Flightwatch – 27 VHF outlets being closed

[Bell_Flyer]

I’m personally angry that I have to spend my money on this type of thing. I would rather donate it to the Salvation Army or the RFDS.

Hi Dick,

Could I pony up a small contribution towards your legal costs? Indeed, I feel many others would be happy to also do so - maybe a trust account by your attorney?

Many Thanks,
Bell_Flyer

[Duff Man]

Media Release From Civil Air

Civil Air, the union which represents the professional and technical interests of Australian Air Traffic Controllers has come out in support of recent calls for the retention of a standalone Flightwatch service.

“Airservices Australia’s proposal to transfer the Flightwatch responsibilities to Air Traffic Control adds pressure to already extremely busy and staff critical Air Traffic Control positions” President Michael Haines said today.

“Airservices statement of the benefits provided is misleading. Flightwatch is categorised as the lowest priority of Air Traffic Control duties. In times of bad weather, when the service is most relevant, controller workload will almost certainly preclude Air Traffic Control provision of Flightwatch information.” Mr Haines said.

He added “For an organisation which provided the Federal government with a record dividend of $56 million dollars last year, the removal of the service is unjustified on both safety and financial grounds.”

Civil Air calls on the Minister for Transport, Mr Mark Vaile, to direct Airservices to retain the independent Flightwatch service for the safety and benefit of Australia’s air travelling public.

13 November 2007

[No Further Requirements]

Although I agree 100% with retaining Flightwatch as a separate entity, I think the horse has already bolted. Good luck with the fight.

Cheers,

NFR.

[nomorecatering]

A quick chat to the other instructors in my joint, we're all happy to contribute cash to the fighting fund. If we could get a Tenner from every working CPL /ATPL in the country, would could come up with a sizeable fighting fund.

Good work Dick, very glad to see the industry finaly right behind you.

[Moniker]

without prejudice

Dick doesn't need a fighting fund, in fact he's using his own money to the detriment of charitable organisations. (his words Channel 7 - Sunrise program - this date)

I would suggest that all you well intentioned folk put your $'s into the various charitable funds that are otherwise missing out.

Ausficer .. very eloquently put ...

I can't help feeling that something along the lines of 'reap what yea sow' is appropriate given the complaints now of a lack of service by a lesser being than an ATC rated one.

[CaptainMidnight]

NFR

I think the horse has already bolted.

I think you are right.
Based on the inclusion of a letter dated August 07 from ASA to RAPAC that has been included in RAPAC minutes over the last few months, it would appear that the industry were at least made aware of the impending consolidation of flightwatch to ATC, and an AIP SUP was issued in September. Maybe the implications were not understood.

Reading between the lines of some of the posts here re. ATC taking over FW frequencies and some not, would suggest that discussions were held with ATC at some point? Maybe so and you didn't have any choice in the matter?

Unfortunatly if industry & ATC union concerns (at least publically) weren't raised forcefully enough earlier if at all, then this exercise now comes across simply as someone's excuse for a pre-election embarrassment stunt.

To put things in perspective in case I'm coming across as defending anything, I concur that it is highly likely problems of frequency congestion and workload will occur at times (and probably at the times the FW service is most needed), and think this consolidation isn't a good idea. As someone said, ATC are there to monitor and keep tin apart, not be distracted by acting as online briefers.

[Crosshair]

Right on.

I agree with you, Dick.

What can we all do to assist the cause?

[clapton]

Quote:
I’m personally angry that I have to spend my money on this type of thing. I would rather donate it to the Salvation Army or the RFDS.
Hi Dick,

Could I pony up a small contribution towards your legal costs? Indeed, I feel many others would be happy to also do so - maybe a trust account by your attorney?

Many Thanks,
Bell_Flyer


I agree with you 100% Dick. And I also read your letter to Airservices on your web site.

The thing that puzzles me is that if Airservices has breached section 30DB of the Civil Aviation Act as a result of its decision, then where the hell is CASA?? Why should you be spending your money doing the job that Byron and all his yes men are meant to be doing. The Government provides CASA with significant funding to regulate aviation safety (and that includes regulating Airservices) so why isn't CASA doing anything about this? Why does it take a private citizen to do what the regulator should be doing?

For too long CASA has been a lame duck regulator that lacks any credibility and that continually fails to perform its statutory functions. Byron has passed his used by date and the fact that you have to do his job simply highlights the fact.

And where is the Minister? Why hasn't the Minister taken a stick to CASA for its failures and to AA for failing to comply with its legal obligations? After all the Minister is ultimately responsible for managing CASA (Byron only manages CASA "under" the Minister).

The whole thing is disgraceful. But full marks to you for doing what neither Byron nor the Minister seem capable of doing.

[clapton]

Creampuff wrote:

"Dick

Airservices Australia has done the wrong thing, and I support the principle of your argument.

However, and unfortunately, the ‘Australian government’ is now so deeply infected by spivs and camp followers, second-rate Pollyanna graduates who either know no better or barely touch the ‘stepping stone’ on the way to a real job, and drones who are too scared and lacking in self-esteem to walk away, that it doesn’t really matter what’s right and wrong any more.

This government’s run by people who don’t comprehend the difference between right and wrong, or if they do, they’re either ambivalent or too scared to do anything about it. In any event, they’re ready and able to spend loads of taxpayers’ cash to defend their position. The government’s flush with cash as a consequence of its unparalleled capacity to tax on one the hand but spend little on infrastructure on the other, and it’s happy to use that cash to defend the indefensible, litigate people into the ground, and trash people’s reputations – it’s all a part of ‘good government’, don’t you know.

It must be in the public interest to shut down dedicated FIS: the government decided to do it, or at least decided to allow a government agency to do it. The government is, by definition, the only body in a position to determine what the public interest is.

No, that last sentence isn’t a quote from Orwell’s 1984: it’s what Dr Peter Shergold, the current Secretary of the Australian Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, believes."


Spot on as usual Creampuff.....

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Unfortunately, like all the other reductions in service over the past years, in a year or two what you are left with will become the norm, few will remember what you had, and even less will care.
Pilots will stop using the service because it is impossible to use, after a while the bean-counters will ask why provide a service that few use and what is left will be scrapped also.
I'm still amazed that people are surprised when it happens.
Sorry to sound bitter and twisted, but that's only because I is_er_was.

[Track Coastal]

And where is the Minister?

Today: Announcing $34M in road upgrades in the bell-weather seat of Flynn and a new tech college for Emerald (also in Flynn).
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Nation...766656981.html


Maybe its time for some ads US election style?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsbsp_TpzHQ

[SM4 Pirate]

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...asp?id=pr11_07

Airservices' Flightwatch service ... is not closing, but simply shifting to new radio frequencies

Means, we are making it part of a different job.

"The transfer ... will not affect the overall safety of the air traffic management system,

Means, we won’t make controllers do FIS when they are too busy.

Flightwatch delivers ... primarily for Visual Flight Rules pilots which include many General Aviation pilots.

VFRs don’t pay for it.

Following a review of Flightwatch in 2006, undertaken in accordance with Airservices’ Safety Management System

There’s that reliance on the "robust SMS" again, glad they’ve got one of those.

Flightwatch’s method of delivery has been changed to air traffic control frequencies

That’s right, added more tasks onto quiet enroute sectors, approach and tower frequencies.

Airservices advised the industry through the Regional Airspace Users Advisory Committee (RAPAC) of the proposed changes in August 2007, and continues to consult with industry through RAPAC and other regional forums.

It was presented as a fait accompli, a briefing doesn’t equal consultation; but this mob wouldn't and doesn't know that.

...a full Post Implementation Report will be available in March."

because they are always without compromise and often require services to be restored right? Huh? Want some coastal swamp land?

Airservices considered historical data which showed that calls from pilots for flight information and alerting services across all 29 dedicated Flightwatch frequencies around Australia averaged in total only 50 calls per day across all frequencies. Responses usually took less than 10 seconds.

So 3 calls one day 97 the next, averages 50, right?

"Airservices is not closing the 29 VHF transmitter stations previously used by Flightwatch," Mr Russell said.

Not throwing the equipment out, just turning it off; it's more expensive to remove the equipment than just turn it off.

"These stations will be used for normal air traffic control...."

Turning 27 of 29 off is normal? Or is that wrong?

Mr Russell said the change of Flightwatch frequencies would give pilots operating in Class E and Class G airspace access to flight information on the same air traffic control frequency they would use to monitor other aircraft activity in their vicinity.

What about A, D and C airspace? Do they admit that it will ‘clog’ up the area frequencies, without affecting the ATM system?

He said that the change would also lead to enhanced collision hazard information to pilots, through the improved situational awareness available to air traffic controllers.

WTF does that mean, AUSFICers don’t know sh!t? Or controllers know more? Or maybe it’s just BS?

I hear the Minister was on the radio today saying he would look at stopping ASAs plans?

[clapton]

SM4 Pirate....

Loved your post. What a great demolition job.........

[Walrus 7]

A Voice in the Wilderness

Maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, but from a VFR PPL point of view, we rarely ever use Flightwatch because either we didn't need it or couldn't raise it. The amount of extra work that would be transferred over to controllers is negligible because largely they're doing Flightwatch's job already. We have to go to the controllers now.

The question we should be asking is: how much work are the controllers currently picking-up because VFR traffic can't raise Flightwatch? Only by answering that question can we measure how much the service (not the frequency) is really needed.

Walrus the lonely

[Driscoll]

If CASA are willing to approve unrated controllers providing breaks what makes people think that they would give a second thought when AsA tells them they're shutting flightwatch, but don't worry, the service won't change? They just say yes and stick their heads back in the sand.

[JackoSchitt]

All,

I have consulted some people in the know and their comments follow:

“flight information and alerts to pilots is not closing, but simply shifting to new radio frequencies”

Currently, Flightwatch is provided on
Discrete VHF,
ATC FIA Frequencies and
HF.

After the changes, Flightwatch will be provided on
ATC FIA Frequences and
HF.

The discrete VHF as described in ERSA will be, in the main, turned off.

There are no new frequencies being introduced for the provision of Flightwatch.

“The transfer of Flightwatch to air traffic control frequencies”

There is no “transfer” of Flightwatch to ATC. ATC have always been providers of the flightwatch function on ATC FIA frequencies but have had the option of referring a call to the specialist Flightwatch officer with ALL the tools at their disposal to respond to the call on a frequency separate from the PRIMARY control function of separation.

The provision of Flightwatch on discrete VHF networks will be abandon.

“Flightwatch delivers an on-request service to pilots of current weather and operational information, primarily for Visual Flight Rules pilots which include many General Aviation pilots.”

Many IFR and Heavy Jet RPT pilots utilise the Flightwatch system and significantly so in times of inclement weather when controller workload is increased. Demanding that Controllers provide separation services, weather avoidance and in-flight information in these circumstances is a recipe for disaster. Something will not be provided…the VH-PYN Condobolin incident pointed to the abject failure to provide information in a proper manner and was the impetus for an overhaul of the In-flight information service as provided by ATC.

“Following a review of Flightwatch in 2006”

Please supply the review documentation and not that rubbish “AusFIC Review” completed in early 2005.

“Other than the change of frequencies, the procedures for pilots requesting and receiving Flightwatch information remains unchanged"

There is no change of frequencies only a removal of the standalone ones.

The procedures have changed. Pilots no longer are able to call “flightwatch” on any frequency for in-flight information. When on an ATC FIA frequency, they need to prefix their call with “XXX Center”.
Requests on ATC FIA frequencies will be afforded 0 priority.

"Airservices will ensure the transition runs smoothly, including continued consultation with general aviation pilots and other industry groups, and that a backup service will continue to 'ghost' the new Flightwatch as an additional safety measure throughout the implementation phase," Mr Russell said.

This ghosting phase ends before Christmas and the Flightwatch frequencies will be turned off and the service solely provided on ATC FIA frequencies and HF – regardless of outcome – because of Ausfic staff shortages.

Flightwatch VHF are still receiving significant numbers of requests for information from all over the country, even though stage II of the implementation is in effect.

“In deciding to introduce the change, Airservices considered historical data which showed that calls from pilots for flight information and alerting services across all 29 dedicated Flightwatch frequencies around Australia averaged in total only 50 calls per day across all frequencies.”

There are 27 Frequencies and 29 Sites where those frequencies are used. Only one of those sites is not co-located with an ATC frequency and it will go over to ATC for their use - eventually. Maybe some other Flightwatch VHF will transition but that will only be one or two others in Queensland and is certainly not going to be the norm.

Prior to the transition process started in October 2007, the dedicated Flightwatch VHF console operating Monday to Friday, took well in excess of 250 messages per day and that was with the morning hiatus between 8am and 11am – this solely due to an Airservcies created STAFF SHORTAGE; 19 people out of a staff of 103 were made redundant since Dec 2006 AND the provision of Maritime HF services only exacerbate the situation!

IF there were the staff available to operate it all day, then the figure would easily top 300+ calls per day EVERY week day.

No numbers are able to be produced for weekends for the VHF workload as it is incorporated onto the 3 HF consoles for these periods.

On the staff front, it only takes two (2) (II) staff to operate the position – a morning and an afternoon shift - 5 days a week. Given that those staff need rec leave etc, then the requirement is about 2.5 staff in total.

“Responses usually took less than 10 seconds.”

Responses are vastly different between “ABC Go Ahead” and the delivery of an amended ARFOR or the workload associated with a SARTIME nomination and they in no way begin to describe the workload that is involved in dealing with a series of calls for a flight plan amendment or In-flight emergency.

“These stations will be used for normal air traffic control.”

Control/separation services cannot be provided on any of the Flightwatch VHF because none of them have the required secondary or tertiary backup equipment installed.

“He said that the change would also lead to enhanced collision hazard information to pilots, through the improved situational awareness available to air traffic controllers.”

Aircraft normally operate on the control frequencies and only go to the Flightwatch VHF for a request or when directed by ATC to receive ATC-Initiated FIS. Then they are supposed to (and DO) return to Control Frequencies. WHAT increased situational awareness is there for ATCs if the Flightwatch VHF network is not present?

Oh, I get it, more aircraft on frequency requesting more information forcing the ATC to focus on a broader area of responsibility.

[Sunfish]

I keep thinking of the two guys who didn't file a flight plan and died in the Blue Mountains after surviving a forced landing.

I wonder how many people are going to be killed before this decision is reversed?

Alternatively, we the **** should I keep paying CASA for a licence, current charts, ersa, flight reviews, ASICS if I'm going to be treated like ****?

[JackoSchitt]

Vaile acts after Smith's caution on air safety

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-23349,00.html


TRANSPORT Minister Mark Vaile yesterday ordered Airservices Australia not to proceed with plans to shut down 27 Flightwatch transmitters after former aviation watchdog Dick Smith warned the move could threaten public safety.

Mr Vaile called for Labor transport spokesman Martin Ferguson to support his caretaker decision to ask the Department of Transport and Regional Services to put a hold on the decision until after a new review of the transmitters.

The transmitters provide weather and safety information to pilots, and Mr Smith - a former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman, who is threatening to sue over the matter - says their closure would pose "an intolerable risk to public safety and (be) a clear contravention of government policy".

The air navigation authority has estimated that closing the transmitters would save $500,000 a year - a decision that Mr Smith said had been taken secretly and without consultation or detailed study of cost and safety benefits. Airservices plans to transfer the Flightwatch service to air traffic control.

Mr Smith has given Airservices chief executive Gregg Russell until 10am tomorrow to wind back the decision or face a Federal Court injunction. He has said the decision is a substantial danger because pilots using air traffic control frequencies to seek Flightwatch-type updates could be blocked by others requiring instructions for landing and separation.

He also says it is at odds with the Government's National Airspace System policy, which would eventually require a separate Flightwatch system so air traffic controllers could provide separation in presently uncontrolled "Class E" airspace.

Mr Vaile said he was aware of Mr Smith's concerns but had been assured the decision to shut down the transmitters was "necessary and wasn't going to jeopardise safety".

He said: "Because we're in caretaker mode, I'm calling on Martin Ferguson to agree with this move, just for the duration of the election, so we can guarantee the safety in the aviation industry (and) so we can get further advice from Airservices Australia about their decision."

[Dick Smith]

I would like to thank everyone for their support, and also for the offers to assist with the legal costs. I will certainly accept these offers if required. The main advantage of having other people involved is that Airservices will not be able to claim that this is just one sole individual with a bee in his bonnet.

I can assure you that I will match any donated money going towards the court case with a donation to the Royal Flying Doctor Service at Broken Hill.

The Airservices press release is extraordinary. The posts by SM4 Pirate and JackoSchitt on the inaccuracies/spin/dishonesty of this press release really give support for Creampuff’s post about “people who don’t comprehend the difference between right and wrong.”

The following claim in the Airservices press release is extraordinary:

Mr Russell said that Airservices undertook a full safety assessment before transition to the new frequencies.

If this safety assessment exists, why wouldn’t they have told the Minister before he answered my letter of 21 February 2007?

Does this so-called “safety assessment” answer the claim by Civil Air in their press release that there will be times when:

… controller workload will almost certainly preclude Air Traffic Control provision of Flightwatch information

I would be confident enough to say that there has never been a proper safety study done. That is, looking at the benefits such as the claimed $500,000 per annum saving to Airservices, as well as the down side – i.e. the fact that there will be times in bad weather when pilots will not be able to get a Flightwatch service.

There also seems to be a belief by some people on this site that Flightwatch is only used by VFR aircraft. This is not true. IFR aircraft use Flightwatch all the time – including charter and commuter operators.

The key to the problem is clearly shown in the media release from Civil Air. That is, Airservices has decided unilaterally to remove a “standalone Flightwatch service”. Later, Civil Air calls on the Minister for Transport, Mr Mark Vaile, to:

…direct Airservices to retain the independent Flightwatch service for the safety and benefit of Australia’s air travelling public.

(My underlining).

Last night I checked my world Jeppesen charts and I cannot find any modern aviation country without a separate Flightwatch/Flight Service/Flight Information Service. I phoned a professional pilot in New Zealand, who assured me that the 12 transmitters operating under the title “Christchurch Information” (which cover all of New Zealand – both the North and South Island) are being retained, and there is not the slightest suggestion that the New Zealand separate Flightwatch system shall be closed down or combined with air traffic control.

It is clear that the management who made the decision to abandon the independent Flightwatch have not communicated to the Airservices Board, or to the industry, that this is a major change that has never been attempted anywhere in the world previously.

By sending out documents implying that it is simply changing a few frequencies, people have been misled.

We should all be indebted to PPRuNe – for first of all pointing out this proposal way back in February (see here), and also for this particular thread.

Finally, JackoSchitt has posted an announcement from The Australian newspaper. This at first sight looks good, but I believe we should be very careful. In the past, Airservices Australia have ignored official directives from the Minister – why wouldn’t they do it this time? I think you will find they will say something like, “Oh, we still have the Flightwatch transmitters there and we are going to put them in ‘ghost mode’, so everything is OK.” Of course, everything will not be OK. You need a week of bad weather to show the problems, and that could be many months away.

I do not believe for a second that this problem has been solved. It will only be solved when Airservices agree to the quite reasonable requests I made in my letter of 12 November 2007 (see here).

[greenslopes]

Well you don't have to draw too long a bow, to realize that money saved on 27 Flightwatch transmitters will be spent at some later date on the ATSB inquiry/accident report and the ensuing witch hunt when the accident occurs.
Dick have you started lobbying the majors(airlines) and the unions representing the pilots?
I will call the AFAP and ask if they will voice their opposition on behalf of their pilot body.
Lets hope we can stop this madness