What is the reason for separate military ATC?
Thread Starter
I think there are people in the department who have told the minister that GA is a problem so he should not associate himself with it in any way.
Bit like the " Yes Minister " episode about the advantage of hospitals with no patients.
Years ago the Minister would always come to the AOPA and RFAC AGMs but not any more.
Bit like the " Yes Minister " episode about the advantage of hospitals with no patients.
Years ago the Minister would always come to the AOPA and RFAC AGMs but not any more.
Sunfish, remind us again how many of those there were? I seem to recall the number was 2, but please correct me if I'm wrong. And from this you can speak authoritatively about the qualities of all RAAF officers over many decades?
Thread Starter
Leadership is about copying the best from around the world and incorporating that with what ever we already do better. And by that I mean anything that can give the the required outcome at the lowest possible cost.
I have found a resistance to do that with many Aussie military and ex military people.
I cannot see any light on the horizon for change that could benefit GA.
That's why I advise all those who write to me for advice to get a different career and if already in GA to try and get out now before everything is lost.
I have found a resistance to do that with many Aussie military and ex military people.
I cannot see any light on the horizon for change that could benefit GA.
That's why I advise all those who write to me for advice to get a different career and if already in GA to try and get out now before everything is lost.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no valid reason as to why civil and military atc cannot be combined. There is a lot of fluff and bluster but essentially its the same job. Airservices was, at one stage, going to take over the running of non operational bases. Airservices used to provide atc at Darwin until cyclone Tracey.
So why not now? Firstly Airservices wanted to provide the service their way and commercially (this from the people who cant make a profit from a monopoly). Secondly, RAAF middle ranks had to protect their careers so they blocked the move whilst outwardly supporting the move. Along came JBAC to make them more 'essential' within defence.
The reality is that Darwin and Townsville should be controlled by Airservices as they are not R airspace and defence controllers do not have ICAO licences. It is also a reality that most defence controllers will never leave Australia and a large portion are not capable of being deployed.
Having said all that, I wouldnt trust Airservices to run atc at a base unless I had a contract with a lot of clauses about performance and service levels.
Finally, whilst Im on a rant about the system, why not allow towers and arff to be privately operated?
So why not now? Firstly Airservices wanted to provide the service their way and commercially (this from the people who cant make a profit from a monopoly). Secondly, RAAF middle ranks had to protect their careers so they blocked the move whilst outwardly supporting the move. Along came JBAC to make them more 'essential' within defence.
The reality is that Darwin and Townsville should be controlled by Airservices as they are not R airspace and defence controllers do not have ICAO licences. It is also a reality that most defence controllers will never leave Australia and a large portion are not capable of being deployed.
Having said all that, I wouldnt trust Airservices to run atc at a base unless I had a contract with a lot of clauses about performance and service levels.
Finally, whilst Im on a rant about the system, why not allow towers and arff to be privately operated?
Having said all that, I wouldnt trust Airservices to run atc at a base unless I had a contract with a lot of clauses about performance and service levels.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm yeah. Try getting a job overseas with only a military licence. Why do you think they are issued a nice new CASA licence when converting over? Training is minimal cause the RAAF follows the same competencies and they can be mapped over.
it's notthatbloodyhard:
let's see.......
At age Eighteen Moping around Point Cook tentatively approached one SqnLdr Duffy about what life might be like if I joined RAAF.... response: "eff off, go away"
subsequent as an army officer cadet and officer experiencing continual RAAF over promising and under delivering, unlike the fleet air arm.
..being instructed that if I did get to Vietnam, to request American helicopter support if an LZ was hot since Australian pilots (as courageous and skilled as the yanks) would cop a grounding and inquiry if they got a bullet hole in Their chopper.
..being told that the main use of Chinooks was not troop transport but RAAF logistical tasks like moving Tarmac vehicles.
.....the FIII deseal/reseal scandal and what it revealed about RAAF "culture".
......numerous visits to the grey sponge in support of winning consulting assignments.
..watching one proud ex RAAF engineering officer with borderline personality disorder destroy a major public company.
..watching two others do the same to part of the civil aviation sector.
on the other hand, the guys at HdH were tops.
by contrast my experience of former naval persons has been great.
CASA has a culture of bullying, intimidation, rigidity, injustice, capriciousness and possibly corruption. I would suggest that all but the Last attribute have had to come from somewhere and the culprit ,by definition, has to be an government institution because no private sector institution could survive any length of time without public exposure. that therefore points to the RAAF rejects as the source of the problem.
let's see.......
At age Eighteen Moping around Point Cook tentatively approached one SqnLdr Duffy about what life might be like if I joined RAAF.... response: "eff off, go away"
subsequent as an army officer cadet and officer experiencing continual RAAF over promising and under delivering, unlike the fleet air arm.
..being instructed that if I did get to Vietnam, to request American helicopter support if an LZ was hot since Australian pilots (as courageous and skilled as the yanks) would cop a grounding and inquiry if they got a bullet hole in Their chopper.
..being told that the main use of Chinooks was not troop transport but RAAF logistical tasks like moving Tarmac vehicles.
.....the FIII deseal/reseal scandal and what it revealed about RAAF "culture".
......numerous visits to the grey sponge in support of winning consulting assignments.
..watching one proud ex RAAF engineering officer with borderline personality disorder destroy a major public company.
..watching two others do the same to part of the civil aviation sector.
on the other hand, the guys at HdH were tops.
by contrast my experience of former naval persons has been great.
CASA has a culture of bullying, intimidation, rigidity, injustice, capriciousness and possibly corruption. I would suggest that all but the Last attribute have had to come from somewhere and the culprit ,by definition, has to be an government institution because no private sector institution could survive any length of time without public exposure. that therefore points to the RAAF rejects as the source of the problem.
Thanks Sunfish, that's quite a list. I shouldn't even bother replying, because it's a waste of time, but then again I'm stupid and have nothing better to do right now. So:
- You've clearly encountered a few RAAF/ex-RAAF officers who were d1ckheads. So have I. Every organisation has them, and I've met some appalling pricks from all 3 services (the worst being from the Army, as it happens). The vast majority were great blokes, though.
- You seem to attach a lot of weight to 'things you've been told'. What you were told about RAAF Chinook ops is at odds with the understanding of any of the Chook drivers I've known. The stuff you were told about RAAF choppers in Vietnam is fascinating, although I've never heard anything remotely like it before.
- I'm not sure what the F-111 DSRS says about wider RAAF culture, if anything. In any case, if you're trying to portray the RAAF as worse than the Army or Navy, you're on very shaky ground when it comes to scandals which reflect poorly on a service's culture! Enough said on that one...
- Your final para about possible corruption in CASA which is definitely caused by ex-RAAF types doesn't really make a lot of sense. (And if you truly believe that meaningful corruption can't exist in the private sector, then we're not inhabiting the same planet.)
I'll be the first to agree with you that the RAAF has produced some appalling clowns and done some pretty ordinary things. So has just about every other organisation I can think of, including those you think so highly of. I still can't see that you're in any way qualified to pass judgement on thousands of people you've never met and have no knowledge of, however much confidence you might have in your own opinions. It seems that you're suffering from some serious long-term confirmation bias - which is why I'm wasting my time here
. Enough from me.
- You've clearly encountered a few RAAF/ex-RAAF officers who were d1ckheads. So have I. Every organisation has them, and I've met some appalling pricks from all 3 services (the worst being from the Army, as it happens). The vast majority were great blokes, though.
- You seem to attach a lot of weight to 'things you've been told'. What you were told about RAAF Chinook ops is at odds with the understanding of any of the Chook drivers I've known. The stuff you were told about RAAF choppers in Vietnam is fascinating, although I've never heard anything remotely like it before.
- I'm not sure what the F-111 DSRS says about wider RAAF culture, if anything. In any case, if you're trying to portray the RAAF as worse than the Army or Navy, you're on very shaky ground when it comes to scandals which reflect poorly on a service's culture! Enough said on that one...
- Your final para about possible corruption in CASA which is definitely caused by ex-RAAF types doesn't really make a lot of sense. (And if you truly believe that meaningful corruption can't exist in the private sector, then we're not inhabiting the same planet.)
I'll be the first to agree with you that the RAAF has produced some appalling clowns and done some pretty ordinary things. So has just about every other organisation I can think of, including those you think so highly of. I still can't see that you're in any way qualified to pass judgement on thousands of people you've never met and have no knowledge of, however much confidence you might have in your own opinions. It seems that you're suffering from some serious long-term confirmation bias - which is why I'm wasting my time here
. Enough from me.
