Multiple reporters have contacted the ATSB regarding Airservices response to REPCON RA2022-00053 Concern regarding the implementation of Temporary Restricted Airspace (TRA) at multiple locations, the use of short breaks and proposed enroute conditional endorsement (ECE) procedure | ATSB.
Airservices stated that, 'In relation to Rockhampton and Mackay, Airservices disputes the statement in relation to notification of the procedures. The NOTAMs indicating the period of no ATS available are published in sufficient time that any pilot would have had access to them when undertaking pre-flight briefing prior to commencing a training flight'.
One reporter has advised that on [date], a TIBA/TRA was imposed at Mackay with less than five minutes' notice. The applicable NOTAM was introduced during the intermediate period between engine start and take-off for at least two departing flights. The reporter states that insufficient time period existed to appropriately review and manage the required procedures as per the NOTAM.
The reporter further stated that similar events occurred twice during the week ending [date] at Cairns airport, where at least two flights were forced to encounter TIBA/TRA procedures which were not promulgated until after aircraft departure. The first time the flight crew were notified of the requirement was when ATC notified of the TIBA activation. The reporter states that activation of procedures at such short notice provides a significant safety risk to aircraft. Flight crew members encounter inconsistent application of procedures, and late notice activation allowing for inadequate time to appropriately apply TIBA management procedures.
Another reporter has advised that on [date], Airservices issued a NOTAM for a closure with only 1.5 hours' notice, and the reporter was inbound on a 3-hour sector at the time.
The reporter further states that on the morning of [date], Mackay Air Traffic Control Tower was closed, but not Coral Approach. While a different scenario, a NOTAM came out to say both were to be closed to match an incorrect NOTAM, which created a lot of confusion on the airwaves.
The reporter further states that the new airspace requires Brisbane ATS resources, which to date has proven to be highly unreliable requiring TMA contingency procedures. This has been occurring on a regular basis for more than a month and requires all pilots to gain verbal permission from Airservices via telephone. This in itself is a safety concern; however, along with the recent airspace design changes, the TRA NOTAM adds further complexity and confusion for local pilots and controllers alike. Pilots see it as another classification of airspace that isn’t Class D nor CTAF nor quite TIBA as it includes Mackay Tower.
TRA procedures, TIBA and TMA contingency procedures have all been described as the procedures that need to be used by pilots. Information on any of these has not been widely circulated and the majority of pilots are relying on the 'briefing' required via telephone prior to operating in the airspace. The TMA contingency document provided by Airservices is a 96-page document describing numerous variations based on closure combinations and is impractical for pilots.
In addition, the ATSB has been contacted by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, who recently conducted a survey within their membership due to the number of concerns that had been received regarding short notice or un-NOTAM'd airspace closures or delays throughout Australia. Deidentified survey results attached (with permission) for Airservices' information.
The reporters collectively state that the safety ramifications of these ATC delays are significant, including the impacts on fuel planning, monitoring and decision making with limited options when airborne, unforeseen delays leading to increased fatigue and stress for pilots and air traffic controllers. These unplanned delays/TRAs/TIBAs have the potential to reduce situational awareness for pilots and controllers, which increases the risk of human error. In summary, the reporters believe that these short notice airspace changes increase the risk of an incident, or worse.
Airservices appreciates the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the REPCON. We acknowledge the impact that short notice Temporary Restricted Area (TRA) activations have on industry. We continue to experience short notice sick and other unplanned leave. While managing these situations we make every effort to avoid implementing contingency procedures and will assess and exhaust all potential options prior to activating a TRA. Similarly, to avoid confusion, we will not issue a NOTAM that would subsequently be rescinded. We acknowledge that this can lead to the activation and notification of a TRA at short notice.
Since our initial response to REPCON RA2022-00053, we continue to focus on reducing the number of TRA activations. We have been focusing on increasing the supply of air traffic controllers, particularly in the areas highlighted in the REPCON report. We have provided three additional rated controllers in Cairns and Coral approach and are implementing a new roster that allows us to utilise available staff more efficiently. We also have staff returning from sick leave, and additional controllers training in the next six months.
Additionally, we have been reviewing the ATS contingency airspace model for when Coral Approach is not available. A new model has been developed and we have been engaging with industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on the change. These new procedures consider industry feedback and improve our service offering by making the most effective use of available controllers during these scenarios. The new model is planned to be implemented in the coming weeks.
CASA considers it unlikely that Airservices AIS would be in breach of CASR 175. They should publish NOTAMs prior to the commencement time: ICAO Doc 8126 AIS Manual says …Thus, the end user, e.g. flight crew or airline, must receive a NOTAM in sufficient time to take any required action to realize its purpose. If the Aeronautical Data Originator (ADO) requests the NOTAM be published with immediate effect then there is little the NOTAM Office (NOF) can do.
The data originator (Airservices) may be in breach if they are not supplying the NOTAM request to the NOF ‘as soon as practicable’.
175.470 Aeronautical data originators—requirements in relation to requests for issue of NOTAMs
(1) This regulation applies if:
(a) an aeronautical data originator becomes aware that a circumstance exists; and
(b) the circumstance is specified in a data product specification given to the originator by an AIS provider as a circumstance that requires the originator to ask the AIS provider to issue a NOTAM.
Requesting issue of NOTAM
(2) The originator must, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the circumstance, ask the AIS provider to issue a NOTAM in accordance with the data product specification.
Changes to data and information to be readily identifiable
(3) If the request for a NOTAM will change any existing published aeronautical data or aeronautical information, the originator must ensure that the change can be readily identified.