Merged: ASA Staff Shortage
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the ALMs seem hellbent on delivering the most 'efficient' rosters that they can devise. They ignore the fact that human beings (not them) have to actually work them. Morning, double doggo and then a one day break before returning to work may look efficient, but they are burning people out.
These ALMs are then exasperated when people decline O/T due to fatigue and ask why they can't help ASA out, as though these people owe ASA something.
Current Flight Safety magazine has a good article on fatigue management, and talks about organizations who use fatigue management systems as a necessary evil of a box ticking exercise to be got around, rather than a dedicated safety system. Hmmm, wonder who they are talking about?
The sooner CASA gets in and regulates hours the better.
These ALMs are then exasperated when people decline O/T due to fatigue and ask why they can't help ASA out, as though these people owe ASA something.
Current Flight Safety magazine has a good article on fatigue management, and talks about organizations who use fatigue management systems as a necessary evil of a box ticking exercise to be got around, rather than a dedicated safety system. Hmmm, wonder who they are talking about?
The sooner CASA gets in and regulates hours the better.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max1: Some of the ALMs seem hellbent on delivering the most 'efficient' rosters that they can devise. They ignore the fact that human beings (not them) have to actually work them.
) The ALM(s) seems to ignore the fact that most groups voted for a 5am start in order to have someone 'relatively' fresh in the morning rather than the doggo(s) - who has already been awake all night - to sort out the morning push.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Gods country
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go non ops for the end of the doggo and let them call in staff, or better still the airspace will have to go TIBA.
The ALM's are running scared as TFN days are numbered and they are trying to prove their worth.
The ALM's are running scared as TFN days are numbered and they are trying to prove their worth.
Will be interesting to see what happens pay/condition wise when the AWAs expire for the ALMs. Pretty cheap way of getting rid of a bunch of top increment people in 5-10 years time if they get the staff numbers up when not paying redundency.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Recently Departed
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is the heir apparent?
Between being frustrated by the current negotiation process and AsA's adversarial IR policies if there is any salary cut or even stagnation a large proportion would vote with their feet.
Many of Australia's finest and brightest ATC's would head overseas!
Simply why would they stay unless they were committed because of children completing studies at critical phases or family issues! Many people I talk to are getting to the point that they are considering leaving just because the way AsA is treating them! They are just fed up! They are tired, Grumpy and their family lives are suffering! Who wants to be a perpetually grumpy parent?
Or worse still who in there right mind would want a divorce?
If even 10% of ATC's did walk then there would be a perpetually broken ATC system!
Anything close to an ATC service would take at least 5 years to rebuild. The experience loss would be significant! That being the case it would also heavily rely on ATC expats returning after a 3-5 year stint with other ANSP's!
Lets hope that this suggestion is merely speculation!
Between being frustrated by the current negotiation process and AsA's adversarial IR policies if there is any salary cut or even stagnation a large proportion would vote with their feet.
Many of Australia's finest and brightest ATC's would head overseas!
Simply why would they stay unless they were committed because of children completing studies at critical phases or family issues! Many people I talk to are getting to the point that they are considering leaving just because the way AsA is treating them! They are just fed up! They are tired, Grumpy and their family lives are suffering! Who wants to be a perpetually grumpy parent?
Or worse still who in there right mind would want a divorce?
If even 10% of ATC's did walk then there would be a perpetually broken ATC system!
Anything close to an ATC service would take at least 5 years to rebuild. The experience loss would be significant! That being the case it would also heavily rely on ATC expats returning after a 3-5 year stint with other ANSP's!
Lets hope that this suggestion is merely speculation!
Last edited by oziatc; 3rd Jan 2009 at 09:47.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like woodies love child.
A new CEO = review of our rather unique management structure "...100 managers for 700 controllers? scalpel please"
I wouldn't be signing up for that new Mercedes at the moment if I were an ALM.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of Australia's finest and brightest ATC's would head overseas!
`
As for 75 people leaving (10%); very unlikely but more likely now than compared to 3 years ago... As for the 10% savings by removing ALMs; my guess is it won't happen, some may go, but only to be 'reassigned' to the boards; many probably would accept the "demotion" with a smile. Additionally the queue for VR would be a mile long; job swap to a redundant position etc.
I wouldn't have even considered moving OS just a very short 12 months ago; now I can't even see myself coming back; well not to ATC in Oz anyway... My better half, who hasn't posted on this thread (by the way), probably wants to come back sooner rather than later; she doesn't want me working for ASA again...
Maybe things will change in the post TFN era, but I suspect there are enough sycophant managers (that will still be there) that have the likes of me in the "no way basket".
"1 goat"
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply why would they stay unless they were committed because of children completing studies at critical phases or family issues! Many people I talk to are getting to the point that they are considering leaving just because the way AsA is treating them! They are just fed up! They are tired, Grumpy and their family lives are suffering! Who wants to be a perpetually grumpy parent?
Or worse still who in there right mind would want a divorce?
Or worse still who in there right mind would want a divorce?
Last edited by Here to Help; 11th Jan 2009 at 06:23.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Current Flight Safety magazine has a good article on fatigue management, and talks about organizations who use fatigue management systems as a necessary evil of a box ticking exercise to be got around, rather than a dedicated safety system. Hmmm, wonder who they are talking about?
http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2008/dec/22-26.pdf
Is Ben Cook talking about ASA when he says on page 2, (my bolding)
...Having been involved as an investigator in a number of fatiguerelated incidents, I know that good fatigue management has the potential to make big improvements to the safety of our industry. I’ve seen the extremes of fatigue management: some organisations, from the CEO all the way down, make a dedicated commitment to managing fatigue, breeding an organisational culture where fatigue management is taken seriously and providing the resources to support the development of a mature FRMS. At the other extreme I’ve seen a number of ‘work-arounds’, e.g. managers defaulting primarily to biomathematical model fatigue scores to determine whether an operator should perform duties. In a number of cases, this has led to a system that looks great on paper, but actually degrades fatigue management due to misapplication of the available tools.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kam16: .... TFN days are numbered....
Man on the ground: A new CEO
Much as I would love to see him gone after what he has done to morale in particular and the company in general, the only way TFN is going is if he is pushed.
Given that he was appointed by the previous government, has overseen unprecendented levels of TIBA and is still in his position says to me that the man is very well connected. (or has influence of some other kind perhaps)
Why else has big Tony not got rid of him with the convenient excuse of "previous government appointee"?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One reason they may not have gotten rid of him yet is because there is no way we have reached the bottom of this debacle .
Even if we got a competent CEO, it will take years to dig us out of the mess he and his hand picked cronies have got us into. As much as the controllers and Civilair have repeatedly told them over the years that there is a big staffing issue, they have ignored it.
If Big Tony gave him the boot and got someone new in, the new CEO would still have to answer for this stuff-up for years to come. The Opposition would go to town on saying that if the Government had left TFN in, these problems would have been sorted.
Politically it is smarter(I'm not saying it is right) to leave the incumbent in to drown, or let him leave of his own volition than to replace him. If he leaves under his own steam then Big Tony can point to the mess he left rather than defending why he was replaced, and all the dramas in the meantime can be nailed to his door.
There is still a lot of drama to come.
Even if we got a competent CEO, it will take years to dig us out of the mess he and his hand picked cronies have got us into. As much as the controllers and Civilair have repeatedly told them over the years that there is a big staffing issue, they have ignored it.
If Big Tony gave him the boot and got someone new in, the new CEO would still have to answer for this stuff-up for years to come. The Opposition would go to town on saying that if the Government had left TFN in, these problems would have been sorted.
Politically it is smarter(I'm not saying it is right) to leave the incumbent in to drown, or let him leave of his own volition than to replace him. If he leaves under his own steam then Big Tony can point to the mess he left rather than defending why he was replaced, and all the dramas in the meantime can be nailed to his door.
There is still a lot of drama to come.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks oziatc thats made my day.
Not....
What we have at the moment is ASAs version of The Emperors New Clothes aka SDE.
Never underestimate the power of a flash PowerPoint presentation to those with no idea. It's how the Real Estate/Financial spruikers suck so many in, and its how PC flogged SDE.
PC sold it to TFN (no ATC background), they then sold it to the Board (no ATC background). They are now in the position of Mutually Assured Destruction. If TFN sacks PC because SDE is fatally flawed, he looks stupid for having endorsed it to the Board and may go the same way. If the Board sacks TFN they look stupid for having endorsed it, and may be asked questions by Big Tony.
If any of the managers question SDE they would be seen as non-team players for questioning the "Vision" and put their positions at risk.This goes down to the ALMs, who have told me privately of their serious misgivings but are content to pick up their large salaries, do whatever is asked of them and wait for it to die a death.
It is just like the NAS debacle. Lots of time and money will be spent on a fatally flawed project that due to office politics no-one is prepared to challenge.
Just like NAS and other myriad CB inspired ideas,it will come down to controllers questioning the safety and benefits of the project. That way management can lay the blame on us rather than their own ill-conceived,ill-planned and under resourced management wet-dreams.
For those who haven't taken the time to read what is planned for SDE I suggest you especially have a look at the Endorsement stream. Their 'vision' is for generic ratings. The 'vision' for where I am is for a generic Arrivals rating encompassing Darwin and the East Coast from Cairns to Sydney. This would involve knowing all the STARS and their transition points and what is required for Runway changes, probably upwards of 80 restricted areas and their vertical and lateral boundaries, God knows how many different frequencies and their transfer points, level assignments into the different Civil and Military Towers, you would also be expected to know suitable landing areas in case of IFER (the lawyers would have a field day at any inquest), and the list goes on.
It is like the airlines having pilots rated on the A320, B737 and B747 and moving pilots around to cover, after all its still a plane.
Management feel that we are constrained by geographic boundaries and that by standardisation they can do away with the need for sector specific knowledge. One of the ways to do this will be to 're-align' Airways Routes. I am sure the airlines will be gushing with love when they find out they will be flying further track miles to 'standardise' airspace.
This is but one part of 'Delivering the Future'. There are parts that are very doable like User Preferred Routing over the Pacific and in the Outback, but they never required SDE anyway, and SDE has actually delayed these benefits to the Industry.
Anyway time will tell, ASA has already blown tens of millions on this project and will continue to waste the Airlines money. It is what they do best.
Not....
What we have at the moment is ASAs version of The Emperors New Clothes aka SDE.
Never underestimate the power of a flash PowerPoint presentation to those with no idea. It's how the Real Estate/Financial spruikers suck so many in, and its how PC flogged SDE.
PC sold it to TFN (no ATC background), they then sold it to the Board (no ATC background). They are now in the position of Mutually Assured Destruction. If TFN sacks PC because SDE is fatally flawed, he looks stupid for having endorsed it to the Board and may go the same way. If the Board sacks TFN they look stupid for having endorsed it, and may be asked questions by Big Tony.
If any of the managers question SDE they would be seen as non-team players for questioning the "Vision" and put their positions at risk.This goes down to the ALMs, who have told me privately of their serious misgivings but are content to pick up their large salaries, do whatever is asked of them and wait for it to die a death.
It is just like the NAS debacle. Lots of time and money will be spent on a fatally flawed project that due to office politics no-one is prepared to challenge.
Just like NAS and other myriad CB inspired ideas,it will come down to controllers questioning the safety and benefits of the project. That way management can lay the blame on us rather than their own ill-conceived,ill-planned and under resourced management wet-dreams.
For those who haven't taken the time to read what is planned for SDE I suggest you especially have a look at the Endorsement stream. Their 'vision' is for generic ratings. The 'vision' for where I am is for a generic Arrivals rating encompassing Darwin and the East Coast from Cairns to Sydney. This would involve knowing all the STARS and their transition points and what is required for Runway changes, probably upwards of 80 restricted areas and their vertical and lateral boundaries, God knows how many different frequencies and their transfer points, level assignments into the different Civil and Military Towers, you would also be expected to know suitable landing areas in case of IFER (the lawyers would have a field day at any inquest), and the list goes on.
It is like the airlines having pilots rated on the A320, B737 and B747 and moving pilots around to cover, after all its still a plane.
Management feel that we are constrained by geographic boundaries and that by standardisation they can do away with the need for sector specific knowledge. One of the ways to do this will be to 're-align' Airways Routes. I am sure the airlines will be gushing with love when they find out they will be flying further track miles to 'standardise' airspace.
This is but one part of 'Delivering the Future'. There are parts that are very doable like User Preferred Routing over the Pacific and in the Outback, but they never required SDE anyway, and SDE has actually delayed these benefits to the Industry.
Anyway time will tell, ASA has already blown tens of millions on this project and will continue to waste the Airlines money. It is what they do best.
Last edited by max1; 4th Jan 2009 at 09:13.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man on the ground: A new CEO
Well, obviously the new year has given some a new sense of hope.
Well, obviously the new year has given some a new sense of hope.
Actually the longer it takes, the less chance of any ALM being able to return to a console (not that many could now!), thus the more "limited" their career options within the empire will be
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Capricorn
Age: 57
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airservices Australia can solve its ATC staff problem by splitting ASA into two organisations again and closing one ATC centre.
The new ATC organisation can save face and get on with ATC and the rest of ASA can be called something else and sold off. The old fArts can retire or go overseas and the young guns can PUSH the TIN to their hearts content.
Why does ASA need:
The money saved by closing one centre, and the money gained by selling the land to the airport will pay for the expansion of the centre that remains and the associated staff costs with a resectorisation will up the profits to Sir Kevin and his boys without hurting the Minister for QANTAS's bottom line.
The rich and famous car radio installer would love it too.
The new ATC organisation can save face and get on with ATC and the rest of ASA can be called something else and sold off. The old fArts can retire or go overseas and the young guns can PUSH the TIN to their hearts content.
Why does ASA need:
- AIS - sell to Jeppesen or LIDO
- Firefighters - sell to state fire department or airport
- a college - put it in a real school and contract the instructors
- a huge HR department - contract a real HR organisation
- a huge PR department - come in spinner
- a useless global marketing department - the global market is dead
- navigation aids - sell to airports or implement GNSS
- navigation aid technicians - IVR or be employed by airports.
The money saved by closing one centre, and the money gained by selling the land to the airport will pay for the expansion of the centre that remains and the associated staff costs with a resectorisation will up the profits to Sir Kevin and his boys without hurting the Minister for QANTAS's bottom line.
The rich and famous car radio installer would love it too.
Maggott17 wrote
I've never seen so much crap
Airservices Australia can solve its ATC staff problem by splitting ASA into two organisations again and closing one ATC centre.
The new ATC organisation can save face and get on with ATC and the rest of ASA can be called something else and sold off. The old fArts can retire or go overseas and the young guns can PUSH the TIN to their hearts content.
Why does ASA need:
The money saved by closing one centre, and the money gained by selling the land to the airport will pay for the expansion of the centre that remains and the associated staff costs with a resectorisation will up the profits to Sir Kevin and his boys without hurting the Minister for QANTAS's bottom line.
The rich and famous car radio installer would love it too.
The new ATC organisation can save face and get on with ATC and the rest of ASA can be called something else and sold off. The old fArts can retire or go overseas and the young guns can PUSH the TIN to their hearts content.
Why does ASA need:
- AIS - sell to Jeppesen or LIDO
- Firefighters - sell to state fire department or airport
- a college - put it in a real school and contract the instructors
- a huge HR department - contract a real HR organisation
- a huge PR department - come in spinner
- a useless global marketing department - the global market is dead
- navigation aids - sell to airports or implement GNSS
- navigation aid technicians - IVR or be employed by airports.
The money saved by closing one centre, and the money gained by selling the land to the airport will pay for the expansion of the centre that remains and the associated staff costs with a resectorisation will up the profits to Sir Kevin and his boys without hurting the Minister for QANTAS's bottom line.
The rich and famous car radio installer would love it too.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Recently Departed
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maggot17,
Never going to happen!
ARFF sell off maybe! the CEO alluded to in the sentate's estimates report that they were not necessarily wanting to provide services at certain locations as it didn't pay, but was required as part of our service provision. As to whether they may consider the ARFF as a salable package who knows?
When HR realise that they need to work at retaining staff, and that is their primary role hopefully things will change! Unfortunately that philosophy needs to come from the Board/CEO down and performance bonuses based on money saved need to be scrapped! Not losing controllers as far as the balance sheet is concerned is an intangible asset or goodwill which is whatever someone thinks it is worth! Not something to base your bonus on!
ATC Instructors need to be current and really need to be short term rotations off operational consoles. The problem is again numbers!!!
We all know that ATC is a game of currency in order to retain judgment and efficiency. Therefore to make it work you need to at least retain some degree of salary maintenance to attract these sort of people. You get what you pay for! I looked at this path some time ago but realised that I would take a $50,000 salary cut minimum! This is particularly critical since the success rate out of the college has not been great! With the tower sim they really need tower SME's to develop lessons if not generally, certainly specifically for locations with regard to retraining after incidents!
The technology needed for a school other than a self funded AsA school would be prohibitive (ie overly expensive for an established tertiary institution) and restrictive at the rate at which they would be prepared to put candidates through. The reason being is that in such a circumstances a tertiary institution will always add more to a course to make it attractive to overseas clients, those wanting to gain more than an ATC education etc. Just look at the UTOL experience!
Splitting off towers and approach units would be unsustainable here in Aus due to the salaries that the positions currently command and the complexity currently present in these jobs. Other ANSP's have gone down the path of simplifying Tower and Approach but at the consequence of loading up the enroute boys. What this does is shift risk and complexity but not eliminate it! Do you really want to take on more workload? Currently we handle more aircraft per ATC than anywhere else in the world for certain locations. On top of staff shortages this would be a real problem. The other issue with such a workload shift is that the skill set of Tower and Approach controllers is reduced. Unfortunately it's a one way trip and to gain that skill again after the older hands are gone is difficult!
My opinion regarding generic ratings is that I wouldn't write them off altogether! I think that some groupings may work (although I'm not an enroute controller!) if there is a sensible accounting for complexity and ability to exercise the same skill set why not?
The real issue would be currency and proficiency!
I remember in the old days Essendon and Melbourne towers used to have a joint roster. It was manageable for some. I'm not sure if any of those guys are around to ask if there were inherent problems they had to look out for, but it did work!
I'm not saying that generic rating are a good thing overall but there may possibly be some groupings that might work, but an overall concept encompassing the majority of sectors in my opinion is not currently conceivable. The the major headache again would be the numbers required to redesign airspace boundaries and the extra training required!
Like any theory some elements may work but may require compromises and a rethink after thoughrough evaluation after testing.
Ozi
Never going to happen!
ARFF sell off maybe! the CEO alluded to in the sentate's estimates report that they were not necessarily wanting to provide services at certain locations as it didn't pay, but was required as part of our service provision. As to whether they may consider the ARFF as a salable package who knows?
When HR realise that they need to work at retaining staff, and that is their primary role hopefully things will change! Unfortunately that philosophy needs to come from the Board/CEO down and performance bonuses based on money saved need to be scrapped! Not losing controllers as far as the balance sheet is concerned is an intangible asset or goodwill which is whatever someone thinks it is worth! Not something to base your bonus on!
ATC Instructors need to be current and really need to be short term rotations off operational consoles. The problem is again numbers!!!
We all know that ATC is a game of currency in order to retain judgment and efficiency. Therefore to make it work you need to at least retain some degree of salary maintenance to attract these sort of people. You get what you pay for! I looked at this path some time ago but realised that I would take a $50,000 salary cut minimum! This is particularly critical since the success rate out of the college has not been great! With the tower sim they really need tower SME's to develop lessons if not generally, certainly specifically for locations with regard to retraining after incidents!
The technology needed for a school other than a self funded AsA school would be prohibitive (ie overly expensive for an established tertiary institution) and restrictive at the rate at which they would be prepared to put candidates through. The reason being is that in such a circumstances a tertiary institution will always add more to a course to make it attractive to overseas clients, those wanting to gain more than an ATC education etc. Just look at the UTOL experience!
Splitting off towers and approach units would be unsustainable here in Aus due to the salaries that the positions currently command and the complexity currently present in these jobs. Other ANSP's have gone down the path of simplifying Tower and Approach but at the consequence of loading up the enroute boys. What this does is shift risk and complexity but not eliminate it! Do you really want to take on more workload? Currently we handle more aircraft per ATC than anywhere else in the world for certain locations. On top of staff shortages this would be a real problem. The other issue with such a workload shift is that the skill set of Tower and Approach controllers is reduced. Unfortunately it's a one way trip and to gain that skill again after the older hands are gone is difficult!
My opinion regarding generic ratings is that I wouldn't write them off altogether! I think that some groupings may work (although I'm not an enroute controller!) if there is a sensible accounting for complexity and ability to exercise the same skill set why not?
The real issue would be currency and proficiency!
I remember in the old days Essendon and Melbourne towers used to have a joint roster. It was manageable for some. I'm not sure if any of those guys are around to ask if there were inherent problems they had to look out for, but it did work!
I'm not saying that generic rating are a good thing overall but there may possibly be some groupings that might work, but an overall concept encompassing the majority of sectors in my opinion is not currently conceivable. The the major headache again would be the numbers required to redesign airspace boundaries and the extra training required!
Like any theory some elements may work but may require compromises and a rethink after thoughrough evaluation after testing.
Ozi
Last edited by oziatc; 4th Jan 2009 at 19:04.