Advanced Technology Aircraft Safety Survey Report - Australian ...

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AIRCRAFT SAFETY SURVEY REPORT
12
ATC procedures by geographical area
Approximately 50% of respondents indicated that they were concerned about ATC procedures
within a specific geographical area (B2.6).
Respondents were grouped into one of seven categories according to their response to
question A2, which asked pilots to nominate which routes they flew. Pilots were free to
nominate any geographical location for which they had a concern. This led to a certain
amount of overlap as some respondents may have nominated several different ports (for
example, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth), whereas others may have nominated a country (for
example, Australia).
Table 2.6 summarises the most frequent responses by pilots in each category.
Table B2.6
Most frequently nominated geographical region by routes flown
Route flown Summary of responses
Domestic routes Sydney
Domestic & international short-haul & international long-haul routes Indonesia
Domestic & international short-haul routes Sydney
International long haul routes India
International short haul routes Sydney, China
International short-haul routes & international long-haul routes India, China and Indonesia
Domestic routes - Flights which do not cross international borders e g Sydney to Melbourne
International short haul routes - Flights to adloining airspace e g Australia to New Zealand, Singapore to
Jakarta, Hong Kong to Taipei
International long haul routes - Flights crossing more than one international boundary e g Manila to
London, Tokyo to Los Angeles, Jakarta to Jeddah
The high proportion of Australian based respondents could account for the prominence of
Sydney in three of the seven categories.
Some degree of concern was reported from within all seven categories regarding the
relationship between the operation of advanced technology aircraft and ATC procedures in
various geographical locations. Sixty-one locations were nominated by pilots responding to
question B2.6.
These locations incorporate various levels of ATC services, ranging from the most advanced
to purely procedural ATC environments. The responses to this question would seem to
indicate that advances in technology do not necessarily guarantee better or safer operations.
It should be noted that this survey was conducted prior to the 1996 mid-air collision near New
Delhi, India.
Specific events
When asked to outlhe a specific event where they had difficulty operating an advanced
technology aircraft in accordance with an ATC instruction, pilots nominated the following:
Runway change / late runway change (27%)
Speed changes / late speed changes (24%)
STAR / Changes to STAR (17% )
Box 2.7a provides examples of pilot comments concerning programming a change of runway
and/or receiving late advice of a change of runway from ATC. This would appear to confirm