PDA

View Full Version : NAS and the Willoughby Report


Niles Crane
18th Jun 2003, 09:59
I have just finished reading the Willoughby Report tabled by the Minister on 28 May.

A most interesting read!!

Over $70M saving by cutting sectors down from 642 to 10 to 15!

The only cost benefit is to the private pilot who can now fly direct out Hornsby to Taree and save $23.33 one way. Major benifits to training overseas pilots in Aus. They will all come her now because the savings are substantial, $23.33 and they will not have to use any grey matter as the "System" is now the same as the US and they will feel more "Comfortable" flying here!

Nowhere is Pilot work load addressed, only Pilot education at minimal cost.

And of course the NAS has precidence over everything else because the Big Kahoona said so, including regulation changes and all other matters both AsA, DOTARS and CASA related.

An unbelievable document. Who is advising the Minister on things Aviation if he tables junk like this!!:sad:

Four Seven Eleven
18th Jun 2003, 10:23
Dick Smiths 'Americanisation' to cost 200 Aussie jobs
Sydney Morning herald article (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/09/1055010929043.html)

So, Dick Smith, the 'fair dinkum' protector of Aussie jobs, really plans to slash more than 200 jobs in Australia. But of course 200 jobs for a saving of $70million = $350,000 per controller. Either I'm being ripped off by my colleagues or someone's figures are a tad rubbery.

But, according to the powers that be, I have nothing to fear, beacuse the official NAS site NAS FAQ (http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/faq_general.htm) says:
I’m an Air Traffic Controller – will I lose my job?
The short answer is no. While it is still too early in the project to estimate the impact on sectorisation, the cost-effectiveness of NAS is likely to mean that rate of growth in the number of ATC sectors would be slowed, as opposed to the present number being reduced. This reduction in the rate of growth is due to better allocation of resources under the NAS model. However, this is balanced by the fact that traffic levels should continue to increase over time.

So, whi is telling the truth, Willoughby or Smith?

The full text of the SMH article:
Safety fears lead to rural flights threat
By Brian Robins
June 10 2003

Australia's domestic commercial pilots are prepared to suspend air services into areas where air traffic control is to be downgraded, as they step up their campaign opposing the overhaul of the airspace system.

Stage one of the national airspace system - which could make up to a third of air traffic controllers redundant - has already been implemented. The final stage is due to be completed by mid-next year.

The new system is based on air traffic control practices in the United States. But the system will downgrade the service that air traffic controllers offer to smaller airports, raising air safety concerns.

In a little-noticed move, the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, has released a report into the management of the national airspace system highlighting significant savings that will result from the changes that are under way.

The Willoughby report found that at least 200 of the 642 air traffic controllers would not be needed after the airspace system's overhaul is complete. The reduction in air traffic controllers would save over $70 million a year for the general aviation industry, the report says.

Added responsibility for pilots is central to the new system, as is reducing the extent of air traffic control over lower-level air traffic, such as most non-commercial aviation.

"We know what the consequences are," said Robin Beville-Anderson of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, which represents domestic commercial pilots except Qantas's.

He highlighted the rise in the number of mid-air collisions in Canada after it cut directed traffic information, which is provided by air traffic controllers to aircraft flying between main centres.

"It's not safe," he said. "It's proven to be unsafe. If it was to be the full US system, it would be safe." But it was not the full system: the US has full radar cover, which Australia does not.

In the past, he said, the federation had threatened to disrupt services to areas that were to have had air traffic control downgraded, and it would consider similar action again.

Dick Smith, a member of the Aviation Reform Group, said of the new airspace system: "It's like the telephone system moving from a manual system to an automatic system.

"It involves less unnecessary talking with small planes on the air traffic control frequency."

The reform group is charged with implementing the changes to the aviation control system.

"At the moment there is the tremendous amount of communication on the air traffic frequency which they listen to but don't need to," Mr Smith said.

The latest overhaul is the third time in a decade that the Government has tried to change airspace management.

The most recent attempted change was in the late 1990s with the introduction of class G for handling low-flying traffic. The change was abandoned after a near mid-air collision between a Qantas aircraft and an RAAF plane.

Similarly, an earlier planned overhaul was dumped when domestic commercial pilots threatened to withdraw services from airspace that was to be affected by a downgrade.

The new air traffic control system has already been introduced between Sydney and Melbourne, with the next stage, low-level flying to country areas, now being introduced.

"There will be pressure" on jobs, said Peter McGuane, national secretary of Civil Air, the air traffic controllers union, "but that depends on what type of system will be operated."

A spokesman for Airservices Australia, the government body that manages airspace, said it had raised concerns over the report with the Aviation Reform Group, but he would not comment further.

ferris
18th Jun 2003, 12:58
4711
But of course 200 jobs for a saving of $70million = $350,000 per controller. Either I'm being ripped off by my colleagues or someone's figures are a tad rubbery.
Those figures would be correct if the number of non-revenue producing staff were proportionally reduced. You have to remember how many over-paid paper shufflers in Canberra piggy-back on the controllers.

In a little-noticed move, the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, has released a report (That champion of the rights of country folk) the system will downgrade the service that air traffic controllers offer to smaller airports, raising air safety concerns. How did the Minister for Qantas get in the press, in a negative report?? About reducing services to the bush? Because of a factually incorrect report????

And Dick "It's like the telephone system moving from a manual system to an automatic system. If only 50% of people wanted to be able to both speak and listen on their telephone, and only 10% of people got a reduction in their bill. Of course, the remaining 90% (whose phones no longer ring, but are equipped with a flashing light to announce incoming calls, so that you may see and avoid them ) will of course have to pay more for line rental- because the lines have to be there anyway.

World's best practice?:hmm:

Hugh Jarse
18th Jun 2003, 15:43
I wonder how the Minister for Qantas would feel if the regional airliner he was riding in on his way home had a midair prang in G due to NAS?

Like nearly happened a few years ago.....

Oh that's right....He most likely wouldn't be around to comment.:yuk:

Play it safe Johnny. Take the bus:E It'll be safer:ok:

Winstun
18th Jun 2003, 16:09
I am frankly getting tired of watching these people wasting the good public's money. While the whinge about positively controlling desolate airspace, they are quite happy to drive (probably poorly drive) the atrocious undivided main roads situation in Australia. Australian pilots really need to get out of 2nd gear. :hmm:

Hugh Jarse
18th Jun 2003, 17:18
Yeah, the New England Hwy sucks too, Winstun. So does the Pacific, actually.

But let's not get started on where the billions of petrol tax dollars go (not into roads):E

At least it is possible to see conflicting traffic on both these roads. :ouch:

libelle
19th Jun 2003, 06:37
The argument that NAS and reducing the number of sectors and controllers will be the start of a new age in aviation in Aus with the cost reduction is nonsense.

About 12 years ago we had about 1000 FSO's and 1000 ATC's located at locations all around the country, now we have no FSO's and about 1000 ATC? mainly located in Melbourne and Brisbane.
This huge cost reduction both in staff and remote facilities must have made the industry really boom, yet we have aviation now in a depressed state perhaps beyond saving.

The proposed cost savings being put foward out of NAS are a carrot to make everyone think that it will save a heap of money therefore it must be good.

Though most of the operational aspects of NAS are reasonable the money that will be saved is not any where near the figure being put about by various people.

SM4 Pirate
19th Jun 2003, 12:34
I must be dumb, cause I just don't get it?

I currently work as a controller in airspace near Sydney, Class A, Class C, Class E and Class G. I’ve seen the proposed map changes for November.

Can anyone tell me how safety will be 'enhanced' for a cost reduction in this airspace.

Changing Class C into E (mostly) does not save one ATC body; in fact during the day we are more likely to have another console open, as there is less 'control' of airspace and predictability of workload; we'll never know what's coming.

How does Virgin, REX and QANTAS feel about flying in 'E' airspace below FL180 before 45NM Sydney? Where is the cost benefit and enhanced safety for them; what once was positive control will now be traffic information on radar observed paints, if I see them, or can see them (transponder off/broken etc.)

If it's simply about providing freedom for VFRs without cost, why don't we have a charge free environment for VFRs? Do we have that now in enroute? I would never unnecessarily delay VFRs a clearance in my current Class C; we just don't have any demand, I have radar, worst case would be a five mile delay once I have your details; will this change by changing the airspace type, probably not, so why bother. It aint broke...

Class E is enhanced risk over C; it has to be.

Sure give me the tools, VFR separation, changes to visual rules etc, that makes me more efficient, gives climb descent earlier above FL125 does nothing below that; I ALREADY HAVE THOSE TOOLS. (VFR on TOP, IFR pickup, VMC climb/descent, its all a crock, just say Visual Separation below FL200; done.)

Anyone saying that this will stop VFRs broadcasting therefore will save ATC sectors just doesn't understand how we do business. Sure sometimes VFRs do annoy all of us when they start talking, that's why we staff as such to split off the OCTA airspace; some sectors can't do this agreed, however there is no bodies to save out there either, you'll still need the same ATC controlling the increased amount of 'E'.

Savings from NAS, what an absolute crock. How much money has been spent so far? Will that ever be recovered?

Rolling out E steps around D towers, what a joke; instrument let downs that will force IFRs (usually) in IMC doing a let down flying in E instead of D or C airspace and this is labelled as an improvement, for whom, improvements for those that don't pay of those that do?

Bottle of Rum

ulm
19th Jun 2003, 14:42
I wasn't ever going to get sucked in to responding to the AFAP/CA Bull-sh!t that crosses these pages again, but bugga it!!!

If a training organisation can save $23 per hour that is about 15%. It WILL lift the amount of GA that goes on in Oz and it WILL increase jobs for pilots. You never know, and increased use of GA might lead to greater consumer confidence (despite AFAP/CA BULLSH!T public scare mongering) and could even lead to an eventual increase in pilot and controller jobs in Oz.

As for your coke bottle tunnel vision glasses, you lot make me :yuk:

Geez, just because talentless morons want to be able to breeze in and out of regionals without ever looking out the window, everone else has to pay. What a great way to make sure GA never makes it in Oz.

As for your AFAP (BULLSH!T ... have I said that yet) press releases, well what a great way to kill the likes of Rex guys. keep it up and I'll see you in the dole queue, I won't be giving you a job.

:mad: Idjits!!!! :*

ozbiggles
19th Jun 2003, 15:13
Ulm the fact that people with your hard earned reputation support NAS, gives me even more reason to know what is going on is bad. I commend to you for some light reading the BASI report into the LIMITATIONS of the see and avoid principle. This is a factual report, studied, researched and publised. Not like your diatribe.

Chief galah
19th Jun 2003, 16:16
The claims of NAS reducing costs hasn't been explained. There has been no announcement of how charges will be structured under the new scheme.
So I think it's important to know exactly what AsA currently charges for ATS, and then guess what they will be charging for ATS.
And remember, not all charges are attributable to AsA.
Currently -
If you are a training organisation, and the training you refer to is VFR, then you don't pay any enroute charges.
If you receive a control service at a controlled aerodrome you will pay a landing charge based on acft weight, or a basic charge at the bigger airports.
If you're out in the boonies, self brief via the net, VFR should cost you nothing, unless you have to pay an aerodrome operator.
NB that's not AsA.
If it's IFR training you pay charges as per distance travelled, plus the above, I believe.
All the above are current charges as gleaned from AsA website.
If you're paying more than this, something's wrong or they're not AsA charges. There seems to be a lot of other fingers in the charging pie.
The above is precis'ed down but basically a guideline.
If NAS does mean reduced costs of ATS services, can they guarantee the costs will result in lower charges flowing through to the entire industry?

CG

ulm
19th Jun 2003, 16:42
Even if we can get rid of the 'extra' taxes to keep useless towers like Coffs open, that will be a start.

Regionals want Coffs, they can get together and find a way to fund it, to me it is just an embuggarence on my way to warmer climes!!!

You guys want us bugsmaha operators off yer backs, go talk to Anderson and find a way to fund your bl@@dy airspace yerselves!!!

Chuck

ferris
19th Jun 2003, 17:37
Firstly, and to me this is the most annoying aspect, the BS comes from the professional spin doctors like Dick and the ARG. AFAP and CA scare mongering? The lies and deceit is coming from those driving the "reform" Dick Smith, a member of the Aviation Reform Group, said of the new airspace system: "It's like the telephone system moving from a manual system to an automatic system. How much more misleading can you get??? If you want to simplfy the situation, how about "It's a bit like switching off half the traffic lights, and allowing the small amount of money saved on electricity to allow reduced car registration costs. This will allow the number of motorists to flourish. See and avoid is a much safer system". But they don't tell the truth because then even the man on the street will see through their BS. If NAS is the system that the majority actually want, then so be it. As long as everyone understands exactly what they are getting. There will be more collisions under this system, but if the majority are comfortable with that, so be it. Watch your aircraft insurance and professional liability insurance rise to soak up that magical $23.
At least you won't have that em******ance of safety to hassle you anymore. Eyes glued to the windows, it's a (fast) jungle out there!
Enjoy your flying.


ps. It's not "our bl@@dy airspace." It's everyone's. And if you think the people who buy training will be impressed by the new 'unique' aus airspace, you've got another thing coming. But that's a whole new thread.

ulm
19th Jun 2003, 17:43
Ferris

I will concede on the 'differences' between NAS and US NAS (but only to you, not that Pirate bloke :} ).

So work on that, US NAS is good, it works and it needs tweaking.

But it gets my hecles up when AFAP/CA use the same 'aeroplane dropping on a kindy' garbage we get from CASA.

Get in and contribute (and leave S2 and Plazbot at home if you want to achieve something)

Chuck

PS, not much over 100 knots at 500 feet mate :}
Wouldn't know anyways, don't have a radio :} :}

WhatWasThat
2nd Jul 2003, 20:30
Can anybody post a link to the Willoughby report. I would very much like to read it.