Civvy to military handovers.

[Workisfun]

Can anybody tell me if there is a set procedure for civilian to military handovers?

We do them quite regularly at our unit but everyone is very different. Sometimes they take 3times as long as a mil to mil handover. Some civ controllers say just freecall it but if the pilot is under a rad service i feel that is a poor show on the controlling fraternity as we should be doing our best for them. I will always freecall FIS.

On more than one occasion I have tried handovers with coordination on RAS traffic and their response is never the professional one it should be. I've even been hung up on before!

to quote 'you'll never catch me with that one'!!! or 'but the traffic your giving me is RIS?'!!! Rules is rules, why dont the civvys respect ours?

Do they teach slackness at Hurn or does it creep in over the years.

[The Fat Controller]

They teach relatively little about this at Hurn.
As for the service the aircraft will receive after handover, that is a matter of negotiation between the pilot and receiving controller, so the handover becomes a little pointless, either way !
At my (Area) unit, we often transfer traffic to Mil units, but rarely with a handover, just having pre-noted details to them.
We do our best to call any traffic as they leave but as most traffic is receiving RIS that is all we can do.
I disagree competely about your "slackness" remark, YOU may be dealing with 3 or 4 aircraft in the FIR whereas we have 5 or 6 on airways plus several in the FIR on RIS.
It's all a matter of priorites, and I am afraid the FIR comes last.

[Workisfun]

Not wanting to get into a petty argument over who is doing more work than who. But just for info, I regularly work a mixture of FIS,RIS and RAS traffic with up to 15 speaking units all doing pretty much whatever they want, so your statement is fankly wrong.

Now all I expect is a slightly more professional approach from our neighboring civ units. I am not branding all civ controllers as slack but the some of the responses me and my colleagues have recieved in the past have been frankly 'slack', if we were pilots it would be called poor airmanship.

The whole reason I have posted here is to see if there is a way in which I can phrase my handover such that the civ controller is going to take it with the least amount of hassle, or is it that a termination of service and a free call is really the best solution? After all if you are really busy you don't want Farmer giles blathering on for 3 minutes with his opening gambit inluding his wifes name and what he had for dinner last night.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Hi workisfun, and welcome to PPrune!

I suspect you may get a more coherent response from our civvie colleagues if you start from the assumption that we are all, in our own different ways, doing our best to fly safely, but that the differences between us sometimes get in the way. Opening with a suggestion of slackness (whether it is true or not) is unlikely to make for co-operative relations.

As a mil pilot who shares airspace and speeds pretty much with the puddle-jumping fraternity, I would also be very interested in a discussion following from the opening question. When is it best to just clear one freq and join the next, and when is a handover useful to reduce workload on the ground? I don't want to ask for the difficult option unless I actually need it.

And I can't ask my local ATCO - our little patch of tarmac for 2 helos doesn't have one!

Sven

[Chilli Monster]

Workisfun

What you need to understand is the following. In the civil world a handover is effectively a transfer of ident - nothing more. In addition to this transfer of control is never done unless the aircraft is "clean" (or at least, if it's RIS, relevant traffic information is passed).

So - on this basis - when you pre-note the traffic and tell the unit the squawk it's on to enable them to ident it then that's all that's required. They'll take the details, allocate you a squawk, and they'll be watching for the squawk to change. There is no, in the civil world, requirement for a further formal handover as taught by the military.

Another subnote to this - in the civil world, even doing the above, the term "contact............" is still used (not freecall) because the details of the flight have been passed and acknowledged. Freecall is used only when details have not been passed.

Now - if it's RAS then the above still applies. All that changes is if you have to put it on a heading for traffic avoidance then you'd say "contact..................with heading"

Hope this makes sense and explains things.

[RNGrommits]

Aww gawd, not another Civil vs Military thread! And just when I thought we had all got bored of it and were about to try and be nice to each other and get on with keeping aircraft from bumping into one another!

Workisfun, you sound like a relatively new military controller.
You should just concentrate on doing your job EXACTLY the way the way the good folk up at CATCS taught you. If the person on the other end of the landline, whoever they may be, is doing or saying it differently, persevere with it, say your stuff and hand over the aircraft, no matter how long it takes or frustrating it is. At the subsequent board of enquiry/court martial you will be water tight if you do it this way.

Don't get into the habit of using gash phraseology just becauase all us old duffers around you or on the other end of a landline do. It will keep the LEO happy if you are standard!

[Pierre Argh]

Hi RNGrommits saw you pop up on this one... so thought I'd watch (just for entertainment value :-)) Chillimonster Freecall is used only when details have not been passed Why then do two neighbouring units bother to take all the details and then say "freecall" the traffic? IMHO the Mil regs are a bit too anal for today (with good, cluttter-free radar and SSR most of the time)... and, I think I'm right in saying, that most of this comes from teaching on JATCC... another example of Shawbury elaborating the regs for their own purposes, but teaching them as gospel (RNGrommits Pse Note)?

[RNGrommits]

Sven
Military controllers will always endeavour to hand you over to the next unit if you are recieving a radar service, and as such you have priority over FIS traffic.
If the frequency sounds excessively busy, then FIS tracks will be offloaded first, and the supervising controller will help out the LARS/Zone controller to hand over radar traffic.
If I were you I would sit tight until handed over and only offer to freecall if you are now in conditions where you would be happy to take a FIS.
(and before everyone starts, there are occassions when we freecall RIS's, but its not very often!!!).

[Pierre Argh]

Sven

... in addition to RNGrommits comments (which is IMHO accurate) we would not NORMALLY handover a FIS track i.e. expect a Freecall. If you are getting a FIS, request a handover and have been identified (not always the case) it may be possible... but is lowest priority, can inconvenience both transfering and receiving units and so will probably only been done when workload is light

[benedictus]

The only problem I have with handing over traffic to the mil is the length of time it takes.

1. Call Mil, speak to allocator
2. allocator transfers to Controller
3. Assistant answers controller line standby for controller
4. Controller takes details will call you back
5. you wait and wait and wait
6. ring mil, speak to allocator again
7. assistant answers phone again
8. standby
9. speak to controller, "sorry I forgot, just get himn to freecall"

Lots of hassle especially when the traffic has climbed like a rocket and is about to leave CAS when looking for a continuous climb in CAS.

[flower]

Handovers to Military;
Ask your assistant to pre-note LJAO
Ring up correct LJAO position when ready( we have the various positions mediator numbers in front of us, plus a direct line to LJAO SW)
Know the handover spiel.

Still takes more time than a civilian handover but can be done pretty quickly if you set it up.

[Canary Boy]

and, I think I'm right in saying, that most of this comes from teaching on JATCC... another example of Shawbury elaborating the regs for their own purposes, but teaching them as gospel If this is indeed true it is very worrying! I was under the impression that they (CATCS) were very careful to teach exactly in conformality with JSP content, but if you know differently, you'll have to expand on the 'elaboration of regs' etc...

[Pierre Argh]

Good regulations should provide a framework for operations that allows, at times, some scope for interpretation to provide flexibility? The snag with JATCC teaching, that I refer to, is that for good reason (in order to achieve objectivity as part of the ongoing course assessment and to ensure interaction between the students) they teach their interpretation as fact.

One of several examples that comes to mind is the rule for "continue" on finals... Several Post-JATCC students have told me they are only allowed to have one aircraft on a continue; and that a third aircraft on finals must automatically be sent around? But, there is nothing in JSP552 mandating this action, and out in the "real world" multiple aircraft on continue works and is often expeditious. (There are some more examples on a PM to you)... but think this proves my point?

[Canary Boy]

Those ex JATCC students and their subsequent mentors must remember to draw the distinction between 'Simulatorisms' (only 1 on continue) and the teaching of JSP-based regulations. JATCC must include rules that studes can 'hang their hats on', otherwise the course would probably be 3 times the length! As far as flexibility goes, that comes with experience and can only be touched-upon on JATCC within the constraints of an individual's capabilities (ie, don't blow their minds!!)

[Widger]

I agree with Pierre but, I must say; in defence of CATCS; that the JATCC is only a training environment to give students a "toolbox" to go out into the big wide world. The regulations in JSP552 are open for interpretation and a good thing it is to. It allows flexibility and flair to be used. Unfortunately there are those who have been JATCCised who believe that the CATCS way is the only way. If this is not "beaten out of them" at their unit then they inevitably go back there as instructors and the cycle starts again.


On the whole, we all do pretty well. Military controller phraseology is generally of a higher standard than the average civil counterpart but, what really matters is that both parties understand each other and the aircraft are kept safe.

There is a void in the MoD and hopefully the much touted MAA; if it forms; may resolve many of the issues that are constantly raised here and elsewhere.

[Pierre Argh]

Getting the thread back onto the subject of handovers... and playing "Devil's Advocate" for a bit.

The current military prenote procedure almost doubles the workload effort. Despite pre-noting the releasing controller has to repeat a lot during the handover and the receiving team takes two calls.

Notwithstanding the needs of the Military Area Radar Units, what would be the problem in accepting a pre-note in the same way as a handover providing SSR is available?

The pre-note gives in advance everything you get from a formal handover except position/identification, but JSP552 allows for identification by observing a change of squawk, or selecting a pre-allocated squawk. So the track can be identified, all you might need is a LOA stipulating areas of overlapping cover... I cannot see a problem and would certainly aid flexibility and workload management.

But the greatest arguement is that it would negate the debate on this thread... and be another step towards Standardisation.

[Widger]

Pierre,

There are many areas where the civil military handovers work fine. Once prenoted the aircraft is "frecalled" (continue with for those military reading) if clear of confliction. I can think of many areas where this already happens. LATCC Mil - Newcastle/Teesside, LATCC - several military units, Birmingham- Swanwick, Yeovilton-Bristol/SOTON. I am sure other posters will come up with other examples.

In virtually all these cases, the units concerned have talked to each other and agreed the handover criteria to allow these transfers to take place. It is not an insurmountable problem.

[Pierre Argh]

Widger

and SMG - Exeter & Cardiff

Yes, you're right... but it is not an offically sanctioned procedure, and can confuse the less experienced. If it is common practice then why not endorse it in the regulations?

[Chilli Monster]

Once prenoted the aircraft is "frecalled" (continue with for those military reading)

Actually that's "Contact" for those civil reading (see my post near the beginning).

[Widger]

Pierre,

At most units it is endorsed in local orders/LOAS. I think it would be wrong to be too proscriptive in the JSP as this would make the document massive, unweildy (sp) and take away the flexibility of units to modify local regs to suit their particular environment.

:ok:

[NorthSouth]

Chilli Monster:Actually that's "Contact" for those civil readingWe had a mil ATCO try to explain this (very briefly) at a MCASD today and I thought I had it but now you've gone and got me all confused again.

What the man told us was something along the lines of:

No contact between the controllers: "freecall"
Details passed but not a formal handover: "continue with"
Radar handover: "contact"

Is that correct, for military controllers?

Then you seem to be saying civil controllers never use the term "freecall". I'm pretty sure they use it regularly at least at the civil unit I fly from.

You know this is an area where pilot knowledge is really very poor and it strikes me that if the pilots getting the service don't know the significance of the words, why bother using them?

NS

[Chilli Monster]

NorthSouth - Civil phraseology:

Freecall - your details have not been passed to the other unit

Contact - details have been passed to the other unit and they're expecting your call.

[NorthSouth]

OK that's clear.
What about military?

[norvenmunky]

Contact = a radar or silent handover has taken place.

Freecall = the next agency will know cock all about you.

Continue = details have been passed to the next unit but no radar handover has taken place.

[Mr R Sole]

Do LATCC Mill actually have a strip with a FPL route on it when dealing with Civvy traffic. Used to deal with them on a regular basis on the east caost and they often didn't have a clue if I asked for a short cut to a another waypoint for weather avoidance for example. They also used to try and give us airway joining clearance for a airway that was not open!!

Why is the Vale of York a constant area of poor radar performance or it was when I used to fly along there on a regular basis? I can understand radar clutter, which was sometimes mentioned. Does LATCC Mil use the NATS radar heads around the UK or do they use radar feeds from Mil airfields?

One thing that I could never figure out was when under a RAS and the ATCO was busy the old chestnut of 'Due to high traffic density standard separation may not be achieved' was mentioned. If that is the case then why do you offer a RAS in the first place? Can't see the logic - wouldn't a RIS be easier for the controller?

[Workisfun]

R Sole, I can shed some light on the answer to your third question.

When a pilot requests RAS it is usually the case that he is IFR, IMC and not able to see and avoid other traffic. RAS will provide the pilot with advisory vectors or altitude changes which aim to acheive 5nm or 3000ft separation. In order to reach your destination expeditiously it may be the only option to route you through areas of high traffic density where the standard separation may not be acheived (hence the phrase) but the controller will still vector around and call conflicting traffic. So if you're RAS and hear that phrase, you will still be vectored and informed of all conflicting traffic it's just that you may not be separated by the standard 3000ft or 5 miles.

If you don't want the avoiding action then just ask for a RIS.

And remember even under a FIS controllers still have a duty of care over you so they should call so called 'dead ringers' my criteria is within 1mile and 500ft. But don't rely on it as not all controllers are as nice as me!!!!

However when a controller is working to capacity he is well within his rights to downgrade the type of service to RIS or even FIS f its that bad, But what will normally happen is the FIS tracks he is working will be freecalled on route, then another controller(usually approach) will start to handover the RIS tracks onto other units leaving the controller to concentrate on providing the best service possible to the RAS traffic.

So whether the controller is busy or not RAS is RAS. If he is too busy to provide RAS he should offer downgrade to RIS. High traffic density is not an excuse not to offer avoiding action or call traffic.

Hope that helps

[whowhenwhy]

Having worked at London Mil in a previous life...

R Sole, they'll have an electronic flt strip with your details on it if you've filed a flt plan and addressed it to them. As for the rest of that paragraph, sorry can't comment.

London Mil uses the NATS radar heads and the Great Dunn Fell radar head does tend to produce a lot of clutter around the Teesside area.

Calling "Limited traffic information from all around due to high traffic density" an old chestnut is slightly unfair when applied to the Vale of York. A controller trying to get you through there under RAS is, on a bad day, trying to weave you through up to 40 VFR radar contacts playing between the surface and FL200, not to mention the radar clutter, which may be gliders, Leeming outbounds and stuff in the southern MDA. Mil controllers don't have the option of "just giving a RIS" if it gets a bit hard. You can only stop giving RAS under extreme conditions so if that's what you asked for, that's generally what you'll get. Some airfield controllers will try and convince you that you can't give RAS in their airspace because it's too busy, but that's rubbish. It just means that they don't understand the rules that they're applying fully.

Agree totally with norvenmonkey about handover phraseology:ok:

[Pierre Argh]

Agree with Workisfun's comments... would add (although don't have a copy of JSP552 to hand so not verbatim) High traffic density is not an excuse not to offer avoiding action or call traffic. that when operating in high density/high workload the Controller will give priority to separation from known traffic... i.e. separation from unknown traffic may not be applied, but in these circumstances the Controller is to ATTEMPT to pass traffic information on the unkown traffic... attempt, note!

Why offer RAS?... because you asked for it. Normally the service requested is the one provided... as pointed out by my colleagues, a Controller is entitled to downgrade service due to workload, but "high traffic density" does not necessarily equal "high workload". It just may be a lot of aircraft in one area when achieving standard separation is unlikely NO MATTER how busy the Controller is.

[Hippy]

Do LATCC Mill actually have a strip with a FPL route on it when dealing with Civvy traffic. Used to deal with them on a regular basis on the east caost and they often didn't have a clue if I asked for a short cut to a another waypoint for weather avoidance for example. They also used to try and give us airway joining clearance for a airway that was not open!!

There will always be an electronic 'strip' available to Lon Mil controllers. This may or may not be the FPL that you filed. If your filed plan was not addressed to Lon Mil (EGWDZQZX) or did not get through the Mil computer's very strict syntax checking then 'your' plan will not be available. In this instance, a plan will be made up on the spot by the military support controller using whatever information is available. It may not always be recognized by the controller whether the 'strip' they are looking at has been filed by the operator or made up by the support controller. That is if the controller even bothers to read the routing info on the 'strip'. These 'strips' are used primarily for internal coordination and stats gathering. Controllers generally pay little regard to the route element and will rely on what they have been told by the previous controller or quiz the pilot. It should be noted that unlike IFPS, the Mil flightplan reception computer will not issue the originator a rejection message if your plan fails automatic processing. There is no facility for manual handling of rejected plans. (Or rather there is but nobody does it).

As regards issuing a clearance for a closed airway, well, we don't issue them we just relay them. Sounds like the controller confused acceptance of a class G prenote by SCATCC with a clearance. No excuse there really.