Military/Civilian coordination (again)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that the co-ordination format hasn't changed in the 12 years since I last sat in front of a console; nor did it change for a 'career' before that since I learnt the job at Shawbury (with the exception that 'co-ordination agreed' was dropped, if I recall correctly).
Might it not be the case that much of the military's phraseology dates from procedures that had to be devised when primary radar was the norm in the terminal environment and secondary was nothing more than a 'slash' (ah, the mighty T82 at Midland) in the area world? Possibly, the problem is that those reactionaries at DAP (or whatever it is these days) haven't adapted to/adopted the technology since those procedures were first forged many, many moons ago.
Might it not be the case that much of the military's phraseology dates from procedures that had to be devised when primary radar was the norm in the terminal environment and secondary was nothing more than a 'slash' (ah, the mighty T82 at Midland) in the area world? Possibly, the problem is that those reactionaries at DAP (or whatever it is these days) haven't adapted to/adopted the technology since those procedures were first forged many, many moons ago.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Swanwick
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LARSMAN
If you are advocating disregarding the rules as you as an individual see fit and replacing it with "thinking outside the box" , you are in the wrong job my friend!
DD
If you are advocating disregarding the rules as you as an individual see fit and replacing it with "thinking outside the box" , you are in the wrong job my friend!
DD
I spy an opening for an analogy:
Civvy scuba divers are trained to do safety or buddy checks before they enter the water to make sure that they know how their buddy's kit works. After training, a lot of them ignore said buddy check ("well I'm trained now!") and it's amazing how many of them die each year and could have been saved if they'd stuck to their training.
Military scuba divers are trained to do buddy checks. After completing their training they know that they should carry on doing their buddy checks because if they keep it STANDARD, then it could help them out of a potentially lethal situation. It's amazing how few military scuba divers die each year!
I remember about 3 years ago liaising with the ops team at MACC (darn good people too!) so that we could spread throughout MACC how military area radar controllers would coordinate with them and what we expected to hear back. A number of incidents had occurred due to ambiguity in the coordination phraseology used by SOME MACC controllers. If nothing else is standard across the 2 UK ATCO worlds, it's for sure that coordination phraseology should be. And no, there should not be any leeway for 'thinking outside the box.' As I think LonMil said earlier in this thread, how difficult can it be? Not above, not below, maintaining.
Civvy scuba divers are trained to do safety or buddy checks before they enter the water to make sure that they know how their buddy's kit works. After training, a lot of them ignore said buddy check ("well I'm trained now!") and it's amazing how many of them die each year and could have been saved if they'd stuck to their training.
Military scuba divers are trained to do buddy checks. After completing their training they know that they should carry on doing their buddy checks because if they keep it STANDARD, then it could help them out of a potentially lethal situation. It's amazing how few military scuba divers die each year!
I remember about 3 years ago liaising with the ops team at MACC (darn good people too!) so that we could spread throughout MACC how military area radar controllers would coordinate with them and what we expected to hear back. A number of incidents had occurred due to ambiguity in the coordination phraseology used by SOME MACC controllers. If nothing else is standard across the 2 UK ATCO worlds, it's for sure that coordination phraseology should be. And no, there should not be any leeway for 'thinking outside the box.' As I think LonMil said earlier in this thread, how difficult can it be? Not above, not below, maintaining.
Well, this happened to me:
Attenpting to coordinate with a Mil LARS unit. Exchange went something like
ME: request traffic, possible coordination on your xxxx 5 N of X
THEM: (type) is 3000 on the RPS, FIS.
ME: roger. My traffic will be a (type) departing rwy XX, climbing FLXX RAS.
THEM: Squawk?....standby....(callsign, squawk 7000 and freecall). He has now gone en route squawking 7000.
ME: Thanks a bunch.
Now our MATS 1 says that traffic in class G can change frequency whenever it wants basically, and I guess the Mil book says the same thing. But, thinking outside the box, I would probably try to hang on to it if someone was coordinating against that traffic, or at least suggest they freecall the coordinating unit if they insisted they no longer wanted to talk to me.
Attenpting to coordinate with a Mil LARS unit. Exchange went something like
ME: request traffic, possible coordination on your xxxx 5 N of X
THEM: (type) is 3000 on the RPS, FIS.
ME: roger. My traffic will be a (type) departing rwy XX, climbing FLXX RAS.
THEM: Squawk?....standby....(callsign, squawk 7000 and freecall). He has now gone en route squawking 7000.
ME: Thanks a bunch.
Now our MATS 1 says that traffic in class G can change frequency whenever it wants basically, and I guess the Mil book says the same thing. But, thinking outside the box, I would probably try to hang on to it if someone was coordinating against that traffic, or at least suggest they freecall the coordinating unit if they insisted they no longer wanted to talk to me.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you Mil Guys are really coming across very badly here suggesting that somehow the Civil ATC world are careless in the way we do ATC. Sorry load of bollocks and to be honest LARSMAN does say what many people think.
We know the rules very well, we apply the rules but we also know full well that to shift the level of traffic that we do as safely and efficiently that we cannot just apply those rules but have a flair for the job which means we apply skill to the job.
Anyone can follow rules it doesn't make you a good Controller.
Another comment which I do believe to be apt we in the Civilian world have to constantly adapt to the changes that new technology brings, we thus change the rules to adapt to the new scenarios that is the right way to go, rules written even 5 years ago do not necessarily apply in todays modern ATC. Perhaps those who write the rules for the Military should also learn to adapt to modern day ATC.
In the Civil world we shift ever increasing levels of traffic , we do not have the time to deal with long winded procedures which new technology has long since ceased to need.
Stop sitting there on your High Horses some of you Mil guys believing yourselves to be the only arbiters of safety, just check out how very few incidents occur in the civil world if we were unsafe with are short, precise and to the point coordinations then we would be having incidents everywhere.
We know the rules very well, we apply the rules but we also know full well that to shift the level of traffic that we do as safely and efficiently that we cannot just apply those rules but have a flair for the job which means we apply skill to the job.
Anyone can follow rules it doesn't make you a good Controller.
Another comment which I do believe to be apt we in the Civilian world have to constantly adapt to the changes that new technology brings, we thus change the rules to adapt to the new scenarios that is the right way to go, rules written even 5 years ago do not necessarily apply in todays modern ATC. Perhaps those who write the rules for the Military should also learn to adapt to modern day ATC.
In the Civil world we shift ever increasing levels of traffic , we do not have the time to deal with long winded procedures which new technology has long since ceased to need.
Stop sitting there on your High Horses some of you Mil guys believing yourselves to be the only arbiters of safety, just check out how very few incidents occur in the civil world if we were unsafe with are short, precise and to the point coordinations then we would be having incidents everywhere.
Guest
Posts: n/a
flower, you may well know the rules very well, but there are others on this forum who obviously don't.
Perhaps you should understand that the military 'rules' are almost exactly the same as the civil ones. Please do not patronise us with your
I think you will find that the military are having to adapt in exactly the same way. Personally, I have worked in both the civil and military environment and I can say that both elements of the UK ATS provision organization can learn from each other.
Finally, you accuse the military of sitting on their high horses. I think if you re-read your post you may find that your comments are equally antagonistic. Can I suggest you come and have a look at what we do and how we do it? After all, we are meant to be Joint and Integrated.
Perhaps you should understand that the military 'rules' are almost exactly the same as the civil ones. Please do not patronise us with your
we in the Civilian world have to constantly adapt to the changes that new technology brings, we thus change the rules to adapt to the new scenarios that is the right way to go, rules written even 5 years ago do not necessarily apply in todays modern ATC.
Finally, you accuse the military of sitting on their high horses. I think if you re-read your post you may find that your comments are equally antagonistic. Can I suggest you come and have a look at what we do and how we do it? After all, we are meant to be Joint and Integrated.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London Mil,
I do know how you work because we work closely with the Mil including being the intermediate approach unit for a military aerodrome and we also have a UHF frequency
My remarks fully stand as i know how long winded the coordinations are, i see how much they rigidity of the rules causes increased workload for both Controllers and Pilots.
The rules have not adapted at anything like the rate they do in the Civil world and this causes extreme frustration. When you know you have to coordinate with the military you have to find a huge gap in your traffic to do so because of the length of time involved .
I have watched this post and my anger has increased as the implications of many who have posted is that safety is of secondary importance to the civil world, safety has always been the first priority in the civil world of ATC.
It is about time civil and Mil ATC were more fully integrated but it would be a step back for the Civil world if it were to follow the Military way of doing some parts of ATC and we would not be able to move the amount of traffic we do.
I suspect the reason many of the civil ATCOs have not posted on here is because they do not have to deal with the military on a regular basis those of us who do find we have less and less time to deal with you. If this new method of coordination is long winded and thus unacceptable to the world of Civil ATC it will be filed against and less coordinations will take place.
I do know how you work because we work closely with the Mil including being the intermediate approach unit for a military aerodrome and we also have a UHF frequency
My remarks fully stand as i know how long winded the coordinations are, i see how much they rigidity of the rules causes increased workload for both Controllers and Pilots.
The rules have not adapted at anything like the rate they do in the Civil world and this causes extreme frustration. When you know you have to coordinate with the military you have to find a huge gap in your traffic to do so because of the length of time involved .
I have watched this post and my anger has increased as the implications of many who have posted is that safety is of secondary importance to the civil world, safety has always been the first priority in the civil world of ATC.
It is about time civil and Mil ATC were more fully integrated but it would be a step back for the Civil world if it were to follow the Military way of doing some parts of ATC and we would not be able to move the amount of traffic we do.
I suspect the reason many of the civil ATCOs have not posted on here is because they do not have to deal with the military on a regular basis those of us who do find we have less and less time to deal with you. If this new method of coordination is long winded and thus unacceptable to the world of Civil ATC it will be filed against and less coordinations will take place.
Guest
Posts: n/a
flower, I think we take-up endless server space discussing this particular point to no avail. My parting shot. Take a look at all airprox where there has been a coordination issue. In almost all circumstances, you will find that the breakdown was ambiguity between controllers as to the agreed course of action or indeed whether there was an agreement. I think we will all agree that that is not very clever regardless of whether we are civilian or military.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Endless server space has been used up on this thread having a knock at the civil world so i won't in anyway excuse my posts in standing up for us.
Whenever there is an incident it is always down to a number of factors, coordination does not have to take time to be correct, provided it is done correctly it can still take seconds. It works extremely well in the civil world as it stands, I am sorry it would appear that coordination seems to be taking a retrograde step but then so much has been retrograde of late increasing the amount of RT time with increased wording and numbers on the frequencies used. One has to wonder just who is making all these new rules.
Whenever there is an incident it is always down to a number of factors, coordination does not have to take time to be correct, provided it is done correctly it can still take seconds. It works extremely well in the civil world as it stands, I am sorry it would appear that coordination seems to be taking a retrograde step but then so much has been retrograde of late increasing the amount of RT time with increased wording and numbers on the frequencies used. One has to wonder just who is making all these new rules.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents.
Admit it. In the UK the two ATC sysytems are poles apart both in task and process. Each has a different customer base with different needs. If you want to standardise I would recommend extending class D airspace 30nms around all Mil bases; apply ICAO rules and procedures and retrain as required. Bit like Oz. The major difference would be that the user i.e.mostly mil fast jets couldnt be so slack where flight plans and clearances are involved. Tactical freedom would suffer but youd all be soon singing off the same hymsheet as far as ATC is concerned. Who knows maybe RAS and RIS would disappear and only IFR would be separated against participating IFR with a FIS unit (as traffic is given) as in Oz. Everyone else - i.e. VFR - look out the window! Its what you are not paying for.
The Mil runs on rules. Full stop! Think outside the box? Fine if thats all you do. Should you step outside the box and it goes pear shaped or you have an over zealous Sup or SATCO then kiss your ar*e goodbye! As a civilian you will have no idea about life in what is a very draconoan system by todays standards. Bit like a cockpit - civil or mIl - kiss CRM goodbye the rank gradient is there and there is no way around it.
I worked in LJAO for 7 years in the early 80's (very busy traffic loading due our US cousins) and coordinated verbally with my civil colleagues on a very regular and often frantic basis. Often there was no way he/she would say those majic Mil words" Corodination agreed" ; especially when working the morning rush into London. Regarding agreed outcomes, in LJAO, we all learnt what was acceptable as an agreed course of action and what wasnt, regardless of what went on the tape; body language the chiefs green pen etc tec, I think we called it "Trust" in those days. A cultur was established I suppose. If you couldnt work within that culture, and cut the mustard when Daventry was tripple manned, you soon left the room and went next door to Mil ops only. I suppose in hind sight the sytem was f*cked as it put pressure on the coalface to make a poor process work in spite of deficiencies. Im sure this goes on today. If I were in the Mil today I would want to know from a civil viewpoint, why Im not licensed ,and go see how its done according to ICAO. I failed to do that for 17 years along with everyone else that stayed in uniform. Those that left were soon re-educated at Hurn!! Its only now in the Instructional job Im in that I can look back and reflect very humbly by the way, that I can make comment regarding the modus operandi on both sides of the ATC UK CIV/MIL fence.
Keep up the discussion its good for UK ATC............. I think!
Anyone in Prague from July onwards look me up!!
DogGone
Admit it. In the UK the two ATC sysytems are poles apart both in task and process. Each has a different customer base with different needs. If you want to standardise I would recommend extending class D airspace 30nms around all Mil bases; apply ICAO rules and procedures and retrain as required. Bit like Oz. The major difference would be that the user i.e.mostly mil fast jets couldnt be so slack where flight plans and clearances are involved. Tactical freedom would suffer but youd all be soon singing off the same hymsheet as far as ATC is concerned. Who knows maybe RAS and RIS would disappear and only IFR would be separated against participating IFR with a FIS unit (as traffic is given) as in Oz. Everyone else - i.e. VFR - look out the window! Its what you are not paying for.
The Mil runs on rules. Full stop! Think outside the box? Fine if thats all you do. Should you step outside the box and it goes pear shaped or you have an over zealous Sup or SATCO then kiss your ar*e goodbye! As a civilian you will have no idea about life in what is a very draconoan system by todays standards. Bit like a cockpit - civil or mIl - kiss CRM goodbye the rank gradient is there and there is no way around it.
I worked in LJAO for 7 years in the early 80's (very busy traffic loading due our US cousins) and coordinated verbally with my civil colleagues on a very regular and often frantic basis. Often there was no way he/she would say those majic Mil words" Corodination agreed" ; especially when working the morning rush into London. Regarding agreed outcomes, in LJAO, we all learnt what was acceptable as an agreed course of action and what wasnt, regardless of what went on the tape; body language the chiefs green pen etc tec, I think we called it "Trust" in those days. A cultur was established I suppose. If you couldnt work within that culture, and cut the mustard when Daventry was tripple manned, you soon left the room and went next door to Mil ops only. I suppose in hind sight the sytem was f*cked as it put pressure on the coalface to make a poor process work in spite of deficiencies. Im sure this goes on today. If I were in the Mil today I would want to know from a civil viewpoint, why Im not licensed ,and go see how its done according to ICAO. I failed to do that for 17 years along with everyone else that stayed in uniform. Those that left were soon re-educated at Hurn!! Its only now in the Instructional job Im in that I can look back and reflect very humbly by the way, that I can make comment regarding the modus operandi on both sides of the ATC UK CIV/MIL fence.
Keep up the discussion its good for UK ATC............. I think!
Anyone in Prague from July onwards look me up!!
DogGone
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Swanwick
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flower
I am sorry this thread had angered you. I am not for one second saying that civil controllers are careless in the way in which you conduct your ATC. The point being made was that most Mil controllers have been involved in a situation where a civil controller has thought he has co-ordinated & the Mil controller believes traffic information has been passed. Surely this is not a good way of doing business? Co-ord needs to be unambiguous to both sides.
It would appear that a trial has taken place whereby your regulator has decided to adopt a more Mil method of co-ord. If the present civil system is acceptable why have your civil authorities elected to align it with the Military style?
There even seems to be confusion amongst the civil posters with one guy stating that FIS cannot & should not be co-ordinated against and another quoting an example whereby he requests co-ord against FIS!
Earlier on in the thread a poster was complaining that the Mil insist on noisey handovers all the time and that we eat time doing this, stick to the rules, dont think outside the box etc etc. As posting "this happened to me" tales seem to be flavour of the moment..... this morning I had been prenoted a pair of FA-20s out of a Northern Civil airfield and the unit were given a squawk & told I was happy with a freecall if clean.
A short while later the ac call me and they are under a RAS climbing to FL190 for the GAM RVC. As they are mid way throught the vale of York I notice that 10 miles behind my formation is a track on a simlair profile, I became suspicious and asked if they were in standard formation. No 10 miles apart! The civil unit prenote a formation and then frecall them over 10 miles apart with no mention of this... Factor in that they were to cross CAS and no wonder some Mil controllers insist on handovers from some civil units!
As i said at the beginning I dont think civil ATC is unsafe quite the opposite but I do feel feel ... make that know, that I have been on the receiving end of ambiguous co-ordination.
If nothing else this thread will highlight the fact that Civ & Mil co-ordination can be open to mis-interpretation.
DD
I am sorry this thread had angered you. I am not for one second saying that civil controllers are careless in the way in which you conduct your ATC. The point being made was that most Mil controllers have been involved in a situation where a civil controller has thought he has co-ordinated & the Mil controller believes traffic information has been passed. Surely this is not a good way of doing business? Co-ord needs to be unambiguous to both sides.
It would appear that a trial has taken place whereby your regulator has decided to adopt a more Mil method of co-ord. If the present civil system is acceptable why have your civil authorities elected to align it with the Military style?
There even seems to be confusion amongst the civil posters with one guy stating that FIS cannot & should not be co-ordinated against and another quoting an example whereby he requests co-ord against FIS!
Earlier on in the thread a poster was complaining that the Mil insist on noisey handovers all the time and that we eat time doing this, stick to the rules, dont think outside the box etc etc. As posting "this happened to me" tales seem to be flavour of the moment..... this morning I had been prenoted a pair of FA-20s out of a Northern Civil airfield and the unit were given a squawk & told I was happy with a freecall if clean.
A short while later the ac call me and they are under a RAS climbing to FL190 for the GAM RVC. As they are mid way throught the vale of York I notice that 10 miles behind my formation is a track on a simlair profile, I became suspicious and asked if they were in standard formation. No 10 miles apart! The civil unit prenote a formation and then frecall them over 10 miles apart with no mention of this... Factor in that they were to cross CAS and no wonder some Mil controllers insist on handovers from some civil units!
As i said at the beginning I dont think civil ATC is unsafe quite the opposite but I do feel feel ... make that know, that I have been on the receiving end of ambiguous co-ordination.
If nothing else this thread will highlight the fact that Civ & Mil co-ordination can be open to mis-interpretation.
DD
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diddly Dee,
the scenario you post it poor coordination and any changes should always be passed. The problem you can find certainly in the civil world is that if one person does something incorrectly then they may change a procedure which if done correctly works perfectly . What should happen in such a scenario is that the ATCO at fault is made aware they are at fault through their LCE or some other such person.
I personally found that since the move down to Swanwick that there certainly appeared to me a greater flexibility regarding traffic, also noted by some other colleagues of mine but cannot say for sure that it was a universal agreement. I must add that my experiences of the ATCOs themselves are good except for the occasional **** but lets face it they happen everywhere.
I am however very concerned that there will be additional RT used yet again in an ever increasing RT loading situation. We in the Civil world have had a number of changes of late that have increased that loading. Anything which increases your workload be it RT loading amongst others has the potential for causing incidents.
The subtle differences between the way we do things is IMHO not an ideal scenario when we both work traffic in the same airspace , it took a while for me to learn just how many differences there are and all learnt "on the job"
How do we move forward, well of course we all want to keep doing things the way we all feel comfortable with but in Class G there certainly needs some sort of streamlining especially when if you read the GA forums there is much confusion even over the usage of phraseology in RT. There was a good debate recently on one forum about the fact the Military world do not use not above or not below but say fly at when an aircraft transited a MATZ for example. Having never personally flown through a MATZ I cannot comment but all of these items become very confusing for the Pilots.
I still say the way forward is greater cooperation and streamlining but any new procedures should take into account that we are busier than ever with no extra staff and thus we need to reduce RT loading not increase it, something which has been ignored for a little while now which makes me suspicious of who is making these decisions.
the scenario you post it poor coordination and any changes should always be passed. The problem you can find certainly in the civil world is that if one person does something incorrectly then they may change a procedure which if done correctly works perfectly . What should happen in such a scenario is that the ATCO at fault is made aware they are at fault through their LCE or some other such person.
I personally found that since the move down to Swanwick that there certainly appeared to me a greater flexibility regarding traffic, also noted by some other colleagues of mine but cannot say for sure that it was a universal agreement. I must add that my experiences of the ATCOs themselves are good except for the occasional **** but lets face it they happen everywhere.
I am however very concerned that there will be additional RT used yet again in an ever increasing RT loading situation. We in the Civil world have had a number of changes of late that have increased that loading. Anything which increases your workload be it RT loading amongst others has the potential for causing incidents.
The subtle differences between the way we do things is IMHO not an ideal scenario when we both work traffic in the same airspace , it took a while for me to learn just how many differences there are and all learnt "on the job"
How do we move forward, well of course we all want to keep doing things the way we all feel comfortable with but in Class G there certainly needs some sort of streamlining especially when if you read the GA forums there is much confusion even over the usage of phraseology in RT. There was a good debate recently on one forum about the fact the Military world do not use not above or not below but say fly at when an aircraft transited a MATZ for example. Having never personally flown through a MATZ I cannot comment but all of these items become very confusing for the Pilots.
I still say the way forward is greater cooperation and streamlining but any new procedures should take into account that we are busier than ever with no extra staff and thus we need to reduce RT loading not increase it, something which has been ignored for a little while now which makes me suspicious of who is making these decisions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diddley Dee,
The situation you describe should not have happened, and will be addressed.
I do still feel, even more strongly after seeing some of the responses from Mil ATCOs, the the problem has been introduced by Shawbury hammering into you Mil guys "it's not coordination unless you say it". I suspect it's very unlikely, but if they dropped that, you guys may be able to recognise coordination without having to have it rammed down your throat. Perhaps then we will get away from this "but you didn't say you wanted coordination" attitude we sometimes get.
I know I'm repeating myself, but if this change comes to pass in MATS part 1 then there will be more occasions when you will get the response, "sorry, too busy" to a coordination request. With the best will in the world, there is only so much we can do. I feel, as others have stated, that it is a retrograde step and will be counter productive.
As to why SRG have decided to go down this line, I don't know, but I suspect that, to them, it is the easy option, as it will probably not affect NATS units to any great extent. The units that it will have a profound affect on, unfortunately, have very little say in the matter. I'd like to see the safety case to justify it.
The situation you describe should not have happened, and will be addressed.
I do still feel, even more strongly after seeing some of the responses from Mil ATCOs, the the problem has been introduced by Shawbury hammering into you Mil guys "it's not coordination unless you say it". I suspect it's very unlikely, but if they dropped that, you guys may be able to recognise coordination without having to have it rammed down your throat. Perhaps then we will get away from this "but you didn't say you wanted coordination" attitude we sometimes get.
I know I'm repeating myself, but if this change comes to pass in MATS part 1 then there will be more occasions when you will get the response, "sorry, too busy" to a coordination request. With the best will in the world, there is only so much we can do. I feel, as others have stated, that it is a retrograde step and will be counter productive.
As to why SRG have decided to go down this line, I don't know, but I suspect that, to them, it is the easy option, as it will probably not affect NATS units to any great extent. The units that it will have a profound affect on, unfortunately, have very little say in the matter. I'd like to see the safety case to justify it.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Swanwick
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TP
So you want to drop the "request co-ordination" from our (Mil) phraseology and get rid of the postion report for the ac involved in the co-ord.... Just how am I going to know when you want co-ordination?
As for it taking up too much time, can you tell me how many square miles there are on a say 40 mile round tube? because thats the number of miles I am looking round to spot your ac that needs co-ordination... that takes time. Move that into the area radar world where we routinely work on 125 mile range, just how long will it take without a position report for me to spot the ac that you are wanting to co-ordinate?
You have obviously had bad expieriences with Mil co-ord & for that I am disappointed because I find that on the vast majority of occassions with Mil to Mil co-ord (where we both know what to expect from one another) it takes seconds...... I grant you there will be times when you get someone who is having a mare & it will take too long but overall it works for me.
DD
So you want to drop the "request co-ordination" from our (Mil) phraseology and get rid of the postion report for the ac involved in the co-ord.... Just how am I going to know when you want co-ordination?
As for it taking up too much time, can you tell me how many square miles there are on a say 40 mile round tube? because thats the number of miles I am looking round to spot your ac that needs co-ordination... that takes time. Move that into the area radar world where we routinely work on 125 mile range, just how long will it take without a position report for me to spot the ac that you are wanting to co-ordinate?
You have obviously had bad expieriences with Mil co-ord & for that I am disappointed because I find that on the vast majority of occassions with Mil to Mil co-ord (where we both know what to expect from one another) it takes seconds...... I grant you there will be times when you get someone who is having a mare & it will take too long but overall it works for me.
DD
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One issue that is reccurrent here is the time factor involved in the new co-ordination procedures.
We routinely can be sitting working around 15 aircraft in varying amounts of IFR and VFR.
The Mil seem to work about 4 or 5 before they are " working to capacity". granted as DD states it is over a much larger area and it is harder to keep track of them but the point is there is a multitude of military controllers working a (relatively) small number of tracks compared with the number of aircraft worked by civil controllers. Granted this is not always the case but this is exactly the time you need to be co-ordinating and i for one do not have the time to sit through endless " stand by for controller" followed by numerous "standbys" then to have to go into long winded phraeseology just to determine that my traffic will stay 15000 ft below yours!
I feel as most have stated that this is a retrograde step which will actually lead to LESS co-ordination instead of more.
We routinely can be sitting working around 15 aircraft in varying amounts of IFR and VFR.
The Mil seem to work about 4 or 5 before they are " working to capacity". granted as DD states it is over a much larger area and it is harder to keep track of them but the point is there is a multitude of military controllers working a (relatively) small number of tracks compared with the number of aircraft worked by civil controllers. Granted this is not always the case but this is exactly the time you need to be co-ordinating and i for one do not have the time to sit through endless " stand by for controller" followed by numerous "standbys" then to have to go into long winded phraeseology just to determine that my traffic will stay 15000 ft below yours!
I feel as most have stated that this is a retrograde step which will actually lead to LESS co-ordination instead of more.
I think Toadpool was trying to indicate the length of time taken was unnacceptable when you've got lots of other aircraft calling, a situation Military Area radar controller would be unfamiliar with unless they'd had recent experience at an airfield.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Swanwick
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chevron
I have done 10 years at Mil FJ units prior to area radar & I well remember times where I was working flat out ( 4 on I wish!) recovering jets in IMC from multiple directions for differing recovery profiles. As for the other Mil area guys on here, the ones I know have at least that level of expierience!
LARSMAN
There is more to controlling than purely numbers, Mil ATC can be very dynamic & go from plodding along to maxed out in short order due to the nature of the wave flying so typical of Mil Ops. Granted with our committments elsewhere stations are often not as busy as they have been in the past. I can see how hard some of the civil ATC units work & also expierience it first hand as I tootle around at 90 knots.... I just wish some of you civil guys could see the situations Mil ATC has to deal with up close... we might not work the volume but there are times when it gets equally as demanding as some of the civil control units.
All
I can see we are never going to see eye to eye on this.... All I will say if the new format does indeed go ahead on the civil side I genuinely hope it doesnt cause you too many difficulties.
DD
I have done 10 years at Mil FJ units prior to area radar & I well remember times where I was working flat out ( 4 on I wish!) recovering jets in IMC from multiple directions for differing recovery profiles. As for the other Mil area guys on here, the ones I know have at least that level of expierience!
LARSMAN
There is more to controlling than purely numbers, Mil ATC can be very dynamic & go from plodding along to maxed out in short order due to the nature of the wave flying so typical of Mil Ops. Granted with our committments elsewhere stations are often not as busy as they have been in the past. I can see how hard some of the civil ATC units work & also expierience it first hand as I tootle around at 90 knots.... I just wish some of you civil guys could see the situations Mil ATC has to deal with up close... we might not work the volume but there are times when it gets equally as demanding as some of the civil control units.
All
I can see we are never going to see eye to eye on this.... All I will say if the new format does indeed go ahead on the civil side I genuinely hope it doesnt cause you too many difficulties.
DD