Air Traffic Controllers

[haltonapp]

Are RAF air traffic controllers, trained at Shawbury, up to the standard required to control traffic at Northolt? This is in regard to the airprox last year between an A380 and a Gulfstream, the controller became distracted and concerns were also raised at the manpower levels.

[Door Slider]

Distraction is a human factor, it can and does happen at any airfield regardless of it being a military or civilian, big or small.

Is the question regarding the ATC school at Shawbury stem from the fact it's a RW base?

[MATELO]

https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/New_assessed_reports/Airprox%20Report%202016221.pdf

[MATELO]

Duplicate post

[chevvron]

Distraction is a human factor, it can and does happen at any airfield regardless of it being a military or civilian, big or small.

Is the question regarding the ATC school at Shawbury stem from the fact it's a RW base?

As far as I'm aware nowadays, students from the Air Traffic Control School at Shawbury no longer train on 'live' traffic in the tower at Shawbury, using simulators which can simulate literally any type of aircraft so implying they are only used to helicopter traffic is totally misleading. They are all trained to the highest standards (as are civil controllers trained by NATS at Whitely) and if at the end of the course they have not met the required standard, they do not graduate and are often re-coursed.
The 'incident' appears to have been caused by the oncoming controller being distracted while an aircraft was being vectored for the easterly approach at Northolt which includes a 'dogleg' turning final at about (I think) 4nm (please correct me if I'm wrong); the aircraft cannot be positioned on long final for Northolt due to traffic on the 09L ILS at Heathrow so it requires a great amount of concentration to achieve the ideal final approach track.
Northolt have separate frequencies allocated for 'approach' and 'final' directors so I'm surprised as it appeared to be so busy that the supervisor wasn't keeping a better eye on things.

[Danny42C]

haltonapp (#1),

After five years of flying in war, and a further five years in peace, I was an RAF ATC from 1955 to 1972, including 3 years as an instructor at Shawbury. But no experience on Area Radar. (We have a MPN11 on frequency here, who can remedy that deficiency).

IMHO, Door Slider (#2) has answered your question. But your unspoken question is: Does the Civil ATC Training system produce a "superior product" (for Civil purposes) to the RAF (Shawbury) system ? I leave that open for discussion, but will only note that many RAF Controllers, after the end of their SSCs, made successful careers in Civil Air Traffic Control.

I think we may have a hot potato here !

Danny42C.

[360BakTrak]

Adopt the brace position!

Both paths share similar skill sets as required by the job, and also different 'specific' skills as dictated by the unit you work at post-college, hence why each unit requires it's own training plan and validation. (Mil traffic operate differently to civil, etc).

No unit has the same airspace/traffic/restrictions etc so leaving the ATC college, whether it be RAF or Civil, will not make you eligible to walk in to a unit and be able to work the traffic in a safe, orderly & expeditious manner. You merely leave the college with a licence to learn at the unit you're posted to.

Airprox's can, and do, happen at any unit, regardless of where the staff were trained, so to imply those trained at Shawbury may not be up to the standard to work Northolt is absolute bolleaux. It's a challenging job wherever you were trained, and wherever you're posted.

[gr4techie]

Adopt the brace position!

Both paths share similar skill sets as required by the job, and also different 'specific' skills as dictated by the unit you work at post-college, hence why each unit requires it's own training plan and validation. (Mil traffic operate differently to civil, etc).

No unit has the same airspace/traffic/restrictions etc so leaving the ATC college, whether it be RAF or Civil, will not make you eligible to walk in to a unit and be able to work the traffic in a safe, orderly & expeditious manner. You merely leave the college with a licence to learn at the unit you're posted to.

Does military air traffic control deal with more circuits and touch and go's, while civil ATC is more straight in approaches and full stop landings?
On the fast jet units I've worked on, it seems there's always a wave or two of aircraft each doing multiple circuits and bumps, especially when you need to drive past the end of the runway at shift change !

[chevvron]

haltonapp (#1),

After five years of flying in war, and a further five years in peace, I was an RAF ATC from 1955 to 1972, including 3 years as an instructor at Shawbury. But no experience on Area Radar. (We have a MPN11 on frequency here, who can remedy that deficiency).

IMHO, Door Slider (#2) has answered your question. But your unspoken question is: Does the Civil ATC Training system produce a "superior product" (for Civil purposes) to the RAF (Shawbury) system ? I leave that open for discussion, but will only note that many RAF Controllers, after the end of their SSCs, made successful careers in Civil Air Traffic Control.

I think we may have a hot potato here !

Danny42C.

I like to think I got the best of both worlds. I did a 3 year course gaining civil ratings for aerodrome, approach, approach radar, area and area radar. My field training for area radar was carried out at a joint military/civil area radar unit (Lindholme) so I was able to work alongside military controllers learning what they did, then for my final posting I was sent to an MOD(PE) unit (Farnborough) where not only did I have to learn military procedures as well as operating civil procedures and where I would often use approach radar and area radar ratings at the same time, but when it came my turn, I was sent to Shawbury for a PAR course.

[Danny42C]

gr4techie (#8),

...Originally Posted by 360BakTrak
Adopt the brace position!

...leaving the ATC college, whether it be RAF or Civil, will not make you eligible to walk in to a unit and be able to work the traffic in a safe, orderly & expeditious manner. You merely leave the college with a licence to learn at the unit you're posted to...
My opinion exactly ! When I started instructing at Shawbury, the thinking was that we were turning out Air Traffic Controllers (don't laugh, read my story below).

Later I came to think that we were turning out skeletons of Air Traffic Controllers, who would be clothed in the flesh of experience at their Stations. At the end I realised that we were really running a big Aptitude Test - if they could hack the Course, they could probably learn to do the real job at the desk.

But the practice did not always follow the theory ..... The newly minted D. turned up at Strubby in '55. "Welcome aboard", said SATCO, "we've been waiting for you - you're on Approach Monday afternoon - Flt Lt So-and-so will show you around - Good luck !"

In defence of that, I must remind readers that, in those benighted days, the Shawbury output was almost all ex-war aircrew, mostly pilots and navs, who had a fair idea of the job anyway. (It was said that the immediate postwar RAF Air Traffic Control Branch was set up as a Sunset Home for all the good old has-beens and neverwozzers of wartime leftovers). But I think that was just sour grapes. ...

Danny42C.

[ACW342]

Chevron,
That would have been Northern radar then, with PRESTON AIRWAYS up at the back with, IIRC, a single suite consisting of 2 controllers, 2 assistants, 1 tracker and 1 height finder. (Yes folks, 3 FIRs! Scottish, Preston and London).

It was, from my point of view as a servant of the Blue Line Master Race, a brilliant job, especially the controllers assistant part. I suspect that those of us who served at ATCRUs like the dairies and had to manually track 8 returns at once can still beat their grandchildren on modern computer games.

A342

p.s. I think my controller, who instructed me one night, to take 2 pairs of Lightenings on recovery to Binbrook, while he was playing Bridge up on the bridge with the co-ordinator and two assistants, made his 7 no trumps (or was it 7 spades?) Oh and Northern was JUST outside the Midland overhead!

[chevvron]

Chevron,
That would have been Northern radar then, with PRESTON AIRWAYS up at the back with, IIRC, a single suite consisting of 2 controllers, 2 assistants, 1 tracker and 1 height finder. (Yes folks, 3 FIRs! Scottish, Preston and London).

It was, from my point of view as a servant of the Blue Line Master Race, a brilliant job, especially the controllers assistant part. I suspect that those of us who served at ATCRUs like the dairies and had to manually track 8 returns at once can still beat their grandchildren on modern computer games.

A342

p.s. I think my controller, who instructed me one night, to take 2 pairs of Lightenings on recovery to Binbrook, while he was playing Bridge up on the bridge with the co-ordinator and two assistants, made his 7 no trumps (or was it 7 spades?) Oh and Northern was JUST outside the Midland overhead!

I was there in '73 and I seem to recall that on the civil UAS suite, we operated with 2 assistants writing up flight data on the edge lit board between the 2 radar consoles plus 2 trackers, one for each console; the height finder wasn't permanently manned; you just shouted 'height please' and hoped someone was there to look at it.
I think I rather 'freaked out' some of the RAF guys one sunday. Mainland and North Sea positions were bandboxed and whereas the RAF guys dealt with off route traffic with a maximum of 4 tracks each, suddenly I had 16 tracks on frequency, fortunately all were on known routings and most of them were overflights and did not require climb or descent so I was quite relaxed, but the poor tracker trying to deal with 16 tracks was working his b@lls off!
A third console well away from the 2 upper airspace ones was used as a joint operation with Boulmer. It was called the 'Northern Joint Radar Service Area' (forerunner of 'Pennine Radar') and was for traffic below FL245 to/from Newcastle and Teeside which was leaving/joining controlled airspace at Pole Hill. Although this control position was moved occasionally, it was usually next to the console occupied by the co-ordinator who kept a 'log' of levels in use in the Lindholme T82 overhead; same type of radar as Midland but apparently with a much smaller overhead - wonder why that was?
My mentor did one session with me on this console when I started my training and thereafter he stayed in the rest room for extra tea/extra fag whenever we were rostered on it!

[airpolice]

I did my time at Northern in 75 & 76.

Happy days.

[MPN11]

Late on parade ... been following the BA chaos on another Forum and other places over the last couple of days!

During my 29 years in the RAF, I spent 8 years as a Tower controller [including time as SATCO and Local Examining Officer) and another 8 years in Area Radar (including Senior Supervisor, OC Training Sqn and LEO) at Joint units (Eastern Radar and LATCC). So I guess I can claim to have a reasonable spread of experience, including those years in a joint Mil/Civ environment.

I think the OP's question is 'reasonable' in the context he has drawn it, but there's no real difference when it comes down to the reality. ANY controller, of either persuasion, has potential to drop a ball occasionally and the incident in question shows how easily it can happen. The Airprox occurred simply because the Northolt controller was distracted exactly at the time when the Gulfstream should have been turned inbound. Any controller, when juggling several balls at once, need to remember which ball is the most important at any given moment ... and that priority changes dynamically every few seconds.

In a perfect world, either of the following could have prevented the Airprox:

Delay the controller handover until the Gulfstream was turned inbound. Literally a 'critical path'.
Prioritise the Gulfstream and tell Heathrow Director to "Wait". Not easy to do, but see previous bullet!


Easy to say, in the comfort of my Study, of course. But if the Northolt controller had been Civil, the same scenario could have unfolded. That 07 approach must be a right sod to manage!

Have a picture of Eastern Civil. Of course, it would normally be much darker than that! :)
.
.

[Danny42C]

MPN11 (#14),
...ANY controller, of either persuasion, has potential to drop a ball occasionally and the incident in question shows how easily it can happen...
You have put your finger on it: "To err is human"; the man or woman who cannot make a mistake has not been born yet. (But, "To forgive is not Company Policy" ?)

Nic pic of all you poor battery hens in your gloomy henhouse ! Fresh (air-con) air, blue skies (occasionally), and starry nights, under wall-to-wall octagonal glass, suited old D. much better !

Danny.

[FantomZorbin]

Danny
Fresh (air-con) air
Not always at Northern ... there were instances when Airwork(?), the engineers, failed to turn off the air-con when the 'Honey Cart' was going about its business by the air-con intake!!!http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/pukey.gif

[langleybaston]

a literal sh*t hitting the fan.

[MPN11]

We were obviously lucky at Eastern. We had proper plumbing and sewage disposal ;)

[chevvron]

Have a picture of Eastern Civil. Of course, it would normally be much darker than that! :)
.
.

Similar to Northern but only one control position instead of two; I presume one of the positions was occupied by the tracker, but it shows the edge lit board very well.
Data was fed to the assistant at this board by an electrowriter. One day at Northern, we were working away as normal when there was a loud 'pop' and a flash of light. The electrowriter had blown up!! I never saw the 2 assistants move so fast!!

[orgASMic]

@haltonapp - yes, of course they are. RAF ATC training, examination, validation, standardisation and supervision are all tightly controlled, documented and assured. As has been said already, HF happens. That is not to make light of the incident, but no system is fool-proof, especially with a human in the loop.

@Door_Slider - ATC training and RW training have nothing to do with each other at Shawbury. ATC training is all simulated.

@chevvron - Live tower training (using dedicated Jet Provosts) ended in the early 90s (I went through JATCC in 93 and was on an all-sim course).

One of the reasons for moving Northolt Approach down to Swanwick was to have the Northolt controllers sat with the Heathrow team in order to remove some of the coordination issues associated with such a tight piece of airspace.

[MPN11]

Similar to Northern but only one control position instead of two; I presume one of the positions was occupied by the tracker, but it shows the edge lit board very well.

Two controllers at ERD with double-header consoles, as shown. The Tracker occupies a specially-equipped dedicated position ... possibly the one in the far background.

[chevvron]

Two controllers at ERD with double-header consoles, as shown. The Tracker occupies a specially-equipped dedicated position ... possibly the one in the far background.

Ah sorry; in my day Eastern only had one control position for the North Sea sector on a shared frequency with Northern (got a vague recollection that was weekdays only but may be wrong), so what was the other console for?
Had a thought; could this be Eastern after Lindholme had closed thus allowing for two sectors (North Sea and Mainland)? Eastern didn't close until much later did it?

[dagowly]

Northolt radar is done from the TC part of Swanwick to integrate with the London TMA controllers at NATS. It works well, however this once again proves the issues that the branch faces.

[chevvron]

Northolt radar is done from the TC part of Swanwick to integrate with the London TMA controllers at NATS. It works well, however this once again proves the issues that the branch faces.

Nothing new. When I was at LATCC in 1971 we moved into the Mediator 1 room where the 4 main en-route sectors each had an RAF controller on them to integrate their OAT with the GAT.
Called LJAO, then SEJAO; I presume it goes under another name nowadays.
Oh and off route, the civil and military FIS suites were next to each other in their own little control room next to D & D - very convenient!

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Pedant mode on:

It was SEJAO then LJAO - but no harm done and you're forgiven!!!! :ok:

Pedant mode off.

[Visitation]

Haltonapp,

I've been an RAF ATCO for 40+ years and have served at various airfields in the UK and Germany, as well as over 3 years in LJAO, working alongside my civil colleagues. I did the JATCC in the early 1970s, served as an instructor in the mid 1980s and am currently one of the staff at SAOC, the new name for CATCS, RAF Shawbury, so I think I'm well qualified to comment on your remark about military ATM training. The JATCC today is longer than the 16 week JATCC I completed and much more comprehensive because of the changes to rules and legislation. Furthermore, although live flying for ATM training ended in the late 1980s, the current simulators are perfectly suitable for the task and will be updated within the next five years under Project Marshall. In other words, those that graduate from the JATCC today are perfectly well prepared for the duties they then undertake at their units.

When I first began my career, an old military ATCO said to me that if you never admit to having had an incident you've either not being an ATCO for very long or you've never been anywhere really busy or you're not telling the truth. Unfortunately, incidents involving ATCOs, whether civil or military, will always take place and, in the overall scheme of things, this was by no means the worst. I was in LJAO when the airmiss between a Vulcan and an Air France Concorde occurred on the Seaford sector - now that really was a very close call!

Visitation

[chevvron]

Pedant mode on:

It was SEJAO then LJAO - but no harm done and you're forgiven!!!! :ok:

Pedant mode off.

Thanks for correcting me.

[MPN11]

Ah sorry; in my day Eastern only had one control position for the North Sea sector on a shared frequency with Northern (got a vague recollection that was weekdays only but may be wrong), so what was the other console for?Sorry, not that intimately acquainted with their working procedures. Possibly split E/W traffic, but that's only a guess - someone here must know the answer.
(I was ERD Jun 70-Sep 73 & Oct 76-Sep 78)

Greetings to fellow Mil SEJAO controllers (Sep 73-Dec 74 only, before being posted to HQ MATO) :cool:
I was apparently the first to be pushed straight into SEJAO after a few weeks getting an AC(L) endorsement in the MAS room, on the basis of my 4+ years experience at ERD. A most interesting and stimulating environment, with (IIRC) only one major cock-up on my part!
When producing estimates for Mil crossings, one quickly learned that an F-4/F-111 took 5 minutes to cover the length of a chinagraph pencil on the flat-top displays ;)

[Wander00]

I guess that was OK so long as you did not sharpen the pencil.......

[MPN11]

I guess that was OK so long as you did not sharpen the pencil.......

hehehe :)

Propelling pencils, of course!

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

When producing estimates for Mil crossings, one quickly learned that an F-4/F-111 took 5 minutes to cover the length of a chinagraph pencil on the flat-top displays

s'funny - I always remember having to extract the RP estimates from the MYRIAD touchwire display for LJAO...... :hmm:

Not to mention 'all crossings via WOBUN' to the extent that RACAL produced a lovely miniature TRN-26 TACAN (anyone know what happened to it?) so that USAFE aircraft could route that way, accurate like!!

[Radar_Monkey]

Are RAF air traffic controllers, trained at Shawbury, up to the standard required to control traffic at Northolt? This is in regard to the airprox last year between an A380 and a Gulfstream, the controller became distracted and concerns were also raised at the manpower levels.

Firstly, and most importantly, they are.

The incident in question was a simple case of distraction. The controller was operating band boxed due to manning issues, and was engaged in a coordination phone call with anothe sector. It is an extremely tight bit of airspace, where it is imperative that the offset base/finals turn is made at exactly the right time; too early, and the PAR will not be able to lock on (the dog leg is at the extreme of the PAR azimuth coverage), too late, and you end up potentially interacting with Heathrow.

The incident highlighted that the task should have been split, thus man I is required to achieve this; something that is not sorted over night as you need to train the new people. Secondly, it highlighted the dangers of distraction, something that has been used to good effect with our HF sessions. Thirdly, it proved that the safety nets; Controller scan (from Fin), STCA and now PIT work to reduce the chances of an aircraft accident.

[[email protected]]

Perhaps the real issue is manning levels - more and more RAF stations seem to be short of trained ATC such that they have to 'close' to allow lunch breaks etc - this has happened this year at Brize, Boscombe ad Shawbury to my knowledge.

[KPax]

I have heard a statement recently at Shawbury that if all the applicants for ATC who went through the AFCO doors were all to pass the JATCC the trade would still be 20% under strength.

[Brian 48nav]

I should think that the RAF ATCO salary scale compared with NATS would put a lot of folk off - top whack at Swanwick/Heathrow after about 15 years is more than Air Commodore top increment and without all the BS!

I guess the service might be slightly ahead in the first 4 or 5 years then NATS pay races ahead.

[airpolice]

Well, if the AFCO staff pointed out what a short path it is to riches with NATS, they might find it easier to get folk to Shawbury.

[MPN11]

Not everyone wants to stay in the same place forever, when there are overseas tours ... oh, forget I started that, I'm almost 60 years out of date!

Looking through the wrong end of the telescope, and vaguely knowing what it's like in the RAF nowadays, I'd probably (sadly) be inclined to take the Civil route.

The RAF is not what it was, for so many reasons.

[Danny42C]

As an AirTrafficer who never laboured in the dungeons of Area Radar (there to sit like rows of poor battery hens, never to see the light of day), but dwelt in a Tower, where there were blue skies (occasionally), fluffy white clouds, green grass, birdies, aeroplanes (even if only computer-generated phantoms), and all life passing below your air-conditioned octagon eyrie, might I suggest that, if a publicity drive were to stress these points, you might get more applicants ?

It is the best job in G.D. - bar flying (if you dodge Area Radar as aforesaid), comes with cups of tea on the hour from beauteous Assistants, what more d'ye want (Promotion ? Forget it !) Remember that the Branch was originally set up to provide a "Sunset Home" for all the old hairy ex-aircrew from WWII who did not like the idea of the cold peacetime world outside.

[email protected] (#33),

..."they have to 'close' to allow lunch breaks etc - this has happened this year at Brize, Boscombe and Shawbury * to my knowledge"... So they are short, and have (presumably) had to rob the Tower crews to keep Area radar staffed. Why not put more of your smarter Assistants up for S.S. Commissions, because obviously the pay rates are insufficient to attract external candidates ?

Note: * Shawbury used to be manned by the School staff in turn as R&R from their instructional duties. Should've been plenty of them there.

Another possibility: GD Pilots and WSOs could do a ground tour on ATC after a "Short Course" at Shawbury. At Linton '62-'64, the RN Controllers were Seaman Branch on ground tour, after which they went back to sea (so they told me - Union Jack ?).
Mind you, at the rate they're closing Stations, they should have ATCs coming out of their ears !

Danny.

[airpolice]

Danny, they make them Sgts now. Direct entry as well as promoting assistants.

Commissioned Officers are becoming rare in towers, and in Area Radar.

A short course for aircrew is not the answer, more people who want to do air traffic is what's required. I suspect that part of the reason that so few people doing it want to recommend it, is that everywhere is short staffed. Also relevant is that as one of the very few blue suit jobs on camp, ATC are getting dicked for secondary duties more than they used to.

I loved my time in Area Radar, I dreaded it, based on what everyone in towers told me, but once I mastered the art of chinagraph and coffee in the dark, it was great. Nowadays the average Area Radar unit looks like a call centre.

[YellowTom]

Crikey, oh blimey, I can see why PPrune has the reputation it does (on my squadron at least) for being the history corner! Hopefully the orignal poster got the answer they wanted?

If there was ever a need for some spare ATC skills to be dished out then someone should look at how our large aircraft with sky pointing radars can be used to help deconflict and point our smaller aircraft in the right direction. If we can do similar things for nasties etc. etc.

[Wannabe Flyboy]

So they are short, and have (presumably) had to rob the Tower crews to keep Area radar staffed.

Area Radar is suffering almost as badly as the Towers due to manning. The problem extends out to the RN ATC branch as well as the RAF - the requirement for QNLZ (& shortly PWLS) is only exacerbating this.

[MPN11]

Having been involved in the early staffing for DE Sgts ATC, I understand that the uptake is still below expectations.

With due deference to Danny42C, I enjoyed all my 'operational' time in ATC on airfields (Strubby, Tengah,Waddington and Stanley) and in Area (Eastern x 2 and LATCC(Mil)). And whilst acknowledging the 'battery hen' term Danny uses, there was always something about the 'big picture' that made Area appealing. That said, there's no doubt that Local was my favourite seat [for many reasons].

[Danny42C]

airpolice (#39),

..."they make them Sgts now"...

I believe this is also true of the USAF, too (anybody know ?)


YellowTom (bell rings, but will not put it into words), (#40),

The mind boggles ! Calls to mind (closing stanzas only) ..........

"She said 'Wait - Let's get this straight,
Who does what, and with which, and to whom' ?"

Quite enough of that ! Cheers, both, Danny.

[chevvron]

Ah sorry; in my day Eastern only had one control position for the North Sea sector on a shared frequency with Northern (got a vague recollection that was weekdays only but may be wrong), so what was the other console for?
Had a thought; could this be the civil suite at Eastern after Lindholme had closed thus allowing for two sectors (North Sea and Mainland)? Eastern didn't close until much later did it?
We had one or two ex Eastern controllers posted to Farnborough mid '80s?

[airpolice]

Eastern relocated to LAZI but still operated as Eastern Radar for a while.

[chevvron]

Eastern relocated to LAZI but still operated as Eastern Radar for a while.

But didn't Lindholme close several years before Watton? I think Lindholme went about '74/75 but I may be wrong, certainly some of my civilian colleagues in '73 had their posting notices although new controllers were still being posted in. What year did Watton Close?

[Brian 48nav]

IIRC Lindholme civil closed in '77 - I looked at the LL arrival date of one of the ATCOs who had been posted from there and again IIRC Eastern civil closed several years later. The atchistory website may have more info?

[Proletarian]

The problems in the RAF ATM Specialisation are deep-rooted and are unlikely to be resolved by attempting to rapidly increase recruitment.

Whilst there is a financial incentive for those who wish to become a direct-entry SNCOs, nothing similar exists for those who join as an officer. I imagine many potential officers who attend AFCOs or Cranwell consider what career options are available and then decide that they would rather not put themselves through JATCC, followed by the endless training and examinations when they will be earning exactly the same as any other ground branch officer. Unsurprisingly they frequently opt for an easier career in Flt Ops, Supply, etc.

Trying to 'shoe-horn' individuals who are not really motivated into ATM is just repeating the same old failed 'solution' of once again papering over the cracks. Retention is the problem that urgently needs to be addressed if VSOs really want to find a solution, but it won't happen and we will continue to loose controllers to NATS and elsewhere.

One solution to recruiting and retention would be introducing a structured transition to a civil ATC licence. You could set the qualifying criteria at say a 12 year engagement, recovering the cost of training, whilst allowing the RAF to have the benefit of a cadre of young controllers who are motivated to stay the course. A correspondence course, with an on-line element, could be introduced to begin after 10 years service that would lead to a basic civil ATC licence, followed in the final year by an aerodrome course that would also include time at a civil ATC college. This solution would certainly act as an incentive to join and yet for personal domestic circumstances not everyone would want to leave the RAF, particularly if they wish to remain in a particular geographical area. Whilst there would be a cost, I would have thought the current wastage must be an even greater cost.

However, I am not holding my breath, as VSOs appear to place little value in the ATM specialisation in general and even less in the actual personnel. In the current climate, manning problems are only likely to get worse, not better.

[KPax]

I heard a rumour last week regarding young Warrant Officers being Commissioned and after 4 years being presented to the Board for Sqn Ldr, not sure what this does for Junior Officers in the Air Traffic Branch.

[dmcg]

What JO's?

[fabs]

There’s no getting away from it, the branch is in trouble. It has over the last decade or two suffered infighting at the high echelons, neglect and downright mismanagement. There are now SO2s and SO1s making policy decisions, who years ago, could organise an amazing Summer Ball or Christmas Draw but were frankly dangerous if left alone in Director, Tower or Approach. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I cannot imagine the Pilot branch promoting to senior officer status personnel who were simply poor at their primary task.
I really fear for Mil ATC, it’s a matter of when, not if something big will bring everything into sharp focus. I just hope no one gets hurt.

[[email protected]]

Proletarian - we begged for the same type of licencing arrangements for pilots for many years to no avail.

The VSOs convinced themselves that licences would lead people to leave early for more lucrative positions in civvystreet.

Instead, people left early because they needed to get their licences and didn't want to be left behind. The evidence is writ large in the PVR rates.

You will have the same battle with ATC licences unfortunately.

The younger generation understand the importance of terms and conditions and until those VSOs can make the military competitive and attractive, recruiting and retention will continue to be an issue. Just look at what they have done to pensions....

[MPN11]

IIRC Lindholme civil closed in '77 - I looked at the LL arrival date of one of the ATCOs who had been posted from there and again IIRC Eastern civil closed several years later. The atchistory website may have more info?Eastern Radar (Watton) closed in 1989. Much of the site was demolished for development in 2002 onwards. :(

Eastern's reincarnation at LATCC(Mil) doesn't count :D

[MPN11]

You raise some interesting points: my comments are as follows:Whilst there is a financial incentive for those who wish to become a direct-entry SNCOs, nothing similar exists for those who join as an officer. I imagine many potential officers who attend AFCOs or Cranwell consider what career options are available and then decide that they would rather not put themselves through JATCC, followed by the endless training and examinations when they will be earning exactly the same as any other ground branch officer. Unsurprisingly they frequently opt for an easier career in Flt Ops, Supply, etc. I'm not sure that I agree with the general thrust here. For a start, the motivations of a putative ATCO are going to be different to those of other Branches. Nor do I expect the individuals are aware, in any detail, of the time spent doing OJT and being examined at each Unit.

Trying to 'shoe-horn' individuals who are not really motivated into ATM is just repeating the same old failed 'solution' of once again papering over the cracks. Retention is the problem that urgently needs to be addressed if VSOs really want to find a solution, but it won't happen and we will continue to loose controllers to NATS and elsewhere. Whilst I have no doubt that AFCOs will attempt to steer candidates into career paths to meet their own manning requirements, I would be surprised if the individuals would be easily persuaded to change their perceived path. Why would they opt for something radically different [and potentially more demanding] from their first choice?
One solution to recruiting and retention would be introducing a structured transition to a civil ATC licence. You could set the qualifying criteria at say a 12 year engagement, recovering the cost of training, whilst allowing the RAF to have the benefit of a cadre of young controllers who are motivated to stay the course. A correspondence course, with an on-line element, could be introduced to begin after 10 years service that would lead to a basic civil ATC licence, followed in the final year by an aerodrome course that would also include time at a civil ATC college. This solution would certainly act as an incentive to join and yet for personal domestic circumstances not everyone would want to leave the RAF, particularly if they wish to remain in a particular geographical area. Whilst there would be a cost, I would have thought the current wastage must be an even greater cost.Several points here:

1. Amortisation of Training was, IIRC, achieved after the first productive tour as an ATCO, which is why we never worried too much about the loss of WRAF ATCOs on marriage.

2. Motivation to remain is surely [or at least was] the twin dangling carrots of promotion and pension. I appreciate that much has changed since my day, but even for the middle-of-the-road controllers it remained an interesting and rewarding role.

3. The facilitated acquisition of a civil licence rarely entered conversation in my time. In part, I suggest, is that the RAF was generally a good place to be! Now, with less mobility/variety, it may be that the new generations want to sit in the same place, doing the same job, forever. It certainly wasn't what I wanted, but I suspect th RAF is heading that way now with just Swanwick for the Area people and fewer airfields to choose from. Perhaps this is the sad future?

4. Promotion, or indeed the prospect of that, can be a major retention driver. I suspect, however, that those opportunities are now much more narrowly drawn than in my day, when we had 5 x gp capt, 30+ wg cdr and 150+ sqn ldr. BUT, with roughly half of the 'shop floor' being SNCO controllers, there is an ongoing demand for JOs to fill what one would call Junior Management posts (e.g. Watch Supervisor, Local Examining Officer and indeed ATCEEB). It was that requirement, and the need for a decent-sized pool of suitable candidates for promotion to sqn ldr, that demanded [in my day] the retention of the officer/SNCO controller ratio despite suggestions that more SNCOs would be cheaper. (IIRC the ratio was 60/40 Officer/SNCO at the time.)

However, I am not holding my breath, as VSOs appear to place little value in the ATM specialisation in general and even less in the actual personnel. In the current climate, manning problems are only likely to get worse, not better.It will be interesting to see the impact of the combining of the former ATC and FC specialisations, and whether cross-pollination works in practice as well as in theory ;)

[chevvron]

Eastern Radar (Watton) closed in 1989. Much of the site was demolished for development in 2002 onwards. :(
:D

That sounds right. 2 of the civil controllers were posted to Farnborough as we were expanding staff numbers due to the need for increased opening hours for the new civil business terminal.
Didn't do us much good; one was promptly posted to HQ with a medical problem and the other validated on radar but was unable to make it in the tower so went to the college as an instructor (higher pay scale, better pension prospects)

[MPN11]

The classic "Those who can, do: those who can't, teach" :)

A nice tangled web of tarmac at F'boro too, which must be fun when busy.

[ex82watcher]

MPN11 re your post#14

I thought my memory was playing tricks,until I realized that your photo had been printed in reverse,and that the picture is a 'mirror image'.

The guy seated on the left is the Controller,the woman at the edge-lit board must be u/t,being supervised by the ATSA sitting in front of the Trackers position on the right.It was not usual for there to be a dedicated Tracker,one person usually carrying out this task,as well as updating the ELB,unless it was very busy,when up to 16 store-dots could be in use.That is not the case here,as evinced by the lack of writing on the board.

I have tried to post a similar,but later image in the correct sense,but am told that I'm not allowed to do that until I have submitted 10 post,so that will have to wait.Just be aware that the Controller sat at the RH console,that on the left being for the Tracker.

[ex82watcher]

MPN 11re your post#18

Though as you rightly say,we had proper plumbing at ER,right up until Eastern Radar(civil) closed, on 4th March '88, the paper provided in the (gent's at least) lavatories was that horrible shiny stuff.BUT,we civvies discovered that the Commanding Officer's (the W/Cs) W/C,on the ground floor,near his office was supplied with the soft variety made from fluffy puppies, a privilege of rank I suppose.Well worth the longer walk !

[MPN11]

ex82watcher ... goodness me, so it is! That will teach me to use other people's photos at face value! I rarely ventured across the ERD ops room to the Civil corner, and they had a slightly different console layout to us Mil chaps!

Here's a picture of a typical Mil console: you can see bank of SSR selectors in the big control box on the right in now the correct orientation, with the 8 big code selector switchboxes on the left!

[ex82watcher]

Chevvron


I thought that only one of our number was posted to Farnborough when ER(civil) closed,and as you say,PB went to the College.Who was the other one ?

[CADF]

:cool:
I was apparently the first to be pushed straight into SEJAO after a few weeks getting an AC(L) endorsement in the MAS room

Are you sure about that P? Thought it was me.

[chevvron]

Chevvron


I thought that only one of our number was posted to Farnborough when ER(civil) closed,and as you say,PB went to the College.Who was the other one ?

Judy? (can't remember last name). Maybe she wasn't from Eastern then, maybe it's my memory but she certainly arrived at the same time as PB.
PBs 'failure' was strange. I was on an afternoon duty and when I arrived, she'd had her board, failed and within a couple of hours (it seemed) received a phone call inviting her to the college, no second chance or anything; she was perfectly all right on radar even though it was approach rather than area (we still did a bit of area radar at the time eg autonomous crossings).

[chevvron]

ex82watcher ... goodness me, so it is! That will teach me to use other people's photos at face value! I rarely ventured across the ERD ops room to the Civil corner, and they had a slightly different console layout to us Mil chaps!

Here's a picture of a typical Mil console: you can see bank of SSR selectors in the big control box on the right in now the correct orientation, with the 8 big code selector switchboxes on the left!
I can just make out the joystick situated for the right hand, much better than the rolling balls we had at Farnborough!

[ex82watcher]

MPN11

thanks for that picture,it's much clearer than any others I have seen of the ER consoles.Memory has dimmed a little over almost 30 years,but I recognize the little 'joystick for interrogating the SSR and positioning store-dots,and the associated trigger on the LHS,with the black knob above it to select the beams required-rarely turned to anything but 'rain reject' in our case.

One thing that does puzzle me is the meter? behind the joystick - is that for the 'Height-finder'? - we didn't have those.

[ex82watcher]

Judy? (can't remember last name). Maybe she wasn't from Eastern then, maybe it's my memory but she certainly arrived at the same time as PB.
PBs 'failure' was strange. I was on an afternoon duty and when I arrived, she'd had her board, failed and within a couple of hours (it seemed) received a phone call inviting her to the college, no second chance or anything; she was perfectly all right on radar even though it was approach rather than area (we still did a bit of area radar at the time eg autonomous crossings).

Definitely no Judy in my time - '82 till closure.

I agree about the joystick,far easier to use than the Rolling Ball,which we had at LATCC too.

[Danny42C]

Proletarian (#48),
...whilst allowing the RAF to have the benefit of a cadre of young controllers who are motivated to stay the course...
Aye, there's the rub ! Your "young controllers" will include a contingent of the feminine variety. Biology trumps everything else - even 'motivation'. I cannot recall a single one of our first four who didn't "vanish in a cloud of orange blossom" before her 5 (?) yr SSC was up.

Stands to reason. You can't stop the sun from shining !

Danny.

[MPN11]

I can just make out the joystick situated for the right hand, much better than the rolling balls we had at Farnborough!Oh, I hated rolling balls too. Took ages to get the cursor from A to B, where the joystick was almost instant!

One thing that does puzzle me is the meter? behind the joystick - is that for the 'Height-finder'? - we didn't have those.Ummm ... HELP! I can't remember, but you may be right. There were so many odd bits floating around, that were 2nd nature back then but are now "bits of kit" ;)

Are you sure about that P? Thought it was me.You may well be right ... PM incoming, mate!

[Cows getting bigger]

Proletarian (#48),
Aye, there's the rub ! Your "young controllers" will include a contingent of the feminine variety. Biology trumps everything else - even 'motivation'. I cannot recall a single one of our first four who didn't "vanish in a cloud of orange blossom" before her 5 (?) yr SSC was up.

Stands to reason. You can't stop the sun from shining !

Danny.

The highest rank/position achieved by any RAF Air Traffic Controller is that of AVM Chris Elliot who is currently Air Sec. SHE also happens to be a successful wife and mother.

[MPN11]

And AVM John Arscott, some years earlier. From a Press Release dated 2001 ...

"John Arscott, who is 53, has had a varied career in aviation and continues the job of Director of Airspace Policy as this responsibility transfers to the CAA following enactment of the Transport Act 2000. He is a serving Air Vice-Marshal but will retire from the Royal Air Force to take up the new post within the CAA."

[chevvron]

And AVM John Arscott, some years earlier. From a Press Release dated 2001 ...

"John Arscott, who is 53, has had a varied career in aviation and continues the job of Director of Airspace Policy as this responsibility transfers to the CAA following enactment of the Transport Act 2000. He is a serving Air Vice-Marshal but will retire from the Royal Air Force to take up the new post within the CAA."
Nice bloke. Interviewed me for a job in AP6 which I didn't get because it had already been decided on the OBN.

[airpolice]

Nice bloke. Interviewed me for a job in AP6 which I didn't get because it had already been decided on the OBN.

All the way off thread, but here we go;

I have no problem with bosses deciding who gets the job, based on how the lucky applicant behaves. The boss needs to have someone they know can work for them.


More than once I have been shoe horned into a job created just for me. What I really object to is the process, very firmly adhered to in Local Authority, of interviewing and letting applicants think they have a shot, when the decision has been made weeks before. I turned up for an interview and when another applicant saw me come in, he left the room as he knew I was always going to be picked. He was right of course, I had been told before the adverts went out, that it was a job for me.

Another job had over 70 applicants, where 12 of us were interviewed. I actually felt sorry for the people who responded to adverts in the local press. They thought that if they were good enough they would have a chance, and if they were the best, they would get the job.

I got that one, as it had also been created for me, and I've not applied for a job since. I don't think it's fair for anyone, and probably discourages folk from applying.

The HR people say they do it out of fairness, but it's really just a cruel waste of money.

[MPN11]

Nice bloke. Interviewed me for a job in AP6 which I didn't get because it had already been decided on the OBN.... which was much the way of things within MATO, and to an extent the Branch in general. AOC MATO had enormous clout where senior officer appointments were concerned, as did the Mil side at NATS ... C(G)7, and later DD MR. I was firmly of the view that Barnwood just rubber stamped what they were told, to a certain extent.

If your face didn't fit, or you didn't have a background of CATCS/ATCEEB, it was an uphill struggle ;)

[Danny42C]

MPN11 (#54),
..."1. Amortisation of Training was, IIRC, achieved after the first productive tour as an ATCO, which is why we never worried too much about the loss of WRAF ATCOs on marriage"...
Really ? Consider the case of an ATCO, who has the temperament for, and succeeds in a low-intensity evironment, but fails on subsequent posting to a high intensity one. Is his/her training amortised ? Financially, perhaps, but ..... (you know yourself how hot it can get - you were at Strubby when it had more movements per day than Heathrow).


Cows getting bigger (#68),
..."The highest rank/position achieved by any RAF Air Traffic Controller is that of AVM Chris Elliot who is currently Air Sec. SHE also happens to be a successful wife and mother"...
All honour and respect to the lady in question, but: "one swallow does not a summer make". You cannot argue from the particular to the general, can you ?

It would be interesting to analyse the service of all WRAF Controllers who did not transfer to General List, to see how many resigned their SS Commissions on marriage before the end of their active period of service. We had one who waved "Bye-bye" to us before she had even got her Certificate of Competency (but then "particular to general" could be applied to me !)

Danny42C.

[Cows getting bigger]

Danny42C, I'm going back to the early 80's where we had quaint traditions like WRAFs not carrying weapons (lower salary), mandatory retirement on pregnancy etc. For sure, many of the girls took the opportunity to hand-in their uniform early but at the time the playing field was not level.

I left the RAF a decade back and by then everything was (almost) equal and I did not see queues of girls taking the 'option'. However, I did see lots of girls taking maternity leave and then returning.

[Danny42C]

Cows getting bigger (#74),

I'm going back to the early '60s .................... :

Tempora mutantur, et mutamur nos in illos, I suppose !

Danny.

[MPN11]

I was never particularly siezed by the WRAF issue ... in ATC I worked with female ATCOs from the outset, so I guess I ended up gender-blind. As the years went by, from the inception of us DE a/Plt Offs, the emergence of a female sqn ldr SATCO generated barely a ripple in the crewrooms, AFAIK. The good will move upward and onward, regardless of the shape of the sweater.

As to the 2* incumbents noted above, this is in part (I suggest) a further manifestation of the 'enfranchisement' of GD(Ground) officers back in the late 80s, when ATCOs (and presumably FCs) started moving into posts which were normally filled by GD(Air) on ground tours. This not only saved money (i.e. Flying Pay) but also released them to go and do what they should have been doing. We had ATC people doing Arms Control, Int, NATO Ops, Flylingdales ... by the early 90s the list was quite extensive! From that it clearly became acceptable to have non-brevet people doing some very interesting and serious out-of-specialisation jobs - indeed, I enjoyed a couple of them! I could assemble a list of posts around 1990 if anyone's interested.

A smaller Air Force, with a consequential smaller pool of talent, is inevitably going to allow the highly talented to rise to heights never before ever contemplated ... regardless of Branch or gender.

Danny42C ... the hypothetical move from a low- to high-intensity would have been carefully considered at PMC in the light of current performance reports. They didn't tend to just drop people into appointments where the individual wouldn't cope, but in parallel trying to ensure professional development. If the individual did stumble on a 2nd tour, they wouldn't be evicted - just moved somewhere where their abilities matched the task. We saw this quite frequently at Tengah, from where we provided (on posting within FEAF) staff who could not cope in our environment for the calmer world of Changi and Seletar!

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Going back to the origins of this thread wrt the situation at RAF Northolt, I did my first tour there, way back in the early ‘70s.

The straight 08 (for ‘twas the runway designator at that time) approach never appeared to be a problem to Heathrow, especially for ‘airways arrivals’ which were worked by Heathrow as part of their arrival sequence. Heathrow Approach sequenced the Northolt arrival between two of their own, but descended it 1000ft below their sequence to the equivalent of 1500ft QNH as soon as they could. They vectored it onto the 08 final approach track and threw/handed it over to ‘Northolt GCA’ (as we were known to them) at about 8NM final at 1500ft on a then diverging track from the 10L arrivals. They wouldn’t lose a landing slot as they kept their own 10L sequence running with a 3000ft QNH glidepath intercept at 9NM so that 1000ft (plus) vertical separation was always present with the option of descending to 2500ft for ILS glidepath intercept if the need arose until 3NM lateral separation had been achieved.

Non-airways arrivals were vectored downwind – below the Heathrow pattern - at 1500ft QNH by Northolt Director who coordinated with Heathrow Approach who said “follow XYZ”, and you did - to the same effect as described above. Although Northolt didn’t have SSR we had a 'dispensation' to identify tracks on their position report on leaving the holding beacons (BNN, LAM, OCK and BIG) by monitoring 119.2 and 119.5 and correlating primary returns with the position report.

We didn’t have a problem all the time I was there with these procedures (OK, so VU-QLG was always the exception that proved the rule but both Heathrow and Northolt were very judicious in handling that entity!) so I always wondered why the dog-leg approach was introduced; can someone enlighten me as to why this variation was introduced – I’ve always been intrigued?

[Danny42C]

MPN11 (#76),
..."carefully considered at PMC in the light of current performance reports. They didn't tend to just drop people into appointments"...
And there was little me, thinking they just used a pin (blindfold) ! It's a load off my mind !

Danny.

[MPN11]

MPN11 (#76),

And there was little me, thinking they just used a pin (blindfold) ! It's a load off my mind !
Of course not. Otherwise your proven skill, personality and deep experience wouldn't have been used as an Instructor at CATCS...

... or were you really too dangerous to be allowed near the front line? :) :)

I doubt all those out-of-Specialisation postings were done with a pin either, albeit that was a couple of decades later.

[Danny42C]

MPN11 (#79),
..."Of course not. Otherwise your proven skill, personality and deep experience wouldn't have been used as an Instructor at CATCS...

... or were you really too dangerous to be allowed near the front line?
It is said that: " 'Em as can, Do. 'Em as can't, Instruct. 'Em as can neither Do nor Instruct go on the Examining Board".

Nuff said ! Danny.

[airpolice]

MPN11 (#76),

And there was little me, thinking they just used a pin (blindfold) ! It's a load off my mind !

Danny.

Danny, of course they don't do it on that basis. What a preposterous suggestion!


It just looks that way, when you see who gets promoted.