Soon to be plenty of ATCO's
 

Now that the Rudd Government has decided to merge the military air traffic control system with the civilian (ie. Airservices Australia), it’s clear that there’s going to be plenty of controllers available.

I understand the military has about 300 “ICAO” rated controllers, and once these people move over to Airservices Australia, there will obviously be plenty of controllers available.

I note the reference, The Australian Newspaper on 15 September 2009:

“However, in 2002 a Defence document signed by current Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston stated: ‘Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems’”

Congratulations Angus Houston! Never has a more sensible statement been made. Now that we will not have a separate military ATC system, the pressure from the military ATCs to keep vast amounts of airspace will go. Advantages for all, especially general aviation.

Congratulations to the Minister.

As far as I am aware the RAAF have different equipment, so there will have to be conversion courses.

Last time I took a tour of Perth flow control it was all identical.

The civilian ATC sat on a row of 4 screens on one side, the Millitary ATC on the opposite side in Uniform on identical systems and the supervisor at the front forming a "U"

The only difference I could tell was the civilian fellas were in dressing gowns and slippers and the military guys were in uniform :)

"I understand the military has about 300 “ICAO” rated controllers, and once these people move over to Airservices Australia, there will obviously be plenty of controllers available."

Frank you understand wrong. Both on ICAO and numbers.

You are correct in that there are savings to be made in using the same system. Getting the military onboard is the problem. Have a look at Project Genesis.
It will take quite a bit of persuasion to get the military to give up airspace or become more flexible with it. We can but try.

Green Goblin, the military use a different system (ADATS) at military bases i.e Amberley, Williamtown,etc.

max1;

Please feel free to correct me.

When I was in The Military, I was there to serve the Government of the day. Why would a Minister of The Government have to "get the Military on board" with a project within his portfolio, especially if Angus Houston has previously agreed in principle with the idea.

Frank,

Let's hope you're right, because it certainly is a step in the right direction.......BUT

The statements so far ALL sound like a sound track from "Yes Minister".

If you haven't seen the show then I implore you to do so.

It documents very clearly (if not cynically) how Govt departments can "get on board" and go in completely different self-serving directions.

Only a Labor govt could get hoodwinked so easily.

Frank,

Correct you on which part?
Military controllers do not have a civil ATC licence. For most, it is no biggie after coming to civil ATC to get a civil licence. The RAAF are also in trouble in regards to staff (ASA have grabbed a heap). The RAAF are still required to man the bases, run their exercises,etc. If we all came under the same banner, who gets picked to head off O/S or to the Top End on deployments? If I wanted to be in the military I would have joined.

To your second part

"When I was in The Military, I was there to serve the Government of the day. Why would a Minister of The Government have to "get the Military on board" with a project within his portfolio, especially if Angus Houston has previously agreed in principle with the idea. "

That's what I would have thought too, however see Zeebees comments.

max1;

It was told to me as I stated and I believe that's how it is, though the man who told me might have been a liar. Another man said he was a liar, but then he might have been a liar himself- a third person said he was one. I heard that there was a fight over it, but the man who told me about the fight might not have been telling the truth. (apologies to Henry Lawson) and I have had too many dealings with Sir Humphrey before to believe in "tooth fairies".

We can but live in hope that it is true.

300 ICAO rated controllers seems like a statement that can't be dismissed by just saying it is just not correct.

Frank, what makes you think airspace is tied to this? They'll still be military controllers controlling military airspce. What they're talking about is duplicated ATC equipment, not airspace reform.

No idea where we'll fit them in the centres though.....

Maybe when son of TAAATS comes along.

Hi Frank (an others)
I just left the RAAF and joined AsA. The statement is not correct. There are less than 200 Controllers in the RAAF and definately NOT ICAO licensed. We have to go through a conversion course and get our ratings before getting and ICAO licence. the Genesis project (merging of the two ATC providers) fell in heap because AsA wanted too much (if you listen to the RAAF) or because the RAAF weren't flexible enough (if you listen to AsA). I have spoken to people from both sides on the Genesis project. The merger is a loooong way off. I would love it if it happened because I miss all the war stuff, but love being in one place where my kids can grow up and go to school etc. So bring it on, but there is no way in the world the statements made in you original post are close to true. The bloke WAS lying, or didn't know what he was talking about. Your pick.


Cheers
FGS

Max isn't dismissing it, he's saying military controllers can't just leave the RAAF one week & start controlling with AsA the next week. Training is required, and not just a couple of weeks worth either.

Whether there is a pool of 200 or 300 doesn't enter into the matter when a government has a mindset on a course of action. Wouldn't training someone already in the business would be easier than starting from scratch?

Granted, it would be easier to train those already experienced and the pay is higher. But the facts of the matter it will be a lot more difficult than a wave of the pen over the appropriate piece of legislation than people imagine.

Cheers
FGS

C'mon guys. How often do you read an article about an aviation issue that is correct. We all know that the journos don't do their research.

FGS wrote
Usual scenario...The bloke didn't know what he was talking about and when questioned...lied.

Even if it were true (but it's not) it wouldn't solve the problem anyway as the RAAF base airspaces (tower and approach) would still need to be staffed. So while there may be some redundancy, it certainly wouldn't be the entire RAAF ATC workforce suddenly jumping over to ASA.

There would still be the same amount of airspace, the same number of towers and terminal areas, maybe just some reshuffling of airspace volumes to free up some staff. However, working on the Richmond model (where APP is provided by Syd Dep West IIRC) it wouldn't be an acceptable level of service for the military.

No offence to the SYD ATCOs, obviously they are limited by understaffing, but when it takes 5+ mins to process a "next" call when there is nothing visibile on radar in the way (because the SYD controller is also tied up providing a RIS/RAS and/or combined with DEP east etc and simply can't respond to RIC TWR) it gets very frustrating for the mil.

As was posted earlier - the RAAF is run by pilots, not ATCOs, so delays (= added fuel costs, missed TOTs etc) at the sharper end can not be tolerated - hence mil controllers and truck loads of mil airspace.

I would love to see one ATC service provider for Oz, but not if it's ASA. :=

Hmmm, not sure about that. I'd also love to see one ATC provider for Oz, but not if it's RAAF.

Over the years, had less flexibility and more delays from the Mil controllers than I've ever had from the ASA ones. But there's definitely good and not-so-good on both sides.

Maybe it's just a case of each looking after their own ...

Posted in another thread also.
From experience in WA I would guess that the percentage of the Pearce R areas actually used for flying training is about one tenth of what becomes active.

The real reason so much airspace is gazetted is because defence dont want FUA. More importantly RAAF flying dont want FUA cause they might have to follw the rules of the air!! Continuous listening watch, take ATC instructions and act on them etc etc. The west coast airspace is almost exclusively for 60 PC9s and about 160,000 movements a year. Compare that with the JT training area and the JT CTR with over 340,000 per year and you start to see the attitudes of defence and RAAF.

People leave RAAF ATC 'cause they are sick to death of being posted every 2 years, even at bases where guarantees were made about minimum length of time.

Genesis was a case in point - Pearce controllers were trained on TAAATS during the break in flying, 15 in all. But the RAAF did not want TAAATS in the tower so PEA TWR operates ADATS and Pearce CEN/APP are in TAAATS. 2 systems one base! Then after 12 months half the force are deployed/transferred so more training, lower experience levels. RAAF ATC levels are low, really low, otherwise civvies would not be doing RIC APP.

Genesis was a failure because there was no real commitment from either side to make it work how the model said it could. I know I was there.

For too long defence has held on to large quantities of airspace because squadrons told them they needed it 'to fit the mssion profile'. I sat there day after day watching A340s, B744s B717 etc doing 30 and sometimes 50 extra track miles because the next wave of 3 PC9s might get airborne. It was frustrating for the RAAF controllers and the civil controllers alike. RAAF ATC are TOLD what to do, 44WG has little influence on the amount of airspace allocated, only the procedures within it...

The bosses of AsA and the RAAF have written to correct parts of the article that this discussion may have been drawn from:

Letters Blog | The Australian

Interesting... the Restricted Areas West of the coast that are empty the majority of the time that they're active, actually don't exist under international law outside of the 12 mile limit.