Air Traffic Control Issues

[RooFlyer]

The VAd/QFd incident was not reported at the time. Air Services didn’t believe it met the reporting requirements. The ATSB believes otherwise and doesn’t understand why it wasn’t reported. That’s from reps of Air Services and the ATSB speaking on the news tonight.

Ah. Thanks.

 

[Quickstatus]

Would this reduce the number of controllers on duty at any one time?

No same controllers but the traffic "tempo per hour"would be reduced from 80 to 73. It would be the quickest stop gap measure without reducing total flights

What about pushback from local residents including in Albanese's seat of Grayndler?

They would want traffic to go to zero if they could help it.
On paper it could work but most likely never going to be possibility.

 

[Saab34]

How can an incident with one rolling and another entering the runway not be worthy of a reportable incident?

Sounds like Airservices management simply didn’t want anymore attention.

 

[clifford]

They would want traffic to go to zero if they could help it.

That sounds like the ATC's view too.

 

[Must...Fly!]

How can an incident with one rolling and another entering the runway not be worthy of a reportable incident?

Sounds like Airservices management simply didn’t want anymore attention.

There are different classifications - immediately notifiable and routine which can be notified after the fact (I.e. next business day or monthly/quarterly etc).

While the circumstances are unknown to us, it could be the relevant manager on shift made the decision that it was the latter. I don't know if all the reporting criteria are public for Airservices.

 

[Brissy1]

Which comes back to the original question in Post #1:

Should SYD reduce their capacity until the ATC issue is resolved

I suspect Airlines will not unilaterally reduce their flights based on their perception of the safety issue at play. I suspect they will only do it if everyone has to do the same.

The problem could also be easily solved (on paper) by reducing the Sydney Curfew from 2300-0600 to 0000-0530 for the next year and then review.
An extra available 1.5 hours mean the max daily cap of 1360 flights translates to 73.5 per hour instead of current max 80/hour
This is approx 9% which would go some way to alleviating the overall 10% shortage and might even reduce the unexpected sick leave on some days.

This would allow the same flights /day but spread out over longer period

........,,
And will also relieve the non existent looming jet fuel shortage

But you would need extra staff to cover the extra non-curfew hours, I presume night-time skeleton staffing commences at 10pm.

 

[Quickstatus]

night-time skeleton staffing commences at 10pm.

Dunno what the staffing is shift by shift

 

[Saab34]

It seems that ASA and the ATSB are not agreeing.

From the video the VA 737 did start its roll then came to a stop so not sure what ASA is going on about.

I think the ATSB probably should be mindful going down this path, especially at the moment with media pressing politicians on such matters, who would have no idea what the thresholds are for reporting, they just see it as serious and say it should be reported, as Albo said the other day. Boxes ASA Management in a corner that’s for sure.

ATSB chief commissioner Angus Mitchell told reporters in Canberra the safety investigator was “still trying to understand” the delay in Airservices reporting the incident.
“We understand that there was training underway in the tower so it didn’t get to us as it should,” Mitchell said.
“It is an incident, regardless [of whether the controller was training]. We do know that we had two laden aircraft both given clearance on the same runway – that reaches the threshold for an incident for us.”

​

But Airservices said it did not agree that it was obliged to report such an incident to the ATSB.
“Our initial review determined the supervising controller immediately identified the potential for conflict and directed the controller to cancel the take-off clearance prior to the pilot commencing take-off,” it said in a statement on Friday.

 

[markis10]

While the circumstances are unknown to us, it could be the relevant manager on shift made the decision that it was the latter. I don't know if all the reporting criteria are public for Airservices.

These are public and don’t differ between Airservices and the industry, one standard for all.


Definitely a serious incident that requires immediate reporting by all three companies involved. Given the tug incident happened a few hours before perhaps it was thought the one report covered both instances?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

These are public and don’t differ between Airservices and the industry, one standard for all.
View attachment 518208

Definitely a serious incident that requires immediate reporting by all three companies involved. Given the tug incident happened a few hours before perhaps it was thought the one report covered both instances?

The table you have posted doesn’t include a definition of ‘near collision’.

IIRC air services said last night it was 1.3km away and the VA plane had stopped/not started rolling (or so they thought).

So what is the definition of ‘near collision’? Is it the ICAO manual on runway incursions? And that document’s severity index?