Adelaide air traffic control may shift to Melbourne

[Hempy]

Still trying to work out what 'local knowledge' had to do with the incident mentioned above or what relevance it had?

The limitations of the radar display, which depicted Lake George only in general terms (vector lines), prevented the controller from being certain of the aircraft's position with respect to terrain features. As the aircraft descended in IMC, the controller's range of options diminished rapidly and he finally concentrated upon positioning the aircraft as far as possible from known high terrain.

'Known high terrain' aka radar lsalt..

SIGNIFICANT FACTORS 3. The approach controller was unable to vector the aircraft to an obstruction-free landing site due to equipment and time limitations.

[The name is Porter]

Canberra Approach is done from Melbourne. Remember a C210 with engine failure in IMC vectored into hill because controller had no local knowledge. They are going to move Cairns App to Brisbane. Not many hills around Cairns are there?

After reading the report, it's a long stretch (and libelous) to state that the ATC vectored an aircraft into a hill. I wonder how your fellow ATC feels about your statement?

[Iron Bar]

Some absolute garbage there from Topdrop.

[Chief galah]

Once again the legal system excels itself.

[Tarq57]

Originally Posted by The name is Porter

After reading the report, it's a long stretch (and libelous) to state that the ATC vectored an aircraft into a hill. I wonder how your fellow ATC feels about your statement?

I'm a controller - although not at all familiar with the operating environment - and I agree.

It's also likely the equipment and communications limitations would have been present regardless of the remoteness of the control centre to the airport/s it served.

I think one has to accept that if you go flying in solid IMC with a low base, in a single, your options are severely limited in the event of the engine quitting.

[sunnySA]

Now if the bean counters continue to have their way the service may even be outsourced to a call centre in India - just joking.

Why joke about it, outsourcing is happening in many walks of life, typically call centre, help desks. The only reason it isn't done is because of sovereignty. Some smaller countries outsource their ATC. Airways (NZ) made moves to take-over more of the Tasman Sea...

I think the argument about Adelaide (and Cairns) is about efficiencies and best practice, which I think can be best achieved by having a joint rosters, that is, ATCs who are rated on Approach and Tower. This is done in many, many locations around the world, one shift in Approach, next shift in the Tower; and Supervisors working both locations. Much better understanding of the other persons work, greater emphasis on teamwork and delivery of safe, efficient and customer focused services.

Having joint rosters make for increased job satisfaction (diversity), more efficiencies in terms of rosters (shift lengths, leave allocations), enhanced service provision (as above) and importantly service continuity (able to switch ATCs between Approach and Tower at short notice).

Joint rosters should be the aim at each of the locations where a TCU is located, Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.

[gerry111]

Tarq57 wrote:


"I think one has to accept that if you go flying in solid IMC with a low base, in a single, your options are severely limited in the event of the engine quitting."


And that is the truth. Simply don't do it!

[Romeopapa]

Many thanks Dick for still being involved after all these years.

[Mhayli]

ACMS - it does matter whether a controller sits in Adelaide or Melbourne. In Adelaide, they are in the community into which they have integrated. They have made friends, they have performed whatever community service they may choose to do, their spouse may have employment and be equally integrated in to the community, as may have their kids, who go to a local school and have a well developed group of friends. There is a human element this discussion, that has so far been ignored on this forum.

I'd also like to know your source for YBAS TWR going remote.

[Hempy]

Mhayli,

The 'human element'?? OMFG spare me, this is ASA we are talking about not the UN Human Rights Council. Since when does the 'human element' make a shred of difference in Australia 2015? The PM would have kittens!

Get over yourself champ. From an ATC perspective the job can be done just as efficiently and well in Melbourne as it can in Adelaide. Obviously, according to the bean counters, it can be done better in fact. So don't go giving us any of this 'human element' crap you left wing, huggy fluffy loon - it's all about the dollars. And THAT'S the important thing.

[The name is Porter]

Doesn't help the 'so called' safety card argument or 'human element' when half the controllers in Adelaide are salivating over a possible redundancy

[ACMS]

My source for YBAS TWR going remote is Airservices themselves. There was supposed to be a trial of a Sweedish system coming soon ( think it's Sweedish )

I'll ask th Airservices people at Avalon and see what the latest is.

Just found a link and its SAAB

http://www.saabgroup.com/Civil-secur...ote-Tower-Pre/

Scroll down a bit and they mention YBAS and Airservices in the document.

[fujii]

There was a plan to run Alice tower remotely.The cameras were installed in Alice and tested remotely in Adelaide. Last I heard just before retirement in September, they weren't going ahead.

The other plan for remote towers was to have an economical way to run towers at locations such as mining towns where air traffic may suddenly increase but with the downturn in mining, this may be a longer term project.

[majorca]

Correct, Fuji........not before wasting $6 million.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re "
The other plan for remote towers was to have an economical way to run towers at locations such as mining towns where air traffic may suddenly increase but with the downturn in mining, this may be a longer term project."

Yeah.... We used to call these 'AFIZ'....

Not 'Control' of course, but a full Flight Information Service, which seemed to work pretty well in its various forms, for about 50+ years or so....

Cheers

p.s. Thanks for de redundo Dick.....

[Hempy]

p.s. Thanks for de redundo Dick.....

You've been saying that for at least 10 years Griffo, for some reason I don't think you really mean it!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

(Slight drift...)

Hi Hempy,

Re"You've been saying that for at least 10 years Griffo, for some reason I don't think you really mean it! "

Oh, but Oi do, Oi most coitenlee do......(Soft 'c'...)
14 yrs, 2 months, 10 days....Mate....And STILL Enjoyin' it......

Cheers

[j-mo]

The remote tower technology evaluation project in Alice was always planned to be just a trial, to test its abilities and practicality for possible future use in a non-towered environment with increasing traffic numbers towards the threshold of a requirement for a control service, never was it planned for operational use to replace Alice Tower.

[ACMS]

Yep, that's what Airservices told me at the show...( re YBAS remote TWR )

[The name is Porter]

If I remember correctly the idiot in charge of ASA (prior to the current CEO) wanted the remote tower technology to replace towered aerodromes. Most tower controllers had a good belly laugh at that. It simply won't happen in Australia.