RAAF and ASA

[slusher]

Does anyone actually know what the future holds with project "Genesis"?

I have been told that ASA will be taking over several towers ie Richmond, Nowra, East Sale and Edinburgh?? Pearce Approach has moved into Perth and Darwin Approach is apparently moving to Brisbane at the end of 2007. Is the plan to eventually amalgamate the two ATC providers into one and allow civilian controllers into places such as Williamtown (Newcastle), Townsville and Darwin, where the majority of traffic is civilian anyway.

[DirtyPierre]

AsA have really only just come back from the Xmas stand-down period, so by the start of Feb. I'll know more about what is going on.

At this stage, as far as I know, Project Genesis is full steam ahead.

Everything will eventually be integrated with RAAF controllers using the TAAATS gear in the centres. Towers will have both mil and civilian controllers (this already happens as far as I'm aware, eg. Willy). Willy will be stand alone as a centre but eventually change to TAAATS equipment in the future. ADATS is dead.

There will always be a place for military controllers for deployment to various hot spots and exercises. Civil controllers (even ex-RAAF ones like me) have no desire to be in war zones. When Timor first kicked off in 1999, all ex-mil controllers (including me) in Brisbane Centre were asked if they would deploy to Timor tower. 100% negative reply.

Once again, I'll know more in about a couple of weeks, but someone out there with an ear closer to Canberra may have more up to date info.

[4Greens]

[QUOTE=DirtyPierre;3086189]AsA have really only just come back from the Xmas stand-down period, so by the start of Feb. I'll know more about what is going on.
At this stage, as far as I know, Project Genesis is full steam ahead.
Everything will eventually be integrated with RAAF controllers using the TAAATS gear in the centres. Towers will have both mil and civilian controllers (this already happens as far as I'm aware, eg. Willy). Willy will be stand alone as a centre but eventually change to TAAATS equipment in the future. ADATS is dead.

Does anyone know why ADATS was ever ordered? There seems to be no reason why TAAATS shouldn't have been used in the first place.

[Aussie]

Probably politics at work again!

Aussie

[Creampuff]

Does anyone know where a RAAF ATCer's power to issue instructions to civvy aircraft comes from? Do they hold ATC licences like their civvy counterparts?

To put it another way, if a civvy aircraft fails to comply with an instruction from a RAAF ATCer, which regulation has been breached?

[No Further Requirements]

In relation to ADATS, I believe that when the RAAF put the tender out, Thales (or whoever owned TAAAAAAAAAAATS then) didn't think they could fulfill the requirements (lots of outstation approach cells and towers) so they didn't bid. Therefore the RAAF couldn't get TAAATS as it wasn't even on offer. Now, with the experience AsA and Thales have now, they should be able to do something. ADATS is, afterall, just a software program. Getting TAAATS onto the equipment might not be as easy as inserting the TAAATS boot disk and hitting CTRL-ALT-DELETE, but it certainly isn't impossible.

As for the authorisation for RAAF ATC to direct civilian aircraft, I'm looking into it. I believe that the Defence Force is one of the authorised agencies to perform ATC in Australia, so if they are the administrtor of the airspce (either class C steps like DAR/TVL, or restricted areas like Willy) they can direct the aircraft contained within. I will have a closer look for references anyway. And the aircraft captain can also not comply with civil ATC instructions also if he/she believes it will put their aircraft at risk, if that is what you are getting at?

Cheers,

NFR.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Does anyone know where a RAAF ATCer's power to issue instructions to civvy aircraft comes from? Do they hold ATC licences like their civvy counterparts?
RAAF ATCO's do not hold a CASA license as such, however should it matter?

To put it another way, if a civvy aircraft fails to comply with an instruction from a RAAF ATCer, which regulation has been breached?
Dunno about the particular regulation, but you may find yourself in the middle of a bunch of PC9s/Hawks/F18s etc doing all sorts of whacky stuff. Ya gotta ask yourself.......do you feel lucky?.....Well, do ya?!

[NIMFLT]

Does anyone know where a RAAF ATCer's power to issue instructions to civvy aircraft comes from?

RAAF ATCO's power comes from the ADF who is an authorised provider of ATC. Ref: CAR's.

[Creampuff]

Which CAR?

If a civvy flies into Townsville and fails to comply with an ADF ATCer's instruction, which rule does she break?

[Awol57]

CAR 100 and 183 seem to be the ones that say you should comply with ATC instructions. RAAF members are Air Traffic Controllers. Just licensed by a different authority.
ASA and ADF are airspace administrators.

[Dave The Snail]

How would you know if the girl/guy in the tower/radar room was in a blue suit or not anyway? You should obey the instruction regardless, unless as a captain, you believe it to be unsafe

[SM4 Pirate]

My understanding is that all ATCs in the RAAF have an ICAO licence.

[No Further Requirements]

My understanding is that all ATCs in the RAAF have an ICAO licence.

That used to be the case, and when you left, the RAAF took it back from you. Now, however, as the CARs state that you are able to perform ATC if you are employed by the Defence Department to do so, an ICAO licence is no longer required. I think that's how it works. I never got one and I did my course in 1997. People a few years ahead of me did have a yellow book, however. Not really worth the paper it's printed on if you have to give it back.

Cheers,

NFR.

[GaryGnu]

Which CAR?
If a civvy flies into Townsville and fails to comply with an ADF ATCer's instruction, which rule does she break?
Check the definition of Air Traffic Control and Air Traffic Control Instructions in the CARs and then, as NFR says, see CAR 100 (1)

[Green on, Go!]

I think this was tested in court several years ago ('bout 97/98) when a pilots lawyer questioned the ADF's legal ability to control civil aircraft in Class C airspace (ie Darwin). At that point the legislation was found to be inadequate and the 'loophole' was subsequently closed.

[Victor India]

I don't quite understand the point of the debate.

As a military pilot, I respect the instructions/clearances issued by either military or civil authorities. When I am denied a clearance to climb (in any airspace), I don't think of the legalities of the denial... I think "oh there must be some conflicting traffic".

What's with the quest for a legal way of circumventing the need to follow a clearance if you are military under civil control or vice versa? If you f*ck it up, take it on the chin. If you didn't, the tapes/radar will clear you. Is that too old fashioned?

VI

[NIMFLT]

Frozo is correct. Military pilots have more discretion to disregard instructions. The circumstances would have to be extreme.

Creampuff, if your first question was serious, then a search of CAR's would have yielded the answer to your second question.

[Creampuff]

GG's answered my question - thanks:ok:

[control snatch]

Took the words out of my mouth Victor India

I couldn't give a rats what color uniform the ATCer is wearing. Military ATC works by the same rules as civvy ATC in the vast majority of cases, there are very few differences. I just do what I'm told.

There was an instance of an F/A-18 driver declaring "Due Regard" and disobeying an ATC instruction about 2-3 years ago, and I believe he received a swift kick up the backside for it!!

[tail wheel]

I'm intrigued by subtle references to "Genesis" and the suggestion that where PPRuNe is concerned, the word is only whispered in the halls of power.

Anyone care to enlighten me? And confirm that any mention of "Genesis" on PPRuNe may lead to a witch hunt and tea and bikkies with the Chief Honchos?

I'm intrigued - and bewildered!

:confused:

Tail Wheel

[SM4 Pirate]

Well, I could comment, but it would ony lead to a sore backside and a gentle please explain:hmm:

[Green on, Go!]

Well, I could comment, but it would ony lead to a sore backside and a gentle please explain


I think you'll find that most guys on the RAAF side of the fence will avoid this one as well...

[tail wheel]

So I'm hearing!!!

A case of the tax payer's money being spent in a totally transparent and accountable manner? :confused:

Or another folly at our expense? :mad:

[Blackbladder]

People cannot be banned from sharing opinions or discussing rumours.

The fact that an organisation is so rife with rumour is purely an indication of it's inept communication, is an indictment on it's leadership, and is indicative of it's morale. Trying to stem or quell comment, whether internal or external is facism, despotism - whatever one wishes to call it, but in any case desperation.

It is also illegal – surprisingly even in Australia.

Don't know the facts - but I have heard similar rumblings from enough people to know something stinks - I know the Genesis timetable is a farce and simply unachievable, however, EVERY project they commence has an unachievable timetable - it seems to be normal practice. Staff don't even laugh any more - they just disengage from the outset!

From what I hear the AirServices CEO, who has just sprung a restructure out of the blue, intends to leave in October to contest the Federal Election in John Anderson’s old seat of Gwydir (redistributed). So does he really give a :mad: if his mooted projects are achievable?

[BurglarsDog]

Whilst not the intent of this thread I thought that I would add a bit more rumour to the licensing side of things;
Firstly it may be worth remembering that there is no such thing as an ICAO license pers se; only a license issued by a contracting state that has been approved by ICAO.
Who cares? Well should anyone in blue currently controlling essentially civvy traffic on a day to day basis wish to up sticks and seek pastures greener or browner they may find that they are asked the following by a potential overseas employer as I found a while back: -
"We do require that your licences/ratings are endorsed by the aviation authority of the Contracting state. Is there any possibility that the Australian CAA or DOT can confirm that your ratings are approved or acceptable by them, seeing that you’ve worked in the various aerodromes?
DOH!!!
In reply I chased up the appropriate POC in MIL ATC HQ and got the following reply"
"RAAF does not need the ATCOs to have ICAO/CASA accreditation. CASA permits the ADF to use the Defence Act where it refers to ADF personnel having exemption from civilian licences.
Said prospective employer was not convinced - so strike one job opportunity and this was only to Instruct in a College!
So although with RAAF/ ASA the same rules and regs are followed (unlike the pairing of the RAF / CAA) and ICAO civilain procedures etc are followed; no ICAO approved license is issued - which does suck a bit! (Restiction of trade?) A yellow Mil license was issued until about 10 years ago with a caveat stating something like "ICAO approved in Australia only". They stopped giving these out simply when they had none left to give; or so I was told.
As Ive said before on another thread , Genesis is wishful thinking and another distract and conquer ploy to keep those still at the mil coalface looking the wrong way for opportunites elswhere. Afterall, the prospect of change can be a good motivator for some!
DogGone:E

[Victor India]

BD,

Nor does the RAAF need pilots to hold a Commercial Pilot's Licence (CPL), but over the years there certainly has been an agreement of sorts which allows the RAAF qualification to be recognised and converted into a CPL.

Some years ago when I did this, my Wings qualification following Pilot's Course was not quite enough to obtain a licence. At that time, the arrangement was that an Operational Conversion needed to be completed (anywhere between 2 and 12 months, depending on Squadron) , then CASA would issue a CPL on receipt of a Licence Application and the appropriate fee. No flight test of any kind.

I am not aware if this was officially promulgated in the Regs or just something which was unofficially practiced. Nor am I aware what the current arrangement is.

I don't believe there is any way of obtaining a CASA Airline Transport Pilot's Licence without doing the usual study, exams and civil multi engine command instrument rating just as a fellow non-military CPL holder would complete.

I explain this because I don't see why CASA couldn't issue an ATC licence just because the RAAF has no need for the controller to hold one. I think it would just be a matter of demonstrating that the components of the civil course are covered in the military course. Not sure if it still exists, but completion of the Advanced (radar/approach) Military course might be an appropriate prerequisite.

If there are any current ADF ATCOs wanting to pursue this, it may be worth the effort...

VI

PS: Never discount that there may be an agreement between CASA and the ADF to disallow such a licence conversion to aid ADF ATCO retention... :E

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"I don't believe there is any way of obtaining a CASA Airline Transport Pilot's Licence without doing the usual study, exams and civil multi engine command instrument rating just as a fellow non-military CPL holder would complete."

Yes, I recall a certain well known and highly experienced civilian and ex RAAF pilot/instructor with a squillion hours on Hercs, who carried a very deep seated grudge against anyone connected to the "Department" because they would not issue him with an ATPL on his departure from the services.

Dr:cool:

[tail wheel]

No one prepared to expand on what "Genesis" is?

Or should I assume all those involved will eventually move on to Exodus?

:confused:

[Green on, Go!]

The following dot points were dragged from the minutes of the 15 Feb 07 NT RAPAC meeting available here (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/customer/rapac/rapacnt070215.pdf) (my bolding):

Project Genesis is expected to deliver the following desirable outcomes:
�� A joint strategic planning process for military and civil air traffic management;
�� Alignment of capital procurement plans and strategies;
�� Development of shared facilities;
�� Transition to a common air traffic management operating system;
�� Introduction of compatible or interoperable equipment and systems;
�� A national air traffic control license
�� A joint training program with integrated staff and students;
�� Common procedures;
�� Joint and integrated safety management systems;
�� Co-located workforces and integrated supervision;
�� Joint airspace management;
�� A joint surveillance and data management network;
�� A joint approach to infrastructure supporting the delivery of air traffic management (communication and navigation systems);
�� A common technical airworthiness standard;
�� A joint approach to the aviation aspects of national security;
�� Mutual support during civil or military contingencies; and
�� The removal of non-operational ATC functions from Defence responsibility.

I'm led to believe the national ATC licence will be here sooner rather than later. Certainly, RAAF was ensuring it's training aligned with CASR Part 65 MOS years ago.

I don't think there is anything terribly sinister about Project Genesis. Whether it is too ambitious a plan remains to be seen. In its mature state it will certainly save the taxpayer millions.
Some of the HR machinations relating to Genesis within Defence have caused some to voice their opinion here. Everyone within Defence is (or should be) aware of the rules surrounding the grinding of one's axe in the public arena. It's a responsibility you sign up to when you join.

I guess it could be construed as stifling opinions, however, the military is not a democracy.:)

[BurglarsDog]

Tail Wheel
If you search for the Genesis threads already posted on PP a lot will be expalined.
In a nutshell the idea was hatched as a bit of a JV between ASA/ Mil ATC to save some Mil resources by centralising certain Mil Approach functions from Woop woop into BNE centre and Perth Approach. I believe this would allow the eventual replacement of the current "white horse" called ADATS (with which the mil process their flight data at unit level) with TAATS. I believe Pierce App has been integrated already ; all the other players now need to throw a double six before getting out of goal so to speak and proceeding past "Go" and getting on with completing the project!! Dont hold your breath
as there are/ were technical considerations that werent .... Er... considered at the outset (hence some timeline slippage)
I think No Further Requirements knows a bit more about the current situation than myself so maybe he will expand a bit more accurately.
Having just read GOG's missive above I would agree that overall, if the points highligted are achievable, then it is a a worthy project and I wish it well.
My biscuits worth:E
DogGone

[tail wheel]

PPRuNe is more interested in the possibility a program which may be fundamental flawed, is being promulgated at tax payer's expense and which may compromise safety.
“Surprisingly, no one mentioned the NOTAM regarding delays out of Darwin?

Brisbane won't use Darwin radar feed due no redundancy. RAAF still use it, so there is an increased workload entering plans into the system. Each IFR aircraft out of Darwin is delayed 3 minutes or are changing to VFR plans to avoid delays.

Is safety not compromised, particularly in the wet season?

Why hasn’t the RAAF sorted out the radar issues which they knew existed prior to the radar failure three weeks ago, and how are the RAAF going to manage Darwin radar from Brisbane if ASA won't accept the feed?”
And presumably those competent to comment are being muzzled?

[GORN ROUND]

And one Aeronautical Information Service for all Austalian aviators.