Adelaide air traffic control may shift to Melbourne

[kaz3g]

Adelaide's air traffic control could be 'cut' and moved to Melbourne in centralisation decision - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-18/adelaide-air-traffic-could-be-controlled-from-melbourne/6138146)

[Track5milefinal]

Yellow Journalism at its best.

The Advertiser : "Adelaide Airport landings controlled from Melbourne" :ugh:

[MaxFL360]

Why is this a big deal? Seems like a good way to reduce costs, what difference does it make if controllers are based at adelaide or melbourne, will still be looking at the same screens covering the same area.

[ACMS]

Yep a beat up.

Take USA for example, LA Centre is miles away in Palmdale and covers a big part of, or indeed all of California. SOCAL approach for LAX is done in San Diego ( think it's down there but it ain't at LAX. )

It doesn't matter where the radar controller sits...

Tower controllers on the other hand.......even then it's possible to do that remotely and will be soon for ASP..

[topdrop]

Canberra Approach is done from Melbourne. Remember a C210 with engine failure in IMC vectored into hill because controller lacked local knowledge. I am not denigrating the Controller - local knowledge issue caused due no local (Canberra) familiarity provided to this controller.
They are going to move Cairns App to Brisbane. Not many hills around Cairns are there?

[Night Bandit]

The only problem with the TCU going to Melbourne is they will go to auto release at Adelaide and all the CIR training flights will lose their training slots.

[ACMS]

Top drop:---- rubbish, so it matters if the controller ain't in the location he's controlling? Crap, he has a vectoring chart and terrain information in front of his nose and after a famil by a training controller will know everything he needs to know about the airspace he controls. If he doesn't then he shouldn't be there.

Are you telling me that all controllers should work where they are born and raised?

[Tarq57]

Canberra Approach is done from Melbourne. Remember a C210 with engine failure in IMC vectored into hill because controller had no local knowledge.
They are going to move Cairns App to Brisbane. Not many hills around Cairns are there?That implies a failure in the training or validation process, rather than a failure in the principle under discussion.

TBH, I'm more of a fan of having the approach unit co-located at the aerodrome/s it services, but for other reasons. (Eggs/baskets etc.)

[fujii]

Night Bandit, have you ever worked auto release? Melbourne with a much higher movement rate than Adelaide is able to process navaid calibration aircraft along with auto release and these can be more awkward than circuits. Get a cct release and a "paper stop" level for departures and give the tower some flexibility.

[Dick Smith]

This is just a continuation of the origional TAAATS plan.

Great to see leadership at AsA.

The TV and the Print media have attempted to get me to be critical. No way!

If local knowledge is a problem why not give the non-informed controllers a free ticket and a couple of days accommodation in Adelaide. Probably note some hills to the east.

Somehow the approach I do into YGDO in the CJ3 is controlled from Melbourne. I have always had a safe and competent service. How do they do it? I think they must have radar or something like that.

[topdrop]

ACMS - you may think my post is rubbish, but if you believe this
after a famil by a training controller will know everything he needs to know about the airspace he controlsI've got a bridge in Sydney for sale

[Dukeunlimited]

I remember this issue being raised about eight years ago. I was wondering whether anyone from ATC could comment on the veracity of a compliant I heard against the arrangement at the time, which was essentially as follows:

If approach control was moved to a central location (no longer local), a delay in the radar information reaching the controller's screen would lead to increased separation requirements. A corollary of this was said to be a drop in the overall movement rate.

True or false?

I do also think the 'eggs in baskets' argument has merit too.

[Tarq57]

I remember this issue being raised about eight years ago. I was wondering whether anyone from ATC could comment on the voracity of a compliant I heard against the arrangement at the time, which was essentially as follows:

If approach control was moved to a central location (no longer local), a delay in the radar information reaching the controller's screen would lead to increased separation requirements. A corollary of this was said to be a drop in the overall movement rate.

True or false?

I do also think the 'eggs in baskets' argument has merit too.As far as I'm aware, unless there is a really cumbersome or multi-tier system of data transmission, the delay is likely to be of the order of microseconds, or less.

[Dukeunlimited]

Many thanks Tarq!

[The name is Porter]

Remember a C210 with engine failure in IMC vectored into hill because controller had no local knowledge.

I'm interested in how an aircraft with an engine failure can be vectored?

[Hempy]

All radar information is 'historical' anyway (i.e it's already happened). I wouldn't worry about the distance of transmission having an effect though, the total delay is all in milliseconds.

[topdrop]

That implies a failure in the training or validation process, rather than a failure in the principle under discussion.
I agree - the failure is brought about due to the cost of providing airfare, accommodation etc so the controllers can gain/refresh the level of local knowledge required for emergencies. The beancounters rule.

[Dick Smith]

Topdrop. Do you know the rego of the C210 involved in the accident near canberra. Or the ATSB report number?

[cattletruck]

One has to accept that data-comms is improving every year and that the location of a controller site becomes less of a consideration.

Now if the bean counters continue to have their way the service may even be outsourced to a call centre in India - just joking.

Technology is the enabler here and systems can now be devised that are much more efficient and safer, in fact the difficulty is in the picking of a suitable technology to invest in.

[topdrop]

It was SMA
Investigation Report Investigation: 199502193 - Forced/precautionary landing involving a Cessna Aircraft Company P210N, VH-SMA, 38.8km NE Canberra, Aerodrome, NSW on 13 July 1995 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1995/aair/199502193.aspx)

Court case settled out of court Injured pilots settle case | Goulburn Post (http://www.goulburnpost.com.au/story/951583/injured-pilots-settle-case/)

[Hempy]

Still trying to work out what 'local knowledge' had to do with the incident mentioned above or what relevance it had?

The limitations of the radar display, which depicted Lake George only in general terms (vector lines), prevented the controller from being certain of the aircraft's position with respect to terrain features. As the aircraft descended in IMC, the controller's range of options diminished rapidly and he finally concentrated upon positioning the aircraft as far as possible from known high terrain.

'Known high terrain' aka radar lsalt..

SIGNIFICANT FACTORS 3. The approach controller was unable to vector the aircraft to an obstruction-free landing site due to equipment and time limitations.

[The name is Porter]

Canberra Approach is done from Melbourne. Remember a C210 with engine failure in IMC vectored into hill because controller had no local knowledge. They are going to move Cairns App to Brisbane. Not many hills around Cairns are there?

After reading the report, it's a long stretch (and libelous) to state that the ATC vectored an aircraft into a hill. I wonder how your fellow ATC feels about your statement?

[Iron Bar]

Some absolute garbage there from Topdrop.

[Chief galah]

Once again the legal system excels itself.

[Tarq57]

After reading the report, it's a long stretch (and libelous) to state that the ATC vectored an aircraft into a hill. I wonder how your fellow ATC feels about your statement?
I'm a controller - although not at all familiar with the operating environment - and I agree.

It's also likely the equipment and communications limitations would have been present regardless of the remoteness of the control centre to the airport/s it served.

I think one has to accept that if you go flying in solid IMC with a low base, in a single, your options are severely limited in the event of the engine quitting.

[sunnySA]

Now if the bean counters continue to have their way the service may even be outsourced to a call centre in India - just joking.

Why joke about it, outsourcing is happening in many walks of life, typically call centre, help desks. The only reason it isn't done is because of sovereignty. Some smaller countries outsource their ATC. Airways (NZ) made moves to take-over more of the Tasman Sea...

I think the argument about Adelaide (and Cairns) is about efficiencies and best practice, which I think can be best achieved by having a joint rosters, that is, ATCs who are rated on Approach and Tower. This is done in many, many locations around the world, one shift in Approach, next shift in the Tower; and Supervisors working both locations. Much better understanding of the other persons work, greater emphasis on teamwork and delivery of safe, efficient and customer focused services.

Having joint rosters make for increased job satisfaction (diversity), more efficiencies in terms of rosters (shift lengths, leave allocations), enhanced service provision (as above) and importantly service continuity (able to switch ATCs between Approach and Tower at short notice).

Joint rosters should be the aim at each of the locations where a TCU is located, Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.

[gerry111]

Tarq57 wrote:


"I think one has to accept that if you go flying in solid IMC with a low base, in a single, your options are severely limited in the event of the engine quitting."


And that is the truth. Simply don't do it!

[Romeopapa]

Many thanks Dick for still being involved after all these years.

[Mhayli]

ACMS - it does matter whether a controller sits in Adelaide or Melbourne. In Adelaide, they are in the community into which they have integrated. They have made friends, they have performed whatever community service they may choose to do, their spouse may have employment and be equally integrated in to the community, as may have their kids, who go to a local school and have a well developed group of friends. There is a human element this discussion, that has so far been ignored on this forum.

I'd also like to know your source for YBAS TWR going remote.

[Hempy]

Mhayli,

The 'human element'?? OMFG spare me, this is ASA we are talking about not the UN Human Rights Council. Since when does the 'human element' make a shred of difference in Australia 2015? The PM would have kittens!

Get over yourself champ. From an ATC perspective the job can be done just as efficiently and well in Melbourne as it can in Adelaide. Obviously, according to the bean counters, it can be done better in fact. So don't go giving us any of this 'human element' crap you left wing, huggy fluffy loon - it's all about the dollars. And THAT'S the important thing.

[The name is Porter]

Doesn't help the 'so called' safety card argument or 'human element' when half the controllers in Adelaide are salivating over a possible redundancy ;)

[ACMS]

My source for YBAS TWR going remote is Airservices themselves. There was supposed to be a trial of a Sweedish system coming soon ( think it's Sweedish )

I'll ask th Airservices people at Avalon and see what the latest is.

Just found a link and its SAAB

http://www.saabgroup.com/Civil-security/Air-Transportation-and-Airport-Security/Air-Traffic-Management-Solutions/Remote-Tower-Pre/

Scroll down a bit and they mention YBAS and Airservices in the document.

[fujii]

There was a plan to run Alice tower remotely.The cameras were installed in Alice and tested remotely in Adelaide. Last I heard just before retirement in September, they weren't going ahead.

The other plan for remote towers was to have an economical way to run towers at locations such as mining towns where air traffic may suddenly increase but with the downturn in mining, this may be a longer term project.

[majorca]

Correct, Fuji........not before wasting $6 million.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re "
The other plan for remote towers was to have an economical way to run towers at locations such as mining towns where air traffic may suddenly increase but with the downturn in mining, this may be a longer term project."

Yeah.... We used to call these 'AFIZ'....

Not 'Control' of course, but a full Flight Information Service, which seemed to work pretty well in its various forms, for about 50+ years or so....

Cheers :ok:

p.s. Thanks for de redundo Dick.....

[Hempy]

p.s. Thanks for de redundo Dick.....

You've been saying that for at least 10 years Griffo, for some reason I don't think you really mean it!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

(Slight drift...)

Hi Hempy,

Re"You've been saying that for at least 10 years Griffo, for some reason I don't think you really mean it! "

Oh, but Oi do, Oi most coitenlee do......(Soft 'c'...)
14 yrs, 2 months, 10 days....Mate....And STILL Enjoyin' it......

Cheers :ok: :ok: :ok:

[j-mo]

The remote tower technology evaluation project in Alice was always planned to be just a trial, to test its abilities and practicality for possible future use in a non-towered environment with increasing traffic numbers towards the threshold of a requirement for a control service, never was it planned for operational use to replace Alice Tower.

[ACMS]

Yep, that's what Airservices told me at the show...( re YBAS remote TWR )

[The name is Porter]

If I remember correctly the idiot in charge of ASA (prior to the current CEO) wanted the remote tower technology to replace towered aerodromes. Most tower controllers had a good belly laugh at that. It simply won't happen in Australia.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Remote Control Tower to be tested in Virginia (http://http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Remote-Control-Tower-To-Be-Tested-In-Virginia-223614-1.html)

[Hempy]

I disagree about the cost, the building maintenance/facility management cost savings alone would cover relocation costs toot sweet.

As to your question, it's been on the cards since 1999. "Policy". I think that if approach controllers get cross endorsed (e.g AD-CB) 'rostering' might be a bit easier, but I'm sure that's got nothing to do with it :ouch: