[chevvron]

but I get the feeling they are busy on military frequencies and GA is a second priority.

If the controller is operating both a UHF and a VHF frequency simultaneously, he/she should be able to cross couple them so their operation is just like a single frequency both to pilot and controller.

[GonzoEGLL]

but I get the feeling they are busy on military frequencies and GA is a second priority.

If the controller is operating both a UHF and a VHF frequency simultaneously, he/she should be able to cross couple them so their operation is just like a single frequency both to pilot and controller.

Still not the case for most of the mil airfields.

[Ophelia Gently]

Gonzo's correct. Mil airfields never had funding for cross-coupled U/VHF RT which explains why GA frequently hear the controller talking to an apparently mythical callsign that can't be heard responding, 'cos it's on UHF; the controller is dual transmitting ( by selecting both frequencies on his comms panel) as it reduces 'cross communication' by 50% or so, but inbound transmissions frequently step on each other, hence the more frequent 'say agains' with Mil LARS Units - they are not 'cloth eared', they just have never had the kit!

Mil units participating in the LARS are now formally established with Controllers for that task (usually using the 'Zone' callsign), so these positions are there solely to discharge that task during the promulgated hours , so their LARS 'customers' are their priority, whether GA, Mil or off-route CAT.

One thing to explain: In the Military, the 'ESTABLISHMENT' of a unit is (or was - I don't think it's changed!) calculated as the minimum number of personnel required to run the unit, worked out - as only the Military can - using a convoluted formula that is designed to pare down the number to the bone; they're your tax £'s remember. The Unit's ESTABLISHMENT is then provided with the Branch Specialisation [in this case Ops Support (ATC)] policy percentage of MANNING to fulfil that task - when I was a SATCO, Manning ran at about 85% of Establishment. However, the SATCO only had his unit's STRENGTH with which to fulfil his allocated task(s), the difference between Manning and Strength being those Bods that were inter alia: detached to places cold and windy (Falklands), hot, sandy and sunny, on training courses (professional or career development), on long term sick, maternity or other compassionate leave. Added to this drain to his resources, the Station would be demanding the ATC sqn's share of personnel to undertake: guard duties, Orderly Sargent/Officer, Ground Defence Training and sundry other (unpaid, of course!) 'secondary duties' . Consequently, positions frequently had to be combined (Approach with Director or Zone with Approach) to be able to run the shop. A SATCO's life need not be a happy one!

[chevvron]

Gonzo's correct. Mil airfields never had funding for cross-coupled U/VHF RT which explains why GA frequently hear the controller talking to an apparently mythical callsign that can't be heard responding, 'cos it's on UHF; the controller is dual transmitting ( by selecting both frequencies on his comms panel) as it reduces 'cross communication' by 50% or so, but inbound transmissions frequently step on each other, hence the more frequent 'say agains' with Mil LARS Units - they are not 'cloth eared', they just have never had the kit!

Strange.
The standard MASCOT system installed by MOD at Farnborough could do it but when we moved to the new tower in late 2002, that system was binned (it couldn't pass CAA requirements) so it must have been 'modded' since then to stop it doing so. It took our techies a while to figure out how it was to be done, (there was a button to select 'combined' channels) but we certainly used cross coupled VHF/UHF channels in both tower and approach until we ditched UHF airband frequencies altogether.

[GonzoEGLL]

To do to Ophelia’s post, Brize, while being the largest airfield ATSU in the military in terms of numbers of ATCOs, it is also the first unit they call upon when they need someone to go to the Falklands/Iraq/Afghan/anywhere else. They’ve not been at the theoretical correct staff numbers for years.

[Dave Phillips]

The standard MASCOT system installed by MOD at Farnborough could do it but when we moved to the new tower in late 2002, that system was binned (it couldn't pass CAA requirements) so it must have been 'modded' since then to stop it doing so. It took our techies a while to figure out how it was to be done, (there was a button to select 'combined' channels) but we certainly used cross coupled VHF/UHF channels in both tower and approach until we ditched UHF airband frequencies altogether.

The problem wasn't MASCOT, it was the valve driven radios it was connected to; they just couldn't connect quickly enough and you ended-up in a switching loop.

[Chilli Monster]

Strange.
The standard MASCOT system installed by MOD at Farnborough could do it but when we moved to the new tower in late 2002, that system was binned (it couldn't pass CAA requirements) so it must have been 'modded' since then to stop it doing so. It took our techies a while to figure out how it was to be done, (there was a button to select 'combined' channels) but we certainly used cross coupled VHF/UHF channels in both tower and approach until we ditched UHF airband frequencies altogether.

MOD (PE) / Qinetiq units specified Cross Coupling (West Freugh had it too), the RAF didn’t - hence the difference.

Another footnote to current RAF manning - last year the Military had a shortfall of 106 Controllers. Only HALF that number passed through the RAF’s training system. Coupled with people leaving - you now have a system which before long becomes difficult to sustain.

[chevvron]

Another footnote to current RAF manning - last year the Military had a shortfall of 106 Controllers. Only HALF that number passed through the RAF’s training system. Coupled with people leaving - you now have a system which before long becomes difficult to sustain.

Maybe 'Tricky Dicky' will be able to help there.
'Aviation Officer' posts anyone?

[robert79]

ATC resource Capacity ?

Reading through the Brize Norton ACP I came across a statement that they have no recorded instances of GA aircraft being refused clearances through the existing airspace.

Well it's easy to report "no recorded instances" if you don't record them. Either than or someone is fibbing.
I've been refused twice, both times I specifically requested a transit and was refused. It wasn't a case of being asked to "remain clear" on first contact and me deciding to go round.

So whilst the statement may be factually correct, in that they haven't recorded refusals and therefore have no record of them, it is misleading and by implication rather disingenuous.

[Pete L]

They won't have the strip since they didn't provide the service -> no record. I gave up trying to get LARS out of them - they've never operated to the limit of the coverage shown on the map. Oxford on the other hand are very helpful for transits.

[chevvron]

they've never operated to the limit of the coverage shown on the map.

They did when they were called 'Cotswold Radar', officially an area radar unit, about 30 years ago. Coverage was 40nm radius up to FL 245.
Having said that, I can remember in the couple of years before I retired (9 years ago)that if I had an Oxford inbound from the south (this was before Oxford had radar) on passing the ident to Brize for a radar handover, the pilot would sometimes refuse and say he preferred to stay with me (Farnborough) until he had Oxford in sight. I would then have to phone Brize back and try to explain the pilot did not want to talk to them.
Never did figure out why this occured.

[Ophelia Gently]

To do to Ophelia’s post, Brize, while being the largest airfield ATSU in the military in terms of numbers of ATCOs, it is also the first unit they call upon when they need someone to go to the Falklands/Iraq/Afghan/anywhere else. They’ve not been at the theoretical correct staff numbers for years.

To be fair to the Personnel Planners they did usually succeed in dividing the detachment requirements up pro rata based on all units' Manning levels in pretty strict rotation, so Brize wasn't the 'first unit' as such, they just got more detachment requirements recently because of their larger manning figures. It was the same for me post Desert Storm when I had the manning for 4 airfields (MoB and 3 x RLGs) that were under my command and control; always a couple or three Bods off somewhere doing something.

[kanga]

... Added to this drain to his resources, the Station would be demanding the ATC sqn's share of personnel to undertake: guard duties, Orderly Sargent/Officer, Ground Defence Training and sundry other (unpaid, of course!) 'secondary duties' . ..!

This last issue was being further aggravated towards the end of my time by the growth on on-station tasks which have been outsourced to civilian contractors since the early '80s. Frequently the contractor personnel were ex-RAF which is where they got the training, but obviously they could not then be given either operational deployments nor secondary eg guard duties. It is no surprise that people did not reenlist or bought themselves out for these relatively less disruptive (to family life) jobs which fully used their skills. The inevitable effect was that there were fewer uniformed folk to undertake these other duties, so each individual was called on more often. It may be analogous to NHS clinicians choosing to go to Agencies which return them to their former workplaces and duties, but at greater cost to the taxpayer.

But, obviously, it is much more efficient ..

(I too can recall the era of always excellent and prompt service from Cotswold Radar at Brize, which did not stop at 1700)

[Lefty]

On most RAF stations the “Station Duties” such Orderly Officer, Orderly Sargeant and Orderly Corporal Are shared amongst everyone on the station of the appropriate rank. However on some stations, particularly training bases, anyone employed on instructor duties was excused these Station Duties.

On an average Station, you might get a 24 hour Orderly xxxx duty once every year or two. However at training bases such as Halton, Cosford, Locking, St Athan etc, they come around more frequently. At Cosford, it came around every 10-11 days!

[chevvron]

On most RAF stations the “Station Duties” such Orderly Officer, Orderly Sargeant and Orderly Corporal Are shared amongst everyone on the station of the appropriate rank. However on some stations, particularly training bases, anyone employed on instructor duties was excused these Station Duties.

On an average Station, you might get a 24 hour Orderly xxxx duty once every year or two. However at training bases such as Halton, Cosford, Locking, St Athan etc, they come around more frequently. At Cosford, it came around every 10-11 days!

I notice you don't use the abbreviation 'SDO' (Station Drinking Officer)