Mil ATC Careers
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military ATC
With the greatest respect to many of those who have already posted their comments, surely we’ve done this topic to death many times before on other threads!!
Without wishing to second guess the findings, I imagine that the study currently underway by Air Cdre NW at 3 Gp will have a considerable impact on the future of both ATC & FC personnel, at the very least from an initial training perspective, but could well impact in many other areas as well. We will all have to wait for the report to be published, but given the planned size, shape and operational commitments of the RAF in the future, I would imagine it has to be fairly radical. After publication we will all be much better placed to comment on how best to achieve the reports recommendations.
Having served at MATO, albeit in the palatial comforts of Hillingdon House, I am loathe to criticise the ATC staff currently doing their level best in difficult circumstances at HQ 3 Gp. Too few people, often with relatively limited experience themselves, trying to juggle too many hot potatoes in the air is not the ideal recipe for effective staff work and thorough forward planning. I prefer to blame the system that has been imposed on these people, rather than the individuals concerned. I doubt many of those who complain about 3 Gp ATC would be capable of achieving much better themselves in similar circumstances.
Will Military Area Radar cease to exist in 10 years time - maybe and maybe not. The initial cost savings achieved by outsourcing Military Area Radar to NATS might appear to be attractive on the surface, but will come at a significant hidden cost to the military. Having military staff at Swanwick and the NSC, and paying for the facilities they use, allows the military to have a significant voice in the future direction and operating principles of these organisations. If the military were to outsource Area Radar Services, I have grave doubts whether the flexibility currently provided would be maintained for very long. Civil controllers prefer to work in regulated airspace and, as all military controllers know only too well, are often very reluctant to provide a RAS when appropriate. Also, it’s no secret that NATS are very short of controllers at Swanwick, so where exactly would the suitably experienced additional controllers come from to undertake the Military Area task? Additionally, who exactly would provide the D&D task? It couldn’t be changed over the same way as Clutch Radar, because there you had military controllers operating under a common licence who could become civil controllers at the stroke of a pen. In this country, under current regulations, it would take a fairly major change to the ANO to suddenly allow military controllers to change overnight to civil controllers, whilst still operating on their old military CofC.
ESAR5 is forcing the military in the right direction and not before time. IMHO ATC controllers, civil and military, are a national resource and should be trained to a common standard and operate on a common licence. This principle is accepted in many countries and works well, New Zealand is a good example. Of course convincing the Treasury bean counters that considerable additional training costs are suddenly necessary for military controllers will be impossible - unless it is backed up with compulsory European legislation, then they have no choice but to provide the necessary resources.
Other than a wider variety of postings, perhaps someone could explain to me exactly what are the additional benefits of completely amalgamating ATC & FC? Are there any savings that can be achieved? Cross training is both expensive and dilutes experience levels. Of course amalgamation does away with the ‘them & us’ arguments, but how can that be quantified in financial terms? I suggest those in favour of a complete amalgamation should talk to our Canadian colleagues and listen carefully to their opinions – the grass isn’t always greener. The FC organisation have been moving out of their bunkers mainly because the threat they were there to safeguard against has all but gone and they have successfully re-invented themselves as Battlespace Managers – an area that should also require considerable ATC input. Of course ATC staff should have been more involved in development of UK Battlespace Management, but at the time I doubt whether we were invited to participate or even had sufficient staff to spare.
The ATC organisation is still predominantly in Towers because the task is still there, albeit at a reduced rate, and furthermore it’s likely to be there for the foreseeable future. Of course we could consider outsourcing Terminal ATC – but perhaps the memories of some are rather short. There never has been a large pool of unemployed civil controllers in the UK who have either the appropriate experience or ability to undertake the Military terminal task – the Boscombe Down fiasco should serve as a reminder of how a good idea on paper, can rapidly hit the rocks when the day-to-day reality becomes exposed. What might work at a small UAS or helicopter base, simply isn’t going to work at a busy fast-jet unit. Of course we need more deployable assets, both in manpower and equipment, and this is finally being adequately addressed, but as well as an enhanced & enlarged TACATC, we will always need the majority of our staff at airfields.
So, if the reality is that we will need to employ the majority of military controllers for terminal ATC tasks for the foreseeable future – how we balance and structure our resources at these units is vitally important. Utilizing more AVO or FTRS staff could be part of the solution, but these individuals must be offset by sufficient regular personnel and finding the appropriate balance is something that must be thought through very carefully.
Finally, and most importantly for the future, we really must effectively address the difficulties ATC and FC have always had in attracting the right personnel in sufficient numbers. I have always believed that, as a step in the right direction, a combined distance learning & residential course, leading towards a Civil Aerodrome licence, should be part of any solution and would be an attractive ‘pull’ factor into military ATC. Either combined or separately, both ATC & FC organisations in the years ahead must offer a much more attractive career path to attract suitably talented personnel in sufficient numbers – something neither organization does at present. Unless this vital area is addressed correctly, any future changes to the ATC & FC organisations will be simply shuffling the deckchairs, whilst the iceberg still looms ever larger ahead.
Without wishing to second guess the findings, I imagine that the study currently underway by Air Cdre NW at 3 Gp will have a considerable impact on the future of both ATC & FC personnel, at the very least from an initial training perspective, but could well impact in many other areas as well. We will all have to wait for the report to be published, but given the planned size, shape and operational commitments of the RAF in the future, I would imagine it has to be fairly radical. After publication we will all be much better placed to comment on how best to achieve the reports recommendations.
Having served at MATO, albeit in the palatial comforts of Hillingdon House, I am loathe to criticise the ATC staff currently doing their level best in difficult circumstances at HQ 3 Gp. Too few people, often with relatively limited experience themselves, trying to juggle too many hot potatoes in the air is not the ideal recipe for effective staff work and thorough forward planning. I prefer to blame the system that has been imposed on these people, rather than the individuals concerned. I doubt many of those who complain about 3 Gp ATC would be capable of achieving much better themselves in similar circumstances.
Will Military Area Radar cease to exist in 10 years time - maybe and maybe not. The initial cost savings achieved by outsourcing Military Area Radar to NATS might appear to be attractive on the surface, but will come at a significant hidden cost to the military. Having military staff at Swanwick and the NSC, and paying for the facilities they use, allows the military to have a significant voice in the future direction and operating principles of these organisations. If the military were to outsource Area Radar Services, I have grave doubts whether the flexibility currently provided would be maintained for very long. Civil controllers prefer to work in regulated airspace and, as all military controllers know only too well, are often very reluctant to provide a RAS when appropriate. Also, it’s no secret that NATS are very short of controllers at Swanwick, so where exactly would the suitably experienced additional controllers come from to undertake the Military Area task? Additionally, who exactly would provide the D&D task? It couldn’t be changed over the same way as Clutch Radar, because there you had military controllers operating under a common licence who could become civil controllers at the stroke of a pen. In this country, under current regulations, it would take a fairly major change to the ANO to suddenly allow military controllers to change overnight to civil controllers, whilst still operating on their old military CofC.
ESAR5 is forcing the military in the right direction and not before time. IMHO ATC controllers, civil and military, are a national resource and should be trained to a common standard and operate on a common licence. This principle is accepted in many countries and works well, New Zealand is a good example. Of course convincing the Treasury bean counters that considerable additional training costs are suddenly necessary for military controllers will be impossible - unless it is backed up with compulsory European legislation, then they have no choice but to provide the necessary resources.
Other than a wider variety of postings, perhaps someone could explain to me exactly what are the additional benefits of completely amalgamating ATC & FC? Are there any savings that can be achieved? Cross training is both expensive and dilutes experience levels. Of course amalgamation does away with the ‘them & us’ arguments, but how can that be quantified in financial terms? I suggest those in favour of a complete amalgamation should talk to our Canadian colleagues and listen carefully to their opinions – the grass isn’t always greener. The FC organisation have been moving out of their bunkers mainly because the threat they were there to safeguard against has all but gone and they have successfully re-invented themselves as Battlespace Managers – an area that should also require considerable ATC input. Of course ATC staff should have been more involved in development of UK Battlespace Management, but at the time I doubt whether we were invited to participate or even had sufficient staff to spare.
The ATC organisation is still predominantly in Towers because the task is still there, albeit at a reduced rate, and furthermore it’s likely to be there for the foreseeable future. Of course we could consider outsourcing Terminal ATC – but perhaps the memories of some are rather short. There never has been a large pool of unemployed civil controllers in the UK who have either the appropriate experience or ability to undertake the Military terminal task – the Boscombe Down fiasco should serve as a reminder of how a good idea on paper, can rapidly hit the rocks when the day-to-day reality becomes exposed. What might work at a small UAS or helicopter base, simply isn’t going to work at a busy fast-jet unit. Of course we need more deployable assets, both in manpower and equipment, and this is finally being adequately addressed, but as well as an enhanced & enlarged TACATC, we will always need the majority of our staff at airfields.
So, if the reality is that we will need to employ the majority of military controllers for terminal ATC tasks for the foreseeable future – how we balance and structure our resources at these units is vitally important. Utilizing more AVO or FTRS staff could be part of the solution, but these individuals must be offset by sufficient regular personnel and finding the appropriate balance is something that must be thought through very carefully.
Finally, and most importantly for the future, we really must effectively address the difficulties ATC and FC have always had in attracting the right personnel in sufficient numbers. I have always believed that, as a step in the right direction, a combined distance learning & residential course, leading towards a Civil Aerodrome licence, should be part of any solution and would be an attractive ‘pull’ factor into military ATC. Either combined or separately, both ATC & FC organisations in the years ahead must offer a much more attractive career path to attract suitably talented personnel in sufficient numbers – something neither organization does at present. Unless this vital area is addressed correctly, any future changes to the ATC & FC organisations will be simply shuffling the deckchairs, whilst the iceberg still looms ever larger ahead.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mil ATC
MATOMAN,
A well informed and articulate essay on mil ATC. Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately the one error you have made, was the application of logic. I am willing to concur that the staff at 3Gp do the best they can with the resoursces thet have (maybe not at higher staff levels though). I also remember the hilarious results of Boscombe (good PR opportunity for mil ATC lost there!), and the lack of felxibility from civil ATCOs which is a key difference required to enable mil fg ops. However, the weight of these arguements (ie: achieving mil effect) will selodm win over the bean counters who ultimately determine mil policy. If it is cheaper to amalgamte ATC and FC, or civilianise elements, then that is what will happen! That is unless the branch makes itself as indispensable as say, the need for Typhoon!!!
A well informed and articulate essay on mil ATC. Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately the one error you have made, was the application of logic. I am willing to concur that the staff at 3Gp do the best they can with the resoursces thet have (maybe not at higher staff levels though). I also remember the hilarious results of Boscombe (good PR opportunity for mil ATC lost there!), and the lack of felxibility from civil ATCOs which is a key difference required to enable mil fg ops. However, the weight of these arguements (ie: achieving mil effect) will selodm win over the bean counters who ultimately determine mil policy. If it is cheaper to amalgamte ATC and FC, or civilianise elements, then that is what will happen! That is unless the branch makes itself as indispensable as say, the need for Typhoon!!!
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MATOMAN
I too thought it a well written piece. However you're viewing the future of civil area ATC from the current perspective with civil 'on route' and a military 'off route'. The intent in the future is to introduce very many more controller tools to simplify things for controllers and also allow more flexibility to aircraft instead of forcing them to fly on airways. Medium Term Conflict Alert, increased automation of the control task, flexible use of airspace, availibility of Mode 'S' to ATCO's etc. will all come in the foreseeable future. The start is in 2006 when the Upper Air comes down to FL195 and we're already seeing the benefits of FUA.
The benefits involved of sectorisation of the military area task has already made itself apparent to an enthusiastic air staff at 3Gp (witness Western Sunset and probably Eastern Sunrise). Civil ATCO recruitment is good and throughput at the college is improving as NATS concentrate on getting more bums on seats. The introduction of more automation and controller tools will inevitably mean that there will be capacity increases in UK airspace, which is in any case not being fully used at all times of the day as it is. There will be some fat in the not too distant future for NATS to absorb some military tasks.
As for D&D, its time this thorn was grasped. Why are military controllers working civil aircraft in emergency, particularly GA who are simply lost? Given the current access to data at GP consoles the military D&D task could, with few additional requirements, be handled from a GP console IMHO (held an Emergency endorsement for 6 years).
BD
I too thought it a well written piece. However you're viewing the future of civil area ATC from the current perspective with civil 'on route' and a military 'off route'. The intent in the future is to introduce very many more controller tools to simplify things for controllers and also allow more flexibility to aircraft instead of forcing them to fly on airways. Medium Term Conflict Alert, increased automation of the control task, flexible use of airspace, availibility of Mode 'S' to ATCO's etc. will all come in the foreseeable future. The start is in 2006 when the Upper Air comes down to FL195 and we're already seeing the benefits of FUA.
The benefits involved of sectorisation of the military area task has already made itself apparent to an enthusiastic air staff at 3Gp (witness Western Sunset and probably Eastern Sunrise). Civil ATCO recruitment is good and throughput at the college is improving as NATS concentrate on getting more bums on seats. The introduction of more automation and controller tools will inevitably mean that there will be capacity increases in UK airspace, which is in any case not being fully used at all times of the day as it is. There will be some fat in the not too distant future for NATS to absorb some military tasks.
As for D&D, its time this thorn was grasped. Why are military controllers working civil aircraft in emergency, particularly GA who are simply lost? Given the current access to data at GP consoles the military D&D task could, with few additional requirements, be handled from a GP console IMHO (held an Emergency endorsement for 6 years).
BD
If you had held an emergency endorsement for 6 years, you'd know that there is more that goes on than simply talking to ac on 243, 245.1 & 121.5. Tracing action is one of the biggest time consumers. How are you proposing to put that on a GP console? There are also a host of other activities, some of which are bolt ons following 9/11, that are incompatible with a normal controlling task.
As far as GA emergencies are concerned, NATS do not have the capacity to do the task, that's why they asked the military to do it. Yes there is scope for a big change in the way that the emergency organization is structured, but you're idea isn't it. Sorry!
As far as GA emergencies are concerned, NATS do not have the capacity to do the task, that's why they asked the military to do it. Yes there is scope for a big change in the way that the emergency organization is structured, but you're idea isn't it. Sorry!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Ickenham, Middlesex, UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that is easy to overlook when discussing the future of mil ATC is cost. It is cheaper to employ mil ATCOs than civil - otherwise, we'd all have been civilianised years ago. When the Gibraltar contract came up for renewal, the RAF could have made a cheaper bid and taken it back - you don't get cheaper than a sgt controller or an AvO - but did not want to.
This can also be extended to the ATC/FC debate. How can it be cheaper to train individuals in more skills which they may never get around to using?
Finally, as an ex-MATO and STC staff officer, I know from experience that the system is not perfect and some individuals could do better; however, it's easy to throw dirt when you haven't been there. Many individuals go to such posts thinking that they can change the world and the reality proves to be a bit of a disappointment. It's easy to have a crewroom rant but not necessarily very constructive.
This can also be extended to the ATC/FC debate. How can it be cheaper to train individuals in more skills which they may never get around to using?
Finally, as an ex-MATO and STC staff officer, I know from experience that the system is not perfect and some individuals could do better; however, it's easy to throw dirt when you haven't been there. Many individuals go to such posts thinking that they can change the world and the reality proves to be a bit of a disappointment. It's easy to have a crewroom rant but not necessarily very constructive.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whowhywhen:
Tracing action isn't a job that HAS to be done on console, that could be done elsewhere, same as many of the D&D admin type jobs like closing ranges etc. Dunno what the additional tasks since 9/11 are exactly but I'm sure they're bluntie type ones ;-)
As for lack of NATS capacity to handle GA emergencies, as I've stated its the big high heid yins at 3 Gp who are talking about devolving the military area task to civil. Through some money at it and like most 'problems' suddenly solutions appear :-)
sumosan:
One possibility where civilianisation of the Mil task becomes effectively cheaper is where the civil controller can also work a civil sector. No more hordes of Mil hanging around the crew room waiting for the odd flight to leap into the skies. Assimilation!
BD
Tracing action isn't a job that HAS to be done on console, that could be done elsewhere, same as many of the D&D admin type jobs like closing ranges etc. Dunno what the additional tasks since 9/11 are exactly but I'm sure they're bluntie type ones ;-)
As for lack of NATS capacity to handle GA emergencies, as I've stated its the big high heid yins at 3 Gp who are talking about devolving the military area task to civil. Through some money at it and like most 'problems' suddenly solutions appear :-)
sumosan:
One possibility where civilianisation of the Mil task becomes effectively cheaper is where the civil controller can also work a civil sector. No more hordes of Mil hanging around the crew room waiting for the odd flight to leap into the skies. Assimilation!
BD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sumosan,
Yes it is easy to cast stones, but since when is a crew room rant not constructive? You were around in the days when the crew room was just that, a room where people taking a break could discuss issues and learn from each other. The bean counters have ensured that the natural transfer of information from old and bold to the fresh meat in the crew room no longer takes place. Most crew rooms are now only occupied for the odd end of day social or leaving do at best. During the working day there might be 1 person in there doing their secondary duties! Consequently, such debates as the future of mil ATC and the age old moan at the Ivory Tower formally known as MATO is consigned to a civilian website! Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate in my view - you could always start your own thread saying how wonderful everything is in the world of mil ATC!!!
Yes it is easy to cast stones, but since when is a crew room rant not constructive? You were around in the days when the crew room was just that, a room where people taking a break could discuss issues and learn from each other. The bean counters have ensured that the natural transfer of information from old and bold to the fresh meat in the crew room no longer takes place. Most crew rooms are now only occupied for the odd end of day social or leaving do at best. During the working day there might be 1 person in there doing their secondary duties! Consequently, such debates as the future of mil ATC and the age old moan at the Ivory Tower formally known as MATO is consigned to a civilian website! Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate in my view - you could always start your own thread saying how wonderful everything is in the world of mil ATC!!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Ickenham, Middlesex, UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airdrop Charlie,
Actually, when I started out towers were lucky to have only a third of their posts vacant! However, there were many more (very) old and bold controllers around - remember Master Pilots?
I would never say that all is wonderful with Mil ATC - as an ATCO, moaning is ingrained - but it sure beats a real job!
Actually, when I started out towers were lucky to have only a third of their posts vacant! However, there were many more (very) old and bold controllers around - remember Master Pilots?
I would never say that all is wonderful with Mil ATC - as an ATCO, moaning is ingrained - but it sure beats a real job!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MATOMAN wrote - "Civil controllers prefer to work in regulated airspace and, as all military controllers know only too well, are often very reluctant to provide a RAS when appropriate. "
Not all of us are reluctant
- it's just that we're not allowed 
Some of us did cut our teeth in a past cold war so ain't scared of the big bad nasty Class G.
Anyway, the reason Mil ATC still exists is cheap labour. Market rate for anyone with radar skills is probably NATS rates or slightly higher. Mil rates are probably about 65-70% of that.
Which is why despite years of arguing MOD will not give you qualifications that can be recognised. Cos you'd all jump ship. Shame on them.
I too remember the Airwork/Boscombe fiasco - an early attempt at privatisation.
Truth is - there are still too few controllers on the civvie side (what with new sectors splitting and opening all the time) - so exactly where are NATS going to get ATCOs to do any military task .... ?
Hmmm... do I detect a new "Dundridge type" course for Mil Area controllers on the horizon? Or will they convince you to take a job at 60% of the market rate and just top it up with a mil pension ?
Not all of us are reluctant
- it's just that we're not allowed Some of us did cut our teeth in a past cold war so ain't scared of the big bad nasty Class G.
Anyway, the reason Mil ATC still exists is cheap labour. Market rate for anyone with radar skills is probably NATS rates or slightly higher. Mil rates are probably about 65-70% of that.
Which is why despite years of arguing MOD will not give you qualifications that can be recognised. Cos you'd all jump ship. Shame on them.
I too remember the Airwork/Boscombe fiasco - an early attempt at privatisation.
Truth is - there are still too few controllers on the civvie side (what with new sectors splitting and opening all the time) - so exactly where are NATS going to get ATCOs to do any military task .... ?
Hmmm... do I detect a new "Dundridge type" course for Mil Area controllers on the horizon? Or will they convince you to take a job at 60% of the market rate and just top it up with a mil pension ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PH-UKU
Of course that is the crux of the matter - cost and the relatively cheap mil ATCO. However, it would not be difficult to create a mil employment contract whereby for a pre-determined return of service, mil controllers would leave with a recognised licence. This would overcome a number of issues including our ability to control on operations overseas, recruitment incentives and job satisfaction. There will always be a number of people who wish to stay in the RAF, but for those who reach a career ceiling, the opportunity to leave with a valid qualification would make joining in the first place a reasonable option. We do it now with aircrew who can leave with an ATPL!! This would disarm the fear of people leaving because they're qualified outside - they would only get that recognition after the appropriate return of service! Surely a 21 yr old would be more attracted to the thought of serving in the RAF with all the opportunities it still offers knowing that at age xx they will leave with a recognised skill. Instead our recruitment posters say things like join the RAF as an RAF Regiment Gunner - salary £24K-£72K!!!
Of course that is the crux of the matter - cost and the relatively cheap mil ATCO. However, it would not be difficult to create a mil employment contract whereby for a pre-determined return of service, mil controllers would leave with a recognised licence. This would overcome a number of issues including our ability to control on operations overseas, recruitment incentives and job satisfaction. There will always be a number of people who wish to stay in the RAF, but for those who reach a career ceiling, the opportunity to leave with a valid qualification would make joining in the first place a reasonable option. We do it now with aircrew who can leave with an ATPL!! This would disarm the fear of people leaving because they're qualified outside - they would only get that recognition after the appropriate return of service! Surely a 21 yr old would be more attracted to the thought of serving in the RAF with all the opportunities it still offers knowing that at age xx they will leave with a recognised skill. Instead our recruitment posters say things like join the RAF as an RAF Regiment Gunner - salary £24K-£72K!!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheaper Military at Gibraltar
Oh Sumosan, How naive can you be ? Do you realy think that the military could run ATC at Gibraltar cheaper than the civvies !!
The military would put 15 ATCOs and 18 ATCAs in the tower. The civies would put 10 ATCOs and 8 ATCAs in the tower. (make your own coffee sir!!) Believe me, I know.
If the military thought that they could do it cheaper they would.
Are you a military ATCO? Wanna job in Jan 2006. Get a UK CAA ADC rating and if we have a vacancy I will pay for your APR rating course free. Then you could work at Gibraltar on £45,050 to £51,100 p.a and it would still be cheaper than employing military ATCOs. Tempting offer eh ?
Gisajob
The military would put 15 ATCOs and 18 ATCAs in the tower. The civies would put 10 ATCOs and 8 ATCAs in the tower. (make your own coffee sir!!) Believe me, I know.
If the military thought that they could do it cheaper they would.
Are you a military ATCO? Wanna job in Jan 2006. Get a UK CAA ADC rating and if we have a vacancy I will pay for your APR rating course free. Then you could work at Gibraltar on £45,050 to £51,100 p.a and it would still be cheaper than employing military ATCOs. Tempting offer eh ?
Gisajob
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mil ATC in Gib
Gisajob,
I imagine there's a whole host of reasons why the military have no wish to commit ATC staff to Gibraltar, but in the unlikely event that the powers that be did decide to return when the current contract ends, I imagine the establishment would be rather less than what you quoted, given the light traffic levels.
The biggest problem in posting someone to such a quiet unit is skill fade and even you would not venture to suggest it's as demanding as Gutersloh was in the late 1980's. It might suit some elderly types like myself in the twilight of their career, but would probably have less appeal to the more youthful individuals you really need to attract . Still your job offer is tempting ........ but hang on............................. doesn't it means having to work for Serco!?!
Perhaps remaining in uniform isn't all that bad after all.
Matoman
I imagine there's a whole host of reasons why the military have no wish to commit ATC staff to Gibraltar, but in the unlikely event that the powers that be did decide to return when the current contract ends, I imagine the establishment would be rather less than what you quoted, given the light traffic levels.
The biggest problem in posting someone to such a quiet unit is skill fade and even you would not venture to suggest it's as demanding as Gutersloh was in the late 1980's. It might suit some elderly types like myself in the twilight of their career, but would probably have less appeal to the more youthful individuals you really need to attract . Still your job offer is tempting ........ but hang on............................. doesn't it means having to work for Serco!?!
Perhaps remaining in uniform isn't all that bad after all.
Matoman
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharpen Up there !!
No Matoman,
You really must keep abreast of the changing times.
One will only need to work for Serco if they win the current contest for the contract which is between Serco, NATS and Safeskys.
But you are right about the nature of both the job and the temperatment of the ATCOs who should work there.
Ex-Gutersloh types will be bored !!
Gisajob
You really must keep abreast of the changing times.
One will only need to work for Serco if they win the current contest for the contract which is between Serco, NATS and Safeskys.
But you are right about the nature of both the job and the temperatment of the ATCOs who should work there.
Ex-Gutersloh types will be bored !!
Gisajob
