Mil ATC Careers
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North of Birmingham by a lot
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for hijacking the thread!
Widger, your answer (so long as this doesn't turn into a widger waving contest (see what I've done there?? Do ya, do ya??!!))
If you're just fishing for a bite then all you've done is waste 10 minutes of my time...........if however, you'd like a sensible answer, read on..............
Do I detect that you feel I am trying to blow the "our job is harder than yours" FC trumpet? If so, that was not my intention at all. I would suggest that both FC, civil & mil controllers have similar aptitudes and probably abilities, but that FCs are (excluding Flight Safety) basically trying to achieve different aims to all the other ATS providers in the vicinity. I think that doing a 8 v 30 or so CQWI mission in OTA 'E' purely requires different training to doing LARS in the VoY (respect due!), or a busy sector at the NERC. All are challenging for different reasons. Now, if you contend that your job is more difficult / challenging / important than ours then that's fine, please carry on!
PS: Just checked the log book, within the last 5 years I have on 23 occasions controlled one side or the other of a more than 8 v more than 20. Also, have supervised both sides of such sorties on 17 occasions. CQWI, JMC, TACEVALs etc, both in Class B, G and in MDAs. Don't claim to be a world authority, but do feel this qualifies me to air a view! Also, within the last year, I have spent 6 days at ScOACC, 4 days at ABZ and 1 day at NCL, so I feel that although I'm bound to be slightly FC biased, I have gone and seen the other side and have some appreciation of what's going on in the wider world!
Regards, ADIS
Widger, your answer (so long as this doesn't turn into a widger waving contest (see what I've done there?? Do ya, do ya??!!))
If you're just fishing for a bite then all you've done is waste 10 minutes of my time...........if however, you'd like a sensible answer, read on..............
Do I detect that you feel I am trying to blow the "our job is harder than yours" FC trumpet? If so, that was not my intention at all. I would suggest that both FC, civil & mil controllers have similar aptitudes and probably abilities, but that FCs are (excluding Flight Safety) basically trying to achieve different aims to all the other ATS providers in the vicinity. I think that doing a 8 v 30 or so CQWI mission in OTA 'E' purely requires different training to doing LARS in the VoY (respect due!), or a busy sector at the NERC. All are challenging for different reasons. Now, if you contend that your job is more difficult / challenging / important than ours then that's fine, please carry on!
PS: Just checked the log book, within the last 5 years I have on 23 occasions controlled one side or the other of a more than 8 v more than 20. Also, have supervised both sides of such sorties on 17 occasions. CQWI, JMC, TACEVALs etc, both in Class B, G and in MDAs. Don't claim to be a world authority, but do feel this qualifies me to air a view! Also, within the last year, I have spent 6 days at ScOACC, 4 days at ABZ and 1 day at NCL, so I feel that although I'm bound to be slightly FC biased, I have gone and seen the other side and have some appreciation of what's going on in the wider world!
Regards, ADIS
ADIS,
Forgive me old chum..but who started throwing stones first.....something about tanking??.....and not for the first time I might add.
I appreciate the fact that you have been out and about, good for you, but you also imply that I haven't.
Anyway this is boring for all the others, lets just slag Total War off.
Computer says no!
Forgive me old chum..but who started throwing stones first.....something about tanking??.....and not for the first time I might add.
I appreciate the fact that you have been out and about, good for you, but you also imply that I haven't.
Anyway this is boring for all the others, lets just slag Total War off.
Computer says no!
Boys boys calm down!
10 years from now Mil area ATC will cease to exist. Terminal will be a case of a large number of AVOs filling slots on airfields, with a smaller number of the rest of us full timers, back into the world, having a quick couple of weeks rest in blues, in between dets. Anyone who thinks different is just not with it. When the army go, they go as a unit. Infantry, admin, police, medics etc. That is what we're going towards because it makes most sense for the cheapskates. Sorry, politicians!
FC vs ATC. Yes well done you've controlled a 2vs 500 trg sortie, I am impressed. Seriously I am, but is it realistic? No! The FC branch is going to have to give up and admit that their future lies in C2 onboard AWACS. The constant badgering of D&D and other Units just proves that you're trying to justify your existance post 11 09 01. Sorry, harsh words, but true! Will the branches be amalgamated? Of course they will. Because, from a bean counting point of view, with the level of threat (and lets be honest!) what we need is airspace managers aboard E3s.
As a total throwaway comment, I do like the fact that ADIS5000 admits that FCs throw away flt safety! Tee Hee!
Edited by Whowhenwhy for alcohol consumption!
10 years from now Mil area ATC will cease to exist. Terminal will be a case of a large number of AVOs filling slots on airfields, with a smaller number of the rest of us full timers, back into the world, having a quick couple of weeks rest in blues, in between dets. Anyone who thinks different is just not with it. When the army go, they go as a unit. Infantry, admin, police, medics etc. That is what we're going towards because it makes most sense for the cheapskates. Sorry, politicians!
FC vs ATC. Yes well done you've controlled a 2vs 500 trg sortie, I am impressed. Seriously I am, but is it realistic? No! The FC branch is going to have to give up and admit that their future lies in C2 onboard AWACS. The constant badgering of D&D and other Units just proves that you're trying to justify your existance post 11 09 01. Sorry, harsh words, but true! Will the branches be amalgamated? Of course they will. Because, from a bean counting point of view, with the level of threat (and lets be honest!) what we need is airspace managers aboard E3s.
As a total throwaway comment, I do like the fact that ADIS5000 admits that FCs throw away flt safety! Tee Hee!
Edited by Whowhenwhy for alcohol consumption!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North of Birmingham by a lot
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh no, it's all come back again and just when I was away to the mil forum in order to slag off Total War too!!
GONZ, I didn't say they were all ours!!
WWW, firstly, please read my post again:
"...but that FCs are (excluding Flight Safety) basically trying to achieve different aims to all the other ATS providers in the vicinity."
ie Flight Safety is a common aim for all ATS providers. (In common with all ATS providers, it is obviously also our over-riding aim.) There ends the English lesson!!
Secondly, if you think we need to justify our existence post 9/11 then you seriously need to come and have a visit to one of our units.
Thirdly, I do agree with your assumption that eventually the branches will be amalgamated. Given time, a staff officer somewhere will combine the early stages of training and then it's only a few steps on from there to a combined branch.
WIDGER, rest assured, you're totally asexual to me!!!
Regards all, ADIS
GONZ, I didn't say they were all ours!!
WWW, firstly, please read my post again:
"...but that FCs are (excluding Flight Safety) basically trying to achieve different aims to all the other ATS providers in the vicinity."
ie Flight Safety is a common aim for all ATS providers. (In common with all ATS providers, it is obviously also our over-riding aim.) There ends the English lesson!!
Secondly, if you think we need to justify our existence post 9/11 then you seriously need to come and have a visit to one of our units.
Thirdly, I do agree with your assumption that eventually the branches will be amalgamated. Given time, a staff officer somewhere will combine the early stages of training and then it's only a few steps on from there to a combined branch.
WIDGER, rest assured, you're totally asexual to me!!!
Regards all, ADIS
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: where should i be today????
Age: 57
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done a tour at Eastern Radar which involved much tanking and formation rejoins followed by a tour at CFSACO in Canada where I was fortunate to spend 3 weeks doing their 'quick and dirty' conversion trg from ATC to FC involving braodcast, tactical and close control, IMHO I see no reason why, with adequate trg, Coal Face controllers could not be dual qualified. After all, the bread and butter skills of a good radar director is heading appreciation, planning and the ability to re-plan when it all goes to rats-S*@*.
I wouldn't even mind a tour as an intercept controller myself if the locations were more appealing!!!!
Standing by for incoming rockets - but hey it's a free world. (and about the only thing we ain't taxed on ....yet)
I wouldn't even mind a tour as an intercept controller myself if the locations were more appealing!!!!
Standing by for incoming rockets - but hey it's a free world. (and about the only thing we ain't taxed on ....yet)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North of Birmingham by a lot
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moony,
Different yes, however, as Widger so subtly pointed out earlier, a lot of our time is spent providing a loose form of tactical control where the aircrew make all their own height and heading decisions. Then we plan each run to keep it all in clear air, give target information and provide radar services. Personally I feel it’s just a different sort of challenge, no harder and no easier than any other ATC discipline.
REJ,
Agreed, I’d wouldn’t mind a shot at Approach or Aerodrome work. (Really all I’m after is to be able to look out of a window when working!) The problem being though, that at the moment, most FCs are lucky to get 2 full tours as controllers before being whisked off for greater (??) things. Therefore, until we bring in Spec Controllers, the likely returns for the Service of cross training people would be minimal and I can’t see it happening on our side at least. I think the more likely long-term option is that we’ll have a common branch where most people specialise. That could mean a possible ‘creaming off’ after basic training of those controllers with the most capacity to E-3s and would also allow anyone who fails any control course to become a Surveillance specialist. There you are, it’s all sorted……sir, sir, come and listen to my super-dooper new idea!!!!!!!!!
Regards, ADIS
Different yes, however, as Widger so subtly pointed out earlier, a lot of our time is spent providing a loose form of tactical control where the aircrew make all their own height and heading decisions. Then we plan each run to keep it all in clear air, give target information and provide radar services. Personally I feel it’s just a different sort of challenge, no harder and no easier than any other ATC discipline.
REJ,
Agreed, I’d wouldn’t mind a shot at Approach or Aerodrome work. (Really all I’m after is to be able to look out of a window when working!) The problem being though, that at the moment, most FCs are lucky to get 2 full tours as controllers before being whisked off for greater (??) things. Therefore, until we bring in Spec Controllers, the likely returns for the Service of cross training people would be minimal and I can’t see it happening on our side at least. I think the more likely long-term option is that we’ll have a common branch where most people specialise. That could mean a possible ‘creaming off’ after basic training of those controllers with the most capacity to E-3s and would also allow anyone who fails any control course to become a Surveillance specialist. There you are, it’s all sorted……sir, sir, come and listen to my super-dooper new idea!!!!!!!!!
Regards, ADIS
You know it's amazing what you think you read when you're 3 sheets to the wind isn't it? Sorry. Further apologies to Widger, it's just that I'm a venusian and can't see past the end of my nose. But why would any self-respecting martian choose a monicker like widger?? A story perhaps??
As far as the job is concerned, certainly there is scope (no pun intended) for the IDO job to remain in it's current guise. But I would have thought that a rationalization (big word for me) of the weps side of the house was called for. Apart from a trg environment, the old days of 8 vs 20 are gone. I'm guessing that even your 8 vs 20 was talking about the whole strike package, muds, wild weasel, counter-air and dedicated jammers, rather than an actual 8 vs 20 turning fight? Yes keep enough weps guys to feed the E3 fleet but we do need to move away from the old Cold War thing.
As a bolt on to your idea though ADIS, when you lot move to Scampton and they close Kinloss, how about moving the ARCC, MCC and the 2 D&Ds in with you lot? Elements of the jobs require a lot of coordination between the agencies, save money long-term and you could have a proper UK airspace C2 centre? Military area radar will all but have ceased to exist by then, having gone to the civvies. Install area qualified controllers at certain airfields and you could provide a limited airways crossing service.
I think I'd better go and sit down, all that thinking has given me a sore head.
As far as the job is concerned, certainly there is scope (no pun intended) for the IDO job to remain in it's current guise. But I would have thought that a rationalization (big word for me) of the weps side of the house was called for. Apart from a trg environment, the old days of 8 vs 20 are gone. I'm guessing that even your 8 vs 20 was talking about the whole strike package, muds, wild weasel, counter-air and dedicated jammers, rather than an actual 8 vs 20 turning fight? Yes keep enough weps guys to feed the E3 fleet but we do need to move away from the old Cold War thing.
As a bolt on to your idea though ADIS, when you lot move to Scampton and they close Kinloss, how about moving the ARCC, MCC and the 2 D&Ds in with you lot? Elements of the jobs require a lot of coordination between the agencies, save money long-term and you could have a proper UK airspace C2 centre? Military area radar will all but have ceased to exist by then, having gone to the civvies. Install area qualified controllers at certain airfields and you could provide a limited airways crossing service.
I think I'd better go and sit down, all that thinking has given me a sore head.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been briefly mentioned before, Mil Area ATCO's will cease to exist in the future. Therefore Mil ATCO's will only be doing terminal work and a radar with only an 40NM radius ain't much use for doing intercepts!
BD
BD
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been briefly mentioned before, Mil Area ATCO's will cease to exist in the future.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPrune Radar
Are you sure about that?
1) SACTA for LACC (including TC) doesn't come in until 2012 at the earliest.
2) The military for LACC SACTA has literally only just been given a peek at it.
3) OK nPC will have it in 2009 but who knows how things will go after that ;-)
4) LACC SACTA will be one size fits all and in a single combined Ops Room AC/TC/FMARS, so nothing particularly special for the Mil.
5) The head honchos at former MATO, now 3 Gp are the ones who started the talk about transferring the task to civil. IMO it makes sense 'cause the job they're doing can be done by civil, no need to have highly trained (in things military as well as Area ATC) blue suiters doing a non war type task. Could easily go the way it did at Clutch Radar.
BD
1) SACTA for LACC (including TC) doesn't come in until 2012 at the earliest.
2) The military for LACC SACTA has literally only just been given a peek at it.
3) OK nPC will have it in 2009 but who knows how things will go after that ;-)
4) LACC SACTA will be one size fits all and in a single combined Ops Room AC/TC/FMARS, so nothing particularly special for the Mil.
5) The head honchos at former MATO, now 3 Gp are the ones who started the talk about transferring the task to civil. IMO it makes sense 'cause the job they're doing can be done by civil, no need to have highly trained (in things military as well as Area ATC) blue suiters doing a non war type task. Could easily go the way it did at Clutch Radar.
BD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys all (non gender specific),
Isn't it interesting how an initial thread aimed at the lack of direction and vision eminating from the HQ formally known as MATO has evolved into the eternal debate of amalgamtion between ATC and FC? Maybe, if we got together and resolved our differences and formulated a cohesive plan of action neither specialisation would be threatened by the bean counters and we could actually become and essential military asset without which expeditionary warfare would not be possible by the British military. Unfortunately the cold war warriors who still rule our roost are only interested in maximising their pensions, redundancy or PVR whilst ensuring they've lined their nests before moving on! Are there any high fliers out there who still care about our future?
Isn't it interesting how an initial thread aimed at the lack of direction and vision eminating from the HQ formally known as MATO has evolved into the eternal debate of amalgamtion between ATC and FC? Maybe, if we got together and resolved our differences and formulated a cohesive plan of action neither specialisation would be threatened by the bean counters and we could actually become and essential military asset without which expeditionary warfare would not be possible by the British military. Unfortunately the cold war warriors who still rule our roost are only interested in maximising their pensions, redundancy or PVR whilst ensuring they've lined their nests before moving on! Are there any high fliers out there who still care about our future?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North of Birmingham by a lot
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airdrop,
If you don’t mind an FC sticking his nose back into what I agree is essentially an Ops Spt (ATC) thread!!
To come back to something I touched on earlier, you guys ought to get your Gp staff to wander down the corridor to our Gp staffs’ end! Our lot are moving us out of the bunkers, have increased our expeditionary capabilities, given us extra radars, improved some of the existing capabilities, introduced totally new (and actually pretty good) equipment, gone to single phase training and also not done too bad a job of keeping us on the E-3. I for one am fairly happy with most of the Gp driven inputs that have appeared in recent years. (Please note: I’m not a Gp groupie! (Ha, ha!!), have always been a coal face controller type and would certainly not pretend that everything Gp does is great.)
Totally agree that, as it appears to an outsider, the blokes formerly known as MATO need to act pronto before the mil presence at ACCs is seen as too expensive for the bean counters. Surely FTRS is the cheapest way to provide a uniformed mil area function? If a uniformed presence is not required, is it cheaper to pay NATS to do it? Additionally, if you were to lose the slots at Area surely it’s only a short step to someone asking why we must have blue-suiters at our airfields? Also, think of the FI and the Gulf where FC’s have been delegated ‘Area type’ tasks; unavoidable but surely not ideal for the ATC branch?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not ATC bashing, but as an outsider I think that the logical conclusion to your own opening post is that eventually we’ll end up with a combined branch. This is regardless of whether or not your high fliers appear! Some of our slots on the E-3 will go to aircrew; some of your slots at Area and / or airfields will surely go. If the Service keeps down-sizing we could also start to lose more slots at our CRCs. Both our critical masses could eventually be too small to maintain fully separate support staff and training and then bingo…..combined branch! Whadya think??
Regards, ADIS
If you don’t mind an FC sticking his nose back into what I agree is essentially an Ops Spt (ATC) thread!!
To come back to something I touched on earlier, you guys ought to get your Gp staff to wander down the corridor to our Gp staffs’ end! Our lot are moving us out of the bunkers, have increased our expeditionary capabilities, given us extra radars, improved some of the existing capabilities, introduced totally new (and actually pretty good) equipment, gone to single phase training and also not done too bad a job of keeping us on the E-3. I for one am fairly happy with most of the Gp driven inputs that have appeared in recent years. (Please note: I’m not a Gp groupie! (Ha, ha!!), have always been a coal face controller type and would certainly not pretend that everything Gp does is great.)
Totally agree that, as it appears to an outsider, the blokes formerly known as MATO need to act pronto before the mil presence at ACCs is seen as too expensive for the bean counters. Surely FTRS is the cheapest way to provide a uniformed mil area function? If a uniformed presence is not required, is it cheaper to pay NATS to do it? Additionally, if you were to lose the slots at Area surely it’s only a short step to someone asking why we must have blue-suiters at our airfields? Also, think of the FI and the Gulf where FC’s have been delegated ‘Area type’ tasks; unavoidable but surely not ideal for the ATC branch?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not ATC bashing, but as an outsider I think that the logical conclusion to your own opening post is that eventually we’ll end up with a combined branch. This is regardless of whether or not your high fliers appear! Some of our slots on the E-3 will go to aircrew; some of your slots at Area and / or airfields will surely go. If the Service keeps down-sizing we could also start to lose more slots at our CRCs. Both our critical masses could eventually be too small to maintain fully separate support staff and training and then bingo…..combined branch! Whadya think??
Regards, ADIS
Sorry to be so predictable...
...why must we have blue-suiters at our airfields? Other than maintaining a current TACATC cadre is there a good reason? IMHO I think there are several - but t'would be interesting to hear what others think.
surely it’s only a short step to someone asking why we must have blue-suiters at our airfields?
Give it 10 years and we'll deploy the same way as the army. When they go they take everything that they need with a few specialized Units added on as the NFU element. Police, medics, infantry, admin etc. We'll end up doing that, deploying with our stn based ac and leaving behind a care and maintenance crew. More AVOs or local volunteer reserve commitment, with a backbone of deployable troops, that can look after the Stn on a care and maintenance footing until everyone comes home for tea and medals.
I also don't think that Gp have got any problem in working out what to do to keep ATC as a viable element within our expeditionary force, but I think they might be having problems in getting all the money that they need to pay for everything.
BTW, I wasn't suggesting that Mil Area radar will go soon, but it's reasonable to assume that that in about the same timescale as mentioned above, we'll see a move towards it. By 2010 (I think it was said) we're only going to have 64 muds and 16 fighters. Not a lot of ac for Mil area radar to control!
I also don't think that Gp have got any problem in working out what to do to keep ATC as a viable element within our expeditionary force, but I think they might be having problems in getting all the money that they need to pay for everything.
BTW, I wasn't suggesting that Mil Area radar will go soon, but it's reasonable to assume that that in about the same timescale as mentioned above, we'll see a move towards it. By 2010 (I think it was said) we're only going to have 64 muds and 16 fighters. Not a lot of ac for Mil area radar to control!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: darn sarf
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, I wasn't suggesting that Mil Area radar will go soon, but it's reasonable to assume that that in about the same timescale as mentioned above, we'll see a move towards it. By 2010 (I think it was said) we're only going to have 64 muds and 16 fighters. Not a lot of ac for Mil area radar to control!
It's the AIRSPACE that the aircraft are in and the type of service they request. I'm sure that WWW is well aware that the order of priorities mean AREA controllers quite often have to bin MIL to work CIVVY.
It's the law!!......I don't agree with it but RULES IS RULES
Yep know all about the priorities list, just suggesting that with a reduction in fast-jet ac requiring operational freedom and with the further encroachment of CAS east over the top of Cottesmore, north over the top of Lakenheath etc, there's less need for area radar as it stands today. As civil ac become a higher % within the traffic mix and with a lot of the class G going, why have area radar as it now stands? It will certainly involve a change in the way that our civil ATCO brethren train and operate but if it's cheaper for the military to do and civil get the kickback of more CAS I'm sure that enough of the decision makers (notice not necessarily operators) will be happy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adis 5000
You raise some good points, and believe me plenty of us have been banging our heads about the HQ's reluctance to be pro active in its engagement with both your HQ and evolving our CONOPS to meet CinCs 2015 vision! Still, after this long I'm growing tired of getting bruises from said brick wall and like many, am wondering what news the next redundancy tranche will bring.
You raise some good points, and believe me plenty of us have been banging our heads about the HQ's reluctance to be pro active in its engagement with both your HQ and evolving our CONOPS to meet CinCs 2015 vision! Still, after this long I'm growing tired of getting bruises from said brick wall and like many, am wondering what news the next redundancy tranche will bring.