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.

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.

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.

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 can just imagine a 120kg 50 year old approach controller fighting off the attacking daesh hoards with his 9mm..

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.

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

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 USA and UK have civil and military ATC controllers. Each service branch has their own for the reasons stated...

Those countries have huge efficiencies of scale compared to Australia.

What about Norway , Sweden and Switzerland?

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?

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.

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!

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 ;)

"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.

That is correct. And equally, military operational aircraft need to be managed by the military, for instance fighter controllers, helicopter controllers, ship controlled approaches.

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.

So why did Angus Houston make his clear statement.

Perhaps you should ask Angus Houston instead of PPrune. Just a thought.

Dick, can I suggest that when Sir Angus referred to 'two almost identical air traffic management systems' he is simply referring to the technology bit. That is, TAAATS and ADATS - the consoles, radars and other sensors, radios and the software and network connectivity that ties it all together.

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.

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/

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.

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."

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.

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