Military/Civilian coordination (again)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military/Civilian coordination (again)
Early warning for UK Civilian ATCOs
I've recently been informed by members of SRG that MATS part 1 is about to be amended so that when dealing with Military ATCOs, Civilian ATCOs will be required to follow the Military format of coordination.
If/when this comes to pass, I can forsee that this coordination will come under the heading "too difficult" and Civilian ATCOs will refuse to coordinate at all with Military units.
I've recently been informed by members of SRG that MATS part 1 is about to be amended so that when dealing with Military ATCOs, Civilian ATCOs will be required to follow the Military format of coordination.
If/when this comes to pass, I can forsee that this coordination will come under the heading "too difficult" and Civilian ATCOs will refuse to coordinate at all with Military units.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yep, not exactly rocket science...
now if you want us to go through the protracted handover process, thats a different matter...... again not difficult but slick, it's not. (Having said that, it was designed for uncontrolled airspace usage as opposed to a known traffic environment)
now if you want us to go through the protracted handover process, thats a different matter...... again not difficult but slick, it's not. (Having said that, it was designed for uncontrolled airspace usage as opposed to a known traffic environment)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Swanwick
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I look forward to the day it gets standardised across the 2 arms of ATC. It will help eradicate all those "conversations" that us Mil types take as traffic information and civil take as co-ordination with the ensuing landline "punch up" when supposed co-ordination is "broken".
DD
DD
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If/when this comes to pass, I can forsee that this coordination will come under the heading "too difficult" and Civilian ATCOs will refuse to coordinate at all with Military units.
If co-ordination needs done I don't really see any ATCO (civil or military) declining to do what's needed simply because the procedure's changed
.I agree with Diddly Dee that 1 common method, applied consistently across the patch is the way ahead.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are times that civilian co-ordiantion phraseology can be left open to all sorts of ambiguity. Surely a small amount of landline discipline wouldn't hurt?
Last edited by Sky clear; 16th Mar 2007 at 02:23.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The World
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'There are times that the civilian co-ordiantion phrasology can be left open to all sorts of ambiguity. Surley a small amount of landline discipline wouldn't hurt?'
It surely wouldn't hurt as much as your spelling!
It surely wouldn't hurt as much as your spelling!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: ?
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets be honest, how many civil controllers could put their hand on their hearts and say that they have never said something along the lines of:
'can i climb the speedbird' and their opo shouts back 'yea fill your boots'. It's getting better but you know it happens.
In the mil, this almost gets beaten out of you when your training.
Yes i know there isn't as much traffic etc, but if standard phraseology is used the coordination sequence will take no more than a couple of secs.
Clarity, brevity, the key to coordination!!
'can i climb the speedbird' and their opo shouts back 'yea fill your boots'. It's getting better but you know it happens.
In the mil, this almost gets beaten out of you when your training.
Yes i know there isn't as much traffic etc, but if standard phraseology is used the coordination sequence will take no more than a couple of secs.
Clarity, brevity, the key to coordination!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Moon
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it certainly was not civil ATC who started to use the phrase " feet dry / feet wet " on the east coast of Scotland.Obviously I knew what they were getting at but show me where it is published in an official document
Rgds
AyrTC
Rgds
AyrTC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit that I expected these sort of replies from you Military guys. I'd like to make it clear that I am not "having a go" at you following your instructions. What I personally find illogical and frustrating is some of what is written in your JSP550 (or whatever it is now), and taught as gospel at Shawbury.
At the unit I work at, when we are on the westerly runway we have to coordinate about 70% of our IFR traffic (ins and outs) with an adjacent Military unit. When on the easterly this increases to about 95%, as our final approach tracks cross.
The ATCOs at this Military unit are normally very good, and understand our problems. Until recently, coordination was done on a unit/unit basis, with one person at the Military unit, normally the supervisor, coordinating with us, and then passing that coordination to whichever of his/her colleagues that needed to know. This has worked well for a number of years. The only times that difficulties have arisen was when a new ATCO was posted in fresh from Shawbury, and had not been taught how we work.
Our local instructions have recently been changed so that we now have to coordinate each track on a controller/controller basis. "About time" I hear you Military guys saying. However this has led to a considerable increase in our workload, which, given that as we work a lot of the time with 1 ATCO and 1 ATCA in radar, and it sometime gets so busy that we scarcely have time to draw breath, we just do not have time for.
This is further complicated as these Military ATCOs tell me repeatedly that they can not take a discrete, validated and verified squawk as an identification, but still need it's position stating to them (for God's sake, why?).
A typical recent example was the other day. I called them to try to coordinate 1 aircraft inbound. At the time they had thier radar pattern active, a couple of departures and transit traffic. This meant that I had to coordinate ("Your traffic X miles se of YYY, squawking 1234, not below ZZZ, my traffic, etc") about 6 different tracks with 3 different ATCOs. With all the "standbys", etc this took nearly 5 minutes, by which time my traffic had travelled about 25 miles! They then picked up yet another track and, as this new track was not part of the original coordination, it all had to be gone through again. This was for 1 aircraft, with 1 other unit, at a quiet time. Busy times this is simply impractical.
Some of you are probably thinking "then get more ATCOs". I couldn't agree more, but that is where the bean counters get involved, and is out of our hands.
Roger That, you say that this is a result of a "successful" trial in Scotland. From what I've been told, the trial involved Civilian ATCOs coordinating in the Military fashion. What was not trialled was Military ATCOs trying the Civvy method. I'm sorry, but all that proves is that Civvy ATCOs can coordinate in the Military fashion, provided that thier workload is not too high. It does not prove which is the better method.
Diddley Dee, I completely agree, more standarisation is required. But until we are taught at the same schools/colleges, to the same standards, I feel that these misunderstandings will continue.
Tired-flyboy, I also agree that some Civilian ATCOs need to tighten up thier coordination procedures. But I also feel that Military procedures need reviewing and updating to bring them into the 21st century. Provided that a course of action is agreed that is clear and unambiguous to both parties involved, then it should not matter what format the conversation takes.
As for "traffic information is dead information once you hang up", this need not be the case. If you ask me for traffic on a particular track, and I were to answer " flight information, not above xxxft", all you need ask is for me to let you know if this changes. This I will do, and if I'm relieved I'll pass that on to the next ATCO. That particular track should then become known traffic to you, as long as you retain the ident, you could use that information not just for one track, but for anything else you have in the area. As I'm not providing that track with any form of seperation I do not need to know what your traffic is. However, if I were to see a collision risk, I would certainly alert that aircraft, (duty of care, etc).
At the unit I work at, when we are on the westerly runway we have to coordinate about 70% of our IFR traffic (ins and outs) with an adjacent Military unit. When on the easterly this increases to about 95%, as our final approach tracks cross.
The ATCOs at this Military unit are normally very good, and understand our problems. Until recently, coordination was done on a unit/unit basis, with one person at the Military unit, normally the supervisor, coordinating with us, and then passing that coordination to whichever of his/her colleagues that needed to know. This has worked well for a number of years. The only times that difficulties have arisen was when a new ATCO was posted in fresh from Shawbury, and had not been taught how we work.
Our local instructions have recently been changed so that we now have to coordinate each track on a controller/controller basis. "About time" I hear you Military guys saying. However this has led to a considerable increase in our workload, which, given that as we work a lot of the time with 1 ATCO and 1 ATCA in radar, and it sometime gets so busy that we scarcely have time to draw breath, we just do not have time for.
This is further complicated as these Military ATCOs tell me repeatedly that they can not take a discrete, validated and verified squawk as an identification, but still need it's position stating to them (for God's sake, why?).
A typical recent example was the other day. I called them to try to coordinate 1 aircraft inbound. At the time they had thier radar pattern active, a couple of departures and transit traffic. This meant that I had to coordinate ("Your traffic X miles se of YYY, squawking 1234, not below ZZZ, my traffic, etc") about 6 different tracks with 3 different ATCOs. With all the "standbys", etc this took nearly 5 minutes, by which time my traffic had travelled about 25 miles! They then picked up yet another track and, as this new track was not part of the original coordination, it all had to be gone through again. This was for 1 aircraft, with 1 other unit, at a quiet time. Busy times this is simply impractical.
Some of you are probably thinking "then get more ATCOs". I couldn't agree more, but that is where the bean counters get involved, and is out of our hands.
Roger That, you say that this is a result of a "successful" trial in Scotland. From what I've been told, the trial involved Civilian ATCOs coordinating in the Military fashion. What was not trialled was Military ATCOs trying the Civvy method. I'm sorry, but all that proves is that Civvy ATCOs can coordinate in the Military fashion, provided that thier workload is not too high. It does not prove which is the better method.
Diddley Dee, I completely agree, more standarisation is required. But until we are taught at the same schools/colleges, to the same standards, I feel that these misunderstandings will continue.
Tired-flyboy, I also agree that some Civilian ATCOs need to tighten up thier coordination procedures. But I also feel that Military procedures need reviewing and updating to bring them into the 21st century. Provided that a course of action is agreed that is clear and unambiguous to both parties involved, then it should not matter what format the conversation takes.
As for "traffic information is dead information once you hang up", this need not be the case. If you ask me for traffic on a particular track, and I were to answer " flight information, not above xxxft", all you need ask is for me to let you know if this changes. This I will do, and if I'm relieved I'll pass that on to the next ATCO. That particular track should then become known traffic to you, as long as you retain the ident, you could use that information not just for one track, but for anything else you have in the area. As I'm not providing that track with any form of seperation I do not need to know what your traffic is. However, if I were to see a collision risk, I would certainly alert that aircraft, (duty of care, etc).
Last edited by Toadpool; 16th Mar 2007 at 12:40.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Swanwick
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toadpool
I have a few points, none of which are meant as "having a go" either.
1. What particularly about the Military way of co-ordination do you find illogical?
2. I dont understand why as your local procedures have changed whereby you dont co-ordinate through a Mil Sup by proxy where appropriate, how that has any bearing on what the rest of us do?
3. We cannot take a " discrete validated and verified squawk" (without a position report) as identification as (outside CAS) aircraft occassionally will go en route without changing the squawk and then lo & behold circumstances combine whereby you & the Mil controller are looking at two different ac (with possibly your runaway sqk on the Mil screen but not on yours) when co-ordinating with predictable results. It seems far more safe to state a postion and get a "contact" particularly if the squawks are not callsign code converted.
4. I agree co-ordination can be cumbersome when trying to co-ordinate multiple tracks with different contol positions at the same Mil unit, but one thing it isnt, is ambiguous (if done properly).
I have lost count of the number of times civil ATCOs (when I was working in the terminal environment ....I exclude the Area radar guys & TC as we seem to rub along together fine in area radar where co-ord is concerned) have moaned at myself or my collegues when they thought they had co-ordinated traffic when they had not because of lax or non standard co-ordination techniques.
Indeed many of these occassions the word co-ordination is never even mentioned, so how am I supposed to know whether the caller is after co-ord or TI?
Standardisation..... Bring it on
DD
I have a few points, none of which are meant as "having a go" either.
1. What particularly about the Military way of co-ordination do you find illogical?
2. I dont understand why as your local procedures have changed whereby you dont co-ordinate through a Mil Sup by proxy where appropriate, how that has any bearing on what the rest of us do?
3. We cannot take a " discrete validated and verified squawk" (without a position report) as identification as (outside CAS) aircraft occassionally will go en route without changing the squawk and then lo & behold circumstances combine whereby you & the Mil controller are looking at two different ac (with possibly your runaway sqk on the Mil screen but not on yours) when co-ordinating with predictable results. It seems far more safe to state a postion and get a "contact" particularly if the squawks are not callsign code converted.
4. I agree co-ordination can be cumbersome when trying to co-ordinate multiple tracks with different contol positions at the same Mil unit, but one thing it isnt, is ambiguous (if done properly).
I have lost count of the number of times civil ATCOs (when I was working in the terminal environment ....I exclude the Area radar guys & TC as we seem to rub along together fine in area radar where co-ord is concerned) have moaned at myself or my collegues when they thought they had co-ordinated traffic when they had not because of lax or non standard co-ordination techniques.
Indeed many of these occassions the word co-ordination is never even mentioned, so how am I supposed to know whether the caller is after co-ord or TI?
Standardisation..... Bring it on
DD
Last edited by Diddley Dee; 16th Mar 2007 at 16:23.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Toadpool, I think you should recognise that military people find it equally frustrating where the only set of 'good' rules are the ones you civil types doggedly quote from CAP493. Talking about mixed civ/mil ops, I am guessing that you may be a Teeside man. The Teeside/Leeming relationship is renowned acorss the RAF for being poor. How many airprox/MORs/AIR(C)s over the last couple of years?
I think we all agree - standardised procedures are the way ahead. The important bit is for both sides to acknowledge that their way of doing business may not necessarily be best.
I think we all agree - standardised procedures are the way ahead. The important bit is for both sides to acknowledge that their way of doing business may not necessarily be best.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Toadpool,
You make some valid points reference civ/mil co-ord. Yes indeed, greater harmonisation between us would have far reaching benefits. I understand that there is/was work going on to bring us all closer together, but where that has got to, i'm not so sure. Co-ordination between two mil ATCOs is usually pretty slick - same with two civil ATCOs. Put a mil ATCO and a civil ATCO together for co-ord and that is where it can potentially get quite protracted - serves to illustrate your point well. However, you have to understand that the mil guys do have it drummed into them from the outset. So if the mil guys fall back on what their taught, I for one understand. It might be protracted and slightly defensive, but that's life. If they don't adhere to the regs, the supervisor, LEO(LCE) or other exec will make damn sure they will the next time.
By the way, any traffic information is dead information once passed. I was taught that in the military and still use it today as a civil ATCO. If that traffic is giving you any concern, then co-ordinate it - job done. Makes you have to co-ordinate more, but sometimes that gives you less heartache in then end.
If life is getting so difficult, then maybe your unit execs can revisit the issue with the ATC execs at the RAF unit and try and get a letter of agreement drawn up? Maybe that would help reduce your workload? Have you got together with the RAF guys via liaison visits and chewed the fat with them? These serve to create a better overall understanding of each others operating problems and perhaps make things work just a little better. We do it up our neck of the woods and it works just fine - hic !! Just suggestions of course - you may have already gone down that road already.
AYR TC,
What's wrong with 'report feet wet/feet dry'? Same meaning as 'report coasting out/coasting in' and just as unambiguous, with absolutely no danger of misinterpretation. So what's the problem? It may even have been me that used it on you and I look forward to using it again! I'm ex-RAF, not RN, but the meaning of the instruction is clear and, if your under a FIS (as you probably were), it serves as a prompt to me when I need to chuck you to the next unit - job done. Maybe you've just got a problem with 'mil' phraseology, no matter how straightforward/unambiguous it is?
Nothing in the Manual...........
Best wishes,
WJMcP
You make some valid points reference civ/mil co-ord. Yes indeed, greater harmonisation between us would have far reaching benefits. I understand that there is/was work going on to bring us all closer together, but where that has got to, i'm not so sure. Co-ordination between two mil ATCOs is usually pretty slick - same with two civil ATCOs. Put a mil ATCO and a civil ATCO together for co-ord and that is where it can potentially get quite protracted - serves to illustrate your point well. However, you have to understand that the mil guys do have it drummed into them from the outset. So if the mil guys fall back on what their taught, I for one understand. It might be protracted and slightly defensive, but that's life. If they don't adhere to the regs, the supervisor, LEO(LCE) or other exec will make damn sure they will the next time.
By the way, any traffic information is dead information once passed. I was taught that in the military and still use it today as a civil ATCO. If that traffic is giving you any concern, then co-ordinate it - job done. Makes you have to co-ordinate more, but sometimes that gives you less heartache in then end.
If life is getting so difficult, then maybe your unit execs can revisit the issue with the ATC execs at the RAF unit and try and get a letter of agreement drawn up? Maybe that would help reduce your workload? Have you got together with the RAF guys via liaison visits and chewed the fat with them? These serve to create a better overall understanding of each others operating problems and perhaps make things work just a little better. We do it up our neck of the woods and it works just fine - hic
!! Just suggestions of course - you may have already gone down that road already.AYR TC,
What's wrong with 'report feet wet/feet dry'? Same meaning as 'report coasting out/coasting in' and just as unambiguous, with absolutely no danger of misinterpretation. So what's the problem? It may even have been me that used it on you and I look forward to using it again! I'm ex-RAF, not RN, but the meaning of the instruction is clear and, if your under a FIS (as you probably were), it serves as a prompt to me when I need to chuck you to the next unit - job done. Maybe you've just got a problem with 'mil' phraseology, no matter how straightforward/unambiguous it is?
Nothing in the Manual...........Best wishes,
WJMcP
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the Dog and Duck
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"At the unit I work at, when we are on the westerly runway we have to coordinate about 70% of our IFR traffic (ins and outs) with an adjacent Military unit. When on the easterly this increases to about 95%, as our final approach tracks cross".
If you have a point if confliction like this, is it not possible to arrange a standing agreement co-ordination?
If you have a point if confliction like this, is it not possible to arrange a standing agreement co-ordination?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you say that this is a result of a "successful" trial in Scotland
For the record, it took place within the London and [principally] the Scottish FIRs.
From what I've been told, the trial involved Civilian ATCOs coordinating in the Military fashion
What was not trialled was Military ATCOs trying the Civvy method
I'm sorry, but all that proves is that Civvy ATCOs can coordinate in the Military fashion, provided that thier workload is not too high. It does not prove which is the better method
Being an open-minded chap though .... If you feel there's a better way, talk to SRG and the M.o.D. to make the change happen, that's what happened here. I'm sure everyone wants what's best and from what I can read, there seems compelling agreement that consistency through a common understanding of procedures will help us all achieve what we need.
With this in mind, roll on ATSOCAS and lets have a common view of what "clean" means
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Moon
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WJMcP
My traffic was on a RIS and what I assume the FC wanted me to do was to keep my traffic over the land and he would keep his traffic over the sea.Really useful when I had several a/c routing ADN-NEW-ADN .
Just another day on the TAY Sector.
Rgds
AyrTC
My traffic was on a RIS and what I assume
the FC wanted me to do was to keep my traffic over the land and he would keep his traffic over the sea.Really useful when I had several a/c routing ADN-NEW-ADN . Just another day on the TAY Sector.Rgds
AyrTC
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Swanwick
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That, unfortunately IMHO sounds like FC "co-ordination"...please note that when I refer to Mil co-ordination I am referring to Air Traffickers, the Fighter Control branch are another thing all together 
.
Incidentally we come across the same difficulties when "liaising" with the FC guys.
DD
.Incidentally we come across the same difficulties when "liaising" with the FC guys.
DD