Flightwatch – 27 VHF outlets being closed
Thread Starter
Jacko, the reason I have not pushed for the reversion to the pre-27 October Flightwatch service is that I have been told by people at Airservices (and also by posters on this thread) that the staff are no longer there to man an independent VHF Flightwatch system. I know there have been some people claiming that this is not true, however I can only accept this with evidence on such an issue – and I do not have this.
I think you are being facetious when you say:
I don’t believe it is a fantastic outcome; it was just the best outcome under the circumstances – i.e. an external review of Flightwatch.
I understand that all but one of the separate VHF transmitters are still in place, and the communication lines (or sat links) are still in place – so it is possible to get the separate VHF Flightwatch system going again if that is what the external review recommends.
At least we will have a chance to get involved in this and be properly consulted. No doubt everyone will lobby the new Minister with their particular view. This is healthy.
I am personally confident in retaining a separate VHF Flightwatch system. I realise there are others with a completely different view, and I realise there will be major pressure from the management of Airservices to continue with its abolishment.
I agree that generally the Airservices management has won in the past. However there is always a first time for people in the industry to get together and prevent this from happening when it is against the interest of aviation in our country.
I suggest that everyone who has a strong belief on the retention of an independent VHF Flightwatch should immediately drop a line to the new Minister – when we know who it is. Hopefully this will have influence.
I think you are being facetious when you say:
What a fantastic outcome!
I understand that all but one of the separate VHF transmitters are still in place, and the communication lines (or sat links) are still in place – so it is possible to get the separate VHF Flightwatch system going again if that is what the external review recommends.
At least we will have a chance to get involved in this and be properly consulted. No doubt everyone will lobby the new Minister with their particular view. This is healthy.
I am personally confident in retaining a separate VHF Flightwatch system. I realise there are others with a completely different view, and I realise there will be major pressure from the management of Airservices to continue with its abolishment.
I agree that generally the Airservices management has won in the past. However there is always a first time for people in the industry to get together and prevent this from happening when it is against the interest of aviation in our country.
I suggest that everyone who has a strong belief on the retention of an independent VHF Flightwatch should immediately drop a line to the new Minister – when we know who it is. Hopefully this will have influence.
Thread Starter
I received the following email from a commercial pilot last night. It brings up some important points. What do others think?
Dear Dick,
This afternoon I was monitoring the Flightwatch frequency 134.85Mhz when I heard what turned into a distress situation due to the weather. The pilot of VH-XMV a PA-28 was not sure of her position north of Mudgee, with thunder storms to the S/E of her and a ceiling estimated by her of 3000 to 3500'. The Flightwatch operator asked her to call a number of Centre frequencies for radar ident, but no contact could be established. After being advised by Flightwatch that a rescue helicopter had been dispatched to her general position, she decided to make a precautionary out-field landing and was advised to monitor the Flightwatch frequency and activate the aircraft's ELT manually after the landing. I don't know the final outcome
to this situation, I hope it was a happy one?
This incident is proof positive that Flightwatch is absolutely necessary as this pilot had only one effective avenue to call for help at low level. As far as I'm concerned Flightwatch is still a service and not a business!!!
Kind regards
This afternoon I was monitoring the Flightwatch frequency 134.85Mhz when I heard what turned into a distress situation due to the weather. The pilot of VH-XMV a PA-28 was not sure of her position north of Mudgee, with thunder storms to the S/E of her and a ceiling estimated by her of 3000 to 3500'. The Flightwatch operator asked her to call a number of Centre frequencies for radar ident, but no contact could be established. After being advised by Flightwatch that a rescue helicopter had been dispatched to her general position, she decided to make a precautionary out-field landing and was advised to monitor the Flightwatch frequency and activate the aircraft's ELT manually after the landing. I don't know the final outcome
to this situation, I hope it was a happy one?
This incident is proof positive that Flightwatch is absolutely necessary as this pilot had only one effective avenue to call for help at low level. As far as I'm concerned Flightwatch is still a service and not a business!!!
Kind regards
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick said:
I reply:
Dick,
Considering only the daylight hours (as the HF people do all the function overnight)
Prior to 27 Oct, flightwatch VHF was done by One (1) officer on a single console.
Post 27 Oct, Flightwatch is ghosted by that same One (1) Officer on exactly that same console using exactly the same facilities as pre-27 Oct.
Very simple to cancel the relevant AIP SUPs and go back to pre 27 Oct.
Surely a mere phone call to flightwatch would confirm this?
We disagree, the best outcome is to roll back then conduct a full review using persons external to the entire process.
If there was a was a distress phase, there will be an incident report submitted.
the staff are no longer there to man an independent VHF Flightwatch system.
Dick,
Considering only the daylight hours (as the HF people do all the function overnight)
Prior to 27 Oct, flightwatch VHF was done by One (1) officer on a single console.
Post 27 Oct, Flightwatch is ghosted by that same One (1) Officer on exactly that same console using exactly the same facilities as pre-27 Oct.
Very simple to cancel the relevant AIP SUPs and go back to pre 27 Oct.
Surely a mere phone call to flightwatch would confirm this?
We disagree, the best outcome is to roll back then conduct a full review using persons external to the entire process.
If there was a was a distress phase, there will be an incident report submitted.
Thread Starter
Jacko, we are in violent agreement – even though you don’t seem to understand this. You state:
I agree totally – that is the best outcome. However at the present time we can’t obtain that outcome because the Airservices management refuses to roll back.
You seem to believe I have powers which I do not have. I’m sure you would agree that any reasonable person making decisions at Airservices would have kept the independent Flightwatch going (especially if it only requires such a low number of staff) and then do the external review – but this is not going to happen.
“Saving face” is not just an Asian expression. It is common in all of us.
I would imagine that there will be an incredible fight by the Airservices management to continue with their decision to abolish the separate VHF Flightwatch service. This will be primarily because they don’t want anyone else – let alone myself, other people in the industry, or (dare I say it) their air traffic controllers – pressuring them into changing their course of action.
I agree with you. It would be better to wind back and keep the independent VHF Flightwatch going whilst the external review takes place. How do you believe I can achieve this if you can’t?
We disagree, the best outcome is to roll back then conduct a full review using persons external to the entire process.
You seem to believe I have powers which I do not have. I’m sure you would agree that any reasonable person making decisions at Airservices would have kept the independent Flightwatch going (especially if it only requires such a low number of staff) and then do the external review – but this is not going to happen.
“Saving face” is not just an Asian expression. It is common in all of us.
I would imagine that there will be an incredible fight by the Airservices management to continue with their decision to abolish the separate VHF Flightwatch service. This will be primarily because they don’t want anyone else – let alone myself, other people in the industry, or (dare I say it) their air traffic controllers – pressuring them into changing their course of action.
I agree with you. It would be better to wind back and keep the independent VHF Flightwatch going whilst the external review takes place. How do you believe I can achieve this if you can’t?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Nov 2007 at 23:11.
Thread Starter
Here is a bit more information that was sent to me regarding the XMV incident in relation to Flightwatch. The 134.85 frequency is on Mt Canobolas. We are indeed fortunate that my solicitor’s letter (see here) was instrumental in preventing this frequency from in effect being turned off on 22 November.
At 200711260552 VH-XMV advised Flightwatch Domestic on 134.85 unsure of position and request assistance, Uncertainty Phase declared and attempts made to transfer XMV to Centre Frequencies for IFER assistance.
XMV was unable to communicate with Centre and remained on Flightwatch
134.85 for IFER assistance.
Attempts made by Aussar, Brisbane Centre and Melbourne Centre to fix position of XMV based on information provided by pilot unsuccessful other than a general fix in the Mudgee area.
Due deteriorating weather XMV was prevented from climbing to gain radar based assistance.
Weather and options available to XMV continued to deteriorate until Aussar recommended that XMV force land at a suitable position if one could be found.
Rescue helicopter enroute from Sydney now 75nm or 30 minutes from the area XMV thought to be in and XMV to maintain listening watch on
134.85 as the helicopter would call XMV when closer.
At 0650 XMV advised 'have to land'. Nil further heard despite calls by Eastern 2047 to XMV until at 0718 Aussar advised XMV had made successful forced landing in a paddock at Elong Elong (3207S 14901E 23NM NE Dubbo).
Pilot unhurt and being assisted by nearby station owners while Aussar organized further assistance
XMV was unable to communicate with Centre and remained on Flightwatch
134.85 for IFER assistance.
Attempts made by Aussar, Brisbane Centre and Melbourne Centre to fix position of XMV based on information provided by pilot unsuccessful other than a general fix in the Mudgee area.
Due deteriorating weather XMV was prevented from climbing to gain radar based assistance.
Weather and options available to XMV continued to deteriorate until Aussar recommended that XMV force land at a suitable position if one could be found.
Rescue helicopter enroute from Sydney now 75nm or 30 minutes from the area XMV thought to be in and XMV to maintain listening watch on
134.85 as the helicopter would call XMV when closer.
At 0650 XMV advised 'have to land'. Nil further heard despite calls by Eastern 2047 to XMV until at 0718 Aussar advised XMV had made successful forced landing in a paddock at Elong Elong (3207S 14901E 23NM NE Dubbo).
Pilot unhurt and being assisted by nearby station owners while Aussar organized further assistance
Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Nov 2007 at 23:42.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: in Retirement
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the rollback
Dick,
You point out the "loss of face" and resistance by Airservices Management to overturn their current position. Well, take legal action that makes them comply with an "umpire's direction" to roll back til pre 27 Oct. It is obvious that Airservices do not have the moral maturity to do the right thing on their own in the face of all this opposition.
If you get a judgement in your favor, it lets Airservices off the hook, albeit it will make them look even more stupid.
AusFICer
You point out the "loss of face" and resistance by Airservices Management to overturn their current position. Well, take legal action that makes them comply with an "umpire's direction" to roll back til pre 27 Oct. It is obvious that Airservices do not have the moral maturity to do the right thing on their own in the face of all this opposition.
If you get a judgement in your favor, it lets Airservices off the hook, albeit it will make them look even more stupid.
AusFICer
Tch...Tch...Tch.....
Well Dick,
For once, you have asked 'What do OTHERS think?'
The 'Affordable Safety' syndrome was / is still, an absolute 'CROCK'!
As your Commercial Pilot e-mailer stated,
"As far as I'm concerned FW is still a SERVICE and not a BUSINESS!!!"
(My SHOUTING....)
FLIGHT SERVICE ALWAYS WAS ABOUT 'THE SERVICE' and NOT about the 'business'!
FS was always the last frequency a pilot descending OCTA, H E A R D!
Imagine, a Regional turbo, experiencing an engine failure and descending to his 'stable' level from FL 240 (or whatever..),
"Contact FS passing FL200....."
Then, it became a FS problem. So, FS got pretty 'smart' at handling these 'sudden' emergency sits.
(ALL still had to be referred to the SAR Centre, of course, but when we did, it was often pretty much under control of a good course of action, developed by FS..)
We ALL pay our taxes, and we are ALL entitled to the BEST emergency services available....Are we not???
Even under the Guise of a 'Community Service Order' if needs be, I reckon.
But...NO! IT WAS NOT SEEN AS an AFFORDABLE SAFETY!!!
So, all of that expertise built up over many years, just HAD TO GO!!
Now, in answer to your question..."What do others think?"
I think you have a moral obligation to try to 'undo' much of what you have done. NOT everything can be a 'cost recovery' service.
Thank whichever God you may believe in, that SAR is not cost recovery....yet???
How about the service which may actually prevent the SAR, by providing all possible assistance before the situation becomes a SAR??
Search And Rescue, by definition implies that the 'bad' event has already occurred.
What about the prevention of same PRIOR TO?
NOPE!! ITS G O R N E....GONE!!!
I believe it is time that ALL AsA was thoroughly 'reviewed' to the point of providing a 'Community Service' funded 'In Flight Service' of S O M E kind to provide such 'assistance' service so that the more costly outcome - often in terms of human life / aircraft / property / litigation / etc etc - is negated.
And, this SERVICE to be READILY available to MOST of the flying population.....
Around the infamous "J" curve is a good place to start, then progress to places like WA - not even the 'full stop' of the "J" curve, but where we do have LOTS of aviation activity .........
It will all be 'political'...we all know that!
Any 'contacts' in the 'new broom'?????......
Well, that's MY opinion anyhow.
Cheers to all
For once, you have asked 'What do OTHERS think?'
The 'Affordable Safety' syndrome was / is still, an absolute 'CROCK'!
As your Commercial Pilot e-mailer stated,
"As far as I'm concerned FW is still a SERVICE and not a BUSINESS!!!"
(My SHOUTING....)
FLIGHT SERVICE ALWAYS WAS ABOUT 'THE SERVICE' and NOT about the 'business'!
FS was always the last frequency a pilot descending OCTA, H E A R D!
Imagine, a Regional turbo, experiencing an engine failure and descending to his 'stable' level from FL 240 (or whatever..),
"Contact FS passing FL200....."
Then, it became a FS problem. So, FS got pretty 'smart' at handling these 'sudden' emergency sits.
(ALL still had to be referred to the SAR Centre, of course, but when we did, it was often pretty much under control of a good course of action, developed by FS..)
We ALL pay our taxes, and we are ALL entitled to the BEST emergency services available....Are we not???
Even under the Guise of a 'Community Service Order' if needs be, I reckon.
But...NO! IT WAS NOT SEEN AS an AFFORDABLE SAFETY!!!
So, all of that expertise built up over many years, just HAD TO GO!!
Now, in answer to your question..."What do others think?"
I think you have a moral obligation to try to 'undo' much of what you have done. NOT everything can be a 'cost recovery' service.
Thank whichever God you may believe in, that SAR is not cost recovery....yet???
How about the service which may actually prevent the SAR, by providing all possible assistance before the situation becomes a SAR??
Search And Rescue, by definition implies that the 'bad' event has already occurred.
What about the prevention of same PRIOR TO?
NOPE!! ITS G O R N E....GONE!!!
I believe it is time that ALL AsA was thoroughly 'reviewed' to the point of providing a 'Community Service' funded 'In Flight Service' of S O M E kind to provide such 'assistance' service so that the more costly outcome - often in terms of human life / aircraft / property / litigation / etc etc - is negated.
And, this SERVICE to be READILY available to MOST of the flying population.....
Around the infamous "J" curve is a good place to start, then progress to places like WA - not even the 'full stop' of the "J" curve, but where we do have LOTS of aviation activity .........
It will all be 'political'...we all know that!
Any 'contacts' in the 'new broom'?????......
Well, that's MY opinion anyhow.
Cheers to all
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 27th Nov 2007 at 01:14.
Thread Starter
Former AusFICer, you want me to take legal action, however I know what Airservices would do. They would throw a dozen of the top QCs (and an absolute fortune of the industry’s money) at it. The Judge would be so bamboozled by the “facts” brought forward by Airservices – on how safety would undoubtedly be reduced if they were forced to roll back – that the Judge would most likely not support the action I have taken.
If Airservices had refused to do what I asked for in my solicitor’s letter, I would most certainly have been in Court. I believe that despite the money they would have thrown at the case, I had a good chance of a win. Most reasonable people would say that any major change such as this should have been properly consulted – as per the law – and a proper safety case completed.
At the present time Airservices has stated that they will cooperate with an external review to look at these points. That is why it would be difficult for me to get a court to support a roll back.
Perhaps Creampuff would like to comment, and may like to volunteer his services free. In that case, I will certainly go ahead!
If Airservices had refused to do what I asked for in my solicitor’s letter, I would most certainly have been in Court. I believe that despite the money they would have thrown at the case, I had a good chance of a win. Most reasonable people would say that any major change such as this should have been properly consulted – as per the law – and a proper safety case completed.
At the present time Airservices has stated that they will cooperate with an external review to look at these points. That is why it would be difficult for me to get a court to support a roll back.
Perhaps Creampuff would like to comment, and may like to volunteer his services free. In that case, I will certainly go ahead!
Thread Starter
Ex FSO GRIFFO, the change of the directed traffic service from Flight Service to ATC was about maximising the use of our $350 million radar system.
Yes, you are remembering the positives about Flight Service – which I agree with. However, what about the negatives? When flying in a good radar environment in the J curve below 12,500 feet in the enroute airspace, the pilot was forced to monitor and talk to a Flight Service Operator who did not have a radar screen.
Are you really suggesting that we should hand this airspace back to Flight Service who operated without radar? I hope not.
The original AMATS plans made it clear (in writing and in the video) that whilst the directed traffic service would be changed to air traffic control – so the maximum use could be made of radar – there would still be a complete Flight Service VHF system across Australia. This was called Flightwatch, and would replicate the Flight Service system in North America.
In North America the Flight Service system (which duplicates ATC) does not provide a directed traffic service. It provides a service similar to our Flightwatch.
I cannot believe that many pilots would want to go back to a system where they are flying in uncontrolled airspace in close proximity to a major capital city, but the person that they are mandated to talk to sits in a separate room with a microphone and some flight strips, but no radar screen. This was incredible madness.
You discredit your argument by constantly misquoting “affordable safety.” Affordable safety is a truism. It had nothing to do with me. Fortunately there are lots of young people coming along who understand that. Possibly it is their schooling.
In the old days, Flight Service and ATC were 50% funded by the general taxpayer. I’ll say it again – I had nothing to do with the change. I simply said that if the industry was going to pay the whole whammy, that the costs would have to be affordable by the industry, otherwise it would not exist.
How about a bit of balance on this thread? Does anyone believe that handing the radar covered airspace to air traffic controllers has had a safety advantage? I certainly do.
Yes, you are remembering the positives about Flight Service – which I agree with. However, what about the negatives? When flying in a good radar environment in the J curve below 12,500 feet in the enroute airspace, the pilot was forced to monitor and talk to a Flight Service Operator who did not have a radar screen.
Are you really suggesting that we should hand this airspace back to Flight Service who operated without radar? I hope not.
The original AMATS plans made it clear (in writing and in the video) that whilst the directed traffic service would be changed to air traffic control – so the maximum use could be made of radar – there would still be a complete Flight Service VHF system across Australia. This was called Flightwatch, and would replicate the Flight Service system in North America.
In North America the Flight Service system (which duplicates ATC) does not provide a directed traffic service. It provides a service similar to our Flightwatch.
I cannot believe that many pilots would want to go back to a system where they are flying in uncontrolled airspace in close proximity to a major capital city, but the person that they are mandated to talk to sits in a separate room with a microphone and some flight strips, but no radar screen. This was incredible madness.
You discredit your argument by constantly misquoting “affordable safety.” Affordable safety is a truism. It had nothing to do with me. Fortunately there are lots of young people coming along who understand that. Possibly it is their schooling.
In the old days, Flight Service and ATC were 50% funded by the general taxpayer. I’ll say it again – I had nothing to do with the change. I simply said that if the industry was going to pay the whole whammy, that the costs would have to be affordable by the industry, otherwise it would not exist.
How about a bit of balance on this thread? Does anyone believe that handing the radar covered airspace to air traffic controllers has had a safety advantage? I certainly do.
Grandpa Aerotart
Hey Dick while I very much applaud what you're presently attempting to achieve a few points if I may.
What % of people (not just pilots-people) airborne on any given day were/are taxpayers?
My memory of an AOPA article in the days leading up to 'user pays' is that revenue collected from the industry via air nav charges, fuel tax etc more than covered all the cost of the infrastructure but it all dissappeared into consolidated revenue. The rest was just spin to achieve a political end which was user pays.
n the old days, Flight Service and ATC were 50% funded by the general taxpayer
My memory of an AOPA article in the days leading up to 'user pays' is that revenue collected from the industry via air nav charges, fuel tax etc more than covered all the cost of the infrastructure but it all dissappeared into consolidated revenue. The rest was just spin to achieve a political end which was user pays.
Thread Starter
Chimbu chuckles, the report into cost recovery written by Henry Bosch – which was done well before my time – purported to show that after all the adjustments were made, the air nav and other charges covered about 50% of the cost of the Department’s aviation activities. I believe this is reasonably accurate.
This meant that when we moved to full cost recovery plus a profit to the Government for air traffic control services, the industry costs more than doubled.
When the Government forced the industry to pay its own way, I was the President of AOPA and introduced the slogan “Pay our own way and have our own say.” (If I remember correctly). That meant that we should be able to say what we wanted to pay for - i.e. what was necessary for GA.
Of course that completely failed as the Government forced GA to pay for services that were there for airline passengers alone. For example, at the moment the control tower at Hamilton Island (which is required by Qantas) has very substantial funding coming from the GA operators at Hamilton Island.
This meant that when we moved to full cost recovery plus a profit to the Government for air traffic control services, the industry costs more than doubled.
When the Government forced the industry to pay its own way, I was the President of AOPA and introduced the slogan “Pay our own way and have our own say.” (If I remember correctly). That meant that we should be able to say what we wanted to pay for - i.e. what was necessary for GA.
Of course that completely failed as the Government forced GA to pay for services that were there for airline passengers alone. For example, at the moment the control tower at Hamilton Island (which is required by Qantas) has very substantial funding coming from the GA operators at Hamilton Island.
Grandpa Aerotart
And my feelings about Govt depts being corporatised and privatisation of natural monopoly infrastructure have been made very well known in this place.
As I said...what % of people airborne on any given day are taxpayers?
The big problem with 'user pays' is the 'user' is very narrowly and incorrectly identified for reasons of political expediency...ie the Govt wanting to charge more for less.
As I said...what % of people airborne on any given day are taxpayers?
The big problem with 'user pays' is the 'user' is very narrowly and incorrectly identified for reasons of political expediency...ie the Govt wanting to charge more for less.
Thread Starter
Chimbu chuckles, hopefully just about every person airborne on a given day is also a taxpayer. That is not the problem. The problem is the taxpayers who can’t afford to fly. There are many working people who pay their taxes but don’t travel much by air – let alone own a private aircraft.
Under the old system, a percentage of the tax of these people was going towards those who fly. I agree that this happens with many things, but Governments around the world (especially those with a social conscience) try to move towards a system where those benefiting from a particular system pay for it.
Whether it is right or wrong is a different issue. The fact is that we now live with it. It all seems to be part of globalisation.
If I remember rightly, the first I knew of the CAA being a user pays system and having to make a profit from air traffic control for the Government was when I was invited to join the CAA Board by Gareth Evans. This was in about May of 1988. If I remember correctly, at my first Board meeting I noted that the CAA legislation had words to the effect that “the CAA must give primacy to safety.” At that Board meeting I said if that was the case we wouldn’t be able to give a profit to the Government, because clearly that profit could be used to further improve safety. I was laughed at by the other Board members and I have been laughed at ever since.
This “primacy to safety” myth has been carried over into the Airservices Australia Act. It is a is a total con because everyone running Airservices knows that the $50 million they pay as a profit to the Government each year could easily be spent to improve safety.
It is sort of system that the Canberra bureaucracy relies on – i.e. living a lie, and everyone accepting that lie.
Every time it was mentioned on the CAA Board (and it was mentioned often) that we must give primacy to safety, I always said, “Well, we don’t do that, do we?” Everyone laughed and we moved on to the next item.
Under the old system, a percentage of the tax of these people was going towards those who fly. I agree that this happens with many things, but Governments around the world (especially those with a social conscience) try to move towards a system where those benefiting from a particular system pay for it.
Whether it is right or wrong is a different issue. The fact is that we now live with it. It all seems to be part of globalisation.
If I remember rightly, the first I knew of the CAA being a user pays system and having to make a profit from air traffic control for the Government was when I was invited to join the CAA Board by Gareth Evans. This was in about May of 1988. If I remember correctly, at my first Board meeting I noted that the CAA legislation had words to the effect that “the CAA must give primacy to safety.” At that Board meeting I said if that was the case we wouldn’t be able to give a profit to the Government, because clearly that profit could be used to further improve safety. I was laughed at by the other Board members and I have been laughed at ever since.
This “primacy to safety” myth has been carried over into the Airservices Australia Act. It is a is a total con because everyone running Airservices knows that the $50 million they pay as a profit to the Government each year could easily be spent to improve safety.
It is sort of system that the Canberra bureaucracy relies on – i.e. living a lie, and everyone accepting that lie.
Every time it was mentioned on the CAA Board (and it was mentioned often) that we must give primacy to safety, I always said, “Well, we don’t do that, do we?” Everyone laughed and we moved on to the next item.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 27th Nov 2007 at 20:59.
Thanks for the response Dick,
I thoroughly agree with you on a couple of points -
- Maximising the use of our $350M Radar System....Imagine the FULL MAXIMUM use that could have been made if.....the lowly FSO had access to it at the lower levels where it was sorely needed - as you are well aware.
- Am I suggesting 'we hand it back to FS to operate without Radar?'
NO! What I am suggesting is a 'common sense' approach making full use of all available resources - thats staff and equipment - to provide the best possible outcome, for ALL areas where it can be utilised.
Radar Coverage.... in WA....Ah Yes!
Depending on altitude, it could be anywhere from 60nm to the east of Perth for the bugsmashers, to 200nm YPPH for the Jet set.
Darwin, probably ditto.
Between YPPH & DN ? NUTHIN'. WA is a RADAR Vacuum. We do have a couple of elevated sites from where it could be effectively utilised.
- 'There would be a complete VHF FW system across OZ'....
Maybe that is the reason we were left with just 3 VHF's to cover ALL of WA!
- Kalamunda
- Pt Hedland
- Argyle
And, those, only because they were surplus to ATC reqs.
You asked for other opinions.
Mine is to utilise ALL available resources - both staff and facilities - to achieve the best possible outcome.
I'm not really interested in the 'nitpicking' - I remember well your 'Docco'
"Search, But No Rescue".
Well, what has changed?
EVERYTHING - we have gone backwards.
'They' failed to use common sense and all available resources then.
And, it is happening again now...
Regards to all
I thoroughly agree with you on a couple of points -
- Maximising the use of our $350M Radar System....Imagine the FULL MAXIMUM use that could have been made if.....the lowly FSO had access to it at the lower levels where it was sorely needed - as you are well aware.
- Am I suggesting 'we hand it back to FS to operate without Radar?'
NO! What I am suggesting is a 'common sense' approach making full use of all available resources - thats staff and equipment - to provide the best possible outcome, for ALL areas where it can be utilised.
Radar Coverage.... in WA....Ah Yes!
Depending on altitude, it could be anywhere from 60nm to the east of Perth for the bugsmashers, to 200nm YPPH for the Jet set.
Darwin, probably ditto.
Between YPPH & DN ? NUTHIN'. WA is a RADAR Vacuum. We do have a couple of elevated sites from where it could be effectively utilised.
- 'There would be a complete VHF FW system across OZ'....
Maybe that is the reason we were left with just 3 VHF's to cover ALL of WA!
- Kalamunda
- Pt Hedland
- Argyle
And, those, only because they were surplus to ATC reqs.
You asked for other opinions.
Mine is to utilise ALL available resources - both staff and facilities - to achieve the best possible outcome.
I'm not really interested in the 'nitpicking' - I remember well your 'Docco'
"Search, But No Rescue".
Well, what has changed?
EVERYTHING - we have gone backwards.
'They' failed to use common sense and all available resources then.
And, it is happening again now...
Regards to all
- I don't get Child Care Allowance
- I don't get the dole
- I don't get a War Veteran's pension
- I don't get public housing
- I don't get a Wheat subsidy
- I don't get a Training Allowance or Coupons
- I don't get an Indigenous Housing Allowance
- I don't get Drought assistance
- I don't get Youth Allowance
- I don't participate in the Adult Migrant English program
- etc etc etcetera
But I do get to pay for them
Thread Starter
It is interesting that Airservices has put out an AIP Supplement H86/07 (see here) which says that final transition of Flightwatch to ATC frequencies “has been delayed”. Note that no explanation is given.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 27th Nov 2007 at 21:01.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Firstly, I am also with you 100% on this one.
Just a couple of issues re- the demise of flight service. If I recall - it was a long time ago - this all started with the Australian democrats who had the power in the senate at the time, refusing to allow the cross-subsidisation between the airports and ATC/FS. When the Federal Airports corp was formed, the main income stream for the C.A.A was lost and they were forced to generate there own revenue to run both ATC and Flight Service. Now we all know that no one likes to pay for a "safety service", as most would prefer to take the risk and save themselves the expense - until they needed it of course and then it is too late ! History now tells us that the the F.A.C became a very profitable organization and as such, was promptly sold off for a massive profit by money hungry governments with little foresight on the implications all this would have. Now we have no flight service, a bare bones ATC and an organization called Airservices who continually cut services to GA and Air Traffic Services to in an attempt to hide their own mis-management.
If fact, Airservices seem to think they are unanswerable to anyone as recent events with Flightwatch and the Unicom proposal show - no consultation with the "users" , there own "in house surveys" and even the failure to advise the regulator CASA of their intentions as in the case of the Unicom proposal. This seems to be an organization out of control, with little regard for safety and a lot of regard for profits. Add to that the regulator CASA , who have watched all this happen with little intervention, and we have the mess that the system is in now. I hope that your action can prompt a full independant review of the provision of Air Traffic "Safety" Services in Australia as this is long overdue in my opinion.
And lastly, with reference to radar services and flight service, I agree on providing a better service where there is radar coverage - but just remember, Flight service provided traffic information where there was NO radar coverage and this is still the case in most of Australia's regional areas and aerodromes and probably always will be - There is no traffic/weather services in these areas now, except for the CAGRO services at Broome and Ayers Rock, yet more and more of these airports now have B737/FK100/E170 etc. large capacity passenger jet services and it is increasing all the time. When Flight service was disbanded these services were lost and never replaced and now it has come back to bite us bigtime .
I hope that your efforts start to bring some commonsense back in the industry to put safety before profit.
Firstly, I am also with you 100% on this one.
Just a couple of issues re- the demise of flight service. If I recall - it was a long time ago - this all started with the Australian democrats who had the power in the senate at the time, refusing to allow the cross-subsidisation between the airports and ATC/FS. When the Federal Airports corp was formed, the main income stream for the C.A.A was lost and they were forced to generate there own revenue to run both ATC and Flight Service. Now we all know that no one likes to pay for a "safety service", as most would prefer to take the risk and save themselves the expense - until they needed it of course and then it is too late ! History now tells us that the the F.A.C became a very profitable organization and as such, was promptly sold off for a massive profit by money hungry governments with little foresight on the implications all this would have. Now we have no flight service, a bare bones ATC and an organization called Airservices who continually cut services to GA and Air Traffic Services to in an attempt to hide their own mis-management.
If fact, Airservices seem to think they are unanswerable to anyone as recent events with Flightwatch and the Unicom proposal show - no consultation with the "users" , there own "in house surveys" and even the failure to advise the regulator CASA of their intentions as in the case of the Unicom proposal. This seems to be an organization out of control, with little regard for safety and a lot of regard for profits. Add to that the regulator CASA , who have watched all this happen with little intervention, and we have the mess that the system is in now. I hope that your action can prompt a full independant review of the provision of Air Traffic "Safety" Services in Australia as this is long overdue in my opinion.
And lastly, with reference to radar services and flight service, I agree on providing a better service where there is radar coverage - but just remember, Flight service provided traffic information where there was NO radar coverage and this is still the case in most of Australia's regional areas and aerodromes and probably always will be - There is no traffic/weather services in these areas now, except for the CAGRO services at Broome and Ayers Rock, yet more and more of these airports now have B737/FK100/E170 etc. large capacity passenger jet services and it is increasing all the time. When Flight service was disbanded these services were lost and never replaced and now it has come back to bite us bigtime .
I hope that your efforts start to bring some commonsense back in the industry to put safety before profit.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick
Sorry to thread drift here.....The woman in XMV (in the future) could easily have ADSB low level coverage if that is done properly too.
How about we get ASA to get that fully implimented while we are at it!
J
Sorry to thread drift here.....The woman in XMV (in the future) could easily have ADSB low level coverage if that is done properly too.
How about we get ASA to get that fully implimented while we are at it!
J
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: International
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
User Pays Safety
With you on that one Jaba.
As a taxpayer, I too want my tax revenue used efffectively and efficiently. I understand that such revenue must provide relief in many areas. But I do not want a return to the Flight OverService days of the past.
Bugsmasher users (and the like) must bear a higher burdon of the infrastructure that they expect will be there for them (ie they must accept the need for ADSB equipment). If they are not prepared to pay for a service (as appears to be the case) then they should not moan and groan when that service is reduced or removed. Thankfully, bugsmashers are much more reliable than in the past - not so sure about the people who now fly them who I liken much more to an average motorist who expects everything to work for them. Adequate preflight preparation is much less prevalent amongst todays pilots than those from the days of yore.
ID
As a taxpayer, I too want my tax revenue used efffectively and efficiently. I understand that such revenue must provide relief in many areas. But I do not want a return to the Flight OverService days of the past.
Bugsmasher users (and the like) must bear a higher burdon of the infrastructure that they expect will be there for them (ie they must accept the need for ADSB equipment). If they are not prepared to pay for a service (as appears to be the case) then they should not moan and groan when that service is reduced or removed. Thankfully, bugsmashers are much more reliable than in the past - not so sure about the people who now fly them who I liken much more to an average motorist who expects everything to work for them. Adequate preflight preparation is much less prevalent amongst todays pilots than those from the days of yore.
ID