It appears to me from reading the above posts that when you join the military, every bit of initiative must be knocked out of you.
The reason I say this is if I heard that air traffic controllers in other countries were given greater responsibilities and this would reduce holding and facilitate moving traffic at high safety levels, I would certainly want to find out more about this system.
But do we see any interest in this here at all? No, presumably young military controllers are reading this thread – possibly even controllers who are currently operating at Williamtown and perhaps even the controller who kept me and the other aircraft holding in good visual conditions when a King Air was on a visual approach to runway 12.
But of course it’s different. Presumably in the military you are told to obey the rules, never ever promote something that could be better and then you’ll end up as the Chief of Defence. What other explanation can there be?
I have explained to you how in the past I have worked to introduce proven overseas procedures, and although these have been resisted for one or two years, once we introduced them they are embraced appreciatively by both pilots and air traffic controllers.
As I have said before – who would want to return to the procedures where we separated VFR from VFR in what was then called “primary control zones”?
What is also not commented upon is the fact that the airspace when just civilian traffic is operating at Williamtown normally goes to twenty-five nautical miles radius at ground level. Why should it be so big?
I remember before the initiatives I introduced, Coffs Harbour used to go to nineteen nautical miles to the south at ground level. It’s now far less than this, and there have never been any incidents and, as far as I can see, unnecessary workload has been reduced.
It’s almost as if the military can’t make any change at all.
The ridiculous size of the Richmond zone, which goes way out almost to Mount Wilson in the Blue Mountains at ground level where no IFR aircraft could possibly be operating at that level in that vicinity. Over the last two decades I have been told many times that this zone is going to be re-looked at and brought to a more modern size so the controllers can concentrate on real traffic – not some VFR helicopter flying along the mountain range twenty miles away from the tower. But it’s never happened.
I will say again – I can see why the military has a problem attracting air traffic control recruits. If asked, I would say under no circumstances join the military because it is quite clear that initiative is stifled, that they never copy the best from all around the world, and that they make hugely negligent mistakes like the Seasprite fiasco of $1.2 billion when no-one is held accountable in any way.
In fact, probably the opposite. If we really looked into it, we would probably find the person responsible for the $1.2 billion Seasprite loss – all less money available to pay Services’ staff decent salaries – has been promoted.
Keep your concrete minds closed as much as you like. One day we will get someone decent in a leadership position and that person will initiate the copying of procedures that are the best in the world and will allow air traffic controllers the latitude to make good, professional decisions of judgement without losing their license or being suspended.
Then we will have a better quality recruit and the controllers will derive greater job satisfaction. I can imagine their job satisfaction at the moment must be nearly zero knowing that they are using fifty-year-old outdated procedures and no-one is game to even look at what happens overseas and copy the best.