Clearances Issued by Flight Data Coordinators

[Slugfest]

Ladies and Gents,

The latest idea to grow legs inside the den of ATC is that Pre-Departure Clearances will no longer be issued by the Tower but by un-licensed Flight Data Coordinators.

Safety workshops are currently being “run” to tick boxes on safety for these system clerks to communicate directly with aircraft and issue the clearance based on some sort of matrix like ACFT Heavy + Runway 19 + Parking Bay X + Destination Y= Clearance blah.

It is expected that CASA will be brow-beaten into approval or at least turn a blind eye to the change.

Of course, more staff are required so AA is advertising (internally at least) for Flight Data Coordinators.

What’s next?

[KeepItRolling]

Intersting concept.

In the event of an incident / accident, what is the legality of a clearance issued by non licenced staff, and how will prosecuters and insurers view it.

But, lets remeber the most vital aspect.

The manager who gets it approved gets their bonus:yuk:

[VC9]

Does it matter who issues the clearance?
Anythings better than the combined tower, smc, clearance delivery that occurs at some airfields.
Why is this industry so anti any change?
With forty years in aviation I dispair at the lack of rational thinking and argument that a lot in the industry seem to lack.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Slugfest]

VC9 wrote

Does it matter who issues the clearance?

I would have thought that you need an ATC licence to issue a clearance along the lines that you need a ATPL to fly for an airline or you need a commercial for CHTR ops.

AFAIK these Flight Data System Clerks are not licenced; they have a certificate to fiddle about with system data only and certainly not to originate clearances directly to aircraft.

The licence itself is no big deal but the training and the responsibilities and the accountabilities that go along with it are.

[Icarus53]

The fact that I can write out my clearance before I speak to ATC (less code) suggests to me that there is not a great deal of thought that needs to go into its construction. Guess what - today I'm cleared to blah, I'm heading up the coast so it's 34R with a SYD 1 Departure, maintain 3000' and Departures frq 123.0 Minor variations on a theme only.

On some routes (CBR-SYD) for example, there are standard clearances, including SID and STAR. If ATC can manage that scenario, what is the risk posed by an unlicensed controller issuing the clearance???

It still falls to the ground, tower and en route controllers (licensed) to ensure separation and direct aircraft in CTA/CTR - the worst thing that can happen here is that an aircraft is issued an incorrect or incomplete clearance, in which case a competent flight crew should pick it up (they have to fly what they're given!)

If I'm a little too innocent in these black arts: all apologies - I'm happy to listen to reasons why this poses a massive risk, but most days it wouldn't make a difference to me if I was listening to a recorded message.

[Beer Baron]

I'd be happy if anybody issued the clearance!
Since the, so called "upgrade" to the system several months ago, we have been unable to recieve PDC's at all. :confused:

[Dfrd.Benefit]

Icarus53 hit the nail on the Head. Blind Freddy could utter clearances or send them by PDC, there is no thought process behind them, or to be more accurate they are systematic responses with no exercise of discretion.

CASA's attitude remains to be seen. They are as hide bound as the dinosaurs protecting their jobs in this post.

[Starts with P]

I'm heading up the coast so it's 34R with a SYD 1 Departure, maintain 3000'...

Sorry Icarus, it's a SYD 2.

By the way, it's a lot harder than that.... what about a jet to the North West off 16R? Kampi 1 or Deena 4 Ricmond? what if R559 is active? What about pre-coordination for a flight via NOBAR? When is Sydney going to change Runway modes and who will be affected? If the departure needs to be ammended because of a runway mode change who does that? And should an ATC ammend a clearance issued by an FDC?

There is a lot more to it than SID Radars and departure frequencies.

[Lord Flashhart]

DCT no SPD,

Would airline pilots be ok with ground agents programming their FMC's for them prior to departure?


I WOULD BE. Actually when we Init a route a lot of data is automatically downloaded anyway eg,the route, winds etc. I dont care who does it so long as I can CHECK and amend it.:)

[CrazyMTOWDog]

Bit like the MPL theory. Sounds more like they are running out of controllers and looking for a cheaper alternates.
ASA Managers running out of aces in the deck?
VC9 I am not resistant to change but, generally we get a more efficient service at 'airfields' other than the majors.

[SM4 Pirate]

I has a stand-up argument with a FDC about the integrity of a system plan and asked to see the original. When I pointed out his error he told me "That's the same thing"; when pointing out that this "same thing" had the aircraft almost 250NM in the wrong position he said, but he'll still get to Perth on that route; yes but the aircraft is being 'separated' and it's no-where near where the system or I think it is; so between us we aren't exactly doing a bang up job are we?

The use of "thence planned route" has almost no relevance in our modern automated system, cause what the hell is a planned route? Our system plans very rarely display the 'planned route' anymore cause there is no reference to the 'original'; you only get the now.

[Dfrd.Benefit]

Starts with P and the other controller responses are the expected responses from a technical operator who cant think outside their own "square".
The whole concept of airways clearances is rendered invalid or at least weak by the "then via Flight Planned route".
Controllers are more than happy forthis weakness in the system to exist because it saves them talking time.
Browse ATSB website for a serious incident between a corporate jet and an RPT a few years ago if you dont believe me.

Sorry about post japanese keyboard

[tobzalp]

Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves here. Remember back in the day before the wizz bang electronic strips, these same people were hand writing pieces of paper with the route details on them and sticking them in a little plastic thingy. No one had issues with that. It is exactly the same thing just in reverse. The issue is that AsA are so stuffed when it comes to staffing that they have to try junk like this.

[JackoSchitt]

Tobzalp,

You have distorted the reality considerably.

In the olden days, these FDC people took a printed flight plan, transmitted by a qualified briefing officer, and transposed the relevant detail to a format (flight strip) usable by the ATC.

The ATC issued clearances and did their control “wizardry” and was ultimately totally responsible for the flight.

Upon aircraft departure, the FDC prepared strips were delivered to the controllers along with the printed copy of the flight plan because the ATC had to check the strips and time additions before use.

The FDC was not in any way involved in “issuing a clearance”.


As an aside,

What was said in Melbourne last week by the ATC Group GM et al in reference to the staff shortages and the “plan” to overcome same?

Avnet reported that they recognise staff planning has been deficient in Airservices for some time. Now THERES a statement fer u!

I venture to say that cloth ears were not in short supply in CB as the rank and file have been saying this for ages!

Oh, BTW, What section of AA had a "top gun" manager cull over 50% of staff, so much so that TRAINING could not be kept up with and since the manager in quesition is now reeking havoc in other areas (and possibly the subject of another PPRune Thread), has recently realised that they cannot accomplish all their TRAINING work and are now seeking more staff? unfknblvbl? no, not with this lot...

[Starts with P]

Starts with P and the other controller responses are the expected responses from a technical operator who cant think outside their own "square".Dfrd.Benefit, I think the exact opposite is true. People like you only see small problems (why can't a TFDC type in something and hit "Send"). I am seeing outside my own "square". I'm seeing the big picture. The multiple things that can go wrong.

My last post above was merely an example, not a definitive list of ALL the decision making that needs to go into issuing a clearance. I'm sorry if you can't see outside that square.

And I'm not saying that TFDC's are too stupid to do it. What I am saying (as an example Dfrd.Benefit, not telling you the ONLY problem I can see in my square) is that when a runway change is being planned, it is easy for the boss to walk over to ACD and have a look, see what is coming, and work out a plan of when to change, and who is going where. It then becomes a negotiation when the changes starts as to who is going to make and who is not. With the TFDC in ML issuing the clearance it's not so easy to do that.

[bluerider777]

I guess one of my problems with this is that ALL of the clearances would be issued by perhaps one TFDC. This would cover many major airfields rather than just one (as is done at the moment).

TFDCs are well trained (but not licensed ATCs) and I feel that even a licenced ATC would have some difficulty maintaining the SA required to issue clearances for multiple fields. It is easy enough to keep track of runway configurations at one place - how hard to keep track at 3 or more? For each runway configuration ML has different rules about which SID will be issued and our systemic separation is in some cases wholly based on these being correct...

This is, of course, all to save both staff and money. TFDCs are considerably cheaper to employ and quicker to train...

Blue

[tobzalp]

Jacko.
As I started life as a Flight Data, I can assure you the plan did not go with the strips. Additionally, when on the receiving end of the hand written strips at a later time in ATC guise I never had one second of doubt as to the accuracy of the information. The only time a plan would accompany the strips was for Flex tracks because the strips handed out were void of position information.
Also, when the strips were printed by a computer, it was often (mostly)invisible to the ATC if they were auto generated or were from a plan manipulated to print the strips. The only obvious way to know this was that the channel sequence number was crossed out so that if a reprint or forwarding of the plan was required, the later modified information was not used. Some of us took great pride in hand writing as few as possible if we could dodgy something up by manipulating times and way points to give the correct result as per the original flight plan by some times tacking three separate flight plans together.

[peuce]

If I was the accountable Airservices Manager, I would be looking at it this way:

If it all turns to poo and there's a bump in the night, how will the ATSB/Courts look at the changed procedure? Some of their questions might include:


Is it International best practice?
If not, and it's an "innovation", what is the catalyst for the change and has it been tested, trialled, safety analysed?
Why is it that Licensed Staff are required to create and deliver clearances at present?
Are the current Licensed Staff doing such a bad job of it that alternate arrangements need to be made? ... or is the change solely for Organisational expediency? If so, is it worth adding another potential hole in the swiss cheese,just to squeeze a bit more coin out of the budget?


Until I could answer these questions appropriately, without a quiver in my voice, I would not be able to sleep too well at night.

[tobzalp]

or is the change solely for Organisational expediency?

This is EXACTLY what I was getting at. The rest is just noise.

[JackoSchitt]

Tobzalp,

TOPS always got the strips and the plan once an acft departed and they religioulsy cross checked the time additions and route information.

In any case, thats all irrelevant. FDC are not licenced to either work a radio or issue clearances and that is the subject of this thread.

If you don't need a licence to issue clearances, then why licence ATCs?

I don't know about organisational expediency. The staff saving is surely negligible when one considers the staff shortfall overall.

I vote for change for changes sake and to put some "at risk component" bonus in the bank for manager X.

[tobzalp]

TOPS always got the strips and the plan once an acft departed and they religioulsy cross checked the time additions and route information.

Jacko, if there is one thing I am sure of more than how fantastic I am, it is that THIS is not correct. LOL. That was my part of the world back then and as the circle goes full circle, I am back there again.

What would surprise you even more is that we know each other as I even was a flight service flight data at one stage:sad:

[JackoSchitt]

Tobzalp,

They must have been checking their dinner orders and swearing at being bumped in the ED roster then.:hmm:

WOW, I know someone on TOPS :O

Old history in any case and irrelevant to the thread.

[ferris]

I want to know when someone is going to run the ruler over AsA RE; it's "business practices". As alluded to in an earlier post, this may have implications for hidden costs (cost 'savings') being passed onto the customers. In the same way that going TIBA costs AsA naught, and in fact the decisions leading up to staffing levels requiring TIBA have probably saved AsA money and gotten bonuses paid along the way, yet costs the customer heaps. Hopefully, somenone might do the sums one day, and work out how AsA penny pinching may be costing mega bucks to industry/carbon emissions/ etc etc.

[Chapi]

Of course no-one noted that to take on this extra task the TFDC needs to divest some of their curent work to the under-staffed operational controllers who are already have other tasks (aside from separating traffic) heaped upon them (eg flightwatch).

[JackoSchitt]

Chapi,

To Quote Airservices Intranet Employment Opportunities:

We are seeking suitably qualified and highly motivated candidates interested in performing the role of a Flight Data Co-ordinator in the Brisbane Centre.

Yep, they are recruiting FDCs.

[makespeed250kt]

Chapi, I notice our group has been recieving the Area QNH's(electronic) since the last data upgrade, for no apparent reason? Maybe offloading this task again to the controller might free up the FDC? :mad::mad::mad::mad:

[tobzalp]

Did the FDC's drop a paper copy to you before?

[welcome_stranger]

As one of the FDC mentioned a few facts should be put forward

1. Brisbane is recruiting because we are, after losing 5 people (about 30% of our complement) in 8 months, just a little under established numbers.

2. Great discussion with in the FDC ranks has ensued due to this proposal and the majority see the problems of licencing, both ATC wise and radio, and the advisablity of doing Perth and Adelaide from ML or Cairns from BN just a little on the nose.

BTW makespeed250 - the system in melbourne of using FDCs to hand write QNHs and sigments instead of receiving them at the controllers position electronically will soon be a thing of the past - controllers will soon be using the tools that they have had for the last 7 odd years

[welcome_stranger]

D.N.S it not you :ugh::ugh::ugh:

One controller who transfered south bemusedly related, when he visited after cleaning up some personal business, how he was soundly berated for having the audacity to utilise the system to graphically display the QNH rather than wait for the FDC to arrive with the paper copy and mud map.

[tobzalp]

I must admit, it is easier to coord with the Indons than Melbourne. Lets use the machine properly. If it is good enough for Sydney app and the sectors to the north to let the messaging do the work, it has to be good enough for the lazy backwater procedural sectors in the middle of Fk'n nowhere.

[hoss58]

Morning all.

First post after 10 years of just reading so don't beat me up too much just yet. Background - 16.5 years as a Flight service officer.

Time to play the devils advocate. As an FSO I "issued" thousands of clearances to acft, or did I. Wasn't I just "relaying" the clearance as issued by a licensed ATC. Yes, as an FSO I was also licensed but wasn't I still just the messanger. I realise there are radio licence issues here as well but at the end of the day for suitably trained staff the task isn't rocket science.

Having said that, and having been made redundant from the organisation in question, I can understand where folks are coming from in regard to the levels of staffing or lack thereof. Has a FSO ever made a mistake "issuing" a clearance to an acft too bloody right they have. Has an ATC ever made the same mistake, too bloody right they have. At the end of the day while we have humans invloved in any process there is a potential for something to go wrong.

Well thats bound to get me flamed.

Hoss58

[DirtyPierre]

Can FDCs issue block clearances?

Yes they can, provided the training is to the standard required.

Are FDCs licenced to do this?

Not too sure about this, and needs to be checked.

Is it likely to happen anytime soon?

Given current staffing, I wouldn't think so.

TOPS always got the strips and the plan once an acft departed and they religioulsy cross checked the time additions and route information. As a TL Stando and TL Procedures during my 5 years on TOPS, it didn't happen when I was there, except when we thought there might have been a problem, or for flex tracks.

Hoss58,

Agree with you. It doesn't matter who issues the clearance, there is always the possibility of an error. The training and procedures need to be robust enough to prevent this as much as possible.

BTW Tobsalp, I'm programmed to be in Aisle 1 from Feb 2008. Can't escape me, bro'.

[tobzalp]

Look forward to it DP. I am a pleasure to work with:ok:

[peuce]

Hoss58,

As you say, as an FSO, you "relayed" clearances.

Unless I've misunderstood the thread, the proposal is that FDCs will select/decide on/create a clearance and then give it to the pilot.

[welcome_stranger]

Clarification time again

FDCs were never going to select/decide on/create a clearance and then give it to the pilot.
they were to issue the clearance generated by the system (ie without the benefit of a controller looking over and authorising/amending the clearance) from an electronic strip.

The main problem would be accounatibility - who would carry the can when it all went pear shaped, the FDC, the Data Dude, the Twr specialist, the TMU specialist, the manager who approved the process, the AGM who want it to go ahead to save the equivalent of ATC 10 salaries. WHO???

It now looks like an ex-melbourne manager who now works for CASA may be prevailed upon into looking at this with a view to smoothing all the bumps it has already raised. Woe be unto us all!


:{

[hoss58]

Hi Peuce

I see your point

I guess the question I would ask is, are we talking about the FDC actually issuing/generating the clearance or just relaying the clearance after it has been "issued" by an ATC/automatic system generation. Also you raise some good points about the legalities/accountabilities of the situation.

If and I know its a big if- we are talking about AsA- the issue is dealt with appropriately i.e training /legals might this not free up some valuable ATC time for what is argueably after all the most important part of the job and that is keeping flying things from bumping into each other.

I guess another aspect is if FDC's were trained to do this job might there be some savings in wages and thus some reductions in cost that possiblly could be passed on to the industry. Lets face it every little bit helps.

Hoss58

[peuce]

Hoss58,

Yes, why not save a few bucks ... and a few ATC positions


If it's legally kosher
If there's appropriate training provided
If there's enough FDCs available
If there's appropriate equipment available


While we're at it ....

How about we recruit and train some people to a skill level that permits them to provide DTI in G Airspace. That should free up a few G Airspace-only ATC positions and bodies. Don't know what we'd call them though ...:E

[puff]

I know someone interested in the role currently advertised as a FDC. Is it a decent job, what does it actually involve, hours and pay?

[mirage3]

I agree :ugh::D

[bluerider777]

To clarify the selection of clearances (at least in Melbourne) the clearance selected is based on the departure runway and arrival runway in use. For example while Melbourne is on runway 16 arrivals 27 departures all jets requiring 16 will be issued a BISON SID. If we are 16 only they get the standard (DOSEL/NONIX etc).
If this goes wrong and it is not picked up along the way then a departure from 16 will unexpectedly turn across the 27 departure path. In other words this one wrong clearance can cause a BOS pretty much on its own.
To suggest that the clearances are computer generated overstates what is actually done.

Blue

[welcome_stranger]

Puff read you PMs.

Bluerider777 - that is only part of the problem there is CHROPs to consider not to mention what happens when there is a change of runway and the inevitiable confusion that would ensue as Ground tries to reissue all those clearances.

What happens if an aircraft cannot accept the clearance (for what ever reason) etc etc the questions that must be answered are legion

:confused: