I'm sorry, but I feel that this is a very sad day for Civvy ATC, and will only lead to less coordination being carried out for reasons previously stated.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I feel that the units chosen to take part in the trail were picked to get the desired result, not to prove which system is the more practical.

Also what does the gobbledygook in paras 6.1 (in particular the last sentence) and para 6.2 mean?

RAC/OPS, I'm with you in your example. In fact I think a Civvy controller would not even make the phone call for the following reasons:-

1. If the traffic was not squawking you would not know who to coordinate with.

2. If it was squawking mode A only it could be deemed at or below FL100.

3. With mode A and C you would clearly have more than enough vertical.

4. FL210 is now in controlled airspace, so is again deemed separated from traffic outside;) .

Standby for more FISs being left on 7000 squawks.

No. ATC units can control aircraft above FL100 without Mode C.

...and how fast will the mil traffic climb or descend?

Oh really? Best you read the AIP regarding TRAs.

One last thing. This is indeed a sorry day for ATC - ie when someone views himself as 'civvy ATC' and not part of the whole system.

London Mil; no, in my example the civil controller is working the C152 and receives a call for traffic info/poss coord from the controller working the high level traffic, and the two responses are from the latter.

"Standby for controller........"

:}

Ah London Mil, patronising as ever.

As I have stated before, Mil units may be able to work traffic above FL100 without mode C, but Civvy units can't, except in very exceptional circumstances.

I am well aware of how quickly Mil traffic climbs and descends, but the example quoted was for traffic maintaining FL210.

As for the class C airspace above FL195, I know that access has been limited to only a few, mainly area, units. Most, if not all, terminal units cannot enter without permission.

TP, I will continue to patronise as long as you spout.
It is irrelevant who can and cannot control in a TRA, the point is that anyone providing a service in a TRA cannot deem traffic underneath it as any military aircraft can climb straight into a TRA without clearance. Fact.
As far as the no Mode C above FL100 bit is concerned, you can work traffic above FL100 without A&C. For starters, try inaccurate Mode C indications - I presume you know the actions to be taken under such circumstances? Similarly, someone can get airborne with a perfectly serviceable transpoder and then have it fail on them. Should I just assume that a no mode C aircraft is below FL100? I think not.
Sure, the military guy will say 'maintaining'. But if nobody wants that magic thing called coordination, he may well allow the aircraft to go on-route as soon as the conversation is complete.
RAC, now I understand your example, I'll just thank you for being 'jack' and unwilling to help a fellow controller. :ugh:

LM, isn't it the case that we can work and allow traffic without A&C above FL100, but our higher paid brethren are allowed to deem such ac as being beneath FL100? That raises an issue though, civ controller at FL170 deems an ac with NMC as being beneath FL100 and proceeds to have an airprox with said ac working C15 as London. :(

London Mil - Where have I given the impression that I was unwilling to help a fellow controller? My point is that in the situation I described, the civil controller asking for traffic info would leave it at that, whereas the uncivil one..sorry, the mil one would probably go into the request coordination spiel anyway.

How about trying to hand over pre-noted RAS traffic to Swanwick or London mil, given the controller no. to ring, subsequent controller denies all knowledge of the pre-note, refuses to accept it without a pre-note, I go through it all again - this takes about 20 miles, then same controller expects me to take a handover on another acft, RAS, no pre-note at all. That is what I call unhelpful!:ugh: :ugh:

RAC/OPS, I would hope that your reference to military controllers being un-civil was a genuine mistake, but then we all have delete keys so it could not have been, so I think an apology to the majority would not go amiss.

If I ever asked for traffic information on something I would simply say something along the lines of "roger, request coordination, my traffic UMBEL south east 10nms tracking north-west, squawking 6152." hopefully get a "contact" and then say something that fits in with your traffic profile. Takes about 10 seconds. It's not really going into a spiel again!

In terms of your handover problem, unfortunately, every so often, an allocator (at Lon Mil) or Planner (at Swanwick) will take a pre-note and fail to forward that to the controller concerned - hence you may end up in the situation that you describe. Unless the unit is very busy (which would normally cause that pre-note not to have been passed) a quick call to the allocator should sort the problem out and, unless your ac is supersonic, should not take 20nms. I'm not saying that you've not experienced a delay that long, I'm saying that it shouldn't be that bad. I know that both units are somewhat under-staffed at the moment and certainly London Mil is struggling for experienced staff.

I think we maybe need to cool this down a bit fellas, we are all basically following the same hymn sheet and even I can get along quite merrily with my highly paid cousins 7 miles up the road. :ok: Cheer up, it's the weekend.

A quick question and a genuine query.
Why when the conversation ends does a Mil Controller have to say their position/console number ?

So that it is self-evident that the controller at that end considers the liaison/co-ordination/conversation ended (and possibly to reinforce the specific console position at larger units) and to avoid misunderstanding as a result of one party switching off too early. A useful and effective technique that - IMHO - ought to be adopted by civil ATC. And I say that as a died-in-the-wool civil ATCO.

Ayr TC.
The important factor is that when you are co-ordinating RIS/RIS, RIS/RAS, RAS/RAS - it is clear, understanable to both controllers, and brief. 'Feet Wet' and 'Feet Dry' are perfectly acceptable - our JSP552 makes the point that phraseology in the document does not cover everything! ScATCC(Mil) and ScACC TAY Sector have the same problems in the same airspace, and if using the 'Feet...' will make co-ordination with Boulmer or Blackdog any:ugh:easier and more understandable - then so be it! The important thing is to get the co-ordination! :ok: Such sideswipes as you made help nobody :=

Surely using terms such as 'Feet Wet' or 'Dry' is only sensible if both units have a common definition agreed between them which allows their use as a standard phraseology ?

There is no civil definition of what they mean in any national or local documentation. Until there is, I'd expect civil controllers to query what the mil controller actually means and obtain co-ordination in terms which both parties fully understand. Making an assumption could be dangerous.

If it's something which is deemed a good idea to use in military/civil interfaces, then the mil need to staff the dialogue to get it adopted as a common procdure.

PPRadar, I completely agree. :D:D:D hence the push to formalise coordination protocols with "Not above", "Not below" or "Maintaining" ;)