Mil ATC Careers

[Airdrop Charlie]

Whilst coal-face controlling will always remain an exciting and enjoyable challenge, does anyone in Mil ATC feel they are getting the support they deserve from the Ivory Tower that was once HQ MATO? ATC HQ is now relegated to a small element of 3Gp HQ and is under-staffed. Whilst other specialisations seem capable of defending their ground and moving with the times, why are ATC stuck in the 'cold-war' work from your ATC Tower MOB mentality?:8

[atclfc]

You say that our ATC band at HQ3 Gp is understaffed? Maybe, but having just read the lastest issue of "Contact" magazine (soft, strong and thoroughly absorbent) I notice that, despite our ever-diminishing number of airfields and ATC units, our Branch/Trade still has 4 Gp Capts, over 40 Wg Cdrs and 119 Sqn Ldrs. Isn't that enough to look after our interests? How soon before they outnumber the JOs and SNCOs?

[KPax]

And as we all know SNCO's are posted to fill a slot, Officers are posted as part of their 'career path'. A lot of experience and knowledge being lost this way.

[metalthrower]

KPax and ATCLFC some emotive replies but not to the exam question. Why is ATC stuck in the Cold War MOB mentality? I would argue 2 issues. Firstly by virtue of being resident on the MOBs it is very difficult to break that culture. Secondly, however, when you consider the out of area commitments recently supported by Mil ATC, Basra Afghanistan Kosovo to name but 3, I would suggest that Mil ATC is in a transitional period. Its upper echelons may be cold war warriors but bear in mind they are fully in tune with the deployable ATC module. More importantly those controllers & assts who have experienced ops and are now coming through the ranks will, I believe, change that perception.

[Airdrop Charlie]

I agree that experience at the junior level is improving rapidly. It is those very people who are left exposed by the senior ranks without operational experience! The danger is, by the time any of the new generation are senior enough to make an impact, it will be too late for the branch. Why haven't we already been sold off? Because it's too expensive to go civvy, that's all.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Airdraop Charlie, I can think of a number of senior ranks (Wg Cdr and above) who have very recent experience of Ops at deployed bases.

[Canary Boy]

Why haven't we already been sold off? Because it's too expensive to go civvy, that's all.

Watch this space :uhoh:

[KPax]

There are certainly no shortage of people to consult if you have a question. The answer may not be quite so easily obtained. We seem to work in a society that is almost frightened of making a decision. It may be a poor example but look at the RPAR fiasco, different units different rules. Are we not supposed to be working to a standard, ie JSP552. In a perfect world you would ring one of the many staff officers and get an answer.

[metalthrower]

WBS - good point and well presented. We may be wandering off thread here but the deployable ATC element is the future of the Mil ATC branch. While some may believe that the Branch will be sold off I don't see this as a viable option overall - while some airfields could have locally employed controllers with little impact to the front line there is always going to be a requirement for the Britmil ATCer. Why? Because they are one of the best practioners and respected by our own forces and coalition partners for the professional and competent service they provide. The face of UK Mil ATC may be changing but as WBS said the level of knowledge and experience does exist at the higher ranks - not at all levels I would concede but enough to matter. May I suggest that the biggest threat to UK Mil ATC is the infighting??

[gadgetbent]

Chatting to a few mates in the bar recently, it appears that a delegation of RAF ATC and RAF FC reps went to Canada to see how they operate a merged ATC/FC
Branch.

Maybe this is the way that we will end up going??

GB

[Canary Boy]

Maybe this is the way that we will end up going?? Some of the initial training can be amalgamated (and not just for ATC/FC but for anybody exposed to ESARR5 regs), but that's probably about it. On the up side that would mean turning-out FCs who knew a bit more about controlling...:E

removes tongue from cheek and takes cover

[KPax]

I thought FC's were aircrew, they wear flying suits and a Brevet, or am I just being cynical.

[ADIS5000]

You guys are just cracking me up!! ........oops there goes another rib........

As an FC (in case you hadn't realised) I wouldn't have a huge problem with a combined branch. But as the two jobs are about as similar as say, pilot & nav, only the basic ATC modules could really be combined. Trust me, you don't want FCs sitting in a tower (all that sunlight would mess up our body clocks). Also, air traffickers controlling 10 v 40s could be equally scary!

However, from what you guys are saying on this thread, I suspect that our Gp staff have a better reputation than yours apparently do.

Canary Boy - Another plus side: we might turn out air traffickers who knew how to do AAR! ;)

Regards, ADIS

[Canary Boy]

On a more serious note, I've been 'in' for a looooong time, and can recall the proposal for amalgamating FC and ATC being staffed on many occasions. I doubt that the reasons for deciding not to pursue the idea have changed sufficiently to make it any more viable now. It becomes increasingly more untenable when you consider the directions the 2 branches are taking - FCs in their growbags and ATCs in their jeans and Tshirts or on the 'front line'! ;)

[Matoman]

As others have already noted - the branches are effectively merged anyway under Ops Spt. IMHO there is little if any chance of further merger - where's the saving and what's the benefit? I was involved in one of the many studies and most if not all of the arguements against a completely combined branch remain as valid now as they were when this crazy idea was first raised over more than 3 decades ago when I did the JATCC.

However, the training of ATC & FC personnel is another issue and many individuals will be aware of the study currently underway and the reasons behind it. There are benefits in having a combined ATC/FC school and having everyone do some form of combined initial training. Thereafter, the chances are that individuals will be streamed ATC, or into one of the two FC routes. Time will tell whether it all happens, but the shape and size of the RAF in the future will be the determining factor and you don't need to be a Met Man to sense which way the wind is blowing.

The CATCS visit to NAVCanada was to look and their combined ATC/FC branch and how the training is conducted. However, it wasn't just a CATCS visit, two very well known characters from the SFC also went along to provide some 'tone' and balance!

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Sounds like the biennial CATCS awayday.

I agree with MATOMAN, we've been there before and will be there again. The only difference now is that both FC and ATC are having to justify the existence of some rather small specialisations.

[Airdrop Charlie]

Whipping Boys SATCO is clearly a deep thinker who is able to stand back and look at the big picture! An essential skill if one is to progress to the dizzy heights to be strived for in Ops Spt (ATC). Better get in there quickly though whilst you can still recognise the branch for what it is!:ok:

[Widger]

ADIS5000,


Don't make me laugh.....10V40,!!!!! you wouldn't exactly be giving A control would you? so don't make it out to be more difficult than it is.. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to give Bullseye.

.;) ;) ;)



Am I bothered, does my face look bothered, ask me if I'm bothered

[ADIS5000]

Oh Widger, widger, widger, widger.................you poor, poor deluded person you!!!!!

Regards, ADIS ;)

[Widger]

ADIS5000


I don't think so me old mucker.....come on then...lets see the extent of your knowledge/experience in this field.

And while we are at it you try dealing with 20 speaking units on LARS in the Vale of York on a Wednesday Afternoon or pushing tin over London.


;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) :p :p :p :p :p


Love and kisses

Am I bothered?

[ADIS5000]

Apologies for hijacking the thread!

Widger, your answer (so long as this doesn't turn into a widger waving contest (see what I've done there?? Do ya, do ya??!!))

If you're just fishing for a bite then all you've done is waste 10 minutes of my time...........if however, you'd like a sensible answer, read on..............

Do I detect that you feel I am trying to blow the "our job is harder than yours" FC trumpet? If so, that was not my intention at all. I would suggest that both FC, civil & mil controllers have similar aptitudes and probably abilities, but that FCs are (excluding Flight Safety) basically trying to achieve different aims to all the other ATS providers in the vicinity. I think that doing a 8 v 30 or so CQWI mission in OTA 'E' purely requires different training to doing LARS in the VoY (respect due!), or a busy sector at the NERC. All are challenging for different reasons. Now, if you contend that your job is more difficult / challenging / important than ours then that's fine, please carry on!

PS: Just checked the log book, within the last 5 years I have on 23 occasions controlled one side or the other of a more than 8 v more than 20. Also, have supervised both sides of such sorties on 17 occasions. CQWI, JMC, TACEVALs etc, both in Class B, G and in MDAs. Don't claim to be a world authority, but do feel this qualifies me to air a view! Also, within the last year, I have spent 6 days at ScOACC, 4 days at ABZ and 1 day at NCL, so I feel that although I'm bound to be slightly FC biased, I have gone and seen the other side and have some appreciation of what's going on in the wider world!

Regards, ADIS :cool:

[Widger]

ADIS,

Forgive me old chum..but who started throwing stones first.....something about tanking??.....and not for the first time I might add.

I appreciate the fact that you have been out and about, good for you, but you also imply that I haven't.

Anyway this is boring for all the others, lets just slag Total War off.



Computer says no!

[whowhenwhy]

Boys boys calm down!

10 years from now Mil area ATC will cease to exist. Terminal will be a case of a large number of AVOs filling slots on airfields, with a smaller number of the rest of us full timers, back into the world, having a quick couple of weeks rest in blues, in between dets. Anyone who thinks different is just not with it. When the army go, they go as a unit. Infantry, admin, police, medics etc. That is what we're going towards because it makes most sense for the cheapskates. Sorry, politicians!

FC vs ATC. Yes well done you've controlled a 2vs 500 trg sortie, I am impressed. Seriously I am, but is it realistic? No! The FC branch is going to have to give up and admit that their future lies in C2 onboard AWACS. The constant badgering of D&D and other Units just proves that you're trying to justify your existance post 11 09 01. Sorry, harsh words, but true! Will the branches be amalgamated? Of course they will. Because, from a bean counting point of view, with the level of threat (and lets be honest!) what we need is airspace managers aboard E3s.

As a total throwaway comment, I do like the fact that ADIS5000 admits that FCs throw away flt safety! Tee Hee! :ok:

Edited by Whowhenwhy for alcohol consumption!

[Widger]

Whowhenwhy and ADIS5000,

Why do you persist in your assumptions of my gender?;) ;) ;)

[Gonzo]

8 v 30?

8 v 20?

Didn't know we had that many fast pointy things!

[ADIS5000]

Oh no, it's all come back again and just when I was away to the mil forum in order to slag off Total War too!!

GONZ, I didn't say they were all ours!!


WWW, firstly, please read my post again:

"...but that FCs are (excluding Flight Safety) basically trying to achieve different aims to all the other ATS providers in the vicinity."

ie Flight Safety is a common aim for all ATS providers. (In common with all ATS providers, it is obviously also our over-riding aim.) There ends the English lesson!!

Secondly, if you think we need to justify our existence post 9/11 then you seriously need to come and have a visit to one of our units.

Thirdly, I do agree with your assumption that eventually the branches will be amalgamated. Given time, a staff officer somewhere will combine the early stages of training and then it's only a few steps on from there to a combined branch.


WIDGER, rest assured, you're totally asexual to me!!!

Regards all, ADIS

[moony]

ADIS
I imagine that controlling a group of aircraft and trying to put them together is completely different than providing seperation between controlled ac and VFR traffic.

[rej]

Having done a tour at Eastern Radar which involved much tanking and formation rejoins followed by a tour at CFSACO in Canada where I was fortunate to spend 3 weeks doing their 'quick and dirty' conversion trg from ATC to FC involving braodcast, tactical and close control, IMHO I see no reason why, with adequate trg, Coal Face controllers could not be dual qualified. After all, the bread and butter skills of a good radar director is heading appreciation, planning and the ability to re-plan when it all goes to rats-S*@*.

I wouldn't even mind a tour as an intercept controller myself if the locations were more appealing!!!!

Standing by for incoming rockets - but hey it's a free world. (and about the only thing we ain't taxed on ....yet)

[ADIS5000]

Moony,
Different yes, however, as Widger so subtly pointed out earlier, a lot of our time is spent providing a loose form of tactical control where the aircrew make all their own height and heading decisions. Then we plan each run to keep it all in clear air, give target information and provide radar services. Personally I feel it’s just a different sort of challenge, no harder and no easier than any other ATC discipline.

REJ,

Agreed, I’d wouldn’t mind a shot at Approach or Aerodrome work. (Really all I’m after is to be able to look out of a window when working!) The problem being though, that at the moment, most FCs are lucky to get 2 full tours as controllers before being whisked off for greater (??) things. Therefore, until we bring in Spec Controllers, the likely returns for the Service of cross training people would be minimal and I can’t see it happening on our side at least. I think the more likely long-term option is that we’ll have a common branch where most people specialise. That could mean a possible ‘creaming off’ after basic training of those controllers with the most capacity to E-3s and would also allow anyone who fails any control course to become a Surveillance specialist. There you are, it’s all sorted……sir, sir, come and listen to my super-dooper new idea!!!!!!!!!

Regards, ADIS :cool:

[whowhenwhy]

You know it's amazing what you think you read when you're 3 sheets to the wind isn't it? Sorry. Further apologies to Widger, it's just that I'm a venusian and can't see past the end of my nose. But why would any self-respecting martian choose a monicker like widger?? A story perhaps??

As far as the job is concerned, certainly there is scope (no pun intended) for the IDO job to remain in it's current guise. But I would have thought that a rationalization (big word for me) of the weps side of the house was called for. Apart from a trg environment, the old days of 8 vs 20 are gone. I'm guessing that even your 8 vs 20 was talking about the whole strike package, muds, wild weasel, counter-air and dedicated jammers, rather than an actual 8 vs 20 turning fight? Yes keep enough weps guys to feed the E3 fleet but we do need to move away from the old Cold War thing.

As a bolt on to your idea though ADIS, when you lot move to Scampton and they close Kinloss, how about moving the ARCC, MCC and the 2 D&Ds in with you lot? Elements of the jobs require a lot of coordination between the agencies, save money long-term and you could have a proper UK airspace C2 centre? Military area radar will all but have ceased to exist by then, having gone to the civvies. Install area qualified controllers at certain airfields and you could provide a limited airways crossing service.

I think I'd better go and sit down, all that thinking has given me a sore head.

[BDiONU]

As has been briefly mentioned before, Mil Area ATCO's will cease to exist in the future. Therefore Mil ATCO's will only be doing terminal work and a radar with only an 40NM radius ain't much use for doing intercepts!

BD

[PPRuNe Radar]

As has been briefly mentioned before, Mil Area ATCO's will cease to exist in the future.

Someone needs to rewrite the MOPS and contract for CASPIAN then ..... Mil Area Radar features at least until 2012 if not beyond:}

[BDiONU]

Are you sure about that?

1) SACTA for LACC (including TC) doesn't come in until 2012 at the earliest.

2) The military for LACC SACTA has literally only just been given a peek at it.

3) OK nPC will have it in 2009 but who knows how things will go after that ;-)

4) LACC SACTA will be one size fits all and in a single combined Ops Room AC/TC/FMARS, so nothing particularly special for the Mil.

5) The head honchos at former MATO, now 3 Gp are the ones who started the talk about transferring the task to civil. IMO it makes sense 'cause the job they're doing can be done by civil, no need to have highly trained (in things military as well as Area ATC) blue suiters doing a non war type task. Could easily go the way it did at Clutch Radar.

BD

[Airdrop Charlie]

Guys all (non gender specific),

Isn't it interesting how an initial thread aimed at the lack of direction and vision eminating from the HQ formally known as MATO has evolved into the eternal debate of amalgamtion between ATC and FC? Maybe, if we got together and resolved our differences and formulated a cohesive plan of action neither specialisation would be threatened by the bean counters and we could actually become and essential military asset without which expeditionary warfare would not be possible by the British military. Unfortunately the cold war warriors who still rule our roost are only interested in maximising their pensions, redundancy or PVR whilst ensuring they've lined their nests before moving on! Are there any high fliers out there who still care about our future?

[ADIS5000]

Airdrop,

If you don’t mind an FC sticking his nose back into what I agree is essentially an Ops Spt (ATC) thread!!

To come back to something I touched on earlier, you guys ought to get your Gp staff to wander down the corridor to our Gp staffs’ end! Our lot are moving us out of the bunkers, have increased our expeditionary capabilities, given us extra radars, improved some of the existing capabilities, introduced totally new (and actually pretty good) equipment, gone to single phase training and also not done too bad a job of keeping us on the E-3. I for one am fairly happy with most of the Gp driven inputs that have appeared in recent years. (Please note: I’m not a Gp groupie! (Ha, ha!!), have always been a coal face controller type and would certainly not pretend that everything Gp does is great.)

Totally agree that, as it appears to an outsider, the blokes formerly known as MATO need to act pronto before the mil presence at ACCs is seen as too expensive for the bean counters. Surely FTRS is the cheapest way to provide a uniformed mil area function? If a uniformed presence is not required, is it cheaper to pay NATS to do it? Additionally, if you were to lose the slots at Area surely it’s only a short step to someone asking why we must have blue-suiters at our airfields? Also, think of the FI and the Gulf where FC’s have been delegated ‘Area type’ tasks; unavoidable but surely not ideal for the ATC branch?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not ATC bashing, but as an outsider I think that the logical conclusion to your own opening post is that eventually we’ll end up with a combined branch. This is regardless of whether or not your high fliers appear! Some of our slots on the E-3 will go to aircrew; some of your slots at Area and / or airfields will surely go. If the Service keeps down-sizing we could also start to lose more slots at our CRCs. Both our critical masses could eventually be too small to maintain fully separate support staff and training and then bingo…..combined branch! Whadya think??

Regards, ADIS

[Canary Boy]

Sorry to be so predictable...surely it’s only a short step to someone asking why we must have blue-suiters at our airfields?...why must we have blue-suiters at our airfields? Other than maintaining a current TACATC cadre is there a good reason? IMHO I think there are several - but t'would be interesting to hear what others think.

[whowhenwhy]

Give it 10 years and we'll deploy the same way as the army. When they go they take everything that they need with a few specialized Units added on as the NFU element. Police, medics, infantry, admin etc. We'll end up doing that, deploying with our stn based ac and leaving behind a care and maintenance crew. More AVOs or local volunteer reserve commitment, with a backbone of deployable troops, that can look after the Stn on a care and maintenance footing until everyone comes home for tea and medals.

I also don't think that Gp have got any problem in working out what to do to keep ATC as a viable element within our expeditionary force, but I think they might be having problems in getting all the money that they need to pay for everything.

BTW, I wasn't suggesting that Mil Area radar will go soon, but it's reasonable to assume that that in about the same timescale as mentioned above, we'll see a move towards it. By 2010 (I think it was said) we're only going to have 64 muds and 16 fighters. Not a lot of ac for Mil area radar to control!

[norvenmunky]

BTW, I wasn't suggesting that Mil Area radar will go soon, but it's reasonable to assume that that in about the same timescale as mentioned above, we'll see a move towards it. By 2010 (I think it was said) we're only going to have 64 muds and 16 fighters. Not a lot of ac for Mil area radar to control!

Since when has the type of aircraft been a factor in AREA MIL?
It's the AIRSPACE that the aircraft are in and the type of service they request. I'm sure that WWW is well aware that the order of priorities mean AREA controllers quite often have to bin MIL to work CIVVY.

It's the law!!......I don't agree with it but RULES IS RULES:yuk:

[whowhenwhy]

Yep know all about the priorities list, just suggesting that with a reduction in fast-jet ac requiring operational freedom and with the further encroachment of CAS east over the top of Cottesmore, north over the top of Lakenheath etc, there's less need for area radar as it stands today. As civil ac become a higher % within the traffic mix and with a lot of the class G going, why have area radar as it now stands? It will certainly involve a change in the way that our civil ATCO brethren train and operate but if it's cheaper for the military to do and civil get the kickback of more CAS I'm sure that enough of the decision makers (notice not necessarily operators) will be happy.

[Airdrop Charlie]

Adis 5000

You raise some good points, and believe me plenty of us have been banging our heads about the HQ's reluctance to be pro active in its engagement with both your HQ and evolving our CONOPS to meet CinCs 2015 vision! Still, after this long I'm growing tired of getting bruises from said brick wall and like many, am wondering what news the next redundancy tranche will bring.

[Matoman]

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.

[Airdrop Charlie]

MATOMAN,

A well informed and articulate essay on mil ATC. Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately the one error you have made, was the application of logic. I am willing to concur that the staff at 3Gp do the best they can with the resoursces thet have (maybe not at higher staff levels though). I also remember the hilarious results of Boscombe (good PR opportunity for mil ATC lost there!), and the lack of felxibility from civil ATCOs which is a key difference required to enable mil fg ops. However, the weight of these arguements (ie: achieving mil effect) will selodm win over the bean counters who ultimately determine mil policy. If it is cheaper to amalgamte ATC and FC, or civilianise elements, then that is what will happen! That is unless the branch makes itself as indispensable as say, the need for Typhoon!!!

[BDiONU]

MATOMAN

I too thought it a well written piece. However you're viewing the future of civil area ATC from the current perspective with civil 'on route' and a military 'off route'. The intent in the future is to introduce very many more controller tools to simplify things for controllers and also allow more flexibility to aircraft instead of forcing them to fly on airways. Medium Term Conflict Alert, increased automation of the control task, flexible use of airspace, availibility of Mode 'S' to ATCO's etc. will all come in the foreseeable future. The start is in 2006 when the Upper Air comes down to FL195 and we're already seeing the benefits of FUA.
The benefits involved of sectorisation of the military area task has already made itself apparent to an enthusiastic air staff at 3Gp (witness Western Sunset and probably Eastern Sunrise). Civil ATCO recruitment is good and throughput at the college is improving as NATS concentrate on getting more bums on seats. The introduction of more automation and controller tools will inevitably mean that there will be capacity increases in UK airspace, which is in any case not being fully used at all times of the day as it is. There will be some fat in the not too distant future for NATS to absorb some military tasks.
As for D&D, its time this thorn was grasped. Why are military controllers working civil aircraft in emergency, particularly GA who are simply lost? Given the current access to data at GP consoles the military D&D task could, with few additional requirements, be handled from a GP console IMHO (held an Emergency endorsement for 6 years).

BD

[whowhenwhy]

If you had held an emergency endorsement for 6 years, you'd know that there is more that goes on than simply talking to ac on 243, 245.1 & 121.5. Tracing action is one of the biggest time consumers. How are you proposing to put that on a GP console? There are also a host of other activities, some of which are bolt ons following 9/11, that are incompatible with a normal controlling task.

As far as GA emergencies are concerned, NATS do not have the capacity to do the task, that's why they asked the military to do it. Yes there is scope for a big change in the way that the emergency organization is structured, but you're idea isn't it. Sorry!:ok:

[sumosan]

One thing that is easy to overlook when discussing the future of mil ATC is cost. It is cheaper to employ mil ATCOs than civil - otherwise, we'd all have been civilianised years ago. When the Gibraltar contract came up for renewal, the RAF could have made a cheaper bid and taken it back - you don't get cheaper than a sgt controller or an AvO - but did not want to.

This can also be extended to the ATC/FC debate. How can it be cheaper to train individuals in more skills which they may never get around to using?

Finally, as an ex-MATO and STC staff officer, I know from experience that the system is not perfect and some individuals could do better; however, it's easy to throw dirt when you haven't been there. Many individuals go to such posts thinking that they can change the world and the reality proves to be a bit of a disappointment. It's easy to have a crewroom rant but not necessarily very constructive.

[BDiONU]

whowhywhen:

Tracing action isn't a job that HAS to be done on console, that could be done elsewhere, same as many of the D&D admin type jobs like closing ranges etc. Dunno what the additional tasks since 9/11 are exactly but I'm sure they're bluntie type ones ;-)

As for lack of NATS capacity to handle GA emergencies, as I've stated its the big high heid yins at 3 Gp who are talking about devolving the military area task to civil. Through some money at it and like most 'problems' suddenly solutions appear :-)


sumosan:

One possibility where civilianisation of the Mil task becomes effectively cheaper is where the civil controller can also work a civil sector. No more hordes of Mil hanging around the crew room waiting for the odd flight to leap into the skies. Assimilation!

BD

[Airdrop Charlie]

Sumosan,

Yes it is easy to cast stones, but since when is a crew room rant not constructive? You were around in the days when the crew room was just that, a room where people taking a break could discuss issues and learn from each other. The bean counters have ensured that the natural transfer of information from old and bold to the fresh meat in the crew room no longer takes place. Most crew rooms are now only occupied for the odd end of day social or leaving do at best. During the working day there might be 1 person in there doing their secondary duties! Consequently, such debates as the future of mil ATC and the age old moan at the Ivory Tower formally known as MATO is consigned to a civilian website! Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate in my view - you could always start your own thread saying how wonderful everything is in the world of mil ATC!!!

[sumosan]

Airdrop Charlie,

Actually, when I started out towers were lucky to have only a third of their posts vacant! However, there were many more (very) old and bold controllers around - remember Master Pilots?

I would never say that all is wonderful with Mil ATC - as an ATCO, moaning is ingrained - but it sure beats a real job!:cool:

[PH-UKU]

MATOMAN wrote - "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. "

Not all of us are reluctant :E - it's just that we're not allowed :rolleyes:

Some of us did cut our teeth in a past cold war so ain't scared of the big bad nasty Class G.

Anyway, the reason Mil ATC still exists is cheap labour. Market rate for anyone with radar skills is probably NATS rates or slightly higher. Mil rates are probably about 65-70% of that.

Which is why despite years of arguing MOD will not give you qualifications that can be recognised. Cos you'd all jump ship. Shame on them.

I too remember the Airwork/Boscombe fiasco - an early attempt at privatisation.

Truth is - there are still too few controllers on the civvie side (what with new sectors splitting and opening all the time) - so exactly where are NATS going to get ATCOs to do any military task .... ?

Hmmm... do I detect a new "Dundridge type" course for Mil Area controllers on the horizon? Or will they convince you to take a job at 60% of the market rate and just top it up with a mil pension ?

[Airdrop Charlie]

PH-UKU

Of course that is the crux of the matter - cost and the relatively cheap mil ATCO. However, it would not be difficult to create a mil employment contract whereby for a pre-determined return of service, mil controllers would leave with a recognised licence. This would overcome a number of issues including our ability to control on operations overseas, recruitment incentives and job satisfaction. There will always be a number of people who wish to stay in the RAF, but for those who reach a career ceiling, the opportunity to leave with a valid qualification would make joining in the first place a reasonable option. We do it now with aircrew who can leave with an ATPL!! This would disarm the fear of people leaving because they're qualified outside - they would only get that recognition after the appropriate return of service! Surely a 21 yr old would be more attracted to the thought of serving in the RAF with all the opportunities it still offers knowing that at age xx they will leave with a recognised skill. Instead our recruitment posters say things like join the RAF as an RAF Regiment Gunner - salary £24K-£72K!!!

[Gisajob]

Oh Sumosan, How naive can you be ? Do you realy think that the military could run ATC at Gibraltar cheaper than the civvies !!

The military would put 15 ATCOs and 18 ATCAs in the tower. The civies would put 10 ATCOs and 8 ATCAs in the tower. (make your own coffee sir!!) Believe me, I know.

If the military thought that they could do it cheaper they would.

Are you a military ATCO? Wanna job in Jan 2006. Get a UK CAA ADC rating and if we have a vacancy I will pay for your APR rating course free. Then you could work at Gibraltar on £45,050 to £51,100 p.a and it would still be cheaper than employing military ATCOs. Tempting offer eh ?

Gisajob

[Matoman]

Gisajob,

I imagine there's a whole host of reasons why the military have no wish to commit ATC staff to Gibraltar, but in the unlikely event that the powers that be did decide to return when the current contract ends, I imagine the establishment would be rather less than what you quoted, given the light traffic levels.

The biggest problem in posting someone to such a quiet unit is skill fade and even you would not venture to suggest it's as demanding as Gutersloh was in the late 1980's. It might suit some elderly types like myself in the twilight of their career, but would probably have less appeal to the more youthful individuals you really need to attract . Still your job offer is tempting ........ but hang on............................. doesn't it means having to work for Serco!?!

Perhaps remaining in uniform isn't all that bad after all.

Matoman

[Gisajob]

No Matoman,

You really must keep abreast of the changing times.

One will only need to work for Serco if they win the current contest for the contract which is between Serco, NATS and Safeskys.

But you are right about the nature of both the job and the temperatment of the ATCOs who should work there.

Ex-Gutersloh types will be bored !!


Gisajob

[BDiONU]

Don't think I'll be applying for Gibraltar then, having done two tours at Gutersloh :-)) Mind you I think it was busier in the mid eighties than the late ;-)

BD

[Airdrop Charlie]

Sounds like Gib might be an option next year! But what is the liklihood of a vacancy?

[Airdrop Charlie]

So anyone any idea who is going to get the chop in Tranche 2?