Gatco

[RNGrommits]

Right, time to inject some life into these forums which are dying the death in terms of intrest.

Having thumbed my way from the front to the grass cuttings of my latest "Transmit" magazine in a record time (sub 10 seconds), I was idly wondering whether any MILITARY ATCO’s are actually a member of this organisation for any reason other than the insurance it offers (for use against subsequent BOI) or the vain hope that you might get a cheap flight from Touchdown - although in my experience teletext & expedia et al normally beat them hands down.

What percentage of the membership is military?
Have any of the execs ever been military?
Do they actively advocate the military or the civil airspace users perceived needs i.e. when have they ever said - hey the military needs more danger areas to achieve their objectives?
Am I the only person who thinks that GATCO is a civil organisation that actively tries to restrict military operations yet still takes my money?

And why does it always look like there are only 4 dinosaurs attending its formal diners?

Seriously though, the last military interest article that I can recall was the Ply Mil one last year, and that was a copy from another publication. Are the military
a. Getting their moneys worth,
or
b. Being proportionally represented by,

this organisation?

[flower]

Having been a guest at the last GATCO AGM and dinner I can assure you there are a number of Military people there and if I am correct a Military ATCO has just taken up one of the senior positions on the executive board.

Not all of us were dinosaurs either :ooh:

[Pierre Argh]

Mind you... in the last but one edition of "Transmit" the Chairman wrote that GATCO had contact SRG and "represented the Guild' views... " on the use of military airfields by civilian aircraft. Despite an invitation to explain what these "views" were nothing has been forthcoming; and I suspect the views may not be those held by the military proportion of the membership?

RNGrommits... you have a point, but membership isn't compulsory and I suspect many of us join for our own reasons. If you feel the military isn't adequately represented (despite Flower's post... Hi Flower, long time no see!)... Why not put yourself forward for election (heck it'd look good on your OJAR)?

[BDiONU]

I was in GATCO when I was a military controller and I'm still a member now (retired). When I was serving at a Scottish Area Control Centre one of my fellow military controllers was the President of the guild for a while.

BD

[Widger]

Cracking Toast,

To answer your questions, no and no.

I used to be a member but no longer. £6.50 a month for a diary is quite expensive when I can get one for much less from FHM and that has half dressed women in it.

The Guild is totally biased in it's corporate view. A clear example was the December issue when the President wrote about how useless RAS was. Their policy is Controlled Airspace everywhere and everyone else be damned.


By the way you forgot that the fee is tax deductable but then again, I would rather not give them the money in the first place. Just find someone else's copy to nick!

:ok:

[PPRuNe Radar]

I think Spot Williams got a lot of support from GATCO so probably found the monthly cost worthwhile, certainly they gave him a lot more than his employers gave him :mad:

The legal aid and loss of licence stuff shouldn't be underestimated.

But, it's freedom of choice to forego that benefit and make your own arrangements at your own price :ok:

[rej]

The cheaper annual travel insurance through TSJ is well worth the monthly subs (especially after you claim the tax back)
The diary tends to go straight into the bin but I reckon that the savings I made with cheap flights about 4-5 years ago have paid my subs for a few years (not that they are really available now)
Plus as you get older the legal aid might just tip the 'will I join- won't I join' balance.;)

[band 1 pond life]

I've been in and out of GATCO a few times and now out. Got fed up with ATCOs at my unit going off on junkets on my subs. However, their support for Spot Williams was first rate.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Their policy is Controlled Airspace everywhere and everyone else be damned>>

A view I have held for about the last 50 years. Maybe that's why I've been a Guild member all my ATC life?

[RNGrommits]

Agreed on their first rate help to spot. The "political" aspects, point in case the RAS article & others, makes me wonder whether they are actually balanced in their views between military and civil requirements.

(& Flower I would never dream of calling you a dinosaur, its just that the dinners always seem to have pictures of the same few people, just taken at different angles!).

[levesley]

What percentage of the membership of GATCO is military?

Approximately just under one third

Have any of the execs ever been military?

Our Director Admin is a serving RAF Controller. One of the three GATCO Company Directors, the GATCO Director responsible for developing current technical and professional policy and the Manager of the GATCO Admin facility are all ex RAF, our Note Secretary is ex Royal Navy. Another serving RAF controller is on our Policy Committee that reviews technical and technical policy and two more have recently expressed an interest in being more effective in that area. Even more military input and participation would be welcome.

Do they actively advocate the military or the civil airspace users percieved needs i.e. when have they ever said - hey the military needs more danger areas to achieve their objectives?
Its news to us that the military need more danger areas than those they have traditionally had the use of, have gained in the North Sea in recent years and plan for other offshore areas. Our role is to review and comment on airspace applications by airspace users not initiate them, I’m sure Strike Command would not wish it any other way.

Am I the only person who thinks that GATCO is a civil organisation that actively tries to restrict military operations yet still takes my money?

It is our responsibility to review airspace applications along with many other bodies including the RAF within NATMAC. The decisions are made by CAA, not us. There is no GATCO policy to restrict military operations but ATC has no precision weapons to adequately protect civil air transport flights in class G airspace except asking for controlled airspace. Give us perhaps a known environment and/or a real tactically variable flexible use of airspace, we’ll think again, but there are many other airspace users who don’t want one or both of those options.

And why does it always look like there are only 4 dinosaurs attending its formal diners?
I might just take a slight sideswipe here and point out that some of the "dinosaurs" he refers to may be former aircrew members of the RAF and Fleet Air Arm, some with distinguished service records and on other occasions they are qualified to wear a breast full of medals to boot.

Actually our formal dinners usually attract about 70 – 80 but yes, more younger members would be welcome, if they would prefer a more informal approach let us know. As a Company the Guild needs to have an AGM, and a social weekend including the dinner has always proved a way of encouraging people to attend. In recent years it has also given us the opportunity to expand and promote our award scheme. We await some military nominations for awards, a reminder and a general invitation to submit more nominations was in the most recent copy of Transmit.

Seriously though, the last military interest article that I can recall was the Ply Mil one last year,
RAF St Mawgan has provided an article in the current issue of Transmit and we printed an article a few copies ago on the goose detection system used by the RAF at Kinloss, provided by that unit. We don’t have a team of reporters. If you think you have a good story about your unit, submit it for publication. Again the most recent Transmit has an invitation for you to do just that.

Are the military being proportionally represented by GATCO?

If you think you are not, get involved - you’ll be knocking at an open door!

Mind you... in the last but one edition of "Transmit" the Chairman wrote that GATCO had contact SRG and "represented the Guild' views... " on the use of military airfields by civilian aircraft. Despite an invitation to explain what these "views" were nothing has been forthcoming;

If here has been an invitation to explain our view I haven’t seen it, but I have explained it in Transmit anyway. It has never been a criticism of the RAF’s management of its airfields or its ATS units and I have always been keen to stipulate that. The fact remains however that some criteria relating to airfield design and operations particularly in respect of clearances and service provision don’t coincide and the differences are not always obvious to aircrew. The argument isn’t that they should be, its that they are not. There is therefore a potential safety risk and like any safety minded professional organisation it is our duty to point that out. If one tenth of the effort spent complaining about what we have said had been devoted to solving the problem by the production and clear widespread promulgation of a joint MoD/CAA look up table I should be a lot happier.

John Levesley
President GATCO

[RNGrommits]

Thank you John.
It is nice to have a well balanced articulate reply that actually answers some of the questions originally posed. I, for one have been enlightened (if not entirley convinced!).