Cost of separation vs traffic information
 

Geoff Fairless has given us a good history lesson but I must take issue with one point.

The workload to provide traffic information is GREATER than that to separate aircraft. Accordingly it can cost more. THAT is why we no longer have FS.

Airservices, in the process of designing new workstations for the then proposed two major centres, tried to design a COW - a Common Operator Workstation,
That came about because a study of the information requirements for both FS and ATC showed an identical need for certain types of information presented in a manner for best assimilation and at the most useful time.
So same problem, same solution for both disciplines.
A workload study was abundantly clear in showing the workload for FS was greater for FS than for ATC.
An ATC discovers a separation problem coming up, decides how to resolve it, issues instructions as required, obtains readbacks and the job is done for now.
BUT the FSO tells each pilot "traffic is" , which may provoke a multi way discussion as to various ways to resolve the situation, so perhaps one pilot says he will change level - the FSO considers the new intentions in comparison to all his/her other traffic and may find further confliction in what is proposed, more traffic information and perpahs there is a resolution and perhaps there is not.
Keep in mind that an aircraft on an instrument approach or on an instrument departure below sector LSALT has liittle choice about what is or is not possible; the lateral confines of the manoeuver are mandatory for obstacle clearance reasons.
But the point remains valid, the FSO has the greater workload in attempting to resolve a conflict.

This came to "light" in an ATS Facilities investigation of how to do things better in the future but it caused Airservices Management to realise that maybe they would have to pay all the FSO's more money.
Yes, there was also a separate argument along the lines of one Union not wanting members of the other to have access to radar information, but as always the money argument was top dog.

A decision was made to abolish Flight Service and use ATC to provide traffic information........... not you will notice to realise the safer and more workload efficient answer was to utilise more Class E airspace to the USA model.

The thread is about the MNG mid air.
Airservices is legally obliged to provide ATS and is, by legislation, given authority to decide the extent to which it provides those services. Arguably CASA can (and has) set standards etc but by law, Airservices decides the extent to which it does or not provide services.
CASA therefore can not achieve its legislated requirement to provide effective compliance with its standards.
Leaving Airservices wholly and solely responsible for what happened an Mangalore.

It could have, it should have and it did not.

No criticism of the workface controller, only of the management decisions as to what service was not to be provided.

I would say ATS workload is higher now than when the MNG collision occurred, less staff coordinating more combined frequencies over a larger area. So the situation is worse now than at the point the collision happened. It is becoming a regular occurrence where it is hard to get on the air to broadcast because of too much traffic information being passed about, and then trying to monitor that while on CTAF talking to 5 other conflicts.

As said many times the technology to have it all displayed in front of the pilot exists and has existed for years, the government could subsidize its fitment to existing aircraft and mandate all new registers to have it so that all pilots can see all other traffic right in front of them and get alerts on proximate traffic. Just look at flight aware and other flight trackers, they show you where it is and where it's going, it's not that hard. It would not be hard to implement a system that provided that to the pilot and also cost far less in the long run than the road block mayhem that is ATC at present.

Mr 'G F', re #699,
May I remind you that the Union concerned at the time, representing FS, was CPSU, not 'PREI'.......

And, on 5 different occasions, CPSU took the then 'AsA' to the IRC on 'industrial matters', and on each of the 5 times, won its case.
Fact.

Thankyou.
Griffo. Ex CPSU Rep. YPPH FSC WA