This is where we differ, US. Your definition of efficiency sounds to me suspiciously like our employer's definition; higher income = higher efficiency. That precise attitude was what started the downslide of ATC, and the lawyers did the rest. Cover your arse at all times is now the holy writ of everything to do with aviation.

In truth, the proponents of supposed Australian inefficiency here are not talking about dollars per movement or vice versa, they are talking about perceived notions of competence. They are the cowboys like the long time Lear pilot who bailed me up at the aero club years ago to tell me how a centre controller in the U.S. threaded him between a DC10 and a B747, both opposite direction with a mile between each aircraft at the same level. Now that's what real controllers do, boy! Yeah, right Dennis.

I'm afraid what this boils down to is that some pilots' definition of a good controller is the one who gets him airborne in the quickest possible time and lets him do what he wants. Knowledge of the whole picture is optional.

Bino's,

I think your example is testament that our points of view are more similar than different.

The example of your cowboy bizjet driver shows a purely subjective aspect to perceived efficiencies - whilst he somehow thought getting down to 1 mile was great, what was the point of view of the pilots of the other aircraft?

Your call of suspicion at sounding like an Airservices definition is alarming! Man, I hope not, because it is their perceptions of efficiency that I spend so much time trying to argue against!

My posts were in response to the title thread post which looked at the pure data - and I don't have a problem with that, because it is the facts that back up what the ATCO's have been saying the whole time about this miserably implemented NAS Airspace. Whilst we can all go to our respective corners and shout all these examples of how good it is done in the US / UK or how it is done better in Australia, the whole things becomes a subjective un-quantifiable slanging match. Persuasive argument then becomes just as potent a tool as the facts - as a Minister has discovered - but it doesn't make the position a correct one.

As an ATC I am sure you know as well as I that pilots have an 'interesting' view on ATC and how it should be done - and it normally reflects on how it would make 'their' job easier - and when I say their job I mean their ONE aircraft whether it be arriving or departing at the time - I mean it can't do both at the same time, so we don't need to consider that.... I think you know where I am coming from. ATC look at a whole lot of aircraft, and a limited number of runways and the other factors such as NAP. My point: well our perspectives are completely different. As I said in my previous thread - you wouldn't consider ATC a good judge of how well you operate your aircraft based on the limited exchanges we have. It goes both ways.

Remember - ATC don't delay your aircraft : other aircraft delay your aircraft. And the number of runways available, the weather conditions that require increased separation minima, and the political factors of noise etc, not to mention the odd go-around, technical problem etc.

Every ATC organisation in every country has to deal with that - every ATC has to deal with that.

Every organisation has their share of talented ATC's, less-talented, the middle ground and those who are just having an off-day. In reality, as a collective group they probably all do about as good and as bad as each other depending on what they have to work with in terms of systems and procedures, which THEY don't create or make.

Uncommon Sense, "Stats are necessary if you want to compare efficiencies.........."

Okay then, lets look at the stats, as produced by ARetent-man

Average ANS cost per IFR flight. Euro $1130. Oz $350
Average ANS cost per contoller per sector. Euro 541 Oz 385
Okay, so Europe is more expensive. But its also more expensive in Europe to get a plumber, to run your car, to have a beer, to do anything. Costs reflect market conditions, inflation, and a whole range of other factors, and in no way should be used to compare the relative efficiencies of the guy looking at radar screen.

Passenger departures, USA 641 mil, Euro 450, Oz 41
I dont care how you look at these figures, 641 verus 450 versus 41 is no comparison. I dont care it you put the 641 on Boeings and the 41 on Dash-8's, there is no way you can massage or interpret the figures to make 41 to look as busy or as efficient as 641, and then turn around and say that you are more efficient cos you are putting the 41 into less sectors and less hubs. Doesn't cut the mustard.

The most interesting stat is "Size of high density traffic airspace". What the f... is high density traffic airspace, and do the different ATS organisations have different ideas on what it constitutes. I dare say some boffin in Canberra has a different perception on what is high density to some boffin in Maasticht or Washington.

Dont get too bogged down in the stats.

To the guy who got direct Rivet, that indeed was very efficient. But try that when there is a tiny bit off traffic around and all the sectors are open in the middle of the day. Some panic merchant contolling the airspace over western NSW will knock the request back cos it means that you will be 5 miles north of track and they cant cope with it. Or some guy controlling the sequence into Sydney slows you down to fit you in behind a prop from Albury. It just depends who's on.

In general, Aussie ATC's are efficient enough, but not anymore efficient than anybody else.

It may be a back-hander, but it is a complement.:rolleyes:

tonto,

If getting off your fat bum, doing some investigation, and posting the figures on proon for all to see makes you anally retentive, then I sure wish there were more of those type of people out there!

What I have seen around here lately, particularly in regard to the NAS issue but generally as well, is far more of the "I believe... therefore it must be true" brigade - a point being beautifully argued, though agreed upon it seems, by binos and US. Indeed you berate pilots for having this attitude and then do precisely the same thing with your assertion that without anything whatsoever to back it up. I believe, therefore it must be true. No matter how strongly you believe something, you cannot promote it as the gospel and expect us all to swallow it up like good subjects and bow down before you!

People like to make up their own minds and call it my scientific upbringing, but I for one am absolutely wrapt to see some statistical evidence produced. We don't need to have studied statistics for many years (which I unfortunately did!) to understand that there may be significant skewing of the data, for example there is no breakdown into IFR and VFR which is probably pertinent to those looking at this data from a NAS perspective, but even order of magnitude type figures assist in giving a sound platform from which to base an overall view.

Hopefully people also don't need to have studied stats for years to understand that a statement likeis absolutely moronic. According to your ridiculous rationale, Launceston airport with its 1518 movements last month can never be as efficient as Sydney airport with its 24092, despite the fact that it probably does so with around a twentieth (I'm guessing) of the number of controllers! That the relationship may not be linear is another matter altogether.

Having said all that, I for one, (as an invidual, in my own capacity to make decisions :} ), happen to agree with your statement quoted above about Aussie controllers being about as efficient as anywhere else, and if I may be so bold, I have a sneaking suspicion that Statman may as well. He (I guess it's a he otherwise it would be Statwoman or Statperson?) deliberately mentioned lies, damned lies, and statistics, he higlighted what he thought were the pertinent parts and left out others such as hubs (what the hell's going on there?), and concluded with the statement that there should be no cultural cringe, which to me infers the point that Aussie ATCs hold their own on the world stage, rather than are 2.074 times better than their overseas counterparts.

It seems as though this thread has been hijacked a little onto the question of individual controller efficiency (which will quite obviously vary from country to country, seat to seat, and even time to time) versus systemic efficiency which I believe is probably what the figures at the top of the thread were originally designed to show.

I promise I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything binos, but with regard to your statement do you believe this true generally or only on this particular topic? Interested to hear your thoughts.

Mode SHHH and Uncommon Sense,

I have no real argument with your points.

Efficiency can be demonstrated in many industries quite effectively; widgets made per man/hour, containers processed on wharves, percentage of items delivered on time, customer satisfaction at product quality, etc. A synonym for productivity in other words.

It is a source of frustration to me that graphs and stats trotted out to attempt to prove efficiency in our profession can only show the end results in dollars. While the Dilbert generation may approve of this, I don’t have to like it.

Let me try to put it another way. Controllers everywhere operate to a set of prescribed standards which have to be adhered to. It’s long been a contention of mine that apart from the difference between those who like to shave those standards to the bone and those who add an extra buffer, there is not a great deal that can be done to change that. In other words whether I’m in Mackay or O’Hare the system can operate only to its limits, the difference being that in O’Hare they are on the limit most of the time, whereas in Mackay, errr… well, we’re not. :O But when my station, or your station is at its limit, an O’Hare controller isn’t going to do it any quicker, and conversely and self-evidently, there is absolutely no reason Australian controllers couldn’t do the same job as Americans in Chicago with the same training.

I suppose I am arguing about proficiency rather than efficiency, so your points are well made, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who listens to the crap spouted by dickheads like leftfrontside and gets irritated. As I say to every private pilot who visits the tower, a fundamental rule applies in ATC; if several aircraft want to be in the same place at the same time, e.g. short final for the duty runway, only one will achieve it. All the rest will be messed around to some degree, however minor. It’s not personal, it’s not our inefficiency, it just is. Next time you may be the winner.

As a corollary to that, the one who gets what he wants will think I’m an ace, the one who comes last will think I’m a dud controller. Such is life!

Mode Shhh, the stats were appreciated and they do tell part of the story, but!!! Any controller who leaves Australia and works overseas, whether that be in Hong Kong, the Middle East, Canada or EuroControl will tell you, in world terms Australia is sleepy hollow. I know controllers can only move the traffic that they are given and that doesn't make them less of a controller, but, tell me honestly how many times have you seen first hand, a "panic merchant" scream to open the low level sector or split a sector, when they got more than 5 aircraft on frequency. That is what Tonto is referrring to I think. Not about who's is bigger than who's BUT while the sectors are big in Australia, I feel now (very differently to before I left), that resectorisation and the subsequent improvement in efficiencies could be achieved in Oz. I don't mean, let AirServices screw the staff, but let guys work a decent number of aircraft before people start frothing at the mouth about needing to open sectors, to keep the stats up, so they don't get the roster thinned out.

Don't get me wrong, generally overseas, once trained and once the Oz controller steps up to the inevitable leap in traffic levels and complexity, they are considered good safe controllers. If you want stats to compare things to, consider that UAE has 1,000 movements a day in an area about 250 NM X 150 NM, and this is done with 4 controllers on during Morning and afternoon shifts and 5 controllers on the night shift, covering 3 fulltime sectors, with one addtional holding sector, opened at peak periods( a couple of hours a day). If someone could compare that efficiency to a busy group in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, I would be very interested. To make it simple that is 18 controllers moving a 1,000 aircraft a day, so make it 56 aircraft per controller per day, so about 7 per hour. That is a bit misleading as one of the sectors would have only about 15% of the traffic, while the other 2 would get the rest between them but it is something to compare to anyway. BTW, I think about 70% of those are arrivals or departures into one of the 3 major hubs (with another 3 minor hubs).

Getting ready to get belted around the head, but remember I am trying not to belittle Oz ATC's working in OZ. Just saying that unless things have changed recently, I am dubious of the claim that Oz ATC is as efficient as the US or Eurocontrol. Complexity alone, means in Europe and the U.S, they need more controllers per aircraft than Oz, they certainly have a lot less room to move with their aircraft.

Oh and Bino, no offence but since the O'hare guy would have dropped all the extra little niceties and stupid rambling phraseology that most Oz ATC's are made to say, he would get the traffic moved quicker. I do agree though that with the appropriate training, and having had all the inefficiencies in his/her work practices beaten out of him with a big stick, he/she would be able to do the same job just as well. I am just saying that given that most OZ controllers are rarely at the limit, their limit is naturally a little bit shallower than a comparable controller at a busier unit overseas.

No offence taken here, Idjuts, I suspect we are in heated agreement, especially about the yanks being less pedantic in their phraseologies. :ok:

Guys,

Before we get too heated in "agreement". I think the study was aimed to indicate how efficient each Air Traffic management company is in regard to being operated as a business.

Sometimes we equate proficiency with efficiency. As has been stated, Oz ATCs are no more or less proficient than ATCs in other parts of the world. What the stats do show, is that Airservices Australia as a Air Traffic Management company are going about their business in an efficient manner.

This negates the argument used by Dick and his suport for NAS as being a better ATM system. As we have all been trying to tell him, Airservices is already an efficient company, and VFRs already receive a free service in C or E airspace.

By apeing the FAA and the USA ATM system, Australia will likely see an increase in costs for providing Air Traffic Management, due to increases in the capital cost for infrastructure (more radar heads and approach units), and increase in staffing costs (more controllers to man approach units and divide up the airspace into smaller sectors).

But don't take my word for it. Lets actually get some data, facts and figures. Lets find out the cost/benefit, and go with something that is;
- not less safe
- and isn't more expensive.

Simple, no?

DP

Mode SHHH, you say my statements are made "without anything what-so-ever to back it up". I've worked Oz (in 2 different centres), and I've worked else where. I've seen it there first hand, and I've worked with Seppo's and Europhiles and yes, Aussie ATC's are efficient, but not anymore efficient to anybody else.

If I've hijacked the thread to question the efficiency of Aussie controllers, well bugger me, but isn't the thread called "Are Aussie ATC's inefficinent"

You want to talk about systemic effiencies. Well okay. ATS systems should regulate and give controllers a framework to control traffic in a safe and expeditious manner, whilst using their judgement to make decisions on indivual flights or conflicts. Yet you get a Centre Manager (in Bris) who puts out a directive to say that you are not allowed to track shorten. Or have you sat beside some idiot on an adjoining sector with very little traffic who knocks back a request because it's not a standard level or that they dont want to redraw their lat sep diagrams.

Anybody who wants to talk NAS, go to a forum on NAS!!!!! Okay, I'll acknowledge that NAS was forced on you guys and contributes to workload and your ability to be efficient, but controllers all over the world are subject to local idiosyncrasies that make their job more complicated or busy.

horses for courses
 

Tonto,
my response initially on this thread was to reply to left front side's ridiculous statement.
At no time did I ever say that Oz ATC's were better or indeed worse than anyone else.

Ijuts...

You see that when you have full radar coverage..as they do in Euro, the US and UAE, one can indeed fit more aircraft in.
Possibly prior to your arrival, Muscat had to give UAE 10 minutes on just about anything leaving the ME...10 miles for everyone else. That caused loads of porblems...we had to descend aircraft all the time (Europe bound) to F240, 260 etc...very simple when you are on the receiving end, but a little more trying when you have to do all the spacing.
When you have no radar or are providing procedural separation, you simply cannot have as many aircraft. (I think you understand what it's like with Tehran and Bahrain).
Think of doing that with everyone....all the time.

To whoever was bleating about the direct tracking issue. It is NOT the controllers that deny you your every whim. It is a directive handed down from above...call it a Holy Writ.
Get this into your thick skull....the controllers want to give direct away when ever possible...it gets you out of our airspace faster!!

Cheers

DD, I know first hand about not having radar at my disposal, and what I found was the guys working the procedural sectors in Oz were working the hardest of anyone. I am asking to compare apples with apples. I was very vocal when I was in Oz about making sure we split sectors early to keep the fat in the rosters, but having seen how the outside world operates, I realise that ATC in Oz could be more efficient, and handle more traffic per sector/controller. As I said I know I will probably get flamed for saying that, but that is the honest truth.

Oh and Duck, as people have been trying to tell Dick, it\'s not 10 minutes in Oz. Its 20 DME, or 30 RNAV, or VOR radial separation etc. There were times when using radials separation you could run them tighter than radar, ie. tolerance of navaids plus 1 mile. So not quite as bad as you say, not having radar, but I understand the point you are trying to make, and that is why I am saying to compare full radar in Oz with full radar in ME, US or Europe. In fact it is easier in an airspace 1,500 NM E/W and 800NM N/S with lots of laterally separated one way routes to handle 20+ aircraft at one time, than to handle 10 aircraft in a 50 NM by 50NM crossing/arrivals/departures sector. So of course the whopping big sector with one controller will be statistically more efficient, and as such provide a service for cheaper, but is that really accurate?

Hey Ijut,

thanks for the reply.

Every place in the world could be more efficient, if run by bean counters.
Unfortunately, we have to roster for the worst case scenario, not the other way around.

Most inefficient thing they ever did in Oz was to introduce teams and team leaders....upped the numbers by a load.
I believe they have now worked that out and have gone back somewhat to the older style of rostering.

BTW...I indeed remember those big procedural sectors...worked them for many a year before moving to the 50/50 radar arrivals spots.
Also I have mentioned to Dick, many ways to skin a cat, huge numbers of procedural separation standards..used to use most of them!:p

Personally I like the ICAO 15 degrees 15 miles off a navaid.
I'll let the maths genius's out there work out how far apart you are at 15 miles...needless to say it is significantly less than 5 radar miles.

Cheers

ummm 3.75nmish

As far as Sydney is concerned...and I'm no fan of those silly PMT (or whatever) ILS'...life would be a whole lot simpler without the bizarre noise sharing.:sad:

Strange how as aeroplanes get quieter the whinging masses get louder:suspect: