ATC contributed to 15% of flight delays in December
https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...11-p5ewnt.html
Air traffic control contributed to 15 per cent of flight delays in December"More than 15 per cent of delayed flights were caused by the government body responsible for air navigation safety last month, with its latest aviation network update revealing it’s still marred by staffing issues.Airservices Australia, which manages Australia’s airspace and employs the country’s air traffic controllers, said it did not have enough staff available over the lead-up to the peak holiday season, which was also hit with a bout of bad weather. Overall, the service said it was responsible for 6 per cent of total flight cancellations and 16 per cent of the total delays in December. ... " |
I wonder if they have ever measured the impact on flight safety of airspace changes/closures?
|
|
Originally Posted by sunnySA
(Post 11573709)
Alice Springs with 80.5 hours doesn't get a mention. "There's nothing to see here, move along..." |
So with a push to reimburse passengers for delays of 3hrs or more, will ASA be held responsible to the airlines for delaying them!
|
To be fair - it means 85% of delays aren’t due to ATC…
****ty infrastructure, outsourcing, lack of crew, weather. Is 15% an unusual number? ATC delays into Perth are crazy at the moment (especially in busy days), but then they have to work with a single runway half the time, no high speed taxi-ways, half of the flights have to drag their arses down to ‘D’ to vacate. The infrastructure is terrible - at least in Perth |
Infrastructure in Australia in general is terrible.
|
As abysmal as the resource planning and support at Airservices has been for the past [insert number here] of years, the airlines with their sneaky practices wear the bulk of the responsibility for this mess. Impossible rostering. Multiple MEL's. Outsourcing everything. Flight consolidations. Old fleets. Wet leases.
This is a nice distraction from the Joycification of the industry. |
Originally Posted by DROPS
(Post 11574190)
This is a nice distraction from the Joycification of the industry.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_56
(Post 11573859)
To be fair - it means 85% of delays aren’t due to ATC…
****ty infrastructure, outsourcing, lack of crew, weather. Is 15% an unusual number? ATC delays into Perth are crazy at the moment (especially in busy days), but then they have to work with a single runway half the time, no high speed taxi-ways, half of the flights have to drag their arses down to ‘D’ to vacate. The infrastructure is terrible - at least in Perth Same for Melbourne how long have they been talking about a parallel runway? The problem in aviation in Australia is it is full of monopolies. The airlines are the only market which is competitive and they get to pay for all the inefficiencies of the other suppliers. |
I'm guessing this15% figure is only the departure delays.
I wonder what the figure would be if the the inbound holding and speed reductions that subsequently lead to a further supposedly non-ATC delay were included. |
I like the way some Airline statistics are reported as late arrivals.If they depart on time but arrive late it’s generally either. ATC or weather related,not the airlines fault.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_56
(Post 11573859)
To be fair - it means 85% of delays aren’t due to ATC…
****ty infrastructure, outsourcing, lack of crew, weather. Is 15% an unusual number? ATC delays into Perth are crazy at the moment (especially in busy days), but then they have to work with a single runway half the time, no high speed taxi-ways, half of the flights have to drag their arses down to ‘D’ to vacate. The infrastructure is terrible - at least in Perth To meet future capacity demand, the new runway is expected to be operational between 2023 and 2032, subject to actual demand and approval. Perth Airport Master Plan download |
Originally Posted by Johnny_56
(Post 11573859)
To be fair - it means 85% of delays aren’t due to ATC…
****ty infrastructure, outsourcing, lack of crew, weather. Is 15% an unusual number? ATC delays into Perth are crazy at the moment (especially in busy days), but then they have to work with a single runway half the time, no high speed taxi-ways, half of the flights have to drag their arses down to ‘D’ to vacate. The infrastructure is terrible - at least in Perth Gatwick handles roughly double the number of aircraft movements as Perth with 1 runway, far more complex and busy airspace and mostly worse weather. Yes I can hear all the BS excuses about high speed taxiways etc but really, 1 runway with high speed taxiways is better than 2? Let's not try to polish a turd here, some bright sparks in ASA hierarchy have decided their KPIs are more important than moving air traffic so the ATC peeps have basically said "you give us x amount of controllers, we will handle x amount of aircraft", that comes from inside ASA. Makes me laugh when the government gets on their pathetic little EV bandwagon meanwhile 100s of tons of avtur are being wasted each week and that's just into Perth |
Originally Posted by airdualbleedfault
(Post 11574412)
I was going to call BS on the 15%, but as someone pouted out that's probably only departures, if it was arrivals it would be over 50% in Perth.
Gatwick handles roughly double the number of aircraft movements as Perth with 1 runway, far more complex and busy airspace and mostly worse weather. Yes I can hear all the BS excuses about high speed taxiways etc but really, 1 runway with high speed taxiways is better than 2? Let's not try to polish a turd here, some bright sparks in ASA hierarchy have decided their KPIs are more important than moving air traffic so the ATC peeps have basically said "you give us x amount of controllers, we will handle x amount of aircraft", that comes from inside ASA. Makes me laugh when the government gets on their pathetic little EV bandwagon meanwhile 100s of tons of avtur are being wasted each week and that's just into Perth |
More managers, obviously.
|
Once upon a time, Airservices and the Canberra Rowing Club decided to engage in an annual boat race on Lake Burley Griffin. Both teams trained long and hard to reach their peak performance. On the big day, the rowing club won by a kilometer.
The Airservices team was rather discouraged by their loss and morale sagged. Senior management decided that a reason for the crushing defeat must be found, and so a project team was set up to investigate the problem and take appropriate action. It was found that while the rowing club had eight people rowing and one person steering, Airservices had one person rowing and eight steering. Senior management accordingly hired consultants to study the team’s structure. For half a million dollars the consultants advised that the team needed to be better coordinated so that more effort went into rowing. The new Airservices team consisted of four steering managers, the senior steering managers, one executive steering manager, and one rower. A performance appraisal system was set up to give the rower more incentive, and he was sent to courses run by the consultants so that he would feel empowered and enriched. The next year the rowing club won by two kilometers. Airservices sacked the rower for poor performance, sold off the paddles and halted development of a new boat. The money saved was used as performance bonuses for senior management. |
The obvious solution is to roster the overtime the same way as other shifts. The EBA stipulates that reasonable overtime should be completed, I don't see why controllers should not do 1-2 additional shifts every 2-3 weeks. This is normal in other companies and it only seems to be the controllers that have a problem with it. ASA has a robust fatigue management system and therefor the constant complaining about fatigue is absolute rubbish.
The airlines and customers should not have to face delays just because the controllers don't want to play their part in the system. We need a clean out and those who don't want to support the company should just go. |
Originally Posted by airdualbleedfault
(Post 11574412)
...Let's not try to polish a turd here, some bright sparks in ASA hierarchy have decided their KPIs are more important than moving air traffic so the ATC peeps have basically said "you give us x amount of controllers, we will handle x amount of aircraft", that comes from inside ASA.... Perth
|
Originally Posted by ReportVisual
(Post 11575368)
The obvious solution is to roster the overtime the same way as other shifts. The EBA stipulates that reasonable overtime should be completed, I don't see why controllers should not do 1-2 additional shifts every 2-3 weeks. This is normal in other companies and it only seems to be the controllers that have a problem with it. ASA has a robust fatigue management system and therefor the constant complaining about fatigue is absolute rubbish.
The airlines and customers should not have to face delays just because the controllers don't want to play their part in the system. We need a clean out and those who don't want to support the company should just go. |
Originally Posted by ReportVisual
(Post 11575368)
The obvious solution is to roster the overtime the same way as other shifts. The EBA stipulates that reasonable overtime should be completed, I don't see why controllers should not do 1-2 additional shifts every 2-3 weeks. This is normal in other companies and it only seems to be the controllers that have a problem with it. ASA has a robust fatigue management system and therefor the constant complaining about fatigue is absolute rubbish.
The airlines and customers should not have to face delays just because the controllers don't want to play their part in the system. We need a clean out and those who don't want to support the company should just go. The ASA fatigue risk management system was designed to find someone to sign off the residual risk potential Lower Fatigue Risk for ATCs can be signed off by Shift Managers and System Supervisors (or higher) Lower Medium Fatigue Risk can only be signed off by Unit Manager, Unit Tower Supervisor, ATC Line Manager and Operations Room Manager (or higher) Higher Medium Fatigue Risk can only be signed off by Service Managers (or higher) Higher Fatigue Potential can only be signed off by Northern / Southern Operations Managers (or higher). [perhaps some older position titles but you and others will get the picture]. Someone will sign it off the risk to avoid a service continuity issue, or because their individual KPI's are affected. The only thing that stops an ATC working every day of the year is a clause from the ATC Enterprise Agreement that says: The maximum number of consecutive shifts worked, inclusive of additional duty or emergency duty, will be ten (10) shifts. The only thing that stops an ATC working double or triple shifts is a clause from the ATC Enterprise Agreement that says: With an employee’s consent, a rostered shift may be extended prior to the scheduled commencement time and/or beyond the nominal finishing time, provided that the total hours acquitted for the shift do not exceed ten (10) hours. And the BTW, it is my understanding that CASA, as aviation regulator, didn't accept ASA's arguments that ASA had "robust fatigue management system". |
Originally Posted by ReportVisual
(Post 11575368)
The obvious solution is to roster the overtime the same way as other shifts. The EBA stipulates that reasonable overtime should be completed, I don't see why controllers should not do 1-2 additional shifts every 2-3 weeks. This is normal in other companies and it only seems to be the controllers that have a problem with it. ASA has a robust fatigue management system and therefor the constant complaining about fatigue is absolute rubbish.
The airlines and customers should not have to face delays just because the controllers don't want to play their part in the system. We need a clean out and those who don't want to support the company should just go. |
Being a bean-counter must be such a doddle.
We spend money on things but we want to spend less on those things (except us…) and get the same or better output. Some of those things are humans. So, we need to get fewer humans to produce the same output as the current group of humans, or pay the current group of humans less to produce the same output. The ideal outcome is that we pay fewer humans, less, to get a better output. (Let’s be honest: The ideal outcome is that we pay them nothing.) Fatigue is an impediment to the achievement of our ideal outcome. So, we’ll just spin it into an industrial relations bargaining chip used by the greedy and unscrupulous rather than a substantive risk to safety. Manoeuvre arrangements so that fatigue becomes a matter to be dealt with internally and privately, on an individual case-by-case basis, rather than having generally applicable and objective limits. Come the year 1990, when we have pilot-less cockpits and controller-less ATC, we’ll shift our focus to the humans who maintain the equipment. There’s another bunch of greedy and unscrupulous workers who use fatigue as an industrial relations bargaining chip. Eventually we’ll achieve nirvana, where the only thing we spend money on is us bean-counters. Job done! |
Originally Posted by ReportVisual
(Post 11575368)
The obvious solution is to roster the overtime the same way as other shifts. The EBA stipulates that reasonable overtime should be completed, I don't see why controllers should not do 1-2 additional shifts every 2-3 weeks. This is normal in other companies and it only seems to be the controllers that have a problem with it. ASA has a robust fatigue management system and therefor the constant complaining about fatigue is absolute rubbish.
The airlines and customers should not have to face delays just because the controllers don't want to play their part in the system. We need a clean out and those who don't want to support the company should just go. |
Originally Posted by ReportVisual
(Post 11575368)
The obvious solution is to roster the overtime the same way as other shifts. The EBA stipulates that reasonable overtime should be completed, I don't see why controllers should not do 1-2 additional shifts every 2-3 weeks. This is normal in other companies and it only seems to be the controllers that have a problem with it. ASA has a robust fatigue management system and therefor the constant complaining about fatigue is absolute rubbish.
The airlines and customers should not have to face delays just because the controllers don't want to play their part in the system. We need a clean out and those who don't want to support the company should just go. CityRail tried that bollocks on in Sydney in 2004 and again later years when they were in a similar boat - completely and utterly reliant on their crew working overtime to staff the normal roster. Crews were burning out and come EBA time, they said "You can stick your OT up your asre!". CityRail took them to court arguing they had to do reasonable OT and the courts found there was no acceptable definition of 'reasonable OT', the crew were contracted for 38H a week, and that was all they had to do. It wasn't their fault the network would collapse if they didn't work OT... To the ASA guys and girls, I say this - Don't put your health or your relationship at risk trying to cover ASA's shortfall. You're no different to anyone else, you're just a number, and while I get that you take pride in what you do and want to keep us moving, if you choose to spend your RDO's at the beach with your family, and as a result I get "Clearance not available", I wouldn't care in the slightest. Your family comes first. |
Originally Posted by ReportVisual
(Post 11575368)
The obvious solution is to roster the overtime the same way as other shifts. The EBA stipulates that reasonable overtime should be completed, I don't see why controllers should not do 1-2 additional shifts every 2-3 weeks. This is normal in other companies and it only seems to be the controllers that have a problem with it.
Originally Posted by airdualbleedfault ..."you give us x amount of controllers, we will handle x amount of aircraft" ... |
"Sorry, I'm not fit for duty" is all you need to say if you get called. Sure, the extra money is nice but wears thin and gets tiring pretty quickly.
|
Originally Posted by C441
(Post 11574240)
I'm guessing this15% figure is only the departure delays.
I wonder what the figure would be if the the inbound holding and speed reductions that subsequently lead to a further supposedly non-ATC delay were included. |
Originally Posted by Plazbot
(Post 11579539)
That's an infrastructure delay. When 4 aircraft turn up at once that's 12 minutes of overall delay. 2, 4 and 6. Go and build 3 sets of parallels and away we go. Sequencing is not an ATC delay. It's scheduling and infrastructure.
|
Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist
(Post 11579555)
What makes Australian infrastructure so inefficient vs other countries with the same runway configurations?
The money, or the will to improve the situation in YMML apparently doesn't exist. I believe you would discover that at other airports around the world with a similar configuration they would also have to wait for a landing aircraft to pass through the RWY intersection before they could depart an aircraft on the crossing RWY. It's that simple I'm afraid. |
Delays are awesome. It means people spend more time and money in the terminal where the real money is made in retail. Which is what the airport owners want. If you look at Perth, the government is running billion dollar surpluses so could easily sort out the infrastructure except the airport is privately owned. It's all very laborious and time consuming.
|
Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist
(Post 11579555)
What makes Australian infrastructure so inefficient vs other countries with the same runway configurations?
|
Originally Posted by missy
(Post 11579644)
Examples please.
|
Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist
(Post 11579683)
Of what? Airports that utilise only 1 runway or have intersecting runways that manage to move traffic far more efficiently than any here in Australia? Two off the top of my head - BOM and LGW.
Perhaps you could provide us the solution |
Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist
(Post 11579683)
Of what? Airports that utilise only 1 runway or have intersecting runways that manage to move traffic far more efficiently than any here in Australia? Two off the top of my head - BOM and LGW.
LGW 26L and 08R have a displaced threshold and taxiways that enter the runway prior to the landing threshold, so the departing is able to line up sooner than would be the case at eg MEL 16 B, or SYD 16R A1/B1/B2. Simple maths really as the aircraft is in position to roll as soon as the lander is vacating via the suitably spaced RETs. Gatwick has a declared capacity of 55 movements per hour and has effective ATFM tools to more easily switch between ARR and DEP biases. BOM 27 also has a displaced threshold. Both 27 and 32 have a short distance to the runway intersection, this will give you higher movement rates than a 09/14 configuration. Locations of the runways relative to the terminals is a factor. Another important consideration is the SID's. Do the departures have a left and right split? The application NAP can limit the movement rate as the spacing between successive departures needs to be increased. Rather than 1800m metres and airborne it becomes 2NM or more. I recall getting a commendation for doing 55 movements per an hour on a single runway (16 before it became 16R), left for BN/CG, right for pretty much everything else. Sydney gets unfairly compared to other parallel runway airports, give me 2 four thousand metre runways and terminals between the runways and see how well we do? |
Apples and Oranges. The debate has been going for 30 years. Investment in some good tools (reduced wake turbulence monitoring) , as well as having enough people for all the positions needed to be opened separately (no joining of APP/DEP/DIR etc )
How about artificial barriers to efficiencies? Sydney Cap - tie one hand behind your back! |
Originally Posted by Done and done
(Post 11579697)
With the rules that constrain us we do the best we can, my apologies if its not good enough for you.
Perhaps you could provide us the solution We know most of you are doing the best you can within the constraints. The result (unnecessary delays) are NOT good enough for me. |
Which airports do better?
Manila for one. 06/24 the main 13/31 the cross, haven’t googled the movements but it really is amazing. Bali & Phuket also do a pretty good job considering 1 runway and mix of small to supers. Then just look at the efficiency of controlling in places like Jakarta and many places around SE Asia (just not Singapore). |
Originally Posted by josephfeatherweight
(Post 11580164)
Yes, I understand the rules are the constraint. We need to change the rules to increase capacity and throughput. The 80 aircraft per hour cap at YSSY is a good example of an easy fix.
We know most of you are doing the best you can within the constraints. The result (unnecessary delays) are NOT good enough for me. |
The headline of the article should really have been: "Airport privatisation and pretending ATC is a commercial business were really bad ideas for Australians." Subtitle: "(Unless you're milking airports and Airservices for millions.)"
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:45. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.