Our comments imbedded in Red:
LAST week, as a dwindling number of air traffic controllers struggled to keep pace with the number of aeroplanes in the sky, one controller lost his cool.
"Who's off to jail then?" he fumed in an online forum for air traffic controllers and pilots. "Imagine our worst nightmare," he wrote. "TIBA (uncontrolled) airspace somewhere in Australia. Two aircraft collide, multiple fatalities. World headlines. The pilots had insufficient briefing on service levels and procedures. In the ensuring investigation, who would the authorities recommend be indicted on formal charges (for) reckless abandonment of responsibilities?"
It was a good question in the present climate, for there are few precedents in this country for what is going on in Australian skies. A shortage of air traffic controllers is forcing large chunks of the skies to be unmanned for hours on end, meaning there is no air traffic controller to monitor the passage of fully-laden jumbo jets criss-crossing this airspace.
Yes it’s a very good question, who would go to jail?
The federal Government's figures show that large sectors of Australian airspace were closed on 24 occasions in June, a record level and a one-third increase on May. What's more, passengers are told nothing. They do not know when they board a plane whether they are flying through uncontrolled airspace or what risks they face.
TIBA on 24 Occasions is scandalous; is this each sector or ‘groups of sectors’ being counted? Is this including the multiple events to allow controller breaks, or simple 1 NOTAM = equals one count? Basically once a day Airshambles is uanble to provide any service whatsoever. How many times a day is it providing a less than minimum ATC establishment service?
How dangerous this practice is depends on who you speak to. Air traffic controllers are unhappy, warning that this is a disaster waiting to happen.
Air safety regulator the Civil Aviation Safety Authority disagrees, maintaining that uncontrolled airspace - while not desirable - does not pose an unacceptable risk to aircraft and passengers.
CASA has suddenly shifted ground on TIBA, now they are ‘auditing pilots’ and reviewing ATC procedures relating to TIBA. On the first visit the CASA dude was very unimpressed by what he saw; look out for more news on TIBA from CASA, of course for political expedience the news may never get out.
Qantas has signalled its view by instructing its pilots to avoid flying through uncontrolled airspace wherever possible. It has cancelled, delayed and diverted flights as a result of the increasing number of airspace closures in recent months.
Qantas appears to avoid TIBA where it can, but on multiple occasions Qantas has flown through TIBA and in some cases only minor diversions would have been required to avoid the Area effected.
So how did such a disturbing situation arise in a country with a well-resourced and advanced aviation industry?
The origins of the problem can be traced to the early 2000s when air traffic control manager Airservices Australia - a government-owned but airline industry-funded body - failed to plan for future air traffic control needs. This inexplicable management oversight was not noticed or felt for many years, but it has grave implications.
Don’t be fooled here Cameron, Airservices reduced ATC recruiting as early ago as 2006. They ‘restructured’ the training college, now called the Learning Academy. They moved on multiple contract instructors as they wouldn’t need them “going forward”.
Airservices restructured ATC into Service delivery environments (SDEs) and the executive apparently were promised massive staff reductions as a result of the efficiencies of that project. Unfortunately the SDE and concurrent management restructure has absorbed more resources than it saved; much more.
Airservices did not read the global trends of growing air traffic coupled with an international shortage of controllers. It did not lift recruitment when it should have and now - because of the long lead-time needed for training - it cannot solve the shortage.
The shortages in the short term could be significantly reduced by releasing managers back to consoles; but ideology is god in this organisation, you can’t be the boss and work side by side with someone; it’s just crap! The management restructure also threw up multiple redundancies; so we lost controllers to replace those managers who got VR; there are more awaiting the AIRC decision on whether they get VR too.
Airservices chief executive Greg Russell admitted his organisation's liability in a private letter written to an airline in February and obtained by The Australian.
"When I arrived in 2005 one of the first requests was to see the Airservices workforce plan to see how the organisation intended to address future resource requirements," he wrote. "There was no such plan available."
This is a common lie. and Greg should be made to prove it. There was significant ATC planning done in 2000, 2002 and again 2004. Greg Russell’s first mission was to reduce staffing, he did so in non operational positions by giving out multiple redundancy packages; he did it in Air Traffic Control by reducing recruitment.
Russell said little planning had been done to address recruitment and the fact that many of Australia's 900 controllers were nearing retirement.
Wrong, this was done to death, the Certified Agreement process in 2001/2002 called for 60 trainees per year infinitum to address the pending ‘staffing crisis’. That plan was rejected on a cost basis and the reliance of overtime increased. It was a calculated and deliberate decision; new technology was supposed to save bodies by now.
"All of these issues were uncovered against a backdrop of a worldwide shortage of air traffic controllers and increasing customer demands and growth," he wrote.
He’s lying. Greg Russell is often loose with the truth. If he truly believe this then his advisors are lying to him., fact.
Airservices is belatedly trying to redress the shortage by more than doubling the number of recruits to between 80 and 100 a year. This will solve the problem in several years, but offers no immediate solution. The result, say air traffic controllers, is that the existing workforce is being overworked and saddled with unrealistic demands.
"Staff shortages abound," says Robert Mason, head of the air traffic control union Civil Air, which claims there is a 10 per cent shortfall of about 80 controllers in Australia.
He says controllers are often asked to come in on days off and and while on leave to cover shortages and avoid airspace closures.
"Simple things like breaks to go to the toilet or give tired eyes a break from staring at consoles or airborne traffic are willingly forgone to minimise disruptions to service," Mason says.
But the Government does not believe that controllers are as being as pure and selfless as Civil Air would like people to believe. Government sources believe Civil Air is exploiting staff shortages and exaggerating safety risks in order to win steep rises in pay and conditions. They maintain that there is a shortfall of only 17 controllers, not 80.
They are being loose with the truth again. this magic low number is about bodies on consoles, but the other 63 jobs are needed and required to get us back to full staffing. The other jobs are in training, licencing and project work; all ‘required’ tasks; yet not included in the headline Airshambles figures, why?
Civil Air is pushing for pay rises of between 32 and 63 per cent over three years when its collective agreement with Airservices expires at the end of the year. The move would have senior air traffic controllers earning $175,000 a year from January.
Civil Air says this will bring Australia more into line with the conditions enjoyed by controllers overseas.
It’s true, in Europe and the Middle East the conditions of employment and monetary incenties are significantly higher than $175,000. People have traditionally stayed here, because Australia is great, but now, they have reached the crest on the pile of shit and don’t want to work for Russell and his cronies any longer.
While Airservices will not comment on the wages push, the timing could not be worse for airlines that face record fuel prices and for a Government seeking to contain inflation.
What would the cost to the airlines be if you gave us everything we wanted? We have read figures of 35 cents to 75 cents per ticket; not exactly a massive breakout in inflation. One of us paid 50 cents more for a roll earlier today compared to yesterday; a 25% rise.
Civil Air is unrepentant about its claim, saying it is the only way to attract and retain air traffic controllers in the future.
But the pay claim means that Airservices and the Government are viewing controllers' safety complaints through the prism of industrial politics. In this volatile climate there is a risk that authorities will downplay the warnings of air traffic controllers regardless of how credible these warnings are.
It is clear that they are circling the wagons, CASA and Airshambles are relying on the lack of accidents to justify safety; is it acceptable, hell no.
Former CASA chairman Dick Smith says air traffic controllers are right to warn about the danger of passenger jets flying through uncontrolled airspace, describing the practice as "incredibly unsafe".
"I find it amazing it could ever be allowed to happen," Smith says. "In other countries, they would not allow aircraft to fly in that airspace."
Last week The Australian revealed warnings from controllers that many foreign pilots do not understand the correct collision avoidance procedures in uncontrolled airspace.
Not just foreign pilots, all of them; but at least Australian pilots will have more familiarity to it as they are likely to see it more often.
When flying through uncontrolled airspace, pilots must rely on themselves and other pilots to avoid collisions by keeping track of developments on a common frequency.
Without a controller watching over them, the potential for human error is magnified, especially because pilots are not trained to separate aircraft. Some controllers say they have seen examples of aircraft in uncontrolled airspace failing to broadcast their presence and their movements on the correct frequencies.
One controller, writing on an online industry forum said: "It quickly became apparent that none of the international crews - Malaysian Airlines, Thai Airways, Singapore Airlines - understood the procedures."
Could he be right? Perhaps they’ve never heard of TIBA, perhaps they have never received any training in it, perhaps their operations departments haven’t got full knowledge and didn’t draw pilots attention to the relevant NOTAMs.
Peter McGuane, executive director of Civil Air, says controllers often have to teach foreign pilots the safety procedures for uncontrolled airspace in mid-flight.
CASA initially dismissed the concerns revealed in The Australian, saying that the procedures for uncontrolled airspace are internationally mandated rules that all pilots are taught and are explained in flight manuals.
But really do we believe that? In Manuals yes, but taught it? When? Are they current in these procedures? Not on your nelly.
But what CASA did not say was that many foreign pilots have never before used these procedures because they do not have uncontrolled airspace in their countries.
Singapore Airlines hit back at the controller's claims about foreign pilots, implying that it bordered on racism.
"Our pilots are trained to the highest internationally recognised standards and suggestions that they would compromise safety in controlled or uncontrolled airspace, whereas pilots for Australian carriers would not, are both false and professionally offensive," the airline said.
Again there was never intent to differentiate, all pilots are equally inept at flying in TIBA. They are neither worse or better than Aussie pilots, all pilots are crap at flying in TIBA, and if CASA doesn’t know that then heads need to roll.
The airline said the controller's claims were part of an Australian industrial dispute and that it did not want to become involved.
TIBA is nothing to do with an industrial claim, perhaps they have their wires crossed too?
Yet several days after The Australian's story appeared, CASA said it would start quizzing foreign pilots about their knowledge of the procedures for flying through uncontrolled airspace.
CASA also said it would write to foreign airlines pointing out that there was uncontrolled airspace in Australia and ask them to refresh their knowledge of the procedures.
These actions by CASA contradicted its initial claims that there was nothing to worry about. It made the regulator appear to be reactive on a safety issue that affects all Australians who fly.
CASA has been caught out, they don’t know whether there is compliance with the procedures or not, they haven’t checked before, again, no accidents = safe, well maybe not.
Civil Air has now called for a sweeping review of the safety of passenger jets flying through uncontrolled airspace.
But CASA says that to ban jets from uncontrolled airspace would raise other potential risks, such as overcrowding in other airspace sectors, or forcing planes to take long detours. If planes were forced to take long detours this would add significantly to airline fuel and maintenance costs and would push air fares higher.
The costs and inconvenience would be substantial. Yet they would be nothing compared to the horrendous cost of a midair collision.
Amen!
For now, CASA maintains that the risks of such a collision are too small to support the dramatic step of closing all uncontrolled airspace.
"CASA has already done careful risk analysis and we believe this is the best way to proceed while acknowledging it would be far more preferable to have (controllers) all the time," CASA spokesman Peter Gibson says.
Controllers say this is not good enough and that not all pilots are knowledgable enough to send their jets hurtling safely through uncontrolled airspace.
To gain situational awareness is extremely difficult, pilots are keenly listening for reports of traffic at their level; but when pilots are choosing to change level either for a better ride or because they are getting near their destination the risks are significantly raised.
"There is a serious deficiency in what advice-briefing these crews are receiving," writes one controller in an online forum. "Personally I don't think the NOTAMS (the instructions given to pilots about flying through uncontrolled airspace) spell out exactly what they are getting themselves and the 300 trusting souls down the back of each of these flights into.
"This is in no way a reflection or comment on my fellow controllers: it is an indictment on our management for letting things get this bad, and on CASA for not ensuring that international crews operating in to this airspace are adequately operationally prepared."
Despite the warnings from air traffic controllers, CASA says there have so far been no confirmed close calls between aircraft in uncontrolled airspace.
How would anyone know? The only event that would be reported is a TCAS Resolution advisory; so a pair of aircraft could miss by 5NM on crossing tracks and there are no reports to be filled yet in reality they are less than 20 seconds from a midair. This is BIG SKY THEORY at it’s best.
Smith says this is no defence for what he believes is an inherently unsafe practice. "As people fly across Australia they think there is an air traffic controller instructing their pilot, telling them how to keep clear of other planes, but often there is not," he says.
"Pilots are not air traffic controllers; they don't have the training to work out where they are. It is impossible to believe this is really happening in this country."
Amen!
No comments:
Post a Comment