Clearances Issued by Flight Data Coordinators
 

Ladies and Gents,

The latest idea to grow legs inside the den of ATC is that Pre-Departure Clearances will no longer be issued by the Tower but by un-licensed Flight Data Coordinators.

Safety workshops are currently being “run” to tick boxes on safety for these system clerks to communicate directly with aircraft and issue the clearance based on some sort of matrix like ACFT Heavy + Runway 19 + Parking Bay X + Destination Y= Clearance blah.

It is expected that CASA will be brow-beaten into approval or at least turn a blind eye to the change.

Of course, more staff are required so AA is advertising (internally at least) for Flight Data Coordinators.

What’s next?

FDC Clearances.
 

Intersting concept.

In the event of an incident / accident, what is the legality of a clearance issued by non licenced staff, and how will prosecuters and insurers view it.

But, lets remeber the most vital aspect.

The manager who gets it approved gets their bonus:yuk:

Does it matter who issues the clearance?
Anythings better than the combined tower, smc, clearance delivery that occurs at some airfields.
Why is this industry so anti any change?
With forty years in aviation I dispair at the lack of rational thinking and argument that a lot in the industry seem to lack.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

VC9 wrote

I would have thought that you need an ATC licence to issue a clearance along the lines that you need a ATPL to fly for an airline or you need a commercial for CHTR ops.

AFAIK these Flight Data System Clerks are not licenced; they have a certificate to fiddle about with system data only and certainly not to originate clearances directly to aircraft.

The licence itself is no big deal but the training and the responsibilities and the accountabilities that go along with it are.

The fact that I can write out my clearance before I speak to ATC (less code) suggests to me that there is not a great deal of thought that needs to go into its construction. Guess what - today I'm cleared to blah, I'm heading up the coast so it's 34R with a SYD 1 Departure, maintain 3000' and Departures frq 123.0 Minor variations on a theme only.

On some routes (CBR-SYD) for example, there are standard clearances, including SID and STAR. If ATC can manage that scenario, what is the risk posed by an unlicensed controller issuing the clearance???

It still falls to the ground, tower and en route controllers (licensed) to ensure separation and direct aircraft in CTA/CTR - the worst thing that can happen here is that an aircraft is issued an incorrect or incomplete clearance, in which case a competent flight crew should pick it up (they have to fly what they're given!)

If I'm a little too innocent in these black arts: all apologies - I'm happy to listen to reasons why this poses a massive risk, but most days it wouldn't make a difference to me if I was listening to a recorded message.

Does it matter who issues the clearance?
 

I'd be happy if anybody issued the clearance!
Since the, so called "upgrade" to the system several months ago, we have been unable to recieve PDC's at all. :confused:

Icarus53 hit the nail on the Head. Blind Freddy could utter clearances or send them by PDC, there is no thought process behind them, or to be more accurate they are systematic responses with no exercise of discretion.

CASA's attitude remains to be seen. They are as hide bound as the dinosaurs protecting their jobs in this post.

Sorry Icarus, it's a SYD 2.

By the way, it's a lot harder than that.... what about a jet to the North West off 16R? Kampi 1 or Deena 4 Ricmond? what if R559 is active? What about pre-coordination for a flight via NOBAR? When is Sydney going to change Runway modes and who will be affected? If the departure needs to be ammended because of a runway mode change who does that? And should an ATC ammend a clearance issued by an FDC?

There is a lot more to it than SID Radars and departure frequencies.

DCT no SPD,

I WOULD BE. Actually when we Init a route a lot of data is automatically downloaded anyway eg,the route, winds etc. I dont care who does it so long as I can CHECK and amend it.:)

Bit like the MPL theory. Sounds more like they are running out of controllers and looking for a cheaper alternates.
ASA Managers running out of aces in the deck?
VC9 I am not resistant to change but, generally we get a more efficient service at 'airfields' other than the majors.

A long time ago
 

I has a stand-up argument with a FDC about the integrity of a system plan and asked to see the original. When I pointed out his error he told me "That's the same thing"; when pointing out that this "same thing" had the aircraft almost 250NM in the wrong position he said, but he'll still get to Perth on that route; yes but the aircraft is being 'separated' and it's no-where near where the system or I think it is; so between us we aren't exactly doing a bang up job are we?

The use of "thence planned route" has almost no relevance in our modern automated system, cause what the hell is a planned route? Our system plans very rarely display the 'planned route' anymore cause there is no reference to the 'original'; you only get the now.

Starts with P and the other controller responses are the expected responses from a technical operator who cant think outside their own "square".
The whole concept of airways clearances is rendered invalid or at least weak by the "then via Flight Planned route".
Controllers are more than happy forthis weakness in the system to exist because it saves them talking time.
Browse ATSB website for a serious incident between a corporate jet and an RPT a few years ago if you dont believe me.

Sorry about post japanese keyboard

Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves here. Remember back in the day before the wizz bang electronic strips, these same people were hand writing pieces of paper with the route details on them and sticking them in a little plastic thingy. No one had issues with that. It is exactly the same thing just in reverse. The issue is that AsA are so stuffed when it comes to staffing that they have to try junk like this.

Tobzalp,

You have distorted the reality considerably.

In the olden days, these FDC people took a printed flight plan, transmitted by a qualified briefing officer, and transposed the relevant detail to a format (flight strip) usable by the ATC.

The ATC issued clearances and did their control “wizardry” and was ultimately totally responsible for the flight.

Upon aircraft departure, the FDC prepared strips were delivered to the controllers along with the printed copy of the flight plan because the ATC had to check the strips and time additions before use.

The FDC was not in any way involved in “issuing a clearance”.


As an aside,

What was said in Melbourne last week by the ATC Group GM et al in reference to the staff shortages and the “plan” to overcome same?

Avnet reported that they recognise staff planning has been deficient in Airservices for some time. Now THERES a statement fer u!

I venture to say that cloth ears were not in short supply in CB as the rank and file have been saying this for ages!

Oh, BTW, What section of AA had a "top gun" manager cull over 50% of staff, so much so that TRAINING could not be kept up with and since the manager in quesition is now reeking havoc in other areas (and possibly the subject of another PPRune Thread), has recently realised that they cannot accomplish all their TRAINING work and are now seeking more staff? unfknblvbl? no, not with this lot...

Dfrd.Benefit, I think the exact opposite is true. People like you only see small problems (why can't a TFDC type in something and hit "Send"). I am seeing outside my own "square". I'm seeing the big picture. The multiple things that can go wrong.

My last post above was merely an example, not a definitive list of ALL the decision making that needs to go into issuing a clearance. I'm sorry if you can't see outside that square.

And I'm not saying that TFDC's are too stupid to do it. What I am saying (as an example Dfrd.Benefit, not telling you the ONLY problem I can see in my square) is that when a runway change is being planned, it is easy for the boss to walk over to ACD and have a look, see what is coming, and work out a plan of when to change, and who is going where. It then becomes a negotiation when the changes starts as to who is going to make and who is not. With the TFDC in ML issuing the clearance it's not so easy to do that.

TFDCs and clearances
 

I guess one of my problems with this is that ALL of the clearances would be issued by perhaps one TFDC. This would cover many major airfields rather than just one (as is done at the moment).

TFDCs are well trained (but not licensed ATCs) and I feel that even a licenced ATC would have some difficulty maintaining the SA required to issue clearances for multiple fields. It is easy enough to keep track of runway configurations at one place - how hard to keep track at 3 or more? For each runway configuration ML has different rules about which SID will be issued and our systemic separation is in some cases wholly based on these being correct...

This is, of course, all to save both staff and money. TFDCs are considerably cheaper to employ and quicker to train...

Blue

Jacko.
As I started life as a Flight Data, I can assure you the plan did not go with the strips. Additionally, when on the receiving end of the hand written strips at a later time in ATC guise I never had one second of doubt as to the accuracy of the information. The only time a plan would accompany the strips was for Flex tracks because the strips handed out were void of position information.
Also, when the strips were printed by a computer, it was often (mostly)invisible to the ATC if they were auto generated or were from a plan manipulated to print the strips. The only obvious way to know this was that the channel sequence number was crossed out so that if a reprint or forwarding of the plan was required, the later modified information was not used. Some of us took great pride in hand writing as few as possible if we could dodgy something up by manipulating times and way points to give the correct result as per the original flight plan by some times tacking three separate flight plans together.

If I was the accountable Airservices Manager, I would be looking at it this way:

If it all turns to poo and there's a bump in the night, how will the ATSB/Courts look at the changed procedure? Some of their questions might include:

• Is it International best practice?
• If not, and it's an "innovation", what is the catalyst for the change and has it been tested, trialled, safety analysed?
• Why is it that Licensed Staff are required to create and deliver clearances at present?
• Are the current Licensed Staff doing such a bad job of it that alternate arrangements need to be made? ... or is the change solely for Organisational expediency? If so, is it worth adding another potential hole in the swiss cheese,just to squeeze a bit more coin out of the budget?

Until I could answer these questions appropriately, without a quiver in my voice, I would not be able to sleep too well at night.

This is EXACTLY what I was getting at. The rest is just noise.

Tobzalp,

TOPS always got the strips and the plan once an acft departed and they religioulsy cross checked the time additions and route information.

In any case, thats all irrelevant. FDC are not licenced to either work a radio or issue clearances and that is the subject of this thread.

If you don't need a licence to issue clearances, then why licence ATCs?

I don't know about organisational expediency. The staff saving is surely negligible when one considers the staff shortfall overall.

I vote for change for changes sake and to put some "at risk component" bonus in the bank for manager X.