What is the reason for separate military ATC?

[Dick Smith]

I’m sure everyone can remember the famous statement by Sir Angus Houston a number of years ago:

“Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems”.

Of course, this was later changed to refer to just one air traffic control surveillance system and that is why OneSKY is going ahead.

There is a very important issue here. Can someone explain why we have separate military air traffic control – where controllers are trained to ICAO standards?

I realise there was probably a reason for this in 1947 – in those days people were very sensitive about Darwin, and the ‘hordes’ coming from the North.

I understand more recently the military have run towers during a state of emergency at places like Aceh, however in all of these cases, I am told that there are many international contractors that can run air traffic control, even in places like Iraq.

Also, with the United States being more isolationist, after being unfairly attacked for just about everything they do in the world to try and keep peace, there is going to be less of a need for Australians to be in international war zones.

There is no doubt that to have two complete training systems and two complete career paths will add enormously to costs.

That’s why New Zealand put their military air traffic controllers into the Airways Corporation and kept them on the military reserve.

Basically what I am asking is – if it was necessary in 1947, is it still necessary today to have two completely separate streams in such a small country?

Look forward to any suggestions or advice people can give.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Dick,

Can I respectfully put to you that contractors are unlikely willing to deploy with extremely minimal notice into warzones where they can be shot at. Not only would they likely be unwilling, but it would be impractical for a lot of reasons. Security Clearances, use of weapons, intergration with other assets, force protection.. the list goes on and on.

We all know how you feel about the RAAF, you've made it clear several times in multiple threads, but RAAF JBACS have deployed into conflict zones, with weapons, several times in the last 15 years. They are well respected and do good work, and there is clearly a place for them within our military. Simply contracting the work out has been biting many branches of Government hard for years now. Sometimes you just need to have the capability in house.. particularly when you want to send it to war. For context, there are several different types of JBACS's within the RAAF, some of whom jump out of aeroplanes and do lots of "green" war like things.

Can I just clarify I'm not making any comments or giving an opinion on RAAF JBAC's domestically at Darwin/Williamtown or any airspace issues.

Cheers.

[dartman2]

Dick, surely you can work out that AsA controllers probably do not want to be deployed on operations to unpleasant places where they get shot at.

Also JBAC's are paid less than their AsA counterparts.

[Di_Vosh]

Dartman and junior.VH-LFA,

I'm not certain that Dick is putting the situation in such black-and-white terms.

Hence his "New Zealand" solution: that is, have military people working as controllers in a civvy system that controls both civil and military. That would alleviate any of the concerns you raised.

Having said that,

contractors are unlikely willing to deploy with extremely minimal notice into warzones where they can be shot at. Not only would they likely be unwilling, but it would be impractical for a lot of reasons. Security Clearances, use of weapons, intergration with other assets, force protection.. the list goes on and on.

there are workable solutions to all the above concerns.

IMHO:

A tour of duty is made a lot more attractive once the incumbent realises "Tax free, plus $180.00(ish) per day danger money, also tax-free, and all the other perks while over there".

"Immediate deployment" could be a legitimate concern. However, there are ways around this, such as being written into the contract.

Security Clearances are squared away well before any deployment.

I'm not sure what weapons you'd expect an ATCO to use, but weapons training, etc, can all be done as part of pre-deployment. (Probably a 9mm, which has proven time and again to be the most dangerous weapon (to the user) of any Australian service weapon).

I'll agree that it is POSSIBLE that an ATCO could be "shot at" in a war-zone. But can anyone tell me when the last Australian Military ATCO was shot at in either Iraq or Afghanistan?


The biggest hurdle to any of the above, IMHO, is the Australian military. The U.S. are much better at integrating military and civilian assets in conflict zones. I can only speak of Iraq (my deployment) and not Afghanistan, but the Australians are petrified of doing so.


DIVOSH!

[Hempy]

I can just imagine a 120kg 50 year old approach controller fighting off the attacking daesh hoards with his 9mm..

[junior.VH-LFA]

DIVOSH, you're focusing purely on the role of ATC in a tower, not JBAC's, which is why the term JBAC was created. Clearly as being ex military (or even currently serving) you'd have seen first hand the impact of having services contracted out.

The issue of giving contractors weapons is another problem all in itself (note supplying weapons, not hiring contractors that use weapons).

The NZ situation is different, one again, because JBAC's aren't just always Air Trafficers sitting behind a screen.

There is no need to change the system as it is, as has previously been pointed out, RAAF JBAC's are actually paid considerably less than their ASA counter parts.

Hempy,

I don't think anyone suggested that a lone RAAF JBAC is expected to fight off a section attack with a 9mm... But once again, you're focusing purely on the "guys and girls in a control tower" aspect, which isn't the only thing RAAF JBAC's do.

[Dick Smith]

So why did Angus Houston make his very clear statement as I have quoted above ?

And where is this future war likely to be where we will be required to provide ATC?

I am told nothing on the horizon because the USA will not get involved as they have before.

If so why shouldn't we save the money and not have a duplicated system

[fujii]

Junior VH-LFA.


The NZ situation is different, one again, because JBAC's aren't just always Air Trafficers sitting behind a screen.

Maybe there's the difference, civil ATCs are trained to sit in front of the screen.

[TBM-Legend]

The USA and UK have civil and military ATC controllers. Each service branch has their own for the reasons stated...

[Dick Smith]

Those countries have huge efficiencies of scale compared to Australia.

What about Norway , Sweden and Switzerland?

[Dick Smith]

And why is there no proper charging system between the RAAF and Airservices?

How can Airservices ever be run as a business without a proper charging system?

[junior.VH-LFA]

Dick, you asked for reasons why. You've been given good reasons why, relating to an operational capability, which has been used on operations within the last 12 months.

Just because other countries do it differently doesn't mean they're doing it better.

You're a smart man, I'm sure its occurred to you that neither you nor any of your mates (or people in this thread myself included) have any idea what is coming for the ADF in the future, and isn't that really the point, prepare for the worst, fight like you train? It's probably not a coincidence that the most capable of the worlds Air Forces have their own Air Traffic Controllers.

At this point now you're just baiting people. I probably should have seen that earlier though.

At this point I'll bow out, I've given you what I think most would consider pretty valid reasoning, and I don't think they'll satisfy you. Everyone's entitled to an opinion and that's cool. I'll just reiterate that I'm making no comments relating to how JBAC's are employed domestically or any comments relating to the airspace issues you often discuss.

[Di_Vosh]

junior.VH-LFA

Fair enough. I was just thinking of a controller in a tower.

I'd have to say that my experiences of services contracted out were mostly positive.

Again, in my opinion, the only reason there is a "problem" with giving contractors weapons is due to the extreme risk-averse nature of the Australian military. The U.S. armed their contractors with side-arms (and sometimes longs) where necessary, and had very few problems that I saw.

Hempy

Very amusing. :} However, an ATCO in a tower is about as rear-echelon as you can get, and in an Australian context will have an inordinate amount of Australian soldiers and hardware protecting that facility. For that person to draw his/her 9mm means that an awful lot of Aussies are already dead.

DIVOSH!

[Maggie Island]

I'm just gonna throw the obvious out there. Because military airspace NEEDS to be managed by the military.

To all the nay-sayers - you'll have to hear me out before you pass judgement. This really has more to do with what Airservices WON'T do rather than what the RAAF will. There are places where mil ATC are literally just there because they happen to be military bases (Edinburgh and Richmond come to mind). Where approach control is done by AsA and realistically the only thing the RAAF guys do is the occasional "cleared for take off, to land etc". It is inevitable that places like this will one day be run by civillians...(maybe)

Unfortunately, there are other bases which the Air Force REQUIRE some degree of flexibility. Places like Townsville and Darwin frequently host military exercises and thus have traffic that dare I say, AsA would be reluctant to handle. Not because they're any better or worse than their counterparts in blue, but more because the military needs to guarantee military priority for some tasks - an AsA controller will not be happy to take orders or perform their job with ad-hoc "here one day, gone the next" procedures.

Finally, but most importantly are places like your most cherished RAAF base, Dick - Williamtown. At bases like Willy, RAAF ATC work with airspace, procedures and various other bs that as an AsA controller - I would NEVER, EVER touch with a 10nm pole.

"Why dont we change x,y,z?" You ask?

Some of the stuff is malleable, some of the stuff not so much. You can make places like Pearce (hell the military approach is already done from AsA's TCU there!) and Amberley as civvie as you want - but the logical extension of what your asking is to ask the military to operate like civillians. And at some point thats just not gonna fly.

Until the day that we become like our friends across the Tasman and decide that our premier combat aircraft will be the King Air or something, the military will always need WAY more flexibility than AsA can provide.

Military airspace is administered by military controllers for a reason. Don't take my word for it tho, ask to visit some of the bigger bases - see for yourself ;)

[le Pingouin]

"There is no doubt that to have two complete training systems and two complete career paths will add enormously to costs."

Why is there no doubt? Airservices can't simply throw on a few more courses to cater for the RAAF as the training facilities are already full. Extra facilities would need to be provided anyway.

[oggers]

I'm just gonna throw the obvious out there. Because military airspace NEEDS to be managed by the military.

That is correct. And equally, military operational aircraft need to be managed by the military, for instance fighter controllers, helicopter controllers, ship controlled approaches.

Also, for many military pilots, procedural IFR is not the day job. When they need ATC they need it military style - vectoring and GCAs.

Of course you could merge civvy and mil ATC but you will either end up with the same thing in all but name, or loss of operational capability. There is not a better way only a cheaper way.

[Dick Smith]

So why did Angus Houston make his clear statement.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

So why did Angus Houston make his clear statement.

Perhaps you should ask Angus Houston instead of PPrune. Just a thought.

[Green on, Go!]

So why did Angus Houston make his clear statement.

Dick, can I suggest that when Sir Angus referred to 'two almost identical air traffic management systems' he is simply referring to the technology bit. That is, TAAATS and ADATS - the consoles, radars and other sensors, radios and the software and network connectivity that ties it all together.

He was not, I believe, ever referring to the system of systems that make up an ATC service/ANSP such as HR, training, AIS, regulatory framework, technical wokforce etc.

[underfire]

look up One Sky....

"By 2021, Australia will be providing air traffic control services using the most advanced and integrated air traffic control system in the world.
Through collaborating with the Department of Defence, it will unify Australian skies under a new, harmonised air traffic management system as we work towards creating ‘one sky’ for Australia.
This will enable a new level of operational and cost efficiency and safety, while also reducing delays for the travelling public and providing opportunities to improve environmental outcomes.
It will place Airservices and the Department of Defence in a position to manage forecast growth of air traffic movement in Australia."

Key facts

1. Replaces the current civilian system known as The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) that was built in the 1990s and commissioned in 2000.
TAAATS has had more than 200 incremental system changes since it was first commissioned.
2. The Request for Tender identified 172 specific operational needs for the future system.
3. Fifty-one of these are new capabilities, with a further 87 that are only partially delivered through our current system.
4. An additional four safety functionalities will be introduced including alerts for medium-term conflict detection, long-term conflict detection, cleared flight level, violation of controlled airspace and conflict probe.
5. Integrated surveillance processing and alerting for all technologies, including Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).
6. Increase of radar feeds from 32 to 45 with expanded offshore surveillance area supporting future extensions of ADS-B coverage.
7. Enhanced information security protocols, dual redundant architecture and a nominal 24-hour, 95 per cent technical disaster recovery of a partition at alternate locations.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/onesky-australia/

[Dick Smith]

And hasn't been planned for more E airspace. We will stick to our 1950s system of do it yourself calling in the blind system.

Totally crazy. The whole system needs a proper re design of the sectors so airline aircraft at places like Ballina remain in a minimum of class E controlled airspace.

Why would you spend over a billion and not bring in a modern airspace system? Why can't our ATCs be trained to control IFR Airline aircraft? Not just give traffic.

[Lead Balloon]

Gee, underfire. You assume that what the glossy brochure says will be achieved will bear some semblance to what will be achieved in fact?

Next thing you'll be telling us is that everything we've been told about the regulatory reform program will be achieved in fact.

[Chief galah]

There's an interesting article in AvWeb this week, written by a US controller, about departing non-controlled aerodromes into E airspace.

www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3307-full.html?ET=avweb:e3307:631338a:&st=email#226268"

Scroll to the bottom. Headed - "Out-of-Control Departures"

[le Pingouin]

Dick, we've been around this merry-go-round more than once before, so pay attention. The system (computers, software, consoles, etc.) are airspace agnostic. Airspace volumes are all defined in data and the airspace type is immaterial to the system - the controller at the console handles providing whatever service is appropriate to the airspace type.

Provide us the resources!

[Plazbot]

Can we please have the election tomorrow so this DICK......guy shuts up for another four years?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I gave it a chance, but in just 22 posts....

http://tabbycatmusicarchives.com/alicesanimations/00images2/afcarousel.gif

[Slippery_Pete]

Dick,

After several back and forwards, you again asked "but why did Angus Houston say this?"

You got two very succinct and correct replies - in that he was referring to the technology and integration between military and civilian ATC, not the actual controllers.

YOU NEED TO READ THIS NEXT BIT REALLY CAREFULLY....

You then completely ignored those answers and swung the entire conversation back onto airspace design and class E.

This has nothing to do with it. Question was answered and you didn't like it because it didn't match your agenda.

You might as well donate your ears to some poor kid on the organ donor register - because you are incapable of listening unless it's what you want to hear.

Your Marree Man creation is more likely to listen than you.

Don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer.

[Mr Approach]

Perhaps we should be asking why we have "two identical systems"?

Surely one would be designed for the known, predictable and repetitive movements of civil aircraft carrying the nations commerce - the other for the dynamic and unpredictable movement of military operations practicing warfare.

The latter is practiced not by ground based air traffic controllers but by air defence radar operators. These people vector aircraft to hit each other , not to keep them apart.

It follows then that when military aircraft are not practicing war-fighting they can be kept apart from each other by civil controllers. This would typically mean that all the nations airspace was available for the efficient movement of commerce and military aircraft simply moving through the airspace. This might mean from base to base or from base to the war-fighting area and then back.

When the military aircraft arrive in the war-fighting area whatever piece of airspace was required could be given to the air defence radar operators, civil traffic kept clear, and an hour later (what is the endurance of a hawk or F18?) the aircraft would again transit under civilian control and the exercise airspace return to commercial use.

I think that the Air Marshal is referring to the vast areas of Australian airspace that are excised from civilian use and controlled by RAAF ATC, they are Restricted areas, some the R3's which they never give civilian aircraft clearance to transit. This is where the identical ATC systems exist and where Australia differs from our other western liberal democracies.

Is it necessary and do we have to design a combined ATC system? I think not, a combined system could just as easily be civilian with the ADF getting whatever exercise areas they need on a daily basis and then handing the airspace back to the people.

[le Pingouin]

Haven't you read what we've written above?

[Dick Smith]

Mr Approach. Thanks for some commonsense.

The waste through a duplicated system must be staggering.

And Angus did not mean one radar system. I have checked this with Allan Hawke

[le Pingouin]

And we don't mean radar system either.

[Dick Smith]

Le Pin. I don't know who " we " are.

And you don't even have enough self belief to post under your real name so you could be posting with an agenda to damage Australia.

[le Pingouin]

It wouldn't matter if I did post under my real name - I'm just a controller with no particular influence. I'm not the one with an agenda.

[junior.VH-LFA]

This is becoming ridiculous.

[Dick Smith]

Nothing against the RAAF. As I have stated many times on this site it was ex RAAF Ron Cooper who started the major regulatory cost reductions at CAA .

However the Onesky system is obviously going to be another Super Seasprite type disaster.

That's where $1.4 billion of taxpayers money was lost and military personnel were totally let down. This time half of the loss will be paid by our industry.

Just because it was a good idea in 1946 to have a separate military ATC it may not be now.

Remember these military fools are saying nothing about Australia spending tens of billions on piston powered submarines when everyone with any commonsense knows that they must be nuclear or not at all. Clearly sending our submariners to their deaths with the present decision. The French don't even make piston powered craft so will have to convert the nuclear models. A bit like ordering a new Airbus to be made in SA but with engines from the Super Constellation

Utter incompetence. Wait until I am Diktator.

[fujii]

Dick, in the same post:

"Nothing against the RAAF" and "these military fools."

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

so you could be posting with an agenda to damage Australia

Yep. Because if someone (ISIL? North Korea?) had an agenda to 'damage Australia', that's exactly what they'd do. They'd get onto an aviation forum where almost nobody posts under their real name, and discuss airspace issues without using their real name. What could be more damaging to Australia than that?

[Dick Smith]

There are clearly individuals in the military who have let down the troops. What other explanation do you have for the Super Seasprite disaster?

Where is the evidence that there has been a change? What happened to those who were responsible for the waste? Promoted to work on Onesky?

[junior.VH-LFA]

Neither the Seapsrite nor the upcomming submarine acquistion were or are controlled by the military! I think you'll find in both cases the actual military are making the best out of the gear that politicans force upon them...

Dick, why ask questions when you just ignore everyones answers? I'm not trying to make this personal, but it doesn't strike me as very intelligent to go on alienating large portions of the people you're trying to speak for by ignoring their answers to a question you asked in the first place.

[topdrop]

the Onesky system is obviously going to be another Super Seasprite type disaster.

Where is your evidence for that statement? Sorry, I forgot, Dick said it, it must be true.

[Dick Smith]

Come on. After thirty years the RAAF have not been able to put modern internationally proven safe procedures in at Williamtown.

Aircraft still get held for up to 30 minutes orbiting over the ocean at Anna Bay because the missed approach has to be protected by their 1950' s airspace procedures .

The FAA specialists I have attempted to explain this to have been amazed at the lack of leadership in following international proven safe procedures.

I would imagine that underneath it all there must be low morale over this resistance to change.

Even the UK controllers I have spoken to say there must be incompetent leadership. What other answer could there be for not copying the best?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Jeez, it's like a scratched record.

Dick, you started out on separate civil/military ATC systems, moved on (via a truly bizarre diversion into nuclear submarines) to the Seasprite debacle, and now we're back orbiting over Anna Bay, in a post that might as well be a cut-and-paste of about a dozen others that have appeared here in recent months.

On each issue, you've either been shot down or had your questions answered, and it makes no difference - you just ignore it and move smoothly on to your next hoary old chestnut.

What troubles me is that some of your comments (I'm thinking here of the 'agenda to damage Australia' one and the 'military fools and piston-powered submarine' stuff) are not opinionated or passionate, they're just downright....odd. Odd to the point of being genuinely worrying.

One's credibility is a hard-won and precious thing. It's a shame you seem intent on burning yours up with bizarre and silly statements. Maybe time to pause, take a deep breath, and figure out exactly what you think you're achieving here?

[Dick Smith]

My comments all link to exactly the same issue - the almost total lack of the military leadership being able to copy the best from around the world .

The last three CASA Chiefs have been military trained. Look at what has happened to our industry and the regulatory reform programme

GA is almost totally destroyed. Part 61 will contribute to that.

Over a year ago I had a meeting with Mt Skidmore and gave him a list of over twenty points that could save the industry money if actioned.

In the last 12 months not one change has taken place and not one person has contacted me from CASA to even discuss the points I brought up.

There is evidence that many of these ex military people are intentionally put in these positions to prevent any cost reducing reform.

I believe there is a plan in the Canberra bureaucracy to destroy the Non Airline aviation industry in Australia. The reason is obscure. Probably they don't really know why the group think operates in this way.

Many rational thinking people after reading my posts would not believe my credibility is being de graded. If some do- so be it.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Many rational thinking people after reading my posts would not believe my credibility is being de graded

I'd like to consider myself pretty rational and open minded, and after three months of reading your recent posts, you've lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. You do a lot of good Dick and I think your heart is in the right place so to speak, I genuinely think that, but your constant misguided attacks and shooting from the hip style of debate is ridiculous, as is your blatantly obvious grudge against the RAAF (as opposed to the government who administers it). This thread is a timeless example of your inability to look genuine responses in the face and admit that you might have it wrong (which happens to everyone).

Just my two cents.

[BoxBoxCheez]

Dick, if your arguments and reasoning (combined with your ability to listen) are anything to go by in this and the 10 other threads you've started in the last few months, I can quite clearly see why none of the hierarchy are listening to you. You're a fanatical.

I'm just sitting, reading, hoping that the man I thought was a champion for true blue Aussie causes is not the ignorant, nonsensical poster on this forum. I hope every time I see you post that it's actually an imposter using your name on the forum to undermine you. I truly hope it is.

[gerry111]

Surely it's about time for another MDX thread? :rolleyes:

[Dick Smith]

All of my posts are about what is destroying GA in Australia.

Most of you have all been successful in supporting the status quo and the ratchet increase of costs for too long.

Not even game to stand by your own names. No one would take you seriously. I am making sure all of this is on record.

To general readers- most of my critics are or were most likely on the gravy plane.

As I have said. Get out of GA as soon as you can. The quicker the destruction is finalised by those who post on this website who don't understand that aviation safety must be affordable the quicker the fix can come in. I would say at least a decade away.

And yes. Re MDX. The pilot was never allowed to communicate to the radar operator. I fixed that despite resistance by the typical dopes. Some are so stupid they want to go back to pre AMATs where pilots OCTA in good radar coverage can only communicate to a 1930s type radio operator. Crazy.

I dare you to comment on why Ex RAAF Mr Skidmore has not addressed even one of my 20 cost saving points.

And what is fanatical about attempting to reduce 20 minutes of holding at Willy when other leading aviation countries can operate a system that has far more efficient procedures.

Yes. I am glad I am undermining the credibility of the Iron Colonels- I bet that's what you dont like. You have got away with your destruction of our industry for a long time and many of us are on to you!

[wishiwasupthere]

Not even game to stand by your own names. No one would take you seriously. I am making sure all of this is on record.

How many times do you need to be told why people post on here anonymously before it sinks in??? Unless of course you're willing to reach into your deep pockets and support someone who is let go by their employee after posting something critical on here under their real name??

[Sunfish]

I'm afraid from what I have seen of Canberra that Dick is right.

1. Canberra and its public service minions think of themselves as 'rulers" of Australia, they are totally unresponsive to the requests of ordinary citizens. We are an annoyance if we protest.

2. the senior public servants I saw in a variety of Departments view their "Customer" as the Minister, not the general public. We are relegated to "consumers". Hence their is no hope in hell of any customer focused initiative succeeding in our terms.

3. The RAAF, with one or two notable exceptions has an unfortunate capability of breeding unresponsive, egocentric, rigid thinkers with an enormous sense of self importance who find it difficult to cope with decision making in a commercial free market environment where information flow is less than perfect and decisions need to be made under uncertainty. Their usual response is to try to turn the organization they inhabit into a carbon copy of the Air Force, complete with hierarchy. They are incapable of independent thinking, let alone change or reform.

4. RAAF Officers seem to believe they are in some type of private club. Hence in institutions they form their own clique and work together as a. team to. achieve their own group objectives at the expense of and in defiance of, the goals. of the institution.

5. Traits (1) and (2) amplify the behaviors of (3). and (4) Canberra is a very small hot house that brings out the worst. The grey sponge incubates these creatures.

6. The freedom of movement of citizens via GA and recreational flying is as a direct threat to the rule of Canberra and is also anathema to the RAAF. That is why. ADS-B is so attractive - total information awareness to make control easier to achieve. ASICS, etc. and restrictive regulations are a step in this direction. Make no mistake, Canberra wants MORE regulation, ideally you shut GA and recreational aviation down as soon as possible. the Freudian slip about pilots being uncaught criminals is a reflection of this attitude.

To put that another way don't listen to what CASA says, watch what they do.

But wait, there is more.....ADFA is. a disaster according to a couple of people I know who have experienced it, and it's going to make matters much worse in future. ADFA now suffers from rampant political correctness and favoritism - did you know for example, that there are now 'military families' in Australia? junior goes to ADFA and gets special treatment because Daddy is an Admiral/General/AVM? sad but true. just wait till these perfumed princes and princesses join the ranks of our 'leaders".

unfortunately I believe I was correct when the good AVM was appointed, not a hope in hell of real reform despite his best intentions.

oh, and an integrated ATC system that is affordable and capable? not a hope in hell.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I am making sure all of this is on record.

True. What's also on the record is you repeatedly saying things which are untrue and, in some cases, plain silly. How does having that on the record help your case? People have clearly explained why these things are untrue/silly, but you say them anyway. This suggests that either you're as bad at listening to things you don't want to hear as some people say, or you're simply choosing to say things which you know to be untrue.

I don't doubt your good intentions, and if you can genuinely make things better or simpler for aviation, then more power to you. Repeatedly spouting untruths and nonsense just doesn't seem like a good way to achieve it.

[Sunfish]

here's a new idea, how about requiring transparent cost/benefit analysis of all regulatory proposals?

[le Pingouin]

I think my motto will now be: "I am become death, destroyer of GA". If I'm being accused I might as well enjoy it. Now I just have to find a few spare arms to wave about so I can take my proper form.......

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

'Arms' or 'Alms' Mr Le P....?

I suspect the latter would be preferable.......

Cheers:ok:

[le Pingouin]

Or it could be both. Vishnu waving fistfuls of antipodean pesos?

[oggers]

Sunfish

3. The RAAF, with one or two notable exceptions has an unfortunate capability of breeding unresponsive, egocentric, rigid thinkers with an enormous sense of self importance who find it difficult to cope with decision making in a commercial free market environment where information flow is less than perfect and decisions need to be made under uncertainty.

Nice Great War characature. You really believe that war fighters operate in an 'environment of perfect information flow and certainty' don't you. Or you wouldn't have written that. :ugh:

[Sunfish]

Sunfish



Nice Great War characature. You really believe that war fighters operate in an 'environment of perfect information flow and certainty' don't you. Or you wouldn't have written that. :ugh:

Those involved in the support areas do. It's their way or the highway. To put it another way they get very stressed when dealing with ambiguity. when anyone raises issues involving ambiguity they start shouting. Then there are those who are emotionally immature, etc. the F III de seal/ reseal scandal explores all this.

To be fair, I don't mind rigid thinkers maintaining my aircraft (an Ansett engineer developed a persecution complex - the company made him chief inspector - exquisite promotion!).

However such folk, while they have their uses, have no business running civilian institutions staffed by ordinary humans.

[BuzzBox]

Many of these comments are extremely insulting to the people in the RAAF and other armed services who work very hard and can be called upon to put their lives at risk to protect YOUR freedoms. Have you ever considered that problems such as 'rigid thinking' are a feature of the system rather than the individuals that work within that system? It's about time some people woke up to the fact that the Public Service is a bureaucracy, with all the disadvantages that type of system entails. It is not a commercial enterprise. You won't get anywhere by attacking a few individuals who have little or no chance of changing the way the system works.

The suggestion that RAAF officers can't cope with decision making in an environment where "information flow is less than perfect and decisions need to be made under uncertainty" is, quite frankly, laughable, as are some of the other derogatory comments above.

[Dick Smith]

I say for the third time. It was ex RAAF Ron Cooper who introduced the first major cost reductions at CAA.

In more recent times it appears that those in the military who resist change and copying the success of others have more influence.

They are quite un -intentionally destroying the GA industry in this country.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Post #44The last three CASA Chiefs have been military trained. Look at what has happened to our industry and the regulatory reform programme .........
I believe there is a plan in the Canberra bureaucracy to destroy the Non Airline aviation industry in Australia.
Post #59
...those in the military who resist change and copying the success of others.......are quite un -intentionally destroying the GA industry in this country.

So is there a plan or not?

[oggers]

The suggestion that RAAF officers can't cope with decision making in an environment where "information flow is less than perfect and decisions need to be made under uncertainty" is, quite frankly, laughable, as are some of the other derogatory comments above.

Absolutely correct.

[Dick Smith]

I think there are people in the department who have told the minister that GA is a problem so he should not associate himself with it in any way.

Bit like the " Yes Minister " episode about the advantage of hospitals with no patients.

Years ago the Minister would always come to the AOPA and RFAC AGMs but not any more.

[Sunfish]

oggers, you haven't had to work for the useless ex RAAF pr*cks I have had to endure.

Furthermore, they never stopped telling us they were ex RAAF officers!

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Sunfish, remind us again how many of those there were? I seem to recall the number was 2, but please correct me if I'm wrong. And from this you can speak authoritatively about the qualities of all RAAF officers over many decades?

[Dick Smith]

Leadership is about copying the best from around the world and incorporating that with what ever we already do better. And by that I mean anything that can give the the required outcome at the lowest possible cost.

I have found a resistance to do that with many Aussie military and ex military people.

I cannot see any light on the horizon for change that could benefit GA.

That's why I advise all those who write to me for advice to get a different career and if already in GA to try and get out now before everything is lost.

[Pavement]

There is no valid reason as to why civil and military atc cannot be combined. There is a lot of fluff and bluster but essentially its the same job. Airservices was, at one stage, going to take over the running of non operational bases. Airservices used to provide atc at Darwin until cyclone Tracey.
So why not now? Firstly Airservices wanted to provide the service their way and commercially (this from the people who cant make a profit from a monopoly). Secondly, RAAF middle ranks had to protect their careers so they blocked the move whilst outwardly supporting the move. Along came JBAC to make them more 'essential' within defence.
The reality is that Darwin and Townsville should be controlled by Airservices as they are not R airspace and defence controllers do not have ICAO licences. It is also a reality that most defence controllers will never leave Australia and a large portion are not capable of being deployed.
Having said all that, I wouldnt trust Airservices to run atc at a base unless I had a contract with a lot of clauses about performance and service levels.
Finally, whilst Im on a rant about the system, why not allow towers and arff to be privately operated?

[Chronic Snoozer]

Having said all that, I wouldnt trust Airservices to run atc at a base unless I had a contract with a lot of clauses about performance and service levels.

And neither does the military. Smart guys huh?

[BuzzBox]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Enough said.

[Plazbot]

"defence controllers do not have ICAO licences"


erm wut?

[Pavement]

"defence controllers do not have ICAO licences"


erm wut?

Erm yeah. Try getting a job overseas with only a military licence. Why do you think they are issued a nice new CASA licence when converting over? Training is minimal cause the RAAF follows the same competencies and they can be mapped over.

[Sunfish]

it's notthatbloodyhard:

let's see.......

At age Eighteen Moping around Point Cook tentatively approached one SqnLdr Duffy about what life might be like if I joined RAAF.... response: "eff off, go away"

subsequent as an army officer cadet and officer experiencing continual RAAF over promising and under delivering, unlike the fleet air arm.

..being instructed that if I did get to Vietnam, to request American helicopter support if an LZ was hot since Australian pilots (as courageous and skilled as the yanks) would cop a grounding and inquiry if they got a bullet hole in Their chopper.

..being told that the main use of Chinooks was not troop transport but RAAF logistical tasks like moving Tarmac vehicles.

.....the FIII deseal/reseal scandal and what it revealed about RAAF "culture".

......numerous visits to the grey sponge in support of winning consulting assignments.

..watching one proud ex RAAF engineering officer with borderline personality disorder destroy a major public company.

..watching two others do the same to part of the civil aviation sector.

on the other hand, the guys at HdH were tops.

by contrast my experience of former naval persons has been great.

CASA has a culture of bullying, intimidation, rigidity, injustice, capriciousness and possibly corruption. I would suggest that all but the Last attribute have had to come from somewhere and the culprit ,by definition, has to be an government institution because no private sector institution could survive any length of time without public exposure. that therefore points to the RAAF rejects as the source of the problem.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Thanks Sunfish, that's quite a list. I shouldn't even bother replying, because it's a waste of time, but then again I'm stupid and have nothing better to do right now. So:

- You've clearly encountered a few RAAF/ex-RAAF officers who were d1ckheads. So have I. Every organisation has them, and I've met some appalling pricks from all 3 services (the worst being from the Army, as it happens). The vast majority were great blokes, though.

- You seem to attach a lot of weight to 'things you've been told'. What you were told about RAAF Chinook ops is at odds with the understanding of any of the Chook drivers I've known. The stuff you were told about RAAF choppers in Vietnam is fascinating, although I've never heard anything remotely like it before.

- I'm not sure what the F-111 DSRS says about wider RAAF culture, if anything. In any case, if you're trying to portray the RAAF as worse than the Army or Navy, you're on very shaky ground when it comes to scandals which reflect poorly on a service's culture! Enough said on that one...

- Your final para about possible corruption in CASA which is definitely caused by ex-RAAF types doesn't really make a lot of sense. (And if you truly believe that meaningful corruption can't exist in the private sector, then we're not inhabiting the same planet.)

I'll be the first to agree with you that the RAAF has produced some appalling clowns and done some pretty ordinary things. So has just about every other organisation I can think of, including those you think so highly of. I still can't see that you're in any way qualified to pass judgement on thousands of people you've never met and have no knowledge of, however much confidence you might have in your own opinions. It seems that you're suffering from some serious long-term confirmation bias - which is why I'm wasting my time here:). Enough from me.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Duncan Aviation (http://www.avweb.com/press-releases/1182.html) may have a reasonable outcome for your dilemma, Dick;)