Soon to be plenty of ATCO's

[Frank Arouet]

Now that the Rudd Government has decided to merge the military air traffic control system with the civilian (ie. Airservices Australia), it’s clear that there’s going to be plenty of controllers available.

I understand the military has about 300 “ICAO” rated controllers, and once these people move over to Airservices Australia, there will obviously be plenty of controllers available.

I note the reference, The Australian Newspaper on 15 September 2009:

“However, in 2002 a Defence document signed by current Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston stated: ‘Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems’”

Congratulations Angus Houston! Never has a more sensible statement been made. Now that we will not have a separate military ATC system, the pressure from the military ATCs to keep vast amounts of airspace will go. Advantages for all, especially general aviation.

Congratulations to the Minister.

[4Greens]

As far as I am aware the RAAF have different equipment, so there will have to be conversion courses.

[The Green Goblin]

As far as I am aware the RAAF have different equipment, so there will have to be conversion courses.

Last time I took a tour of Perth flow control it was all identical.

The civilian ATC sat on a row of 4 screens on one side, the Millitary ATC on the opposite side in Uniform on identical systems and the supervisor at the front forming a "U"

The only difference I could tell was the civilian fellas were in dressing gowns and slippers and the military guys were in uniform :)

[max1]

"I understand the military has about 300 “ICAO” rated controllers, and once these people move over to Airservices Australia, there will obviously be plenty of controllers available."

Frank you understand wrong. Both on ICAO and numbers.

You are correct in that there are savings to be made in using the same system. Getting the military onboard is the problem. Have a look at Project Genesis.
It will take quite a bit of persuasion to get the military to give up airspace or become more flexible with it. We can but try.

Green Goblin, the military use a different system (ADATS) at military bases i.e Amberley, Williamtown,etc.

[Frank Arouet]

max1;

Frank you understand wrong. Both on ICAO and numbers.

Please feel free to correct me.

When I was in The Military, I was there to serve the Government of the day. Why would a Minister of The Government have to "get the Military on board" with a project within his portfolio, especially if Angus Houston has previously agreed in principle with the idea.

[ZEEBEE]

Frank,

Let's hope you're right, because it certainly is a step in the right direction.......BUT

The statements so far ALL sound like a sound track from "Yes Minister".

If you haven't seen the show then I implore you to do so.

It documents very clearly (if not cynically) how Govt departments can "get on board" and go in completely different self-serving directions.

Only a Labor govt could get hoodwinked so easily.

[max1]

Frank,

Correct you on which part?
Military controllers do not have a civil ATC licence. For most, it is no biggie after coming to civil ATC to get a civil licence. The RAAF are also in trouble in regards to staff (ASA have grabbed a heap). The RAAF are still required to man the bases, run their exercises,etc. If we all came under the same banner, who gets picked to head off O/S or to the Top End on deployments? If I wanted to be in the military I would have joined.

To your second part

"When I was in The Military, I was there to serve the Government of the day. Why would a Minister of The Government have to "get the Military on board" with a project within his portfolio, especially if Angus Houston has previously agreed in principle with the idea. "

That's what I would have thought too, however see Zeebees comments.

[Frank Arouet]

max1;

It was told to me as I stated and I believe that's how it is, though the man who told me might have been a liar. Another man said he was a liar, but then he might have been a liar himself- a third person said he was one. I heard that there was a fight over it, but the man who told me about the fight might not have been telling the truth. (apologies to Henry Lawson) and I have had too many dealings with Sir Humphrey before to believe in "tooth fairies".

We can but live in hope that it is true.

300 ICAO rated controllers seems like a statement that can't be dismissed by just saying it is just not correct.

[le Pingouin]

Frank, what makes you think airspace is tied to this? They'll still be military controllers controlling military airspce. What they're talking about is duplicated ATC equipment, not airspace reform.

No idea where we'll fit them in the centres though.....

Maybe when son of TAAATS comes along.

[ForGreaterSafety]

Hi Frank (an others)
I just left the RAAF and joined AsA. The statement is not correct. There are less than 200 Controllers in the RAAF and definately NOT ICAO licensed. We have to go through a conversion course and get our ratings before getting and ICAO licence. the Genesis project (merging of the two ATC providers) fell in heap because AsA wanted too much (if you listen to the RAAF) or because the RAAF weren't flexible enough (if you listen to AsA). I have spoken to people from both sides on the Genesis project. The merger is a loooong way off. I would love it if it happened because I miss all the war stuff, but love being in one place where my kids can grow up and go to school etc. So bring it on, but there is no way in the world the statements made in you original post are close to true. The bloke WAS lying, or didn't know what he was talking about. Your pick.


Cheers
FGS

[le Pingouin]

300 ICAO rated controllers seems like a statement that can't be dismissed by just saying it is just not correct.Max isn't dismissing it, he's saying military controllers can't just leave the RAAF one week & start controlling with AsA the next week. Training is required, and not just a couple of weeks worth either.

[Frank Arouet]

Whether there is a pool of 200 or 300 doesn't enter into the matter when a government has a mindset on a course of action. Wouldn't training someone already in the business would be easier than starting from scratch?

[ForGreaterSafety]

Granted, it would be easier to train those already experienced and the pay is higher. But the facts of the matter it will be a lot more difficult than a wave of the pen over the appropriate piece of legislation than people imagine.

Cheers
FGS

[Pera]

C'mon guys. How often do you read an article about an aviation issue that is correct. We all know that the journos don't do their research.

[ZEEBEE]

FGS wrote
The bloke WAS lying, or didn't know what he was talking about. Your pick.

Usual scenario...The bloke didn't know what he was talking about and when questioned...lied.

[RAAFASA]

Even if it were true (but it's not) it wouldn't solve the problem anyway as the RAAF base airspaces (tower and approach) would still need to be staffed. So while there may be some redundancy, it certainly wouldn't be the entire RAAF ATC workforce suddenly jumping over to ASA.

There would still be the same amount of airspace, the same number of towers and terminal areas, maybe just some reshuffling of airspace volumes to free up some staff. However, working on the Richmond model (where APP is provided by Syd Dep West IIRC) it wouldn't be an acceptable level of service for the military.

No offence to the SYD ATCOs, obviously they are limited by understaffing, but when it takes 5+ mins to process a "next" call when there is nothing visibile on radar in the way (because the SYD controller is also tied up providing a RIS/RAS and/or combined with DEP east etc and simply can't respond to RIC TWR) it gets very frustrating for the mil.

As was posted earlier - the RAAF is run by pilots, not ATCOs, so delays (= added fuel costs, missed TOTs etc) at the sharper end can not be tolerated - hence mil controllers and truck loads of mil airspace.

I would love to see one ATC service provider for Oz, but not if it's ASA. :=

[Unhinged]

Hmmm, not sure about that. I'd also love to see one ATC provider for Oz, but not if it's RAAF.

Over the years, had less flexibility and more delays from the Mil controllers than I've ever had from the ASA ones. But there's definitely good and not-so-good on both sides.

Maybe it's just a case of each looking after their own ...

[ozineurope]

Posted in another thread also.
From experience in WA I would guess that the percentage of the Pearce R areas actually used for flying training is about one tenth of what becomes active.

The real reason so much airspace is gazetted is because defence dont want FUA. More importantly RAAF flying dont want FUA cause they might have to follw the rules of the air!! Continuous listening watch, take ATC instructions and act on them etc etc. The west coast airspace is almost exclusively for 60 PC9s and about 160,000 movements a year. Compare that with the JT training area and the JT CTR with over 340,000 per year and you start to see the attitudes of defence and RAAF.

People leave RAAF ATC 'cause they are sick to death of being posted every 2 years, even at bases where guarantees were made about minimum length of time.

Genesis was a case in point - Pearce controllers were trained on TAAATS during the break in flying, 15 in all. But the RAAF did not want TAAATS in the tower so PEA TWR operates ADATS and Pearce CEN/APP are in TAAATS. 2 systems one base! Then after 12 months half the force are deployed/transferred so more training, lower experience levels. RAAF ATC levels are low, really low, otherwise civvies would not be doing RIC APP.

Genesis was a failure because there was no real commitment from either side to make it work how the model said it could. I know I was there.

For too long defence has held on to large quantities of airspace because squadrons told them they needed it 'to fit the mssion profile'. I sat there day after day watching A340s, B744s B717 etc doing 30 and sometimes 50 extra track miles because the next wave of 3 PC9s might get airborne. It was frustrating for the RAAF controllers and the civil controllers alike. RAAF ATC are TOLD what to do, 44WG has little influence on the amount of airspace allocated, only the procedures within it...

[ollie_a]

The bosses of AsA and the RAAF have written to correct parts of the article that this discussion may have been drawn from:

Letters Blog | The Australian (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/coordinating_civil_military_air_use_is_no_trivial_exercise/)

Air Force is already providing better ways to accommodate other users in airspace that has generally been reserved for military activity, not “losing airspace”.

[Quokka]

From experience in WA I would guess that the percentage of the Pearce R areas actually used for flying training is about one tenth of what becomes active.

Interesting... the Restricted Areas West of the coast that are empty the majority of the time that they're active, actually don't exist under international law outside of the 12 mile limit.

[Dick N. Cider]

What is apparent is that there's a truckload of work to be done even to see what's possible. The TAAATS/Project 5186 (which became ADATS) divide is a classic example of left hand/right hand approaches.

It is a fact that by virtue of having common systems, even without combining workforces, there are substantial savings to be had. Obviously there's spares/maintenance saving. There's training commonality and there's interoperability efficiencies. Even if different systems, if at least they could talk to each other electronically there'd be substantial savings. TAAATS does automatic coordination with NZ meaning we mostly don't have to talk to the kiwis but everything is full voice coord with RAAF wholly enclosed within a civil sector. TAAATS has to be replaced (it's 15 years old and done its time). ADATS was due for replacement when it was implemented. And for the record Pearce approach is the only military in TAAATS. Richmond approach is done by Sydney Approach controllers (civil) from Sydney in TAAATS. No military base has TAAATS on site.

Airspace management is where the single biggest saving can be made but as as been alluded to above this ain't gunna happen until the squadrons are accountable for the airspace utilisation. Use it all you like fellas - fill your boots, but when you're finished or not going to use it let ATC know so airspace can be deactivated or released. How many times to we see transit corridors active for up to an hour before the first aircraft uses it? How many times do we activate exercise airspace for a couple of hours before being told that it won't be used today? This isn't a case of military ATC sitting on NOTAMs. They're as much in the dark as the rest of us until someone in the squadron deigns to tell the rest of the world.

The philosophy of holding airspace in readiness for someone to strap an FA18/HAWK/F111/PC9 etc. to their @rse and fire off without mission time constraints or realistic notification requirements is gone in the modern world. These days a modern air force has to plan the type of activity, airspace limitations for the purpose of the exercise, timings for fuelling etc. Actual airspace usage AND NOTIFICATION should be in the list.

If we're going to have an air force then it should be equipped and trained to fulfil the roles the nation deems necessary. What shouldn't happen is holding the rest of the country to ransom when it simply isn't necessary.

DNC

[Dick Smith]

Where will the "more than $300 million" saving come from?

[C-change]

Where will the "more than $300 million" saving come from?


There will be no savings Dick for many years. Just buying the same ATC machine will be a major project in itself, then add on consultants, trips OS etc, etc, etc.

MODS, can we merge this thread; and

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/388882-joint-civilian-miltary-airspace-planned-australia.html

[le Pingouin]

Plucked out of some spin meisters backside most likely. Someone has guessed how much a new ATC system costs and as we'll only be buying one, not two, there's your $300mil.

[Frank Arouet]

“However, in 2002 a Defence document signed by current Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston stated: ‘Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems”

This seems to make it clear that he is talking about not having two almost identical air traffic systems.

The rumour around is that there will be no military air traffic controllers at all, with Airservices running everything and some controllers being on the military reserve.

[Green on, Go!]

The rumour around is that there will be no military air traffic controllers at all, with Airservices running everything and some controllers being on the military reserve.

People peddling that rumour either don't have visibility of or comprehend the ADF's (not just Air Force's) need for RAAF ATC's to do 'stuff 'n things' other than domestic ATS.

[le Pingouin]

This seems to make it clear that he is talking about not having two almost identical air traffic systems.
Systems as in hardware.


The rumour around is that there will be no military air traffic controllers at all, with Airservices running everything and some controllers being on the military reserve.
That'll work really well. So when there's a call for overseas deployment or even exercises you'll be happy to see ATC services all over the country reduced to provide the required controllers?

Have you learnt nothing from the current staffing problems? Any extra numbers will rapidly be reduced.

[max1]

'The rumour around is that there will be no military air traffic controllers at all, with Airservices running everything and some controllers being on the military reserve.'

There is a provision within ASA for them to send you where they need you, I don't think Baghdad or Kabul would make it onto the list.

How would ASA or the ADF choose which controllers would go? If they didn't have enough willing to go on military reserve, what then? Would sectors then be managed on the basis of only so many 'Military reserve' controllers on each sector in case of a call-up. So that we wouldn't see entire sectors stripped in times of call-up.

If an 'on call reservist' won a position/promotion to another position would they then be knocked back because that area has a full complement of reservists? If a 'civilian' controller won a job that only had room for a 'reservist' controller would they then be required to become a 'reservist'
to take up the position that they had applied for?

What about those applying into ATC being told they have a 'return of service' obligation (to go along with the 5 year $70k training bond) of say 7 years of military reservist obligations. I could see the Gen Yers getting all keen for that. Even if you got them, beside the obvious skill set differences, would the ADF be happy with getting the least experienced controllers to work on the frontline?

Some people seem to throw ideas onto these forums and say it's really easy, it wouldn't take much to achieve, it seems reasonable, wouldn't cost much, all the equipment is already in place,etc and then head for the hills or accuse those, with actual experience who are pointing out some of the challenges involved in implementing the ideas, of being resistant to change. I would posit that they are actually realists. Yes we can do it, but you are going to need to put the resources, thoughts and people to it.

Frank, I would have a word to the person who told you of this rumour and ask them some of these questions.You might, on reflection, be able to think of a few more. I'm surprised that you had not thought to ask them to expand on this rumour at the time it was told to you. I would appreciate your posting their answers on here.

[Blockla]

Where will the "more than $300 million" saving come from?From the same place the claimed $1B saved by shutting FIS came from...

[Dick Smith]

The FIS saving came by a large reduction in employed staff.

Are you suggesting that the saving will come from a large reduction in the total number of ATC's employed?

I understood we did not have enough ATC's at the present time.

[Blockla]

No Dick it comes from claiming a saving on paper despite all evidence that more money was actually spent. We have many people that claim a saving when in reality it may cost more... Take sector consolidation from PH, AD, DN and SY into BN and ML as an example, did it save a cracker or cost many?

How many FIS people got made redundant, yes it was a one off cost but did it get counted against the 'savings'? How many got retrained into ATC, how many succeeded in that training, how many got VR at the end of the retraining? How many got moved to AUSFIC, or training roles etc. Did this count? How many Smelly's (said with love) are still in the game? How many of the large (staff) reductions were "actually realised". How many extra ATCs were needed to absorb the FIS jobs? What was the final FIS number before it got assimilated ie circa 1997 numbers in FIS not 1990 numbers? Has there been an actuary look at the numbers and 'prove it'?

Most of 'this money' will be saved (cough, sic, spew) by not replacing RAAF equipment at some point in the future... But the same facilities will need to be purchased now for fitment in the civil system ( ie new equipment needed to move the existing RAAF APP units into the civil units.), hence it will save 5/8ths of bugger all in reality. Then there are all the triggers for redundancy, relocation, training etc.

As for ATC numbers, RAAF have their number, Civil has their number, both sides are short (allegedly), short + short = still short... This may actually need more staff. Reason RAAF ATCs are often co rated they provide APP and TWR services; to take the APP function and put it in the civil system means you lose all the co-ratings and your staffing requirement may go up?

Having said all that is it a good idea to integrate, IMHO hell yes, but will it cost more or save money; my own money is on the first element if anyone is keen to take a bet.

[C-change]

There will be no savings. Whatever option/plan eventually occurs will cost money.

1. RAAF App to civil centres = spend money
2. RAAF/ASA new ATC machine = spend lots of money
3. Complete ASA takeover (highly improbable ) = spend truckloads of money
4. Re employ RAAF/APS ATC that dont want, or get a job with mega ASA as a result of option3. = more money (VR hopefully)

Please remember that all of our great ideas that we come up with at the console when its quiet, don't always make it to CEO level for implementation. Most ATC's actually talk out of their arse. We are simply employees.
If there is any cost savings to be had, it will only ever exist in some bean counters or spin doctors head !

[Turncoat]

Max1 - The RAAF may try to argue about overseas deployments. Well this can be easily worked out by using a system similar to the RNZAF in the 1970’s. An exercise took place at RAAF Williamtown between the RAAF and RNZAF aircraft. In this exercise, the RNZAF sent two Flight Lieutenants ATCO’s across for the exercise. One morning, following night flying they said that they wanted the SATCO to sign their overtime sheet. Working at Williamtown at the time all of us Aussie military blokes were taken by surprise when the “RNZAF” ATCO’s told us that all ATCO’s in New Zealand were civil ATC and those that worked for the military were given ‘Honorary Rank’.

They had told us that they could move between civil and military jobs, but most of those with the military remained so, as did the others in the civil environment. But, the rules allowed them to change, if they wished. Although the rules and regulations were the same, there were specific requirements for military and civil as we had, but with only one ATC agency. If deployed to a peace-keeping or war zone they relinquished the honorary rank for substantive rank and actually transferred from Civil ATC to the RNZAF for the duration. So, maybe they could look at that concept. I don’t know if this system still exists. Maybe some NZer could enlighten us.

Also another advantage could be as we had on the Military Sector at Adelaide Airport in 1980’s, although unofficial at the time. Well for the period I was there anyrate which was 12 months. Basically, we were responsible for all RAAF Edinburgh Airspace.

The problem arose with a continuous stream of civil traffic including corporate jet and turbo-prop (F27) aircraft that went everyday to Moomba in the morning and back in afternoon. When military P3 (Orion) or other RAAF aircraft wanted the airspace for their use it would come to a head. These RAAF aircraft also wanted to use Adelaide Airport for ILS training (RAAF did not have ILS then).

Normally, civil aircraft planned via SFL which was a cross country tour. As we felt, it was ultimately costing the companies extra money, we would compromise with Adelaide Clearance Delivery and Adelaide Approach/Departures which we sat next to and operated from in the same ‘black hole’ (in the old terminal) giving the direct track up in the morning and back in the evening through the middle of RAAF Restricted Areas.

Adelaide Approach, would oblige by facilitating the RAAF aircraft for ILS training or to operate in a block of CTA while the civil aircraft were using the RAAF Airspace. The RAAF ILS training was allowed with only verbal flight notification via the Military Sector. Both the RAAF and civil pilots were more than happy and it saved thousands of dollars for companies flying to Moomba. All of this was done at the working level and nothing was discussed with senior RAAF officers or civil management because we knew they wouldn’t agree. That is, but one example of how conflicting situations can be resolved in the same environment.

[RAAFASA]

Gentlemen, Ladies and undecideds, the key to airpower is FLEXIBILITY (quoted straight out of the Air Power Manual). Retention of mil ATCOs is required for this reason above all else...

Need to cancel leave at a moment's notice (even if you are already on hols) to support deployment/exercise/spontaneous new flying program requirements? Can do, Sir, that's what "service allowance" is for.

Need to extend people's working hours with as little notice as you like (as in "call the missus/day care/chaplain etc, you're working late today") to cover the absences left by those deployed/attached or to cover flypro requirements? No problem Sir, that's why we get service allowance.

Need to rejig the roster on a daily basis to cover out of hours moves? See where we're going here.....?

No need to give 7 days notice for roster amendments, no need to pay overtime, time in lieu is given when possible (a few years back, it was rarely possible, so dry your eyes princess and drink this can of harden up).

Using Reservists or a small core of uniformed personnel for deployments is only the tip of the iceberg. When people deploy (recently lost 1/3 of the section for 3-5 weeks), the ones who aren't deployed have to carry the load while they're away (over time, extra duty controller days etc).

The cancellation of Genesis tells me that at higher levels the RAAF (and I agree) do not trust ASA to staff at appropriate levels to facilitate the flexibility required by defence (whether due to war/peace-keeping ops, Tsunamis, rescue ops, training and/or serviceability of airframe issues - whatever) Not everything can be timetabled months, or even weeks in advance.

Looking at the Ric/Syd issues, where, despite being paid to provide an APP service to Ric, ASA would not staff SYD dep appropriately (combining them so that it could take up to 5 mins to process a "next" call with nothing visible within 25nm of Ric (to the west at least) - why on earth would the RAAF trust them with the whole kit and caboodle?

And while I'm ranting, stop whining about inflexible use of mil airspace. That is not the fault of defence ATC units:
1) many resticted areas require significant lead time via NOTAM for activation (eg 8 hours) so will be NOTAMd IAW the flypro the day before. Weather, serviceability issues etc may mean that the flights are delayed, but the NOTAM can't be cancelled (because it would need to raised again with 8 hours notice) during the delay period.

RAAF ATC would willingly give a temporary airspace release to ASA (thereby avoiding the NOTAM issue) but ASA are not allowed to accept airspace releases because restricted areas change airspace classes - so they would have to provide a class C service in areas which, when restricted airspace is not active, might be E or G.

So vast tracts of airspace sit unused for hours at a time. Very frustrating and a solution (for temporary release) is being actively sought atm.

2. Why are mil restricted areas so big? Because of the nature of operations within that airspace. Bombing/ air to air combat/ refuelling/ conversion training - high cockpit workload, abrupt and extremely fast manouvres (including supersonic speeds) coordination with the other 2,3,4,5 etc aircraft involved, a fast jet in the cruise can cover 10nm a min.

Luckily - we have lots of air space here, so our guys are able to train within big margins - maybe why our safety record is better than others.

But should mil airspace be more flexible - absolutely, with the curent regs though all or nothing seem to be the only options.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Dear Blockla,

I'm very very glad - read 'happy' - you said......

"many Smelly's (said with love)" :p:p

I'm watching.......'Area QNH 1013!':eek::eek:

[peuce]

Griffo ... always vigilant :suspect: ... always watching :D

[max1]

Frank
Caught up with your friend yet?

[Frank Arouet]

No, he's out making a radio out of a coconut.:confused:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day 'Peuce'.....
:ok:

For Frank,

Slight Drift....
The FS 'Official Creed' in the later years just prior to our 'Final Demise'....
When we were 'losing' facilities, and half the staff were 'gorne'....(Took Redundo), our PH staffing had dropped from the ridiculous 128 or so, to around 40, and we were still doing the job - although by then, we were no longer 'servicing' VFR or Full SAR - even if they wished to be 'by request'....
and CTAFs / MBZs had replaced AFIZ's etc etc

"We the Willing,
Led by the Unknowing,
Are doing the impossible for the Ungrateful.

We have done so much for so long,
With so little, We are now qualified
To do Anything with Nothing......"
:eek::eek:
I had put in a submission for a VHF outlet to be established on top of Mt Bakewell at York, this would have given us and the 'resultant ATC' guys & gals, VHF coverage on the ground at Cunderdin etc instead of this being a HF call.....67 nm away....go figure....Projected cost at the time was around $10K, so 'they' said.
(Power and other facilites were already there..)

Wot I got was a box of paperclips 'With Compliments'.... :confused::confused:
:yuk::yuk:

Prompted by 'making a radio out of coconuts'....

:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

"Roger" that.

Pretending you know what you're doing is almost the same as knowing what you are doing, so just accept that you know what you're doing even if you don't and do it.:ok:

Help! can someone get this thread back on track.:)

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thanks Frank, point taken.

O.K. -
How will the salaries - Civil v Military - be 'adjusted' for both parties doing the same job, in the same environment, presumably doing the same rosters etc, (Doggoes etc) even though most Military bases would normally 'close' at night / weekends?

And, will either party require more training for the differences in the Military v Civil system / standards (?) ?

And, if so, how much do ya reckon?? :ok::ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Dunno;

I'll ask The Minister by email this afternoon. Don't expect a rapid reply.

[Frank Arouet]

Anthony Albanese MP,
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
PO Box 6022
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
[email protected] ([email protected])
Dear Sir;

I refer you to The Australian Newspaper on 15 September 2009 and note that the Rudd Government has decided to merge the military air traffic control system with the civilian, (ie. Airservices Australia).

I also note in 2002, a Defence document signed by current Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston stated: ‘Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems’.

Whilst many of us applaud such an initiative I am cognizant of some very serious hurdles the government will have to overcome. I have been seriously asked by someone with a genuine interest how will the salaries - Civil v Military - be 'adjusted' for both parties doing the same job, in the same environment, presumably doing the same rosters etc, (Doggoes etc) even though most Military bases would normally 'close' at night / weekends? And, will either party require more training for the differences in the Military v Civil system / standards and, if so, how much?

Many readers of a major public forum will also be interested in your response which I presume you will have no objection to my sharing.

Yours most sincerely,

[max1]

Frank,

Good luck with getting anything concrete out of 'Big Tony'.
By the way I'm getting bad reception out of my radio, should I have the husk on or off?

[C-change]

This thread is a load of rubbish started off by a crap article. Some have taken it as gospel.

There is no "merging of ATC", there is no "take over by ASA". There won't be any system where ASA controllers are reservists who get deployed. Its all BS. The article talks a lot of crap about a lot of issues and they're all rolled in together. Along the way people think that this great take over/merger will happen. ITS NOT HAPPENING. ITS SPECULATION.

Reality time;
The working groups from Defence and ASA have been together for some time discussing the next Gen ATC SYSTEM, combined training and other ways to improve the overall ATC system and save money.

Thats it.

[Frank Arouet]

C-change;

It's always good to get some positive, definitive proof from an unbiased source and with such a grasp on the workings of a crystal ball.

I have obviously wasted my time writing to the Minister for comment when his reply is not now needed. But I suppose a non reply will be even more positive proof that it is crap.

max1;

If he doesn't reply, it will tell you more about the Minister than a reply probably would. Also check the thronmeister isn't wet.:cool:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thankyou Frank.

I share your last (above) and applaud your effort.

Cheers. :ok::ok:

P.s. A spray with WD-40 usually works....for me anyway.....:ok::ok:

[C-change]

Frank,

Not trying to upset you or others but some have just taken the original article and ran with it, seeing it as a plan for the future. Nothing wrong with trying the pollie also, hope you get a response. You might get something back from a staffer, maybe.


For others, have a read of ollie A's post #21 (the link), then read DNC's post #23 and finally RAAFASA's at # 36.

During a recent visit, CAF and the head of RAAF ATC discussed what was published in the response sent to the Australian.
So no, I don't have a crytal ball, but I did listen to what they had to say and they responded honestly to some tough questions. The original article and its contents were actually discussed at length.