PBL,
This is my last post on this subject as some people just cannot seem to get it through their skulls the actual salient points raised by this subject.
I mentioned that the incidents are in the public domain because the likes of
slip and turn and
lurking123 (and to a much lesser extent
Flaps5 who asked in a mature and understandable way instad of being melodramatic) are claiming that NATS (and by inference the NATS employees who have posted on this thread) are trying to hide things.
The fact is, there is nothing to hide, and another fact is the details are already in the public domain. There is nothing to stop people from discussing what is in the public domain on this site, as long as when they do, they respect the anonymity of those involved.
PBL, I do not know what the safety culture is like in Germany (where your profile says you are located), I would expect it to be pretty good.
However the UK has for a long time led the way in 'open reporting'. Incidents are regularly replayed during annual emergency training... those who made the mistakes have to give their permission as they may be recognised during the playback of the tapes transcripts.
No one on here is saying that discussing an event is a bad thing - it oftnen stops others from falling into the same trap and it helps prevent incidents.
However,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
anotherthing
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.
which does seem like a condemnation of someone exercising their democratic right to discuss events in the public domain anywhichway heshe wants.
I'm afraid you have totally lost the whole point of this thread and in particular my statement which you quoted. My statement said clearly and categorically that I thought that 'Andrew' has got little or no integrity or backbone because of what he has done and what he has, in his own paraphrased words, turned a blind eye to. This is an experienced controller who claims to be worried about the way that NATS approaches safety in ATC.
Yet this controller did not have the balls to do something about it until he retired. How much would you trust someone like that? Where is the teamwork there? I don't mean lack of teamwork in the fact that he ran to the press, but the lack of teamwork that meant he waited until he retired before making any real noises... he was happy to sit and watch people make mistakes (and probably make them himself) whilst he was being paid by NATS.
This report was a collation of incidents that are already in the public domain. A report written
at the request of NATS... probably using 'Andrew' as he was no longer fit to control. The purpose behind the report was to look for and identify trends in an effort to put a stop to them either by re-education or by changing procedures. It's the sort of report that companies around the world do when they strive to maintain a high class service. It has no place in the newspapers.
I'm signing off from this thread now because some conspiracy theorists are to dull or too ignorant to realise the above points in their bid to condemn NATS
