ATCs can't have much to do if they can also do Flight Watch

[Dick Smith]

I’ve just been reading the executive summary of the Ambidji Report into the delivery of flight watch services. It points out that the U.S.A, Canada and New Zealand are all examples of countries where there is a discreet service delivery of flight watch.

It appears Airservices decided that we didn’t need a separate flight watch because the air traffic controllers have so little work load in Australia that they can also provide the flight watch service – thus saving money and increasing Airservices profits.

I have always been totally opposed to the removal of the separate flight watch as I could see that as a major part of moving to the safer NAS system. Could it be that if our air traffic controllers provided a Class E approach service, as they do in North America, that would mean we would have to put back a separate flight watch service.

Of the $975 million or so of the Airservices budget, I understand separate flight watch would only be $2 million or $3 million a year. It sounds to me as if we should move back to that safer system and let the air traffic controllers use that work load to give a proper air traffic control Class E service at non-tower airports. What do others think?

[le Pingouin]

Flight watch is provided on HF.

[sunnySA]

Richard Harold Smith, AC, it would be useful if you posted a link to the report you refer to.

FIS have been under review for quite a while. Whilst one wouldn't want a return to Operational Control there must be other and better options. Give every airframe an iPad with access to WX/NOTAM information.

[Dick Smith]

Le Pin I hope you are joking. What's wrong with putting half a dozen VHF outlets on the HF desk?

Not many aircraft have HF. It's a 1930s system.

[Capn Bloggs]

You asked for it, Dick, and you got it. :ok:

[le Pingouin]

Snort. I issue instructions for modern RPT aircraft to use HF as primary comms most days.

The VHF flight watch outlets were rationalised away years ago.

[Dick Smith]

And they should not have been removed.

If a separate VHF Flightwatch system is not necessary why would Canada , the USA and New Zealand not remove the system to save a few dollars.?

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

Sorry, Dick, are you proposing that IFR and VFR in the same airspace be on different frequencies? IFR with ATC, and VFR with FlightWatch?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

HEY THERE DICK,

YOU WAS DE ONE that got rid of "US"....

Duplication of 'services' YOU said.....

12 / 12 / 1991........Remember....???
No cheers:=:yuk::mad::mad::mad:

P.s. Thanks again for the redundo....mucho appreciated!

[triadic]

Flight watch is provided on HF.

And is also an "on request" service on the ATC area VHF freqs, but you may have to wait.

that IFR and VFR in the same airspace be on different frequencies? IFR with ATC, and VFR with FlightWatch?

Err... No requirement for VFR to be on any specific frequency - just keep your eyes outside in E and G. Don't forget the gliders who have their own VHF and have for many years.... Even when there was FS. Their greatest risk is colliding with another Glider! We now have CTAFs, MULTICOM and BROADCAST AREAs as well. Good airmanship should have you using the best one for the circumstances

FS in its day was outstanding, but we have moved on and the facilities have now been pulled or transferred to ATC, who can provide a similar service "on request". As opposed to the old days, not many VFRs use it now.

Much as it was nice to have FS to be available to hold your hand when the going got tough, I would suggest that with the large reduction of VFR traffic over the last decade or so, the cost-benefit would not be attractive $wise.

[The name is Porter]

ATCs can't have much to do if they can also do Flight Watch
Sorry, Dick, are you proposing that IFR and VFR in the same airspace be on different frequencies? IFR with ATC, and VFR with FlightWatch?

I've done a bit of flying in the States, one of my best mates is a corporate pilot in the States, he's got a firm hand in GA and still instructs. VFR's DONOT listen out on control frequencies unless they want a clearance into controlled airspace. They listen out on 121.5.

What makes you think that an aviation backwater like Australia & apathetic pilot community that has allowed a disastrous aviation 'reform' to takeover knows what's best in aviation? Australians are not experts in aviation.

[Jabawocky]

I see a second problem…..well done :ok:

What makes you think that an aviation backwater like Australia & apathetic pilot community that has allowed a disastrous aviation 'reform' to takeover knows what's best in aviation? Australians are not experts in aviation.

[Agrajag]

Can I take the controversial position that the current system doesn't work too badly?

When I'm flying the VFR bug smasher, you can bet I have my eyes open for other traffic. But I can't hope to see all of it, some of which is IFR and descending from flight levels at high speed and RoD. The logical second layer of defence is to be aware by listening to the radio, and that will only work if I'm on the same frequency. If we can't return to the Good Ol' Days, and have dedicated FS for use in Class G, the next best thing to use is area frequency. No, it's not perfect, what with gliders on their own frequency and other VFRs who don't want to speak up, but it's better than nothing.

I have on plenty of occasions been the beneficiary of traffic advisories in Class G, even though the controller wasn't obliged to provide them. That helps the other aircraft as much as it does me.

The current rule is pretty simple, if only we all followed it:


Near a CTAF? Use that.
Near a marked airfield with no CTAF? Use 126.7.
Neither of the above? Use Area.

Today's radios are clever enough to monitor a secondary frequency while using the primary. It's not hard to keep an ear out on Area while using CTAF, if that's appropriate.


I've done a bit of flying in the States, one of my best mates is a corporate pilot in the States, he's got a firm hand in GA and still instructs. VFR's DONOT listen out on control frequencies unless they want a clearance into controlled airspace. They listen out on 121.5.I'm not sure we want 121.5 to degenerate into the "chat" frequency to be used by all and sundry. Having flown a fair bit in places such as China, I can assure you it's not pretty. In any case I'd like to be a little more aware of who else is around, by listening on a common frequency.

In the case of a real emergency, I wouldn't want to have to wait for a break in the chatter before I could get a word in, and then hope someone passed the message on. I'd rather talk direct to the guy who has the resources to send in the cavalry.

On the rare occasions where I'm out of VHF range of a ground station, I'll agree that 121.5 would be the logical alternative for such a call.

[On Track]

Agrajag, I agree with all you say.

And I too have been the beneficiary of traffic information in Class G which the controller didn't have to provide. Well done both Melbourne Centre and Brisbane Centre.

[tyler_durden_80]

Well Agrajag,

Your post detailing your 'rules' is far too well reasoned, and highlights using common sense and good airmanship...such a post has no place in a discussion like this, or even on this forum for that matter!

:ok:

[YPJT]

Agrajag,
Pretty well how I do it too. :D

Those who have been in this game for a while miss the good old days of Flight Watch and even the ever friendly flight service but those days are well and truly gone.

Triadic makes a good point re limited numbers not justifying the re introduction of those facilities.

[Dick Smith]

Monitoring 121.5 doesn't make it a chat frequency. It's the best frequency to give an emergency call on anywhere in the world as high flying airline aircraft monitor the frequency .

You can't monitor the " control " frequency in other countries because control frequency boundaries are not shown on maps.

The frequency boundaries were removed from aussie maps with NAS but an outcry of ignorance resulted in the boundaries going back on the maps resulting in a non workable half wound back system that we now have.

That's why those incompetent people in CASA sent out the NOTAM stating that calls at non marked airports should be on the ATC area frequency. It's amateur hour with these CASA people.

And Flight Watch with VHF frequencies is not gone forever. Just wait and see!

[Capn Bloggs]

resulting in a non workable half wound back system that we now have.
Seems to me to work pretty well. So what if freqs aren't on the charts overseas? Do we have to have Donald Trump running the country just because that's what happens in America??

And Flight Watch with VHF frequencies is not gone forever.
As pointed out by Ex-FSO Griffo, YOU shut down Flight Service and happily sat back as Peter ?? saved $20m per annum back in ??Space 2000. You have NO credibility when you now start complaining that you can't talk, on VHF, to your very own dedicated Flight Service Officer. You wanted VFR out of the system; you've got it.

That's why those incompetent people in CASA sent out the NOTAM stating that calls at non marked airports should be on the ATC area frequency. It's amateur hour with these CASA people.
Totally and utterly irrelevant to the thread. Or is this thread just going to end up as another general rant against everything you disagree with?

[Capt Claret]

Mr Smith, you're like a harping wife in the car that insist on taking a left turn because she knows better. And then blames the driver for being in a dead end road!

Sheesh. :ugh:

[buckshot1777]

And Flight Watch with VHF frequencies is not gone forever. Just wait and see! More costs that Airservices will have to pass on to the industry.

And why, when it isn't justified?

FW via ATC or HF combined with AERIS and/or accessing data by using any number of modern mobile devices is adequate.

[Dick Smith]

AMATs. And NAS both clearly showed a separate VHF Flightwatch system as per leading aviation countries. The cost is neglible .

Yes. I removed the duplicated Full Position flight service system as it was extremely costly and unique in the world.

The plan was to have a single system operated by ATCs with a minimum of class E in terminal areas where traffic densities required.

Never happened because of ignorant resistance to change.

Now we are going to lead the world with the most expensive ADSB mandates in the world for all IFR aircraft but not even provide a class E separation service at busy non tower airports.

It's madness!

[The name is Porter]

Flight Service was excellent but waaaay over the top. It was great to drop in and have a chat to blokes like Griffo etc, but the world has moved on. If you want flight service back let's wind back the internet too & take ozrunways & avplan back off you. I remember having to ring up to get an arfor and it was a pain in the arse copying everything down. Let's wind back naips too.

121.5 is NOT used to chat on in the States, it's monitored.

Who ever the tool was that directed aircraft to transmit their circuit calls on centre frequency.............I don't know what to say? Idiot, clown, imbecile doesn't do the tool justice.

[uncle8]

Who ever the tool was that directed aircraft to transmit their circuit calls on centre frequency.............I don't know what to say? Idiot, clown, imbecile doesn't do the tool justice.

We have discussed this before but you infer that there is a better frequency to use in the circuit of an airstrip which is not marked on charts. Which one should we use?

[Dick Smith]

Quite clearly the multicom 126.7. That's what it was introduced for.

Just about everyone ignores the CASA NOTAM stating that the area frequency should be used for non chart marked airports.

The question is - Which chart? Some show airfields and others don't. This means pilots are on different frequencies in the circuit area depending on the chart they are looking at - if they comply. Crazy!

[uncle8]

Just about everyone ignores the CASA NOTAM stating that the area frequency should be used for non chart marked airports.

I don't. I'm too scared to, operating from a very quiet (I am the only user) unmarked strip where there is a lot of overflying traffic, none of which is on 126.7.
I would be talking to myself and another benefit of being on area is being able to receive traffic alerts.
Must admit though that I don't make unnecessary broadcasts on the area frequency, just listen a lot because the surrounding terrain encourages overflying traffic to be well above circuit height.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This doesn't smell right. If I didn't know better I reckon somebody is trying to rewrite history!

[buckshot1777]

Just about everyone ignores the CASA NOTAM Unless I've missed something, the "CASA NOTAM" expired over a year ago.

When did you last check NOTAMs?

[Dick Smith]

So if it " expired" does that mean we can go back to the NAS design of using 126.7 at all airports that do not have a different allocated frequency?

Uncle8. Rather than be scared could I suggest you simply keep a good lookout?

[buckshot1777]

So if it " expired" does that mean we can go back to the NAS design of using 126.7 at all airports that do not have a different allocated frequency?No, it expired when the relevant text was published in AIP.

[triadic]

Remember that FLIGHTWATCH services by ATC on Area frequencies is workload permitting... you may have to wait!

The issue with the MULTICOM is that those in CASA that promulgated it as a clarification of what they "thought" the instruction was, actually brought about a change to a procedure which was not consulted with industry at the RAPACs or any other forum. The change should have been subject to a Risk Analysis or some sort of safety case - neither of which those in industry that are across this have seen or heard of. This whole mess was brought about by a few people that did not understand what was already in place and as a procedure had worked satisfactory for almost a decade. Now it is a mess and Dick is correct in that many still use the MULTICOM, regardless of the recent change in the AIP. The Area frequency is not one that should be used for such broadcasts.

Unless I've missed something, the "CASA NOTAM" expired over a year ago.

No, it expired when the relevant text was published in AIP.

the text in the AIP was changed as a result of this lack of understanding within CASA and other than some small articles has not been followed up to any degree


Who ever the tool was that directed aircraft to transmit their circuit calls on centre frequency.............I don't know what to say? Idiot, clown, imbecile doesn't do the tool justice.

the same people that said it was only a clarification


Quote:
Just about everyone ignores the CASA NOTAM stating that the area frequency should be used for non chart marked airports.
I don't. I'm too scared to, operating from a very quiet (I am the only user) unmarked strip where there is a lot of overflying traffic, none of which is on 126.7.

How do you know that?? Your primary means of traffic avoidance (in VMC) is KEEP A GOOD LOOKOUT - not to rely on hearing calls on either MULTICOM or AREA.

Remember that the gliders and croppies are often on another frequency and don't make many calls at the best of times. The gliders are more concerned about the risk of collision in thermals with other gliders so they are very rarely on area at any altitude.

The MULTICOM is recommended for use not above 3000ft agl. Much easier to have a single frequency for low level use when not near CTAFs with another frequency.

If you are near an area frequency boundary, just which one do you listen to?
Plotting such a boundary outside coverage of VTC/VNC might be 20 or 30 nm in error unless you plot it on the kitchen table first! How many do that? In the USA the area frequency boundaries are not on the charts.

When the risk analysis comes to light, it will no doubt be seen as a safety issue and the MULTICOM will prevail.
(NB: Like CTAF and NOTAM it should be written in CAPITALS...)

:mad::ugh::confused::uhoh:

[Lead Balloon]

The MULTICOM is recommended for use not above 3000ft agl.Recommended by whom?

I'm planning a trip, VFR from Griffith to Wagga via Temora, at 3,500', and back to Griffith via Narrandera at 4,500'. I have one serviceable VHF.

Please tell me what frequency the recommendation would have me set my VHF to, at the various points long that route. Please provide precise details. "From point X to point Y on the route, you should have your VHF set to ... From point Y to point Z on the route, you should have your VHF set to ..." and so on, until I get back to Griffith.

(Should "AGL" be written in CAPITALS too?)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A bit of clarity. Dick, cannot find any current Ambidji reports except a tender reference back in 2008. This would have been the result of your withdrawing legal action against AirServices.

Do you have a link to your report?

[buckshot1777]

The Area frequency is not one that should be used for such broadcasts.AIP says the Area frequency is to be used for aerodromes not marked on charts.

Don't muddy things by telling people it should not be used, contravening AIP.

There are few such strips and the traffic light to the extent that isolated succinct broadcasts presumably aren't presenting a problem to ATC, but if any do, then there are arrangements in place to publish such strips on charts so then the MULTICOM applies.

If you are near an area frequency boundary,Make a succinct broadcast on both.

It's not rocket science.

[Jamair]

I fly daily (and nightly) in some of the most remote areas of this country and I use HF to FW every day. Despite having 4G mobile install, Satphone, VHF and UHF, its the synthesized fully digital HF I can get comms on most reliably in upper bumf!ck at stupid o'clock.

[Dick Smith]

Buckshot I love it. If you are taxiing at an unmarked aerodrome near a frequency boundary ( like Wilpena) you give the taxiing calls on both ATC area frequencies .

Like nothing else in the world!

Really good info for high flying jets. They must think we are mad!

Jamair. Are you suggesting all aircraft should get fitted with HF just so AsA can increase management bonuses by not having any VHF Flightwatch outlets. Once again moving the costs to the industry!

[uncle8]

Could I ask the question which was not answered the last time this was discussed?
Which unmarked strip(s) are so busy that the circuit calls on area frequency are causing problems for ATC?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

If you are taxiing at an unmarked aerodrome near a frequency boundary ( like Wilpena) you give the taxiing calls on both ATC area frequencies

Well how else would anyone else in the vicinity become aware of your intentions? You are at an unmarked strip. Nobody is going to anticipate you popping up in front of them if they don't know an aerodrome is there. That's what an Area Frequency is for, ffs.

[Agrajag]

Buckshot I love it. If you are taxiing at an unmarked aerodrome near a frequency boundary ( like Wilpena) you give the taxiing calls on both ATC area frequencies .No, you use a bit of common sense, and call on the one applicable to the direction you're going. That's where any conflict will most likely be coming from.

How long did it take you to find a suitable unmarked strip near a boundary, to support this fatuous argument?

Like nothing else in the world!Maybe we've accepted here that see-and-avoid is not the perfect solution, and that a timely radio call adds to the general awareness.

Maybe it's because we're not Americans, who need to impart their entire life story over the radio, so we are capable of keeping it brief.

Maybe we're aware that a VFR aircraft will hurt just as much as an IFR if you hit it.

Really good info for high flying jets. They must think we are mad!No, they (we) don't.

[Roger Gove]

Dear Dick
Was that the 2008 report from Ambidji.
Like everyone on this post has said "Hey Guys, We've Moved on!"
As Griffo pointed out - "Who started this rubbish?"
We are now in the 21st century where GA is just about dead through lack of money, support and modern aircraft; and jets such as F100, E190, B738 and A320 carry lots of passengers to lots of places they never used to!:ugh:

[triadic]

Any broadcast on an ATC frequency has the potential to jam or interfere with the prime purpose of the facility. This includes any calls on the ground of which most would not be heard by ATC, but certainly by high flyers. It would only take one jammed call to interfere with the job that ATC are there for. And then there is the tendency for some to talk far too much. Really not needed on an ATC frequency.

Standardisation is a big thing in this business and having a standard frequency for low level ops other than at marked CTAFs goes a long way to making it safer for all concerned.

It is a nonsense to even consider publishing Farmer Joe's strip on the charts - the clutter would be unacceptable. Besides it takes over a year to process such an amendment to the chart and in many cases Farmer Joe might have sold and moved on.

Leady - You have been around for a bit and would know that good knowledge and airmanship should dictate what we select on the VHF. One has to realise that there is the potential to be mixing it with maybe no radio aircraft and others that listen to other frequencies and the stereo etc at those levels. As said before, having a radio and using it without jamming the high flyers is no substitute for keeping a good lookout. On your flight with 3 CTAFs on different frequencies, then outside of the vicinity of those CTAFs at those levels I would only listen on Area in the cruise, but you could quite easily just go from one CTAF to another ?? Your call....:ok:

[buckshot1777]

It is a nonsense to even consider publishing Farmer Joe's strip on the charts - the clutter would be unacceptable.Who has ever suggested that??

A strip would only be considered for publication if the traffic movements and therefore the associated chatter reached a level where it started to present a problem.

Exactly the same procedure as now, if the level of chatter on 126.7 at a strip reaches a level where it should be assigned a discrete CTAF.

Sheesh :rolleyes:

[Roger Gove]

Buckshot - AS it should be! Only registered, certified and military aerodromes have to be marked on charts. The rest are Aeroplane Landing Areas with no published construction or notification requirements. Some ALA such as Gunderoo are marked because the owners wish it to be so. :ugh:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Is this about losing Flightwatch facilities or the bastardisation frequency mess that is NAS?

Flightwatch is the last vestage of Flight Services left extant. Ten consoles in the BN TWR building is all there is. Any saving is purely savings on wages

[Hempy]

Oh the humanity.

Dick, you were the overseer of all this, and now 20 years later you come on here attacking it??? Please!

I know your hypocrisy knows no bounds, but really, this is beyond a joke.

The system worked beautifully for 40 years before you intervened. Now you are lambasting your own initiatives? Dick.

[triadic]

I don't believe this has much to do with Dick, but is more about the hard liners in CASA and Industry that fight change no matter what!:ugh:

FS in its day was excellent, but at what cost? It became obvious in the later '80's that it was a luxury we could no longer afford and change had to occur. There is no going back now, some 25 yrs later.

Yes there are still many changes on the table, some of which we might see. I don't think the debate on ADSB for IFR has even started yet...:suspect:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

DTI was the holy grail. To get rid of FS, us punters had to be made to believe that ATC could do the FS job as well as their normal job because the new kit was so good.....didn't quite turn out that way:hmm:

The best way was evolution...instead of super AFIZ verbal diahoria the powers that be should have shared the kit. TAAATS has a virtual track function that was never utilised in low level airspace. ATC could have kept their turf. FSOs could have rerated to enroute yet remain FSOs...may have come in handy for TIBA alleviation...moved to BN and ML looked after the same turf.

The big plus that was never looked at. If FSOs activated GA VFR flightplans within TAAATS would activate a virtual track....back to DTI...IFR is still FPR...back then, that is. IFR track is updated. VFR track just keeps on plowing on unhindered unless there is about to be a conflict. FSO contacts the particular VFR for a position update and next ETA...reports IFR traffic to VFR, updates virtual track of VFR and then can report traffic to the IFR and OFFER VECTORS if required.

I still firmly believe this whole affair was a demarcation dispute. Thirty years wasted. Evolution from ATC/FS through to ADS-B. VFR could have kept dumb as long as they submitted a plan and reported any amendments and maintained a listening watch on area frequency. IFR would have received DTI and ATC could have kept to class C....well...I can dream of what might have been if someone had a bit more of a thought about what was really needed.

[Robbovic]

You are pretty much on the money, Oz, when you talk about a demarcation issue.
Some of the details are fuzzy cos it was nearly 30 years ago, but I remember when I worked in FS in Adelaide, a bunch of nerds turned up from Canberra talking about something they called a flight plan display. It was screen based and the concept was much like what turned out to be TAAATS. Some of us spent a day or so explaining what FS entailed and they went away happy. We sat back and waited to see this piece of kit turn up.
Meanwhile ATC got wind of this and the reaction was "no f..ing way are those smellies getting a screen display - that is ATC kit" Of course, ATCs and FSOs in Adelaide were barely on speaking terms, or at least there was a vocal section of both that promoted that situation so it was no surprise what eventuated.

[Lead Balloon]

I hope you're not suggesting that aviation safety regulation and air service arrangements in Australia are influenced by industrial relations and other political issues? Surely it's just about "safety". :rolleyes:

[Jabawocky]

Jamair. Are you suggesting all aircraft should get fitted with HF just so AsA can increase management bonuses by not having any VHF Flightwatch outlets. Once again moving the costs to the industry!

Not sure what Jam Jar was suggesting, but if the following happened, ALL of us would be happy including you;

1. ASA install VHF repeaters to give full coverage, and at the same time ADSB.
2. The fleet equip with ADSB unless they are VFR and free in G.
3. Happy with E to 700 AGL if the above is available to all IFR, and the ATC staff are given the tools and the numbers.

Solved! :ok:

[The name is Porter]

smellies

It was an affectionate term :D

[Jamair]

Hi Jabba.

Wasn't suggesting anything actually. Just observing that the OP was commenting in what came across as a negative sense, on HF FW. AFAIK, everyone doing IFR in the GAFA has HF so cant see how this observation is suggesting moving costs anywhere. A listen on any of the HF freqs will show its pretty busy there a lot of the time, so it's probably unreasonable for this rooster to be speaking of ASA in the condescending manner that he did. I think ASA do a pretty good job, esp working HF which despite being 1930s tech, still works. Also probably unreasonable for him to try that same patronising whiny-arse bull**** with me. News flash sport, this is not usa. No-one is going to put radar or even ADSB out here where a lot of the light GA industry does its work. In fact, has ol mate DS got ANYTHING useful or positive to say about ANYTHING? Or is he just an expert on everything and if only the world / country / industry etc would listen to him everything would be just peachy.

Cheers Jabba, must catch up soon.