Air Traffic Control (ATC) Q&A

[Toro]

The pseudo-thread hijack that started in the no more position and hold thread got me thinking about the responsibilities and training involved with Air Traffic Control that few aircrew (unless you've been SOF) get to see.

I'd like those familiar with the ATC rules and regulations to chime in here. I already know some of these answers, I'm asking mostly to get discussion started and answers from those who are qualified in the subject matter.

1 - Just like we train our pilots through UPT, IFF, and FTU, the controllers have a training upgrade flow. Where does that occur (are there primary initial training bases) and how long does it last?

2 - Just like we can be Q3'd, controllers can be decertified (I have been on the receiving end of control from someone to whom this happened once). What happens as a result and what does this do to their career?

3 - Just as we can transition to civilian (airline) flying, controllers can transition to civilian ATC. How is the quality (pay, working conditions) compared to military and how often does it happen?

That should get the ball rolling - any other questions for controller-types?

[Guest Brewdog]

Well, I'm a former Navy guy (Christ, I'm batting 1000 on this site :D ) so I can't speak as much about the AF controller's training etc. but here's my 2 cents:

1. Training for the Navy/Marines is 4 months long in Pensacola, FL. (AF I think is Keesler, Army I believe is Rucker) It's broken into 3 blocks. Block I is book work where we learn about aviation wx, how to read charts & pubs, navaids, and cover the 7110.65 ( controller bible). Block II is tower. We do some related book work, memmorize tower phraseology, run static scenarios where students carry toy planes around a table top with a depiction of an airfield on it to get the basic phraseology and procedures down. The final stage is time in a voice recognition tower simulator that has a projection of the airfield with moving aircraft and vehicles. Block III starts with more book work, then an I.D. and vectory lab where students first learn to properly I.D. a target and then have to vector it through a depicted gate. Finally there are ASR, PAR, and arrival labs. After that it's off to a ship or a shore facility and the rest of the training they will do in their career will be OJT with some type of field fam course at each new facility. The only exceptions are if you get orders to a carrier, amphib, or a TRACON, there are advanced schools for each of those options. Everytime you transfer you must train on each position again regardless if you've held the qualification before. Prior quals get less alloted time to get checked out before they are subject to revocation.

2. The pink card we hold is an FAA certificate that can be revoked for a variety of reasons. For the Navy, the FAA has delegated their authority to revocate to the CNO. In reality as long as the paperwork is squared away, the cause is just, and no compelling rebuttal is submitted by the controller, your facility LCPO (top NCO) and your ATCFO (the Officer in Charge of the facility) can get your card pulled. Above them there is one authority on each coast that will look at it and can go against them but it's rare. Unless you were in legal trouble, you will likely be able to pick a new job in the military and it won't affect you're career other than the fact you might take a loss in paygrade in conversions to some fields. It will however, mean you won't get to control on the outside. Many times people won't get revocated because they are "nice" or they have been in a long time, or a combination of other stupid reasons. Then they find a place to hide them like admin and shuffle them along to be another persons problem. Crap like that is just one of the many factors that made me decide to take the door at 10.

3. The ATC field on the outside is really a crap shoot these days. Colleges have the FAA subsidized CTI program. It's a huge money making scam for them. They continue to recruit with promises of jobs but there are no gurantees. They often make students get PPL's. (extra money for the schools) No disrespect intented toward your trade but flying has jack shit to do with working planes. Trouble can result when controllers that happen to be pilots are working the scopes with their pilot hat on and not their controller hat. So anyway, lots of CTI's, lots of vets waiting for jobs, and slow hiring at the FAA makes it frustrating. In the Air Force, they are looking at making more and more facilities staffed by DOD civilians, this makes an attractive alternative to the FAA as it's a secure government job with benefits and pension. The money isn't as good as FAA but it's better than federal contract towers. The thinking behind having civilians work the stateside bases is that they will use the military for deployments. Interestingly, at the same time, in the OEF AOR, they are using civilians under the AFCAP program. The two reasons I hear are that it's cheaper, and there aren't enough military to fill the jobs. One benefit to the users is that the contractors provide continuity that just wouldn't be there with the 4 month rotation (6 in some cases) that the AF is serving over here. I can't imagine what it would be like with a new team here every 4 months. ( It's a cluster as it is and some of our guys have been here 3 years)

Ball park figures:

FAA pay: 75k-150+

DOD pay: 49k-107+

FCT's: 21-25 bucks an hour

Overseas Contracts: mid 120k-165

I hope that's along the lines of what you were looking for, any questions just fire away and I'll try not to write such a damn book. :D

[ 23. March 2006, 07:11: Message edited by: Brewdog ]

[ClearedHot]

Another question for controller types - what is your current experience level for the ATC force?

When I was doing the Stan/Eval gig I used to attend a monthly meeting with the controllers and airfield ops folks. In the 2000 time frame the Chief over in RAPCON was telling us the USAF controller force was at it’s worst experience level ever. I don’t remember the figures but he was basically saying a majority of controllers were getting out after their first tour. He also told us the average experience level for controllers at Eglin RAPCON at the time was less than three years. Is this a continuing problem? I assume people leave for jobs with the FAA? I would assume deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc… are taking a toll as well?

***EDIT - I Posted this at the same time you posted your previous response. I will leave it incase there are one or two other things you can pick out. ***

[ 23. March 2006, 07:31: Message edited by: ClearedHot ]

[Guest Brewdog]

From what I hear from the AF types, it's true and it's a mounting problem. When I left the Navy in 04, it wasn't an issue there. There were plenty of oldheads around to teach the young folks the tricks of the trade. There was a time in there that people were making it to E-5 very fast and that resulted in relatively inexpirienced people for their pay grades.

[Flare]

Why does the navy give better PARs than AF controllers? :D

[Guest someatcguy]

CH,

The Chief is correct...we are hurting, especially in the 7 level ranks (E-5 and on up). The best way I can explain it is this way: if, as an O-1 or 2, pilot type with no service commitment (due to obtaining a pilot slot) and the job outlook was good with getting a commercial slot with American, Delta, etc. would you get out after your four years? Money is better with increase in tenure, more flying hours, etal, you most likely would say thanks to the AF and be gone. That is the same with young controllers. Why would they stay in getting paid less than $1000 a paycheck when they can get so much more. And with the hiring that is going on at contract towers and the DoD, they are getting jobs with less than four years experience...I have seen this time and time again.

PAR's? What are those? Seriously, a lot of AF pilots don't request them and the controllers running them are more or less getting pro time to stay current. When I was at Kadena, the Navy F-18s and P-3s always flew them when the weather was bad, but the F-15s and everyone else flew the ILS.

[ 23. March 2006, 09:42: Message edited by: someatcguy ]

[Guest Hydro130]

Originally posted by ENJJPT IP:

Why does the navy give better PARs than AF controllers? :D

No ILS on the bo-at. Same reason they came up with the TACAN. Navy loves them some PARs, no doubt.

ENJJPT IP, I apologize if that was a joke to start with (I'm fairly certain it was). I need more coffee before my sarcasm radar is fully spun up :D .

And I agree with Swingin; the Japanese controllers give a consistently wicked good PAR!

Konichiwa, Hydro

[Guest Hydro130]

For the Heavy dudes, does GRACC (sp?) have any sort of ATC/Tower meet-and-greet program?

At The Rock, back before GRACC was going on, each new AC did a 3-day program where we went and spent time with the ATOC dudes, the riggers, and HE/CDS builders, and an afternoon at LRF (mil) tower with the controllers, and then went to LIT (civ) for a day to spend time with those controllers.

It was a great program. I hope they are still doing something like that these days. It was nice for folks on both sides of the fence to be able to meet face-to-face with "that person on the other end of the radio", and ask all of those "I have always wondered why you guys do .... ?"

Heavies don't routinely use SOFs (yes, I know LRF does for the Schoolhouse, but that's not a real SOF -- he's in the dam CP fer crying out loud).

Cheers, Hydro

Edit: and when I said "CP", I meant Command Post, not Copilot.

[ 23. March 2006, 10:07: Message edited by: Hydro130 ]

[HuggyU2]

Seems the last few years, the Navy controllers that have PAR'd me have been substandard. I don't know if something changed or if I'm just having bad luck with them.

The Brits give a great PAR. Anyone ever have the Brit gal in Cyprus give you the "dirty talkdown"?? What a hoot!

[Guest Brewdog]

As for the lack of ILS on a carrier...

We have the SPN-41 "bullseye" for azimuth guidance, then closer to the ship the SPN-46 PALS. PALS is an upgrade off of the older ACLS and is built off of a fire control radar. It locks on to either the skin of the aircraft or its beacon or both. This usually occurs between 5-10 miles. Then most guys shoot a mode II which is an ILS style approach using datalink. If they want they can fly a mode I which is automated to the deck or a mode Ia which IIRC is uncoupling at 3/4 mile. Most don't fly mode I because the trap won't count. If there's a bad data link or some other problems we use the PAR like display to do a Mode III which is a talk down just like the PAR. Why do Navy controllers give better PAR's than the AF? Because we do EVERYTHING better than the AF controllers. :D

[Techsan]

Originally posted by Huggyu2:

Seems the last few years, the Navy controllers that have PAR'd me have been substandard. I don't know if something changed or if I'm just having bad luck with them.

The Brits give a great PAR. Anyone ever have the Brit gal in Cyprus give you the "dirty talkdown"?? What a hoot!

I agree. I had a PAR one time @ Norfolk that the controller was talking so fast that you couldn't discern wether she was saying above glide path or below glide path. You might be thinking to yourself that above/below don't even sound alike, but they did. If I'm in the clear I don't really give too much of a damn, but the wx was 300 and 1/2. I actually had to stop her midway and tell her to slow down and speak clearly. We thought she was saying above, however she was actually saying below. Pretty scary!

[Toro]

Originally posted by C21Cowboy:

You might be thinking to yourself that above/below don't even sound alike, but they did. If I'm in the clear I don't really give too much of a damn, but the wx was 300 and 1/2. I actually had to stop her midway and tell her to slow down and speak clearly.

I had something similar happen to me at Lakenheath. I was clear and a million flying a PAR by request from ATC for training. I started out just fine and the left/right was fine, but as we started on what looked like a normal glideslope, the controller told me I was slightly above glideslope. I dumped the nose and increased my decent and the next thing I know I'm above glideslope....then well above glideslope. I could see the runway, so I knew he was screwing up, but I continued to do what he was telling me - as I'm approaching DH much further out than I should be. Finally he directs me to level off and tells me I'm well above glideslope when I'm at DH.

When I ask "Do you want me to level off, or am I well above glideslope?" another voice takes over and tells me to level off and that I'm well below glideslope. The second voice finished the PAR and when I pass DH and tell him I'm visual I ask if he wants feedback. Response - "Nope, we've got it covered"

I happened to be talking to the RAPCON NCOIC a week later and it turns out he was the second voice. He said the controller in training was decertified on the spot.

[Dewey...BoneDriver]

I had a similar experience with a controller who was in training. They told me I was "left of course turn left heading 069..." After about three corrections of "left turn left" I asked the IP if he wanted me to honor the directions or take over visually. Just goes to show that it pays to back up approaches with another method, 'cause if he has a bad day it's my wife they call!

[Guest C-21 Pilot]

Qusstion for you Brewdog, SomeATCguy, folks in the know...

Does it help out at all, while during initial vectoring, the pilot calls out winds to the controller?

I don't know where I picked up the habit, but I for some unknown reason tend to call out current flight-level winds prior to being vectored to final when requesting a PAR. I just always thought that if I called out winds, it would help the radar controller w/ better vectors.

Just wanna know if I'm wasting O2...

Also, for you folks coming into Ramstein, GCA (140.9) is always in dire need of PARs - to include No-Gyro. We had a crew actually flew 16 PARs on a sortie for their proficiency training.

Lastly, the ABSOLUTE best PAR given was by some swabbie at NAS Rota...X-wind at vectoring altitude was 40-50 kts, with weather at mins...dude was a shack. On the other hand, I've been given a PAR at Lajes (USAF) and almost vectored into the ground.

[Guest JL]

AF controllers dont get alot of practice at PARs too much anymore. There getting rid of them at alot of bases. When I deployed I was one of two people who new how to run PARs out of all the controllers we had.

For some reason alot of controllers dont like running PARs so, at least from my expereince, you get a couple people that get fairly good at it and then a bunch that do it just enough to stay proficient according to the regs.

... I happen to like running PARs

[Guest S3Dude]

Originally posted by Brewdog:

As for the lack of ILS on a carrier...

We have the SPN-41 "bullseye" for azimuth guidance, then closer to the ship the SPN-46 PALS. PALS is an upgrade off of the older ACLS and is built off of a fire control radar. It locks on to either the skin of the aircraft or its beacon or both. This usually occurs between 5-10 miles. Then most guys shoot a mode II which is an ILS style approach using datalink. If they want they can fly a mode I which is automated to the deck or a mode Ia which IIRC is uncoupling at 3/4 mile. Most don't fly mode I because the trap won't count. :D

Actually Mode I approaches do count for traps. They won't get you night current if you are out of night currency but they will maintain your night currency. Of course the S-3B (hornet is the only one I believe) is not authorized Mode I approaches. Also, the SPN-41 provides both glideslope and azimuth but doesn't "keep up" with the ship moving around as well as ACLS.

[M2]

This will explain all...

What really is going on in the tower

Cheers! M2

[Scooter14]

M2,

That was a riot!

[Guest Brewdog]

C-21,

calling the winds couldn't hurt I suppose, especially for a PAR. I wouldn't see a problem with it.

S3,

Thanks for fixing my misinformation. I've been off the boat since 2000 so it's gotten a little rusty. I must be sick to miss it, but I do. It's funny I *****ed when I was there & counted the days until I got off but after about a year I was wanting to go back. I think it's probably that way for a lot of guys. (a follow on schoolhouse tour probably had something to do with that :D ) Maybe they'll farm it out to DOD controllers one day, I'd be at the head of the line for a WESTPAC as a GS 11 or 12.

[ 28. March 2006, 04:23: Message edited by: Brewdog ]

[Guest Flyboy62000]

This is my first post to the forum, so here's a bit of background. I was formerly a civilian commercial/instrument rated pilot, and am currently a radar controller and ATC trainer at Ramstein AB. I will be going to OTS in July with UPT to follow. So being able to see things from the pilot side has helped me in ATC. I'll try to paint you a picture of what is going on in USAF ATC today.

The training pipeline works like this. After basic training the trainee attends a 4 month tech school at Keesler AFB where they learn rules, regulations, and recieve 2 months of simulator training on tower, radar, or both. After that they are sent to an operational base for OJT. Most bases have a pretty high training load. A few don't take trainees due to short assignments or low traffic level not conducive to training i.e. Thule, Moron, Aviano, etc. Upon arriving at their first base they enter the front-load training program (FLT) where they learn local information, equipment usage, ATC rules, regulations, and procedures, and recieve simulator training on operations for that base. Once completing FLT the apprentice controller begins training in an operational position. This is the first time he will talk to a live aircraft, and will be monitored by a trainer qualified controller. After training on and recieving a certification from the NCO of Stan Eval, in each position, the controller is upgraded to journeyman (5 skill level) and is able to work unmonitored. Typically at most bases the training load is high and often you will be controlled by a trainee or fairly newly rated controller (more experienced controllers will be monitoring the trainees in position).

The experience level for USAF line controllers is typically between 1 and 5 years of ATC experience. After recieving a line number for SSgt and minimum 1 year of ATC experience a controller can become a watch supervisor (the person responsible for overseeing normal operations). Watch supervisors typically have anywhere from about 5 to 15 years of ATC experience. After 15, controllers are normally in staff positions i.e. NCO of Stan/Eval, ATC training, Chief Controller, etc. Contrast this to FAA line controllers which have a much higher average experience level and you will see why there's a difference.

As for PAR approaches, I happen to work at one of the few PAR equipped facilites left. I was once asked by a pilot during a tour, "Why is it that when I am right of course the controller tells me to turn right?" Think about intercepting a localizer (inbound course 270) from a 20 degree intercept vector (240). You are approaching the course line from the right side. In order to turn onto the course it is a right turn. Now, on a PAR the controller should tell the pilot, "Right of course, correcting." He will then give vectors to intercept the course line "Turn right heading, 250...260...265...268...270" This allows the controller to ease the aircraft onto the course which is much easier and more accurate than trying to give one turn and hope the aircraft rolls out right on the centerline. Now, if the controller says, "Right of course and going further right. Turn right heading ____", He's probably a trainee and you should either get a correction or hear the monitor correct it.

C-21 Pilot, I've probably ran a PAR on you at some point. It would have been a good one without corrections Also, you're right we do need PARs all the time for proficiency. We have around 20 controllers that need to maintain proficiency and each one needs a minimum of 5 approaches each month. Also, there is almost always training in every position so we will often request them for training also. If you've never been through the GCA, and are interested in stopping by, I can show you the whole place in about 15-20 minutes. Just send me an email, or stop by between 9-5 on a weekday and ask for "A-D" (controllers go by operating initials).

If anyone has questions about ATC regulations, procedures, etc. I can proabably answer them, so send them along.

[Skitzo]

"Heavy" question. I have searched many resources including the pilot/controller glossary, FAAO 7110.65 and the AIM.

Are military aircraft exempt from using the Heavy suffix on their callsign when talking to ATC?

The reason I ask is because here at Dyess you never hear a BONE check in as Hawk 11 Heavy, although at Dyess it's pretty much assumed.

[Guest nunya]

I heard the Bones check in all the time with "heavy." So nope, not exempt.

Hydro - I don't think there's any ATC section of GRACC. Lots of MX appreciation but I don't recall seeing any ATC info.

[Breckey]

So I thought that this was the best place to put this.

What reg or publication governs the releasing of pilot names in the event of Noise Complaint/Public Affairs incident? I know that the FAA does not release pilot names in accidents (ref Asiana) and the USAF doesn't release for accidents (unless the named dies), but where is this written? Couldn't find anything in the OPSEC regs or AIM.

[Azimuth]

Only thing I could find.

AFI 35-108:

16. Noise Complaints. PA will handle complaints directly and completely as possible without referring callers to other bases or commands and without dismissing calls when locally assigned aircraft are not involved. To help maintain good media and community relations, PA should provide timely, responsive, and factual answers to aircraft noise complaints working in conjunction with the installation’s aircraft operations and civil engineer offices. PA usually makes a report of the complaints at the Air Operations Board meeting, which is also attended by the community planners. Refer all claims for damages to the Air Force Claims Service Center at 1-877-754-1212 or 937-656-8044

[magnetfreezer]

11-202V3 section on flight violations (doesn't deal directly with noise complaints but noise should be more restrictive since it probably isn't a rules violation):

1.8.1. The names of the crew will not be released to non-USAF agencies without the

permission of the Air Force Representative to the FAA (AFREP), in coordination with

MAJCOM/A3s or HQ USAF/A3O