Mil/Civ Operations
Thread Starter
Mil/Civ Operations
A recent airprox commented on the lack of standardation between mil & civ procedures. Co-ordination, radar handover, interpretation of RIS/RAS are just some of the areas of difficulty.
Recently I was berated by a military controller for not passing the heading of an aircraft on a RAS. The aircraft was on its own navigation to a defined reporting point!
I was berated because I was not interested in the level of traffic co-ordinated against my VFR track some 12,000ft above!!
I was accused of being "unprofessional" because I did not use the phrase "co-ordination agreed" when co-ordinating traffic with the military.
I was told that agreeing to follow military traffic in a complex high density traffic situation was not co-ordination because we had not agreed levels.
Is it not time we sat around the table and sorted out these differences?
Recently I was berated by a military controller for not passing the heading of an aircraft on a RAS. The aircraft was on its own navigation to a defined reporting point!
I was berated because I was not interested in the level of traffic co-ordinated against my VFR track some 12,000ft above!!
I was accused of being "unprofessional" because I did not use the phrase "co-ordination agreed" when co-ordinating traffic with the military.
I was told that agreeing to follow military traffic in a complex high density traffic situation was not co-ordination because we had not agreed levels.
Is it not time we sat around the table and sorted out these differences?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And now you know why they don't automatically get civil licences 
Maybe it's time they realised they're not the majority airspace user, and so should do the job the way we do it - not expect us to do it their way all the time (Handing over aircraft on ridiculous QFE's, expecting a radar handover for each individual transit when you've already pre-noted it and obtained a squawk and frequency etc etc).
It's time the tail stopped wagging the dog.
Maybe it's time they realised they're not the majority airspace user, and so should do the job the way we do it - not expect us to do it their way all the time (Handing over aircraft on ridiculous QFE's, expecting a radar handover for each individual transit when you've already pre-noted it and obtained a squawk and frequency etc etc).
It's time the tail stopped wagging the dog.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't a handover required for a continuous radar service?
My understanding is that if a handover is not given then the radar service should be terminated, as it has not been confirmed whether the next radar unit has identified the aircraft.
I generally would give a handover on a RAS as I am trying to provide standard separation, on a RIS, I would call traffic out to about 10 / 15 miles ahead of the aircraft, cancel the service and then transfer the a/c.
Just my two penneth.
TIO
My understanding is that if a handover is not given then the radar service should be terminated, as it has not been confirmed whether the next radar unit has identified the aircraft.
I generally would give a handover on a RAS as I am trying to provide standard separation, on a RIS, I would call traffic out to about 10 / 15 miles ahead of the aircraft, cancel the service and then transfer the a/c.
Just my two penneth.
TIO
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recently I was berated by a military controller for not passing the heading of an aircraft on a RAS. The aircraft was on it's own navigation to a defined reporting point.
Simple solution in that case, ring off, and repeat these words to the aircraft, "freecall XXXX radar 123.45, good day." Let the mil guys sort it out.
I had a run in with a certain mil unit north east of us a few months ago, when I tried to give a radar handover with a C130 on a RIS with the usual weekend traffic operating to the NE of us. Then the dimwit at the other end started to give me traffic info and avoiding action to relay to the C130, despite the fact that none of the tfc he was calling was visible to me on my radar and the headings he was giving me were putting the aircraft in conflict with traffic I COULD see! I protested and he claimed he couldn't take a handover while there was conflicting traffic. Since we only had one radar position open, and I had my own commercial inbounds to give a service to, I rang off, put the C130 on his own nav, cancelled his radar service and told him to freecall the mil unit on any freq which took his fancy. At the rate things were going, he'd have been at the beacon before I got him transferred.
So not only do I have to pay taxes which keep these eejits in a job, but they expect me to do their job at the same time!!
I think not!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We learned an interesting fact in the last couple of weeks or so regarding the procedures our Navy colleagues have to follow when crossing airways.
Aircraft non squawking not talking to us are always taken as being beneath the Airway, our Navy colleagues apparently have to take avoiding action on those non squawkers.
We work very closely with Military ATCOs and I find them very helpful, it is the procedures they have to follow that are the issue, possibly introduced so long ago and simply not updated to deal with the traffic of today. To hand over traffic to a Military ATCO takes on average 3 times the length to a Civil ATCO.
It is a shame we seem to work to such contrary rules
Aircraft non squawking not talking to us are always taken as being beneath the Airway, our Navy colleagues apparently have to take avoiding action on those non squawkers.
We work very closely with Military ATCOs and I find them very helpful, it is the procedures they have to follow that are the issue, possibly introduced so long ago and simply not updated to deal with the traffic of today. To hand over traffic to a Military ATCO takes on average 3 times the length to a Civil ATCO.
It is a shame we seem to work to such contrary rules
Ey, ey ey, calm down, calm down.
Flower, I think I can expand on your comment. If you are talking about N864, then part of that airway is delegated to Cardiff ATC. Anyone other than CDF has to avoid non-squawkers because they may be on a procedural crossing with Cardiff. In the MoU there will be a comment such as Cardiff will try to inform other users of this situation, which is obviously not practical. This is why you may often get calls from other units asking if you have any procedural crossers. If you say no then they can legitimately deem that non-squawker as being below CAS.
On the subject of phraseology etc, it is an issue. This was brought to a head by a couple of Airprox where the civil controller "claimed" he did not understand what was being said to him! (raises eyebrow) Now you could read this as the controller in question trying to cover his arse. There was another (published) airprox where Boulmer used a phrase "I'll call you in" which confused the situation. I can confidently state that on the whole, military phraseology is much more strict than civil. This is because of the strict standards organisation in most units and the ATCEB visits.
It is however, an issue. Any controller should be in no doubt about what has been agreed. Comments like "cheers mate", "yeah that's fine" "no problem" etc. heard EVERY SINGLE DAY, have no place in a safety critical environment. A clear and unambiguous statement of intent is essential "cleared to cross at", "not above" "not below" are key elements. Some people can get anal and say that statements such as "co-ordination agreed" are not current phrases but, if it is clear then fine "I'll go behind the BRTXXX and the turn north to climb".... a clear statement of intent.
On the subject of not seeing traffic on radar, that is a difficult subject. If you are the receiving controller and the aircraft is in confliction, you cannot just ignore it! Team game everyone, safe and expeditious flow etc.
The bottom line is..there are plonkers in both civil and military ATC. There are also a lot of hard working and highly professional people around. If you talk to one of the plonkers, resolve it, get your units together and talk about the issues. We live on a very small island, with extremely busy airspace, all trying to do our respective tasks, military working civil aircraft and civil working military. It has worked very well for decades and is the envy of most of the rest of the world. The system has it's faults but nothing we cannot sort out!
Flower, I think I can expand on your comment. If you are talking about N864, then part of that airway is delegated to Cardiff ATC. Anyone other than CDF has to avoid non-squawkers because they may be on a procedural crossing with Cardiff. In the MoU there will be a comment such as Cardiff will try to inform other users of this situation, which is obviously not practical. This is why you may often get calls from other units asking if you have any procedural crossers. If you say no then they can legitimately deem that non-squawker as being below CAS.
On the subject of phraseology etc, it is an issue. This was brought to a head by a couple of Airprox where the civil controller "claimed" he did not understand what was being said to him! (raises eyebrow) Now you could read this as the controller in question trying to cover his arse. There was another (published) airprox where Boulmer used a phrase "I'll call you in" which confused the situation. I can confidently state that on the whole, military phraseology is much more strict than civil. This is because of the strict standards organisation in most units and the ATCEB visits.
It is however, an issue. Any controller should be in no doubt about what has been agreed. Comments like "cheers mate", "yeah that's fine" "no problem" etc. heard EVERY SINGLE DAY, have no place in a safety critical environment. A clear and unambiguous statement of intent is essential "cleared to cross at", "not above" "not below" are key elements. Some people can get anal and say that statements such as "co-ordination agreed" are not current phrases but, if it is clear then fine "I'll go behind the BRTXXX and the turn north to climb".... a clear statement of intent.
On the subject of not seeing traffic on radar, that is a difficult subject. If you are the receiving controller and the aircraft is in confliction, you cannot just ignore it! Team game everyone, safe and expeditious flow etc.
The bottom line is..there are plonkers in both civil and military ATC. There are also a lot of hard working and highly professional people around. If you talk to one of the plonkers, resolve it, get your units together and talk about the issues. We live on a very small island, with extremely busy airspace, all trying to do our respective tasks, military working civil aircraft and civil working military. It has worked very well for decades and is the envy of most of the rest of the world. The system has it's faults but nothing we cannot sort out!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not time we sat around the table and sorted out these differences?
What's clear though is there's always 2 sides to every story so if you don't understand the other saide, go visit - you might be surprised at what you see
RT
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Team game everyone, Safe and expeditious flow etc
Now, that said, it was not the C130 driver's fault, and I don't want to give them a bad service, they are after all, entitled to the best service I can provide. But even they, as pilots, will understand that I must provide my own inbounds and outbounds with my full attention. Something I cannot do when Johnny Eagle Eyes at the other end of the line is jabbering in my ear with avoiding action that is unnecessary under the terms of the service I am providing.
As for the large mil seafaring unit to my south, they seem to understand such things and cause no such problems.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flower, I think I can expand on your comment. If you are talking about N864, then part of that airway is delegated to Cardiff ATC. Anyone other than CDF has to avoid non-squawkers because they may be on a procedural crossing with Cardiff. In the MoU there will be a comment such as Cardiff will try to inform other users of this situation, which is obviously not practical. This is why you may often get calls from other units asking if you have any procedural crossers. If you say no then they can legitimately deem that non-squawker as being below CAS.
The only time we once had a non squawker ( I can't quite remember why but it was some emergency I believe ) we had to inform all possible users of the airspace ie those who have autonomous use of the Airway, so it isn't infact an issue at all.
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger, do you have any idea how the civil system works?
Yes we have enough staff to cover our 'license' requirements, but that doesn't mean the LARS radar position ie RAD2, has to be open at all times, we just combine functions when it suits. That 'combining' of functions does not, however, take into account some ass at a nearby mil unit adding to our workload for no good reason.
Yes we have enough staff to cover our 'license' requirements, but that doesn't mean the LARS radar position ie RAD2, has to be open at all times, we just combine functions when it suits. That 'combining' of functions does not, however, take into account some ass at a nearby mil unit adding to our workload for no good reason.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear in mind Widger that civil units don't have the luxury of the defence budget to staff a tower with:
Ground
Tower
Zone
Director
Talkdown
Approach
Supervisor
plus 3 or 4 assistants
Many ADC/APR units will get along with 2 on position plus a rotating relief - often pushing as much traffic as a busy military unit.
Welcome to the real world
Ground
Tower
Zone
Director
Talkdown
Approach
Supervisor
plus 3 or 4 assistants
Many ADC/APR units will get along with 2 on position plus a rotating relief - often pushing as much traffic as a busy military unit.
Welcome to the real world
I spose it was time that this knackered old topic was trotted-out again! The nail has been hit firmly on the head in an earlier post; visit one anothers' units!!!
As usual a lot of old cock has been spouted in other replies.
Fact - some mil controllers are t*ssers
Fact - some civ controllers are t*ssers
Fact - most mil controllers do a thoroughly professional job within their rules/regulations
Fact - most civ controllers do a thoroughly professional job within their rules/regulations
Fact - the rules/regulations are virtually identical
Fact - some people are not so good at remembering, interpreting and applying said rules/regulations on a day-to-day basis.
High horse stabled.
As usual a lot of old cock has been spouted in other replies.
Fact - some mil controllers are t*ssers
Fact - some civ controllers are t*ssers
Fact - most mil controllers do a thoroughly professional job within their rules/regulations
Fact - most civ controllers do a thoroughly professional job within their rules/regulations
Fact - the rules/regulations are virtually identical
Fact - some people are not so good at remembering, interpreting and applying said rules/regulations on a day-to-day basis.
High horse stabled.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we not all bound to give the same standard of LARS service, or is it only when your budget and interest factor allows?
And would Standard Noise be an "eejit" controller not understanding the rules of handover on RIS/RAS from the same Lulsgate that refused to take a handover on commerial traffic inbound to them under a RAS (that I had kindly taken from Sector 6 to give a more expeditious route from the Channel Islands to Bristol due to time/fuel constraints across our danger areas - nice seagoing mil blokes that we are) because he was too busy with 4 ahead (he had time to tell me that!), despite the aircraft being only 10 miles south of him at FL80 and getting towards the edge of my radar cover.
Maybe thats why he doesn't have much contact from the dockyard controllers too often.
Can't be easy being perfect......
(And in my current job I dream of only 5 on at times!)
And would Standard Noise be an "eejit" controller not understanding the rules of handover on RIS/RAS from the same Lulsgate that refused to take a handover on commerial traffic inbound to them under a RAS (that I had kindly taken from Sector 6 to give a more expeditious route from the Channel Islands to Bristol due to time/fuel constraints across our danger areas - nice seagoing mil blokes that we are) because he was too busy with 4 ahead (he had time to tell me that!), despite the aircraft being only 10 miles south of him at FL80 and getting towards the edge of my radar cover.
Maybe thats why he doesn't have much contact from the dockyard controllers too often.
Can't be easy being perfect......
(And in my current job I dream of only 5 on at times!)
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RNGrommits- very good, best laugh I've had in ages. There's nowt like a drain on the taxpayer who's lost his sense of humour!
If you're talking about a certain thundery afternoon about two weeks ago, then no, I won't accept traffic coming direct through the FIR, just so the airline involved can save a few quid. There was a perfectly acceptable alternative route for those aircraft (SAM-CPT-BRI) if they weren't happy flying their normal route (BHD-EXM-BRI). If they wanted to leave CAS NE of SAM and come direct BRI, we will accomodate if we can, but that means if the FIR south of us is relatively quiet. 99% of my colleagues at BRS will back me up on that. We're not in the business of risking the safety of our inbounds and outbounds just so an airline can save a few bob. There can be up to 4 different Mil units operating a/c to the south of us, and we simply don't have time to coordinate with all of them about everything in the FIR as well as avoiding the other unknown puddle jumpers. On that afternoon, Sector 6 gave one of our inbounds to Lon Mil who attempted to hand the a/c off to me south of DY (with at least a dozen contacts unknown to me operating between the a/c and our zone). I asked my ATSA to tell them that "no, I won't accept that a/c there, tell them to put it to DY" because yes, I had other commercial movements to think about and didn't believe I could devote enough time to that one particular inbound such was the level of attention it would have required.
What did Lon Mil do? Well, they threw the toys out of the pram, and very, very professional chaps that they are
, freecalled the inbound to me in the middle of the FIR, while he was surrounded by multiple contacts (five of which I knew to be Mil fast jets operating unpredictably from 40-240, but only cos those decent spuds at Boscombe let us in on the joke), and without any semblance of a handover at all. I suppose that means that if we don't play by the Mil rules, they decide just to make up new ones!
Then, when I had time, I phoned the Sector 6 planner and asked him to inform all inbounds likely to want the same route that I would accept them routing SAM-CPT-BRI or not at all. Funny how they all then followed this route without so much as a squeak. And no, I haven't had any complaints from my boss either, oh, and he's an ex-mil ATCO. Funny enough so are a few of my colleagues.
You see RNG when you work in the civil world, you have a different set of priorities that go along the lines of safety, expedition consistent with that safety, ond order. If you think we at BRS need improving in those areas, then come along, bring your little yellow licence, and have a go.
If you're talking about a certain thundery afternoon about two weeks ago, then no, I won't accept traffic coming direct through the FIR, just so the airline involved can save a few quid. There was a perfectly acceptable alternative route for those aircraft (SAM-CPT-BRI) if they weren't happy flying their normal route (BHD-EXM-BRI). If they wanted to leave CAS NE of SAM and come direct BRI, we will accomodate if we can, but that means if the FIR south of us is relatively quiet. 99% of my colleagues at BRS will back me up on that. We're not in the business of risking the safety of our inbounds and outbounds just so an airline can save a few bob. There can be up to 4 different Mil units operating a/c to the south of us, and we simply don't have time to coordinate with all of them about everything in the FIR as well as avoiding the other unknown puddle jumpers. On that afternoon, Sector 6 gave one of our inbounds to Lon Mil who attempted to hand the a/c off to me south of DY (with at least a dozen contacts unknown to me operating between the a/c and our zone). I asked my ATSA to tell them that "no, I won't accept that a/c there, tell them to put it to DY" because yes, I had other commercial movements to think about and didn't believe I could devote enough time to that one particular inbound such was the level of attention it would have required.
What did Lon Mil do? Well, they threw the toys out of the pram, and very, very professional chaps that they are
, freecalled the inbound to me in the middle of the FIR, while he was surrounded by multiple contacts (five of which I knew to be Mil fast jets operating unpredictably from 40-240, but only cos those decent spuds at Boscombe let us in on the joke), and without any semblance of a handover at all. I suppose that means that if we don't play by the Mil rules, they decide just to make up new ones!Then, when I had time, I phoned the Sector 6 planner and asked him to inform all inbounds likely to want the same route that I would accept them routing SAM-CPT-BRI or not at all. Funny how they all then followed this route without so much as a squeak. And no, I haven't had any complaints from my boss either, oh, and he's an ex-mil ATCO. Funny enough so are a few of my colleagues.
You see RNG when you work in the civil world, you have a different set of priorities that go along the lines of safety, expedition consistent with that safety, ond order. If you think we at BRS need improving in those areas, then come along, bring your little yellow licence, and have a go.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please don't generalise. CB has hit the mark... If there is a problem with neighbouring airfields/units, the answer lies in liaison, not personal attack.
FACTS: Both sides work under slightly different interpretations of similar rules (right or wrong?), both work under slightly differing pressures, some have inflated egos, not everyone is the same.
... and Standard Noise believe it or not, similar priorities?
... regarding your specific scenario, the Sector Controller let the traffic off-route in the first place... to help? Swanwick (Mil) would have accepted the traffic assuming they would be able to handover the traffic as it approaches the destination... to help.
The traffic was, I presume, pre-noted ahead of arrival and it is that point you can express any concerns you have if it is inconvenient. I don't doubt you were "one-armed paper hanging" with the traffic already in the zone, but you may have left Swanwick (Mil) with little option and certainly no solution, what did you expect them to do with the traffic?... although I agree a freecall isn't helpful. (IMHO they do not have the capacity they used to have when at West Drayton?).
For once, I agree this is the sort of problem caused by the routing of GAT through unregulated Class G airspace... but wake up to the facts, like it or not... it's happening more and more, wise or unwise it is not yet illegal, so ranting about it, and the people trying to make it work, is NOT the answer.
In the scenario, I believe everyone was trying to do what we do best i.e. help... This time it didn't work out for you... hopefully some lessons were learnt? Speaking to the Sector was the right action... did you speak to Swanwick(Mil) too? If this is a recurring problem, formulate an SOP, so then everyone knows what to expect and has options.
FACTS: Both sides work under slightly different interpretations of similar rules (right or wrong?), both work under slightly differing pressures, some have inflated egos, not everyone is the same.
... and Standard Noise believe it or not, similar priorities?
priorities that go along the lines of safety, expedition consistent with that safety, ond order
The traffic was, I presume, pre-noted ahead of arrival and it is that point you can express any concerns you have if it is inconvenient. I don't doubt you were "one-armed paper hanging" with the traffic already in the zone, but you may have left Swanwick (Mil) with little option and certainly no solution, what did you expect them to do with the traffic?... although I agree a freecall isn't helpful. (IMHO they do not have the capacity they used to have when at West Drayton?).
For once, I agree this is the sort of problem caused by the routing of GAT through unregulated Class G airspace... but wake up to the facts, like it or not... it's happening more and more, wise or unwise it is not yet illegal, so ranting about it, and the people trying to make it work, is NOT the answer.
In the scenario, I believe everyone was trying to do what we do best i.e. help... This time it didn't work out for you... hopefully some lessons were learnt? Speaking to the Sector was the right action... did you speak to Swanwick(Mil) too? If this is a recurring problem, formulate an SOP, so then everyone knows what to expect and has options.
Last edited by Pierre Argh; 15th Sep 2005 at 08:39.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Moon
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Up North the Mil at Lossie had a shot at being civil ATCO's providing radar !!! service for Inverness ( well at least monitoring traffic entering the INS hold).The trial has been so " succesful" ( for various reasons I imagine), that HIAL have put the service out for Civil tender ie HIAL inhouse,NATS or Serco.
I am not anti-Mil ( I gave a CFP to Scot Mil the other day ),however apart from the title of Air Traffic Controller I sometimes think Civil/Mil ATCO's have nothing in common.
Rgds
AyrTC
.
I am not anti-Mil ( I gave a CFP to Scot Mil the other day
),however apart from the title of Air Traffic Controller I sometimes think Civil/Mil ATCO's have nothing in common.Rgds
AyrTC
.
