PDA

View Full Version : Darwin ATC. Nothing to see here, move along


RENURPP
3rd Oct 2014, 22:09
I have always been extremely watchful flying into and out of this place and this example explains why. Be careful up north.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5158675/ao-2012-131_final.pdf

Sarcs
3rd Oct 2014, 23:08
Yes RENURPP most disturbing report in oh so many ways, not the least being that this investigation and final report took 2 years to complete...:ugh:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/officer_barbrady_move_along_sm.jpg

Ben Sandilands seems to be the only one (see my post here (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-69.html#post8681586)), of the aviation media fraternity, that can not only see the enormity of this incident but also dares to shine a light into the murkiness of what lies within a very ugly aviation safety framework (which unfortunately includes the transport safety watchdog themselves..:{) in this country...:=:=

Some of the comments from the Planetalking article are well worth regurgitating..:D, especially this one from Geoff (in plain English) for a better understanding of the current dysfunction of ATC civil vs ADF:Geoff

Posted October 3, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/10/02/darwin-atc-deletes-vital-message-unread-imperils-qantas-jets/#comment-28819)

ghostwhowalks – this was suggested to defence way back when the TAAATS system was being introduced by the then CAA. They were also offered the TAAATS system and space in the two centres then being built in Melbourne and Brisbane for their controllers. They knocked back both.
Dan Dair – Defence asserts that the RAAF training does match civilian training and that their controllers are issued with “ICAO” ATC licences. (Airservices controllers are issued with CASA ATC Licences.) There can be no “requirement” for military ATC to be equipped to meet civilian standards because CASA has no jurisdiction over the RAAF. (For instance their pilots fly in civilian controlled airspace but they do not have civilian pilot qualifications)

Confirmed sceptic – your comment confirms what I have been told about military ATC career progression. They send the most junior ATCs with only Tower training to the joint-user bases to gain experience with civilian traffic. These ATCs are then given approach control training on the same bases before being posted to more intensive military jobs such as Williamstown and Pearce. They also change jobs every 2 to 2 1/2 years. Hence Darwin controllers probably have very little experience.

Airservices tends, although there will be exceptions, to train controllers on en-route sectors where the traffic is cruising, at steady speeds, and there is usually strategic separation being applied. (Meaning you get time to plan what you are going to do next). Moving to approach control or a Tower usually comes later. Also Civilian controllers do not move around much so become specialists at the job they are doing.

I personally subscribe to the US and UK practice where miltary ATC only staff military bases. That is not to say that as a civilian pilot you cannot fly into a military base, it will not however be cloaked with civilian airspace categories (A,C,D, and E) giving the impression that it is a CASA regulated environment. Adopting US/UK practice would also remove the ridiculous amounts of Restricted airspace that surround our major population centres for the use of an air force with less aircraft than the US Marine Corps. (Nothing derogatory intended, it is a fine air force. It is only the airspace arrangements I am criticising)

On a final note, sadly there does not seem to be a move to put anyone on the CASA Board with civilian ATC operations experience. CASA do not just regulate pilots and airlines. I would volunteer but the phone never rings! And a choccy frog award to comet's, slightly tongue in cheek..:E, observations about this rather bizarre pic...:rolleyes:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/untitled.png

comet

Posted October 3, 2014 at 4:04 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/10/02/darwin-atc-deletes-vital-message-unread-imperils-qantas-jets/#comment-28825)

That image of Darwin’s ATC console, at the top of this article, is bizarre.
It looks like it’s operating out of a farm shed. Scroll back up the page and take another look.

Look at the uneven corrugated iron walls. Look at the crude portable metal computer stands that hold up crucial monitors (eg the long-range and weather displays).

There’s even a thermometer glued to the main console. What’s that there for? If it’s to measure the temperature of the computers, then an automated alarm would be more appropriate. It must be there to measure the room temperature for the staff. Note that drinks are allowed to sit on the main console (spill risk).

There are rolls of paper and piles of paper stored on the upper air vents of the console, above what look like cathode-ray monitors. This would block the air vents, as well as cause a fire risk.

It’s quite amazing that ATC can look like it’s being run inside a chook shed. IMO this is a rather apt pic to where aviation safety sits in the pecking order of concerns for the miniscule, the government and the MSM in Oz...:E

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/1001839_636769369684383_731648309_n.jpg

TICK...TOCK..:ugh:

MTF...:ok:

VH-UFO
4th Oct 2014, 00:16
Here we go, another Military ATC bashing thread by another bunch of know it all civvies wanting to steal jobs for themselves.

neville_nobody
4th Oct 2014, 00:32
Here we go, another Military ATC bashing thread by another bunch of know it all civvies wanting to steal jobs for themselves

Well in the fair dinkum department if military ATC can't cut the mustard for whatever reason the jobs should go to the civies. It is going to be pretty bad if Military ATC caused an accident between two commercial operators with all these other incidents on the record.

It would be interesting to see a incident/traffic handled ratio between the two systems.

Eddie Dean
4th Oct 2014, 00:43
And for balance, from the same Sandiland's Weblog


Comparing professional military air traffic controllers to terrorists and fools is just absurd, in the most extreme way. Ben, you’re on track again to poll strongly in the annual ‘Australia’s Worst Journalist’ Award, to which you are a consistent contender. Well done, blogger.
You got to feel for these young ATCs, ADATS (AIR 5186) was commissioned in 2000, 59 months late and not fully integrated with the civilian ATC system, and it seems like it still isn’t. What’s worse, is that Defence planned to replace ADATS under AIR 5431 in 2010-12, promising a system that was nationally integrated. Meanwhile, traffic has increased, and with the elimination of personnel (Flight Data Operators) to assist in managing the integration issues, these ATCs are being set-up for failure. I guess it’s cheaper to flog your horse harder than buy a new plough, and you get more votes buying Super Hornets than ATC Computer Systems.
ghostwhowalksnz – Up at 5:34am advising the world how to be more Kiwi. Bless your woolly socks.
Dan Dair – Great points, but with standard ATC licenses, should bring standard ATC pay scales. But then you get retention issues, and degrade military experience levels.
Confirmed Sceptic – You were cleared for take-off with an amended STAR? You want to try that story again? Holding for 2 minutes? Did they not know who you were?
ianjohnno – Maybe instead of inhibiting deletion of the emails, they could just fix the military system? You don’t deal with these issues on the civilian system.
julius grafton – Mate, you have been holding onto that grudge for 15 years, it must feel good to finally talk about it.
comet – Some very good observations there, it certainly doesn’t look like Melbourne Approach. Google ‘TAAATS’ for a comparison. Worlds apart.
by ValiantUsher on Oct 3, 2014 at 7:03 pm (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/10/02/darwin-atc-deletes-vital-message-unread-imperils-qantas-jets/#comment-28828)

OneDotLow
4th Oct 2014, 02:01
Darwin is the one place that pilots consistently brief/remind each other that ATC is a threat

What he said.

Australopithecus
4th Oct 2014, 03:40
And another thing, UFO...who is serving whom in your world? In my world you exist to serve us. Time for some serious civilian oversight.

compressor stall
4th Oct 2014, 04:00
My memory might be failing me, but that pic doesn't look like DN Approach when I last visited.

VH-UFO
4th Oct 2014, 05:44
Thats exactly right Compressor.

But some fools will grab hold of anything and bash the hell out of individuals and organisations and backstab to suit there own agenda because the poor dear's may have once been vectored a couple of miles off track or been told to reduce speed and not got their own way.

If you have such a problem with Darwin ATC, file those ASOR'S, bet you haven't though.

neville_nobody
4th Oct 2014, 06:03
If you have such a problem with Darwin ATC, file those ASOR'S, bet you haven't though.

People do however it all gets bogged down in government bureaucracy and blame shifting and nothing changes.

hurlingham
4th Oct 2014, 06:28
This is not just Darwin / ATC in Townsville also pose a threat to Aviation

Unregistered User
4th Oct 2014, 08:53
Another vote for change with regards to Darwin ATC.

Having operated in various parts of the world, I have the same conclusion: DN ATC is a threat that should be briefed for, only for the reason that they are incompetent.

RENURPP
4th Oct 2014, 09:04
My memory might be failing me, but that pic doesn't look like DN Approach when I last visited.

You may well be correct, however the ATSB indicates the source of the photo as the DOD.

UFO, I see no comments bashing the hell out of any individual with one exception, post #10, and that is your post.
As for wanting your job, I suspect there are more RAAF guys applying for AsA positions than vice versa.

Have you read the report and are you able to dispute any of the facts? Believe it or not this was a serious matter, thank god for TCAS and an observant couple of flight crews.

Over the last 25 years I have submitted multiple, and I mean multiple safety reports regarding Darwin ATC. I am sad to say I see absolutely to reason to continue doing so unless it is a serious incident and will be followed up seriously by an external (To RAAF) organisation.

Always brief Darwin ATC as a threat! Its not a joke.

Blueskymine
4th Oct 2014, 09:28
Darwin is the only place outside of Indonesia where I often scratch my head.

The classic used to be 'cancel speed above and below, maintain max speed to the field, track direct for a five mile final, leaving 3000 contact tower on xxx. When contacting tower, xxx number 2 follow the Cessna 206 on a five mile final.

Always causees a flurry of flaps, gear and speed brake followed by the raised eyebrows :)

Got to love the tower party though :ok:

Kanga767
4th Oct 2014, 13:18
I don't work with the higher workload frequencies of DRW ATC, but, with my limited interactions on GND I actually find them quite accommodating, co-operative and forgiving with my daily towing activities.:ok:

RJ51
4th Oct 2014, 13:27
They seem to be a little more relaxed and practical.

mattyj
4th Oct 2014, 20:53
I think, having spent a few 3 month periods flying out of DRW that the costs to a business of operating into the DRW ATC environment is a disgrace. The extra track miles, holds and vectors around nothing in visual conditions, just so the RAAF can get some free practice, is a significant cost penalty. I once told someone in Vincent management that he should invoice the RAAF for training costs. Pity they didn't, might still be in the air! :bored:

ad-astra
4th Oct 2014, 21:34
I don't necessarily agree with the personal attacks nor the generalised smears on the ADF ...........

BUT

I have to admit the from my seat there is a genuine concern of "what the hell are they going to throw at us today" frame of thought when I sign on for a Darwin, Townsville or Williamtown pairing.

I don't speak for the whole of my company but I have yet to fly with a FO or another Captain who does not have the same uneasy feelings as I.

For heavens sake it has taken the year 2014 to arrive just to get an ATIS at Williamtown. My belief is that this has only occurred because our fleet of 737NG's were being delivered with no ADF's hence no ability to pick up the ATIS.

For the ADF apologists .....

Why is the very obvious chorus of concerns just the meanderings of a group of pilots with an agenda or an axe to grind?

Why is it that we should have to submit reports for the very obvious inefficiencies that occur on a daily basis?

Is this what modern aviation has now become?

Perhaps, just perhaps there may in fact be a problem.

Trouble is nobody is listening.

Lookleft
4th Oct 2014, 22:59
Are you chappies putting reports in or just whinging and whining as has become the Australian custom?

To answer your question Jack:

Because Australia had become an embarrassing, red tape ridden, bureaucratic joke when it comes to doing business.:ok:

dr dre
5th Oct 2014, 02:57
This graph shows a telling picture, when Darwin, Townsville and Williamtown are having as many or more Loss of Separation Incidents as the major capital airports with a far greater amount of movements it's probably time for an inquiry or changes in RAAF ATC

http://api.news.com.au/content/1.0/theaustralian/images/1226992853833?format=jpg&group=iphone&size=medium

Just to put the above in comparision, Darwin and Gold Coast airports have roughly the same amount of movements in similar aircraft categories:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Airport-Movement-Financial-YTD-May-2014_ORS.pdf

CaptainInsaneO
7th Oct 2014, 01:28
There needs to be more weight added to civilian reports against military ATC.

This is an extract taken from the ATSB report:

"The ATSB is not satisfied that the DoD has adequately addressed the safety issues regarding the provision of refresher training to air traffic controllers for the scanning of green radar returns and in compromised separation recovery requirements and techniques. As a result, the ATSB has made formal recommendations to the DoD to take further safety action on these issues."

What's the bet that nothing's significant changes?

Operating into Townsville frequently for many years, I too brief TL ATC as a threat - I know it sounds ridiculous that we need to do this in Australia but unfortunately it is required. Knowing that this happens in Darwin too, I don't feel alone now.

What if the shoe was on the other foot - Imagine if ATC had to brief threats...then having to brief every aircraft coming into their CTA as a threat?

Often going into TL you just shake your head at ATC - because something always happens...not enough to warrant a report though, but enough to lower your confidence in their ability and heighten your alertness.

I've filed reports on occasion and I've seen very serious reports filed - with no improvements.

Professionals are supposed to take advice/critique and improve themselves or the system in which they operate - not take it as somebody trying to take their job (wtf?)

For me I find it safer operating in TL when ATC have closed for the night and it's a CTAF. It's a lot more efficient too. Yep - safer when they are not there!

I think what tends to happen with reports, is when there is constant and consistent need to report and there is no outcome to the reports, pilots stop reporting. There needs to be more weight added to these reports, then you will see more reports being filed and hopefully improvements will be made before the next serious incident. I'm just wondering which one will happen first :hmm:


This is a serious problem.

DoubleGen
7th Oct 2014, 06:33
For me I find it safer operating in TL when ATC have closed for the night and it's a CTAF. It's a lot more efficient too. Yep - safer when they are not there!

Doesn't matter whether you're driving an F18 or a 737. The sentiment is often the same.

The Green Goblin
7th Oct 2014, 08:32
It's all the little things that add up. Nothing is really unsafe or radical, but it's the way things are done that is the problem. It'll be the intercept heading or the radar vector, the sequencing. Held high, slowed down and track shortened. Vectored to intercept an 'abbreviated ILS' at a 45 degree angle from above.

As pilots we do things the same way every time. That way we know pretty quickly when it's going pear shaped. In Millitaty CTA it's always different. There is no real standard flow. The civilian ATC generally operate a certain way and its predictable.

josephfeatherweight
7th Oct 2014, 09:37
Doesn't matter whether you're driving an F18 or a 737. The sentiment is often the same.
Unfortunately I have to agree. Even within RAAF Squadrons we cautioned and were reminded ourselves to be "extra vigilant" with regard to ATC operating into Darwin or Townsville. I feel sorry for my ATCO breathren, something must be missing in their training or more likely in their career development, but experiences (for others and for me) indicate there IS a problem - ATC performance on the whole at these airfields is NOT as sharp as civilian equivalents. I get embarrassed when civilian buddies talk about how bad it is...

Geoff Fairless
9th Oct 2014, 07:32
Being the Geoff whose post to Ben Sandilands was quoted at the start of this thread I want to refute everything posted by anonymous persons about the quality or otherwise of the RAAF ATCs at Darwin. (or Townsville)

They will be (I do not know any of them) fine young Australians doing a great job for their country. The problem has nothing to do with them and everything to do with organizational issues. (See James Reason about latent conditions/systemic weaknesses)

It is my view:
1. That Australian bureaucracy is currently complacent about aviation safety because we have long history of success. (Evidence - almost any Government document you read about aviation safety will start with self-congratulation. Try reading the State Safety Plan and the Forsyth Report)
2. Airspace policy is non-existent in Australia. (if it exists somewhere then it is difficult to determine from observation.)
3. Because of this, the conflicting needs of the ADF and civil flyers are not determined logically. (That is - commonsense and the needs of the nation)
4. The ADF will always win the battle against civilian users for airspace because there is effectively no civilian voice. (Evidence - if there was this Darwin problem would have been fixed and this thread not exist)
5. Airservices does not exist to fulfill the above function although one of it's aims is to "identify potential cost savings". It is however simply a service provider. (ANSP)
6. CASA could be that agency but it is by definition a "safety" agency unlike the US FAA and UK CAA who are aviation administrators. (The closest we get to a civilian administrator is the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Affairs which has dropped any mention of Aviation and Transport from it's title)
7. The Forsyth Report has not grasped the nettle firmly because it only recommends (13) that Canberra bureaucrats "establish an agreed policy position on safety oversight of civil operations into joint-user airports". (Please see my points 1 and 2)
8. The ADF is not an appropriate agency to be providing ATC to civilian airliners for organizational and cultural reasons.
9. It would be a good idea if the Minister appoints someone to the CASA Board who knows about airspace and safety from the ATC point of view and who will have the job of championing the views of civilian airspace users.
Sorry to be so long winded but I hate to highlight problems without at least having a punt at solving them.

I have given my name because I believe in an exchange of ideas and if I am wrong I will be the first to admit it so please try and avoid personal insults :ok:

mgahan
9th Oct 2014, 08:44
As some of you may be aware I have worked at senior levels in both military and civil airspace management both in Australia and overseas. (This is being written as I prepare to depart Livingstone, Zambia after the CANSO Africa conference to return to my "day job" in DGCA Indonesia.)

Although Geoff and I have never totally agreed on aviation matters, as we have both progressed in the industry we have come closer to agreement. While I do not totally agree with all his points (above), most of them are well founded and appropriate to the wider discussion.

Well done Geoff.

MJG

Geoff Fairless
10th Oct 2014, 02:28
It's good to hear from you and thanks for your support.

Regards

Geoff

speedbird983
10th Oct 2014, 04:22
Love this Qantas guy! this happened a few months back...

QF793: "Darwin tower gday Qantas 793 ready"
Darwin TWR "Qantas 793 hold short runway 29"
QF793: "Holding short runway 29"
......
traffic we were waiting for is a C210 on a 5 mile final on 29... keep in mind 36 is available...
......
QF793: "tower just out of curiosity, do you always hold heavy aircraft up for lighties landing on the main runway?"

few moments later...

Darwin TWR "ABC change of runway track for right base 36"

... "qantas 793 line up rwy 29"...

:D:D:D

This happens all the time though... they dont seem to improve unfortunately as much as I try to stay optimistic!

Geoff Fairless
11th Oct 2014, 09:30
1. The Cessna will take two and a half minutes at 120 kts to reach the threshold of RWY 29 and could slow down if he/she was asked.
2. There is no wake turbulence standard required, only runway separation
3. B737 cleared for take off will take about 30 secs to enter runway and 30-40 seconds to become airborne
4. There will be then be a minute and a half left before the Cessna reaches RWY 29
5. Almost enough to get a second B737 airborne provided there was an outbound track split with the one already airborne, a medium weight turbo-prop would also fit nicely in the gap no track split required.
6. Re: previous posts about departure instructions, these can be obtained in advance or introduce auto-release procedures. (That is, the TWR controller does not have to ask for departure instructions)

Awol57
11th Oct 2014, 13:30
Basically what Geoff said. 5nm I can get 2 away if there is no backtrack required.

Could be any number of reasons why there was a delay.. Dep may not have had something with the "Next" call straight away - assuming they don't have auto releases in Darwin.

KRviator
12th Oct 2014, 03:35
It would appear Darwin is not the sole domain of idiocy in the ranks of ATC.

After a close-call-that-wasn't at Cooly today, we have an Airservices (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/virgin-plane-and-light-aircraft-in-close-call-over-gold-coast-airport/story-fnizu68q-1227087899646) spokeswoman come out with this pearler:

...loss of separation assurances were commonplace in Australian aviation and generally of no concern.

Just because they're common doesn't mean they're of no concern you peckerhead. :=

drunk_pilot
12th Oct 2014, 05:01
assuming they don't have auto releases in Darwin.

They do, but only on 3 headings per runway up to 3000. Only good for radar SID or visual departures I believe.

framer
12th Oct 2014, 05:36
The Virgin flight then performed a loop before landing without incident behind a Qantas aircraft.
You Virgin guys are nuts. I wouldn't contemplate a loop in my 737 unless I was above transition.

Jenna Talia
13th Oct 2014, 17:32
Landed one night at WLM rwy 30 while a C152 was conducting circuits. C152 was upwind having just completed a touch and go. Us: "Request backtrack to first taxiway on right" Rottweiler in the tower : "Negative. Roll out, take next taxiway right" (approx 500m), then having to taxi back parallel to full runway length followed by further holding for the C152 to land in order to cross the runway at the threshold.

A few nights later same scenario except no aircraft in the circuit and none inbound. Same Rottweiler. Requested back track after landing with the same response, so I ask: "just curious, is this constant denial for back tracks a local rule or SOPS?" About 30 seconds later comes the reply, "Only if operationally required" :ugh:

Months later inbound at night from the south at 10 miles with CB's to the southeast broadcast on ATIS. Instructed to turn right onto a heading that would take us directly into the CB approx 8 miles away due to inbound Challenger 30 miles out (WTF?) Us: "Unable to accept right turns due to a cell at 8 miles" (that you yourself broadcast on the ATIS :rolleyes: ), followed by this pearler of a question from her, "Which way is the cell moving?" (Oh FFS!) The best is yet to come; After advising we cannot answer her asinine question she instructs, "Make a RIGHT hand, 1 minute holding pattern." Us: "I say again, unable to accept right turns due to the storm cell." Reply, "Make a left hand holding pattern."

All of this over an aircraft 30 miles out :ugh:

There are many other idiotic instances into and out of WLM over the years that I care to forget.

Mil ATC are nothing more than a joke and embarrassment.

Jethrogibbs
14th Oct 2014, 08:57
I do feel sorry for the pilots having to fly into military controlled airspace. I have seen first hand how bad some of these muppets are when they move into civil ATC.

RENURPP
15th Oct 2014, 21:38
Thats a stupid comment. I'm sure the RAAF guys (as individuals) are very similar in standard to the ASA guys. My reason in highlighting this report was to question the RAAF system which I believe creates these problems, and the fact that they have not and will not accept there is any problem.

Nautilus Blue
16th Oct 2014, 02:35
In defence of my military colleagues, anyone who has been a pilot or ATC for more than five minutes will have stories of the other side being daft or less than perfect. And ATC do have the equivalent of 'briefing as a threat' for certain operators and/or aircraft.

Leaving aside the performance of ATC, isn't a major issue that we are trying to use a single pice of tarmac and sky as both military base and a civil airport? With a low enough number of movements that can work (and does all over the world I gather). One a certain level is reached one side is going to suffer, and as the military own the place it will be civil.

Since OneSky will probably involve relocating all civil TCUs except PH to ML or BN, it will be interesting to see what happens to DN, TL etc. When PEA moved into PH centre everyones lives became easier.

Bell_Flyer
16th Oct 2014, 03:18
I'm sure the RAAF guys (as individuals) are very similar in standard to the ASA guys. My reason in highlighting this report was to question the RAAF system which I believe creates these problems, and the fact that they have not and will not accept there is any problem.

Military ATCs like say, Richmond Air base in the Sydney basin risks dying of boredom everyday - Sat/Sun and public holidays included. They are unfairly given the most real estate to control with the tiniest of movements and the most rigid of rules to impose. Yeah, bravery medals to these guys, I say.

ozbiggles
16th Oct 2014, 06:26
Fantastic, intelligent mature contribution from that one

CaptainInsaneO
16th Oct 2014, 21:36
I really don't think we need to get into discussions about who wins if there are a certain amount of aircraft movements ie. Military or Civil

What we need to see is increased safety for aircraft operating in Military CTA - both military and civil.

To make a huge step in the right direction, the DoD need to approach ASA and ask them to contract some trainers for a certain period. The civi contractors could advise and supervise improvements.

The military use civilian contractors all the time - why not in ATC consultation?

red_dirt
16th Oct 2014, 23:16
Captain

They already do

willadvise
17th Oct 2014, 00:14
Airservices do not have ab initio approach controllers (they tried once many years ago with limited success and decided to abandon the idea). Most approach controllers have at least 5 years experience in enroute before they go to approach. I am not saying the approach in necessarily more difficult than enroute, but from what I have gleaned from my colleagues who have made the transition, is that things happen a lot faster and you have much less thinking time. The experience gained in enroute is vital to this as you have already learnt alot about aircraft performance, communications etc. This may be where some of the RAAF issues come from.

Jethrogibbs
17th Oct 2014, 06:17
Don't get me wrong. I said how bad some these people are. Not all are that bad, in fact some are very good controllers. The facts speak for themselves though I am afraid. Some of the biggest and closest LOS events in the past ten years in ASA have have been by ex RAAF controllers. I put it down to three things.

1: Their initial training as RAAF controllers is not up to standard.

2: They have a culture in the operational environment in the RAAF of having a senior controller watching over them and giving advice, so when they cross to ASA their perceived safety net no longer exists in a lot of cases.

3: They only do tower and approach in the RAAF, so when they cross over to ASA the ones that go to enroute have nil experience in that type of ATC. I remember an instructor in the ASA college many years ago telling me that he would rather teach a person with no ATC experience at all then an ex RAAF controller because the ex RAAF controller already was a product of bad culture and training where as the new person was a clean slate.

The RAAF ATC school and ATC bases need a big fat broom put through them quick smart, before we are talking about more then bad controllers and as a previous post said, maybe an alliance between the ASA school and RAAF school would be a good thing.

scrubba
19th Oct 2014, 04:07
given all of the internal noise about the inadequacies of the old Learning Academy and the OJT in civil ATC, maybe a completely new integrated civil-military training approach is required... :*

Nautilus Blue
19th Oct 2014, 06:55
given all of the internal noise about the inadequacies of the old Learning Academy and the OJT in civil ATC, maybe a completely new integrated civil-military training approach is required...

Could be a cost saving as well, I wonder if OneSky has looked at that?

With regard to the Learning Academy (nee Training College) part of it is that ATC's just like to complain about training and trainees. Controllers have been saying 'training/trainees these days is/are rubbish' since I started 20 years ago.

Pavement
19th Oct 2014, 10:36
I would love to see the evidence that RAAFies going to ASA have more sep breakdowns! That is drawing a pretty long bow.
Both organisations go through phases of being the media whipping boy. I havent seen much difference between a good controller ASA trained and a good controller RAAF trained. However, a crap controller is still crap regardless of their training. The main difference is that ASA has a better operating system. Lets face facts, if it wasnt for TCAS and STCAs there would have been some airframe losses. The RAAF has a system that Moses bought down from the mount.
So putting the pissing contest aside, controllers in both organisations do what they do (with different imperatives) quite well. And everyone from the top down is trying to do it better.

RENURPP
19th Oct 2014, 19:58
So putting the pissing contest aside, controllers in both organisations do what they do (with different imperatives) quite well. And everyone from the top down is trying to do it better.
This is where I disagree. The RAAF will not admit there is an issue, they rarely if ever do and I suspect nothing will change.
The ATSB is not satisfied that the DoD has adequately addressed the safety issues regarding the provision of refresher training to air traffic controllers for the scanning of green radar returns and in compromised separation recovery requirements and techniques. As a result, the ATSB has made formal recommendations to the DoD to take further safety action on these issues.

Pavement
19th Oct 2014, 20:12
They may not be running around in multi coloured ties saying watch the birdie but they are taking it seriously.

Just because the sole atc qualified investigator at ATSB makes a recommendation doesnt mean its valid. Ive read and provided feedback on investigations that were factually incorrect because the investigator could not read MATS or AIP. ATSB doesnt even reply and just leaves the errors in the reports.

RENURPP
19th Oct 2014, 23:20
I rely on 38 years of experience in the industry and within that time I have not seen any improvement at all.
lets just live with the opening statement "Nothing to see here, move along" deny deny deny is firmly entrenched in the RAAF culture!

ozbiggles
20th Oct 2014, 02:50
Ok Pavement, care to share your examples?

triadic
20th Oct 2014, 05:16
I spent 10 years flying out of DRW during the 80's and the RAAF handled Approach & Tower in those years. For their experience level, most of the controllers were quite good and back in the old days of ops control, they often put paid to suggestions out of ops that they should do what ops said. It was often nice to watch!! Biggest problem back then was the amount of on the job training conducted - it seemed to go on all day every day and the industry were the ones stuffed about as a result. One thing that the local RAPAC achieved back then was that the terms of controllers in DRW were extended from 2 to 3 years. Don't know if that is still the case, but back then it certainly watered down the amount of training that we in the industry saw. DRW was certainly a good ATC training base for them as it saw a great variety of aircraft and operators... Private, GA, RPT, Military, B52's, Mirage etc. One of the RAAF controllers back then is now the EGM ATC at AirServices and certainly would know all the issues.

Mhayli
20th Oct 2014, 11:32
For the record, the corrugated iron is sound proof walling, the crude portable monitor stand is not crude, there are no ventillation holes on the top of the console where the quick reference sheets and charts are sitting, the thermometer is in fact a timer to monitor airspace activation times and yes, drinks in lided containers are permitted, as operator comfort in a safety critical environment is paramount.

Let's just stick with the facts. If they alone paint a concerning picture, so be it and something should be done. But let's not pervert the discussion with uninformed hyperbole. Chook shed indeed.

Duane
22nd Oct 2014, 08:34
Unlike ASA the RAAF arent left to their own devices when it comes to budgeting, every dollar that comes out of the defence budget, some percentage of that is going to be a hit on ATC units.

As someone previously said, ATC personel has been cut in the last 8 years or so (losing some non control staff) which means greater workload on controllers, more workload at the console and more fatigued controllers.

This adds up to... poorer ATC retention, more training required and less experience at the console.

Corporate knowledge is being lost at a greater rate than recent years because of retention issues....and it doesnt look like getting better any time soon.

There is good news however. If you would agree that the above mentioned are valid points, you can write to your local member, the treasurer and the prime minister (like I have) and protest the current pay deal which has been presented to the members of the ADF. Because as it stands, the problem will get worse if retention gets worse (it will).

You guys seem to forget that the controllers simply have to play the hand they are dealt, they are members of the military, they dont have a union, they have no advocate they are simply a cog in the machine. In order to solve issues of this magnitude you need to solve the problem at its root. We need people to want to stay in the military, get experience and pass that on as best they can to others. At the moment you have people with 12 months experience teaching others to do the job (out of pure necessity).

Write your safety occurence reports, send them in, write to your member and provide evidence of the situation otherwise you are just a bunch of people whinging on a forum just like the rest of the internet.

That is what you need to do in order to even start to fix this problem.

BTW ASA have nowhere near the manning to staff darwin, we barely have enough to staff the jobs we have now, if darwin was to civilianise it would be people walking out on friday in a blue suit and the same people walking in with jeans on saturday, dont kid yourself.

Capn Bloggs
22nd Oct 2014, 09:20
drinks in lided containers are permitted, as operator comfort in a safety critical environment is paramount.
Pity the bloke in the Topgun tower didn't have one on his coffee...:cool:

RENURPP
23rd Oct 2014, 02:28
As someone previously said, ATC personel has been cut in the last 8 years or so (losing some non control staff) which means greater workload on controllers, more workload at the console and more fatigued controllers.

This adds up to... poorer ATC retention, more training required and less experience at the console.

Corporate knowledge is being lost at a greater rate than recent years because of retention issues....and it doesnt look like getting better any time soon.If you are referring to RAAF ATC then I believe its irrelevant to this conversation, From my experience standards haven't decreased, they have scraped along the bottom for many years.

You guys seem to forget that the controllers simply have to play the hand they are dealt, they are members of the military, they dont have a union, they have no advocate they are simply a cog in the machine. In order to solve issues of this magnitude you need to solve the problem at its root. We need people to want to stay in the military, get experience and pass that on as best they can to others. At the moment you have people with 12 months experience teaching others to do the job (out of pure necessity).I don't think thats a fair comment. Its the sytem thats at fault and all bar one poster seem to support that. i.e. they are not attacking the individuals. My only gripe with individual controllers is that they deny deny deny there is an issue.

Write your safety occurence reports, send them in, write to your member and provide evidence of the situation otherwise you are just a bunch of people whinging on a forum just like the rest of the internet.

That is what you need to do in order to even start to fix this problem.I wish that were true.
I have submitted countless reports, pushed for and achieved a joint audit by RAAF and who ever the Civil ATC was back then (25 years ago) all with the promise (by RAAF) that we would be informed of the outcome. Of course that never happened, nothing changed.

Mhayli
23rd Oct 2014, 09:02
My only gripe with individual controllers is that they deny deny deny there is an issue.


In a good many of cases, if not the majority, you will find that is not correct. Spend a bit of time in the tower cabin or approach room and you will find that there is no denial. Many of the systemic issues being discussed here are discussed ad nauseam in these environments. Many of the frustrations voiced here are shared by those at the console. The issues go far beyond the guy or girl on the other end of the radio. The majority do the best they can within the constraints of the system they have. As has been pointed out, remember that it is the military and there is no union. Change takes a very long time. That is not an excuse, but a causal factor. That said, 25 years is way too long to wait for change.

HarleyD
26th Oct 2014, 08:05
RAAF ATC on many occasions have been fabulously co-operative for many non standard type of ops I routinely ask for. They have been great enablers and have always done their best, within system constraints, to accommodate all requests I have made of them. Pre calling and talking with senior or supervising controller has had great results. Having said that this is at a Base with reasonably low traffic ADF and Civil.

RAAF controllers are (in general) doing the best job they can in their circumstances I am sure, BUT as for trying to operate sensibly into and out of Darwin and Townsville, forget it! No questions these two, in my experience are the worst controlled airports/ Air Bases I have come across in 27 countries thus far.

Clearly there is a broken system.

HD

parishiltons
1st Jun 2015, 10:22
Improvements last Thursday's AIRAC date. Airservices helped Defence towards a fix.