Merged: ASA Staff Shortage
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max 1, love your posts.
Let me get this right, are they seriously looking at a generic TMA endorsement where you can go from Cairns App to Syd Deps during the same shift ?
What happens when the "system" fails as they do (as in last week) ?
Sounding more like Skyguide than Asa.
Let me get this right, are they seriously looking at a generic TMA endorsement where you can go from Cairns App to Syd Deps during the same shift ?
What happens when the "system" fails as they do (as in last week) ?
Sounding more like Skyguide than Asa.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASAs ATC Nirvana can work, provided we never have inclement weather or system dramas. If (when) we have these issues their Worlds Best Practice procedures go out the window.
One infamous manager in Melbourne, tall, loud and aggressive once stood over me in his office and dictated the virtues of this ATC Nirvana, the infallibility of established route structures and procedures and why controller's weren't required to think... just to do what they're told.
To which I replied "yes... until the thunderstorms hit".
His response... silence.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TT. Realistically the only way for a system of generic ratings to work is for controllers to be "cross rated" on sectors within their "rating group", including simulator and on the job training................good luck with that.
I also have a problem with the numbers. How do Towers fit into the
system? I am fairly sure, by doing some quick maths over a chart, that individual ratings have been included in these numbers (1440) at each of the 25 Towers, despite the fact you need all the ratings for single man ops. A generic Tower rating would be fun; 'ah we need someone to do Sydney ground for a week, I've approved change-of-shift, you're booked on the 7:20 tomorrow..'
I also have a problem with the numbers. How do Towers fit into the
1. J Curve Approach
2. J Curve Enroute
3. J Curve Arrivals
4. High level controlled airspace
5. Oceanic
6. Regional (non radar/ADSB)
7. Regional (in radar/ADSB coverage)
2. J Curve Enroute
3. J Curve Arrivals
4. High level controlled airspace
5. Oceanic
6. Regional (non radar/ADSB)
7. Regional (in radar/ADSB coverage)
Last edited by Hempy; 26th Jan 2009 at 13:10. Reason: can't spel
G'Day 'Hempy',...
Don't tempt me .... Wot 'They' have in mind - obviously - is..
'ABC, IFR TRAFFIC IS, XXX.....
Extreme I know, but with the prospect of more TIBA as the staff becomes LESS, then THAT is at least BETTER THAN ZILCH!...(TIBA)
Good Luck!!
Don't tempt me .... Wot 'They' have in mind - obviously - is..
'ABC, IFR TRAFFIC IS, XXX.....
Extreme I know, but with the prospect of more TIBA as the staff becomes LESS, then THAT is at least BETTER THAN ZILCH!...(TIBA)
Good Luck!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generic ratings gets me thinking about freeways in California. They work well in nice weather with moderate traffic. The multi-vehicle pileups that occur as a result of one hiccup in fog are almost legendary.
I can't remember the name for it, but there's a title that applies for the difference between the theoretical max vehicle capacity of freeways and the actual capacity. Can't help thinking the same might apply with AsA's grand scheme.
I can't remember the name for it, but there's a title that applies for the difference between the theoretical max vehicle capacity of freeways and the actual capacity. Can't help thinking the same might apply with AsA's grand scheme.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: P@$#ing distance from 2 borders
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max 1
TrafficTraffic it doesn't take too much of a leap to work out that you are not actually an ATC.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever the topic of generic endorsements is raised I think of the time and effort it currently takes to cross train an experienced controller into a new group - minimum 3-4 months, they are then cut loose, usually with the minimum safe skill set, and typically take an additional six months to come up to speed. This inconvenient fact should demonstrate that we are a very long way from implementing generic endorsements.
No administrative restructure or name shuffling of endorsements will reduce the size of the unique skill set applicable to a given piece of airspace. Those who think there will be "quick wins" from this are probably fools.
We should always be seeking to move the ball forward by implementing technologies and procedures that will increase efficiency - but changing job titles is unlikely to deliver anything but yet more waste.
No administrative restructure or name shuffling of endorsements will reduce the size of the unique skill set applicable to a given piece of airspace. Those who think there will be "quick wins" from this are probably fools.
We should always be seeking to move the ball forward by implementing technologies and procedures that will increase efficiency - but changing job titles is unlikely to deliver anything but yet more waste.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We should always be seeking to move the ball forward by implementing technologies and procedures that will increase efficiency
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chad
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to drift slightly from topic - but I thought some background on the 'generic rating' debate might be useful.
I recall being shown an [Airservices] executive paper prepared in about 1998 or 1999, in which the concept of developing a system whereby controllers could work across a range of sectors with a common rating/endorsement was discussed.
It was recognised that this could add a lot of efficiency in the system, better utilising staff.
However, the paper contained three VERY CRITICAL CAVEATS.
The paper correctly recognised that ATCs are tied to particular sectors by [at least] three factors:
- Geography [i.e., the need to know the general geography and topograhy of the sector, including airports, towns, etc]
- Navigation Infrastructure and Surveillance [i.e., the navigation aids (frequency, range, etc), airways and routes and SIDS and STARS, radar coverage, etc]; and
- Communications [i.e., the frequencies available, range, coverage, etc].
There are, of course, other factors, like the general distribution of traffic, conflict points, holding arrangements and so on.
The paper proposed that if it were possible to disassociate a sector from the three major contraints [Geography, Navigation, Communications] it may be possible to construct universal endorsements.
The proposed solution to the issue of geography was to ensure that sectors were not linked to the ground - i.e., that the sectors would have a notional base of 20,000 feet or higher.
The proposed solution to navigation/surveillance was to wait until ALL aircraft operating across Australia's upper airspace were equipped for RNAV and with ADS/ADS-B.
The harder one to resolve was communications. There were several proposals - the most radical of which was 'addressable voice' communications [viable in other applications - certainly not tested in aviation].
There was, of course, the other critical issue of HMI - but it was envisaged that TAAATS consoles could be brought back to original design uniformity.
All in all, a theoretically viable concept - but one that was meant to be used as a developmental concept to allow the designers to look at TAAATS 2 and beyond.
From my reading of the paper, it was never envisaged that universal endorsements be implemented before ALL of the caveats were resolved.
As I said - just background information - I have no idea who decided to override the caveats and 'just go for it' [actually, I think I do - a certain 'gentleman from a land not too far east of Australia' - recently departed).
I recall being shown an [Airservices] executive paper prepared in about 1998 or 1999, in which the concept of developing a system whereby controllers could work across a range of sectors with a common rating/endorsement was discussed.
It was recognised that this could add a lot of efficiency in the system, better utilising staff.
However, the paper contained three VERY CRITICAL CAVEATS.
The paper correctly recognised that ATCs are tied to particular sectors by [at least] three factors:
- Geography [i.e., the need to know the general geography and topograhy of the sector, including airports, towns, etc]
- Navigation Infrastructure and Surveillance [i.e., the navigation aids (frequency, range, etc), airways and routes and SIDS and STARS, radar coverage, etc]; and
- Communications [i.e., the frequencies available, range, coverage, etc].
There are, of course, other factors, like the general distribution of traffic, conflict points, holding arrangements and so on.
The paper proposed that if it were possible to disassociate a sector from the three major contraints [Geography, Navigation, Communications] it may be possible to construct universal endorsements.
The proposed solution to the issue of geography was to ensure that sectors were not linked to the ground - i.e., that the sectors would have a notional base of 20,000 feet or higher.
The proposed solution to navigation/surveillance was to wait until ALL aircraft operating across Australia's upper airspace were equipped for RNAV and with ADS/ADS-B.
The harder one to resolve was communications. There were several proposals - the most radical of which was 'addressable voice' communications [viable in other applications - certainly not tested in aviation].
There was, of course, the other critical issue of HMI - but it was envisaged that TAAATS consoles could be brought back to original design uniformity.
All in all, a theoretically viable concept - but one that was meant to be used as a developmental concept to allow the designers to look at TAAATS 2 and beyond.
From my reading of the paper, it was never envisaged that universal endorsements be implemented before ALL of the caveats were resolved.
As I said - just background information - I have no idea who decided to override the caveats and 'just go for it' [actually, I think I do - a certain 'gentleman from a land not too far east of Australia' - recently departed).
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-Change they are not looking at having a generic TCU or Towers endorsement. They realise that due to the specialised local knowledge that would be required that this would not work.Hallejulah a small speck of sanity.
Euronator (how's the Hammers going?) I was talking to TT today and he didn't seem upset, either he hasn't read the Endorsement Stream paper thoroughly or has not looked closely enough into the detail. ( BTW he is no longer an ATC).
I also have spoken at length to a former colleague of yours who has returned to our shores and has had exposure to Europes' attempts at SDE style airspace, and their work on generic endorsements.
The 'returned one' explained that what was found in Europes' attempts at Generic endorsements was that the controllers became less efficient as they lost their 'unconscious competence' due to the large amount of knowledge they were required to retain, and the lack of time they would spend on each area. Rather than know immediately that the aircraft would be given this frequency, STAR,etc, or this direct direct tracking would be clear of this restricted area, or would not require further co-ordination, the controllers would have to stop and second guess themselves about every action.
ASA believe that technology and standardisation will clear ALL these hurdles. Their thinking is that Arrivals controllers have basically the same skill sets. Which in itself is true. As is the premise that pilots have basically the same skill sets. If ASA were running the airlines, they would be thinking that every pilot should be able to quite easily move between each aircraft type, and that Checking would be sufficient by a pilot writing a critique of the person they have just flown with and doing away with formalised checking.
Part of the Standardisation mantra is that we may need to 're-align' Airways Routes. I'm reasonably certain that this won't involve aircraft flying less distance, so aircraft will be flying greater distances to allow ASA to implement their generic ratings. I wonder if ASA realise that we exist to service the industry and not the other way around.
As I said to TT we have partitioned ourselves off into our SDE areas, the Level 3s are loathe to allow people out of their area due to lack of staff, and we are running inefficiently and causing delays to the airlines because we embarked down the SDE path without ensuring we had the technology and had done the work on Standardisation to ensure if it even could work. We further drastically reduced our ability to keep airspace open with the loss of controllers due to the ALM debacle.
Using an analogy, ASA (A Private Hospital) have opened the patient up, pulled some body parts out, but are waiting for the X-Rays, medical results, and surgical tools to appear. We don't even have enough people in the theatre to enable the operation. They are confident that at some time in the future that the operation will be a success, as the admin and PR departments are writing a series of reports highlighting the 'vision' of innovative and Worlds Best Practice that this style of end-to-end,client-centric operation will bring to the Medical World. The operation will be a resounding success, all milestones will be met, the Administrators have been rewarded with large bonuses, unfortunately the patient is dying.
The 'AMA' (CASA) don't wish to step in and sort the mess out, and the Private Hospital owners (Government) are happy with the profits and don't wish for any undue publicity.
Wellconcerned- thanks for that posting. Pity they didn't dust it off and have another look at it 3 years ago.
P.S.
On the GM ATCs discussion board he states that the average sick leave per controller over the last 17 years (bearing in mind that we have had sick leave as required for around 15 years) is 9 days per controller. Not bad for a 24/7/365 day operation with stringent fitness for duty provisions. Remember this is an average, what you will find is most have a lot less than this. I don't expect Tony Wright or the rest of our increasingly malleable Fourth Estate will bother quoting these figures anytime soon.
Euronator (how's the Hammers going?) I was talking to TT today and he didn't seem upset, either he hasn't read the Endorsement Stream paper thoroughly or has not looked closely enough into the detail. ( BTW he is no longer an ATC).
I also have spoken at length to a former colleague of yours who has returned to our shores and has had exposure to Europes' attempts at SDE style airspace, and their work on generic endorsements.
The 'returned one' explained that what was found in Europes' attempts at Generic endorsements was that the controllers became less efficient as they lost their 'unconscious competence' due to the large amount of knowledge they were required to retain, and the lack of time they would spend on each area. Rather than know immediately that the aircraft would be given this frequency, STAR,etc, or this direct direct tracking would be clear of this restricted area, or would not require further co-ordination, the controllers would have to stop and second guess themselves about every action.
ASA believe that technology and standardisation will clear ALL these hurdles. Their thinking is that Arrivals controllers have basically the same skill sets. Which in itself is true. As is the premise that pilots have basically the same skill sets. If ASA were running the airlines, they would be thinking that every pilot should be able to quite easily move between each aircraft type, and that Checking would be sufficient by a pilot writing a critique of the person they have just flown with and doing away with formalised checking.
Part of the Standardisation mantra is that we may need to 're-align' Airways Routes. I'm reasonably certain that this won't involve aircraft flying less distance, so aircraft will be flying greater distances to allow ASA to implement their generic ratings. I wonder if ASA realise that we exist to service the industry and not the other way around.
As I said to TT we have partitioned ourselves off into our SDE areas, the Level 3s are loathe to allow people out of their area due to lack of staff, and we are running inefficiently and causing delays to the airlines because we embarked down the SDE path without ensuring we had the technology and had done the work on Standardisation to ensure if it even could work. We further drastically reduced our ability to keep airspace open with the loss of controllers due to the ALM debacle.
Using an analogy, ASA (A Private Hospital) have opened the patient up, pulled some body parts out, but are waiting for the X-Rays, medical results, and surgical tools to appear. We don't even have enough people in the theatre to enable the operation. They are confident that at some time in the future that the operation will be a success, as the admin and PR departments are writing a series of reports highlighting the 'vision' of innovative and Worlds Best Practice that this style of end-to-end,client-centric operation will bring to the Medical World. The operation will be a resounding success, all milestones will be met, the Administrators have been rewarded with large bonuses, unfortunately the patient is dying.
The 'AMA' (CASA) don't wish to step in and sort the mess out, and the Private Hospital owners (Government) are happy with the profits and don't wish for any undue publicity.
Wellconcerned- thanks for that posting. Pity they didn't dust it off and have another look at it 3 years ago.
P.S.
On the GM ATCs discussion board he states that the average sick leave per controller over the last 17 years (bearing in mind that we have had sick leave as required for around 15 years) is 9 days per controller. Not bad for a 24/7/365 day operation with stringent fitness for duty provisions. Remember this is an average, what you will find is most have a lot less than this. I don't expect Tony Wright or the rest of our increasingly malleable Fourth Estate will bother quoting these figures anytime soon.
Last edited by max1; 27th Jan 2009 at 05:48.
Pardoned PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: GlassGumtree
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
( BTW he is no longer an ATC).
I think the point was made that generic ratings can work - or could work given the right conditions and enablers. The argument that people will become 'deskilled' is of course a concern but apparently just because you take a control column out of an aircraft and make it fly 67% by computer - a pilot can still land it safely on water.
How often do you see people drawing Lat-Seps up? Rarely but that doesn't mean that they have lost the ability to separate using lateral separation just adapted to use the tools that have been provided.
And no I haven't read the paper on generic endorsements in Australia and apologise as my comments were my generic personal opinion.
Some say he has a nipple shaped like a short route probe and that his sweat can be used as a fuel replacement like algae....all we know he is called...
TT
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TT,
You may indeed elaborate on how due to the 'incredible' efficiencies that SDE is delivering, 5 multi endorsed controllers with roles such as Group Training Specialist (GTS/Sim Instructor), Workplace Assessor (WPA aka Checkie) On The Job Training Instructor (OJTI) were put on a sector with one endorsement, a sector that on the whole is only busy for relatively short bursts between 5am and 7pm. I am as frustrated as everyone at the waste of resources that has occurred on a project that was seemingly implemented on the back of a particularly slick Powerpoint presentation to an ill-informed and ATC-ignorant CEO and Board.
3 of us had all the ratings (5) on the previous pre-SDE area. The other 2 were Approach controllers, who were told that getting the rating for a short period (@ 6 months) would hasten their appointment to the tower and would not involve them doing doggos. This was 2 years ago, and the roster involves a double doggo every 12 days. One of the 3 has now resigned to work overseas.The 2 Approach guys are no closer to the tower. In the pre-SDE area it would be combined from about 7.30pm to 5am. Now it is staffed, this equals to almost 70 hours per week, or almost the equivalent of 2 controllers. This 'SDE efficient' sector also relies on borrowing controllers from the adjoining group. Now it is being worked out that this is the wrong 'fit' so it is being pasted on to yet another group and more expensive training will be required.
I get no pleasure from sitting with one endorsement on a quiet sector and have tried up to GM ATC level to get this stupid, inefficient decision reversed and have provided reasons and examples as to why.
The answer from above is that they can see the efficiencies I am illustrating but this does not fit the SDE model.
You would think that with so many instances of inefficiencies due to the SDE model that they would start to have a good long hard look at the SDE model. Unfortunately TFN has tied his future to PCs SDE epiphany, he has promised the Board that this will happen, and it wouldn't be a good look for him if after all the disruptions and TIBA that this has caused that he now turns around and admits that they didn't do the proof of concept work, they suffed up the staffing numbers required, and never had the proven technology to facillitate it. Very embarrassing and not a good employment move.
You may further point out the amount of simulator and OJT cross training that has gone on between sectors, only for those controllers to quickly have these ratings lapse as they don't have the physical ability to keep them current, or have never exercised them. There has been a huge waste of resources, think about the numbers of simulator staff required to deliver the courses, the use of an operational controller to deliver the sim component,etc. The misuse of the GTS at time when simulator packages are years out of date,etc,etc.
From your earlier post about the plausibilty of Generic Ratings it was obvious to me that you indeed had not read the Endorsement Stream paper and this led to my comments about you not being a controller. I apologise and acknowledge that you do have an admirable ATC pedigree. However as you continue in your new 'role' be mindful that the longer the time you spend away from the console the easier the job was.
Take the time to read the Endorsement paper and take particular care to note the groupings of ratings they are proposing. This particular paper was written over 6 months ago. Also I would suggest you read all the papers pertaining to SDE, and challenge you not to shake your head at some of the more fanciful ideas and corporate speak.
Also I will think you will find that the Airbus amphibian glider was piloted by a very experienced pilot. What may have been the outcome with a less experienced pilot? I am sure they have mandated simulator emergency/refresher training. ASA don't.
You may indeed elaborate on how due to the 'incredible' efficiencies that SDE is delivering, 5 multi endorsed controllers with roles such as Group Training Specialist (GTS/Sim Instructor), Workplace Assessor (WPA aka Checkie) On The Job Training Instructor (OJTI) were put on a sector with one endorsement, a sector that on the whole is only busy for relatively short bursts between 5am and 7pm. I am as frustrated as everyone at the waste of resources that has occurred on a project that was seemingly implemented on the back of a particularly slick Powerpoint presentation to an ill-informed and ATC-ignorant CEO and Board.
3 of us had all the ratings (5) on the previous pre-SDE area. The other 2 were Approach controllers, who were told that getting the rating for a short period (@ 6 months) would hasten their appointment to the tower and would not involve them doing doggos. This was 2 years ago, and the roster involves a double doggo every 12 days. One of the 3 has now resigned to work overseas.The 2 Approach guys are no closer to the tower. In the pre-SDE area it would be combined from about 7.30pm to 5am. Now it is staffed, this equals to almost 70 hours per week, or almost the equivalent of 2 controllers. This 'SDE efficient' sector also relies on borrowing controllers from the adjoining group. Now it is being worked out that this is the wrong 'fit' so it is being pasted on to yet another group and more expensive training will be required.
I get no pleasure from sitting with one endorsement on a quiet sector and have tried up to GM ATC level to get this stupid, inefficient decision reversed and have provided reasons and examples as to why.
The answer from above is that they can see the efficiencies I am illustrating but this does not fit the SDE model.
You would think that with so many instances of inefficiencies due to the SDE model that they would start to have a good long hard look at the SDE model. Unfortunately TFN has tied his future to PCs SDE epiphany, he has promised the Board that this will happen, and it wouldn't be a good look for him if after all the disruptions and TIBA that this has caused that he now turns around and admits that they didn't do the proof of concept work, they suffed up the staffing numbers required, and never had the proven technology to facillitate it. Very embarrassing and not a good employment move.
You may further point out the amount of simulator and OJT cross training that has gone on between sectors, only for those controllers to quickly have these ratings lapse as they don't have the physical ability to keep them current, or have never exercised them. There has been a huge waste of resources, think about the numbers of simulator staff required to deliver the courses, the use of an operational controller to deliver the sim component,etc. The misuse of the GTS at time when simulator packages are years out of date,etc,etc.
From your earlier post about the plausibilty of Generic Ratings it was obvious to me that you indeed had not read the Endorsement Stream paper and this led to my comments about you not being a controller. I apologise and acknowledge that you do have an admirable ATC pedigree. However as you continue in your new 'role' be mindful that the longer the time you spend away from the console the easier the job was.
Take the time to read the Endorsement paper and take particular care to note the groupings of ratings they are proposing. This particular paper was written over 6 months ago. Also I would suggest you read all the papers pertaining to SDE, and challenge you not to shake your head at some of the more fanciful ideas and corporate speak.
Also I will think you will find that the Airbus amphibian glider was piloted by a very experienced pilot. What may have been the outcome with a less experienced pilot? I am sure they have mandated simulator emergency/refresher training. ASA don't.
Last edited by max1; 27th Jan 2009 at 09:30.
Pardoned PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: GlassGumtree
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Message received and understood - my new role is to support you - at the moment however the current climate makes it difficult...
I always enjoy our chats...well not always
TT
I always enjoy our chats...well not always
TT
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you will find that the Airbus was piloted by a very experienced pilot. What may have been the outcome with a less experienced pilot? I am sure they have mandated simulator emergency/refresher training. ASA don't.
there is none, zilch, not anything in the way of comprehensive catastrophe training at ASSY that encompasses all staff on regular basis (1 per annum)
if an AEP test gets the go ahead, more often than not, any AsA involvement is a late adjunct to the pre-planned exercise that requires minimal AsA input and minimal AsA response.
the upshot is that AsA are not truly tested.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TT,
Maybe an ALM? Your new role is to support him...but the current CLIMATE makes it difficult!
Is it your role, or not as a manager? Make your mind up.
Probably still a member too.
You obviously like sitting on the fence, taking pot shots, with your contract salary increase.
And your answer to genuine questions is to respond by illustrating spelling mistakes.
Yes...you are obviously an ALM.
p.s Don't answer a problem with a solution...just an insult=promotion!
Maybe an ALM? Your new role is to support him...but the current CLIMATE makes it difficult!
Is it your role, or not as a manager? Make your mind up.
Probably still a member too.
You obviously like sitting on the fence, taking pot shots, with your contract salary increase.
And your answer to genuine questions is to respond by illustrating spelling mistakes.
Yes...you are obviously an ALM.
p.s Don't answer a problem with a solution...just an insult=promotion!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From your earlier post about the plausibilty of Generic Ratings it was obvious to me that you indeed had not read the Endorsement Stream paper and this led to my comments about you not being a controller. I apologise and acknowledge that you do have an admirable ATC pedigree. However as you continue in your new 'role' be mindful that the longer the time you spend away from the console the easier the job was.
I read his original post and your response several times and I cannot find fault with his post at all. In fact, I agree and support it. The concept of generic endorsements is plausible...with certain caveats that, by chance, happen to have been stated by a number of contributors to this discussion.
If you read Traffic's original post again... carefully... it may become apparent that...
1. He supports the concept of generic endorsements.
2. His support for the concept of generic endorsements is qualified.
He didn't need to read the document for the contribution that he made. As to the suggestion that he is not a Controller or perhaps, in your personal opinion, not fit to be a Controller and therefore not fit to contribute... not appropriate. Traffic and anyone else for that matter will stand or fall on the merits of the logic and substance of his/her contributions... not their date of Recency, Endorsement or Rating.
The culture of censorship in Australian Air Traffic Control was somewhat disturbing and all too commonplace. It appears to be alive and well.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: where the sun shines
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TT says:
TT, you have summed up the whole ALM debacle in one sentence.
Hard to support someone when you don't have a backbone?
The reality is that all; no, most of the ALMs are doing their job for the "glory" and the money. Both of which can't be achieved if you tell the truth and stand up to what is so blatantly wrong.
If you can't do you job which by your own admission is to "support you" then do the right thing and resign.
P.S I don't care if my spelling is wrong!
my new role is to support you - at the moment however the current climate makes it difficult...
Hard to support someone when you don't have a backbone?
The reality is that all; no, most of the ALMs are doing their job for the "glory" and the money. Both of which can't be achieved if you tell the truth and stand up to what is so blatantly wrong.
If you can't do you job which by your own admission is to "support you" then do the right thing and resign.
P.S I don't care if my spelling is wrong!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generic ratings
We use them here in Ireland.
All the high level guys/gals are rated on every upper sector configuration (About 85 I think) and all the low level guys/gals are rated on the low level stuff, some are multi-rated.
The major difference to Oz is that the airspace here is minute compared to Australian sectors.
It works well here, BUT...we don't have the size, different terrain, weather patterns, traffic patterns and differing time zones that you have in OZ.
BTW...TT have you turned in your light sabre?
Come on guys, leave the management flunkies alone...about 25 odd years ago I mentioned to a manager once that his mission in life was to support me and make my job easier...his reply was that his job was not to make my job easier,but to make sure I did my job properly!! Seems not much has changed!
All the high level guys/gals are rated on every upper sector configuration (About 85 I think) and all the low level guys/gals are rated on the low level stuff, some are multi-rated.
The major difference to Oz is that the airspace here is minute compared to Australian sectors.
It works well here, BUT...we don't have the size, different terrain, weather patterns, traffic patterns and differing time zones that you have in OZ.
BTW...TT have you turned in your light sabre?
Come on guys, leave the management flunkies alone...about 25 odd years ago I mentioned to a manager once that his mission in life was to support me and make my job easier...his reply was that his job was not to make my job easier,but to make sure I did my job properly!! Seems not much has changed!
Divingduck ... you hit the nail on the head ... not just for generic endorsements, but for everything aviation.
It is often quoted that such and such works in Timbucktoo ... why can't it work here?
For instance, Ireland is about 70,000 sq kms ... the same size as Tasmania.
Having genneric endorsements for high level Tasmania seems quite plausible.
But when you compare a whole country with a whole country (without allowing for geography, size, demographics, facilities, weather etc) ... that's when it gets tricky.... a la NAS.
It is often quoted that such and such works in Timbucktoo ... why can't it work here?
For instance, Ireland is about 70,000 sq kms ... the same size as Tasmania.
Having genneric endorsements for high level Tasmania seems quite plausible.
But when you compare a whole country with a whole country (without allowing for geography, size, demographics, facilities, weather etc) ... that's when it gets tricky.... a la NAS.