Flightwatch – 27 VHF outlets being closed
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To AIRNOSERVICES
I disagree with your comment that ASA has 'not intentionally understaffed ATC'. ASA has been fully aware for years how many controllers were/are needed and has continued to rely heavily on overtime to continue operations instead of recruiting and providing the appropriate number of controllers. A world wide shortage of controllers is only a small part of the equation here.
I disagree with your comment that ASA has 'not intentionally understaffed ATC'. ASA has been fully aware for years how many controllers were/are needed and has continued to rely heavily on overtime to continue operations instead of recruiting and providing the appropriate number of controllers. A world wide shortage of controllers is only a small part of the equation here.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thin edge of this wedge started in '91
Ex FSO Griffo & SDD (a number of posts back) have the right viewpoint on this issue.... This problem has been over 15 years in the making.
Well done Dick, you have done good work in saving the FW service (this time). However the analogy is that of a farmer taking the lamb to the abattoir, only to give it a reprieve just before the knife hits the throat.
If only there were a better base from which to provide a truly cost-effective FS service, together with a Pprune to spread the word (as in this sort of thread) , back in '91 things might have panned out differently. As it was then, nothing could stop the media circus that is Dick from driving headlong into the start of what we see today.
<Insert lift operators, DC3s and the word anachronistic here>
Dick, The affordable safety snowball that you threw over 15 years ago has grown into an avalanche, blanketing all in it's path.
Nothing is going to change history, but sometimes we need to look back in order to make sense of current events. It may not be your fault the whole cost reduction strategy is so flawed today, but yours is the point it started at.
Well done Dick, you have done good work in saving the FW service (this time). However the analogy is that of a farmer taking the lamb to the abattoir, only to give it a reprieve just before the knife hits the throat.
If only there were a better base from which to provide a truly cost-effective FS service, together with a Pprune to spread the word (as in this sort of thread) , back in '91 things might have panned out differently. As it was then, nothing could stop the media circus that is Dick from driving headlong into the start of what we see today.
<Insert lift operators, DC3s and the word anachronistic here>
Dick, The affordable safety snowball that you threw over 15 years ago has grown into an avalanche, blanketing all in it's path.
Nothing is going to change history, but sometimes we need to look back in order to make sense of current events. It may not be your fault the whole cost reduction strategy is so flawed today, but yours is the point it started at.
Last edited by Gunnadothat; 18th Nov 2007 at 16:03. Reason: syntax
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rabbit123, I can see where you're coming from but I think that they relied on overtime to overcome the staff shortages in the misguided belief that the next airspace change would resolve the staffing problems. All the controllers on the floor knew this not to be the case but noone asked them, and surprise surprise, the usual outcome from these airspace changes and reshuffles of sectors has been a need for more controllers not less.
Now that the crunch has come, they are trying to recruit from overseas only to find the shortage of controllers worldwide means they are in fierce competition with other ANS providers.
Now that the crunch has come, they are trying to recruit from overseas only to find the shortage of controllers worldwide means they are in fierce competition with other ANS providers.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Marion, South Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, all this "shortage" of experienced staff in Australian Government Departments and Agencies can be traced back to PM and C and Treasury decisions from the early 1980s.
Some "brightspark" suddenly realised that the "unfunded superannuation" for all the APS was so horrendous and potentially financially crippling, that firstly "we" will change the APS over to new Super scheme (PSS) from the "old" CSS. The smart ones didn't budge!
Then because the "take up" was so poor, "we'll" embark on a program of VR's so that we will shed all oldies between 45 and 55.
I was in a Section of a department where one VR exercise saw over 1000 man-years of experience pushed out the door!!
Subsequent "fly-by-night" managers have continued this exercise until the departments now are without "experience and history".
All that counts now for a senior manager is "Risk Management" (will I get hauled before the Coroner if it goes pear -shaped), their Performance Agreement and their salary package. Public Service can go take a running jump!!!
Governments like taxing the people but they hate spending money!
Good luck Pilots - you are being "risk managed!!"
Mike McInerney
Some "brightspark" suddenly realised that the "unfunded superannuation" for all the APS was so horrendous and potentially financially crippling, that firstly "we" will change the APS over to new Super scheme (PSS) from the "old" CSS. The smart ones didn't budge!
Then because the "take up" was so poor, "we'll" embark on a program of VR's so that we will shed all oldies between 45 and 55.
I was in a Section of a department where one VR exercise saw over 1000 man-years of experience pushed out the door!!
Subsequent "fly-by-night" managers have continued this exercise until the departments now are without "experience and history".
All that counts now for a senior manager is "Risk Management" (will I get hauled before the Coroner if it goes pear -shaped), their Performance Agreement and their salary package. Public Service can go take a running jump!!!
Governments like taxing the people but they hate spending money!
Good luck Pilots - you are being "risk managed!!"
Mike McInerney
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of receiving a life-time ban from PPRUNE for naming names... the one man responsible for this is John Maynard Keynes.
There, I've done it, I've named the man... and now I humbly prostrate myself and accept the consequences...
There, I've done it, I've named the man... and now I humbly prostrate myself and accept the consequences...
Thread Starter
Gunnadothat, you state:
Just to get the facts right, it was the Labor Government in the late 1980s (before my involvement in any way with aviation reform) who decided that air traffic control should not only pay its own way, but also make a profit for the Government.
I simply said, “In that case, if all of air traffic control and a lot of safety regulation is to be paid for by the industry, the costs levied will have to be ‘affordable’ – otherwise the industry will go broke and we will have no industry.”
It is all pretty basic kindergarten stuff.
I, and many others, could see that having three Flight Service Officers stationed (with houses provided) in a place like Cooma, was pretty well unaffordable if it was to be charged to the people who flew to Cooma – which was the plan. However to have 27 Flightwatch outlets (or maybe even more) right across Australia, which are evenly paid for by the industry, would most likely be affordable.
By ‘affordable’ I mean the extra amount loaded onto the air ticket – which is where it ends up – doesn’t put up the air ticket to such a high price that people decide not to fly.
I’ve heard it all before – “Dick Smith introduced affordable safety,” “Dick Smith has a concept of affordable safety.” All of this is rubbish. I just pointed out a fact of life, as simple as 2 + 2 = 4. That is, if the Federal Government is going to force the industry to pay its own way, the costs have to be reasonable so the participation in aviation does not drop.
I didn’t ask for these Flightwatch outlets to be reinstated without any cost benefit study. I asked that proper industry consultation took place, and that a proper cost benefit study be performed. I even said on this thread that if this does not show that Flightwatch is a cost effective way of providing safety, I would support (to be consistent) its closure.
I remain totally convinced that a proper expanded Flightwatch is a very cost efficient way of providing higher levels of safety to our industry. I believe the costs are so small that it will not affect the number of people flying – privately, in business aviation, and in the airlines.
I can assure you that people lose credibility if they deny a basic fact of life. That is, those who pay for a service have to be able to afford to pay for it – otherwise the service will cease to exist.
Blip, what happens if you turn around a Cb and collide with another aircraft? Surely it would be better for the controller to advise that TIBA procedures apply before he or she leaves the console – so an aircraft wishing to divert around a Cb can simply make an announcement and see if any other traffic is present. It is not an ideal system, but it is certainly better than not telling the pilot that there is no rated controller present and you are just going to get the words “Standby.”
Former AusFICer, yes I am very happy with the results. I believe that with the rejection of the standalone Flightwatch system closure in Australia from almost the entire industry, and knowing that all other countries have a separate VHF Flightwatch system, will result in us keeping – or possibly improving – our system.
I have a feeling that the people in the Department, within CASA, and many people within Airservices, didn’t really realise that changing Flightwatch from a standalone VHF frequency, to combining it with ATC, had a number of serious implications. Now that many understand this, I believe that we will retain our separate system. It will all depend on rational objective information being provided to the external reviewer.
As I’ve said before, I have confidence that the officers of the Department will genuinely look at this and not be overly influenced by those at Airservices who are trying to improve profits.
Dick, The affordable safety snowball that you threw over 15 years ago has grown into an avalanche, blanketing all in its path.
I simply said, “In that case, if all of air traffic control and a lot of safety regulation is to be paid for by the industry, the costs levied will have to be ‘affordable’ – otherwise the industry will go broke and we will have no industry.”
It is all pretty basic kindergarten stuff.
I, and many others, could see that having three Flight Service Officers stationed (with houses provided) in a place like Cooma, was pretty well unaffordable if it was to be charged to the people who flew to Cooma – which was the plan. However to have 27 Flightwatch outlets (or maybe even more) right across Australia, which are evenly paid for by the industry, would most likely be affordable.
By ‘affordable’ I mean the extra amount loaded onto the air ticket – which is where it ends up – doesn’t put up the air ticket to such a high price that people decide not to fly.
I’ve heard it all before – “Dick Smith introduced affordable safety,” “Dick Smith has a concept of affordable safety.” All of this is rubbish. I just pointed out a fact of life, as simple as 2 + 2 = 4. That is, if the Federal Government is going to force the industry to pay its own way, the costs have to be reasonable so the participation in aviation does not drop.
I didn’t ask for these Flightwatch outlets to be reinstated without any cost benefit study. I asked that proper industry consultation took place, and that a proper cost benefit study be performed. I even said on this thread that if this does not show that Flightwatch is a cost effective way of providing safety, I would support (to be consistent) its closure.
I remain totally convinced that a proper expanded Flightwatch is a very cost efficient way of providing higher levels of safety to our industry. I believe the costs are so small that it will not affect the number of people flying – privately, in business aviation, and in the airlines.
I can assure you that people lose credibility if they deny a basic fact of life. That is, those who pay for a service have to be able to afford to pay for it – otherwise the service will cease to exist.
Blip, what happens if you turn around a Cb and collide with another aircraft? Surely it would be better for the controller to advise that TIBA procedures apply before he or she leaves the console – so an aircraft wishing to divert around a Cb can simply make an announcement and see if any other traffic is present. It is not an ideal system, but it is certainly better than not telling the pilot that there is no rated controller present and you are just going to get the words “Standby.”
Former AusFICer, yes I am very happy with the results. I believe that with the rejection of the standalone Flightwatch system closure in Australia from almost the entire industry, and knowing that all other countries have a separate VHF Flightwatch system, will result in us keeping – or possibly improving – our system.
I have a feeling that the people in the Department, within CASA, and many people within Airservices, didn’t really realise that changing Flightwatch from a standalone VHF frequency, to combining it with ATC, had a number of serious implications. Now that many understand this, I believe that we will retain our separate system. It will all depend on rational objective information being provided to the external reviewer.
As I’ve said before, I have confidence that the officers of the Department will genuinely look at this and not be overly influenced by those at Airservices who are trying to improve profits.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 19th Nov 2007 at 02:05.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1996 Location Specific Pricing - "Pay our own way, have our own say"
... so, on average, IYHO are GA operators paying more or less nowadays with Location Specific Pricing when compared with the Avgas Levy it replaced (taking into account the number of aircraft and their owners who relocated from towered airports after the LSP intro)? 
.
Hands up those paying more per annum and those who moved because of the additional costs of LSP ..... and lets not even mention the billings and collections empire created as a result
.
Hands up those paying more per annum and those who moved because of the additional costs of LSP ..... and lets not even mention the billings and collections empire created as a result
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Thanks for picking up the ball on this one,your comments that -'and many people within Airservices, didn’t really realise that changing Flightwatch from a standalone VHF frequency, to combining it with ATC, had a number of serious implications' is being very nice to ASA management.
The people in ASA making these decisions are being paid BIG money to 'realise ' the implications of what the changes to FW mean. It took about 2 seconds for controllers and pilots to realise this. What the hell would we know?, we only use the system everyday.
However, unless they continue to shrink costs and increase profit, they won't stay on their BIG contracts and AWA's. Meanwhile they will fight tooth and nail to make sure the people doing the coalface work get bugger -all (or less) for the added workload and stress.
They then get safety cases , hazard IDs and risk mitigation, and pseudo industry consultation, in an effort to show interested third parties i.e. the Board and media that they have ticked all the boxes , and done the right thing in case it bites them down the track.
An example is the demise of FW as a stand alone entity.
As I have stated previously, if the faeces hits the fan, the controller and pilot will wear most of the blame as the instigators of this cost saving ( ie bonus building ) exercise would have tinplated themselves.
Dick, unfortunately ASA see you as white noise, they will push on regardless. Money talks.
Thanks for picking up the ball on this one,your comments that -'and many people within Airservices, didn’t really realise that changing Flightwatch from a standalone VHF frequency, to combining it with ATC, had a number of serious implications' is being very nice to ASA management.
The people in ASA making these decisions are being paid BIG money to 'realise ' the implications of what the changes to FW mean. It took about 2 seconds for controllers and pilots to realise this. What the hell would we know?, we only use the system everyday.
However, unless they continue to shrink costs and increase profit, they won't stay on their BIG contracts and AWA's. Meanwhile they will fight tooth and nail to make sure the people doing the coalface work get bugger -all (or less) for the added workload and stress.
They then get safety cases , hazard IDs and risk mitigation, and pseudo industry consultation, in an effort to show interested third parties i.e. the Board and media that they have ticked all the boxes , and done the right thing in case it bites them down the track.
An example is the demise of FW as a stand alone entity.
As I have stated previously, if the faeces hits the fan, the controller and pilot will wear most of the blame as the instigators of this cost saving ( ie bonus building ) exercise would have tinplated themselves.
Dick, unfortunately ASA see you as white noise, they will push on regardless. Money talks.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this is all new that Flightwatch should not be on ATC Frequencies huh?
Dick and all,
Some time ago I was passed a letter written by the CPSU members to Airservices Australia a little over a year ago that I think has some relevance to this fantastic realisation that putting Flightwatch onto ATC has serious implications.
The second half of the letter goes like this:
Some time ago I was passed a letter written by the CPSU members to Airservices Australia a little over a year ago that I think has some relevance to this fantastic realisation that putting Flightwatch onto ATC has serious implications.
The second half of the letter goes like this:
CPSU will take the following opportunity to add its comments regarding the review and change. With the transition to TAAATS and the cessation of Flight Service, it was determined that several functions were best placed outside the ATC environment. These functions are the core of the Flight Information Service (FIS) and are provided by a specialist group of staff employed in the AusFIC.
The CPSU asserts that the establishment of the AusFIC enhanced the safety of Australian aviation by enabling the rapid dissemination of pertinent information directly to pilots.
The CPSU believes that proposed changes in work arrangements will result in less timely, delivery of operational and safety information and may contribute to a failure to provide traffic information and/or separation services.
The CPSU has not been formally advised or included in any safety assessments relating to proposed changes.
The CPSU members are proud of their track record of professionalism and service provision since the establishment of the AusFIC. AusFIC in an extremely flexible and cohesive work area; from data storage and manipulation functions to the tactical delivery of In-Flight information, AusFIC is an integrated an effective work unit.
Members have made significant continuous improvements during this period and are disappointed that their contribution is not recognised. Multi-skilling across AusFIC disciplines produces efficient and effective operation and one measure of this is the ratio of AusFIC console hours to rostered hours per officer as compared to ATC.
Members completely reject the AusFIC Services Review. The simple fact is that AusFIC is worth more than the sum of its parts that could be partitioned off elsewhere and this has not been identified or considered.
As is the case with the TCU consolidation reversal, the financial case for this ill-considered shuffle of services is marginal and enacting recommendations of the AusFIC Services Review will:
• have minimal, if any savings;
• increase the cost and complexity of ATC functions;
• result in dislocation of AusFIC staff.
There is less training for AusFIC to incorporate new functions than for other areas to undertake the specialist AusFIC functions and that therefore reduces both expense and time.
The re-alignment of AusFIC products into Service Delivery Lines is readily achievable and if retained within the existing AusFIC management structure, will retain multi-skilling and multi-disciplinary efficiencies.
The CPSU asserts that the establishment of the AusFIC enhanced the safety of Australian aviation by enabling the rapid dissemination of pertinent information directly to pilots.
The CPSU believes that proposed changes in work arrangements will result in less timely, delivery of operational and safety information and may contribute to a failure to provide traffic information and/or separation services.
The CPSU has not been formally advised or included in any safety assessments relating to proposed changes.
The CPSU members are proud of their track record of professionalism and service provision since the establishment of the AusFIC. AusFIC in an extremely flexible and cohesive work area; from data storage and manipulation functions to the tactical delivery of In-Flight information, AusFIC is an integrated an effective work unit.
Members have made significant continuous improvements during this period and are disappointed that their contribution is not recognised. Multi-skilling across AusFIC disciplines produces efficient and effective operation and one measure of this is the ratio of AusFIC console hours to rostered hours per officer as compared to ATC.
Members completely reject the AusFIC Services Review. The simple fact is that AusFIC is worth more than the sum of its parts that could be partitioned off elsewhere and this has not been identified or considered.
As is the case with the TCU consolidation reversal, the financial case for this ill-considered shuffle of services is marginal and enacting recommendations of the AusFIC Services Review will:
• have minimal, if any savings;
• increase the cost and complexity of ATC functions;
• result in dislocation of AusFIC staff.
There is less training for AusFIC to incorporate new functions than for other areas to undertake the specialist AusFIC functions and that therefore reduces both expense and time.
The re-alignment of AusFIC products into Service Delivery Lines is readily achievable and if retained within the existing AusFIC management structure, will retain multi-skilling and multi-disciplinary efficiencies.
Last edited by JackoSchitt; 19th Nov 2007 at 05:23.
This may not be appropriate or pertinent at this time, but is it possible that a lack of FIS or other AsA services could be a contributing factor in the loss of a Cessna 303 with 4 POB this weekend somewhere (we think) near Orbost?
I note that no flight plan was filed, nor SARTIME specified. I'm unclear as to whether here was any communication with the aircraft.
The aircraft still hasn't been found and grave fears are held.
I wonder what the search will cost? I wonder if the old flight services regime might have reduced search costs?
I note that no flight plan was filed, nor SARTIME specified. I'm unclear as to whether here was any communication with the aircraft.
The aircraft still hasn't been found and grave fears are held.
I wonder what the search will cost? I wonder if the old flight services regime might have reduced search costs?
Last edited by Sunfish; 19th Nov 2007 at 04:13.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Capricorn
Age: 57
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Sunfish.
The missing C337 is another "Coffee Royale" but this time not because services were not developed yet, but the aviation administrator took away the SAR alerting service that full reporting to FS provided along with its amended weather updates, etc.
Lets all hope that no search aircraft goes missing during this search.
How long did it take you to find KOOKABURRA Dick?
The missing C337 is another "Coffee Royale" but this time not because services were not developed yet, but the aviation administrator took away the SAR alerting service that full reporting to FS provided along with its amended weather updates, etc.
Lets all hope that no search aircraft goes missing during this search.
How long did it take you to find KOOKABURRA Dick?
Thread Starter
You can actually still go “full reporting” – it is called IFR. That requires extra training, and I do accept that some pilots do not want to make the effort to do the extra training but want the full position service. That is human.
In the old days, if you flew below 5,000 feet there wasn’t even a requirement to have a radio – let alone go full reporting. Maybe we should change that so people are protected from themselves!
Maggott17, it took me two years to find the Kookaburra, but in all it was something like 49 years between the time it first went missing and was found again.
By the way, even when aircraft are in full radar coverage (as the aircraft was that disappeared over Barrington Tops a few decades ago) and IFR, they can still go missing for a very long time.
In the old days, if you flew below 5,000 feet there wasn’t even a requirement to have a radio – let alone go full reporting. Maybe we should change that so people are protected from themselves!
Maggott17, it took me two years to find the Kookaburra, but in all it was something like 49 years between the time it first went missing and was found again.
By the way, even when aircraft are in full radar coverage (as the aircraft was that disappeared over Barrington Tops a few decades ago) and IFR, they can still go missing for a very long time.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith said
Yes you can do that but Dick, really, that is not what he is getting at and you know it.
What you can do as a VFR pilot is what many many pilots do and give Ausfic a SARTIME for each leg of your flight like what they do in the Territory and north Queensland and all for free unlike the IFR charges.
You can actually still go “full reporting” – it is called IFR.
What you can do as a VFR pilot is what many many pilots do and give Ausfic a SARTIME for each leg of your flight like what they do in the Territory and north Queensland and all for free unlike the IFR charges.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Won't the controllers be happy with that idea!
...give Ausfic a SARTIME for each leg of your flight...
No relevance to the unfortunate occupants of the C303 (sic) as it still would have been a sartime for YMER...
Re TCH, TCH, TCH.......
Well, well, well,.....
An unsolicited memo from an 'interested person or persons'........
Re: the Integration of FW to ATC.
CEO Direct - Flightwatch
You may have been aware of some discussion about our Flightwatch service in the media last week. The decision to change the method of delivery of Flightwatch was the result of an overall review of AusFIC which reported in March 2005.
Airservices decided on the change following a safety assessment as part of this review. The implementation of this change was, as at last week, more than 85% complete. However, following a request from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, we will defer the remaining changes pending the outcome of the external review that the Minister has requested.
This decision only affects the four remaining separate Flightwatch frequencies that were due to transfer [two each on 23 November and 20 December]. We will issue a NOTAM and an AIP SUP to this effect.
Pilots should continue to use the relevant ATC frequency to access the Flightwatch service, except in the four sectors [Tindal, Darwin, Thursday Island and Argyle 118.4] in which the transfer is yet to occur, where the original Flightwatch frequency will be retained until the review outcome is known.
Further, as an added safety measure during transition, Airservices had previously decided to retain a backup service to 'ghost' those frequencies already transferred to the new Flightwatch arrangements. We will now retain this ghosting service until the review outcome is known.
Decisions on the timing, terms of reference, and the individual or organisation to conduct the review will be agreed by the Board of Airservices in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services.
Greg Russell
CEO
4 Freqs....SHESH!!!....Methinks the Barn Door is open...the horse has GORN,
and, sorry to say, I think you may have been 'snowed' Dick.
'Tis indeed a great pity that the opinions of the 'So many', who have a vast experience, have been listened to by 'so few'.....
And, further, the industry is now so 'fractured', that 'they' in ASA can now do whatever 'they' want to....
To all colleagues, past and present...
An unsolicited memo from an 'interested person or persons'........
Re: the Integration of FW to ATC.
CEO Direct - Flightwatch
You may have been aware of some discussion about our Flightwatch service in the media last week. The decision to change the method of delivery of Flightwatch was the result of an overall review of AusFIC which reported in March 2005.
Airservices decided on the change following a safety assessment as part of this review. The implementation of this change was, as at last week, more than 85% complete. However, following a request from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, we will defer the remaining changes pending the outcome of the external review that the Minister has requested.
This decision only affects the four remaining separate Flightwatch frequencies that were due to transfer [two each on 23 November and 20 December]. We will issue a NOTAM and an AIP SUP to this effect.
Pilots should continue to use the relevant ATC frequency to access the Flightwatch service, except in the four sectors [Tindal, Darwin, Thursday Island and Argyle 118.4] in which the transfer is yet to occur, where the original Flightwatch frequency will be retained until the review outcome is known.
Further, as an added safety measure during transition, Airservices had previously decided to retain a backup service to 'ghost' those frequencies already transferred to the new Flightwatch arrangements. We will now retain this ghosting service until the review outcome is known.
Decisions on the timing, terms of reference, and the individual or organisation to conduct the review will be agreed by the Board of Airservices in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services.
Greg Russell
CEO
4 Freqs....SHESH!!!....Methinks the Barn Door is open...the horse has GORN,
and, sorry to say, I think you may have been 'snowed' Dick.
'Tis indeed a great pity that the opinions of the 'So many', who have a vast experience, have been listened to by 'so few'.....
And, further, the industry is now so 'fractured', that 'they' in ASA can now do whatever 'they' want to....
To all colleagues, past and present...
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh Griffo ..
.. that'd be a novel concept - don't you think? 
as for the freq's left - good to see the 4 cover tiger country - you know - where NOTHING never happens - particularly this time of the year
the 'So many', ... have been listened to by 'so few'
as for the freq's left - good to see the 4 cover tiger country - you know - where NOTHING never happens - particularly this time of the year
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article on Crikey.com.au
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20...ntrollers.html
Now while this relates to tired ATCs, the reasons bolded at the bottom ring true to this discussion.
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20...ntrollers.html
Now while this relates to tired ATCs, the reasons bolded at the bottom ring true to this discussion.
Intimidation and exhaustion dog air traffic controllers
Ben Sandilands writes:
The issue of fatigue in air traffic control is pushing way past the levels that pilots have recently complained about to a point where urgent attention seems called for from whomever becomes Minister for Transport after the poll.
But it is also about more than air safety. It is also about family values. What is the point of keeping a job if you lose your wife or neglect your children?
This in full ( http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=297788&page=4 ) is a tirade posted on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network, or PPrune.org, under the Downunder section.
Here's a taste:
However tired and emotional industrial relations has become in the air transport sector, there are core issues that can’t be ignored.
Air traffic controllers claim the business of keeping jets "separated" in the sky is no longer compatible with taking a toilet break, having a good night’s sleep, or being a parent.
Are they just in the same category of labour as nursing, or emergency service workers, which is vital, yet systematically underpaid, and unworthy of a decent life beyond the obligations of a workplace agreement?
Is the country that poor that it can have one of the most technologically advanced air traffic control systems in the world, yet not ensure it is adequately manned?
The problem isn’t unique to Australia, and it isn’t a function of a low cost air travel revolution either. It is a function of the cost cutting bonus culture, which has captured the air transport industry worldwide in just over a decade.
The system depends on section managers who get $X thousand in bonuses for carving $Y millions from costs. And who keep doing it year after year, until the very issues of safety and decency are stripped down to breaking point.
It is as rife in legacy carriers as much as low cost carriers, and found in the various regulators of safety or standards.
Without any dilution of greed by commonsense it is a process that inevitably ends in collapse or disaster.
Ben Sandilands writes:
The issue of fatigue in air traffic control is pushing way past the levels that pilots have recently complained about to a point where urgent attention seems called for from whomever becomes Minister for Transport after the poll.
But it is also about more than air safety. It is also about family values. What is the point of keeping a job if you lose your wife or neglect your children?
This in full ( http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=297788&page=4 ) is a tirade posted on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network, or PPrune.org, under the Downunder section.
Here's a taste:
Some argue a gross dereliction of duty. Excessive overtime is now the only vehicle and strategy left to prop up a system that is close to breaking point. So stretched, that intimidation is now a widely used and desperate tactic to implore controllers to come to work on their rest days.
Fatigue management as a principle has been abandoned by an executive who have recklessly implemented mind-boggling pointless restructure upon restructure without having the staff to do it. Fatigue management has been effectively left up to you – as such it is time to act in your own best interest, and that of your colleagues.
Fatigue management as a principle has been abandoned by an executive who have recklessly implemented mind-boggling pointless restructure upon restructure without having the staff to do it. Fatigue management has been effectively left up to you – as such it is time to act in your own best interest, and that of your colleagues.
Air traffic controllers claim the business of keeping jets "separated" in the sky is no longer compatible with taking a toilet break, having a good night’s sleep, or being a parent.
Are they just in the same category of labour as nursing, or emergency service workers, which is vital, yet systematically underpaid, and unworthy of a decent life beyond the obligations of a workplace agreement?
Is the country that poor that it can have one of the most technologically advanced air traffic control systems in the world, yet not ensure it is adequately manned?
The problem isn’t unique to Australia, and it isn’t a function of a low cost air travel revolution either. It is a function of the cost cutting bonus culture, which has captured the air transport industry worldwide in just over a decade.
The system depends on section managers who get $X thousand in bonuses for carving $Y millions from costs. And who keep doing it year after year, until the very issues of safety and decency are stripped down to breaking point.
It is as rife in legacy carriers as much as low cost carriers, and found in the various regulators of safety or standards.
Without any dilution of greed by commonsense it is a process that inevitably ends in collapse or disaster.
Last edited by JackoSchitt; 20th Nov 2007 at 03:11.