Military/Civilian coordination (again)

[flower]

Coordination with the Military isn't difficult or rocket science it is however time consuming, if though as suggested modifications have been made which reduce the time taken it really shouldn't be to hard to take on.

It is interesting that Civilian coordination is deemed sloppy or non existent by some Mil controllers on here, I find that coordination between civvy ATCOs quick and very efficient and haven't seen any problems with it.

[Wee Jock McPlop]

AYR TC,

Sorry, I thought you were talking about an experience whilst you were airborne!! Now I have the right end of the stick and agree with you wholeheartedly!! But you were talking to (trying to co-ordinate with) an FC - enough said!!

Best wishes,

WJMcP

[Toadpool]

Diddley Dee, I didn't say it was Military coordination that I find illogical, but I do find it long winded and unnecessarily cumbersome. I do understand that you have reasons for it, but I do think that there is room for streamlining it, without compromising safety.

I think that to require you to have a position report for every squawk because pilots sometimes forget to change squawk when going en-route to be a bit of overkill. OK, if you see 2 identical squawks on your screen, then by all means question it. There are also other methods of confirming the ident (squawk ident, new squawk, etc), without imposing this draconian increase in workload on you. Also, as part of our normal method of transferring and aircraft to another unit we will pass them our squawk and obtain one from them. Assuming that the aircraft is on a radar service rather than a FIS, both of these will be validated, so either can be used as an identification(at least by us). The chances of having two runaway squawks that match those being used are very remote.

Runaway squawks do sometimes happen to us, although it does not seem to be as much of a problem as for you. If it does happen, I always make sure that the next unit down the line is aware of it (party because I don't want them blaming me for working an aircraft bimbling through thier circuit ). I also steralise that squawk until I see it change, or sufficent time has passed that it should no longer be a problem.

Another option is when a pilot reports going en-route without changing squawk, a quick "negative" soon stops him/her. This would allow you to change the squawk before allowing them to leave the freq. I know this goes against the grain in military aviation, as I do have the feeling that the RAF, at least, is an organisation run by pilots for pilots (how many air commodore or above are not pilots?).

Is it also worth educating your pilots that when they go en-route, they must change squawk?

Standing by for incoming .

Our local procedures have changed as a precursor to the change being implemented nationally. I do still feel it is a backward step. I have no difficulty in confirming that it is coordination that I'm after, but I can't afford the time for it to take too long. We're also back to the situation we were in several years ago when we would get "but you coordinated with Director, not with Approach". Fair enough, but at the time we did not know that approach were going to depart traffic towards ours at a vast rate of knots. We did assume that as an ATCO at the Mil unit was aware of our traffic, that they would alert thier colleagues. This is why I feel it is better to have someone at the other unit who has the whole picture and is able to pass the information as appropriate.

London Mil, you're not too far out with your guess. So much for my anonimity. A fair proportion of the incidents to which you refer I think were caused by Military pilots flying too close to airliners despite having them in sight for some time. Unfortunately, we can coordinate and agree as much as we like, but if the pilot decides he is going to do something different, what then? There is 1 particular squadron at this airfield that is renown for operating in this manner, which causes as many problems for thier own ATC as for us.

Wee Jock McPlop, we do indeed have a LOA with the Mil unit, but as most of the conflictions occur in class g airspace, we still have to coordinate each IFR movement. We have also had regular liaison visit to them. Until recently this didn't seem to happen the other way. Now it is a requirement for all parties concerned to have at least 1 liaison visit to the other unit every 2 years. I think it is also a requirement for new starters before they go operational.

By the way I don't agree with your comments re traffic info. I would be quite happy to follow the procedure I mentioned in my previous post and treat that traffic as known until I lost the ident. I would not use 1000', to be on the safe side, but I wouldn't coordinate every conflicting track. I suppose we could argue that, to us, that would be coordination.

Magp1e, as I've stated above, the final approach tracks cross outside controlled airspace, so we can't have standing coordination (we tried).

Roger That, sorry I misread your post. I was only aware of the trail being carried out in Scotland. You seem to be in the know, out of interest which units were involved?

[London Mil]

Toadpool, thank you for the basic lesson in ATC. Have you ever thought about being an instructor?
As an area radar man, I would be a little worried if you believed that passing TI to one of our consols (lets say 15) would be percieved as being good enough for all the others in our ops room. As for you 'interpretation' of traffic info and known traffic, I am a little more concerned.

[rodan]

I have always found the military method of co-ordination and hand-over to be quick and accurate if you learn the patter. If you don't know what they're expecting you to say, and in what order, then it can be protracted and awkward. It seems (only occasionally) that some common sense is drilled out of baby mil controllers at Strawberry - the above 'But you co-ordinated with Director, not approach' is a good one. A couple more examples:

Mil: Request traffic information on your #1234 (no mode C) 5 miles south of Blahton.
Civ: That's a C150 on a FIS with me at 2A.
Mil: Ok, request co-ordination against my traffic, #6132, 3 miles north of Blahton, southbound, pair of F3s maintaining FL230.

Now the book may well say that you need to co-ordinate against traffic with no mode charlie, but a C150 is not going to climb 21000' in the next 60 seconds in this universe or any other. Lets be realistic. Here's another:

Civ: Handover RRR123, 10 miles south of Blahville, #6123, heading 140, climbing to 5A.
Mil: Contact, what service is he under?
Civ: (Not spoken: Well considering he's still in class D airspace, he's under) Radar control. (Not spoken: Duh.)

It's this sort of thing that can sometimes make the mil seem inflexible and rigid to us civvy cowboys. I'm sure the mil have their own entirely valid pet niggles with us as well, though.

[London Mil]

Rodan, Just out of interest, in the examples you quote:
a. Why bother telling the military guy that it is a C150 or even TOS? Waste of time. OK, I accept that the C150 isn't going to climb 20000ft in 30 seconds, but where do you draw the line? Would it be acceptable to use the same thought process with a Tucano, or a Citation, or even a Hawk? My point is that you have over complicated (and therefore increased risk) by thinking too hard about irrelevant detail. Alternatively, a quick confirmation of compliance with the 150, followed by a 'not above FL100' is far more helpful.
b. The aircraft in Class D may be VFR (ie not radar control). Secondly, you are obviously releasing the aircraft to the military controller in this situation as he is not allowed to provide an ATS in your CTR/CTA. Consequently, he is more interested in what TOS the aircraft wants when leaving CAS. A benevolent controller will have figured that one out before attempting to transfer communications.
My point is exactly the same as yours - it is easy to throw stones at fellow controllers but at bit more mutual understanding would often ease the tension.

[Diddley Dee]

TP

I left Leeming 5 years ago having spent 5 years there. We had a good working relationship with TD as I recall & co-ordination worked well (other than when one particualr TD controller was on who seemed to have his own set of rules).

As Leeming is now significantly quieter and you now have P18 on your doorstep as opposed to the NORCA, I dont understand why it has all become too difficult?


As for "I think that to require you to have a position report for every squawk because pilots sometimes forget to change squawk when going en-route to be a bit of overkill. OK, if you see 2 identical squawks on your screen, then by all means question it." How do I know there are two aircraft wearing the same squawk on the screen if you dont tell me where your ac is.... I may be looking at a totally different ac to the one you are referring to... Or I may not even be able to see your ac for various reasons but at the same time see another ac wearing the squawk you are quoting..... Or someone dialing through TD squawks who happens to be at that moment displaying the squawk you are referring to... Position report for co-ordination IMHO is a requirement for good reason.

Anyway I for one am 100% behind standardisation of co-ordination, and as far as I am concerned I look forward to welcoming you to the Mil way of Co-ord.

Incidentally what is it you find illogical in the JSP 552 that is taught at Shawbury, if you werent referring to co-ordination?

DD

[chevvron]

Biggest problem we have is that military controllers don't seem to realise that traffic receiving FIS cannot be restricted in any way if they are in class G airspace; if asked I say 'traffic is receiving FIS; I can only pass traffic information, I cannot restrict'.

[London Mil]

chevvron, I disagree. Military controllers fully understand all the conditions relating to FIS, RIS and RAS. What we do, that you guys seem unwilling to do, is ask the FIS guy if he will follow a course of action for coordination. If he says no, well so be it. Not a difficult concept really.

[Toadpool]

Diddley Dee,

If, as you say, the coordination worked well, then why change it? If it ain't broke, etc.

Leeming may well be quieter, but they, and we, can still have busy spells. As for P18, we do have limited access to it, mainly in the GASKO area, but to get there involves a transit of class g airspace. With the funnelling effect that the airway has, this seems to be where we have most problems. We did express these concerns when P18 was being considered, and pushed to have a link to it to try to avert them, but were denied by DAP . If we did have an airway stub, linking us to P18, I suspect that most of our problems would disappear .

As for your regs, I admit that I do not have an extensive knowledge of them, but, despite your arguments, I still feel that requiring a position report with each identification somewhat negates the advantages of SSR. Most of the points you raise can be overcome by other means ( I won't say any more, to keep London Mil happy ). Suffice to say that I have been operating in accordance with our MATS part 1 for quite a few years now, and can not remember ever having a problem identifying a track using SSR. I believe that London Military had thier orders changed when they took over the Pennine task so that they can adopt the "silent handover" method commonly used between Civvy units. As far as I am aware, they have had very few problems with it, but perhaps London Mil could confirm that?

Apart from that, once I have identified a track to a Mil controller (with position), why do I need to repeat it as part of the coordination? Surely once they have confirmed they have the ident with "contact", that should be enough.

Also, when you give a RAS you have to maintain 5 miles separation. In class g airspace, often in an AIAA, this is not practical. I feel MATS part 1 is much more pragmatic in that we aim to achieve 5 miles, but less is not necessarily a loss of separation. Of course if 5 miles will not be achieved the pilot must be told, and you go for as much as you can.

You also have to avoid, or coordinate, traffic not displaying mode c. As has been mentioned on previous occasions, we are not permitted to allow an aircraft without mode c to climb above FL100, except in very exceptional circumstances, which you would know about by NOTAM, or we would be required to pass on to any other relevant unit. It should be possible to include in your JSP something that would allow you to deem a civvy squawk, with no mode c, to be FL100 or below. I suspect this would reduce your workload somewhat. Of course, if the Military also adopted the "not above FL100 without mode c" approach, then you may be able to deem any track without mode c in a similar way, but I can't realistically see this happening.

Some of my colleagues have been bemused this last week or so, watching London Military avoiding HMS Illustrious which has been operating offshore, with a 7200 squawk on.

This is without going into the different interpretations and requirements for handovers.

By the way, London Mil, I agree that, in the second of Rodan's examples it would be sensible to find out what service was required outside CAS before attempting the transfer, but any aircraft inside CAS is subject to an air traffic control service, with or without radar, irrespective of flight rules.

[Diddley Dee]

TP

I feel we are going over the same ground so I will say this & then try to refrain from posting further.

The co-ord at Leeming / TD worked well.... we used Mil co-ord when we required co-ordination and if TD needed co-ord if all the necessary details werent forthcoming we elicited them or it was simply a TI call.

London Mil having been using silent handover tecniques both electronically & by the "Pennine Method" for years (long begore we took over the Pennine task) both with civil sectors & Military airfields. The Pennine task & other civil airfields have simply been bolted onto that procedure as and when the need has come up. However silent H/O & co-ordination are two totally seperate things.... arent they.

As for the lesson on civil RAS.... and the difference between Mil & Civ RAS is?

I kind of see your point of NMC above FL 100 but that would place too many restrictions on our pilots....SSR fails go home you cant do the mission?

As for us avoiding NMC that dont fall under the current NMC deeming rules, we cope fine IMHO, its not too difficult.

Anyway Happy controlling at TD,
DD

[chevvron]

LonMil I disagree, they say 'request co-ordination your traffic not above etc' which to me seems like they want me to pass an instruction to my traffic, which I've already explained is only under FIS. What probably throws them is that we actually take trouble to identify FIS traffic which might conflict with our own IFR traffic.

[London Mil]

Chevvron, the way Strawberry teach it:
Mil: "Request coordination your traffic teeside south west 15 miles squawking 1234"
response (assume civ): "not above FL45"
Mil: My traffic teeside south 20 miles hdg NW squawking 4567"
civ : "contact"
mil: "not below FL55"
end of conversation.
A few variations on a theme and the mil controller may ask you to ask your aircraft if it is willing to comply. In my book that is a perfectly valid request and indeed something we often get from the civil units that fully understand what we are all trying to achieve. One shining example is Norwich where they often call us up and ask if we can ask the F15s from Lakenheath to alter their limits in order to facilitate other traffic. If you just choose to ignore a request from another controller because your ac is on a FIS and you can't be bothered to ask it for a bit of compliance, well then you don't understand Joint and Integrated ATS.
PS From MATS Pt1, Secion 1, Ch 1 para 6
Flight Information Service
The controller may attempt to identify the flight for monitoring and co-ordination purposes only. Such identification does not imply that a radar service is being provided or that the controller will continuously monitor the flight. Pilots must be left in no doubt that they are not receiving a radar service.
I guess that means a civil FIS can be coordinated? Certainly you imply that some form of coordination is taking place if you are bothering to identify a FIS track which is/may be interacting with one of your IFR tracks. A bit of Jack going on here?

[Standard Noise]

What exactly do you mean by the 'military format of co-ordination'. I work near to two Mil stations (one RAF and one Senior Service) and they don't seem to use the same 'format' anyway. Then there are the London Mil guys who seem to do it slightly differently again. My co-ordination only takes place when traffic conditions allow, so if this 'military format' is brief and to the point, then good, I'm all for it. If it's long winded and cumbersome, then less co-ordination will prolly take place and there will be plenty more freecalls.

[ATCO Fred]

Rodan - you state:
Mil: Request traffic information on your #1234 (no mode C) 5 miles south of Blahton.
Civ: That's a C150 on a FIS with me at 2A.
Mil: Ok, request co-ordination against my traffic, #6132, 3 miles north of Blahton, southbound, pair of F3s maintaining FL230.
Now the book may well say that you need to co-ordinate against traffic with no mode Charlie, but a C150 is not going to climb 21000' in the next 60 seconds in this universe or any other.

So, the Mil controller is applying a RAS. Your aircraft has no Mode C. Therefore it is a conflictor and the ONLY means of legally allowing the aircraft within 5 miles/3000 ft of your aircraft is to co-ordinate. MATS Section1 Chapter 5 Page 3 para 1.4.1e refers. I appreciate your point regarding the aircraft type but Traffic Information is dead once passed and thus CANNOT be used what so ever for providing seperation.

"It's this sort of thing that can sometimes make the mil seem inflexible and rigid"...no just professional. Class G is the bad lands and when applying a RAS it has to be done right or face the consequences.

I have had considerable exposure to both ways of dealing with this and, despite the similarities between JSP 552 and MATS part 1 we can, at times, apply the same ATS in diametrically different ways. I think SRG should be congratulated for trying to standardise something that is, after all, standardised in text. Nice to see the regulator actually regulating!
ATCO Fred

[Diddley Dee]

Fred Take a bow.

DD

[whowhenwhy]

Hello Diddly Dee, believe I spoke to you today 1nm east of my overhead!

ATCO Fred, what a refreshing change sir, well said. Standardisation between the 2 'sets' of service providers has got to be the way ahead. The most obvious difference is, as has been said, the application of RAS by civ and mil providers. As Diddly Dee and myself saw in days of yore at Area, the Penine Radar application of RAS could often make you wince! But possibly the most annoying statement I've ever heard an ATCO say (and unfortunately a few civ ATCOs at a posh unit quite close to me are often wont to say) is "oh, he's under a FIS with me, I can't coordinate it." Unfortunately for me, normally said VFR ac is flying straight at or 500' under my IFR radar pattern operating under RAS. It's tosh to say you can't coordinate. Rant mode off!

[Toadpool]

As an area radar man, I would be a little worried if you believed that passing TI to one of our consols (lets say 15) would be percieved as being good enough for all the others in our ops room.

I didn't say it would, but it should be for the console making the request. I am well aware that should I agree to inform you of any changes to that particular tracks operations, and I failed to pass this on, which in turn led to an incident, it would be my responsibility.

London Mil having been using silent handover tecniques both electronically & by the "Pennine Method" for years

So some Mil units don't need a position report for every ident. An ident is an ident, isn't it?

As for the lesson on civil RAS.... and the difference between Mil & Civ RAS is?

If there's no great difference, why is such a big deal when we transfer a RAS to a Mil unit? (Oh, as it's RAS, we'd better have a handover, etc).

I kind of see your point of NMC above FL 100 but that would place too many restrictions on our pilots....SSR fails go home you cant do the mission?

An airliner would not be too happy either. Pax missing connections/ meetings/ compensation that has to be paid/ replacement a/c, etc. It's not something we do lightly, but it's what the regs say, so it has to be.

Realistically, with modern transponders how often is a failure likely? Isn't the odd missed training flight worth the reduced workload, not to mention the TCAS advantages? If it was a vital sortie then the "let everyone know" method could be used.

As for us avoiding NMC that dont fall under the current NMC deeming rules, we cope fine IMHO, its not too difficult.

Even if it means taking avoiding action on ships ?

I think Standard Noise sums it up.

[Diddley Dee]

Whowhenwhy...

Quite possibly, flew past quite a few overheads yesterday which one was yours? Please PM me if you dont want your location made public. I will confess as to being a bit disconbobulated as the only airfield I flew 1 mile east of and spoke to was a civil airfield & I see you are a Mil ATCO ?

Toadpool

Hate going back on my word but....

Thought we were talking about co-ordination so dont see what silent handovers have to do with position reports when co-ordinating.

Handovers of RAS. We often use "continue with" (non handover) calls to our RAS traffic to both civil & Mil units. Equally we also have traffic sent to our freqs under RAS without handovers from both Civil & Mil units.... TD being one of those units!

Deeming NMC as not above FL100. To my mind not a very good idea (and very glad we dont have it ) outside CAS as nobody has ever been stooging around squawking 7000 at say FL190 talking to no-one when his Mode C has failed have they.... Or does it have a default whereby it will only fail on the ground?

Avoiding ships. I have never had to avoid a ship. Spell it out.... believed to be HMS..... groundspeed of ... knots and every ac I have had has been happy to continue... still dont think I would merge though.

Anyway I am glad to see there are plenty of your civil collegues that dont seem to have a problem with it at all....

DD

[tired-flyboy]

Just an aside...

I remember an incident in D&D at Scottish a few years back when aircraft when getting TCAS RAs against one of HM's vessels docked on the Clyde.

Made for an interesting search in D&D....and subsequent phone call to HM Ship!!

So not really avoiding action by controller to a ship but def an avoiding action!