On QF's Twitter, they posted something about two of their A330s having a loss of separation over Adelaide. It says QF581 bound for Perth from Sydney and QF576 for Sydney from Perth. When they say loss of separation, does this mean they were on a collision course? Which plane was off course? Or were they both? Does anyone else have a further explanation?

The link for the incident is here:

http://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/qan...-statement-a330-loss-of-separation

Sounds like they got a TCAS warning and the crews duly followed it. Also sounds like ATC dropped the ball. I doubt you're going to get much more out of QF about it and it will be investigated by the ATSB. No doubt Ben Sandilands is onto it making up facts and blaming this on overseas maintenance. And if this was Virgin it wouldn't get a second mention.

[Edited 2013-09-19 22:53:59]

Just looking at this on FlightRadar24

http://www.flightradar24.com/2013-09-20/02:11/12x/QFA581
or
http://www.flightradar24.com/2013-09-20/02:11/12x/QFA576

QF581 was cruising at FL380 heading west, QF576 was at FL390. Watching QF576, it looks like they have had to modify their altitude to maintain separation, and that QF581 were the ones that obtained clearance (at around 12:13 looking at FlightAware's graph - http://flightaware.com/live/flight/Q...0130920/0010Z/YSSY/YPPH/tracklog).

You can see QF576 make a quick climb and return to FL390 around that time. Minimum height separation was breached, but very glad we have TCAS and alert pilots onboard both aircraft.

Reports from local West Australian News saying they came within 700 feet:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-.../two-qantas-airbuses-in-near-miss/

I NEVER watch 7/9/10 News, but I was interested to see how sensational they would make this...

I'm sure that the facts are accurate, but they hype it up into something so much more. Just listen to the language that they use...

http://ten.com.au/ten-news-sydney.htm?vid=2682498943001

That said, according to Channel 10 this is the "closest near miss in our history". Is that true?

I reported the 700 feet reading almost as fast as the data was forwarded, but won't be saying more about that.

In late developments the ATC officer involved has been suspended, and there is a rather strange report on ABC news claiming that the pilot of another jet in the vicinity heard one of the QF pilots say he wasn't even aware of the presence of the other A332. The ABC reports this as suggesting one of the TCAS units wasn't working, but this isn't necessarily true, it may be the pilot was simply unaware they would be near the reverse routing until a TA or RA was generated.

Qantas has declined to comment on any TCAS servicability problems.

My take is the obvious one. That the Qantas pilots performed totally professionally in their response to an unexpected situation, which is how we like it, and want it to stay. I'll reserve my commentary about AirServices for another place and time.

[Edited 2013-09-20 02:36:08]

700' sounds dramatic, normal separation is 1000'
Some one will have a bit of explaining to do.

Hi guys
I know nothing about this particular incident, however , if TCAS issues a RA, it always goes to both a/c.
One should climb, one descent.
So one a/c would not maintain FL380 throughout a TCAS based RA? (if that was the case)

The factuals are that an RA was generated.

Qantas has neither confirmed nor denied reports suggesting that the TCAS unit in one of the aircraft was 'faulty', read inoperative.

I don't see any point in taking a position on this until more factuals are determined. But we can fairly say, this was a serious incident.

It is shaping up to be a very interesting ATSB investigation, and I recommended carefully considering the wording of the incident notification on the safety investigator's website.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 8): The factuals are that an RA was generated

Wouldn't this confirm that both TCAS units were operating?

To get an RA, you need 2 airplanes "talking" to each other, otherwise, if only one airplane could issue an RA, then I'm pretty sure GOL1907 would have made to its destination...

(From another place)



It doesn’t matter whether the vertical separation between the two Qantas A332s involved in Friday’s near hit just west of Adelaide was 990 feet or 90 feet, or whether they were 1000 feet or 10,000 feet apart in lateral separation.

What matters is that a TCAS or traffic collision avoidance system RA or resolution advisory was generated and that one of the jets was cleared by an AirServices Australia ATC officer to climb up through the flight level occupied by the other oncoming jet.

The technical media is well aware that on provisional data, the vertical separation between the two airlines, carrying a total of more than 600 seats, was less than 700 feet, which is just as bad as 990 feet or 90 feet. The rules concerning safe separation between airliners are set to the levels specified for carefully considered and universally endorsed reasons.

A further matter of interest, but at this stage impossible to rate as a material factor until it is fully investigated, is whether or not the TCAS unit in one of the Qantas A330s was functioning properly, or at all. It may have been, it may not have been, we don’t know, but we, through the investigation will find out.

If in fact there was a previously unrecognised or undetected fault in one of those units there will of course be an airworthiness alert or advisory, and that type of unit will be urgently inspected and if necessary corrected world wide, as this is one of the positive consequences and contributions that air safety investigations bring to airline operations.

Such speculation is however ahead of where the investigation is likely to be for the immediate future, and it may be false speculation. The speculation was caused by a media report that a pilot on a third airliner overheard the communications related to the near hit, in which one Qantas captain is claimed to have said he didn’t know the other Qantas plane was ‘there’.

The wording of the ATSB notification also supports the interpretation that the RA was, for whatever reason, only responded to by one of the jets involved in the incident. Without prejudice to anyone involved, there are other possible reasons as to why that may have been the case than TCAS equipment issues.

This is what the brief notification says in relation to that RA.

QUOTE The ATSB has commenced an investigation into a loss of separation between an Airbus A330, registered VH-EBO (EBO), on a scheduled passenger service from Sydney, New South Wales, to Perth, Western Australia, and an Airbus A330, registered VH-EBS (EBS), on a flight from Perth to Sydney. The LOS occurred about 10 NM (19 km) west of Adelaide, South Australia at 1213 Eastern Standard Time on 20 September 2013.

Airservices Australia advised that EBS was cruising at flight level (FL) 390. The flight crew of EBO were cleared to climb from SA)">FL 380 to SA)">FL 400 and the aircraft commenced the climb. Soon after, the controller cancelled the clearance and the aircraft descended back to SA)">FL 380. The flight crew of EBS received a resolution advisory alert from their aircraft’s traffic collision avoidance system. UNQUOTE

The investigation will take time, but one might expect the new minister reponsible for aviation will direct the ATSB that it will take less time than until September next year! One might expect that new minister to sort out a number of festering issues at the ATSB as well as its intention to take 12 months to deal with a truly serious issue that could have killed over 600 people through the avoidable destruction of two Qantas airliners, but that is just an observation as to where the minister’s priorities and sense of urgency might lie.

He might also direct it to fix its disgraceful Pel-Air accident report, and to find a new chief commissioner who would command the confidence of the Senate when it comes to giving testimony to a Senate inquiry, especially if he were to be briefed on those matters by SA Liberal Senator, David Fawcett.

In the meantime the correct calibration of the seriousness of this incident in the public and political mind of Australia might be the persistent inability of AirServices Australia to put competent and properly trained air traffic controllers into positions where they are responsible for the lives of at times many hundreds of Australian and foreign users of airspace under their control.

This is not a matter that can be left until this investigation is completed. It requires remedial action now.

If we can stop the boats, surely we can stop airliners being sent across each other’s bows.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 8): I don't see any point in taking a position on this until more factuals are determined. But we can fairly say, this was a serious incident.

Sounds like a conflicting statement to me...

FWIW, loss of separation are split into various categories of significance. I doubt this would be very high on that scale given the 700' gap. I concede that it was not standard separation and answers need to be found as to why.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 10): It requires remedial action now.

You are aware that humans make mistakes? Even the best of us? What exactly is it you think needs remedial action *now*? The controller is undoubtledly relieved of active controlling until such times as a debrief, CISM, and currency training have taken place...

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 10): QUOTE The ATSB has commenced an investigation into a loss of separation between an Airbus A330, registered VH-EBO (EBO), on a scheduled passenger service from Sydney, New South Wales, to Perth, Western Australia, and an Airbus A330, registered VH-EBS (EBS), on a flight from Perth to Sydney. The LOS occurred about 10 NM (19 km) west of Adelaide, South Australia at 1213 Eastern Standard Time on 20 September 2013. Airservices Australia advised that EBS was cruising at flight level (FL) 390. The flight crew of EBO were cleared to climb from SA)">FL 380 to SA)">FL 400 and the aircraft commenced the climb. Soon after, the controller cancelled the clearance and the aircraft descended back to SA)">FL 380. The flight crew of EBS received a resolution advisory alert from their aircraft’s traffic collision avoidance system. UNQUOTE

According to your quote, the controller in question realised his error, and corrected it. At this time I don't know which aircraft's TCAS generated the RA. Given my training, it would likely be the aircraft with vertical speed, IE the descending one, in which case it might have been a simple RA of "Maintain Vertical Speed", or "Increase Vertical Speed".

Journalists are notorious for scaremongering with the public as the majority of people don't know the in's and out's of ATC. Let alone the so-called "professionals" being quoted...

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 10): If we can stop the boats, surely we can stop airliners being sent across each other’s bows.

Sound like ATC being used in a tug of war for somebody's political agenda.

AirServices Australia is a serial offender when it comes to incidents like this, and the ATSB has published some scathing reports available to anyone who looks beyond the somewhat bland summary pages on its website.

Is the ATSB too hard on AirServices? Should we be more tolerant of under performance where jet airliners are involved?

While struggling to find answers to these questions consider this. The ATSB doesn't release its final reports without first consulting all the parties and inviting them to suggest amendments or clarifications to its findings and the associated narrative. Nothing has ever been released by the ATSB in relation to a loss of separation incident without it being reviewed by AirServices although the ATSB will in the final event publish what it sees fit to publish. (If only it had been as courageous when it came to Pel-Air, but that is another matter).

ATSB reports are prvileged documents. Shooting at the messenger in relation to privileged documents is a pointless exercise.

At this stage, in comparativel empty air space, we have yet another instance of an airliner being cleared to descend or ascend through the flight level of another airliner, in this case an oncoming airliner.

The relative positions of each airliner are quite clearly displayed to the controllers and a mistake like this, in little used airspace, involving two airliners with a total passenger carrying capacity of more than 600 people, is not some excusable matter of corrected human error. It is totally unacceptable, and like the other incidents referred to the ATSB by the former Minister in early in 2012, a matter of deep concern.

The legal position is that the management of AirServices Australia, like the management and indeed bopard of any Australian AOC holder, is jointly and severally liable for the actions and performance of employees and the manuals, training and safe workplace in which those employees work or by which they are trained and recurrently retrained.

This means this is not about 'a controller'. It is about the entire management.

Let me give you an insight into the attitude by airlines themselves to these antics, and there have been many of them in recent years. They put at unacceptable risk the lives of their passengers, their employees, their brand value, and their aircraft. And that is where the anger is coming from, from the airlines. Most of the media has already forgotten this latest incident. The airlines have not.

This isn’t the approporiate time to make excuses. Two large airliners were endangered. It is time to support an intensive investigation, and seek answers and remedies.

And let me give you a tip. That is precisely what is happening.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 12): The relative positions of each airliner are quite clearly displayed to the controllers and a mistake like this, in little used airspace, involving two airliners with a total passenger carrying capacity of more than 600 people, is not some excusable matter of corrected human error. It is totally unacceptable

With all due respect, its comments like this that make me want to vomit.

Until you have donned a headset and worked a scope, I find these "armchair" comments offensive.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 12): Is the ATSB too hard on AirServices? Should we be more tolerant of under performance where jet airliners are involved?

Most definitely not. As an ATC I expect a transparent investigative process to be followed and the causal and contributing factors uncovered and disseminated, with solutions generated. I am accountable for my airspace.

However, this accountability usually ends on my screen. I am the last barrier (bar TCAS/flight deck crew) to prevent aircraft from colliding. I have to absorb managements failings and lack of accountability. I am the one that must work extra shifts because of inadequate staffing levels. I am the one that has to work multiple frequencies and sectors simultaneously due to managements failure to ensure proper staffing levels. I am the one that has to work with substandard equipment - with poor design and unexpected or counter-intuituve responses. Whilst all or none of these might have been a contributing factor, its not as simple to play the blame game.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 12): AirServices Australia is a serial offender when it comes to incidents like this

Every ANSP globally has repeated loss of separation occurrences - don't think Australia is special. So every ANSP is therefor a serial offender. For whatever reasons, the system fails. Every occurrence is different. As I said up-post, the causal and contributing factors need to be identified.

And the fact that politics is involved in ASA (or so it seems), is bad news. (see my last comment)

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 12): Nothing has ever been released by the ATSB in relation to a loss of separation incident without it being reviewed by AirServices

Do you have this as fact? Or is this just media hype? For what it is worth, the ANSP is always involved with the investigating agency, in all the countries I have worked.

I have searched extensively and only seem to have uncovered a single person behind these reports.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 10): which is just as bad as 990 feet or 90 feet.

This is blatant scare mongering. I agree 100% that a loss of separation occurred. And MUST be investigated without BIAS. Meting out punishment is a surefire way for cover ups. I refer you to this, and would like you to publish this in your blogs, that there are 5 categories of AIRPROX severity. A through E. I will list them for you so you don't have to google.

A: Risk of collision - An actual risk of collision existed.
B: Safety not assured - The safety of the aircraft was compromised.
C: No risk of collision - No risk of collision was present.
D: Risk not determined - Insufficient information was available to determine the risk involved, or inconclusive or conflicting evidence precluded such determination.
E: Non-Event - Met the criteria for reporting but, by analysis, it was determined that the occurrence was so benign that it would be misleading to consider it an Airprox occurrence. Normal procedures, safety standards and parameters pertained.

I am not singling you out with a personally Ben Sandilands. But as an active ATC, having experienced a global variety of conditions to work under, I take exception to the condescending attitude that I have picked up.

What is the occurrence rate at ASA (Ie how many LOS per 100 000 movements)? How does it compare globally? I have googled, and have not turned up any public reports from Australian airlines regarding these "serial near death occurrences". And I am on google page 21...

What I have noticed and really don't agree with - is that it can take a year for an incident to be reviewed. Where I currently work, this is done much quicker. CASA/ATSB/ASA need to sharpen up their act in this regard.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 12): The relative positions of each airliner are quite clearly displayed to the controllers

How do you know that? You are really showing your ignorance ,if that is what you believe. Don't you find it significant that this incident occurred within 10 miles of Adelaide at cruising altitude ( I.e. in the cone of silence for any radar at Adelaide.

I'm sure the investigation will consider what was displayed.

Gentlemen,

In the course of reporting on AirServices Australia's corporate failings I have received excellent and continuing support from your colleagues, which has probably added to the hysterical anger from some other quarters that these matters get aired in the media.

It's the 21st century, and such egregious failures in a body like AirServices Australia will get reported, and it might be added, complaints about the media seem to be about the media daring to report what the investigating body says and does.

A more adult response to these matters is needed. And whether you like it or not this accountability and examination will take place. The airlines are demanding it.

The big problem, as Speedbird aludes too, is that AirServices is top heavy management positions that do not contribute to its productivity or efficiency. There is far too much talking the talk, and not enough walking the walk.

Far too much talent, most of it young and thus more mobile, has fled AirServices for other ATC organisations abroad. It has led to some astonishing rostering and coverage problems at various stages in recent times. A thorough restructuring and reassessment of who does what and to whom within the organisation is needed. I believe, on what I am hearing, that this will happen.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 15): A more adult response to these matters is needed

As well as an aswer to the questions posed to you by the posters above. They are very relevant questions by people experienced in ATC - unanswered they leave serious questions to your creditability. As a "journalist" you should be able to answer as well as ask questions.

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 11): Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 8): I don't see any point in taking a position on this until more factuals are determined. But we can fairly say, this was a serious incident. Sounds like a conflicting statement to me...

I agree....and conveniently ignored by Mr Sandilands

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 15): which has probably added to the hysterical anger from some other quarters that these matters get aired in the media

What hysterical anger?? Yours??

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 15): Far too much talent, most of it young and thus more mobile, has fled AirServices for other ATC organisations abroad

Source?

Journalists would not reveal their sources, other than sources already on the public record, in a forum in which information is sought by the anonymous.

However the brain drain from AirServices Australia has been acknowledged and discussion by AirServices Australia in Senate estimates hearings on a regular basis. These hearings are recorded in Hansard.

While the mood here seems to be to make excuses for the inexcusable, and attack the media for drawing attention to it, I have yet to be found wrong concerning a single previous report about AirServices Australia matters, and when I wrote some time ago about the poor quality of training which had been identified by the ATSB the head of an AirServices training school was, no doubt entirely by coincidence, fired.

Make no mistake, no amount of media bashing or mock indignation is going to alter the forces of reform when it comes to AirServices. Nor will it stop the flow of documents and information from inside AirServices to at least two reporters in this country.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 15): It's the 21st century, and such egregious failures in a body like AirServices Australia will get reported, and it might be added, complaints about the media seem to be about the media daring to report what the investigating body says and does.

If you want to post ridiculous hyperbole like that you're going to be much better off doing it in front of an audience that isn't familiar with aviation.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 17): While the mood here seems to be to make excuses for the inexcusable, and attack the media for drawing attention to it

I beg your pardon - that is an insult. You really can't read. Or understand. I am not entirely sure.

I have not condoned, nor made excuses for the loss of separation that occurred. I have stated that and will quote it for you. It needs transparent and thorough investigation.

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 13): Most definitely not.

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 13): As I said up-post, the causal and contributing factors need to be identified.

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 13): What I have noticed and really don't agree with

What I take exception to, is the way journos neglect to answer LEGITIMATE questions. YOU make all these claims. Yet are unable to provide a simple ratio of LOS to 100k movements. This is an internationally accepted ratio measurement, and if you make such claims as ASA is a repeat offender, then I ask you to provide this info.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 17): media bashing or mock indignation

Well I implore you to answer my questions posed above - which are relevant to your ATC bashing.

So if you want any glimmer of credibility, please answer them.

And, as an ATC, I am talking to you, as a journo, to please publish the AIRPROX categories as I mentioned. If you refuse that, then it shows that you are just another paranoia feeding scare mongering journalist that has no intent to provide unbiased impartial reporting, but rather just to use anything as a method to get printed.

And if you feel the need to say you're being attacked, you are not being attacked. Its funny you should feel that way. All I am asking is that you provide FACTS for your as-yet-unsubstantiated claims. So the ball really is in your court if you want people to take you seriously. Oh, and publish AIRPROX categories so the world knows full well that whether it was 1 foot separation or 999 they are not equal (as YOU wrote), and should not be treated that way.

Speedbird,

It is not my role, and certainly not my intention, to do any research that you might want to advance in support of the sub standard performance of AirServices Australia on Friday. Or any other time in recent years. I suggest you do your homework. Read the ATSB reports yourself. Read the Hansard. And talk to your colleagues. Quite a few of them are talking to me.

While you are writing this thesis you will of course come across the diagrams, the summaries from training notes, and even a dozen or so reports by myself. As you do this, could you note where the ATSB has been wrong, where the answers to the estimates committee hearings have been wrong, and where, specifically I have been wrong.

And could you clear up an apparent conflict in your argument. Are you arguing the management position, or the controller position. It's an important question.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 20): It is not my role, and certainly not my intention

No of course not. You probably don't have it and that most likely wouldn't advance your "theories" and apparent vendetta.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 20): and even a dozen or so reports

Yes I have come across reports. OVER SEVERAL YEARS. You make it sound like its a daily occurrence. And that brings me back to what the LOS/100k movements ratio is...

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 20): you might want to advance in support of the sub standard performance

More vomit inducing statements. I have not, nor will I, support substandard performance. I am arguing the Air Traffic Control position in general. Both controller and manager need to be accountable. End of.

Waiting for you to publish the AIRPROX categories... Beyond that I don't see the point of discussing with you as it would then seem your position is not to be objective in your reporting.

[EDIT]

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 20): While you are writing this thesis you will of course come across the diagrams, the summaries from training notes, and even a dozen or so reports by myself. As you do this, could you note where the ATSB has been wrong, where the answers to the estimates committee hearings have been wrong, and where, specifically I have been wrong.

Furthermore, I have never made any accusations of the abovementioned being wrong. I am all in support of finding causal and contributing factors. As I have repeatedly stated. Don't smoke and mirror the points I have put forward to you.

[Edited 2013-09-24 01:17:52]

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 13): Until you have donned a headset and worked a scope, I find these "armchair" comments offensive.

I agree. This whole site exists as a forum for those who want to learn /understand from those who know and are willing to share. Armchair types have too long a history of running off professionals who do have valuable insight and I for one will not respect or acknowledge attempts to devalue the perspective we are uniquely able to gain here just to support an opinion or agenda that some amateur happens to be married to.

Speedbird,

You seem very challenged by this situation. I'm not. I just deal with the published reports, which are in fact shown to AirServices Australia before the final ATSB draft becomes final. I'm just dealing with what AirServices says under examination at Senate estimates hearings, and I'm also dealing with the white hot anger of some airlines, who feel that their passengers, their equipment, and their brand value, deserve better.

The situation in Australia not only has to be fixed, but I am lead to believe, will be fixed. My own site and the data base within cannot be linked here under the rules of this forum.

So I will attempt a partial orginal source list below, including some where you do the spade work to extract the original ATSB URL if I have been unable to.

In each case, explain where the media, or the ATSB got it wrong please. I'm not including any tabloid reports either.

In order of most recent to older:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-1...air-traffic-control-system/4817578

(summary) The documents released to the ABC show that for years Australia has tolerated a situation in which foreign airlines flying to Australian airports have been denied the safe and efficient air traffic control procedures expected under international safety rules.

The safety of passengers using Australian carriers and on domestic routes has been similarly exposed in recent years to significant safety risks from a lack of training and necessary skills in air traffic controllers and in many instances, to the perils of self-separation of airliners in airspace where staff shortages meant air traffic control had been suspended.(end summary)

http://avherald.com/h?article=456f3f9c&opt=0

(summary)On 28 September last year Airservices Australia lost a Virgin Australia 737 flying between Sydney and Brisbane for most of its flight and then lied to the media about the incident.

In this case after calling the acting CEO of AirServices Australia a liar, I published an internal AsA document confirming this.

I quote from that document, which totally contradicted the statements made to the media.

(quote) The 737’s flight data record had been inhibited on the controllers’ displays for a total of 27 minutes, which was equivalent to a flight distance of about 222 NM (411 km).DURING THIS PERIOD NONE OF THE CONTROLLERS INVOLV ED WERE AWARE OF THE AIRCRAFT'S PRESENCE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AIRSPACE (my emphasis, end quote)

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-090.aspx

(summary) An overworked and under-trained air traffic controller twice endangered a Qantas 737-800 and a Virgin Australia 737-800 near Brisbane on 29 July 2011 according to a report into the incidents published by the ATSB this morning.

The AirServices Australia controller directed the Virgin jet to descend through the altitude assigned to the Qantas jet twice in quick succession by not understanding what was going on, and being corrected by the crew of the Qantas jet. (ends summary)

(extract from ATSB findings)

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) identified that the controller received a reduced amount of on-the-job training, was allocated multiple training officers, and was required to intermittently staff another control position during and immediately following their training on the Gold Coast en route sector. As a result, the controller probably had not consolidated effective control techniques for the sector, particularly for high workload situations.

The ATSB also found that, even though the quality of the controller’s training had been affected by several factors, the controller’s planned on-the-job training period had been reduced from 6 weeks to 4 weeks. More importantly, there was no requirement for a systematic risk assessment to be conducted and documented when the planned amount of training for a controller was reduced. (ends ATSB extract)


(more detailed ATSB extract)
The unrestricted speed reduction approvals issued to both aircraft did not ensure that the aircraft would enter the holding pattern optimally positioned to assist the controller to achieve the required sequencing.
The controller did not observe or identify that VH-VOT overtook VH-VZC prior to the aircraft entering the holding pattern.
The controller twice assigned VH-VOT descent through the flight level of VH‑VZC, and did not detect the resulting loss of separation assurance.
Due to a complex traffic situation and limited experience on the Gold Coast sector, the controller was experiencing a high workload at the time of the occurrence.
The controller received a reduced amount of on-the-job training, was allocated many training officers, and was required to intermittently staff another control position during and immediately following their training on the Gold Coast sector. As a result, the controller probably had not consolidated effective control techniques for the sector, particularly for high workload situations.
The controller had incomplete knowledge of the Australian Advanced Air Traffic System’s Hold Window functionality.
Resource constraints affected several aspects of the controller’s training and consolidation, and ultimately these constraints were not effectively managed.

There was no requirement for a systematic risk assessment to be conducted and documented when the planned amount of training for a controller was reduced. (ends more detailed ATSB extract)


There is a lot more, but I'm concerned that the forum may time out given the poor inrternet links in this part of the country.

But it all goes to the point that the organisation is not to be trusted and has a poor record, and has been rolling the dice for way too long.

I again invite you to declare whether you are a controller or a management representative.

And I again invite you to explain where any of these extracts whether ATSB or from FOI documents or as summarised in another place are wrong. Line by line.

Just how long do you think we should continue to tolerate this situation?

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 13): With all due respect, its comments like this that make me want to vomit. Until you have donned a headset and worked a scope, I find these "armchair" comments offensive.

I'm glad you said it and not me; I wouldn't have been so civil.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 22): I for one will not respect or acknowledge attempts to devalue the perspective we are uniquely able to gain here just to support an opinion or agenda

  

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 23): You seem very challenged by this situation. I'm not.

What I am challenged by is a non-objective reporting style.

I have not, and I repeat as I said before, do not, condone poor performance. I do not condone mis-reporting. I have not made any such intimation that poor performance should be acceptable.

I have however, made the subject of the ratio of LOS/100k movements relevant. This is a global standard to which ANSP's calculate their safety.

I have also dispelled the issue of "1 foot or 999 feet is the same" myth. I, and I am sure I speak for ATC's in general, do not go to work to be complacent and fool about. Hence my harping on the AIRPROX severity classification system. This is to OBJECTIVELY rate the risk.

I am all for transparent and thorough investigation into LOS occurrences. I believe that it is essential in our safety culture that causal and contributing factors be uncovered and rectified. Whether that be radar display systems, overworking/fatigue, insufficient training etc.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 23): But it all goes to the point that the organisation is not to be trusted and has a poor record, and has been rolling the dice for way too long.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 23): Just how long do you think we should continue to tolerate this situation?

You continually harp on about this poor record. I have trawled the ATSB and in their aviation statistics (which is up to date to 2011) they listed aircraft separation incidents of 19 in 2011, and 11 in 2011.

I live in the real world, and am current with radar ratings, and I can ensure that whilst we all strive for a 0 incident rate, it is largely unobtainable.

If ASA are covering things up, then by all means knock yourself out exposing them. All I ask for as an ATC is a little respect, and objective reporting.

It makes no difference whether I am floor or manager. My principles are the same regardless. I am in this for every passenger's safety. I encourage reporting of incidents, and I support the people investigating. But to read such statements like you write is truly disappointing.

While you talk about vomit and engage in petty assertions, try something more useful and deal with the documents.

There is a different world outside this walled garden.

Speedbird128,

Explain 'non-objective' reporting. I'm reporting parliamentary privileged documents. Forget about what I say. Deal with the public record. It's shameful, it's persistent, and its been identified in no uncertain terms.

Who cares what is going on overseas. The issue is what is happening in our skies.

Let me offer some help here. You seem to be objecting to objective reporting because you find it objectionable.

Be that as it may, it is also correct.

The obnoxious personal comments here are the last refuge of those who can't handle the facts.

As mentioned earlier, I'd like to see a line by line refutation of the ATSB reports, or indeed the CASA document realised under Freedom of Information, courtesy of the ABC.

Doesn't anyone here do the hard work, seek the documents, and deal with the contents. Or is all just too hard?

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 27): The obnoxious personal comments here are the last refuge of those who can't handle the facts.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 27): Doesn't anyone here do the hard work, seek the documents, and deal with the contents. Or is all just too hard

Pot, meet kettle. You are making claims with no backup until you are forced into it, and then you reply like this...

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 17): Make no mistake, no amount of media bashing or mock indignation

Again, what are you on? In my opinion there is no media bashing, just legitimate questions being asked of you [more than once]. Why is it so hard to understand, why is it ok for you to ask questions, but when questions are asked of you, its immediately "media bashing"?

In your essay above you link a number of references which are interesting and pertinent, aimed at, I suggest, making people on this forum question what is going on with AirServices. Fine. So why then is it not ok to question you?
Personally I am finding Speedbird128 replies quite interesting, and I think he has many relevant points. Shame you need to be so defensive.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 8): I don't see any point in taking a position on this until more factuals are determined. But we can fairly say, this was a serious incident

I keep coming back to this gem, because for me it really confirms what you are all about - creating panic. Even if you had said "potentially serious", it would not be so bad. [plus in my opinion, like reply #17, very poorly written- for a "journalist" I would expect better].

To be clear, because it seems its hard to understand, the issue is with you and how you are putting the message across NOT the actual message.

Reporting that the incident was rated serious may create panic in some minds, but it seems likely that when the ATSB rates an incident as serious, and it is correctly reported as such, this confusion or alarm doesn't arise in the wider public.

My thanks again to those in AirServices who have risked retribution to provide me with further information about the situation in the ATC provider.

If the new senior management is as smart as their backgrounds indicate they will focus on performance not messaging before the next Senate estimates hearings which are expected to be before March. It could be a career defining session.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 26): petty assertions

Why is your input here gospel yet if I query pertinant facts is "bashing" and "petty assertions".

I am reading the documents, and obviously that seeing I actually have separated aircraft for a living I can glean more from them than just scaremongering tactics the press so like to feed on.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 27): Doesn't anyone here do the hard work, seek the documents, and deal with the contents. Or is all just too hard?

Oh Mr Sandilands, I am reading them. It's called putting the ball in YOUR court in order to have a discussion. I can sit in the corner and talk to myself all afternoon. But it is you I am trying to make points to, living in the hope that next time I see a report, it carries some balance (like the AIRPROX ratings scale). But you seem determined to ignore that and continue to accuse me of petty assertions and not doing the hard work.

I am actually on a break from pushing tin so pardon me if I don't review all the documents today.

Quoting qfflyer (Reply 28): Again, what are you on? In my opinion there is no media bashing, just legitimate questions being asked of you [more than once]. Why is it so hard to understand, why is it ok for you to ask questions, but when questions are asked of you, its immediately "media bashing"?

Agreed qfflyer

Quoting qfflyer (Reply 28): Shame you need to be so defensive.

Agreed qfflyer

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 27): Or is all just too hard?

There again that condescending attitude. I grasp lots. I am asking facts of you, to justify your assertions.

And how do you know I don't come from your sunny shores?

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 27): Let me offer some help here. You seem to be objecting to objective reporting because you find it objectionable.

Apart fom you copy and pasting, I don't find any objectivity. You deliberately want to infuse panic and alarm (as you wrote in your last reply). That for me crosses the line as an ATC.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 26): There is a different world outside this walled garden.

Aww gee. I thought it was a computer game I played all day.  

Speedbird128,

Nowhere have you dealt with the ATSB reports and you apparently have no knowledge of what was said in Senate estimates .

All you have done is deal with the temerity of a reporter who reported what was in those reports and repeated in detail some very serious findings. This process may well cause concern or alarm in readers, it may also cause change, and it may provide a catalyst for action to improve air safety, which will never occur in secret.

I doubt that many here have been as hard as I have been on the media these days fror inadequate reporting.

With the loss of print media economics the investment newspapers once made in specialist reporters has diminished to the point where reporters rely almost exclusively on PR written handouts to run whatever the compnay or government line may be in relation to a particular issue.

I guess good media equals 'rah rah' or 'move on nothing to see here' and bad media is actually reporting what is going on and seeking answers.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 31): I guess good media equals 'rah rah' or 'move on nothing to see here' and bad media is actually reporting what is going on and seeking answers

Again your favourite response...
How dare anyone question you the "journalist", the person who knows best. Your self-important, arrogant attitude astounds me.
So again I ask,

Quoting qfflyer (Reply 28): Why is it so hard to understand, why is it ok for you to ask questions, but when questions are asked of you, its immediately "media bashing"?

Your avoidance of answering these questions speaks volumes.

As you have shown, and as I pointed out above, you like to create a bit of drama, so I am finding it very hard to take you seriously about AirServices issues. I am not sure whether it is a legitimate issue or you self promoting by way of creative writing, or, as you do with Qantas, have your own agenda.

Is anyone here prepared to read the ATSB reports and refute them?

The same reports that were not refuted by AirServices Australia?

Should these matters be discussed in public?

Or do we continue to blame the media for doing nothing more than drawing the attention of the public, and polity, to these matters?

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 33): Is anyone here prepared to read the ATSB reports and refute them?

I never claimed to want to refute, nor am I refuting, the investigations -I have stated all along that I am in support of thorough LOS investigations. And despite your insinuations, I have read many of them. There is nothing in them to refute, there is also nothing in them where ONCE has a systemic system failure been mentioned.

So my issue is with you - the scaremonger journo. My issue is with your assertions.

As written by somebody else:

Quoting qfflyer (Reply 32): Your self-important, arrogant attitude astounds me.

...

Your condescending attitude to an industry which has one of the most stressful jobs in the world. One in which you mock us and pretend its so easy - all while never having sat behind a scope enduring heavy traffic loading with no break in sight. Yes we chose our career, and I don't make excuses for LOS's that occur. The deserve to be investigated and causal/contributing factors identified. Safety is paramount - to each and every single one of us charged with maintaing a safe flow of traffic through our relevant sector.

However we are human, and I can guarantee that even if you had a perfect system, they will STILL occur. Just like typo's make it into print despite a spelling and grammar checkers (I put that in there so you can understand). However risk has to be managed. Yes there may well be dodgy systems/processes in place - and those must be rectified. However I fail to see such repeat incidents which you claim. Is there evidence available to suggest that ASA are not actually implementing the safety actions identified?

In closing:

I have asked only 1 pertinant fact from you. The ratio of LOS:100k movements. If you are so connected and up to date with everything ATC in Oz, then you should have no issue answering this question.

However, I believe that the answer to this question will not further your panic inducing desire. And if you are not even prepared to put the AIRPROX ratings on your blog or wherever it is you like to publish, then I can only deduce you are not in this to further the awareness of safety of aviation, but rather some other personal agenda.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 31): This process may well cause concern or alarm in readers, it may also cause change, and it may provide a catalyst for action to improve air safety, which will never occur in secret.

I think the alarm bit is what you are after primarily. Anything else is a bonus. A catalyst. Interesting choice of words seeings as I have not read of a single systemic fault in those ATSB reports you so love to talk about. Please post the document number in which the ATSB has findings of systemic failures in the ATC system.

By failing to answer just the simplest of questions I have posed to you, this little tirade (and probably many others like it) is (are) nothing more than an equivalent scare-mongering outing comparable to the incident that happened in London some time ago where a photo was published of 2 planes in a holding stack and the "near death" paranoia induced media frenzy. Despite those aircraft adequately separated.

I have read many of those ATSB reports, and many of them are "loss of separation assurance" and I find this statement

Quote: Examination of the information collected during the investigation indicated that although there was a loss of separation assurance, the potential conflict between the two aircraft was detected and actively managed by air traffic control. This ensured that the required separation standard was maintained. The investigation was discontinued"

actively managed. actively managed means exactly that - the system worked. Every flight taking off is potentially a loss of separation depending how wide you wish to throw the net.

I have searched the ATSB website extensively for "Loss of separation" reports, and have found 18 since 2009. Of which 2 were discontinued as there was nothing to continue investigating. That leaves 16. Of which 9 were loss of separation assurance, in which the controllers working noticed a problem and rectified it. That leaves 7. Unless there are stashes of reports elsewhere or not filed under "Loss of separation".

So, Mr Sandilands- I don't know what your agenda is, but let me say this. ASA is short of ATC. Please report to the nearest recruiting station. They could do with all your knowledge. After all, its so easy isn't it?

I will discontinue my balanced arguments here now, as this is going nowhere. All that has happened here is you have lost all credibility by ignoring pertinent questions posed to you in response to your accusations and assertions. Questions which will provide objective answers.

And before I sign off, this gem of yours...

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 23): (quote) The 737’s flight data record had been inhibited on the controllers’ displays for a total of 27 minutes, which was equivalent to a flight distance of about 222 NM (411 km).DURING THIS PERIOD NONE OF THE CONTROLLERS INVOLV ED WERE AWARE OF THE AIRCRAFT'S PRESENCE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AIRSPACE (my emphasis, end quote)

...for your complete TAAAAAAATS radar system knowledge - is an inhibited target is not removed from the screen. It merely has the CFL and PRL removed and a colour change - the target is not deleted. Seeing as I have actually worked the Eurocat system, I would know. Please link me to that internal document you published.

Speedsbird,

In my post quoting from the ATSB reports I quoted and linked to one which says

QUOTE There was no requirement for a systematic risk assessment to be conducted and documented when the planned amount of training for a controller was reduced. (ends more detailed ATSB extract)

That is a direct reference to a systemic failing in AirServices Australia, and there other others.

I'll repeat in advance of your learning exercise that systemic failings of safety have been found in AirServices Australia in relation to training.

Your also asked for a link to the internal document which showed that the acting CEO of AirServices had lied.

The rules of this forum prohibit my linking to my own web site. Although others may if they wish.

If however you Google for the headline I expect the full item should appear:

The headline is: Airservices ‘lost Virgin jet’ screen grab unmasks its lies.

The item included the original untruthful notification of the incident, and the amended notification which was insisted upon by AirServices staff, some of whom as will be self evident, forwarded the documentation to me, and I published it.

You will see those documents when you recover the post in question.

I have also posted the text of that item below, minus site identification.

QUOTE:



A screen grab of an amended incident notification in Australia’s air traffic control system shows that it lied about losing a Virgin Australia flight between two capital cities.

When Airservices Australia lost a Virgin Australia 737-800 for most of its flight from Sydney to Brisbane on 28 September attempts were made by management to pass the most grievous failure ever made by the air traffic control system in its history as a ‘display error’.

That attempt was thwarted by dissent from other Airservices staff who realised the gravity of the mistake and their legal obligation to ensure that it was correctly reported and investigated.

The screen capture of the internal notification report, above, shows that Airservices lied to the media, and quite possibly the Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his departmental minders, in what was largely a successful attempt to shut down reporter queries about the incident.

The image encapsulates the situation at Airservices Australia.

It can’t be trusted to safely separate airliners in Australian controlled air space, and it can’t be trusted to tell the truth, to the public, nor in the first instance, to the ATSB, which has started an investigation into what is the worst of a long, frequent and deeply troubling series of failures in its delivery of airliner separation by controllers who are incompletely or inadequately trained to carry out their tasks.

After the error was made the person responsible for it was allowed to continue on duty, separating dozens of jets carrying thousands of people, in a decision which betrays either a total lack of safety awareness on the part of management, or desperation arising from a shortage of trained controllers.

The circumstances of this incident became widely known very rapidly within Airservices Australia, and have done nothing to improve morale in an organisation that has performed very well at generating a profit for Treasury as a service provider structured to recover a surplus from air navigation.

But that financial performance is argued within the organisation as having occurred in parallel with adverse training and competency outcomes, and in parallel with the growth of its managerial structure at cost to its operational capabilities.

The amendments to the original incident report are telling.

Not only was a console display error upgraded to ‘loss of separation assurance’ but the information was amended to concede that “in the period of time that the [identity, flight path and altitude] was inhibited, approximately 30 minutes, appropriate assessment of known traffic for potential conflicts with [the Virgin Australia jet] did not occur.”

This confirms the description by forbidden blog reference that this flight was unknown and invisible to the air traffic control system, until as the notification makes clear, the jet made its presence known to the system as it approached its destination.

Both the failure of the air traffic control system, and the lies told about it, are exceedingly serious matters. When this reporter contacted the Minister’s office it was apparent that those responsible for assisting him in his duties were totally accepting of and reliant upon false information.

This falsehood threatens the safety of domestic and international air travellers using Australian airspace, and given recent appalling lapses, including also losing an Etihad jet for hours while it flew through airspace that took it deep into outback skies, at a time when other international flights are approaching the eastern capitals, urgent action needs to be taken to restore the integrity and competency of Airservices Australia.

The trail of stories, and the lies from Airservices Australia, can be followed here in this order.


UNQUOTE

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 35): invisible to the air traffic control system, until as the notification makes clear, the jet made its presence known to the system as it approached its destination.

It was not invisible. I am qualified on that radar system, and that is false information. All that was missing was the CFL and 3rd line data, and a different colour. I know, I have worked the system.

Anyway, this is my last reply as you are hell bent on your vendetta or whatever it is you think you are doing. Good luck.

PS: And having read your blog replies, there is even less chance than 0% of me engaging in debate with you further.

Speedbird has gone away.

Before I can apologise for causing unintended offence.

I am sure from reading his replies that cares deeply about AirServices Australia.

But I also care deeply about the under reporting if near total lack of reporting about the public administration of air safety in Australia. It is the raison d'etre at the start and finish of the day for persisting with my annoying habit of writing about things that disurb the walled gardens.

However the best of my ability, and almost 53 years of reporting mainly on transport related matters, I report those concerns accurately and express views carefully considered. And in relation to AirServices Australia, with very good inside help.

However in relation to the missing jet, the statement that Airservices Australia was always aware of the location of the Virgin Australia jet was false.

As its own document makes clear, it only became aware of the position of the jet when it was asked 'who are you' by air traffic control as it approached Brisbane.

In the clearest of language, AirServices lied to the media that it was always aware of the jet. It wasn't. A similar situation arose with the Etihad jet.

It should also be noted that the original notification of the Virgin Australia jet as a temporary display error did not warrant an ATSB inquiry.

The truth however did merit an investigation, and it is being investigated.

It is in law an offence not to correctly notify the ATSB of a reportable incident.

These things matter. They go to the integrity of the management of the organisation.

Unless incidents are correctly reported air safety in Australia is compromised.

I don't think we should tolerate this.

[Edited 2013-09-25 04:26:58]

[Edited 2013-09-25 04:27:39]

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 37): Speedbird has run away

Because talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You have your own agenda, this is obvious, you will not listen to or answer anyone else questions and points of view.

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 37): Unless incidents are correctly reported

Agreed, so why don't you then. How is creating panic "correctly reporting". A lot of your opinions you are reporting as fact.

You could have engaged in a far better and positive manner, and helped your cause, instead your aggressive and arrogant stance has left people with far more knowledge than you or I, walking away.

Unfortunately it is no surprise and only reinforces the reputation you have.

qfflyer,

You have no basis for saying I have created panic.

My hope is that by drawing attention to what is officially said but often ignored there will be support for the exposure and resolution of unsatisfactory situations.

I have worked very hard in print, and behind the scenes, to ensure that this cause is advanced.

And it has been advanced. I only arrived at this forum to add to the history of an Air-India crash high on Mt Blanc which I came across while coming off a climb up over the Brenva a few years after that terrible event.

Since then I have noticed the glib at times, and accurate at times, criticism of the media.

But the role of the media, at least in my view, is not to be part of a cheer squad, but ask who wants what from the messaging, and where is the public interest. So I intend to hang around and from time to time contribute if necessary a contrary or questioning voice.

Quoting qfflyer (Reply 38): Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 37): Speedbird has run away

Quoting BenSandilands (Reply 37): Speedbird has gone away. Before I can apologise for causing unintended offence.

Nice try to edit your way out of this one, but alas too little too late. Your arrogant condescending tone isn't actually worthy of my responses. I have standards. You don't meet them.

The only thing that matters is that AirServices Australia meets the standards the airlines themselves are demanding.

They will be met, one way or the other.

No amount of shrieking or avoiding the obvious, the actual reports, will change that.

Nothing in those ATSB reports nor the FOI released document is incorrect.