Military/Civilian coordination (again) [Archive]

Toadpool

16th Mar 2007, 12:05

I must admit that I expected these sort of replies from you Military guys. I'd like to make it clear that I am not "having a go" at you following your instructions. What I personally find illogical and frustrating is some of what is written in your JSP550 (or whatever it is now), and taught as gospel at Shawbury.

At the unit I work at, when we are on the westerly runway we have to coordinate about 70% of our IFR traffic (ins and outs) with an adjacent Military unit. When on the easterly this increases to about 95%, as our final approach tracks cross.

The ATCOs at this Military unit are normally very good, and understand our problems. Until recently, coordination was done on a unit/unit basis, with one person at the Military unit, normally the supervisor, coordinating with us, and then passing that coordination to whichever of his/her colleagues that needed to know. This has worked well for a number of years. The only times that difficulties have arisen was when a new ATCO was posted in fresh from Shawbury, and had not been taught how we work.

Our local instructions have recently been changed so that we now have to coordinate each track on a controller/controller basis. "About time" I hear you Military guys saying. However this has led to a considerable increase in our workload, which, given that as we work a lot of the time with 1 ATCO and 1 ATCA in radar, and it sometime gets so busy that we scarcely have time to draw breath, we just do not have time for.

This is further complicated as these Military ATCOs tell me repeatedly that they can not take a discrete, validated and verified squawk as an identification, but still need it's position stating to them (for God's sake, why?).

A typical recent example was the other day. I called them to try to coordinate 1 aircraft inbound. At the time they had thier radar pattern active, a couple of departures and transit traffic. This meant that I had to coordinate ("Your traffic X miles se of YYY, squawking 1234, not below ZZZ, my traffic, etc") about 6 different tracks with 3 different ATCOs. With all the "standbys", etc this took nearly 5 minutes, by which time my traffic had travelled about 25 miles! They then picked up yet another track and, as this new track was not part of the original coordination, it all had to be gone through again. This was for 1 aircraft, with 1 other unit, at a quiet time. Busy times this is simply impractical.

Some of you are probably thinking "then get more ATCOs". I couldn't agree more, but that is where the bean counters get involved, and is out of our hands.

Roger That, you say that this is a result of a "successful" trial in Scotland. From what I've been told, the trial involved Civilian ATCOs coordinating in the Military fashion. What was not trialled was Military ATCOs trying the Civvy method. I'm sorry, but all that proves is that Civvy ATCOs can coordinate in the Military fashion, provided that thier workload is not too high. It does not prove which is the better method.

Diddley Dee, I completely agree, more standarisation is required. But until we are taught at the same schools/colleges, to the same standards, I feel that these misunderstandings will continue.

Tired-flyboy, I also agree that some Civilian ATCOs need to tighten up thier coordination procedures. But I also feel that Military procedures need reviewing and updating to bring them into the 21st century. Provided that a course of action is agreed that is clear and unambiguous to both parties involved, then it should not matter what format the conversation takes.

As for "traffic information is dead information once you hang up", this need not be the case. If you ask me for traffic on a particular track, and I were to answer " flight information, not above xxxft", all you need ask is for me to let you know if this changes. This I will do, and if I'm relieved I'll pass that on to the next ATCO. That particular track should then become known traffic to you, as long as you retain the ident, you could use that information not just for one track, but for anything else you have in the area. As I'm not providing that track with any form of seperation I do not need to know what your traffic is. However, if I were to see a collision risk, I would certainly alert that aircraft, (duty of care, etc).

Diddley Dee

16th Mar 2007, 16:13

Toadpool

I have a few points, none of which are meant as "having a go" either.

1. What particularly about the Military way of co-ordination do you find illogical?

2. I dont understand why as your local procedures have changed whereby you dont co-ordinate through a Mil Sup by proxy where appropriate, how that has any bearing on what the rest of us do?

3. We cannot take a " discrete validated and verified squawk" (without a position report) as identification as (outside CAS) aircraft occassionally will go en route without changing the squawk and then lo & behold circumstances combine whereby you & the Mil controller are looking at two different ac (with possibly your runaway sqk on the Mil screen but not on yours) when co-ordinating with predictable results. It seems far more safe to state a postion and get a "contact" particularly if the squawks are not callsign code converted.

4. I agree co-ordination can be cumbersome when trying to co-ordinate multiple tracks with different contol positions at the same Mil unit, but one thing it isnt, is ambiguous (if done properly).

I have lost count of the number of times civil ATCOs (when I was working in the terminal environment ....I exclude the Area radar guys & TC as we seem to rub along together fine in area radar where co-ord is concerned) have moaned at myself or my collegues when they thought they had co-ordinated traffic when they had not because of lax or non standard co-ordination techniques.
Indeed many of these occassions the word co-ordination is never even mentioned, so how am I supposed to know whether the caller is after co-ord or TI?

Standardisation..... Bring it on:D

DD

London Mil

16th Mar 2007, 16:25

Toadpool, I think you should recognise that military people find it equally frustrating where the only set of 'good' rules are the ones you civil types doggedly quote from CAP493. Talking about mixed civ/mil ops, I am guessing that you may be a Teeside man. The Teeside/Leeming relationship is renowned acorss the RAF for being poor. How many airprox/MORs/AIR(C)s over the last couple of years?

I think we all agree - standardised procedures are the way ahead. The important bit is for both sides to acknowledge that their way of doing business may not necessarily be best.

Wee Jock McPlop

16th Mar 2007, 16:48

Toadpool,

You make some valid points reference civ/mil co-ord. Yes indeed, greater harmonisation between us would have far reaching benefits. I understand that there is/was work going on to bring us all closer together, but where that has got to, i'm not so sure. Co-ordination between two mil ATCOs is usually pretty slick - same with two civil ATCOs. Put a mil ATCO and a civil ATCO together for co-ord and that is where it can potentially get quite protracted - serves to illustrate your point well. However, you have to understand that the mil guys do have it drummed into them from the outset. So if the mil guys fall back on what their taught, I for one understand. It might be protracted and slightly defensive, but that's life. If they don't adhere to the regs, the supervisor, LEO(LCE) or other exec will make damn sure they will the next time.

By the way, any traffic information is dead information once passed. I was taught that in the military and still use it today as a civil ATCO. If that traffic is giving you any concern, then co-ordinate it - job done. Makes you have to co-ordinate more, but sometimes that gives you less heartache in then end.

If life is getting so difficult, then maybe your unit execs can revisit the issue with the ATC execs at the RAF unit and try and get a letter of agreement drawn up? Maybe that would help reduce your workload? Have you got together with the RAF guys via liaison visits and chewed the fat with them? These serve to create a better overall understanding of each others operating problems and perhaps make things work just a little better. We do it up our neck of the woods and it works just fine - hic:ok: !! Just suggestions of course - you may have already gone down that road already.

AYR TC,

What's wrong with 'report feet wet/feet dry'? Same meaning as 'report coasting out/coasting in' and just as unambiguous, with absolutely no danger of misinterpretation. So what's the problem? It may even have been me that used it on you and I look forward to using it again! I'm ex-RAF, not RN, but the meaning of the instruction is clear and, if your under a FIS (as you probably were), it serves as a prompt to me when I need to chuck you to the next unit - job done. Maybe you've just got a problem with 'mil' phraseology, no matter how straightforward/unambiguous it is?:E Nothing in the Manual...........

Best wishes,

WJMcP

Magp1e

16th Mar 2007, 16:50

"At the unit I work at, when we are on the westerly runway we have to coordinate about 70% of our IFR traffic (ins and outs) with an adjacent Military unit. When on the easterly this increases to about 95%, as our final approach tracks cross".

If you have a point if confliction like this, is it not possible to arrange a standing agreement co-ordination?

Roger That

16th Mar 2007, 18:10

you say that this is a result of a "successful" trial in Scotland

I didn't say it was in Scotland , I simply said there had been a successful trial :ok: For the record, it took place within the London and [principally] the Scottish FIRs.

From what I've been told, the trial involved Civilian ATCOs coordinating in the Military fashion

It involved civil and military controllers co-ordinating using revised military co-ordination (there were some very minor changes made to what was previously being used by M.o.D.)

What was not trialled was Military ATCOs trying the Civvy method

Correct but it was agreed, based upon assessment of options such as this, that this solution was most likely to be successful for the majority of civil units and M.o.D.

I'm sorry, but all that proves is that Civvy ATCOs can coordinate in the Military fashion, provided that thier workload is not too high. It does not prove which is the better method

There is always the option to trade efficiency for safety (and v/v) however this time safety improvement was at the heart of why this trial was agreed. The participants (including SRG) took the view that assessing and managing workload [and safety performance] using a trial first, was the way to go. That the trail proved successful, and as your suggest will be implemented by the SRG, is evidence enough for me that it's better than what was there previously.

Being an open-minded chap though .... If you feel there's a better way, talk to SRG and the M.o.D. to make the change happen, that's what happened here. I'm sure everyone wants what's best and from what I can read, there seems compelling agreement that consistency through a common understanding of procedures will help us all achieve what we need.

With this in mind, roll on ATSOCAS and lets have a common view of what "clean" means :}

AyrTC

16th Mar 2007, 20:23

WJMcP
My traffic was on a RIS and what I assume:= the FC wanted me to do was to keep my traffic over the land and he would keep his traffic over the sea.Really useful when I had several a/c routing ADN-NEW-ADN .:ooh: Just another day on the TAY Sector.
Rgds
AyrTC

Diddley Dee

16th Mar 2007, 20:31

That, unfortunately IMHO sounds like FC "co-ordination"...please note that when I refer to Mil co-ordination I am referring to Air Traffickers, the Fighter Control branch are another thing all together :(.

Incidentally we come across the same difficulties when "liaising" with the FC guys.

DD

flower

16th Mar 2007, 21:48

Coordination with the Military isn't difficult or rocket science it is however time consuming, if though as suggested modifications have been made which reduce the time taken it really shouldn't be to hard to take on.

It is interesting that Civilian coordination is deemed sloppy or non existent by some Mil controllers on here, I find that coordination between civvy ATCOs quick and very efficient and haven't seen any problems with it.

Wee Jock McPlop

17th Mar 2007, 07:19

AYR TC,

Sorry, I thought you were talking about an experience whilst you were airborne!! Now I have the right end of the stick and agree with you wholeheartedly!!:ok: But you were talking to (trying to co-ordinate with) an FC - enough said!!:ugh:

Best wishes,

WJMcP

Toadpool

17th Mar 2007, 11:06

Diddley Dee, I didn't say it was Military coordination that I find illogical, but I do find it long winded and unnecessarily cumbersome. I do understand that you have reasons for it, but I do think that there is room for streamlining it, without compromising safety.

I think that to require you to have a position report for every squawk because pilots sometimes forget to change squawk when going en-route to be a bit of overkill. OK, if you see 2 identical squawks on your screen, then by all means question it. There are also other methods of confirming the ident (squawk ident, new squawk, etc), without imposing this draconian increase in workload on you. Also, as part of our normal method of transferring and aircraft to another unit we will pass them our squawk and obtain one from them. Assuming that the aircraft is on a radar service rather than a FIS, both of these will be validated, so either can be used as an identification(at least by us). The chances of having two runaway squawks that match those being used are very remote.

Runaway squawks do sometimes happen to us, although it does not seem to be as much of a problem as for you. If it does happen, I always make sure that the next unit down the line is aware of it (party because I don't want them blaming me for working an aircraft bimbling through thier circuit;) ). I also steralise that squawk until I see it change, or sufficent time has passed that it should no longer be a problem.

Another option is when a pilot reports going en-route without changing squawk, a quick "negative" soon stops him/her. This would allow you to change the squawk before allowing them to leave the freq. I know this goes against the grain in military aviation, as I do have the feeling that the RAF, at least, is an organisation run by pilots for pilots (how many air commodore or above are not pilots?).

Is it also worth educating your pilots that when they go en-route, they must change squawk?

Standing by for incoming:} .

Our local procedures have changed as a precursor to the change being implemented nationally. I do still feel it is a backward step. I have no difficulty in confirming that it is coordination that I'm after, but I can't afford the time for it to take too long. We're also back to the situation we were in several years ago when we would get "but you coordinated with Director, not with Approach". Fair enough, but at the time we did not know that approach were going to depart traffic towards ours at a vast rate of knots. We did assume that as an ATCO at the Mil unit was aware of our traffic, that they would alert thier colleagues. This is why I feel it is better to have someone at the other unit who has the whole picture and is able to pass the information as appropriate.

London Mil, you're not too far out with your guess. So much for my anonimity. A fair proportion of the incidents to which you refer I think were caused by Military pilots flying too close to airliners despite having them in sight for some time. Unfortunately, we can coordinate and agree as much as we like, but if the pilot decides he is going to do something different, what then? There is 1 particular squadron at this airfield that is renown for operating in this manner, which causes as many problems for thier own ATC as for us.

Wee Jock McPlop, we do indeed have a LOA with the Mil unit, but as most of the conflictions occur in class g airspace, we still have to coordinate each IFR movement. We have also had regular liaison visit to them. Until recently this didn't seem to happen the other way. Now it is a requirement for all parties concerned to have at least 1 liaison visit to the other unit every 2 years. I think it is also a requirement for new starters before they go operational.

By the way I don't agree with your comments re traffic info. I would be quite happy to follow the procedure I mentioned in my previous post and treat that traffic as known until I lost the ident. I would not use 1000', to be on the safe side, but I wouldn't coordinate every conflicting track. I suppose we could argue that, to us, that would be coordination.

Magp1e, as I've stated above, the final approach tracks cross outside controlled airspace, so we can't have standing coordination (we tried).

Roger That, sorry I misread your post. I was only aware of the trail being carried out in Scotland. You seem to be in the know, out of interest which units were involved?

London Mil

17th Mar 2007, 13:19

Toadpool, thank you for the basic lesson in ATC. Have you ever thought about being an instructor? :p
As an area radar man, I would be a little worried if you believed that passing TI to one of our consols (lets say 15) would be percieved as being good enough for all the others in our ops room. As for you 'interpretation' of traffic info and known traffic, I am a little more concerned.

rodan

17th Mar 2007, 14:56

I have always found the military method of co-ordination and hand-over to be quick and accurate if you learn the patter. If you don't know what they're expecting you to say, and in what order, then it can be protracted and awkward. It seems (only occasionally) that some common sense is drilled out of baby mil controllers at Strawberry - the above 'But you co-ordinated with Director, not approach' is a good one. A couple more examples:

Mil: Request traffic information on your #1234 (no mode C) 5 miles south of Blahton.
Civ: That's a C150 on a FIS with me at 2A.
Mil: Ok, request co-ordination against my traffic, #6132, 3 miles north of Blahton, southbound, pair of F3s maintaining FL230.

Now the book may well say that you need to co-ordinate against traffic with no mode charlie, but a C150 is not going to climb 21000' in the next 60 seconds in this universe or any other. Lets be realistic. Here's another:

Civ: Handover RRR123, 10 miles south of Blahville, #6123, heading 140, climbing to 5A.
Mil: Contact, what service is he under?
Civ: (Not spoken: Well considering he's still in class D airspace, he's under) Radar control. (Not spoken: Duh.)

It's this sort of thing that can sometimes make the mil seem inflexible and rigid to us civvy cowboys. I'm sure the mil have their own entirely valid pet niggles with us as well, though.

London Mil

17th Mar 2007, 15:20

Rodan, Just out of interest, in the examples you quote:
a. Why bother telling the military guy that it is a C150 or even TOS? Waste of time. OK, I accept that the C150 isn't going to climb 20000ft in 30 seconds, but where do you draw the line? Would it be acceptable to use the same thought process with a Tucano, or a Citation, or even a Hawk? My point is that you have over complicated (and therefore increased risk) by thinking too hard about irrelevant detail. Alternatively, a quick confirmation of compliance with the 150, followed by a 'not above FL100' is far more helpful.
b. The aircraft in Class D may be VFR (ie not radar control). Secondly, you are obviously releasing the aircraft to the military controller in this situation as he is not allowed to provide an ATS in your CTR/CTA. Consequently, he is more interested in what TOS the aircraft wants when leaving CAS. A benevolent controller will have figured that one out before attempting to transfer communications.
My point is exactly the same as yours - it is easy to throw stones at fellow controllers but at bit more mutual understanding would often ease the tension.

Diddley Dee

17th Mar 2007, 19:22

TP

I left Leeming 5 years ago having spent 5 years there. We had a good working relationship with TD as I recall & co-ordination worked well (other than when one particualr TD controller was on who seemed to have his own set of rules).

As Leeming is now significantly quieter and you now have P18 on your doorstep as opposed to the NORCA, I dont understand why it has all become too difficult?

As for "I think that to require you to have a position report for every squawk because pilots sometimes forget to change squawk when going en-route to be a bit of overkill. OK, if you see 2 identical squawks on your screen, then by all means question it." How do I know there are two aircraft wearing the same squawk on the screen if you dont tell me where your ac is.... I may be looking at a totally different ac to the one you are referring to... Or I may not even be able to see your ac for various reasons but at the same time see another ac wearing the squawk you are quoting..... Or someone dialing through TD squawks who happens to be at that moment displaying the squawk you are referring to... Position report for co-ordination IMHO is a requirement for good reason.

Anyway I for one am 100% behind standardisation of co-ordination, and as far as I am concerned I look forward to welcoming you to the Mil way of Co-ord.;)

Incidentally what is it you find illogical in the JSP 552 that is taught at Shawbury, if you werent referring to co-ordination?

DD

chevvron

18th Mar 2007, 12:58

Biggest problem we have is that military controllers don't seem to realise that traffic receiving FIS cannot be restricted in any way if they are in class G airspace; if asked I say 'traffic is receiving FIS; I can only pass traffic information, I cannot restrict'.

London Mil

18th Mar 2007, 13:19

chevvron, I disagree. Military controllers fully understand all the conditions relating to FIS, RIS and RAS. What we do, that you guys seem unwilling to do, is ask the FIS guy if he will follow a course of action for coordination. If he says no, well so be it. Not a difficult concept really.

Toadpool

18th Mar 2007, 13:21

Diddley Dee,

If, as you say, the coordination worked well, then why change it? If it ain't broke, etc.

Leeming may well be quieter, but they, and we, can still have busy spells. As for P18, we do have limited access to it, mainly in the GASKO area, but to get there involves a transit of class g airspace. With the funnelling effect that the airway has, this seems to be where we have most problems. We did express these concerns when P18 was being considered, and pushed to have a link to it to try to avert them, but were denied by DAP:rolleyes: . If we did have an airway stub, linking us to P18, I suspect that most of our problems would disappear;) .

As for your regs, I admit that I do not have an extensive knowledge of them, but, despite your arguments, I still feel that requiring a position report with each identification somewhat negates the advantages of SSR. Most of the points you raise can be overcome by other means ( I won't say any more, to keep London Mil happy:} ). Suffice to say that I have been operating in accordance with our MATS part 1 for quite a few years now, and can not remember ever having a problem identifying a track using SSR. I believe that London Military had thier orders changed when they took over the Pennine task so that they can adopt the "silent handover" method commonly used between Civvy units. As far as I am aware, they have had very few problems with it, but perhaps London Mil could confirm that?

Apart from that, once I have identified a track to a Mil controller (with position), why do I need to repeat it as part of the coordination? Surely once they have confirmed they have the ident with "contact", that should be enough.

Also, when you give a RAS you have to maintain 5 miles separation. In class g airspace, often in an AIAA, this is not practical. I feel MATS part 1 is much more pragmatic in that we aim to achieve 5 miles, but less is not necessarily a loss of separation. Of course if 5 miles will not be achieved the pilot must be told, and you go for as much as you can.

You also have to avoid, or coordinate, traffic not displaying mode c. As has been mentioned on previous occasions, we are not permitted to allow an aircraft without mode c to climb above FL100, except in very exceptional circumstances, which you would know about by NOTAM, or we would be required to pass on to any other relevant unit. It should be possible to include in your JSP something that would allow you to deem a civvy squawk, with no mode c, to be FL100 or below. I suspect this would reduce your workload somewhat. Of course, if the Military also adopted the "not above FL100 without mode c" approach, then you may be able to deem any track without mode c in a similar way, but I can't realistically see this happening.

Some of my colleagues have been bemused this last week or so, watching London Military avoiding HMS Illustrious which has been operating offshore, with a 7200 squawk on.

This is without going into the different interpretations and requirements for handovers.

By the way, London Mil, I agree that, in the second of Rodan's examples it would be sensible to find out what service was required outside CAS before attempting the transfer, but any aircraft inside CAS is subject to an air traffic control service, with or without radar, irrespective of flight rules.

Diddley Dee

18th Mar 2007, 16:30

TP

I feel we are going over the same ground so I will say this & then try to refrain from posting further.

The co-ord at Leeming / TD worked well.... we used Mil co-ord when we required co-ordination and if TD needed co-ord if all the necessary details werent forthcoming we elicited them or it was simply a TI call.

London Mil having been using silent handover tecniques both electronically & by the "Pennine Method" for years (long begore we took over the Pennine task) both with civil sectors & Military airfields. The Pennine task & other civil airfields have simply been bolted onto that procedure as and when the need has come up. However silent H/O & co-ordination are two totally seperate things.... arent they.

As for the lesson on civil RAS.... and the difference between Mil & Civ RAS is?

I kind of see your point of NMC above FL 100 but that would place too many restrictions on our pilots....SSR fails go home you cant do the mission?

As for us avoiding NMC that dont fall under the current NMC deeming rules, we cope fine IMHO, its not too difficult.

Anyway Happy controlling at TD,
DD

chevvron

18th Mar 2007, 17:17

LonMil I disagree, they say 'request co-ordination your traffic not above etc' which to me seems like they want me to pass an instruction to my traffic, which I've already explained is only under FIS. What probably throws them is that we actually take trouble to identify FIS traffic which might conflict with our own IFR traffic.

London Mil

18th Mar 2007, 18:44

Chevvron, the way Strawberry teach it:
Mil: "Request coordination your traffic teeside south west 15 miles squawking 1234"
response (assume civ): "not above FL45"
Mil: My traffic teeside south 20 miles hdg NW squawking 4567"
civ : "contact"
mil: "not below FL55"
end of conversation.
A few variations on a theme and the mil controller may ask you to ask your aircraft if it is willing to comply. In my book that is a perfectly valid request and indeed something we often get from the civil units that fully understand what we are all trying to achieve. One shining example is Norwich where they often call us up and ask if we can ask the F15s from Lakenheath to alter their limits in order to facilitate other traffic. If you just choose to ignore a request from another controller because your ac is on a FIS and you can't be bothered to ask it for a bit of compliance, well then you don't understand Joint and Integrated ATS.
PS From MATS Pt1, Secion 1, Ch 1 para 6
Flight Information Service
The controller may attempt to identify the flight for monitoring and co-ordination purposes only. Such identification does not imply that a radar service is being provided or that the controller will continuously monitor the flight. Pilots must be left in no doubt that they are not receiving a radar service.
I guess that means a civil FIS can be coordinated? Certainly you imply that some form of coordination is taking place if you are bothering to identify a FIS track which is/may be interacting with one of your IFR tracks. A bit of Jack going on here?

Standard Noise

18th Mar 2007, 19:28

What exactly do you mean by the 'military format of co-ordination'. I work near to two Mil stations (one RAF and one Senior Service) and they don't seem to use the same 'format' anyway. Then there are the London Mil guys who seem to do it slightly differently again. My co-ordination only takes place when traffic conditions allow, so if this 'military format' is brief and to the point, then good, I'm all for it. If it's long winded and cumbersome, then less co-ordination will prolly take place and there will be plenty more freecalls.

ATCO Fred

18th Mar 2007, 21:45

Rodan - you state:
Mil: Request traffic information on your #1234 (no mode C) 5 miles south of Blahton.
Civ: That's a C150 on a FIS with me at 2A.
Mil: Ok, request co-ordination against my traffic, #6132, 3 miles north of Blahton, southbound, pair of F3s maintaining FL230.
Now the book may well say that you need to co-ordinate against traffic with no mode Charlie, but a C150 is not going to climb 21000' in the next 60 seconds in this universe or any other.

So, the Mil controller is applying a RAS. Your aircraft has no Mode C. Therefore it is a conflictor and the ONLY means of legally allowing the aircraft within 5 miles/3000 ft of your aircraft is to co-ordinate. MATS Section1 Chapter 5 Page 3 para 1.4.1e refers. I appreciate your point regarding the aircraft type but Traffic Information is dead once passed and thus CANNOT be used what so ever for providing seperation.

"It's this sort of thing that can sometimes make the mil seem inflexible and rigid"...no just professional. Class G is the bad lands and when applying a RAS it has to be done right or face the consequences.

I have had considerable exposure to both ways of dealing with this and, despite the similarities between JSP 552 and MATS part 1 we can, at times, apply the same ATS in diametrically different ways. I think SRG should be congratulated for trying to standardise something that is, after all, standardised in text. Nice to see the regulator actually regulating!
ATCO Fred

Diddley Dee

18th Mar 2007, 22:34

Fred :D :D :D Take a bow.

DD:ok:

whowhenwhy

21st Mar 2007, 17:52

Hello Diddly Dee, believe I spoke to you today 1nm east of my overhead!

ATCO Fred, what a refreshing change sir, well said. :D Standardisation between the 2 'sets' of service providers has got to be the way ahead. The most obvious difference is, as has been said, the application of RAS by civ and mil providers. As Diddly Dee and myself saw in days of yore at Area, the Penine Radar application of RAS could often make you wince! But possibly the most annoying statement I've ever heard an ATCO say (and unfortunately a few civ ATCOs at a posh unit quite close to me are often wont to say) is "oh, he's under a FIS with me, I can't coordinate it." Unfortunately for me, normally said VFR ac is flying straight at or 500' under my IFR radar pattern operating under RAS. It's tosh to say you can't coordinate. Rant mode off!

Toadpool

21st Mar 2007, 17:53

As an area radar man, I would be a little worried if you believed that passing TI to one of our consols (lets say 15) would be percieved as being good enough for all the others in our ops room.

I didn't say it would, but it should be for the console making the request. I am well aware that should I agree to inform you of any changes to that particular tracks operations, and I failed to pass this on, which in turn led to an incident, it would be my responsibility.

London Mil having been using silent handover tecniques both electronically & by the "Pennine Method" for years

So some Mil units don't need a position report for every ident. An ident is an ident, isn't it?

As for the lesson on civil RAS.... and the difference between Mil & Civ RAS is?

If there's no great difference, why is such a big deal when we transfer a RAS to a Mil unit? (Oh, as it's RAS, we'd better have a handover, etc).

I kind of see your point of NMC above FL 100 but that would place too many restrictions on our pilots....SSR fails go home you cant do the mission?

An airliner would not be too happy either. Pax missing connections/ meetings/ compensation that has to be paid/ replacement a/c, etc. It's not something we do lightly, but it's what the regs say, so it has to be.

Realistically, with modern transponders how often is a failure likely? Isn't the odd missed training flight worth the reduced workload, not to mention the TCAS advantages? If it was a vital sortie then the "let everyone know" method could be used.

As for us avoiding NMC that dont fall under the current NMC deeming rules, we cope fine IMHO, its not too difficult.

Even if it means taking avoiding action on ships;) ?

I think Standard Noise sums it up.

Diddley Dee

22nd Mar 2007, 14:37

Whowhenwhy...

Quite possibly, flew past quite a few overheads yesterday which one was yours? Please PM me if you dont want your location made public. I will confess as to being a bit disconbobulated as the only airfield I flew 1 mile east of and spoke to was a civil airfield & I see you are a Mil ATCO:ooh: ?

Toadpool

Hate going back on my word but....

Thought we were talking about co-ordination so dont see what silent handovers have to do with position reports when co-ordinating.

Handovers of RAS. We often use "continue with" (non handover) calls to our RAS traffic to both civil & Mil units. Equally we also have traffic sent to our freqs under RAS without handovers from both Civil & Mil units.... TD being one of those units!

Deeming NMC as not above FL100. To my mind not a very good idea (and very glad we dont have it ) outside CAS as nobody has ever been stooging around squawking 7000 at say FL190 talking to no-one when his Mode C has failed have they.... Or does it have a default whereby it will only fail on the ground?

Avoiding ships. I have never had to avoid a ship. Spell it out.... believed to be HMS..... groundspeed of ... knots and every ac I have had has been happy to continue... still dont think I would merge though.

Anyway I am glad to see there are plenty of your civil collegues that dont seem to have a problem with it at all....

DD

tired-flyboy

22nd Mar 2007, 15:00

I remember an incident in D&D at Scottish a few years back when aircraft when getting TCAS RAs against one of HM's vessels docked on the Clyde. :eek:

Made for an interesting search in D&D....and subsequent phone call to HM Ship!!

So not really avoiding action by controller to a ship but def an avoiding action! :D

:ok:

London Mil

22nd Mar 2007, 15:06

I feel sorry for the ship. What chance does it have trying to get 5nm separation against something motoring around at 400+ kts.:p

revik

22nd Mar 2007, 15:43

It would appear that the co-ordination format hasn't changed in the 12 years since I last sat in front of a console; nor did it change for a 'career' before that since I learnt the job at Shawbury (with the exception that 'co-ordination agreed' was dropped, if I recall correctly).

Might it not be the case that much of the military's phraseology dates from procedures that had to be devised when primary radar was the norm in the terminal environment and secondary was nothing more than a 'slash' (ah, the mighty T82 at Midland) in the area world? Possibly, the problem is that those reactionaries at DAP (or whatever it is these days) haven't adapted to/adopted the technology since those procedures were first forged many, many moons ago.

Larsman

22nd Mar 2007, 19:49

Seems to me part of this problem is that mil controllers are taught to follow the rules blindly and civvies are taught to think outside the box!!
Tin hats on!:)

Diddley Dee

23rd Mar 2007, 07:07

LARSMAN

If you are advocating disregarding the rules as you as an individual see fit and replacing it with "thinking outside the box" , you are in the wrong job my friend!

DD

whowhenwhy

23rd Mar 2007, 08:40

I spy an opening for an analogy:

Civvy scuba divers are trained to do safety or buddy checks before they enter the water to make sure that they know how their buddy's kit works. After training, a lot of them ignore said buddy check ("well I'm trained now!") and it's amazing how many of them die each year and could have been saved if they'd stuck to their training.

Military scuba divers are trained to do buddy checks. After completing their training they know that they should carry on doing their buddy checks because if they keep it STANDARD, then it could help them out of a potentially lethal situation. It's amazing how few military scuba divers die each year!

I remember about 3 years ago liaising with the ops team at MACC (darn good people too!) so that we could spread throughout MACC how military area radar controllers would coordinate with them and what we expected to hear back. A number of incidents had occurred due to ambiguity in the coordination phraseology used by SOME MACC controllers. If nothing else is standard across the 2 UK ATCO worlds, it's for sure that coordination phraseology should be. And no, there should not be any leeway for 'thinking outside the box.' As I think LonMil said earlier in this thread, how difficult can it be? Not above, not below, maintaining. :ugh:

RAC/OPS

23rd Mar 2007, 09:13

Well, this happened to me:

Attenpting to coordinate with a Mil LARS unit. Exchange went something like
ME: request traffic, possible coordination on your xxxx 5 N of X
THEM: (type) is 3000 on the RPS, FIS.
ME: roger. My traffic will be a (type) departing rwy XX, climbing FLXX RAS.
THEM: Squawk?....standby....(callsign, squawk 7000 and freecall). He has now gone en route squawking 7000.
ME: Thanks a bunch.

Now our MATS 1 says that traffic in class G can change frequency whenever it wants basically, and I guess the Mil book says the same thing. But, thinking outside the box, I would probably try to hang on to it if someone was coordinating against that traffic, or at least suggest they freecall the coordinating unit if they insisted they no longer wanted to talk to me.

flower

23rd Mar 2007, 09:17

Some of you Mil Guys are really coming across very badly here suggesting that somehow the Civil ATC world are careless in the way we do ATC. Sorry load of bollocks and to be honest LARSMAN does say what many people think.
We know the rules very well, we apply the rules but we also know full well that to shift the level of traffic that we do as safely and efficiently that we cannot just apply those rules but have a flair for the job which means we apply skill to the job.

Anyone can follow rules it doesn't make you a good Controller.

Another comment which I do believe to be apt we in the Civilian world have to constantly adapt to the changes that new technology brings, we thus change the rules to adapt to the new scenarios that is the right way to go, rules written even 5 years ago do not necessarily apply in todays modern ATC. Perhaps those who write the rules for the Military should also learn to adapt to modern day ATC.
In the Civil world we shift ever increasing levels of traffic , we do not have the time to deal with long winded procedures which new technology has long since ceased to need.
Stop sitting there on your High Horses some of you Mil guys believing yourselves to be the only arbiters of safety, just check out how very few incidents occur in the civil world if we were unsafe with are short, precise and to the point coordinations then we would be having incidents everywhere.

London Mil

23rd Mar 2007, 09:37

flower, you may well know the rules very well, but there are others on this forum who obviously don't.

Perhaps you should understand that the military 'rules' are almost exactly the same as the civil ones. Please do not patronise us with your

we in the Civilian world have to constantly adapt to the changes that new technology brings, we thus change the rules to adapt to the new scenarios that is the right way to go, rules written even 5 years ago do not necessarily apply in todays modern ATC.

I think you will find that the military are having to adapt in exactly the same way. Personally, I have worked in both the civil and military environment and I can say that both elements of the UK ATS provision organization can learn from each other.

Finally, you accuse the military of sitting on their high horses. I think if you re-read your post you may find that your comments are equally antagonistic. Can I suggest you come and have a look at what we do and how we do it? After all, we are meant to be Joint and Integrated. :)

flower

23rd Mar 2007, 09:48

London Mil,

I do know how you work because we work closely with the Mil including being the intermediate approach unit for a military aerodrome and we also have a UHF frequency
My remarks fully stand as i know how long winded the coordinations are, i see how much they rigidity of the rules causes increased workload for both Controllers and Pilots.
The rules have not adapted at anything like the rate they do in the Civil world and this causes extreme frustration. When you know you have to coordinate with the military you have to find a huge gap in your traffic to do so because of the length of time involved .
I have watched this post and my anger has increased as the implications of many who have posted is that safety is of secondary importance to the civil world, safety has always been the first priority in the civil world of ATC.

It is about time civil and Mil ATC were more fully integrated but it would be a step back for the Civil world if it were to follow the Military way of doing some parts of ATC and we would not be able to move the amount of traffic we do.
I suspect the reason many of the civil ATCOs have not posted on here is because they do not have to deal with the military on a regular basis those of us who do find we have less and less time to deal with you. If this new method of coordination is long winded and thus unacceptable to the world of Civil ATC it will be filed against and less coordinations will take place.

London Mil

23rd Mar 2007, 10:15

flower, I think we take-up endless server space discussing this particular point to no avail. My parting shot. Take a look at all airprox where there has been a coordination issue. In almost all circumstances, you will find that the breakdown was ambiguity between controllers as to the agreed course of action or indeed whether there was an agreement. I think we will all agree that that is not very clever regardless of whether we are civilian or military.

flower

23rd Mar 2007, 10:23

Endless server space has been used up on this thread having a knock at the civil world so i won't in anyway excuse my posts in standing up for us.

Whenever there is an incident it is always down to a number of factors, coordination does not have to take time to be correct, provided it is done correctly it can still take seconds. It works extremely well in the civil world as it stands, I am sorry it would appear that coordination seems to be taking a retrograde step but then so much has been retrograde of late increasing the amount of RT time with increased wording and numbers on the frequencies used. One has to wonder just who is making all these new rules.

London Mil

23rd Mar 2007, 10:28

I refer you to my very first post.

BurglarsDog

23rd Mar 2007, 10:52

Gents.

Admit it. In the UK the two ATC sysytems are poles apart both in task and process. Each has a different customer base with different needs. If you want to standardise I would recommend extending class D airspace 30nms around all Mil bases; apply ICAO rules and procedures and retrain as required. Bit like Oz. The major difference would be that the user i.e.mostly mil fast jets couldnt be so slack where flight plans and clearances are involved. Tactical freedom would suffer but youd all be soon singing off the same hymsheet as far as ATC is concerned. Who knows maybe RAS and RIS would disappear and only IFR would be separated against participating IFR with a FIS unit (as traffic is given) as in Oz. Everyone else - i.e. VFR - look out the window! Its what you are not paying for.

The Mil runs on rules. Full stop! Think outside the box? Fine if thats all you do. Should you step outside the box and it goes pear shaped or you have an over zealous Sup or SATCO then kiss your ar*e goodbye! As a civilian you will have no idea about life in what is a very draconoan system by todays standards. Bit like a cockpit - civil or mIl - kiss CRM goodbye the rank gradient is there and there is no way around it.

I worked in LJAO for 7 years in the early 80's (very busy traffic loading due our US cousins) and coordinated verbally with my civil colleagues on a very regular and often frantic basis. Often there was no way he/she would say those majic Mil words" Corodination agreed" ; especially when working the morning rush into London. Regarding agreed outcomes, in LJAO, we all learnt what was acceptable as an agreed course of action and what wasnt, regardless of what went on the tape; body language the chiefs green pen etc tec, I think we called it "Trust" in those days. A cultur was established I suppose. If you couldnt work within that culture, and cut the mustard when Daventry was tripple manned, you soon left the room and went next door to Mil ops only. I suppose in hind sight the sytem was f*cked as it put pressure on the coalface to make a poor process work in spite of deficiencies. Im sure this goes on today. If I were in the Mil today I would want to know from a civil viewpoint, why Im not licensed ,and go see how its done according to ICAO. I failed to do that for 17 years along with everyone else that stayed in uniform. Those that left were soon re-educated at Hurn!! Its only now in the Instructional job Im in that I can look back and reflect very humbly by the way, that I can make comment regarding the modus operandi on both sides of the ATC UK CIV/MIL fence.

Keep up the discussion its good for UK ATC............. I think!

Anyone in Prague from July onwards look me up!!

DogGone:ok:

Diddley Dee

23rd Mar 2007, 15:35

Flower

I am sorry this thread had angered you. I am not for one second saying that civil controllers are careless in the way in which you conduct your ATC. The point being made was that most Mil controllers have been involved in a situation where a civil controller has thought he has co-ordinated & the Mil controller believes traffic information has been passed. Surely this is not a good way of doing business? Co-ord needs to be unambiguous to both sides.

It would appear that a trial has taken place whereby your regulator has decided to adopt a more Mil method of co-ord. If the present civil system is acceptable why have your civil authorities elected to align it with the Military style?

There even seems to be confusion amongst the civil posters with one guy stating that FIS cannot & should not be co-ordinated against and another quoting an example whereby he requests co-ord against FIS!

Earlier on in the thread a poster was complaining that the Mil insist on noisey handovers all the time and that we eat time doing this, stick to the rules, dont think outside the box etc etc. As posting "this happened to me" tales seem to be flavour of the moment..... this morning I had been prenoted a pair of FA-20s out of a Northern Civil airfield and the unit were given a squawk & told I was happy with a freecall if clean.
A short while later the ac call me and they are under a RAS climbing to FL190 for the GAM RVC. As they are mid way throught the vale of York I notice that 10 miles behind my formation is a track on a simlair profile, I became suspicious and asked if they were in standard formation. No 10 miles apart! The civil unit prenote a formation and then frecall them over 10 miles apart with no mention of this... Factor in that they were to cross CAS and no wonder some Mil controllers insist on handovers from some civil units!

As i said at the beginning I dont think civil ATC is unsafe quite the opposite but I do feel feel ... make that know, that I have been on the receiving end of ambiguous co-ordination.

If nothing else this thread will highlight the fact that Civ & Mil co-ordination can be open to mis-interpretation.

DD

flower

23rd Mar 2007, 16:32

Diddly Dee,
the scenario you post it poor coordination and any changes should always be passed. The problem you can find certainly in the civil world is that if one person does something incorrectly then they may change a procedure which if done correctly works perfectly . What should happen in such a scenario is that the ATCO at fault is made aware they are at fault through their LCE or some other such person.

I personally found that since the move down to Swanwick that there certainly appeared to me a greater flexibility regarding traffic, also noted by some other colleagues of mine but cannot say for sure that it was a universal agreement. I must add that my experiences of the ATCOs themselves are good except for the occasional **** but lets face it they happen everywhere.

I am however very concerned that there will be additional RT used yet again in an ever increasing RT loading situation. We in the Civil world have had a number of changes of late that have increased that loading. Anything which increases your workload be it RT loading amongst others has the potential for causing incidents.

The subtle differences between the way we do things is IMHO not an ideal scenario when we both work traffic in the same airspace , it took a while for me to learn just how many differences there are and all learnt "on the job"
How do we move forward, well of course we all want to keep doing things the way we all feel comfortable with but in Class G there certainly needs some sort of streamlining especially when if you read the GA forums there is much confusion even over the usage of phraseology in RT. There was a good debate recently on one forum about the fact the Military world do not use not above or not below but say fly at when an aircraft transited a MATZ for example. Having never personally flown through a MATZ I cannot comment but all of these items become very confusing for the Pilots.

I still say the way forward is greater cooperation and streamlining but any new procedures should take into account that we are busier than ever with no extra staff and thus we need to reduce RT loading not increase it, something which has been ignored for a little while now which makes me suspicious of who is making these decisions.

Toadpool

23rd Mar 2007, 17:10

Diddley Dee,

The situation you describe should not have happened, and will be addressed.

I do still feel, even more strongly after seeing some of the responses from Mil ATCOs, the the problem has been introduced by Shawbury hammering into you Mil guys "it's not coordination unless you say it". I suspect it's very unlikely, but if they dropped that, you guys may be able to recognise coordination without having to have it rammed down your throat. Perhaps then we will get away from this "but you didn't say you wanted coordination" attitude we sometimes get.

I know I'm repeating myself, but if this change comes to pass in MATS part 1 then there will be more occasions when you will get the response, "sorry, too busy" to a coordination request. With the best will in the world, there is only so much we can do. I feel, as others have stated, that it is a retrograde step and will be counter productive.

As to why SRG have decided to go down this line, I don't know, but I suspect that, to them, it is the easy option, as it will probably not affect NATS units to any great extent. The units that it will have a profound affect on, unfortunately, have very little say in the matter. I'd like to see the safety case to justify it.

Diddley Dee

23rd Mar 2007, 17:43

TP

So you want to drop the "request co-ordination" from our (Mil) phraseology and get rid of the postion report for the ac involved in the co-ord.... Just how am I going to know when you want co-ordination?:hmm:

As for it taking up too much time, can you tell me how many square miles there are on a say 40 mile round tube? because thats the number of miles I am looking round to spot your ac that needs co-ordination... that takes time. Move that into the area radar world where we routinely work on 125 mile range, just how long will it take without a position report for me to spot the ac that you are wanting to co-ordinate?

You have obviously had bad expieriences with Mil co-ord & for that I am disappointed because I find that on the vast majority of occassions with Mil to Mil co-ord (where we both know what to expect from one another) it takes seconds...... I grant you there will be times when you get someone who is having a mare & it will take too long but overall it works for me.

DD

Larsman

23rd Mar 2007, 19:31

One issue that is reccurrent here is the time factor involved in the new co-ordination procedures.
We routinely can be sitting working around 15 aircraft in varying amounts of IFR and VFR.
The Mil seem to work about 4 or 5 before they are " working to capacity". granted as DD states it is over a much larger area and it is harder to keep track of them but the point is there is a multitude of military controllers working a (relatively) small number of tracks compared with the number of aircraft worked by civil controllers. Granted this is not always the case but this is exactly the time you need to be co-ordinating and i for one do not have the time to sit through endless " stand by for controller" followed by numerous "standbys" then to have to go into long winded phraeseology just to determine that my traffic will stay 15000 ft below yours!

I feel as most have stated that this is a retrograde step which will actually lead to LESS co-ordination instead of more.

chevvron

23rd Mar 2007, 19:40

I think Toadpool was trying to indicate the length of time taken was unnacceptable when you've got lots of other aircraft calling, a situation Military Area radar controller would be unfamiliar with unless they'd had recent experience at an airfield.

Diddley Dee

23rd Mar 2007, 21:20

Chevron

I have done 10 years at Mil FJ units prior to area radar & I well remember times where I was working flat out ( 4 on I wish!) recovering jets in IMC from multiple directions for differing recovery profiles. As for the other Mil area guys on here, the ones I know have at least that level of expierience!

LARSMAN

There is more to controlling than purely numbers, Mil ATC can be very dynamic & go from plodding along to maxed out in short order due to the nature of the wave flying so typical of Mil Ops. Granted with our committments elsewhere stations are often not as busy as they have been in the past. I can see how hard some of the civil ATC units work & also expierience it first hand as I tootle around at 90 knots.... I just wish some of you civil guys could see the situations Mil ATC has to deal with up close... we might not work the volume but there are times when it gets equally as demanding as some of the civil control units.

All

I can see we are never going to see eye to eye on this.... All I will say if the new format does indeed go ahead on the civil side I genuinely hope it doesnt cause you too many difficulties.

DD:ok:

flower

23rd Mar 2007, 21:36

Diddley Dee,

If you equally get maxed out or busy then you must surely also agree any coordination that takes a shorter length of time than the current must be a bonus ?

Less time on the phone more time to think

machinehead

23rd Mar 2007, 22:24

One of the SRG types who came to our ATSU for a validation recently had a very good point. It seems the military operate their ATC on a simple basis. Same equipment (STORNO or whatever) and same type of procedures (PAR etc). Therefore an individual moving around the country would not need, necessarily, to re-train to the same extent a civil controller does, on the equipment or procedures the military use but simply learn the local variations.

We civil people can go from one unit to another and see different equipment and different 'best practise' amongst other stuff at any unit we visit.

At out ATSU we deal with Three military units and three civil units. We've learned how the military controllers operate and how our procedures can differ but through visits and discussions we have gained a better understanding of their limitations and they understand ours. We have simple agreements with the military units and use our assistants where possible to take details (pre-notes) if handovers are not possible (our controller too busy etc).

We'd welcome a level playing field for handovers and would urge all controllers to understand that this is for the common good, not to make our lives more difficult.

Keeping things simple is important and common practise surely is a good step in the right direction.:D

Larsman

24th Mar 2007, 20:11

DD,
I did actually say that Mil control isnt all about numbers.
I appreciate you work over a vary large area with sometimes complex tasks but if you feel civil ATC is not dynamic. Try the vale of york on a nice sunny weekend!!! and Im not talking about med/high level traffic. Down in the weeds can be extremely dynamic.
I still stand by the fact mil atcos do not appreciate the ratio of aircraft to atcos in the civil world is much higher than in the mil.

Diddley Dee

24th Mar 2007, 23:14

LARSMAN

Vale of York on a nice Sunny weekend....
I was at Leeming form 1996 -2001 so did plenty of that TVM.
Still work in the VOY routing CAT under RAS to NEW TD & HBR

DD

About time we let this one lie isnt it?

DD

ATCO Fred

25th Mar 2007, 10:22

:D Gents some excellent debate contained within this thread. As I have said earlier, when you examine MATS part 1 and JSP 552 they are scarily similar. That said, to follow up something Flower stated earlier:
Another comment which I do believe to be apt we in the Civilian world have to constantly adapt to the changes that new technology brings, we thus change the rules to adapt to the new scenarios that is the right way to go, rules written even 5 years ago do not necessarily apply in todays modern ATC. Perhaps those who write the rules for the Military should also learn to adapt to modern day ATC.

Technology effects all....how you work with it is simple. Local agreements are done in Mats part 2/local order books. Pan UK changes are conducted by the legislator. Be patient and wait for a unified change, safety is definitely compromised if we sanction units changing procedures ad hoc to how it suits them.
I am however very concerned that there will be additional RT used yet again in an ever increasing RT loading situation. We in the Civil world have had a number of changes of late that have increased that loading. Anything which increases your workload be it RT loading amongst others has the potential for causing incidents.
Fair point - but have you compared the ADI phraseology civil/Mil. The civil terminology is pretty long winded, especially when you introduce wake vortex. Then again, if you have witnessed Mil ATCO's coordinating when they both know AND USE the correct procedures it can be done in less then 10 seconds.
And finally
Well, this happened to me:
Attenpting to coordinate with a Mil LARS unit. Exchange went something like
ME: request traffic, possible coordination on your xxxx 5 N of X
THEM: (type) is 3000 on the RPS, FIS.
ME: roger. My traffic will be a (type) departing rwy XX, climbing FLXX RAS.
THEM: Squawk?....standby....(callsign, squawk 7000 and freecall). He has now gone en route squawking 7000.
ME: Thanks a bunch.
Now our MATS 1 says that traffic in class G can change frequency whenever it wants basically, and I guess the Mil book says the same thing. But, thinking outside the box, I would probably try to hang on to it if someone was coordinating against that traffic, or at least suggest they freecall the coordinating unit if they insisted they no longer wanted to talk to me.
RAC/OPS you are dead right...if it had been me I would have told the civil aircraft to remain on frequency due to co-ordinated traffic, unfortunately it would appear the ATCO you were attempting to co-ord with had little appreciation of the overall situation.
The scenario above and the general thrust of this thread can be summed up with.....just be a good ATCO. Remember the controlling team extends to all controllers and ATSA (civil and Mil) and we should work in harmony and empathy of each other’s restrictions. After all, the ATCO you are co-ordinating with is just applying what he/she has been told and is not making it up just to be awkward!

Singe

25th Mar 2007, 12:09

AIC 9/2007 (Yellow 230)
Use of SSR in the vicinity of the Aerodrome Traffic Pattern

Conspicuity code 7010.

Just a heads up to any military chaps that don't know about this code as of 15th March 2007. I had somebody trying to co-ordinate with my circuit traffic this morning.
Are these AICs made common knowledge in military units?

Wee Jock McPlop

25th Mar 2007, 13:26

I understand both sides of the argument, having been a Mil controller for a number of years and now working for NATS. The bottom line is there should be more of the commonality we all seek and hopefully that will come in good time.

For the civil controllers who are having a pop at the supposed mil inflexibility just pause for a minute. Mil guys do have it drummed into them from the start and the their unit execs maintain that and rightly so. I have had close experience of a couple of very serious ATC investigations prior to my leaving the RAF. One of the things that struck me about those and other well-known investigations is that if you do not follow procedures, the investigators will try to hammer you for it. Put that into a legal framework and you could be very seriously exposed. Trust me, you do not want to go there! So to follow the letter of law may seem to some to be protracted, wordy, bothersome etc etc. However, if you stick to the rules and what has been 'drummed into you', you are protecting your arse in the event something going wrong. That may be seen as 'defensive controlling' by some, but at the end of the day, it could just save your bacon. I have heard some of my fellow civil controllers saying that they protect their licence at all times and that is spot on.

We do have our differences, but the bottom line is still the same for all of us - safe and expeditious ATC. Without wishing to sound too patronising, I've always thought of us (civ & mil) as being part of the same team and that includes pilots! Lets keep it that way. I hate the 'us and them mentality' - it just does not work and never has.

The commonality we all seek will hopefully come. In the meantime, keep talking, do the liaison visits, have a beer together and get a greater understanding of what we all do - it does all help. That in turn will find a better way of doing things and may make Toadpool a happier bunny;)

Stay safe,

WJMcP

lizsdad

29th Mar 2007, 21:52

Hi guys
I have followed this thread with a great deal of interest
Well Toadpool I could not agree with you more. This is a retrograde step in anyone's world.
But a point I must make is that this is all pointless unless someone attempts to alter the philosophy of who is in charge in the miltary system, PILOT or ATCO. From bitter experence, unless military pilots start to accept that ATC is for their benefit rather than "they are a hinderance" (an actual quote from a front line fast jet pilot)

London Mil

29th Mar 2007, 22:25

Lizsdad, you clearly do not understand our ethos. The very first thing a military controller is taught is that he/she is there to facilitate 'tactical freedom'. In other words, support the pilot in achieving his aim. As many have previously said, this whole discussion indicates a lack of mutual understanding between air traffikers, nothing more.

whowhenwhy

30th Mar 2007, 08:50

I know it's thread drift, but I beg to differ, slightly, with London Mil.

As mil ATCOs we should facilitate tactical freedom; unfortunately, due to lowering experience levels within the branch and trade (at both terminal and area) we do have more controllers now who can't do much more than what they were taught at Shawbury.

I'm not saying that that's always a bad thing, but it would be good to have ATCOs who knew what the pilot was trying to achieve. The best example for me of this was the allocators & GP controllers at area who insisted on pushing Harriers through the GAM & TILNI RVCs, rather than offering direct and/or higher. As a branch we must have been slightly concerned about this, we made up a WK question about it a couple of years ago!

shack

30th Mar 2007, 11:27

Oh! the happy '70s-80's days when I was a CSC at LATCC and I trusted the LJAO chap/ess working on my suite and we got along fine without any bull***t.

pimpernel

1st Apr 2007, 18:42

In the 12 years I have been a Mil ACTO I have never encountered a real problem with this issue. When talking to civil units you just have to bear in mind they haven't swallowed JSP552. But on the whole co-ordination is achieved and I haven't personally encountered any ambiguity, which after all is the one thing that needs to be avoided.
Although I may encounter the wrath of my betters I sometimes find the Mil way long winded especially if you are trying to co-ordinate multiple tracks. Equally, the civil term "subject to", which is not in the JSP, is a very good way of cutting down verbage.
Only the most absolute Mil ATCO would not understand the requests made by civil as the start of co-ordination and if any doubt exists it is quite easily resolved by asking the other controller exactly what they want.
I agree with toppledgyro, both systems have there merits and as both civil and Mil ATC has the shared goal of safety as a priority, it would seem silly if a shared learning experiance couldn't be had by all.

Toadpool

1st Apr 2007, 19:37

I keep thinking that this post is gradually fading way, but it will keep on being resurrected!

These last two posts, and the input from BurglarsDog and Wee Jock, give me hope that there may be light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm repeating myself again, but I do feel that any confusion/ambiguity is introduced because Shawbury teach that "request coordination" must be said. A lot of Mil ATCOs will probably disagree, but if they were taught more along the lines of MATS part 1, ( coordination is the act, etc), not only would it make more sense to you, but the confusion would not arise in the first place as you will not be looking for that "trigger" phrase. It's not what you say, but why you say it that seems to be at least part of the problem.

As others have already said, there are also some things we could learn from the Mil way of working.

London Mil

2nd Apr 2007, 07:38

TP, I too had rather hoped this one would drift away. The reason Strawbury insist that the students obtain the magic "C" word is that they have to recognise the difference between coordination and traffic information. Only last week was there a misunderstanding between a civil controller and one of ours a LATCC(Mil) becuase, t the end of the day, they did not agree a course of action and succeeded in only passing long-winded TI.

PS. They are taught along exactly the same lines as civil controllers in so far as "coordination is the act of....."

Pierre Argh

2nd Apr 2007, 13:29

Just a heads up to any military chaps that don't know about this code as of 15th March 2007. I had somebody trying to co-ordinate with my circuit traffic this morning.
Are these AICs made common knowledge in military units?

Singe,
I've worked at seven military units... most have received AICs but none have drawn attention to them. I accept they contain much useful/important information but they're CAA documents and there are all the changes to the Mil docs to absorb first:)

I haven't had chance to check the regs/listing of the 7010 squawk... but I'm guessing it will be listed as an unverified squawk? So if a mil ATCO is overflying a civil airfield below 10,000ft and can see a 7010 squawk they cannot take separation the Mode C information alone... and must take some other form of action i.e. coordinate, achieve a gap etc etc (the rules are long and complex for all, so I have chosen just a few).

What happens if your 7010 squawk doesn't have Mode C... surely cannot be deemed to be in the visual traffic pattern? Now I've always maintained that if you're separated then you're separated 9and there's no need to take a gap too... if you're worried about whether vertical separation exists then taking standard horizontal separation should be sufficient... but I digress?

London Mil

18th May 2007, 06:35

Gentlemen (and ladies), I give you ATSIN 106.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ATS%20106.pdf

RAC/OPS

18th May 2007, 08:40

In the scenario where a C152/Jodel/Cub maintaining 1500ft etc is to be possibly coordinated against because of high level traffic, then this part of the ATSIN:

'If, after receiving traffic information, a controller believes that co-ordination is necessary, he shall use the term “request co-ordination” and shall follow the verbal procedure detailed below.’ (my bold underlining)

Will be enough for a civil controller, having requested traffic info to say 'Roger' and hang up.

The requesting Mil controller, however:
'Request coordination, my traffic maintaining FL210.......'

ATCO Fred

18th May 2007, 10:37

Will be enough for a civil controller, having requested traffic info to say 'Roger' and hang up.
The requesting Mil controller, however:
'Request coordination, my traffic maintaining FL210.......'
I disagree.
Got the ATSIN in front of me...... if the C152/jodel is Squawking then yes, but you have more than the required height separation anyway (assuming your aircraft at FL210) so the call would not have taken place in the first instance. If the aircraft is non squawking then a roger is NOT acceptable:
Quote from the ATSIN
A response that does not reaffirm the details of the agreement, such as "Roger", is not acceptable.Further
To ensure clarity and avoid misunderstandings, before terminating the call, parties shall explicitly state the action required of their aircraft to achieve the agreed course of action.
So - the end of traffic information being interpreted as coordination...discuss!

RAC/OPS

18th May 2007, 10:52

Damned if I can get blue quote boxes up, but the last 2 you put up Fred refer to when coordination is carried out. To my mind, having passed traffic info this is not required, and 'Roger' is OK.

London Mil

18th May 2007, 11:06

RAC, in your example of a C152 at 1500ft and a fast pointy thing at FL210 I'm presuming that the civil controller wants to know what the mil track is doing. The military controller says "maintaining FL210", and you imply that you are no longer interested with your "Roger" and move on to other things. The military controller may also be no longer interested, neither is his traffic which sqks 7000/7001 and goes on route. It then enters a descent at 35000ft/min pointing straight at your C152. Are you still not interested?

My point is that no agreement has been made with your "Roger" and therefore any TI you have gained is dead as soon as the conversation ends.

Toadpool

18th May 2007, 11:11

I'm sorry, but I feel that this is a very sad day for Civvy ATC, and will only lead to less coordination being carried out for reasons previously stated.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I feel that the units chosen to take part in the trail were picked to get the desired result, not to prove which system is the more practical.

Also what does the gobbledygook in paras 6.1 (in particular the last sentence) and para 6.2 mean?

RAC/OPS, I'm with you in your example. In fact I think a Civvy controller would not even make the phone call for the following reasons:-

1. If the traffic was not squawking you would not know who to coordinate with.

2. If it was squawking mode A only it could be deemed at or below FL100.

3. With mode A and C you would clearly have more than enough vertical.

4. FL210 is now in controlled airspace, so is again deemed separated from traffic outside;) .

Standby for more FISs being left on 7000 squawks.

London Mil

18th May 2007, 11:21

If it was squawking mode A only it could be deemed at or below FL100. No. ATC units can control aircraft above FL100 without Mode C.

With mode A and C you would clearly have more than enough vertical. ...and how fast will the mil traffic climb or descend?

FL210 is now in controlled airspace, so is again deemed separated from traffic outside Oh really? Best you read the AIP regarding TRAs.

One last thing. This is indeed a sorry day for ATC - ie when someone views himself as 'civvy ATC' and not part of the whole system.

RAC/OPS

18th May 2007, 11:49

London Mil; no, in my example the civil controller is working the C152 and receives a call for traffic info/poss coord from the controller working the high level traffic, and the two responses are from the latter.

Nogbad the Bad

18th May 2007, 11:52

"Standby for controller........"

:}

Toadpool

18th May 2007, 12:34

Ah London Mil, patronising as ever.

As I have stated before, Mil units may be able to work traffic above FL100 without mode C, but Civvy units can't, except in very exceptional circumstances.

...and how fast will the mil traffic climb or descend?

I am well aware of how quickly Mil traffic climbs and descends, but the example quoted was for traffic maintaining FL210.

As for the class C airspace above FL195, I know that access has been limited to only a few, mainly area, units. Most, if not all, terminal units cannot enter without permission.

London Mil

18th May 2007, 16:29

TP, I will continue to patronise as long as you spout.
It is irrelevant who can and cannot control in a TRA, the point is that anyone providing a service in a TRA cannot deem traffic underneath it as any military aircraft can climb straight into a TRA without clearance. Fact.
As far as the no Mode C above FL100 bit is concerned, you can work traffic above FL100 without A&C. For starters, try inaccurate Mode C indications - I presume you know the actions to be taken under such circumstances? Similarly, someone can get airborne with a perfectly serviceable transpoder and then have it fail on them. Should I just assume that a no mode C aircraft is below FL100? I think not.
Sure, the military guy will say 'maintaining'. But if nobody wants that magic thing called coordination, he may well allow the aircraft to go on-route as soon as the conversation is complete.
RAC, now I understand your example, I'll just thank you for being 'jack' and unwilling to help a fellow controller. :ugh:

whowhenwhy

18th May 2007, 17:30

LM, isn't it the case that we can work and allow traffic without A&C above FL100, but our higher paid brethren are allowed to deem such ac as being beneath FL100? That raises an issue though, civ controller at FL170 deems an ac with NMC as being beneath FL100 and proceeds to have an airprox with said ac working C15 as London. :(

RAC/OPS

18th May 2007, 22:22

London Mil - Where have I given the impression that I was unwilling to help a fellow controller? My point is that in the situation I described, the civil controller asking for traffic info would leave it at that, whereas the uncivil one..sorry, the mil one would probably go into the request coordination spiel anyway.

How about trying to hand over pre-noted RAS traffic to Swanwick or London mil, given the controller no. to ring, subsequent controller denies all knowledge of the pre-note, refuses to accept it without a pre-note, I go through it all again - this takes about 20 miles, then same controller expects me to take a handover on another acft, RAS, no pre-note at all. That is what I call unhelpful!:ugh: :ugh:

whowhenwhy

20th May 2007, 08:54

RAC/OPS, I would hope that your reference to military controllers being un-civil was a genuine mistake, but then we all have delete keys so it could not have been, so I think an apology to the majority would not go amiss.

If I ever asked for traffic information on something I would simply say something along the lines of "roger, request coordination, my traffic UMBEL south east 10nms tracking north-west, squawking 6152." hopefully get a "contact" and then say something that fits in with your traffic profile. Takes about 10 seconds. It's not really going into a spiel again!

In terms of your handover problem, unfortunately, every so often, an allocator (at Lon Mil) or Planner (at Swanwick) will take a pre-note and fail to forward that to the controller concerned - hence you may end up in the situation that you describe. Unless the unit is very busy (which would normally cause that pre-note not to have been passed) a quick call to the allocator should sort the problem out and, unless your ac is supersonic, should not take 20nms. I'm not saying that you've not experienced a delay that long, I'm saying that it shouldn't be that bad. I know that both units are somewhat under-staffed at the moment and certainly London Mil is struggling for experienced staff.

I think we maybe need to cool this down a bit fellas, we are all basically following the same hymn sheet and even I can get along quite merrily with my highly paid cousins 7 miles up the road. :ok: Cheer up, it's the weekend.