UBERLINGEN AND SYSTEM DYSFUNCTION
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UBERLINGEN AND SYSTEM DYSFUNCTION
I watched the Uberlingen Mid-Air again last night, those kids, those people, pilots, controllers and wondered if after four years down the track we have moved ahead or backwards. This is a bit of a rant but it is heartlfelt and at the very least may have the minutest impact on the Minister or others to pause and think about their actions or inactions..........
So we are nearly four years on from Uberlingen. I watched the Ubelingen mid-air again on TV this week and wondered what had changed. With pilot procedures, TCAS equipment effectiveness, ATC procedures, aviation system safety, Aeronautical Services Provider organisational stability and safety (AA and RAAF) ICAO and CASA.
And I think back to my 35 years in aviation and recall the fat public service years of DCA and Department of Aviation, Transport, Transport and Communications etc but remember a simple, world class system that provided distinctly for aircraft in and out of controlled airspace. One that had high levels of stability and service and safety. High levels of culture, morale and pride. There also seemed to be a vibrant industry. I flew in it, I was often an airline passenger in it, I felt safe in it, I controlled in it and am not ashamed to be considered a Luddite.
And then in moved the business people and changed service and safety into commerce. We lost our airports to shopping centres. We lost control of facilities and services on aerodromes and they priced out GA – the life blood of our industry. Apparently GA did not want the ATS service and certainly did not want to pay for it. Now apparently they want the service back but still don’t want to pay for it. We lost ATC operations and Flight Service and regional based and dedicated SAR along with all of those things that are only realised when the chips are down.
And then we were told that we should move to the complication of the ICAO system and such a short time later we should move to a North American system only to have some hybrid of both. What’s next?
And the commercial people now “manage” our airspace service providers and our airports and our safety watchdog. The same sort of people who are managing aircraft operating companies. And the service and safety aspects are well down the ladder of priorities for these people. Personal GREED predominates. The total package and bonus is the primary driver. Not safety, not service, not industry viability. And this is now the norm and we are complacent and apathetic and good little Australians.
And how much has all of this change saved us in monetary terms or industry improvements or effectiveness. How much do the continuous changes cost? What has this cost accumulation been for change over the past 15 years – more than the fat public service era – I sincerely wonder. The intangibles are priceless. Do we need another Uberlingen to improve and to guarantee service, safety and stability?
Uberlingen was an opportunity to fix up some procedures and practices but it was also an opportunity to send a message to entrepreneurs, government, Board members and senior executives that they are personally responsible for their actions. This is the way to ensure that, in a commercial environment, the governance that industry and the travelling public expect and require is what they get.
So we are nearly four years on from Uberlingen. I watched the Ubelingen mid-air again on TV this week and wondered what had changed. With pilot procedures, TCAS equipment effectiveness, ATC procedures, aviation system safety, Aeronautical Services Provider organisational stability and safety (AA and RAAF) ICAO and CASA.
And I think back to my 35 years in aviation and recall the fat public service years of DCA and Department of Aviation, Transport, Transport and Communications etc but remember a simple, world class system that provided distinctly for aircraft in and out of controlled airspace. One that had high levels of stability and service and safety. High levels of culture, morale and pride. There also seemed to be a vibrant industry. I flew in it, I was often an airline passenger in it, I felt safe in it, I controlled in it and am not ashamed to be considered a Luddite.
And then in moved the business people and changed service and safety into commerce. We lost our airports to shopping centres. We lost control of facilities and services on aerodromes and they priced out GA – the life blood of our industry. Apparently GA did not want the ATS service and certainly did not want to pay for it. Now apparently they want the service back but still don’t want to pay for it. We lost ATC operations and Flight Service and regional based and dedicated SAR along with all of those things that are only realised when the chips are down.
And then we were told that we should move to the complication of the ICAO system and such a short time later we should move to a North American system only to have some hybrid of both. What’s next?
And the commercial people now “manage” our airspace service providers and our airports and our safety watchdog. The same sort of people who are managing aircraft operating companies. And the service and safety aspects are well down the ladder of priorities for these people. Personal GREED predominates. The total package and bonus is the primary driver. Not safety, not service, not industry viability. And this is now the norm and we are complacent and apathetic and good little Australians.
And how much has all of this change saved us in monetary terms or industry improvements or effectiveness. How much do the continuous changes cost? What has this cost accumulation been for change over the past 15 years – more than the fat public service era – I sincerely wonder. The intangibles are priceless. Do we need another Uberlingen to improve and to guarantee service, safety and stability?
Uberlingen was an opportunity to fix up some procedures and practices but it was also an opportunity to send a message to entrepreneurs, government, Board members and senior executives that they are personally responsible for their actions. This is the way to ensure that, in a commercial environment, the governance that industry and the travelling public expect and require is what they get.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHFO
Well said.
Unfortunately, the economic ‘rationalists’ have won sway against aviation. It is a stark fact of life that the real benefits of a vibrant aviation industry cannot be realised through a direct financial accounting of profits at an aerodrome. Cost recovery is not the appropriate yard-stick for everything.
If we applied the same principle to national parks, it would not be long before we quite literally ‘paved paradise and put up a parking lot.’ National Parks, hospitals, airports, children’s playgrounds and roads all have substantial but sometimes intangible benefits to society as a whole.
As citizens, we need to ask ourselves about the sort of society we want to live in. Government has a role in providing those services and that infrastructure which it is not viable to provide through a user-pays cost recovery model.
Unfortunately, the continuous changes have cost us all enormously, not just in financial terms, but in human capital, stagnation of meaningful progress and most importantly in stifling stability and safety.
Too often, we confuse ‘restructures’ with actual change. Activity is often mistaken for achievement.
This too is at the hub of the controversial changes which have happened recently. The complexity of poorly managed change is such that even those who work full time in the industry find it hard to keep up with the changes. How many aspiring PPLs and other GA pilots just cannot find the time or the resources to do it safely.
That industry was so much more than just pilots flying aeroplanes. Aircraft manufacturing, training and advances in avionics were all a part of what made the industry thrive.
Of course, there were failures along the way. Some still criticise programs such as the Nomad, Australian DME, MLS etc. The point is that we are an innovative country.
Not every innovation will make it big on the international market, but that is no reason to fold our hands and import everything. If we applied the same logic to all industries, we would have no farmers (because the South Americans can do it cheaper), no car industry (because the Koreans can do it cheaper) or probably any other industry.
It is only by utilising the resources we have, making the attempt – and occasionally failing – that we will ultimately succeed. Boeing, for example, is a very old and successful company which makes wonderful aircraft. But for each Boeing, there are hundreds, if not thousands of companies who tried and either succeeded briefly or crashed and burned. That is the way of the world. If the Europeans had merely said “Why try to do it any differently – when you want an airliner, buy a Boeing”, then Airbus would not exist today. The competition between the two majors has a beneficial effect on both America’s and Europe’s economy (through sales) and also on the rest of the world (through competitive pricing.)
Not every problem has a solution which can simply be brought in from overseas. This ‘cultural cringe’, whereby we have sacrificed our own identity to some monolithic ‘greed is good’, ‘import everything’ philosophy has not served us well. We need to stand up once more and become the innovators that we should be.
Well said.
We lost our airports to shopping centres. We lost control of facilities and services on aerodromes and they priced out GA – the life blood of our industry.
If we applied the same principle to national parks, it would not be long before we quite literally ‘paved paradise and put up a parking lot.’ National Parks, hospitals, airports, children’s playgrounds and roads all have substantial but sometimes intangible benefits to society as a whole.
As citizens, we need to ask ourselves about the sort of society we want to live in. Government has a role in providing those services and that infrastructure which it is not viable to provide through a user-pays cost recovery model.
How much do the continuous changes cost?
Too often, we confuse ‘restructures’ with actual change. Activity is often mistaken for achievement.
And then we were told that we should move to the complication of the ICAO system and such a short time later we should move to a North American system only to have some hybrid of both. What’s next?
There also seemed to be a vibrant industry.
Of course, there were failures along the way. Some still criticise programs such as the Nomad, Australian DME, MLS etc. The point is that we are an innovative country.
Not every innovation will make it big on the international market, but that is no reason to fold our hands and import everything. If we applied the same logic to all industries, we would have no farmers (because the South Americans can do it cheaper), no car industry (because the Koreans can do it cheaper) or probably any other industry.
It is only by utilising the resources we have, making the attempt – and occasionally failing – that we will ultimately succeed. Boeing, for example, is a very old and successful company which makes wonderful aircraft. But for each Boeing, there are hundreds, if not thousands of companies who tried and either succeeded briefly or crashed and burned. That is the way of the world. If the Europeans had merely said “Why try to do it any differently – when you want an airliner, buy a Boeing”, then Airbus would not exist today. The competition between the two majors has a beneficial effect on both America’s and Europe’s economy (through sales) and also on the rest of the world (through competitive pricing.)
Not every problem has a solution which can simply be brought in from overseas. This ‘cultural cringe’, whereby we have sacrificed our own identity to some monolithic ‘greed is good’, ‘import everything’ philosophy has not served us well. We need to stand up once more and become the innovators that we should be.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sitting through the Skyguide presentation last year, I was amazed at how many similarities there were to Airservices. From all the head shaking I saw, I was not the only one to think so. Airservices has learned nothing from Uberlingen. Not one thing. Take the recent upgrade to our new fancy software version. What a horses arse that was. I turn up on day 1 of the new gear to some hybrid half arsed version with no explanation of what works and what does not. Disgraceful. This new CEO I have a feeling will out do the others with his antics. Lets just wait and see.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No suprise to see like-minded and erudite input from 4711 and Tobzalp.
But we are innovators (A/DME, CT4 etc etc).
Perhaps one thing we could use is some detectable National Australian perspective in the minds and actions of our government and industry leaders. And some ability to see beyond the myopic task-oriented short-term commercial opportunites but more to big-picture national, escoteric and intangible and less simple/easily discernable values.
Beyond the fast buck.
But the bottom line is that everyone who should have responded to the recommendations and chilling and immediate requirements to repair the faults demanded by the Uberlingen disaster should ask themselves today, have they done that. They should ask themselves what they will feel and what should they accept as retribution should that same or similar accident happen. To be blunt - the knife in the chest was a little harsh for the front man; falling 30,000 feet, for the unknowing, was criminal.
Yes I get emotional about this stuff but in all areas and at all levels some people should not be there doing that if they cannot do it competently and responsibly. The particular consequences of aviation accidents bear witness.
I have to leave this now and go and take my medicine.
But we are innovators (A/DME, CT4 etc etc).
Perhaps one thing we could use is some detectable National Australian perspective in the minds and actions of our government and industry leaders. And some ability to see beyond the myopic task-oriented short-term commercial opportunites but more to big-picture national, escoteric and intangible and less simple/easily discernable values.
Beyond the fast buck.
But the bottom line is that everyone who should have responded to the recommendations and chilling and immediate requirements to repair the faults demanded by the Uberlingen disaster should ask themselves today, have they done that. They should ask themselves what they will feel and what should they accept as retribution should that same or similar accident happen. To be blunt - the knife in the chest was a little harsh for the front man; falling 30,000 feet, for the unknowing, was criminal.
Yes I get emotional about this stuff but in all areas and at all levels some people should not be there doing that if they cannot do it competently and responsibly. The particular consequences of aviation accidents bear witness.
I have to leave this now and go and take my medicine.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, Oz is not the only place where the bean-counters and 'efficiency experts' rule supreme.
Say Again? #57: Überlingen
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191072-1.html
Say Again? #61: It's Here!
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191814-1.html
Say Again? #57: Überlingen
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191072-1.html
Say Again? #61: It's Here!
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191814-1.html
I'm with you guys. I've been working on a major problem and trying to get it addressed for the last two years and just about everyone is burying their heads- it's too hard to face. "Without exception, everyone is responsible for safety"--- except where I don't want to make waves or have to admit that we've been doing it wrong for ages.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes and Australia can lead, we can state exceptions to ICAO and thereby lead some of these issues. Some of the stuff that has been idling away at workshops and conferences only demands just the tiniest bit of intestinal fortitude to press through the bureaucratic self-imposed/imaginary hurdles. What is clearly needed is strong leadership in safety and procedures.
Stand-up! Is there a Leader out there somewhere in aviation safety - CASA, AA, ADF, Airlines, ASFA. Stop hiding behind the "neutrality" excuse. Grow some balls.
Stand-up! Is there a Leader out there somewhere in aviation safety - CASA, AA, ADF, Airlines, ASFA. Stop hiding behind the "neutrality" excuse. Grow some balls.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The harsh reality is that the massive shift in policies required to halt the decline in nearly all facets of this industry and others, rests with the body politic
….. not sure I have any cause for optimism?! … politically, who could/would do what needed to be done? …. None of em! ….. so what do we do? …. civil disobedience? … would anyone take any notice? …. would it achieve anything?….. unless and until enough of the masses are affected sufficiently to vote for a viable alternative to the current offerings I fear nothing will change! .. the inevitable ‘crisis’ will have to occur to be followed by the political howls of ‘how could this have happened?”, followed by the recriminations and empty window dressing!
….. 
