PPRuNe Forums - What is the reason for separate military ATC?

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)

- - What is the reason for separate military ATC? (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/579184-what-reason-separate-military-atc.html)

And hasn't been planned for more E airspace. We will stick to our 1950s system of do it yourself calling in the blind system.

Totally crazy. The whole system needs a proper re design of the sectors so airline aircraft at places like Ballina remain in a minimum of class E controlled airspace.

Why would you spend over a billion and not bring in a modern airspace system? Why can't our ATCs be trained to control IFR Airline aircraft? Not just give traffic.

Gee, underfire. You assume that what the glossy brochure says will be achieved will bear some semblance to what will be achieved in fact?

Next thing you'll be telling us is that everything we've been told about the regulatory reform program will be achieved in fact.

There's an interesting article in AvWeb this week, written by a US controller, about departing non-controlled aerodromes into E airspace.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...=email#226268"

Scroll to the bottom. Headed - "Out-of-Control Departures"

Dick, we've been around this merry-go-round more than once before, so pay attention. The system (computers, software, consoles, etc.) are airspace agnostic. Airspace volumes are all defined in data and the airspace type is immaterial to the system - the controller at the console handles providing whatever service is appropriate to the airspace type.

Provide us the resources!

Can we please have the election tomorrow so this DICK......guy shuts up for another four years?

I gave it a chance, but in just 22 posts....

http://tabbycatmusicarchives.com/ali...afcarousel.gif

Dick,

After several back and forwards, you again asked "but why did Angus Houston say this?"

You got two very succinct and correct replies - in that he was referring to the technology and integration between military and civilian ATC, not the actual controllers.

YOU NEED TO READ THIS NEXT BIT REALLY CAREFULLY....

You then completely ignored those answers and swung the entire conversation back onto airspace design and class E.

This has nothing to do with it. Question was answered and you didn't like it because it didn't match your agenda.

You might as well donate your ears to some poor kid on the organ donor register - because you are incapable of listening unless it's what you want to hear.

Your Marree Man creation is more likely to listen than you.

Don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer.

Perhaps we should be asking why we have "two identical systems"?

Surely one would be designed for the known, predictable and repetitive movements of civil aircraft carrying the nations commerce - the other for the dynamic and unpredictable movement of military operations practicing warfare.

The latter is practiced not by ground based air traffic controllers but by air defence radar operators. These people vector aircraft to hit each other , not to keep them apart.

It follows then that when military aircraft are not practicing war-fighting they can be kept apart from each other by civil controllers. This would typically mean that all the nations airspace was available for the efficient movement of commerce and military aircraft simply moving through the airspace. This might mean from base to base or from base to the war-fighting area and then back.

When the military aircraft arrive in the war-fighting area whatever piece of airspace was required could be given to the air defence radar operators, civil traffic kept clear, and an hour later (what is the endurance of a hawk or F18?) the aircraft would again transit under civilian control and the exercise airspace return to commercial use.

I think that the Air Marshal is referring to the vast areas of Australian airspace that are excised from civilian use and controlled by RAAF ATC, they are Restricted areas, some the R3's which they never give civilian aircraft clearance to transit. This is where the identical ATC systems exist and where Australia differs from our other western liberal democracies.

Is it necessary and do we have to design a combined ATC system? I think not, a combined system could just as easily be civilian with the ADF getting whatever exercise areas they need on a daily basis and then handing the airspace back to the people.

Haven't you read what we've written above?

Mr Approach. Thanks for some commonsense.

The waste through a duplicated system must be staggering.

And Angus did not mean one radar system. I have checked this with Allan Hawke

And we don't mean radar system either.

Le Pin. I don't know who " we " are.

And you don't even have enough self belief to post under your real name so you could be posting with an agenda to damage Australia.

It wouldn't matter if I did post under my real name - I'm just a controller with no particular influence. I'm not the one with an agenda.

This is becoming ridiculous.

Nothing against the RAAF. As I have stated many times on this site it was ex RAAF Ron Cooper who started the major regulatory cost reductions at CAA .

However the Onesky system is obviously going to be another Super Seasprite type disaster.

That's where $1.4 billion of taxpayers money was lost and military personnel were totally let down. This time half of the loss will be paid by our industry.

Just because it was a good idea in 1946 to have a separate military ATC it may not be now.

Remember these military fools are saying nothing about Australia spending tens of billions on piston powered submarines when everyone with any commonsense knows that they must be nuclear or not at all. Clearly sending our submariners to their deaths with the present decision. The French don't even make piston powered craft so will have to convert the nuclear models. A bit like ordering a new Airbus to be made in SA but with engines from the Super Constellation

Utter incompetence. Wait until I am Diktator.

Dick, in the same post:

"Nothing against the RAAF" and "these military fools."

Quote:

so you could be posting with an agenda to damage Australia

Yep. Because if someone (ISIL? North Korea?) had an agenda to 'damage Australia', that's exactly what they'd do. They'd get onto an aviation forum where almost nobody posts under their real name, and discuss airspace issues without using their real name. What could be more damaging to Australia than that?

There are clearly individuals in the military who have let down the troops. What other explanation do you have for the Super Seasprite disaster?

Where is the evidence that there has been a change? What happened to those who were responsible for the waste? Promoted to work on Onesky?

Neither the Seapsrite nor the upcomming submarine acquistion were or are controlled by the military! I think you'll find in both cases the actual military are making the best out of the gear that politicans force upon them...

Dick, why ask questions when you just ignore everyones answers? I'm not trying to make this personal, but it doesn't strike me as very intelligent to go on alienating large portions of the people you're trying to speak for by ignoring their answers to a question you asked in the first place.

Quote:

the Onesky system is obviously going to be another Super Seasprite type disaster.

Where is your evidence for that statement? Sorry, I forgot, Dick said it, it must be true.