ATCs Stymie Progress?
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: australia
I have been reliably informed that a very small number of ATC's are opposed to the introduction of this simpler "user friendly" system as directed by CASA.
"doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision"
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: australia
Dick,
I wasn't asking for names. I was asking what evidence you have that some controllers are
besides the fact that they have had the temerity to debate with you on this anonymous forum?
Also Dick you may find that the 'new young controllers' are waiting for their 5 year $70k training bond with ASA is up so they can head off O/S to pick up the big money.
Standing by for argument about not posting my real name.
I wasn't asking for names. I was asking what evidence you have that some controllers are
doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision
Also Dick you may find that the 'new young controllers' are waiting for their 5 year $70k training bond with ASA is up so they can head off O/S to pick up the big money.
Standing by for argument about not posting my real name.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: australia
Sorry Dick I added this whilst you were posting.
Also Dick you may find that the 'new young controllers' are waiting for their 5 year $70k training bond with ASA is up so they can head off O/S to pick up the big money.
What evidence? You tell me. Maybe de-identified submissions to CASA, or anything that backs up
I'll actually settle for anything that you think that 'some' controllers have been able to do that you think impedes the implementation that
Also
and also stated that they thought that NAS was inefficient.
Standing by for "I believe", "I understand' and "I have been told" replies.
Also Dick you may find that the 'new young controllers' are waiting for their 5 year $70k training bond with ASA is up so they can head off O/S to pick up the big money.
What evidence? You tell me. Maybe de-identified submissions to CASA, or anything that backs up
doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision
Airservices Management as well as CASA support
Growahead states that controllers love class D.
Standing by for "I believe", "I understand' and "I have been told" replies.
Last edited by max1; 22nd October 2009 at 13:51.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 510
Likes: 23
From: Karratha,Western Australia
I work at a GAAP. None of us have an issue with changing to class D. Is it going to be worth the hassle? Time will tell.
It does mean we will most likely require 4 people in the cab from now on (rather than 3) and our min staffing jumps 6 (and I believe most GAAP's are in a similar position).
Where these 6 people are coming from is very much up in the air, but ATC's don't just appear over night. For those not aware, a tower course takes about 11 months in Melbourne, then another 6 months of training (at least here) to get fully rated in the tower. This assumes you pass everything first time round. A rated controller cross training has 10 weeks of training to get up to speed - again assuming all goes well. Longer if not. I figure we have about 26 weeks. I haven't even mentioned actually needing line controllers to do the training.
The date is 6 months away now (more or less) and still no one knows how the training is going to be conducted, nor what training is even going to be required. Interesting times ahead, but I certainly would not say anyone here is against or even resistant to the change.
As a relatively new controller I hope its not a change for changes sake and that it isn't going to slow everything down (as seems to be the vicious rumours from industry at the moment).
I guess we will know the answers to all this in 6 months - if we have the staff to do it.
It does mean we will most likely require 4 people in the cab from now on (rather than 3) and our min staffing jumps 6 (and I believe most GAAP's are in a similar position).
Where these 6 people are coming from is very much up in the air, but ATC's don't just appear over night. For those not aware, a tower course takes about 11 months in Melbourne, then another 6 months of training (at least here) to get fully rated in the tower. This assumes you pass everything first time round. A rated controller cross training has 10 weeks of training to get up to speed - again assuming all goes well. Longer if not. I figure we have about 26 weeks. I haven't even mentioned actually needing line controllers to do the training.
The date is 6 months away now (more or less) and still no one knows how the training is going to be conducted, nor what training is even going to be required. Interesting times ahead, but I certainly would not say anyone here is against or even resistant to the change.
As a relatively new controller I hope its not a change for changes sake and that it isn't going to slow everything down (as seems to be the vicious rumours from industry at the moment).
I guess we will know the answers to all this in 6 months - if we have the staff to do it.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 189
Likes: 4
From: Europe
Well, I can tell you the culture is very very different overseas compared to Oz. The regulation in Oz makes it hard for the controller to act efficiently. You are not even allowed to direct track an aircraft. Yes, that's right. not allowed.
I don't think you are going to have a problem with old controllers any more anyway. I believe the Germans are about to increase their number of trainees significantly. And I also believe the Aussies in the college are doing a sterling job, and therefore job opportunities will be available for those who are blocking your desired and necessary progress to move overseas. The rest will retire.
They are not even waiting for the 5 years. My information is that the Germans will take anyone who is qualified and licensed. This is for the guys under 40.
I don't think you are going to have a problem with old controllers any more anyway. I believe the Germans are about to increase their number of trainees significantly. And I also believe the Aussies in the college are doing a sterling job, and therefore job opportunities will be available for those who are blocking your desired and necessary progress to move overseas. The rest will retire.
Also Dick you may find that the 'new young controllers' are waiting for their 5 year $70k training bond with ASA is up so they can head off O/S to pick up the big money.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 6
From: Brisbane
Dick,
Here's another one you need to follow up on ...
I have it on good authority that a motorist has actually put a submission to the Department of Mains Roads ... complaining about proposed changes to the traffic lanes in his area.
If we let one person get away with enforcing democracy, pretty soon the whole country will want to.
You must stop it NOW !
Here's another one you need to follow up on ...
I have it on good authority that a motorist has actually put a submission to the Department of Mains Roads ... complaining about proposed changes to the traffic lanes in his area.
If we let one person get away with enforcing democracy, pretty soon the whole country will want to.
You must stop it NOW !
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
From: various areas
ARFOR, have a look at the NAS document on my website for the answers - especially the simplified radio procedures in Para 2.5.
Procedures
Class D procedures will be aligned to the FAA application.
While VFR aircraft in Class D airspace are subject to an airways clearance (ICAO Annex 11, App. 4), the clearance may be implicit as is current practice at GAAP Zones and in US Class D airspace.
9 On advice of intent to the Tower an implicit clearance is assumed by VFR aircraft unless the Tower directs otherwise. This is consistent with FAA practice.
Class D procedures will be aligned to the FAA application.
While VFR aircraft in Class D airspace are subject to an airways clearance (ICAO Annex 11, App. 4), the clearance may be implicit as is current practice at GAAP Zones and in US Class D airspace.
9 On advice of intent to the Tower an implicit clearance is assumed by VFR aircraft unless the Tower directs otherwise. This is consistent with FAA practice.
Are you aware of the number of Violations of CTA/R in the US and Canada as a result of implied clearances? I must admit that I was not adverse to ‘implied clearances' for VFR in D until I looked at the data. Now I’m not so sure.
Also contained in your NAS document;
SAFETY ANALYSIS
3.1 Methodology
ICAO provides two methodologies for “determining whether the system is acceptably safe:
a. comparison to a reference system, and
b. evaluation of system risks against a threshold.
Comparison with a reference system is a relative method, i.e. all the relative characteristics of the proposed system are compared with the corresponding characteristics of a reference system which has been judged to be safe. Provided that the proposed system can be demonstrated to be the same or better than the reference system in all safety aspects, then it may be assumed also to be safe…”
As the NAS draws on international best practice and the proven ATM system of North America, process a. above is the appropriate methodology.
3.1 Methodology
ICAO provides two methodologies for “determining whether the system is acceptably safe:
a. comparison to a reference system, and
b. evaluation of system risks against a threshold.
Comparison with a reference system is a relative method, i.e. all the relative characteristics of the proposed system are compared with the corresponding characteristics of a reference system which has been judged to be safe. Provided that the proposed system can be demonstrated to be the same or better than the reference system in all safety aspects, then it may be assumed also to be safe…”
As the NAS draws on international best practice and the proven ATM system of North America, process a. above is the appropriate methodology.
The question of course remains, what does the reference system suggest should be in place in Australia? Non-radar D and E?, Class C?, Class B? Becuase the US reference system has quite a divergent application of services in different (but similar to Australian) Air Carrier Airports.
One common non radar tower system has to be better than our present GAAP/Class D "two" systems.
Regarding the other thrust/s within this thread. It seems to me that ATC are caught in the middle, the victims if you like. Rather than blaming them, you should be asking your questions of the CASA CEO. After all, he is the author of the direction. Perhaps you need to invite him to another BBQ and ask him directly.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,688
Likes: 254
From: Australia
ARFOR, in the 25 years I have flown from time to time in the FAA system I have never seen or heard of "implied clearances" in the surface areas.
No one else in the world has mandatory departure calls for VFR in class D.
-that change alone will reduce complexity and frequency overload!
It's the AsA senior management who are pushing for NAS class D - they can see how popular it is with their American employees!
The big safety advantage is that the airspace reverts to E when the tower is not manned and IFR aircraft get a proper control service- not our pathetic , amateur "do it yourself" "calling in the blind" non-service that nearly caused the Qantas crash at Canberra.
No one else in the world has mandatory departure calls for VFR in class D.
-that change alone will reduce complexity and frequency overload!
It's the AsA senior management who are pushing for NAS class D - they can see how popular it is with their American employees!
The big safety advantage is that the airspace reverts to E when the tower is not manned and IFR aircraft get a proper control service- not our pathetic , amateur "do it yourself" "calling in the blind" non-service that nearly caused the Qantas crash at Canberra.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
From: various areas
Mr Smith,
Perhaps I should have explained that in more depth.
In the US, When an aircraft called for taxi clearance, if the taxi route took the aircraft across a runway that was not in use, the pilot could cross without a separate clearance.
FAA 2008 Runway safety Report, NTSB recommendation, Page C4
Re: Departure reports, I would suggest this is due combined Tower and Approach services in a procedural environment. Supporting that is the specific note that they are not required when aircraft are 'identified'
AsA senior management? Did you say earlier AsA were profit motive driven?
Who in AsA would put profit in front of safety? Besides, this is the CASA's change, AsA presumably will just impliment the rules as required.
Re: Class E? Is there another CASA direction regarding Class E when towers are closed?
Perhaps I should have explained that in more depth.
In the US, When an aircraft called for taxi clearance, if the taxi route took the aircraft across a runway that was not in use, the pilot could cross without a separate clearance.
NTSB LTR DTD: 1/29/01
The FAA reports that its Flight Standards Service is reviewing pilot deviations for the last 3 years and evaluating how a revision to 14 CFR 91.129 as outlined in this safety recommendation would have affected these cases. The FAA further reports that its Air Traffic Service will evaluate local operations for any unintended consequences and conduct simulations to evaluate frequency congestion and possible system impact. The FAA states that it will initiate an appropriate regulatory change if the evaluation indicates that this is necessary.
This recommendation asks the FAA to require a specific clearance for all runway crossings, instead of the current practice of relying on an implied clearance. The current system allows for ground movements to proceed unless there is a specific direction to stop. The Safety Board believes this is the opposite of the appropriate procedure. Regardless of the outcome of the FAA’s review, the Safety Board believes that all runway crossings should be authorized only by a specific air traffic control clearance. Pending the FAA’s taking the recommended actions, because the FAA is studying pilot deviations as a first step towards regulatory action, Safety Recommendation A‑00‑67 is classified “Open Acceptable Response.”
The FAA reports that its Flight Standards Service is reviewing pilot deviations for the last 3 years and evaluating how a revision to 14 CFR 91.129 as outlined in this safety recommendation would have affected these cases. The FAA further reports that its Air Traffic Service will evaluate local operations for any unintended consequences and conduct simulations to evaluate frequency congestion and possible system impact. The FAA states that it will initiate an appropriate regulatory change if the evaluation indicates that this is necessary.
This recommendation asks the FAA to require a specific clearance for all runway crossings, instead of the current practice of relying on an implied clearance. The current system allows for ground movements to proceed unless there is a specific direction to stop. The Safety Board believes this is the opposite of the appropriate procedure. Regardless of the outcome of the FAA’s review, the Safety Board believes that all runway crossings should be authorized only by a specific air traffic control clearance. Pending the FAA’s taking the recommended actions, because the FAA is studying pilot deviations as a first step towards regulatory action, Safety Recommendation A‑00‑67 is classified “Open Acceptable Response.”
Amend 14 CFR section 91.129(I) to require that all runway crossings be authorized only by specific air traffic control clearance, and ensure that U.S. pilots, U.S. personnel assigned to move aircraft, and pilots operating under 14 CFR Part 129 receive adequate notification of the change.
Amend FAA Order 7110.65, “Air Traffic Control,” to require that, when aircraft need to cross multiple runways, air traffic controllers issue an explicit crossing instruction for each runway after the previous runway has been crossed.
Amend FAA Order 7110.65, “Air Traffic Control,” to require that, when aircraft need to cross multiple runways, air traffic controllers issue an explicit crossing instruction for each runway after the previous runway has been crossed.
AsA senior management? Did you say earlier AsA were profit motive driven?
AsA have an agenda which would appear to be putting profits in front of safety
Re: Class E? Is there another CASA direction regarding Class E when towers are closed?
Last edited by ARFOR; 23rd October 2009 at 01:43. Reason: Add NTSB and FAA quotes
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,688
Likes: 254
From: Australia
mikk 13, You state:
Can you give me some information on this? Do you know if the ability to “direct track” is available to US controllers or controllers in Europe under similar circumstances?
I look forward to your advice.
“The regulation in Oz makes it hard for the controller to act efficiently. You are not even allowed to direct track an aircraft. Yes, that's right. not allowed.”
I look forward to your advice.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,688
Likes: 254
From: Australia
ARFOR, The profits in front of safety statement was made in relation to the necessity for more staff at AsA. I would suggest you direct any questions to CASA in relation to what directions they have given to Airservices in relation to airspace.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
From: various areas
Mr Smith,
I don't follow.
If the CASA changes at GAAP introduce additional ATC functions such as Surface Movement Control, and that therefore requires additional ATC's, how does that fit with your claim that AsA put profit in front of safety?
Have AsA said they will not staff ATC functions such as the Surface Movement positions at GAAP?
You said Class E outside tower coverage. Is that a CASA direction or just you saying so?
I don't follow.
If the CASA changes at GAAP introduce additional ATC functions such as Surface Movement Control, and that therefore requires additional ATC's, how does that fit with your claim that AsA put profit in front of safety?
Have AsA said they will not staff ATC functions such as the Surface Movement positions at GAAP?
You said Class E outside tower coverage. Is that a CASA direction or just you saying so?
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: australia
Mikk13
True. The Germans have actually paid out some training bonds to get Oz ATCs over there.
Also Dick, I'm still waiting for any evidence that some controllers are
You have some respect from people who read these forums, they have the attitude that "if Dick says it, it must be true". These people then have the idea that controllers stand in the way of 'progress'.
As Hempy stated we have had myriad changes, we just get on and work the new rules,systems, airspace, etc. When things don't go according to plan due lack of consultation, staffing, training, foresight, etc don't lump it on the controllers.
We have very well paid managers who are supposed to plan these things. ASA have a self admitted culture of over-promise and under-deliver, and one they told industry at Waypoint 2008 that they wanted to move away from. I hope you see the irony in promising to move away from an over-promise and under-deliver culture.
There is very,very little hope they will have the CORRECT staffing in place for April 2010 for the mandated Class D towers, let alone for the opening of Broome and Karratha towers in November 2010. Don't let the 'we have enough Australian controllers, they are just in the wrong place' line cloud the issue.
There are enough Australian controllers they just happen to be in Ireland, Germany, Hong Kong,early retirement,management roles, Eurocontrol, Dubai, etc, with more leaving all the time.
Dick, if you are going to fire bullets try aiming them at the correct targets.
They are not even waiting for the 5 years. My information is that the Germans will take anyone who is qualified and licensed. This is for the guys under 40.
Also Dick, I'm still waiting for any evidence that some controllers are
doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision
As Hempy stated we have had myriad changes, we just get on and work the new rules,systems, airspace, etc. When things don't go according to plan due lack of consultation, staffing, training, foresight, etc don't lump it on the controllers.
We have very well paid managers who are supposed to plan these things. ASA have a self admitted culture of over-promise and under-deliver, and one they told industry at Waypoint 2008 that they wanted to move away from. I hope you see the irony in promising to move away from an over-promise and under-deliver culture.
There is very,very little hope they will have the CORRECT staffing in place for April 2010 for the mandated Class D towers, let alone for the opening of Broome and Karratha towers in November 2010. Don't let the 'we have enough Australian controllers, they are just in the wrong place' line cloud the issue.
There are enough Australian controllers they just happen to be in Ireland, Germany, Hong Kong,early retirement,management roles, Eurocontrol, Dubai, etc, with more leaving all the time.
Dick, if you are going to fire bullets try aiming them at the correct targets.
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Hmmm..I would be careful about the 'not allowed to direct track' statement. Unless something dramatic has occurred in the last 8 months we had direct tracking written into our local procedures between 10pm and about 8am (outside RAAF hours).
Direct tracking was approved outside those times when economic benefit warranted and safety was not compromised. This was a full radar environment and I cannot comment for outside radar coverage where the changes to lat sep points and conflict entry and exit was more of a science!
Direct tracking was approved outside those times when economic benefit warranted and safety was not compromised. This was a full radar environment and I cannot comment for outside radar coverage where the changes to lat sep points and conflict entry and exit was more of a science!
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Where I am now (Europe) direct tracking is available, traffic permitting. Much the same as in Australia.
In fact the more I see of different ATC structures and procedures the more convinced I am that the system I left in Australia is designed to be the safest and as efficient as the radar coverage allows.
Dick you speak about the Australian ATC system as if it were anachronistic and backward. I would refute this given my exposure to other systems and other controllers, including those from the US, Spain, India, UK and various other EU states.
If you took away the management of the ANSP (ASA in this case) Australia's system would indeed be 'world's best practice'. The controllers are sought after OS in locations mentioned by Max1 becasue they are amongst the best in the world. The sad fact that so many Australian ATCs have moved OS is nothing to do with the ATC system or procedures or rules and regulations. It is categorically, unequivocally to do with the shabby, mean, ignorant and distasteful treatment we received from Airservices.
I do not know of many of us who would have moved so far north of the equator had it not been for the buffoons and muppets who purportedly manage Australian ATC.
In fact the more I see of different ATC structures and procedures the more convinced I am that the system I left in Australia is designed to be the safest and as efficient as the radar coverage allows.
Dick you speak about the Australian ATC system as if it were anachronistic and backward. I would refute this given my exposure to other systems and other controllers, including those from the US, Spain, India, UK and various other EU states.
If you took away the management of the ANSP (ASA in this case) Australia's system would indeed be 'world's best practice'. The controllers are sought after OS in locations mentioned by Max1 becasue they are amongst the best in the world. The sad fact that so many Australian ATCs have moved OS is nothing to do with the ATC system or procedures or rules and regulations. It is categorically, unequivocally to do with the shabby, mean, ignorant and distasteful treatment we received from Airservices.
I do not know of many of us who would have moved so far north of the equator had it not been for the buffoons and muppets who purportedly manage Australian ATC.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
From: UAE
Direct Tracking
Dick
It is certainly available in Europe (at least at the very Western edge).
They are training us up at the moment for "green routes" which will be pretty much as soon as identified off the Atlantic to the far side of the UK airspace.
Track direct is something that happens at least 75% of the time on first contact...the other 25% get it once they have missed the one going the other way
There is a guy coming back to Melbourne in the next few days who has all the Western Euro answers
Can you give me some information on this? Do you know if the ability to “direct track” is available to US controllers or controllers in Europe under similar circumstances?
They are training us up at the moment for "green routes" which will be pretty much as soon as identified off the Atlantic to the far side of the UK airspace.
Track direct is something that happens at least 75% of the time on first contact...the other 25% get it once they have missed the one going the other way
There is a guy coming back to Melbourne in the next few days who has all the Western Euro answers
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
From: On a different Island
AsA have an agenda which would appear to be putting profits in front of safety and I am working on this issue!
Unfortunately the only way out regarding staffing numbers is time... At the present time it's getting worse, retirements and resignations are still exceeding rated recruits.
