Flightwatch – 27 VHF outlets being closed
Thread Starter
Scurvy.D.Dog, on 17 November you said:
I confirm our discussion. I believe Flightwatch should offer a service similar to the service that is received in North America – i.e. both the USA and Canada. In North America there are many hundreds of VHF RCOs (Remote Communication Outlets) which a pilot can call to talk to an operator who can provide extensive information that is required to maintain and improve air safety.
These outlets are normally manned from the Automated Flight Service Stations – I think there are about 20 of these Automated Stations in the USA alone – and the operator is trained to not only provide the relevant weather and NOTAM information, but also to interpret this information to advise the pilot if the planned flight is recommended.
I am not in any way criticising our people, but I have spoken to a number of our Flight Service Officers, and they have said that they are not trained (nor allowed) to interpret the weather forecast and give advice to pilots. In North America it is completely different – and this is what I would like to see.
Obviously it will be too expensive to cover all airspace with a separate VHF Flightwatch frequency for operation below 5,000 feet. I would imagine that a proper independent review would decide on a figure - i.e. to provide coverage for 80% of flights when above 3,000 feet. This would probably mean that there would be a relatively high number of VHF outlets between Tasmania and Cairns, and also in the major capital cities, with a lesser number in remote areas.
I look at Flightwatch as I would look at the funding of the country fire authorities. That is, there are times when for many years, some consider that the funding is wasted as there are no bushfires to put out. After even a 10 year lag, there is extensive use of the system and it was well worthwhile.
The same situation exists with Flightwatch. When we have extensive dry weather and droughts there is less need for weather information than when the weather conditions change – which they could do at any time.
I see the Flightwatch system being manned from Brisbane, or even a dual system from Brisbane and Melbourne using the people we have now – but with additional training.
What do you think of this?
By the way, my solicitors have answered Airservices – see here.
Having spoken with him this morning about this issue, he has undertaken to spell out here how he sees the future of FW. If it is as suggested, then of course he has my support.
These outlets are normally manned from the Automated Flight Service Stations – I think there are about 20 of these Automated Stations in the USA alone – and the operator is trained to not only provide the relevant weather and NOTAM information, but also to interpret this information to advise the pilot if the planned flight is recommended.
I am not in any way criticising our people, but I have spoken to a number of our Flight Service Officers, and they have said that they are not trained (nor allowed) to interpret the weather forecast and give advice to pilots. In North America it is completely different – and this is what I would like to see.
Obviously it will be too expensive to cover all airspace with a separate VHF Flightwatch frequency for operation below 5,000 feet. I would imagine that a proper independent review would decide on a figure - i.e. to provide coverage for 80% of flights when above 3,000 feet. This would probably mean that there would be a relatively high number of VHF outlets between Tasmania and Cairns, and also in the major capital cities, with a lesser number in remote areas.
I look at Flightwatch as I would look at the funding of the country fire authorities. That is, there are times when for many years, some consider that the funding is wasted as there are no bushfires to put out. After even a 10 year lag, there is extensive use of the system and it was well worthwhile.
The same situation exists with Flightwatch. When we have extensive dry weather and droughts there is less need for weather information than when the weather conditions change – which they could do at any time.
I see the Flightwatch system being manned from Brisbane, or even a dual system from Brisbane and Melbourne using the people we have now – but with additional training.
What do you think of this?
By the way, my solicitors have answered Airservices – see here.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I'm glad you can acknowledge you made a mistake with affordable safety. Don't forget most of the ATC's posting here were around when you were at asa. If you didn't coin the phrase you certainly embraced 'affordable safety'
Now it's coming back to bite big time
I'm glad you can acknowledge you made a mistake with affordable safety. Don't forget most of the ATC's posting here were around when you were at asa. If you didn't coin the phrase you certainly embraced 'affordable safety'
Now it's coming back to bite big time
Thread Starter
En-Rooter mate don’t make me cry!
How can I acknowledge, that I made a mistake with “affordable safety” when
it is a fact of life and not an error.
Are you suggesting that back in the good old days we had “unaffordable safety”? I can assure you back then it was affordable because the taxpayer was paying 50% of the aviation industries costs. By denying, the fact of “affordable safety” or claiming that a person made a mistake by telling the truth will simply result in resources being misallocated and lives being lost.
En-Rooter, I have made many mistakes in my life but telling the truth about affordable safety is definitely not one of them.
How can I acknowledge, that I made a mistake with “affordable safety” when
it is a fact of life and not an error.
Are you suggesting that back in the good old days we had “unaffordable safety”? I can assure you back then it was affordable because the taxpayer was paying 50% of the aviation industries costs. By denying, the fact of “affordable safety” or claiming that a person made a mistake by telling the truth will simply result in resources being misallocated and lives being lost.
En-Rooter, I have made many mistakes in my life but telling the truth about affordable safety is definitely not one of them.
Thread Starter
En-Rooter, another point - don't your personal expenses have to be "affordable"? Or do you believe that the aviation industry is so different and so unique that the expenses do not have to be "affordable"?
I would love to get your answers to this one.
By the way, I am sure that the ATCs who were working with me back in the days when I was Chairman of CAA will well remember that even though I wanted all traffic information/separation to be done by ATC, I always supported a separate Flightwatch system. All the documentation clearly shows this, and that is why we have had Flightwatch for 16 years since my AMATS changes.
I would love to get your answers to this one.
By the way, I am sure that the ATCs who were working with me back in the days when I was Chairman of CAA will well remember that even though I wanted all traffic information/separation to be done by ATC, I always supported a separate Flightwatch system. All the documentation clearly shows this, and that is why we have had Flightwatch for 16 years since my AMATS changes.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 21st Nov 2007 at 02:04.
G'day Dick,
It is obviously all 'academic' now......but the reason that Flight Service Officers were NOT ALLOWED to give an interpretation or even 'advice' on weather related matters was that the then Dept / Authority was absolutely **** scared of any LITIGATION which may / may not result from a matter where a clever lawyer MIGHT be able to show that the passing of such info had any bearing in the case of an accident / incident.
It is a matter of record that I was chastised more than once for offering advice to a pilot experiencing problems - e.g. with the U/C 'Gear Down' lights, in an aircraft in which I had extensive experience.....I advised him to check the NAVLIGHTS switch, and lo! When he turned the navlights OFF, the gear light became visible - thus negating the need for aerodrome A.E.P's....
And other cases where a LARGE CB was near one end of the strip, and a pilot was offerred the advice accordingly and the FSO, who also held a CPL, suggested he approach from the OTHER end........and was temporarily suspended for his trouble!
These 'general' instances are but mere examples of the type of thinking that existed / exists??.......
All FSO's were in fact adequately 'trained' - all held a CPL Met exam equivalent and were Accredited Met Observers - e.g. who did you see giving and doing ALL the MET functions in Derby for instance when you visited??
(All those years ago....)
Unfortunately, I am not sure that the current FW Officers are similarly trained.
So, in that respect, you are currently correct.
I did note that in a previous post you were suggesting an 'Advanced FLIGHT WATCH Function' ....to provide a better SERVICE perhaps?
Now there's a thought....why not call it FLIGHT SERVICE??
Regards, and all the very best to you in this venture.
I mean it!! Because The Industry needs it....IMHO......
It is obviously all 'academic' now......but the reason that Flight Service Officers were NOT ALLOWED to give an interpretation or even 'advice' on weather related matters was that the then Dept / Authority was absolutely **** scared of any LITIGATION which may / may not result from a matter where a clever lawyer MIGHT be able to show that the passing of such info had any bearing in the case of an accident / incident.
It is a matter of record that I was chastised more than once for offering advice to a pilot experiencing problems - e.g. with the U/C 'Gear Down' lights, in an aircraft in which I had extensive experience.....I advised him to check the NAVLIGHTS switch, and lo! When he turned the navlights OFF, the gear light became visible - thus negating the need for aerodrome A.E.P's....
And other cases where a LARGE CB was near one end of the strip, and a pilot was offerred the advice accordingly and the FSO, who also held a CPL, suggested he approach from the OTHER end........and was temporarily suspended for his trouble!
These 'general' instances are but mere examples of the type of thinking that existed / exists??.......
All FSO's were in fact adequately 'trained' - all held a CPL Met exam equivalent and were Accredited Met Observers - e.g. who did you see giving and doing ALL the MET functions in Derby for instance when you visited??
(All those years ago....)
Unfortunately, I am not sure that the current FW Officers are similarly trained.
So, in that respect, you are currently correct.
I did note that in a previous post you were suggesting an 'Advanced FLIGHT WATCH Function' ....to provide a better SERVICE perhaps?
Now there's a thought....why not call it FLIGHT SERVICE??
Regards, and all the very best to you in this venture.
I mean it!! Because The Industry needs it....IMHO......
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Why are you not pushing for a roll back of the post 27 Oct 2007 changes to the provision of Flightwatch VHF services as near as possible to what they were?
Barring the small number of frequencies physically transitioned, for the majority of them it is as simple as cancelling the re-direction of calls to ATC FIA frequencies.
The Flightwatch officer that was working pre 27 Oct is still at that same console but with a lot less work to do.
So again, why have you not pushed for roll back?
Why are you not pushing for a roll back of the post 27 Oct 2007 changes to the provision of Flightwatch VHF services as near as possible to what they were?
Barring the small number of frequencies physically transitioned, for the majority of them it is as simple as cancelling the re-direction of calls to ATC FIA frequencies.
The Flightwatch officer that was working pre 27 Oct is still at that same console but with a lot less work to do.
So again, why have you not pushed for roll back?
Thread Starter
JackoSchitt, I thought I was pushing for a roll back – at least temporarily until a proper safety study (looking at both the costs and the benefits) was performed.
As you may know, Airservices management has claimed that they can’t possibly roll it back to what it was because they have removed a large percentage of the staff. Whether this is true or not, it is a fact of life that the Airservices management controls this particular issue at the present time.
As I have said before, I have confidence that the external review will uncover the truth and we will be able to get a standalone VHF Flightwatch going again – either the same as before, or possibly even better.
As you may know, Airservices management has claimed that they can’t possibly roll it back to what it was because they have removed a large percentage of the staff. Whether this is true or not, it is a fact of life that the Airservices management controls this particular issue at the present time.
As I have said before, I have confidence that the external review will uncover the truth and we will be able to get a standalone VHF Flightwatch going again – either the same as before, or possibly even better.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick's suggestion of Advanced Flight Watch sounds a bit like.............
A roll-back to OPERATIONAL CONTROL.............which went out in the early 90's.
But OPS was not available for VFR aircraft.
A roll-back to OPERATIONAL CONTROL.............which went out in the early 90's.
But OPS was not available for VFR aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
What you think you are doing and what is being done to you are two wildly different things.
Airservices has told you load of bullsh1t as they did at the QLD RAPAC meeting yesterday when they said that flightwatch only gets 50 calls per day and that includes cancellation of Sartimes and Flight Plan amendments.
The staff that are required for the onwards ghosting till the review is complete is the exact same number of staff that have been performing the function for the last few months. One. So why not roll back?
As has been explained to me, outside 8am to 7pm weekdays, the Flightwatch function is ghosted and is fully done by the HF consoles.
The only way to save the One (1) officer per weekday that is doing the ghosting on the stand-alone VHF console……..is to not do the ghosting. So why not roll back?
My contacts tell me that overall, the Ausfic (covering Flightwatch Domestic HF, Flightwatch VHF, International HF, Briefing Office, NOTAM office and Communications Center) is short of staff but because of the nature of the multi-capable people that work there, they are able to manage shortfalls on a day to day and workload permitting basis – with no fat at all.
All the facilities for Ausfic to do the full Flightwatch function are still in place and the staff is there. If need be, then staff from other ausfic areas can plug the gaps.
Staff saving of one (1) officer is meaningless when the ausfic is 8-10 staff short overall and in association with that, the only “saving” of moving the function to ATC was two (2) (II) staff to begin with!
So again, why are you not pushing for the full rollback?
I thought you were smarter than to fall for airservices’s sucker-punch.
What you think you are doing and what is being done to you are two wildly different things.
Airservices has told you load of bullsh1t as they did at the QLD RAPAC meeting yesterday when they said that flightwatch only gets 50 calls per day and that includes cancellation of Sartimes and Flight Plan amendments.
The staff that are required for the onwards ghosting till the review is complete is the exact same number of staff that have been performing the function for the last few months. One. So why not roll back?
As has been explained to me, outside 8am to 7pm weekdays, the Flightwatch function is ghosted and is fully done by the HF consoles.
The only way to save the One (1) officer per weekday that is doing the ghosting on the stand-alone VHF console……..is to not do the ghosting. So why not roll back?
My contacts tell me that overall, the Ausfic (covering Flightwatch Domestic HF, Flightwatch VHF, International HF, Briefing Office, NOTAM office and Communications Center) is short of staff but because of the nature of the multi-capable people that work there, they are able to manage shortfalls on a day to day and workload permitting basis – with no fat at all.
All the facilities for Ausfic to do the full Flightwatch function are still in place and the staff is there. If need be, then staff from other ausfic areas can plug the gaps.
Staff saving of one (1) officer is meaningless when the ausfic is 8-10 staff short overall and in association with that, the only “saving” of moving the function to ATC was two (2) (II) staff to begin with!
So again, why are you not pushing for the full rollback?
I thought you were smarter than to fall for airservices’s sucker-punch.
Thread Starter
ROARING RIMAU, no, it is quite different to operational control. Remember, in operational control, “control” is the definitive word. The air traffic controller could order an aircraft to divert to another airport.
Flightwatch, Flight Service, or whatever you call it is a user friendly information service that is normally provided on request so that the pilot can make a better safety decision.
Flightwatch, Flight Service, or whatever you call it is a user friendly information service that is normally provided on request so that the pilot can make a better safety decision.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Another victim perhaps????
What will be happening to VFR Flight following? Nothing I hear you say, its still available on request workload permitting
.
Just had the pleasure of flying from one side of the country to the other and back, and while I flew VFR and the FTDK did a couple if IFR's to show me how real flying is done
we had much time to listen to the radio and joke about asking Flightwatch for weather info etc.......then it hit me, what happens if I want to have Flight Following when in radar coverage.
In the past its always been available except once when I could hear a very stressed and obviously learning student at the console, so I accepted that as it was. But maybe that was as a result of F/W being ditchedon VHF.
So is there going to be a flow on effect. Anybody within ASA care to comment?
J
What will be happening to VFR Flight following? Nothing I hear you say, its still available on request workload permitting
.Just had the pleasure of flying from one side of the country to the other and back, and while I flew VFR and the FTDK did a couple if IFR's to show me how real flying is done
we had much time to listen to the radio and joke about asking Flightwatch for weather info etc.......then it hit me, what happens if I want to have Flight Following when in radar coverage.In the past its always been available except once when I could hear a very stressed and obviously learning student at the console, so I accepted that as it was. But maybe that was as a result of F/W being ditchedon VHF.
So is there going to be a flow on effect. Anybody within ASA care to comment?
J
It's just a matter of mathematics ....
A Controller has x number of cubits of workload availability ...
If he has to juggle Controlling, DTI, FIS, Hazard Alerts, Flight Following & Flightwach .... he's gunna run outta cubits at some stage ... or he ditches some of the ingredients.
Which is okay, unless one of those ingredients was particularly important to my operation
A Controller has x number of cubits of workload availability ...
If he has to juggle Controlling, DTI, FIS, Hazard Alerts, Flight Following & Flightwach .... he's gunna run outta cubits at some stage ... or he ditches some of the ingredients.
Which is okay, unless one of those ingredients was particularly important to my operation
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now Dick,
We both know what I am talking about now, the cutting of ASA services to the bone. I was there mate.
I sat in a meeting with the GM ATC where he was asking us for solutions to our present staffing problems. We've been telling him and his cohorts for 6 or 7 years now! The cuts started with you mate.
What a mess, if you think it is bad now, give it a month or two.
We both know what I am talking about now, the cutting of ASA services to the bone. I was there mate.
I sat in a meeting with the GM ATC where he was asking us for solutions to our present staffing problems. We've been telling him and his cohorts for 6 or 7 years now! The cuts started with you mate.
What a mess, if you think it is bad now, give it a month or two.
Gee Dick,....
"Flightwatch, Flight Service, or whatever you call it is a user friendly information service that is normally provided on request so that the pilot can make a better SAFETY DECISION".........
Now THAT IS UNFAIR!!!
THAT really did bring a tear to this 'old eye'........
I can only substitute the word 'WAS'.............BTN 'that' & 'normally'...
Additional to those small instances of which I wrote earlier, I can only add that, in the 'Premier Years' when we (ME and several others) were in the 'Manager's Seat', we did sometimes extend the Service to 'As Required' to cover some REAL emergency situation which required IMMEDIATE assistance...and then had to 'clear it' with the SAR office of the times....LIVE, as it was happening!
Yep! THOSE were the days we felt we had earned our 'bread'.
But, not to worry.......
"Flightwatch, Flight Service, or whatever you call it is a user friendly information service that is normally provided on request so that the pilot can make a better SAFETY DECISION".........
Now THAT IS UNFAIR!!!
THAT really did bring a tear to this 'old eye'........
I can only substitute the word 'WAS'.............BTN 'that' & 'normally'...
Additional to those small instances of which I wrote earlier, I can only add that, in the 'Premier Years' when we (ME and several others) were in the 'Manager's Seat', we did sometimes extend the Service to 'As Required' to cover some REAL emergency situation which required IMMEDIATE assistance...and then had to 'clear it' with the SAR office of the times....LIVE, as it was happening!
Yep! THOSE were the days we felt we had earned our 'bread'.
But, not to worry.......
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 21st Nov 2007 at 13:02.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Columbia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EnRooter,
Bit of a concern when the GM ATC starts asking the staff for ideas regarding the current resourcing crisis, me thinks we are all in the crapper.
Agreed, the writing has been on the wall for years and these clowns are only just working it out.
Time for wholesale management change before its really to late!
Cheers
BGTFN
Bit of a concern when the GM ATC starts asking the staff for ideas regarding the current resourcing crisis, me thinks we are all in the crapper.
Agreed, the writing has been on the wall for years and these clowns are only just working it out.
Time for wholesale management change before its really to late!
Cheers
BGTFN