ATC or FC? [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

trap one

17th Oct 2007, 11:24

c-bert
Simplistically put, yes to your understanding. Yes FC do provide RC/RAS/RIS/FIS, but not in all areas within the UK. Also FC's do not in the UK provide Procedural service.
ATC will provide full services within their area, but will not control in other peoples airspace. An FC can control in the whole of the UK but clear of MATZ Zones and the London-Edinburgh/Glasgow spine. Their are other areas that FC's have to get clearance to operate in or require certain rules/events to be happening, but that is not for this forum.

FC's will take tactical aircraft and paint the picture so they can do the sortie, be it fighters or bombers. They also do AAR in certain areas that are their responsibilty and ATC does the other Mil AAR areas. All this whilst making sure that the Fast pointy things don't get in the way of the Passenger carrying jets. Certain areas in the UK can be booked to keep out the Passenger carrying jets but, they don'tr cover all the areas the Fast pointy things play in.

Your best bet is to go on visits to both sides. If your thinking of joining get it done through the careers office. But do do Airfield and Area for ATC and for FC do Boulmer, 1ACC and E3D's at Waddington.

Also do a search on the Mil Forum there quite a few threads re this very subject.

Trap One

Doctor Cruces

17th Oct 2007, 12:18

Ahh, the balmy days at Eastern with the Allocator giving free called recovering Wattisham F4s immediate avoiding action after Neat sent them off VFR and descending with crossing traffic in front (usually below), so NO, fighter controllers do not give an ATC service unless it's very much changed.

chaff, flare, avoiding the inevitable scopie attack!!

Doc C

:ugh: :ugh:

c-bert

17th Oct 2007, 12:37

Hehe, thanks guys. This is what I have found in face to face discussions. Fighter Controllers say they do provide ATS, ATCers say they don't.

oldbeefer

17th Oct 2007, 12:44

I was always told that ATC were failed pilots and FCs were failed ATC Officers! (Not my opinion, of course - just what I was told).

Wader2

17th Oct 2007, 13:06

I was always told that ATC were failed pilots and FCs were failed ATC Officers! (Not my opinion, of course - just what I was told).

OB, I suggest wrong on both counts. The failure is most likely to be unfit aircrew and not failed pilot.

As for FC being failed ATC, totally wrong as the aptitudes are very similar even if the end product is quite different.

Aircrew, ATC and FC are all skill/aptitude related jobs and a failure in one role represents a high training risk in the others. A few years ago a chopped pilot had a lower chance of qualifying as a navigator than an straight in navigator.

As BluntM8 said on a different thread "practicing the art of the navigator. I found that my skills were better suited to the cerebral than the motor skills." However both need the skill of SA or situational awareness.

And DanielOakworth said "as a retired Nav, I rarely took the opportunity to pole the jet, it wasn't what I was being paid to be good at so it bored me "

So each to his own.

shawshank

17th Oct 2007, 13:17

Yes Weapons Controllers do provide radar services and if you want to get a taste for the Ops Spt (FC) branch spend a few days in Lincolnshire at Blackdog (Scampton) 1 ACC and Waddo, you'll get a better more rounded view of our operations than if you went to Northumberland (where the focus is on training)

If you want to get a taste for ATC then sit in a green house with a pair of binoculars, and an old wireless.:ok:

Sentry Agitator

17th Oct 2007, 13:43

C-bert - That's one mighty fine baited hook you cast dear chap!

Trap One - It never leaves you fella...it'll always be in your blood.

It's just not worth the rise gents....suggest we let this one die!

SA

c-bert

17th Oct 2007, 13:49

That's one mighty fine baited hook you cast dear chap!

Not deliberately so. It's a genuine question I'm having trouble with at work, and to which no one seems to know a definitive answer. Equally, the (frankly appalling) search facility on pprune didn't provide too much help.

Sentry Agitator

17th Oct 2007, 13:57

C-Bert

Ok then.....if as you say you are genuine.

The answer is of course - yes FC's do provide ATSOCAS/RC iaw the JSP 552.

If you want more then PM me your work contact details and I will give you a ring send an email tomorrow if you have specific questions to clarify.

That is as long as the details are service?

SA

Standby!

17th Oct 2007, 20:15

Having many years ago attended a course at Boulmer, I was very surprised how 'advanced' fighter controllers are. Granted, their 'controlling' skills are poor (from past experience), but their knowledge and experience of 'the real world' (i.e. Ops) is immense. In a world where airspace is paramount, those who 'control it' win it. My advice to you is to join the 'dark side'. Sorry, but ATC is an extremely insular branch that has been far too up its own a*s* for many years and FC's have stolen a march on the ATC fraternity. ATC needs to professionally branch out into the real (read 'operational') military world. :{

Never Alert

17th Oct 2007, 20:39

Outside of the MDAs flight safety is easily 70% of the job, simple as that.
Painting the tactical picture takes up some capacity however, most of our time is spent deconflicting/co-ordinating with factor traffic whilst passing traffic info, using RIS/RAS/RC to the aircrew in order to keep their SA up.

Boldface

18th Oct 2007, 08:06

ATC needs to professionally branch out into the real (read 'operational') military world.

Unfortunately, they are and, from a stick monkey customer's perspective, they are not yet ready for it. I've received good and bad service from both FC and ATC in the the UK and have mates in both branches. However, ATC are now getting involved more directly in ops because CAS, battlespace management and Joint fires is being done within sight of their towers in Iraq and Afghanistan. To say the peacetime ATC mindset is a major obstacle here is an understatement.

Witness GR4 SoFs being held off because 'I have an aircraft on 5 nm finals'. Witness Apaches about to launch on counter IDF patrols being told to shut down because there is IDF in progress.

In fairness, it's not the ATC guys fault because few of them have been trained in operational procedures such as killboxes and use of military IFF codes. However, on ops (or on a towline) I'm afraid I'd take an FC anyday.

Standing by for incoming.:uhoh:

Wee Jock McPlop

18th Oct 2007, 09:06

Boldface,

Harsh, but essentially fair. Those areas that you mention are not down to inability on the part of the of the ATC guys, but down to lack of exposure, appropriate training and a lack of foresight on the part of the ATC powers at the then HQ MATO, then HQ STC and now Air Cmd (or whatever it's called this week). The only guys who have that experience in bundles are the ATC cadre at TCW and pretty bloody good they are. Trouble is, they were taken for granted for too long and there are so few of them around in the mainstream, their experience cannot readily be passed on to the less-experienced mainstream ATC folks.

If ATC is to contribute effectively in present and future operations, it must seek more common ground with the FC guys - although I understand that may already be under way. If they Navy guys can wear 2 hats (FC/ATC), then it is not much to ask our guys to do the same. It must also properly train everbody for OOA ops. The American ATC folks (for all their faults) have had a more tactical/portable view to their ATC. Now they are far from perfect, but we could learn a few things from them. However late in the day that may be.

Hard hat on and preparing for incoming:E.
WJMcP

Boldface

18th Oct 2007, 09:21

Wee Jock,

Agree totally although I'm not sure combining FC and ATC is the way. I would add that the TacATC dudes (I'm not sure if these are the guys in TCW or not) are excellent.

I've always been confused as to how ATC have escaped the contractorisation scourge for so long. Certainly LATCC and SCATCC engage in little if any work that couldn't be done by civvies, and the amount of ATC officers in HQ Air Cmd is rediculous. Perhaps therein lies the answer as to why they've escaped cutbacks! However, when it is considered what has been put out for tender, it seems incongrous they've escaped. It strikes me the ATC branch should be reduced in size and the thrust of their training widened considerably to at least include the basics of operational tasks.

Just to reiterate to the ATC dudes out there: I have no beef with you individually. However, your branch appears to be mired in a peacetime mindset.

Never Alert

18th Oct 2007, 09:22

If ATC is to contribute effectively in present and future operations, it must seek more common ground with the FC guys - although I understand that may already be under way. If they Navy guys can wear 2 hats (FC/ATC), then it is not much to ask our guys to do the same. It must also properly train everbody for OOA ops. The American ATC folks (for all their faults) have had a more tactical/portable view to their ATC. Now they are far from perfect, but we could learn a few things from them. However late in the day that may be.

I think it's a little unrealistic to expect an ATC guy to carry out his duties whilst remaining current as a FC. The Navy guys do both jobs but not to the degree that their RAF counterparts do.

Amalgamation may well be on the way, a good thing IMHO, however, controllers will still be streamed at the beginning of training and end up doing either ATC or FC duties. In the short term, we need to be working together in order to make the best of a bad situation. Perhaps having a small ATC presence at 1ACC in theatre would be a good start. That said, I don't think that would be a popular move...

Wader2

18th Oct 2007, 09:35

I've always been confused as to how ATC have escaped the contractorisation scourge for so long. Certainly LATCC and SCATCC engage in little if any work that couldn't be done by civvies.

The rules and regs tie the contractor up so tightly that a civvie ATC can be as expensive as a military one hence there is little saving for the service and only pain for the contractor.

We kept going down that route until the contractor shut the door quite firmly. And the contractor's man? She was an ex-ATCO!

Magic Mushroom

18th Oct 2007, 09:40

I think the 1ACC ATC experiement was tried in Iraq with fairly unsatisfactory results. Iirc, the ATC guys were limited firstly by peacetime rules which dictate where and what sort of services they can offer with what facilities. Secondly, 1ACC are involved in TST, liaison with JTACs, weapons to target matching to ensure the correct asset is sent to the appropriate situation and JTAC. This all requires familiarity with Mode 1,2 and 4, as well as 3 and C, battlespace management and Joint fires techniques (such as keypads), and data link procedures. In Iraq, they were quietly returned to the UK fairly quickly.

I'd suggest that there are few, if any ATC guys who have similar experience of those disciplines now. That is not to say that appropriate trg couldn't bring them up to speed in time. However, an environment where 30 seconds delay in sending CAS can literally cost lives is not the place to do on the job trg.

Both branches have good and bad guys. However, we should acknowledge that they are different. We can and should draw the branches closer. However, there appears to be an indecent enthusiasm by the ATC Staff Mafia to place their guys where, right now, they're not necessarily ready to go.

More haste, less (branch politics motivated) speed I would suggest is the order of the day in ATC and FC amalgamation.

Regards,
MM

Wader2

18th Oct 2007, 09:50

MM, remember the good old days though when FCs were planted underground and unable even to move their ticket up and down the East coast without re-cating?

The E3 was clearly their key to the door.

Now it would be fascinating for an ATCO to sit in an E3 and perform the Approach tasks at an airfield! No reason why not provided the comms were available to Local.

Magic Mushroom

18th Oct 2007, 10:10

As an E-3D type, I'd suggest this there are some reasons as to why not.

However, why would you want to? If an airfield is not secured, TacATC would be better placed. If it is secured, there should be ATC guys established on the ground.

Although the E-3D is experiencing it's lowest ever operational utilisation, when it is on ops, there are far greater calls for its capabilities than ATC approach!

Regards,
MM

Backwards PLT

18th Oct 2007, 10:35

As an aside - FC can cause havoc. Especially if they send a whole package home for weather on one of the best days in Spadeadam ever. :eek: Not that we mind, really.:E

Door Slider

18th Oct 2007, 11:46

"Although the E-3D is experiencing it's lowest ever operational utilisation"

Dont shout that too loudy!!! It will be on the chopping board :}

Never Alert

18th Oct 2007, 11:57

As an aside - FC can cause havoc. Especially if they send a whole package home for weather on one of the best days in Spadeadam ever. :eek: Not that we mind, really.

I think you might find that the package leader will make calls like that, being best placed to assess the situation. :ugh:

Backwards PLT

18th Oct 2007, 16:01

I think you might find that the package leader will make calls like that, being best placed to assess the situation. :ugh:

You would like to think so, wouldn't you?

My original comment was a (probably slightly unfair) dig and also a degree of fishing in reference to a recent (very recent) incident.:)

The reason it may be unfair is because, in my experience, the FCs always get the blame in the debrief, not because they are crap, but because they are not there to defend themselves or put their side of the story. Serves them right for not operating from MOBs!

Wee Jock McPlop

18th Oct 2007, 16:28

My first post was merely to highlight the fact that there is scope (whoops, excuse the pun) for a convergence with the ATC & FC branches. I'm not suggesting that we fire the starters gun and get all ATC trained as FCs or FC as ATC. In fact there are some ATC guys who would scare the s... out of me if I knew they were controlling a package (so to speak):eek: No doubt the same would apply to some FCs doing a busy director session during poor weather. However, there is common ground and more than people would like to admit to. To go down this road could well solve many of the problems currently facing both branches.

The RAF ATC bosses have to get away from their apparent protectionist attitude towards the branch and move with the times - I can't speak for the FC guys. Before I left, a former CinC STC, stood up in front of an ATC conference at HQ STC and said move with the times or get left behind (or words to that effect). I don't think RAF ATC has made that journey. But hey, I may be wrong.;)

WJMcP

P.S. There was also a plan to put FCs into the newly built Coningsby tower, but that bit the dust. FCs would be part of the resident flying sqns strength. That would have made for good start. Any reason why it didn't happen?

Never Alert

18th Oct 2007, 19:33

I agree with everything you've said there.

Why no FCs at CY? Not sure however, keeping a CRC in Lincs has got to be a winner if we are to improve pilot/FC relations. I find the Typhoon guys quite receptive to debrief points (far more so than the F3 crews) & find that they offer very valid points back, which as a newbie, I always take onboard. It would be great to be able to do this on a face to face basis pre and post sortie, as it would massively increase the understanding between GCI & aircrew.

There is no doubt that both branches will converge in some capacity (although I do feel that putting an ATC officer onto the E3 fleet ,straight out of WC training, is a recipe for disaster) and if it's done properly, the outcome will be a win win for all involved. It's just a shame that any amalgamation will be financially driven & probably rushed.

airwaverider

18th Oct 2007, 19:51

Never Alert,

keeping a CRC in Lincs has got to be a winner if we are to improve pilot/FC relations.

Not really the point of the thread...however...

How often have you used this to your advantage and briefed of debriefed face to face? I would think as much as you used it at Buchan or Boulmer!!

As for FC/ATC branches merging....it's only a matter of time!!

SirToppamHat

18th Oct 2007, 20:29

Thread Drift Alert!
There is an FC/GCI facility at Coningsby - it's the one that lived at Waddington for several years but was not used for reasons which, I am sure,could fill an entire thread. The facility is called the Remote Work Station (RWS) and it housed in one of the eng facilities. It comprises 2 MASE workstations and is designed to allow control within the southern MDAs based on radar and comms feeds from (IIRC) Trimingham and Staxton Wold. As such, it is only possible to see as far as the southern MDAs, Lincs MTA and Borders/part of OTA E. The system does not have the number of redundancy measures that the CRCs (Boulmer and Blackdog) enjoy, and its Safety Case reflects this - control may only be provided within an active MDA.

When it was installed, the intention was to operate it with personnel from either of the CRCs or No 1 ACC, but only during certain phases of Typhoon activity (multi-ship Air-Air) where face-to-face debrief would be really useful. Unfortunately, on the few occasions we tried to use it during my time at Blackdog, unserviceabilities prevented its use.

Additionally, use of the RWS in the current climate is difficult to justify because the actual services can be provided just as well at the CRCs (and arguably better given the superb capabilities of UCCS). However, the main problem with using the RWS is the loss of flexibility in deploying a team to Cy. Those people, if left at a CRC, can provide GCI services all over the UK - having them at the RWS limits them, as mentioned before, to working the 323s. This wouldn't be so much of an issue if the CRCs actually had WCs to spare, but I can assure you they don't (and if any of the crews out there don't believe me, go pay them a visit! (sorry JT)).

MM made an interesting point earlier regarding the current employment levels of the UK E-3 Component ... why shouldn't they support the RWS facility? Given it wasn't used when installed at Waddington, it's hard to see how the few(?) FAs and WCs at Waddo might be persuaded to get themselves over to Cy ... ;).

Now then, where's that Kevlar Helmet ...

Edited to add that the debriefing problem will only be properly resolved when the CRCs and Fighters are based together. This is extremely unlikely to occur for several years as there is, you guessed it, no money!

STH

Never Alert

18th Oct 2007, 20:44

Airwaverider

How often have you used this to your advantage and briefed of debriefed face to face? I would think as much as you used it at Buchan or Boulmer!!

The point was that FCs at CY would allow such debriefs. I would also suggest that here at Blackdog, we have a better relationship with the Typhoon guys than Boulmer does. This may well be down to the fact that there are fewer WCs at Blackdog & as a result, it's not too difficult for the Typhoon guys to recognise our dulcet tones!

Plans are afoot for more regular visits down to CY. On the other foot, it will be much easier to convince the pilots at CY to take the time to visit a CRC if it's only 1 hour up the road. Boulmer is too far out of the way for this to happen IMHO.

airwaverider

18th Oct 2007, 20:53

Never Alert

I appear to have mis-understood what you said...CY wasn't mentioned until STH explained. I'm so glad you have a good understanding with the crews at CY.

However massive Thread Drift.....

Never Alert

18th Oct 2007, 21:07

Never said we had a good understanding. Just a decent relationship which allows for banter if nothing else. A good understanding will only happen if we do the face to face bit.

AO Batman was here today & when asked about future of BL & Blackdog he was only slightly less evasive than when we asked him if ATC & FC were going to merge. No answer in any shape or form in relation to the amalgamation.

Wensleydale

19th Oct 2007, 07:12

I have been dismayed over many years about the lack of liaison visits between Waddington and Conningsby. I have seen very few FJ types flying on the E-3 to offer advice and improve things for the future. The E-3 OCU used to visit Conningsby as part of the course. I believe that this no longer happens. Given that the 2 bases are less than 30 minutes apart, I can only conclude that the will of FJ and Controller to observe, discuss and learn is too much like hard work and not wanted.

Never Alert

19th Oct 2007, 07:21

WannaBeCiv

19th Oct 2007, 08:06

Never Alert

Perhaps as a "Newbie" you should be a little more careful with abusive remarks and gross generalisations. Your attitude certainly isnt the correct approach to improve the brief/debrief situation. Talk to some of the more experienced guys about a more mature approach - you might find it works wonders.

orgASMic

19th Oct 2007, 08:11

There actually seems to be some reasonable debate starting up here, rather than the willy waving that seemed to be inevitable.
As an air trafficker and an ex OC TacATC, here is my twopen'orth:

ATCOs on E3 -experiment in progress. The girl we have sent is a decent controller and should do well. The trg programme is the same as for FCs and she will endorse at Boulmer before going to Waddington. Whether or not there is any intent for her to provide an ATC function or be purely a WC, noone knows yet.

Airfield approach task from an E3 - technically possible but for limited Gnd-Air comms and as long as the aircrew only want a radar service down to MSFL. Far better to properly equip and man a TacATC-type outfit with airportable airfield aids and do it from the ground.

ATC on Ops - I agree with the consenus that the ATC specialisation has been left behind by the FCs. Our HQ has been criminally parochial and risk-averse in the way they have gone about providing our contribution to ops. The FC stole the show on ops a long while ago while our ATC lords and masters were firmly shut in their ivory tower still fighting the Fortress Europe concept.
Very little trg is provided other than in pure ATC matters, with just a handful of us trained in BM/Jt Fires, etc. Most of the guys on ops have no experience in the job they are doing out there, having never even been TACEVALed let alone been on a proper exercise. This is changing slowly, but far too slowly. I am attending ATC Ops conference at the end of this month an am curious to see what is on the agenda.

AO BATMAN -When he came to do our AFI, he was quite open about closer ties between ATC and FC and his intent to provide a better service on ops. A little short on hard facts though. Oh, and his job title is wrong - his arena is airspace management and airspace control capability; he has no say on the Land manoeuvre element. It will be interesting to see what happens when an FC is in the job.

Civilianisation of ATC - gone as far as it can. You would not get civil ATCOs to do what the mil area radar guys do for the money they pay us. My civil counterpart gets twice what I do and will not control outside CAS unless he is avoiding weather. Ask him to duck and dive a pair of Typhoons across all that expensive commercial traffic on half pay? You might as well ask if you can take his daughter to a pole dance party in the Cock and Palm! Plus, PJHQ now need us for an increasing number of tasks, so you have to have a pool from which to draw.

TacATC - glad to read that they are appreciated. It was the best job of my career so far. A real ops asset that is under-resourced and generally under-used. There was a time when it looked like their only purpose was to train others to do their job. It is good that they are more involved now, doing what they are trained to do. IMHO all ATCOs should do a short det with TacATC to get some idea of what we should be bringing to the party. Maybe then we will get out of this parochial, small-minded attitude that war-fighting is something someone else does. To have ATCOs whining in Basra Tower that aircraft are infringing the airfield's Class D when the infringer is a CAS platform supporting TICs is inexcusable and shows a total ignorance of reality.

Fire 'n' Forget

19th Oct 2007, 18:18

Whether or not there is any intent for her to provide an ATC function or be purely a WC, noone knows yet.

She will be employed as a WC not ATC on the E3 and will wear an FC Brevet.

danieloakworth

19th Oct 2007, 20:25

In the early days of the E3 there were plenty of visits between Waddo and Cgy. However, after Bosnia and Kosovo there was a view amongst some of the more experienced E3 guys that their main customer was the USAF, so taking advice from the RAF would polute hard earned lessons.

Magic Mushroom

19th Oct 2007, 20:53

danieloakworth

19th Oct 2007, 21:03

Having worked at Cgy in the early days of the E3D and then held a Staff Officer post with direct responsibility for some of their operations (sharing an office with a decent cross section of their people), this is true of some (as I said) E3D guys.

Magic Mushroom

19th Oct 2007, 21:09

Being one of the 'experienced guys' during Kosovo, I NEVER heard such a rediculous opinion expressed by any of my colleagues.

polomint

19th Oct 2007, 21:40

The guys at CY are more than happy to offer a decent debrief, as opposed to the frequent F3, "we were great, you were sh@t" attitude.

Not sure why there is little interest. As a newbie, I can only assume that I would learn shed loads by being at any face to face debriefs.

Of course, Face-to-Face debriefs are very beneficial....as are sitting in on the crews in brief, seeing the extent of the mission etc etc.

However, the longer you control, the more you get used to names and voices and vice versa, thus debriefs become better and more honest. And, to expand on the top, the longer you control, the better the questions asked on landline debriefs and more understanding is gained. Whenever I've rang for a debrief and not got much back, I just assume the crews DCO and I didn't to anything that was a detriment to the sortie aim. If unsure, I ask if anything could have been done better, which usually gets the same question returned to me. Honesty works well :)

I don't think relations are any 'better' at CRC South than North...just takes a while to build rapport and good relations between controllers and crews.:)

Polo:ok:

Grumpy106

20th Oct 2007, 04:55

orgASMic

Agree completely. Plenty of scope to amalgamate the branches, however, Surveillance (FC) and Airfield (ATC) are poles apart in aptitude. Commonality between Area and WC is already recognised.

c-bert

If you are actually considering joining either branch, you will be aptitude tested for both and (hopefully) given a choice. If you want to do an Operational task, go FC; if you want to do a civvy job in uniform (other than TacATC), but get a good job when you leave (and a better choice of postings during your Service) go ATC.

HOWEVER,

FC skills are more in demand on Ops (other than TacATC, again), which may be a factor.

As for the comment from WannaBeCiv, NeverAlert has a point, in my opinion, as backed up by your rather defensive and OTT reply.

Oh, and MM, you're right, danileoakworth was talking utter hoop:ugh:

danieloakworth

20th Oct 2007, 10:04

Oh, and MM, you're right, danileoakworth was talking utter hoop

You're not paying attention are you. My point is not made up, nor is it my personal opinion. It is my experience of direct comments from a number of E3 guys. That means Some not all expressed the opinion, post Kosovo, that they had little interest adapting the way they controlled to suit the F3's as it would not be representative of what they did on live ops with the americans (you have to remember that post Kosovo was a major trough for the F3 guys as they were involved in nothing other than FI).

AdanaKebab

20th Oct 2007, 10:23

ATC has a better choice of postings? Not sure about that .... from an FC in Italy!

ciao ciao :cool:

Never Alert

20th Oct 2007, 19:21

If you ever get bored out there & fancy an exchange...;):ok:

nunquamparatus

22nd Oct 2007, 08:20

Thought I'd stick my two penn'eth in for good measure. As a (dark blue) Freddie (sadly, no longer current) I'd have to say that being a FC WAS the best job over being an Air Trafficker. However, I reckon, what with the Russian hordes not likely to invade this week and the only real opportunity to operationally control FW being from the back of an E3D, go ATC. Yes, I'm sure the bunker boys will argue that they would rather chisel their own toes off but you have more opportunities wrt places to work from and the obvious option of taking your services outside the mob. People always used to ask me what I did and the truth is that getting fast jet fixed wing to close each other so they could have a scrap really isn't in that much demand outside the mob. That and the two times I controlled from an RAF tower (Akrotiri and St Mawgan) they provided cup of tea and doughnuts at the console. Trying to imagine SATCO's face at EGDY if I turned up with a big, cream cake for my annual standards check! One way of passing I suppose..............:E

Never Alert

22nd Oct 2007, 11:23

Doughnuts on console...:O

I was sold about the ATC idea on a visit to Swanwick Mil, 80p for a Starbucks Mocca!!!

Wyler

22nd Oct 2007, 13:46

Saw the thread title and logged on assuming the usual mud slinging would have taken place. What a pleasant surprise and some good stuff too!!

I have had the pleasure of sitting with the female ATC Officer currently going through the Boulmer course. Top lady and a good controller. It has actually been quite refreshing to look at some of the ATC aspects from the point of view of an Air Trafficker as opposed to some of our own FC 'we have always done it like that' practices. Hopefully, we will glean some top tips from her and that will lead to some slight adjustments to the way we do things on the basic Flight Safety module we teach. It is also true to say that she is not very well versed in some of the tactical aspects. Something she has been very quick to point out herself.

In short, it has highlightd the same aspects that have been dicussed on here. As for me, as an FC of some 25 years (:eek:), I think it is high time for a fairly radical change. Never mind tinkering around the edges and ending up with a crappy solution. Let's go the whole hog and set up a new Branch. Instead of having baby FCs sitting around the crewroom waiting for their one or two sorties, why not have them as Dual Hatted Area radar Controllers. The Surveillance side is the biggest part of what we do and that would still be a stand alone specialisation, but with cross over points as we have now in the FC world. Likewise, airfield work would be a specialisation but could still be an integral part of the 'all rounder' approach. The over riding slant though, would have be war fighting Ops and so the same courses would need to be taught and some individuals would still need to specialise, but at selected points in their career. E3D and 1ACC will just be another 'option' on your dreamsheet. All done under the same roof and in one Branch.

As for where to put the C2 hubs. Never mind the MOBs, far too limiting to concentrate on one weapons platform. Put everything UK based at the main ATCRUs, Prestwick and Swanick. One recognised Air Picture that serves Civil and Military purposes. Co Location with Civil to smooth the way for Policing Actions (which will remain politically important for the forseeable future). ATC Supervisors who are also Master Controllers so we cut down on the number of people (and locations) getting involved.

I know it's a huge wish list that may well not ever see the light of day but you get the drift of just how radical I think we need to be. There is no longer, IMHO, any justification for two stand alone Branches. Time to integrate and move on. Personally, I think it would provide an amazing opportunity to give those who choose it a truly massive selection of jobs, locations and career paths.

Anyway, I am currently in Oman on holiday and I can hear a freezing cold beer calling my name. :ok:

shawshank

22nd Oct 2007, 16:43

On holiday in Oman....and still logging on to the prune to talk about work. Some people really need to learn let go and relax. :cool:

You made some good points though but I fear they are too radical. Remember the new "single phase training" farce where the only thing we did was change the name of the course. :ugh:One step at a time...

Pontius Navigator

22nd Oct 2007, 17:38

Why no FCs at CY? Not sure however, keeping a CRC in Lincs has got to be a winner if we are to improve pilot/FC relations. I find the Typhoon guys quite receptive to debrief points (far more so than the F3 crews) & find that they offer very valid points back, which as a newbie, I always take onboard. It would be great to be able to do this on a face to face basis pre and post sortie, as it would massively increase the understanding between GCI & aircrew.

A couple of years ago (you'll be able to work it out) the story went that the Israelis had FCs on each sqn. Now when the Lightning deployed to Luqa the FCs also deployed to Magdelana but lived in the Luqa mess.

Similarly 56 Sqn and the FCs at Gata Radar were also colocated. Whether the FCs took an active role in the debrief I do not know.

brickhistory

22nd Oct 2007, 18:35

Back in the early 1990s, the USAF combined ATC and 'FC' (air battle manager as the kids call it now.............with a straight face, too!).

We have since split them back up.

AonP

22nd Oct 2007, 19:37

An insight into the Fighter Controller's world at Camp Bastion thanks to BFBS:

http://cdn.streamcdn.com/cdn.asp?c_id=bfbs&mt=bfbs&fn=221007-3.wmv

nunquamparatus

24th Oct 2007, 01:39

Pontius,

Up until some bright spark (cue WEBF rage) cancelled the SHAR, each squadron had an embedded FC that went evrywhere with the jets. The benefit of having a very current controller and, more importantly, one that the pilots trusted, was massive. If you want the proof, just ask anyone who went through the 56(R) CQWI course against any of the SHAR squadrons. Sometimes GCI really can make the difference...............if you listen to them.

Oops, must be time to go back to the beach.....................

skippedonce

24th Oct 2007, 04:12

Nunquamparatus,

I couldn't agree with you (and a number of other contributors) more about the value of a close working relationship between FC Weapons Controllers and FJ sqn mates. It engenders understanding and trust on both sides, and by the FC actively participating in the briefs and debriefs, taking the slings and arrows (and hopefully plaudits too), makes them far better controllers than doing it via phone (or not at all). So, collocation of FCs and AD fighters is a big plus.:D

However, your comment 'the only real opportunity to operationally control FW being from the back of an E3D, go ATC' is utter hoop. The 1ACC Det at Camp BASTION has been doing operational FW (and RW and UAV) control every day for almost a year now. The E3D boys are currently in an operational 'pause', so are providing augmentees to the Det to gain/maintain operational controller experience.:=

As for the whole ATC/FC thing, my feeling is that you probably start off with a common entry-level individual who, by the way he/she is trained, is then indoctrinated into a mindset. ATC, because of their training and evaluation look at the 'rules' as being all they are allowe to do, while FCs see the rules as telling them what they can't do, therefore anything else is permissable if circumstances dictate. IMHO, that way, you finish up with one set who's mindset is 'safety is paramount' while the other is mission-oriented with due regard to saftey. Interesting that where the RAF is looking at merging ATC and FC because they both work with radar, while the RAAF has recently merged FC, NAV and AE because of their mission-related roles.:O

Cheers,

SkippedOnce

nunquamparatus

24th Oct 2007, 11:01

SkiipedOnce,

So at the start of Op Telic where was 1ACC ? Don't get me wrong, I know they do, and have done, a great job but come day one of the war with no host nation support, guess you'll need to be in the back of an E3D to get some operational control. Which was my point. But thank you for allowing me to demonstrate it.

And, having conversed with someone who was there, during Op Telic, in the back of an E3D (Grunt) I got the impression 8 out of 10 pilots said they'd prefer to be under control of an RAF not a USAF E3...............sorry - guess the special relationship doesn't extend to ****ty joins and being airprox'ed by a Rivet Joint.............................:E

Magic Mushroom

24th Oct 2007, 11:09

Oh FFS,
Let's not let this thread degenerate into a 1ACC v E-3D willy waving competition. :ugh:They both have different but complimentary capabilities and both do very important jobs.
Regards,
MM

nunquamparatus

24th Oct 2007, 11:09

Oh, and SkippedOnce - I'm not of the antipodean variety, merely exchange filth. Can't comment on the Rarely Available After Four boys but I know they'll be awfully pleased to see their WedgeTail thingy in operational service. It might even get to operate in Australia..............but more likely in Afghanistan.....in fact anywhere sandy.

Their RAN brethren are in the same (proverbial) boat as the RN. Not enough hours, never a sign of a radar equipped jet, feet wet, so currency a big issue. Also, their Freddies are not trained to nearly the same level as ours - which really scares the bejesus out of me. However, this brings me back to my original point - AD is just not fashionable these days. Don't get me wrong, its great fun and I personally loved every minute of my 7 years of it BUT moving mud/sand is where its at - unless we suddenly go to war with China/Russia etc. When we'll be in the poo.:sad:

SID East

24th Oct 2007, 11:28

As far as I can see the 1ACC job (FC) in the 'Stan is almost identical to the Basrah Approach Job (ATC) in Iraq.
The difference being the ATC guys also carry out the normal ATC task for BAS as well and don't have quite the background training in the tactical support to ops etc but trust me they learn that side of life pretty quickly out there and the guys on the ground appreciate that!
FCs also seem to have an almost inexhaustable list of Acronymns and TLAs which explain what they are doing, ATCs don't have the lingo but are doing it anyway - this side of life for ATC has evovled during Op TELIC rather than been forseen from the outset and hence the pre deployment training has been tweaked to cover more of the traditional FC / 1 ACC roles.
I have wondered for some time if the drive to combine the branches has stemmed from this comparison. I personally think it is a good idea and can only help the operational customer and the future of both the jobs.
SID:ok:

skippedonce

24th Oct 2007, 12:11

MM

Agree wholeheartedly that 1ACC and the E3 are complimentary rather than competing capabilities. One gets there rapidly, but is a more difficult to support at range for a lengthy or enduring op, while the other arrives slowly (depending on how much AT (or more likely shipping) is prepared to be sacrificed to move it), but once in place is much less of a burden to sustain.

NQM

Read your own first post, which I quoted. You are talking in the present tense, not the past, and presently 1ACC is doing operational control in HERRICK, where it has been for almost a year now. Don't you take kindly to constructive debrief points?

SID

How many JTACs has BAS ATC talked to today? While I agree that there are common skills between the two branches, there are also a lot of significant differences, as there needs to be for both to achieve what they're put there to do. BSN ATC is doing a job that the 1ACC FCs don't, but again the two are complimentary.

SID East

24th Oct 2007, 13:14

How many JTACs has BAS ATC talked to today?
As previously mentioned about the FC world of abbreviations I had to double check with the wonderful tool that is google. Now:
If you meant - Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) then the answer is probably none.
However, if you meant Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) aka Forward Air Controllers then the answer is probably several. Even last year BAS ATC were regualrly co-ordinating directly with and on behalf of the resident Bgdge and coalition JTACs operating in the MND(SE) AOR. This included integraring other air assets (including UAVs) with requests for shows of force, artillery, mortar firing , CAS and strike packages. I believe this area of the job out there there has moved on massively since then.
SID :ok:

Boldface

24th Oct 2007, 14:01

Even last year BAS ATC were regualrly co-ordinating directly with and on behalf of the resident Bgdge and coalition JTACs operating in the MND(SE) AOR. This included integraring other air assets (including UAVs) with requests for shows of force, artillery, mortar firing , CAS and strike packages.

And I'm afraid Sid they were less than impressive due to their unfamiliarity with the role, an apparant reluctance to apply operational flexibility, and a general peacetime mindset which was evident when the issues were discussed.

I believe this area of the job out there there has moved on massively since then.

Sadly, my most recent experience in theatre suggests little has improved. I'm afraid Sid that this is one area where your branch needs to recognise it's weaknesses and address it with more than pre-deployment and on the job training. Again, I'll reiterate that I have no snags with ATC guys, or their ability to provide a good ATC service in BAS and elsewhere.

But let's not call a sow's ear a silk purse.

SID East

24th Oct 2007, 14:56

unfamiliarity with the role....
You’ve hit the nail on the head. We should not expect our people on ops to be able to do something they are not trained for at home. It is in our nature to do the best we can in such circumstances but a lack of this kind of training and granted our existing mindset is a problem indeed. But these roles are happening and hopefully things will change.
The role of ATC is the same in peace as it is in war - namely flight safety which is still a key enabler for deployed ops. I do think we need to broaden our horizons on the more operational side - agreed. More reason for a dual role FC/ATC methinks.:ok:

Never Alert

24th Oct 2007, 21:53

I very much doubt that we could dual hat and be proficient at both roles. Although the aptitudes are similar, the jobs are not with each having a great deal of specific training & knowledge.

Should the branches merge, I believe that we would still end up with a selection/filtering process which would result in personnel being streamed either Surveillance, Local ATC, Area ATC or Weapons.

nunquamparatus

24th Oct 2007, 22:56

All,

Fighter Controlling, as I knew it, is definitely old hat - hence my comments. Before anyone starts shouting mutinous language, those who know me will testify my unending support for AD - I just believe we have to be honest about what the requirement is in the 21st Century.

Yes, there is still a need for Air Defence of UK airspace. Yes, there is still the need for embarked WC in deployable assets such as E3/Wedgetail. But, lets face it, recent experience has shown that the 'traditional' role of bunker-bound SC/WC and RN Freddies, floating on the oggin is massively under-used. As far as I can make out there has been a lot of discussion about the RAF's support to Ops in both Iraq and Afghanistan - now, frankly, whether that is by ATC or FC proves the point - neither is a 'traditional' role so why not admit that we should re-focus and analyse whether or not ATC can perform this role or whether this tempo and style of operations will continue for such a time as to warrant additional training and manpwer to the FC branch to cover this role.

IMHO this should be something done by what is currently known as ATC, although I think there neeeds to be far more of a tactical focus on their training than simply 'take 5'. If you can apply RIS/RAS/RC then surely you can have a stab at a 2v2? If you can provide a PAR then there must be the aptitude to do multiple joins to the Tanker Tow or perform the role of Red Crown? And, whatever the arguement, lets ensure we provide the best sevice possible to our aircrew brethren over whichever dusty, sandy sh*thole that the government sends our boys and girls to.:ok:

orgASMic

25th Oct 2007, 08:53

There is plenty of scope for an integrated Air Control Capability branch based around the common skill set ie the provision of radar services to aircraft. That should be the starting point as both sides need to be qualified in these basic skills. This would give all members of the branch the same start in life, the same essential knowledge and a better understanding of what the various specialisations are trying to achieve at the operational level. The streams after that would than include the traditional FC and ATC specialisations, but with the opportunity for a bit of cross-pollination for those who show the potential for command. After all, pilots all start from a common skill set at BFT and then specialise after streaming.

As for preparing ATCOs for ops, until AIR Cmd pulls its finger out and organises some meaningful trg, OJT on arrival in theatre is all we are going to get. The farcical trg objectives for ATC on Collective Trg, etc, are a product of poor exercise scenarios and minimal safety management from staff officers to rule-bound to provide the tools for effective pre-deployment trg. They seem to think that observing the exercise and having some PowerPointless presentations on what a tent looks like will prepare people for the extremely dynamic environment of the present battlespace.

Having an air ex at St Mawgan was ridiculous as ex play had to stop for the scheduled commercial traffic. Fairford was a slightly better idea as at least the exercising ATCOs got to control, but it was still limited by the local environment. We should be using somewhere like Sculthorpe or West Freugh where there is space for a realistic scenario with CAS, arty, helos, etc needing to be integrated with the airfield movements. Then the ATCOs might at least have an idea what to expect. Those sort of locations would also mean that people would have to get their admin squared away, rather than being able to nip to the shops to get what they forgot to bring.