


Public opinion? No, any bad publicity will soon fade away
VFR pilots complaining? No, they get what they pay for ... zilch
GA IFR pilots complaining that they won't get their money's worth? No, "we're still providing the service aren't we?"
Flightwatch Review finds safety deficiencies? Not likely ... ASA will have all their bamboozling data and reports ready to go
Government directive for ASA to keep $X million of their surplus to fund GA/Regional services? To me, the only possibility. But what would be required to convince the Government to make such a directive ???

[Gunnadothat]

Dick Smith : "You discredit your argument by constantly misquoting “affordable safety.” Affordable safety is a truism. It had nothing to do with me. Fortunately there are lots of young people coming along who understand that. Possibly it is their schooling."

<buzzer sounds> Wrong! The first mention of the words "affordable safety" may have come from Ratner in 1986, but unfortunately history may harder to rewrite than that - maybe it's a Government conspiracy :=

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/chron/2000-01/01chr02.htm
"Aviator and entrepreneur Mr Dick Smith appointed Chair of the CAA under an 'affordable safety' policy crusade. He recruited Mr Frank Baldwin from the New Zealand Aviation Authority to restructure the organisation on a district basis, and reduced staff from 7300 down to 3500 over five years. The CAA Chief Executive Mr Colin Freeland and deputy Mr Alan Rainbird both resigned soon after Mr Dick Smith arrived."
Australian, 16 May 1990;
Sydney Morning Herald, 11 June 1990.

Maybe the young people coming along just havent had the benefit of hindsight that some of us greying fourty-somethings have....they were probably blissfully ignorant of the *crusade* when they were in primary or high school at the time :}

Don't get me wrong Dick, I had then and have now no problem with your comments on the nonsense of having a FS non-radar service where radar coverage existed, and I told you that in 1990 on the phone (when I could actually get a word in edgeways during the course of the one sided conversation :E). Your comment in return (and I remember it vividly) was actually nothing to do with safety - It was that you only wanted to deal with one union, not two, and that two was going to cost too much. Fair enough also... nothing wrong there in wanting flexibility. <tongue firmly in cheek>

But in bugsmasher territory in WA, where 90+% is non-radar, did it really make any sense to remove services to low-level areas, and where these days, 100+ seat jet aircraft are operating into remote mining strips (not PA31s or C441s anymore) with little or no alerting of traffic in the area?

On the flights where I am SLF to the mine, there is at least one more set of eyeballs scanning the sky...I've learnt not to trust the system.:ooh::eek:


ps Griffo - good to see you're still around...:cool:

[bluerider777]

ATC is continuing with providing Flightwatch and has been asked to "log" any times when they are unable to provide this service. Of course, mostly when you are too busy to provide a Flightwatch service, you are too busy to log it!:hmm: This allows AsA to provide "evidence" that ATC is able to provide the service without affecting customers - brilliant.

Difficult to prove that extreme weather conditions preclude the provision when none actually occur...

Blue

[Sunfish]

Creampuff, you asked about quantifying "the value of a life". Risk management calculations do this all the time.

Not sure what the "going rate" is today, but around 1976 it used to be about $4,000,000. Now multiply that by the probability of an occurance (ie once every X years) and do a discounted cash flow calculation at the prime rate and you have the annual "cost" of the accident.

What you then can say is that if you can spend (invest) less than that annual figure each year to prevent the occurance of the accident (or lower its probability from X to Y) then you make the investment.

These calculations are made every day by risk management people for all sorts of companies who want to mitigate their risks, however as with the Unicom and radioless flight fiasco, I've not seen any evidence that AsA makes use of such calculations.

To put it another way, its quite probable that the cost of, say, a lost and lonely bug smasher straying into controlled airspace and hitting an airliner will outweigh the entire profits and costs of AsA for a hundred years.

Of course, if there is good Government (and corporate Governance), AsA would be held to a strict long term risk management set of accountabilities that incorporate the long term net effect on the economy of their activities. But of course the temptation is to ignore risk management as its someone else who wears the cost of the accident, concentrate on the short term to maximise one's bonus and hope like hell nothing happens before you retire and take your super.

The insurance industry does something similar to risk management to calculate premiums but use a "worst case" model. I'm advised that the premiums for a B747 for example are set on the basis of the probability of a mid air collision over central London or Manhattan between two fully loaded aircraft..

[Creampuff]

Thanks Sunny.

How do we estimate the number of uninsured or underinsured deaths/injuries/hull losses/dings that would have occurred, but for flight service?

If we can do that, we can then multiply it by (e.g) $4,000,000 or whatever the going rate is for a death, and the same for the estimated number of injuries/hull losses/dings, to work out whether flight service is ‘worth’ what it costs.

Presumably that's what AA should be doing.

[Dick Smith]

Jabawocky, the Airservices proposal for ADS-B relies on line of sight UHF coverage. If the lady in question could not get through to air traffic control on VHF, it is very likely that she would not be within ADS-B coverage.

The problem is that once you have hills and mountains, a system that relies on a direct line of sight radio link to a ground based transmitter often has limited coverage at low levels – probably the very place you would need protection.

Also, ADS-B for GA aircraft sounds to me to be a very expensive way of providing a service to protect pilots from an incident as described with XMV. I think we should concentrate on getting the maximum level of VHF radio coverage – by both ATC and Flightwatch – before we spend extra hundreds of millions of dollars in providing a duplicated service with ADS-B.

Remember, when the FAA goes to ADS-B in 2020, it is keeping the full secondary surveillance radar coverage above FL180 across the entire continent. If Airservices does the same thing (even just to cover the J-curve above FL180), the funding for the low level ADS-B will not be available.

[peuce]

A few comments:

Bluerider777 said: "...Of course, mostly when you are too busy to provide a Flightwatch service, you are too busy to log it! ..."

Of course, also when ATC is busy is usually when the bugsmasher is too timid to ask for flight information ... for fear of interupting the important stuff

In the VH-XMV incident ( which is very similar to my scenario in a prevoius post), I wonder what would have been the outcome if she did get on to ATC frequency. I know she would have been given priority ... but what would have been the affect on the ATC's traffic situation? Could it have led to some unanticipated holding? Or, delay in descent, climb or diversion clearances for the big boys?

BTW, in the USA, the Flight Service Officers have VHF direction finding equipment. So they can, normally, very easily and efficiently provide a position to lost pilots.

[Dick Smith]

Gunnadothat, you anonymously quote a so-called conversation with me and you are not even prepared to put your own name to your comment.

To other readers, the quote is wrong and completely the opposite to my view. As a Chairman I would have far preferred to deal with two unions – for obvious reasons. If one goes on strike you can quite often use people from the other union to provide a service.

By asking advice – not only in Australia but around the world – it was obvious that the sensible thing to do was to have one skill set operating the air traffic control system in relation to traffic and separation. It was pretty obvious that it would be difficult to licence FSOs to provide a separation service, whereas ATCs were already providing traffic information.

It is plain commonsense to follow the rest of the world and have one skill set (i.e. ATCs) providing all of the separation and traffic information services.

The comment about wanting to deal with one union is completely wrong – it is the exact opposite to what I believed.

Of course it is very easy for someone to anonymously make claims.

In relation to the Sydney Morning Herald article, when have you ever found that journalists get it right? As stated before, there was never an “‘affordable safety’ policy crusade.” Yes, that is how it was interpreted by many journalists as they could not understand that the money spent on safety for aviation was always governed by affordability. They tended to believe it was something new – which of course it wasn’t.

The staff figures are about right. That is, 7,300 down to 3,500, with a constant improvement in safety since then. Can you imagine what would have happened to our industry if the numbers had not been reduced? I can assure you that I would have been able to continue to keep flying, but even more GA businesses would have closed.

[Jabawocky]

Dick,
agreed that she could not get ATC on VHF, but that could be due to a lack of VHF repeaters and with the proposed ADSB low level proposal I suspect that the region she was in would have adequate cover.

So how did she contact Flightwatch......not that many bugsmashers have HF?

I do believe still to this day that taking the money from the old worn out enroute radars and putting it into more VHF coverage and ADSB would give everyone the service levels we would like for not any more expense than we have today.

J

[JackoSchitt]

Dick et al,

A question relating to a small point that seems lost:

IF VH-XMV called Flightwatch VHF 134.85 at 2300UTC, what response would she have got?


The answer:

NOTAM YMMM C5358/07

ON-REQUEST FLIGHT INFORMATION (FIS), SARTIME AND EMERGENCY ALERTING SERVICES NORMALLY PROVIDED BY FLIGHTWATCH ON DISCRETE VHF FREQUENCIES NOT AVBL DUE TO STAFF SHORTAGE.
(edit)

ON-REQUEST FLIGHT INFORMATION (FIS), SARTIME AND EMERG ALERTING SERVICES AVAILABLE ON FIA FREQUENCIES OR HF (REFER ERSA FAC-B BRISBANE ACC/FIC AND FAC-M MELBOURNE ACC/FIC).
FROM 11 230013 TO 11 300100 EST
MON TO FRI 2200-0100


In other words: Bugga all!!!!!!!!


Yes, that’s right. For all the rhetoric that services will continue pending “the review”, between 2200 and 0100 UTC every weekday, Flightwatch VHF frequencies are turned off at the tap. No one listens out, no one “ghosts”, no one responds to in-flight emergencies.

Want proof of that Dick? A call for service during that time would do the trick.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Gee 'Jacko',

The S I L E N C E is deafening................:}

Regards...:ok:

[Dick Smith]

I have just been in Hawaii with the owners of Avalon Airport looking at the Airservices operation of Lihue Tower – very impressive. I will put another post on about this shortly.

Whilst in Honolulu I visited the Automated Flight Service Station. It was staffed by seven personnel at the time of my visit. I was told that at night time, between 10pm and 5am, just one member of staff operates about 30 VHF Flight Service/Flightwatch outlets, plus accepting flight plans, briefing etc by telephone.

It is interesting that the whole US Flight Service System has been contracted out to Lockheed Martin (see here (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/a76_process.html)).

It is important to note that the US system provides briefings by officers who are trained to actually interpret the weather information. You may like to phone this number: 0011 1800 992 27433. Say the word, “Hawaii”, and if the US system understands your Aussie accent you will be put through to the Automated Flight Service Station.

It appears that the Lockheed Martin contract is for about $190 million per year. That would equate with our 5% of traffic to about $10 million in Australia. It would be interesting to see what we spend on our Flightwatch/Flight Service VHF outlets and briefing services.

The US is now going to 18 Automated Flight Service Stations, which is the equivalent of about one in Australia – population/traffic wise – and that is what we have now.

The consoles are set up so a briefing officer can not only accept a flight plan and give weather information by telephone, but can also operate the VHF Flightwatch outlet. Is that what we do here?

In talking to the manager in charge, he said there is certainly no plan by the FAA to remove the separate VHF Flight Service/Flightwatch system. The contract has been given to Lockheed Martin for 10 years.

By the way, I’m not suggesting in Australia that we should look at contracting out the Flightwatch. I think that would be crazy. I believe the best way to do it is to keep it within Airservices as a necessary overhead for providing a safe air traffic control system.

Do others agree?

[JackoSchitt]

Dick, Dick, Dick

My contacts asked me to respond to your “Hawaii Discovery Tour”.

First off, have you EVER visited Ausfic to see the operation?

My money is that you have not at any stage so how about it???

Moving on:

For the domestic area, Ausfic flightwatch staff operate VHF and HF radios and phones.

As per AIP, Flightwatch staff will provide briefing materials to pilots to the first point of intended landing at which point pilots are to call the briefing office and request their weather/NOTAMS and flight plan properly.

Ausfic Flightwatch staff also answer the telephones that nominate and cancel SARTIMEs…and they follow up on the many many “forgot to cancel” SARTIME expiries.

During the day, 3 consoles are manned to provide HF communications across the domestic airspace. This is a hell of a lot bigger area than bloody Hawaii last time I looked – but hey, global warming and all huh???.

These HF consoles are flat out most of the time trying to deal with the “backwards and forwards” nature of duties imposed upon them by some group of fools who got rid of Flight Service.

NOTE: the Flightwatch people do not have any flight plans in front of them when a pilot calls, just a log to write down what is said.

The fourth console provides the VHF ghosting service and is staffed by exactly the same number of people – that would be ONE!!! – as prior to the movement of VHF to ATC.

They also have the phones and intercoms and the responsibility to follow up on expired SARTIMEs.

At overnight the FOUR (4) (IV) domestic consoles combine to ONE (1) (I) with that officer operating 9 separate HF frequencies (on 45 separate receivers!!!!!) and 25+ VHF frequencies (ghosting the flightwatch VHF fiasco !!!).

To make it clear, this ONE officer on a night shift has:

25+ VHF Aviation radios
45 HF Aviations Receivers and 9 HF Aviation Transmitters
Flightwatch Telephone
Intercoms to ATCs
Marine Emergency HF Radio for South Australia
Marine Emergency VHF radio for South Australia
CENSAR (SARTIME) Alerting

During the day, briefing office staff answer the briefing phone and supply information as requested by the highly trained and competent pilots making the requests.

During the day a Briefing office staffer also answers the Flightwatch phones and process SARTIME nominations and cancellations as well as chase up the 30-50 SARTIMEs that expire each day because the highly trained and competent pilots “forgot” or “just about to call” or ‘could not get to phone” (and pay nothing for the service)


Dick, do some research closer to home before you run around the world (depriving the Aust Gov of tax revenue coz no doubt it’s a tax deduction) and see what is done here.

Or at least read the many many posts that describe what is done here.

[ferris]

Surely you don't expect anyone to swallow the "5% of traffic= 5% of cost" line do you? At least you appear to have decided that commercial imperative might be a bad idea re ATS. Is the 'economy of scale' the US has, dawning on you? Read the above post. The 'many hats of ATC' in oz has been explained before....

[Dick Smith]

Jacko and Ferris, I’m on side with you on this one, so why the personal attacks?

My visit to the US Automated Flight Service Station in Honolulu, my post on PPRuNe and my subsequent presentation to the Aviation Taskforce all support the continuance of a separate VHF Flightwatch service in Australia.

Yes, I have visited Ausfic in Brisbane, but that was during the day time and I did not know what actually happened at night.

Jacko, I wasn’t

depriving the Aust Gov of tax revenue as I paid for my flights to Hawaii, accommodation and everything else personally. As I do not earn my income from Air Traffic Control/Flight Service I can make no deductions.

At the present time I am doing everything I can to support you in having an adequately staffed and separate VHF Flightwatch service in Australia. If I’m in the USA to look at Class D towers, surely it is sensible to look at what they do there in relation to Flightwatch – especially if it supports our aims – and communicate that to the powers that be.

Ferris, the 5% of traffic (equaling 5% of the cost) was just an approximation to show that we should spend an adequate amount of money on Flightwatch if we are to compare with the money spent on this vital safety service in another leading aviation country – i.e. the USA.

I realise the USA has economies of scale, however the plan in Australia is to completely remove the separate VHF Flightwatch outlets, so the economies of scale are irrelevant as we are to have zero!

I say again, I do not understand why I am personally attacked in this erroneous way when I’m actually spending my own money in supporting the air traffic controllers, the FSOs and the industry on this. It simply works against us all getting a win.

As it is, it looks as if the Airservices management tend to take little notice of their staff.

[tail wheel]

The thread topic is:

Flightwatch – 27 VHF outlets being closed

Personal, baseless allegations or attacks will resultin access to this thread being denied.

Tail Wheel

[ferris]

Ok, so what you appear to be saying (re; the 5%) is that you now don't believe that safety should be affordable ie. there is some basic level of safety that does not need be "affordable", it is a must-have? Whilst attempting to stop the service-reduction juggernaut is admirable, picking little bits here and there that YOU consider worthy (and what needs to be affordable and what doesn't), without considering the whole, is somewhat laughable (read in context with your NAS effort).

If this all leads you to a full-on "charging-regime" crusade, then more power to you. You must understand my scepticism.

As it is, it looks as if the Airservices management tend to take little notice of their staff Gold, absolute gold.

[Creampuff]

Dick

You mentioned the 'Aviation Taskforce', which I'm assuming is a reference to the Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce of which you are a member.

Is the Taskforce on track to report 'by December 2007', in accordance with the previous Deputy Prime Minister's announcement? Would be kind of ironic if the Taskforce drifted around indefinitely, with no cost, time or output parameters.

What's the link between the Taskforce and the closure of Flightwatch outlets? Are you suggesting that Airservices should be obliged by law to provide them, or at least a separate Flight Service service, notwithstanding the cost/benefit? As Ferris points out, that looks suspiciously contrary to the concept of 'affordable safety'.

[Dick Smith]

Ferris, it’s not whether I believe that safety should be affordable – it is simply a fact (like 2 + 2 = 4) that safety has to be affordable by those who pay for it.

Nothing I have said in the posts takes away from this. It can’t because it is a truism. From the very first post I mention the need for a cost benefit study. In my post (#31) of 13 November I stated:

One of the main reasons I am attempting to get Airservices to consult and do a proper cost benefit study is that we will then see just how many people use it, and what value it is. A little later on the same day I stated the following in post #40:

We are a very wealthy country and we can afford to have a duplicated ATC/Flightwatch/Flight Service system. I believe we can afford to have more than the 27 VHF outlets. I also believe that we can afford to have a proper automated Flight Service station where briefing officers are actually trained to give weather advice to pilots – not just quote met reports. (My underlining).

The reason for the comparison with the USA is that before I even waste my time on a cost benefit study I look around and see what other aviation countries are doing. If there was another modern aviation country that had abolished its separate VHF Flight Service outlets, I would be more likely to be convinced that a cost benefit study here could support such an action.
My solicitor’s letter to Airservices makes it absolutely clear that I required in writing that:

Airservices Australia will not take any steps to close existing transmitters or amalgamate Flightwatch with ATC frequencies unless such consultations have been completed in compliance with section 10 Air Services Act 1995 and until the completion of a thorough safety benefit study which ensures compliance with Airservices Australia’s obligations under section 30DB Civil Aviation Act 1988; (My underlining).

I have stated elsewhere that if a proper genuine cost benefit study shows that the separate VHF outlets are not a cost effective way of improving safety, and the money would save more lives if spent elsewhere, I will support its closure.

Creampuff, the Taskforce report to the Minister was finalised at a meeting on Monday morning in Canberra. I understand it will be forwarded to the Minister within days.

As I have stated above, I have never suggested or alluded that Airservices should be obliged to provide Flightwatch outlets unless a cost benefit study shows it is the most effective way of spending the dollar.

You and Ferris are mixed up with the fact that because I compare with a reference system (in this case, the USA) that I somehow think that means we should copy them without doing any cost benefit study. It is in the same way that I believe if all other modern countries have a TCAS requirement for air transport aircraft of 10 to 30 passengers, that we should have the same. I don’t believe we should make this decision without doing a cost benefit study, but I believe it will reflect what modern aviation countries can afford, and where they should allocate their safety dollars.

I would be happy with the results of an objective cost benefit study either way.

[Creampuff]

Thanks Dick

I look forward to the publication of the Taskforce's report to the Minister, by the Minister.

I agree with you on the objective cost/benefit data point in principle - Airservices should make decisions on the basis of objective data, and be transparent in its decision-making.

One point troubles me: how does one obtain objective data about the cost that would be paid, but for the existence of Flight Service, so that one can decide whether Flight Service is 'affordable'? That is, how can anyone prove that taking away Flight Service will cost X millions in terms of lives and aircraft lost or damaged, except in retrospect, and even then only on the basis of speculation about causation?

[Slugfest]

Dick said


because I compare with a reference system (in this case, the USA) that I somehow think that means we should copy them without doing any cost benefit study


I see, we should do a CBS but not a safety study on stuff like, say, NAS for instance?



supporting the air traffic controllers, the FSOs and the industry on this.



There are no FSOs any more Dick and the industry is "fragmented" at best.

Why is there no discussion on the real probability of IFER communications during the daily closure of flightwatch VHF from 2200 to 0100z? If anything, that situation should be re-dressed and flightwatch VHF staffed continuously.



The consoles are set up so a briefing officer can not only accept a flight plan and give weather information by telephone, but can also operate the VHF Flightwatch outlet. Is that what we do here?



Yes, quite clearly according to JackoSchitt - AND SOME!


As I do not earn my income from Air Traffic Control/Flight Service I can make no deductions.



ROFLMAO..........neither do some 1300+ xFSOs!:hmm:


where briefing officers are actually trained to give weather advice to pilots

I'm confused on this.........are pilots not trained to comprehend weather reports anymore?....gee, how times have changed. Would those pilots like advice on how to fly the aircraft as well? From what JackoSchitt says the pilots need advice on how to cancel Sartimes so there is something to add in.

What about fuel loads? do they need advice on the fuel to carry for the weather that is being explained to them too also as well?

What about general procedures advice? you know, stuff like how to get around CTRs and LOAs and things.

What about being able to do that all face-to-face?

Nah, it'd never work.

Mind you, clearly pilots don't need anything between 2200 and 0100z every weekday according to NOTAMs......and when you combine that with the occaisional NOTAM that says the ATC FIA frequencies are off too (G airspace TIBA co-incident with the closure of flightwatch VHF) you might as well call "Ghost Busters" for help.

We live in very interesting times it seems.

[Dick Smith]

Creampuff, you ask how one can decide whether Flight Service is ‘affordable’. The answer is really simple regarding affordability, but more complex in relation to cost benefit.

Affordability simply asks whether the person who is forced to pay for it can afford it, or do they end up buying something else. In the case of the claimed $500,000 that can be saved by Airservices by closing the VHF outlets, this is approximately 0.1 cent in the dollar of Airservices revenue. On a typical flight of Sydney to Melbourne, I think the Airservices amount per ticket is probably $6 or $7, so this would be 0.1% of that $6 or $7 – i.e. less than a cent. Obviously such a small amount wouldn’t be the reason someone would decide to drive to Melbourne rather than going by air.

The other thing to look at is whether that $500,000 could be spent elsewhere to save more lives. That is a more difficult question that a cost benefit study should look at.

I tend to agree that this is a very difficult equation. Then again, we have used cost benefit studies to decide whether a Class D tower should operate, and these are used throughout the world. I suppose if the answer reflects what seems to be commonsense and professional judgment, then you go with it.

Slugfest, I certainly support any available cost benefit study that can be used for NAS. For example, changing the Class G airspace at Proserpine to Class E I’m told will have no appreciable cost, but will clearly improve safety. A simple cost benefit study can be done to show this if it is so.

The main change in NAS (as approved by Federal Cabinet) compared to our present system is that the maximum use is made of radar. IFR aircraft remain under radar control when in IMC to the maximum extent possible, and IFR aircraft are generally not cleared below the legal lowest safe altitude when in cloud until they have reported visual or are clearly on the correct approach track. This has no real measurable cost increase, but obviously improves safety.

Look at the situation at Benalla – where the professional pilot was 11 miles off course, but the controller would have had no idea if the aircraft was in IMC or visual. Under NAS, the pilot would be in controlled Class E airspace and would have to either cancel IFR or report visual before heading off in a different direction to the legal approach.

Regarding the training of briefing officers to give weather advice, yes, pilots (especially private pilots) have limited training on how to interpret weather forecasts, but in the system in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe, the briefing officer has additional training and professional expertise to advise the pilots – which they do – as to whether VFR flight is recommended. It just adds to safety, so why not do it – especially when it would not cost much more to have additional training for the briefing officers.

[SM4 Pirate]

Before you push for more 'bl00dy change'; (which is needed, IMHO) please consider, our own management created crisis:

http://www.civilair.asn.au/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=207&Itemid=40

Or for those without access to that link:

11 December 2007
Mr. Greg Russell
Chief Executive Officer
Airservices Australia
GPO Box 367
Canberra ACT 2601

Dear Greg,

Re: Air Traffic Control Staffing

I am writing to make you aware of a situation that is a critical threat to the continuous provision of a safe Air Traffic Control service within Australian Airspace and a clear and present threat to the business continuity of Airservices Australia.

The issue is the inability of Airservices to provide sufficient and adequately trained Air Traffic Controllers to safely maintain the Air Traffic Control system that Airservices Australia is commissioned by its owner, the Australian Government, to provide.

This problem has been developing for some time, but in recent years it has reached a situation where the continuity of the system is broken on an almost daily basis due to the lack of adequate staffing. This is clearly untenable. At the same time, I fear that Airservices is concealing from regulatory and safety organisations the fact that airspace is closing due to low staff levels. Ken McLean, GM ATC, recently instructed Line Managers to only specify the reason that Air Traffic Control services are being disrupted due to the lack of staff in a non transmitted field in the Electronic Safety Incident Reporting (ESIR) system. This information is therefore not being transmitted to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, who is vested with upholding and regulating Australian Civil Aviation and also the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, who is tasked with investigating transport safety incidents and making relevant recommendations.

As a matter of urgency, Airservices needs to address staffing in three critical areas. These are: Recruitment, Training and Retention.

Recruitment

The recruitment of sufficient personnel tested to be capable of obtaining an Air Traffic Control licence is the fundamental action required so that the pool of staff available is appropriate to the level of service provision.

Airservices employs the majority of Australia’s civilian Air Traffic Controllers, therefore the promotion of Air Traffic Control as a career is a responsibility that Airservices must shoulder. This year, at the Avalon Airshow, Airservices chose corporate entertainment for the aviation industry, in favour of a public display booth promoting the services that Airservices Australia delivers and the careers available to the visiting public. Decisions such as this are very questionable in a period when we need more ATC personnel.

For some years I have suggested to different Airservices Managers, that Airservices takes an active interest in promoting ATC to the secondary schools that provide aviation speciality courses. A range of Airservices Managers have indicated that this suggestion will get their attention. Some Airservices Managers have made commitments to some of these schools. The follow up information I have received is that this careers type activity has not been actioned.

To provide sufficient ongoing staff, Airservices must principally recruit ab-initio persons. There is no viable ongoing solution as a result of overseas recruitment exercises or in poaching staff from the RAAF.

Training

Airservices management have not addressed this critical area of appropriate staffing levels. Due to the low staff levels, current staff are not maintaining essential activities such as refresher training and project implementation. Management have created a situation where about 10% of otherwise operational staff have been lost to the operational positions through the ALM process. This loss is a negative. It is very difficult to ascertain any positives from the ALM process. From implementation, the ALM process has been handled in an inept and incompetent way. The ALM structure has created another barrier to communication. The employment of experienced Air Traffic Controllers as ALMs to basically perform administration roles is a waste of valuable resources, that being the provision of operational services.

I draw your attention to the current situation in the Air Traffic Control College. My information is that Airservices does not have adequate numbers of instructors available. Why is Airservices in a position where there are not adequate resources available to address this dire staffing situation? A lack of experienced and qualified instructors is a multiplier to the staff shortage in that we either rob an already stretched operational system for instructors or train less Air Traffic Controllers and therefore take longer to turn around the operational shortage.

Retention

The majority of Air Traffic Controllers employed by Airservices have repeatedly advised management through internal surveying that they are proud of the function they provide to the travelling public as Air Traffic Controllers. Additionally, they have made you aware that they would not recommend Airservices as an employer. I entreat you not to ignore these results. In the past, these comments have been characterised as the utterances of a disaffected group of employees overly influenced by their professional association. These dismissive statements from your management team are alarming and prevent us from addressing the problem. Airservices cannot continue to allow staffing levels to fall to the extent that breaks can not be provided by suitably qualified staff.
Civil Air has attempted to protect its members from ill conceived Management directives. In response, Airservices has relied upon the argument that Civil Air is taking or advocating industrial action. Once again, this adversarial approach is not addressing the problem and I suggest that it will not reduce your vulnerability to legal action in the event of an accident. Aviation accidents are a very low probability event. However, in the unfortunate circumstance that management actions are a causal factor in such an event, the shame will most determinably be on your side.

The current trajectory of Airservices positions pursuit of profit over safety. This approach seems to be sanctioned by the regulator, CASA. Safety critical essential services, such as Air Traffic Control, should not vulnerable to the pursuit of profits. Such an approach means that the users are placed in clear and present danger. We need to reverse the situation where Airservices actions are characterised as, “We can’t afford safety at the expense of profit”.

It is very concerning to our members that at a time when Airservices does not seem on top of the staffing situation in Australia, the organisation is nevertheless continuing to try and “grow the business” overseas. Any fulfilled contract in, for example the Middle East, will bleed further required resources from Australia. Before any attempt is made to gain overseas business it is essential that someone focuses on taking the situation here in Australia from precarious to stable. This is another example that the central concern is profit with little concern for safety.

It is not unreasonable to expect that Airservices would have considered the risks to its business. Airservices derives its income from the continuous and safe delivery of air traffic services. Sufficient Air Traffic Control staff is the lynchpin to the delivery of this safe and continuous service. The environment that you have created is one where there are insufficient, properly qualified Air Traffic Controllers. This has grave implications for continuous service and ultimately reduces safety.

The information that I receive indicates that Airservices is currently 85 Air Traffic Controllers short of operational requirements. This concurs with most groups being reported as 10% short staffed which correlates with the level of additional duty being performed. Unconfirmed suggestions are that Airservices Australia’s Human Resource specialists have estimated that about 300 Air Traffic Controllers will leave employment with Airservices over the next 3 years. If any of these estimates are approaching what will actually occur you need to replace at least 300 experienced controllers over the next 3 years. Employing 300 new Air Traffic Controllers due to attrition takes no account for increases in traffic, opening new facilities or getting back to levels where matters such as refresher training are actually implemented and are not just on the wish list.

Civil Air, its members and the staff you manage and lead in Airservices seek answers as to how you intend to manage the situation that you have placed us in. We therefore request answers to the following questions:

· Do you have a plan to recruit and train sufficient controllers, estimated at about one hundred per year?

· If the answer to the preceding is yes, what is the plan?

· When will there be sufficient staff available so that rest breaks can be taken when required, not when the traffic being controlled is considered low enough by a Manager that an unqualified person can provide the break?

· What is Airservices Australia’s plan to address the short fall in staffing when CASA reaches a professional position that they are willing to defend and uphold?

· Do you expect that while you are CEO, Air Traffic Controllers will again be provided with refresher training to maintain skills required in situations such as emergencies?

· Will there be sufficient staff available to Perth Terminal Control Unit, West Radar and West Procedural to safely transit the Western Australia Route Review Project?

· Do you expect that General Manager of Air Traffic Control has plans to solve the staffing issues or is he actually relying on the Air Traffic Controllers suffering from the low staffing situation to provide solutions as he has requested?

· Do you think that Airservices Australia’s Fatigue Management procedures are being used correctly when Air Traffic Controllers are being coached by Managers to provide the “right” answers to pass the sleep/ wake test?

· Do you believe that it is appropriate that Airservices stakeholders and customers be made aware of service degradations due to inadequate staffing levels by such processes as NOTAMs?

· Do you consider it prudent in the interests of safety that CASA and the ATSB be advised when the reason for airspace service changes is due to the insufficient provision of adequate staff through the ESIR system?

· Will you, as CEO of Airservices, be pursuing a staffing policy that enables the real implementation of Airservices Australia’s Occupational Health and Safety Policies with specific regard to breaks?

I refer you to previously published Airservices Australia policy statements:

“Airservices Australia Vision and Values

Our Vision
To be a focused provider of air navigation and aviation services, with our competitive edge built on safety and the application of leading edge technology.

Our Values
We recognise the need for:
· Keeping safety first
· A collective, consistent sense of organisational identity
· Strong, credible and accountable leadership
· Our management and staff to be outward looking, both present and future oriented, and to embrace challenges proactively
· A spirit of unity, teamwork and trust.”
NB: Bold emphasis - Airservices Australia.

I firmly assert, that as the CEO of Airservices Australia, your prime responsibility is to maintain a continuous and safe Air Traffic Control service, a responsibility that seems to be unsupported by positive actions in addressing the recruitment, training and retention of ATC staff.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Haines
President

edit to bold as original, sort of.

[Dick Smith]

I was recently having a glance again at my Unsafe Skies publication. It mentioned the decisions that were made in 1990 by the CAA Board under the Hawke Government. In particular it states:

The decision was made by the CAA Board that we would copy the US system, where air traffic controllers serviced both controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Where it was practicable, flight service officers would be trained to become air traffic controllers – the CAA always seemed to be short of air traffic controllers. A Review of Resources was prepared and an agreement reached with the staff to reduce the number of flight service officers from 644 to less than 100.

In the future all the airspace would be operated by air traffic controllers and the controlled airspace would be dropped down to close to the ground where necessary for safety. The remaining flight service officers would operate the pilot briefing services and a radio information system called Flightwatch. As can be clearly seen, there was a firm policy decision to keep about 100 Flight Service Officers to provide pilot briefing services and “a radio information system called Flightwatch.”

If anyone would like to read the full publication, see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/the_book.php).

On a previous posting it was mentioned that there were no longer any Flight Service Officers at Airservices. Can someone explain when the decision was made to change from this original AMATS policy? Why was there no publicity created about this at the time – i.e. the reversal of having about 100 Flight Service Officers to provide Flightwatch and flight planning etc?

[Slugfest]

Dick,

Flight Service and FSOs ceased employment in June 2000.

Some FSOs went to work in the Ausfic just simply doing 3rd party communications message relay between ATC and Pilot.

"Briefing" was gone long before that and the function is merely flight plan reception and input with basic error/omissions (NOT route or procedures) checking conducted.

While I don't doubt the content of you book, I would like ask that you provide copy/reference to the CAA Board decision that substantiates your statement:


The remaining flight service officers would operate the pilot briefing services and a radio information system called Flightwatch.


Additionally, please provide copy of the original AMATS policy you refer to.

[Dick Smith]

There is an article in today’s Financial Review which claims that an organisation called TenderSearch is the experienced group doing the tender for the external review into Flightwatch. (See here (http://www.afr.com/home/viewer.aspx?EDP://20080208000020277025&magsection=weekly-government-business&title=Air+traffic+reform+a+priority&source=/_xmlfeeds/government_business/feed.xml).) I’ve been to the TenderSearch website and there seems to be nothing. Also the Airservices website does not seem to have any reference.

Interestingly enough, some 12 weeks since the then Minister Mark Vaile announced that there was to be an external review into Flightwatch, this article says in relation to the tender:

The breakneck pace is in stark contrast to the endemic grizzling about endless delays, stalled tenders and indecisive public sector executives characteristic of the previous 12 years in federal contracting.

Is this actually a tender to do the external review with the details of what is required, or is it a tender to get someone to state how they would do an external review?

[concernaviat]

From the tenders.gov.au website: "Airservices Australia wishes to engage a suitably experienced organisation to conduct a review of the arrangements for the delivery of Flightwatch service"

https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.atm.show&ATMUUID=C42A601E-9AE9-C74B-E5FFFDDCF761E0FD

All queries to Oliver Barry (another TFN!!) e-mail: [email protected] ([email protected])

[altonacrude]

Dick,

TenderSearch isn't "doing the tender" - at least that's not what the Fin report says:


... Airservices Australia wants an external review of Flightwatch from an experienced group familiar with the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

Australiasian tenders specialist TenderSearch advises that the assignment is urgent, with responses required by February 12 and a final written report by March 14.


This timetable strikes me as impossibly fast unless there is a firm already lined up and poised to perform the assignment. Even then, it suggests panic rather than simply haste. Does this perhaps bear the fingerprints of the new federal Minister (http://www.anthonyalbanese.com.au/file.php?file=/about_grayndler.html)for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, whose constituents live at the north end of Sydney 34L/16R and 34R/16L?

[Dick Smith]

Slugfest, Unfortunately I no longer have a copy of the document you ask for however if I am incorrect where were the remaining FSO's going to be employed?

[Slugfest]

Unfortunately I no longer have a copy of the document you ask for however if I am incorrect where were the remaining FSO's going to be employed?


I'm not saying you are incorrect.

I asked for the documents (CAA Board decision and AMATS) you refer to with a view to understanding the case of a Flightwatch function seperate to the ATC function.

In a similar vein, I would like a copy of the posters etc that circulated saying something like "call on area frequencey and people will...."

From memory, there was a picture of an arms crossed ATC supervisor in the foreground and the ATC consoles in the background.

lastly, does anyone have the terms of reference for the review that tendersearch is putting together?

[ollie_a]

Airservices is now recruiting Flight Information Officers, see http://airservicesaustralia.nga.net.au/fnt_jobs_list.cfm?

Does this mean the review has been completed? They are advertising multiple positions, does this mean they are going to reinstate Flightwatch?

[Roger Standby]

Bwah ha ha ha!:}

[Slugfest]

If my source is to be believed, there are still some people to leave under the Kin Miclen flightwatch redundancy program.

Yes, you read that right.

Spacewreck Airservices has been progressing with staff redundancies while on the other hand instigating a recruitment campaign to replace the staff gone and about to leave.

No wonder Kin was moved on!!!!!

AirSpace Wrecking, across the universe,
On the Spacewreck AA, with merriment and Mirth!
AirSpace Wrecking, across the universe,!
Safety is our catch cry, and we’ve lost sight of Earth.

Apols to "Star Trekkin”

[undervaluedATC]

Slugfest,

that little melody is a corker - catchy too - I'm at risk of singing it under my breath at the console.

as for people leaving the same area which is being recruited for - that's just "modern management practice" - why pay someone for their years of experience (which usually only matter in an emergency :rolleyes: ) when you can get a newbie in to fill the seat for 1/2 to 2/3rds the cost?

undervaluedATC

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'day 'S'....

OH! SO N O T H I N G HAS CHANGED THEN.........
:ugh::ugh:

or should that
be :yuk::yuk::confused::confused::eek::eek:

Cheers Guys and Gals:ok::ok:

[The Voice]

Goodness me Griffo - what are you trying to say? :bored:

[Slugfest]

What is going to be funnier that a cat full of dead rats is the "review" by "The Ambidji Group Pty Ltd" that will no doubt conclude that the provision of FIS/Flightwatch functions should be done externally to SpaceWreck Airservices and low an behold:

Their organisation could do it!!!

Watch this space

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Who is to be the 'paying customer' to an 'outside' organisation?

Who is going to part with $$$'s for the provision of FIS, which most pilots / organisations have learned to live without - by now?

Really....

[Slugfest]

Griff,

I did na say that paying customers would fork out the $$$....

I reckon that SpaceWreck Services are that stupid that they would actually pay an external provider.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Ah, Mr 'S',

I can see it now.... A 'RERUN' of that particular memo put out to STAFF at the time...

In order to reduce the number of Services, and therefore, the number of FSO's, one 'P.E.' put out the memo containing the words...

"It is planned to 'Introduce a pricing regime to discourage participation'....."

It took all of 5 seconds to work out what THAT meant!!

Figures were even suggested...
$5, or was it $10 (?), to lodge or cancel a SARTIME by radio from a location where tel facilities were avbl.
The same for the lodging of a Flight Plan.....IFR may have been more....
etc etc.

Most pilots would only do THAT once. :}

[Slugfest]

......and the ambidiginous Flightwatch review says..........

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

AH............Kick it to ME.........pick ME........PAY ME??? :confused:

[Slugfest]

Hello.
Is there any Flightwatch in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone home?

Relax.
I need some information first.
Just the basic facts,
Can you tell me on Six Megahertz?

There is no rain, you are in sleeting.
A SIGMET looms on the horizon.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I can’t hear what you say.
When I was an FSO I had a fever.
My headset felt just like lead weight.
Now I got that feeling once again.
I can’t explain, you would not understand.
This is not how I am.
I have become comfortably numb.

Ok.
Just a little AIP…SUP. [ping]
There’ll be no more --aaaaaahhhhh!
And you won’t hear the faintest click

Can you stand up?
I do believe its working. Good.
That’ll keep you going thru the snow.
Come on its time to go.

There is no rain, you are in sleeting.
A Virgin ship asks for the last light.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re sayin.
There was the clock I caught a fleeting glimpse,
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone.
I cannot put my finger on it now.
Its Eight O’Clock, Flightwatch is gone.
I have become comfortably numb.

[Sunfish]

Watch little Sunfish screw up the area frequency if things don't go according to plan and I start asking for assistance........

I ain't going to go quietly. I've only needed flightwatch twice, but when I've needed it, i've needed it.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

So 'Mr S',

Wot's the goss??

Is it TRUE that ATCers are to be trained in the 'vagaries' of HF after all...?

Will the last one 'out' kindly turn off the lights??

:}:}

p.s. reading you weak.....apols to our 'northern neighbours'....

[Jamitupyr]

Just when you think it can't get any worse with Aircircuses Australia, I note that they are even more short of staff tonight

C4298/08 REVIEW C4297/08
DISCRETE FLIGHTWATCH VHF AND DOMESTIC HF NOT AVBL
THIRD PARTY AERONAUTICAL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS FIS AND INFLIGHT
EMERGENCY RESPONSE ON DISCRETE FLIGHTWATCH VHF AND DOMESTIC HF AS PER
ERSA GEN-FIS NOT AVBL DUE STAFF SHORTAGE
SERVICES ARE AVBL ON FIA FREQUENCIES
FROM 07 151500 TO 07 151815
0807151500 TO 0807151545
0807151730 TO 0807151815

As noted by Slugfest elsewhere, this is not the first outage of Flightwatch and it won't be the last

(ps good to see you back from the sinbin Slug)

Jamit

[CaptainMidnight]

More importantly (my bolding):

TRIGGER NOTAM - AIP SUP H88/07
ON-REQUEST IN FLIGHT INFORMATION SERVICE - STAGE 3 AVBL FM AVFAX CODE 815XX AND AIRSERVICES WEBSITE Aeronautical Information Package (http://WWW.AIRSERVICESAUSTRALIA.COM/PUBLICATIONS/AIP.ASP) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AMEND PARA 5.1 TO READ THIS SUP WILL REMAIN CURRENT UNTIL THE TRANSITION OF VHF FLIGHTWATCH FUNCTION FROM AUSFIC TO ATC IS COMPLETE. (EXPECTED SEPTEMBER 2008
FROM 07 110224 TO 09 300100 EST

Wasn't there supposed to be a review earlier this year to determine whether this stage was to continue or not?