New airspace: Dick Smith
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said on the JARs.
But read some of the stuff from CASA. It's like the JARs are a given. Do any of you guys (gals) ever remember CASA asking us, the industry.
I certainly don't.
JARs will be nothing but an absolute bloody nightmare for Oz. That's why GA is all but dead in Europe and thriving in the US. The US has stolen Europe's training market, all because of an overly complex and restrictive regulatory scheme.
The same will happen here. Just go to CASA'a site and look at the Draft proposal for light charter. It will KILL charter in the north, just f45678n kill it!!!!!
Now it seems Wrong way Toller want's to impose JARs and thus the stupid new Part 121B on us without consultation.
I suggest we do more than whinge here, but what?? Letters to the paper, or AOPA, or the local pollie are a good start.
Chuck
But read some of the stuff from CASA. It's like the JARs are a given. Do any of you guys (gals) ever remember CASA asking us, the industry.
I certainly don't.
JARs will be nothing but an absolute bloody nightmare for Oz. That's why GA is all but dead in Europe and thriving in the US. The US has stolen Europe's training market, all because of an overly complex and restrictive regulatory scheme.
The same will happen here. Just go to CASA'a site and look at the Draft proposal for light charter. It will KILL charter in the north, just f45678n kill it!!!!!
Now it seems Wrong way Toller want's to impose JARs and thus the stupid new Part 121B on us without consultation.
I suggest we do more than whinge here, but what?? Letters to the paper, or AOPA, or the local pollie are a good start.
Chuck
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know how low the base will be. Now we are getting somewhere! The problem is crucial 'details' like this are unknowns. It depends who you listen to. ASA seem to think 12500', or several different figures around this altitude, in reality you will have to have no higher than 7500' as a base for the bulk of the twins to operate in (unless, of course, the plan is to provide almost no service to the industry), and Dick mentions 1200'. Everybody involved has got a different answer/desire. The devil is in the detail.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ULM (Chuck)and others, OFF the airspace topic, but if you don't like 121B or any of the other proposed changes, get a copy of the relevant NPRM and RESPOND TO IT. Otherwise the great australian apathy will win out yet again. Where ? Phone CASA 131757.
I’ve just spent 4 days flying Hilo – Monterey – Page Arizona – Wichita – Chicago – New York in my Caravan at low levels, and then 3 days flying New York – St Louis – Washington – Taos – Lake Havasu City – Los Angeles in a Falcon 10, all learning about airspace. I’ve taken some really good video, which I’d be happy to show if anyone phones me on 02 9450 0600.
The information I have gained confirms that the US system is extremely safe, simple and cost efficient. This is because the USA is a wealthy country with lots of potential litigants, and enormous pressure from traffic density to evolve to the best outcome. It is the reason that a Boeing 747 is more successful than a Nomad.
I will attempt to answer some of the questions.
Four Seven Eleven re cost savings – my cost saving estimates come from asking advice from air traffic controllers and ex Airservices management staff. I have estimated the savings at $50 million, which comes from reducing ATC sectors. Those who fly IFR at the present time will know that even with all the VFR aircraft giving position reports which are retransmitted on ATC, and even with the myriad of calls for area QNH, many of the sectors are not overloaded. If we can move to a system with fewer sectors there are substantial cost savings.
Flying in the USA it is obvious that each air traffic control sector has many more aircraft under control at any given time. I suppose it is like comparing 14 container lifts per hour, with 28 container lifts per hour.
Four Seven Eleven, you are suggesting that because I have a vision on how to improve our aviation system that I should be barred from being part of any panel which could introduce reforms. This is a unique idea, however I believe it wouldn’t move us very far ahead.
I also point out that this proposal to move to the USA NAS system was instigated by both Ian Lucas (Qantas Chief Pilot) and senior people at CASA. I happen to agree with them that this is the way to go.
Your scenario for Class E airspace to 1,200’ without VHF radio would not be typical. As stated by other participants in this thread, it would not be normal for Class E airspace to descend to 1,200’ without VHF coverage. VHF coverage is not a requirement for Class E airspace, however delays would be greater if traffic densities are high.
You have stated,
I suggest you phone me and I will give you a list of some of the changes I have instigated or been directly involved in. Over 40 major changes at the last count – everything from AMATS (i.e. the airspace we fly in now), Class E, Certified Air/Ground, private pilot instrument ratings, first of type certification, and the major change from a uniquely Australian designed flight date processing system to the TAAATS system that we now have. None of these major changes have been reversed, and many have given substantial savings so more people are still in work.
You mention that people will be
Surely after 10 years since the AMATS changes, and 3 years of discussion on LAMP, all the options have been considered. Quite clearly they have, it is actually the resistance to change which has stopped us moving ahead to a modern international system.
Ferris, you state that with the present system
As stated above, I think anyone who has flown in the USA, European or Canadian systems and compared it with the workload on the Aussie system, would know that there is a chance for efficiency improvements. This will depend on removing unnecessary loading on ATC frequencies. Recently I was flying above Mallacoota at FL410 and the radio was jammed by VFR pilots communicating in the Hobart training area. Under the NAS system, this will not happen.
Achilles, you mention
It is not that you are being treated as a second class operator, it is simply the fact that you don’t have 400 passengers behind you to pay for the cost of terminal radar, rescue and fire fighting, and ILS at each landing airport. Whether we like it or not, the present airspace system does not provide the same level of service at Broken Hill as it does at Sydney. This is not only because the risk varies greatly, but also because there is simply no way that the small number of passengers who fly to Broken Hill could afford the safety services provided to the large number of passengers at Sydney airport. This is a fact of life, however under the NAS system, resources should be able to be allocated more effectively. In many cases, safety can be improved in low traffic density areas.
Ulm, you state
I couldn’t agree more. I wonder if anyone realises the strong involvement from people from overseas in our aviation environment. As an Aussie I would love to get support from people who believe we can run our own affairs in aviation.
Capcom, in relation to Dubbo, you asked who will provide the DTI service. The answer is simple. It will be provided as it is now by ATC. The service in the terminal area will be provided to all IFR aircraft. Aircraft coming in from the controlled airspace above will already be in the system. Aircraft coming into the terminal area from Class G airspace will call ATC and request traffic information. In time, an airport like Dubbo will go to Class E airspace, and any aircraft performing an instrument approach or departure will require a clearance from ATC – what could be simpler?
You also ask what difference does pressurisation make to the service provision level. For one thing, the passengers get a far smoother flight, normally above the inversion layer. Pressurised aircraft normally comply with a higher airworthiness standard so passengers are getting a higher level of safety. The number of passengers in a pressurised aircraft normally can afford the cost of a separation service added to their airline ticket without deciding not to buy the ticked and go by road.
I think there has been a misunderstanding in relation to a “temporary” Class E service as this was never intended. A Class E corridor or terminal area is as simple as a chart amendment or NOTAM - just as Class D airspace was promulgated for helicopters at the Grand Prix. However, a Class E service would only be put in if traffic density showed that it was necessary for safety, and cost effective.
Most importantly Capcom, of all of the statements in this thread, the most amazing to me was yours
This is similar to the statement made to me that the lack of reform and the high costs in aviation have had nothing to do with Ansett going broke and 15,000 people being put out of work. The answer is simple. In a global environment, all Australian businesses have to compete. High costs in aviation are added to business costs and therefore our competitiveness. We already have the disadvantages of long distances and no advantages of efficiencies of scale, so we need to be very astute in the way we save every unnecessary dollar. If we save $50 million in our airspace system, this will eventually reflect in savings of production in Australia. This will, in effect, make us $50 million more competitive in the international marketplace.
I know $50 million is only a minute amount compared to the billions of dollars of foreign debt that we have, however the difference between success and failure is a razor’s edge.
The information I have gained confirms that the US system is extremely safe, simple and cost efficient. This is because the USA is a wealthy country with lots of potential litigants, and enormous pressure from traffic density to evolve to the best outcome. It is the reason that a Boeing 747 is more successful than a Nomad.
I will attempt to answer some of the questions.
Four Seven Eleven re cost savings – my cost saving estimates come from asking advice from air traffic controllers and ex Airservices management staff. I have estimated the savings at $50 million, which comes from reducing ATC sectors. Those who fly IFR at the present time will know that even with all the VFR aircraft giving position reports which are retransmitted on ATC, and even with the myriad of calls for area QNH, many of the sectors are not overloaded. If we can move to a system with fewer sectors there are substantial cost savings.
Flying in the USA it is obvious that each air traffic control sector has many more aircraft under control at any given time. I suppose it is like comparing 14 container lifts per hour, with 28 container lifts per hour.
Four Seven Eleven, you are suggesting that because I have a vision on how to improve our aviation system that I should be barred from being part of any panel which could introduce reforms. This is a unique idea, however I believe it wouldn’t move us very far ahead.
I also point out that this proposal to move to the USA NAS system was instigated by both Ian Lucas (Qantas Chief Pilot) and senior people at CASA. I happen to agree with them that this is the way to go.
Your scenario for Class E airspace to 1,200’ without VHF radio would not be typical. As stated by other participants in this thread, it would not be normal for Class E airspace to descend to 1,200’ without VHF coverage. VHF coverage is not a requirement for Class E airspace, however delays would be greater if traffic densities are high.
You have stated,
“Twice in the past, Mr Smith has held a position of responsibility under the public purse (CAA and CASA). Both times, he tried to initiate change and failed.”
You mention that people will be
“. . . always wondering if we should have taken the trouble to really look at the options available.”
Ferris, you state that with the present system
“Cost is no longer a factor. Cost is as low as it can go.”
Achilles, you mention
“I for one am sick of being regarded as a second class operator because I operate a non-pressurised, non RPT, commercial aircraft.”
Ulm, you state
“I REALLY think we need an FAR based system, not JARs as pushed by the silly pom.”
Capcom, in relation to Dubbo, you asked who will provide the DTI service. The answer is simple. It will be provided as it is now by ATC. The service in the terminal area will be provided to all IFR aircraft. Aircraft coming in from the controlled airspace above will already be in the system. Aircraft coming into the terminal area from Class G airspace will call ATC and request traffic information. In time, an airport like Dubbo will go to Class E airspace, and any aircraft performing an instrument approach or departure will require a clearance from ATC – what could be simpler?
You also ask what difference does pressurisation make to the service provision level. For one thing, the passengers get a far smoother flight, normally above the inversion layer. Pressurised aircraft normally comply with a higher airworthiness standard so passengers are getting a higher level of safety. The number of passengers in a pressurised aircraft normally can afford the cost of a separation service added to their airline ticket without deciding not to buy the ticked and go by road.
I think there has been a misunderstanding in relation to a “temporary” Class E service as this was never intended. A Class E corridor or terminal area is as simple as a chart amendment or NOTAM - just as Class D airspace was promulgated for helicopters at the Grand Prix. However, a Class E service would only be put in if traffic density showed that it was necessary for safety, and cost effective.
Most importantly Capcom, of all of the statements in this thread, the most amazing to me was yours
“Could you explain how Australian Airspace design has anything to do with global competition?”
I know $50 million is only a minute amount compared to the billions of dollars of foreign debt that we have, however the difference between success and failure is a razor’s edge.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
Picking of a nit notwithstanding;
I am sure you meant this only in relation to FAR25 transport category equipment in so far as "levels of safety" are concerned.
FAR23 or aircraft with a MTOW of 5700kgs or less, viz, King Air, Conquest, Cheyenne et al do not comply with "higher airworthiness standards" and the passengers do not get a higher "level" of safety contrary to the common myths put about.
The are designed and certified to the same "levels" as the C172 , C210P or Chieftain, they just happen to be pressurised.
The Conquest 11 is quite happy routinely mixing it, at up to FL350 on the high altitude airways with the big kids, but the "safety case" that implies shouldn't be confused with the big kids.
Picking of a nit notwithstanding;
You also ask what difference does pressurisation make to the service provision level. For one thing, the passengers get a far smoother flight, normally above the inversion layer. Pressurised aircraft normally comply with a higher airworthiness standard so passengers are getting a higher level of safety. The number of passengers in a pressurised aircraft normally can afford the cost of a separation service added to their airline ticket without deciding not to buy the ticked and go by road.
FAR23 or aircraft with a MTOW of 5700kgs or less, viz, King Air, Conquest, Cheyenne et al do not comply with "higher airworthiness standards" and the passengers do not get a higher "level" of safety contrary to the common myths put about.
The are designed and certified to the same "levels" as the C172 , C210P or Chieftain, they just happen to be pressurised.
The Conquest 11 is quite happy routinely mixing it, at up to FL350 on the high altitude airways with the big kids, but the "safety case" that implies shouldn't be confused with the big kids.
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith : “ BIK_116.80....As you would know, airline aircraft descend through Class G to non-radar control zones in many places in the UK....during weekends when the military radar service closes down, these aircraft descend on a see and avoid basis.”
BIK_116.80 : “...I am not aware of any non-radar control zones in the UK….Which places are you referring to? And which types of airline aircraft operate there?....I am trying to properly understand your statement, ‘…when the military radar service closes down, these aircraft descend on a see and avoid basis.’ I don’t understand how ‘see and avoid’ could work if I were in cloud.”
Mr Smith : “I will attempt to answer some of the questions.”
(my emphasis)
BIK_116.80 : “...I am not aware of any non-radar control zones in the UK….Which places are you referring to? And which types of airline aircraft operate there?....I am trying to properly understand your statement, ‘…when the military radar service closes down, these aircraft descend on a see and avoid basis.’ I don’t understand how ‘see and avoid’ could work if I were in cloud.”
Mr Smith : “I will attempt to answer some of the questions.”
(my emphasis)
Dear Mr Smith
You may have gathered from my comments on this thread so far that I am yet to be convinced as to which airspace model is ‘better’ than another. However, I am convinced that to the extent your public statements reflect your understanding of airspace regulation, you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the legal requirements applicable to airspace promulgation. If you better understood those requirements, you might have a better chance of getting your preferred airspace model implemented.
You state that
Not accurate I’m afraid. And therein lies one of the key reasons for the demise of your ‘trial’ and one of the impediments to the implementation of your preferred model.
Simply printing something on a chart or sending out a thing called a NOTAM does not make it so.
A volume of a particular class of airspace exists not because it has been printed on a chart or described in a NOTAM. It exists because and only to the extent that the printing reflects a valid exercise of the power to determine that airspace.
It’s no different from me planting a ‘no left turn’ sign beside the street outside my door. [Gaunty: NTLC "left"] Putting the sign there does not make it so: I have no power to control the traffic flow in my street.
There are constraints upon the exercise of the power to determine a volume of airspace to be a particular class of airspace. Under regulation 2.04(b) of the Air Services Regulations, Airservices Australia – and only Airservices Australia - has power to determine that a volume of airspace is of a class specified, in accordance with Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention, as Class A, B, C, D, E, F or G. There is a process that must be followed in exercising that power.
That process and those constraints are there for some very good reasons, as the G ‘trial’ demonstrates. That trial was the airspace equivalent of someone planting some road signs they thought would be an improvement.
That said, I respect your tenacity and willingness to go toe-to-toe on this forum.
[edited for formatting]
You may have gathered from my comments on this thread so far that I am yet to be convinced as to which airspace model is ‘better’ than another. However, I am convinced that to the extent your public statements reflect your understanding of airspace regulation, you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the legal requirements applicable to airspace promulgation. If you better understood those requirements, you might have a better chance of getting your preferred airspace model implemented.
You state that
A Class E corridor or terminal area is as simple as a chart amendment or NOTAM - just as Class D airspace was promulgated for helicopters at the Grand Prix.
Simply printing something on a chart or sending out a thing called a NOTAM does not make it so.
A volume of a particular class of airspace exists not because it has been printed on a chart or described in a NOTAM. It exists because and only to the extent that the printing reflects a valid exercise of the power to determine that airspace.
It’s no different from me planting a ‘no left turn’ sign beside the street outside my door. [Gaunty: NTLC "left"] Putting the sign there does not make it so: I have no power to control the traffic flow in my street.
There are constraints upon the exercise of the power to determine a volume of airspace to be a particular class of airspace. Under regulation 2.04(b) of the Air Services Regulations, Airservices Australia – and only Airservices Australia - has power to determine that a volume of airspace is of a class specified, in accordance with Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention, as Class A, B, C, D, E, F or G. There is a process that must be followed in exercising that power.
That process and those constraints are there for some very good reasons, as the G ‘trial’ demonstrates. That trial was the airspace equivalent of someone planting some road signs they thought would be an improvement.
That said, I respect your tenacity and willingness to go toe-to-toe on this forum.
[edited for formatting]
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Smith, I posted the following in this thread on 15 May, Could you please comment because I would like an answer?
I find it interesting that you are suggesting that the NAS comes from the Chief Pilot of Qantas. Qantas has publicly stated that they did do the secretarial on the NAS, and they would support whatever airspace that is approved by CASA, but they are NOT the author of the document.
Sui Generis
One thing that has been lost in this debate is not who is supporting what argument, but the way that the industry participation has been undermined.
The minister has effectivly killed any industry participation on any future policy changes in aviation.
What company will fund their people at great expence to participate, if at the end of it, or nearing the end of it, a private citizen throws out all the work done.
The minister has killed all TRUST in the aviation community.
But TRUST has been lacking for a long time.
The minister has effectivly killed any industry participation on any future policy changes in aviation.
What company will fund their people at great expence to participate, if at the end of it, or nearing the end of it, a private citizen throws out all the work done.
The minister has killed all TRUST in the aviation community.
But TRUST has been lacking for a long time.
Sui Generis
Last edited by twodogsflying; 4th Jun 2002 at 11:19.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, it has to be acknowledged that Mr Smith is an entrepeneur, and as such is used to finding his way around obstacles- not necessarily why they are there. This may well be a good thing in business, but in regulation?
At last we have some idea of where the fabled $50 mil comes from. What UTTER GARBAGE!!!!! (breathing deeply, try and stay calm). Fewer sectors? I had given you more credit than this, Mr Smith. How can listening to the radio tell you how busy a controller is? Only someone who has no understanding of what a controller does could make that statement. It's like walking into the cockpit during cruise and saying "gee, those pilots don't do much- overpaid, underworked" etc.
Melbourne has about 60 sector suites, and during quiet times (mid-morning etc.) maybe half of them are open. And when it's busy, say 5PM Friday with wx, nearly all of them are open. Nowadays, it is rare to find a suite that has only one 'sector' on it. That is because due to ECONOMIC RATIONALISM, the controllers talking to the traffic in controlled airspace are now doing the jobs of the Flight Service officers (all sacked) AS WELL. That is why at FL410 you hear Farmer Brown in Hobart. If you want to get into sector splits, freq splits, retransmit etc we could go for hours. But if you think you can reduce sectors, you have been sold a lemon. It has already happened. There is no more. It is an ex- sector. Get it?
THE ONLY WAY TO REDUCE SECTORS IS REDUCE THE SERVICE TO IFR'S. IS THAT THE PLAN? Because under your NAS, that isn't the intention. Or is it? Frequency congestion caused by VFR's is not causing MORE sectors than necessary. You really need to check your facts. You claim to have this info from ex-ASA managers. Hahahahahaha. Would you hire one? If they could see the problem, why didn't they fix it while they were there?
So the $50 mil is fantasy. Off the top of my head, you would have to reduce current numbers of controllers by about half. If you really do listen to controllers, Mr Smith, I am telling you that is UTTER NONSENSE. So please, stop peddling that line, and get better advice.
At last we have some idea of where the fabled $50 mil comes from. What UTTER GARBAGE!!!!! (breathing deeply, try and stay calm). Fewer sectors? I had given you more credit than this, Mr Smith. How can listening to the radio tell you how busy a controller is? Only someone who has no understanding of what a controller does could make that statement. It's like walking into the cockpit during cruise and saying "gee, those pilots don't do much- overpaid, underworked" etc.
Melbourne has about 60 sector suites, and during quiet times (mid-morning etc.) maybe half of them are open. And when it's busy, say 5PM Friday with wx, nearly all of them are open. Nowadays, it is rare to find a suite that has only one 'sector' on it. That is because due to ECONOMIC RATIONALISM, the controllers talking to the traffic in controlled airspace are now doing the jobs of the Flight Service officers (all sacked) AS WELL. That is why at FL410 you hear Farmer Brown in Hobart. If you want to get into sector splits, freq splits, retransmit etc we could go for hours. But if you think you can reduce sectors, you have been sold a lemon. It has already happened. There is no more. It is an ex- sector. Get it?
THE ONLY WAY TO REDUCE SECTORS IS REDUCE THE SERVICE TO IFR'S. IS THAT THE PLAN? Because under your NAS, that isn't the intention. Or is it? Frequency congestion caused by VFR's is not causing MORE sectors than necessary. You really need to check your facts. You claim to have this info from ex-ASA managers. Hahahahahaha. Would you hire one? If they could see the problem, why didn't they fix it while they were there?
So the $50 mil is fantasy. Off the top of my head, you would have to reduce current numbers of controllers by about half. If you really do listen to controllers, Mr Smith, I am telling you that is UTTER NONSENSE. So please, stop peddling that line, and get better advice.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I concur with Two Dogs reservations about NAS being any more than a plan typed out on a QANTAS keyboard, with somebody else Dick-tating.
I hear "in the J-curve" and wonder what people (particularly the proposers of NAS) mean by it. Inside the J-curve proposed by LAMP included areas with no VHF coverage below10,000ft (such as off the coast, so thankfully little travelled) and no radar coverage below FL150, (such as Mildura, where the current base of FL125 can be a problem). These were going to be a problem for LAMP, but in the same footprint there will be heaps of places (Portland, Deniliquin, Swan Hill for instance) where an aircraft may not be able to contact ATC at a 1200' base.
The crappy corridors idea is a little better, as they would mostly go to aerodromes with a VHF site, but only if they don't have a 1200' base en-route.
I hear "in the J-curve" and wonder what people (particularly the proposers of NAS) mean by it. Inside the J-curve proposed by LAMP included areas with no VHF coverage below10,000ft (such as off the coast, so thankfully little travelled) and no radar coverage below FL150, (such as Mildura, where the current base of FL125 can be a problem). These were going to be a problem for LAMP, but in the same footprint there will be heaps of places (Portland, Deniliquin, Swan Hill for instance) where an aircraft may not be able to contact ATC at a 1200' base.
The crappy corridors idea is a little better, as they would mostly go to aerodromes with a VHF site, but only if they don't have a 1200' base en-route.
A total review of the existing sectorization is long overdue and was only being held over in the hope that LLAMP would go ahead this year. It is now the only thing that can be done that will achieve any real efficiency in airspace management in Australia in the short term.
To say that the area sector controllers cannot handle more work is a joke. By world standards we are only playing games in this country and the sooner we all realize that the better. Sydney is the only capital city airport that would make it on the world stage, most of the others could exist as an MBZ !
Sure the low level airspace needs a rev and that will take a little time and some education of both pilots and controllers and a severe change in attitude for some. They have all had it too easy for too long. I suspect that the controllers industrial strength may have something to do with it?
Dick is right in that we have to have change in order to survive. That change wont be easy, but it has to occur.
To say that the area sector controllers cannot handle more work is a joke. By world standards we are only playing games in this country and the sooner we all realize that the better. Sydney is the only capital city airport that would make it on the world stage, most of the others could exist as an MBZ !
Sure the low level airspace needs a rev and that will take a little time and some education of both pilots and controllers and a severe change in attitude for some. They have all had it too easy for too long. I suspect that the controllers industrial strength may have something to do with it?
Dick is right in that we have to have change in order to survive. That change wont be easy, but it has to occur.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of Managementspeak. All gratuitous hot air, no facts.
World standards? This country is unique. The sooner some people realise THAT, the better.
A joke? Try telling other controllers that you work upper airspace whilst doing FS- that gets 'em laughing.
"Sure the low level airspace needs a rev" - but that's only for those pi$$y bugsmashers who can't pay, right?
"Change wont be easy" - damn right. You'll have people with half a clue fighting you every step of the way, thankfully. All those pilots who have had it too easy.
World standards? This country is unique. The sooner some people realise THAT, the better.
A joke? Try telling other controllers that you work upper airspace whilst doing FS- that gets 'em laughing.
"Sure the low level airspace needs a rev" - but that's only for those pi$$y bugsmashers who can't pay, right?
"Change wont be easy" - damn right. You'll have people with half a clue fighting you every step of the way, thankfully. All those pilots who have had it too easy.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mae Sai
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$50 million
Mr Smith,
Is that really the only rationalisation of the $50 million dollar figure you plan to give - "I've talked to air trafficers and ex-ASA managers"?!?
I've just this minute talked to air trafficers and CURRENT ASA managers and they say it is going to cost an extra $100 million.
Can we all go home now?
Is that really the only rationalisation of the $50 million dollar figure you plan to give - "I've talked to air trafficers and ex-ASA managers"?!?
I've just this minute talked to air trafficers and CURRENT ASA managers and they say it is going to cost an extra $100 million.
Can we all go home now?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cogwheel,
Your assumptions are horifying. Sure a review of the way we do things is required, sector design etc. But to suggest what we do is a joke if down right offensive; no wonder people get emotive!
We don't have consistency of traffic in Australia like in other places and this is more apparent with the collapse of the blue tails, but at peek times, we can't work any harder! How do you solve that issue... Your maximum is your maximum. Making better use of the slower periods is crucial, but at the end of the day it won't reduce the numbers of controllers required to deal with the maximum rates. It may save you support staff jobs.
Just look at the amount of consoles open between 0630 and 0900 (about 80) then between 1100-1300 (about 35) and then again at 1630-1900 (about 75) (Figures based on ML and BN centres) (SY have 12 consoles, all open during peaks, and about five open in non-peaks). You work it out and the problem will be solved. (If you suggest split shifts then you know where you can shove that!)
Canada: A similar sized country to us with about 7 million more people, about half again give or take, has well in excess of double the amount of controllers than us, and they still have FIS.
Mr. Smith:
Ferris is right to a certain extent, we may be able to reduce some of the positions if we get what was FIS away from ATC sectors, but in the main those functions have simply been added on, remove the add-on still need the original task. A review of tasks etc after the event may get you a few bodies.
I've tried to look very objectively at this issue, the maximum amount of bodies that I can figure is not more than 20 Australia wide, if that gives you $50 Million, then I'm way underpaid.
I'm not syaing we don't need review and rationalisation and reform (airspace or otherwise) but attacking the controllers isn't where the substantive cost savings come from. In fact many controllers would welcome the opportunity to be VR'd.
The removal of 400 peoples jobs from the Canberra office would be a start, they are the ones that ensure the beauracracy exists and foster the dupplication of tasks. Over 300 Managers (non frontline managers) for 2500 staff is where the joke is at. I'm sure some of them are valuable, they could move to where the controllers actually work and then save us all massive infrastructure costs (renting of buildings in CB etc.)
Our recent industrial battle has highlighted many issues, we pay $45K+ for our internal magazine (airspace - a monthly production of no more than 20 pages) editor but are only wanting to pay new fully qualified controllers $39K. That is the joke.
To say that the area sector controllers cannot handle more work is a joke. By world standards we are only playing games in this country and the sooner we all realize that the better. Sydney is the only capital city airport that would make it on the world stage, most of the others could exist as an MBZ !
We don't have consistency of traffic in Australia like in other places and this is more apparent with the collapse of the blue tails, but at peek times, we can't work any harder! How do you solve that issue... Your maximum is your maximum. Making better use of the slower periods is crucial, but at the end of the day it won't reduce the numbers of controllers required to deal with the maximum rates. It may save you support staff jobs.
Just look at the amount of consoles open between 0630 and 0900 (about 80) then between 1100-1300 (about 35) and then again at 1630-1900 (about 75) (Figures based on ML and BN centres) (SY have 12 consoles, all open during peaks, and about five open in non-peaks). You work it out and the problem will be solved. (If you suggest split shifts then you know where you can shove that!)
Canada: A similar sized country to us with about 7 million more people, about half again give or take, has well in excess of double the amount of controllers than us, and they still have FIS.
Mr. Smith:
Ferris is right to a certain extent, we may be able to reduce some of the positions if we get what was FIS away from ATC sectors, but in the main those functions have simply been added on, remove the add-on still need the original task. A review of tasks etc after the event may get you a few bodies.
I've tried to look very objectively at this issue, the maximum amount of bodies that I can figure is not more than 20 Australia wide, if that gives you $50 Million, then I'm way underpaid.
I'm not syaing we don't need review and rationalisation and reform (airspace or otherwise) but attacking the controllers isn't where the substantive cost savings come from. In fact many controllers would welcome the opportunity to be VR'd.
The removal of 400 peoples jobs from the Canberra office would be a start, they are the ones that ensure the beauracracy exists and foster the dupplication of tasks. Over 300 Managers (non frontline managers) for 2500 staff is where the joke is at. I'm sure some of them are valuable, they could move to where the controllers actually work and then save us all massive infrastructure costs (renting of buildings in CB etc.)
Our recent industrial battle has highlighted many issues, we pay $45K+ for our internal magazine (airspace - a monthly production of no more than 20 pages) editor but are only wanting to pay new fully qualified controllers $39K. That is the joke.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe ASA "Air Services" and CASA should be privatised out so they work more effectively & efficiently? The discussion Pollards Deal is very interesting as it shows why the costs end up doubling. 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are all equal, but some are more equal than others...
Dick,
I find this sort of rationale extremely flawed.
If it was applied to other infrastructure in this country, then people living outside of major cities would be excluded from having access to electricity, telephones, roads etc etc. That's why we pay higher rates than pro-rata in the cities, so that the utility providers could provide service to areas that don't have enough people to break even, let alone make a profit! That's why whilst I am living in NSW, my taxes are subsidising the populace in the Northern Territory. That's why we have a Commonwealth!! That's why we have infrastructure!!
Now, how well would it go down with people living outside of big population areas if they were told that they aren't going to get any utilities, cause they can’t pay their own way - it would be an outrage, and rightly so.
But you expect me (and other operators like me), to accept 'poverty pack' service from ATC because I don't carry 400 pax!! And I'm not expecting ILS's and all the trimmings at every port either! I'm talking about BASIC DIRECTED TRAFFIC INFORMATION, and not on a workload permitting basis either. At least then I don't have to worry as much about hitting someone I don't know about or CAN'T SEE.
Just like city dwellers pay more for electricity (for example) than what it would cost to provide for the cities alone, aviation infrastructure should be provided for the whole nation, and for all users who require it to operate safely. Some sectors bring a return and subsidise others that don't, but as a WHOLE, the skies are safer.
On the one hand, we have the government getting CASA to spend money on working on the regs to ensure one standard of safety for air operators, yet on the other hand, we have them (the government) implementing the watering down of safety and actively segregating safety standards between RPT and GA to save money.
I am interested to hear what safety improvements will be made. May I suggest that DTI to remain be one of them.
Dick, I respect the fact that you are striving for an improvement in our airspace system, but it should be a safety first driven agenda, not a case of cutting costs.
It is not that you are being treated as a second class operator, it is simply the fact that you don’t have 400 passengers behind you to pay for the cost of terminal radar, rescue and fire fighting, and ILS at each landing airport
If it was applied to other infrastructure in this country, then people living outside of major cities would be excluded from having access to electricity, telephones, roads etc etc. That's why we pay higher rates than pro-rata in the cities, so that the utility providers could provide service to areas that don't have enough people to break even, let alone make a profit! That's why whilst I am living in NSW, my taxes are subsidising the populace in the Northern Territory. That's why we have a Commonwealth!! That's why we have infrastructure!!
Now, how well would it go down with people living outside of big population areas if they were told that they aren't going to get any utilities, cause they can’t pay their own way - it would be an outrage, and rightly so.
But you expect me (and other operators like me), to accept 'poverty pack' service from ATC because I don't carry 400 pax!! And I'm not expecting ILS's and all the trimmings at every port either! I'm talking about BASIC DIRECTED TRAFFIC INFORMATION, and not on a workload permitting basis either. At least then I don't have to worry as much about hitting someone I don't know about or CAN'T SEE.
Just like city dwellers pay more for electricity (for example) than what it would cost to provide for the cities alone, aviation infrastructure should be provided for the whole nation, and for all users who require it to operate safely. Some sectors bring a return and subsidise others that don't, but as a WHOLE, the skies are safer.
On the one hand, we have the government getting CASA to spend money on working on the regs to ensure one standard of safety for air operators, yet on the other hand, we have them (the government) implementing the watering down of safety and actively segregating safety standards between RPT and GA to save money.
under the NAS system, resources should be able to be allocated more effectively. In many cases, safety can be improved in low traffic density areas.
Dick, I respect the fact that you are striving for an improvement in our airspace system, but it should be a safety first driven agenda, not a case of cutting costs.
Last edited by Achilles; 5th Jun 2002 at 03:13.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Achilles et al
Your post more than adequately demonstrates the problem with a lot of this change.
Despite the pleas from RAPAC's that there is a considerable "community benefit" from aviation outside the RPT arena [or, to put it another way, CASA and AsA have a "community obligation"], the principle is USER PAYS. This is both Government policy and directive. If you don't like it, attack the Government and or vote in the opposition [remembering our old mate Charlie Jones comment about aviation being only for Silvertails.]
So, this leaves us with everybody stuck with paying for what they use. The airlines, the major 'customers' of AsA [BTW, can you guess the reason for the small 's' in AsA??], will not pay ONE PENNY more than they have to for aviation services and actively seek ways of paying less.
Thus, despite any agreement I may have with your comments on roads, rail, telecoms, and the US mail: IT DOESN'T APPLY TO AVIATION!
Get used to it! You come up with a system that is proven and safe operating in what, to us, is a degraded environment or go broke. It's as simple as that.
Guys, whinging about what once was [DTI in 'G' being the primary problem] won't help. Find the money to pay for it or derive an alternative safe system. The days of the Government paying when you cry "Safety" are long gone.
G'day
Your post more than adequately demonstrates the problem with a lot of this change.
Despite the pleas from RAPAC's that there is a considerable "community benefit" from aviation outside the RPT arena [or, to put it another way, CASA and AsA have a "community obligation"], the principle is USER PAYS. This is both Government policy and directive. If you don't like it, attack the Government and or vote in the opposition [remembering our old mate Charlie Jones comment about aviation being only for Silvertails.]
So, this leaves us with everybody stuck with paying for what they use. The airlines, the major 'customers' of AsA [BTW, can you guess the reason for the small 's' in AsA??], will not pay ONE PENNY more than they have to for aviation services and actively seek ways of paying less.
Thus, despite any agreement I may have with your comments on roads, rail, telecoms, and the US mail: IT DOESN'T APPLY TO AVIATION!
Get used to it! You come up with a system that is proven and safe operating in what, to us, is a degraded environment or go broke. It's as simple as that.
Guys, whinging about what once was [DTI in 'G' being the primary problem] won't help. Find the money to pay for it or derive an alternative safe system. The days of the Government paying when you cry "Safety" are long gone.
G'day
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt...
I have found $50 mil: Bring the troops back from Afghanistan home 10 days early!! There, that wasn't too hard!!
I wonder where the proponents of user pays, and their relationship to eroded safety standards will scatter to when a lightie brings down a regional somewhere, sometime.
I wonder where the proponents of user pays, and their relationship to eroded safety standards will scatter to when a lightie brings down a regional somewhere, sometime.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Mr Smith
It seems that PPRuNE has achieved what the political process has failed to achieve: meaningful debate on airspace reform. (Perhaps too late, as the decision has already been made.)
To respond to some of your points:
On rough figures of $100,000 per controller, including salary and support costs, that is about 500 fewer controllers. Is this consistent with your estimate?
Agreed. I would not claim to be 'overloaded' on the sectors which I work. (At least not in terms of operational duties at the console –‘other’ tasks away from the console are a separate issue.) Care must be taken, however, to ensure that 'overload' is not what we achieve by reducing sectors. I believe that resectorisation and reduction in controller numbers can be achieved. I also believe that this can be achieved outside the NAS proposal, but that is a separate debate.
This is NOT what I am suggesting. My post of 26 May:-
I would never put forward the idea that Kevin Sheedy has no place in the furtherance of the great game of AFL. I still don't believe, however that he should be the umpire at this year's Grand Final!
As I have stated in earlier posts, I have serious reservations about the process which resulted in your appointment to a panel convened to assess various models for airspace reform, to compare them and ultimately decide on the best model. I see the role of such a panel as similar to a panel assessing tenders for a government contract. Interested parties put forward submissions (or tenders) and the impartial panel selects the winning model (tender). It is highly improper for an ‘interested’ party to sit on the panel.
I have referred earlier to your role as chairman of CASA. In that role, you blurred the roles of chairman and ‘CEO’. Mick Toller referred to his concerns about this in an interview at the time of his appointment. This time you are blurring the roles of advocate and umpire. This would not be a problem if this was your own private enterprise, but is a serious problem when it is the taxpayers’ funds and the flying public’s safety at stake.
To repeat some of my earlier questions:
1) It seems to be an accepted fact that you have been a supporter of the NAS proposal since its inception. If you accept this, would you like to comment on any conflict of interest which may have arisen by virtue of your participation in the panel which was formed to assess airspace models. In effect, was your mind already made up before the first meeting?
2) You have been chairman of the CAA and later CASA. Will you accept a senior position in the new airspace authority, if one is offered by the Minister? Have any discussions regarding any such offer taken place?
And some new ones if I may:
3) Will the minutes, submissions received, deliberations, decision-making process and voting of the panel be made public?
4) Given the fact that the cost estimates have been based upon "asking advice from air traffic controllers and ex Airservices management staff", will this advice be made public?
5) When this advice was received, how did it compare to the savings to be achieved through the other models (e.g. LLAMP)? Were any costings in fact done for any other models?
6) What was the basis for the safety case (or study/assessment etc.) for the adoption of the NAS system? How did it compare with the same studies done for the other models?
Sincerely concerned
To respond to some of your points:
Four Seven Eleven re cost savings – my cost saving estimates come from asking advice from air traffic controllers and ex Airservices management staff. I have estimated the savings at $50 million, which comes from reducing ATC sectors.
Those who fly IFR at the present time will know that even with all the VFR aircraft giving position reports which are retransmitted on ATC, and even with the myriad of calls for area QNH, many of the sectors are not overloaded. If we can move to a system with fewer sectors there are substantial cost savings.
Four Seven Eleven, you are suggesting that because I have a vision on how to improve our aviation system that I should be barred from being part of any panel which could introduce reforms. This is a unique idea, however I believe it wouldn’t move us very far ahead.
c) With respect, Mr Smith is a well-intentioned person who holds strong opinions. The second of these qualities should have disqualified him from holding a position on the recent board.
d) The NAS proposal would have been better served if Mr Smith had remained what he was: a strong advocate of NAS. You cannot be both a player and an umpire.
d) The NAS proposal would have been better served if Mr Smith had remained what he was: a strong advocate of NAS. You cannot be both a player and an umpire.
As I have stated in earlier posts, I have serious reservations about the process which resulted in your appointment to a panel convened to assess various models for airspace reform, to compare them and ultimately decide on the best model. I see the role of such a panel as similar to a panel assessing tenders for a government contract. Interested parties put forward submissions (or tenders) and the impartial panel selects the winning model (tender). It is highly improper for an ‘interested’ party to sit on the panel.
I have referred earlier to your role as chairman of CASA. In that role, you blurred the roles of chairman and ‘CEO’. Mick Toller referred to his concerns about this in an interview at the time of his appointment. This time you are blurring the roles of advocate and umpire. This would not be a problem if this was your own private enterprise, but is a serious problem when it is the taxpayers’ funds and the flying public’s safety at stake.
To repeat some of my earlier questions:
1) It seems to be an accepted fact that you have been a supporter of the NAS proposal since its inception. If you accept this, would you like to comment on any conflict of interest which may have arisen by virtue of your participation in the panel which was formed to assess airspace models. In effect, was your mind already made up before the first meeting?
2) You have been chairman of the CAA and later CASA. Will you accept a senior position in the new airspace authority, if one is offered by the Minister? Have any discussions regarding any such offer taken place?
And some new ones if I may:
3) Will the minutes, submissions received, deliberations, decision-making process and voting of the panel be made public?
4) Given the fact that the cost estimates have been based upon "asking advice from air traffic controllers and ex Airservices management staff", will this advice be made public?
5) When this advice was received, how did it compare to the savings to be achieved through the other models (e.g. LLAMP)? Were any costings in fact done for any other models?
6) What was the basis for the safety case (or study/assessment etc.) for the adoption of the NAS system? How did it compare with the same studies done for the other models?
Sincerely concerned