Outrageous and unsafe ADS-B non-use in the J curve by Airservices

[fujii]

Am I right in remembering that a few years ago Dick was railing against the introduction of ADS-B saying that terrorists could use it to track aircraft yet here he is now wanting to increase coverage?

[Sunfish]

dick is simply saying that if adsb must be fitted to ga aircraft, then why isn't it being used to improve ga safety?

[Spodman]

If I was an air traffic controller involved in stopping these more modern changes, I would feel very embarrassed.

Resent the implication here. Not aware of doing anything to stop any changes. Supply more information or apologise.

[BlockNotAvailable]

Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard

You're new here, then?

Good job buddy. I just fail so see how griping here actually will change anything? Although with wit like yours...

And Dick...Also I think I would struggle to find someone who would be blocking progress of a better framework to work within, or for better coverage, or even surveillance approach at places where it currently isn't. Just because you had to fly into a procedural tower the other day, doesn't mean that steps are being taken to move in a better direction. You of all all people should know that things don't change overnight!

[Car RAMROD]

This is a slightly interesting video.

Crandall: Need presidential support to update air traffic control


Maybe the US system isn't so good?


It wouldn't surprise me me if in the future we will have more features come from ADSB. It's new technology, give it a chance to develop Dick.
"Outrageous non-use" - I bet if we scrapped the whole thing and didn't even have it any more you'd probably complain about that.

Why should we have to wait for others to bring in the technology, what's so wrong about us trying to lead the world Dick? Maybe we could try being the best and have people copy us. It won't happen overnight but give it a chance.

We've already had benefits from the ADSB system. Let's keep ticking along and try to add in a little extra benefit here and there.
You'll get a lot more supporters if you approach the topic better. It would be a nice change if the next thread you start about ADSB was a detailed proposal of a workable system here in Australia, facts figures numbers and procedures etc, that can be presented to the powers that be (more so than just "let's make en route do approach like they do in the US").

[Dick Smith]

Spodman, I’m not sure why I should apologise. In the USA, air traffic controllers are just that – air traffic controllers. Everywhere you fly IFR you are separated from other IFR aircraft when in IMC, and when in surveillance coverage you are given full descent protection with instructions and an enabled alarm system.

If you are a professional air traffic controller, why don’t you ask your bosses why you cannot provide the service that is provided in the USA and Canada?

As I have explained numerous times, in the USA and Canada, on descent into a place like Hobart with big mountains around, the responsibility wouldn’t be given to the pilot with an instruction to descend not below the DME steps. There is no such terminology used in the USA and Canada.

Also, at places like Ballina you would be given a full radar separation service to the bottom of the surveillance coverage. However that is not the case here - we still have the old flight service traffic information, or as Airservices have said in their statement about Tasmania:

“… our air traffic controllers utilise information provided by ADS-B for increased situational awareness …”

I know if I was a professional air traffic controller I would be asking why I couldn’t give a proper service at low levels, rather than and old flight service type of service.

Remember, it was I who removed the flight service people from the low levels, with the absolute definite agreed Board and Minister’s plan (there was a Labor Government at the time) to replace it with Class E. This has never happened.

The excuse always given was, “We don’t have as much surveillance coverage as the USA.” This was rubbish because in the J-curve, where we have all our traffic and mountains, we had similar radar coverage to that of busy traffic areas in the USA.

However now that we have spent over $100 million on ADS-B, wouldn’t you think we could train the controllers and provide the service? Surely an enroute controller being able to do a bit of approach work at a place like Ballina can’t be rocket science.

If they can do it capably in the USA and Canada, why can’t we do it here?

I am told by some controllers that actually separating aircraft is simpler than giving traffic, because a controller can solve the separation workload problem by simply keeping an aircraft on the ground for a few minutes. However with our present system, any plane can take off and it immediately becomes workload for the controller.

But keep your mind closed and say it is nothing to do with you as a professional controller, it is all someone else’s fault, and of course nothing will happen until we end up with another horrific accident like the Benalla one. Surely you can’t be very proud of that.

[Capn Bloggs]

Bloggs. Traffic lights at each intersection ( or its equivalent ) would be un affordable .

Using the existing equipment and changing an airspace chart and enabling an alarm would be quite affordable .

Yeh, just change the airspace on the chart from G to E and provide a "Surely an enroute controller being able to do a bit of approach work at a place like Ballina can’t be rocket science. " will be quite affordable.

The class G controllers could easily issue an altitude alert... to the light aircraft that doesn't have EGPWS, because all the turboprops and jets have it and don't need the 1950s "lookout, you're heading for a hill". Benalla was horrific, but it was not an RPT flight and it was over a decade ago. How much are you prepared to stump up to pay for this service of yours? I don't see you whingeing about the hundreds of thousands of cars on the road that don't have ABS and which probably result in dozens of deaths every year. To replace them would cost millions, that's why.

You're like the Greens and renewable energy. Great ideas in theory, but SHOW US THE MONEY.

[Spodman]

Spodman, I’m not sure why I should apologise.

Your quote implies I am actively preventing such changes from occurring. I am not. You got it wrong. Apologise.

[alphacentauri]

the responsibility wouldn’t be given to the pilot with an instruction to descend not below the DME steps. There is no such terminology used in the USA and Canada.

Dick, there is also no such thing as DGA's in US/Canada. DGA's cannot be fully contained in controlled airspace and therefore if you elect to fly those approaches responsibility for airspace containment is up to the pilot. Lets be clear here DGA's were never intended for use at towered aerodromes, they fit another purpose entirely


If you want full protection from airspace and terrain then you should be flying a runway aligned approach. That is the only option they have in the US/Canada.


We could withdraw DGA's? But then, no doubt you will arc up about lost efficiency or something.


FACT: You chose to fly a DGA
FACT: You apparently also chose to fly it using a dive and drive method
FACT: You had a range of other procedures available that provide airspace and terrain protection


If you had issues in flying this, then there really is no-one else to blame. Even with the greatest technology available this would not have increased your perceived level of safety.


BTW, you didn't crash and you didn't nearly crash which anecdotally suggests that the current system works and the current system is safe. In order to suggest an increase in safety is required you have to establish the current safety baseline. Your assertion that more monitoring using technology increases safety is false. There are numerous instances around the world and in the US where the controller was actively monitoring an aircraft whilst they crashed into the ground.


Alpha

[The name is Porter]

If we were to copy the "best" we'd need to add a significant number of controllers, spend a huge amount on training, add more consoles and add plenty more ADS-B outlets. Care to write the cheque? Still affordable?

Not necessarily, if the correct class of airspace was used for the traffic densities with the appropriate surveillance, not a half arsed system that doesn't work, then it would be affordable. The real waste is installing surviellance that still requires procedural control, what's the point? Why install a system that gives you situational awareness but can't be used for separation? Name any ANSP that would do that. The truth is, multilat or whatever you want to call it is a massive cockup that no one has been made take responsibility for. Why hasn't Hobart and Launy got surveillance approach? The traffic densities warrant it, so what if a tower controller has to be approach rated to separate using a 3 mile radar standard.

You keep claiming it would cost next to nothing, yet the people who would be doing it say it would cost a motza.

Let someone with finance qualifications deal with that.

[The name is Porter]

Maybe the US system isn't so good?

The re-equipping of the ATC system in the USA has nothing to do with the airspace classes, nothing at all.

[fower]

Dick, I feel I must support Spodman here, direct quote from your first post:

It sounds to me as if the whole issue is industrial. That is, industrial resistance to change by the air traffic controllers has resulted in a system where our aircraft are fitted with some of the best ADS-B transceivers in the world, but they are not actually used in the J curve in Australia to help prevent accidents.

This is
a) Completely and utterly wrong. There is no agenda, industrial or otherwise from ATCs to prevent better use of ADS-B to improve both safety and service levels in Australia.
b) Offensive, and borderline defamatory to operational ATCs, all of whom do the best they can with the rules and facilities they have, and many of whom are actively working and advocating to improve procedures and safety levels in spite of bureaucratic difficulties.

For the above quote, you absolutely should apologise. If you want to get operational ATCs on side, don't attack them with baseless accusations.

Operational ATCs would like nothing more than to be able to improve the service and safety level that they provide by fully implementing the benefits of ADS-B, including greater coverage where it is of benefit, airspace and sector design that works with the technology we have, ground system based safety nets that are fit for purpose, procedures, and appropriate separation standards.

We are not the ones you should be attacking, and to do so only serves to alienate a professional group that could be on your side if you choose to make your arguments in a less inflammatory fashion. There are many issues with the rollout of ADS-B in Australia, ATCs want to see it done better too.

If you want to see improvement, perhaps consider that you might be more effective if you got the industry professionals onside.

[Dick Smith]

I apologise.

Why do you think we don't use our en route controllers also to do class E approach work as per the USA and Canada?

Could it be that no one in management has the ability to introduce the training?

Or is it that management believes the workers will demand more money to do this ?

[Spodman]

Thank you Dick

Why do you think we don't use our en route controllers also to do class E approach work as per the USA and Canada?

Reason #1: The overwhelming majority of operational ATC have no idea that such things are possible, or even done overseas. This majority have started their training AFTER the NAS debacle. They are trained more or less EXACTLY the way I was, they are taught to do Flight Service in G airspace, then how to do Air Traffic Control in the other classes. To this majority this is how ATC is done in Australia, and most would have no idea anybody is interested in doing it any other way. There are not many of this generation of ATC on this forum, they spend more time on Facespace or Tinder...

Reason #2: Of the few that entertain other possibilities and have memories of the Class G Trial, LLAMP and NAS, (as in what was intended in the end state, rather than the partly implemented, partly rolled back thing we have now), including myself, the impression is that every extension downward of ATC service creates more complexity.

At the time of the NAS implementation I was working the sector that contains Mildura and Mount Gambier. When the changes took away the Melbourne-Mildura FL125 E corridor, and lowered the base of CTA to FL180 we were perplexed to discover that Mount Gambier arrivals and departures were more of a workload and complexity issue than Mildura, which was previously considered busier. When the rollback restored the FL125 corridor Mildura again became the workload focus.

In the previous LLAMP concept the proposed 8,500FT base in the same area spectacularly increased workload in the trials I was involved with, even with some visual separation concepts included, (but not to the extent of the NAS Flaky VFR Procedures).

Some ATC who understand the issues were agog for the NAS changes to happen, as they interpreted the concept as generating a spectacular expansion of ATC numbers and overtime to service the extra work! How to pay for such an expansion was an SEP.*

Reason #3: They don't know how to. There are a minuscule number of Enroute ATC who know how to do Approach Control. I personally have no idea what skills I would have to onboard to provide the service.

Reason #4: I understand, (from listening to you), that Septic ATC provide an ATC service to all IFR aircraft, regardless of airspace class, a response to the 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision. I also understand this was not an initiative of line ATC, it came from the regulator, the FAA. Our regulator, CASA, has control over what class of airspace is where so could implement this tomorrow, but has done nothing since they gained that authority. I remember you crowing with triumph when such authority was transferred from AA to CASA. How did that work out for you?

Could it be that no one in management has the ability to introduce the training?

I am not privy to what management thinks about such things, but what stimulus do they have to implement such changes? Nobody is asking for it except yourself. They are equally unlikely to install bathtubs at each console, I would not be surprised if this was a more popular innovation.

Training all low-level controllers in such a service would require a commitment of greatly increased numbers to release people to provide and undergo the training, and for the extra ATC that WOULD, IMHO, be required to provide the service.

They have to meet budgets, fulfill their charter and justify expense. Hence the rollback. Hence no impetus for change. SEP.

Or is it that management believes the workers will demand more money to do this ?

See notes about complexity above. More Air Traffic Control Services will, IMHO, require more Air Traffic Controllers. Each of them could be directed to do such duties with no extra pay tomorrow. Same as those that were involved in the Class G trial got nothing extra in the pay packet for extra work, and those that got extra work in the NAS got nothing.

In fact the possibility is, that with a demonstrably less efficient service it would be difficult to angle for an efficiency bonus next EBA time, so individual ATC would be faced with the possibility of less pay than they would otherwise be entitled.

Looking forward to more debate, and something stupid posted from Bhingi...

*SEP - Somebody Else's Problem, (with a lingering concern for the concept of Affordable Safety).

[thunderbird five]

And as for training controllers to do more (even if was a good idea) how is that even possible, given that they just got rid of one third of the operational simulator staff in Melbourne alone with the CEO's great staff cull, and then closed the simulator for five days each fortnight? That's 130 14hr days or 1,820 hours per year no longer available for ATC training.

[Plazbot]

So DICK, if this does come in and Enroute ATC start doing low level separation, how long until we see a dozen threads from you howling that the sectors need to be split so that the attention is on the aircraft near the ground with no distraction from those way up in space? You know, like your ongoing procedural tower blabbering.

[outnabout]

Apparently Air Services Australia are shedding about 700 "non-essential" jobs. Is this due to the efficiency of ADS-B?


But what of the commercial aircraft flying IFR, who are not ADS-B equipped? (Yes, they are out there.)

[alphacentauri]

Could it be that no one in management has the ability to introduce the training?

Or is it that management believes the workers will demand more money to do this ?

Dick, could it possibly be that management and CASA don't think it is required?

[Flying Binghi]

Via Spodman:
...Looking forward to more debate, and something stupid posted from Bhingi...

Oh dear,.....

Hmmm..... I've been called many names here in pprune land over the years with my concerns of terrorists using GPS guided bomb drones..... So, Spodman, to get the debate going, yer don't think them terrorist chaps will ever use bomb drones eh?..






.

[Trent 972]

Could it be that no one in management has the ability to introduce the training?

Or is it that management believes the workers will demand more money to do this ?

??? Affordable Service ???