Stroppy ATC and Sartime Cancelling

[Spodman]

Just to put this into perspective, It has been a reasonably quiet afternoon, and I've taken 2 amended SARTIMES, cancelled 1 and passed an Area QNH as FLIGHTWATCH. At no time was my ATC workload at such a level that I could not attend to such requests, but I did leave one guy standing by for a couple of minutes. FTDK's request would have been attended to promptly as well, as was some VFR pop-up who wanted FL200 over CWS without a flight plan.

But if workload did not permit during a busy bit of sequencing I may respond with a "Nup!" for periods of 30 minutes or so, and I wouldn't log the spuds requesting to get back to them. If you had tried:

"Centre, XXX unable to remain in VMC, upgrading to IFR due weather, maintaining eight thousand five hundred, request clearance at ammended one zero thousand"!

during such a period, the answer would have been, "Clearance not available..."

[Hempy]

"...no reported IFR traffic at 8000"

[Unhinged]

who wanted FL200 over CWS without a flight plan

Spodman, it's good to hear the other side. Question for you:

Where I fly, FW is available on a discrete frequency, except for a few hours a day. During that time the notams say ... "ON-REQUEST FLIGHT INFORMATION (FIS), SARTIME AND EMERG ALERTING SERVICES AVAILABLE ON FIA FREQUENCIES OR HF"

In a possibly misguided attempt to ease things through the system, when flying vfr I always put in a flight plan with a TBA sartime.

So, does having the plan in make any (useful) difference to you if I call BN CEN to nominate or cancel the sartime ?, or is it all the same and you have no direct access to the information I've put in ?

[james michael]

This one looks like an 'all stations' post

Pera
I am NOT telling ATC to cope. I have seen the detailed statistics. I have suggested precedence does not mean NO it means DELAY.

What is the crisis with

Looking at VHF FW only, the average calls per frequency per day over the two major sample periods were 2 and 3 respectively.

Pick on the biggies via TIBA - gets media, pollies and airlines putting on pressure. We tonka toys don't have the clout - trust me, I do have some IR expertise - including a lot of time helping one of your number down south where I didn't tell him 'service unavailable'

Roger

No TFN this lad

Looking at what you have to do for the missing VFR sartime - I still think the balance of work is less than the stat I mentioned to Pera. And, yes, I agree the handover of FW was not well done. But, until I am elevated to the next TFN, I cannot change the internals of ASA.

Spodman

Spot on and no argument. I think that is exactly what I proposed earlier. Also have no time for people who will not put in FP via NAIPS where available. Examined a recent case at PF where person wanted to regularly drive to airport and jump into a/c and lodge FP over radio for convenience - told him to expect a long long wait

I'll be at ML CEN again on 8 Sept further enhancing my understanding of how the other half lives - lots to take in

[peuce]

I know most of the Controlers on here probably weren't even born at the time, but in the not too distant past, your Union was creaming itself over the prospect of "taking over" Flight Service ...

Now you have DTI and FIS and Sartimes ...

The moral of the story ... be careful what you ask for ...

[oldbull youngbull]

Haven't got a problem in the world accepting your sar cancellation

I may tell you to standby every now and again though

And I may need an interpreter every now and again as well

[Spodman]

Unhinged says:

In a possibly misguided attempt to ease things through the system, when flying vfr I always put in a flight plan with a TBA sartime.

So, does having the plan in make any (useful) difference to you if I call BN CEN to nominate or cancel the sartime ?, or is it all the same and you have no direct access to the information I've put in ?

It makes no difference at all to ATC whether there is a FPL or not when processing SARTIME. The FPL will only help us if you are requesting a clearance or flight following. If our system has a VFR FPL in it that will not be activated it is just hogging a SSR code from the VFR bin, but don't you worry about that...

The advantage of the FPL for a SARTIME is for your own protection: the greater information you have recorded in it, particularly the SPL & contact numbers for finding you if it expires.

your Union was creaming itself over the prospect of "taking over" Flight Service ...

Hardly, and I'm a veteran on both sides of that divide. There was a determination that the final structure would only include ATC, in the face of the confused and impractical hybrid systems proposed by the f@#$wits, erm, I mean management of the day. Many, like myself were able to convert ourselves from FS to ATC, and I work today with another 4 guys of my 1982 Flight Service course!

[Unhinged]

If our system has a VFR FPL in it that will not be activated it is just hogging a SSR code from the VFR bin, but don't you worry about that...

Why would it be "hogging a SSR code" for a flight entirely contained in an area without any radar coverage ? Even when I go IFR there's no code issued, since there's no radar !

Do I take it from that, you'd rather I didn't put in a VFR plan ?

Since the same code can be assigned to multiple aircraft simultaneously, why is this even an issue ?

[Awol57]

I think he might have actually really meant, don't worry about that.

I heard Perth Radar cancel one today with no problems or issues. Perhaps the guy was just having a bad day when this thread was started?

[makespeed250kt]

The cancellation of the odd SARTIME wouldn't normally be a problem, and I think most controllers would be happy to relay this for you to CENSAR.

However, I do recall not long after the removal of the dedicated FW freq near Adelaide (I think it was 133.95 but I'm guessing), there was a constant stream of SARTIME cancellations being made to the surrounding enroute sectors by a/c landing at Parafield.

That in itself should not really be a problem, but it was, because the comms were so bad, and some of the accents so thick, that it was not unsual to make 3 or 4 calls before you were confindent you'd copied their details correctly, or, they were simply just unreadable.

In the middle of a busy gaggle, this would tie up the freq and did at times cause real problems for the sector controllers.

James Michael, sometimes statistics don't tell the whole story,

Cheers.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey 'Spodie'....

It USED to be all about the 'Service'..........

Yeah! I know! T'aint the same now...................

However, knowing wot I know, those of you who can = those of you who are able to at the time = DO!

(When workload permits etc etc etc.)

PPRuneR's ....Just T'aint the same these days... 'Tis called 'Priorities'....and VFR's just ain't in it at times!! ASK DICK!!

Cheers....

[Spodman]

Why would it be "hogging a SSR code" for a flight entirely contained in an area without any radar coverage ? Even when I go IFR there's no code issued, since there's no radar !

Bit off topic I suppose, the Eurocat system assigns an SSR code to the flight plan 30 minutes before the ETD, and the flight plan is automatically cancelled 180 minutes after the ETD, if it is not activated. Whether you are issued a code or not your flight plan is allocated a code if you plan as having SSR. So each unactivated VFR plan ties up a code for 3.5 hours.[QUOTE]Do I take it from that, you'd rather I didn't put in a VFR plan ? /QUOTE]Not at all, I said don't worry about that.

Since the same code can be assigned to multiple aircraft simultaneously, why is this even an issue ?

There are reasons for this. Codes are only allocated simultaneously if the coupling corridors (+/- 8NM, with some other fiddles) do not overlap. If the same codes are allocated in the Perth and Melbourne terminal areas and the system goes into local coupling due to a system failure my labels will all whizz over to Perth, leaving me blinking worriedly at BDG trying to remember if there was an aircraft there or not... There are only 4096 codes, and plenty of them are reserved for other stuff. But don't worry about that either.

and VFR's just ain't in it at times!!

Ah! Mounds of white strips with crap written on them you haven't heard of, names too long to fit in the boxes, where the hell is Mummaloo Wye-Bubba Hill anyway...

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ahh Spodie,

Ah! Mounds of white strips with crap written on them you haven't heard of, names too long to fit in the boxes, where the hell is Mummaloo Wye-Bubba Hill anyway...

If you were in the local FSU, you'd even know who was good for a beer or four at each one of them

[nafai]

James Michael stated:

I am NOT telling ATC to cope. I have seen the detailed statistics. I have suggested precedence does not mean NO it means DELAY.

What is the crisis with

Looking at VHF FW only, the average calls per frequency per day over the two major sample periods were 2 and 3 respectively.

JM, I thought your thorough research would of identified that statistics are up for interpretation especially upon the agenda of those supplying them. At a guess VHF frequencies used for the average included both the lower level (area/DTI sfc-A085/F125/F245) and upper level (control F245+). You wouldn't expect VFR's to call on the upper level frequency but I'd say it has been included to dilute the overall ratio.

Arrivals airspace closer to major city aerodromes are usually one sector with both frequencies combined. Coincidentally this is also a place of increased VFR activity and need of FW services. So in the middle of holding, vectoring, sequencing, traffic alerts and providing service to fee paying customers, the FW function takes a lower priority especially when other communication methods are available.

I can understand the need for training flights to become familar with communications to ATC but some responsibility needs to be used by the pilot and/or instructor as to the timing - tip holding, vectoring, traffic alerts etc is not a real good time.

[james michael]

Nafai

Have a think about the statistic - yes it was for all 29 frequencies and yes it was high and low level - but that still does not alter the validity, particularly as the highest request was for location specific met not SAR c/s.

Requests on arrivals airspace near the capital cities are regularly handled as I suggested earlier - transfer to a sector further out that is not heavily loaded at the moment. That's whwre the 'average' can be balanced.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that VFR should load up inner sectors with tfc, nav etc requests - not sure where that idea came from but not mine.

[nafai]

JM,

I respect your drive for fact and debate on these threads however:

Have a think about the statistic - yes it was for all 29 frequencies and yes it was high and low level - but that still does not alter the validity, particularly as the highest request was for location specific met not SAR c/s.

I think it does alter the validity as there is probably 5-6 arrivals type frequencies handling upward of 70-80% of the FW requests causing congestion to already busy frequencies. I don't have any stats to back this up just first hand and current experience in a range of sectors/frequencies.

Requests on arrivals airspace near the capital cities are regularly handled as I suggested earlier - transfer to a sector further out that is not heavily loaded at the moment. That's whwre the 'average' can be balanced.

Great concept and probably used as mitigator in a safety/risk assessment but not realistic due to VHF coverage especially around major AD's.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that VFR should load up inner sectors with tfc, nav etc requests - not sure where that idea came from but not mine.

Nor I but I'm guessing someone seeking more 'efficiencies' from the ATC system came up with idea, received a bonus and probably an Australia day award. Regardless of where it came from the impact is occurring daily and is another factor putting the ATC, their licence and the traffic under their control under greater risk for the recurring theme of efficiencies ie saving $$$$'s.

[james michael]

Nafai

Re the first and second - not sure what sector/s you are but I hear it very regularly around my capital city and working well.

The point is that GA is attuned to your situation and all I speak to are supportive. By ATC refusing requests rather than looking for a delay or alternative means, in the ultimate demand drops off and workload is shed - but ultimately it must affect justification for staffing. Probably doesn't seem that way now while draining the croc filled swamp

[peuce]

The problem is, many people think ASA are dumb. They are not.

I'll probably hate myself for using this phrase again, but here goes .... ASA are very "tricky" !

• Problem is ... GA still receiving FIS from FW
• FW costs money
• Load FW onto ATC
• ATC are busy and knock back some requests
• ATC get more busier and knock back more requests
• GA get sick of asking and don't try anymore
• Great ... hardly any requests ... service not needed
• FIS removed from ATC
• Problem solved !

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I think the vast majority of requests seem to be coming from the larger pilot training organisations. There is no reason to be calling us on final at Mangalore or Hamilton and cancelling a VFR SARTIME, when a phone call is minutes away

I wonder if this is indicative of yet further decline in training standards or some attempt to make like "real" pilots.

I rarely fly VFR, but when I don't think I have ever cancelled sartime on the radio. Everybody carries a mobile phone these days and ringing the 1800 number generally does the job quickly and easily.

Dr

[Quokka]

So I let it go at that time! I did however make a formal complaint - which later tied up a chunk of someone's time investigating!

You're on the right path... the more reports and formal (legitimate) complaints go in from pilots... the greater the chance that problems will be addressed. Otherwise, the person responsible for responding to the reports is up against the wall come the day it goes bad... not the ATC or pilot who failed to report.

"Letting it go"... and nothing will change.

Prop up a failed system and it will stay a failed system.