Soon to be plenty of ATCO's
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The land down-under
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is apparent is that there's a truckload of work to be done even to see what's possible. The TAAATS/Project 5186 (which became ADATS) divide is a classic example of left hand/right hand approaches.
It is a fact that by virtue of having common systems, even without combining workforces, there are substantial savings to be had. Obviously there's spares/maintenance saving. There's training commonality and there's interoperability efficiencies. Even if different systems, if at least they could talk to each other electronically there'd be substantial savings. TAAATS does automatic coordination with NZ meaning we mostly don't have to talk to the kiwis but everything is full voice coord with RAAF wholly enclosed within a civil sector. TAAATS has to be replaced (it's 15 years old and done its time). ADATS was due for replacement when it was implemented. And for the record Pearce approach is the only military in TAAATS. Richmond approach is done by Sydney Approach controllers (civil) from Sydney in TAAATS. No military base has TAAATS on site.
Airspace management is where the single biggest saving can be made but as as been alluded to above this ain't gunna happen until the squadrons are accountable for the airspace utilisation. Use it all you like fellas - fill your boots, but when you're finished or not going to use it let ATC know so airspace can be deactivated or released. How many times to we see transit corridors active for up to an hour before the first aircraft uses it? How many times do we activate exercise airspace for a couple of hours before being told that it won't be used today? This isn't a case of military ATC sitting on NOTAMs. They're as much in the dark as the rest of us until someone in the squadron deigns to tell the rest of the world.
The philosophy of holding airspace in readiness for someone to strap an FA18/HAWK/F111/PC9 etc. to their @rse and fire off without mission time constraints or realistic notification requirements is gone in the modern world. These days a modern air force has to plan the type of activity, airspace limitations for the purpose of the exercise, timings for fuelling etc. Actual airspace usage AND NOTIFICATION should be in the list.
If we're going to have an air force then it should be equipped and trained to fulfil the roles the nation deems necessary. What shouldn't happen is holding the rest of the country to ransom when it simply isn't necessary.
DNC
It is a fact that by virtue of having common systems, even without combining workforces, there are substantial savings to be had. Obviously there's spares/maintenance saving. There's training commonality and there's interoperability efficiencies. Even if different systems, if at least they could talk to each other electronically there'd be substantial savings. TAAATS does automatic coordination with NZ meaning we mostly don't have to talk to the kiwis but everything is full voice coord with RAAF wholly enclosed within a civil sector. TAAATS has to be replaced (it's 15 years old and done its time). ADATS was due for replacement when it was implemented. And for the record Pearce approach is the only military in TAAATS. Richmond approach is done by Sydney Approach controllers (civil) from Sydney in TAAATS. No military base has TAAATS on site.
Airspace management is where the single biggest saving can be made but as as been alluded to above this ain't gunna happen until the squadrons are accountable for the airspace utilisation. Use it all you like fellas - fill your boots, but when you're finished or not going to use it let ATC know so airspace can be deactivated or released. How many times to we see transit corridors active for up to an hour before the first aircraft uses it? How many times do we activate exercise airspace for a couple of hours before being told that it won't be used today? This isn't a case of military ATC sitting on NOTAMs. They're as much in the dark as the rest of us until someone in the squadron deigns to tell the rest of the world.
The philosophy of holding airspace in readiness for someone to strap an FA18/HAWK/F111/PC9 etc. to their @rse and fire off without mission time constraints or realistic notification requirements is gone in the modern world. These days a modern air force has to plan the type of activity, airspace limitations for the purpose of the exercise, timings for fuelling etc. Actual airspace usage AND NOTIFICATION should be in the list.
If we're going to have an air force then it should be equipped and trained to fulfil the roles the nation deems necessary. What shouldn't happen is holding the rest of the country to ransom when it simply isn't necessary.
DNC
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where will the "more than $300 million" saving come from?
MODS, can we merge this thread; and
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...australia.html
Plucked out of some spin meisters backside most likely. Someone has guessed how much a new ATC system costs and as we'll only be buying one, not two, there's your $300mil.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“However, in 2002 a Defence document signed by current Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston stated: ‘Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems”
The rumour around is that there will be no military air traffic controllers at all, with Airservices running everything and some controllers being on the military reserve.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rumour around is that there will be no military air traffic controllers at all, with Airservices running everything and some controllers being on the military reserve.
This seems to make it clear that he is talking about not having two almost identical air traffic systems.
Systems as in hardware.
The rumour around is that there will be no military air traffic controllers at all, with Airservices running everything and some controllers being on the military reserve.
Have you learnt nothing from the current staffing problems? Any extra numbers will rapidly be reduced.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'The rumour around is that there will be no military air traffic controllers at all, with Airservices running everything and some controllers being on the military reserve.'
How would ASA or the ADF choose which controllers would go? If they didn't have enough willing to go on military reserve, what then? Would sectors then be managed on the basis of only so many 'Military reserve' controllers on each sector in case of a call-up. So that we wouldn't see entire sectors stripped in times of call-up.
If an 'on call reservist' won a position/promotion to another position would they then be knocked back because that area has a full complement of reservists? If a 'civilian' controller won a job that only had room for a 'reservist' controller would they then be required to become a 'reservist'
to take up the position that they had applied for?
What about those applying into ATC being told they have a 'return of service' obligation (to go along with the 5 year $70k training bond) of say 7 years of military reservist obligations. I could see the Gen Yers getting all keen for that. Even if you got them, beside the obvious skill set differences, would the ADF be happy with getting the least experienced controllers to work on the frontline?
Some people seem to throw ideas onto these forums and say it's really easy, it wouldn't take much to achieve, it seems reasonable, wouldn't cost much, all the equipment is already in place,etc and then head for the hills or accuse those, with actual experience who are pointing out some of the challenges involved in implementing the ideas, of being resistant to change. I would posit that they are actually realists. Yes we can do it, but you are going to need to put the resources, thoughts and people to it.
Frank, I would have a word to the person who told you of this rumour and ask them some of these questions.You might, on reflection, be able to think of a few more. I'm surprised that you had not thought to ask them to expand on this rumour at the time it was told to you. I would appreciate your posting their answers on here.
Last edited by max1; 22nd Sep 2009 at 02:59.
The FIS saving came by a large reduction in employed staff.
Are you suggesting that the saving will come from a large reduction in the total number of ATC's employed?
I understood we did not have enough ATC's at the present time.
Are you suggesting that the saving will come from a large reduction in the total number of ATC's employed?
I understood we did not have enough ATC's at the present time.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Dick it comes from claiming a saving on paper despite all evidence that more money was actually spent. We have many people that claim a saving when in reality it may cost more... Take sector consolidation from PH, AD, DN and SY into BN and ML as an example, did it save a cracker or cost many?
How many FIS people got made redundant, yes it was a one off cost but did it get counted against the 'savings'? How many got retrained into ATC, how many succeeded in that training, how many got VR at the end of the retraining? How many got moved to AUSFIC, or training roles etc. Did this count? How many Smelly's (said with love) are still in the game? How many of the large (staff) reductions were "actually realised". How many extra ATCs were needed to absorb the FIS jobs? What was the final FIS number before it got assimilated ie circa 1997 numbers in FIS not 1990 numbers? Has there been an actuary look at the numbers and 'prove it'?
Most of 'this money' will be saved (cough, sic, spew) by not replacing RAAF equipment at some point in the future... But the same facilities will need to be purchased now for fitment in the civil system ( ie new equipment needed to move the existing RAAF APP units into the civil units.), hence it will save 5/8ths of bugger all in reality. Then there are all the triggers for redundancy, relocation, training etc.
As for ATC numbers, RAAF have their number, Civil has their number, both sides are short (allegedly), short + short = still short... This may actually need more staff. Reason RAAF ATCs are often co rated they provide APP and TWR services; to take the APP function and put it in the civil system means you lose all the co-ratings and your staffing requirement may go up?
Having said all that is it a good idea to integrate, IMHO hell yes, but will it cost more or save money; my own money is on the first element if anyone is keen to take a bet.
How many FIS people got made redundant, yes it was a one off cost but did it get counted against the 'savings'? How many got retrained into ATC, how many succeeded in that training, how many got VR at the end of the retraining? How many got moved to AUSFIC, or training roles etc. Did this count? How many Smelly's (said with love) are still in the game? How many of the large (staff) reductions were "actually realised". How many extra ATCs were needed to absorb the FIS jobs? What was the final FIS number before it got assimilated ie circa 1997 numbers in FIS not 1990 numbers? Has there been an actuary look at the numbers and 'prove it'?
Most of 'this money' will be saved (cough, sic, spew) by not replacing RAAF equipment at some point in the future... But the same facilities will need to be purchased now for fitment in the civil system ( ie new equipment needed to move the existing RAAF APP units into the civil units.), hence it will save 5/8ths of bugger all in reality. Then there are all the triggers for redundancy, relocation, training etc.
As for ATC numbers, RAAF have their number, Civil has their number, both sides are short (allegedly), short + short = still short... This may actually need more staff. Reason RAAF ATCs are often co rated they provide APP and TWR services; to take the APP function and put it in the civil system means you lose all the co-ratings and your staffing requirement may go up?
Having said all that is it a good idea to integrate, IMHO hell yes, but will it cost more or save money; my own money is on the first element if anyone is keen to take a bet.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will be no savings. Whatever option/plan eventually occurs will cost money.
1. RAAF App to civil centres = spend money
2. RAAF/ASA new ATC machine = spend lots of money
3. Complete ASA takeover (highly improbable ) = spend truckloads of money
4. Re employ RAAF/APS ATC that dont want, or get a job with mega ASA as a result of option3. = more money (VR hopefully)
Please remember that all of our great ideas that we come up with at the console when its quiet, don't always make it to CEO level for implementation. Most ATC's actually talk out of their arse. We are simply employees.
If there is any cost savings to be had, it will only ever exist in some bean counters or spin doctors head !
1. RAAF App to civil centres = spend money
2. RAAF/ASA new ATC machine = spend lots of money
3. Complete ASA takeover (highly improbable ) = spend truckloads of money
4. Re employ RAAF/APS ATC that dont want, or get a job with mega ASA as a result of option3. = more money (VR hopefully)
Please remember that all of our great ideas that we come up with at the console when its quiet, don't always make it to CEO level for implementation. Most ATC's actually talk out of their arse. We are simply employees.
If there is any cost savings to be had, it will only ever exist in some bean counters or spin doctors head !
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: South of Equator
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max1 - The RAAF may try to argue about overseas deployments. Well this can be easily worked out by using a system similar to the RNZAF in the 1970’s. An exercise took place at RAAF Williamtown between the RAAF and RNZAF aircraft. In this exercise, the RNZAF sent two Flight Lieutenants ATCO’s across for the exercise. One morning, following night flying they said that they wanted the SATCO to sign their overtime sheet. Working at Williamtown at the time all of us Aussie military blokes were taken by surprise when the “RNZAF” ATCO’s told us that all ATCO’s in New Zealand were civil ATC and those that worked for the military were given ‘Honorary Rank’.
They had told us that they could move between civil and military jobs, but most of those with the military remained so, as did the others in the civil environment. But, the rules allowed them to change, if they wished. Although the rules and regulations were the same, there were specific requirements for military and civil as we had, but with only one ATC agency. If deployed to a peace-keeping or war zone they relinquished the honorary rank for substantive rank and actually transferred from Civil ATC to the RNZAF for the duration. So, maybe they could look at that concept. I don’t know if this system still exists. Maybe some NZer could enlighten us.
Also another advantage could be as we had on the Military Sector at Adelaide Airport in 1980’s, although unofficial at the time. Well for the period I was there anyrate which was 12 months. Basically, we were responsible for all RAAF Edinburgh Airspace.
The problem arose with a continuous stream of civil traffic including corporate jet and turbo-prop (F27) aircraft that went everyday to Moomba in the morning and back in afternoon. When military P3 (Orion) or other RAAF aircraft wanted the airspace for their use it would come to a head. These RAAF aircraft also wanted to use Adelaide Airport for ILS training (RAAF did not have ILS then).
Normally, civil aircraft planned via SFL which was a cross country tour. As we felt, it was ultimately costing the companies extra money, we would compromise with Adelaide Clearance Delivery and Adelaide Approach/Departures which we sat next to and operated from in the same ‘black hole’ (in the old terminal) giving the direct track up in the morning and back in the evening through the middle of RAAF Restricted Areas.
Adelaide Approach, would oblige by facilitating the RAAF aircraft for ILS training or to operate in a block of CTA while the civil aircraft were using the RAAF Airspace. The RAAF ILS training was allowed with only verbal flight notification via the Military Sector. Both the RAAF and civil pilots were more than happy and it saved thousands of dollars for companies flying to Moomba. All of this was done at the working level and nothing was discussed with senior RAAF officers or civil management because we knew they wouldn’t agree. That is, but one example of how conflicting situations can be resolved in the same environment.
They had told us that they could move between civil and military jobs, but most of those with the military remained so, as did the others in the civil environment. But, the rules allowed them to change, if they wished. Although the rules and regulations were the same, there were specific requirements for military and civil as we had, but with only one ATC agency. If deployed to a peace-keeping or war zone they relinquished the honorary rank for substantive rank and actually transferred from Civil ATC to the RNZAF for the duration. So, maybe they could look at that concept. I don’t know if this system still exists. Maybe some NZer could enlighten us.
Also another advantage could be as we had on the Military Sector at Adelaide Airport in 1980’s, although unofficial at the time. Well for the period I was there anyrate which was 12 months. Basically, we were responsible for all RAAF Edinburgh Airspace.
The problem arose with a continuous stream of civil traffic including corporate jet and turbo-prop (F27) aircraft that went everyday to Moomba in the morning and back in afternoon. When military P3 (Orion) or other RAAF aircraft wanted the airspace for their use it would come to a head. These RAAF aircraft also wanted to use Adelaide Airport for ILS training (RAAF did not have ILS then).
Normally, civil aircraft planned via SFL which was a cross country tour. As we felt, it was ultimately costing the companies extra money, we would compromise with Adelaide Clearance Delivery and Adelaide Approach/Departures which we sat next to and operated from in the same ‘black hole’ (in the old terminal) giving the direct track up in the morning and back in the evening through the middle of RAAF Restricted Areas.
Adelaide Approach, would oblige by facilitating the RAAF aircraft for ILS training or to operate in a block of CTA while the civil aircraft were using the RAAF Airspace. The RAAF ILS training was allowed with only verbal flight notification via the Military Sector. Both the RAAF and civil pilots were more than happy and it saved thousands of dollars for companies flying to Moomba. All of this was done at the working level and nothing was discussed with senior RAAF officers or civil management because we knew they wouldn’t agree. That is, but one example of how conflicting situations can be resolved in the same environment.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, Ladies and undecideds, the key to airpower is FLEXIBILITY (quoted straight out of the Air Power Manual). Retention of mil ATCOs is required for this reason above all else...
Need to cancel leave at a moment's notice (even if you are already on hols) to support deployment/exercise/spontaneous new flying program requirements? Can do, Sir, that's what "service allowance" is for.
Need to extend people's working hours with as little notice as you like (as in "call the missus/day care/chaplain etc, you're working late today") to cover the absences left by those deployed/attached or to cover flypro requirements? No problem Sir, that's why we get service allowance.
Need to rejig the roster on a daily basis to cover out of hours moves? See where we're going here.....?
No need to give 7 days notice for roster amendments, no need to pay overtime, time in lieu is given when possible (a few years back, it was rarely possible, so dry your eyes princess and drink this can of harden up).
Using Reservists or a small core of uniformed personnel for deployments is only the tip of the iceberg. When people deploy (recently lost 1/3 of the section for 3-5 weeks), the ones who aren't deployed have to carry the load while they're away (over time, extra duty controller days etc).
The cancellation of Genesis tells me that at higher levels the RAAF (and I agree) do not trust ASA to staff at appropriate levels to facilitate the flexibility required by defence (whether due to war/peace-keeping ops, Tsunamis, rescue ops, training and/or serviceability of airframe issues - whatever) Not everything can be timetabled months, or even weeks in advance.
Looking at the Ric/Syd issues, where, despite being paid to provide an APP service to Ric, ASA would not staff SYD dep appropriately (combining them so that it could take up to 5 mins to process a "next" call with nothing visible within 25nm of Ric (to the west at least) - why on earth would the RAAF trust them with the whole kit and caboodle?
And while I'm ranting, stop whining about inflexible use of mil airspace. That is not the fault of defence ATC units:
1) many resticted areas require significant lead time via NOTAM for activation (eg 8 hours) so will be NOTAMd IAW the flypro the day before. Weather, serviceability issues etc may mean that the flights are delayed, but the NOTAM can't be cancelled (because it would need to raised again with 8 hours notice) during the delay period.
RAAF ATC would willingly give a temporary airspace release to ASA (thereby avoiding the NOTAM issue) but ASA are not allowed to accept airspace releases because restricted areas change airspace classes - so they would have to provide a class C service in areas which, when restricted airspace is not active, might be E or G.
So vast tracts of airspace sit unused for hours at a time. Very frustrating and a solution (for temporary release) is being actively sought atm.
2. Why are mil restricted areas so big? Because of the nature of operations within that airspace. Bombing/ air to air combat/ refuelling/ conversion training - high cockpit workload, abrupt and extremely fast manouvres (including supersonic speeds) coordination with the other 2,3,4,5 etc aircraft involved, a fast jet in the cruise can cover 10nm a min.
Luckily - we have lots of air space here, so our guys are able to train within big margins - maybe why our safety record is better than others.
But should mil airspace be more flexible - absolutely, with the curent regs though all or nothing seem to be the only options.
Need to cancel leave at a moment's notice (even if you are already on hols) to support deployment/exercise/spontaneous new flying program requirements? Can do, Sir, that's what "service allowance" is for.
Need to extend people's working hours with as little notice as you like (as in "call the missus/day care/chaplain etc, you're working late today") to cover the absences left by those deployed/attached or to cover flypro requirements? No problem Sir, that's why we get service allowance.
Need to rejig the roster on a daily basis to cover out of hours moves? See where we're going here.....?
No need to give 7 days notice for roster amendments, no need to pay overtime, time in lieu is given when possible (a few years back, it was rarely possible, so dry your eyes princess and drink this can of harden up).
Using Reservists or a small core of uniformed personnel for deployments is only the tip of the iceberg. When people deploy (recently lost 1/3 of the section for 3-5 weeks), the ones who aren't deployed have to carry the load while they're away (over time, extra duty controller days etc).
The cancellation of Genesis tells me that at higher levels the RAAF (and I agree) do not trust ASA to staff at appropriate levels to facilitate the flexibility required by defence (whether due to war/peace-keeping ops, Tsunamis, rescue ops, training and/or serviceability of airframe issues - whatever) Not everything can be timetabled months, or even weeks in advance.
Looking at the Ric/Syd issues, where, despite being paid to provide an APP service to Ric, ASA would not staff SYD dep appropriately (combining them so that it could take up to 5 mins to process a "next" call with nothing visible within 25nm of Ric (to the west at least) - why on earth would the RAAF trust them with the whole kit and caboodle?
And while I'm ranting, stop whining about inflexible use of mil airspace. That is not the fault of defence ATC units:
1) many resticted areas require significant lead time via NOTAM for activation (eg 8 hours) so will be NOTAMd IAW the flypro the day before. Weather, serviceability issues etc may mean that the flights are delayed, but the NOTAM can't be cancelled (because it would need to raised again with 8 hours notice) during the delay period.
RAAF ATC would willingly give a temporary airspace release to ASA (thereby avoiding the NOTAM issue) but ASA are not allowed to accept airspace releases because restricted areas change airspace classes - so they would have to provide a class C service in areas which, when restricted airspace is not active, might be E or G.
So vast tracts of airspace sit unused for hours at a time. Very frustrating and a solution (for temporary release) is being actively sought atm.
2. Why are mil restricted areas so big? Because of the nature of operations within that airspace. Bombing/ air to air combat/ refuelling/ conversion training - high cockpit workload, abrupt and extremely fast manouvres (including supersonic speeds) coordination with the other 2,3,4,5 etc aircraft involved, a fast jet in the cruise can cover 10nm a min.
Luckily - we have lots of air space here, so our guys are able to train within big margins - maybe why our safety record is better than others.
But should mil airspace be more flexible - absolutely, with the curent regs though all or nothing seem to be the only options.
Dear Blockla,
I'm very very glad - read 'happy' - you said......
"many Smelly's (said with love)"
I'm watching.......'Area QNH 1013!'
I'm very very glad - read 'happy' - you said......
"many Smelly's (said with love)"
I'm watching.......'Area QNH 1013!'
... always watching 
G'Day 'Peuce'.....
For Frank,
Slight Drift....
The FS 'Official Creed' in the later years just prior to our 'Final Demise'....
When we were 'losing' facilities, and half the staff were 'gorne'....(Took Redundo), our PH staffing had dropped from the ridiculous 128 or so, to around 40, and we were still doing the job - although by then, we were no longer 'servicing' VFR or Full SAR - even if they wished to be 'by request'....
and CTAFs / MBZs had replaced AFIZ's etc etc
"We the Willing,
Led by the Unknowing,
Are doing the impossible for the Ungrateful.
We have done so much for so long,
With so little, We are now qualified
To do Anything with Nothing......"
I had put in a submission for a VHF outlet to be established on top of Mt Bakewell at York, this would have given us and the 'resultant ATC' guys & gals, VHF coverage on the ground at Cunderdin etc instead of this being a HF call.....67 nm away....go figure....Projected cost at the time was around $10K, so 'they' said.
(Power and other facilites were already there..)
Wot I got was a box of paperclips 'With Compliments'....
Prompted by 'making a radio out of coconuts'....
For Frank,
Slight Drift....
The FS 'Official Creed' in the later years just prior to our 'Final Demise'....
When we were 'losing' facilities, and half the staff were 'gorne'....(Took Redundo), our PH staffing had dropped from the ridiculous 128 or so, to around 40, and we were still doing the job - although by then, we were no longer 'servicing' VFR or Full SAR - even if they wished to be 'by request'....
and CTAFs / MBZs had replaced AFIZ's etc etc
"We the Willing,
Led by the Unknowing,
Are doing the impossible for the Ungrateful.
We have done so much for so long,
With so little, We are now qualified
To do Anything with Nothing......"
I had put in a submission for a VHF outlet to be established on top of Mt Bakewell at York, this would have given us and the 'resultant ATC' guys & gals, VHF coverage on the ground at Cunderdin etc instead of this being a HF call.....67 nm away....go figure....Projected cost at the time was around $10K, so 'they' said.
(Power and other facilites were already there..)
Wot I got was a box of paperclips 'With Compliments'....
Prompted by 'making a radio out of coconuts'....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Roger" that.
Pretending you know what you're doing is almost the same as knowing what you are doing, so just accept that you know what you're doing even if you don't and do it.
Help! can someone get this thread back on track.
Pretending you know what you're doing is almost the same as knowing what you are doing, so just accept that you know what you're doing even if you don't and do it.
Help! can someone get this thread back on track.