Toadpool
I have a few points, none of which are meant as "having a go" either.
1. What particularly about the Military way of co-ordination do you find illogical?
2. I dont understand why as
your local procedures have changed whereby
you dont co-ordinate through a Mil Sup by proxy where appropriate, how that has any bearing on what the rest of us do?
3. We cannot take a " discrete validated and verified squawk" (without a position report) as identification as (outside CAS) aircraft occassionally will go en route without changing the squawk and then lo & behold circumstances combine whereby you & the Mil controller are looking at two different ac (with possibly your runaway sqk on the Mil screen but not on yours) when co-ordinating with predictable results. It seems far more safe to state a postion and get a "contact" particularly if the squawks are not callsign code converted.
4. I agree co-ordination can be cumbersome when trying to co-ordinate multiple tracks with different contol positions at the same Mil unit, but one thing it isnt, is ambiguous (if done properly).
I have lost count of the number of times civil ATCOs (when I was working in the terminal environment ....I exclude the Area radar guys & TC as we seem to rub along together fine in area radar where co-ord is concerned) have moaned at myself or my collegues when they thought they had co-ordinated traffic when they had not because of lax or non standard co-ordination techniques.
Indeed many of these occassions the word co-ordination is never even mentioned, so how am I supposed to know whether the caller is after co-ord or TI?
Standardisation..... Bring it on
DD