What is the reason for separate military ATC?
Thread Starter
What is the reason for separate military ATC?
I’m sure everyone can remember the famous statement by Sir Angus Houston a number of years ago:
“Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems”.
Of course, this was later changed to refer to just one air traffic control surveillance system and that is why OneSKY is going ahead.
There is a very important issue here. Can someone explain why we have separate military air traffic control – where controllers are trained to ICAO standards?
I realise there was probably a reason for this in 1947 – in those days people were very sensitive about Darwin, and the ‘hordes’ coming from the North.
I understand more recently the military have run towers during a state of emergency at places like Aceh, however in all of these cases, I am told that there are many international contractors that can run air traffic control, even in places like Iraq.
Also, with the United States being more isolationist, after being unfairly attacked for just about everything they do in the world to try and keep peace, there is going to be less of a need for Australians to be in international war zones.
There is no doubt that to have two complete training systems and two complete career paths will add enormously to costs.
That’s why New Zealand put their military air traffic controllers into the Airways Corporation and kept them on the military reserve.
Basically what I am asking is – if it was necessary in 1947, is it still necessary today to have two completely separate streams in such a small country?
Look forward to any suggestions or advice people can give.
“Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems”.
Of course, this was later changed to refer to just one air traffic control surveillance system and that is why OneSKY is going ahead.
There is a very important issue here. Can someone explain why we have separate military air traffic control – where controllers are trained to ICAO standards?
I realise there was probably a reason for this in 1947 – in those days people were very sensitive about Darwin, and the ‘hordes’ coming from the North.
I understand more recently the military have run towers during a state of emergency at places like Aceh, however in all of these cases, I am told that there are many international contractors that can run air traffic control, even in places like Iraq.
Also, with the United States being more isolationist, after being unfairly attacked for just about everything they do in the world to try and keep peace, there is going to be less of a need for Australians to be in international war zones.
There is no doubt that to have two complete training systems and two complete career paths will add enormously to costs.
That’s why New Zealand put their military air traffic controllers into the Airways Corporation and kept them on the military reserve.
Basically what I am asking is – if it was necessary in 1947, is it still necessary today to have two completely separate streams in such a small country?
Look forward to any suggestions or advice people can give.
Dick,
Can I respectfully put to you that contractors are unlikely willing to deploy with extremely minimal notice into warzones where they can be shot at. Not only would they likely be unwilling, but it would be impractical for a lot of reasons. Security Clearances, use of weapons, intergration with other assets, force protection.. the list goes on and on.
We all know how you feel about the RAAF, you've made it clear several times in multiple threads, but RAAF JBACS have deployed into conflict zones, with weapons, several times in the last 15 years. They are well respected and do good work, and there is clearly a place for them within our military. Simply contracting the work out has been biting many branches of Government hard for years now. Sometimes you just need to have the capability in house.. particularly when you want to send it to war. For context, there are several different types of JBACS's within the RAAF, some of whom jump out of aeroplanes and do lots of "green" war like things.
Can I just clarify I'm not making any comments or giving an opinion on RAAF JBAC's domestically at Darwin/Williamtown or any airspace issues.
Cheers.
Can I respectfully put to you that contractors are unlikely willing to deploy with extremely minimal notice into warzones where they can be shot at. Not only would they likely be unwilling, but it would be impractical for a lot of reasons. Security Clearances, use of weapons, intergration with other assets, force protection.. the list goes on and on.
We all know how you feel about the RAAF, you've made it clear several times in multiple threads, but RAAF JBACS have deployed into conflict zones, with weapons, several times in the last 15 years. They are well respected and do good work, and there is clearly a place for them within our military. Simply contracting the work out has been biting many branches of Government hard for years now. Sometimes you just need to have the capability in house.. particularly when you want to send it to war. For context, there are several different types of JBACS's within the RAAF, some of whom jump out of aeroplanes and do lots of "green" war like things.
Can I just clarify I'm not making any comments or giving an opinion on RAAF JBAC's domestically at Darwin/Williamtown or any airspace issues.
Cheers.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, surely you can work out that AsA controllers probably do not want to be deployed on operations to unpleasant places where they get shot at.
Also JBAC's are paid less than their AsA counterparts.
Also JBAC's are paid less than their AsA counterparts.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dartman and junior.VH-LFA,
I'm not certain that Dick is putting the situation in such black-and-white terms.
Hence his "New Zealand" solution: that is, have military people working as controllers in a civvy system that controls both civil and military. That would alleviate any of the concerns you raised.
Having said that,
there are workable solutions to all the above concerns.
IMHO:
A tour of duty is made a lot more attractive once the incumbent realises "Tax free, plus $180.00(ish) per day danger money, also tax-free, and all the other perks while over there".
"Immediate deployment" could be a legitimate concern. However, there are ways around this, such as being written into the contract.
Security Clearances are squared away well before any deployment.
I'm not sure what weapons you'd expect an ATCO to use, but weapons training, etc, can all be done as part of pre-deployment. (Probably a 9mm, which has proven time and again to be the most dangerous weapon (to the user) of any Australian service weapon).
I'll agree that it is POSSIBLE that an ATCO could be "shot at" in a war-zone. But can anyone tell me when the last Australian Military ATCO was shot at in either Iraq or Afghanistan?
The biggest hurdle to any of the above, IMHO, is the Australian military. The U.S. are much better at integrating military and civilian assets in conflict zones. I can only speak of Iraq (my deployment) and not Afghanistan, but the Australians are petrified of doing so.
DIVOSH!
I'm not certain that Dick is putting the situation in such black-and-white terms.
Hence his "New Zealand" solution: that is, have military people working as controllers in a civvy system that controls both civil and military. That would alleviate any of the concerns you raised.
Having said that,
contractors are unlikely willing to deploy with extremely minimal notice into warzones where they can be shot at. Not only would they likely be unwilling, but it would be impractical for a lot of reasons. Security Clearances, use of weapons, intergration with other assets, force protection.. the list goes on and on.
IMHO:
A tour of duty is made a lot more attractive once the incumbent realises "Tax free, plus $180.00(ish) per day danger money, also tax-free, and all the other perks while over there".
"Immediate deployment" could be a legitimate concern. However, there are ways around this, such as being written into the contract.
Security Clearances are squared away well before any deployment.
I'm not sure what weapons you'd expect an ATCO to use, but weapons training, etc, can all be done as part of pre-deployment. (Probably a 9mm, which has proven time and again to be the most dangerous weapon (to the user) of any Australian service weapon).
I'll agree that it is POSSIBLE that an ATCO could be "shot at" in a war-zone. But can anyone tell me when the last Australian Military ATCO was shot at in either Iraq or Afghanistan?
The biggest hurdle to any of the above, IMHO, is the Australian military. The U.S. are much better at integrating military and civilian assets in conflict zones. I can only speak of Iraq (my deployment) and not Afghanistan, but the Australians are petrified of doing so.
DIVOSH!
DIVOSH, you're focusing purely on the role of ATC in a tower, not JBAC's, which is why the term JBAC was created. Clearly as being ex military (or even currently serving) you'd have seen first hand the impact of having services contracted out.
The issue of giving contractors weapons is another problem all in itself (note supplying weapons, not hiring contractors that use weapons).
The NZ situation is different, one again, because JBAC's aren't just always Air Trafficers sitting behind a screen.
There is no need to change the system as it is, as has previously been pointed out, RAAF JBAC's are actually paid considerably less than their ASA counter parts.
Hempy,
I don't think anyone suggested that a lone RAAF JBAC is expected to fight off a section attack with a 9mm... But once again, you're focusing purely on the "guys and girls in a control tower" aspect, which isn't the only thing RAAF JBAC's do.
The issue of giving contractors weapons is another problem all in itself (note supplying weapons, not hiring contractors that use weapons).
The NZ situation is different, one again, because JBAC's aren't just always Air Trafficers sitting behind a screen.
There is no need to change the system as it is, as has previously been pointed out, RAAF JBAC's are actually paid considerably less than their ASA counter parts.
Hempy,
I don't think anyone suggested that a lone RAAF JBAC is expected to fight off a section attack with a 9mm... But once again, you're focusing purely on the "guys and girls in a control tower" aspect, which isn't the only thing RAAF JBAC's do.
Last edited by junior.VH-LFA; 19th May 2016 at 10:35.
Thread Starter
So why did Angus Houston make his very clear statement as I have quoted above ?
And where is this future war likely to be where we will be required to provide ATC?
I am told nothing on the horizon because the USA will not get involved as they have before.
If so why shouldn't we save the money and not have a duplicated system
And where is this future war likely to be where we will be required to provide ATC?
I am told nothing on the horizon because the USA will not get involved as they have before.
If so why shouldn't we save the money and not have a duplicated system
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Junior VH-LFA.
The NZ situation is different, one again, because JBAC's aren't just always Air Trafficers sitting behind a screen.
Maybe there's the difference, civil ATCs are trained to sit in front of the screen.
The NZ situation is different, one again, because JBAC's aren't just always Air Trafficers sitting behind a screen.
Maybe there's the difference, civil ATCs are trained to sit in front of the screen.
Thread Starter
And why is there no proper charging system between the RAAF and Airservices?
How can Airservices ever be run as a business without a proper charging system?
How can Airservices ever be run as a business without a proper charging system?
Dick, you asked for reasons why. You've been given good reasons why, relating to an operational capability, which has been used on operations within the last 12 months.
Just because other countries do it differently doesn't mean they're doing it better.
You're a smart man, I'm sure its occurred to you that neither you nor any of your mates (or people in this thread myself included) have any idea what is coming for the ADF in the future, and isn't that really the point, prepare for the worst, fight like you train? It's probably not a coincidence that the most capable of the worlds Air Forces have their own Air Traffic Controllers.
At this point now you're just baiting people. I probably should have seen that earlier though.
At this point I'll bow out, I've given you what I think most would consider pretty valid reasoning, and I don't think they'll satisfy you. Everyone's entitled to an opinion and that's cool. I'll just reiterate that I'm making no comments relating to how JBAC's are employed domestically or any comments relating to the airspace issues you often discuss.
Just because other countries do it differently doesn't mean they're doing it better.
You're a smart man, I'm sure its occurred to you that neither you nor any of your mates (or people in this thread myself included) have any idea what is coming for the ADF in the future, and isn't that really the point, prepare for the worst, fight like you train? It's probably not a coincidence that the most capable of the worlds Air Forces have their own Air Traffic Controllers.
At this point now you're just baiting people. I probably should have seen that earlier though.
At this point I'll bow out, I've given you what I think most would consider pretty valid reasoning, and I don't think they'll satisfy you. Everyone's entitled to an opinion and that's cool. I'll just reiterate that I'm making no comments relating to how JBAC's are employed domestically or any comments relating to the airspace issues you often discuss.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
junior.VH-LFA
Fair enough. I was just thinking of a controller in a tower.
I'd have to say that my experiences of services contracted out were mostly positive.
Again, in my opinion, the only reason there is a "problem" with giving contractors weapons is due to the extreme risk-averse nature of the Australian military. The U.S. armed their contractors with side-arms (and sometimes longs) where necessary, and had very few problems that I saw.
Hempy
Very amusing.
However, an ATCO in a tower is about as rear-echelon as you can get, and in an Australian context will have an inordinate amount of Australian soldiers and hardware protecting that facility. For that person to draw his/her 9mm means that an awful lot of Aussies are already dead.
DIVOSH!
Fair enough. I was just thinking of a controller in a tower.
I'd have to say that my experiences of services contracted out were mostly positive.
Again, in my opinion, the only reason there is a "problem" with giving contractors weapons is due to the extreme risk-averse nature of the Australian military. The U.S. armed their contractors with side-arms (and sometimes longs) where necessary, and had very few problems that I saw.
Hempy
Very amusing.
However, an ATCO in a tower is about as rear-echelon as you can get, and in an Australian context will have an inordinate amount of Australian soldiers and hardware protecting that facility. For that person to draw his/her 9mm means that an awful lot of Aussies are already dead.DIVOSH!
I'm just gonna throw the obvious out there. Because military airspace NEEDS to be managed by the military.
To all the nay-sayers - you'll have to hear me out before you pass judgement. This really has more to do with what Airservices WON'T do rather than what the RAAF will. There are places where mil ATC are literally just there because they happen to be military bases (Edinburgh and Richmond come to mind). Where approach control is done by AsA and realistically the only thing the RAAF guys do is the occasional "cleared for take off, to land etc". It is inevitable that places like this will one day be run by civillians...(maybe)
Unfortunately, there are other bases which the Air Force REQUIRE some degree of flexibility. Places like Townsville and Darwin frequently host military exercises and thus have traffic that dare I say, AsA would be reluctant to handle. Not because they're any better or worse than their counterparts in blue, but more because the military needs to guarantee military priority for some tasks - an AsA controller will not be happy to take orders or perform their job with ad-hoc "here one day, gone the next" procedures.
Finally, but most importantly are places like your most cherished RAAF base, Dick - Williamtown. At bases like Willy, RAAF ATC work with airspace, procedures and various other bs that as an AsA controller - I would NEVER, EVER touch with a 10nm pole.
"Why dont we change x,y,z?" You ask?
Some of the stuff is malleable, some of the stuff not so much. You can make places like Pearce (hell the military approach is already done from AsA's TCU there!) and Amberley as civvie as you want - but the logical extension of what your asking is to ask the military to operate like civillians. And at some point thats just not gonna fly.
Until the day that we become like our friends across the Tasman and decide that our premier combat aircraft will be the King Air or something, the military will always need WAY more flexibility than AsA can provide.
Military airspace is administered by military controllers for a reason. Don't take my word for it tho, ask to visit some of the bigger bases - see for yourself
To all the nay-sayers - you'll have to hear me out before you pass judgement. This really has more to do with what Airservices WON'T do rather than what the RAAF will. There are places where mil ATC are literally just there because they happen to be military bases (Edinburgh and Richmond come to mind). Where approach control is done by AsA and realistically the only thing the RAAF guys do is the occasional "cleared for take off, to land etc". It is inevitable that places like this will one day be run by civillians...(maybe)
Unfortunately, there are other bases which the Air Force REQUIRE some degree of flexibility. Places like Townsville and Darwin frequently host military exercises and thus have traffic that dare I say, AsA would be reluctant to handle. Not because they're any better or worse than their counterparts in blue, but more because the military needs to guarantee military priority for some tasks - an AsA controller will not be happy to take orders or perform their job with ad-hoc "here one day, gone the next" procedures.
Finally, but most importantly are places like your most cherished RAAF base, Dick - Williamtown. At bases like Willy, RAAF ATC work with airspace, procedures and various other bs that as an AsA controller - I would NEVER, EVER touch with a 10nm pole.
"Why dont we change x,y,z?" You ask?
Some of the stuff is malleable, some of the stuff not so much. You can make places like Pearce (hell the military approach is already done from AsA's TCU there!) and Amberley as civvie as you want - but the logical extension of what your asking is to ask the military to operate like civillians. And at some point thats just not gonna fly.
Until the day that we become like our friends across the Tasman and decide that our premier combat aircraft will be the King Air or something, the military will always need WAY more flexibility than AsA can provide.
Military airspace is administered by military controllers for a reason. Don't take my word for it tho, ask to visit some of the bigger bases - see for yourself
Last edited by Maggie Island; 19th May 2016 at 11:51.
"There is no doubt that to have two complete training systems and two complete career paths will add enormously to costs."
Why is there no doubt? Airservices can't simply throw on a few more courses to cater for the RAAF as the training facilities are already full. Extra facilities would need to be provided anyway.
Why is there no doubt? Airservices can't simply throw on a few more courses to cater for the RAAF as the training facilities are already full. Extra facilities would need to be provided anyway.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just gonna throw the obvious out there. Because military airspace NEEDS to be managed by the military.
Also, for many military pilots, procedural IFR is not the day job. When they need ATC they need it military style - vectoring and GCAs.
Of course you could merge civvy and mil ATC but you will either end up with the same thing in all but name, or loss of operational capability. There is not a better way only a cheaper way.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why did Angus Houston make his clear statement.
He was not, I believe, ever referring to the system of systems that make up an ATC service/ANSP such as HR, training, AIS, regulatory framework, technical wokforce etc.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
look up One Sky....
"By 2021, Australia will be providing air traffic control services using the most advanced and integrated air traffic control system in the world.
Through collaborating with the Department of Defence, it will unify Australian skies under a new, harmonised air traffic management system as we work towards creating ‘one sky’ for Australia.
This will enable a new level of operational and cost efficiency and safety, while also reducing delays for the travelling public and providing opportunities to improve environmental outcomes.
It will place Airservices and the Department of Defence in a position to manage forecast growth of air traffic movement in Australia."
Key facts
1. Replaces the current civilian system known as The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) that was built in the 1990s and commissioned in 2000.
TAAATS has had more than 200 incremental system changes since it was first commissioned.
2. The Request for Tender identified 172 specific operational needs for the future system.
3. Fifty-one of these are new capabilities, with a further 87 that are only partially delivered through our current system.
4. An additional four safety functionalities will be introduced including alerts for medium-term conflict detection, long-term conflict detection, cleared flight level, violation of controlled airspace and conflict probe.
5. Integrated surveillance processing and alerting for all technologies, including Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).
6. Increase of radar feeds from 32 to 45 with expanded offshore surveillance area supporting future extensions of ADS-B coverage.
7. Enhanced information security protocols, dual redundant architecture and a nominal 24-hour, 95 per cent technical disaster recovery of a partition at alternate locations.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...sky-australia/
"By 2021, Australia will be providing air traffic control services using the most advanced and integrated air traffic control system in the world.
Through collaborating with the Department of Defence, it will unify Australian skies under a new, harmonised air traffic management system as we work towards creating ‘one sky’ for Australia.
This will enable a new level of operational and cost efficiency and safety, while also reducing delays for the travelling public and providing opportunities to improve environmental outcomes.
It will place Airservices and the Department of Defence in a position to manage forecast growth of air traffic movement in Australia."
Key facts
1. Replaces the current civilian system known as The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) that was built in the 1990s and commissioned in 2000.
TAAATS has had more than 200 incremental system changes since it was first commissioned.
2. The Request for Tender identified 172 specific operational needs for the future system.
3. Fifty-one of these are new capabilities, with a further 87 that are only partially delivered through our current system.
4. An additional four safety functionalities will be introduced including alerts for medium-term conflict detection, long-term conflict detection, cleared flight level, violation of controlled airspace and conflict probe.
5. Integrated surveillance processing and alerting for all technologies, including Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).
6. Increase of radar feeds from 32 to 45 with expanded offshore surveillance area supporting future extensions of ADS-B coverage.
7. Enhanced information security protocols, dual redundant architecture and a nominal 24-hour, 95 per cent technical disaster recovery of a partition at alternate locations.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...sky-australia/