LTP
Your assumptions regarding this scenario are wide ranging and not based in fact at all.
1. You assume the airfield in question is a non SSR airfield. Okay, I ask for clarification, what airfield do you assume that to be? You are not naming and shaming as you are praising the airfield concerned, but there are 2 candidates in the assumed area, so which ATSU do you think is being discussed? Please identify which civil airfield you believe this to be as it is fairly crucial.
2. You assume the traffic was initially offered to the Mil Unit and that they refused to work it. Do you know this to be a fact?
3. You assume that just because the Mil Unit has conflicting traffic they are now obligated to work that traffic. Is that SOP across the ATM world... Hello I have conflicting traffic so please accept my handover????
4. You assume this incident occurred during the notified LARS hours of the Mil unit concerned, do you know this to be the case?
5. You assume that if this did occur within the notified hours of the Mil Units notified LARS hours as notified in the AIP, that the Mil Unit had the capacity at the time to work another adjacent ATSU's inbound traffic. Do you know this to be so?
What is bad form, is for an ATCO is to make assumptions based on supposition and conjecture and unidentified airfields and then criticise another ATSU with no knowledge of the facts .
Finally if you are that concerned about it, and i do not mean this with any attitude or slight at you, why doesn't your unit work the traffic inbound to the ATSU with allegedly no SSR if the Mil Unit doesnt have the capacity to work the ac inbound to EGXX? Is that because its not your units task to work the traffic? Perhaps its not within the remit of the Mil unit to work another airfields inbounds either.
Last edited by Moli; 12th Nov 2014 at 07:30.