It is now the morning of Thursday 15 November, 9.08 am Sydney time. That is, less than one hour before the deadline my solicitor has given Airservices Australia. So far, there has not been any communication from Airservices in relation to my letter of 12 November 2007 (see here).

Pinky the pilot, you mention public pressure by contacting people like The 7.30 Report. Unfortunately I think everyone knows that Airservices will simply ignore anything like this – they have in the past. They have set themselves on a path which they will stick to as far as they can.

I hope it will be quite different when we get to the Federal Court. When the Judge in the Court hears the facts – especially in relation to the lack of consultation and the lack of any real safety case, that a proper decision will be made.

I have a feeling that the Chief Executive and Board of Airservices do not really understand what they are doing. I don’t believe they thought that the proposal to place Flightwatch on ATC frequencies actually meant the complete close down of an independent VHF Flightwatch system. If you look at the documents which were sent out, anyone could easily be misled.

This is where we will see if there is any real leadership in the place. That is, a real leader will change the course and keep the independent Flightwatch while a truly honest safety case and truly honest consultation takes place. Here’s hoping.

By the way, the Airservices press release states that they advised RAPAC of the changes in August 2007. I have spoken to the convenor of the NSW RAPAC, who was at a complete loss to understand that there had been any proposal to close down an independent Flightwatch. He said that Airservices did not even send a representative to the last RAPAC meeting, and he had complained to them about this.

Does anyone have a copy of the Airservices advice which was sent to RAPAC in August 2007 (as per the Airservices media release - see here) in relation to the changed Flightwatch frequencies? Can they please post it on this website?

I understand that it wasn’t a true consultative paper, it was basically a paper announcing what was happening.

These forums have only just appeared on the “Aeroclubs.com.au” website as of today and are scheduled for a number of regional centers.

Is this Airservices belated attempt to consult the industry on the loss of FIS frequencies, and thereby shamefully thwart the claim of lack of consultation?



"Airservices Regional Consultative Forum (ARCF)
When: Nov 21, 2007

Start Time: 19:30
Event: Airservices Regional Consultative Forum (ARCF)
Cost:
Airfield: Temora YTEM
Location: Temora Aero Club
Host: Temora Aero Club Ltd

Contact: Rob Maslin

Phone (BH): 0427 494-464 Website:
Phone (AH): Email:
Mobile: Fax:

Submitted: Nov 14, 2007 Last Updated: (modify)

Description:
Airservices Australia is the national civilian provider of air traffic management (ATM), and communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) systems. Airservices is constantly seeking to improve the safety of air traffic, and actively seeks industry input.

Airservices will hold an open forum on current ATM / CNS issues at the Temora Aero Club, commencing at 7.30pm on Wednesday 21st November 2007".

What an absolute disgrace. The "services"part of airservices no longer exists. Profit , profit and nothing but profit .
Under National Party of Australia Ministers (Anderson. Truss, Vaile) total failure to take responsibility for the timely provision of services.
Ferguson (ALP)no better. I bought some issues re aviation safety to his attention and his only reply was to ask how much my aircraft was worth.???????
I dont always agree with Dick but at least he tries which is more than our elected reps do.

Dick, look at http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/rapac/minutes/nsw071011.pdf section 8.5 (NSW RAPAC minutes), and http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/rapac/minutes/vic071004.pdf section 6.6 (VIC RAPAC minutes, this one contains a bit more detail). I believe this may be the information you requested.

The case for Flightwatch services is strong.

* Someone has already raised the problem of congestion. When there's a front approaching, or other weather conditions exist that make everyone interested in conditions at their destination and alternates, there's going to be a lot of traffic on the VHF Centre frequency. The congestion will make it that much harder to get in a call about separation (or even a mayday). A discrete information frequency (Flightwatch) is an obvious help.

* We should not underestimate the intimidation factor. A low-time VFR pilot, or even an inexperienced charter pilot, listening to an area frequency populated by people calling themselves Qantas A, Singapore B, and Falcon C, is going to be reluctant to pipe up and ask for the wind at the podunk aerodrome he's heading for. Anyone who's done their flight training in the past six or eight years has been told that Centre really doesn't want to hear from you unless you're on an IFR plan, and that you're impinging upon the safety of others if you tie up the frequency. Has that changed?

* Local weather knowledge is in decline. Plenty of pilots flying in Australia grew up elsewhere, and so have little intuitive knowledge of Australian weather. Flightwatch provided valuable assistance to these people.

* No equivalent alternative to Flightwatch exists. If we had XM satellite service, or some sort of 3G mobile data service that we could rely upon in the bush, then they'd have a case for taking away the "old" voice service. But there is no equivalent.

Certainly, the service (such as it was) could be better. The Flightwatch operators should have weather radar, for example. But to get rid of Flightwatch and replace it with basically nothing is dangerous. It's going to be a cause of a crash -- quite possibly of a charter aircraft containing six or eight passengers -- before long.

Good point about educating low time pilots not to call. Anyone remember the full page ad with a certain AsA center manager arms crossed and words to the effect of 'If you call on area for anything, planes will crash'. :ugh:

Following is the text of a letter my solicitor received from the Airservices solicitors at about 3 minutes to 10 today.

To see the letter of 12 November 2007, click here.

Dick

I reckon ASA are watching PPRUNE and your post at 9.08 had them scurrying...Ohhh ****, he is serious, better get a stop gap letter out from our legals....and fast!

Don't let go of this. 99% of us are behind your actions here!

J:ok:

there are legal rep's and then there are legal tacticians - what you really need is someone who is across both.

Tactics are equal to showmanship in other arenas' ..

Great to see something constructive happening with Aviators funds - Minter Ellison!! Probably better wasted than on the AA Board, CEO or Execs:}

Oh yes - "Don't ask for QNH on area." I could block an IFR call. :=

Interesting thread from May 2006

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...12#post2587212



I have heard vague rumour (hey, its PPRUNE!!!!) of some sort of safety panel/board paper on the future of sartimes with them becoming a non-radio service in the near future and totally phased out by 2008/2009.

Does anyone have more information on this that they can post to the forum?

It could be interesting in consideration of Dick's consultation band wagon?





Leafing through my old tatty copy of the AusFIC Service Review and I note the Summary Of Recommendations that may be of interest in forecasting the future ‘developments’.

1. Integrate stand alone HF position into Brisbane ATSC; and integrate VHF function onto ATC workstations

2. Transfer SARTIME management from Airservices to aircraft operators / owners.

3. Phase out personal phone briefings to pilots.

4. Merge the Briefing role with TFDC role in Brisbane and Melbourne ATC Centres.

5. Management of the Communications Centre (COMC) be transferred to Brisbane ATSC Systems Supervisor.

6. The NAPIS interface be modified to increase efficiency of the flight notification process.

7. Establish a new organisational structure for data management which emphasises the operational imperative and separates the commercial aspect of AIS provision. The NOTAM Office (NOF) should be part of the operational management structure.

Wot Crosshair said:

And wait for the first C172 with a frightened student pilot with no apparent alternatives, and no one to talk to, mess up the travel plans of 20,000 people, as he fumbles his way through controlled airspace and tries to land at YSSY or YMMB because he sees bad weather coming towards him and no one is available to advise him.

To put it another way, if AsA really don't want to engage with GA and provide them any services, then its AsA and RTP operators who are going to pay the price.

To put it yet another way, if AsA and RTP operators tell GA to **** off and die, then there goes the consideration, cooperation, and give and take that makes the current system workable. Expect more inadvertant violations of controlled airspace with consequent disruption to RPT operations because whats the point of monitoring the area frequency if no one wants to hear from you and no one wants to provide you any advice? It's already hard enough trying to get some student pilots to communicate with you (especially non English speaking types), and I've had to do orbits on more than one occasion because I could not arrange separation with one of these jokers.

To put it yet another way, simply remove radio voice procedure, and operations in controlled airspace from the VFR syllabus and drop the requirements for carriage of a current ERSA and Charts.

Ohhh, and I guess "flight following" is dead too.

Dick, by the way I hope you have briefed your lawyers and get them to court before 10.00am, because Minters letter to you at 10.00 am is going to be a beauty.

Does anyone have a copy of this? I ask because that's precisely the kind of visual a general-interest paper or TV show would need to understand and run a story on this.

If you have it, please scan and post it.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...rom=public_rss

From today's Oz.

Steve Creedy, one of your worst bits of press release "cutting and pasting" I've seen in all these years of reading your stuff, shame shame, shame.

A very successful outcome – more than expected.
 

Just on 5.00 pm last night my solicitor received an answer from Minter Ellison, the solicitors for Airservices.

I was very encouraged by the letter. The reason it was more than I expected is because I had asked (through my solicitor’s letter) that Airservices review their decisions and perform proper consultation, however this is now to be performed by an external review into the arrangements for the delivery of Flightwatch.

The advantage is obvious. An external review does not have the conflict of interest of a review by Airservices – where any decision which reduces costs gives their organisation a commercial advantage.

I am assured by the Department (and I believe them) that the external review into Flightwatch will be with wide participation of all interested parties and with wide consultation. From looking at the almost total support for a stand alone Flightwatch system, I feel sure that this is what the recommendation will be.

I even believe that an external review could result in a better VHF Flightwatch system, with transmitters in more suitable locations and – believe it or not – the Flightwatch operators actually equipped with a proper terminal that can show the Bureau of Meteorology weather radar graphics.

Thanks everyone for their involvement. It certainly shows what can happen when the whole industry gets together with a common aim.

I also believe it will be quite a while before Airservices makes major changes without consultation – especially with their own staff.

For a copy of the letter from Minter Ellison, see here.

Dick,

Well done, amazing what a blaze of publicity will do, where air safety is concerned.

On the face of it, there doesn't seem to be much recognition within Airservices, that NAS is/was a Cabinet level Government policy decision, and that Flightwatch is/was integral to the NAS plans.

There seems to be a trend here, the recent JCP proposals for ADS-B, in my opinion, don't really comply with the quite specific requirements of the Airspace Act 2007 for risk assessment and cost benefit justification, not to mention a raft of other really serious ?????

Tootle pip!!

What change?
 

Dick,

The work you have done on this issue has been great - well done (another ATC surprised to be writing this!).:D

However, how does the external inquiry help in the short term when the function is already being performed by ATC and all the Flight watch people have exited stage left? The inquiry could take some months...:confused:

On another topic - have you had a chance to check the thread on unqualified controllers giving breaks at night???

Blue

Dick,
Thanks for the grind you went through. I look forward to the forum and hope good comes out of it.
Cheers