Flightwatch – 27 VHF outlets being closed
Dick
You mentioned the 'Aviation Taskforce', which I'm assuming is a reference to the Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce of which you are a member.
Is the Taskforce on track to report 'by December 2007', in accordance with the previous Deputy Prime Minister's announcement? Would be kind of ironic if the Taskforce drifted around indefinitely, with no cost, time or output parameters.
What's the link between the Taskforce and the closure of Flightwatch outlets? Are you suggesting that Airservices should be obliged by law to provide them, or at least a separate Flight Service service, notwithstanding the cost/benefit? As Ferris points out, that looks suspiciously contrary to the concept of 'affordable safety'.
You mentioned the 'Aviation Taskforce', which I'm assuming is a reference to the Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce of which you are a member.
Is the Taskforce on track to report 'by December 2007', in accordance with the previous Deputy Prime Minister's announcement? Would be kind of ironic if the Taskforce drifted around indefinitely, with no cost, time or output parameters.
What's the link between the Taskforce and the closure of Flightwatch outlets? Are you suggesting that Airservices should be obliged by law to provide them, or at least a separate Flight Service service, notwithstanding the cost/benefit? As Ferris points out, that looks suspiciously contrary to the concept of 'affordable safety'.
Thread Starter
Ferris, it’s not whether I believe that safety should be affordable – it is simply a fact (like 2 + 2 = 4) that safety has to be affordable by those who pay for it.
Nothing I have said in the posts takes away from this. It can’t because it is a truism. From the very first post I mention the need for a cost benefit study. In my post (#31) of 13 November I stated:
A little later on the same day I stated the following in post #40:
(My underlining).
The reason for the comparison with the USA is that before I even waste my time on a cost benefit study I look around and see what other aviation countries are doing. If there was another modern aviation country that had abolished its separate VHF Flight Service outlets, I would be more likely to be convinced that a cost benefit study here could support such an action.
My solicitor’s letter to Airservices makes it absolutely clear that I required in writing that:
(My underlining).
I have stated elsewhere that if a proper genuine cost benefit study shows that the separate VHF outlets are not a cost effective way of improving safety, and the money would save more lives if spent elsewhere, I will support its closure.
Creampuff, the Taskforce report to the Minister was finalised at a meeting on Monday morning in Canberra. I understand it will be forwarded to the Minister within days.
As I have stated above, I have never suggested or alluded that Airservices should be obliged to provide Flightwatch outlets unless a cost benefit study shows it is the most effective way of spending the dollar.
You and Ferris are mixed up with the fact that because I compare with a reference system (in this case, the USA) that I somehow think that means we should copy them without doing any cost benefit study. It is in the same way that I believe if all other modern countries have a TCAS requirement for air transport aircraft of 10 to 30 passengers, that we should have the same. I don’t believe we should make this decision without doing a cost benefit study, but I believe it will reflect what modern aviation countries can afford, and where they should allocate their safety dollars.
I would be happy with the results of an objective cost benefit study either way.
Nothing I have said in the posts takes away from this. It can’t because it is a truism. From the very first post I mention the need for a cost benefit study. In my post (#31) of 13 November I stated:
One of the main reasons I am attempting to get Airservices to consult and do a proper cost benefit study is that we will then see just how many people use it, and what value it is.
We are a very wealthy country and we can afford to have a duplicated ATC/Flightwatch/Flight Service system. I believe we can afford to have more than the 27 VHF outlets. I also believe that we can afford to have a proper automated Flight Service station where briefing officers are actually trained to give weather advice to pilots – not just quote met reports.
The reason for the comparison with the USA is that before I even waste my time on a cost benefit study I look around and see what other aviation countries are doing. If there was another modern aviation country that had abolished its separate VHF Flight Service outlets, I would be more likely to be convinced that a cost benefit study here could support such an action.
My solicitor’s letter to Airservices makes it absolutely clear that I required in writing that:
Airservices Australia will not take any steps to close existing transmitters or amalgamate Flightwatch with ATC frequencies unless such consultations have been completed in compliance with section 10 Air Services Act 1995 and until the completion of a thorough safety benefit study which ensures compliance with Airservices Australia’s obligations under section 30DB Civil Aviation Act 1988;
I have stated elsewhere that if a proper genuine cost benefit study shows that the separate VHF outlets are not a cost effective way of improving safety, and the money would save more lives if spent elsewhere, I will support its closure.
Creampuff, the Taskforce report to the Minister was finalised at a meeting on Monday morning in Canberra. I understand it will be forwarded to the Minister within days.
As I have stated above, I have never suggested or alluded that Airservices should be obliged to provide Flightwatch outlets unless a cost benefit study shows it is the most effective way of spending the dollar.
You and Ferris are mixed up with the fact that because I compare with a reference system (in this case, the USA) that I somehow think that means we should copy them without doing any cost benefit study. It is in the same way that I believe if all other modern countries have a TCAS requirement for air transport aircraft of 10 to 30 passengers, that we should have the same. I don’t believe we should make this decision without doing a cost benefit study, but I believe it will reflect what modern aviation countries can afford, and where they should allocate their safety dollars.
I would be happy with the results of an objective cost benefit study either way.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 11th Dec 2007 at 03:08.
Thanks Dick
I look forward to the publication of the Taskforce's report to the Minister, by the Minister.
I agree with you on the objective cost/benefit data point in principle - Airservices should make decisions on the basis of objective data, and be transparent in its decision-making.
One point troubles me: how does one obtain objective data about the cost that would be paid, but for the existence of Flight Service, so that one can decide whether Flight Service is 'affordable'? That is, how can anyone prove that taking away Flight Service will cost X millions in terms of lives and aircraft lost or damaged, except in retrospect, and even then only on the basis of speculation about causation?
I look forward to the publication of the Taskforce's report to the Minister, by the Minister.
I agree with you on the objective cost/benefit data point in principle - Airservices should make decisions on the basis of objective data, and be transparent in its decision-making.
One point troubles me: how does one obtain objective data about the cost that would be paid, but for the existence of Flight Service, so that one can decide whether Flight Service is 'affordable'? That is, how can anyone prove that taking away Flight Service will cost X millions in terms of lives and aircraft lost or damaged, except in retrospect, and even then only on the basis of speculation about causation?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick said
I see, we should do a CBS but not a safety study on stuff like, say, NAS for instance?
There are no FSOs any more Dick and the industry is "fragmented" at best.
Why is there no discussion on the real probability of IFER communications during the daily closure of flightwatch VHF from 2200 to 0100z? If anything, that situation should be re-dressed and flightwatch VHF staffed continuously.
Yes, quite clearly according to JackoSchitt - AND SOME!
ROFLMAO..........neither do some 1300+ xFSOs!
I'm confused on this.........are pilots not trained to comprehend weather reports anymore?....gee, how times have changed. Would those pilots like advice on how to fly the aircraft as well? From what JackoSchitt says the pilots need advice on how to cancel Sartimes so there is something to add in.
What about fuel loads? do they need advice on the fuel to carry for the weather that is being explained to them too also as well?
What about general procedures advice? you know, stuff like how to get around CTRs and LOAs and things.
What about being able to do that all face-to-face?
Nah, it'd never work.
Mind you, clearly pilots don't need anything between 2200 and 0100z every weekday according to NOTAMs......and when you combine that with the occaisional NOTAM that says the ATC FIA frequencies are off too (G airspace TIBA co-incident with the closure of flightwatch VHF) you might as well call "Ghost Busters" for help.
We live in very interesting times it seems.
because I compare with a reference system (in this case, the USA) that I somehow think that means we should copy them without doing any cost benefit study
supporting the air traffic controllers, the FSOs and the industry on this.
There are no FSOs any more Dick and the industry is "fragmented" at best.
Why is there no discussion on the real probability of IFER communications during the daily closure of flightwatch VHF from 2200 to 0100z? If anything, that situation should be re-dressed and flightwatch VHF staffed continuously.
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?
As I do not earn my income from Air Traffic Control/Flight Service I can make no deductions.
ROFLMAO..........neither do some 1300+ xFSOs!
where briefing officers are actually trained to give weather advice to pilots
What about fuel loads? do they need advice on the fuel to carry for the weather that is being explained to them too also as well?
What about general procedures advice? you know, stuff like how to get around CTRs and LOAs and things.
What about being able to do that all face-to-face?
Nah, it'd never work.
Mind you, clearly pilots don't need anything between 2200 and 0100z every weekday according to NOTAMs......and when you combine that with the occaisional NOTAM that says the ATC FIA frequencies are off too (G airspace TIBA co-incident with the closure of flightwatch VHF) you might as well call "Ghost Busters" for help.
We live in very interesting times it seems.
Thread Starter
Creampuff, you ask how one can decide whether Flight Service is ‘affordable’. The answer is really simple regarding affordability, but more complex in relation to cost benefit.
Affordability simply asks whether the person who is forced to pay for it can afford it, or do they end up buying something else. In the case of the claimed $500,000 that can be saved by Airservices by closing the VHF outlets, this is approximately 0.1 cent in the dollar of Airservices revenue. On a typical flight of Sydney to Melbourne, I think the Airservices amount per ticket is probably $6 or $7, so this would be 0.1% of that $6 or $7 – i.e. less than a cent. Obviously such a small amount wouldn’t be the reason someone would decide to drive to Melbourne rather than going by air.
The other thing to look at is whether that $500,000 could be spent elsewhere to save more lives. That is a more difficult question that a cost benefit study should look at.
I tend to agree that this is a very difficult equation. Then again, we have used cost benefit studies to decide whether a Class D tower should operate, and these are used throughout the world. I suppose if the answer reflects what seems to be commonsense and professional judgment, then you go with it.
Slugfest, I certainly support any available cost benefit study that can be used for NAS. For example, changing the Class G airspace at Proserpine to Class E I’m told will have no appreciable cost, but will clearly improve safety. A simple cost benefit study can be done to show this if it is so.
The main change in NAS (as approved by Federal Cabinet) compared to our present system is that the maximum use is made of radar. IFR aircraft remain under radar control when in IMC to the maximum extent possible, and IFR aircraft are generally not cleared below the legal lowest safe altitude when in cloud until they have reported visual or are clearly on the correct approach track. This has no real measurable cost increase, but obviously improves safety.
Look at the situation at Benalla – where the professional pilot was 11 miles off course, but the controller would have had no idea if the aircraft was in IMC or visual. Under NAS, the pilot would be in controlled Class E airspace and would have to either cancel IFR or report visual before heading off in a different direction to the legal approach.
Regarding the training of briefing officers to give weather advice, yes, pilots (especially private pilots) have limited training on how to interpret weather forecasts, but in the system in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe, the briefing officer has additional training and professional expertise to advise the pilots – which they do – as to whether VFR flight is recommended. It just adds to safety, so why not do it – especially when it would not cost much more to have additional training for the briefing officers.
Affordability simply asks whether the person who is forced to pay for it can afford it, or do they end up buying something else. In the case of the claimed $500,000 that can be saved by Airservices by closing the VHF outlets, this is approximately 0.1 cent in the dollar of Airservices revenue. On a typical flight of Sydney to Melbourne, I think the Airservices amount per ticket is probably $6 or $7, so this would be 0.1% of that $6 or $7 – i.e. less than a cent. Obviously such a small amount wouldn’t be the reason someone would decide to drive to Melbourne rather than going by air.
The other thing to look at is whether that $500,000 could be spent elsewhere to save more lives. That is a more difficult question that a cost benefit study should look at.
I tend to agree that this is a very difficult equation. Then again, we have used cost benefit studies to decide whether a Class D tower should operate, and these are used throughout the world. I suppose if the answer reflects what seems to be commonsense and professional judgment, then you go with it.
Slugfest, I certainly support any available cost benefit study that can be used for NAS. For example, changing the Class G airspace at Proserpine to Class E I’m told will have no appreciable cost, but will clearly improve safety. A simple cost benefit study can be done to show this if it is so.
The main change in NAS (as approved by Federal Cabinet) compared to our present system is that the maximum use is made of radar. IFR aircraft remain under radar control when in IMC to the maximum extent possible, and IFR aircraft are generally not cleared below the legal lowest safe altitude when in cloud until they have reported visual or are clearly on the correct approach track. This has no real measurable cost increase, but obviously improves safety.
Look at the situation at Benalla – where the professional pilot was 11 miles off course, but the controller would have had no idea if the aircraft was in IMC or visual. Under NAS, the pilot would be in controlled Class E airspace and would have to either cancel IFR or report visual before heading off in a different direction to the legal approach.
Regarding the training of briefing officers to give weather advice, yes, pilots (especially private pilots) have limited training on how to interpret weather forecasts, but in the system in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe, the briefing officer has additional training and professional expertise to advise the pilots – which they do – as to whether VFR flight is recommended. It just adds to safety, so why not do it – especially when it would not cost much more to have additional training for the briefing officers.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Dick, please listen.
Before you push for more 'bl00dy change'; (which is needed, IMHO) please consider, our own management created crisis:
http://www.civilair.asn.au/joomla/in...=207&Itemid=40
Or for those without access to that link:
11 December 2007
Mr. Greg Russell
Chief Executive Officer
Airservices Australia
GPO Box 367
Canberra ACT 2601
Dear Greg,
Re: Air Traffic Control Staffing
I am writing to make you aware of a situation that is a critical threat to the continuous provision of a safe Air Traffic Control service within Australian Airspace and a clear and present threat to the business continuity of Airservices Australia.
The issue is the inability of Airservices to provide sufficient and adequately trained Air Traffic Controllers to safely maintain the Air Traffic Control system that Airservices Australia is commissioned by its owner, the Australian Government, to provide.
This problem has been developing for some time, but in recent years it has reached a situation where the continuity of the system is broken on an almost daily basis due to the lack of adequate staffing. This is clearly untenable. At the same time, I fear that Airservices is concealing from regulatory and safety organisations the fact that airspace is closing due to low staff levels. Ken McLean, GM ATC, recently instructed Line Managers to only specify the reason that Air Traffic Control services are being disrupted due to the lack of staff in a non transmitted field in the Electronic Safety Incident Reporting (ESIR) system. This information is therefore not being transmitted to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, who is vested with upholding and regulating Australian Civil Aviation and also the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, who is tasked with investigating transport safety incidents and making relevant recommendations.
As a matter of urgency, Airservices needs to address staffing in three critical areas. These are: Recruitment, Training and Retention.
Recruitment
The recruitment of sufficient personnel tested to be capable of obtaining an Air Traffic Control licence is the fundamental action required so that the pool of staff available is appropriate to the level of service provision.
Airservices employs the majority of Australia’s civilian Air Traffic Controllers, therefore the promotion of Air Traffic Control as a career is a responsibility that Airservices must shoulder. This year, at the Avalon Airshow, Airservices chose corporate entertainment for the aviation industry, in favour of a public display booth promoting the services that Airservices Australia delivers and the careers available to the visiting public. Decisions such as this are very questionable in a period when we need more ATC personnel.
For some years I have suggested to different Airservices Managers, that Airservices takes an active interest in promoting ATC to the secondary schools that provide aviation speciality courses. A range of Airservices Managers have indicated that this suggestion will get their attention. Some Airservices Managers have made commitments to some of these schools. The follow up information I have received is that this careers type activity has not been actioned.
To provide sufficient ongoing staff, Airservices must principally recruit ab-initio persons. There is no viable ongoing solution as a result of overseas recruitment exercises or in poaching staff from the RAAF.
Training
Airservices management have not addressed this critical area of appropriate staffing levels. Due to the low staff levels, current staff are not maintaining essential activities such as refresher training and project implementation. Management have created a situation where about 10% of otherwise operational staff have been lost to the operational positions through the ALM process. This loss is a negative. It is very difficult to ascertain any positives from the ALM process. From implementation, the ALM process has been handled in an inept and incompetent way. The ALM structure has created another barrier to communication. The employment of experienced Air Traffic Controllers as ALMs to basically perform administration roles is a waste of valuable resources, that being the provision of operational services.
I draw your attention to the current situation in the Air Traffic Control College. My information is that Airservices does not have adequate numbers of instructors available. Why is Airservices in a position where there are not adequate resources available to address this dire staffing situation? A lack of experienced and qualified instructors is a multiplier to the staff shortage in that we either rob an already stretched operational system for instructors or train less Air Traffic Controllers and therefore take longer to turn around the operational shortage.
Retention
The majority of Air Traffic Controllers employed by Airservices have repeatedly advised management through internal surveying that they are proud of the function they provide to the travelling public as Air Traffic Controllers. Additionally, they have made you aware that they would not recommend Airservices as an employer. I entreat you not to ignore these results. In the past, these comments have been characterised as the utterances of a disaffected group of employees overly influenced by their professional association. These dismissive statements from your management team are alarming and prevent us from addressing the problem. Airservices cannot continue to allow staffing levels to fall to the extent that breaks can not be provided by suitably qualified staff.
Civil Air has attempted to protect its members from ill conceived Management directives. In response, Airservices has relied upon the argument that Civil Air is taking or advocating industrial action. Once again, this adversarial approach is not addressing the problem and I suggest that it will not reduce your vulnerability to legal action in the event of an accident. Aviation accidents are a very low probability event. However, in the unfortunate circumstance that management actions are a causal factor in such an event, the shame will most determinably be on your side.
The current trajectory of Airservices positions pursuit of profit over safety. This approach seems to be sanctioned by the regulator, CASA. Safety critical essential services, such as Air Traffic Control, should not vulnerable to the pursuit of profits. Such an approach means that the users are placed in clear and present danger. We need to reverse the situation where Airservices actions are characterised as, “We can’t afford safety at the expense of profit”.
It is very concerning to our members that at a time when Airservices does not seem on top of the staffing situation in Australia, the organisation is nevertheless continuing to try and “grow the business” overseas. Any fulfilled contract in, for example the Middle East, will bleed further required resources from Australia. Before any attempt is made to gain overseas business it is essential that someone focuses on taking the situation here in Australia from precarious to stable. This is another example that the central concern is profit with little concern for safety.
It is not unreasonable to expect that Airservices would have considered the risks to its business. Airservices derives its income from the continuous and safe delivery of air traffic services. Sufficient Air Traffic Control staff is the lynchpin to the delivery of this safe and continuous service. The environment that you have created is one where there are insufficient, properly qualified Air Traffic Controllers. This has grave implications for continuous service and ultimately reduces safety.
The information that I receive indicates that Airservices is currently 85 Air Traffic Controllers short of operational requirements. This concurs with most groups being reported as 10% short staffed which correlates with the level of additional duty being performed. Unconfirmed suggestions are that Airservices Australia’s Human Resource specialists have estimated that about 300 Air Traffic Controllers will leave employment with Airservices over the next 3 years. If any of these estimates are approaching what will actually occur you need to replace at least 300 experienced controllers over the next 3 years. Employing 300 new Air Traffic Controllers due to attrition takes no account for increases in traffic, opening new facilities or getting back to levels where matters such as refresher training are actually implemented and are not just on the wish list.
Civil Air, its members and the staff you manage and lead in Airservices seek answers as to how you intend to manage the situation that you have placed us in. We therefore request answers to the following questions:
· Do you have a plan to recruit and train sufficient controllers, estimated at about one hundred per year?
· If the answer to the preceding is yes, what is the plan?
· When will there be sufficient staff available so that rest breaks can be taken when required, not when the traffic being controlled is considered low enough by a Manager that an unqualified person can provide the break?
· What is Airservices Australia’s plan to address the short fall in staffing when CASA reaches a professional position that they are willing to defend and uphold?
· Do you expect that while you are CEO, Air Traffic Controllers will again be provided with refresher training to maintain skills required in situations such as emergencies?
· Will there be sufficient staff available to Perth Terminal Control Unit, West Radar and West Procedural to safely transit the Western Australia Route Review Project?
· Do you expect that General Manager of Air Traffic Control has plans to solve the staffing issues or is he actually relying on the Air Traffic Controllers suffering from the low staffing situation to provide solutions as he has requested?
· Do you think that Airservices Australia’s Fatigue Management procedures are being used correctly when Air Traffic Controllers are being coached by Managers to provide the “right” answers to pass the sleep/ wake test?
· Do you believe that it is appropriate that Airservices stakeholders and customers be made aware of service degradations due to inadequate staffing levels by such processes as NOTAMs?
· Do you consider it prudent in the interests of safety that CASA and the ATSB be advised when the reason for airspace service changes is due to the insufficient provision of adequate staff through the ESIR system?
· Will you, as CEO of Airservices, be pursuing a staffing policy that enables the real implementation of Airservices Australia’s Occupational Health and Safety Policies with specific regard to breaks?
I refer you to previously published Airservices Australia policy statements:
“Airservices Australia Vision and Values
Our Vision
To be a focused provider of air navigation and aviation services, with our competitive edge built on safety and the application of leading edge technology.
Our Values
We recognise the need for:
· Keeping safety first
· A collective, consistent sense of organisational identity
· Strong, credible and accountable leadership
· Our management and staff to be outward looking, both present and future oriented, and to embrace challenges proactively
· A spirit of unity, teamwork and trust.”
NB: Bold emphasis - Airservices Australia.
I firmly assert, that as the CEO of Airservices Australia, your prime responsibility is to maintain a continuous and safe Air Traffic Control service, a responsibility that seems to be unsupported by positive actions in addressing the recruitment, training and retention of ATC staff.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Haines
President
edit to bold as original, sort of.
http://www.civilair.asn.au/joomla/in...=207&Itemid=40
Or for those without access to that link:
11 December 2007
Mr. Greg Russell
Chief Executive Officer
Airservices Australia
GPO Box 367
Canberra ACT 2601
Dear Greg,
Re: Air Traffic Control Staffing
I am writing to make you aware of a situation that is a critical threat to the continuous provision of a safe Air Traffic Control service within Australian Airspace and a clear and present threat to the business continuity of Airservices Australia.
The issue is the inability of Airservices to provide sufficient and adequately trained Air Traffic Controllers to safely maintain the Air Traffic Control system that Airservices Australia is commissioned by its owner, the Australian Government, to provide.
This problem has been developing for some time, but in recent years it has reached a situation where the continuity of the system is broken on an almost daily basis due to the lack of adequate staffing. This is clearly untenable. At the same time, I fear that Airservices is concealing from regulatory and safety organisations the fact that airspace is closing due to low staff levels. Ken McLean, GM ATC, recently instructed Line Managers to only specify the reason that Air Traffic Control services are being disrupted due to the lack of staff in a non transmitted field in the Electronic Safety Incident Reporting (ESIR) system. This information is therefore not being transmitted to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, who is vested with upholding and regulating Australian Civil Aviation and also the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, who is tasked with investigating transport safety incidents and making relevant recommendations.
As a matter of urgency, Airservices needs to address staffing in three critical areas. These are: Recruitment, Training and Retention.
Recruitment
The recruitment of sufficient personnel tested to be capable of obtaining an Air Traffic Control licence is the fundamental action required so that the pool of staff available is appropriate to the level of service provision.
Airservices employs the majority of Australia’s civilian Air Traffic Controllers, therefore the promotion of Air Traffic Control as a career is a responsibility that Airservices must shoulder. This year, at the Avalon Airshow, Airservices chose corporate entertainment for the aviation industry, in favour of a public display booth promoting the services that Airservices Australia delivers and the careers available to the visiting public. Decisions such as this are very questionable in a period when we need more ATC personnel.
For some years I have suggested to different Airservices Managers, that Airservices takes an active interest in promoting ATC to the secondary schools that provide aviation speciality courses. A range of Airservices Managers have indicated that this suggestion will get their attention. Some Airservices Managers have made commitments to some of these schools. The follow up information I have received is that this careers type activity has not been actioned.
To provide sufficient ongoing staff, Airservices must principally recruit ab-initio persons. There is no viable ongoing solution as a result of overseas recruitment exercises or in poaching staff from the RAAF.
Training
Airservices management have not addressed this critical area of appropriate staffing levels. Due to the low staff levels, current staff are not maintaining essential activities such as refresher training and project implementation. Management have created a situation where about 10% of otherwise operational staff have been lost to the operational positions through the ALM process. This loss is a negative. It is very difficult to ascertain any positives from the ALM process. From implementation, the ALM process has been handled in an inept and incompetent way. The ALM structure has created another barrier to communication. The employment of experienced Air Traffic Controllers as ALMs to basically perform administration roles is a waste of valuable resources, that being the provision of operational services.
I draw your attention to the current situation in the Air Traffic Control College. My information is that Airservices does not have adequate numbers of instructors available. Why is Airservices in a position where there are not adequate resources available to address this dire staffing situation? A lack of experienced and qualified instructors is a multiplier to the staff shortage in that we either rob an already stretched operational system for instructors or train less Air Traffic Controllers and therefore take longer to turn around the operational shortage.
Retention
The majority of Air Traffic Controllers employed by Airservices have repeatedly advised management through internal surveying that they are proud of the function they provide to the travelling public as Air Traffic Controllers. Additionally, they have made you aware that they would not recommend Airservices as an employer. I entreat you not to ignore these results. In the past, these comments have been characterised as the utterances of a disaffected group of employees overly influenced by their professional association. These dismissive statements from your management team are alarming and prevent us from addressing the problem. Airservices cannot continue to allow staffing levels to fall to the extent that breaks can not be provided by suitably qualified staff.
Civil Air has attempted to protect its members from ill conceived Management directives. In response, Airservices has relied upon the argument that Civil Air is taking or advocating industrial action. Once again, this adversarial approach is not addressing the problem and I suggest that it will not reduce your vulnerability to legal action in the event of an accident. Aviation accidents are a very low probability event. However, in the unfortunate circumstance that management actions are a causal factor in such an event, the shame will most determinably be on your side.
The current trajectory of Airservices positions pursuit of profit over safety. This approach seems to be sanctioned by the regulator, CASA. Safety critical essential services, such as Air Traffic Control, should not vulnerable to the pursuit of profits. Such an approach means that the users are placed in clear and present danger. We need to reverse the situation where Airservices actions are characterised as, “We can’t afford safety at the expense of profit”.
It is very concerning to our members that at a time when Airservices does not seem on top of the staffing situation in Australia, the organisation is nevertheless continuing to try and “grow the business” overseas. Any fulfilled contract in, for example the Middle East, will bleed further required resources from Australia. Before any attempt is made to gain overseas business it is essential that someone focuses on taking the situation here in Australia from precarious to stable. This is another example that the central concern is profit with little concern for safety.
It is not unreasonable to expect that Airservices would have considered the risks to its business. Airservices derives its income from the continuous and safe delivery of air traffic services. Sufficient Air Traffic Control staff is the lynchpin to the delivery of this safe and continuous service. The environment that you have created is one where there are insufficient, properly qualified Air Traffic Controllers. This has grave implications for continuous service and ultimately reduces safety.
The information that I receive indicates that Airservices is currently 85 Air Traffic Controllers short of operational requirements. This concurs with most groups being reported as 10% short staffed which correlates with the level of additional duty being performed. Unconfirmed suggestions are that Airservices Australia’s Human Resource specialists have estimated that about 300 Air Traffic Controllers will leave employment with Airservices over the next 3 years. If any of these estimates are approaching what will actually occur you need to replace at least 300 experienced controllers over the next 3 years. Employing 300 new Air Traffic Controllers due to attrition takes no account for increases in traffic, opening new facilities or getting back to levels where matters such as refresher training are actually implemented and are not just on the wish list.
Civil Air, its members and the staff you manage and lead in Airservices seek answers as to how you intend to manage the situation that you have placed us in. We therefore request answers to the following questions:
· Do you have a plan to recruit and train sufficient controllers, estimated at about one hundred per year?
· If the answer to the preceding is yes, what is the plan?
· When will there be sufficient staff available so that rest breaks can be taken when required, not when the traffic being controlled is considered low enough by a Manager that an unqualified person can provide the break?
· What is Airservices Australia’s plan to address the short fall in staffing when CASA reaches a professional position that they are willing to defend and uphold?
· Do you expect that while you are CEO, Air Traffic Controllers will again be provided with refresher training to maintain skills required in situations such as emergencies?
· Will there be sufficient staff available to Perth Terminal Control Unit, West Radar and West Procedural to safely transit the Western Australia Route Review Project?
· Do you expect that General Manager of Air Traffic Control has plans to solve the staffing issues or is he actually relying on the Air Traffic Controllers suffering from the low staffing situation to provide solutions as he has requested?
· Do you think that Airservices Australia’s Fatigue Management procedures are being used correctly when Air Traffic Controllers are being coached by Managers to provide the “right” answers to pass the sleep/ wake test?
· Do you believe that it is appropriate that Airservices stakeholders and customers be made aware of service degradations due to inadequate staffing levels by such processes as NOTAMs?
· Do you consider it prudent in the interests of safety that CASA and the ATSB be advised when the reason for airspace service changes is due to the insufficient provision of adequate staff through the ESIR system?
· Will you, as CEO of Airservices, be pursuing a staffing policy that enables the real implementation of Airservices Australia’s Occupational Health and Safety Policies with specific regard to breaks?
I refer you to previously published Airservices Australia policy statements:
“Airservices Australia Vision and Values
Our Vision
To be a focused provider of air navigation and aviation services, with our competitive edge built on safety and the application of leading edge technology.
Our Values
We recognise the need for:
· Keeping safety first
· A collective, consistent sense of organisational identity
· Strong, credible and accountable leadership
· Our management and staff to be outward looking, both present and future oriented, and to embrace challenges proactively
· A spirit of unity, teamwork and trust.”
NB: Bold emphasis - Airservices Australia.
I firmly assert, that as the CEO of Airservices Australia, your prime responsibility is to maintain a continuous and safe Air Traffic Control service, a responsibility that seems to be unsupported by positive actions in addressing the recruitment, training and retention of ATC staff.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Haines
President
edit to bold as original, sort of.
Last edited by SM4 Pirate; 12th Dec 2007 at 03:17.
Thread Starter
I was recently having a glance again at my Unsafe Skies publication. It mentioned the decisions that were made in 1990 by the CAA Board under the Hawke Government. In particular it states:
As can be clearly seen, there was a firm policy decision to keep about 100 Flight Service Officers to provide pilot briefing services and “a radio information system called Flightwatch.”
If anyone would like to read the full publication, see here.
On a previous posting it was mentioned that there were no longer any Flight Service Officers at Airservices. Can someone explain when the decision was made to change from this original AMATS policy? Why was there no publicity created about this at the time – i.e. the reversal of having about 100 Flight Service Officers to provide Flightwatch and flight planning etc?
The decision was made by the CAA Board that we would copy the US system, where air traffic controllers serviced both controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Where it was practicable, flight service officers would be trained to become air traffic controllers – the CAA always seemed to be short of air traffic controllers. A Review of Resources was prepared and an agreement reached with the staff to reduce the number of flight service officers from 644 to less than 100.
In the future all the airspace would be operated by air traffic controllers and the controlled airspace would be dropped down to close to the ground where necessary for safety. The remaining flight service officers would operate the pilot briefing services and a radio information system called Flightwatch.
In the future all the airspace would be operated by air traffic controllers and the controlled airspace would be dropped down to close to the ground where necessary for safety. The remaining flight service officers would operate the pilot briefing services and a radio information system called Flightwatch.
If anyone would like to read the full publication, see here.
On a previous posting it was mentioned that there were no longer any Flight Service Officers at Airservices. Can someone explain when the decision was made to change from this original AMATS policy? Why was there no publicity created about this at the time – i.e. the reversal of having about 100 Flight Service Officers to provide Flightwatch and flight planning etc?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Flight Service and FSOs ceased employment in June 2000.
Some FSOs went to work in the Ausfic just simply doing 3rd party communications message relay between ATC and Pilot.
"Briefing" was gone long before that and the function is merely flight plan reception and input with basic error/omissions (NOT route or procedures) checking conducted.
While I don't doubt the content of you book, I would like ask that you provide copy/reference to the CAA Board decision that substantiates your statement:
Additionally, please provide copy of the original AMATS policy you refer to.
Flight Service and FSOs ceased employment in June 2000.
Some FSOs went to work in the Ausfic just simply doing 3rd party communications message relay between ATC and Pilot.
"Briefing" was gone long before that and the function is merely flight plan reception and input with basic error/omissions (NOT route or procedures) checking conducted.
While I don't doubt the content of you book, I would like ask that you provide copy/reference to the CAA Board decision that substantiates your statement:
The remaining flight service officers would operate the pilot briefing services and a radio information system called Flightwatch.
Thread Starter
There is an article in today’s Financial Review which claims that an organisation called TenderSearch is the experienced group doing the tender for the external review into Flightwatch. (See here.) I’ve been to the TenderSearch website and there seems to be nothing. Also the Airservices website does not seem to have any reference.
Interestingly enough, some 12 weeks since the then Minister Mark Vaile announced that there was to be an external review into Flightwatch, this article says in relation to the tender:
Is this actually a tender to do the external review with the details of what is required, or is it a tender to get someone to state how they would do an external review?
Interestingly enough, some 12 weeks since the then Minister Mark Vaile announced that there was to be an external review into Flightwatch, this article says in relation to the tender:
The breakneck pace is in stark contrast to the endemic grizzling about endless delays, stalled tenders and indecisive public sector executives characteristic of the previous 12 years in federal contracting.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 8th Feb 2008 at 02:32.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightwatch VHF Review - Request for Tender
From the tenders.gov.au website: "Airservices Australia wishes to engage a suitably experienced organisation to conduct a review of the arrangements for the delivery of Flightwatch service"
https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=pu...FFFDDCF761E0FD
All queries to Oliver Barry (another TFN!!) e-mail: [email protected]
https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=pu...FFFDDCF761E0FD
All queries to Oliver Barry (another TFN!!) e-mail: [email protected]
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
TenderSearch isn't "doing the tender" - at least that's not what the Fin report says:
This timetable strikes me as impossibly fast unless there is a firm already lined up and poised to perform the assignment. Even then, it suggests panic rather than simply haste. Does this perhaps bear the fingerprints of the new federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, whose constituents live at the north end of Sydney 34L/16R and 34R/16L?
TenderSearch isn't "doing the tender" - at least that's not what the Fin report says:
... Airservices Australia wants an external review of Flightwatch from an experienced group familiar with the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Australiasian tenders specialist TenderSearch advises that the assignment is urgent, with responses required by February 12 and a final written report by March 14.
Australiasian tenders specialist TenderSearch advises that the assignment is urgent, with responses required by February 12 and a final written report by March 14.
Thread Starter
Slugfest, Unfortunately I no longer have a copy of the document you ask for however if I am incorrect where were the remaining FSO's going to be employed?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately I no longer have a copy of the document you ask for however if I am incorrect where were the remaining FSO's going to be employed?
I asked for the documents (CAA Board decision and AMATS) you refer to with a view to understanding the case of a Flightwatch function seperate to the ATC function.
In a similar vein, I would like a copy of the posters etc that circulated saying something like "call on area frequencey and people will...."
From memory, there was a picture of an arms crossed ATC supervisor in the foreground and the ATC consoles in the background.
lastly, does anyone have the terms of reference for the review that tendersearch is putting together?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 40
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airservices is now recruiting Flight Information Officers, see http://airservicesaustralia.nga.net....jobs_list.cfm?
Does this mean the review has been completed? They are advertising multiple positions, does this mean they are going to reinstate Flightwatch?
Does this mean the review has been completed? They are advertising multiple positions, does this mean they are going to reinstate Flightwatch?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If my source is to be believed, there are still some people to leave under the Kin Miclen flightwatch redundancy program.
Yes, you read that right.
Spacewreck Airservices has been progressing with staff redundancies while on the other hand instigating a recruitment campaign to replace the staff gone and about to leave.
No wonder Kin was moved on!!!!!
AirSpace Wrecking, across the universe,
On the Spacewreck AA, with merriment and Mirth!
AirSpace Wrecking, across the universe,!
Safety is our catch cry, and we’ve lost sight of Earth.
Apols to "Star Trekkin”
Yes, you read that right.
Spacewreck Airservices has been progressing with staff redundancies while on the other hand instigating a recruitment campaign to replace the staff gone and about to leave.
No wonder Kin was moved on!!!!!
AirSpace Wrecking, across the universe,
On the Spacewreck AA, with merriment and Mirth!
AirSpace Wrecking, across the universe,!
Safety is our catch cry, and we’ve lost sight of Earth.
Apols to "Star Trekkin”
Last edited by Slugfest; 8th Apr 2008 at 11:00. Reason: Version 2 of the jingle
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slugfest,
that little melody is a corker - catchy too - I'm at risk of singing it under my breath at the console.
as for people leaving the same area which is being recruited for - that's just "modern management practice" - why pay someone for their years of experience (which usually only matter in an emergency
) when you can get a newbie in to fill the seat for 1/2 to 2/3rds the cost?
undervaluedATC
that little melody is a corker - catchy too - I'm at risk of singing it under my breath at the console.
as for people leaving the same area which is being recruited for - that's just "modern management practice" - why pay someone for their years of experience (which usually only matter in an emergency
) when you can get a newbie in to fill the seat for 1/2 to 2/3rds the cost? undervaluedATC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is going to be funnier that a cat full of dead rats is the "review" by "The Ambidji Group Pty Ltd" that will no doubt conclude that the provision of FIS/Flightwatch functions should be done externally to SpaceWreck Airservices and low an behold:
Their organisation could do it!!!
Watch this space
Their organisation could do it!!!
Watch this space