ATCs Stymie Progress?
Thread Starter
ATCs Stymie Progress?
Readers of this site will no doubt remember how I travelled to Hawaii with owners of Avalon Airport to look at the Airservices Class D tower they were operating there.
It was fantastic to see how modern procedures can be used in facilitating lots of traffic movement by really friendly ATCs who were not hampered by 1950s Australian out-of-date rules! I came back enthused to see if these procedures could be introduced into Australia.
It’s well known that Airservices are losing huge amounts of our industry's money with these overseas towers – at least I thought one of the reasons they took out this US contract was so they could learn how modern procedures work and how they could benefit Australia. I still hope this belief is correct.
It’s also now well known that the Airservices Management as well as CASA support Australia moving to these modern international Class D NAS procedures as used in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and many other countries.
There will be great advantages to Australia. For example, a number of years ago I flew VFR into Tamworth with a low-time pilot. The complexity of the radio calls, including two lots of clearance limits, that all had to be repeated, were so complicated that the pilot said, “I wouldn’t be game to fly in here by myself”.
Of course, all of Australia is not like Tamworth was at the time. Earlier this year I flew in and out of Hobart numerous times in my helicopter, landing at the airport at Cambridge and also on a boat in the harbour. The air traffic controllers in Hobart at that time were as good as any in the world – absolutely fantastic culture of getting aircraft moving without unnecessary holding or sitting on the ground even though they had to cope with VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with unnecessary departure calls.
Now it’s obvious from reading this website that there are a small number of controllers – mainly older ones – who are doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision for all non-radar towers to go to US NAS Class D. They obviously don’t want the simpler user-friendly procedures that will encourage more flying and preventing pilots having to fly extra distances to land away from a Class D airport.
Let’s hope Civil Air gets behind these new procedures and the new young controllers who are coming along are happy to follow what Airservices controllers do so successfully in the United States.
It was fantastic to see how modern procedures can be used in facilitating lots of traffic movement by really friendly ATCs who were not hampered by 1950s Australian out-of-date rules! I came back enthused to see if these procedures could be introduced into Australia.
It’s well known that Airservices are losing huge amounts of our industry's money with these overseas towers – at least I thought one of the reasons they took out this US contract was so they could learn how modern procedures work and how they could benefit Australia. I still hope this belief is correct.
It’s also now well known that the Airservices Management as well as CASA support Australia moving to these modern international Class D NAS procedures as used in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and many other countries.
There will be great advantages to Australia. For example, a number of years ago I flew VFR into Tamworth with a low-time pilot. The complexity of the radio calls, including two lots of clearance limits, that all had to be repeated, were so complicated that the pilot said, “I wouldn’t be game to fly in here by myself”.
Of course, all of Australia is not like Tamworth was at the time. Earlier this year I flew in and out of Hobart numerous times in my helicopter, landing at the airport at Cambridge and also on a boat in the harbour. The air traffic controllers in Hobart at that time were as good as any in the world – absolutely fantastic culture of getting aircraft moving without unnecessary holding or sitting on the ground even though they had to cope with VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with unnecessary departure calls.
Now it’s obvious from reading this website that there are a small number of controllers – mainly older ones – who are doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision for all non-radar towers to go to US NAS Class D. They obviously don’t want the simpler user-friendly procedures that will encourage more flying and preventing pilots having to fly extra distances to land away from a Class D airport.
Let’s hope Civil Air gets behind these new procedures and the new young controllers who are coming along are happy to follow what Airservices controllers do so successfully in the United States.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 22nd Oct 2009 at 06:15.
Thread Starter
Boree, I get great enjoyment from being a catalyst for change.
I love the idea of copying the best from around the world and incorporating this with what we presently do better!
I also believe I have a responsibility to put something back into a country I have done very well out of!
I love the idea of copying the best from around the world and incorporating this with what we presently do better!
I also believe I have a responsibility to put something back into a country I have done very well out of!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it really matter?
Does it really matter what "some older controllers" think about the new procedures CASA want to bring in? If they want them, and management bring them in, then they are in and controllers work with them.
Besides, we are too busy doing overtime to do anything about it.
Besides, we are too busy doing overtime to do anything about it.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you say stymie progress are you saying that Australian ATCs are deliberately delaying the implementation of Class D?
The current level of staffing within Airservices is diabolical and the reclassification of GAAP to D has the effect of requiring more controllers than currently staff these GAAPs. Airservices has no plan, no recruitment process and will blame any delay on the controllers rather than accept that the problem and the solution lie squarely with them.
Controllers make the current structure work, not ASA, and the fact that Australia still has many dedicated and professional controllers is testament to thier desire to provide a SAFE and efficient service. No I am not saying Class D is unsafe, just that it requires increased staffing at GAAP and maybe the other towers, to be done safely.
Oh and by the way - the controllers employed overseas are not ASA controllers, they are US citizens employed by the ASA branch responsible. The US will not allow other than US citizens to work American airspace. The training and rating of these people is done by the FAA.
You may find it amazing but working in Europe you realise how good the Australian ATC system is - when fully staffed - and how sound the procedures are. I recently heard tell that a certain European hub max's out at 60 per hour with parallels and a 3rd runway purely for arrivals. Compare that with SY and you will find that Australia is not the backwater for procedures and controllers you may paint Dick.
The current level of staffing within Airservices is diabolical and the reclassification of GAAP to D has the effect of requiring more controllers than currently staff these GAAPs. Airservices has no plan, no recruitment process and will blame any delay on the controllers rather than accept that the problem and the solution lie squarely with them.
Controllers make the current structure work, not ASA, and the fact that Australia still has many dedicated and professional controllers is testament to thier desire to provide a SAFE and efficient service. No I am not saying Class D is unsafe, just that it requires increased staffing at GAAP and maybe the other towers, to be done safely.
Oh and by the way - the controllers employed overseas are not ASA controllers, they are US citizens employed by the ASA branch responsible. The US will not allow other than US citizens to work American airspace. The training and rating of these people is done by the FAA.
You may find it amazing but working in Europe you realise how good the Australian ATC system is - when fully staffed - and how sound the procedures are. I recently heard tell that a certain European hub max's out at 60 per hour with parallels and a 3rd runway purely for arrivals. Compare that with SY and you will find that Australia is not the backwater for procedures and controllers you may paint Dick.
boree3, mature and constructive post????
4greens, tell me about it. I still remember the 1 hour flights to Cessnock requiring 2 hours worth of radio calls. Full SAR VFR was Sooo much fun in the Sydney basin.
Owen Stanley, i am a bit confused by your numerous posts. Are you upset with the ineptitude of ASA with their staffing levels and incompetent management, or Dick, and his desire for change.
I left OZ a few years ago, and have seen so much overseas that is both good and bad. I used to fly in Bankstown back in the late 80's, and in restrospect it was a dangerous place. Seems like it hasn't got much better.
I believe we need change. Dick, please keep going.
edited for spelling
4greens, tell me about it. I still remember the 1 hour flights to Cessnock requiring 2 hours worth of radio calls. Full SAR VFR was Sooo much fun in the Sydney basin.
Owen Stanley, i am a bit confused by your numerous posts. Are you upset with the ineptitude of ASA with their staffing levels and incompetent management, or Dick, and his desire for change.
I left OZ a few years ago, and have seen so much overseas that is both good and bad. I used to fly in Bankstown back in the late 80's, and in restrospect it was a dangerous place. Seems like it hasn't got much better.
I believe we need change. Dick, please keep going.
edited for spelling
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
How can you post a comment like the one at the beginning of the thread saying that it is some controllers who need to change their attitudes and encourage the implementation of these new procedures and:
Yet, on the same day, you post on your own website a comment from an Air Traffic Controller which explains the current culture we deal with on a daily basis. Do you believe the comments you posted on your website? Or do you see it as an example to back up your comments posted here?
Air Traffic Control Culture?
How can you post a comment like the one at the beginning of the thread saying that it is some controllers who need to change their attitudes and encourage the implementation of these new procedures and:
...hope Civil Air gets behind these new procedures and the new young controllers who are coming along are happy to follow what Airservices controllers do so successfully in the United States.
Air Traffic Control Culture?
Last edited by Starts with P; 22nd Oct 2009 at 10:03. Reason: to add URL for dicksmithflyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Queensland
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are a small number of controllers – mainly older ones – who are doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision for all non-radar towers to go to US NAS Class D.
I imagine a large amount of remaining work on procedures, training and staffing needs to occur first.
It would appear that it is Airservices Australia responsibility to make it happen. I would think that most (if not all) controllers are professional and smart enough to follow regulated changes.
Dear Dick. Thank you for the compliments regarding Hobart Tower. The age factor is not relevant; you will find that most of the controllers1at Hobart are close to or past 50 yrs.
Controllers love class D, so I don't really get your point. Class D procedures allow controllers the flexibility to use judgement in making separation decisions; ie, they can make decisions based on experience reference aircraft performance, profiles etc.
NAS 11, I think it was, was inefficient in many ways. An example; RPT jets on descent are for most of the time (about 90%, I'd say), level off at A090, with associated power adjustments, because the steps require them to stay at that level until past 30 miles. If there is a tail wind component, it becomes a bit of an issue. This is to allow for the once in a year occasion (maybe!) of a VFR to fly at A085 or thereabouts. Terrific, how much fuel is that, to allow a private pilot to not have to request a clearance for another 5-10 miles.
If you saw Aircrash last week, where a DC9 went in, due to 2 VFR aircraft that were violating CTA, in radar environment, you would have seen the limitations of seen and be seen. When people fly in commercial aircraft, they rightly expect to enjoy the level of safety provided by professionals. Betting my or my family's lives, on the competency of a pilot with maybe 50hrs total is not really what we should be considering. Class E over C or D, in a non radar environment is insane.
Growahead
Controllers love class D, so I don't really get your point. Class D procedures allow controllers the flexibility to use judgement in making separation decisions; ie, they can make decisions based on experience reference aircraft performance, profiles etc.
NAS 11, I think it was, was inefficient in many ways. An example; RPT jets on descent are for most of the time (about 90%, I'd say), level off at A090, with associated power adjustments, because the steps require them to stay at that level until past 30 miles. If there is a tail wind component, it becomes a bit of an issue. This is to allow for the once in a year occasion (maybe!) of a VFR to fly at A085 or thereabouts. Terrific, how much fuel is that, to allow a private pilot to not have to request a clearance for another 5-10 miles.
If you saw Aircrash last week, where a DC9 went in, due to 2 VFR aircraft that were violating CTA, in radar environment, you would have seen the limitations of seen and be seen. When people fly in commercial aircraft, they rightly expect to enjoy the level of safety provided by professionals. Betting my or my family's lives, on the competency of a pilot with maybe 50hrs total is not really what we should be considering. Class E over C or D, in a non radar environment is insane.
Growahead
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread.
The linked letter indicates a regulatory/liability issue rather than ATC's stymieing progress.
Regarding Class D, Mr Smith, what do you consider Class D to be? The question revolves around the 'actual' procedures and rules. The indications to date are that ICAO D 'with 2 or 3 FAAism's' is being considered [and it seems being consulted].
What will that change provide that GAAP [for GA non-scheduled ops] does not? In other words, what form of change will address safety or cost benefit at GAAP or indeed ICAO Class D airspace airports in a positive way? You suggest these changes are 'progress', therefore you should be able to show the 'positives' from both the cost & safety standpoints. Can you do that?
Perhaps as importantly, what effect will that change have on adjoining airspace ATS services such as IFR flow into and separation into and out of adjoining Primary Air Carrier and Military airspaces?
For fear of repetition, I will acknowledge [without asking again] your lack of response to the other FAA airspace and service queries.
The linked letter indicates a regulatory/liability issue rather than ATC's stymieing progress.
Regarding Class D, Mr Smith, what do you consider Class D to be? The question revolves around the 'actual' procedures and rules. The indications to date are that ICAO D 'with 2 or 3 FAAism's' is being considered [and it seems being consulted].
What will that change provide that GAAP [for GA non-scheduled ops] does not? In other words, what form of change will address safety or cost benefit at GAAP or indeed ICAO Class D airspace airports in a positive way? You suggest these changes are 'progress', therefore you should be able to show the 'positives' from both the cost & safety standpoints. Can you do that?
Perhaps as importantly, what effect will that change have on adjoining airspace ATS services such as IFR flow into and separation into and out of adjoining Primary Air Carrier and Military airspaces?
For fear of repetition, I will acknowledge [without asking again] your lack of response to the other FAA airspace and service queries.
Thread Starter
Oz, come on - I made very positive comments about the controllers at Hobart and I primarily blamed the outdated rules for the other problems.
ARFOR, have a look at the NAS document on my website for the answers - especially the simplified radio procedures in Para 2.5.
One common non radar tower system has to be better than our present GAAP/Class D "two" systems.
ARFOR, have a look at the NAS document on my website for the answers - especially the simplified radio procedures in Para 2.5.
One common non radar tower system has to be better than our present GAAP/Class D "two" systems.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 22nd Oct 2009 at 12:50.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now it’s obvious from reading this website that there are a small number of controllers – mainly older ones – who are doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision for all non-radar towers to go to US NAS Class D.
Can you please let us know, exactly, in your unfounded and undocumented allegation that some (old) controllers are "doing everything they can to undermine the CASA decision" exactly what they have done?
Besides people attempting to debate with you the pluses or minuses on this anonymous forum, what other proof do you have for your comment above?
IF (I've no idea and I haven't) they have made submissions to CASA about concerns, do you not trust CASA to investigate these concerns?
You posted that
It’s also now well known that the Airservices Management as well as CASA support Australia moving to these modern international Class D NAS procedures
If you would like to look into how ASA could actually staff it, that might be a better use of your time. Making provocative and unfounded assertions ( even though you did add a question mark to make it seem like you were posing a question) does your credibilty no favours.
Thread Starter
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.
Otherwise it would have come in years ago.
Growahead states that controllers love class D.
When D was first introduced some controllers were opposed and kept separating VFR from IFR in the way they did when the airspace was classed as a primary control zone.
As mentioned in my first post the controllers at Hobart used the full benefits of class D.
Otherwise it would have come in years ago.
Growahead states that controllers love class D.
When D was first introduced some controllers were opposed and kept separating VFR from IFR in the way they did when the airspace was classed as a primary control zone.
As mentioned in my first post the controllers at Hobart used the full benefits of class D.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I would have thought that a man with your intelligence and experience would be able to read through the propaganda by now.
This is off the top of my head and after 2 Italian Cabs so excuse the omissions, but in the last 10 years the average line controller has worked through LAMP, RVSM, NAS (1&2), ADS, and now SDE, as well as through the TAAATS transition the effectively changed the way the job is done (although not the thought process behind it), innumerable airspace changes, route restructures, and various glorious associated procedure changes. I would be very interested in acquiring a copy of AIP that is 15 years out of date (you probably have one laying about
), the difference would astound. Apparently, ATCs have attempted to stymie half of them, yet amazingly the system still works..
ATC's accept that change is inevitable, what you need to understand is that the reason changes are opposed is not necessarily because of the nature of the change itself, but because of the inept way it is being implemented.
You want Class D..whatever. May or may not make my job a bit harder for a while but hey, you know, staff it properly, give us resources for training and a good lead-in time to implement it all seamlessly and safely and a change is as good as a holiday I suppose.
What do we get?
This is off the top of my head and after 2 Italian Cabs so excuse the omissions, but in the last 10 years the average line controller has worked through LAMP, RVSM, NAS (1&2), ADS, and now SDE, as well as through the TAAATS transition the effectively changed the way the job is done (although not the thought process behind it), innumerable airspace changes, route restructures, and various glorious associated procedure changes. I would be very interested in acquiring a copy of AIP that is 15 years out of date (you probably have one laying about
), the difference would astound. Apparently, ATCs have attempted to stymie half of them, yet amazingly the system still works.. ATC's accept that change is inevitable, what you need to understand is that the reason changes are opposed is not necessarily because of the nature of the change itself, but because of the inept way it is being implemented.
You want Class D..whatever. May or may not make my job a bit harder for a while but hey, you know, staff it properly, give us resources for training and a good lead-in time to implement it all seamlessly and safely and a change is as good as a holiday I suppose.
What do we get?
Thread Starter
Hempy, I agree totally with your comments about adequate staffing and training.
AsA have an agenda which would appear to be putting profits in front of safety and I am working on this issue!
AsA have an agenda which would appear to be putting profits in front of safety and I am working on this issue!