The reporter has raised a safety concern regarding the suitability of the [Data recording tool] data to accurately determine required staffing levels.
The reporter advises that [Data recording tool] data only takes into account how many consoles were open on previous shifts and does not take into account: traffic levels, adverse weather conditions, complexity of sequencing, vectoring and holding aircraft resulting in higher workloads, runway changes and regular temporary restricted area (TRA) implementations resulting in re-routes. In addition, the [Data recording tool] data does not take into consideration any human factors, such as higher fatigue levels, experience of controllers or when a spotter may be required.
The reporter provided an example that if on one particular shift there was only one console open due to staff shortages (i.e. someone called in sick and no replacement available) and therefore no capacity to open another console despite it being required, [Data recording tool] data would reflect that only one console was needed for that shift. This data would then be included to determine future staffing levels for the group.
Historical [Data recording tool] data is being utilised in some groups as the sole determinant for future staffing levels, despite not taking into consideration any of the above factors, nor the increase in air traffic post-COVID. Relying solely on [Data recording tool] data will lead to under staffing in future rosters, resulting in higher workloads and more pressure placed on controllers within these groups.
Airservices appreciates the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the REPCON. We understand that the concern relates to the suitability of [Data recording tool] data being utilised for staffing level determination and the absence of other pertinent information informing staffing level determination.
[Data recording tool] is a tool that generates a report providing actual historical information on traffic in volume/s of airspace and active air traffic control consoles to inform the user. When used in the review of staffing requirements, [Data recording tool] reports do not determine staffing levels. The information is utilised by the reviewers and combined with other pertinent information, including local contextual information not captured in the data. This includes relevant scheduling information, recency data, provision of support personnel, and other activities not captured in the [Data recording tool] reports.
To mitigate the risk of aberrations in the dataset misinforming the reviewers, large sample sizes are used in the reports. This ensures that no single work shift or event is considered representative of the operating environment.
As highlighted, [Data recording tool] reports are based on historical data and are therefore not utilised in isolation to inform future-state staffing requirements. Information on changes to airspace user activities and our service delivery provision ensure that a data-driven approach, utilising all available information informs future staffing requirements.
Reporter’s follow up comment
The ATSB subsequently received an update to the original concern. It has been reported that procedures in the response provided by Airservices Australia are not being followed.
On [date], a reporter contacted the ATSB stating that the procedures outlined in Airservices' response continue to not be adhered to. The reporter advised, 'Airservices Australia is using [Data recording tool] data to justify another cut to the core roster. This is an ever ongoing, self‑fulfilling ‘solution’ to Airservices Australia's staffing issues. They use [Data recording tool] data to ‘prove’ that we do not need that many staff because we do not split consoles. We cannot split consoles because we do not have enough staff. Then they cut the roster and ‘prove’ that we have enough staff to fulfil the roster requirements. It is truly baffling logic and exhausting dealing with the constant degradation to our resilience to operate safely and efficiently'.
Named Party’s response to follow up comment
The ATSB provided the above information to Airservices Australia and received the following response:
Airservices appreciates the opportunity to respond further to the concerns raised in the updated REPCON. Notably, at the time of the submission/receipt of the updated report, no change to the roster had been made and the consultation phase had only just started, which included seeking feedback from the controller group on what local information is needed for consideration.
As previously stated, [Data recording tool] is a tool that generates a report providing actual historical information on traffic in volume/s of airspace and active air traffic control consoles to inform the user. When used in the review of staffing requirements, [Data recording tool] reports do not determine staffing levels. The information is utilised by the reviewers and combined with other pertinent information, including local contextual information not captured in the data. This includes relevant scheduling information, recency data, provision of support personnel, and other activities not captured in the [Data recording tool] reports.
To mitigate the risk of aberrations in the dataset misinforming the reviewers, large sample sizes are used in the reports. This ensures that no single work shift or event is considered representative of the operating environment. With the return of air traffic to pre-COVID levels, data from the pre-COVID period is utilised for verification, if deemed necessary, along with data from air traffic controller recency. This recency data is collated by controllers during their shift and clearly highlights if reduced staff (for example due to absenteeism) on a particular day was a factor. Additionally, as stated above, large sample sizes from [Data recording tool] are used to ensure that no single shift can statistically skew the analysis.
Information on changes to airspace user activities and our service delivery provision ensure that a data-driven approach, utilising all available information informs future staffing requirements.
Airservices confirms that the methodology referred to above is and has been adhered to and the required consultation with staff is conducted prior to any final decision on changes to rosters.
CASA continues to consider the issue a valid safety concern. Airservices’ staffing issues are being actively addressed through enforcement processes and safety findings. CASA notes over-reliance on [Data recording tool] data in determining the required staff levels may be a contributor and considers other factors to have also contributed to the current staffing shortages.
The ATSB thanks Airservices for clarifying the purpose of the [Data recording tool] data. However, the ATSB notes that the reporter’s concerns are that supervisors in [various locations] are not including local contextual information and other pertinent information to determine future staffing levels and are relying solely on [Data recording tool] reports. The ATSB asked if Airservices’ position on [Data recording tool] reports could be reiterated to supervisors in these areas. Airservices advised that via the Director Operations, they will brief the Line Leaders and ensure they include the local contextual information and other pertinent information when consulting with staff.
The ATSB thanks Airservices for their support and proactive approach on this matter.