RAF ATC in Kandahar??

[ATCChap]

Have heard some jungle drums, er, drumming to the effect that RAF Air Traffic Controllers are going to take control of Kandahar airfield in the near future. Can anyone lend any substance to the rumour? I have a feeling that the Brit aircrew would be happier with Brits on the RT...

[Junglynx]

Undoubtedly, but given the current ATC resources there I doubt anyone would want to take it over as it's a bit of a poisoned chalice. The civvies that run it now do airfield movements and circuit traffic pretty much blind. Though they do get maxed out pretty quickly:uhoh:

I imagine the amount of investment that would be required to gain a decent service (ie a new tower) would be prohibitive to anyone offering to take over. Its cheaper to let a contractor take it for less money and take the flak for 'imperfections':hmm:

Unfortunately it's not Basra, where we had a nice new tower courtesy of ze Germans building one right before we took over. Which was considerate of them. And Saddam too!

[KPax]

If we do build a new one in Kandahar, could they put less stairs in it as I am going to have a heart attack by the time I finish in Bas.

[StopStart]

I'd would be one of the most welcome things I could think of! You don't realise how good RAF ATC are until you have to endure the spam atc-ers. Say what you like about the "limited radar service due to poor controller performance" RAF however give it a few weeks on det and you'll be praying for that brit voice on twr. I still think back with fond memories of how I had to go around from downwind at KAF as there was a C17 on finals. 32nm finals in fact. Oh how my R/T discipline broke down....

They're still driving me round the bend here - "Hold short, aircraft in factory being built, will be on finals in approximately 3 months". I despair - roll on RAF ATC.....

[BEagle]

Do you still get those absurd ATIS broadcasts from some Americans which sound like tobacco auctions?

I recall a couple of 'memorable' GCAs from American controllers - the first was at Keflavik and ended with the memorable words "Approaching 1 mile, your height should be.....zero". But it was VMC and she was under training, so that was perhaps excusable.

Unlike the NAS South Weymouth controller who was giving ± 20º heading changes at 500 ft - whilst we were in solid clag.... So - a go-around and off to Dulles! Art Field, you may remember it!

But those were exceptions - once visited the source of 'Souda Metro' and chatted with a delightful young USN lady who wrked there. Who told me why it was always so darn difficult to raise them on UHF. It seems the system (nicknamed 'The Dinosaur') dated from the 1950s. From then on, she became 'Souda Dino' if ever I got the chance!

I once heard a tale from RAFG Harriers days - it seems some bona mate was leading a 4-ship on not-a-lot of fuel on a diversion to a USAFE base. Usual 'clutch clag', but they were 'schneebling in the weedisphere' :rolleyes: , saw the runway and called for a visual approach. "Negative sir, call the initial approach fix" was the response. As it was to every other call until they landed!

[gijoe]

The last time I looked, before I posted this last time and before the post got deleted, there was still a perfectly usuable tower in the old international terminal - why not use that?

Why build a new one ? The building boys are busy enough without extras projects for buildings that are really needed.

G:confused:

[OOpsIdiditagain]

Keep KAF ATC Civvi I say. The RAF ATC boy who works in the BOC is a right royal pain in the butt. Talk about book bound and forgetting we're supposed to be on an Op. He's introduced the taxiway Nazi style of policing and doesn't believe casualties can be so badly injured that we can't wait for the Gerc to shut down before we transfer them to timmy. Boy oh Boy, RAF ATCers might be reasonable at ATC but they can't do it here that's for sure. About time they were put out to grass full stop and the RAF paid a civvi firm for their services. Better still get rid of the 30 odd of them at Air Command and get them doing something with value.:mad:

[Lurking123]

Bit broad brush there Oops? Indeed, your philosophical comments on the other Mil ATC thread are equally balanced. I'm sure there are kn*bs in all professions; remind us, what's your job?

[Whenurhappy]

NATO have funded plans to provide a new tower on the north side of KNOB which will have full visibility of the operating surfaces, especially to the north and west. The present - and unused - tower is structually unsound, without services and it is located in the expanding AFG enclave.

[LUNGEMAN]

I think it makes good sense to put RAF ATC in to KAF. As posted earlier, until you recieve a service from other nations' ATC you don't realise how good our guys are. I have sat waiting at KAF for 20 minutes waiting for a start clearance. After some chivvying, the ground controller admitted he had 'lost it' - he had one Antonov taxiing and a C-17 on start. I have also been kept waiting for almost 30 mins when outbound to a TLZ that had to be reached prior to dark. The call 'hold, ac on finals' (30nms finals as it turned out) kept us waiting and we almost ran out of daylight. These two incidents stick out but there were many more during my time there.

OOps

Please do yourself a favour and stop posting such ignorant diatribe. As others have said we all know bad apples within our respective trades and they recieve more attention than the good ones but to apply the inadequacies of a couple to the the hard work of most is poor judgement. I know of many Air Traffickers who can 'do it out here', one of which just received the QCB for his actions well outside of the wire. Most of those who know the ins and outs of the incident think it should have been increased to a gong but unfortunately the original citation was left to a blunty who had no awareness of how to write such reports.
As for civilianising the whole ATC genre - civvy air trafficker mates of mine wouldn't touch the job with a bargepole, especially for so little cash, as to do so would risk their licences each and every day.

[themightyimp]

Remember 'Not Critical for RAF' is an anagram of 'Air Traffic Control' :\ :\

[West Coast]

Beagle
I see your up to your usual fanciful storytelling. One of the lads, one of me mates, the blokes over at, I heard a tale, there was a lighthouse and a USN ship...

Yup, I get it. You believe every tale becuase you want it to be true.

I have some property for sale cheap as well if you're that gullible.

[BEagle]

Approach at Keflavik was in ZA141 on 20 May 1987
Divert to Souda was in ZA142 on 10 Mar 1988
Approach at NAS South Weymouth was in ZA144 on 22 Oct 1993

What actually is your point, Westie? Or do you simply like to throw manure around. Still, I suppose that's better than eating it in your beloved Mreenkaw-ooorah....:hmm:

[West Coast]

better than eating it in your beloved Mreenkaw-ooorah

At least we don't have to march in the gay parades.


Unstabilized, poorly flown approachs are what the lads tell me.

Must have been the other guy and not you flying.

[Wee Jock McPlop]

OOps,

Your post on the other thread speaks volumes fella. Do us all a favour, when you've got something grown-up to contribute, then do so. Until then, keep your tripe and broadbrush tantrums to yourself. Done both sides of the ATC fence - RAF, then Civi. Your very coloured and somewhat blinkered view of RAF ATC has been borne out of the actions of a few - one in fact. Have you ever thought for a moment that the individual you so readily castigate may have been ordered to implement that system by higher up the command chain?

RAF/Brit Mil controllers are generally amongst the most flexible controllers around. If you think for one minute that civi controllers could replace RAF ones intoto, both at home and overseas, then you are sadly misguided. For one, the pay differencial is vast and most UK civil controllers do not like the idea of deploying overseas to be shot at and live in fairly basic conditions. However, more importantly, the flexibility in ATC service provision the forces would lose would, I fear, prove to be very, very restrictive. The civilianisation of Boscombe ATC springs to mind.

WJMcP

Beags/West Coast,

Steady on folks, you're beginning to sound like air traffickers:E

[Mad_Mark]

At least we don't have to march in the gay parades.

No, you probably have enough people willing to do it without being told they have to :E

Duck and cover :ouch:

[Grabbers]

Any news on this rumour?