Mil/Civ Operations
 

A recent airprox commented on the lack of standardation between mil & civ procedures. Co-ordination, radar handover, interpretation of RIS/RAS are just some of the areas of difficulty.
Recently I was berated by a military controller for not passing the heading of an aircraft on a RAS. The aircraft was on its own navigation to a defined reporting point!
I was berated because I was not interested in the level of traffic co-ordinated against my VFR track some 12,000ft above!!
I was accused of being "unprofessional" because I did not use the phrase "co-ordination agreed" when co-ordinating traffic with the military.
I was told that agreeing to follow military traffic in a complex high density traffic situation was not co-ordination because we had not agreed levels.
Is it not time we sat around the table and sorted out these differences?

And now you know why they don't automatically get civil licences ;)

Maybe it's time they realised they're not the majority airspace user, and so should do the job the way we do it - not expect us to do it their way all the time (Handing over aircraft on ridiculous QFE's, expecting a radar handover for each individual transit when you've already pre-noted it and obtained a squawk and frequency etc etc).

It's time the tail stopped wagging the dog.

Isn't a handover required for a continuous radar service?

My understanding is that if a handover is not given then the radar service should be terminated, as it has not been confirmed whether the next radar unit has identified the aircraft.

I generally would give a handover on a RAS as I am trying to provide standard separation, on a RIS, I would call traffic out to about 10 / 15 miles ahead of the aircraft, cancel the service and then transfer the a/c.

Just my two penneth.

TIO

Christ on a bike, so it's not only down here that it happens!

Simple solution in that case, ring off, and repeat these words to the aircraft, "freecall XXXX radar 123.45, good day." Let the mil guys sort it out.
I had a run in with a certain mil unit north east of us a few months ago, when I tried to give a radar handover with a C130 on a RIS with the usual weekend traffic operating to the NE of us. Then the dimwit at the other end started to give me traffic info and avoiding action to relay to the C130, despite the fact that none of the tfc he was calling was visible to me on my radar and the headings he was giving me were putting the aircraft in conflict with traffic I COULD see! I protested and he claimed he couldn't take a handover while there was conflicting traffic. Since we only had one radar position open, and I had my own commercial inbounds to give a service to, I rang off, put the C130 on his own nav, cancelled his radar service and told him to freecall the mil unit on any freq which took his fancy. At the rate things were going, he'd have been at the beacon before I got him transferred.
So not only do I have to pay taxes which keep these eejits in a job, but they expect me to do their job at the same time!!
I think not!

We learned an interesting fact in the last couple of weeks or so regarding the procedures our Navy colleagues have to follow when crossing airways.
Aircraft non squawking not talking to us are always taken as being beneath the Airway, our Navy colleagues apparently have to take avoiding action on those non squawkers.

We work very closely with Military ATCOs and I find them very helpful, it is the procedures they have to follow that are the issue, possibly introduced so long ago and simply not updated to deal with the traffic of today. To hand over traffic to a Military ATCO takes on average 3 times the length to a Civil ATCO.

It is a shame we seem to work to such contrary rules

Ey, ey ey, calm down, calm down.

Flower, I think I can expand on your comment. If you are talking about N864, then part of that airway is delegated to Cardiff ATC. Anyone other than CDF has to avoid non-squawkers because they may be on a procedural crossing with Cardiff. In the MoU there will be a comment such as Cardiff will try to inform other users of this situation, which is obviously not practical. This is why you may often get calls from other units asking if you have any procedural crossers. If you say no then they can legitimately deem that non-squawker as being below CAS.

On the subject of phraseology etc, it is an issue. This was brought to a head by a couple of Airprox where the civil controller "claimed" he did not understand what was being said to him! (raises eyebrow) Now you could read this as the controller in question trying to cover his arse. There was another (published) airprox where Boulmer used a phrase "I'll call you in" which confused the situation. I can confidently state that on the whole, military phraseology is much more strict than civil. This is because of the strict standards organisation in most units and the ATCEB visits.

It is however, an issue. Any controller should be in no doubt about what has been agreed. Comments like "cheers mate", "yeah that's fine" "no problem" etc. heard EVERY SINGLE DAY, have no place in a safety critical environment. A clear and unambiguous statement of intent is essential "cleared to cross at", "not above" "not below" are key elements. Some people can get anal and say that statements such as "co-ordination agreed" are not current phrases but, if it is clear then fine "I'll go behind the BRTXXX and the turn north to climb".... a clear statement of intent.

On the subject of not seeing traffic on radar, that is a difficult subject. If you are the receiving controller and the aircraft is in confliction, you cannot just ignore it! Team game everyone, safe and expeditious flow etc.

The bottom line is..there are plonkers in both civil and military ATC. There are also a lot of hard working and highly professional people around. If you talk to one of the plonkers, resolve it, get your units together and talk about the issues. We live on a very small island, with extremely busy airspace, all trying to do our respective tasks, military working civil aircraft and civil working military. It has worked very well for decades and is the envy of most of the rest of the world. The system has it's faults but nothing we cannot sort out!



:ok: :ok:

NATS, M.o.D. and SRG have started this ball rolling [end of July] - you'll probably guess that it's not exactly an easy or quick thing to do but there's a will to do so and hopefully we'll see some movement in the not too distant future.

What's clear though is there's always 2 sides to every story so if you don't understand the other saide, go visit - you might be surprised at what you see ;)

RT

Yes, yes, yes, that's all very well, but my unit employs me to sort out our traffic, not XXXX's. I know we also provide LARS, but only to the extent that MY radar picture allows. And, when the LARS function begins to override MY primary function ie sequencing and control of our own commercial inbounds and outbounds, then the LARS side will not get my full attention. Neither do I need a mil ATCO telling me what to do with traffic to sort out his problems.

Now, that said, it was not the C130 driver's fault, and I don't want to give them a bad service, they are after all, entitled to the best service I can provide. But even they, as pilots, will understand that I must provide my own inbounds and outbounds with my full attention. Something I cannot do when Johnny Eagle Eyes at the other end of the line is jabbering in my ear with avoiding action that is unnecessary under the terms of the service I am providing.

As for the large mil seafaring unit to my south, they seem to understand such things and cause no such problems.

SN,

Are you saying that your organisation is not providing enough manpower to exercise it's license?


:ok: ;)

We at Cardiff have to apply the same rules to Airways traffic as everyone else , traffic must be wearing both Mode A and Mode C.
The only time we once had a non squawker ( I can't quite remember why but it was some emergency I believe ) we had to inform all possible users of the airspace ie those who have autonomous use of the Airway, so it isn't infact an issue at all.

Flower me old flower,

That is very interesting! Thanks

Widgster

Widger, do you have any idea how the civil system works?

Yes we have enough staff to cover our 'license' requirements, but that doesn't mean the LARS radar position ie RAD2, has to be open at all times, we just combine functions when it suits. That 'combining' of functions does not, however, take into account some ass at a nearby mil unit adding to our workload for no good reason.

Well,

I think the answer to that considered argument is..................

Bear in mind Widger that civil units don't have the luxury of the defence budget to staff a tower with:

Ground
Tower
Zone
Director
Talkdown
Approach
Supervisor

plus 3 or 4 assistants

Many ADC/APR units will get along with 2 on position plus a rotating relief - often pushing as much traffic as a busy military unit.

Welcome to the real world ;)

I spose it was time that this knackered old topic was trotted-out again! The nail has been hit firmly on the head in an earlier post; visit one anothers' units!!!

As usual a lot of old cock has been spouted in other replies.

Fact - some mil controllers are t*ssers
Fact - some civ controllers are t*ssers
Fact - most mil controllers do a thoroughly professional job within their rules/regulations
Fact - most civ controllers do a thoroughly professional job within their rules/regulations
Fact - the rules/regulations are virtually identical
Fact - some people are not so good at remembering, interpreting and applying said rules/regulations on a day-to-day basis.

High horse stabled. :ouch:

Are we not all bound to give the same standard of LARS service, or is it only when your budget and interest factor allows?

And would Standard Noise be an "eejit" controller not understanding the rules of handover on RIS/RAS from the same Lulsgate that refused to take a handover on commerial traffic inbound to them under a RAS (that I had kindly taken from Sector 6 to give a more expeditious route from the Channel Islands to Bristol due to time/fuel constraints across our danger areas - nice seagoing mil blokes that we are) because he was too busy with 4 ahead (he had time to tell me that!), despite the aircraft being only 10 miles south of him at FL80 and getting towards the edge of my radar cover.

Maybe thats why he doesn't have much contact from the dockyard controllers too often.

Can't be easy being perfect......

(And in my current job I dream of only 5 on at times!)

Well said CB!

LXGB :ok:

RNGrommits- very good, best laugh I've had in ages. There's nowt like a drain on the taxpayer who's lost his sense of humour!

If you're talking about a certain thundery afternoon about two weeks ago, then no, I won't accept traffic coming direct through the FIR, just so the airline involved can save a few quid. There was a perfectly acceptable alternative route for those aircraft (SAM-CPT-BRI) if they weren't happy flying their normal route (BHD-EXM-BRI). If they wanted to leave CAS NE of SAM and come direct BRI, we will accomodate if we can, but that means if the FIR south of us is relatively quiet. 99% of my colleagues at BRS will back me up on that. We're not in the business of risking the safety of our inbounds and outbounds just so an airline can save a few bob. There can be up to 4 different Mil units operating a/c to the south of us, and we simply don't have time to coordinate with all of them about everything in the FIR as well as avoiding the other unknown puddle jumpers. On that afternoon, Sector 6 gave one of our inbounds to Lon Mil who attempted to hand the a/c off to me south of DY (with at least a dozen contacts unknown to me operating between the a/c and our zone). I asked my ATSA to tell them that "no, I won't accept that a/c there, tell them to put it to DY" because yes, I had other commercial movements to think about and didn't believe I could devote enough time to that one particular inbound such was the level of attention it would have required.
What did Lon Mil do? Well, they threw the toys out of the pram, and very, very professional chaps that they are:rolleyes: , freecalled the inbound to me in the middle of the FIR, while he was surrounded by multiple contacts (five of which I knew to be Mil fast jets operating unpredictably from 40-240, but only cos those decent spuds at Boscombe let us in on the joke), and without any semblance of a handover at all. I suppose that means that if we don't play by the Mil rules, they decide just to make up new ones!

Then, when I had time, I phoned the Sector 6 planner and asked him to inform all inbounds likely to want the same route that I would accept them routing SAM-CPT-BRI or not at all. Funny how they all then followed this route without so much as a squeak. And no, I haven't had any complaints from my boss either, oh, and he's an ex-mil ATCO. Funny enough so are a few of my colleagues.

You see RNG when you work in the civil world, you have a different set of priorities that go along the lines of safety, expedition consistent with that safety, ond order. If you think we at BRS need improving in those areas, then come along, bring your little yellow licence, and have a go. :ok:

Please don't generalise. CB has hit the mark... If there is a problem with neighbouring airfields/units, the answer lies in liaison, not personal attack.

FACTS: Both sides work under slightly different interpretations of similar rules (right or wrong?), both work under slightly differing pressures, some have inflated egos, not everyone is the same.
... and Standard Noise believe it or not, similar priorities? ... regarding your specific scenario, the Sector Controller let the traffic off-route in the first place... to help? Swanwick (Mil) would have accepted the traffic assuming they would be able to handover the traffic as it approaches the destination... to help.

The traffic was, I presume, pre-noted ahead of arrival and it is that point you can express any concerns you have if it is inconvenient. I don't doubt you were "one-armed paper hanging" with the traffic already in the zone, but you may have left Swanwick (Mil) with little option and certainly no solution, what did you expect them to do with the traffic?... although I agree a freecall isn't helpful. (IMHO they do not have the capacity they used to have when at West Drayton?).

For once, I agree this is the sort of problem caused by the routing of GAT through unregulated Class G airspace... but wake up to the facts, like it or not... it's happening more and more, wise or unwise it is not yet illegal, so ranting about it, and the people trying to make it work, is NOT the answer.

In the scenario, I believe everyone was trying to do what we do best i.e. help... This time it didn't work out for you... hopefully some lessons were learnt? Speaking to the Sector was the right action... did you speak to Swanwick(Mil) too? If this is a recurring problem, formulate an SOP, so then everyone knows what to expect and has options.

Up North the Mil at Lossie had a shot at being civil ATCO's providing radar !!! service for Inverness ( well at least monitoring traffic entering the INS hold).The trial has been so " succesful" ( for various reasons I imagine), that HIAL have put the service out for Civil tender ie HIAL inhouse,NATS or Serco.

I am not anti-Mil ( I gave a CFP to Scot Mil the other day :ok: ),however apart from the title of Air Traffic Controller I sometimes think Civil/Mil ATCO's have nothing in common.

Rgds

AyrTC

.

Pierre Argh - the point I was making there, was that my input wasn't asked for on whether the a/c in question would be accepted direct the BRI, by either London OR Lon Mil, rather, it was assumed that it would be, and when informed that I would not accept the a/c, Lon Mil threw the toys out and freecalled the a/c in the middle of the FIR surrounded by unknowns from which I had little chance of maintaining any sort of separation. That's not a very professional attitude to take and I would suggest that in future, before they decide to be 'helpful', they phone us first to ask if it is OK. Then we can spare any embarassment that would be caused by the 'Cavalry' cocking things up and adding to our workload. Anyway, with the incident I'm talking about, the a/c came to me on the drop to 80, he was actually passing 147 about 13 miles south of the BRI when he called me, which to be frank, was as much use as a choccy fireguard!:uhoh:

Update to Pierre's edit :
I know everyone was trying to be helpful, and that pilots will 'chance their arm' trying to get direct routes, but it would be nice if these things were co ordinated before they happened. As for what I expected the Mil controller to do, I expected him to follow the actions I passed to him ie hand the a/c off to DY, who, after all, are responsible for providing LARS in that area and knew about a great deal more of the traffic in that area than I did. The Mil ATCO chose to do something very silly, which put the a/c in potential conflict with upwards of a dozen other a/c. The only saving grace was the height of the inbound at the time of contact.

Standard... re-read my post and you'll see I agree with you almost completely... it has long been general SOP to accept traffic on the assumption that it will be accepted further along en-route and that pre-note was sufficient? Let's not get hung up on the particulars of one specific incident... Things are changing, everyone is busier, most have fewer resources... we need practical solutions that allow everyone to work together, NOT antagonism... which will always lead to toys all over the floor.

Pierre, I understand what you are saying, but there was no pre-note. And often, we get no pre-note, rather, just a call to give a handover.

Perhaps the initial fault here lay with Sector 6, but I sorted that out with a phone call afterwards. Don't get me wrong, I like the direct route idea, but only when it is going to work. Routing SAM-BRI or even BHD-BRI during business hours Mon-Fri however, generally doesn't work, so a quick phone call to us from whoever has the traffic, will establish the suitability of such a plan.

Standard Noise:
Maybe I'm just being thick here, but my little ruler and chart tell me that a direct route SAM-BRI goes straight through EGD123, permanently active to 50,000ft.

AyrTC:Isn't there a bigger story to this though? INS is applying for CAS and will need a radar service to support it. But the radar at Lossie can't see all of INS's airspace, so they'll need not only civil controllers, but their own new radar...

Similar situation at Doncaster. RAF controllers at Waddington couldn't provide an approach service, but Liverpool controllers using the Waddington picture can.

NS

NorthSouth - no, you're not being thick at all, you are correct, but that route was the easiest way to explain rather than saying 'the a/c was put on a radar heading while south of SAM and taken round etc etc'. Although since the a/c was going to under the control of Lon Mil, that would have been their problem to deal with.

At FL80 the a/c is outside CAS and can surely therefore enter the hold at FL80 if they so desired?

I agree it wouldn't be very helpful, choccy fireguard springs to mind, but at least if it had you would have been talking to it, so not all bad!!!

SN
Again showing my ignorance - what little yellow license?
I think the last yellow licence I had was my provisional car licence. (Or is that actually all I need......?)

And yet again this kind of thread highlights the real core of the matter, which is the fact that Mil/Civ controllers and indeed the airspace users are trying to complete a wide variety (& indeed often disparate variety) of tasks in a relatively confined bit of airspace.
Are we the only country on the planet that has the problems? I think not.

I think the real answer is to realise that we probably are all after different goals, and if you do end up on the end of a landline to someone playing "their game" much to your own angst, then it is probably better to suck back, chill out and do the best you can without going off on one and giving yourself a cardiac (or at least an earlier one) which probably isn't going to help the situation any.

And if you can't help but be Mr Stressed and Angry, are you sure ATC is actually the vocation for you?

SN

For crying out load, will you calm down! Your posts are becoming more of a rant rather than dealing with the issue at hand.

First of all London (Mil) no longer operate in your area, it is Swanwick (Mil) who share the same ops room as sector 6.

If the situation you were presented with was dangerous, then did you file a report? If so, the facts will come out when the WHOLE issue is investigated.

A certain airport to the south west of you, never seems to have the problems you have.

Interesting that the considered, even posts seem to come, in the main, from the Mil fraternity and the rants from Civ. :(

How many of the Civ moaners have been to a Mil unit recently to either see what they get up to or to present their case?

As a matter of interest, all future Mil controllers will have undertaken liaison visits to Civ towers and ACCs as part of their training.

BRS were always bleeting about the Mil traffic operating in Class G when I was at BDN. Did they do the same when BDN was a CAA Unit I wonder - they probably weren't even that busy before the Mil rescued the mess that Airwork left! That was the Airwork employing people with little yellow licences by the way!

It must be so so hard to be perfect.

Widger thankyou for making the correction about it being Swanwick not London, it was very hard being tarred with that particular brush :ok:

Standard Noise, as Widger said, if the ac was freecalled to you in confliction then file a report. However, your comment about the height of the ac being the saving grace suggests that actually the confliction was well below you. You have however highlighted a VERY important point and that is the provision of ATSOCAS to CAT outside CAS, a problem that is close to all our hearts in one way or another. Believe me, Swanwick (Mil) like working RAS airliner traffic inbound to you through Class G airspace, about as much as London Mil like working RAS airliner traffic through the Vale of York. No mean feat when the airliner is an A340 with a pilot who doesn't understand RAS and the Vale of York has got up to 40 VFR ac within it, playing up to FL200.

The main problem that I believe that we have is the provision of ATSOCAS and the way in which we interpret the rules, because I don't believe the civ and mil rules for RAS are going to be that much different.

I can't believe that I have avoided reading this thread for so long but Canary Boy, your post of 14 Sep is spot on. We all work with a variety of people with a variety of qualities. We do the same job but interpretaton of rules and procedures do vary ; god I spent several years banging my head against a brick wall at my last unit trying to get some of mycolleagues to comply with the rules correctly, almost all did but some are intent on 'being gash and doing it their own way' thereby they do not deserve the respect of their peers and IMHO should seek alternative employment where such exacting professional standards are not required (what an opening to start a feud between other military occupations but I shall pass on that one!!)

Standard Noise, I notice that the views on the neighbours of your unit seem to have changed in the last 15 months or so; as a controller I also get frustrated that others do not listen to the information given during handovers, or maybe the controller misheard or had inputs coming from left, right and centre during the handover - I remember what it can be like in that area on a weekend when everyone is on min manning.

I think, with the odd exception, controllers do a bloody good job in this country, whether it be civ or mil. And those who let the side down should be gash elsewhere

To answer a few queries.............

No, I didn't file a report cos there was no airprox, but with fast jets flogging around, there's nothing to say there won't be a confliction in the blink of an eye. I'd prefer not to have to sort out a mess of someone else's creation.
As for the mil traffic whcih operates to the south of BRS, hey, it's free airspace, I've no problem with them being there, and will try to keep my traffic out of the way. Saves on the paperwork.
I don't think mil controllers are bad controllers, but there was, in this particular case, a bad decision made ie 'if BRS won't take a handover, then we'll point it thataway and chuck it.' That seems a bit silly to me as it's not something I'd do, but there you go.

But guys, if we're all meant to be on the same side and working towards the same end, then ask yourself before you do something if it will help the next guy down the line. I made a decision not to accept a particular aircraft on a particular (non standard) routing. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean to say you can disregard it. Problem is, next time, I might be more pre-disposed to go into print, but I really don't want to.

Oh yeah, RNG , when you've done your time and come to the civvy world, you'll need a little yellow licence, we've all got them, and they're not provisional either. Read up about them, they're fab.:ok:

I am pleased to see the debate my post started.
However, My question was not answered. We all believe that we are doing the "right thing." The difficulty is that we sing from different hymn sheets.
Should'nt the powers that be sort out this mess or is it up to an organisation like GATCO to sort out their airships?

Notwithstanding the user consultation(s) in progress, the JANSC are discussing this at a senior level.

RT

Mil/Civ operations.
 

I've been following this thread with interest and an incident yesterday has compelled me to add my views.

The comments made by GMST are not an attack on military ATCOs, but rather are critical of the system under which they are required to work.

The incident in question happened when I was extremely busy, a military area controller rang asking about traffic 10 nm east of the airport, squawking A, but not C. When I told her it was on a FIS not above 3000' she then proceeded to try and co-ordinate against traffic more than 25 nm North, passing FL210 climbing!

I also tried to explain that civil ATCOs can not permit traffic to operate FL100+ without mode C.

This was not only a waste of both her and my time, but an unnecessary distraction for me at a time of high workload.

I would also comment that there are a lot of ex-military ATCOs working at civil units, but how many ex-civil ATCOs work at military units?

Toadpool
Whilst appreciating your rules, you must surley understand that when giving a RAS the Military controller cannot deem your aircraft to be below FL100 just because it has NMC (Our rules will not let us do that) and the fact that you have passed TRAFFIC INFORMATION (see the rules for a definition Of Traffic Information vs Co-ordination) which is dead information the moment you have given it means that the Military Controller must get co-ordination on that track from you. Seeing as you have already passed Traffic info on the track, the extra sentance that you have to say for co-ordination is hardly that much of a burden. And Despite the fact that it was 25 miles away, I assume that it was coming towards your traffic, otherwise the military controller wouldn't have bothered disturbing you, so in fact the Mil Controller had a fairly good scan and was co-ordinating early - Just like taught at CATCS!
It's attitudes like this that mean more and more mil controllers are disinclined to even bother their civil counterparts with trivia like co-ordination or handovers.

And as for your last throw away comment, if the pay was comparable, how many military controllers do you think would be having the blinkers inserted and becoming a Civil Atco then?

Time for some of you lot to look beyond your 10 mile range ring or your CAS A and see the big wide world out there.

Now now Grommit....cracking toast!


Toadfish,

You stand into significant danger if you assume that if a track, is either not showing mode C, or not squawking at all, then it cannot be above FL100. There are many good controllers on both sides of the camp who have fallen foul of this assumption. I am sure that MATS part 2 does not say that you can deem this traffic either.

ASSUME and you will make an ASS of U M E.

[QUOTE]This was not only a waste of both her and my time, but an unnecessary distraction for me at a time of high workload.

Well this comment needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves. That is not the attitude of a professional ATCO and you should be ashamed of yourself for even saying it!

Mil/Civ Operations
 

The nail has been hit on the head quite frequently in this thread. The military controllers have to work to almost different rules at times. This causes us all some headaches but really some sort of standardisation should be sought from all concerned.

Quote
I also tried to explain that civil ATCOs can not permit traffic to operate FL100+ without mode C.


So Toadpool, if one of your tracks suddenly experienced a mode C failure (or if it was showing out of limits and you told the pilot to deselect Mode C ) would you force the pilot to descent to below FL100 - I think not.

Yes the words on the hymn sheet might not always be the same but as RNGrommits said, the mil controller cannot deem such tracks. Maybe some understanding of our rules relating to the regulations might have prompted you to review your post .

However, IMHO if you have time to explain to that civil ATCOs can not permit traffic to operate FL100+ without mode C, I would suggest that you would have had time to bite your tongue and carry out the coordination as requested.