Military ATC
With the greatest respect to many of those who have already posted their comments, surely we’ve done this topic to death many times before on other threads!!
Without wishing to second guess the findings, I imagine that the study currently underway by Air Cdre NW at 3 Gp will have a considerable impact on the future of both ATC & FC personnel, at the very least from an initial training perspective, but could well impact in many other areas as well. We will all have to wait for the report to be published, but given the planned size, shape and operational commitments of the RAF in the future, I would imagine it has to be fairly radical. After publication we will all be much better placed to comment on how best to achieve the reports recommendations.
Having served at MATO, albeit in the palatial comforts of Hillingdon House, I am loathe to criticise the ATC staff currently doing their level best in difficult circumstances at HQ 3 Gp. Too few people, often with relatively limited experience themselves, trying to juggle too many hot potatoes in the air is not the ideal recipe for effective staff work and thorough forward planning. I prefer to blame the system that has been imposed on these people, rather than the individuals concerned. I doubt many of those who complain about 3 Gp ATC would be capable of achieving much better themselves in similar circumstances.
Will Military Area Radar cease to exist in 10 years time - maybe and maybe not. The initial cost savings achieved by outsourcing Military Area Radar to NATS might appear to be attractive on the surface, but will come at a significant hidden cost to the military. Having military staff at Swanwick and the NSC, and paying for the facilities they use, allows the military to have a significant voice in the future direction and operating principles of these organisations. If the military were to outsource Area Radar Services, I have grave doubts whether the flexibility currently provided would be maintained for very long. Civil controllers prefer to work in regulated airspace and, as all military controllers know only too well, are often very reluctant to provide a RAS when appropriate. Also, it’s no secret that NATS are very short of controllers at Swanwick, so where exactly would the suitably experienced additional controllers come from to undertake the Military Area task? Additionally, who exactly would provide the D&D task? It couldn’t be changed over the same way as Clutch Radar, because there you had military controllers operating under a common licence who could become civil controllers at the stroke of a pen. In this country, under current regulations, it would take a fairly major change to the ANO to suddenly allow military controllers to change overnight to civil controllers, whilst still operating on their old military CofC.
ESAR5 is forcing the military in the right direction and not before time. IMHO ATC controllers, civil and military, are a national resource and should be trained to a common standard and operate on a common licence. This principle is accepted in many countries and works well, New Zealand is a good example. Of course convincing the Treasury bean counters that considerable additional training costs are suddenly necessary for military controllers will be impossible - unless it is backed up with compulsory European legislation, then they have no choice but to provide the necessary resources.
Other than a wider variety of postings, perhaps someone could explain to me exactly what are the additional benefits of completely amalgamating ATC & FC? Are there any savings that can be achieved? Cross training is both expensive and dilutes experience levels. Of course amalgamation does away with the ‘them & us’ arguments, but how can that be quantified in financial terms? I suggest those in favour of a complete amalgamation should talk to our Canadian colleagues and listen carefully to their opinions – the grass isn’t always greener. The FC organisation have been moving out of their bunkers mainly because the threat they were there to safeguard against has all but gone and they have successfully re-invented themselves as Battlespace Managers – an area that should also require considerable ATC input. Of course ATC staff should have been more involved in development of UK Battlespace Management, but at the time I doubt whether we were invited to participate or even had sufficient staff to spare.
The ATC organisation is still predominantly in Towers because the task is still there, albeit at a reduced rate, and furthermore it’s likely to be there for the foreseeable future. Of course we could consider outsourcing Terminal ATC – but perhaps the memories of some are rather short. There never has been a large pool of unemployed civil controllers in the UK who have either the appropriate experience or ability to undertake the Military terminal task – the Boscombe Down fiasco should serve as a reminder of how a good idea on paper, can rapidly hit the rocks when the day-to-day reality becomes exposed. What might work at a small UAS or helicopter base, simply isn’t going to work at a busy fast-jet unit. Of course we need more deployable assets, both in manpower and equipment, and this is finally being adequately addressed, but as well as an enhanced & enlarged TACATC, we will always need the majority of our staff at airfields.
So, if the reality is that we will need to employ the majority of military controllers for terminal ATC tasks for the foreseeable future – how we balance and structure our resources at these units is vitally important. Utilizing more AVO or FTRS staff could be part of the solution, but these individuals must be offset by sufficient regular personnel and finding the appropriate balance is something that must be thought through very carefully.
Finally, and most importantly for the future, we really must effectively address the difficulties ATC and FC have always had in attracting the right personnel in sufficient numbers. I have always believed that, as a step in the right direction, a combined distance learning & residential course, leading towards a Civil Aerodrome licence, should be part of any solution and would be an attractive ‘pull’ factor into military ATC. Either combined or separately, both ATC & FC organisations in the years ahead must offer a much more attractive career path to attract suitably talented personnel in sufficient numbers – something neither organization does at present. Unless this vital area is addressed correctly, any future changes to the ATC & FC organisations will be simply shuffling the deckchairs, whilst the iceberg still looms ever larger ahead.