Flightwatch: the disgrace continues
 

at about 1330 today on 121.1 (Cairns Area).

All stations this is Brisbane Centre. Flightwatch on VHF is unavailable due to um er.. staffing levels. I will endeavour to assist with any requirements on this frequency. Significant delays will be experienced on HF.

This is a sad sad state of affairs. As pilots we know that it is not the fault of you guys and girls at the coal face, it is the system you are expected to work under.

What was the story today?

And is there any truth to the rumour that stated that mobile phone callers to cancel SAR were last priority? Is this due $$ to the 1800 number? :eek:

:eek:

Once again, the 2 edged sword of "User Pays"

Sui Generis

For all the above, a big big thank you to Richard, former head of CASA (twice) who set this whole thing up. Remember, AN would still be operating today if you fools and tossers had allowed him to complete his mission!!

Good topic for comment.

And the recent switch of Dectalk from the convenient and efficient service to the paycard access only bull---- system which means you have to make two calls, one to get your weather, and then another to submit your plan once completed.

Yes we know the push is towards utilising NAIPS, but think about it Airservices Aust., we are not all sitting on our arses in an office full of NAIPS terminals at the ready.

Tell me which scenario is logistically simpler:

Scenario A. Early flight required to Melbourne from Bendigo. Wake up early, careful not to wake the kids, grab the phone, jot down weather off Dectalk in a back room, finish off plan and phone it through on the way to the airport. Easy.

Scenario B. Same early flight. The one phone socket in the house requires the dragging of a connection cable through half the house. Starting up the computer takes awhile and Oh dear it has decided to crash. Re boot required -minutes passing by and eventually get into NAIPS, but isn't it slow this morning! Read TAFs etc and wouldn't it be nice to print them off, but if I do I have to connect the printer and it will make a hell of a sound guaranteeing to wake up those kids. So I jot down the weather that I could have jotted down off DECTALK while on the crapper half an hour ago. Already running late do I spend another 15-20 minutes duplicating my hand written flight plan onto NAIPS or say stuff it have to go, could have driven half way to Melbourne by now so I'll phone through my plan by phone on the way to the airport.

Where is the logic? Why cannot DECTALK simply be a return charged call on your phone bill?

Seems the system is being directed by propeller heads, not propeller drivers

I wonder if perhaps flightwatch do have a problem with some staff.
Had a big day earlier this week, 8 hours stick time, most of it with flightwatch on HF.Continuously asked to 'standby' at almost every contact, then another shift change or operator change, HF coms appeared to remain just as busy, but no more standby, very efficient and prompt response; didn't even have to request area QNH.

and Stallie old fruit (no offence intended) ponder this - how many ATS centres are operating at various times when unable to obtain NOTAM briefings due variously NAIPS/internet down? Shouldn't happen but what do you say "everybody wait there and hang about a minute!"

LOAD - AIM - FIRE. :rolleyes:

This thread is music for my eyes. Where do I start? Helicopters are a useful tool primarily because they operate away from airports and fixed bases. But the new system is almost entirely designed to suit fixed base urban operations - accordingly, it does not suit hardly any helicopter operators I know.

I can't remember when I last landed in a hole in the trees and had access via the computer installation convientiently placed at the bottom of the nearest tree!! Oh - and now I can only activate and cancel SAR by telephone - well there is also mobile coverage and public telephones in every hole in the trees I have operated into!! Oh - and now I can easliy get a weather briefing - it is so simple to continually annoy your employer for more phone cards or go through your phone bill and individually bill him/her for the calls each month (especially because I now have so much time on my hands)!! Oh - it also now so easy to obtain area QNH, latest MET, NOTAMS, etc over the radio - all I have to do is climb to flight level nosebleed (where all helicopters operate) to get coverage with flightwatch. Lots of our customers love us to waste the 10 minutes of climb/descend flight time to achieve all these aims (only $200 or so in a light SE turbine). Oh - and while I am up there at FL nosebleed, I might get enough coverage to cancel SAR over the radio (if they will accept it) - well before I do the most dangerous part of the flight: the landing into a confined area. User pays? User pays heaps in bucks and safety!!!

About those flight planning phone calls, I count four:
1. Weather briefing.
2. Flight plan submission.
3. Check your flight plan has been recieved as required by AIP.
4. Call from briefing to fix your ICAO formatting.

And that brings me to my favourite - flight plans. Now I have to do two flight plans - one that I can use in flight, and one that I have to spend 40 mins burning through AIP to translate into ICAO. I love doing this. "But", I hear them say, "you can get a program that does it for you". Well, when they install those computer terminals in every hole in the trees, and when I can afford the software licencing for each machine......

I once asked Airservices at their promo meetings for the introduction of all this crap (or should I say: the withdrawal of a useful system), how many Airservices personnel are there that input flight plans into the new system. If memory serves, the answer was 14 or so. So I sez: "why dont you just teach those 14 how to use our pilot data and convert it into ICAO data so the the 40,000 pilots dont have to do two plans every time? Maybe teaching 14 Vs 40,000 to learn a whole new system is cost effective? Seeing as how the 14 are likely to have a computer, perhaps even buying them the software may help them do it automatically?"

Nope - it seems teaching 40,000 was the way to go.....................

Current situation: Very few helicopter operators I know of (fixed base offshore and EMS aside) use ANY of the services because almost none of it is practical given their work. Almost none use Censar. Few get any weather briefing. Almost none talk to flightwatch for QNH or weather info. It has really enhanced our operations, don't you think?

Mine helmet is now well and truly alight, I must retire imediately to the bar........

See you at the tree Tuesday, Ken?

The Adelaide NOTAMS have had "FLIGHTWATCH 135.75 UNAVAILABLE UNTIL XXXX" BTW the notam gets extended weekly.

.....we will one day have a Mil Low Jet hit a light civil single prop thing and all will be over....


But don't say I didn't warn you.

TRY HARDER to Fly Safer.

ex f111

Thats the dead set unvarnished truth.

Me likewise warning, and it will happen, but nobody is listening, well, until it happens anyway.

And they wont actually have to make contact for the lightie to go belly up either.
I have seen the odd dust trail on the ground way behind the low level fast mover.

Ex F111 & Gaunty,

I dont think Notams or concerns over availability of same change the risk of the impact that you mention, it really is eyes out the window stuff.

Dektalk??? What is that? It's DickTalk. I knew I recognised that voice from somewhere.

ftrplt,

Spotting an aircraft doing 500kts for collision avoidance is not "eye out the window stuff", it's more commonly known as "near impossible".

Your best chance is knowing where that aircraft is likely to be (via a functioning FIS), and avoiding that spot, or co-ordinating with them via radio, while you still have more than a millisecond to react.

And therein lies the problem.
:(

LACKOV - YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. A LJR at least gives you to opportunity to avoid the airspace. There's a very interesting video graphic reproduction of an actual mid-air which occurred in the States between two fast twins - one saw the other about 3 seconds before impact and his attempts to miss barely provided control surface deflection prior to that. The viewer could see by the countdown timer that with two fast twins and both looking for the other at the right spot reaction time is immaterial. If you're gonna hit you're gonna hit and you need every bit of information to aviod that opportunity. Combine this with hi-speed/low visual profile mil jets doing AVM and you gotta ask why not in MIL airspace???????? That is the reason for that airspace and any different is a flagrant disregard for safety.

Handing over.......

ftrplt with all of the respect in the world, I point out to you that the low level very fast military hardware driver aint got time to look out the window ...

Gaunty how the hell it hasn't happened as yet is totally beyond me, knowing what I know about such ops

The voice:

You may not know, but MOST of our time is spent looking out the window!!!

Trust me, I do.

The looking out isn't at the scenery either...

Lackov wrote: In my experience, they are nocomm when on task, so I can't see how that works....But at least ATC makes a general broadcast to those who are listening :mad:

Ex F111

And then there is the station mustering dude who doesn't get the notams or read them if he does, doesn't talk (or want to talk) to anybody except the guys on the bikes, VHF truned down so he can hear the scratchy 2 way. HF? what's that, and doesn't get or want to get high enough to be able talk to Flightwatch, even if he had the patience to. "Just going to pop over here to check the mill, or that mob we saw around here yesterday."

No more the quick call to the local FS on the phone or radio.

Pops up out of the ravine/valley/soak/trees ........in front of or even close to a fast mover. :eek: If I was in the fast mover I think I'd rather not be looking out frankly, at least I'd die having fun :D :p :rolleyes:
I know, I know, there are some very profesional mustering dudes out there, but they are not all so.

edited to fix up some code. :confused:

[ 30 September 2001: Message edited by: gaunty ]

Lackov, we dont expect the slow mover to see us, we hope its us that see you. The faster you go the narrower the arc you have to worry about in front!!

The Voice, I think I know what happens, thanks for the respectful contribution.

Gaunty, exactly.

Kaptain Kremin taking over
So your point of view is all military aircraft should stay inside mil airspace is it? Therefore logic suggests all private a/c should stay inside their training areas and no mid airs will ever happen?! Of course navigation skills will degrade and the defence force won't have any experience at going anywhere outside their training areas to fight wars...but what are the chances of that occuring soon....
As a last point get your whizz wheel out and see how far an a/c goes at 480kts in 15mins, try and work out a turning radius at that speed and see what type of airspace you need to play in.
handing over :eek:

...speaking from experience then OZ?

OZ..... in one of your quieter moments with yourself take a gander in the DAH at how much airspace is available GL up for WAR learning ops. Other activities eg practice for people who like to hear those bang bang noises in their ears or blokes (?)who like to randomly kick a ball and then climb up other blokes back's are also segregated from the normal population. My point is that:

1. Yes you can do that solely in MIL airspace
2. Don't fool yourself - you will not see the one that you smack into even with your enhanced F111 human (yes human)eyeball
3. NOTAM airspace will permit others to avoid, if they can get access to them,
4. what's wrong with doing it in Mil airspace (just requires a little effort at planning)
5. What was ever wrong with the permanent published LJR's that used to be.

BTW OZ, I cannot risk disclosure however I am pro MIL (like you wouldn't believe) I believe that we can safely accommodate and enhance all op requirements for all users with a bit of errort. NAIPS does not enhance this.
handing over.... :D

[ 01 October 2001: Message edited by: KAPTAIN KREMIN ]

KK..taking over
first to business
ex F111. Did I at any time say I was speaking from experience? Maybe its just common sense. If your point goes to credibility we can talk (you complain) about Kiwi pilots joining the RAAF and then RAAF pilots joining the RAF. ;)

KK How can we have an argument if you won't argue...
A very polite response and although I disagree with some of it as we both appear to be pro aviation we will save it for a bar somewhere. :D
Most activity of this type is confined to Notamed areas and then the airspace is released ASAP on completion.

ftrplt:

With all due respect to you, "hoping it is us that sees you" doesn't really sound like a confident reassurance of positive separation. Who sees who first is pretty much irrelevant outside of a dogfight scenario, the closing speed is the same on both sides. If you think you can rely on visual sightings alone for separation, then the only safety net you have is 'big sky' theory. Is there any need to tell you about its few weakpoints?

Jarse:

I hear ya! Agreed and equally frustrated, I dont think I phrased what I was saying properly.

Lackov,

the word 'hoping' was a bit tongue in cheek. The speed difference is not irrelevent, we only need to clear a small arc in front of our flight path to avoid a confliction, we have radar, eyes and altitude on our side. (Most lighties not spending a lot of time at 500ft AGL, croppies excluded). You on the other hand can get hit from anywhere within 360 degrees. All I was trying to say is that we are in the best position to see and avoid you. I have taken separation from lighties at low level on many occasions and I am sure they didnt even know I was there. With us at 500ft, getting visual on a lighty above the horizon is a lot easier for us than for you getting sight of a camouflaged jet below the horizon.

You seem to be saying that visual separation is not a valid technique, so does that mean that any VFR OCTA is a midair waiting to happen??

As an aside, the F18 is currently getting fitted with a transponder interrogator, so make sure you are squawking appropriately, even OCTA; they will see you a lot easier with it on.

Yes, I am saying that visual separation alone is not valid, but no I don't think that "every VFR OCTA is an accident waiting to happen", provided that means other than just visual separation are used. You said it yourself, you've taken action to visually avoid an aircraft that probably didn't even realise you were there, what happens when both parties don't even realise the other is there??
This is the whole point of the thread, if we are not given any FIS to tell us your whereabouts, then what chance do we have (in a no-coms environment)?? Doesn't sound like 'affordable safety' to me.

No probs Lackov, I dont disagree with the lack of FIS issue.

I think we have drifted off the topic on this one.

The problem is "Flightwatch" and the managers that don't manage it....

This is a safety of flight issue and they don't seem to realise that........

Re FLIGHTWATCH - yes it is broken and needs to be fixed; unlike the previous AVFAX etc system that was not broken but was fixed anyway (in a similar manner to how one would 'fix' a dog, if you get my drift......)

Re the LJR & MIL traffic etc; ExF111, Gaunty, The Voice et al - have a look at the Brit equivalent of BASI and you'll see TWO separate Tornado (the aircraft, not the weather)vs C152 incidents, both of which wer fatal & both were utterly avoidable with compliance from the assorted involved parties with regulations for the reading of NOTAMS & use of XPDRs, amongst other things.

My usual area of ops is below A100 and in the region of lots of fast jets, not all RAAF either. When they are operating there are the normal NOTAMs and also a general call on VHF Area freqs advising of the activity. Downside is that by the time the area controller finishs reading it all out the nucks have been and gone.....

Regards

Cogwheel and others in the know.

Can you please explain the situation with FW now. I like many others are not sure where it exists in ATC organisation any more.

I hear that it is run seperately from AsA, that its is a private contractor. etc etc.

I think we will all benifit from an understanding of the organisation structure.

Then we can shoot the rockets where they are deserved, certinaly not at the guys at the pointy end. There are of course some better than others and some who are good but very pissed off and effecting thier performance. Personaly I find the service good, but a friend of mine who flies a fair bit at night (IFR twin) tells me that the HF Freq have not been available a bit lately in the top end, not just the local ones but every one.

Stallie lets keep this one going and lets get the point across to the bosses at FW, AsA, Gov, etc.

As far as the eyes out side thing goes, all pilots use all the methods of traffic avoidance including, seeing, hearning, brefing and dare I say it Feeling (6 Sense).
Its just that some do it better than others.

Jamair

Your point of low level collisions in the UK is well known. It is for this reason that the Military basically 'own' large portions of the low level airspace structure, although, unfortunately the C152 etc. do go there often. Weather and visibility are also often more of a factor than that 'normally' experienced in Oz.

There is [was when I left] a move to get Australian airspace operators to also 'agree' that low level mil jet [& prop/rotor] aircraft be given greater 'freedom' below a certain altitude. How far that 'airspace management model' goes is up to those pushing the barrow. Consultation with Agops and other 'ultra' low level operators needs discussion.

Having said that, the sheer density of mil activity in the UK is higher than Oz, and careful consideration must be applied when comparing the two.

Additional to whatever model is proposed to alleviate the problems [and soon to be withdrawn] DTI is of concern.

I hope that the Industry Safety Panel are as active and vocal as they were last year.


AAMRAAM.

FYI: All of this is [was] being done at AsA, and being a 'corporate' business, it now wants to save money. One way is to dispence with service to low level operators [Civil pleasure craft and other 'free-loaders' like Mil types etc.]

State of play - A mess is in the building, despite the apparent 'good intention'of the designers.

....but as they say, it is no longer my problem. - Good luck with it all.

Cheers.

edit to spell only!

[ 02 October 2001: Message edited by: Ex F111 ]

AMRAAM

Flightwatch is part of AusFIC, a section of Airservices. See http://www.airservices.gov.au/servic...fic/ausfic.htm

Direct your complaints to your industry rep or one of the contacts listed at http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotc...APAC/RAPAC.htm