Flightwatch – 27 VHF outlets being closed
Dick said:
To take the last issue first: I doubt whether a wheelchair-bound, acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA could match it with real lawyers.
On the substance of the issue, I’m afraid that if the incoming Minister/Government is not inclined to intervene, AA will, as a matter of practicality, get away with almost any reduction in service to GA it is inclined or talented enough to think of.
Much criticism is leveled against Dick for his advocacy of ‘affordable safety’. Both Dick and his critics are correct in my view, without quite understanding where their respective opinions diverge.
At the heart of the disagreement about ‘affordable safety’, which is indeed a fact of life, is:
-the price put on a life and
-the timing of the cost paid for the loss of a life.
That’s where the profound shift has occurred in the last couple of decades.
It used to be the case that society was prepared to spend substantial amounts of money, year after year, to reduce the risk of loss of life in all sorts of activities. Flight Service was one of those risk reduction institutions.
But how to measure the ‘value’ of the reduction in risk? Answer: impossible.
It’s:
1. not possible, first, to quantify the number of lives saved (how do you ‘prove’ that Pilot Bloggs’ aircraft wouldn’t have ‘crashed’, or that he and his injured pax would have been saved, if he’d just had the benefit of Flight Service info and timely ‘guidance’ when things got tense?) and
2. not possible, secondly, to ‘prove’ the expenditure was ‘worth’ the lives saved (how do you ‘value’ the life of, for example, an innocent child whose life is saved as a consequence of timely assistance from Flight Service?)
In the short term, the service is taken away and someone says: “Nothing’s changed, therefore the service wasn’t worth its cost.”
There’s no balance sheet line item for the potential value of lives saved today or in the future, and even if there were, governments (plural) aren’t inclined to fund the preservation of lives unless an election outcome might turn on the issue.
That’s a recipe for the ‘short-termism’ that pervades infrastructure planning in the quaint third world polity that is Australia.
Perhaps Creampuff would like to comment, and may like to volunteer his services free. In that case, I will certainly go ahead!
On the substance of the issue, I’m afraid that if the incoming Minister/Government is not inclined to intervene, AA will, as a matter of practicality, get away with almost any reduction in service to GA it is inclined or talented enough to think of.
Much criticism is leveled against Dick for his advocacy of ‘affordable safety’. Both Dick and his critics are correct in my view, without quite understanding where their respective opinions diverge.
At the heart of the disagreement about ‘affordable safety’, which is indeed a fact of life, is:
-the price put on a life and
-the timing of the cost paid for the loss of a life.
That’s where the profound shift has occurred in the last couple of decades.
It used to be the case that society was prepared to spend substantial amounts of money, year after year, to reduce the risk of loss of life in all sorts of activities. Flight Service was one of those risk reduction institutions.
But how to measure the ‘value’ of the reduction in risk? Answer: impossible.
It’s:
1. not possible, first, to quantify the number of lives saved (how do you ‘prove’ that Pilot Bloggs’ aircraft wouldn’t have ‘crashed’, or that he and his injured pax would have been saved, if he’d just had the benefit of Flight Service info and timely ‘guidance’ when things got tense?) and
2. not possible, secondly, to ‘prove’ the expenditure was ‘worth’ the lives saved (how do you ‘value’ the life of, for example, an innocent child whose life is saved as a consequence of timely assistance from Flight Service?)
In the short term, the service is taken away and someone says: “Nothing’s changed, therefore the service wasn’t worth its cost.”
There’s no balance sheet line item for the potential value of lives saved today or in the future, and even if there were, governments (plural) aren’t inclined to fund the preservation of lives unless an election outcome might turn on the issue.
That’s a recipe for the ‘short-termism’ that pervades infrastructure planning in the quaint third world polity that is Australia.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Change of Government
Do you think the change of government will affect the potential rollback?
Any bets on how long until the new Labor Minister for Aviation removes AirServices Australia chairman and staunch National Party supporter, Mr Nick Burton Taylor? Is he the one who had been driving these changes???
Any bets on how long until the new Labor Minister for Aviation removes AirServices Australia chairman and staunch National Party supporter, Mr Nick Burton Taylor? Is he the one who had been driving these changes???
In reality, what is likely to change Airservices' position on Flightwatch?
- Public opinion? No, any bad publicity will soon fade away
- VFR pilots complaining? No, they get what they pay for ... zilch
- GA IFR pilots complaining that they won't get their money's worth? No, "we're still providing the service aren't we?"
- Flightwatch Review finds safety deficiencies? Not likely ... ASA will have all their bamboozling data and reports ready to go
- Government directive for ASA to keep $X million of their surplus to fund GA/Regional services? To me, the only possibility. But what would be required to convince the Government to make such a directive ???
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to rewrite history might be difficult.......
Dick Smith : "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."
<buzzer sounds> Wrong! The first mention of the words "affordable safety" may have come from Ratner in 1986, but unfortunately history may harder to rewrite than that - maybe it's a Government conspiracy
Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/c...01/01chr02.htm
"Aviator and entrepreneur Mr Dick Smith appointed Chair of the CAA under an 'affordable safety' policy crusade. He recruited Mr Frank Baldwin from the New Zealand Aviation Authority to restructure the organisation on a district basis, and reduced staff from 7300 down to 3500 over five years. The CAA Chief Executive Mr Colin Freeland and deputy Mr Alan Rainbird both resigned soon after Mr Dick Smith arrived."
Australian, 16 May 1990;
Sydney Morning Herald, 11 June 1990.
Maybe the young people coming along just havent had the benefit of hindsight that some of us greying fourty-somethings have....they were probably blissfully ignorant of the *crusade* when they were in primary or high school at the time
Don't get me wrong Dick, I had then and have now no problem with your comments on the nonsense of having a FS non-radar service where radar coverage existed, and I told you that in 1990 on the phone (when I could actually get a word in edgeways during the course of the one sided conversation
). Your comment in return (and I remember it vividly) was actually nothing to do with safety - It was that you only wanted to deal with one union, not two, and that two was going to cost too much. Fair enough also... nothing wrong there in wanting flexibility. <tongue firmly in cheek>
But in bugsmasher territory in WA, where 90+% is non-radar, did it really make any sense to remove services to low-level areas, and where these days, 100+ seat jet aircraft are operating into remote mining strips (not PA31s or C441s anymore) with little or no alerting of traffic in the area?
On the flights where I am SLF to the mine, there is at least one more set of eyeballs scanning the sky...I've learnt not to trust the system.
ps Griffo - good to see you're still around...
<buzzer sounds> Wrong! The first mention of the words "affordable safety" may have come from Ratner in 1986, but unfortunately history may harder to rewrite than that - maybe it's a Government conspiracy
Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/c...01/01chr02.htm
"Aviator and entrepreneur Mr Dick Smith appointed Chair of the CAA under an 'affordable safety' policy crusade. He recruited Mr Frank Baldwin from the New Zealand Aviation Authority to restructure the organisation on a district basis, and reduced staff from 7300 down to 3500 over five years. The CAA Chief Executive Mr Colin Freeland and deputy Mr Alan Rainbird both resigned soon after Mr Dick Smith arrived."
Australian, 16 May 1990;
Sydney Morning Herald, 11 June 1990.
Maybe the young people coming along just havent had the benefit of hindsight that some of us greying fourty-somethings have....they were probably blissfully ignorant of the *crusade* when they were in primary or high school at the time
Don't get me wrong Dick, I had then and have now no problem with your comments on the nonsense of having a FS non-radar service where radar coverage existed, and I told you that in 1990 on the phone (when I could actually get a word in edgeways during the course of the one sided conversation
). Your comment in return (and I remember it vividly) was actually nothing to do with safety - It was that you only wanted to deal with one union, not two, and that two was going to cost too much. Fair enough also... nothing wrong there in wanting flexibility. <tongue firmly in cheek>But in bugsmasher territory in WA, where 90+% is non-radar, did it really make any sense to remove services to low-level areas, and where these days, 100+ seat jet aircraft are operating into remote mining strips (not PA31s or C441s anymore) with little or no alerting of traffic in the area?
On the flights where I am SLF to the mine, there is at least one more set of eyeballs scanning the sky...I've learnt not to trust the system.
ps Griffo - good to see you're still around...
Last edited by Gunnadothat; 27th Nov 2007 at 12:38. Reason: Semantics
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 58
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightwatch log
ATC is continuing with providing Flightwatch and has been asked to "log" any times when they are unable to provide this service. Of course, mostly when you are too busy to provide a Flightwatch service, you are too busy to log it!
This allows AsA to provide "evidence" that ATC is able to provide the service without affecting customers - brilliant.
Difficult to prove that extreme weather conditions preclude the provision when none actually occur...
Blue
This allows AsA to provide "evidence" that ATC is able to provide the service without affecting customers - brilliant.Difficult to prove that extreme weather conditions preclude the provision when none actually occur...
Blue
Creampuff, you asked about quantifying "the value of a life". Risk management calculations do this all the time.
Not sure what the "going rate" is today, but around 1976 it used to be about $4,000,000. Now multiply that by the probability of an occurance (ie once every X years) and do a discounted cash flow calculation at the prime rate and you have the annual "cost" of the accident.
What you then can say is that if you can spend (invest) less than that annual figure each year to prevent the occurance of the accident (or lower its probability from X to Y) then you make the investment.
These calculations are made every day by risk management people for all sorts of companies who want to mitigate their risks, however as with the Unicom and radioless flight fiasco, I've not seen any evidence that AsA makes use of such calculations.
To put it another way, its quite probable that the cost of, say, a lost and lonely bug smasher straying into controlled airspace and hitting an airliner will outweigh the entire profits and costs of AsA for a hundred years.
Of course, if there is good Government (and corporate Governance), AsA would be held to a strict long term risk management set of accountabilities that incorporate the long term net effect on the economy of their activities. But of course the temptation is to ignore risk management as its someone else who wears the cost of the accident, concentrate on the short term to maximise one's bonus and hope like hell nothing happens before you retire and take your super.
The insurance industry does something similar to risk management to calculate premiums but use a "worst case" model. I'm advised that the premiums for a B747 for example are set on the basis of the probability of a mid air collision over central London or Manhattan between two fully loaded aircraft..
Not sure what the "going rate" is today, but around 1976 it used to be about $4,000,000. Now multiply that by the probability of an occurance (ie once every X years) and do a discounted cash flow calculation at the prime rate and you have the annual "cost" of the accident.
What you then can say is that if you can spend (invest) less than that annual figure each year to prevent the occurance of the accident (or lower its probability from X to Y) then you make the investment.
These calculations are made every day by risk management people for all sorts of companies who want to mitigate their risks, however as with the Unicom and radioless flight fiasco, I've not seen any evidence that AsA makes use of such calculations.
To put it another way, its quite probable that the cost of, say, a lost and lonely bug smasher straying into controlled airspace and hitting an airliner will outweigh the entire profits and costs of AsA for a hundred years.
Of course, if there is good Government (and corporate Governance), AsA would be held to a strict long term risk management set of accountabilities that incorporate the long term net effect on the economy of their activities. But of course the temptation is to ignore risk management as its someone else who wears the cost of the accident, concentrate on the short term to maximise one's bonus and hope like hell nothing happens before you retire and take your super.
The insurance industry does something similar to risk management to calculate premiums but use a "worst case" model. I'm advised that the premiums for a B747 for example are set on the basis of the probability of a mid air collision over central London or Manhattan between two fully loaded aircraft..
Thanks Sunny.
How do we estimate the number of uninsured or underinsured deaths/injuries/hull losses/dings that would have occurred, but for flight service?
If we can do that, we can then multiply it by (e.g) $4,000,000 or whatever the going rate is for a death, and the same for the estimated number of injuries/hull losses/dings, to work out whether flight service is ‘worth’ what it costs.
Presumably that's what AA should be doing.
How do we estimate the number of uninsured or underinsured deaths/injuries/hull losses/dings that would have occurred, but for flight service?
If we can do that, we can then multiply it by (e.g) $4,000,000 or whatever the going rate is for a death, and the same for the estimated number of injuries/hull losses/dings, to work out whether flight service is ‘worth’ what it costs.
Presumably that's what AA should be doing.
Thread Starter
Jabawocky, the Airservices proposal for ADS-B relies on line of sight UHF coverage. If the lady in question could not get through to air traffic control on VHF, it is very likely that she would not be within ADS-B coverage.
The problem is that once you have hills and mountains, a system that relies on a direct line of sight radio link to a ground based transmitter often has limited coverage at low levels – probably the very place you would need protection.
Also, ADS-B for GA aircraft sounds to me to be a very expensive way of providing a service to protect pilots from an incident as described with XMV. I think we should concentrate on getting the maximum level of VHF radio coverage – by both ATC and Flightwatch – before we spend extra hundreds of millions of dollars in providing a duplicated service with ADS-B.
Remember, when the FAA goes to ADS-B in 2020, it is keeping the full secondary surveillance radar coverage above FL180 across the entire continent. If Airservices does the same thing (even just to cover the J-curve above FL180), the funding for the low level ADS-B will not be available.
The problem is that once you have hills and mountains, a system that relies on a direct line of sight radio link to a ground based transmitter often has limited coverage at low levels – probably the very place you would need protection.
Also, ADS-B for GA aircraft sounds to me to be a very expensive way of providing a service to protect pilots from an incident as described with XMV. I think we should concentrate on getting the maximum level of VHF radio coverage – by both ATC and Flightwatch – before we spend extra hundreds of millions of dollars in providing a duplicated service with ADS-B.
Remember, when the FAA goes to ADS-B in 2020, it is keeping the full secondary surveillance radar coverage above FL180 across the entire continent. If Airservices does the same thing (even just to cover the J-curve above FL180), the funding for the low level ADS-B will not be available.
A few comments:
Bluerider777 said: "...Of course, mostly when you are too busy to provide a Flightwatch service, you are too busy to log it! ..."
Of course, also when ATC is busy is usually when the bugsmasher is too timid to ask for flight information ... for fear of interupting the important stuff
In the VH-XMV incident ( which is very similar to my scenario in a prevoius post), I wonder what would have been the outcome if she did get on to ATC frequency. I know she would have been given priority ... but what would have been the affect on the ATC's traffic situation? Could it have led to some unanticipated holding? Or, delay in descent, climb or diversion clearances for the big boys?
BTW, in the USA, the Flight Service Officers have VHF direction finding equipment. So they can, normally, very easily and efficiently provide a position to lost pilots.
Bluerider777 said: "...Of course, mostly when you are too busy to provide a Flightwatch service, you are too busy to log it! ..."
Of course, also when ATC is busy is usually when the bugsmasher is too timid to ask for flight information ... for fear of interupting the important stuff
In the VH-XMV incident ( which is very similar to my scenario in a prevoius post), I wonder what would have been the outcome if she did get on to ATC frequency. I know she would have been given priority ... but what would have been the affect on the ATC's traffic situation? Could it have led to some unanticipated holding? Or, delay in descent, climb or diversion clearances for the big boys?
BTW, in the USA, the Flight Service Officers have VHF direction finding equipment. So they can, normally, very easily and efficiently provide a position to lost pilots.
Thread Starter
Gunnadothat, you anonymously quote a so-called conversation with me and you are not even prepared to put your own name to your comment.
To other readers, the quote is wrong and completely the opposite to my view. As a Chairman I would have far preferred to deal with two unions – for obvious reasons. If one goes on strike you can quite often use people from the other union to provide a service.
By asking advice – not only in Australia but around the world – it was obvious that the sensible thing to do was to have one skill set operating the air traffic control system in relation to traffic and separation. It was pretty obvious that it would be difficult to licence FSOs to provide a separation service, whereas ATCs were already providing traffic information.
It is plain commonsense to follow the rest of the world and have one skill set (i.e. ATCs) providing all of the separation and traffic information services.
The comment about wanting to deal with one union is completely wrong – it is the exact opposite to what I believed.
Of course it is very easy for someone to anonymously make claims.
In relation to the Sydney Morning Herald article, when have you ever found that journalists get it right? As stated before, there was never an “‘affordable safety’ policy crusade.” Yes, that is how it was interpreted by many journalists as they could not understand that the money spent on safety for aviation was always governed by affordability. They tended to believe it was something new – which of course it wasn’t.
The staff figures are about right. That is, 7,300 down to 3,500, with a constant improvement in safety since then. Can you imagine what would have happened to our industry if the numbers had not been reduced? I can assure you that I would have been able to continue to keep flying, but even more GA businesses would have closed.
To other readers, the quote is wrong and completely the opposite to my view. As a Chairman I would have far preferred to deal with two unions – for obvious reasons. If one goes on strike you can quite often use people from the other union to provide a service.
By asking advice – not only in Australia but around the world – it was obvious that the sensible thing to do was to have one skill set operating the air traffic control system in relation to traffic and separation. It was pretty obvious that it would be difficult to licence FSOs to provide a separation service, whereas ATCs were already providing traffic information.
It is plain commonsense to follow the rest of the world and have one skill set (i.e. ATCs) providing all of the separation and traffic information services.
The comment about wanting to deal with one union is completely wrong – it is the exact opposite to what I believed.
Of course it is very easy for someone to anonymously make claims.
In relation to the Sydney Morning Herald article, when have you ever found that journalists get it right? As stated before, there was never an “‘affordable safety’ policy crusade.” Yes, that is how it was interpreted by many journalists as they could not understand that the money spent on safety for aviation was always governed by affordability. They tended to believe it was something new – which of course it wasn’t.
The staff figures are about right. That is, 7,300 down to 3,500, with a constant improvement in safety since then. Can you imagine what would have happened to our industry if the numbers had not been reduced? I can assure you that I would have been able to continue to keep flying, but even more GA businesses would have closed.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick,
agreed that she could not get ATC on VHF, but that could be due to a lack of VHF repeaters and with the proposed ADSB low level proposal I suspect that the region she was in would have adequate cover.
So how did she contact Flightwatch......not that many bugsmashers have HF?
I do believe still to this day that taking the money from the old worn out enroute radars and putting it into more VHF coverage and ADSB would give everyone the service levels we would like for not any more expense than we have today.
J
agreed that she could not get ATC on VHF, but that could be due to a lack of VHF repeaters and with the proposed ADSB low level proposal I suspect that the region she was in would have adequate cover.
So how did she contact Flightwatch......not that many bugsmashers have HF?
I do believe still to this day that taking the money from the old worn out enroute radars and putting it into more VHF coverage and ADSB would give everyone the service levels we would like for not any more expense than we have today.
J
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick et al,
A question relating to a small point that seems lost:
IF VH-XMV called Flightwatch VHF 134.85 at 2300UTC, what response would she have got?
The answer:
NOTAM YMMM C5358/07
ON-REQUEST FLIGHT INFORMATION (FIS), SARTIME AND EMERGENCY ALERTING SERVICES NORMALLY PROVIDED BY FLIGHTWATCH ON DISCRETE VHF FREQUENCIES NOT AVBL DUE TO STAFF SHORTAGE.
(edit)
ON-REQUEST FLIGHT INFORMATION (FIS), SARTIME AND EMERG ALERTING SERVICES AVAILABLE ON FIA FREQUENCIES OR HF (REFER ERSA FAC-B BRISBANE ACC/FIC AND FAC-M MELBOURNE ACC/FIC).
FROM 11 230013 TO 11 300100 EST
MON TO FRI 2200-0100
In other words: Bugga all!!!!!!!!
Yes, that’s right. For all the rhetoric that services will continue pending “the review”, between 2200 and 0100 UTC every weekday, Flightwatch VHF frequencies are turned off at the tap. No one listens out, no one “ghosts”, no one responds to in-flight emergencies.
Want proof of that Dick? A call for service during that time would do the trick.
A question relating to a small point that seems lost:
IF VH-XMV called Flightwatch VHF 134.85 at 2300UTC, what response would she have got?
The answer:
NOTAM YMMM C5358/07
ON-REQUEST FLIGHT INFORMATION (FIS), SARTIME AND EMERGENCY ALERTING SERVICES NORMALLY PROVIDED BY FLIGHTWATCH ON DISCRETE VHF FREQUENCIES NOT AVBL DUE TO STAFF SHORTAGE.
(edit)
ON-REQUEST FLIGHT INFORMATION (FIS), SARTIME AND EMERG ALERTING SERVICES AVAILABLE ON FIA FREQUENCIES OR HF (REFER ERSA FAC-B BRISBANE ACC/FIC AND FAC-M MELBOURNE ACC/FIC).
FROM 11 230013 TO 11 300100 EST
MON TO FRI 2200-0100
In other words: Bugga all!!!!!!!!
Yes, that’s right. For all the rhetoric that services will continue pending “the review”, between 2200 and 0100 UTC every weekday, Flightwatch VHF frequencies are turned off at the tap. No one listens out, no one “ghosts”, no one responds to in-flight emergencies.
Want proof of that Dick? A call for service during that time would do the trick.
Thread Starter
I have just been in Hawaii with the owners of Avalon Airport looking at the Airservices operation of Lihue Tower – very impressive. I will put another post on about this shortly.
Whilst in Honolulu I visited the Automated Flight Service Station. It was staffed by seven personnel at the time of my visit. I was told that at night time, between 10pm and 5am, just one member of staff operates about 30 VHF Flight Service/Flightwatch outlets, plus accepting flight plans, briefing etc by telephone.
It is interesting that the whole US Flight Service System has been contracted out to Lockheed Martin (see here).
It is important to note that the US system provides briefings by officers who are trained to actually interpret the weather information. You may like to phone this number: 0011 1800 992 27433. Say the word, “Hawaii”, and if the US system understands your Aussie accent you will be put through to the Automated Flight Service Station.
It appears that the Lockheed Martin contract is for about $190 million per year. That would equate with our 5% of traffic to about $10 million in Australia. It would be interesting to see what we spend on our Flightwatch/Flight Service VHF outlets and briefing services.
The US is now going to 18 Automated Flight Service Stations, which is the equivalent of about one in Australia – population/traffic wise – and that is what we have now.
The consoles are set up so a briefing officer can not only accept a flight plan and give weather information by telephone, but can also operate the VHF Flightwatch outlet. Is that what we do here?
In talking to the manager in charge, he said there is certainly no plan by the FAA to remove the separate VHF Flight Service/Flightwatch system. The contract has been given to Lockheed Martin for 10 years.
By the way, I’m not suggesting in Australia that we should look at contracting out the Flightwatch. I think that would be crazy. I believe the best way to do it is to keep it within Airservices as a necessary overhead for providing a safe air traffic control system.
Do others agree?
Whilst in Honolulu I visited the Automated Flight Service Station. It was staffed by seven personnel at the time of my visit. I was told that at night time, between 10pm and 5am, just one member of staff operates about 30 VHF Flight Service/Flightwatch outlets, plus accepting flight plans, briefing etc by telephone.
It is interesting that the whole US Flight Service System has been contracted out to Lockheed Martin (see here).
It is important to note that the US system provides briefings by officers who are trained to actually interpret the weather information. You may like to phone this number: 0011 1800 992 27433. Say the word, “Hawaii”, and if the US system understands your Aussie accent you will be put through to the Automated Flight Service Station.
It appears that the Lockheed Martin contract is for about $190 million per year. That would equate with our 5% of traffic to about $10 million in Australia. It would be interesting to see what we spend on our Flightwatch/Flight Service VHF outlets and briefing services.
The US is now going to 18 Automated Flight Service Stations, which is the equivalent of about one in Australia – population/traffic wise – and that is what we have now.
The consoles are set up so a briefing officer can not only accept a flight plan and give weather information by telephone, but can also operate the VHF Flightwatch outlet. Is that what we do here?
In talking to the manager in charge, he said there is certainly no plan by the FAA to remove the separate VHF Flight Service/Flightwatch system. The contract has been given to Lockheed Martin for 10 years.
By the way, I’m not suggesting in Australia that we should look at contracting out the Flightwatch. I think that would be crazy. I believe the best way to do it is to keep it within Airservices as a necessary overhead for providing a safe air traffic control system.
Do others agree?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not in my backyard
Dick, Dick, Dick
My contacts asked me to respond to your “Hawaii Discovery Tour”.
First off, have you EVER visited Ausfic to see the operation?
My money is that you have not at any stage so how about it???
Moving on:
For the domestic area, Ausfic flightwatch staff operate VHF and HF radios and phones.
As per AIP, Flightwatch staff will provide briefing materials to pilots to the first point of intended landing at which point pilots are to call the briefing office and request their weather/NOTAMS and flight plan properly.
Ausfic Flightwatch staff also answer the telephones that nominate and cancel SARTIMEs…and they follow up on the many many “forgot to cancel” SARTIME expiries.
During the day, 3 consoles are manned to provide HF communications across the domestic airspace. This is a hell of a lot bigger area than bloody Hawaii last time I looked – but hey, global warming and all huh???.
These HF consoles are flat out most of the time trying to deal with the “backwards and forwards” nature of duties imposed upon them by some group of fools who got rid of Flight Service.
NOTE: the Flightwatch people do not have any flight plans in front of them when a pilot calls, just a log to write down what is said.
The fourth console provides the VHF ghosting service and is staffed by exactly the same number of people – that would be ONE!!! – as prior to the movement of VHF to ATC.
They also have the phones and intercoms and the responsibility to follow up on expired SARTIMEs.
At overnight the FOUR (4) (IV) domestic consoles combine to ONE (1) (I) with that officer operating 9 separate HF frequencies (on 45 separate receivers!!!!!) and 25+ VHF frequencies (ghosting the flightwatch VHF fiasco !!!).
To make it clear, this ONE officer on a night shift has:
25+ VHF Aviation radios
45 HF Aviations Receivers and 9 HF Aviation Transmitters
Flightwatch Telephone
Intercoms to ATCs
Marine Emergency HF Radio for South Australia
Marine Emergency VHF radio for South Australia
CENSAR (SARTIME) Alerting
During the day, briefing office staff answer the briefing phone and supply information as requested by the highly trained and competent pilots making the requests.
During the day a Briefing office staffer also answers the Flightwatch phones and process SARTIME nominations and cancellations as well as chase up the 30-50 SARTIMEs that expire each day because the highly trained and competent pilots “forgot” or “just about to call” or ‘could not get to phone” (and pay nothing for the service)
Dick, do some research closer to home before you run around the world (depriving the Aust Gov of tax revenue coz no doubt it’s a tax deduction) and see what is done here.
Or at least read the many many posts that describe what is done here.
My contacts asked me to respond to your “Hawaii Discovery Tour”.
First off, have you EVER visited Ausfic to see the operation?
My money is that you have not at any stage so how about it???
Moving on:
For the domestic area, Ausfic flightwatch staff operate VHF and HF radios and phones.
As per AIP, Flightwatch staff will provide briefing materials to pilots to the first point of intended landing at which point pilots are to call the briefing office and request their weather/NOTAMS and flight plan properly.
Ausfic Flightwatch staff also answer the telephones that nominate and cancel SARTIMEs…and they follow up on the many many “forgot to cancel” SARTIME expiries.
During the day, 3 consoles are manned to provide HF communications across the domestic airspace. This is a hell of a lot bigger area than bloody Hawaii last time I looked – but hey, global warming and all huh???.
These HF consoles are flat out most of the time trying to deal with the “backwards and forwards” nature of duties imposed upon them by some group of fools who got rid of Flight Service.
NOTE: the Flightwatch people do not have any flight plans in front of them when a pilot calls, just a log to write down what is said.
The fourth console provides the VHF ghosting service and is staffed by exactly the same number of people – that would be ONE!!! – as prior to the movement of VHF to ATC.
They also have the phones and intercoms and the responsibility to follow up on expired SARTIMEs.
At overnight the FOUR (4) (IV) domestic consoles combine to ONE (1) (I) with that officer operating 9 separate HF frequencies (on 45 separate receivers!!!!!) and 25+ VHF frequencies (ghosting the flightwatch VHF fiasco !!!).
To make it clear, this ONE officer on a night shift has:
25+ VHF Aviation radios
45 HF Aviations Receivers and 9 HF Aviation Transmitters
Flightwatch Telephone
Intercoms to ATCs
Marine Emergency HF Radio for South Australia
Marine Emergency VHF radio for South Australia
CENSAR (SARTIME) Alerting
During the day, briefing office staff answer the briefing phone and supply information as requested by the highly trained and competent pilots making the requests.
During the day a Briefing office staffer also answers the Flightwatch phones and process SARTIME nominations and cancellations as well as chase up the 30-50 SARTIMEs that expire each day because the highly trained and competent pilots “forgot” or “just about to call” or ‘could not get to phone” (and pay nothing for the service)
Dick, do some research closer to home before you run around the world (depriving the Aust Gov of tax revenue coz no doubt it’s a tax deduction) and see what is done here.
Or at least read the many many posts that describe what is done here.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Surely you don't expect anyone to swallow the "5% of traffic= 5% of cost" line do you? At least you appear to have decided that commercial imperative might be a bad idea re ATS. Is the 'economy of scale' the US has, dawning on you? Read the above post. The 'many hats of ATC' in oz has been explained before....
Thread Starter
Jacko and Ferris, I’m on side with you on this one, so why the personal attacks?
My visit to the US Automated Flight Service Station in Honolulu, my post on PPRuNe and my subsequent presentation to the Aviation Taskforce all support the continuance of a separate VHF Flightwatch service in Australia.
Yes, I have visited Ausfic in Brisbane, but that was during the day time and I did not know what actually happened at night.
Jacko, I wasn’t
as I paid for my flights to Hawaii, accommodation and everything else personally. As I do not earn my income from Air Traffic Control/Flight Service I can make no deductions.
At the present time I am doing everything I can to support you in having an adequately staffed and separate VHF Flightwatch service in Australia. If I’m in the USA to look at Class D towers, surely it is sensible to look at what they do there in relation to Flightwatch – especially if it supports our aims – and communicate that to the powers that be.
Ferris, the 5% of traffic (equaling 5% of the cost) was just an approximation to show that we should spend an adequate amount of money on Flightwatch if we are to compare with the money spent on this vital safety service in another leading aviation country – i.e. the USA.
I realise the USA has economies of scale, however the plan in Australia is to completely remove the separate VHF Flightwatch outlets, so the economies of scale are irrelevant as we are to have zero!
I say again, I do not understand why I am personally attacked in this erroneous way when I’m actually spending my own money in supporting the air traffic controllers, the FSOs and the industry on this. It simply works against us all getting a win.
As it is, it looks as if the Airservices management tend to take little notice of their staff.
My visit to the US Automated Flight Service Station in Honolulu, my post on PPRuNe and my subsequent presentation to the Aviation Taskforce all support the continuance of a separate VHF Flightwatch service in Australia.
Yes, I have visited Ausfic in Brisbane, but that was during the day time and I did not know what actually happened at night.
Jacko, I wasn’t
depriving the Aust Gov of tax revenue
At the present time I am doing everything I can to support you in having an adequately staffed and separate VHF Flightwatch service in Australia. If I’m in the USA to look at Class D towers, surely it is sensible to look at what they do there in relation to Flightwatch – especially if it supports our aims – and communicate that to the powers that be.
Ferris, the 5% of traffic (equaling 5% of the cost) was just an approximation to show that we should spend an adequate amount of money on Flightwatch if we are to compare with the money spent on this vital safety service in another leading aviation country – i.e. the USA.
I realise the USA has economies of scale, however the plan in Australia is to completely remove the separate VHF Flightwatch outlets, so the economies of scale are irrelevant as we are to have zero!
I say again, I do not understand why I am personally attacked in this erroneous way when I’m actually spending my own money in supporting the air traffic controllers, the FSOs and the industry on this. It simply works against us all getting a win.
As it is, it looks as if the Airservices management tend to take little notice of their staff.
Moderator
The thread topic is:
Personal, baseless allegations or attacks will resultin access to this thread being denied.
Tail Wheel
Flightwatch – 27 VHF outlets being closed
Personal, baseless allegations or attacks will resultin access to this thread being denied.
Tail Wheel
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so what you appear to be saying (re; the 5%) is that you now don't believe that safety should be affordable ie. there is some basic level of safety that does not need be "affordable", it is a must-have? Whilst attempting to stop the service-reduction juggernaut is admirable, picking little bits here and there that YOU consider worthy (and what needs to be affordable and what doesn't), without considering the whole, is somewhat laughable (read in context with your NAS effort).
If this all leads you to a full-on "charging-regime" crusade, then more power to you. You must understand my scepticism.
Gold, absolute gold.
If this all leads you to a full-on "charging-regime" crusade, then more power to you. You must understand my scepticism.
As it is, it looks as if the Airservices management tend to take little notice of their staff