Presentation on theme: "Airservices Australia First ICAO TEM & NOSS Symposium"— Presentation transcript:
1Airservices Australia First ICAO TEM & NOSS Symposium Marcus KnauerAirservices AustraliaFirst ICAO TEM & NOSS SymposiumLuxembourg 9 & 10 November 2005
2Introduction Who we are Preparation for the Trial The Trial Trial resultsAction TakenLessons Learned
3South East Asia & Indian Ocean Airspace MumbaiManilaFIROakland FIRColomboMaleBiakSeychellesJakartaPortMoresbyNauruBaliHoniaraNadi(Fiji)Brisbane FIRAntananarvioMauritiusNZMelbourne FIRJohannesburg OceanicAucklandOceanic
4Air Traffic Statistics The Australian FIRs Approximately 11% of the world’s airspaceATC Sectors (incl. terminal)Brisbane = 40 (6 oceanic)Melbourne = 51 (2 oceanic)Flights Processed (typically)Brisbane FIR = 2700/dayMelbourne FIR = 2900/daySydney Airport Traffic800/dayBrisbane Airport Traffic/dayMelbourne FIRBrisbane FIRHoniaraNauru
5Airspace controlled by Airservices Australia Hawaii (3 Control Towers)Guam & Saipan (2 Control Towers)EquatorNauru High Level Airspace(under Contract)Honiara High level Airspace(under Contract)AustralianAirspaceApprox 5000NM
7Why are we here? Member of ICAO NOSS Study Group. Undertook First Operational NOSS Trial April – May 2005.Share our experience.
8Current Data SourcesElectronically Submitted Incident ReportsIncidentsEventsCompulsory and Voluntary reportingTechnical Fault ReportingAuditsRegulator/Internal – complianceHazard/Risk AnalysisFindings/recommendations are managed through System Action Improvement Report (SAIR).Check and Training reports
9What we did Established NOSS Project Steering Committee. Controller Association briefing.Joint Management/Union sponsorship.All controllers received TEM briefing.Publicised project and its intent.Journal Articles in local staff newsletter, Corporate Safety Magazine.Information in controller daily briefing folder – Joint Management/Union letter.Created a NOSS web page.Observers selected were jointly nominated by management and union.
10NOSS Project Manager Role Elicit Association involvement and buy in.Facilitate communication.Management briefings: Set organisation expectations.Conduit between Union and ManagementOrganise resources.Promote project.Roster observers.Trouble shoot during project.
11NOSS TrialFocus:Trial implementation was used to determine whether such a concept was appropriate within an ATS environment.Whether the methodology developed to date by the ICAO Normal Operations Safety Survey Study Group (NOSSSG) was suitable.Valid Snapshot of Brisbane Centre Operations
12The Trial5 Observers, 5 Groups (Brisbane Centre Radar Enroute and Arrivals)1 week Observer TrainingTheory days (2), trial observations (2), calibration session (1 on 1).2 weeks Data Collection52 observations5.6 threats per observation2.7 errors per observation6 undesired states for every 10 observations1 Week Data CleaningUT, Project Manager, Observer, Procedures specialist.Report Production – 1 month
14Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS) TAAATS Controller WorkstationAir SituationDisplay (ASD)AuxiliaryDisplayVoice Switching and Control System (VSCS)Weather Radar
15What we saw 40% of threats were ANSP (organisational) STAR Clearances, other controllers, unserviceable equipment.60% of threats were Airborne/EnvironmentalMost Prevalent Restricted Airspace, Airspace Design, pilots.Errors recorded on 77% of observations33% equipment/automation, 33% procedural, 25% communication.33 Undesired StatesMajority pertaining to inaccurate traffic representation.
16What we saw Controller Briefings poor prior to commencement of shift. Handover Takeovers poor, incomplete, not all pertinent operational information conveyed. Checklists not being adhered to.Controller Air Situation Display not kept up to date. Too much Human Machine Interface interaction?Full readbacks not being obtained from pilots and ATC.Inconsistent application of procedures across similar groups.
17What we saw High prevalence of threats which were managed well. 90% of threats and errors were managed.50% of all undesired states were precipitated by a threat.The two most prevalent threats were restricted airspace/airspace design threats. These threats were well managed.20% of controllers observed had superior scan.These controllers were more likely to detect and manage their own errors as well as errors committed by other controllers.Distractions posed by other controllers managed well.
18What we sawData collected reflected and expanded upon incident reports and incident investigation findings.Causal factors in recent incidents the same controller behaviour was exhibited during NOSS.Showed these weren’t “one offs” but were prevalent in every day operations.Normal behaviours
19What we did with the results Results presented to management.Report findings analysed.‘Quick Wins’ identified and addressed.Summary of results published to staff.Report published on project website.In the process of developing a structured long term approach to address report targets for enhancement.
20What’s Happened to date? TangibleIntroduction of new HO/TO checklist on one Group.Proposal to change airspace structure.Introduction of new procedure to reduce likelihood information display/coordination error.Unserviceable equipment – facilities manager investigating why availability requirements are not being met.IntangibleObservers adopting practices witnessed during observations, taking them back to their group.Increasing skill sets of individual observers.
21Lessons Learned. Joint Management/Union sponsorship. significant time frame.Scheduling of observations with training.ad hoc training not publishedObserver Selection.Getting the right people is imperative.Observer overload.Originally targeted 1½ - 2 hours per observation educed to 1 – 1¼.Supervision.Should be briefed separatelyController refusalsOver emphasis of voluntary participation. Testing the waters.
22Where to next? Complete Safety Change. Develop Threat and Error Management training program for controllers/supervisors incorporated in recurrent training.Trial in Tower Units.Incorporate into Business Operations.Develop Lead Indicator measuresCollaborate with airlines.Sharing data