Why Air Traffic Controllers are exploited by ASA

[Dick Smith]

I know this is going to be a provocative post but I believe it must be said. Many postings on this site show what appears to be a total breakdown between the air traffic controller workforce at Airservices, and the management at that organisation. I believe I have an explanation for one part of it.

Look back to NAS 2b, where the Aviation Reform Group – which included the Chairmen of Airservices and CASA, and the then Chief of the Air Force (now Chief of Defence) – made a decision to move to the North American NAS airspace system. The NAS is quite definite. If Class C terminal airspace is to be provided, an approach radar facility must be included – with adequate staffing levels, proper training, and the hardware for both secondary surveillance and primary radar.

When Airservices made the decision to reverse the Class E airspace above Class D and make it Class C, it was obvious that they would also have to cover the cost of employing extra air traffic controllers, the proper approach radar rating, and the equipment.

It was considered at the time that they might try to cut corners, so the Minister gave a directive on 31 August 2004 requiring Airservices to provide the radar equipment if they were to operate Class C above D.

I, JOHN DUNCAN ANDERSON, Minister for Transport and Regional Services, pursuant to s.16 of the Airservices Act 1995, give the following direction to AA.
If:
(a) On the date on which this direction commences, a volume of airspace above Class D airspace above an airport was classified as Class E airspace, and
(b) After the commencement of this direction, AA re-classifies that volume of airspace to Class C airspace, AA must, in performing its function under s.8 of the Airservices Act 1995 of providing facilities and services, provide an operating ATC control tower at the airport and an approach radar control service at the earliest time one can be supplied and installed.

Amazingly enough, a small number of controllers (including Scurvy.D.Dog) caused an outcry – saying they could operate the Class C airspace without the extra staffing, without the extra training, and without the approach radar unit.

Can you believe this? It is almost as if these controllers thought they were some part of a charitable institution where they should offer to have more liability and provide Class C airspace without adequate manning and without proper tools.

The Airservices management jumped at the offer. If a boss believes his staff can be willingly exploited, the boss will normally comply by doing the exploitation.

The main claim by this small number of controllers was that they could provide Class C airspace for the same cost as Class E. Airservices immediately re-did a safety case showing this, and naturally the Class C (without any extra training and without the radar provision) won!

We now have Airservices controllers operating Class C airspace without radar, quite often with one sole controller, and with Class C airspace larger than the terminal airspace at O’Hare Airport in Chicago.

By running the campaign to reverse NAS and take on extra responsibility (when it was obvious that there was no more income to pay for additional controllers), Airservices saw that they could exploit – as stated above.

The airlines were delighted. Can you imagine if the pilots went to the airlines at the time it was decided that there should be a two pilot crew for 10 to 30 passenger planes, and said, “Boss, we don’t need two pilots, we can do it with one pilot!”

We now have a situation where in a place like Albury, a single controller in many cases is not only responsible for the traffic in the circuit area, but also for separating VFR from IFR traffic up to 45 miles away without Radar.

The Minister’s directive to provide a proper approach radar still remains, however I understand it is the controllers who have supported Airservices not going ahead with this.

What should happen is that the airspace should be Class E, and it should be made quite clear to the airlines that if they want controllers responsible for Class C airspace, they will have to pay the extra for manning, training and radar.

Once the Airservices management and airlines could see that controllers were prepared to take on a higher workload, and far higher personal risk of litigation of an error is made, they obviously decided that they could exploit the controllers in every way possible.

Could there be any other explanation?

[Starts with P]

Dick, Can you please explain the how there is a complete breakdown between the Controllers and management if we are apparently in agreement over the airspace issue you are talking about?

[Freewheel]

I can't see the logic, but by all means have a go yourself. No doubt the reason is somewhere within, where only subscribers can go.

[Capcom]

Here we go again!
.
The explanations have been put to industry, by the profession (not just individuals), here and in officialdom, the reasoning, the realities and the outcomes from the historical and nostagic :} AusNAS2b experiment are a matter of public record. :ok:
.
But away you go though ... :}

[Dick Smith]

Starts maybe the breakdown happened after that?

That is AsA management saw that controllers were prepared to take on far greater responsibility than that required by Government policy- so they decided to exploit that situation.

Capcom, NAS2b was hardly experimental. Class E over D is proven in North America. US and Canadian controllers will not do Class C unless proper staffing, training and Radar is provided.

[mikk_13]

Dick, I don't think thats the whole story. Maybe your onto something, I dunno

I have seen the video of the maroochy- vb close encounter, have you? should find it some how, then you might understand why atc's didn't like the procedures. Our friends/family/mail/cat/dogs/etc etc fly on planes, just remember that. We aren't a pack of idiots

We don't really care what the procedures are, we don't care if you change them, as long as they are safe, as long as we don't have to watch two planes come too close, and as long as you give us the training and resources to do it.

The problem is this; ASA is for profit.

[undervaluedATC]

The title of this thread lead me to believe this post was going to be about how the constant reliance on overtime and the removal of 100 odd ATCs into management positions, and the complete lack of respect shown to ATC by management has lead to our current staffing situation.

Instead, we've got a history lesson.

Dick, not working that particular airspace, I can only suppose that my colleagues' own sense of pride and professionalism lead them to making the situation/airspace work - much like we try to make all the projects foisted upon us work.

That is how AsA really exploits us = by relying on our professionalism.

Example: AsA slandered every single ATC in the press for months on end by inferring that renegade ATCs were running an illegal "sick-out" - expecting that either we:
A) would just keep doing our jobs (while they influence public opinion against us),
.
or,
.
B) turn into renegades for real and give them someone to pin the problems on -

Either outcome a win-win situation for AsA. :{

[BMW-Z4]

1. As others have said before - there was no specific safety case permitted for
Australia for NAS. The safety risk was never specifically proven.
2. Just because the Septics do it doesn't mean it is best practice. Why the
obsession with this? American best practice is often an oxymoron.
Australia probably had best practice using in and out of CTA,
OPS control and Flight Service. But we wouldn't know without analysis.
Otherwise is like saying the Mormon (choose your own) faith is the best religion
in the world.
3. At the time of the commencement of the Australian Airspace and
Procedures chaos - FAA Inspectors were saying (to me, whilst in the States)
DO NOT GO TO ALPHABET AIRSPACE PROCEDURES.
4. The consequence is that we changed the whole system based upon OPINION
using illegitimate power and influence.
5. Hazard a guess at the cost and confusion that the continuous flip-flopping
of airspace and procedures rules has cost Australia.
6. There were more close encounters than we wish to know about,
that were reportable one day and not the next!
7. NAS has zero to do with the relationship between Airservies' management and ATC. The relationship has always been bad - today it is particularly bad. No one
who can change this will admit that commercialised ATC, in Australia, has failed.
8. This thread wreeks of hidden aganda.

[Dick Smith]

BMW, OK Don't go with ICAO Classifications that are allocated according to different traffic densities- just have controlled and uncontrolled airspace (ie all or nothing) as we did in the sixties and before.

Fortunately there are new young pilots and controllers coming along who have a different view.

No hidden agenda- if there was I would not post under my own name!

And the safety risk was as proven as the safety risk of a 747,-using the same methodology.

[Fly_by_wire]

I'm afriad the breakdowns with management and morale problems are far more reaching than just with ATC's. Technicians/Engineers are also in the same boat and CA "negotiations" have gone just as poorly.

[Quokka]

Dick, I'm certainly not a young Air Traffic Controller and I'm quite happy to provide any ICAO Class service, with one exception as you and I have discussed in detail before... Class E cannot be provided in airspace where a FLOW control service is being provided.

Why? You may well have understood that if you had seen, during the NAS2b trial, the consequences to the inbound sequence of aircraft arriving at a Capital City airport of an A330 diverting around one of your VFR friends transiting in front of the A330 in Class E airspace, as he/she is quite entitled to do... it was absolute mayhem and a good half-an-hour of combined effort by a number of controllers in achieving the spacing required for landing between all of the arriving aircraft in that sequence instantly become a complete waste of time and effort.

But you didn't see it and somehow you don't see a problem with it.

Ahh, I remember now, you felt sorry for me because I hadn't received the correct training. But hang on a minute... it was the crew of the A330 that demanded clearance to divert around the unidentified VFR aircraft crossing in front of it. I'm not sure how the correct training for me would have prevented the A330 crew from diverting around the aircraft on a collision course?

Perhaps you could explain to the crew of the A330 and to myself how IFR aircraft in Class E airspace subject to FLOW Control sequencing can avoid VFR aircraft on a collision course without compromising the integrity of the sequence of arriving aircraft and without altering their vertical descent profile to ensure that the VNAV requirements on the STAR are complied with...?

[mjbow2]

Quoka

you say

. Class E cannot be provided in airspace where a FLOW control service is being provided.

This is simply not true. The US do it daily! Are you suggesting that the US cannot provide ATC services in class E simply because some aircraft are subject to flow control?

Having flown into Chicago and other busy US airports which are often subject to flow control, the class E from FL180 down to A080 never proved to be a problem even when we were under flow control.

Perhaps instead of looking to Australia for a solution, why not look to those that have done all this before? The US.

[Hempy]

Why Air Traffic Controllers are exploited by ASADick, I'm not sure how NAS has anything to do with it. In my opinion Air Traffic Controllers are exploited by ASA because ASA management, which is mostly filled at the lower levels by high school educated ex-controllers who realise that they wouldn't be qualified to hold equivalent positions at any other business in Australia and who were keen to get away from the console before CASA took them away, believe that the 90's era Bush/Howard, profit-driven, hard-line, confrontational management style is still "worlds best practice".

Despite all the rhetoric from the AWB about the primacy of safety, in actuality it is "affordable safety", a phrase you know quite well. The problem with that phrase is that the definition of "affordable" is subjective, and one could argue that what is now being considered "affordable" might not necessarily be considered "safe".

The bottom line at the AWB is the $, and in the quest to make the 60% net profit dividend as big as possible each year ATC's are viewed with an accountants eye as a liability, not an asset.

Future staff plans revolve around "efficiencies" that haven't been tried or proven and are not used anywhere in the world. This is where we are going (we are half way there already), and its all a gamble based on an idea a manager was able to convince the board was The Way Forward, with associated financial benefits. Staff plans for The Way Forward include a 5 year model, as that is the expected life expectancy of the controller with ASA. This term tallies well with the average ALM/lvl3's operational experience so I can see where it was plucked from.

As the ATC of the (near) future is simply going to "monitor the machine", they wont need experience or refresher training or career development..in fact any money spent on Air Traffic Controllers is money off the Bottom Line.

This mantra comes from the top down with the added incentive of executive bonuses to ensure a compliant lower management.

Yes, mean and lean and corner cutting is still a part of the corporate world, but is it appropriate for an organisation that was created to save lives? The professional ATC's, who have made a career out of separating traffic, and are the ones you want on the end of the radio when the proverbial hits the fan, have their doubts. This is why the ATC "profession" is in their sights, and also "why Air Traffic Controllers are exploited by ASA"....

[Capcom]

The main claim by this small number of controllers was that they could provide Class C airspace for the same cost as Class E. Airservices immediately re-did a safety case showing this, and naturally the Class C (without any extra training and without the radar provision) won!
Most readers appreciate that:-
.
1. The RADAR C directive was not consistent with ICAO insofar as ICAO do not require RADAR in C
2. The RADAR C directive was not driven by any identified safety data, or agency study supporting such a requirement
3. Non-radar C has been operating successfully and safely here and O/S for many years
4. The Radar C directive was seen by many at the time to cost load (skew) any CBA to make radar C regional terminals prohibitively expensive, and that by doing so would be forcing a class E CBA result
.
Some might suggest that you as a high profile advocate for AusNAS and Class E would have been very happy with that outcome given E could not win the efficiency or safety day over C unless C was made to be prohibitively expensive!!
.
The ridiculous thing about it is that the same RADAR requirement was not put on E terminals where the reality is that surveillance is more important given the VFR component is not talking to ATC or other pilots like they are in D or C …. Now that IS hypocrisy!
.
As for your claim that controllers take on “far greater responsibility” with C than E, well I’m sorry mate that does not stack up either. C is far easier to manage than the VFR shooting gallery of E …. But you know that too …. If E was safe, efficient and ‘overall’ better than the C it replaced, it would still be in place! … AsA are not exploiting the airspace classification system or C terminal controllers in this regard.
.
I guess in response folks could ask, did you as the Chair of the then CAA exploit ATC when you dumped OCTA services on them? .... and your views on Benalla ... you want ATC's to protect you OCTA …. Who is attempting to exploit who???

Perhaps you might enlighten us with just one location in the US where ICAO E rules are used above a D tower .. not multi-overlayed classifications that amount to a hybrid surveillance based D … no …. just one example of proper ICAO E ... and without RADAR ;)
.
Ta :ok:

[Capcom]

Having flown into Chicago and other busy US airports which are often subject to flow control, the class E from FL180 down to A080 never proved to be a problem even when we were under flow control.
Good thing you do not operate into Reno then eh!

Pictures and Video: Glider collides with Hawker 800XP on approach to Reno airport, forcing emergency gear-up landing-01/09/2006-London-Flightglobal.com (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/09/01/208780/pictures-and-video-glider-collides-with-hawker-800xp-on-approach-to-reno-airport-forcing.html)

ASN Aircraft accident Raytheon Hawker 800XP N879QS Carson City, NV (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20060828-1)

[mjbow2]

Capcom

Do you really think that a mid air collision cannot happen in our own class G airspace surrounding regional airports?

You say

The RADAR C directive was not consistent with ICAO insofar as ICAO do not require RADAR in C

So what? neither does class A. Australia like many countries have differences to ICAO.

The RADAR C directive was not driven by any identified safety data, or agency study supporting such a requirement

None was required. Non radar class C was not part of the approved NAS design. Yet Neocon type resistance to NAS allowed AsA to implement the most laughable design imaginable. Non radar Class C over places like Alice Springs.

Can you tell me what black magic a controller is supposed to use for separation or traffic info for a VFR aircraft flying VFR On Top over a place like YMLT or YBAS? No DME and no VOR?

The ridiculous thing about it is that the same RADAR requirement was not put on E terminals where the reality is that surveillance is more important given the VFR component is not talking to ATC or other pilots like they are in D or C …. Now that IS hypocrisy


It seem then that you support turning the radar covered class G at places like Ballina into class E, the radar covered class G in Launceston into class E and Canberra into class E at night?

.... and your views on Benalla ... you want ATC's to protect you OCTA …. Who is attempting to exploit who???


You know full well that the NAS design included upgrading radar covered areas like Benalla from OCTA to CLASS E.

Perhaps you might enlighten us with just one location in the US where ICAO E rules are used above a D tower .. not multi-overlayed classifications that amount to a hybrid surveillance based D … no …. just one example of proper ICAO E ... and without RADAR

ICAO has very little to do with anything in this debate. We do not have to use strict ICAO guidelines. The US has plenty of non radar class E airspace above class D towers. Here are just a few that you might want to check out.

Gillett Wyoming
Jackson Hole Wyoming
Juneau Alaska

[C-change]

If you lot want to discuss Nas, ICAO classes of airspace etc, go start another thread.

As for exploitation, how about Asa recruiting people from OS, telling them they will be a ML TMA controller on (former) FPC wages (21 yr career as TWR/TMA).
Poor bastard moves family from other side of planet, rocks up first day and is told,

"Sorry mate, you are now going to be an en-route controller and because you haven't done it before, you have to do our full en-route course in 20 weeks and we will now pay you $27 pa, as your an ab-initio student".

What can you do when you and family have re-located half way around the world. Blogs gets through course and told that they are going to group "A" three weeks prior to course completion. Starts learning group "A" theory and moved during Taaats course to new group "B".

Said person gets the ****s with the lies etc and leaves. This is not my own experience but there are many more examples of similar experiences out there.

Exploitation at its best.

[Stationair8]

Likewise the bloke from Pommie land with the job at Essendon tower a few years back, dicked him around so he went back!

[Capcom]

MJBowhiley
.
I rest my case ....... http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/schlafen/sleeping-smiley-015.gif ...... http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/schlafen/sleeping-smiley-011.gif

[Dick Smith]

Capcom, what a classic justification of “That is what we used to do in the past and it may never be changed.”

Try telling an American or Canadian controller that Class C without radar is “far easier to manage than the VFR shooting gallery of E.” They would simply laugh at you and query your experience level.

I didn’t exploit ATC by handing them the responsibility for the old Flight Service airspace. My plan (and I’m sure you know it) was that the Class G airspace would be upgraded to Class E – as per the USA. Look at this diagram.

http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/downloads/airspace_at_a_glance.jpg

No one would be exploited - if more controllers were necessary to operate Class E, then they must be provided.

You ask me about one location in the US where ICAO Class E rules are used above a Class D tower. There are over 350 Class D towers in the USA – all with Class E above. Over 50% of these towers do not have radar coverage in the airspace immediately above the Class D.

An example of a Class D tower is Williamsport airport, approximately 130 miles to the west of Washington DC, in some of the most densely trafficked airspace in the world. There is no radar coverage in the Class E airspace immediately above the Class D tower, and the controllers love the airspace design as it makes it clear who is responsible for what.

Capcom, it is pathetic to use one accident as an example of why airspace design should not be scientifically allocated.

In relation to Benalla, I don’t want ATCs to protect you OCTA, I want the airspace to be upgraded to Class E – which when IMC exists is identical to Class A.

[Capcom]

:D
.
There you go ... YOUR PLAN .... OK then :E
.
.... so you want to exploit ATC further by having them provide E at places like Benalla ..... hmmm ..... and yet your reason for closing the tower at Proserpine (and the like) was?????
.
You and your side kick refuse to take into account that the US are not running E, it is in reality hybrid D where surveillance exists .... FACT!
.
Go and ask the ATC's in the US how they actually operate their airspace (real life traffic services) and apply that to the nearest ICAO classification :ooh: .... and that will include the VHF and TXPDR requirements within distances of location X,Y or z as per the AIM and related! ;)
.
Unless and until you do that ..... :=

[C-change]

Moderator,

Can you please remove all posts that have nothing to do with ;

Why Air Traffic Controllers are exploited by ASA

Thanks

[Capcom]

... including the thread originators post that introduced airspace classifications and services :hmm:
.
… in fact .... seeing as the thread starter raised em .. perhaps a separate thread on exploitation of ATC (in an industrial sense) is required rather than removing the validity of this thread!!! ;)

[Spodman]

the claimed reason for the reversal of NAS 2b was that the Airservices management did not follow the correct process for the introduction

No, Dick, that wasn't the reason why NAS2b was reversed. That's your convenient revisionism trait on display again.I think this is the thread created to cover issues that didn't have anything to do with GRAS.

...and Dick is correct. I am not a spokesman for ASA, but while the industry were a bit aghast at the crappy pup they had been sold with NAS 2b, the decision to reverse was for exactly the reason Dick stated. The slant he gives it is entirely imaginary though. ASA was REQUIRED by its legislation to reverse the experiment, because they had not implemented the airspace and procedures in accordance with it's legislative requirements. When it did apply the required process to the pre-NAS 2b environment ASA discovered there were some items they could not legally implement - so some heads roll and some airspace rolls back.

It seems to me the horse's arse of a minister we had at the time was ordering the organisation to do things it had no legal means of doing. Almost like some other minister in some other government ordering the police to avoid particular knocking shops or illegal casinos. Can't happen. 1. As others have said before - there was no specific safety case permitted for
Australia for NAS. The safety risk was never specifically proven.
2. Just because the Septics do it doesn't mean it is best practice. Why the
obsession with this? American best practice is often an oxymoron. But it is a valid method of assessing the safety of a change to compare with another model. I have never heard Dick claim the US is best practice, just that it would be more efficient and provide better access, particularly to VFR. He does claim an increase in safety also. I don't believe that, but a US-style airspace arrangement WOULD be safe,



...safe enough anyway.

Shame there was nothing to compare the baby-step in between bits of the plan that we are mostly stuck with now.

[Capcom]

... safe enough anyway :ooh:
.
... and the complimentary (US) ATC regs to avoid a Benalla like linching? :hmm:

[Jerricho]

Try telling an American or Canadian controller that Class C without radar is “far easier to manage than the VFR shooting gallery of E.” They would simply laugh at you and query your experience level.

Mr Smith, I have told you on several occasions, the Class E associated with any "Terminal Service", especially above a Class D zone, is treated as a bastardised version of Class D.

I refer you to this previous thread (http://www.pprune.org/d-g-reporting-points/251146-class-c-radar-direction-3.html#post2956078), and also this thread (http://www.pprune.org/d-g-reporting-points/268065-benalla-six-dead-5-000-vor-reward-2.html#post3229453).

Signed,

A Canadian Air Traffic Controller.

Now, FFS, if you're going to start a topic:

Can you please remove all posts that have nothing to do with ;

Quote:
Why Air Traffic Controllers are exploited by ASA


Thanks :ok::ok::ok:

Not sticking to the subject makes Baby Jesus cry!

[Capcom]

... Jerricho :D
.
Ta :ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

'Owen'....

Big deep breaths, BEX, cup of Tea, Good Lie Down......

AAH! That's better....:D:D



THAT Diagram AG'IN.........:yuk::yuk::yuk::=:=:=

Dick, with the NUMBER of Qualified Staff ASA have left.....

CTA / OCTA might very well be 'THE' next option.....:sad::sad::sad:

[Capcom]

Owen ... relax mate :) .. he is not worth the stress ;)
.
A good strong (insert beverage of choice) will do the trick :ok:

[ferris]

Dick (and MJBOW), I work with a gent fresh from the centre that is responsible for the airspace you mention (Williamsport). He states several things:
1. There are 60 sectors around that airspace. Did you take that in? 60 (six zero) sectors. They have the movements to justify this level of service provision.
2. They call it "E" airspace, but as mentioned by previous posters and in previous threads, in no way does it operate as "E" as understood in Australia, or ICAO. It is a uniquely US variation (as stated), and is actually very restrictive to IFR aircraft that operate into Williamsport. It is definately less restrictive to VFR. I get either blank looks or howls of laughter when I describe ausNAS (ICAO E without radar).
3. Given the difference in the level of resources available in the US and oz (affordable safety), why would you try and implement widespread adoption of alphabet airspace? (his words).
4. The surveillance capability in that area is nowhere near as lacking as in oz (for eg. Benalla)- he gave me a hand sketched diagram of PRIMARY radar heads/coverage in the area.
5. He detailed many differences in resourcing, procedures etc. that show the actual magnitude of the changes required to "transplant" the US system into oz- changes beyond just reclassifying airspace; even down to cultural changes in the way ATC is done and the service delivered. All of it spoke volumes on how little the ausNAS change attempted was understood by it's proponents (both within and outside of ATC).

It all seems so simple to a private pilot, looking in. Surely you agree?

[Capcom]

.. from the horses mouth! :ok: .. so to speak! :E

[Jerricho]

As the "airspace at a glance" chart has made a resurgence, I'll bring up another......


Dick, you got it wrong.

[BMW-Z4]

Yes this got my ulcers boiling again...why:

First in answer to Dicks previous comments: it was the sixties but it was also through to the late eighties until 20 years in the Aviation Hall of Chaos began. Just becasuse it was a good system then does not automatically mean it is suddenly a bad system just because you say so. Many many say otherwise and the many will still be here pitching this line whilst you continue to spin. I have been involved in change management all my life but nothing like I've seen in the past 20 years.

If I had been involved with this I'd emigrate before it caught up with me.

Young pilots and controllers are easy prey because they have no memory or knowledge of the simpilicity, effectiveness (service) and efficiency of that system. I groan when I hear that some are actually believing your spin.

The relationship between Airservices and ATC is bad; and not isolated.
This is fundamentally the result of changes that happened in the early nineties (and I am certainly not against change however not stupid change). That period of change was borne from ill considered opinion, tragic and manipulative implementation processes, greed and cowardice. Only a few were part of the design, only a few benefited and many were cowardly in permitting the decimation of the aviation system.

The aviation system was cohesive and integrated. It included Pilots, ATC, FS, OPS, Regulation, Airspace, Procedures, Airports and facilites. The far reaching and decimating effect of 20 Years in the Aviation Hall of Chaos has caused the separation and dysfunction of almost all of these areas. Look at GA (what GA and why?). Look at GAAP, major airports, ATS service, regulation. All greed managed with profit and bonuses for the few, no integration, dysfunctional managment and service. Find me a pilot or ATC that knows what is going on at their airport or others. Find me a manager in ATS or CASA that knows what is going on in the other organisations. Find me a pilot or controller that has intimate knowledge and competence in all types of airspace with all procedures.

They used to.

Now look at relationships between management and staff in the disparate areas of what was the aviation system and ask about cause:
20 Years in the Aviation Hall of Chaos.

[undervaluedATC]

once again, Moderators, can we please remove all references to alphabet airspace to another thread, because most of it has nothing to do with "Why Air Traffic Controllers are exploited by AsA"

[Dick Smith]

Undervalued, that's where I believe you are wrong- it is exactly what I am talking about.

When you have a small group of vocal ATC's who resist change which is based on science the management will exploit.

The E Airspace the ARG want here is the same as the E Airspace as used in the US and Canada. ICAO has nothing to do with it.

Between Melbourne and Cairns our radar coverage is as good as any similar traffic density radar covered Airspace in the US.

If the radar coverage went to ground level at Benalla the result would have been the same as we are still using old Flight Service procedures in Radar covered Class G Airspace.

I fear we will have to have an Airline CFIT at a place like Proserpine or Hamilton Island killing 100 plus people before we use NAS procedures in Radar covered airspace in Australia.

Such is the resistance to change!

[Jerricho]

Selective reading again eh Mr Smith :ugh:

You want to tell me again who I'm laughing at?

[undervaluedATC]

Dick, as I said previously, there is a huge amount of change happening in our airspace - just because it is not the change you want does not mean change is not happening.
Not even mentioning the innumerable software tweaks that happen every month, since NAS we have embarked (rightly or wrongly) down the SDE model of airspace management, introduced ALOFT, FLEX tracks (a psuedo UPR but only at night for international flights), started utilising CPDLC, ADS-C, RVSM, seen reductions of procedural standards in Oceanic airspace, and last november we halved the procedural tolerances for NAV/GPSRNAV equipped aircraft. ADS-B separation standards are in the pipeline, work is continuing on the FPCF tool which has the potential to really change the way we look after airspace, - the change is CONSTANT. We ATC are not resistant to it. It offends me that you keep asserting such in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

[Dick Smith]

Undervalued, the change you list appears to be directed at lowering costs and improving profits for AsA and the Airlines.

What about some change that removes "roadblocks" (to quote Bindook) for GA.

[Dick Smith]

Ferris , The class E airspace above the Williamsport class D operates exactly as per ICAO and exactly as it was planned to operate in Australia. It is not a form of Class D.

Make up anything you like to stop change- fortunately there a lots of new ATC's and Pilots reading this site and I am sure it's why so many of you get angry when I post the US Aispace diagram.

It's so obvious that the US Airspace is scientifically allocated due to actual risk- not allocated from emotive perception and resistance to change!

And please tell us what is different about the E above Williamsport- both the non radar E and the radar covered E?

Or have I called your bluff?

[undervaluedATC]

make that 2 votes for:
Tkae this thread and retitle it - "Dick rants on about stuff from years ago, pretending to empathise with ATC's who are getting screwed, while at the same time refusing to listen to them - still"

Dick Smith: Undervalued, the change you list appears to be directed at lowering costs and improving profits for AsA and the Airlines.

What about some change that removes "roadlocks" (to quote Bindook) for GA.

Dick, as we keep trying to tell you, AsA places a high priority on improving profit - how do any of the changes you want actually do that for AsA?

[max1]

Dick,
The same ASA guy who was looking after NAS, is the proponent of SDE. In fact I am at a loss to think of one project that this individual has been involved in that has actually come to fruition, or he has stuck out to the end. A nice suit and the ability to talk w@nk words will take you far in ASA, coupled with an inherent 'radar' that tells you when to desert a sinking project.

On the Benalla post you were pushing that it would be a 'simple' matter to enable The Lowest Safe Altitude (LSALT) alarms across radar airspace and controllers would have the responsibility to monitor IFR approaches OCTA and alert the pilot/s if they went offtrack (Route Adherence Monitoring) or below the LSALT. At present, we do not have the people or the technology to do this.

Please re-read the posts, as was said, we are not against change. However you need to resource it properly and the things that you believe are simple or easy to do, tend not to be.

[Dick Smith]

Max I agree with you in relation to adequate resources.

First however you have to get a small core of people to agree that the change is possible and an advantage.

This I am pleased to say is gradually happening. That's why I am happy to communicate on this site.

[Hempy]

Dick, seriously champ you have to exorcise this "ATCs are resistant to change" mentality, it colours your judgment and reduces your credibility. ATCs are NOT resistant to change, if they were the system would still be using shrimp-boats on a bright screen display. The fact of the matter is that ATC is a constantly changing environment, if you are not ammenable to the change you wont have a job. Add this to the fact that once a mandated change has been "ordered" it's the ATC's who actually implement it, including all the studies and training material required. Just because ATC's are resistant to your ideas doesnt mean they are resistant to all ideas. Stop being such a victim and suck it in.

[BMW-Z4]

This first step is true and also Hempy and Max 1 are correct. The second step is using tried and proven processes.Without the second step any project not following tried and proven process is very likely to fail (how many have!) Processes that will ensure that we are not faced with yet another crazy pipe dream that stuffs up the whole system and wastes everyones time and money trying to tidy up, hide, or deal with the debris afterwards.

Process ensures lots of things such as actual (situational) risk is assessed and controlled where necessary, stakeholders are consulted and on board with advice and assistance (listen and incorporate) and that short and long term cost benefit and viability is determined. Process will provide optimised (best compromise) outcome and best time for implementation. Do it properly first and a lot of effort, cost and heartache will be avoided. When proper (NOT DODGY BROTHERS) Risk and Project Management principles are not followed is often the cause of aborted or wasteful projects. No reasonable person will deny a good idea tied to a proper process. This is why NAS was such a dogs breakfast - proper process was never followed. Part of the reason for this is that the implementation team were not skilled in Project and Risk Management at all, or to the level required for such a project. To some this stuff I'm talking about is just beyond the egotistical parallel universe to conceptualise never mind understand or believe. Too much this http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif this http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif thishttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/bah.gif this http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/pukey.gif and this http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif and not enough this http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif.
Get the skilled PM and RM people to run serious projects and do them with integrity and after about 200 years the trust in management may return. Easy to lose but sooooo dificult to get back.

[peuce]

Dick, Australia is a democratic country ( last time I looked).

Every four years we elect a Government. About half of us are happy with the results and about half of us aren''t.

However, we all agree to get on with it, deal with the situation and operate under the new Government's laws.

Imagine if Malcolm Turnbull stood up and said ... "You've all made a big mistake voting Kevin07 in (and possibly we did), so I think you should ignore the new Government and abide by my set of laws. Even the most rabid Liberal supporter would tell him to pull his head in.

I know it's a pretty long bow to draw in this situation, however, we (the Industry) rightly or wrongly, have decided on a system of airspace management. I personally have problems with a lot of it, and it certainly gets tweeked along the way, as Kevin's does, but if you think we should totally change the system because a very few vocal oponents say we should .... you're dreaming!

You want to make drastic changes ... run for Parliament or get yourself into CASA.

You have detailed your concerns. We, in turn, have listened to them and considered their value. We have decided, rightly or wrongly, that we don't agree. It's time to move on. The tribe has spoken.

[ferris]

Dick, I showed your response to my colleague. He just laughed. There is no point in debating with someone who doesn't listen.

He speculated that the reason you are having another tilt at ramming ausNAS down the industry's throat is; "you know the FAA is moving towards a different model- 'in or out'? It sounds like your guy there has realised that pretty soon he wont have an argument because the US model will have changed." Have I called your bluff?

[Jerricho]

Hey Dick,

Have a look at this thread in the ATC forum (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/360660-glasgow-egpf-atc-needs-your-help.html). Looks like the British are being resistant to change as well eh? Hang on, they DO want to change something? I wonder why?

[oziatc]

Dick,
Ultimately change that you are referring to comes to us from the Minister and Management. If it comes, we do it! Plain and simple. We might dissent but we cannot stop it! What we do as professional ATC's is do everything we can to make it work and protect our own bacon at the same time!
Controllers have been subject to so much change that they are genuinely becoming fatigued. That in itself would not limit such a change going ahead but sheer lack of numbers and ability to develop and execute the training would!
It is simply too late in the game to do what you are suggesting. If negotiations for the ATC EBA continues to be drawn out more will give up and leave.
Then we will really be in a pickle!

[littlehurcules]

If it is not broken - dont fix it .... or attempt to fix it