Why ATC is stuffed
Thread Starter
Why ATC is stuffed
As seen in "The Controller, Journal of Air Traffic Control" (June 2009)
Greg Russell, CEO of Air Services Australia, said "In ATM we deal in politics, not ATC". He said of Australia "We are 2 years in the middle of a 5 year reform. This will mean we will move from 32 sectors and 144 separate endorsements today to 3 sectors and 7 endorsements. We are lobbying strongly to have this reform passed, and we will settle the union's issue by offering a trade - we will increase the salaries in exchange for the acceptance of this reform. It is going to be difficult, painful and could turn ugly, but airlines support this reform, so we will do it."
Surely he couldn't have come up with this all on his own? Who are the idiots telling him this is the solution to all our woes? The above clearly demonstrates total disconnection from reality.
We're only in the first month (yes, it's still August) of a 25 year reform. We didn't get the pay rise either so the rest must be a fantasy as well.
Greg Russell, CEO of Air Services Australia, said "In ATM we deal in politics, not ATC". He said of Australia "We are 2 years in the middle of a 5 year reform. This will mean we will move from 32 sectors and 144 separate endorsements today to 3 sectors and 7 endorsements. We are lobbying strongly to have this reform passed, and we will settle the union's issue by offering a trade - we will increase the salaries in exchange for the acceptance of this reform. It is going to be difficult, painful and could turn ugly, but airlines support this reform, so we will do it."
Surely he couldn't have come up with this all on his own? Who are the idiots telling him this is the solution to all our woes? The above clearly demonstrates total disconnection from reality.
We're only in the first month (yes, it's still August) of a 25 year reform. We didn't get the pay rise either so the rest must be a fantasy as well.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: south of the border
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will mean we will move from 32 sectors and 144 separate endorsements today to 3 sectors and 7 endorsements.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Now that's funny !!!!!!!!!!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Now that's funny !!!!!!!!!!
I'm very confused.
This will mean we will move from 32 sectors and 144 separate endorsements today to 3 sectors ...
How the bleep is it possible for one person to control 1/3 of the Oceanic airspace ? and a scheme where there are multiple controllers in a sector could get real interesting.
WTF are the details behind that statement by Mr Russell. ?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What they mean is that when you turn up to work, as a "Radar enroute controller", you can work any radar enroute sector in Australia. You don't need a detailed knowledge of the airspace, routes, or anything else like that, just say "climb to FL310".
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While having flexible boundary airspace in the upper levels over the gafa makes complete sense, it is very foolish to think that the same process can be used up and down the j curve. It is all great until someone wants to climb or descend.
Damn those pesky airports.
Damn those pesky airports.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You think it's stuffed now? Wait until all the GAAP aerodromes have to provide a Class D service by August 2010. From reading todays direction, it will also include more staff for:
- Covering all daylight hours
- Dedicated SMC position
- Camden maybe open 7 days a week (from my brief reading)
So I am assuming that AsA is planning to increase its staff numbers to cover these new ideas?
Yeah right.
What would a SMC do at a GAAAP? really don't see the need - as a luxury yes but a need?
Yeah right.
What would a SMC do at a GAAAP? really don't see the need - as a luxury yes but a need?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will mean we will move from 32 sectors and 144 separate endorsements today to 3 sectors and 7 endorsements.
The three new sectors of which Greg Speaks will be the SDEs RS, ECS, UAS. The ratings will be 7 possible ratings TWR-R/TMA-R/TWR-P/Area R/Area P/ GAAP (perhaps not thanks if the other thread is correct) / and ???...
These of course will be completely transferable and you can work anywhere in the room (perhaps one bigger room
) under the SDE model. Of course this means the remote TCUs and TWRs in general will be the only experts... But you will be easily seconded to the other TCUs/TWRs for the purposes of relief (leave/ long term sick leave / staff shortages coverage) etc as you'll have the same endorsements...
Of course the checking regime must change immensely, otherwise nobody will maintain their generic endorsement which gets attached to their 'sector group'.
Jack of All trades ATC is the future, master of nothing... Or is this just a song and dance on paper and another plan that never sees the true light of day?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 40
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Block
The 7 new endorsements are in fact meant to be:
UAS CTA
UAS OCA
RS Surveillance
RS Non Surveillance
ECS Enroute
ECS Arrivals
ECS Approach
I guess the towers will be separate.
The 7 new endorsements are in fact meant to be:
UAS CTA
UAS OCA
RS Surveillance
RS Non Surveillance
ECS Enroute
ECS Arrivals
ECS Approach
I guess the towers will be separate.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Always changing
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how about some opinions from those ATC's that know something about this.
Is it actually possible to pull this off and therefore make ASA a world leader/innovator in ATC?
Or is it just a dream that will all come crashing down at the next change of CEO/Upper Management (like usual!).
Is it actually possible to pull this off and therefore make ASA a world leader/innovator in ATC?
Or is it just a dream that will all come crashing down at the next change of CEO/Upper Management (like usual!).
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it actually possible to pull this off and therefore make ASA a world leader/innovator in ATC?
Or is it just a dream that will all come crashing down at the next change of CEO/Upper Management (like usual!)
it aint a good fit with ICAO anx 11
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Always changing
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is ICAO Annex 11 a legally binded requirement for an ANSP or just a set of 'guidelines'?
Is it possible to be so innovative that ICAO documents are amended to set a new standard for ANSP's? Or is this just living in a dreamworld?
It will be fascinating to watch this whole thing either get up or collapse and see what the resultant fallout will be.
Is it possible to be so innovative that ICAO documents are amended to set a new standard for ANSP's? Or is this just living in a dreamworld?
It will be fascinating to watch this whole thing either get up or collapse and see what the resultant fallout will be.
Last edited by Baileys; 16th Jul 2009 at 05:57. Reason: english
Thread Starter
Or is it just a dream that will all come crashing down at the next change of CEO/Upper Management (like usual!).
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Ollie for the update...
Shannon (Ireland) is the SDE wet dream a single 'high' endorsement divided into 47 "sectors" (some only 20NM across, perhaps less), combined in almost unlimited combinations to make a functional sector... In reality about 25 ways; but they do not have a single TMA/TWR or low level rating; seems somethings are not practicable...
Many tools make this work in practice, not least the multiple VHF frequencies at a single site; selectable by any console and then there is the traffic management computers which truly make the black arts (picking the sector combinations) possible.
Shannon (Ireland) is the SDE wet dream a single 'high' endorsement divided into 47 "sectors" (some only 20NM across, perhaps less), combined in almost unlimited combinations to make a functional sector... In reality about 25 ways; but they do not have a single TMA/TWR or low level rating; seems somethings are not practicable...
Many tools make this work in practice, not least the multiple VHF frequencies at a single site; selectable by any console and then there is the traffic management computers which truly make the black arts (picking the sector combinations) possible.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These 4
UAS CTA
UAS OCA
RS Surveillance
RS Non Surveillance
Yes
UAS CTA
UAS OCA
RS Surveillance
RS Non Surveillance
Yes
Oh, and RS Serveillance includes PH Arrivals and Approach.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess you have to wonder why we do what we do! Anybody that has been around a few years knows that the senior controllers of old didn't decide sectorisation on the basis of jobs for the boys! It has always been an exercise based on customer (to use a modern term) requirements and controller workload. It was always in the interests of the controllers and system to have as efficient a sectorisation as possible.
I doubt the sectorisation is very different under TAAATS as it was before radar because the problems in any particular area remain the same. The airports are still where they have always been; sure the aircraft performance and density has changed, as has the ATC system, but in both cases the change has been in doing the same thing in a different way. TAAATS did not change the way we did ATC it merely automated it. (The Automated, not Advanced, Australian Air Traffic System)
The ratings we currently have are skill sets. These are based on the knowledge needed for each role. So just as a pilot (who can fly) or a crane driver (who can drive a crane) needs to change the skill set when he changes airplanes or cranes, so the controller needs to change skill sets. In all cases, pilot, crane driver, controller and any other you can think of, people are allowed to hold multiple skill sets, but in safety orientated (regulated or otherwise) organisation the number of skill sets is normally limited. Any safety analysis will also create a requirement for recency as we humans lose our abilities fairly quickly when we do not practise often enough.
The question then becomes how many skill sets can safely be exercised at any one time. A great aviation example at the moment is the Airbus fleet of aircraft. Here the manufacturer has planned from the start to use the automation inherent in each aircraft model to make their flying characteristics so similar that pilots can hold multiple skill sets or endorsements. Boeing has not been able to achieve a similar goal because they have not designed their aircraft with this in mind, neither I would contend has Airservices done the same for Australian sectors.
The next question is, can ASA change what we do to the extent necessary to allow one skill set to cover multiple sectors? Having skill sets reduced on paper to seven will not save anything if people still have to qualify through recency on individual sectors. Mind you it might look good in the annual report/KPA summary but I am not cynical enough to believe it is that kind of exercise. So how do we get to a point where recency in a sector over WA is sufficient to be rostered for a sector between ML and SY? I'm not going to answer that question because I do not have the expertise. I would say though that I am not aware of anyone in ASA who does have.
Towers and TCUs are a slightly different problem but as far as I am aware all controllers in these units, except the managers, are required to hold all the local ratings. Are we really talking about multiple Tower or TCU ratings? I don't really think so, and certainly not while a robust and meaningful system of recency requirements exists.
I doubt the sectorisation is very different under TAAATS as it was before radar because the problems in any particular area remain the same. The airports are still where they have always been; sure the aircraft performance and density has changed, as has the ATC system, but in both cases the change has been in doing the same thing in a different way. TAAATS did not change the way we did ATC it merely automated it. (The Automated, not Advanced, Australian Air Traffic System)
The ratings we currently have are skill sets. These are based on the knowledge needed for each role. So just as a pilot (who can fly) or a crane driver (who can drive a crane) needs to change the skill set when he changes airplanes or cranes, so the controller needs to change skill sets. In all cases, pilot, crane driver, controller and any other you can think of, people are allowed to hold multiple skill sets, but in safety orientated (regulated or otherwise) organisation the number of skill sets is normally limited. Any safety analysis will also create a requirement for recency as we humans lose our abilities fairly quickly when we do not practise often enough.
The question then becomes how many skill sets can safely be exercised at any one time. A great aviation example at the moment is the Airbus fleet of aircraft. Here the manufacturer has planned from the start to use the automation inherent in each aircraft model to make their flying characteristics so similar that pilots can hold multiple skill sets or endorsements. Boeing has not been able to achieve a similar goal because they have not designed their aircraft with this in mind, neither I would contend has Airservices done the same for Australian sectors.
The next question is, can ASA change what we do to the extent necessary to allow one skill set to cover multiple sectors? Having skill sets reduced on paper to seven will not save anything if people still have to qualify through recency on individual sectors. Mind you it might look good in the annual report/KPA summary but I am not cynical enough to believe it is that kind of exercise. So how do we get to a point where recency in a sector over WA is sufficient to be rostered for a sector between ML and SY? I'm not going to answer that question because I do not have the expertise. I would say though that I am not aware of anyone in ASA who does have.
Towers and TCUs are a slightly different problem but as far as I am aware all controllers in these units, except the managers, are required to hold all the local ratings. Are we really talking about multiple Tower or TCU ratings? I don't really think so, and certainly not while a robust and meaningful system of recency requirements exists.