RAAF and ASA
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I could comment, but it would ony lead to a sore backside and a gentle please explain
I think you'll find that most guys on the RAAF side of the fence will avoid this one as well...
Moderator
So I'm hearing!!!
A case of the tax payer's money being spent in a totally transparent and accountable manner?
Or another folly at our expense?
A case of the tax payer's money being spent in a totally transparent and accountable manner?
Or another folly at our expense?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People cannot be banned from sharing opinions or discussing rumours.
The fact that an organisation is so rife with rumour is purely an indication of it's inept communication, is an indictment on it's leadership, and is indicative of it's morale. Trying to stem or quell comment, whether internal or external is facism, despotism - whatever one wishes to call it, but in any case desperation.
It is also illegal – surprisingly even in Australia.
Don't know the facts - but I have heard similar rumblings from enough people to know something stinks - I know the Genesis timetable is a farce and simply unachievable, however, EVERY project they commence has an unachievable timetable - it seems to be normal practice. Staff don't even laugh any more - they just disengage from the outset!
From what I hear the AirServices CEO, who has just sprung a restructure out of the blue, intends to leave in October to contest the Federal Election in John Anderson’s old seat of Gwydir (redistributed). So does he really give a if his mooted projects are achievable?
The fact that an organisation is so rife with rumour is purely an indication of it's inept communication, is an indictment on it's leadership, and is indicative of it's morale. Trying to stem or quell comment, whether internal or external is facism, despotism - whatever one wishes to call it, but in any case desperation.
It is also illegal – surprisingly even in Australia.
Don't know the facts - but I have heard similar rumblings from enough people to know something stinks - I know the Genesis timetable is a farce and simply unachievable, however, EVERY project they commence has an unachievable timetable - it seems to be normal practice. Staff don't even laugh any more - they just disengage from the outset!
From what I hear the AirServices CEO, who has just sprung a restructure out of the blue, intends to leave in October to contest the Federal Election in John Anderson’s old seat of Gwydir (redistributed). So does he really give a
if his mooted projects are achievable?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst not the intent of this thread I thought that I would add a bit more rumour to the licensing side of things;
Firstly it may be worth remembering that there is no such thing as an ICAO license pers se; only a license issued by a contracting state that has been approved by ICAO.
Who cares? Well should anyone in blue currently controlling essentially civvy traffic on a day to day basis wish to up sticks and seek pastures greener or browner they may find that they are asked the following by a potential overseas employer as I found a while back: -
"We do require that your licences/ratings are endorsed by the aviation authority of the Contracting state. Is there any possibility that the Australian CAA or DOT can confirm that your ratings are approved or acceptable by them, seeing that you’ve worked in the various aerodromes?
DOH!!!
In reply I chased up the appropriate POC in MIL ATC HQ and got the following reply"
"RAAF does not need the ATCOs to have ICAO/CASA accreditation. CASA permits the ADF to use the Defence Act where it refers to ADF personnel having exemption from civilian licences.
Said prospective employer was not convinced - so strike one job opportunity and this was only to Instruct in a College!
So although with RAAF/ ASA the same rules and regs are followed (unlike the pairing of the RAF / CAA) and ICAO civilain procedures etc are followed; no ICAO approved license is issued - which does suck a bit! (Restiction of trade?) A yellow Mil license was issued until about 10 years ago with a caveat stating something like "ICAO approved in Australia only". They stopped giving these out simply when they had none left to give; or so I was told.
As Ive said before on another thread , Genesis is wishful thinking and another distract and conquer ploy to keep those still at the mil coalface looking the wrong way for opportunites elswhere. Afterall, the prospect of change can be a good motivator for some!
DogGone
Firstly it may be worth remembering that there is no such thing as an ICAO license pers se; only a license issued by a contracting state that has been approved by ICAO.
Who cares? Well should anyone in blue currently controlling essentially civvy traffic on a day to day basis wish to up sticks and seek pastures greener or browner they may find that they are asked the following by a potential overseas employer as I found a while back: -
"We do require that your licences/ratings are endorsed by the aviation authority of the Contracting state. Is there any possibility that the Australian CAA or DOT can confirm that your ratings are approved or acceptable by them, seeing that you’ve worked in the various aerodromes?
DOH!!!
In reply I chased up the appropriate POC in MIL ATC HQ and got the following reply"
"RAAF does not need the ATCOs to have ICAO/CASA accreditation. CASA permits the ADF to use the Defence Act where it refers to ADF personnel having exemption from civilian licences.
Said prospective employer was not convinced - so strike one job opportunity and this was only to Instruct in a College!
So although with RAAF/ ASA the same rules and regs are followed (unlike the pairing of the RAF / CAA) and ICAO civilain procedures etc are followed; no ICAO approved license is issued - which does suck a bit! (Restiction of trade?) A yellow Mil license was issued until about 10 years ago with a caveat stating something like "ICAO approved in Australia only". They stopped giving these out simply when they had none left to give; or so I was told.
As Ive said before on another thread , Genesis is wishful thinking and another distract and conquer ploy to keep those still at the mil coalface looking the wrong way for opportunites elswhere. Afterall, the prospect of change can be a good motivator for some!
DogGone
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SE Aus
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD,
Nor does the RAAF need pilots to hold a Commercial Pilot's Licence (CPL), but over the years there certainly has been an agreement of sorts which allows the RAAF qualification to be recognised and converted into a CPL.
Some years ago when I did this, my Wings qualification following Pilot's Course was not quite enough to obtain a licence. At that time, the arrangement was that an Operational Conversion needed to be completed (anywhere between 2 and 12 months, depending on Squadron) , then CASA would issue a CPL on receipt of a Licence Application and the appropriate fee. No flight test of any kind.
I am not aware if this was officially promulgated in the Regs or just something which was unofficially practiced. Nor am I aware what the current arrangement is.
I don't believe there is any way of obtaining a CASA Airline Transport Pilot's Licence without doing the usual study, exams and civil multi engine command instrument rating just as a fellow non-military CPL holder would complete.
I explain this because I don't see why CASA couldn't issue an ATC licence just because the RAAF has no need for the controller to hold one. I think it would just be a matter of demonstrating that the components of the civil course are covered in the military course. Not sure if it still exists, but completion of the Advanced (radar/approach) Military course might be an appropriate prerequisite.
If there are any current ADF ATCOs wanting to pursue this, it may be worth the effort...
VI
PS: Never discount that there may be an agreement between CASA and the ADF to disallow such a licence conversion to aid ADF ATCO retention...
Nor does the RAAF need pilots to hold a Commercial Pilot's Licence (CPL), but over the years there certainly has been an agreement of sorts which allows the RAAF qualification to be recognised and converted into a CPL.
Some years ago when I did this, my Wings qualification following Pilot's Course was not quite enough to obtain a licence. At that time, the arrangement was that an Operational Conversion needed to be completed (anywhere between 2 and 12 months, depending on Squadron) , then CASA would issue a CPL on receipt of a Licence Application and the appropriate fee. No flight test of any kind.
I am not aware if this was officially promulgated in the Regs or just something which was unofficially practiced. Nor am I aware what the current arrangement is.
I don't believe there is any way of obtaining a CASA Airline Transport Pilot's Licence without doing the usual study, exams and civil multi engine command instrument rating just as a fellow non-military CPL holder would complete.
I explain this because I don't see why CASA couldn't issue an ATC licence just because the RAAF has no need for the controller to hold one. I think it would just be a matter of demonstrating that the components of the civil course are covered in the military course. Not sure if it still exists, but completion of the Advanced (radar/approach) Military course might be an appropriate prerequisite.
If there are any current ADF ATCOs wanting to pursue this, it may be worth the effort...
VI
PS: Never discount that there may be an agreement between CASA and the ADF to disallow such a licence conversion to aid ADF ATCO retention...
"I don't believe there is any way of obtaining a CASA Airline Transport Pilot's Licence without doing the usual study, exams and civil multi engine command instrument rating just as a fellow non-military CPL holder would complete."
Yes, I recall a certain well known and highly experienced civilian and ex RAAF pilot/instructor with a squillion hours on Hercs, who carried a very deep seated grudge against anyone connected to the "Department" because they would not issue him with an ATPL on his departure from the services.
Dr
Yes, I recall a certain well known and highly experienced civilian and ex RAAF pilot/instructor with a squillion hours on Hercs, who carried a very deep seated grudge against anyone connected to the "Department" because they would not issue him with an ATPL on his departure from the services.
Dr
Moderator
No one prepared to expand on what "Genesis" is?
Or should I assume all those involved will eventually move on to Exodus?
Or should I assume all those involved will eventually move on to Exodus?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following dot points were dragged from the minutes of the 15 Feb 07 NT RAPAC meeting available here (my bolding):
Project Genesis is expected to deliver the following desirable outcomes:
�� A joint strategic planning process for military and civil air traffic management;
�� Alignment of capital procurement plans and strategies;
�� Development of shared facilities;
�� Transition to a common air traffic management operating system;
�� Introduction of compatible or interoperable equipment and systems;
�� A national air traffic control license
�� A joint training program with integrated staff and students;
�� Common procedures;
�� Joint and integrated safety management systems;
�� Co-located workforces and integrated supervision;
�� Joint airspace management;
�� A joint surveillance and data management network;
�� A joint approach to infrastructure supporting the delivery of air traffic management (communication and navigation systems);
�� A common technical airworthiness standard;
�� A joint approach to the aviation aspects of national security;
�� Mutual support during civil or military contingencies; and
�� The removal of non-operational ATC functions from Defence responsibility.
I'm led to believe the national ATC licence will be here sooner rather than later. Certainly, RAAF was ensuring it's training aligned with CASR Part 65 MOS years ago.
I don't think there is anything terribly sinister about Project Genesis. Whether it is too ambitious a plan remains to be seen. In its mature state it will certainly save the taxpayer millions.
Some of the HR machinations relating to Genesis within Defence have caused some to voice their opinion here. Everyone within Defence is (or should be) aware of the rules surrounding the grinding of one's axe in the public arena. It's a responsibility you sign up to when you join.
I guess it could be construed as stifling opinions, however, the military is not a democracy.
Project Genesis is expected to deliver the following desirable outcomes:
�� A joint strategic planning process for military and civil air traffic management;
�� Alignment of capital procurement plans and strategies;
�� Development of shared facilities;
�� Transition to a common air traffic management operating system;
�� Introduction of compatible or interoperable equipment and systems;
�� A national air traffic control license
�� A joint training program with integrated staff and students;
�� Common procedures;
�� Joint and integrated safety management systems;
�� Co-located workforces and integrated supervision;
�� Joint airspace management;
�� A joint surveillance and data management network;
�� A joint approach to infrastructure supporting the delivery of air traffic management (communication and navigation systems);
�� A common technical airworthiness standard;
�� A joint approach to the aviation aspects of national security;
�� Mutual support during civil or military contingencies; and
�� The removal of non-operational ATC functions from Defence responsibility.
I'm led to believe the national ATC licence will be here sooner rather than later. Certainly, RAAF was ensuring it's training aligned with CASR Part 65 MOS years ago.
I don't think there is anything terribly sinister about Project Genesis. Whether it is too ambitious a plan remains to be seen. In its mature state it will certainly save the taxpayer millions.
Some of the HR machinations relating to Genesis within Defence have caused some to voice their opinion here. Everyone within Defence is (or should be) aware of the rules surrounding the grinding of one's axe in the public arena. It's a responsibility you sign up to when you join.
I guess it could be construed as stifling opinions, however, the military is not a democracy.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail Wheel
If you search for the Genesis threads already posted on PP a lot will be expalined.
In a nutshell the idea was hatched as a bit of a JV between ASA/ Mil ATC to save some Mil resources by centralising certain Mil Approach functions from Woop woop into BNE centre and Perth Approach. I believe this would allow the eventual replacement of the current "white horse" called ADATS (with which the mil process their flight data at unit level) with TAATS. I believe Pierce App has been integrated already ; all the other players now need to throw a double six before getting out of goal so to speak and proceeding past "Go" and getting on with completing the project!! Dont hold your breath
as there are/ were technical considerations that werent .... Er... considered at the outset (hence some timeline slippage)
I think No Further Requirements knows a bit more about the current situation than myself so maybe he will expand a bit more accurately.
Having just read GOG's missive above I would agree that overall, if the points highligted are achievable, then it is a a worthy project and I wish it well.
My biscuits worth
DogGone
If you search for the Genesis threads already posted on PP a lot will be expalined.
In a nutshell the idea was hatched as a bit of a JV between ASA/ Mil ATC to save some Mil resources by centralising certain Mil Approach functions from Woop woop into BNE centre and Perth Approach. I believe this would allow the eventual replacement of the current "white horse" called ADATS (with which the mil process their flight data at unit level) with TAATS. I believe Pierce App has been integrated already ; all the other players now need to throw a double six before getting out of goal so to speak and proceeding past "Go" and getting on with completing the project!! Dont hold your breath
as there are/ were technical considerations that werent .... Er... considered at the outset (hence some timeline slippage)
I think No Further Requirements knows a bit more about the current situation than myself so maybe he will expand a bit more accurately.
Having just read GOG's missive above I would agree that overall, if the points highligted are achievable, then it is a a worthy project and I wish it well.
My biscuits worth
DogGone
Last edited by BurglarsDog; 10th Apr 2007 at 09:53. Reason: spelling
Moderator
PPRuNe is more interested in the possibility a program which may be fundamental flawed, is being promulgated at tax payer's expense and which may compromise safety.
And presumably those competent to comment are being muzzled?
“Surprisingly, no one mentioned the NOTAM regarding delays out of Darwin?
Brisbane won't use Darwin radar feed due no redundancy. RAAF still use it, so there is an increased workload entering plans into the system. Each IFR aircraft out of Darwin is delayed 3 minutes or are changing to VFR plans to avoid delays.
Is safety not compromised, particularly in the wet season?
Why hasn’t the RAAF sorted out the radar issues which they knew existed prior to the radar failure three weeks ago, and how are the RAAF going to manage Darwin radar from Brisbane if ASA won't accept the feed?”
Brisbane won't use Darwin radar feed due no redundancy. RAAF still use it, so there is an increased workload entering plans into the system. Each IFR aircraft out of Darwin is delayed 3 minutes or are changing to VFR plans to avoid delays.
Is safety not compromised, particularly in the wet season?
Why hasn’t the RAAF sorted out the radar issues which they knew existed prior to the radar failure three weeks ago, and how are the RAAF going to manage Darwin radar from Brisbane if ASA won't accept the feed?”
