Slip and turn
you totally miss the point. The package we receive has nothing, not one iota, to do with how safe we will be. We do not walk into work and think "I've not had an incident for a few years... I think I will have one today for the hell of it". As ATCOS we are not elitist, we jus know that we have to be on th eball all the time.
We make mistakes, same as anyone else... however we are trained, over many years, to recognise those mistakes and rectify them very swiftly.
We are trained to work as a team and to point out mistakes made by colleagues
as they happen, in a bid to prevent there being any nasties.
I do take slights on the system I work within personally... because I alongside every other ATCO/ATSA and ATCE make that system what it is. We are the ones who provide feedback, file reports etc that makes the process evolve. It may sound elitist to you, but it is only people who are at the coal face who can do this... not some person sitting in an office. Anyone sitting on their backside polishing their seat can come up with ideas on how to enhance safety... it is the operators who will prove or disprove any new procedures. If thats what you call elitist, then you need to re-visit the dictionary.
As for working to rule etc... the management should be worried. We are farily well paid... but consider the fact that we are responsible for the control of hundreds of aircraft per working week, involving thousands of lives. Sounds a bit melodramatic, but its basically true. Management want to change our pension... 99% of us consider the pension as payment in lieu... i.e. even though we are fairly well paid, any perceived lack of pay is made up for by the pension.
Working to rule means just that... we could drop the extra sectors that we are not required (contractually) to maintain. We could refuse to do overtime for a month. The company, the airlines and UK Industry and economy would suffer big time. Is that elitist - no, it's fact.
What you need to get through to your brain is that working to rule does not mean working unsafely... it means doing the minimum required to fulfil our contract. Safety will never be compromised.
Pensions are probably the one issue that would make a normally benign workforce stand up... however it would not have any implictions on safety.
The closing of ranks you think you see here is nothing like that. So, in this one instance (out of no doubt a few) that we are talking about, a Heathrow Director made a very bad judgement of error. It was noticed, reported and dealt with. What more do you want? Even 'Andrew' himself admits that that was th eworst incident he had seen in all his career... seem like a pretty damn good advertisemtn for the system to me.
The incident has come to light because 'Andrew' has decided, for whatever reason (especially as he claims he wants to have a quiet retirement), to go public about a report he collated
at the request of NATS.
The report was probably restricted (a standard procedure for large companies)... therefore 'Andrew' has broken his agreement when he signed up to the Official Secrets Act. Sound far fetched? Well it isn't, its fact.
NATS commissioned this report... if as you claim they are so blinkered to safety, why would they bother?
