Jump to content

Airservices out to destroy ozz aviation


Guest High Plains Drifter
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest High Plains Drifter

Interesting little thread going over in PpRune under the title - Flightwatch - 27 VHF outlets being closed. (D&G Reporting pionts) - started by Dick Smith.

 

The majority of posts agree (very unusual for pprune) and suggest Airservices management is basicly incompetent, and dont give a 088_censored.gif.2b71e8da9d295ba8f94b998d0f2420b4.gif about Australian aviation.

 

HPD

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that aside from the hype it's not all that bad. Flightwatch services are being moved across to ATC frequencies which are more accessible anyway. Congestion won't become a problem because they will limit the duplexing of frequencies. For those that haven't noticed, quite often your area frequency at the time is actually being re-broadcast accross much of the country, climaxing at night and the early hours of the morning when practically all of Australia is run through the one operator on the one frequency.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelorus32
I think you'll find that aside from the hype it's not all that bad. Flightwatch services are being moved across to ATC frequencies which are more accessible anyway. Congestion won't become a problem because they will limit the duplexing of frequencies. For those that haven't noticed, quite often your area frequency at the time is actually being re-broadcast accross much of the country, climaxing at night and the early hours of the morning when practically all of Australia is run through the one operator on the one frequency.

G'day Brent,

 

I think what you say is right...except for the issue of staffing. A key part of the strategy here is that ASA don't have enough staff for flightwatch so they are loading it onto ATC. Those guys are already understaffed so the level of stress increases, the level of service falls. That is what the people already working there say.

 

Morale is already suspect and is likely to fall further -> further loss of staff and down the spiral goes.

 

This is about creating the climate for ADS-B. This is about increasing the workload, reducing the staff to post ADS-B levels and then saying "oh we can't cope without ADS-B". That's why this is bad.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are ATC staff really overworked? Or do they wish to give that impression.

 

From what I have heard of US controllers they can handle more traffic than Australia ever gets.

 

Have you heard how they handle Oshkosh, or the recent recording when they had a midair and still kept it all moving.

 

A bit different from being denied access to controlled airspace because there was a RPT due in the next 20 mins as once happened to me. Funny that they gave me access when I asked for the tape to be held.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Howard Hughes

I understand Australian controllers are right up there with regard to numbers of aircraft movements per hour. You cant really compare Oshkosh, as it is not your normal scenario, 12,000 movements in a day (on the day when everyone departs), but from what I understand, much of it done without the use of radio!

 

I have nothing but respect for Aussie controllers, they are in high demand around the world so they must be doing something right, management on the other hand...:ah_oh:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brent you have more faith than I. If you read the PPRuNe thread you'll see that the controllers (and Civil Air) have said that they can't do it. At the moment a controller might have FIVE frequencies - including Sydney Approach, Departures and Sydney Radar, plus trying to operate Flightwatch.

 

You might think it is more accessible, but while you are on the ATC frequency to get weather, IFR aircraft in IMC cannot be given separation information.

 

It could only take one bad weather day to turn bad. Imagine VFR pilots calling for weather/NOTAMS at alternates, people submitting IFR flight plans, flight plan amendments, IFR wanting diversions around weather, while trying to run Sydney approach & departure with RPT jets? What happens if someone has a problem? Like a VFR pilot stuck over cloud?

 

They seem to be realy short-staffed, with non-rated people sitting at the console while the controller has a break. The IFR pilots are not told their controller is having a break and they have someone listening who actually can't do anything.

 

The latest though is that Airservices will now do an external study into Flightwatch and the removal will not go ahead (although some of the transfer has already taken place). Hopefully the result of the review will be a better service.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HH

 

I spend a bit of time with ATC, but nowhere the level you would of course. Recent trip accross Oz was interesting listening to the Bris/Mel Ceentre boys and girls, working flat out on lots of combined frequencies, and no Flightwatch. With very changing weather (shoud see the pics) it would have been nice to have FW and have more eyes and ears than clogging up the ATC freq.

 

We knew something was ugly...... all the heavies way above us were requesting diversions p to 10miles off track. CB's must have been above the ugly mess we saw below:ah_oh:

 

Did you think FW was a valuable service if provided properly? I could rarely raise them, but the couple of times I could they were great.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't believe everything that you read on PPRune! I do a lot of flying Mazda and I listen to ATC, including Area, Radar, Approach, Departures and everything else and I think the airways are nowhere near choked yet. There were probably only half a dozen flight watch operators anyway and even if a couple moved across to ATC that would probably be enough to run efficiently. If so few people are managing to get in contact with them as the forums say, then they aren't doing much! I prefer a single point of contact when I'm flying and one that is always accessible.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Howard Hughes
There were probably only half a dozen flight watch operators anyway

With only one online, or maybe two when it's busy!I recently tried submitting some flight details to flightwatch for a med one flight, only to be told "I am the only operator today can you try another method?", luckily centre was able to take the details.

 

My personal view is that the flight watch system doesn't really work, but if this work is to be handed off to centre controllers, then they will certainly need more resources. If you are ever in Melbourne or Brisbane it is well worth a visit to the TAATTS (sp) centre, to see how things work!

 

PS: PM me if you want some contacts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they were gradually shutting down FW so fewer were concerned about its closure.

 

Brent, the problem is that if one controller is operating Sydney Approach, Sydney Departures, both Sydney Radar frequencies, plus another one, plus Flightwatch, something is bound to go wrong when the weather makes them busy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with ATC occurred years ago, when it wasn't user pays and they obviously had more controllers. The location was Mackay and as far as I know Mackay, Rocky etc still have ATC controllers looking after the takeoffs and landings as well as local traffic and they don't sound too busy to me. The area frequency controllers may well be busy, although where I fly they seem to be able to handle it very easily.

 

What really upsets me is that now the user pays they are less able to cope, and they must be getting more money in than in the old days.

 

As usual with Australian aviation. The more you pay the less you get.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest High Plains Drifter

From a Dick Smith post at PPRune, 19/11/07.

 

Dick Smith writes -

 

..."it was the Labor Government in the late 1980s (before my involvement in any way with aviation reform) who decided that air traffic control should not only pay its own way, but also make a profit for the Government....I remain totally convinced that a proper expanded Flightwatch is a very cost efficient way of providing higher levels of safety to our industry"...

 

..."the standalone Flightwatch...and knowing that all other countries have a separate VHF Flightwatch system, will result in us keeping – or possibly improving – our system"...

 

..."I have a feeling that the people in the Department, within CASA, and many people within Airservices, didn’t really realise that changing Flightwatch from a standalone VHF frequency, to combining it with ATC, had a number of serious implications"...

 

..." I have confidence that the officers of the Department will genuinely look at this and not be overly influenced by those at Airservices who are trying to improve profits"...

 

HPD

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest High Plains Drifter

Some comments from Dick Smith - Post number 201 in '27 VHF outlets being closed' thread - D&G Reporting Points - PPrune forum, 27/11/07.

 

..."at my first Board meeting I noted that the CAA legislation had words to the effect that “the CAA must give primacy to safety.†At that Board meeting I said if that was the case we wouldn’t be able to give a profit to the Government, because clearly that profit could be use to further improve safety. I was laughed at by the other Board members and I have been laughed at ever since"...

 

..."This “primacy to safety†myth has been carried over into the Airservices Australia Act. It is a is a total con because everyone running Airservices knows that the $50 million they pay as a profit to the Government each year could easily be spent to improve safety"...

 

HPD

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, like most people who have run a business no matter what it is, have found that to make a profit you must have a first class product, delivered with first class service and efficiency. how can you supply a service if it has been turned off and the neccesary staff have gone. to improve safety, first improve the product and the service. then reinvest a percentage or in case of Airservices 100% of profit back into the service. the govt is not making a profit out of safety, they are making it out of airservices inefficiencies and cost cutting. and that sucks.

 

ozzie

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...