More Press

Air restrictions fly in face of safety claims

Cameron Stewart | August 11, 2008

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority will restrict the number of passenger jets flying through uncontrolled skies, contradicting the Government's claims that the practice is perfectly safe.

The move is the first tacit admission by authorities that the risk of a mid-air collision in uncontrolled airspace in unacceptably high and that something needs to be done.

CASA has called on the air traffic control manager of Airservices Australia to place new restrictions on airspace when there is no air traffic controller available to monitor that portion of sky.

The move follows a series of articles in The Australian that have disclosed the dangers of uncontrolled airspace, highlighting safety warnings from pilots, air traffic controllers and aviation experts.

A shortage of air traffic controllers has increasingly left large parts of Australian skies uncontrolled, forcing pilots to rely on other pilots to avoid mid-air collisions.

The government-owned ASA has said repeatedly that the practice of flying in uncontrolled airspace, using only radio and visual sightings, is safe. But CASA now wants ASA to declare all uncontrolled airspace a "temporary restricted area" -- meaning no plane can fly in or out of this airspace without approval. This gives authorities a way to limit the number of planes that enter uncontrolled airspace and separate them more precisely before they enter the uncontrolled zone. 

Well they did, we have been told that CASA told ASA to do it this way, the clever folks at ASA have decided that well if CASA want’s us to do this then they (CASA) can administer the airspace; or manage the TRA.  CASA needs to work out who can enter, when, how high, and ‘guarantee’ that clearance into the TRA in which TIBA procedures would be used is as safe if not safer than just TIBA alone.

ASA is but merely a service provider, as such, if unable to provide the service can throw it’s “hands in the air” and say “we’ve done all we can”; “look how hard we tried, we made 10 phone calls”.

Of course, like other infamous interdepartmental stand offs, like NAS, this is about saving face and not admitting that a real problem has been identified; shifting blame (the blame which started with ‘it’s the controllers fault’) to the other agency is now the key.  

CASA should threaten to withdraw the AOC that Airshambles has, because they are unable to fulfill their service obligations.; of course that is ‘politically unacceptable’, because significant proportions of the nations economy will grind to a halt, just like the “PR SPIN” stated when controllers take industrial action; except the withdrawal of the AOC would cripple the nation, not like squeezing a pimple in terms of any controller action.

What is happening is a classic game of bluff, CASA now has withdrawn it’s intention to insist on TRAs within TIBA sectors; because Airshambles has told them to come in and work out what the effects on safety are.  Airshambles are good bluffers and again they have made CASA look silly, despite the problems being firmly in the Airshambles corner.

The argument is that broad blanket TRAs are an unknown quantity in terms of risk; where as TIBA risk is practiced, known and historically acceptable; even if it’s at best a third world practice and unacceptable for a modern aviation environment.

So how will Airshambles subject the new requirements to risk assessment, well they can’t without knowing what the intended procedures are; how will CASA make an assessment on this procedure in isolation, well they just can’t; without knowing the procedures.  

TRAs logically, must be infinitely safer than TIBA alone, but how do you prove it?  What are the procedures to be used, what errors are possible and what mitigations can be implemented to increase safety.   Far too many unknowns, far to many people saying we should do something and no one saying we must; time for leadership Russell and Byron and dare we say it BIG TONY.

Russell doesn’t want amended procedures as it doesn’t look good for him and his 17 short (for 17 more days) workforce.  Byron doesn’t want to impose more un-assessed risk on the public; BIG TONY has been sold a pup and has no idea what is really going on.

If Airshambles were an airline it would be grounded; that would be the safest thing to do.

It means pilots will still be flying blind but with fewer other aircraft in the vicinity and better spacing, reducing the chances of a mid-air collision. 

Well see above commentary, it’s possible that more space will be between them, but perhaps not.

However, the new system could cause delays to those aircraft which are not approved to fly through the uncontrolled zone, adding to costs and inconvenience to passengers.

"We have asked (ASA) to look at TRA as an alternative to (uncontrolled airspace) because it gives a greater ability to be aware of all the traffic in that airspace," said CASA spokesman Peter Gibson.

A spokesman for ASA, Richard Dudley, said the service agreed late last week to CASA's request for uncontrolled airspace in Australia to be designated as TRA.

Both these gents had no qualms in giving out the details when pressured, when considered later after getting kicked in the arse, they both deny any safety enhancement or new procedure was on the table.

CASA has been increasingly frustrated by the air safety implications arising from a shortage of air traffic controllers.

The shortage has come about through mismanagement by ASA, which has failed to recruit enough controllers to offset large numbers of retirements and poaching from overseas. 

Cameron, you speak the truth.  How many trainees of the magic 100 abinitios per year have been recruited to come to work every day to play ‘pool and play-station’; because there is no capacity to train them yet?  The poaching will get worse.  The Middle East is bringing a mojor airport online in 2009; they will need 100+ controllers in that region and they will be ever increasing the tax free offer, currently close to $230K per year, to get staff.

ASA accuses air traffic controllers of contributing to the problem by calling in sick and refusing to work extra shifts in an effort to highlight the shortage and help their forthcoming wage claim. 

The inference is that all the sick leave is fraudulent, if so, who's getting counselling for abusing sick leave? See this great post from Don Brown over at ‘Get the Flick’ for a simple explanation of why they might be saying no.

Last Friday, a massive area of airspace between Brisbane and Cairns was left uncontrolled between midnight and 5.30am after a controller called in sick.

According to an ASA "service interruption" report on the incident, six other controllers declined to cover the sick man's shift while four others were uncontactable.

ASA head Greg Russell has accused a small group of "renegade" controllers of leaving the skies uncontrolled to boost their industrial clout in looming wage negotiations. 

Our read on this is, GREG if you think we need to increase our clout you really are delusional.  When the protected ‘bargaining period’ is initiated, if it gets that far,  then you will see the clout readily available to us; this is not a threat it is reality.  You have spent 18 months beating controllers up, very publicly of late,  now they want a ‘pound of flesh’ for their troubles.  You can eliminate their hunger by making a ‘reasonable offer with a bloody good pay-rise’ in it.

It is in your interest to put at least an offer on the table, which you have still failed to do in 4 months, in an attempt to retain your staff before they sign the contracts and book their flights out.  Give us a hint? 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, <7%;>

But the air traffic control union, Civil Air, says ASA is looking to deflect blame for its own failings. "Airservices seems bent on shifting the blame to those who have been holding a failing system together, rather than accepting the consequences of its own mismanagement of human resources across an extended period of time," Civil Air president Robert Mason said.

Robert Mason is indeed wise.  We have read elsewhere that a single group of 17 staff have been required to work 34 OT shifts between them in 3 weeks.  2 days each in three weeks.  This is at ‘roster creation’ time, before anyone has become fatigued and or sick; that group is rumoured to be losing 3 more controllers before October.

The Sydney tower alone has lost four controllers through resignation or retirement in the past two weeks.