Heathrow separation

[anotherthing]

Lurking123, Slip and Turn, Flap 5 et al;

Indeed, and it was a good 18 months ago when a certain Heathrow controller said "I don't try and do 2.5nm, or even 3nm spacing, for fun. I do it because that is what is required to keep the airlines happy at a capacity constrained airport."

Firstly – the above from S&T is a silly, pointless statement… the above is the job specification. It is not dangerous or otherwise. I work TC Area where I am allowed to use 3 miles spacing instead of the usual 5 miles that area controller’s use, partly because of the constraints of my airspace… or are you (and by default ‘Andrew’) claiming that practice is dangerous too?

From Lurking123:

Another fact is that the Public are the single biggest shareholder in NATS and the issue is of public interest. By all means, scurry away and have a secretive huddle in the corner but that isn't exactly in keeping with the open and honest culture you are trying to portray.

Coupled with

Far from it for me to intrude on controllers private grief on this one - but hang on a minute I am a pilot and frequently a passenger as well on these aircraft. It is a public service you are providing. Why shouldn’t we know about it?

Posted by Flap 5

Lurking123 and flap 5, you would both have valid points if there was any collusion to hide in this particular, or any other incidents, from the public

However… Lurking123… just because NATS is a part Public owned company does not mean that Joe Public should be allowed to be privy to commercially confidential reports. Or does the public want NATS to lose out to competitors by giving away all its development ideas before it can market them?

Flap 5 – yes it is a public service… the incidents are all investigated and are in the public domain already… A confidential report into those same incidents (that are already in the public domain) – collated by NATS in a bid to improve its understanding of shortfalls operationally and thus potentially as a business have no place in the public domain.
These incidents have already been reported, investigated and dealt with.

NATS is one of the leaders in Flight Safety… This can be seen with projects such as the introduction of MODE S, CAIT, www.flyontrack.co.uk, level bust awareness and workshops, etc etc.

The writing of this report by ‘Andrew’ is another tool to improve flight safety… We have a huge Human Factors department that does actually do some good stuff with cutting edge technology at times. One way in which it works is by checking constantly for trends.
If a bad trend is identified, steps are taken to understand the reasoning behind it (poor airspace design, poor documentation etc etc) and then a fix is made.

All ‘Andrew’ was doing – at the request of NATS, who S&T seems to think does not take safety seriously – was writing one of many reports done over the years when it is felt that improvements can be made in a particular area.

How often does it need to be said before some people will understand… These incidents are in the public domain if you look for them. They have already been investigated and dealt with, but each incident goes through the process individually. It is by being responsible and asking for facts and figures to be collated that further improvements can be made.

It’s a shame that a controller who was happy to take the money from NATS when they were not unfit to control has to wait until they retire before they ‘blow the whistle’. I personally do not know the chap, but I would be mightily pied off if I found out that I worked alongside someone who harboured such doubts about safety but who had neither the balls nor the integrity to do anything about it until they left the company.


Finally, as S&T seems to be fixated by cash…This thread is not about money, however as you mentioned that our customers do not want to pay for our pension I might as well dispel that myth by asking you this… why shouldn’t they?

Every single company that sells or provides a service, for example NATS, indirectly makes their customer pay for the staff pension scheme… That’s how business is run. Companies make a gross profit, they pay overheads (including Pension), and then they end up with a net profit. It’s basic business FFS!

For someone who in post number 112 states

I think it's just because a large swathe of the general public only easily understand the concepts of delay or sudden-death in aviation

then claims

even those of us that do understand good chunks

you show a lot of naivety S&T