ak! Mis 175/77 MD Print D3867 IN THE AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION Public Service Arbitration Act 1920 In the matter of MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD and THE CIVIL AIR OPERATIONS OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA (C No. 650 of 1977) Direction by the President pursuant to section 15A of the Public Service Arbitration Act re salary claims by Air Traffic Controllers SIR JOHN MOORE, PRESIDENT SYDNEY, 11 JULY 1977 MR JUSTICE ROBINSON MR PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATOR TAYLOR DECISION This matter came before the Full Bench on 16 May 1977 when it was referred to Mr Justice Robinson for investigation and report. His Honour's report was made available to the parties on 22 June 1977 and subsequently debated before us. To avoid duplication the report will be appended to this decision and should be read in conjunction with it. Central to the report was a categorization of changes to air traffic control instructions and procedures relied on by the Association to justify an increase on work value grounds pursuant to indexation Principle 7(a). In relation to this exercise His Honour said, "The overall results suggest sixteen changes are outeide normal assimilation parameters, eight under the 1974-1977 grouping and eight under the Joint Working Party proposals. It may be argued that such changes are relevant to an assessment of a 'significant net addition to work requirements'." Before us the Association sought to add some fifteen changes to the arguable group, whereas the Board suggested that nothing had occurred which would satisfy the test laid down by Principle 7(a). In addition, Mr Garlick called fresh evidence to support the Association's contention that Proposals 1, 9, 10 and 11 should be seen as a change in philosophy warranting a general upgrading of air controllers' salaries. The evidence seeks to establish that the policy of the Department prior to the Joint Working Party required an air controller to operate by the book and not otherwise. The Association claims the practice adopted by air controllers was consistent with that policy. to However, neither the policy nor the practice allows such clear cut conclusions. Much of the ambiguity surrounding departmental policy lies in the failure to distinguish the general from the particular. Take Mr Russell's statement relied on by the Association. "I believe that air traffic controllers are required to carry out the departmental instructions...." That was, and is, and has to be, the day to day overall position. An integrated ATC service, essential to the safety and efficiency of our air transport system could not be provided on a catch-as-catch-can basis. Although in the very nature of air traffic control, laid down procedures must themselves provide some discretion, in our view there can be no quarrel with the general proposition - laid down procedures are required to be followed. That policy has to be contrasted with an actual indentified incident, outside the contemplation of the laid down procedures, possibly a circumstance without precedent, which requires action independently of existing anstructions. Departmental policy would treat the actual identified incident as an isolated exception unless and until the relevant instruction has been reviewed and altered. It must be said that too often in the past the distinction between the general and the particular has been treated as inherent and the lack of definition has contributed to misunderstanding. However, steps have been taken to minimise uncertainty in this area and those steps have the approval of the Joint Working Party. The agreed notation to Proposals 1, 9, 10 and 11 is in these terms: "It is understood that as and when such conflicts are identified the Department will review the relevant instructions to determine whether amendment is necessary." Perhaps insufficient emphasis has been given to the fact that the four proposais are not limited to traffic situations, but cover operational safety and search and rescue missions, sections which do not appear to have been the subject of controversial incidents in the past. In this connexion, we reiterate the comment made in the report, "The notation... is aimed at ensuring that if and when conflicts arise between action taken and rules laid down, the relevant instructions and procedures will be reviewed". The whole question of conflict between action taken and rules laid down was the subject of comment in the Ansett exhibit and extracted in full in His Honour's report. These views, which are consistent with the conclusions we have reached, were not called in question by the Association before the Full Bench. We have taken some time in discussing this broad issue, as uncertainties about the policy have fostered uncertainties and misunderstandings in practice. However, it must be said quite bluntly that no warrant for a general increase would have arisen simply because some change in philosophy had occurred. Three examples illustrate why. Take the operational control section. Part of Proposals 28 and 29 and Proposals 31, 32, 35 and 38 were said by the Association to be recognition or legitimation of current practices. Thus in this section, even if the Association's argument on change in philosophy were accepted, the change would be more consistent with, than contrary to, what has happened in the past. Secondly there are many areas, including Flight Data, where there would simply be no scope for translating a change in philosophy into a change in duties. Thirdly, the exercise of discretion which founded the change to positive separation of Hibal weather balloons (Proposal 26) was itself a function well within the character and quality of the work performed. For reasons given we are not satisfied there has been a change in philesophy but we point out that a conclusion on this issue in favour of the Association would not have led to a general increase. We have reviewed the categorization of changes contained in Appendix C and the applications to alter the composition of the arguable group. Although it has no direct effect on the outcome of the case we indicate that further 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 in the report as part 5 of Proposal 28. In arriving at our 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 are certain changes which have been included or excluded on fine balance, the results of the overall exercise are fortunately clear cut. There are a number of observations which sould be made 1n explanation of our conclusions. 1. The views of both the Association and the Board have been compared on classes affected and locations involved in relation to each change. For reasons expressed in the report, we can only be concerned with those classifications affected in the primary sense. We note that with regard to Coordinator and Surface Movement positions the Association and the Board reversed before us, the attitudes they had adopted before mr Justice Robinson. Judging these positirons by the tests of change we are now applying, we are inclined to the view that none of them should be upgraded but because of the change in attitudes we ask the parties to consider the situation. 2. Obviously changes are of variable importance and incidence. For instance, Change 5 1s a substantial alteration but currently applies only to Melbourne and Sydney. Further, the same change may be weighted differently depending on the particular position to which it is being added, the number of arguable changes affecting that position and the rating of the airport at which the function is being performed. Each position has been considered on its particular mix of circumstances. In the result, only positions subject to multiple changes were found to warrant some movement. 3. Check control, Annex Training and Supervisory positions have not been debated before us. The parties are asked to confer on the application of our decision to these positions. The positions which will receive increases have been divided into three groups. A. Senior Operations Controllers at specified airports set out in Schedule A. B. Designated Traffic Positions (Classes 4 and 5) set out 1n Schedule B at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra. rey Cc. Designated Traffic Positions (Classes 2 and 3) at specified airports as set out in Schedule C. The Commission is satisfied that the Association has established hy evidence and argument, a significant net addition to the work requirements of air controllers falling into those three groups. With the reservations mentioned, the Commission is equally satisfied that other positions fall well short of that test. In our view the cumulative effect of the changes to groups A and B has so altered the character and quality of their work as to warrant a reclass- ification of their positions from 4 to 5 and from 5 to 6 respectively. The changes applicable to the positions in group C have a lesser impact and we propose to establish Classes 2A and 3A to cater for the increases appropriate to the positions in this group. Class 2A will contain four increments, starting with the third increment in Class 2 and ending at the second increment in Class 3. Class 3A will also contain four increments, starting with the third increment in Class 3 and ending at the second increment in Class 4. The adjustment of salaries shall be made on the "point-to~point" basis. The increases will operate from the beginning of the first pay perlod to commence on or after today. The Association will prepare a draft order for settlement by the Arbitrator. Should the parties require assistance, Mr Justice Robinson will be available for that purpose. SCHEDULE A SENIOR OPERATIONS CONTROLLER CLASS 5 Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane 4 Adelaide, Perth, Launceston, Townsville, Port 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)/(AD2) Sydney 4 Senior Tower Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Canberra uw *Class 4 Approach/Departure positions are variously described. SCHEDULE C DESIGNATED TRAFFIC POSITIONS CLASSES 2 AND 3 CLASS 2 Aero/Approach Launceston, Hobart, Alice Springs, Tamworth 2 Area/Aero/Approach Mackay, Mt Isa, Port Hedland 3 Aero Control Essendon 3 Aero/Approach Perth, Cairns, Coolangatta, Rockhampton, Avalon 3 Approach Townsville 3 Terminal Radar Perth REPORT MR JUSTICE ROBINSON MELBOURNE, 22 JUNE 1977 This report has to be seen against a complex backgroud of c1rcumstances and events which may be summarised briefly in this way. 1. In two commercial decisions concerning claims for damages arising from separate and unrelated aircraft collisions, the degree of responsibility was held to be, air controller 40%, each pilot 30%. 2. The Association claimed salary increases of 75% (subsequently modified to 36%) based on the level of responsibility recorded in the two decisions. 3. That claim was rejected by the Public Service Board. A claim similarly based was refused by Deputy Public Service Arbitrator Watson on 7 January 1977. The decision left open the question whether a change in understanding of air controllers' responsibilities might result in an identifiable increase in work value, if the change were reflected in the relevant instructions and procedures. 4. A joint working party was set up to review all relevant instructions, procedures and agreements including air navigation regulations. The working party's report, made on 11 March, contained 38 proposals for amendment to various documents. Most of the recommendations have been agreed by the Department of Transport or accepted in principle, some have been deferred, some are still under consideration and some have been rejected. 5. The Association lodged a new claim for a 36% salary increase on 21 March 1977. The percentage 1s obtained by equating a Class 4 air controller with a Boeing 747 first officer. 6. The Public Service Board rejected the new claim on 6 May 1977. 7. Reference of the dispute to a Full Bench was granted by the President on 9 May 1977. 8. The Full Bench referred the matter for investigation and report on 16 May 1977. No good purpose would be served by colouring in this outline wath a recitation of the bans and stoppages which accompanied the long history of this dispute. However, it should be noted that since the Deputy Arbitrator's decision in January, the processing of the claim has been hampered by fundamental misunderstandings as to the status of the Joint Working Party and the purpose of the review it undertook. These misunderstandings remain and will be dealt with in this report. The present investigation included: (i) inspections on four days at Area Approach Control, Aerodrome Control and Operational Control, Tullamarine; Area Avoproach Control and Aerodrome Control, Lawnceston; Aerodrome Control, Mascot; Flight Deck observation on a Boeing 727, Melbourne/Sydney; (21) hearings and/or conferences on twelve days; (2121) evidence and exhibits. (The exhbits, numbering 41 in all, included separate reports made at the request of the Association by Ansett Airlines of Australia, Trans~Australia Airlines and Qantas Airlines Limited, on the significances of changes 1n instructions and procedures which had occured since October 1974 or had been proposed by the Joint Working Party). I have also taken the opportunity of discussing with Deputy Arbitrator Watson a number of matters arising from the investigation. The application under consideration is the 36% claim lodsged on 21 March 1977. It 1s important to appreciate - (a) the claim for 36% is qualified by the phrase "or such other amount as to the tribunal seems just"; (b) the material now relied on relating to changes in air traffic control procedures and instructions was not before the Deputy Arbitrator when he made his January decision. The various services provided by air traffic control have been summarised and may be found in Appendix D. One can do no better in describing the basis of the present claim than to quote from Mr Garlick: "There are two lines of argument by us; firstly, the changes to air traffic control instructions and procedures proposed by the joint working party taken individually and/or collectively are recognition, and I would underline the word recognition, of changes in the understandings of the parties as to the responsibilities of air traffic controllers. The second line of argument is that the changes to ar traffic control instructions and procedures as proposed by the joint working party and the other changes attached to our letter of 18 March 1977 are in themselves individually and/or collectively a major addition to the responsibility, complexity and work load of air traffic controllers". It is common ground that for the claim to succeed in whole or in part, it must comply with Principle 7 (a) of the indexation guidelines. The changes must therefore constitute a significant net addition to the work requirements of all air controllers, if an across the board increase 1s to be warranted. Such circumstances are anticipated by the national wage guidelines to be rare. Alternatively, a significant net addition might be found to the work requirements of a particular group or groups of air controllers. The datum point for measuring change is agreed to be October 1974, It will be apparent that the Association's case 1s critically dependent for each leg of the argument on an analysis of the specific changed instructions and procedures. Descriptions of the changes which form the basis of the Associations case will be found in Appendix A, "Changed Instructions and Procedures 1974 - 1977" and Appendix B "Joint Working Party Proposals". Several issues of general application which might be said to influence a consideration of the changes proposed by the Joint Working Party should be mentioned. 1. Implementation of Proposals There is fundamental disagreement between the Association and the Department as to the meaning of the following sentenca which was included in an agreed form of words setting up the Joint Working Party: "It is agreed that the joint working party will immediately review the disputed departmental instructions, and that its findings will be processed without delay through whatever departmental authority 1s necessary for their legal implementation". To the Association the word "processed" related only to the methodology associated with implementation and excluded a review on merit. To the Department, the word "processed" meant a review of all aspects including policy, necessity and practicality. In essence, each side argues that if the others' interpretation had prevailed, no agreement would have been reached. I find it unnecessary to prefer one view to the other as I believe the Association should be entitled to rely on ail recommendations (subject to relevance) as "recognition of changes in the understandings of the parties as to the responsibilities of air traffic controllers". I take this view on the very clear impression that the Department's reasons for non-acceptance display no animus against the proposals as such. Rather the concem relates to whether the changes are able to sit comfortably within the total network of instructions and procedures for which the Department 15 responsible. 2. Joint Working Party Proposals and ANR_94 Air Navigation Order 94 reads: (1.) The functions of Air Traffic Control shall be - (a) The prevention of collisions between aircraft, and, on the manoeuvring area, between aircraft and obstructions; (b) expediting and maintaining an orderly flow of air traffic; (c) the provision of such advice and information as may be useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights; (d) the control of the initiation, continuation, diversion or termination of flight in order to ensure the safety of aircraft operations; and fe) notifying appropriate organizations regarding aircraft known to be or believed to be in need of search and rescue aid and assisting those organizations as required, (2.) The Director-General may, by means of Air Navigation Orders, AIP or NOTAMS, as the case requires, give such instructions and directions on matters within the functions of Air Traffic Control as he considers necessary. The report of the working party contains this comment: "The main determining principle agreed for use by the Working Party in its discussions was the proper reflection in relevant documents of the functaons of air traffic control as expressed in ANR 94, The majority of amendments proposed were considered essential to adequately reflect the requirements of ANR 94", In the course of debate the parties agreed to a proposition that many of the changes suggested by the working varty removed ambiguity and confusion as to the requirements of ANR 94. The agreement allows the changes themselves to be evaluated rather than some collective description of their purpose. In this connexion, I point out that the working party, in an early progress report (January 28), made the following comment: "One of the main determining vrinciples agreed for use by the working party in its discussions as to whether a particular instruction or procedure adequately reflects the responsibilities of ACT has been and will continue to be ANR 94. Instructions and procedures detailed in Air Traffic Control documents have been examined systematically with regard to ANR 94 and also in many instances for clarity, uniformity and unambiguousnous". 3. Departmental Reaction to Proposals 1, 9, 10 and 11 Particular stress is laid on the amendments to Airways Operations Instructions contained in these four proposals. It is sufficient to quote from 1. which relates to traffic separation. "The procedures contained herein are intended to form the basis for traffic separation within Australian FIRs; nothing 1n them precludes a controller from using his discretion and initiative in any particular circumstances where these procedures appear to be in conflict with the requirement to prevent collisions. {i) between aircraft and (ii) on the manoeuvring area between aircraft and obstructions". Reliance is placed on initial departmental reaction to this proposal as being a major change in philosphy. Mr Leonard, in evidence, explains the reaction as an apprehension that the change might be seen as an invitation to each air controller to "do his own thing". This apprehension was said to be removed by inserting the following note in each proposal. "It is understood that, as and when such conflicts are identified, the department will review the relevant Instructions to determine whether amendment is necessary". On the amended basis, the proposal was accepted. Mr Leonard's explanation of initial reaction and changed reaction seems reasonable and in those circumstances reliance on departmental acknowledgement of a change in philosophy cannot advance the Association's case. 4. Airline Operator's Reports The three reports emanating from the airline operators were helpful in gaining an understanding of the various changes which were chosen for comment. Of the working party proposals, comment was restricted to 1, 9, 10 and 11, as the only ones which bore the tag "agreed and implemented". In passing it should be noted that as the operators were invited to comment on all the 1974 - 1977 changes, the selection in each report must be taken as deliberate. The Ansett report contained this comment on Proposal 1. wn 'This instruction in A.O.I. RAC 0.5 Para 2 1ncludes the following words: "The procedures contained herein are intended to form the basis for traffic separation within Australian F.I.R.s: Nothing in them precludes a controller from using his discretion and initiative in any particular circumstances where these procedures appear to be in conflict with the requirement to prevent collisions". This allows a controller who is charged with responsibilities under ANR 94 to prevent collisions, to use his judgement 1n the same way as a pilot in command 1s instructed under AIP RAC OPS ll 9.4. The relevant ANR under which the pilot in command 1s charged 1s ANR 219 (2) and (3). No person associated with the industry can ever absolve himself from the responsibility he has to use his skill; training; knowledge; perception and judgement, to ensure that aircraft are operated to the maximum degree of efficiency and safety. No book of regulations or instructions will ever contain enough procedures or rules to cover every contingency.' It 1s hard to escape the conclusion that this report 1s suggesting there can be no change in philosophy. The Aeronautical Information Publication referred to reads as follows:~ "An air traffic clearance proposed by A.T.C. does not relieve the pilot in command from complying with statutory requirements nor from his responsibility for the ultimate safety of his aircraft". Some of the same thinking 1s expressed in the TAA report in these terms: "However, it should be borne 21n mind that ANR 219 specifically delineates the responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft to the pilot in command, and nothing in A,0.I.'s can relieve the pilot of his responsibility as delineated in AIP RAC/OPS 0.9.4". It is possible now to move to the changes as_ such. They will be considered under separate headings. PROPOSALS RECOMMENDED BY JOINT WORKING PARTY As indicated earlier, in considering whether the proposals are recognition of changed responsibilities, all recommendations are to be available. A number of the proposals or sub-proposals have been deferred or are editorial. Some formalise existing practices or omit practices which no longer exist. Some clarify or expand existing procedures so that the functions are better expressed. Minor changes have been proposed with little effect on work load. Other changes, while affecting work load, do not alter the character of the duties and responsiblities carried out by the particular level of air controller. No proposal has a direct effect on the duties and responsiblities of Class 1 Flight Data controllers. In a primary sense, very few proposals are relevant to Sector and Arrivals controllers or to lower levels in operation control or to senior positions. Outside operations control, some of the changes which might be claimed as significant, have limited application or incidence. é There 1s a natural tendency for the Association to evaluate the changes more highly than the Board and the Department, and to claim a more pervasive impact on the various levels of air controllers. However, for the Association to succeed on their first ground, it would seem necessary to demonstrate a recognition of changed responsiblities which was all embracing and even the Association does not claim that. Some specific observations need to be made on Proposals 1, 9, 10 and 1l. The Association sees these Proposals-as a reflection of a changed philosophy to the function of an air controller and this vision has obviously been unfluential in much of the organisation's attitude and action. While one can understand the irritation felt by the Association to what 1t sees as a savage assault on the image of air controllers by two court decisions, the remoteness of such a consideration from work value criteria does not seem to have been fully appreciated. It 1s right and proper that further and better particulars should be sought on what is required of air controllers whenever ambiguity or uncertainty exists, and such an exercise has been carried out by the Joint Working Party. But the exercise will only emerge as a net upgrading of air controllers' responsibilities by an analysis of the changes, not by assuming the exercise was predicated to achieve that result. The claim to a change in philosophy is not accepted by the airline operators in the passages quoted earlier, and, indeed, it 1s a view hard to maintain. The argument that Proposals 1, 9, 10 and 11 authorise for the first time action contravening laid down procedures 15 well answered by the Ansett extract. It seems clear that pilots have always accepted a responsibility supervening the book of rules in the exeptional circumstances envisaged by the Air Navigation Regulations, and without the inclusion of specific instructions in Aeronautical Information Publications to that effect. Further, the material before me does not allow the conclusion that air controllers have, either as a matter of concept or practicality, eschewed a responsibility to prevent collisions, ensure the safety of aircraft operations or carry out search and rescue functions which, if and when necessary, supervened the book of rules. For illustrative purposes, one can refer to Proposal 31 which involves an amendment to Air Navigation Regulation 133(3). The proposal is usefully described in Board Exhibit MC.10 as follows: "Amendment to exempt aircraft engaged 1n search and rescue operations from prescribed height minima as necessary. Proposed delegation of this authority to SOC/SARMC". (Senior Operations Controller/Search and Rescue Mission Controller) Of this Proposal, Mr Maggs for the Association said: "Proposal 31 concerns Air Navigation Regulation 133. This regulation concerns the minimum altitude at which aircraft may operate in various areas and is commonly known as the low flying requiation. In the conduct of search and rescue operations, again, 1t 1S necessary for aircraft to fly below the prescribed minimum height in order to effectively conduct thorough search operations. In extremely mountainous and heavily timbered terrain it 1s necessary for aircraft to descend significantly below the minimum prescribed altitude. We seek to have the regulation varied un order to enable aircraft to operate at these reduced heights and relieve the senior operations controller of his present perilous legal situation when authorising aircraft to do so in contradiction to the Air Navigation Regulations. This, at the moment, 1s an example of the de facto disregard of the existing regulations to ensure the satisfactory conduct of an emergency situation". There 1s, of course, no criticism intended by the use of this example. Rather it supports the view that invention has always been the offspring of necessity and professionalism has always been a bank drawn on by aur controllers. Perhaps the situation described by Mr Maggs will be less likely to arise in the future. The notation already quoted which will be added to the four proposals is aimed at ensuring that if and when conflicts arise between action taken and rules laid down, the relevant instructions and procedures will be reviewed. The Association claims uncertainty continues on the application of Proposals 1, 9, 10 and 11. Accepting this to be so it 1s to be hoped that prompt action will be taken by the Department for discussion with the Association so that a proper understanding is obtained in terms which are practicable and unambiguous. My observations on the first leg of the Association's argument leaves the proposals to be evaluated as part of the 1974/1977 change argument. In this section it will be necessary to examine the changes in some greater detail. CHANGES IN INSTRUCTIONS AND PROCEDURES 1974-1977 INCLUDING WORKING PARTY PROPOSALS There is no real disagreement with the approach suggested by the Board, namely, that you should look to the last comprehensive work value evaluation undertaken in 1965 to establish a basis of comparison for the level and quality of change necessary to establish a significant net addition to the work requirements of air controllers. Perhaps it 1s useful to quote from a Minister1al Statement relied on by the Association in that case: "Our Air Traffic Controllers have one of the most direct and comprehensive responsibilities for the safety of human life and property found anywhere in the structure of government. They certainly have a much greater responsibility than that of an Air Traffic Controller in any other part of the world and, at the same time, an outstanding record of a safe and efficient operation". This is no testimonial speech, they are the facts simply stated. There is of course no corollary that the level and quality of function asserted by the Association and recognised by the Arbitrator in 1965 makes it impossible to show a change which would satisfy Principle 7 (a). One only needs to go to the major restructuring of classifications which took place three years later, following the introduction of pure jets as the basic aircraft type on domestic routes. When one is talking about change in the work of air controllers it is difficult to generalise. This 1s particularly so when the changes are not attributable to some major innovation or development affecting the aviation industry as a whole but are rather piecemeal reviews of isolated functions in limited areas. Not only do air controllers perform a wide variety of functions but the same function will be performed at various locations by differently graded personnel. Further, functions which are separately performed at one location will be combined at another. Some idea of the diversity of factors which have a bearing on the determination of the air controller's classification structure can be gained by reference to a document which sets out the basis of grading "in-charge" positions at different control stations. "GRADING OF POSITIONS IN CHARGE OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL STATIONS For the purpose of grading station in-charge positions, air traffic control stations have been divided into five groups. This grouping has been assessed having regard to the volume of aircraft movements, scope of control services provided, number of air traffic control staff at the station, nature of flying operations, navigation aids and facilities available, air-space complexity, special geographical features, civil/military control complexities and other relevant factors. Application of the grouping to particular stations 1s as follows:- Group 1 - Sydney Group 2 - Brisbane and Melbourne Group 3 - Adelaide, Alice Springs, Canberra, Darwin, Launceston, Perth, Port Hedland, Port Moresby and Townsville Group 4 - Avalon, Bankstown, Cairns, Coolangatta, Essendon, Lae, Moorabbin and Rockhampton Group 5 - Archerfield, Goroka, Hobart, Jandakot, Mackay, Madang, Mt. Hagen, Mt Isa, Parafield and Tamworth" Changes in traffic volume and method of operation may also cause a particular position to be duplicated. For instance, since 1970 radar Approach and Departure controllers at Mascot have been increased from 2 to 4. Overall, an the period since 1965, the number of air controllers has increased from 330 to 1062. The function of an air controller encompasses the ability to cope with change. If change is endemic to the performance of a job, then care must be taken to avoid double counting. Where the rate for the job 1s assessed taking that factor into account, a different way of doing things which 1s easily accommodated within the character of a position will not attract an increase. This is a normal principle of wage fixation. A more stringent test emerged with the indexation guidelines. A "significant net addition to work requirements" tends to exclude changes which are intrinsic, isolated or evolutionary in favour of changes which are exceptional, cumulative or dramatic. It will be remembered that the national wage bench warned that "changes in work and the environment of work are a normal factor of industrial life and the principle of increasing the general wasge level annually for increases 1n national productivity is partly, at least, in recognition of such changes". The fact that no productivity adjustment has been made during the period of prolonged and continuing recession does not alter the approach. To satisfy Principle 7 (a), an increase in work requirements must be above and beyond a notional average or norm applicable to the work force as a whole. fe} As part of these proceedings, each alteration to instructions and procedures, listed as a 1974 - 1977 Change or a Joint Working Party Proposal, was first described and then analysed as to significance and application. This process was carried out by Mr Stuart and Mr Maggs, for the Association, and Mr Leonard for the Department. A great deal of documentary material was also tendered by way of explanation or summary. I have observed much of the work in question and have had the benefit of the airline operators' reports. Despite the obvious inhibitions of operating from fairly fixed positions, there emerged a substantial measure of consensus on the nature of the changes and the classes and locations affected. Attempts were made to develop common headings of change, such as "editorial", "reflection of current field practices", "extension of existing responsibility", ""1ncreased work load", "increased complexity", "higher level of responsibility" etc. Although the results were imperfect, the exercise served to remove some ambiguity and uncertainty 1n phraseology. Having regard to the nature of the traffic controllers' function, it is possible to argue that an increase in work load is synonymous with an increase in, or addition to responsibility, or an extension of existing responsibility. Mr Leonard introduced the expression "more of the same" to describe such a change. Common ground was reached that most of the changes set out in the appendices added in some way to work load. But there was no common cause as to how such changes should be treated. There appeared to be no dissent from the proposition put by Mr Leonard and relied on by the Board, that work load is kept under constant review by the Department for safety reasons. Certainly the duplication of positions and introduction of sophisticated aids over recent years attests to positive action being taken. For a function as demanding as controlling air traffic, 1t would seem fundamentally wrong and opposed to the best interests of air controllers as well as public safety, to compensate for increased work load where steps are available for relieving the burden. The ease with which work load can be relieved will vary with the function performed and traffic flow. Speaking 1n general terms, the options narrow as the degree of difficulty and busyness increases. For instance reduction in the work load of a Flight Data controller may be directly proportional to the increase in staffing. On the other hand, increased staffing in the terminal control area not only presents technical complexities, but any splitting of function raises problems of integration. A further problem may arise with a position such as Approach controller. Changes may add materially to the variables which have to be borne in mind in the performance of his task. An addition to the vertical parameters of his function will not necessarily be fully met by a reduction in the lateral parameters. The assimilation of new techniques therefore, follows the same pattern as increases in work load. Assimilation is harder where the degree of difficulty and the state of busyness is greater. It might be said that such differences are taken care of by the classification structure. That would probably be so if the changes showed an even pattern of distribution. But they do not. In the traffic control area, none of the changes under consideration affect the basic duty of collecting and distributing flight data. Some, but not many, changes affect Sector and Arrivals. Approximately seventy five percent of the alterations to traffic procedures and instructions apply to Approach/Departures and Aerodrome control. It follows that more attention has to be aiven to changes occurring 1n +the terminal control area. It may not be enough to measure each such change by simply looking at the item as an added chore. The air traff1ce controllers' function has been described as a fast game of chess. That description belies the variations in pace which apply to the performance of the traffic control function at various flight stages. The pace at which each group functions is a relevant factor in evaluating the significance of a change in the rules, particularly where the change is by way of addition. Work load and related descriptions were the principal headings used by the parties to describe the various alterations to procedures and instructions. Where suggestions were made that changes involved added skill, knowledge or training, increased complexity or a higher level of responsibility, consensus tended to fade away. Opposite responses were common and differences in approach or phraseology meant the desired designation had often to be inferred. The comments made and attributes claimed by the parties have been tested for internal inconsistencies, and each set of views have been compared with those of the airline operators where available, and the comments of the Joint Working Party where applicable. In the result, each change has been examined on the basis of everything that has been said, written or observed. Taking into account all factors which are claimed to be relevant, it has been possible to divide the changes into four categories, using the central criterion - "could assimilation of the change be reasonably expected within the character or quality of the work performed?" Changes have been divided into "new" or "avolutationary", and "within" or "outside" normal assimilation parameters. This analysis will be found in Appendix C. In explanation of the approach used, some examples may be given. In the traffic area, the only changes suggested for Class 1 Flight Data controllers were Proposal 27 and Change 23. Both these changes are said to affect all traffic grades. Proposal 27 recommended by the Working Party removes the discretion which existed for management to extend the lapsed time before a revalidation of rating 1s required, from 14 days to 21 days. The proposal was agreed to by the Department except as to Class 1 Flight Data, where a 28 day non- discretionary period was suggested. Even in the form recommended, the removal of a discretionary extension of time would not satisfy the test of significance laid down by Principle 7 (a). The category selected is Evolutionary A. It isa change which does not alter the character or quality of the work performed or the conditions of its performance. Had the non-discretionary lapsed time been halved or abolished, different considerations might apply. Change 23 brought about extensions to controlled airspace in Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory and Western Australia. It is a change of wide application, evolutionary in character, and well described as "more of the same". Again it is classed as Evolutionary A. The same functions are now performed over a wider area. Mr Leonard was specifically asked whether additional staffing was required. He answered no, but if any overload had occurred, extra positions would have been established. In this connexion, emphasis should again be given to the fundamental error involved in compensating for overload as an alternative to relief. Such an approach would not only endanger proper working standards, it would be contemptuous of public safety. Analysis of these changes to Flight Data controllers illustrates the difficulties of succeeding with an across the board work value claim, either by way of uniform percentage, or at all. The number of changes directly affecting Sector/Arrivals are significantly less than the Aerodrome and Approach/Departure groups. The proportion is approximately one in four. The changes have been, in the main, additions to work load. Again an example or two may be looked at in these areas. Change 6 1s described 1n the Ansett report in these terms: "An increasing number of jet aircraft today are equipped with Doppler or Inertial Navigation Systems and these allow quite precise navigation and instant position fixing practically anywhere in the world's air space. Because of the greater accuracy of the navigation of these aircraft 1t has allowed separation standards on some of the more remote routes and oceanic routes to be reduced. Once again this allows the airways into and across Australia to carry a heavier volume of traffic". The change has been categorised as Evolutionary A. The improved equipment has allowed more traffic to be accommodated without a reduction in safety standards. There may be a potential increase in work load due to the greater volume of aircraft that can be processed, but it is basically a matter of processing more with the aid of better tools. Proposal 26 gave rise to considerable debate and a number of explanatory exhibits were tendered. Proposal 26 concerns the separation of alrcraft from weather Hibal balloons. This Proposal changes the requirement from non- positive separation, which involved the supply of traffic information, to a positive separation which, for the moment, involves delaying aircraft while the balloon passes through the relevant airspace or delaying the balloon until the relevant airspace is "free". More sophisticated methods may be introduced if the balloon can be equipped with the necessary instrumentation. It has been categorised as New A. This issue might be seen as a microcosm of the larger debate on conflict between what the books lay down and what courts may find. I have already dealt with the issue and there is nothing to usefully add. As to the effect on work requirements, the balloons are confined to two main areas for three to four weeks a year. Although there may be some increase in work load in the particular areas at the indicated times, the quality of change to positive separation is well within normal assimilation parameters of the relevant air traffic controllers. In Operational Control, most of the changes relate to the SOC/SARMC. Several of these changes were claimed to involve all or most classifications, both above and below the level directly responsible for the performance of new or altered procedures. Proposal 31 has already been discussed. It provides delegation of authority to SOC/SARMC for the purpose of exempting aircraft from minimum height prescriptions in search and rescue operations. Mr Maggs claimed Classes 2 to 7 would be affected. One can recognise that controllers other than the SOC/SARMC may be touched by some fall-out effect from the proposed delegation of authorty. But whereas the officer directly affected may use this change to found an argument for a significant net increase in work requirements that argument cannot be extended by association to those who may be called upon to act as the SOC's "hands and feet". Proposal 31 has been categorised as New B, but that designation 1s attributable only to the SOC/SARMC who has the direct responsibility for exemption. There are several operational control changes where the primary effect 1s not limited to one classification. A case in point is Change 28 which alters the method of presenting meteorological forecasting from route by route information to coded Australia wide presentation. It 1s described in the TAA report in these terms: "The Bureau of Meteorology have within the last 15 months introduced different presentations for area and terminal forecasts. The grid point, wind - temperature forecasts presentation covers the whole of Australia and was specifically designed to enable pilots to have sufficient information available to them at various MET offices, so that multi-stage planning could be indulged in with minimumal difficulty at whatever port it was thus desired to plan. A difference in presentation does not necessarily make 1t more difficult to interpret the information required in these matters". There is no doubt the information now has to be derived rather than being directly supplied, but the decoding of forecasts from numbers is a relatively simple task, well within the assimilation capacities of air controllers. As indicated earlier, Approach/Departures and Aerodrome Control are the areas most affected by the changes. This does not mean that every change is rated as being outside normal assimilation parameters. For instance, Change 10 which provides for instrument approaches by training aircraft during aerodrome closure has been rated New A. This alteration in procedures, while adding a new task to the lot of the air controllers affected, makes no demand outside the normal character of work already performed. These examples serve to explain the approach used in relation to each change. The overall results suggest sixteen changes are outside normal assimilation parameters, eight under the 1974 - 1977 grouping and eight under the Joint Working Party proposals. It may be argued that such changes are relevant to an assessment of a "significant net addition to work requirements". Primarily affected are Approach/Departures, Flow, Aerodrome Control and SOC/ SARMC. Although material was supplied by both parties on locations and classes involved, it was somewhat perfunctory and would need revision in the light of the report. For instance, the extent to which surface movement controllers are directly affected by the Aerodrome Control changes has not always been clear. Issues of whether and what salary increases are justified to what classes at what locations would no doubt be influenced by the submissions dealing with the application and incidence of the sixteen changes. The investigation and report has proceded on a basis consistent with that contended for by Mr 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 falling squarely within indexation Principle 7 (a); (b) there is nothing inhibiting the Commission from awarding an increase if it is satisfied that a case has been made out in accordance with that Principle. Change +g *D *Z *p +2 *D *D *S *9 *B *D 2,4,7 11 (1) (2) APPENDIX A CHANGED INSTRUCTIONS AND PROCEDURES 1974 - 1977 Description Provides for increased separation in event of unlawful interference to aircraft in flight. Provides more comprehensive separation standards to avoid the effect of wake turbulence. Provides extended use of international DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) for 12 mile separations in transcontinental and oceanic control sectors from 200 miles to 300 miles. Provides for reduced distance separation between aircraft landing and taking off from 5 miles to 3 mies at Melbourne and Sydney. Provides reduced time separation from 20 minutes to 15 minutes in oceanic control sectors for international aircraft equipped with Doppler or Inertial Navigation Systems. Provides for distance separation on departure where faster following aircraft is climbing to a higher level. Increases list of aircraft utilasations gaining priority in the traffic pattern from three to five. Provides for instrument approaches by training aireraft during aerodrome closure. Provides for closure of runways where cross winds exceed 15 knots (dry) and 10 knots (wet) at Melbourne and Sydney. Provides for increased separation of single pilot aircraft when transitting the holding pattern. Provides for information on wind shear conditions to be obtained from and supplied to pilots on take-off and landing. Provides for start up clearances to be given in situations of heavy departing traffic. Provides for two arriving azrrcraft to be assigned same level in circuit area in good visibility conditions. *B *g *Z *g +B 16 (1) (2) 20A 20B 24/25 Prohibits use of DME arrival procedures for anternational aircraft in favour of monitored descent. Provides for "check wheels" instruction to be given to military aircraft when cleared to land. Provides for isolated parking of aircraft in event of unlawful interference at terminal. Provides reduction in minimum altitude from 300 feet to 200 feet at which turbo jet air- craft must receive clearance or abandon approach. Provides discretion within given limits to increase or decrease runway separation standards in secondary control zones. Updates previous procedures dealing with requirements of mlitary aircraft operating within controlled air space. Provides for use of "shrimp boats" as identification aids on bright display radar screens. Deletes requirement for position reporting by aircraft operating between Brisbane and Melbourne following radar indentification. Provides for aircraft to be radar checked through to final approach rather than earlier base leg stage. Provides for greater separation of departing and taxying aircraft in cloud obscured conditions at I.L.S. (Instrument Landing System) airports. Extends controlled airspace in Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory and Western Australia. Reduces variable and fixed fuel requirements to be carried by aircraft from 15% plus 45 minutes to 10% plus 45 minutes. Provides for pilot reports on coastal surveillance to be relayed to the appropriate authorities. Provides for ATC to coordinate activities as required by Natural Disasters Organisation. Alters the method of presentation of meteorological forecasting from route by route information to coded Australia wide presentation. Comment included in TAA Report Comment included in Ansett Report *g APPENDIX B JOINT WORKING PARTY PROPOSALS Proposals 2, 5-8, 12-25, 30, 34-35 and 37 have been omitted because the changes have been deferred by consent, are for editorial or clarification purposes, are consequential to other changes, have little practical significance or reflect current field practices. 1,9,10,11 4 (1) (2) 29 (1) (2) Provides that nothing in Airways Operating Instructions precludes a controller from using his discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance where the procedures appear to be in conflict with the requirement to prevent collisions etc. Deletes provision allowing transit flights of VFR aircraft (other than regular passenger transport) through the flying training areas established at 10 locations. Extends positive separation of VFR aircraft from control areas to primary control zone. Requires adequate separation to be maintained by controller at all stages of visual approach within 30 miles of controlled aerodrome. Provides positive separation of aircraft from Hibal weather balloons, launched principally from Mildura and Alice Springs, in lieu of flight information and alerting service. Deletes existing management discretion to extend minimum non-active time before revalidation of rating from 14 to 21 days. Provides for delegation of authority under a number of Air Navigation Regulations to the Senior Operations Controller or to the Search and Rescue Mission Coordinator. Reflects responsibility for search and rescue service taken over from RAAF in 1958. Provides for search and rescue coordination on behalf of other organisations. Provides delegation of authority to SOC/SARMC to exempt aircraft from minimum height prescription in search and rescue operations. Provides permission for aircraft to operate with open doors and hatches when dropping supplies in search and rescue missions. 33. 38. Provides for full operational control to military aircraft following withdrawal of service coordinators in 1975. Provides detailed specification of control function in event of security threats. Provides for requisition of aircraft on behalf of other' organisations. Comment included in TAA Report Comment included in Ansett Report bs) APPENDIX C CATEGORIZATION OF CHANGES 1974 - 1977 g g Change New A New B Evolutionary A Evolutionary B CATEGORIZATION OF WORKING PARTY PROPOSALS Proposal New A b New B 6 Evolutionary A B Evolutionary B 4 1, 9, 10, 11 * 3 * 4 (1) * (2) * 26 * 27 * 28 * 29 (1) * (2) * 31 * 32 bd 33 e 36 * New A New task which for reasons of incidence and/or character is within normal assimilation parameters. New B New task which for reasons of incidence and/or character is outside normal assimilation parameters. Evolutionary A Evolutionary change which for reasons of incidence and/or character is within normal assimilation parameters. Evolutionary B Evolutionary change which for reasons of incidence and/or character is outside normal assimilation parameters. APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC) * Operational Control Broadly the responsibility of this section 1s to establish personal contact before flight in order to acquaint the pilot with current conditions such as the state of aerodromes, the availability of radio aids and the effects of forecast weather along the route on the flight and to check the flight pian. While other ATC sections regard an aircraft as one in a pattern of flights and are concerned with its safe separation from other aircraft, Operation Control considers each aircraft individually. In the event of weather deterioration at the destination, Operational Control determines how best to direct each aircraft, in the light of its available fuel reserves, possibly to an alternative aerodrome, or to return to its port of departure, or to permit 1t to hold over its destination while awaiting an improvement in the weather. Should an aircraft be in distress it 1s Operational Control which has the responsibility for providing 'search and rescue' assistance. Traffic Control This section keeps aircraft safely separated on main air routes and about main airports. To safeguard traffic following such routes and converging on main airports, the Department of Transport has set aside 'controlled airspace' in which all azrcraft movement is under the direct control of ATC, *Derived from material appearing in "Air Traffic Control as a Career" At major capital city airports control of traffic from the moment immediately after take-off until immediately prior to landing 1s carried out from 'area/approach control centres'. Area approach control centres The primary means of control in these centres 15 by radar. The 'departures' radar controller takes control of departing aircraft immediately they become airborne and separates them from other departing and approaching aircraft as they climb out through the congested area surrounding the airport to take up their en route tracks to their various destinations, When these departing aircraft are established en route, they are handed over to 'sector' controllers who ensure that the aircraft are separated from all other traffic coming or going on the routes by a standard, either of distance, time or height. As the aircraft commence their descent to their destination, control over them is transferred from the 'sector' controller to the 'arrivals' controller who spaces the incoming aircraft from various directzons into an orderly sequence. On reaching the busy terminal area control of the arriving aircraft is transferred from the 'arrivals' controller to the 'approach' controller. This controller operates beside the 'departure' controller and uses a similar radar screen which depicts all the aircraft traffic within a radius of 40 nautical miles from the airports. The 'approach' controller guides the arriving aircraft through the terminal area in close co-operation with the 'departures' controller, specifying headings for the aircraft to fly and marshalling them by means of radar into a safe and orderly landing sequence. When each arriving aircraft 1s about to commence final approach to land the 'approach' controller relinquishes control. When control of an aircraft approaching to land is relinquised by the 'approach' controller, 1t passes to 'aerodrome' control, Aerodrome Control This section occupies a building familiar to all air travellers - the glass-enclosed tower. Arriving aircraft are handed over to the ATC team in control towers of major capital city airports by the 'approach' controller. Directions for landing are given by the 'aerodrome' controllers, Visually and on his radar screen he watches to ensure that arriving aircraft are separated on final approach. Once the aircraft has landed and has cleared the duty runway, the pilot changes to a separate radio frequency on which the 'surface movement' controller gives him directions for taxying. The 'surface movement' controller is also responsible for directing all movements on the aerodrome apart from around the terminal buildings and on the duty runways. Once such aircraft are ready to enter the duty runway for take-off, control passes to the 'aerodrome' controller. Thus the 'aerodrome' controller speaks both to departing and arriving aircraft. As soon as departing aircraft are airborne, control of them is passed to the 'departures' controller. Other ATC Units Some of the smaller capital cities, as well as many of the large towns served by aviation, do not yet have need for Area Approach Control Centres. In such places - e. g. Hobart, Rockhampton, Tamworth, Cairns - all control is carried out from the control tower. In these towers the 'senior controller' is responsible for both 'approach' control duties and 'aerodrome' control duties and, in some cases, for separation of aircraft along that part of their route lying to either side of the airport. There exists another category of control tower. These are at capital city "secondary airports'. At these locations most of the flying takes place in daylight and in reasonably good weather contions. However, many privately-owned aircraft are fully equipped for instrument flying. Consequently at several of these airports services are now being provided both by day and by night. Flight information regions For ease of administration, Australia 1s divided unto 'Plaght Information Regions', each F.I.R. being denoted by the name of the major air traffic control centre within its boundaries. These centres are located at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Launceston, Townsville, Darwin, Perth and Port Hedland. Flight outside controlled airspace Outside controlled airspace information to pilots is provided by the Departments's 'flight service units'. On the basis of this information and by observation of right-of-way rules, pilots provide their own anti-collision service.