Minister for Transport & the Public Service Board v the Civil Air Operations Officers Association of Australia

[1977] FCA 39

I

-+. .

. Mis 175/77 MD P r in t D3867

I N THE AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION CCPLMISSION

Public service Arbitration Act 1920

In the matter of

MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

and

THE CIVIL A I R OPERATIONS OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

(C No. 650 of 1977)

Direction by the President pursuant to section 15A of the Public Service

Arbi t ra t lon Act re salary claims by A i r Traffic Controllers

SIR JOHN MOORE, PRESIDENT

SYDNEY, 11 JULY 1977

MR JUSTICE ROBINSON

MR PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATOR TAYLOR

DECISION

This matter cam before the Full Bench on 16 May 1977 when it was

referred to M r Jus t i ce Robinson for invest igat ion and report . H i s Honour's

report was mde avai lable to the par t ies on 22 June 1977 and subsequently

debated before decision and should be read i n conjunction wi th it. us. To avoid duplication the report w l l l be appended t o this

Central to the repor t was a categorization of changes to air traffic

control instruct ions and procedures relied on by the Associat ion to lust i fy an

increase on work value grounds pursuant to indexat ion Pr inc ip le 7 (a) . I n

re la t ion to th i s exerc ise H i s Honour said, "The overall results suggest slxteen

changes are outFide normal assimilation parameters, eight under the 1974-1977

grouping and eight under the Jo in t Working Party proposals. It may be argued

that such changes are relevant to an assessment of a ' s ign i f i can t net additlon

to work requirements ' . "

Before us the Association sought t o add some f i f t e e n changes t o t h e

arguable group, hereas the Board suggested that nothlng had occurred h l c h

would s a t i s f y the test l a i d down by Principle 7(a) .

I n addition, Mr Garlick alled fresh evidence support to the

Association's contention that Proposals 1, 9, 10 and 11 should be seen as a

change in philosophy warranting general a upgrading of a i r c o n t r o l l e r s '

s a l a r i e s . The evidence seeks t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t the policy of the Department

p r i o r t o t h e J o i n t Working Party required an a i r c o n t r o l l e r to operate by the

boak and not otherwise. The Association claims the practice adopted by a l r

cont ro l le rs was consistent with that policy.

However, nel ther the policy nor the practice allows such clear cut

conclusions. Much of the ambiguity surroundlng departmental policy l ies m the

fa i lure to d i s t inguish the genera l from the par t icular . Take M r Russel l ' s

statement relied by on the Association. "I b e l i e v e t h a t l r a f f i c

control lers was, and is, and has t o be, are required to carry out the departmental instruct lons . . . . l ' T h a t

the day t o day overal l posi t ion. An integrated ATC

service, e s sen t l a l t o t he s a fe ty and eff ic iency of our a i r t r a n s p o r t system

could not be provided on a catch-as-catch-can basis. Although rn the very

na tu re o some d iscre t ion , I n our view there can be no quarrel f a i r t r a f f i c con t ro l , l a id down procedures must themselves provlde

with t e qeneral

proposition - l a id down procedures are required to be followed.

T h a t policy has t o be contrasted with an ac tua l indent l f led Inc ident ,

outside the contemplation of the laid down procedures, poss lb ly a clrcumstance

without precedent, mstructions. which requires action lnc?ependently of ex is t lng

Departmental policy would t rea t he ac tua l ident l f led Inc ident

as an

isolated reviewed and al tered. exception unless and unt i l the re levant instruct ion has been

I t must be sa id tha t too of ten m the pas t the d is t lnc t ion between the

general and the par t icular has been t reated as Inherent and the lack of

definit ion has contributed to misunderstanding. However, s teps have been taken

t o minimise uncertainty r n t h i s area and those steps have the approval of the

Joint Working Party. The agreed notation to Proposals 1, 9, 10 and 11 IS rn

these terms: "It is understood that as and when such conf l i c t s a r e lden t i f l ed

the Department w i l l review the relevant mstructlons to determlne whether

amendment is necessary." Perhaps insufficient emphasls has been glven t o t h e

fact t h a t the four proposals are not l imited to t raffrc s i tuat lons, but cover

operat ional safety and search and rescue misslons, sections which do not appear

t o have been the subject of controverslal incidents I n the past .

I n t h i s connexion, we r e i t e r a t e the comment made i n the report , "The

notation... is aimed a t ensuring that if and when conf l i c t s a r i s e between

action taken and rules l a i d down, the relevant instruct ions and procedures w i l l

be reviewed". The whole question of conflict between action taken and rules

l a i d down was the subject of comment i n the Ansett exhiblt and extracted i n

f u l l i n H i s Honour's report . These views, which are consistent with the

conclusions we have reached, were not cal led i n question by the Associatlon

before the Ful l Bench.

We have taken some t i m e i n discussrng this broad issue, as uncertarnties

about the policy have fostered uncertaint ies and misunderstandings i n

prac t ice . However, it must be sa id qu i t e b lun t ly tha t no warrant for a general

increase would have arisen	simply	because	some change I n phllosophy had
occurred.

Three examples i l l u s t r a t e why. Take the operational control section.

P a r t of Proposals 28 and 29 and Proposals 31, 32, 35 and 38 were sard by the

AsSOCiatiOn t o be recognition or legit imation of current pract ices . Thus m

th i s s ec t ion , even i f the Association's argument on change m phllosophy were

accepted, the change would be more consis tent w i t h , than contrary t o , what has

happened in the pas t . Secondly there are many areas , including Fl ight Data,

where there would simply be no scope fo r t r ans l a t ing a change i n phllosophy

in to a change i n duties. Thirdly, the exercise of discretron whlch founded the

change to pos i t ive separa t ion of Hibal weather balloons (Proposal 26) was

i t s e l f a function wel with in the character and quality of the work performed.

6 .

3

For reasons given we are not sa t i s f ied there has been a change i n

philosophy but we point ou t t ha t a concluslon on t h i s i s s u e i n favour of the

Association would not have l e d t o a general increase.

We have reviewed the categorization of changes contained i n Appendix C

and the applications to a l t e r t h e composition of the arguable group. Although

it has no d i r e c t e f f e c t on the outcome of the case we indica te tha t fur ther

argument before the Full Bench suggests the following additions:-

Change 17

Changes 24/25 - but only as to the Senior operations Controller

Proposal 30 - was intended to be approved i n the

report as par t 5 of Proposal 28.

I n a r r i v l n g a t OUT decision we have considered the arguments put by the

Association on the cumulative effects of change. Although our conclusions on

changes generally must be based on broad impression and judgment, and there a re

cer ta in changes which ave been included or excluded on f i n e balance, the

resul ts of the overal l exercise are for tunately clear cut .

There are a number of observations which sould be made m explanation of

our conclusions.

1. The views of both the Association and the Board have been compared on

classes affected and locations involved i n r e l a t ion to each change. For

reasons expressed i n the report , we can only be concerned wi th those

c lass i f ica t ions a f fec ted i n the primary sense. We note that w i t h regard

t o Coordinator and Surface Movemnt positions the Association and the

Board reversed before US, the a t t i tudes they had adopted before Mr

Jus t i ce Robinson. Judging these posit lons by the t e s t s of change we are

now applying, we are inclined t o the view t h a t none of them should be

upgraded but because of the change i n a t t i t udes we ask the par t ies t o

consider the si tuation.

2. Obviously changes a re of variable importance and incidence. For

instance, change 5 IS a subs tan t ia l a l te ra t ion b u t currently applies

only t o Melbourne and Sydney. Further, the same change may be weighted

d i f f e ren t ly depending on the par t icu lar pos i t ion to which it IS being

added, the number of arguable changes affecting that position and the

ra t ing o f posi t ion has been considered on its par t icu lar mix of circumstances.	the	airport a t which	the	function	is being	performed.	Each
In

the resul t , only posi t ions ubject o mult iple changes were found to

warrant some movement.

3. Check control , Annex Training and Supervisory positlons have not been

debated before us. The par t ies a re asked t o confer on the appl icat lon

of our decis ion to these posi t ions.

The posi t ions which w i l l receive increases have been divided Into three

groups.

A.	Senior	Operatlons	Controllers	a t	s p e c i f i e d	a i r p o r t s	e t	o u t	m	Schedule
A.

B. Designated Traffic Positions (Classes 4 and 5) se t ou t I n Schedule B a t

Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra.

. I

4

C. Designated Traffic Positions (Classes 2 and 3) a t s p e c i f i e d a i r p o r t s as

set o u t i n Schedule C.

The Conmission is sa t i s f ied tha t he Assoc ia t ion has established hy

evidence and argument, a s ign i f i can t net addi t ion to the work requirements of

a i r con t ro l l e r s f a l l i ng i n to hose three groups. with t e r servations

mentioned, the Commission is e q u a l l y s a t i s f i e d t h a t o t h e r p o s i t i o n s f a l l well

shor t of t h a t t e s t .

I n our view t h e c m l a t i v e e f f e c t o f t h e changes t o groups A and R has

so a l te red the charac te r and qua l i ty o f the i r work as to warrant a reclass-

i f i ca t ion o f t he i r pos i t i ons from 4 t o 5 and from 5 t o 6 respectively. The

changes appl icable to the pos i t ions i n group C have a l e s s e r Impact and we

propose to es tab l i sh Classes 2A and 3A to ca te r for the Increases appropriate

to the pos i t ions i n this group. Class 2A w i l l contain four increments,

start ing with the third increment i n Class 2 and ending a t t h e second Increment

I n Class 3. Class 3A w i l l also contain four increments, start lng w l t h the

third increment in Class 3 and ending a t t h e second increment i n Class 4 . The

adjustment of s a l a r i e s s h a l l be made on the "pint-to-pomt" bas is .

The increases will operate from the beginning of the first pay pe r iod to

comence on or after today.

The Association w i l l prepare draft a order for sett lement by the

Arbi t ra tor . Should the par t ies requi re ass i s tance , Mr Jus t i ce Robinson will be

avai lable for that purpose.

SCHEDULE A

SENIOR OPERATIONS CONTROLLER

CLASS

5 Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane

4 Adelaide, Perth, Launceston, Townsvllle,

por t Hedland, Darwin, Alice Springs

SCHEDULE B

DESIGNATED TRAFFIC POSITIONS CLASSES 4 AND 5

CLASS

5	SAAC/STAC	Sydney, Melbourne,
5	SAAC	Brisbane, Adelaide
4	Flow	Sydney, Melbourne,
Brisbane, Adelaide
4	Approach/Departures*	Sydney, Melbourne,
Brisbane, Adelaide
Canberra
5	Senior Tower	Sydney

4	Aero Control	(AD1 1 / (AD21	Sydney
4	Senior Tower	Melbourne, Brisbane,
Adelaide, Canberra

*Class 4 Approach/Departure positions are variously described.

SCHEDULE C

DESIGNATED TRAFFIC POSITIONS CLASSES 2 AND 3

CLASS

2 Aero/Approach Launceston, Hobart,

=ice Springs, Tamworth

2	Area/Aero/Approach	Mackay, M t Isa, Port Hedland
3	Aero Control	Essendon
3	Aero/Approach	Perth, Cairns, Coolangatta,
Rockhampton, Avalon
3	Approach	Townsville

Radar 3 Terminal Perth

PSPORT

MR JUSTICE ROBINSON MELBOURNE, 22 ZLNE 1977

Thls r epor t has to be seen against a complex background of clrcumstances

and events which may be sumnarised br ief ly in thls way.

1. In two m m r c l a l declsions concerning claims for damages a r i s lng f ron

separate and unre la ted a l rc raf t co l l i s ions , the degree of respons lb i l i ty

was he ld to be , a l r cont ro l le r 40%, each p i l o t 30%.

2. The Assouat lon c la imd sa la ry increases of 75% (subsequently mobfied t o

36%) based on the l eve l of responslbil i ty recorded I n the two declslons.

3. That claim was re jec ted by the Public Servlce Board. A claim s rmlar ly

based was refused by Ceputy Publ ic Service Arbl t ra tor Watson on 7 January

1977. The dec l s ion l e f t open the question whether a change i n

understanding of a n controllers' r e spons ib i l i t l e s mlat r e s u l t I n an

i den t l f i ab le inc rease in work value, i f t h e change w e r e r e f l e c t e d I n t h e

re levant mst ruc t ions and procedures.

4. A j o i n t working par ty was set up t o revlew a l l re levant lns t ruc t ions ,

procedures and agreerents including a i r navlgatlon regulations. The

wol*ing party's report, made on 11 March, contamed 38 proposals for

amendment to va r ious documents. Most o f t h e recomnendatlons have been

agreed by the Department of Transport or accepted in p r inc ip l e , some have

been deferred, som are still under	consideration	and som have	been
rejected.

5 . The Associatron lodged a new claim f o r a 36% salary Increase on 21 March

1977. The percentage 1 s obtained by equating a Class 4 a l r c o n t r o l l e r

~

with a Boelng 747 f i r s t o f f l c e r .

6. The Public Servlce Board re jec ted the new claim on 6 May 1977.

7.	Reference of the dispute to	a	F u l l Bench	was	granted	by t\e Presldent on
9 May 1977.

8. The F u l l Bench re fer red the ra t ter for inves t iga t ion and r epor t on 16 May

1977.

No good purpose would be served by co lou r lng i n t h i s ou t l i ne w l th a

r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e bans and stoppages whlch accomanied the long hlstory of thls

dispute. However, it should be noted that since the Deputy Arbitrator's

decision i n January, the processinq of the claim has been hampered by

fundamental misunderstandings as t o the s t a tus of t h e J o l n t Working Party and

the purpose of the review it undertook. These misunderstandmgs reman and

w i l l be dea l t w i th in this report.

The present lnvestlgation included:

(i)    inspections on four days at Area Approach Control, Aerodrome

Control and Operational Control, Tullamarlne; Area Auproach

Control and Aerodrome Cont ro l , Launceston; Aerodrom Control,

Mascot: F l i @ t Deck observation on a BcelncJ 727, Meibourne/Sydney;

7

(11) hearings and/or conferences on twelve days;

(111) evldence and exhibits. (The exhbl ts , numbering 41 i n a l l , Included

separate reports made a t the reques t o f the Associabon by Arsett

Alrl lnes of Australla, Trans-Australia Alrl ines and gantas Airlines

Llmted , on the slgnlflcances o f changes I n lns t ruc t lons and

procedures which had occured s i n e October 1374 o r had been

proposed by the J o i n t Working Par ty) .

I have also taken the opportunlty of rllscusslng with Deputy Arbi t ra tor

Watson a number of mat ters ar is ing from the Investigation.

The application under conslderatlon i s the 36% c l a m lodged on 2 1 March

1977. I t IS Important t o appreciate -

(a) the claim for 36% is qual i f ied by the phrase "or such ot5er amunt

a s t o t h e t r i b u n a l seems jus t" ;

(b) the materla1 now r e l i e d on r e l a t l n q t o changes I n a r t r a f f i c

control procedures and instruct lons was not before the Deputy

Arbitrator when he made h i s January declslon.

The and may be found i n Appen&x D. var ious sernces provided by a i r t r a f f l c c o n t r o l have been s m a r l s e d

One quote from M r Garlick: can do no b e t t e r I n descr iblng the basls of the present c la im than t o

"There are two l ines o f a rgment by us; f l r s t l y , t h e changes t o a i r

t r a f f i c c o n t r o l i n s t r u c t i o n s and procedures proposed by the ~ o i n t worklng

party taken lndividually andfor collectlvely are recognition, and I would

underline the word recognition, of changes I n the understandings of the

p a r t i e s a s t o t h e r e s p o n s l b l l l t i e s o f a l r t r a f f l c o n t r o l l e r s . The

second l ine o f arqrrment is t h a t the changes t o a l r t r a f f l c c o n t r o l

ins t ruc t lons and procedures as proposed by t h e j o i n t worklng par ty and

the o ther themselves changes a t tached to our l e t t e r of 18 March 1977 are I n

indivldually and/or co l lec t lve ly a major ad&tlon to the

responsibility, complexity and work load of a i r t r a f f i c c o n t r o l l e r s " .

I t i s cormnon ground that for the clalm to succeed I n whole o r I n p a r t , It

must comply wlth Principle 7 (a) of the lndexa-on guidelmes. The changes

must therefore cons t i tu te a s ign i f icant ne t addi t ion to the work requirements

of a l l Al te rnabvely , a i r c o n t r o l l e r s , i f an across the board Increase 1 s t o be warranted.

Such circumstanoes are antlcipated by the natlonal wage guidel ines to be rare .

a s i p i f l c a n t e t a d & t i o n might found be to he work

r equrenen t s of a pa r t i cu la r group or groups of a i r c o n t r o l l e r s . The datum

point for measuring change i s agreed t o be October 1974.

It w i l l be apparent that the Association's case 1s c r i t i c a l l y dependent

f o r each leg of the argumnt on an ana lys i s o f the spec i f lc changed

ins t ruc t ions and procedures. Descriptions of the changes which form the bas i s

of the Associations case w i l l be found i n Appendix A , "Changed Instruct ions and

Procedures 1974 - 1977" and Appendix B "Joint Working Party Proposals".

Several Issues of general apphcatron which might be s a d to lnfluenoe a

considezation of the changes	proposed	by the	Jo in t	Woorking	Party	should	be
menhoned.

3

1. Implementation of Proposals

There IS fundamental disagreement between the Associatlon and the

Department as t o the meanlng of the following sentence which was mcluded In an

agreed form o f words s e t t i n g up the Jornt Working Party:

"It is agreed that the l o i n t worklng par ty w l l l i m & a t e l y r e n e w t h e

d i sputed depar t ren ta l ins t ruc t lons , and tha t i ts findmgs w l l l be

processed without delay through whatever departmental uthority 1s

necessary for their	legal inplementabon".
To the Association	the word "processed" re la ted only to the methodology

asaociated with inplementation and excluded a review on merit. To the

Department, the word "processed" meant a review of a l l aspects lncluding

pol icy, necessi ty and pract lcal i ty . In essence, each side argues that if the

others' in te rpre ta t ion had prevailed, no agreement would have been reached.

I f l n d it unnecessary to p re fe r one view t o t h e o t h e r as I bel leve the

Association should be e n t i t l e d t o r e l y on a l l r e c o m n d a t l o n s (subject t o

relevance) as "recogmtion of chwges in the understandings of the parties a s

t o the responsibilities of air t r a f f l c con t ro l l e r s " . I take thls view on the

very clear lmpresslon that the Cepament 's reasons for non-acceptance dlsplay

no animus against the proposals as such. Rather the concern relates to whether

the changes are able to sit comfortably withln the t o t a l network of

instructions and procedures f o r which the Deparment 1 s responsible.

2. Joint Working Party Proposals and ANR 94

Air Navigation O r d e r 94 reads:

(1.) The functions of Air Traff lc Control shal l be -

(a) The preventlon of coll islons between aircraft, and, on the

manoeuvring area, between a l r c r a f t and obstructions ;

(b) expediting and mamtalning an orderly flow of a l r t ra f f ic :

(c) the provislon of such advice and lnfomauon as may be useful

f o r the sa fe and e f f i c l e n t conduct of f l i g h t s ;

(d) the control of

the t e rmina t ion inl t ia t ion, contmuat ion, d lvers ion or

o f f l i gh t i n order to ensure the safety of

alrcraft operations; and

(e) not i fying appropriate organizatmns regarding a i rcraf t known

t o b e or believed t o be i n need of search and rescue aid and

assis t ing those organizat lons as required.

(2.) The Director-General my, by means of Air Navigation Orders, AIP or

NOTAUS, as the case requres, give such ins t ruc t ions and d l r e c h o n s

on matters within the functions	of	a s Traffic	Control	as	he
considers necessary.

The repor t of the working par ty conta ins th i s comment:

"The main determining principle agreed for use by the Worklng Party

i n its discussions was the proper reflection in relevant do-nts

of the funcuons of air t r a f f i c c o n t r o l as expressed i n ANp. 94.

The majority of amndments proposed w e r e considered essent ia l to

adequately reflect t h e r e q u r e m n t s of ANR 94".

d

I n the course of debate the partles agreed to a proposition that many of

the changes suggested by the workmg uarty removed ambiguity and confusion as to the requlrements of ANR 94. The agreement allows the changes themselves t o

be evaluated rather than some collective descrlption of their purpose. I n t h l s

connexion, I poln t ou t ha t he working par ty , i n an early progress report

(January 2 8 ) , made the followlng coment:

"One of the main detemninq nr inciples agreed for use by the worklnq

par ty I n i ts dlscussions as to whether particular a lnstructlon or

procedure adequately reflects the responsibil i t les of AC? has been and

w i l l continue t o be ANR 94.

Instruct ions and procedures detailed i n A l r Traffic Control documents

have been instances for clari ty, uniformity examined Systematically wlth regard to ANR 94 and a l so I n many

and unambiguousnous".

3 . Departmental Feactlon t o Proposals 1, 9 , 10 and 11

Pa r t i cu la r s t r e s s i s l a id on the amendments t o Airways Operations

Instructions contained I n these four proposals. It i s s u f f l c i e n t t o quote from

1. which "The procedures r e l a t e s t o t r a f f i c s epa ra t ion .

contained herein are intended t o form the bas l s fo r

t raff ic separat ion within Austral ian FIRS; nothing m t h e m precludes a

con t ro l l e r from using h i s drscret lon and i n i t i a t i v e m any par t lcu lar

circumstances where these procedures appear to be i n conflict wlth the

requirement to prevent col l is ions.

(i) between a i r c r a f t and

(ii) on the manoeuvring area between a i r c r a f t and obstructlons".

Reliance is placed on ini t ia l departmental react ion to this proposal as

being amjor change m philosphy. Mr Leonard, i n evidence, explams the

reaction as an apprehensron that the change might be seen as an m v i t a t l o n t o

each air con t ro l l e r t o "do h i s own thing". This apprehension was sa id to be

removed by in se r t ing the following note i n each proposal.

"It is understood that , as and when such conf l ic t s a re ident i f ied , the

department w i l l review	the	relevant	Instructions	to	determine	whether
amendment is necessary".

On the amended basis, the proposal was accepted. Mr Leonard's

explanation of l n i t i a l r e a c t i o n and changed react ion seems reasonable and m

those circumstances	reliance on departmental acknowledgement of a change i n
philosophy cannot	advance the Association's case.

4 . Airline Operator's Reports

The three reports emanating from the a i r l ine opera tors were helpful I n

gaining an understanding of the various changes which were chosen fo r comment.

of the working party proposals, comment was r e s t r i c t e d t o 1, 9, 10 and 11, as

the only should be noted that ones which bore the tag "agreed and implemented". In passlng it

as the operators were i n v i t e d t o comment on a l l t h e 1974 -

1977 changes, the selection i n each report must be taken as deliberate.

The Anset t report contained this comnt on Proposal 1.

'This instruct lon i n A . O . I . RAC 0.5 Para 2 Includes the followrng words:

"The procedures contained herein are Intended t o form the basls for

traffic separation within Australian F.1.R.s: Nothing I n them

precludes a cont ro l le r from using his drscret ion and l n l t l a h v e i n

any particular circumstances where these procedures appear t o be In

c o n f l l c t w i t h the requirement to prevent coll lslons". Thls al lows

a cont ro l le r who i s charged wlth responsibil i t les under ANR 94 t o

prevent co l l i s lons , to u,se h l s judgement I n t h e same way as a p i l o t

I n comand is lnstructed under A I P PAC OPS 11 9.4. The

relevant ANR under which t h e p l l o t i n command 1s charged 1s AYR 219

( 2 ) and ( 3 ) . No person assoclated w l t h the industry can ever

absolve himself from the respons ib lh ty he has t o use h i s s k l l l ;

t r a ln lng ; knowledge; perceptlon and ludgement, t o ensure that

a i rc raf t	a re	opera ted	to	the	maxlmum degree of efficiency and
safety.

No book of regulations or lnstructions w i l l ever contaln enough

procedures or rules to cover every contingency.'

It is hard t o escape the concluslon that this report 1s suggesting there

can be no change i n philosophy.

The Aeronautical Informatlon Publicatlon referred to reads as follows:-

"An a i r i n command from t r a f f i c c l e a r a n c e proposed by A.T.C. does not re l l eve the p i lo t

complying w i t h statutory requirements nor from h i s

responsibi l i ty for the ul t imate safety of h l s a i r c r a f t " .

Some of the same thinking IS expressed i n the TAA report i n these terms:

"However, it should be borne i n mind tha t ANR 219 spec l f lca l ly de l inea tes

the respons ib i l i ty for the operation and safe ty of t h e a i r c r a f t t o t h e

p i l o t i n command, and nothing i n A . 0 . 1 . ' ~ can r e l i eve the p l lo t of h i s

respons ib i l i ty as delmeated m AIP RAC/OPS 0 . 9 . 4 " .

It is possible now t o MM to t he changes as such. They w l l l be

considered under separate headings.

PmPOSALs RECOMMENDED BY JOINT WORKING PmTY

A s ind ica ted ear l ie r , i n considerlng whether the proposals are

recognition f changed r e s p o n s i b i l i t l e s , a l l recommendations a re t o be

avai lable . A number of the proposals or sub-proposals have been deferred or

a re ed i to r i a l . Some formallse existing practlces or omit practices whlch no

longer exls t . Some c l a r i f y o r expand existing procedures so that the funct ions

are better expressed. Minor changes have been proposed wlth l l t t l e e f f e c t on

work load. O t h e r changes, while affectlng work load, do not a l te r the

character of the duties and responsibl l t ies carr led out by the par t icu lar leve l

of a i r con t ro l l e r . No proposal has a d l r e c t e f f e c t on the du t ies and

respons ib l i t i es of Class 1 Flight Data cont ro l le rs . I n a prhnary sense, very

few proposals are relevant to Sector and Arr ivals control lers or t o lower

levels In control , some of operat ion control or to senior posit lons. Cutsrde operations

the changes whlch might be claimed as igniflcant, have

l imited application or incidence.

F

There is a natural tendency for the Associatlon to evaluate the changes

mre h igh ly than the Board and the Department, and t o claim a more pervasive

impact on the varlous levels of a l r con t ro l l e r s . However, for the Assoclabon

t o succeed on t h e i r f i r s t ground, it would seem necessary to demonstrate a

recognition of changed respons ib l i t i es which was a l l embracing and even the

Association does not claim that.

Some specif ic observat ions need t o be made on Proposals 1, 9, 10 and 11.

The Association sees these Proposals.as a r e f l ec t ion of a changed philosophy t o

the funct ion of an air control ler and this vision has obviously been

in f luen t i a l l n mch of the o rganisabon ' s a t t i tude and action. Wnle one can

unders tand the l r r l ta t ion fe l t by the Assoclation to what it sees as a savage

a s sau l t on the image of a i r c o n t r o l l e r s by two court declsions, the remoteness

of such a consideration from work value cri teria does n o t seem t o have been

ful ly appreciated. It IS r igh t and proper that fur ther and be t t e r pa r t l cu la r s

should be sought on what i s required of a i r c o n t r o l l e r s whenever amblgulty or

uncertainty exists, and such an exercise has been carried out by the Jo in t

workrng Party. But the exercise w i l l only emerge as a ne t upgradlng of a l r

con t ro l l e r s ' r e spons ib i l i t i e s by an analysis of t h e chanqes, not by assuming

the exercise was predicated t o achieve that resu l t .

The claim t o a change i n philosophy 1 s not accepted by the airline

operators i n the passages quoted earlier, and, indeed, it 1 s a vlew hard t o

maintain. The argument that Proposals 1, 9, 10 and 11 authorise for the flrst

time action mntraven:?g laid down procedures 1s well answered by the Ansett

ex t rac t . I t seems c l e a r that p i l o t s have always accepted a respons ib l l l ty

supervening the book of rules i n the exeptlonal clrcumstances envisaged by the

A i r Navigation Regulations, and without the inclusion of spec i f lc ins t ruc t lons

in Aeronautlcal Information Fublications to that e f f e c t .

Further, the material before me does not allow the conclusion that a i r

control lers have, e i ther as a matter of concept or practicali ty, eschewed a

responsibi l i ty to prevent col l is ions, ensure the safety of a l rc raf t opera t lons

o r carry supervened the book of out search and rescue functions which, If and when necessary,

mles. For i l lus t ra t lve purposes , one can re fer t o

Proposal 31 which involves an amendment to A i r Navigation Requlatlon 133(3).

The proposal is usefully described i n Board Exhlbit MC.10 as follows:

"Amendment t o exempt a i r c r a f t engaged I n search and rescue operations

from prescrlbed height rmnima as necessary. Proposed delegation of t h i s

au tho r l ty to SOC/SARMC". (Senior operations Controller/Search and Rescue

Mission Controller)

Of this Proposal, Mr Maggs for the Assoclation said:

"Proposal 31 concerns A i r Navigatlon Requlation 133. This requlatlon

concerns the minimum a l t i t u d e a t which a l r c r a f t may operate i n various

areas and is commonly known as the low flyinq regulation. I n the conduct

of search and rescue operations, again, It 1s necessary for a l rc raf t to

f l y below the prescribed minimum height i n order to effectlvely conduct

thorough search operations. In extremely mountalnous and heavily

timbered terraln it 1s necessary for a i rc raf t to descend s lgni f lcant ly

below the minlmum prescr lbed a l t i tude. We seek t o have the regulatlon

varled I n order t o enable a i rcraf t to operate a t these reduced heights

and rel ieve the senior operat ions control ler of h l s present perilous

l ega l s i t ua t ion when au tho r i s ing a i r c ra f t t o do so I n contradiction

t o t h e A l r Navlgatlon Regulations. This, a t t h e moment, 1s an example of

the de

facto satisfactory conduct disregard of the existing regulations t o ensure the

of an emergency s l tua t lon" .

7

There is, of course, no crlticism intended by the use of this example.

Rather It supports the vlew that invention has always been the offspr lng of

necessity and professlonallsm has always been a bank drawn on by alr

cont ro l le rs . Perhaps the sl tuation described by Mr Maggs w i l l be less l i k e l y t o arlse

future. proposals is aimed a t ensurlng The notation already quoted which w i l l be added to the four

In the

that if and when conf l i c t s a r i s e between act lon

taken and rules	l a l d down, the	re levant	instruct lons	and procedures w l l l	be
reviewed.

The Association claims uncertainty continues on the appl lcat lon of

Proposals 1, 9, 10 and 11. Accepting thls t o be so it IS t o be hoped t h a t

prompt act ion w l l l be taken by the Department for discussion with t e

Association so t h a t a proper	understanding	1s obtained i n terms which a re
pract icable and unambiguous.

My observations on t h e f i r s t l e g of the Assoclatlon's argument leaves the

proposals t o be evaluated as p a r t of the 1974/1977 change argument. I n t h i s

sec t ion it w i l l be necessary t o examlne the changes i n some Greater detal l .

CHANGES I N INSTRUCTIONS AND PROCEDURES 1974-1977 INCLUDING WORKING PARTY

PROPOSALS

There is no real *isagreement with the approach suggested by the Board,

namely, t h a t you should look t o t h e last comprehenslve work value evaluation

undertaken in 1965 t o e s t a b l i s h a bas l s of comparison for the leve l and qua l l ty

of change necessary t o e s t ab l i sh a s ign i f icant n e t addi t ion to the work

requirements of a i r con t ro l l e r s .

Perhaps it 1s useful t o quote from a Mlnlsterlal Statement relied on by

the Association in that case:

"Cur A l r Traff ic Control lers have one of the most d l r e c t and

comprehensive respons ib i l i t i es for the safe ty of human l l f e and property

found anywhere i n t h e s t m c t u r e of government. They certainly have a

much greater responsibi l l ty than tha t of an A l r Traf f lc Cont ro l le r in any

o ther par t of the world and, a t t h e same time, a n outstandinq record of a

sa fe and This i s no testimonial speech, eff ic lent operat ion".

they are the f ac t s simply stated.

There i s of course no corol lary that the level and qua l i ty of functlon

asser ted by the Association and recognised by the Arbi t ra tor in 1965 makes It

impossible t o show a change which would sa t l s fy Pr inc ip le 7 ( a ) . One only

needs t o go t o t h e major res t ructur ing of c lass i f ica t lons whxh took place

three years later, following the lntroduction of pure lets as the basic

a i r c r a f t type on domestlc routes.

When one is ta lk ing about change In the work of a i r cont ro l le rs it 1s

d i f f i c u l t t o generallse. This IS par t icu lar ly so when the changes are not

a t t r i b u t a b l e t o some major innovation or development affect ing the avlat ion

industry as a whole but are rather piecemeal renews of lsolated	funct lons	in
l imited areas.

Not same function w i l l be only do a l r cont ro l le rs perform a wlde var le ty of functions but the

performed a t v x l o u s l o c a t l o n s by d i f f e ren t ly graded

personnel. Further, functlons which are separately performed a t one locatlon

w i l l be combined a t another. Some Idea of the d lvers l ty of fac tors whlch have

a bearing can be galned by reference on the determination of the alr con t ro l l e r ' s c l a s s l f l ca t lon s t ruc tu re

to a document whlch se t s ou t t he bas l s of grading

"in-charge" positlons a t d l f fe ren t cont ro l s ta t ions.

"GRADING OF POSITIONS I N CHARGE OF A I R TRAFFIC ONTROL STATIONS

For the purpose of gradmq statlon in-charge posit lons, air traffrc

cont ro l s ta t ions have been divide? into f lve groups. Thls grouplnq has

been assessed havlng regard to the volume o f a i r c ra f t movements, scope of

control services provided, ncmber of a i r t r a f f l c c o n t r o l s t a f f a t t h e

statlon. nature of f lying operatlons. navlgatlon alds and f a c l l l t i e s

available, ir-space complexity, speclal geoqraphlcal features,

clvil /mlll tary control complexltles and other re levant factors .

Applicatron of the grouplng to pa r t i cu la r s t a t lons IS as follows:-

Group 1

-

Sydney

-

Group 2

Brlsbane and Melbqurne

-

Adelaide, Allce Sprinqs, Canberra, Damln,

Group 3

Launceston,	Perth, Port Sedland, Port
Moresby and	Townsville

-

Avalon, Bankstm, Cairns, Coolangatta,

Group 4

Essendon, Lae, Moorabbln and Rockhampton

-

Archerfleld, Goroka, €Iobart, Jandakot, Mackay,

Group 5

Madang, M t . Hagen, M t Isa, Parafield and

Tamworth"

Changes in t r a f f i c volume and method of operatlon may a l so cause a

particular posl t ion t o be duplicated. For Instance, slnce 1970 radar Approach

and Departure controllers a t Mascot have been Increased from 2 t o 4. Cxrerall,

m the period since	1965, the number	of	air	controllers has	Increased	from 330
t o 1062.

The functlon of an air cont ro l le r encompasses t h e a b i l i t y t o cope wlth

change. I f change is endenlc t o t h e performance of a ?ob, then care must be

taken t o avold double countlng. Where the rate fo r the ?ob IS assessed taklng

that factor Into account , a d l f f e ren t way of doins things whlch 1s eas i ly

accormnodated wlthin the character of a posl t lon w l l l not at tract an mcrease.

This is a normal pr inc lp le of waae f lxat ion. A more s t r ingent test emerged

with the indexation guldellnes. A " s lgn l f icant ne t addl t ion to work

requirements" tends t o exclude changes which a re In t r in s i c , I so la ted or

evulutionary I n favour chdnqes of whlch are exceptional, cumulatlve or

dramatic. I t w i l l be remembered t h a t t h e nat ional wage bench warned t h a t

"changes in work and the envlronment of work a re a normal factor of l ndus t r r a l

l i f e and the principle of lncreaslng the general wage level annually for

increases m na t iona l p rduc t iv r ty i s p a r t l y , a t l e a s t , i n recognition of such

changes". The f a c t t h a t no productivlty adlustment has been made durlng the

period of prolonged and continulng recesslon does not alter the approach. To

sa t i s fy Pr lnc lp le 7 (a) , an lncrease In work requirements must he above and

beyond a notional average or norm arp l lcable to the work force as a whole.

A s p a r t of these proceedlngs, each a l t e r a t l o n to l n s t ruc t lons and

procedures, l isted as a 1974 - 1977 Change or a Jo ln t Working Party Proposal,

was flrst described and then analysed as to s ign i f lcance and appl icat ion. T h l s

process was carr ied out by Mr Stuar t and M r Maggs, for the Assoclatlon, and M r

Leonard for the Department. A great deal of documentary materlal was also

tendered by way of explanation or summary. I have observed much of the work I n

questlon and b v e had the benefi t of the a i r l ine opera tors ' reports .

Despite the obvious inhibitlow of operating from fa l r ly f ixed pos i t lons ,

there emerged a subs tan t ia l measure of consensus on the nature of the changes

and the c lasses and locatlons affected. Attempts were made t o develop common

headings change, of such "ed l tor ia l" , as " re f lec t ion of cu r ren t f i e ld

practices", extension of exis t lng responsibl l l ty" , lncreased work load",

"increased complexlty", "hlgher level of responsibllity" etc. Although the

resu l t s were imperfect, he exerclse served t o remove some ambiqulty and

uncertainty l n phraseology.

Havlng regard to the na ture of the t ra f f ic cont ro l le rs ' func t lon , it IS

possible to argue that an increase i n work load is synonymous with an increase

in , o r addi t ion to respons ib i l i ty , or an extension of exlsting responsibil i ty.

Mr Leonard introduced the xpression "more of the same" to descrlbe such a

change. Common ground was reached t h a t mst of the changes se t ou t i n the

appendices added i n some way t o work load. Bu t there was no common cause as to

how such changes should be t rea ted .

There appeared t o be no d issent from the propositron put by Mr Leonard

and r e l i ed on by the Board, t ha t work load is kept under constant renew by the

Department for safety reasons. Certainly the duplxat lon of posi t ions and

introduction of sophls t icated aids over recent years a t tas ts to posl t lve act lon

being taken. For a function as demanding a s c o n t r o l l i n g a i r t r a f f i c , It would

seem fundamentally wrong and opposed to the bes t In t e re s t s of a m c o n t r o l l e r s

a s well as publ ic sa fe ty , to compensate for increased work load where s teps are

avai lable for re l ieving the burden.

The ease with which work load can be relieved w i l l vary w i t h the functlon

performed and t r a f f i c flow. Speaking m general terms, the optlons narrow as

the degree of difficulty and busyness increases. For Instance reductlon i n the

work load of a F l igh t Data cont ro l le r may be d i rec t ly p ropor t iona l to the

increase m s ta f f ing . On the other hand, increased staffing l n the termlnal

control area not only presents technical complexities, but any s p l i t t m q of

function raises problems of integration.

A fu r the r problem may a r i s e w i t h a posi t ion such a s Approach cont ro l le r .

Changes may add mater la l ly to the var iab les whlch have t o be borne i n mind i n

the performance of his task. An addi t ion to the ver t ical parameters of h l s

function w i l l not necessarily be fu l ly met by a reduction m t h e l a t e r a l

parameters. The asslmilat ion of new technlques therefore, follows the same

pa t te rn as increases i n work load. Assimilatlon is harder where the degree of

d i f f i c u l t y and t h e s t a t e of busyness i s greater . I t might be Sald that such

differences are taken care of by the c lass l f icat ion s t ructure . That would

probably be	so i f t h e	changes showed an even pa t te rn of	d i s t r lbu t ion .	But they
do not.

I n t he t r a f f i c on t ro l a r ea , none of the changes under conslderation

affect he basic duty of col lect ing and d l s t r lbu t ing f l i gh t da t a . Some, but

not many, changes affect Sector and Arrlvals. Approximately seventy five

pe rcen t o f t he a l t e r a t lons t o t r a f f l c p rocedures and lnstruct lons apply to

Approach/Departures and Aerodrome control.

l?

It follows t h a t more at tent lon has to be s lven to changes occurring m

the termlnal control area. It may not be enough t o measure each such change by

slmply looking functlon has been a t t h e Item as an added chore. The a i r t r a f f i c c o n t r o l l e r s '

described as a f a s t game of chess. That descr ip t ion be l ies

the var ia t ions func t lon a t var ious f l igh t s tages . i n pace which apply t o t h e performance of t he t r a f f l c con t ro l

The pace a t which each group functlons 1s a

re levant factor i n evaluating the slgniflcance of a change I n the r u l e s ,

pa r t i cu la r ly where the change i s by way of addltion.

Work the par t ies to descr lbe load and re la ted descr ip t ions were the principal headlngs used by

the various a l t e r a t ions t o procedures and lns t ruc t lons .

Where suggestlons were made t h a t changes lnvolved added s k i l l , knowledge or

training, increased complexity or a higher level of responslbility, consensus

tended to fade away. Opposite responses were comon and dlfferences l n

approach or phraseology meant the desrred designation had of ten t o be Inferred.

The comments made and a t t r i b u t e s claimed by the pa r t i e s have been tes ted for

i n t e rna l inconsistencies, and each set of views have been compared wlth those

of the air l ine operators where aval lable , and the comments of the Joint Working

Party where applicable. In t he r e su l t , each change has been exammed on the

bas i s of everything that has been said, wr l t t en or observed. Taklng I n t o

account a l l f a c t o r s which are claimed t o be relevant , it has been posslble to

divide the changes i n t o four categories , us ing the central cr i ter ion - "could

assimilation of the change be reasonably expected wlthin the character or

qual i ty of "evolutationary", and "within" or "outside" normal assimllatlon the work performed?" Changes have been divides Into "new" or

parameters.

This analysis will be found i n Appendlx C.

I n explanation of the approach used, some examples may be glven. I n the

t ra f f ic a rea , were Proposal 27 and Change 23. the on ly changes uggested for Class 1 Fl lght Data cont ro l le rs

Both these changes are said to affect all

t ra f f ic grades .

Proposal 27 recommended by the Working Party removes the d lscre t lon which

exis ted for r a t ing 1s required, from 14 days t o 2 1 days. management t o extend the lapsed time b fore The proposal was agreed t o by the a reval ldat lon of

Department except as t o Class 1 Fl ight Data, where a 28 day non- dlscret ionary

period was suggested. Even in t he form recommended, the removal of a

discretionary extension of time would no t s a t i s fy the t e s t of s ign l f lcance la id

down by change which does Principle 7 ( a ) . The category selected i s hrolutlonary A. It is a

not a l te r the charac te r or qua l i ty of the work performed or

the conditions halved or abolished, different consideratlons of i t s performance. Had the non-discretlonary lapsed tlme been

might apply.

Change 23 brought about extenslons to control led airspace l n meensland,

south Australia, Northern Terri tory and Western Australia. It i s a change of

wide applicatlon, evolutionary i n character, and well descrlbed as "more of the

same". Again it is classed as Evolutionary A. The same functlons are now

performed over a wider area. Mr Leonard was spec i f ica l ly asked whether

addi t iona l s ta f f ing was required. He answered no, but lf any overload had

occurred, extra posit ions would have been establ ished. I n t h l s connexion,

emphasis hould again be glven to the fundamental error rnvolved I n

compensating for overload as an a l t e rna t ive to r e l i e f . Such an approach muld

not only endanger proper	working	standards,	it would bc contemptuous	of	public
safety.

Analysis of these changes to F l igh t Data c o n t r o l l e r s i l l u s t r a t e s the

d i f f i c u l t i e s of succeedlng w r t h an across the board work va lue c lam, erther by

way of uniform percentage, or a t a l l .

1'

The number of changes dlrect ly affect ing Scctor /Arr lvals are

s igni f icant ly l ess than the Aerodrome and ApproachDeparture qroups. The

proportion is approxlmately one i n four. The chanses have been, I n the maln,

add i t ions to mrk load.

Again an example o r two may be looked a t i n these areas. Change 6 1s

described I n the Ansett report in these terms:

"An increasing number of j e t W r c r a f t today are equipped wlth Doppler o r

Inertial Navigation Systems and these allow quite precise navigatlon and

ins tan t pos i t ion f ix ing prac t ica l ly anywhere I n the world's am space.

Because of the greater accuracy of the navlgation of these aircraft it

has allowed oceanic separation standards on some of the more remote routes and

routes to be reduced. Once again this al lows the airways into

and across Aus t ra l ia to car ry a heavier volume of t r a f f i c " .

The change has been categorised as Evolutionary A. The improved equlprnent has

allowed more t r a f f i c t o be accormrodated without a reductlon I n sa fe ty

standards. There may be a potential Increase i n work load due to the grea te r

volume of a i r c r a f t t h a t can be processed, but it is basical ly a matter of

processing more wlth tine a id of be t te r too ls .

Proposal 26 gave r ise to considerable debate and a nmnber of explanatory

exhib i t s were tendered. Proposal 26 concerns the separation of a l r c r a f t from

weather Hibal balloons. This Proposal changes the r quirement from non-

posi t ive separat ion, whlch involved the supply of t ra f f ic in format lon , to a

posi t ive separat ion which, for the moment, lnvolves delaying aircraft whlle the

balloon passes through the relevant a i rspace or delaying the bal loon unt i l the

relevant airspace is "free". More sophis t icated methods may be Introduced i f

the balloon can be equipped wlth the necessary Instrumentation. It has been

categorised as New A. This issue might be seen a s a microcosm of the larger

debate on c o n f l i c t between what the books lay down and what courts may find. I

have already dealt with the Issue and there i s nothing to use fu l ly add. A s t o

t he e f f ec t on work requirements, the balloons are confined to two maln areas

for th ree to four weeks a year. Although there may be some increase i n work

load in the par t icu lar a reas a t the ind ica ted t imes , the qua l i ty of change t o

posi t ive separat ion is well within normal asslmilation parameters of the

re levant air I n Operational t r a f f i c c o n t r o l l e r s .

Control, most of the changes re la te to the SW/SARMC.

several of these changes were claimed t o i n v o l v e a l l or most c l a s s l f i ca t ions ,

both above and below the level directly responsible for the performance of new

or altered procedures. Proposal 3 1 has already been discussed. It provldes

delegation of au tho r i ty to SOC/SARMC for the purpose of exempting a i r c r a f t from

minimum height prescriptions i n search and rescue operations. Mr Maggs claimed

Classes 2 t o 7 would be affected. One can recognise that cont ro l le rs o ther

than the SOC/SARMC may be touched by some fa l l -ou t e f f ec t from the proposed

delegation of authorty. But whereas the of f icer d i rec t ly a f fec ted may use t h i s

change t o found an argument fo r a significant net increase i n work requlrements

t h a t argument cannot be extended by assoc ia t ion to those who may be ca l led upon

t o a c t a s t h e S W ' s "hands and feet". Proposal 31 has been categorised as New

B, but d i r ec t r e spons ib i l i t y fo r hat designat ion IS a t t r ibu tab le on ly to the SOC/SAFMC who has the

exemption.

T h e r e are several operational control changes where the primary e f f ec t is

not l lmited the method of to one c l a s s i f i ca t ion . A case i n point i s Change 28 which a l t e r s

presenting meteorological forecasting from route by route

information to coded Australia wide presentation. It 1s described I n the TAA

repor t in these terms:

1:

"The Bureau of Meteorology have wlthln the las t 15 months introduced

different presentat ions for area and tennlnal forecasts . The gr id p o i n t ,

wind - temperature forecasts presentation covers the whole of Australla

and was spec i f l ca l ly designed t o enable p r lo t s o have su f f i c i en t

mformation available t o them a t varlous MET o f f i ces , so that multl-stage

planning could be indulged i n with mlnimmal d i f f i c u l t y a t whatever port

it was thus desired to plan. A difference l n presentation does not

necessarily make It more diff lcul t	to	lnterpret	the	informatlon	required
i n these matters".

There i s no doubt the information now has t o be derived rather than being

dlrectly supplied, but the decodlng of forecasts from numbers IS a r e l a t ive ly

simple task, well w l t h i n the asslmilation capacit ies of a i r c o n t r o l l e r s .

A s m d i c a t e d e a r l l e r , Approach/Departures and Aerodrome Control are the

areas most affected by the changes. Thls does not mean that every change is

rated as being outslde normal assimilation parameters. For instance, Change 10

which provides for instrument approaches by t ra in ing a l rc raf t dur lng aerodrome

closure has been rated New A. This a l t e r a t ion i n procedures, whlle addlng a

new t a sk to the normal character of work already performed. the l o t of the a i r cont ro l le rs a f fec ted , makes no demand outside

These examples serve to explain the approach used i n re la t lon t o each

change. The overall results suggest sixteen changes are outs ide normal

assimilation parameters, elght under the 1974 - 1977 grouping and elqht under

the Jo in t Working Party proposals. It may be argued t h a t such changes a re

relevant t o an assessment of a "s igruf icant ne t addl t lon to work requlrements".

Primarily	affected	are	Approach/Departures,	Flow,	Aerodrome	Control and S K /
SARMC .

Although material was involved, it was somewhat perfunctory and supplied by both par t ies on locat ions and c lasses

would need revls lon i n the l l g h t of

the report . d i rec t ly a f fec ted For instance, the extent t o which surface movement cont ro l le rs a re

by the Aerodrome Control changes has not always been c lear .

Issues of whether and what sa la ry Increases a re jus t i f ied to what c l a s s e s a t

what locations would no doubt be Influenced by the submissions dealing w l t h the

application and incidence of the sixteen changes.

The contended fo r by Mr invest igat ion and report has proceded on a basls consis tent w l t h t h a t

Hawke and Mr Munro, who intervened respectively for the

peak union councils ACTU and CAGEO.

The contentions are noted as follows:-

(a)	the	claim	IS submitted	as	fall lng	squarely	wlthin	mdexatlon
Principle 7	( a ) ;

(b) there is nothlng Inhibiting the Commrssion from awarding an

increase i f it is s a t i s f i e d t h a t a case has been made out m

accordance w i t h tha t Pr inc ip le .

APPENDIX A

CHANGED INSTRUCTIONS AND PRWEDURES 1974 - 1977

Change Description

f0	1	Provides for lncreased separation in event
of unlawful interference to aircraft I n
f l i g h t .
Provides more comprehenslve separatlon standards
t o avoid the ef fec t o f wake turbulence.
Provides extended use of international DME
(Distance Measuring Equipment) for 12 mile
separations i n transcontinental and oceanic control sectors from 200 mlles t o 300 miles.
*0	5	Provides for reduced distance separation
between aircraf t landing and taking off
from 5 miles to 3 m l e s a t Melbourne
and Sydney.
' 0	6	Provides reduced time separation from 20
minutes t o 15 minutes i n oceanic control sectors for internat ional a l rcraf t equipped
w i t h Doppler or Inertial Navigation Systems,
0	'	8	Provides for distance separation on departure
where fas te r fo l lowing a i rc raf t i s climbing
t o a higher level.
*0	9	Increases l ist of a i rc raf t u t i l l sa t ions ga in ing
p r i o r i t y i n t h e t r a f f i c p a t t e r n from three
t o f i v e .
10	Provides for instrument approaches by t ra in ing
a i rc raf t dur ing aerodrome closure.
*0	11 (1)	Provides for closure of runways where cross
winds exceed 15 knots (dry) and 10 knots
(wet) a t Melbourne and Sydney.
Provides for increased separation of s ingle
p i l o t a i r c r a f t when t ransi t t ing the holding
pat tern.
*B	1 2	Provides for information on wind shear conditions
t o be obtained from and suppl ied to p i lo t s on
take-off and landing.

'0 13 Provldes for s tar t up clearances to be given i n

s i t ua t ions of heavy depar t ing t ra f f ic .

0 ' 14 Provides for two a r r i v i n g a r r c r a f t t o be assigned

same leve l i n c i r cu i t a r ea i n good v i s i b i l i t y

conditions.

. . L ..

15 Prohibits use of DME arrival procedures for

i n t e r n a t i o n a l a i r c r a f t	i n	favour of monitored
descent.

Provides for "check wheels" m s t r u c t i o n t o be

given to mi l i t a ry a i r c ra f t when cleared to land.

Provides for isolated parking of a i r c r a f t i n

event of unlawful interference a t terminal.

Provides reduction i n minimum a l t i t u d e from

300 f e e t t o 200 f e e t a t which tu rbo j e t a i r -

c r a f t must receive clearance or abandon approach.

l 8 Provides discretion within given limits t o

increase or decrease runway separation

standards i n secondary control zones.

19 Updates previous procedures dealing with

requirements of rmlitary ai rcraf t opera t ing

w i t h i n con t ro l l ed a i r space.

ZOA	Provldes for use of "shrimp boats" as
Ident i f icat ion aids on bright display radar
screens.
ZOB	Deletes requirement posi ion for reporting
by a i rc raf t opera t ing between Brisbane and
Melbourne following radar indentification.
21	Provides for a i c raf t to be radar checked
through t o f i n a l approach ra ther than ear l ie r
base leg stage.
22	Prwides for greater separat ion of departing
and taxylng aircraft in cloud obscured
conditions a t I.L.S. (Instrument Landing
system) airports.

*B 23 Extends controlled airspace i n Queensland,

South Australia, Northern Terr i tory and

Western Australia.

*B 24/25 Reduces variable and fixed fuel requirements

t o be car r ied by a i r c r a f t from 15% plus 45

minutes t o 10% plus 45 minutes.

*0 26 Provides pi lot for r ports on coastal urvei l lance

t o be relayed t o the appropriate authorit ies.

*0 27 Provides for A T to co rd ina te ac t iv i t ies as

required by Natural Disasters Organisation.

*B 28 A l t e r s the method of presentation of

meteorological forecasting from route by

route information to	coded Australla wide
presentation.

C-nt included i n TAA Report

0 C o m e n t included in Aneett Report

3

APPENDIX B

J O I N T WORKING PARTY PROPOSALS

NOTE:	Proposals 2 , 5-8, 12-25, 30, 34-35 and 37 have been omitted because the changes have been deferred by consent , are for edi tor ia l or c lar i f icat ion purposes ,
are consequential to other changes, have l i t t l e
pract ical s ignif icance or reflect current f ie ld
pract ices .
*0	1,9,10,11 Provides that nothing in Airways Operating

Instructions precludes a cont ro l le r from using

h is d i scre t ion and i n i t i a t i v e i n any pa r t i cu la r

circumstance where the procedures appear

t o be i n conflict with the requirement to

prevent coll isions etc.

3 Deletes provis ion al lowing t ransi t f l ights of

VFR aircraft (other than regular passenger

transport) through the flying training

a reas es tab l i shed a t 10 locations.

Extends posit ive separation of VFR a i r c r a f t

from control areas to primary control zone.

Requires adequate separation t o be maintained

by cont ro l le r a t a l l s t a g e s of visual approach

within 30 miles of controlled aerodrome.

26	Provides positive separation of aircraft	from
H i b a l weather balloons, launched principally

from Mildura and Mice Springs, i n l i e u of

fl ight information and aler t ing service.

27 Deletes exis t ing management discret ion

t o extend minimum non-active time before

reval idat ion of ra t ing from 14 t o 2 1 days.
28	Provides for delegation of authority under
a number of A i r Navigation Regulations t o
the senior Operations Controller or t o t h e

Search and Rescue Mission Coordinator.

Reflects responsibil i ty for search and rescue

service taken over from W i n 1958.

Provides for search and rescue coordination on

behalf of other organisations.

Provides delegation of au tho r i ty to SOC/SARMC

t o exempt a i r c r a f t from minimum height

prescr ipt ion i n search and rescue operations.

32 Provides pennission for aircraft to opera te

with open doors and hatches when dropping

suppl ies in search and rescue missions.

. *

L

.

33. Provides for full operational control to nulitary aircraft following withdrawal of service coordinators in 1975.

36 Provides detailed specification of control function in event of secvrlty threats.

38. Provides for requisition aircraft fon behalf of other*organisations.

t Comnent included in TAA Report

B Comment included in Ansett Report

5

. , APPENDIX C

. CATEGORIZATION OF CHANGES 1974 - 1977

0

Change	New A	New B	Evolutionary A 0	Evolutionary B 0
1

*

2. 4 , 7

3 t

5

6 *

8 9
10
11
12
13	*
14 15
16
17 18
19

20A	*
20B
21
22

23 *

24/25 *

26 *

27 t

28 *

CATEGORIZATION OF WORKING PARTY PROPOSALS

New B 0 hrolutionary A 0 Evolutionary R 0

Proposal New A 0

1, 9 , 10, 11	*
3	t
4 (1)

(2 )

26 *

27 *

28

29 (1)

(2 )

31

32

33 36

- . . F

c

0	-	New A
New task which for reasons of Incidence
and/or character IS within normal ass imilat ion
parameters.
0	B - N W
New task which for reasons of incidence
and/or character i s outside normal
asslmllation parameters.
B	Evolutionary A
Evulutionary change which for reasons of incidence
and/or character is wlthin normal ass inulat ion parameters.
0	Evolutionary B
Evolutionary change which for reasons of
incidence and/or character is outside normal
assimilation parameters.

-

- . . APPENDIX D

*

SUMMARY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY A I R TRAFFIC CONTROL ( A T ) *

Operatlonal Control

Broadly the responsiblllty of t h i s s ec t ion 1s to es tabl lsh personal

contact before f l lght I n order to acquaint the pi lot with current condi t lons such

as the s ta te of aerodromes, t he ava i l ab i l i t y of radlo aids and the e f f ec t s of

forecast weather along the route on the f l i gh t and t o check the f l igh t p lan .

while other ATC sections regard an a i r c r a f t a s one i n a pa t te rn of f l l g h t s and

are concerned considers each with Its safe separation from other alrcraft , Operatlon Control

a l rc raf t Ind iv idua l ly . I n the event of weather deter iorat ion a t

the destination, Operatlonal Control determlnes how b e s t t o d l r e c t each a i r c r a f t ,

i n the l igh t o f Its aval lable fuel reserves , possibly to m a l t e rna t lve

aerodrome, o r t o r e t u r n t o i ts port of departure, or to permlt It t o hold over

its destlnatlon while awalting an improvement i n the weather. Should an a i r c r a f t

be i n 6 i s t r e s s it IS Operational Control whlch has the responslbl l l ty for

providlng 'search and rescue' assistance.

Trafflc	Control
This section keeps aircraft safely separated on main a l r r o u t e s and about

main a i rpo r t s .

To safeguard traffic following such routes and converglng on m l n

a i rpor t s , the Department of Transport has set as ide 'control led a l rspace ' I n

uhich a l l a r c r a f t movement is under the d i rec t cont ro l of ATC.

*Derived from material appearing i n " A l r Traffic Control as a Career"

A t major cap i t a l c i t y a i rpo r t s con t ro l of t r a f f i c from the moment

immediately a f te r take-of f un t i l	immediately	pr lor to landlnq	1s	carrled out	from
'area/appmach control centres'.

Area approach control centres

The primary means of control i n these centres IS by radar.

The 'departures ' radar control ler takes control of depa r tmg a l r c ra f t

immediately they become airborne and separates them from other departing and

approaching a l r c r a f t a s t h e y c l m b o u t through the congested area surrounding the

airport to t ake up t h e n en rou te t r acks to then va r ious des tma t lons .

When these depart ing a l rcraf t are es tabl lshed en route , they are handed

over to ' sector ' control lers who ensure that the alrcraf t are separated from a l l

o t h e r	t r a f f i c	coming	or	golng	on	the	routes	by a s tandard,	e i ther	of	dis tance,
time	or height.

A s the a i rc raf t comence the l r descent to the l r des t ina t ion , cont ro l over

them 1s t ransfer red from the ' sec tor ' cont ro l le r to the ' a r r lva ls ' cont ro l le r who

spaces the lncoming a l r c r a f t from var ious d l rec t lons in to an orderly sequence.

On reaching the busy terminal area control of the arr lving amcraf t IS

t r a n s f e n e d from the ' a r r iva ls ' cont ro l le r to the ' approach ' cont ro l le r . This

controller operates beslde the 'departure ' controller and uses a slmilar adar

screen which dep ic t s a l l t he a i r c ra f t t r a f f l c w l th ln a radlus of 40 naut ical

ru l e s from through the terminal area the a l rpor t s . The 'approach ' control ler qudes the arr lvlng a l rcraf t

i n close co-operatlon with the 'departures ' controller,

speclfying headings for the a l rcraf t o f ly and marshalling them by means of

8

- C . radar Into a safe and orderly landing sequence. When each arrrvlng a l rcraf t 1s

. d

A	about t o	commence	f i n a l approach t o land	the	'approach'	controller	relinquishes
control.

When control of an a i r c r a f t approachlng t o land 1 s relinquised by the

'approach' controller, It passes to 'aerodrome' control ,

Aerodrome Control

This section occupies a b u i l d i n g f a m i l i a r t o a l l a m t r a v e l l e r s - the

glass-enclosed tower. Arriving alrcraft are handed over t o the ATC team I n

control towers of major capital cl ty airports by the 'approach' controller.

Direc-ons for landing are given by the 'aerodrome' controllers. Vlsually and on

h i s radar screen he watches to ensure tha t a r r lvmg a i rc raf t a re separa ted on

f i n a l approach. Once the a l rcraf t has landed and has cleared the d u t y runway,

the p i l o t changes t o a separate radio frequency on which the ' surface movement'

control ler g ives him direct ions for taxying. The ' surface movement' cont ro l le r

is a lso around the termlnal respons ib le for d i rec t ing a l l movements on the aerdrome apar t from

buildlngs and on the duty runways. Once such a l r c r a f t are

ready to en te r the du ty runway for take-off , control passes to the 'aerodrome'

cont ro l le r . Thus the 'aerodrome' controller speaks both departing to and

a r r i v i n g a i r c r a f t . A s soon as departmg a l rcraf t are a i rborne, control of them

is passed to the 'depar tures ' cont ro l le r .

Other ATC Uni t s

Some of the smaller capi ta l c l t l es , as wel l as many of t h e large towns

served by avlat lon, do not yet have need f o r Area Approach Cor.trol Centres. I n

such places - e. g. Hobart, Rockhampton, Tamworth, Calrns - a l l c o n t r o l IS

car r ied ou t from the control tower. In these towers the ' senlor control ler ' i s

responsible for both 'approach' control dutles and 'aerodrome' control dut les

and, i n some cases , for separat ion of a i r c ra f t a lonq t ha t pa r t of t h e n r o u t e

ly ing to e i the r s ide of the alrport.

There exuts another category of control tower. These a r e a t c a p l t a l c l t y

' secondary a i rports ' . A t these locat lons most of the flying takes place m

dayl ight and in reasonably good weather contlons. Eowever, many prlvately-owned

a l r c r a f t a r e f u l l y equlpped for instrument flying. Consequently a t s eve ra l of

these a l rpor t s se rv ices	are now being provided both	by	day	and	by	nlght.
Flight lnfonnation regions

administratlon, ease For of Australia 1s divlded lnto 'Fl lght

Information Regions', each F. I .R. being denoted by the name of the m]or a l r

t ra f f ic on t ro l cen t re wi th in Its boundarles. These cent res a re loca ted a t

Sydney,	Melbourne,	Brlsbane,	Adelaide,	Launceston,	Townsvllle,	Dannn,	Perth	and
Port	Hedland.

Fl ight outs lde control led airspace

Outside controlled airspace information to pilots 1s provlded by the

Departments's ' f l i g h t s e r v i c e u n i t s ' . On the basis of thls informatlon and by

observatlon of r ight-of-way	rules ,	p l lots	provide	then	own	ant l -co l l l s lon
service.