Whats going on with ATC Shortage?

[extralite]

Just read this about flight cancellations today in Aus: https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/warnings/flight-chaos-as-bad-weather-staff-shortages-plague-major-aussie-airports/news-story/8e250e27ecbfb57024b012dc9a6c0205 Also noticed in my own flying, Gold Coast airport has been running as a CTAF sometimes due to ATC shortages, area freq unmanned etc.

Firstly in my opinion controllers in Australia are generally excellent given what i can hear by their excessively careful wording in clearances is a job that must the highest levels of pedanticism.. Can almost hear the supervisors listening over their shoulder for them to forget "climb via the SID" from 4000 to 5000" as opposed to just climb...otherwise of course the pilots will just go off on their own random way.

Can Air Services be such a cluster that they can't fulfill their one main job? Provide air services. Jesus i despair in Aus bureaucracy sometimes.

[compressor stall]

Have you not read the head office NOTAMs for a while?

[extralite]

Yes I have. That is my point. Any half reasonable private company can deal with that sort of thing. But thanks for the reminder to keep up to date with my NOTAM reading. Almost missed that there were a couple of trees infringing upon the boundaries of the airfield last time i flew. Something about a tower hazard light 3miles away US as well. And Head Office Notams? They are pretty much what ignited my desire to fly. Perhaps we get some of these airfield tree and light surveyors, and train them up for the tower? :)

[PiperCameron]

Just read this about flight cancellations today in Aus: https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/warnings/flight-chaos-as-bad-weather-staff-shortages-plague-major-aussie-airports/news-story/8e250e27ecbfb57024b012dc9a6c0205 Also noticed in my own flying, Gold Coast airport has been running as a CTAF sometimes due to ATC shortages, area freq unmanned etc.

Firstly in my opinion controllers in Australia are generally excellent given what i can hear by their excessively careful wording in clearances is a job that must the highest levels of pedanticism.. Can almost hear the supervisors listening over their shoulder for them to forget "climb via the SID" from 4000 to 5000" as opposed to just climb...otherwise of course the pilots will just go off on their own random way.

I notice similarities with Qantas (and a host of other companies also) on this: Airservices laid off a lot of valuable people during COVID and simply have not been able to get them to come back. As a direct result, the controllers left have been working longer than they should with a higher workload looking after larger areas of airspace than they really should (eg. the Alice Springs Class D, which is just stupid), meaning they're getting burnt out and the system repeats.

Airservices are putting new controllers on, but is everyone knows it takes time to get the newbies up to speed. Unfortunately ATC in this country has been in a spiral dive for some months now with no-one at the controls and it's hard to see how it will get better any time soon.

[extralite]

Exactly Piper Cameron. And how short sighted was that. Lay off people that they know take years to train. But presumably, along with that, a lot of those people laid off just don't want to go back. Why would that be? I can only guess it is a mixture of how they are paid and how they are treated by the organization. I get the feeling (although i do not know for sure)...that Air Services must be a pretty ordinary place to work for those that do the actual work, but pretty good for those up top. Similar to the other example you quoted in your post. Well run organizations were able to bounce back pretty fast from Covid.

[Squawk7700]

I would never want to work there. Just read the news items about working there and you’ll soon figure out why there’s a shortage.

Also in my opinion, they discriminate based on age. If you carefully read the application criteria you will realise why.

I sicked Fairwork onto them and Fairwork agreed with me but FW are what you’d call toothless tigers, they couldn’t do anything about it as ASA lawyered up and no law firms will take on age discrimination pro-bono.

[PiperCameron]

Also in my opinion, they discriminate based on age. If you carefully read the application criteria you will realise why.

According to friends who work there, you'd be 100% correct. It's incredibly stupid too, BTW - they throw out people with years of experience right when they need it most, in preference for someone younger who may or may not stay the course in the current AsA envronment. That's bad for everyone, including those at the top who must be too blind to see it?.

[Clare Prop]

Jandakot ops often restricted these days due to staff shortages. Costing the industry a fortune...sometimes circuits are not available at all.
Back to the same issues we had in the early 2000s, but this time apparently they won't let the experienced guys come back.

[alphacentauri]

....and the failure rate at the college is significantly higher than it was back as well

[Captain Garmin]

If the multi billion dollar AirServices OneSky replacement air traffic control system for TAAATS was ready to go live now (and wasn't 10+ years late with a multi-million dollar cost blowout) there would be a real challenge to get it live as CASA require both systems to be run IN PARALLEL for an extended proving period needing a temporary dual workforce. Where will those ATC's come from....??

[Mr Mossberg]

Someone suggested on another thread that Joe Aston would have a ball with this, hope so.

[Lead Balloon]

Lots of executives in Airservices get paid lots of money, even when Airservices provides unreliable or no services. A lot like Qantas.

This, apparently, is the ‘organisation landscape’ out there these days. Employees - especially experienced employees - are an inconvenience to be punted and alienated to the extent practicable.

[PiperCameron]

Lots of executives in Airservices get paid lots of money, even when Airservices provides unreliable or no services. A lot like Qantas.

This, apparently, is the ‘organisation landscape’ out there these days. Employees - especially experienced employees - are an inconvenience to be punted and alienated to the extent practicable.

The worst part is that their 'customers' (us) actually appreciate all the 'employees' are doing because, in this case, our lives really do depend on it!!

What's it going to take for the ATC top-brass to clean up their act and show their employees some love for a change? A serious incident involving awake pilots and tired controllers - and not the other way around?!?? :eek:

[Lead Balloon]

No. As with the cure for what ails Qantas, you connect the executives’ remuneration with the actual provision of a thing called a “service” to people called “customers”.

[Clare Prop]

Well back about 20 years ago when they decided to shut Jandakot Tower at 6pm on weekdays there was an incident where one aircraft landed on top of another after the tower closed and the people involved were extremely lucky to survive that. I saw it happen.
They had put in a CAGRO, a retired very experienced controller, but he obviously wasn't there as ATC although his voice was familiar; some people thought the tower must be open. One of the pilots apparently insisted he had been "cleared to land" which was obviously not the case, one controller who had finished his shift saw it all unfold as he was leaving. It was a complete mess. But we did get longer tower hours after that.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Someone suggested on another thread that Joe Aston would have a ball with this, hope so.

Has he worked there?

[Mr Mossberg]

Don't know. Could have.

[Mr Mossberg]

Airservices laid off a lot of valuable people during COVID

They didn't. They gave a lot of experienced controllers voluntary redundancy. Big difference.

[Lead Balloon]

But they weren’t redundant in fact. It was a typical public sector pantomime used to get rid of irritatingly experienced people who keep exposing embarrassing problems.

[sunnySA]

Can Air Services be such a cluster that they can't fulfill their one main job? Provide air services. Jesus i despair in Aus bureaucracy sometimes.
Yes. And the CEO is a former Air Traffic Controller.

For each of the TIBA/TRA and OPR Restrictions NOTAMs there are probably a dozen times where units / sectors / groups / Towers are operating short staffed or without a Supervisor. If the ATCs stopped working O/T or stopped accepting changes of shifts, for an even a week the place would completely collapse.

[le Pingouin]

extralite, the reason so few of us have been "tempted" to return is age. We were all at least 56 so probably approaching retirement anyway. It very definitely wouldn't be a case of walking back into the job as regaining a medical would probably not be straightforward and we'd need to undergo retraining. Why would anyone approaching 60 or older want to? Not to mention 5am/6am starts.

[le Pingouin]

LB, to be honest when the redundancy program was mooted it wasn't at all obvious air traffic was going to pick up as fast as it did. By the time we left it was evident things were picking up to an extent but it still wasn't entirely evident how much faster it would occur. More than a few airlines were equally caught with their pants down. All of us were likely within five years of retirement at most.

[Lead Balloon]

All that goes to show is that all the highly-paid executives who are supposed to be smarter than the rest of us and be better strategic planners, aren’t. What was their ‘Plan B’ and ‘Plan C’. TIBA and TRA should be Plan Z.

[Mr Mossberg]

There is plenty of research out there on how strongly traffic picks up after a global shock, to say it caught anyone by surprise indicates that that anyone is ignorant and ill informed. Every rebound has been strong and eclipses the previous traffic levels.

Airservices is on par with Qantas, once a journalist has the will to investigate this it'll be a great story and it will eclipse Qantas shenanigans.

[missy]

From an article about Qantas.
But they (QF) also should have understood that demand could bounce a lot quicker than they (QF) had planned
There was a lot of demand, the sheer volume of flight credits that they (QF) were holding should've told them something. And baby boomers trying to catch up for 2-3 years of no travel. One of AsA's executives previously worked with IATA (airline data), and AsA being part of CANSO (ANSPs), so there would've been lots of information.
Unfortunately the new normal is reduced traffic flows, delays and restrictions.

[le Pingouin]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[sunnySA]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I don't think it's a hindsight thing, it's called leadership and not being able to admit when you are wrong. Every ATC is happy to take VR, once in a generation opportunity, but it was a poor decision given the amount of work needing to done. Project after project after project. OneSky, INTAS for Sydney Tower, programs to enhance network air traffic flow management, including airport collaborative decision making (A-CDM) and long-range air traffic flow management (LR-ATFM).

[le Pingouin]

Sure there was pent up demand but the aviation industry wasn't setting the COVID rules.

[missy]

For each of the TIBA/TRA and OPR Restrictions NOTAMs there are probably a dozen times where units / sectors / groups / Towers are operating short staffed or without a Supervisor. If the ATCs stopped working O/T or stopped accepting changes of shifts, for an even a week the place would completely collapse.

From the Network Aviation PIA thread.
Guys have gotta stop working on RDO's & "helping" them out with duty changes for a token payment, if you want to get their attention. Conditions will NEVER change as long as they keep crewing flights.
Says it all really.

[sunnySA]

SERVICE OBLIGATION
5.1. The parties to this Agreement recognise that Airservices is obligated to continuously provide safe and efficient air traffic services in accordance with the provisions of the Air Services Act 1995 (Cth) and Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth).
5.2. In meeting this obligation, the parties to this Agreement commit to the development, application and review of mechanisms, consistent with the obligations of clause 8 (Consultation on Change), to provide service continuity on an on-going basis to ensure the safety of air navigation.

Obligated to provide what?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

When you have conditions like Unlimited Sick Leave, you are always going to struggle to have staff turn up when they are supposed to.

[Geoff Fairless]

Hi TIEW - as you would remember from your FSO days, under CASRs you are not allowed to operate when sick, therefore unlimited sick leave must be a prerequisite of any organisation that operates under CASRs. To limit sick leave would be a contravention of the CASRs. Do you not agree?

But that is not the problem.......

Airservices is a Government organisation that is required to recover its cost from the industry. This is, was, and always will be, complete nonsense for a public service that has monopoly control of a national asset; that is the airspace available for flying.
Other comparable countries do not do this. Their airspace control agencies are either military, a joint civil-military agency or a not-for-profit civil agency. That is a different thread, so let's return to Airservices.

Qantas claims, is it 60% of air traffic in Australia? Hence, they pay the majority of the money "earned" by Airservices. Almost all of that revenue is "earned" in the upper airspace and particularly in the approaches to Australia gifted to us by ICAO, the Oceanic airspace. That is why they concentrate their "One-Skys" on this area. A fundamental requirement of One Sky is the feed that goes into the Airservices revenue branch, ATC is what creates and sustains that monetary feed.
So, if you were running a business, and 60% of your income came from one customer, and another 20% from overseas customers in your upper and oceanic airspace, where would your Boss (currently Catherine King) want you to concentrate your efforts?

As a CASA ATC inspector, I saw control towers falling apart, and control cabs no longer fit for purpose. I saw airport plans to build new control towers continuously knee-capped by Airservices, their reluctance to open new control towers at airports trying to get a foothold in the industry, and all efforts directed into making sure the primary customer (Qantas, and on their coat-tails, other airlines) was satisfied.

This, I believe, is not the job of a government agency. It should be operating a service for all Australians that combines defence of the airspace, with, in peacetime, an airspace system that protects fare paying passengers while expediting the nation's commerce and allowing recreational airspace users to also participate. In short, the airspace should be defended by the RAAF while Airservices expedites commerce and protects everyone paying a fare to travel. (Another new thread should anyone wish to pursue it)

The Australian Government should:
1. Change the Airservices model to not-for-profit. (if it makes too much in a given time period, the money is returned to industry, not to the federal government)
2. Insist that the RAAF defends Australian airspace, by establishing radar systems capable of detecting aircraft that are not declaring their presence in Australian airspace. (Currently, Airservices is decommissioning radar in favour of ADS-B, the RAAF, to the best of my knowledge only has one air defence radar, JORN)
3. Do this by having Airservices and the RAAF jointly monitor radar defence systems, instead of complacently assuming the Indonesians might tell us about "incoming" before they hit Darwin.
4. Change the airspace regulation process to accommodate the above (the current top-down approach) to allow ambitious airports to apply for local airspace categorisations and employ their own air traffic controllers to administer that airspace. (This is a bottom-up approach)
5. This will require minor changes to CASR Parts 172 and 171 (if radars are to be used) and to the airspace act and regulations. (PS. None of this is new, it takes some of the characteristics of the US and UK airspace models and plants them into an Australian context)

A few other things would need to be modified, but if we do not start with some fundamental changes, the 1950s system we have now will never change.

[sunnySA]

TIEW, sick leave as required with a bunch of conditions, like holding a Class 3 medical, fit for duty, etc.
Geoff, agreed, funding modelling for AsA is clearly wrong.

Facilities are falling apart, or not being repaired. I imagine at some point the radar will be decommissioned.
B1352/23 REVIEW B994/23
RADAR COVERAGE, RADAR INFO SER AND RADAR BASED TRAFFIC INFO SER WEST
OF OAKEY (ROMA/GOONDIWINDI AREAS) NOT AVBL
DLA/RESTRICTIONS MAY OCCUR IN CTA
DUE OAKEY PSR/SSR FAILURE
FROM 09 110925 TO 11 220000 EST
Oakey radar U/S, another extension.

[Checkboard]

under CASRs you are not allowed to operate when sick, therefore unlimited sick leave must be a prerequisite of any organisation that operates under CASRs. To limit sick leave would be a contravention of the CASRs. Do you not agree?

Not at all. Some people are unsuited medically for aviation. If someone is so sick they can't perform their job then the employer is within their rights to let them go. Businessess aren't charities, required to financially support someone through extended long term or repeated sickness. That doesn't contravene any regs.

[missy]

Not at all. Some people are unsuited medically for aviation. If someone is so sick they can't perform their job then the employer is within their rights to let them go. Businessess aren't charities, required to financially support someone through extended long term or repeated sickness. That doesn't contravene any regs.
Thread drift. Yes, and that does happen. Employment as an ATC can (and has) been terminated.

[Geoff Fairless]

Checkboard - You are of course correct, and that is how it works with Airservices.
It is, however, illegal in Australia to sack an employee because they're injured or sick for up to three months, if they have a medical certificate.
Airservices simply goes one step further, and given the cost and scarcity of air traffic controllers, will go even further for the right people.
They can, of course, be deployed into activities that do not require a medical, this happens quite often.
Charity does not come into it. Missy completes the picture.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

as you would remember from your FSO days, under CASRs you are not allowed to operate when sick
There were no such thing as CASR's when I was an FSO.
Apart from that, I got the standard 5 days or whatever it was per year sick leave entitlement hangover from the old public service days. I'm pretty sure ATC at that time did too. Consequently, not many people went sick. You didn't waste sick days on actually being sick. When I left the game I reckon I could count on one hand the number of sick days I had actually taken during my 10 years. Unlimited sick leave for ATC was something introduced in an EBA back in the CAA days in the 90's. It was offered by Buck Brooksbank as a way of writing off a large unfunded accrued sick leave liability. It was sold at the time as a way of ensuring that someone with a long term illness would have the entire period of their illness covered, but it was really to fix the AsA books. Their stupidity was in not removing it from future EBAs.
From a Jan 2009 thread:
It was introduced years ago to remove a large overhang of unused sickleave from the accounts- to make the books look better, as unused defined sickleave sits as a liability on the books. So a former management, keen to make the books look better, managed to remove a large liability quickly and painlessly by offering controllers unlimited sick leave.

[Awol57]

You make it sound like everyone is just off having sick days. I can count on 2 fingers the number of sick days I have had in the last 5 years. Not everyone is just off swanning around sick. To be fair, I haven't included the 10 days isolation I had to take when a member of the household tested positive to COVID, even though I never got it. But that was a state govt requirement, and I don't believe it was entered as sick leave from memory.

[Squawk7700]

You make it sound like everyone is just off having sick days. I can count on 2 fingers the number of sick days I have had in the last 5 years. Not everyone is just off swanning around sick. To be fair, I haven't included the 10 days isolation I had to take when a member of the household tested positive to COVID, even though I never got it. But that was a state govt requirement, and I don't believe it was entered as sick leave from memory.

… and ironically your username is AWOL lol.

[Awol57]

… and ironically your username is AWOL lol.

Younger me evidently had a sense of humour :O

[43Inches]

If one employee is taking a lot of sick leave, that employee is having health issues. If a lot of employees are taking excessive sick leave there is a problem with your workplace. Sick leave is a measure of how much your employees value their workplace, low sick leave rates means employees are generally happy with the work and the conditions and pay. High sick rates mean the opposite, generally a sign that the mental well being of the employees is at risk and you are either working employees too much for too little, have a punitory system that inflicts stress on employees, or just simply employing the wrong type of people for the job. High sick leave usually combined with low morale, which means higher rate of company property damage, due to not caring, more toilet breaks, low productivity and care for schedules or deadlines, poor uniform/personal presentation, etc etc..... The next step is high rates of resignation for other workplaces or even leaving the industry.

A simple result of low morale is if a person does not like a particular shift they will call in sick for it rather than complain. The answer is to have a bidding system so that people get the shifts they would prefer. If you think that people should just 'toughen up' then expect a lot of sick leave.

If sick leave is affecting the company to the point that it is affecting productivity and possibly safety, then that is a company problem, not the employees....

If your company limits sick leave and makes it hard to take such leave, put in leave forms, request certificates, then they are trying to punish low morale, which is anti productive. It will cost way more to morale and lost productivity to chase this down rather than deal with the actual issues, which is usually something to do with working conditions, like duty hours or time away from home, worried about some punishment for non compliance, or stress due to not enough support and most likely a combination of all. Being hounded for sick leave will create more sickness....

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Not everyone is just off swanning around sick.
It doesn't have to be. Just has to be enough. There's been a few network disruption notifications coming through with "due short notice staffing issues" as the cause.

[43Inches]

If AA can't provide enough ATC for a given point in time, that's the result of poor planning and staffing levels at management level. You can not blame lack of staff for any particular day on sick leave, sick leave will just make any lack of staff worse. As I said above if lots of staff are taking sick leave at the same time that tells you something is rotten at a management level, even if they are genuinely sick, why didn't you segregate, implement controls and ensure the staff did not contract a disease all at once. Fair enough one weekend in a few years goes nuts and you have some disruptions, but this is regular, so entirely staffing/management related.

[missy]

It doesn't have to be. Just has to be enough. There's been a few network disruption notifications coming through with "due short notice staffing issues" as the cause.
The thread seems to have morphed to sick leave being the reason for the network disruptions. A shift can be vacant for any number of reasons, examples being, sick leave (the obvious one), special leave (sick child, sick parents, domestic emergency like fire, flood, car crash), staff member used elsewhere, staff member stood-down due to an incident, perhaps the DAME / CASA didn't complete the renewal paperwork, project work, safety work. And sometimes part of a shift is vacant for the same or similar reasons, or because of Fatigue or Roster Rules. Working extra shifts is likely to mean that an individuals fatigue could be elevated on 1 or more shifts. Working tired isn't safe. Working sick isn't safe.

But most roster groups would have vacant shifts on them, that is, no-one was rostered for the 0600-1300 shifts on 1 November and 2 November, so they will need to be covered on Overtime. Some roster groups would have rostered Overtime. And then can be management initiated changes of shift where a controller works a shift tomorrow instead of working another shift later in the roster.

If no-one is able to cover the shift, or only covers part of a shift then there is the potential for network disruptions. ATCs are very good at making things work, moving shifts, or changing the start time of shifts to ensure sufficient coverage. In the larger Towers, e.g. Sydney, SMC is often is worked as a single position rather than the East / West split, so there is likely to be delays as a single controller is managing more traffic and with a wider span of control. Delays for pushback, delays holding short of a runway, delays holding at B8. In the Centres you would find multiple sector areas being controlled by a single controller, missed calls, delays for level changes, late frequency transfer, late application of speed control.

So the original question was "What's going on with ATC Shortage?" - lots and nothing. A poor performing ATC system that is under resourced, under valued and under paid, lacking in motivation to perform anywhere near their best. On most shifts the controllers are relived to be going home and not get a phone call whilst driving home can they cover a shift tomorrow!

[Lead Balloon]

We have the benefit of the wisdom of Australian property developer, Tim Gurner, to explain what's going on with the ATC shortage:

We need to remind ATCers that they work for Airservices, not the other way around.
There's been a systematic change where ATCers feel Airservices is extremely lucky to have them as opposed to the other way around. So it's a dynamic that has to change. Airservices has got to kill that attitude and that has to come through hurting the ATCers and air travellers.
We need to see ATCer unemployment rise, ATCer unemployment has to jump 40, 50 per cent.

Hopefully Mr Gurner will get a gig as Qantas COO.

[missy]

We have the benefit of the wisdom of Australian property developer, Tim Gurner, to explain what's going on with the ATC shortage:

We need to remind ATCers that they work for Airservices, not the other way around.
There's been a systematic change where ATCers feel Airservices is extremely lucky to have them as opposed to the other way around. So it's a dynamic that has to change. Airservices has got to kill that attitude and that has to come through hurting the ATCers and air travellers.
We need to see ATCer unemployment rise, ATCer unemployment has to jump 40, 50 per cent.

Hopefully Mr Gurner will get a gig as Qantas COO.
Indeed. Too many lurk merchants, lame ducks and doggo dodgers.

Property developer Tim Gurner has walked back comments he made about unemployment and productivity at a summit this week after sparking global outrage.

In a statement on Thursday afternoon, the multimillionaire property developer said he deeply regretted his comments at the Australian Financial Review property summit on Tuesday which included calling for higher unemployment and saying tradies had become lazy.

“I made some remarks about unemployment and productivity in Australia that I deeply regret and were wrong,” he said.

“There are clearly important conversations to have in this environment of high inflation, pricing pressures on housing and rentals due to a lack of supply, and other cost of living issues. My comments were deeply insensitive to employees, tradies and families across Australia who are affected by these cost-of-living pressures and job losses.”

[Lead Balloon]

To quote Mike Carlton:Ah. So the image gurus, the reputation enhancers, the crisis managers have been summoned to try to extricate this clown [Gurner] from his self-inflicted disaster. It won’t work. His words will haunt him.One can tell from, Airservices' corporate communications, that Airservices spends a hefty amount on "image gurus" and "reputation enhancers".

[10JQKA]

"We're there,like air"
except when we're not

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I'm not saying unlimited sick leave is the base cause, but it would be a significant contributing factor. As a business, you know how many employees you need to provide X function, and you resource and budget for that accordingly. You know the defined things you have to cover such as Annual leave, training etc and yes, an estimated coverage for a known and defined amount of sick leave, These are the things you can control, and manage. You don't have excess resources just sitting around if you don't need them. You have some of course, to cover the unexpected, but you are managing risk there. Unused, expensive assets are a negative cost. If you have a situation where some employees needed to fulfil your base function, in excess of those recognised and available to cover the known and anticipated shortfalls, are suddenly not available, at random and in numbers, for indeterminate durations they, not you control, how the hell do you manage that, especially in an occupation/industry where you can't just have a generic employee sitting on a couch for the day because he wasn't needed that day, you need x number of highly skilled employees sitting idly on various couches because of the specialised and segregated nature of the job. You're still paying them, whether they're needed or not, as are you paying the absent staff for however long they feel they need to be absent (there's no financial imperative to return to work - that's what drives it usually). You can't suddenly train and pay more staff to be available because of the nature of the job, plus there is no end to the requirement, and if suddenly there was, what do you do with the excess staff you now have? They all have to be kept trained and current, even if there's nowhere to use them. It's a logistic and financial nightmare.

[Lead Balloon]

What do you think would have happened if the ANSP was still part of a Commonwealth department of state, freed of the entirely artificial legislative provisions about reasonable rates of return on assets and financial targets? Did ATSB have a logistic and financial nightmare during Covid, and have to punt a whole bunch of people who were sitting around twiddling their thumbs? Did CASA have a logistic and financial nightmare during Covid, and have to punt a whole bunch of people who were sitting around twiddling their thumbs?

Unlimited sick leave for ATC has been around for a while. Systemic TIBA, TRA and NOTAM'd reductions of services haven't. What's changed is that a tiny little third world ANSP has been made to pretend it's a heavy-hitting business enterprise.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

TIBA is nothing new. There's threads on here going back nearly 20 years bemoaning ATC staffing in Aus re TiBA etc. Covid just pushed AsA further over the edge.

[Lead Balloon]

The extent and frequency of its use, and the concurrent number of reduction/absence of service NOTAMs, are what’s new.

[Stationair8]

Pass rate out of the college is only 50%, so should keep the TIBA NOTAM's in circulation for a bit longer!

[wds0763]

TIBA is nothing new. There's threads on here going back nearly 20 years bemoaning ATC staffing in Aus re TiBA etc. Covid just pushed AsA further over the edge.


Offering voluntary redundancy to all controllers over the age of 56 is what pushed staffing levels over the edge.
Some operational groups were getting rosters published with unfilled shifts (due to a lack of available staff) BEFORE over 100 controllers walked out the door with very attractive financial packages to do so.
I imagine that for a while, the remaining controllers stepped up and took extra shifts being constantly offered to them. It soon reaches a point where no amount of extra money in the pay slip makes up for the fatigue, frustration, low moral, and lack of social/family life.
This is when people start saying NO to bailing out the failings of a dysfunctional management, and hence the dramatic and regular increase in the number of NOTAMS that we are witnessing now.

[Cloudee]

Pass rate out of the college is only 50%, so should keep the TIBA NOTAM's in circulation for a bit longer!
That’s a very poor result. Has it always been so? You’d think there must be something wrong with either selection or the college or both to get that result.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Did CASA have a logistic and financial nightmare during Covid, and have to punt a whole bunch of people who were sitting around twiddling their thumbs?

Maybe they did. It's not all hugs and kisses there either.

Technical staff at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have voted to take protected industrial action. Some of that action will commence on Monday 18 September 2023.
The action is currently relevant to those CASA staff who are members of Professionals Australia, including Aviation Safety Regulators, Flight Training Examiners, Flying Operations Inspectors, and a range of other specialists.

[Lead Balloon]

C'mon, TIEW. You should be above that kind of nonsensical attempt at equivalence.

[missy]

I'm not saying unlimited sick leave is the base cause, but it would be a significant contributing factor. As a business, you know how many employees you need to provide X function, and you resource and budget for that accordingly. You know the defined things you have to cover such as Annual leave, training etc and yes, an estimated coverage for a known and defined amount of sick leave, These are the things you can control, and manage. You don't have excess resources just sitting around if you don't need them. You have some of course, to cover the unexpected, but you are managing risk there. Unused, expensive assets are a negative cost. If you have a situation where some employees needed to fulfil your base function, in excess of those recognised and available to cover the known and anticipated shortfalls, are suddenly not available, at random and in numbers, for indeterminate durations they, not you control, how the hell do you manage that, especially in an occupation/industry where you can't just have a generic employee sitting on a couch for the day because he wasn't needed that day, you need x number of highly skilled employees sitting idly on various couches because of the specialised and segregated nature of the job. You're still paying them, whether they're needed or not, as are you paying the absent staff for however long they feel they need to be absent (there's no financial imperative to return to work - that's what drives it usually). You can't suddenly train and pay more staff to be available because of the nature of the job, plus there is no end to the requirement, and if suddenly there was, what do you do with the excess staff you now have? They all have to be kept trained and current, even if there's nowhere to use them. It's a logistic and financial nightmare.
Disagree, it is not a logistical nor a financial nightmare. AsA operational staffing is reliant on ATCs working Overtime. No safety based system should be so reliant on their staff working Overtime.

Did someone say cheese?

"If you think safety is expensive, try an accident”.

[le Pingouin]

Cloudee, 50%+/- is the way it's been for a long time. The difficulty is you can select trainees with various characteristics but it's not easy to tell if they can put it all together in the right way under pressure without running them through the training. My take is you don't have to be brilliant at any one thing but you have to be good at lots of things, and then be able to link the right skills in the right way. Just as an observation, in the past a good number of us had science/maths degrees but were a bit at loose ends before giving ATC or FS a go.

[sunnySA]

AsA Executive "For a range of reasons, our training pipeline didn't come through as anticipated, and the consequence of that is we now have some staffing issues in certain locations"
AFAIK this pipeline has never delivered as anticipated, yet AsA continue to put their house on it. All in black. Perhaps Head Office located next to a Casino isn't a good idea.

[Lead Balloon]

AsA Executive
AFAIK this pipeline has never delivered as anticipated, yet AsA continue to put their house on it. All in black. Perhaps Head Office located next to a Casino isn't a good idea.
AsA isn’t gambling anything of “their” own - “their house” or otherwise. “They” are gambling with other people’s convenience and safety.

[Mr Mossberg]

There are some departments in CASA that it is impossible to talk to a human. The reply is usually an email two weeks later, this is from an operational department not a back office function. Prior to covid this department was on the ball, if you didn't speak to them on the initial phone call it was a return call the next day. Over the last year in particular they have not once answered the phone once, the CASA switch person either directs the call to a voicemail or says, 'no one is answering'

ASA? The airlines are giving them a free pass. And I'm deducing they are doing this because their own crewing problems are far worse. Criticising ASA would draw attention to their own lack of performance. And it's not just them, it's everywhere. Call ASIC, they're not answering at all, going through the recorded option list then stating that sorry, can't even put you on hold then hanging up. One hour and 34 minutes to get through yesterday.

But the worst thing, try getting a decent parmy at a country pub anymore, the **** that is being served up is disgusting.

I have developed Jedi skills of patience when dealing with these departments, but not the parmies. I lose it when I get a sucky parmy.

[sunnySA]

Same but different. Gatwick (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/654809-gatwick-flow-rate.html)

[Advance]

As a CASA ATC inspector, I saw control towers falling apart, and control cabs no longer fit for purpose. I saw airport plans to build new control towers continuously knee-capped by Airservices,

Geoff Fairless, one of the most experienced ATC staff then CASA Auditor wrote the above so having regard to the weight his statement should carry...............

CASA has some rules for the construction of ATC Towers that were written by people like the late ATC John (Jock) Grocock in the 1980s and based very much on the concept of major visual separation of aircraft before SSR when "shrimp boats" were used for ID tags.
Brisbane and Perth towers were built to those requirements.
They are no longer valid but Airservices has refused to engage CASA in a discussion aimed at generating new and suitable standards for modern ATC Tower facilities (and I am not sure either has the competence to do the job anyway.)
Brisbane tower has a controller eye height of, if I recall correctly, 64 meters (210 feet). It can be in VMC out the top of low cloud whilst operations continue below - well, almost. But is that a suitable spec for a new tower?
Does an ATC still need a downward grazing visual sight angle to do the job? Does the old angular visual perception of movement standard apply? I think neither does.
I would suggest the old design criteria result in towers that cost way to heck too much to build and are not helpful to air safety nor to the discharge of normal ATC tower functions with modern equipment like MSSR, labelled bright displays, ADS-B etc etc not to mention SMR.
Then there is the question of what locations actually NEED a tower for the safety of air traffic.
One was built at Gove at huge cost and never used.
On the old standards places like Gladstone desperately need a tower yet with modern equipment and if Airservices would realise modern ATC control practices exist, GLA/GLT does not need a tower at all.
The point is that the whole Airservices / CASA structure and philosophy is unsuited to providing a safe, moderrn Air Traffic Control environment - there is no methodology and no incentive to move forward.
Its a Government administration problem and the present Minister has no hope of recognising the problem let alone solving it. Who in CASA or Airservices is about to raise their heads and say "Minister, this is a crock of..............."?

Clinton Mackenzie has repeatedly and consistently held up the mirror to the inadequacy of CASA medical and legal - I suggest the problem is a whole Aviation regulatory and service provision nightmare and I see nobody in the Department, CASA or AA with any skill to solve it.

Which takes us back to Geoff Fairless - he is right, the problem is way bigger than the organisations, and far, far too big for the people involved if I can rephrase it.
The whole system is stuck in the 1980's - and it is well and truly broken.

[Geoff Fairless]

Thanks Advance, much appreciated.

I understand your views about control towers, but they exist because of the ICAO separation requirements that we are bound to through the Chicago Convention.
Pilots at a non-controlled aerodrome separate themselves visually, the ATC Tower is designed to augment that standard by introducing "intent" to their observations. That is, they know where each pilot is going and can plan ahead.
Visual separation is very efficient because no buffers are required. You mention MSSR, well the closest standard I know for that system is 2NM laterally between two aircraft on final established on instrument approaches. Visual separation means one aircraft can pass another, literally with centimetres to spare, subject to pilot skill.
The so-called digital tower provides the same visual service but augments the ATC's eyes with hi-definition cameras, tracking of airborne aircraft and labels in the air. Runways can be protected by Advanced Surface Movement Guidance Systems(ASMGCS), already in use at our four busiest airports, but taxiing is an issue all in itself. ASMGCS tracks the aircraft on the taxiway, but still requires pilots to sight each other to provide separation.
All of these systems are very expensive and still need ATCs to operate them. They will never be able to replace a set of eyes in a Tower at aerodromes deemed to need ATC but populated mainly by small aircraft. A small tower with perhaps one, or at most two, ATC's on duty can be made reasonably inexpensive. But only if you can get rid of Airservices from the equation.

[BN APP 125.6]

I guess we are about to find out how good digital towers are (and how much bandwidth exists) when WSA opens up at Badgerys Creek in 2 and a bit years from now.

No idea where the actual tower controllers will be sitting.

Canberra? Melbourne?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Might as well make it in Broome.....same satellite link...... but much 'nicer' place to live...(?)

[Advance]

Geoff Fairless: I understand your views about control towers, but they exist because of the ICAO separation requirements that we are bound to through the Chicago Convention.
Pilots at a non-controlled aerodrome separate themselves visually

Like you Geoff, I spent many years with an ADC / STC rating so I do understand what towers do and why as well as having lots of years flying.

In most advanced countries, pilots of aircraft in instrument conditions (who by definition can not see to separate themselves) are provided with an Air Traffic Control separation service at all times but are expected to provide their own visual separation in some circumstances where they are able so to do. This is not the case in Australia.
Leaving aside major hub, hight traffic airports but now to your comment about pilots at non controlled airports separating themselves visually. .............
This is fine in VMC but in IMC it is simjply dangerous.
In the USA the ATC system, with or without radar, provides separation to ALL IFR aircraft from takeoff to landing when the pilot is unable to use visual separation. We do not, but we could do.so.
Consider the Mangalore fatal accident.
Had ATC told the departing aircraft to hold on the ground or to maintain VMC until the arriving aircraft reported able to proceed visually four good pilots would be alive today.
ATC was not allowed by the employer to do this safe thing.
The arriving aircraft is required by law to follow the published insrument approach precisely - no matter what traffic information is or is not provided the aircraft has to keep moving along the prescribed path (or give up and fly away but still following the prescribed path!!!)
At the time there was no tower active at Mangalore.

Thus ATC positive separation could by provided by tower controllers exercising the traditiona approach function, or by remote approach control (CS, CB etc) or by the US area control system.
The latter is by far the cheapest yet achieves a safe outcome up to the level of traffic density when a tower really does become necessary.
I've flown in both systems and I know which is safer.

It is not the Tower that is required by ICAO - it is the separation of aircraft who can not separate themselves. The tower is merely one possible solution.

So I repeat, the present "system" is virtually unchanged in four decades, it is nowhere near best practice and it is broken - even before considering the gross lack of professional controllers.
And despite the many years you and I spent in Air Traffic Control I suggest Airservices / ATC are NOT the right people to decide WHAT services are to be provided. They should indeed be involved in decisions about HOW services are provided.
WHAT level of service to be provided is more the province and RESPONSIBILITY of the Minister and what we used to call the Director of Civil Aviation - (both CASA and AA).
Professional pilots and aircraft operators advised by what the insurance industry calls actuarial advice - risk analysis and management need to determine what is or is not publicly acceptable and not hive off responsibility to nominally independent QUANGOS.

So now tell me the name of the individual in AA, CASA or the Department who is willing to go to the Minister and say, "Boss this is broken and it is dangerous................."

[greenedgejet]

O'Leary responds to Gatwick ATC staff shortages:

https://youtu.be/-8Q-5IumT2Q?

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/fl360aero_gatwick-airport-has-imposed-a-temporary-cap-activity-7112167886772699136-LUtk?

Science Direct published study indicates that almost 35% of Health Care Worker had significant sick leave after roll out of the recent Trump "warp speed" inoculations:

"This study examined sick leave and intake of pro re nata medication after the first, second, and third COVID-19 vaccination in HCWs. Data were collected by using an electronic questionnaire.

Results
Among 1704 HCWs enrolled, 595 (34.9%) HCWs were on sick leave following at least one COVID-19 vaccination, leading to a total number of 1550 sick days. Both the absolute sick days and the rate of HCWs on sick leave significantly increased with each subsequent vaccination. Comparing BNT162b2mRNA and mRNA-1273, the difference in sick leave was not significant after the second dose, but mRNA-1273 [Moderna] induced a significantly longer and more frequent sick leave after the third.

Conclusion
In the light of further COVID-19 infection waves and booster vaccinations, there is a risk of additional staff shortages due to postvaccination inability to work, which could negatively impact the already strained healthcare system and jeopardise patient care. These findings will aid further vaccination campaigns to minimise the impact of staff absences on the healthcare system."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033350623002470

[Lead Balloon]

The paradigm problem is that the Parliament has effectively abdicated its responsibility to the independent statutory bodies it has created, without the Parliament having adequate processes in place to scrutinise and hold the bodies accountable. These bodies exist because of the Parliament, not the Minister. These bodies do – or are supposed to do - what the Parliament has told them to do, not what the Minister tells them to do.

The Minister is largely meaningless to these bodies - at least in theory. That is a design feature, not a bug.

The very point of independent statutory bodies is that “i” word: Independent. Of politics.

The Minister isn’t responsible; the independent statutory bodies created by the Parliament are, and they are responsible to the Parliament, not the Minister. And if the Parliament is going collectively to continue to accept the stream of self-serving motherhood statements from these bodies, to the effect that everything’s fine and any problems are short-term and under control, nothing will change.

The Robodebt RC revealed why no public official is ever going to go to a Minister and say: “Boss this is broken and it is dangerous…”. On the odd occasion that any public official is silly enough to deliver bad news, it must be in euphemistic terms. Everyone else is culled.

CASA and Airservices have woven aviation safety and air navigation service systems out of the most magnificent fabrics available, of uncommonly fine colours and patterns. Anyone who can’t see that is unusually stupid. Just ask the ATSB.

The most misused word in relation to Parliamentary hearings is “grilling”, unless your dictionary defines that word to mean “being whipped over the wrist with a wet piece of lettuce”. (That’s if officials can be bothered to turn up. The current CASA PMO has been in the position for 2 years, and has yet to front Estimates, despite being asked to. I recall some CASA spin doctor giving some evidence at Estimates in his capacity as an amateur kidney specialist and armchair assessor of operational risks and consequences – demonstrating, once again, that just about anyone can do the job Avmed currently does.)

Ministerial ‘statements of expectation’ are meaningless nonsense. The current one for CASA includes this kind of drivel:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will adhere to …. relevant legislation when performing its functions and exercising its powers. Guess what: CASA is already obliged to do that, whether a Minister expects it or not.

I don’t know which would worry me more: That a Minister is so stupid as to believe it’s necessary to express that “expectation” of a statutory authority, that a statutory authority wouldn’t ‘adhere to relevant legislation’ unless the Minister stated an expectation that the statutory authority would, or that the Minister thinks we’re all so stupid as to believe that expressing the expectation makes any difference. (My educated guess is that it’s the latter.)

The current Ministerial Airspace Policy Statement includes meaningless nonsense like this: The Government is committed to ensuring that appropriate levels of airspace classification and air traffic services are used to protect regional aerodromes served by passenger transport services, with airspace classification and services reflecting the final outcomes of the risk reviews undertaken.A Ministerial masterstroke. CASA OAR was presumably sitting there planning on using inappropriate levels of airspace classification to protect regional aerodromes served by passenger transport services, with airspace classification not reflecting the final outcomes of risk reviews. But then: Wham! That Ministerial policy hits the desk and CASA OAR changes direction, completely.

Utopia and Hollowmen are documentaries.

[Advance]

Every word you wrote LB is so damn true; the outlook is even more bleak than I had previously considered possible.
I accept your analysis of my IQ: Anyone who can’t see that is unusually stupid

Ah, but wait, does that not qualify me to be a politician, even a cabinet minister?

Thanks for your considered and detailed response.
Regards from Retard.

[Mr Mossberg]

LB, have you any goss on the 3 airspace jobs being advertised at CAsA? Replacements or expansion?

[Lead Balloon]

Nothing heard by me about "airspace jobs". Of the 3 currently advertised CASA positions, only one vaguely relates to airspace: "Standards Officer (Aerodromes, Heliports & Non-conventional Aero)". That's part of the ICAO 'vertitports' boondoggle. Ex-ATCers would have a better insight into CASA OAR movements.

[Mr Mossberg]

Not the jobs I'm referring to. There were 3 advertised, all senior. Team Leader Airspace Planning, and two others that I can't recall the title of. They were all senior gigs so I'm guessing there will be plebbs below them. It was unusual to see so many advertised all at once.

[Cloudee]

Not the jobs I'm referring to. There were 3 advertised, all senior. Team Leader Airspace Planning, and two others that I can't recall the title of. They were all senior gigs so I'm guessing there will be plebbs below them. It was unusual to see so many advertised all at once.

The job ad below from a week ago is no longer visible.


LinkedIn Australia (https://au.linkedin.com/jobs/view/team-leaders-airspace-operations-airspace-planning-and-airspace-strategy-at-civil-aviation-safety-authority-3704843324)
https://au.linkedin.com (https://au.linkedin.com/jobs/view/team-leaders-airspace-operations-airspace-planning-and-airspace-strategy-at-civil-aviation-safety-authority-3704843324) › jobs › view
Civil Aviation Safety Authority hiring Team Leaders - Airspace Operations, Airspace Planning and Airspace Strategy in Adelaide, South Australia, Australia (https://au.linkedin.com/jobs/view/team-leaders-airspace-operations-airspace-planning-and-airspace-strategy-at-civil-aviation-safety-authority-3704843324)

21 Sept 2023 — Lead a multi-disciplined team in planning, managing, and supporting the delivery of airspace regulatory services, surveillance and the oversight .

[missy]

The job ad below from a week ago is no longer visible.
CASA hiring Team Leaders - Airspace Operations, Airspace Planning and Airspace Strategy.
Lead a multi-disciplined team in planning, managing, supporting the delivery of airspace services, surveillance and the oversight.
Paraphrased and not a direct quote. Sounds very much like a refocus onto Airspace in the anticipation of major changes. The Aviation Green paper makes a couple of comments, there is a RFI on the AusTender site, and KMPG have been active in the space. Plus AsA have advertised for someone to manage changes to air-routes. I suspect a higher level of management oversight and a more obvious focus on better airspace management.

However all this is thread drift as any, and all changes, to airspace will involve training of ATCs, very little capacity to release anyone at the moment or in the foreseeable future.

[blind pew]

There is a video on YouTube which is incredibly to the point and sadly funny but I’m loath to post it as I don’t want to breach guidelines here..

[Lead Balloon]

So it's not the youtube video already posted in this thread at #69?

[peuce]

There's a wealth of intelligent opinion in this thread, however .... I still can't get my head around the fact that ASA gave out redundancies to Controllers during COVID...as the workload had decreased. That's like , say, QANTAS sending half its aircraft off the the Indian scrap dealers...as "we don't need these at the moment.". I'm hoping, for my sanity's sake, that the redundancies were planned before COVID... otherwise, we are all lost.

[missy]

There's a wealth of intelligent opinion in this thread, however .... I still can't get my head around the fact that ASA gave out redundancies to Controllers during COVID...as the workload had decreased. That's like , say, QANTAS sending half its aircraft off the the Indian scrap dealers...as "we don't need these at the moment.". I'm hoping, for my sanity's sake, that the redundancies were planned before COVID... otherwise, we are all lost.
No, the redundancies (RIS) were given on the basis of traffic levels not increasing, and AsA being able to replace (recruit and train) these ATCs before traffic levels picked. In some cases, ATCs who had nominated their retirement date, or were on LSL prior to retirement were able to access RIS.

All of the ATCs who accepted RIS would've been on the top pay scale (as applicable to their location), say about $200K (more or less) and a new recruit is paid roughly half. The salary of the 130 exiting (not their RIS) was $26m, the salary of the 130 incoming is $13m (in the first year). Given considerably less than 130 ATCs were recruited and rated then the savings are greater. So there is a "saving" each and every year for say then next 10-12 years. Let's not mention experience and flexibility.

[peuce]

Let's not mention experience and flexibility.
And let's not mention ASA's ability to recruit, train and retain sufficient trainees to make that happen.