Calling Mil Controllers
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pierre Argh
Thanks for clarifying for me....I am very surprised to hear that it if fairly normal practice for a single controller to be working 3 or 4 multiple frequencies, I will certainly bear that in mind and will monitor the frequency rather than request a service.
Not ideal but better than being berated, I feel sorry for the controller who is working multiple frequencies, my personal experience leaves me with an impression that this could potentially be dangerous, lead to stressed out ATC staff and I wonder is "management" simply taking multi-tasking to extremes in order to "dump" on individuals ?
Why not a minimum of 1 controller per frequency ? I am sure there are enough people looking for these jobs, suspect the purse strings have been pulled too tight.
Thanks for clarifying for me....I am very surprised to hear that it if fairly normal practice for a single controller to be working 3 or 4 multiple frequencies, I will certainly bear that in mind and will monitor the frequency rather than request a service.
Not ideal but better than being berated, I feel sorry for the controller who is working multiple frequencies, my personal experience leaves me with an impression that this could potentially be dangerous, lead to stressed out ATC staff and I wonder is "management" simply taking multi-tasking to extremes in order to "dump" on individuals ?
Why not a minimum of 1 controller per frequency ? I am sure there are enough people looking for these jobs, suspect the purse strings have been pulled too tight.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfazed... thank you. To take up your suggestion...
For a start you have the matter of UHF and VHF frequencies and it would be impractical to have controllers on each doing the same task (e.g. sequencing recovery into the airfield).
Then, there is a need to band-box positions from time-to-time i.e. combining Approach & Director... hence the four frequencies I mentioned. It's not ideal, and would not normally be maintained during busy periods... but sometimes workload flairs up on a controller and can then take a while to offload.
If you find you are constantly getting berated by a particular unit, this can often be resolved by a telephone call, or better still an arranged visit to the unit; from which both sides might emerge with a better understanding of the others problems.
PLEASE DON'T take the option to monitor the frequency rather than check in as your "norm"... it means that you remain as "unknown" traffic to the controller (who is obliged to take increased separation on you)... and from your perspective you may be able to monitor one, maybe even two, of the frequencies in use... but will be unaware of activity on the others, and therefore unable to develop a "big picture".
Why not a minimum of 1 controller per frequency
Then, there is a need to band-box positions from time-to-time i.e. combining Approach & Director... hence the four frequencies I mentioned. It's not ideal, and would not normally be maintained during busy periods... but sometimes workload flairs up on a controller and can then take a while to offload.
If you find you are constantly getting berated by a particular unit, this can often be resolved by a telephone call, or better still an arranged visit to the unit; from which both sides might emerge with a better understanding of the others problems.
PLEASE DON'T take the option to monitor the frequency rather than check in as your "norm"... it means that you remain as "unknown" traffic to the controller (who is obliged to take increased separation on you)... and from your perspective you may be able to monitor one, maybe even two, of the frequencies in use... but will be unaware of activity on the others, and therefore unable to develop a "big picture".
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pierre
A certain DERA/Qinetiq airfield I once worked at (and indeed even a civil airfield I know quite well) had the ability to "cross-couple" the relevant VHF/UHF frequencies so you never had the problem of aircraft never hearing the other frequency the controller was working.
Now - the DERA airfield used the same MASCOT system that MoD airfields are fitted with to this day. Selecting the cross couple was done by selecting the "con"(? - the bottom button of the 3 on the Rx/Tx/? column) on each frequency you wanted to cross couple in addition to the Rx and Tx buttons. Isn't it about time, from a flight safety point of view, that this option was actively investigated and installed. It would stop the constant frequency hopping when positions are bandboxed, and stop the oft said remark that was made to unfazed.
A certain DERA/Qinetiq airfield I once worked at (and indeed even a civil airfield I know quite well) had the ability to "cross-couple" the relevant VHF/UHF frequencies so you never had the problem of aircraft never hearing the other frequency the controller was working.
Now - the DERA airfield used the same MASCOT system that MoD airfields are fitted with to this day. Selecting the cross couple was done by selecting the "con"(? - the bottom button of the 3 on the Rx/Tx/? column) on each frequency you wanted to cross couple in addition to the Rx and Tx buttons. Isn't it about time, from a flight safety point of view, that this option was actively investigated and installed. It would stop the constant frequency hopping when positions are bandboxed, and stop the oft said remark that was made to unfazed.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK sometimes
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli Monster,
We were discussing that very point at my unit just last week, when the MASCOT first came in we did indeed cross couple the frequencies. Can't really remember when or why it stopped. Mentioned it to ground radio at this unit and they are looking into it. So hopefully soon it'll be back, at this unit at least!
We were discussing that very point at my unit just last week, when the MASCOT first came in we did indeed cross couple the frequencies. Can't really remember when or why it stopped. Mentioned it to ground radio at this unit and they are looking into it. So hopefully soon it'll be back, at this unit at least!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a fan of cross-coupling (behave!)... ours works (I've tried it briefly) but selecting it casues the Mascot console jams up after a while... blocking all frequencies and landlines (doh!).
But if someone can persuade the engineers to look into it once again that'd be good/progress/amazing (delete as appropriate?)
But if someone can persuade the engineers to look into it once again that'd be good/progress/amazing (delete as appropriate?)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technically it sounds like there is a workaround (albeit a bit flaky)
I will call up for service if controller sounds "normal" but if busy or obviously "stressed" then I will monitor frequency and unfortunately increase their stress as I will be "unknown traffic"
Works for me and keeps my day pleasant
I will call up for service if controller sounds "normal" but if busy or obviously "stressed" then I will monitor frequency and unfortunately increase their stress as I will be "unknown traffic"
Works for me and keeps my day pleasant
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checked out the possibility of cross coupling our mascot system at my current unit and got a resounding look of confusion. I was however, informed "we regularly did it at London" but no-one seems to have done it at a RAF terminal unit.
If it can be done on the mascot system, I would be interested to find out how (although might wait till a very quiet night before trying it out and completely screwing the system).
(I also now have visions of other units reading any reply, trying it themselves and completely paralysing every RAF tower at the same time! Oops)
If it can be done on the mascot system, I would be interested to find out how (although might wait till a very quiet night before trying it out and completely screwing the system).
(I also now have visions of other units reading any reply, trying it themselves and completely paralysing every RAF tower at the same time! Oops)
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RNG
All we had to do was select "Rx", "Tx", and "Con". You should have the red LED lit below the "Con" button. All the frequencies thus selected, with the LED's lit, were then coupled together.
However - check with your engineers first - this ability might be unit specific.
All we had to do was select "Rx", "Tx", and "Con". You should have the red LED lit below the "Con" button. All the frequencies thus selected, with the LED's lit, were then coupled together.
However - check with your engineers first - this ability might be unit specific.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli
your desrciption of how to activate it is spot on... but Ground Radio in our Tower have been instructed to pull the cross-couple boards... so that we cannot jam up the system.
It would certainly benefit from further investigation, but is now likely to involve persuading Henlow (or wherever) of a fresh need... Good luck?
your desrciption of how to activate it is spot on... but Ground Radio in our Tower have been instructed to pull the cross-couple boards... so that we cannot jam up the system.
It would certainly benefit from further investigation, but is now likely to involve persuading Henlow (or wherever) of a fresh need... Good luck?
