Australian ATC controllers world's worst?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melbourne
Age: 36
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we should all leave Churchall alone (yeah right)
He just got ATC Sim and is ready to take on the world busiest airspace
Maybe we could get him in to Re-Reform Oz airspace, As his SOP's seem Flawless
Churchall Get a Life
oh sorry that should be
g e t a l i f e
He just got ATC Sim and is ready to take on the world busiest airspace
Maybe we could get him in to Re-Reform Oz airspace, As his SOP's seem Flawless
Churchall Get a Life
oh sorry that should be
g e t a l i f e
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another perspective....
Never been denied a clearance in fourteen years in the USA. The approach controllers do speak fast, but they're good.
Conversley, I went to Bankstown to do an IFR renewal on my Australian ATPL a few years back and we shut down for thirty minutes and waited for a green light from the tower to start 'em up. CAVOK conditions at about 3:00 PM in the afternoon. Just going down to Wollongong and a few places like that to do a renewal.
When I was based at JFK for three and a half years, I got holding about a half dozen times, for only about ten or fifteen minutes and generally associated with T-Storm avoidance.
We get told where to be, at what time, at what altitude and what speed and we hit it right on the money, so as not to create problems. ATC in America is, at times, quite demanding. I've had to watch the embarrasment of my IFR students struggle with the nature of some of these guys, but they're entitled to their money.
The American controllers are simply incredible.
There is no other country in the world that I have flown in that can compare to their speed, professionalism, courtesy, humour and helpfulness.
Conversley, I went to Bankstown to do an IFR renewal on my Australian ATPL a few years back and we shut down for thirty minutes and waited for a green light from the tower to start 'em up. CAVOK conditions at about 3:00 PM in the afternoon. Just going down to Wollongong and a few places like that to do a renewal.
When I was based at JFK for three and a half years, I got holding about a half dozen times, for only about ten or fifteen minutes and generally associated with T-Storm avoidance.
We get told where to be, at what time, at what altitude and what speed and we hit it right on the money, so as not to create problems. ATC in America is, at times, quite demanding. I've had to watch the embarrasment of my IFR students struggle with the nature of some of these guys, but they're entitled to their money.
The American controllers are simply incredible.
There is no other country in the world that I have flown in that can compare to their speed, professionalism, courtesy, humour and helpfulness.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mae Sai
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you going to expand on the reason you were held on the ground at Bankstown, Chris, or are you happy to leave the allusion that there was no reason whatsoever? Start clearance, indeed!
Seems to me there are an awful lot of pilots in this world who believe that any time they are not given direct to destination with no delay, the controllers are lousy. King Dick has taken it upon himself to be the leader of these morons.
I take the more circumstantial (humanitarian?) view that I'm not the only flight in the sky, and that because I am still here to speak of it, those same controllers must have done their job.
Seems to me there are an awful lot of pilots in this world who believe that any time they are not given direct to destination with no delay, the controllers are lousy. King Dick has taken it upon himself to be the leader of these morons.
I take the more circumstantial (humanitarian?) view that I'm not the only flight in the sky, and that because I am still here to speak of it, those same controllers must have done their job.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not forgetting, Chris, that there are 20 times the number of controllers to handle 16 times the number of flights. US controllers have planners, strippers, and flight service to assist them. Compare apples to apples.
"strippers" Yeah, really???
Woomera
P.S. Sorry - couldn't resist that.......!
"strippers" Yeah, really???
Woomera
P.S. Sorry - couldn't resist that.......!
Last edited by Woomera; 9th Jul 2004 at 03:36.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just a poor PPL who has little experience with ATC because most of my flights are conducted VFR in G or E airspace. But, here's my opinion anyway.
Are Australian controlers the worst in the world? Probably not; their reputation has been dragged into the mud by a really crappy union reluctant to tell the truth. Had they stood up and screamed "NAS will cost jobs" they would have had much more respect from the industry that they got by screaming "unsafe".
Can anyone tell me - without using the phrase "unique Australian conditions" - why NAS works in the crowded US skies but is considered unsafe in Australia?
The other problem, as I see it, is that the administrators from Airservices, CASA, DOTARS, right up to John Howard and John Anderson probably are the worst in the world at what they do. They appear to have an agenda to privatize Airservices and shut all the loss-making GA airports.
This will cost ATC jobs ... yet nary a squeak has been heard from CivilAir. It will also cost the big operators $$$ because enroute charges will surely increase when FIS is run by a private concern.
I worry about the future of aviation in Australia from all aspects, especially seeing as the corruption of vested interests are pulling the politicians' string, effectively masking the truth from the general public.
Walrus 7
Are Australian controlers the worst in the world? Probably not; their reputation has been dragged into the mud by a really crappy union reluctant to tell the truth. Had they stood up and screamed "NAS will cost jobs" they would have had much more respect from the industry that they got by screaming "unsafe".
Can anyone tell me - without using the phrase "unique Australian conditions" - why NAS works in the crowded US skies but is considered unsafe in Australia?
The other problem, as I see it, is that the administrators from Airservices, CASA, DOTARS, right up to John Howard and John Anderson probably are the worst in the world at what they do. They appear to have an agenda to privatize Airservices and shut all the loss-making GA airports.
This will cost ATC jobs ... yet nary a squeak has been heard from CivilAir. It will also cost the big operators $$$ because enroute charges will surely increase when FIS is run by a private concern.
I worry about the future of aviation in Australia from all aspects, especially seeing as the corruption of vested interests are pulling the politicians' string, effectively masking the truth from the general public.
Walrus 7
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just a poor PPL who has little experience with ATC because most of my flights are conducted VFR in G or E airspace. But, here's my opinion anyway.
Are Australian controlers the worst in the world? Probably not; their reputation has been dragged into the mud by a really crappy union reluctant to tell the truth. Had they stood up and screamed "NAS will cost jobs" they would have had much more respect from the industry that they got by screaming "unsafe".
Can anyone tell me - without using the phrase "unique Australian conditions" - why NAS works in the crowded US skies but is considered unsafe in Australia?
The other problem, as I see it, is that the administrators from Airservices, CASA, DOTARS, right up to John Howard and John Anderson probably are the worst in the world at what they do. They appear to have an agenda to privatize Airservices and shut all the loss-making GA airports.
This will cost ATC jobs ... yet nary a squeak has been heard from CivilAir. It will also cost the big operators $$$ because enroute charges will surely increase when FIS is run by a private concern.
I worry about the future of aviation in Australia from all aspects, especially seeing as the corruption of vested interests are pulling the politicians' string, effectively masking the truth from the general public.
Are Australian controlers the worst in the world? Probably not; their reputation has been dragged into the mud by a really crappy union reluctant to tell the truth. Had they stood up and screamed "NAS will cost jobs" they would have had much more respect from the industry that they got by screaming "unsafe".
Can anyone tell me - without using the phrase "unique Australian conditions" - why NAS works in the crowded US skies but is considered unsafe in Australia?
The other problem, as I see it, is that the administrators from Airservices, CASA, DOTARS, right up to John Howard and John Anderson probably are the worst in the world at what they do. They appear to have an agenda to privatize Airservices and shut all the loss-making GA airports.
This will cost ATC jobs ... yet nary a squeak has been heard from CivilAir. It will also cost the big operators $$$ because enroute charges will surely increase when FIS is run by a private concern.
I worry about the future of aviation in Australia from all aspects, especially seeing as the corruption of vested interests are pulling the politicians' string, effectively masking the truth from the general public.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walrus- you appear to shoot down your own argument.
One minute, CivilAir are only fighting NAS because it will cost jobs, the next you are lamenting them not fighting something that will cost jobs. Which is it? Do they only act for job security, or not?
If you trawl thru all the NAS threads, I think you'll find that the introduction of NAS would've required a lot more controllers. No-one really knows, because those proposing it couldn't really say where any savings would be. A big reason why ANYBODY should be suspect of a change of that magnitude. Surely, if you are going to do something as big as NAS, you would have all that stuff nailed down. Instead, the head of AsA is before a senate committee saying he doesn't believe there will be any savings- in fact it will cost MORE. I think you are totally misreading what the opposition to NAS is all about.
They don't APPEAR to; it is stated policy.
They don't OWN any airports anymore. It is right-wing philosophy to sell infrastructure. If your local GA airport looks more like a factory outlet than somewhere for aircraft- THAT'S GOVT. POLICY! The short-term grab for dollars doesn't much take into account the need for infrastructure (unless it's privately owned and operated, of course).
FIS is effectively provided by the airlines, themselves, these days. If you meant ATS- well, no argument there. The govt collects a hidden tax in the form of airways charges, by forcing AsA (a govt 'business enterprise') to make a profit for it, every year. Then they sell the airports to private investors, pocket big wads of cash, then sit back and watch as the private investors recover their overpayment by any means possible. It's a great plan. Sell public assets, then make the public pay for their use at higher prices.
A little cynical, aren't we?
Oh, and
After you've read all the threads on pprune, you won't need to ask. Look for these factors;
The US has near TOTAL primary AND secondary radar coverage. Have a good think about what that combination means.
Because of all that extra traffic, there are an enormous number of extra controllers in the US, who are tasked only with controlling (and looking out for/providing add-on services to VFRs on their radar).
The US suffers a much higher rate of mid-air collisions- something some of us don't find acceptable.
The US system costs much MORE to run (by any standard).
The problems for GA in oz, as you have already touched on, don't really have anything to do with airspace systems, NAS etc. More to do with money.
Don't confuse the charging regime with the airspace design (as Dick would have you do).
One minute, CivilAir are only fighting NAS because it will cost jobs, the next you are lamenting them not fighting something that will cost jobs. Which is it? Do they only act for job security, or not?
If you trawl thru all the NAS threads, I think you'll find that the introduction of NAS would've required a lot more controllers. No-one really knows, because those proposing it couldn't really say where any savings would be. A big reason why ANYBODY should be suspect of a change of that magnitude. Surely, if you are going to do something as big as NAS, you would have all that stuff nailed down. Instead, the head of AsA is before a senate committee saying he doesn't believe there will be any savings- in fact it will cost MORE. I think you are totally misreading what the opposition to NAS is all about.
They appear to have an agenda to privatize Airservices
shut all the loss-making GA airports.
It will also cost the big operators $$$ because enroute charges will surely increase when FIS is run by a private concern.
effectively masking the truth from the general public.
Oh, and
why NAS works in the crowded US skies but is considered unsafe in Australia?
The US has near TOTAL primary AND secondary radar coverage. Have a good think about what that combination means.
Because of all that extra traffic, there are an enormous number of extra controllers in the US, who are tasked only with controlling (and looking out for/providing add-on services to VFRs on their radar).
The US suffers a much higher rate of mid-air collisions- something some of us don't find acceptable.
The US system costs much MORE to run (by any standard).
The problems for GA in oz, as you have already touched on, don't really have anything to do with airspace systems, NAS etc. More to do with money.
Don't confuse the charging regime with the airspace design (as Dick would have you do).
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris,
Yes, I am doing exactly that: lamenting that CivilAir are fighting the NAS on safety grounds and not for the real reason - jobs - yet they are deathly quiet when jobs are directly threatened by tower closures. Why? Even if we take the tower closures in isolation from NAS, why is CivilAir so silent?
TOWERS WILL CLOSE. Aircraft owners and schools are already abandoning some of the airports under threat because they know that the outer rim CTAFs won't absorb everything, so they need to get in first.
I did use the term "FIS" when I meant "ATS". Sorry, I mixed up my TLAs.
Thanks for your comments about the US system. If it's so unsafe, why do they persist with it? I note from your profile that you are an ATCO in the Emirates. How does their system contrast / compare with Australia's?
Cheers
Walrus
Yes, I am doing exactly that: lamenting that CivilAir are fighting the NAS on safety grounds and not for the real reason - jobs - yet they are deathly quiet when jobs are directly threatened by tower closures. Why? Even if we take the tower closures in isolation from NAS, why is CivilAir so silent?
TOWERS WILL CLOSE. Aircraft owners and schools are already abandoning some of the airports under threat because they know that the outer rim CTAFs won't absorb everything, so they need to get in first.
I did use the term "FIS" when I meant "ATS". Sorry, I mixed up my TLAs.
Thanks for your comments about the US system. If it's so unsafe, why do they persist with it? I note from your profile that you are an ATCO in the Emirates. How does their system contrast / compare with Australia's?
Cheers
Walrus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walrus.
Read the above, then I say again, read your own argument. If CivilAir were opposing NAS on jobs, then they would be opposing anything that cost jobs. CivilAir is painted by certain segments as a 'militant' outfit. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is much more like the AMA than the Painters and Dockers. There is a lot of angst anytime industrial matters have to be fought.
Re; the UAE. There is only A, C and G here. You are under total radar coverage, there is very little GA (either thru lack of interest, the hideous cost, or the basic discouragement of the authorities). The wealth is very concentrated, so the vast majority of the population (imported labourers) couldn't afford flying. GA is not permitted in most of the country, and it's a tiny country. The ATS are primarily geared to cater to the airlines (as in most places), and they are growing at a great rate. Almost all the movements here are jet movements.
So the systems don't compare at all really.
As for the States.
They can't really change their system. The volume of traffic would mean that to provide the level of safety you get in oz would require so much staff, it wouldn't be practicable. Ironically, they are moving more towards the oz system as we move towards theirs. 9/11 has given them the impetus and funding to exercise more control over their airspace users, and they are concerned about the mid-air rates. Their system is very intransigent, and requires something as big as 9/11 to catalyse change.
Read the above, then I say again, read your own argument. If CivilAir were opposing NAS on jobs, then they would be opposing anything that cost jobs. CivilAir is painted by certain segments as a 'militant' outfit. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is much more like the AMA than the Painters and Dockers. There is a lot of angst anytime industrial matters have to be fought.
Re; the UAE. There is only A, C and G here. You are under total radar coverage, there is very little GA (either thru lack of interest, the hideous cost, or the basic discouragement of the authorities). The wealth is very concentrated, so the vast majority of the population (imported labourers) couldn't afford flying. GA is not permitted in most of the country, and it's a tiny country. The ATS are primarily geared to cater to the airlines (as in most places), and they are growing at a great rate. Almost all the movements here are jet movements.
So the systems don't compare at all really.
As for the States.
They can't really change their system. The volume of traffic would mean that to provide the level of safety you get in oz would require so much staff, it wouldn't be practicable. Ironically, they are moving more towards the oz system as we move towards theirs. 9/11 has given them the impetus and funding to exercise more control over their airspace users, and they are concerned about the mid-air rates. Their system is very intransigent, and requires something as big as 9/11 to catalyse change.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your replies, people.
I understand, but tend to disagree that the privatization of AsA and closing of GAAP towers will cost jobs.
The government will be wanting to make the books look as good as possible to attract a buyer and the fastest way to improve your bottom line is to cut heads. This is, I believe, indicative of what has happened at other privatized infrastructure groups. I see no reason why the same won't happen with Airservices.
With regards to the staff-shortages. Are the current levels thought to be higher or lower than those presented in the AsA cost analysis?
Who is "the 'proponent' and his handful of sycophant poisoned pied piper followers."?
Walrus
I understand, but tend to disagree that the privatization of AsA and closing of GAAP towers will cost jobs.
The government will be wanting to make the books look as good as possible to attract a buyer and the fastest way to improve your bottom line is to cut heads. This is, I believe, indicative of what has happened at other privatized infrastructure groups. I see no reason why the same won't happen with Airservices.
With regards to the staff-shortages. Are the current levels thought to be higher or lower than those presented in the AsA cost analysis?
Who is "the 'proponent' and his handful of sycophant poisoned pied piper followers."?
Walrus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is "the 'proponent'
I see no reason why the same won't happen with Airservices.
The number of jobs depends on what services are to be provided in the new airspace. At this point, nobody knows!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone seen my posts?
There appears to be a couple of posts missing: one of mine and one of someone elses.
A poster (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that the towers were undermanned and that closing the GAAPs wouldn't cost jobs because they would be absorbed at other locations. This is the same post from whence I got the quote about "the proponent" Anyone know where it went?
Subsequently, I asked if the manning levels presented by AsA at the briefings were thought to include the shortages or not. That one's gone, too. I wanted to refer back to these posts and they're not there anymore?
Have they been shifted to another thread?
Walrus
Walrus
No posts have been moved from this thread to my knowledge. Any missing posts could be poster originated.
Woomera
There appears to be a couple of posts missing: one of mine and one of someone elses.
A poster (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that the towers were undermanned and that closing the GAAPs wouldn't cost jobs because they would be absorbed at other locations. This is the same post from whence I got the quote about "the proponent" Anyone know where it went?
Subsequently, I asked if the manning levels presented by AsA at the briefings were thought to include the shortages or not. That one's gone, too. I wanted to refer back to these posts and they're not there anymore?
Have they been shifted to another thread?
Walrus
Walrus
No posts have been moved from this thread to my knowledge. Any missing posts could be poster originated.
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 14th Jul 2004 at 08:57.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Delays at Bankstown and similar...
Well!! I just spoke to an operater in Bankstown and he said they get delays all the time.
I'm seriously starting to wonder if Dick Smith is angered by this and this is the real reason he's making a song and dance over being vectored via the scenic route to get in from Lord Howe!
Seriously, we've gotta get to the bottom of this. I just flew Pittsburgh, Detroit, Memphis, West Palm Beach, Houston and back to Atlantic City. No delays, no waiting in line, no holding. All non-scheduled!
I think we all should sit down and talk about this some more!!
I'm seriously starting to wonder if Dick Smith is angered by this and this is the real reason he's making a song and dance over being vectored via the scenic route to get in from Lord Howe!
Seriously, we've gotta get to the bottom of this. I just flew Pittsburgh, Detroit, Memphis, West Palm Beach, Houston and back to Atlantic City. No delays, no waiting in line, no holding. All non-scheduled!
I think we all should sit down and talk about this some more!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you be a bit more specific than saying : 'An operator, who gets delays all the time' please?
i.e.
Delayed when trying to do what? Depart IFR? depart for Airwork in the Terminal Area? Depart for practice intrument approaches at SY? Depart when cloudbase is below 1500FT and instrument app required to RWY 07 at SY?
Examples?
If we need to talk about it why don't you quote some specific examples and maybe the SY Air Traffic Controllers can answer why the delays are neccessary.
[Such blanket statements only arouse suspicion after a certain previous correspondent.]
i.e.
Delayed when trying to do what? Depart IFR? depart for Airwork in the Terminal Area? Depart for practice intrument approaches at SY? Depart when cloudbase is below 1500FT and instrument app required to RWY 07 at SY?
Examples?
If we need to talk about it why don't you quote some specific examples and maybe the SY Air Traffic Controllers can answer why the delays are neccessary.
[Such blanket statements only arouse suspicion after a certain previous correspondent.]
Last edited by Uncommon Sense; 14th Jul 2004 at 11:10.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncommon sense.
First of all, I must apologise for taking so long for a reply. I am down at recurrent training in Texas.
You have some good points about the general geography of Mascot and its relationship to Bankstown, together with the alignment issues of the runways. Maybe a solution is to move Bankstown Airport!
Sydney has always had issues absorbing traffic due to the low number of runways available and sensitive cufews and flight paths. I certainly understand all that too.
The problem that Dick Smith and many others have referred to is quite a valid one though. The Lane of Entry was always a low level, over populated terrain solution to separation. I don't think it is the safest option. I am frequently given traffic on VFRs at altitudes above 8,500 feet in metropolitan areas in the States and the system works fine. The system here is very dependent upon professional, articulate VFR radio transmissions and transponder usage.
Back to my airwork flight out of Bankstown, you did ask for specifics.
CAVOK, 1500 hours EDT, winds out of the West, BK to Wollongong, NDB approaches and back. IFR flight plan.
Ground held for approx 30 mins at BK and "clearance denied" from Wollongong to BK, so we had to fly around the Sydney C VFR to get back to BK.
In one afternoon I had never had so much of a problem getting airwork done than at any other time in my life!
You have some good points about the general geography of Mascot and its relationship to Bankstown, together with the alignment issues of the runways. Maybe a solution is to move Bankstown Airport!
Sydney has always had issues absorbing traffic due to the low number of runways available and sensitive cufews and flight paths. I certainly understand all that too.
The problem that Dick Smith and many others have referred to is quite a valid one though. The Lane of Entry was always a low level, over populated terrain solution to separation. I don't think it is the safest option. I am frequently given traffic on VFRs at altitudes above 8,500 feet in metropolitan areas in the States and the system works fine. The system here is very dependent upon professional, articulate VFR radio transmissions and transponder usage.
Back to my airwork flight out of Bankstown, you did ask for specifics.
CAVOK, 1500 hours EDT, winds out of the West, BK to Wollongong, NDB approaches and back. IFR flight plan.
Ground held for approx 30 mins at BK and "clearance denied" from Wollongong to BK, so we had to fly around the Sydney C VFR to get back to BK.
In one afternoon I had never had so much of a problem getting airwork done than at any other time in my life!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you telephone and ask the controllers why you had been inconvenienced after you had finished for the the day. I am yet to see a pilot held on the ground or in the air, just because the controller feels like it. If you were polite when you rang, I am sure you would have recieved a reasoned response as to why what happened, happened. Pilots don't always know when there is an emergency in process nearby, or there is a radar problem, or an radio frequency problem, or just a hell of a lot of traffic about. There are thousands of reasons, and the easiest way to find out is to call the centre/tower when finished for the day. Yet how many pilots do this? Bugger all. Even when you have a pilot bitch about a sequence, and you give them the number so we can discuss it later when we both have more time on our hands, invariably you never hear anything from the pilot once on the ground.
