Jandakot Notam: MBZ during the day
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey CFI....if the controllers got paid $200K, there wouldn't BE staff shortages 
People would be cutting each others throats to get there!
Gee, I'd even think about it
I'm not sure about the numbers, but if a controller at a GAAP AD received half that, he would be doing pretty well.
That's why they can't get staff to go there...they get paid a LOT less than Approach and Area controllers.
And this is as it should be....
People would be cutting each others throats to get there!
Gee, I'd even think about it
I'm not sure about the numbers, but if a controller at a GAAP AD received half that, he would be doing pretty well.
That's why they can't get staff to go there...they get paid a LOT less than Approach and Area controllers.
And this is as it should be....
Moderator
Thread Starter
200 grand was the number the operators were told they would have to come up with in charges to have just one redundant controller replaced in the tower. No way did the controllers "take home" anything like that much. The maths didn't seem to work to me either, especially as the cost of running a tower would surely be a fixed cost no matter how many controllers were in it?
And there were no staff shortages until they were offered huge voluntary redundancies. Some of the alleged numbers that were bandied about then could take the average aussie about 15 years of slog to earn. You can't blame them for taking it.
Many of those who left were good friends and are missed.
And there were no staff shortages until they were offered huge voluntary redundancies. Some of the alleged numbers that were bandied about then could take the average aussie about 15 years of slog to earn. You can't blame them for taking it.
Many of those who left were good friends and are missed.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Caloundra, QLD, Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 or 5 in the circuit at BK? What a bunch of wimps.
Back in the good old days 6 to 8 in the circuit was the norm and if the southern circuit area got too chockers - usually when the circuit aircraft strayed into the SY CTR - then swap a couple into the northern circuit, no probs!
Back in the good old days 6 to 8 in the circuit was the norm and if the southern circuit area got too chockers - usually when the circuit aircraft strayed into the SY CTR - then swap a couple into the northern circuit, no probs!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen 8 in each (29 direction) circuits (left and right), and five lined-up at the centre holding points, (a baron, two robins for a formation t/o, a DC-3 and myself) waiting on centre for a departure about three years ago. They were knocking back ground calls for ccts and holding inbounds at prospect and westmead hospital. I trully (to this day) don't believe I heard the contollers draw breath once. Have also heard a controller (more than once!!!!) ask an a/c to "turn this circuit into a short navex for me would ya?" when others aren't flying a tight cct.
All this at 10.30 on a saturday morning
I went flying on weekdays after that
Now that I think about it, why ARE so many instructors teaching people to fly wide ccts nowadays? It would seem to me that the whole idea of a cct is that an a/c pattern is established so that everyone can follow it (obviously without bumping into each other), whilst at the same time allowing for an engine failure and the rwy complex to be reached if so. I'm not asking this for a s**tstir, just asking why it now appears common, that's all.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]
All this at 10.30 on a saturday morning
I went flying on weekdays after that
Now that I think about it, why ARE so many instructors teaching people to fly wide ccts nowadays? It would seem to me that the whole idea of a cct is that an a/c pattern is established so that everyone can follow it (obviously without bumping into each other), whilst at the same time allowing for an engine failure and the rwy complex to be reached if so. I'm not asking this for a s**tstir, just asking why it now appears common, that's all.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sunny Brisbane
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"PANIC STATIONS PANIC STATIONS PANIC STATIONS" Oh my god we've lost 40% of our business,stop recruiting 9 day f/nights for all(yes that includes you Jandakot)..
I'm pretty sure that was the ASA management call. Although it seems some ASA management can still ride in limousines to lunch!
As always ASA management has 'reacted to a situation'... In 12mths time the call will be "PANIC STATIONS PANIC STATIONS" our traffic levels are back to what they were and some. Why dont we have any trainees in the college to fill sectors we've been running combined for the last year??!
Wrod is that they want to reduce some approach units by 12 staff??
"SYDNEY TERMINAL INFORMATION ZULU
MBZ PROCEDURES APPLY UFN DUE MANAGEMENT STUFF UP!
ALL AIRCRAFT USE QANTAS OPS FREQUENCY 135.5
SYDNEY TERMINAL INFORMATION ZULU"
I'm pretty sure that was the ASA management call. Although it seems some ASA management can still ride in limousines to lunch!
As always ASA management has 'reacted to a situation'... In 12mths time the call will be "PANIC STATIONS PANIC STATIONS" our traffic levels are back to what they were and some. Why dont we have any trainees in the college to fill sectors we've been running combined for the last year??!
Wrod is that they want to reduce some approach units by 12 staff??
"SYDNEY TERMINAL INFORMATION ZULU
MBZ PROCEDURES APPLY UFN DUE MANAGEMENT STUFF UP!
ALL AIRCRAFT USE QANTAS OPS FREQUENCY 135.5
SYDNEY TERMINAL INFORMATION ZULU"
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 49
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes
on
11 Posts
Hmmm....yes but I'm still waiting for the first spear in at Jandakot, it will come, just a matter of time. User pays crap, there needs to be parrallel Runway 12 as well, otherwise those winging a/c noise fools will get a nice fat lycoming ploughing through their loungeroom. Just wait. 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that ASA have imposed a ban on calling in replacement staff on overtime in all but the direst circumstances. Don't know whether someone getting a facefull of rivets qualifies though!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys
You are all shooting at the wrong target.
ASA are merely implementing policy that was imposed by Government as a result of the hard work by Smith, Munro, Mitchell and his AOPA cronies and all of the other strolling aviation adventurers of no fixed agenda beyond self promotion and zero industry experience.
Every operator should write directly to the Minister, pointing out clearly the risks, the cause, disassociating yourself from the aforementioned adventurers and assuring him that as the real professionals involved you will be holding him and his Dept personally and legally responsible for the inevitable fatalities.
The current situation is insanity and those who have campaigned for it should be ashamed.
You are all shooting at the wrong target.
ASA are merely implementing policy that was imposed by Government as a result of the hard work by Smith, Munro, Mitchell and his AOPA cronies and all of the other strolling aviation adventurers of no fixed agenda beyond self promotion and zero industry experience.
Every operator should write directly to the Minister, pointing out clearly the risks, the cause, disassociating yourself from the aforementioned adventurers and assuring him that as the real professionals involved you will be holding him and his Dept personally and legally responsible for the inevitable fatalities.
The current situation is insanity and those who have campaigned for it should be ashamed.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Caloundra, QLD, Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day, Gaunty!
Yep, the seeds were sown some time ago and now we are suffering the consequence!
Back in the good old days (!)BK had a staff of 24 manning 5 positions between 0600and 2300 handling up to 2400 movements a day!
Now there are 12 staff manning 3 positions between 0600 and 0800 but movements are peaking at about 1200 a day.
There is talk of cutting staff further and working longer hours!
I guess it is much the same picture at all the GAAP TWRS.
The usual Airservices approach of boom and bust and NO decent long-term planning! Nothing changes, no one listens, what goes around comes around, only the almighty dollar matters!
Yep, the seeds were sown some time ago and now we are suffering the consequence!
Back in the good old days (!)BK had a staff of 24 manning 5 positions between 0600and 2300 handling up to 2400 movements a day!
Now there are 12 staff manning 3 positions between 0600 and 0800 but movements are peaking at about 1200 a day.
There is talk of cutting staff further and working longer hours!
I guess it is much the same picture at all the GAAP TWRS.
The usual Airservices approach of boom and bust and NO decent long-term planning! Nothing changes, no one listens, what goes around comes around, only the almighty dollar matters!
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty me old fruit.
We have to go way way back, much further than Smith, Munro et al. In fact we have to go back to 1984 or 5 and Henry Bosch and his "inquiry into aviation cost recovery".
Before this 'inquiry' became Guv'ment Policy you will remember we used to all pay our Air Navigation Charges, be sent our operational and airworthiness documents FOR FREE, and of course there were NO landing fees at airports.
So when Cost Recovery (User Pays) reared its ugly head in the form of 'Policy' and the ALOP scheme was dismantled (by the same person who's name escapes me, who set it up in 1972ish) we stated the find we were being hit for all kinds of charges. ANC's were replaced by an AVGAS 'fuel levy' that supposably paid for 'infastructure' items like navaids and regional control towers and associated airspace. Quite naturally, User Pays also means No Use No Pay. Therefore why under this 'policy' would any one expect anybody flying from Bourke to Birdsville to contribute to the financial maintenance of Rockhampton Tower! They didn't use it so they don't pay for it. OK!
I do admit to fighting User Pays as a (wise) policy and I do also admit to promoting No Use No Pay as well. I am prepared to pay my way but I am damned if I will pay any more than that. I believe I am complying strictly with the policy, no more no less.
Whilst I may have contributed to the situation we all find ourselves in now, I was not the only one arguing this particular case and doing so long before Smith, Munro et al appeared on the scene.
The real culprit is actually cost recovery in the form of Government Policy. As I don't see any willingness or desire to change that Policy (particularly from the Public Service in DoT&RA) I am resigned to the fact that we are pretty well stuck with it. The only thing I see that we can actually do is Pay our way but definitely No Use, No Pay.
ding
[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: dingo084 ]
We have to go way way back, much further than Smith, Munro et al. In fact we have to go back to 1984 or 5 and Henry Bosch and his "inquiry into aviation cost recovery".
Before this 'inquiry' became Guv'ment Policy you will remember we used to all pay our Air Navigation Charges, be sent our operational and airworthiness documents FOR FREE, and of course there were NO landing fees at airports.
So when Cost Recovery (User Pays) reared its ugly head in the form of 'Policy' and the ALOP scheme was dismantled (by the same person who's name escapes me, who set it up in 1972ish) we stated the find we were being hit for all kinds of charges. ANC's were replaced by an AVGAS 'fuel levy' that supposably paid for 'infastructure' items like navaids and regional control towers and associated airspace. Quite naturally, User Pays also means No Use No Pay. Therefore why under this 'policy' would any one expect anybody flying from Bourke to Birdsville to contribute to the financial maintenance of Rockhampton Tower! They didn't use it so they don't pay for it. OK!
I do admit to fighting User Pays as a (wise) policy and I do also admit to promoting No Use No Pay as well. I am prepared to pay my way but I am damned if I will pay any more than that. I believe I am complying strictly with the policy, no more no less.
Whilst I may have contributed to the situation we all find ourselves in now, I was not the only one arguing this particular case and doing so long before Smith, Munro et al appeared on the scene.
The real culprit is actually cost recovery in the form of Government Policy. As I don't see any willingness or desire to change that Policy (particularly from the Public Service in DoT&RA) I am resigned to the fact that we are pretty well stuck with it. The only thing I see that we can actually do is Pay our way but definitely No Use, No Pay.
ding
[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: dingo084 ]
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ding084
Phew glad somebodies awake.
There's been so much rape and pillage its hard to remember whose turn it was and when.
My increasingly cranky memory tells me that whilst it was started way back then at least the Gummint was listening to those who actually knew, in so far as it it suited them, by introducing the phantom billing as a test for some time, to see if it worked and what impact it would have before actually imposing it.
I've forgotten the timing and I am too weary of the subject to suss it but our electronic DICK was starting to become fairly active by then and starting to find his voice.
It was also about that time that Gummint decided, completely out of the blue, to impose a 10% sales tax on new aircraft unless it was used for business purposes. On top of the floating of the dollar $1.23 down to $0.80cents in very short time, this drove the final stake into the heart of new aircraft sales. Close to a 50 % increase overnight.
They never collected any sales tax, beyond a bit of pig headedness from Bondy, but by the time it was repealed it was too late.
The exodus of 'talent' from the industry from retirement and general 'too hardness' left a vacuum for the adventurers to fill.
Gummint couldn't believe their luck.
Phew glad somebodies awake.
There's been so much rape and pillage its hard to remember whose turn it was and when.
My increasingly cranky memory tells me that whilst it was started way back then at least the Gummint was listening to those who actually knew, in so far as it it suited them, by introducing the phantom billing as a test for some time, to see if it worked and what impact it would have before actually imposing it.
I've forgotten the timing and I am too weary of the subject to suss it but our electronic DICK was starting to become fairly active by then and starting to find his voice.
It was also about that time that Gummint decided, completely out of the blue, to impose a 10% sales tax on new aircraft unless it was used for business purposes. On top of the floating of the dollar $1.23 down to $0.80cents in very short time, this drove the final stake into the heart of new aircraft sales. Close to a 50 % increase overnight.
They never collected any sales tax, beyond a bit of pig headedness from Bondy, but by the time it was repealed it was too late.
The exodus of 'talent' from the industry from retirement and general 'too hardness' left a vacuum for the adventurers to fill.
Gummint couldn't believe their luck.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFI, I'm sitting here with little knowledge of Jandakot save what's written in ERSA on the table beside me. Rather than directly discuss the issue with staffing hours, it seems there is a considerable waste of capacity during MBZ hours when RWY 06R/24L becomes unavailable - if I am reading correctly. I can understand this policy at night, but why is this in effect during daytime hours?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lowdown,
During the day 24R RIGHT HAND cct. In the MBZ LEFT HAND CCT.
During the day 24L LEFT HAND cct. Not available when JT is an MBZ purely for collision avoidance purposes, cause I gaurantee you'll get some pratt turning right into traffic on 24R.
Another reason traffic have to cross 24R(main rwy) to get to 24L. Need I say more.
During the day 24R RIGHT HAND cct. In the MBZ LEFT HAND CCT.
During the day 24L LEFT HAND cct. Not available when JT is an MBZ purely for collision avoidance purposes, cause I gaurantee you'll get some pratt turning right into traffic on 24R.
Another reason traffic have to cross 24R(main rwy) to get to 24L. Need I say more.
Moderator
Thread Starter
The circuit direction during MBZ hours is part of "Fly Neighbourly" to keep circuit traffic away from the residential areas to the west.
Using the parallel runway in the MBZ wouldn't increase capacity, but it would certainly increase the chance of frequency congestion and the resulting drop in safety with everybody transmitting on 118.1.
Even if the need for more controllers was acknowledged by ASA, where would they get them from? They've paid most of the experienced guys off, they won't be coming back. Can anyone from ATC tell me how long it would take someone from scratch to be trained and qualifed to work JT Tower?
Using the parallel runway in the MBZ wouldn't increase capacity, but it would certainly increase the chance of frequency congestion and the resulting drop in safety with everybody transmitting on 118.1.
Even if the need for more controllers was acknowledged by ASA, where would they get them from? They've paid most of the experienced guys off, they won't be coming back. Can anyone from ATC tell me how long it would take someone from scratch to be trained and qualifed to work JT Tower?
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFI, ma cherie
I won't bother guessing the answer to your question about length of training, because in the long run, if nobody wants to take up the position, it doesn't matter.
GAAP Towers and (in my case) procedural outstation towers are almost at the bottom end of the ATC pay scale. Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying poor here; I think we are well paid, but why would anybody who's being paid more volunteer to go to a station in either of those categories when they are the most obvious targets of ASA's death list. The only reason we are still there at all is because the government has not managed to get the necessary legislation through on privatizing ATC.
The money comes from the centres, and that's all they are interested in. Non Primary CTR towers are somewhat akin to a dotty aunt; a bit of an embarrassment, but unable to be got rid of easily. I had thought we were safe until Sept 11, but JH's now certain re-election will bring up the whole business again. Stand by.
I won't bother guessing the answer to your question about length of training, because in the long run, if nobody wants to take up the position, it doesn't matter.
GAAP Towers and (in my case) procedural outstation towers are almost at the bottom end of the ATC pay scale. Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying poor here; I think we are well paid, but why would anybody who's being paid more volunteer to go to a station in either of those categories when they are the most obvious targets of ASA's death list. The only reason we are still there at all is because the government has not managed to get the necessary legislation through on privatizing ATC.
The money comes from the centres, and that's all they are interested in. Non Primary CTR towers are somewhat akin to a dotty aunt; a bit of an embarrassment, but unable to be got rid of easily. I had thought we were safe until Sept 11, but JH's now certain re-election will bring up the whole business again. Stand by.
Airservices management are on record as saying that they do not put profits before safety.
Yet clearly by not staffing the tower at JT in a manner which allows it to open during the day they are clearly doing just that.
Yet clearly by not staffing the tower at JT in a manner which allows it to open during the day they are clearly doing just that.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm, I think the "Electronic Dick's" catch call was "affordable safety".
Bino's is correct, it takes not that long to train them if you poach from the RAAF (and they think the pay is great)
But...as the RAAF are trying to stem the flow, no one from the ASA big centres wants anything to do with towers...that's why everyone coming back from overseas (who were promised that they would NEVER be reemployed by ASA...now that's sensible, but another story) are given jobs on the condition that they take up the tower positions.
Which is fair enough.
Several have recently gone from Bahrain and UAE to Tamworth......
But as has been said before, the decline began way back, this is just the "coming home to roost" of management decisions taken many years ago.
Bino's is correct, it takes not that long to train them if you poach from the RAAF (and they think the pay is great)
But...as the RAAF are trying to stem the flow, no one from the ASA big centres wants anything to do with towers...that's why everyone coming back from overseas (who were promised that they would NEVER be reemployed by ASA...now that's sensible, but another story) are given jobs on the condition that they take up the tower positions.
Which is fair enough.
Several have recently gone from Bahrain and UAE to Tamworth......
But as has been said before, the decline began way back, this is just the "coming home to roost" of management decisions taken many years ago.
