Calling Mil Controllers

[Airdrop Charlie]

Mil Controllers,

Hopefully you will have been reading the "Mil/Civ Operations" thread posted by 'Get me some traffic'. If not, I'd suggest you have a look and see what your civilian counterparts think of you!!! Suffice to say, these overpaid egotists view you very much as unprofessional second rate controllers who do not understand the rules and regulations which should be applied. There is clearly much ignorance in their comfy world. God help the GA fraternity when Mil ATC is contractorised (I give it 10 years) and they have to rely on LARS from some of these "professional" controllers. Still, at least they will be secure in the knowledge that as the UK Armed Forces are cut to the bone, civil ATC centres will be ever more exposed to terrorist threats! At least their taxes won't be wasted on anything so frivolous as defending the nation!

[Carbide Finger]

Airdrop,

I'm a civil controller at Swanwick. I work in conjunction with the Swanwick Mil guys and gals everyday to give everyone the best service we can, be it a hawk or a B777.

Obviously, everyone has their speciality. Funnily enough, mine is airways work. I shift a hell of a lot of traffic. The Mil's is FIR work. They're good at it, I certainly don't enjoy doing what they do (on the odd occasion that I give ATSOCAS). I am not ignorant, and I am certainly not comfy. If you hadn't noticed we're having a bit of a busy year. Most people would say that we are earning every penny of our wages.

The Mil controllers that I work with are certainly not second rate or unproffesional, I hold them in the highest regard. As I've said above, I don't enjoy doing what they do.

As for your comments on Forces cuts and outsourcing of ATC services, we don't make the decision. Your people do, we just bid for the contracts.

And don't go giving the terrorists any more ideas, we're high enough on the list already, thanks. Also, I would like to be able to get some breakfast before the armed police eat all of it.

Regards

CF

[Fox3snapshot]

This palava rears its ugly head every 6 months or so and I enjoy the opportunity to throw in a grenade!

As an ex military controller I am always amused at the petty, mis directed and ill informed perception a small (and insignificant portion) of the civil ATC community have of military ATC ops.

Having left the military and subsequently validated in 3 more countries under the civil umbrella, it has provided a proving ground for the standard of ATC training and operations that I was exposed to whilst serving.

There has been no scenario or situation that has not been within the boundaries of fundamental Air Traffic taught by the military, and most importantly in the current environment with 30%+ of
traffic in this and adjacent FIR's being military, the background has been invaluable.

On most occasions the individuals concerned probably didn't
cut the mustard trying to join the military and will hold an eternal grudge at their sub standard abilities!

:hmm:

[BDiONU]

Oh dear!! This form of internecine warfare is really not conducive to a good working relationship. I think some of the posts in the Civ/Mil thread say it all, there are good and bad on both sides but the good vastly outweigh the bad.

Any chance we can stop all the sniping, it only leads to bad feeling?

BD

[whowhenwhy]

Airdrop Charlie. Your profile doesn't suggest anything to your background, but from your comments I guess that you've never worked at Area radar? As far as civil area controllers are concerned, the VAST majority are excellent, very professional controllers who do a lot to help us (the military) out so that we can push a huge volume of air traffic through some of the most congested air space in the world. There are a SMALL minority who can be a pain, but we have those people in the military as well!

Your comments about terrorists threats and the like are un-warranted and frankly stupid!

There are problems with the way that some civil airfield controllers apply ATSOCAS, especially RAS. I believe most of that unfortunately comes about through interpretation of the rules, rather than actual diferences. You, as a flexible quick thinking individual just have to deal with it. As a much more famous than either of us, civil air traffic controller once said, 'if you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined!'

[Pierre Argh]

Having read, and replied to the Mil/Civ Operations thread, I would urge anyone to have a look at it... have a laugh, BUT please don't fall into the same trap of generalisation made by Getsometraffic?

I would particularly draw your attention to the post by CB... you've all worked with dodgy controllers, you all know there are shed-loads of them at the neighbouring unit, but the truth is there are good and bad... sorry, to be PC I'd better say "in need of development"... controllers on both sides.

[flower]

At my unit we not only provide Civil ATC but also provide the approach services to a Military Airfield within the confines of our Controlled Airspace. The increased delegated function we provide for London now also means even greater contact than before with LJAO. Perhaps we are in a unique position therefore to look at how operations are different between civil and Military ATC.

As I said in the other thread I work closely with the Military and have had a couple of bad encounters, equally I have had bad encounters with civil colleagues, but in the main we have an extremely good working relationship and long may it continue.

However ,as I also said in the other thread the procedures that many Military ATCOs seem to have to deal with are so different from us Civvies that it can be hard to fathom at times why the Military do what they do. We know we have to put so much more input into every Military movement than we do for a civil movement, we know we have to dedicate so much more time to coordination with Military colleagues than with Civil colleagues.
This in itself can lead to frustration.

What I have noticed though that since the move from London Mil to LJAO there does seem to be a relaxation in some procedures, is this true or have i just been lucky ?

On the other thread as well a comment was made about all Military ATCOs visiting civil units, well this Civil ATCO has visited many Military units as have my colleagues at my unit it is regarded as extremely important ,but the Military ATCOs we have to deal with on a daily basis don't come to see us,I have raised it and they say they are not given time, neither are we and we visit them on our days off.

PS. regarding the cutting the mustard comment in this thread, well I myself certainly "cut the mustard" I held the Queens commission just not as an ATCO, it takes all sorts to be an ATCO we don't have to be able to salute to control air traffic, as much as the derogatory comments towards Military ATC are unecessary so was that comment.

[Pierre Argh]

Flower...

here here

[ifaxu]

ADC I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have come off a night shift before posting your poisonous remarks. As many on this thread have replied I work on a daily basis with mil controllers and have never had a problem with them. They will always attempt to fit in with any traffic I am working within controlled airspace and take traffic from me if appropriate. As for being overpaid egotists.........well you may have a point there but I am not going to give them money back at the end of the month as I am sure you would not. I suggest that if you work in airtraffic that maybe you should learn to be a bit more relaxed about things and maybe even count to ten before posting again.

[Canary Boy]

ADC - you fall into the very trap that we're all trying to avoid - generalisation!


Flower -
However ,as I also said in the other thread the procedures that many Military ATCOs seem to have to deal with are so different from us Civvies that it can be hard to fathom at times why the Military do what they do. We know we have to put so much more input into every Military movement than we do for a civil movement, we know we have to dedicate so much more time to coordination with Military colleagues than with Civil colleagues.
Surely the regs are virtually identical? If there are fundamental differences in implementation/interpretation then:
1. They should have been resolved by SRG/ATCEB on visits (or is it the case that the rules are suddenly more 'aligned' during a visit? :suspect: )
2. The powers that be should have it brought to their attention so that disparities can be addressed.

[Matoman]

It is unfortunate that some individuals, probably with a personal chip on their shoulder about some past grievance, decide this forum is the best place to make sweeping and derogatory statements about military ATCOs. I have noticed that one individual in particular, no names, is always quick to add their own particular insults to anyone rubbishing military ATCOs. Yet in reality, this individual is actually an ex-military assistant, who presumably has some deep-seated grudge against all military ATCOs, perhaps because of some unfortunate disappointments in their own career in uniform. I admire and acknowledge this individuals success in becoming a civil ATCO. Nevertheless, perhaps in future they might like to just pause and reflect for a moment on the mistakes that they have made in the past, before being so quick to pass judgement on military ATCOs from their own fairly limited knowledge base of military ATC.

Like many of my military colleagues, I used to work alongside my civil counterparts in the old LJAO at West Drayton where there was an excellent working relationship and in which any mistakes or differences of opinion were quickly resolved, without recourse to paperwork or generalised insults – sadly those days appear long gone.

Many, many ex-military controllers have successfully converted into civil controllers and they are probably best placed to pass judgement on the competency or otherwise of the military. They at least will be aware of the constraints that the military ATCOs have to work within and I would suggest that any civil ATCO with an axe to grind should firstly seek out an ex-military controller at their unit and see if they can perhaps provide some balance before they rush into print. Like most of my military colleagues with 30+ years experience, I can easily recall a number of incidents caused by civil controllers and their different interpretation of certain rules and procedures, however, you don’t see many threads on that topic in this forum, because I like to think we are more inclined to give and take and accept that one act of stupidity does not tar everyone with the same brush.

I always used to find it difficult to suppress a chuckle when I heard a very well known senior figure in the military ATC world pontificate about the ‘joint and integrated ATC service in the UK’. I doubt his technical skill would enable him to either read or contribute to this forum, however, if he ever did manage to view some of the posts, I think he might finally be jolted into realising just how wide of the mark his comment has been for all these years.

Of course in an ideal world all civil and military controllers would complete exactly the same training, but thanks to the Treasury this is unlikely to ever happen. I suggest the argument to change the current arrangements should be directed to those with the power to influence the policy, rather than simply throwing insults at the military ATCOs who are the result of that policy and frankly are powerless to affect any change. Of course we are suffering from low experience levels at units, but that is the result of a system that does not sufficiently encourage the retention of experienced controllers, hardly the fault of the controllers themselves, who are doing the best they can in the circumstances.

Like it or not, we all have to get along, and working together, with a little understanding and give and take on both sides, is infinitely better than being permanently at loggerheads. There’s good and bad ATCOs on both sides and there always will be.

Matoman

[Get me some traffic]

Pierre Argh suggests that I have fallen into the trap of generalisation, I beg to differ. See the comments made by the Airprox Board in the latest analysis (170/04). See also my reply on the mil/civ ops post. It's good to talk.

[Pierre Argh]

See the comments made by the Airprox Board in the latest analysis (170/04). Not sleeping with said document under my pillow can you please enlighten us, who do not have access, as to exactly what is said?

I did enjoy the comment about the ATCEB/SRG sorting out standardisation issues??? Sometimes seems to me that we are singing the same song... in the way that Simon & Garfunkel did with "Strawberry Fayre"

Have you seen Roger That's post, which answers the question of standardisation/interpretation, I think...?

[Widger]

Pierre,

170/04 has been published in book 13. It involved a contretemps between an MD83 and a DA20 being controlled by Teeside and Leeming.

The report gives a full account of events. "Get me some", is still trying to stir things up, because in this Airprox both controllers were talking to each other, but never actually agreed anything. Trying to use Airprox to support your debate is flawed because there are examples to suit every argument. I am not going to give examples of types, because there are hacks on here that like to sensationalize every occurence and I would be doing their reasearch for them.

As I mentioned in the other thread on this subject, it is good to talk. If you have a problem with a unit or just a particular individual, phone up the unit and have a word. Go and visit. Most units have their village idiot and generally when the phone call comes in, you get the reply "oh, not him/her again, thanks for the call, sorry about that, we will sort it out".

We are all clinging to this very small rock, trying to do our best.

Good luck to anyone flying in the UK today! Enjoy the delay.

[Larsman]

Jbeg to differ with widger. If he cares to read trhe report properly he will see that the Civil board members stated that in thier opinion the flights were clearly co ordinated. The mil said it wasnt because the phrase " coordination agreed" was not used. Where in the MATS pt 1 does it state a civil controller should say coordination agreed

[Widger]

larsman,

I have read the report carefully. I refer the honourable gentleman to the cause:

Cause: The Teesside APR descended the MD83 to a level not yet vacated by the FA20.


If he cares to read trhe report properly he will see that the Civil board members stated that in thier opinion the flights

Incorrect

A very experienced controller Member opined

A very = (singular)

Regardless of the issue of phraseology, you do not descend your aircraft to a co-ordinated level without ensuring that the other aircraft has got there first. Both aircraft were descending and the FA20 never got to FL50.

The issue of phraseology has been done to death on the mil/civil thread with some quite good comments on there.

In this instance it is quite incredible that two very closely located units were not aware of each others issues/foibles/rules.

Controller Members were dismayed that such difficulties should ensue between such closely located aerodromes
whose respective ATSUs needed to work closely with one another and whom would inevitably be co-ordinating
their traffic with one another routinely.

[unfazed]

Interesting debate Mil / Civvy

Had good experiences of both as well as bad....unfortunately recent experiences at Brize leave me puzzled as to what is going on in Mil world

Asked for and received FIS near Oxford...listened to single stressed controller telling nearly every civvy pilot who called for a service to "standbye" (assume working discreet mil frequency as well)

When my turn came to advise frquency change thanks for your time ....No response.....waited a couple of minutes in case on the phone.....still no reply so repeated my transmission

Very irate controller tells me that he is working two frquencies and starts giving me a lecture about being patient ??

Left me with the impression that Mil are understaffed for the service that is provided and that service (and potentially also safety) is suffering as a result

Is it not unreasonable to expect 1 controller as a minimum per frquency ? If you cannot provide a reasonable level of service then say so at the start

[Pierre Argh]

Shortages, undoubtedly, but... the impression that Mil are understaffed for the service it provides Actually... LARS is provided from within a unit's spare capacity, so there is no question about being "staffed" or "understaffed"... LARS takes the lowest priority; sorry, lowest that is except for FIS. It is regretable that the Unit you called were unable to respond, (and even more so that they subsequently berated you!) but not inexcusable.

...and incidentally the same rules apply to both Mil & Civil ATSUs

[unfazed]

but not inexcusable

Not responding to a radio call from somebody you have agreed to provide a service to is inexcusable.

I was led to believe that when you hear those key words "FIS" that you have successfully negotiated a verbal "contract" and that a service has been agreed between controller and pilot.

[Pierre Argh]

Unfazed

Sorry you missed my point. You believe correctly... but LARS/FIS is the lowest priority and if the controller is getting calls from other aircraft (maybe on other frequencies... it is not unknown to be monitoring 3-4 freqs at a time) that are a higher priority, you may not receive an immemdiate answer to your call, I suspect (hope)the Controller wasn't totally ignoring you, but was waiting for pause when (s)he could get back to you... i.e. that's the excuse.

Mind you, the unit might have told you on your initial call it was working to capacity, so if possible and all you required was FIS you might switch to another unit... or expect problems? That's inexcusable!

[unfazed]

Pierre Argh

Thanks for clarifying for me....I am very surprised to hear that it if fairly normal practice for a single controller to be working 3 or 4 multiple frequencies, I will certainly bear that in mind and will monitor the frequency rather than request a service.

Not ideal but better than being berated, I feel sorry for the controller who is working multiple frequencies, my personal experience leaves me with an impression that this could potentially be dangerous, lead to stressed out ATC staff and I wonder is "management" simply taking multi-tasking to extremes in order to "dump" on individuals ?

Why not a minimum of 1 controller per frequency ? I am sure there are enough people looking for these jobs, suspect the purse strings have been pulled too tight.

[Pierre Argh]

Unfazed... thank you. To take up your suggestion...
Why not a minimum of 1 controller per frequency For a start you have the matter of UHF and VHF frequencies and it would be impractical to have controllers on each doing the same task (e.g. sequencing recovery into the airfield).

Then, there is a need to band-box positions from time-to-time i.e. combining Approach & Director... hence the four frequencies I mentioned. It's not ideal, and would not normally be maintained during busy periods... but sometimes workload flairs up on a controller and can then take a while to offload.

If you find you are constantly getting berated by a particular unit, this can often be resolved by a telephone call, or better still an arranged visit to the unit; from which both sides might emerge with a better understanding of the others problems.

PLEASE DON'T take the option to monitor the frequency rather than check in as your "norm"... it means that you remain as "unknown" traffic to the controller (who is obliged to take increased separation on you)... and from your perspective you may be able to monitor one, maybe even two, of the frequencies in use... but will be unaware of activity on the others, and therefore unable to develop a "big picture".

[Chilli Monster]

Pierre

A certain DERA/Qinetiq airfield I once worked at (and indeed even a civil airfield I know quite well) had the ability to "cross-couple" the relevant VHF/UHF frequencies so you never had the problem of aircraft never hearing the other frequency the controller was working.

Now - the DERA airfield used the same MASCOT system that MoD airfields are fitted with to this day. Selecting the cross couple was done by selecting the "con"(? - the bottom button of the 3 on the Rx/Tx/? column) on each frequency you wanted to cross couple in addition to the Rx and Tx buttons. Isn't it about time, from a flight safety point of view, that this option was actively investigated and installed. It would stop the constant frequency hopping when positions are bandboxed, and stop the oft said remark that was made to unfazed.

[flower]

We also have VHF and UHF cross-coupled at Cardiff on the LARS position ( yes we have a UHF frequency )

[fabs]

Chilli Monster,

We were discussing that very point at my unit just last week, when the MASCOT first came in we did indeed cross couple the frequencies. Can't really remember when or why it stopped. Mentioned it to ground radio at this unit and they are looking into it. So hopefully soon it'll be back, at this unit at least!

[Pierre Argh]

I am a fan of cross-coupling (behave!)... ours works (I've tried it briefly) but selecting it casues the Mascot console jams up after a while... blocking all frequencies and landlines (doh!).

But if someone can persuade the engineers to look into it once again that'd be good/progress/amazing (delete as appropriate?)

[RNGrommits]

Navy stratus comms system had cross couple as well but was never really used as it tended to bugger up the whole system (something to do with our 1206 1950's silicone chunk Tx/Rx's).

[unfazed]

Technically it sounds like there is a workaround (albeit a bit flaky)

I will call up for service if controller sounds "normal" but if busy or obviously "stressed" then I will monitor frequency and unfortunately increase their stress as I will be "unknown traffic"

Works for me and keeps my day pleasant

[RNGrommits]

Checked out the possibility of cross coupling our mascot system at my current unit and got a resounding look of confusion. I was however, informed "we regularly did it at London" but no-one seems to have done it at a RAF terminal unit.
If it can be done on the mascot system, I would be interested to find out how (although might wait till a very quiet night before trying it out and completely screwing the system).

(I also now have visions of other units reading any reply, trying it themselves and completely paralysing every RAF tower at the same time! Oops)

[Chilli Monster]

RNG

All we had to do was select "Rx", "Tx", and "Con". You should have the red LED lit below the "Con" button. All the frequencies thus selected, with the LED's lit, were then coupled together.

However - check with your engineers first - this ability might be unit specific.

[jEtGuiDeR]

Navy stratus comms system had cross couple as well but was never really used as it tended to bugger up the whole system Nobody could put the 50p's in quick enough either!! ;)

[Pierre Argh]

Chilli

your desrciption of how to activate it is spot on... but Ground Radio in our Tower have been instructed to pull the cross-couple boards... so that we cannot jam up the system.

It would certainly benefit from further investigation, but is now likely to involve persuading Henlow (or wherever) of a fresh need... Good luck?