Atom Feed (xml)
The Sydney Morning Herald released an article over the weekend, highlighting the shortage of Air Traffic Controllers in Australia. This is just one of a hand full of articles as well as an interview on ABC radio from Dick Smith, who I am surprised to say went in to bat for ATC.
A proposal put to Airservices Australia to attract and retain more air traffic controllers to airports has been met with derision, the union representing controllers says.
The claims come after airspace to the northwest of Canberra was unwatched for a total of two hours on Sunday night, causing extra work for pilots and affecting 17 flights between Melbourne and Sydney.
The Civil Air Operations Officers' Association of Australia, known as Civil Air, says controllers are increasingly frustrated by a shortage of staff.
"They're continually being asked to perform additional duty above and beyond their normal hours," Civil Air Executive Secretary Peter McGuane told AAP.
"Basically, they're working a 35 hour week and are being constantly asked to come back for, in some circumstances, multiple shifts to replace other colleagues who may be taken ill.
"Obviously that has a debilitating effect over time in terms of their fatigue levels and their constant requests to come back to work to cover unplanned absences."
Authorities were only really becoming aware of the problem as a result of inadequate workforce planning several years ago, he said.
"There simply aren't enough controllers to guarantee provision of continuous services because the system relies on constant performance of overtime and additional duty," he said.
"So in circumstances where people are unable to perform that emergency duty, the airspace has to revert to information broadcast procedures.
"The management of Airservices (then) refused to recognise this problem and failed to put in place measures to address both the age profile and the early retirement of people and now, additionally and increasingly, the fact that there are very lucrative conditions being offered overseas."
Airservices Australia had since increased the trainee uptake, which the union had welcomed, he said.
"But that's going to take some time to produce a finished product because it takes anywhere between 18 months and two years to have controllers fully weighted and able to perform their operational functions.
"We've put a proposal to the employer in order to attract and retain air traffic controllers both at the intake level and those that are currently in the workforce and in large part that's met with derision.
"So the government needs to intervene and direct Airservices that they should undertake genuine negotiations with Civil Air to solve this attraction and retention problem."
More Air Traffic Controllers Needed
Media Release - Air Traffic Control Collective Agreement Negotiations
Civil Air President Robert Mason released this statement in response to news headlines over the long weekend.
"Civil Air’s vision statement represents a long term view of the direction in which Air Traffic Control and associated support services’ terms and conditions need to move in order to address the immediate and growing crisis in staffing within Australia. This problem is not isolated to our country. IFATCA, the International Federation of Air Traffic Control Associations, believes the shortage to be in the order of 3000 ATCs worldwide. Within Australia, Airservices (the Australian government body responsible for provision of ATC) has publicly admitted significant staff shortages. Civil Air believes Australia to be 10% understaffed at present.
Significant issues face Airservices Australia as it struggles to keep ATC services in operation. The global market has moved and skilled controllers are moving overseas to more lucrative positions. The controller population, like that of Australia, is aging. Unlike many other professions, controllers have a “use by” date that rarely exceeds 55 as they find it more and more difficult to meet stringent medical standards. In many locations average ages nudge towards 50 and some even further. A new employee off the street takes 5 or more years after completion of basic training to reach the peak of their skills and initial rating takes in the order of 2 years to attain. Thus a drain of skilled workers with 20+ years experience either by retirement, medical invalidity or employment overseas is not easily overcome.
Civil Air has spent a considerable amount of time and effort canvassing its members in preparation for the current round of negotiations. Conditions and salary scales within the document represent market value for ATC internationally and the supervisor scales closely relate to salaries offered to employees by Airservices mid-2007 as part of a supervision restructure. Government expectation of productivity gains continue to be met as fewer controllers manage more and more traffic. International scrutiny of controller productivity rated Australian ATC as one of the most efficient in the world. Australian ATC moves more aircraft per controller than any other location (including FAA and Eurocontrol).
The vision document does not represent a secret wish list. To the contrary it was presented in its entirety to Airservices’ chief negotiator on the first day that Airservices’ made itself available to meet, Monday, May 12th. To date no specific response has been received from Airservices regarding the document and preparation of a formal claim by Civil Air continues. We look forward to continued negotiation and hopefully an acceptable outcome for all parties prior to expiry of the current agreement at the end of this year.
Robert Mason
President, Civil Air
June 7, 2008
FAA Makes International Headlines - US Investigators Warn Of Runway Crash
The ongoing dramas with the FAA and it's tired Air Traffic Controllers has reached international headlines with an Australian article from The Age about US investigators warning of an accident waiting to happen.
Here's what The Age article on runway incursions had to say:
"There is "a high risk of a catastrophic runway collision occurring in the United States" because of faltering federal leadership, malfunctioning technology and overworked air traffic controllers, congressional investigators concluded.
The investigators gave the Federal Aviation Administration credit for reducing runway safety incidents from a peak in 2001 but said "FAA's runway safety efforts subsequently waned" as the number of incidents settled at a lower level.
Then in fiscal year to September 30 2007, the incidents spiked to 370, or 6.05 runway incursions per one million air traffic control operations, almost returning to 2001's 407 incursions and 6.1 rate.
An incursion is any aircraft, vehicle or person that goes where it shouldn't be in space reserved for take-off or landing.
At this time, "no single office is taking charge of assessing the causes of runway safety problems and taking the steps needed to address those problems," the Government Accountability Office, the US Congress' investigative arm, said in the report.
Transportation Secretary Mary Peters stepped into that leadership void in August by calling an industry-wide brainstorming conference to produce ideas for quick action.
In October, the FAA reported progress on steps recommended by the August conclave, particularly in speeding improved runway markings and pilot training.
The GAO report approved of those moves but also recommended more leadership from the FAA, improved data collection and a reduction in overtime required of air traffic controllers.
Even though serious incursions, where a collision was narrowly averted, declined to a record low 24 in 2007 from 31 the year before, the report said they have remained high enough since the FAA took its eye off the ball to represent a high risk of catastrophe.
Since 1990, 63 people have died in six US runway collisions. And the FAA's previous definition did not classify some serious runway errors as incursions, including an August 27, 2006, crash in Lexington, Kentucky, of a Comair jet that took off from a too-short runway, killing 49.
This year has seen some dramatic near-misses:
* On August 16, two commercial jets carrying 296 people came within 11 metres of colliding at Los Angeles International.
* A Delta Boeing 757 touched down in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on July 11 and had to take off immediately to avoid hitting a United Airbus A320 mistakenly on its runway.
* A Delta Boeing 737 landing at New York's LaGuardia airport on July 5 narrowly missed a commuter jet mistakenly cleared to cross its runway.
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating those, two others in Denver and one in San Francisco.
The GAO seconded the transportation safety board's April recommendation that the FAA reduce mandatory overtime for controllers.
Since the FAA imposed a contract on the controllers union in 2006, experienced controllers have retired much faster than the agency predicted.
The FAA also cut controller staff to respond to traffic pattern changes from airline mergers and bankruptcies. The union says the cuts are too deep and reduce safety; the FAA says US air travel has never been safer.
The GAO said 52 per cent of controllers at the busiest US airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, regularly work six-day weeks.
Overall, between 20 per cent and 52 per cent of controllers at 25 FAA facilities, including seven of the 50 busiest towers, are on such weeks.
Nevertheless, "agency officials indicated that they had no plan to mitigate the effects of air traffic controller fatigue," the GAO said.
The GAO found that radar the FAA installed at 34 of the busiest airports to monitor aircraft on the ground does not work well when needed most - during heavy rain or snow.
FAA's more advanced ground-control radar, operational at only eight airports, issues false alerts of impending collisions - 41 from June 7, 2006, to May 16, 2007, at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International.
FAA's Office of Runway Safety has not produced a national runway safety plan since 2002, went two years without a permanent director and had a 45 per cent staff cut over the past four years, the GAO found."
So as you can see, the message is getting through to the rest of the world. But is the FAA listening?
Air Traffic Control Frequently Asked Questions
I've decided to create a post for all you Googlers out there with all the questions. Here is a list of the most frequently asked questions related to air traffic control.
1. How much do Air Traffic Controllers earn?
This has to be the number one most asked question. How much do we earn? Similar salary questions that come up are how much do air traffic controllers start out with? And what are the ATC pay levels?
I've covered this in previous posts and listed Australian air traffic controller pay scales. For my international readers you can pretty much convert these dollars into your local currency and it's gonna be pretty close to the mark. Generally speaking a fully rated air traffic controller on the top pay scale is going to earn on average 125-150k a year. Here in Australia the pay scales start in the low 60's for a freshly rated controller and are around 145k at the top level in Sydney.
2. A day in the life of an Air Traffic Controller.
This isn't really a question, but it is a query that is entered into Google a lot. People want to know what it's like being a controller.
Well not much different to any other job really. We do shift work. Some air traffic controllers work a twenty four hour rotating roster, like those working in the centres as enroute controllers and capital city towers. Others (like me) don't. I am currently working at an outstation tower. We open at 7am. Close at 8.15pm local. In Australia we work a 36 hour week and at the end of the day, work gets left at work.
Air Traffic Control has been associated with stress, but I believe it is manageable. You do need to be able to work under pressure and make quick and accurate decisions. Air Traffic Control is a very dynamic environment. Things can happen quickly.
I would recommend Air Traffic Control to anyone who likes to constantly challenge themselves, enjoys problem solving and displays confidence. The latter is not necessarily required but it is a common trait shown across the industry.
3. How to become an Air Traffic Controller
For Australian residents you can get all these details from my previous post here. For international readers visit your local Air Traffic Control provider's website and I guarantee you will find an employment opportunities link.
Generally speaking applicants will be required to have completed the Higher School Certificate. In Australia the first step when applying is completing the online aptitude tests. The second step for successful applicants is then attending a testing day where you do similar tests again under examination conditions. Step three is your interview.
Applicants deemed suitable will then be sent to Melbourne to study. Twelve months later you will be in the field training on the job for your first rating. Achieve your first rating and you will then receive your air traffic controllers licence.
These three questions are by far the most common. I will update this post as more questions roll in.
Good Luck
FAA Air Traffic Controller Numbers At 15 Year Low
It's official, the total number of national Air Traffic Controllers is at a 15 year low according to a report from the NATCA. The year 2007 has seen a record number of Air Traffic Controllers retire resulting in a shortage 33% higher than that projected by the Federal Aviation Administration.
The shortage is not only having an overall effect on staffing, but is also impacting on new recruits, many of whom have no air traffic control experience, and are unable to receive an efficient and effective training program. Currently, there are 3618 trainees in the system. Approximately one third of the trainees are not certified on any position and cannot work alone. Many of the facilities have more trainees on staff, than there are resources to train them. For example Miami Centre has 102 trainees, comprising 34 per cent of total staffing. Sixty Two of these trainees have had no functional training and the backlog resulting in a waiting period of up to 16 months for any real training. Because of these conditions 9 trainees have quit this year.
The number of retirees represented 7.4% of the total air traffic control workforce. A grand total of 856 (16 0f which were mandatory) retirements in the fiscal year 2007. This being the forth straight year the FAA has come up short in their predictions.
The NATCA says it's no surprise, they predicted a surge of Air Traffic Controller retirements in response to the FAA's imposition of work rules and pay cuts on September 3, 2006. It is also reported that Air Traffic Controllers have been without a contract for a period of now well over 430 days. Research of this topic suggests it was only in September 2006, the FAA commenced a drive to cut the number of Air Traffic Controllers nationally by 10 percent below negotiated levels. Now 14 months later controller numbers are at situation critical.
And things are only getting worse. There has been an increase in the use of mandatory overtime, combined radar and tower control positions resulting in exhausted, over stressed and burnt out controllers.
"This is a problem entirely of the FAA making. It didn't have to happen. We do not have a contract and that is taking a very serious toll on the controller workforce and the nation’s aviation system."
NATCA President Patrick Forrey said. "Only once in our nation’s history have we seen conditions in our air traffic control facilities that are as acrimonious, overworked, overstressed, demoralized and angry as we do today and that was in the period leading up to the 1981 PATCO strike. There is only one possible solution to this crisis: We must have a contract. Veteran controllers must have an incentive not to retire early at age 50 or before and to use the six-plus years of service they have left before mandatory retirement to keep the system running today and train tomorrow's controllers without being burned out and driven to total exhaustion".
In addition to the 856 retirements of air traffic controllers there were 201 resignations, 126 removals, 10 deaths and an amazing 365 promotions to FAA supervisory roles (double the FAA predictions). With no contract and the FAA work rules and pay bands in place, taking a supervisory position is the only way a fully certified air traffic controller can earn a pay rise, receive cash bonuses and avoid mandatory overtime.
NOTE: In Australia, combining Radar and Tower air traffic control positions is not only unheard of, but would be considered unsafe to do so by any reasonable standards.
Airservices Australia Voted Worlds Best Air Traffic Services Provider
Airservices Australia has been voted the worlds best provider of Air Traffic Control by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) for the second time. Airservices Australia previously won the award in 1999. The latest award reinforces the company's reputation as one of the most consistently high-performing businesses in the global aviation industry.
FAA's Comments on Near Miss In Chicago Last week
After further investigation of the near miss resulting from Air Traffic Control error over Indiana on Tuesday, between a Midwest Airlines Regional Jet and a United Express aircraft, it appears the FAA are playing the incident down. John Diedrich reports the FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory, stated "We're not calling it a near miss". Although Elizabeth also admitted in the interview that "this event definitely violated our separation standards".
The FAA confirms reports that the two aircraft came as close as 1.3 miles horizontally, and 600 feet vertically with the aircraft's Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) resolving the conflict. The horizontal proximity being almost one fifth of the minimum standard of 5 miles and almost half the vertical standard of 1000 feet.
The fact that the Federal Aviation Administration would make such a comment is not so surprising. They display the same attitude when it comes to their staffing crisis. As reported in my previous post, the FAA believe "staffing levels were adequate" even though Air Traffic Controllers complain of fatigue and over work. A member of the Chicago Controllers Association believes the FAA was not prepared for the high number of retirements of controllers. Three controllers a day retire nationally and three a month locally which has resulted in the shortage.
The "near miss" over Indiana is unfortunately not an isolated case, with three incidents since October 1 in the Chicago facility. Air Traffic controllers in the Chicago region and elsewhere have said "they were weary and more error-prone after having to work repeated six day weeks". Joseph Belinno from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association says the chances are "pretty good" that controller error will increase at busy times. "Any time you have people on six day work weeks it always increases".
Ab-initio Air Traffic Control Tower Courses Discontinued Due Lack Of Staffing In The Centres
Airservices Australia have discontinued all Ab-initio Air Traffic Control Tower stream courses to push the numbers of controllers up in the centres.
Previously, newly recruited Air Traffic Controllers chose their stream of preference. Terminal Approach courses weren't available due to a high failure rate of ab-initios. There was however the choice of Tower or Enroute. This was made during the application process and applicants were then placed into the two groups for selection.
There are a number of factors that contributed to the discontinuation, and from conversations I've had with controllers from other country's the same problems are occurring across the globe.
One problem is the huge number of controllers retiring. It seems there is a large gap in the age department. Companies went through a large recruitment process a decade or more ago and boosted numbers and then for quite a while the process stopped. Now the older generation are approaching retirement age and numbers are falling dramatically if not already at critical stage.
Controllers in the centres are burning out, unable to take annual leave. Overtime is a weekly occurrence and I've even seen shifts being filled by management or staffing contingency plans being utilised.
It is clear that a lot of the enroute ATC have had enough by the number of them applying for tower positions across the country. Air Traffic Control Tower positions are in high demand and the competition is fierce. I really consider myself lucky to have won my recent application.
Still to this day I haven't received a transfer date. The staffing problems don't just stop in the centres, even in the Tower we have problems. Problems with people rating.
I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but at my current location they haven't had an Air Traffic Control rate on the Procedural Approach position for over two years. One controller has been waiting for this whole duration for someone to rate so that he can have his position filled and transfer to the job he won in Brisbane in 2005!
So how will management fix the problem? I have no idea. I've only been in the Air Traffic Control industry for a few years and the whole time it seems to be getting worse. I think the company's priority at the moment is screwing us all over in other ways (salary related).
All I want to do is come to work and do my job well and go home.
Fedex Thunderstorm Ops Memphis
I just had to publish this Youtube video below.
I won't spoil the show by telling you all about it. Just watch it for yourself.
My favourite part is at the end when you can see them all holding and diverting. Hilarious. So is the soundtrack. They look like little ants bolting to their little ants nest.
Moving On
After 18 months at my present location, I'll be moving on at some stage soon.
Just a couple of weeks ago I applied for a position at another tower and was lucky enough to get a job. My transfer date is yet to be confirmed but I'd expect the move to happen in the first half of 2008. Where am I going? Well, I never disclose where I work (although if you pay enough attention to the detail of my posts on this blog it is quite easy to work out!), so Ill be keeping that one to myself. All I will say though is that just a couple of years ago it was the busiest aerodrome in the southern hemisphere. That title has since been given to another location but word on the street is traffic levels are on the rise again.
I see this as good news. It will keep me interested and maybe I can provide my readers with some great reading!
So what has been happening over the last few weeks? Not a lot to be honest. Traffic levels have slid back again giving me more time to notice things some pilots do that annoy me. Notice I said "some". So you can't take offense, it might not be you.
It's just the little things. Here's one example. In our local instructions we have a LOA (Letter Of Agreement) with the local academy that clearly states that when traffic information is passed to the pilot and the pilot has that traffic in sight, he/she shall respond with
"Traffic Sighted".
Quite simple right? Haha, you'd think so. Day in and day out I get all sorts of different responses. Traffic copied, copied traffic, roger traffic, just today "traffic noted" to name a few. The other option is often no response at all. Anyway, rarely do I get the correct response.
So you may be thinking, what difference does it make? Well so far for me, no difference at all. But what would happen if the two aircraft in question were to collide?
We use Class D airspace procedures here. VFR to VFR don't require separation, just traffic information when necessary and we are to provide an "Air Traffic Control service".
What is an Air Traffic Control service? There are a few points but the important one in this case is that an Air Traffic Controller must
"Prevent collisions between aircraft..."
Ok, so Class D we don't have to provide a separation standard between two VFR aircraft, we can just pass traffic to them about each other BUT we must also prevent those two aircraft from colliding. Hmmm?
One simple technique to use in these procedures is passing separation responsibility on to the pilot. The phraseology would be:
"ABC report sighting the (aircraft) (position)"
"Traffic sighted ABC"
"ABC maintain own separation with the (aircraft)"
Now we get back to my original story about the "Traffic sighted". Our LOA covers this scenario. If an aircraft reports the traffic sighted then separation responsibility is automatically passed to the pilot. Basically it avoids having to make the above lengthy transmissions over and over again.
This is just one of the many things that annoy me. Why can't some people just do things properly? They should know their requirements but they either don't know them, or just don't care. It gets to the point where policing it on a case by case basis is impossible. It's like pulling teeth trying to coach them into saying the correct phrase. In the end I just give up and write them off as morons.
Controllers Vs Pilots - Authors Response
It's been a while again since my last blog. A few things have happened over the last few weeks, including a response to my "Controllers Vs Pilots" post. The response came in the form of an email, and the email was from Danielle Bruckert, the author of the "Go Numbers" blog. The blog that my post was written about.
"Hi,
thanks for your comment to gonumbers blog, it illustrated (as I have had the blog for a year or two now) I am finally getting to the market I intended - to promote feedback about aviation safety issues, whilst still laughing at ourselves.
Sorry if it seemed abrasive, the post wasn't written very well-one of those moods...I was going to edit it but it did serve a purpose - that was provoking comment.
I posted a reply online just to let you know, I thought your blog was not quite similar enough to link, but enjoyed your comments,
Regards
Danielle
I fully agree with
-ATC theory training for pilots, I am busy publishing separation minima in my airlaw book
-Tower experience for pilots - why not, I for one would be very willing to volunteer if the options are given.
But the main one like in a marraige I feel is more effective communication,
Will check your blog
Cheers
Danielle"
Thanks Danielle. That's great that you are in the process of publishing separation minima. I hope you share your thoughts with other pilots. The only way I could see pilots gaining experience in the tower would be as an observer. I guess this would be beneficial as the pilot would have an opportunity to raise questions with the controller as situations occur and the controller would be able to share their thinking process and application of separation standards with them.
Why not push the issue at your local aerodrome? I'm sure your local ATC would be more than happy to have you.
Controllers Vs Pilots
Just last night I was browsing through a few aviation blogs when I came across a post titled "Controllers Vs Pilots...Why it's a bit like a bad marriage". This is a topic that I must admit, I try to avoid in my blog. Due to the broad range of visitors My Life And Air Traffic Control receives, I'm sure to offend someone!
It's a topic that controllers talk about in the tower and pilots talk about in the cockpit and a fly on the wall would tell you that the two conversations, although on the same topic, are very different. I'm going to attempt to pick the above mentioned blog apart and break it down in such a way, that maybe the pilots out there that feel the same way as this author, might have a better understanding of where ATC stand in this argument.
The author begins by asking the question "how can you work together in an effective partnership when one person is always telling the other what to do". It is often obvious to the controller that a pilot may feel this way due to a number of factors which are all disappointing. Firstly I'd like to say that Controllers don't "tell" pilots what to do. We simply issue an "instruction" and we do it because it's our job and we have to. It is not personal, there is no malice behind it. The only time it gets personal is when you don't comply with our instructions or you complain about it and it gives us the shits.
Just two weeks ago I had an aircraft joining upwind for the circuit and at that time another aircraft was directly underneath it and becoming airborne from a touch and go. The instruction I gave to the pilot was:
"Maintain 3000, there's touch and go traffic becoming airborne beneath you, report sighting an aircraft turning crosswind."
The pilot responded in an angry voice "Tower can't we have normal decent".
This a perfect example of what gets on our nerves. Why do I have to explain my actions to this guy more than once? He is maintaining 3000ft because it is not safe to issue decent on top of another aircraft. Not because I feel like f#@king him around.
A pilots lack of compliance with an instruction or complaining makes our job harder and it's unnecessary. At the end of the day we are only there to do a job and ensure safety. It's our licence on the chopping block. All you are to us is an aircraft and a registration so don't get upset by being "told" what to do.
The next paragraph the author goes on to talk about pilots not understanding separation requirements and that once upon a time "controllers were required to learn basic flying skills as part of their training - at least to have minimum air experience time."
Only yesterday I wrote an article on this topic. As explained in my previous post, Air Traffic Controller's do, do extensive flight theory on course, among other things. So we do flight theory, why shouldn't a pilot do ATC theory? We also have pilot publications in the tower, why shouldn't a pilot have ATC publications in the cockpit? And as for controllers having air time, the equivalent would be pilots having tower or radar time which is a ridiculous proposal.
The next comment was "I like to rub the salt in a bit more mentioning, pilots normally controll to VFR or Tower requirements on their own when at unmanned airfields to some extent." A little bit confusing in the way it's written but I know what you are getting at. If an aerodrome was busy enough to warrant having a controller there 24 hours a day, the controller would be there 24 hours a day. Please don't confuse self separation outside of tower hours with Air Traffic Control. I have had this conversation before with other controllers, wondering what that busy sequence would have been like if the tower wasn't open. Just watch what goes on at a busy aerodrome minutes before a tower opening, or just minutes after close and the answer is clear.
"Pilots don’t always understand the complexities of the controllers requirements for separation, nor do controllers always find out what the pilots need in terms of performance and engine types". This is a true statement. We may not know ALL of your needs and requirements but we do have a pretty good idea. Aircraft are grouped into simple categories. One group for example could be piston, turbo-prop and jet. If you have any special requirements advise ATC on first contact or just making a simple transmission is all that is required. It is not our job to ask every aircraft what their special needs may be.
I'd like to complete this article by quoting the only paragraph I was even close to agreeing with.
"When the pilots begin to learn about required separation standards, and provide helpful requests and/or suggestions, and the controllers begin to learn about pilot requirements, aircraft performance, and flight priorities not from the books but from the realities of aviation, we can all work together more effectively."
Some elements of truth in that. The rest was utter bullshit.
Air Traffic Control Separation Standards
It's been a frustrating couple of weeks. A few things have come up, but one thing in particular got under my skin a bit.
You may or may not have read my previous post on a runway standard issue that came up, but another issue with the same standard has come up again. Here's the scenario.
ABC was cleared to land and roughly 500m down the runway.
There had obviously been a bit of confusion in the cockpit as to whether DEF was to be for a touch and go or a full stop. Previous to this point in time he had called on base for a touch and go. The clearance was withheld as ABC was still on short final and DEF was advised he was number two.
DEF then made a second call on about a 1 mile final that he was to be for a full stop landing. My assessment was that ABC would shortly vacate, even if he required full length for his landing roll there was no collision risk. So DEF was then cleared to land.
ABC vacated at the second taxiway, DEF landed shortly behind and that's the end of the story.
No.
ABC contacted the ground controller and advised him that DEF had been given a landing clearance while he was still on the runway. The ground controller then advised the pilot that no separation standard had been breached, as a landing clearance can be issued with another aircraft on the runway provided that in the opinion of the controller no collision risks exists, end of story.
No.
Not happy with the ground controllers response the pilot of ABC then attempted to convince the ground controller otherwise. He then proceeded to tell how he had to brake hard to vacate the runway at the taxiway he did, otherwise he would have required full length. The standard was then further explained to the pilot which was then responded to with silence.
An easy way to avoid this type of confusion is for me as the controller to avoid using the standard. It was quite easy to withhold the clearance until ABC had vacated and prior to DEF second call on final that is probably what would have happened. But in my opinion I had good reason to use the standard.
The first reason is because it is a standard that can be used. It's an open and shut case really and there's not much more to comment on that.
The second reason in this scenario is to cut down transmissions. Saving time is a good habit to get into in this job as things can get out of hand if you don't. We are trained in various techniques to do this and reducing the amount of transmissions is one of them. It reduces workload and reduces frequency congestion. How many pilots reading this have been in a control zone and had to "wait in line" for an opportunity to make a transmission? I'd say all of you. By reducing the transmissions the controller makes it also reduces the number of transmissions the pilot makes and things run a hell of a lot smoother.
In my explanations of scenarios I only ever include the aircraft involved. At the time this situation happened I had at least half a dozen other aircraft on frequency and other traffic conflictions to consider. When DEF called on final for a full stop landing by issuing the clearance then, I reduced the frequency transmissions by two and was then also able to transmit to another aircraft.
As previously explained, the Air Traffic Controller's course included a lot of theory from the private pilot's license course and we have publications readily available in the tower, used by pilots such as AIP. Maybe there should be a topic on ATC Separation Standards in the course for a PPL? If not maybe some documentation available on this topic?
To my knowledge there is no such thing but maybe one day someone might clue on to the fact that it's a good idea.
Until then...
Air Traffic Control Salary Part 2
Due to the massive demand I have decided to do a more detailed post on just how much you can earn as an Air Traffic Controller. In my previous post on ATC salaries I wasn't very specific and just gave a broad range.
The salaries you will see here are exact values as of 1st July 2007. I just want to clarify that the base salaries I am about to give you are for Australian Air Traffic Controllers in the tower stream. Enroute or TMA controllers salaries may vary but not by much.
Any persons wishing to publish these figures, please provide a link back to this blog!
Trainee Field - $52,066
Level 2 - $78,945
Level 3 - $87,232
Level 4 - $95,518
Level 5 - $99,818
Level 6 - $104,117
Level 7 - $108,417
Level 8 - $113,683
Level 9 - $117,014
Level 10 - $121,314
Level 11 - $125,009
Level 12 - $128,705
Level 13 - $132,331
Sydney 1 - $138,627
Sydney 2 - $142,517
The two Sydney levels are additional levels available to Sydney controllers as these were negotiated back in the 80's for Sim Ops. and I have no idea how much the representative allowance is for Tower Managers.
Another thing to note is that you do get paid for over time. Unlike a lot of other occupations where you are on a set salary and any extra time isn't accounted for, with ATC if you do extra hours you get extra pay. And at great rates! I once heard an enroute controller added close to 50k on top of his base salary in "additional duties". The enroute sector is so short staffed it's really no surprise.
Pilot Calls Mayday
Thursday morning a CT4 lost all oil pressure on upwind and called mayday. Luckily the conditions were such that the pilot was able to make a tear drop turn back to the runway and land safely. If the runway was occupied or another aircraft was becoming airborne it could have been messy.
We also often get strong winds at the aerodrome well in excess of 20 knots. Thursday the wind was straight across the runway and a light 5 knots so there was no downwind for the turn back. If it had been like it was a couple of weeks ago, 25 knots straight down the runway he may not have made it.
There are a few plenty of other options though, just in this case the simplest option was the turn back to the runway. As an Air Traffic Controller this is the perfect example of making a decision in a split second, and it's a life and death situation.
It wasn't me controlling, I was rostered off. So let's breakdown what went through my colleagues mind in that half a second or so.
In this case the pilot advised he was making a turn back to the runway. This can have positive and/or negative effects depending on the circumstances. In this case it was all positive.
- The controller knew exactly what the pilots intentions were. A mayday can often cause confusion for a controller. Because the pilot may fear for his/her life (and this is fair enough), he/she may make a decision to deal with the situation that is in total disregard for what is happening in the airspace around them. Communication with the pilot is also limited at this point in time so you can be left guessing what they are going to do and move everyone else out of the way.
- There was no confliction with other traffic.
- There was no excessive downwind component on the opposite runway.
- It was probably the best option.
- Assess that no collision risk existed with other aircraft
- Assess the downwind component on the runway.
So what were the various options? My knee jerk reaction would have been a left turn for a landing on the crosswind runway. It solves any confliction with other aircraft becoming airborne and negates any downwind component that may have been present on the opposite runway. Another option would have been a base leg for the parallel runway, the third option the one that took place.
Anyway, the whole fleet was grounded on Friday so I had a nice relaxing day at work!
Any pilots reading this feel free to add your comments to this post. It's always interesting to know what goes on through your head when your engine is about to seize. In my training we were always taught that a pilot flies the plane first. This is true for the above situation and TCAS alerts are another good example.
I worked with a controller at my last posting who was also a pilot. He once told me a story that I found quite funny.
You often hear stories of engine failures and pilots positioning the aircraft so that no one on the ground was in danger for a forced landing. This guy had an engine failure once in a C172 and there just happened to be a football oval nearby for his landing. The only problem was it was full of football players! Fearing for his life he totally ignored the fact that there were people everywhere and steered straight for the football field!
Some people may call it cowardly, I call it self preservation!
One Week Of Training - Procedural Approach
(Above: Australian FIR)
It's been well over a week since my last post on how to be an Air Traffic Controller. This has been due to the fact that I was in the process of doing a week of training on ADC1 - Procedural Approach.
My official training won't commence until January next year as I am number two in line for training at that position. As an Air Traffic Controller you may often receive additional training prior to commencing your official training date.
The reason for this is because your training is set to a specified time limit (in this case 16 weeks) and it isn't ideal to spend the first 4-6 weeks of that 16 weeks learning things like phraseology's. For those that don't know what that is, phraseology is basically set phrases Air Traffic Controllers use to pass instructions. Pilots then also have their own set of standard phraseology's that they would reply with.
When I meet someone and they ask what I do for a living, usually the first response is something along the lines of "Oh, yeah. So you're the guy that waves the bats around on the ground". I then correct them which is followed by "Oh...that must be stressful". I have had this exact conversation countless times, so has every Air Traffic Controller I have met.
For the Air Traffic Controllers of tomorrow I'd like you to know that 95% of the time the job isn't all that stressful. We spend all our working days doing the job and seeing certain scenarios come up, that it eventually becomes like second nature. At times it can get really busy and the pressure can build up, but it is something you become accustomed to.
Something that I never get used to is Training. And it doesn't matter how you package it up and make it all nice, training in my opinion is bloody stressful. And for a number of reasons.
- It's new - Like I said in above, "it eventually becomes like second nature". When you are training for a new position you are seeing and doing things that you have never done before. New scenarios, new solutions. Add complex phraseology's to this mix and you have a cocktail for information overload. You thought you experienced an information overload in your studies? Ha, you haven't experienced anything until you have that much going on in your head that you can't even speak properly.
- Time Restrictions - Every training officer will tell you not to stress about this point. They'll say "We've all been where you are" and it's supposed to make you feel better. I guess it does in a way, knowing that the guy who knows everything about the job, once upon a time struggled like you are right now and then eventually overcame that. The reality for me is that I know that I have until a certain date to get this right and If I don't I may be speaking to my manager and telling him why I deserve to keep my job!
- Long Hours - After what feels like a long day at work, you go home to do study in your own time and learn what you didn't know today for tomorrow.
- It's not your licence! When you are training, your training officer is ultimately responsible for what happens in your airspace. If you do something wrong, you have your training officer their to pick up the pieces for you!
- It won't go on forever - Your training period only lasts for a few months, if not less. Within a matter of a couple of months you will be back within your comfort zone and it will all be over!
