Merged: ASA Staff Shortage

[Blockla]

Airservices Australia can solve its ATC staff problem by splitting ASA into two organisations again and closing one ATC centre.

For what purpose, to save money? The numbers don't stack up given the current rules regarding relocation expenses and the redundancies it would trigger... In a time of staffing crisis, generating redundancies isn't a good option.

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.

Currently the 'old fArts' are needed to plug in and wear headsets to talk to pilots.

Why does ASA need:
AIS - sell to Jeppesen or LIDO

To what end, to make it cheaper; who's maintaining the data organising the changes/charge for change as well as product, will that be cheaper.

Firefighters - sell to state fire department or airport

Currently on the back burner, decisions made to keep it in house.

a college - put it in a real school and contract the instructors

most of the instructors are contractors now, I think that is probably the route cause of what's going wrong in training now, save money is the first priority, not produce the product we need.

a huge HR department - contract a real HR organisation

sure could be more efficient, but is that the answer, short term savings - long term costs? Not sure given the padding apparent?

a huge PR department - come in spinner

Say no more...

a useless global marketing department - the global market is dead

Biggest joke around, always has been, never paid it's own way...

navigation aids - sell to airports or implement GNSS

GNSS isn't the short term answer, selling the aids would be as successful as selling them the airports...

navigation aid technicians - IVR or be employed by airports.

Who saves, this is shifting buckets... IVR = more $$$ not less.

You could even sell the Towers and Approach to the airports and just leave OZZIEATC as an enroute organisation.

All likelihood is any buyer would be in it for quids = extra $$$ for the industry in the longer term I'm sure.

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.

I'd love to see the business case; given the last few (TMA consolidations and the sector consolidations before that) I'm not convinced there would be a cracker for industry by what you suggest and potentially opening the door for huge changes in costs at some locations.

[Baileys]

"Currently we handle more aircraft per ATC than anywhere else in the world for certain locations."

Really?

[sunnySA]

"Currently we handle more aircraft per ATC than anywhere else in the world for certain locations."

Really?

Yes, REALLY.

ANSPs benchmark against one another and Australia leads the way on most if not all of the criteria.

[Baileys]

OK - let's see.

Where can I find these benchmarks, criteria and latest results (preferably independant, not ASA published)?

[oziatc]

Getting lastest data would present a problem! AsA are not exactly forthcoming on this data and it is not publicly available as far as I'm aware. Latest airport stats is published quarterly I think. The trouble is that it doesn't cover the J-curve enroute sectors or WA areas. Maybe someone from enroute can help? In the mean time I'll go looking!

[oziatc]

Yes it is a bit old but came from another aviation forum discussing the worlds busiest routes. The problem is few define it in overall flights but domestic and international separately.
But here you go!



Try this link
World's busiest passenger air routes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MEL-SYD SYD-BRIS legs rank 4 and 11 respectively

I'll try to find more!

[Dick Smith]

Max, what was so fatally flawed about NAS? Was it that Airlines in NAS remain in controlled airspace and the maximum use of radar is ensured?

Saying the FAA NAS system is fatally flawed has about as much sense as saying the 747 design is flawed.

Or do you mean the way it was introduced here was fatally flawed?

[Baileys]

Firstly, I thought we were talking about regions, not individual airways.

And I'm just guessing but I doubt that Middle East countries (and some others) regularly release any figures and how busy their airspace is - national security etc.

London, some USA, Dubai as regions would have to be up there.

[Plazbot]

I'm not Max but his passion fingers will be here soon enough. Dick, the NAS is an excellent tool to move heaps of aircraft. The problem in Australia is that we have the same Airspace volume as the US but 5% of the staff. Most of the model requires more staff. This does not make the model wrong but highlights that Australia is different for financial and population reasons. You are a fan of risk V reward V dollars so this should be obvious to you don't you agree?

[Plazbot]

For Baileys.

As was attemted to be pointed out to you, there is a Euro Control (ie paid for and conducted by them) summary that exists that has gone from the web that shows OZ ATC moves the most aircraft per controller out of all of Europe and the US as well as being close to the worst with admin staff costs.

[undervaluedATC]

Dick Smith what was so fatally flawed about NAS? ... the maximum use of radar is ensured.....

The biggest problem is that in the US where it was developed, they have something like 80 to 90% radar coverage and can actually see all those VFR flights that are not required to submit details.

Here in Australia we have about 15% of the geography covered by radar - and even that relies on transponders, so won't pick up the little guys without one.

[TrafficTraffic]

I think you will find (En-Route wise) Maastricht beats just about anybody for controller-acft ratio in Europe and Cleveland in the USA...cant think of anywhere in Aus that would come close. Let the stats prove me wrong

TT

[Slugfest]

Keeping Score.................

158th Day of August for those keeping count on solving the ASA staffing screwup (Aug 08).


2nd "end of January" approaching for those awaiting the Flightwatch VHF review completion (Jan 08)


3 Months past the end of TFN's consolidated period of CA discussions (Aug and Sept 08).


3 Months past the time that TFN said we would be getting our CA pay rises (Oct 08).


Is there ANYTHING that ASA can deliver beside bullsh1t???

Slug

[west atc]

I think you will find (En-Route wise) Maastricht beats just about anybody for controller-acft ratio in Europe and Cleveland in the USA...cant think of anywhere in Aus that would come close. Let the stats prove me wrong

TT

Wow, Traffic Traffic putting down aussie controllers, who would have thought that would happen!

Why has this thread degenerated into a mine is bigger than yours debate? The amount of traffic controlled by a controller is no reflection on workload and I think you will find that if you are talking about the number of aircraft on frequency at any one time then the big Procedural sectors over Central Australia would have a lot on frequency at any one time but this doesn't mean that they are necessarily busy.

When you are talking about ATC workload there are so many variables that determine how busy you are, pretty much every controller in the world will be busy at peak times.

Trying to compare how many aircraft fly each route is beginning to think like a manager (as a suspect TT is), because reducing ATC to pure numbers doesn't give an accurate picture of complexity, sector size, numbers of inbounds vs numbers of outbounds, conflictions..... I could keep going and going.

I have now worked different areas in Australia and Ireland and each sector I have worked has its own complexites and difficulties and trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

[Adamastor]

I recall the Eurocontrol doc as well. It did put Australia's ATCs on the cutting edge. Can't seem to dig it up now.

Some fishy accounting but here are a few figures from another supposedly reputable source:

Past Analysis 3a

The problem is no regional breakdowns. As TT points out there are parts of the US that go off, but a beancounter would say that looking at the above website the FAA controllers are less than a third as efficient as the Aussies. No use p!ssing into the wind methinks.

[5miles]

Maggott17 - you are kidding right...

You could even sell the Towers and Approach to the airports and just leave OZZIEATC as an enroute organisation.

Clearly you haven't worked TWR or APP. Do you really think they only provide services to the primary facility?

What about the surrounding airspace? Transit flights, airworkers, IAL into other proximity airports, sporting aviation, etc.
Do you think an airport owner would be happy paying expenses for services that don't benefit their investment.

[TrafficTraffic]

LOL West ATC - You got me!

I am a victim of facts.

There was no mention of complexity anywhere in the discussion.

There was no mention of putting Australian controllers down.

I simply made a qualified observation about the quantity of traffic handled per controller. You yourself have just said quantity and complexity are two different things.

Past Analysis 3a

Gives the numbers but not the underlying complexity.

You might just want to read carefully before you post.

I wish you the best of luck in Ireland.

TT

[oziatc]

That would mean towers and approach could finally say NO to those pesky survey flights! They stick around for hours, increase the workload 3 fold and usually plan VFR which means no income! That's also not accounting for increased risk levels. Maybe we ought to think about this!

Not likely!

[oziatc]

Adamaster good link!

Dick,
The real problem with NAS was the unreliable and incomplete coverage available due to terrain and lack of radar site density across Australia.

With your contacts I'm sure you could arrange a visit of our facilities and have the controllers discuss with you at length the coverage issues on any sector you wish to sit in on.

If we had complete coverage and EVERYONE always had their transponders on maybe it would have worked, hence the ADSB solution. The problem here is that we would need to compulsorily hard wire every Aircraft with ADSB and a probably a GPS. Then come the calls of big brother and it costs too much and then why don't you pay for it (ie AsA and thereby goverment/industry). Good idea but hard to appropriately impliment!
The other issue was fast moving RPT jets got very close to slow GA aircraft not on frequency.
In terms of risk management I think that where we currently are is just fine! Beside we wouldn't have enough extra controllers to cover the training requirements with any introduction of new NAS variants right now anyway!

[lestump]

"The "Can Do attitude"

Not sure who I have quoted from here but I can't let it pass without making an observation. That "Can Do" you refer to is "Must Do because I was ordered to". Blue suiters are trained to say "Yes Sir" every time. That's why they make perfect ALM candidates for this mob of c@#*s that we now find ourselves working for.

Until they realise they are now civilians with all the rights of civilians (ie use your own fkn brains for a change) they will always be different to the rest of us. We civilians also have a "can do" attitude, when there is a clear and present need for some form of change. But we don't have an automatic "yes sir" response. Frequently, it is a "you've got to be kidding" response because the proposals are so stupid.



Rant mode off.