CAA Announces Major ATC Reform

Melbourne and Brisbane were chosen because they have available sites and sit astride the east coast trunk route. It is planned that either centre will be able to take over limited services from the other in case of emergency. It is claimed that the CAP?. s operating costs will be decreased by at least $60 million under this new arrangement.

The CAP? Airspace Management and Traffic Services (AMATS) project has provided the catalyst for this review of the whole system. As plans were developed for the provision of the new classes of service, A to G, it became apparent that most can be provided remotely. Air traffic controllers will take over the task of providing advisory services, so the requirement for Flight Service Centres will disappear. This would leave the CAA with a number of widely scattered and under utilised buildings. The time was obviously ripe for not only an airspace review but also a review of the entire system.

The CAA has a number of current problems. Many of its projects have been developed piecemeal and do not integrate with each other very well. Most of them tend to continue Australia’s differences from the rest of the world. Very few projects have even seen the light of day and consequently we have fallen far behind even our neighbours in the levels of technology we employ. We have a very labour intensive organisation providing in some areas a level of service far higher than that required by the industry. By opting for a total system replacement, the CAA will be able to abandon most of its current projects, including Flight Data Processing (FOP), Automated Data Interchange Network (ADIN), Power Supply Upgrading (PSU) and the Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra Radar Display Replacement Program (RADREP). The National Aeronautical Information Processing System (NAIPS) is under review until it is seen if it can be offered as part of the new system.

Most of the abandoned projects are critical to the CAP?. s efficiency, so it is therefore essential that the new project is expedited. In particular the 30 year old display technology to be replaced under RADREP cannot last. With this in mind a tight schedule has been set. In an innovative move, instead of writing technical specifications the CAA will provide only a functional specification. It will be up to the tenders to use their”state of the art” technology to fulfil the specifications. It is planned that a “turnkey” contract will be negotiated by June 1992, site testing completed by April 1995, and the new system operational by the end of 1995. This is approximately 12 to 14 months after the RADREP program would have been completed. How the CAA intends to keep the Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra systems operational until 1996 is not mentioned in the relevant documents.

The project seeks to put Australia back amongst the leaders in aviation. It is specified that “modern technology already in use overseas” will be used. Concerns have, however, been expressed that the concept jumps too far. For instance, apart from limited applications in the London and southern California areas, the concept of consolidating approach control into large remote centres has not been attempted anywhere else in the world. The satellite communications technology proposed is untested in the crowded approach control environment. The idea that one centre can back up the other sounds fine on paper, but in reality there are unlikely to be enough controllers available when the problems occur. Those available will not be familiar with the other centre’s airspace, particularly in areas without radar coverage. Expecting Melbourne controllers to take over Sydney Approach control, when it is normally performed from Brisbane, is considered unrealistic.

The Air Traffic Controller’s Association, Civilair, has said that it would prefer Approach Control Units (ACUs) to remain at the airports they serve. In that way the controllers would remain familiar with, and firmly associated with, the airports they service. The controllers would also be able to resume control of local en route airspace in case of data link failures, using the direct feeds from the radar and radio equipment in their location. Perth is an obvious contender for this as its radar coverage does not overlap that of any other sensors. Worldwide research is beginning to concentrate on automating the controller task. This CAA project seeks only to consolidate and computerise our present airspace system. It is suggested that perhaps the consolidation of ACUs should prudently wait until the next generation of automation.

The CAA claims that the two centre systems will improve service, lower costs, reduce capital outlays and save on staff. The impact on staff will be a sensitive and key area for the CAA. Not only will the requirement for Flight Service Officers disappear, but the CAA envisages needing only 800 Air Traffic Controllers, down from the present 1,100. The CAA may also choose to contract out technical support. Without the”sharp end” to support, most other categories of CAA staff will be dramatically reduced.

The process started very badly for the CAA. By releasing its plan to the media before its own staff, stop work meetings were precipitated. The CAA then took the staff associations to the Industrial Relations Commission and was criticised for its handling of the affair by the Commissioner. Consequently the reaction of many staff members is that little has changed qelow the CEO’s level. They doubt the capability of the CAA to rn,;1nage massive change over such a short time frame.

Seeing this project through will indeed be a severe test for the Board Chairman, Mr Dick Smith, and his new CEO, Mr Frank Baldwin.