What is the reason for separate military ATC?
I’m sure everyone can remember the famous statement by Sir Angus Houston a number of years ago:
“Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems”.
Of course, this was later changed to refer to just one air traffic control surveillance system and that is why OneSKY is going ahead.
There is a very important issue here. Can someone explain why we have separate military air traffic control – where controllers are trained to ICAO standards?
I realise there was probably a reason for this in 1947 – in those days people were very sensitive about Darwin, and the ‘hordes’ coming from the North.
I understand more recently the military have run towers during a state of emergency at places like Aceh, however in all of these cases, I am told that there are many international contractors that can run air traffic control, even in places like Iraq.
Also, with the United States being more isolationist, after being unfairly attacked for just about everything they do in the world to try and keep peace, there is going to be less of a need for Australians to be in international war zones.
There is no doubt that to have two complete training systems and two complete career paths will add enormously to costs.
That’s why New Zealand put their military air traffic controllers into the Airways Corporation and kept them on the military reserve.
Basically what I am asking is – if it was necessary in 1947, is it still necessary today to have two completely separate streams in such a small country?
Look forward to any suggestions or advice people can give.