Military/Civilian coordination (again)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diddley Dee,
If you equally get maxed out or busy then you must surely also agree any coordination that takes a shorter length of time than the current must be a bonus ?
Less time on the phone more time to think
If you equally get maxed out or busy then you must surely also agree any coordination that takes a shorter length of time than the current must be a bonus ?
Less time on the phone more time to think
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: near you
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the SRG types who came to our ATSU for a validation recently had a very good point. It seems the military operate their ATC on a simple basis. Same equipment (STORNO or whatever) and same type of procedures (PAR etc). Therefore an individual moving around the country would not need, necessarily, to re-train to the same extent a civil controller does, on the equipment or procedures the military use but simply learn the local variations.
We civil people can go from one unit to another and see different equipment and different 'best practise' amongst other stuff at any unit we visit.
At out ATSU we deal with Three military units and three civil units. We've learned how the military controllers operate and how our procedures can differ but through visits and discussions we have gained a better understanding of their limitations and they understand ours. We have simple agreements with the military units and use our assistants where possible to take details (pre-notes) if handovers are not possible (our controller too busy etc).
We'd welcome a level playing field for handovers and would urge all controllers to understand that this is for the common good, not to make our lives more difficult.
Keeping things simple is important and common practise surely is a good step in the right direction.
We civil people can go from one unit to another and see different equipment and different 'best practise' amongst other stuff at any unit we visit.
At out ATSU we deal with Three military units and three civil units. We've learned how the military controllers operate and how our procedures can differ but through visits and discussions we have gained a better understanding of their limitations and they understand ours. We have simple agreements with the military units and use our assistants where possible to take details (pre-notes) if handovers are not possible (our controller too busy etc).
We'd welcome a level playing field for handovers and would urge all controllers to understand that this is for the common good, not to make our lives more difficult.
Keeping things simple is important and common practise surely is a good step in the right direction.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DD,
I did actually say that Mil control isnt all about numbers.
I appreciate you work over a vary large area with sometimes complex tasks but if you feel civil ATC is not dynamic. Try the vale of york on a nice sunny weekend!!! and Im not talking about med/high level traffic. Down in the weeds can be extremely dynamic.
I still stand by the fact mil atcos do not appreciate the ratio of aircraft to atcos in the civil world is much higher than in the mil.
I did actually say that Mil control isnt all about numbers.
I appreciate you work over a vary large area with sometimes complex tasks but if you feel civil ATC is not dynamic. Try the vale of york on a nice sunny weekend!!! and Im not talking about med/high level traffic. Down in the weeds can be extremely dynamic.
I still stand by the fact mil atcos do not appreciate the ratio of aircraft to atcos in the civil world is much higher than in the mil.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Swanwick
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LARSMAN
Vale of York on a nice Sunny weekend....
I was at Leeming form 1996 -2001 so did plenty of that TVM.
Still work in the VOY routing CAT under RAS to NEW TD & HBR
DD
About time we let this one lie isnt it?
DD
Vale of York on a nice Sunny weekend....
I was at Leeming form 1996 -2001 so did plenty of that TVM.
Still work in the VOY routing CAT under RAS to NEW TD & HBR
DD
About time we let this one lie isnt it?
DD
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents some excellent debate contained within this thread. As I have said earlier, when you examine MATS part 1 and JSP 552 they are scarily similar. That said, to follow up something Flower stated earlier:
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.
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.
And finally
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.
The scenario above and the general thrust of this thread can be summed up with.....just be a good ATCO. Remember the controlling team extends to all controllers and ATSA (civil and Mil) and we should work in harmony and empathy of each other’s restrictions. After all, the ATCO you are co-ordinating with is just applying what he/she has been told and is not making it up just to be awkward!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIC 9/2007 (Yellow 230)
Use of SSR in the vicinity of the Aerodrome Traffic Pattern
Conspicuity code 7010.
Just a heads up to any military chaps that don't know about this code as of 15th March 2007. I had somebody trying to co-ordinate with my circuit traffic this morning.
Are these AICs made common knowledge in military units?
Use of SSR in the vicinity of the Aerodrome Traffic Pattern
Conspicuity code 7010.
Just a heads up to any military chaps that don't know about this code as of 15th March 2007. I had somebody trying to co-ordinate with my circuit traffic this morning.
Are these AICs made common knowledge in military units?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I understand both sides of the argument, having been a Mil controller for a number of years and now working for NATS. The bottom line is there should be more of the commonality we all seek and hopefully that will come in good time.
For the civil controllers who are having a pop at the supposed mil inflexibility just pause for a minute. Mil guys do have it drummed into them from the start and the their unit execs maintain that and rightly so. I have had close experience of a couple of very serious ATC investigations prior to my leaving the RAF. One of the things that struck me about those and other well-known investigations is that if you do not follow procedures, the investigators will try to hammer you for it. Put that into a legal framework and you could be very seriously exposed. Trust me, you do not want to go there! So to follow the letter of law may seem to some to be protracted, wordy, bothersome etc etc. However, if you stick to the rules and what has been 'drummed into you', you are protecting your arse in the event something going wrong. That may be seen as 'defensive controlling' by some, but at the end of the day, it could just save your bacon. I have heard some of my fellow civil controllers saying that they protect their licence at all times and that is spot on.
We do have our differences, but the bottom line is still the same for all of us - safe and expeditious ATC. Without wishing to sound too patronising, I've always thought of us (civ & mil) as being part of the same team and that includes pilots! Lets keep it that way. I hate the 'us and them mentality' - it just does not work and never has.
The commonality we all seek will hopefully come. In the meantime, keep talking, do the liaison visits, have a beer together and get a greater understanding of what we all do - it does all help. That in turn will find a better way of doing things and may make Toadpool a happier bunny
Stay safe,
WJMcP
For the civil controllers who are having a pop at the supposed mil inflexibility just pause for a minute. Mil guys do have it drummed into them from the start and the their unit execs maintain that and rightly so. I have had close experience of a couple of very serious ATC investigations prior to my leaving the RAF. One of the things that struck me about those and other well-known investigations is that if you do not follow procedures, the investigators will try to hammer you for it. Put that into a legal framework and you could be very seriously exposed. Trust me, you do not want to go there! So to follow the letter of law may seem to some to be protracted, wordy, bothersome etc etc. However, if you stick to the rules and what has been 'drummed into you', you are protecting your arse in the event something going wrong. That may be seen as 'defensive controlling' by some, but at the end of the day, it could just save your bacon. I have heard some of my fellow civil controllers saying that they protect their licence at all times and that is spot on.
We do have our differences, but the bottom line is still the same for all of us - safe and expeditious ATC. Without wishing to sound too patronising, I've always thought of us (civ & mil) as being part of the same team and that includes pilots! Lets keep it that way. I hate the 'us and them mentality' - it just does not work and never has.
The commonality we all seek will hopefully come. In the meantime, keep talking, do the liaison visits, have a beer together and get a greater understanding of what we all do - it does all help. That in turn will find a better way of doing things and may make Toadpool a happier bunny
Stay safe,
WJMcP
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Smoggie Land
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys
I have followed this thread with a great deal of interest
Well Toadpool I could not agree with you more. This is a retrograde step in anyone's world.
But a point I must make is that this is all pointless unless someone attempts to alter the philosophy of who is in charge in the miltary system, PILOT or ATCO. From bitter experence, unless military pilots start to accept that ATC is for their benefit rather than "they are a hinderance" (an actual quote from a front line fast jet pilot)
I have followed this thread with a great deal of interest
Well Toadpool I could not agree with you more. This is a retrograde step in anyone's world.
But a point I must make is that this is all pointless unless someone attempts to alter the philosophy of who is in charge in the miltary system, PILOT or ATCO. From bitter experence, unless military pilots start to accept that ATC is for their benefit rather than "they are a hinderance" (an actual quote from a front line fast jet pilot)
Last edited by lizsdad; 29th Mar 2007 at 21:56. Reason: s
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lizsdad, you clearly do not understand our ethos. The very first thing a military controller is taught is that he/she is there to facilitate 'tactical freedom'. In other words, support the pilot in achieving his aim. As many have previously said, this whole discussion indicates a lack of mutual understanding between air traffikers, nothing more.
I know it's thread drift, but I beg to differ, slightly, with London Mil.
As mil ATCOs we should facilitate tactical freedom; unfortunately, due to lowering experience levels within the branch and trade (at both terminal and area) we do have more controllers now who can't do much more than what they were taught at Shawbury.
I'm not saying that that's always a bad thing, but it would be good to have ATCOs who knew what the pilot was trying to achieve. The best example for me of this was the allocators & GP controllers at area who insisted on pushing Harriers through the GAM & TILNI RVCs, rather than offering direct and/or higher. As a branch we must have been slightly concerned about this, we made up a WK question about it a couple of years ago!
As mil ATCOs we should facilitate tactical freedom; unfortunately, due to lowering experience levels within the branch and trade (at both terminal and area) we do have more controllers now who can't do much more than what they were taught at Shawbury.
I'm not saying that that's always a bad thing, but it would be good to have ATCOs who knew what the pilot was trying to achieve. The best example for me of this was the allocators & GP controllers at area who insisted on pushing Harriers through the GAM & TILNI RVCs, rather than offering direct and/or higher. As a branch we must have been slightly concerned about this, we made up a WK question about it a couple of years ago!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the 12 years I have been a Mil ACTO I have never encountered a real problem with this issue. When talking to civil units you just have to bear in mind they haven't swallowed JSP552. But on the whole co-ordination is achieved and I haven't personally encountered any ambiguity, which after all is the one thing that needs to be avoided.
Although I may encounter the wrath of my betters I sometimes find the Mil way long winded especially if you are trying to co-ordinate multiple tracks. Equally, the civil term "subject to", which is not in the JSP, is a very good way of cutting down verbage.
Only the most absolute Mil ATCO would not understand the requests made by civil as the start of co-ordination and if any doubt exists it is quite easily resolved by asking the other controller exactly what they want.
I agree with toppledgyro, both systems have there merits and as both civil and Mil ATC has the shared goal of safety as a priority, it would seem silly if a shared learning experiance couldn't be had by all.
Although I may encounter the wrath of my betters I sometimes find the Mil way long winded especially if you are trying to co-ordinate multiple tracks. Equally, the civil term "subject to", which is not in the JSP, is a very good way of cutting down verbage.
Only the most absolute Mil ATCO would not understand the requests made by civil as the start of co-ordination and if any doubt exists it is quite easily resolved by asking the other controller exactly what they want.
I agree with toppledgyro, both systems have there merits and as both civil and Mil ATC has the shared goal of safety as a priority, it would seem silly if a shared learning experiance couldn't be had by all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I keep thinking that this post is gradually fading way, but it will keep on being resurrected!
These last two posts, and the input from BurglarsDog and Wee Jock, give me hope that there may be light at the end of the tunnel.
I'm repeating myself again, but I do feel that any confusion/ambiguity is introduced because Shawbury teach that "request coordination" must be said. A lot of Mil ATCOs will probably disagree, but if they were taught more along the lines of MATS part 1, ( coordination is the act, etc), not only would it make more sense to you, but the confusion would not arise in the first place as you will not be looking for that "trigger" phrase. It's not what you say, but why you say it that seems to be at least part of the problem.
As others have already said, there are also some things we could learn from the Mil way of working.
These last two posts, and the input from BurglarsDog and Wee Jock, give me hope that there may be light at the end of the tunnel.
I'm repeating myself again, but I do feel that any confusion/ambiguity is introduced because Shawbury teach that "request coordination" must be said. A lot of Mil ATCOs will probably disagree, but if they were taught more along the lines of MATS part 1, ( coordination is the act, etc), not only would it make more sense to you, but the confusion would not arise in the first place as you will not be looking for that "trigger" phrase. It's not what you say, but why you say it that seems to be at least part of the problem.
As others have already said, there are also some things we could learn from the Mil way of working.
Guest
Posts: n/a
TP, I too had rather hoped this one would drift away. The reason Strawbury insist that the students obtain the magic "C" word is that they have to recognise the difference between coordination and traffic information. Only last week was there a misunderstanding between a civil controller and one of ours a LATCC(Mil) becuase, t the end of the day, they did not agree a course of action and succeeded in only passing long-winded TI.
PS. They are taught along exactly the same lines as civil controllers in so far as "coordination is the act of....."
PS. They are taught along exactly the same lines as civil controllers in so far as "coordination is the act of....."
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a heads up to any military chaps that don't know about this code as of 15th March 2007. I had somebody trying to co-ordinate with my circuit traffic this morning.
Are these AICs made common knowledge in military units?
Are these AICs made common knowledge in military units?
I've worked at seven military units... most have received AICs but none have drawn attention to them. I accept they contain much useful/important information but they're CAA documents and there are all the changes to the Mil docs to absorb first
I haven't had chance to check the regs/listing of the 7010 squawk... but I'm guessing it will be listed as an unverified squawk? So if a mil ATCO is overflying a civil airfield below 10,000ft and can see a 7010 squawk they cannot take separation the Mode C information alone... and must take some other form of action i.e. coordinate, achieve a gap etc etc (the rules are long and complex for all, so I have chosen just a few).
What happens if your 7010 squawk doesn't have Mode C... surely cannot be deemed to be in the visual traffic pattern? Now I've always maintained that if you're separated then you're separated 9and there's no need to take a gap too... if you're worried about whether vertical separation exists then taking standard horizontal separation should be sufficient... but I digress?
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the scenario where a C152/Jodel/Cub maintaining 1500ft etc is to be possibly coordinated against because of high level traffic, then this part of the ATSIN:
'If, after receiving traffic information, a controller believes that co-ordination is necessary, he shall use the term “request co-ordination” and shall follow the verbal procedure detailed below.’ (my bold underlining)
Will be enough for a civil controller, having requested traffic info to say 'Roger' and hang up.
The requesting Mil controller, however:
'Request coordination, my traffic maintaining FL210.......'
'If, after receiving traffic information, a controller believes that co-ordination is necessary, he shall use the term “request co-ordination” and shall follow the verbal procedure detailed below.’ (my bold underlining)
Will be enough for a civil controller, having requested traffic info to say 'Roger' and hang up.
The requesting Mil controller, however:
'Request coordination, my traffic maintaining FL210.......'
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will be enough for a civil controller, having requested traffic info to say 'Roger' and hang up.
The requesting Mil controller, however:
'Request coordination, my traffic maintaining FL210.......'
The requesting Mil controller, however:
'Request coordination, my traffic maintaining FL210.......'
Got the ATSIN in front of me...... if the C152/jodel is Squawking then yes, but you have more than the required height separation anyway (assuming your aircraft at FL210) so the call would not have taken place in the first instance. If the aircraft is non squawking then a roger is NOT acceptable:
Quote from the ATSIN
A response that does not reaffirm the details of the agreement, such as "Roger", is not acceptable.
To ensure clarity and avoid misunderstandings, before terminating the call, parties shall explicitly state the action required of their aircraft to achieve the agreed course of action.
Damned if I can get blue quote boxes up, but the last 2 you put up Fred refer to when coordination is carried out. To my mind, having passed traffic info this is not required, and 'Roger' is OK.
Guest
Posts: n/a
RAC, in your example of a C152 at 1500ft and a fast pointy thing at FL210 I'm presuming that the civil controller wants to know what the mil track is doing. The military controller says "maintaining FL210", and you imply that you are no longer interested with your "Roger" and move on to other things. The military controller may also be no longer interested, neither is his traffic which sqks 7000/7001 and goes on route. It then enters a descent at 35000ft/min pointing straight at your C152. Are you still not interested?
My point is that no agreement has been made with your "Roger" and therefore any TI you have gained is dead as soon as the conversation ends.
My point is that no agreement has been made with your "Roger" and therefore any TI you have gained is dead as soon as the conversation ends.