Operation of NERC may be 'illegal'

[eyeinthesky]

Of great interest is a document circulating in the ops room at the moment. It is a copy of advice obtained from Queen's Counsel regarding the way in which NATS has pushed aside objections to worries about the font size and legibility of the displays at NERC. It runs to many pages, but its short conclusions are threefold:

1) There may well be the possibility of a legal challenge to the way NATS has opened NERC in the face of H&SE objections to the displays and the fact that they may well be in breach of law with the standards of the displays.

2) Each individual ATCO who works on a sector knowing there is a potential problem with the displays, irrespective of whether they personally have problems with them, could well be liable if there is an incident or worse which is attributable to the legibility of the display. An interesting line was that if two aircraft get very close to each other it is probably due to either pilot or controller error. Once the former is removed, the latter becomes the only option, and operating with known deficiencies in the system could be construed as a failure in the duty of care. There would, contrary to Prospect's assertions, be no guaranteed protection of individuals by the corporate body.

3) The Union's 'supine attitude' (their phrase) to the resolution of these problems is amazing and may well be in breach of its own constitution and its duty to its members. It is understood that the Union has taken Junior Counsel advice on the problem and the recommendation was to seek QC advice. This it has not done due to the cost!

I do not have the document in front of me and therefore have only paraphrased, but I think I have covered the gist of it.

The three remaining points to note are that there is a time limit to mounting a legal challenge, so the advice is to ensure that this is not missed. In addition, there are serious concerns that the wording of the documents relating to the opening of NERC place the CAA in a passive rather than active regulatory role and this could be in breach of their own regulations.

Finally, and perhaps the most scandalous, is that this QC advice was comissioned not by our Union, which takes subscriptions on the premise of being able to offer the best possible legal protection in the case of any problem, but by a concerned individual who was sufficiently concerned to take action. Says wonders for the interest of our Union in our welfare and that of the travelling public, doesn't it!? <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[BEXIL160]

Very, Very interesting. And not too surprising either methinks.

I sincerely hope that a lot of copies have been made of the document in question as in the past anything incriminating in the ops rooms have rapidly been removed by the NATS Thought Police...errrr.. management."Can't have the troops getting ideas, can we?"

This deserves as wide a publicity as possible. If the allegations are without foundation (which I doubt) I should like to see a robust defence from NATS uncommunicative SMGs.

I wonder what happens next?

Rgds BEX

[torpids]

I have obtained a copy of the Queens Counsel. .Advice and am absolutely horrified by the. .implications. How can I plug in my headset. .at Swanwick knowing the risks I am exposing. .myself to?. .If there are any "union" reps reading this. .then please tell me what to do.

[Standing Hampton]

ANY DECENT UNION WOULD NOT PUT ITS MEMBERSHIP AT RISK!

I am shouting!

The union higher echelons are in senior management pockets, this thread totally proves it! I was once a member of a union that actually represented its members, sadly in my humble opinion, Prospect does not.

[asdfgh]

Have seen this document floating around, but was insufficiently bored to pick it up and read it, so thanks for the precis in here.. .I'm immediately struck by the fact that of the 3 points raised 2 of them appear to be attacks on the union Unison.. .The first point, about the displays etc. is curious. As at 27th Feb NATS had not had any response from the HSE (Health and Safety Executive) about its compliance, or otherwise, with the various display regulations. A response should have been forthcoming on 19th Feb but has been delayed until early March. As pointed out previously in this thread HSE only took an interest in late January and have been supplied with a mass of documentation from NATS subsequently.. .Also I'm surprised at the naviety of people who take as gospel a lawyers word! Of course a lawyer will say that things can be challenged! Its their job!!! The longer they string things out the more they get paid (it must have been cold yesterday, I seen a lawyer with their hand in their own pocket!).

FYI there is a Working Group, with management, engineering, systems, Health & Safety and individual watch representatives, who's function is to determine what actual problems exist with the MMI/Fonts/Colour. Once the problems have been accurately determined then they'll make their recommendations for remedial action. Not only are they looking at this but also lighting, chais, sleeping arrangements (on a paid night shift????) etc.

[2 six 4]

Yawn, yawn. If this document was an expensive serious attempt by a member of ATC to improve safety we would all be impressed.

Would YOU spend lots of hard earned cash commissioning such a report to .... leave it round the Ops room ?

I don't actually remember IPMS and CPSA commissioning the Swanwick centre. Maybe I missed something. Perhaps if this learned person was to make serious recommendations and point out legal facts, rather than a misdirected attack on some trade union people, we would all be more impressed.

[Nogbad the Bad]

ShurelyShomeMishtake............SHURELY you are not so naive as to believe in Working Groups ???? Just look at the history of what they have "achieved" so far !! (Especially when management has a hand in them !)

And 2 six 4...........just a little hint......"there's no smoke without fire".

Glad I don't have to work at NERC - I had heard, when the font problem arose, that the legal position of working on equipment known to be problematical was a BIG risk for the licence holder !!

Take care you people......it's YOUR licence !!

[bill]

Shurely shome...

What has "Unison" got to do with anything?

or have I surely made some mistake?. . <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[sony backhander]

How dare you criticise our wonderful union-anymore of that and i'll set my savage 18yr old incontinent toothless poodle on you-. .Besides i'm glad to donate my tenner a month so that the reps can all get pissed in Bredbury Hall.

The qustion is, what are WE going to do about this? Prospect are as usual doing ****** all (except looking after themselves maybe).

[Asda]

Well I have actually read it, all of it. I suggest that if you use the screens at Swanwick you read it too. I don't believe in the conspiracy theory, but I do believe in the cock up theory and this seems to be the mother of them all.

Yes, there IS a problem with the screens, it may not effect you but it might do the controller next to you since it effects people in different ways. If there is an adverse effect then it can have safety implications. As licence holders WE have responsibilities, legal and moral to keep the system as a whole a safe system. No I am not bothered about the 'motive' for the commisioning of this report. It doesn't matter. The QC involved, who I think is a QC who specializes in safety/responsibilty cases (who else would you got to?) and knows a whole lot more about the law than I do, is very concerned about our legal position. That is worrying. Ian Findlay said in his statement that nothing has changed from operations at LATCC. But things have changed, people have problems differentiating between 6,8,9,0 etc. and this was never an issue before. I don't believe Ian Findlay. I WILL be responsible if I make a mistake because of misread figures. In fact, I could well be even more responsible since I knowingly operate on a system where it is 'common knowledge' that these faults exist and these errors are possible.

The HSE are examining the legal position of the displays from a user perspective. That's us, do they damage our eyes, do the ergonomics damage our backs? Their remit does not cover our customers or the general public. Thats down to SRG and the CAA. The report makes interesting reading as regards their legal responsibilities. The feeling I get though is that there has been an awful lot of passing the buck and its going to get worse. It doesn't feel as though the system is doing what it should be. The implications should the screens be 'illegal' seem to snowball the more you think about it. Who is actually responsible? CAA, SRG, TAG, IBM, the poor ATCO? And then what do we do?

So, I'm worried. What do I want? I want to see the HSE report. I want a statement from Swanwick management. I want a statement from TAG. And I want all of this yesterday. I want the union to stand up and do what I pay it to do. They should have commissioned this report, not some bloke who felt he wasn't being listened to. I want the union to say they support this report or go and get another one for themselves and support that. No, I don't think it will say anything much different. Then I want them to challenge management over it.

If the legal positon of the displays is secure then all this doesn't matter and there is nothing to fear. But what if, what if they are poor displays, displays that could lead to confusion or an error simply because they are bad displays? Why do we as controllers, want to shy away from this possibilty? We have a reputation for being awkward SOBs. Perhaps if we do it simply because we like being awkward and we don't like change then this really should go no further, but if its because we are pedantic about detail and safety we should push this as far as we can. (soapbox collapses under weight of rhetoric)

[Scott Voigt]

Guess we are luckier than y'all... We have Union boards that we can post stuff on and management is not allowed to touch it. Ours in fact where I work is glass enclosed with a lock... All is safe in it. Guess who we see at it a LOT looking it over? You guessed it, management. We seem to have the news out before they get it &lt;G&gt;.... .. .regards

[Part2]

How many 1261's filed

[Findo]

LACC is not the only place where equipment might be described as sub optimal but the staff have to work with what they are given. I have just read the Prospect statement about LACC screens. Iain Findlay quotes that " Controllers will not be held legally liable if they continue to undertake their tasks according to the conditions of their licence. Any liability for individuals can only happen when a person takes culpable action. " . .. .Unless you call turning up to work a culpable action I cannot see how any ATCO can be held to blame if a mistake is made with a known problem be that equipment, staffing or procedures. That is where the employers liability kicks in.

[torpids]

ShurelyShomeMistake - you say that as at 27 Feb there was no response from HSE about NATS compliance????. .So how come the CAA saw fit to issue an approval on 22 January? . .Findo - the QC says this about Findlay's statement. This statement "materially misunderstands, and hence misdescribes, the extent of the legal liability of ATCOs".. .Furthermore,regarding Employers liability insurance, "that it should not be assumed that. .NATS would be well and effectively insured".. .which means Findo,don't be too sure the buck doesn't stop with you.