UK Military ATC to Civil Licence Conversion (Split)

[niknak]

It isn't going to happen overnight.

Ineviatebly it will bring some compatibility into the system, but it'll be a number of years before ex Mil Atcos can just "convert" their licences into civil ones.
Significant differences still remain between they way the two sides operate at airfields and SRG will insist on courses and exams being undertaken until they're sure there's no margin for confusion.

[Standard Noise]

Even if it was true, how would it stem the outflow of RAF ATCOs leaving the service?

Are they leaving just to get a civil licence? Or is it because civvy ATCOs get paid more (unless I've missed the boat and the RAF guys and gals are on upwards of 60K a year these days)? If it's for the latter reason, then the outflow won't necessarily be stemmed.

[Lurking123]

Dunjumping - touched a nerve have I?

Answering your original question - No. I suppose you could say that JATCC now meets 80.1% of ESSAR 5.

[Grabbers]

What about existing Mil ATCOs? How ESAAR compliant would they be, with their CofC bursting with operating endorsements?

[whowhenwhy]

Having sat alongside civil airfield controllers in a combined radar room, while there are a number of differences, I'm not convinced that from an airfield perspective there's so much re-training to do that it could not be handled as OJT. That said, I think there is a significant amount of work to be done by SRG in terms of scoping the training and licensing requirement.

Area radar is a completely different kettle of fish and there are significant differences in the way in which business is conducted.

[skodasfinesthour]

TBH Chaps,

As someone who has done both controlling disciplines....there is no way a current mil atco could just walk out of the mob and straight into a civil job without undertaking the normal licence courses...this is especially true for ADI (Tower). So many differences in the rules, phraseology, operating procedures..etc etc, the list goes on! Even radar is different...remember, a civil controller at a typical regional airport, doesn't have the luxury of a Zone/Deps, Dir, App and talkdown controller! They are all that and more sometimes! I found that the most difficult part to comprehend to begin with when undertaking the radar course and that was even after a year as an ADI controller in the civil environment!


This has been talked about so many times and will no doubt continue to rage on....I believe at the moment anyone who has done JATCC recently (cant remember from what date in the last year) will now be exempt from the CAA Basic course and move straight onto the rating courses. In my humble opinion, thats the way it should stay.....


If Mil people moan that they don't have the same licence, then get out pay the money and pursue a civil rating. Simple :ok:

[rej]

Dunjumpin

Didn't I see this on another web page about 10 days ago???

Give a mil ATCO an ICAO licence aNd he/she will only go one way.............OUT.

MORE MONEY, LESS SAND, MORE MONEY, LESS SAND, MORE MONEY, LESS SAND, MORE MONEY, LESS SAND, MORE MONEY, LESS SAND, MORE MONEY, LESS SAND,....................................................... .........

[Heimdall]

Surely the simple solution to enabling RAF ATCOs to re-train as civil ATCOs is the same one that’s been kicked around for many years without ever being officially adopted.

First the RAF decide what is a reasonable return of service is, lets say 8 to 10 years on completion of the JATCC. Then over the course of say the last year of this qualifying service those individuals that wish to are considered eligible to undertake a 1 year correspondence course for an Aerodrome Licence, with a number of ‘residency’ periods of set examinations and simulator exercises at either of the CAA qualified training schools.

This course could and should be funded by the RAF as part of re-settlement training, but since funding has always been a sticking point in the past, perhaps it’s time that other sources were examined and identified. For some years RAF pilots have had a system in place to help them re-train for an ATPL, but nothing official has been set in place to enable RAF ATCOs to make a similar transfer.

I believe this system would act as a pull factor to attract individuals to become an RAF ATCO, whilst ensuring they delivered a fair return of service before taking the skills they have acquired across to the civil sector. As the ‘baby-boomer’ generation of civil ATCOs retiring increases perhaps it’s time that all RAF ATCOs were treated as a national resource and trained to civil standards, as they do in New Zealand and many other countries.

Heimdall

[Il Duce]

Heimdall
Excellent suggestion!

[chevvron]

To gain a CAA licence, you need to complete an 'approved course'. I've not heard of any correspondence courses being approved.

[Lurking123]

No reason why it can't be. Look at the ATPL modular stuff. X months of sitting at home with the laptop, 4 weeks of brush up. If the pilots can do it, no reason why ATC can't.

[bottom rung]

You can't get the sim time except for on a modular course for a starter. And a hundred other reasons why. Done civil and mil controlling; the differences are not fully apparant until you've done both.

[Lurking123]

You can't on the atpl either. You do the study, pass the theoretical exams, then go and do the flying. If you look at ESSAR 5, you will find that the majority of differences are related to the theory stuff. No one is arguing about bypassing the practical sim stuff (which, after all, is probably the most important bit), the discussion is about how to convert. There is no practical reason why someone couldn't set up the equivalent of Bristol GS with students then buying their sim time (complete with practical examination) somewhere else. It just hasn't been done, probably because no one sees the business imperative.

[bottom rung]

It has been done, back in the day when all you had to do was pitch up and pass the three exams (written, practical and oral) per rating. Warren Brown had a highly successful weekend sim/study set up at the back of Bournemouth airport. Get some time in with him and it was quite possible to book an exam day at Hurn and pass a rating. A bit too successful, unfortunately. Possibly due to his high success rate compared to NATS college, he was effectively shut down once the new RGAT courses were brought in. At least that's how I remember it all....
The present integrated course setup doesn't allow for budding entrepreneurs unless they can get accreditation from SRG. Same as everything else in aviation... expensive.

[Lurking123]

You learn something every day. Regarding costs - absolutely. And what privateer would pay NATS a wad of money considering their current pass rate. :sad:

[DUNJUMPIN]

Lurking123

It makes no difference to me, I just wanted to expose the subject to some open discussion - which it appears I have!

rej

You might have glimpsed a comment previously, but only if you were quick. With the greatest respect, your somewhat blinkered outlook is exactly why we are where we are. :ugh:

Heimdall is on the button for me! Return of service is a tool already used and its expansion would help maintain an even flow through. You could almost say its in line with govt policy - get a good return on investment without spending the extra on pension and gratuity. What a pity we couldn't have this open exchange of ideas and opinions on that 'other' forum.

[rej]

Chevvron

You mention an 'approved course'; I used to have a number of people working for me who emerged from an 'approved school'; does that count ?:E

[Grabbers]

rej

We know who you are too!:ok:

[rej]

Dunnjumpin

I don't think that my view is blinkered; yes maybe I was being cynical and tongue in cheek but, after 20+ years as an ATCO I have seen much change in certian directions such as a massive reduction in military traffic levels, a couple of serious incidents that knocked the specialization for 6 and the fact that our specialization still suffers from an element of stagnation and same-old, same-old tour after tour.

But at the end of the day why do we all go out to work; for the pounds, shillings and sixpences of course. In doing so we all expect, and deserve to expect, a half decent quality of life. IMHO both aspects can be achieved with less stress as a civilian ATCO. Look at the pay, the working environments and the stabilitly. Not wishing to start a political debate in world events but, notwithstanding the views of the guys and girls in uniform, I know that their families and loved-ones are overly keen on the risks associated with the OOA ops.

If you enjoy being an ATCO, as I have and still do, look at the big picture and you will see why I said that there is only one way the ATCO will go.

You say that my blinkered outlook is why we are here we are. I don't agree; I say it as I see it. If I am correct in thinking who you are, then unlike you, I speak as as ATCO and someone who has experienced just about all of the facets of the specialization that this subject relates to . Had my lot been somewhat different I would have made the move to NATS but I was not in a position to do so. I have, however, given my all to my job and remained open minded. In 1999 I was in a position where I was asked formally to give my views on amalgamation of the ATC and FC specializations. I wrote a paper in support of a combined specialization but received no feedback. If we are to move forward then we need to be bold and accept that we cannot afford to be precious; to this day I still think we should amalgamate and offer ATCOs a wider range of skills and opportunities.

[whowhenwhy]

It's alright Rej, it's happening - slowly. Apologies for thread hijack, but when you look at the specialisations themselves there are 3 main streams/skill sets: terminal, surveillance and area/weapons. It's crying out for it, but then a lot of things are :sad:

[skodasfinesthour]

Bottom Rung said: "You can't get the sim time except for on a modular course for a starter. And a hundred other reasons why. Done civil and mil controlling; the differences are not fully apparant until you've done both".

Spot on mate, until you have done both you have no idea the differences between the two disciplines.....I agree that the crossover and outstream of RAF ATCOs needs to be addressed by Air Cmd (heads in sand). Indeed a similar process to that of many foreign mil ATCOs who get an ICAO licence during training but require a return of service of around 10 years before leaving could be one direction. Did Cwmbran not teach the ICAO courses to the Danish Air Force.....

However, I bet many of the posters on this subject and in the past are current mil controllers who want it handed to them on a plate re the civil ratings! Now I completed JATCC pre ESSAR 5, but to say that it is 80% compliant, then why do those graduates only still get exemption from the CAA Basic course only? Beacause of the differences mentioned in line 1 of this post! I thought the same as many current mil ATCOs about the licence issues about 2 yrs ago when I left the service....but it is different and would take a lot of work by both parties to link the two respective disciplines. I know this has been done by CATCS to a degree, but as you current mil guys may already know, there is a feasibility study being carried out by an individual (under the auspices of Qinetiq??) as to the future of mil controlling. Could some units not be done by civilian controllers...I could think of at least 5 of the top of my head. Mil ATC of the future will be small deployable units, with the rest being done by cvilian controllers. Controversial I know, but a reality in these downsizing times.

Said it numerous times to those still in the RAF who contact me about going civilian....if you want to take the plunge then you will have shell out some money for the frist steps and then hope an employer will do the rest. Don't bitch and moan about life in the RAF if you 'aint prepared to do something about it!

Incoming expected!:}

[Matoman]

Skodsfinesthour

Over the last 20 years or so there have been all kinds of bright ideas, studies, reports, etc, etc into the idea of replacing most military controllers at RAF airfields with civil controllers - but all have come to nothing. When I was at Hillingdon House it was suggested by one very senior RAF wheel that we should be be able to replace all military controllers at training units with civil licenced controllers virtually overnight!

The cost of employing civil licenced controllers is the main issue - lets say £60k or thereabouts for a typical ATCO2 - now whilst this might stack up against the capitation rate for a flt lt, it compares rather poorly with the capitation rate for a sgt. Bear in mind that, given current trends, the RAF ATC specialisation is heading towards a 60/40 split amoung controllers, with officers forming the 40%, I rather doubt there's much money to be saved.

The second issue is where will these extra civil licenced controllers suddenly appear from? Currently, as the 'baby boomer' generation of controllers retire, virtually anyone with a civil ATC licence can get a well paid job without too much difficulty and I'm not aware of a glut of individuals with the appropriate qualifications and experience sitting around somewhere just waiting for a call to go and work as a military controller at an RAF airfield.

As many people who have crossed over from mil to civil correctly point out, there are considerable differences in how both sides operate - therefore if it was decided that this suggestion was to be adopted, I would expect the civil controllers to undertake and pass the JATCC prior to taking up their employment - the requirement for appropriate cross-training must surely cut both ways? I'm aware that civil licenced controllers currently operate military aircraft for the AAC and and at two UAS bases - but these activities are considerably different from those they would encounter at a typical fast-jet unit.

Finally, perhaps it would do anyone contemplating this idea to remember precisely what happened at Boscombe Down.

Like Heimdall, I would like to see all ATC controllers in the UK trained to exactly the same standards and operate with exactly the same licence, but in the current financial climate whether this will ever be achieved appears highly unlikely.

Matoman

[badger29]

Hi guys
I know there are several threads in the forum about this topic but I need some clarification and hope that there is someone out there who can help.

I am considering joining the armed forces as an ATC for the Navy as opposed to a warfare officer which was my original option. My main motivator other than serving in the navy( and all that entails) was that i would hopefully come out with something thats worth while in civilian life.

Unfortunatly the bumpf the navy give you on ATC doesn't really state what your qaulifications and prospects are after you leave. I understand there are different licenses for different specialisations in civilian ATC but does the navy teach you and award you any of these?
If so are they transferable to civilian ATC, and if not what do you have to do to get the right licenses etc??

Ok well hopefully someone will wade through my mini-essay and have some answers for me as after reading the threads on here im a little confused.

Thanks to everyone who reads.:):ok:

[Lurking123]

Matoman, you and I were having exactly the same discussion when you were my sqn cdr and I was a lowly pilot officer. And again when we instructed together. And again when.........

Without the business incentive, nothing changes.

[ATCO Fred]

Without the business incentive, nothing changes.

Absolutely - lets not forget, Cmd ATC has just had their building (the bunker) condemned and they are currently looking for their 3rd home since they left B Block! Bit difficult to frame policy when you are constantly moving offices!! Anyone else remember the infamous specialist pay paper ready in 91 but held back as it would be considered bad form to ask for specialist pay when a war was about to happen:{

Let's face it - the trade is half the size it was 20 years ago with fewer airfields, less trade and a considerable size of the serviceable fleet overseas. Ah, the halcyon days of Eastern Radar all consoles open and 45 tracks on the unit!! A Lakenheath/Heyford mass launch anyone!! I went Civil just to stay current:E

But to back up SKODMAN it's different and I'm glad I had to go to college to gain my licences because I learnt loads BUT, as in most walks of life there are good and bad and the RAF Training System is extremely good and the other......ahem is VERY personality dependent.

In the RAF you are pretty much spoon fed. Told where to go, what tickets (ratings) you will get, where to live (married quarters) etc,etc. Having to get of your arse and find out about civil training and then getting that break and getting your first job is an excellent eye opener to life after the MOB. I for one hope a simple cross-over does not happen because all it'll do is attract the wrong type of controllers - anyone who's been a UTO will know exactly what I mean!

MATOMAN – you speak sense – any chance you could go back and consult!!

[skodasfinesthour]

ATCO Fred

Aw Shucks...you say such nice things! I know it was difficult, but some one had to haul you through the ADI course last year!!:}

Seriously though guys, some good debate going on here reference the coversion issue. Lets face it, Mil ATC will continue to shrink and ultimately we (????!!they!) will become a small deployable force....its just a matter of time!

Matoman...just an aside..I agree that fast jet ops are quite different to the normal civil ways.....BUT...I work at a civil airport where FRA FA20 aircraft are based..they do run and breaks quite happily mixing with civil traffic (mil procedure with civil controllers, many with no previous mil experience whatsoever). Furthermore as regards to mil units that have civil controllers and work to JSP552 and MATS Pt. 1 & 2 (local orders). I believe they are currently Woodvale, Wyton (UAS units you allude to), Barkston Heath, Middle Wallop, Wattisham and BAe Warton (Typhoon as we all know). It could quite easily be done, especially at bases such as Northolt (civil movements in the main anyway in Class A airspace), Brize Norton, Lyneham, Kinloss, Waddington etc etc....Generally the RAF just doesn't have the mass fighter operations that it used to at the FJ bases.

[Lurking123]

..... and I'm sure that I could rattle-off a list of civil aerodromes where a military controller could happily plug-in and control away.

Don't get me wrong there are big differences, at some airfields and in the AC world.

[ATCO Fred]

..... and I'm sure that I could rattle-off a list of civil aerodromes where a military controller could happily plug-in and control away.

Don't get me wrong there are big differences, at some airfields and in the AC world.

Sorry Lurking - your profile is anon so I'm unsure as to what credibility you have to make that statement. They probably could but they would be using wrong phraseology, not know how to separate Vortex wake aircraft, not be aware of the idiosyncrasies of separating IFR from VFR and SVFR flights. Not be up to speed on AFTN and CFMU flight planning issues, CTOT restriction, VFR flight at night (i.e. they cant!) use of conditional clearances, reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome...and more.

[anotherthing]

Badger29,

check your messages

[skodasfinesthour]

Lurking....

I am intrigued by your last statement! Go on then, what airfields could a mil controller plug straight into!


As ATCO Fred has rightly pointed out....sooooo many differences! Experience and general awareness yes, but operating ways no! simple!:=


If you could back up your statement with controlling history, then I could maybe accept your point of view!
:ok:

[niknak]

Appeal to Mod's:

Your system has gone wonky, somehow I've been credited with starting this thread, I was merely one of the first respondants.

Not a reason to drop it, its an interesting discussion, I just don't want a writ for plagerism on my doorstep.:p

[ATCO Fred]

Appeal to Mod's:

Your system has gone wonky, somehow I've been credited with starting this thread, I was merely one of the first respondants.

Not a reason to drop it, its an interesting discussion, I just don't want a writ for plagerism on my doorstep.

Don't be embarrassed nik nak - I think you were first reserve:eek:

[Lurking123]

My response was to skoda's comment

It could quite easily be done, especially at bases such as Northolt (civil movements in the main anyway in Class A airspace), Brize Norton, Lyneham, Kinloss, Waddington

My response would be:

Manston
Norwich
Exeter
Hawarden
etc etc.

Freddie, answering your particular nuances.

They probably could but they would be using wrong phraseology - disagree. Give them CAPs 493 & 413 and they would cover it in a couple of night's homework. Equally JSP552 doesn't take a millennium to learn.

Not know how to separate Vortex wake aircraft - Give me a break. Already a requirement for IFR; have a look at 552 and you'll find the reference, complete with a nice table.

Not be aware of the idiosyncrasies of separating IFR from VFR and SVFR flights. - Already done at Brize, Lyneham and Northolt. Also carried out wherever CAS(T) is established.

Not be up to speed on AFTN and CFMU flight planning issues, - don't need to be. All this stuff is handled by Ops. Furthermore, the majority of mil ATCAs dual hat between Ops and ATC; they know their stuff

CTOT restrictions - get real.

VFR flight at night (i.e. they cant!) - so what? A new rule to learn.

Use of conditional clearances - already done. Different terminology but basically the same thing.

Reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome - of course, the military know nothing about reduced separation!!

and more - I don't doubt you

How about the other way?

Formations (including splits)
Radar PFLs
Joining procedures (intercepts)
RPAR (you know, a precision radar approach)

My point - let's not try to talk up (or indeed down) a particular element of UK ATS. Let me repeat my last comment

Don't get me wrong there are big differences, at some airfields and in the AC world.

In other words, I don't live in cloud-cuckoo land but I've spent rather a few years (to satisfy your inquisitiveness skoda) on both sides of the house and just don't wholly buy into the "things are completely different" argument.

[skodasfinesthour]

I think this is all getting a little heated tbh, and it is about time a line was drawn on the subject!:} Lurking....points noted but complete b...:mad:.

I am sure the chaps and chapesses of Manston, Exeter, Norwich, Hawarden and etc would disagree. However, you say you have done both sides of the fence, therefore I assume you hold both the RAF Cert of Competence and CAA ATCO Licence in ADI and APS (having done the courses)?? If so then fair point and everyone is entitled to their opinion as they have experienced the two sides. Given the hints in your previous posts, I would guess you have worked at Colt? (combined approach room) but out of interest what were the civil units you worked at?

Ref to some of your replies to the points that Fred made.....

Having worked at Northolt and being Mil, much was adopted from civil rules with a mil infusion of JSP552 (318 as it was then). Complicated yes, completely civil no! It is only, 6-7 yrs down the line as a civil controller does any of it make real sense! (this unit has the strongest case to become civil ATC). Vortex Wake!!! FFS you are having a laugh! Mil stuff does not even go into it...both for arriving and departing a/c! AFTN and CFMU....hmm obviously not worked at any civil unit (or mil unit for that matter) where you are short of ATCA's, on Nights, have no ATCA because of breaks etc and require to access flight plan, cancel, re-file, take met observations, try and get extra mins on a slot time from flow with a nice phone call, the list goes on.

There are other areas that I could go on about, but it is late and I cant be bothered writing any more.......:ugh:

[ATCO Fred]

My point - let's not try to talk up (or indeed down) a particular element of UK ATS. Let me repeat my last comment


Quote:
Don't get me wrong there are big differences, at some airfields and in the AC world.

In other words, I don't live in cloud-cuckoo land but I've spent rather a few years (to satisfy your inquisitiveness skoda) on both sides of the house and just don't wholly buy into the "things are completely different" argument.

So we agree then....

Mil to Civil....Civil to Mil needs some form of pre-employemt training to cover the differences.
:E

[ATCO Fred]

There are other areas that I could go on about, but it is late and I cant be bothered writing any more.......

What.. you mean reduced seperation in the vicinity of an aerodrome and 3 nm lateral separation within 10 miles of the radar head or RVS of 500 feet being the same...:{

"There's traffic 2 nm east at 2000ft - what type of service do you require on departure....RIS...cracking.....cleared for take off" - That's the only type of RSVA I've seen but were talking about the majority of RAF airfields here - not the isolated few with Class D.

[Visitation]

Whilst I accept that there are some considerable differences in the rules and methods of operation between civil and military ATC in the UK, perhaps it’s also reasonable to accept that, with changes to European legislation these differences are starting to reduce and are likely to reduce even further in future, which must be a step in the right direction for everyone.


Of course military controllers need to re-train and qualify for civil operations at civil airports, but perhaps it’s time to ask whether this is really necessary for ATC operations at Woodvale, Wyton, Barkston Heath, Middle Wallop and Wattisham?


As far as I am aware the civil licenced controllers at these units control military aircraft and operate to military regulations, indeed I belive the civil controllers at Wattisham were trained by their military predecessors as part of the handover.

Therefore, given the current shortage of civil ATCOs, I don’t think it would be unreasonable for the CAA to make a minor change to the ANO to allow ex-military controllers to be employed at these type of unit, but nowhere else, without the requirement for a civil ATC licence. After all, operations to JSP552 are considerably different those that would be applied at a typical civil airport and consequently a great deal of the information learned in the process of obtaining a civil ATC licence must be fairly superfluous.


Just a thought ....................... incoming from the usual suspects expected!


Visitation

[waldorf]

Having myself experienced the grass on both sides of the fence I wonder what all the fuss is about? Personally, I found the conversion process relatively painless (apart from the cost that is!) and viewed the whole process as being akin to the act of learning to ride a very different type of bike; or perhaps like learning to ride the same bike but in a different way? I self-funded my way through the APS while undergoing Resettlement prior to leaving the RAF (now that takes some planning) and, for a short time, held the RAF Certificate of Competency and the Yellow Peril concurrently. Moreover, I had to continue mil controlling duties while undergoing the APS course and after having completed the training, prior to finally leaving the MOB and plying my trade elsewhere. I didn't find the act of swapping back and forth between controlling domains (phraseology/QFE/QNH/Wake/Departure Seps etc) as difficult as I envisaged it might. IMHO, the differences which exist between military and civilian ATC referred to throughout this thread are plain to see but lets not pretend that it would be in anyway difficult to effect mil to civil or civil to mil conversion. Skills are skills, no matter how you use em!

[PPRuNe Radar]

Appeal to Mod's:

Your system has gone wonky, somehow I've been credited with starting this thread, I was merely one of the first respondants.

Not a reason to drop it, its an interesting discussion, I just don't want a writ for plagerism on my doorstep.

Don't worry NikNak .. no writs will be forthcoming as Danny burns them all to keep Fyne Mansion warm :8

The topic was split off from another thread and you just happened to be the first post used from the other thread, hence it puts you down as the thread starter.

Cheers

PR