T5 - Transport Select Committee Hearing 7-May-2008
 

BBC News 24 is led to believe that Willie Walsh is due to be heard later this afternoon and they will try to show his evidence. BAA are on at the moment but BBC News 24 are taking a break until WW is on.

PS If this gets lost in Airports and Routes before 1530Z then you'll know that someone thinks it's not important today

PPS He's on now at 1505Z! Pretty in pink - sorry burgundy :p

PPPS Actually he is very much on top of this Hearing so far. Impressive with his command of the detail and his honesty ...

Saved by the division bell!

Airlines Airports and Routes here we come :ok:

Just been watching this on the news must say Willie looks a bit harassed.

Not to mention the two plonkers from the BAA.

One had to be asked the same question five times and still didn't answer it.

It was summed up by him saying all the car parking problems were down to one barrier not working and there was a problem with one of the air-bridges that affected aircraft operations. Apart from that it worked well on day one!!!

From what I saw of it, the wonders of the red button, I was so underwealmed by the "Managers" in question. "Did you check your emails from your middle management?" "No , thought I would sort out the problem first."
Priceless! (Bet its the middle managers that have to pay the consequences though.) :eek:

Yeah the BAA peeps spluttered a bit at times, but they didn't wobble WW today, did they?

I was expecting him to be wobbled and maybe their lunches had got the better of the quizmasters, but he was well prepared and disarmingly frank at least until the division bell went at half past four.

Did he get a grilling after that, do we know?


I was particularly impressed by the way WW separated himself from questions about the baggage system itself, the building facilities e.g. lifts, the computer systems, and even stand guidance.

Sounds like they have successfully reserved their position against BAA, IBM etc. on all those things and if they have, and there is ultimately BA shareholder value in pursuing those entities, then I think WW can claim credit for it himself by being very careful and reserved about apportioning blame right from the outset.

Resilient fella, isn't he?

I bet WW was glad that Gwyneth Dunwoody (RIP) wasn't there to rip his head off.

Amen Zeb,

She'd have made Boxty out of the little tinker. What a crying shame:rolleyes:

BA "Failed to Foresee" T5 Chaos
 

Heres a link to BBCs website report

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7388296.stm

Yes old Gwyneth would have eaten him alive. Remember seing her rip some people from the railway industry to pieces earlier in the year after the fiasco post new year engineering works.

Remember her asking this fellah if he had an opinion on it all. He said "No". She replied something like "Make sure that's on the record please, a railwayman and unionist of 30 years experience without an opinion!"

Regarding stand entry guidance the problems about that was more the fact there were no dispatchers to turn them on result in most flights being marshalled on, rather than them not working.

Something to do with a dispatcher had to finsh off their last flight before they move onto the next resulting in delays for guildance and jetty service.

Although on most occasions the dispatchers were only about 20m from the button but according to there sop cant turn it on.

i wonder how much extra fuel was burnt that day waiting for basic service??

Cheers Big

Does T5 not use the Safegate automated docking guidance system? I understood (and please correct me if I am wrong) that this system is always active and will automatically detect and identify an approaching aircraft, ensuring that the approaching aircraft matches the type that is expected at that gate.

Regards

Enamoured by the diminuative Walsh
 

Glad to see Slip and Turd was enamoured by Mr Walsh today. I personally found him very toady! I found the his first address to the committee 'can i take my jacket off' like a naughty school boy, hilarious. My sides were splitting when he struggled to take the top off the water bottle. What a complete pratt. The sooner he retires the better, shame the second half wasn't broadcast. As they say, the luck of the Irish.

You have to fast forward into the hearing by 2 hours 6mins and 32 secs to see Walsh rattled by a question over whether Kirkwood and Noyes had signed a confidentiality agreement.

Walsh refused to answer, so it must be a YES.

Go to www.Parliamentlive.tv to see it all again.

I wrote to Gwyneth Dunwoody over T5 and unfortunately she died as we know.Nothing to do with my letter I hope. The committee today were hopeless. Mrs Dunwoody must be turning in her grave. What a different event it would have been with her in the Chair!

That may be the case but 'elf an' safety decrees mean that the dispatcher (now called a Turnround Manager in newspeak) has to visually check the stand for obstructions because pilots are too stupid to do so for themselves like wot we did in the olde days.

A shortage of available TRMs was one of the few things we successfully transferred into T5.

Its worse than that, they're there to ensure we set the Park brake, cos we cant be expected to remember everything. They'll have them walking in front with red flags soon.

Stand management at LHR is at a very low level.

Redcap/Dispatcher/Turnaround Manager gets to the stand too late to do the checks.

Stands have loads of unwanted stuff at the wrong times.

FOD gets removed by the weather or tyres.

Redcaps/Dispatchers/Turnaround Managers tend to be in the wrong place when aircraft taxi on to the parking spot, they often up in the finger, they can't see the aircraft about to hit an object.

I can only guess it's cheaper to fix the damage than fix the the problems that cause the damage.

Thanks for the pointer to where we can catch up with the full hearing.

Personally I'd say that Louise Ellman did not rattle WW in any Gunwoody-esque type of way. He was obviously extremely well briefed and knew the scope of the flight envelope of this hearing. He knew he could defy the questionner without fear of reprimand.

I am sure the late GG would have found a way to his sensitive bits, but they just don't make 'em like that anymore.

Actually I think there's a big clue in the David Wilshire questions starting around 2:17:52 about IT.

That was a definite way in to his sensitive bits. What I was hearing there was that BA's IT department did not see their role in any way as designers of the BAA Baggage handling software or interface. They were observers! He said it at least twice. And there was something he said about a software filter that remained in place (about 2:18:42?) that appeared not to help and the the way Willie Walsh introduced it made me think of the metal transport bar to be found inside the top of the washing machine that you remove when you take it out of the box and before you start using it :p. So BA ordered a new washing machine, someone unpacked it, they plugged it in and discovered that no-one had removed the transport bar...sorry software filter ... brilliant :{

I would not be at all surprised if BA's IT department were pleased to just let others design the system and were not pro-active at all. I have seen IT departments who expect facilities contracts (everything from complete new premises and non-IT bits of hardware to essential core parts of their networks) to be delivered a bit like a new server. That is most likely to occur if someone calls the overall contract a 'Design and Build' contract.

Such ruthlessly narrow-minded IT persons expect it (the whole 'Design and Build' contract such as it affects them) delivered to their door, be brought up in the lift, and someone to bring the delivery chit to their desk, with the product still sealed and safety wrapped, exactly to their concept of the specification and no-one elses. They will then plug it in on schedule for some crazily short testing regime on the critical path, designed mostly just to calibrate and to test their own configurations. Consequently if some third party fool has been daft enough to commit to a delivery specification without understanding what was really expected then they just unplug it and send it back. And when the project manager says well that was a critical task and now we are behind schedule while we wait for a replacement, the IT guys shrug their shoulders and say "well it was your project" ... Been there, done that! It pays to be a mindreader when interfacing with an IT department.

There was also a bit earlier, (around 2:05:43) an unprompted and possibly unguarded admission that the server message traffic associated with the system was far greater than had been planned for. That also looks like evidence of pp IT planning.

I would now predict that if BA still expect to recoup costs as a result of the IT failures then they will be a very long time coming, as in very unlikely. The only way they could possibly recoup is if they saw the risk in what surely was a system unique to T5 and pinned it on others in contracts before it happened.

He admitted earlier that they had an opportunity to refuse to move when they did, but they didn't foresee the risk of what happened and so they moved anyway. Was either Mr Kirkwood or Mr Noyes in charge of the IT risk, I wonder?

After seeing this last part of the hearing, I now struggle once more to see the worth of Mr Walsh staying.

For the board to still be retaining him, he must be very good at parts of the business we don't get to hear about.

I thought it was classic when an MP asked the BAA CEO

" have you launched an investigation yet"

and his reply..

" I haven't had the time yet"

or words to that effect.

The Safedock can be automatic but due to health and safety should be programmed before each arrival and should have a TRM present next to the emergency stop to activate it should they need too.
However most of the time they walk off leaving the stand gulidance uncontrolled.

As for pilots looking out, this is very true all are capable of looking out however this shouldnt be down to the pilot alone as his view and perspective maybe not a reliable than that on the ground due to hismpostion.
I have attending incidents were aircraft hit equipment so im afraid pilots quite righlty need help to achieve a safe approach to the stand and its unfortunate accidents happen.

Cheers
Big

Fit for 5
 

More like Fit for FCUK ALL, what a complete Wille wonker. Oh i was amazed when WW's grip failed to remove the top from the water bottle! I thought such a tight fisted littlle Wa$&er would have breezed it. He should of organised a BA working party to plan the opening! So how can you expect the man to open a multi million pound terminal when he struggles with a bottle top?

Its all working perfectly now
 

So we're told all is hunky in T5 now, so how on earth can the delayed moves (at mamouth expense by WW's on admission yesterday) be justified? That's because the word on th street is that all is not well in the bowls of T5....... watch this space

What you describe BigBatMan is appalling.

The standard in aviation is that Accidents DO NOT happen.

Absolute safety is supposed to be planned into EVERY operation, not reliant on pilot's eyeball's looking out over some unplanned clutter.

These pilot's aren't driving Cessna's into some strange farmer's strip, but you make it sound like it, complete with description of the strange farmers.

Was anything said about the suspension, by the UK Information Commisioner, of the fingerprinting scheme?

Fingerprinting
 

No mention of this particular climb down on fingerprinting the passengers. The biggest collection of biometric data in world, as if you don't need another excuse to avoid T5

Interestingly, I think not Yarpy, although I've only caught bits of the whole 150 or so minutes

I too had expected aborted fingerprinting to get a mention. The closest I saw them get to it was when WW was asked about the lack of staff familiarisation on the day and he said he thought it was a problem that the testing days were unfortunately (inevitably) conducted in an unfinished facility. At that point I thought he might go on to say that the late withdrawal of the fingerprinting system had meant that the procedural plans for checkin were torn up and had to be rewritten, but he didn't AFAIK.

You are very right slip and turn the standard in aviation is accidents SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN, but i was talking about the reality in aviation which is THEY DO HAPPEN.

Accidents should never happen in our industry,
and i do NOT think that it should be up to the pilot's to look out over some unplanned clutter dumped on stand by people in a rush or with out care.

What i said is that the stands are full of dumped miss placed equipment, the dispatchers never turn up on time the reasons i cant confirm and when they do, they do not stay at the guildance emergency stop button until the aircraft is parked which is reconmended

and with these set of problems things go wrong, whether a accident of just 10minutes wasted and a few miss connected passengers
i said accidents and i agree that was wrong they are not accidents but incidents due to things not being done how they should.

Its not fair on the flight crew who have done their best to get a flight in on time to be stopped at the last 70m by a problem like this.

I dont recall saying anything about it being anything like being cessnas in fields.

Cheers Big

Thanks for sharing the detail BigBatMan. I wasn't intentially taking aim at the messenger, so sorry if my loaded gun barrel looked like it ... :ok:

IT
 

Slip and Turn - Your theory in this case about the IT department is incorrect. Sorry can't say more in this case...

Ah yes, that'll have been the bit about the washing machine and the forgotten transport bar :p

Stand Guidance Lights - re post #11
 

The problem with stand guidance lights was still there last week. BA1337 from MAN arrived more or less on time, then had to wait for the stand to become vacant, then had to wait several minutes - long enough for the Captain to decide it was appropriate to tell us SLF what the delay was about - for someone to turn up and turn the lights on.

Are the lights so expensive to run that they have to be turned off when not immediately required, or do different aircraft types require different lights.

Milkround
 

did Diaryground get all the cream? Looks like the BA IT dept were up late 'again'. I think you;ll find as the poster intimates that the BA IT department had a little more to do with this fiasco than is currently public knowledge at this time. Indeed check out the T5 thread elsewhere on PPRUNE with one BA IT expert lauding that 'all their parts were working perfectly'. Me and others think not MR IT>

The way the guildance works is as follows:-

1) Aircraft i/b is allocated a stand, this is done by BA in T5 and there are loads of reasons they allocate a certain stand for each aircraft, again they quite often change them or de allocate for a host of reasons.

2) The TRM is allocated to an aircraft the point in which this is done im not sure either first TRM available to the next aircraft or they get given a list of flights and they work through their list, im not sure on how this is done.

3) The TRM very rarely gets there on time, for whatever reason, short staff? late gate change? lack of transport?? time taken to sign of last flight?.

4) The TRM should inspect the stand and ensure the stand is empty for the aircraft. This isnt being done correctly due to the fact the TRM is late and in a rush, This process is important and i have had to stop aircraft from pulling on stand due to equipment that is parked wrong and could/will hit the aircraft and it wasnt picked up at time of pre guildance selection.

5) When the guildance is switched on it sweeps the stand for equipment on stand and then is ready to recieve the aircraft, this sweep only sweeps the area the aircraft will use. and not the complete stand. I guess it is programmed to do this because if it triggered at every piece of wrongly placed equipment within the stand it would never want to guilde the aircraft.

6) If when the guildance is doing this check and the aircraft is already on stand then the aircraft will trip the guildance because it will flag up as something on stand.
Pilots this is a message for you, if you arrive on stand and the guildance is a safedock system dont cross over the double white lines with the nose, this will normally cause a ID failure and the aids will not work waiting in a further wait for a marshaller which are probably racing around putting on other aircraft that are holding off. I find 1700-1900L worst breaks for TRMs i guess?

7) Also the guildance has to have the correct aircraft type. Quite often a TRM will put in the system B767-200 instead of B767-300 thinking it wont make a difference but it does the computer has a set of aircraft size parameters and a wrong type will fail the system.

8) The guildance is set to close down after every arrival this ensures. that
someone is present at the next arrival to ensure the stand is clear. if it is kept on an aircraft could push back and another come on to a stand and hit something.
This also needed because the aircraft type changes most times.

9) The guildance isnt expensive to power its just a safety reason that someone needs to be present everytime its used to reduce chances of incidents.

10) The problem has always been there and i guess will never go, Have a few more TRMs would help because they can get to stand earlier and ensure a safe arrival,
T1 was always very bad in the last couple of years and this has moved to T5. T4 was normally alot better for late TRMs.

I know i piped on abit about this but, Solving this problems helps with so many more. Late Arrival = late turn around = no stands = more delays. getting the door open quickly i would have thought will help a lot.

If your all still awake then well done.

Cheers big

This may seem a bit harsh...
 

.. but I wonder:

If a little feller has to be at the stand to operate the lightswitch and then to check and double check, why can't they just give said little feller a set of ping-pong paddles and get him to manouver the plane on-stand by the simple expedient of waving his arms about?

Might have saved a quid or two?

OORW

OORW
I was thinking the same thing myself. I do laugh at all these automated systems which when exposed to the nannystate mentality, then requires 5 people and a supervisor to monitor :)

@OORW: Ah yes, but then that'd require a total rethink about excessive noise PPE ... the noise from those on/off switches is positively deafening :p

BIGBATMAN

With respect your posting highlights the ridiculous lengths we now have to go to in order to 'prevent accidents'. It used to be simple if the guidance was off we could self park. Then 'elf an' safety became involved. The result being that a) we cannot park without numerous unnecessary people and/or checks and b) the incidence of aeroplanes hitting anything while parking has in reality probably not changed one iota.

If aircraft hit obstructions on stands the cost to the airline would be such that if it happened too often ramp discipline would soon be improved and the problem would be solved. Assuming we have a problem in the first place, which 'elf an' safety would have us believe we do and most right thinking sensible individuals would dispute.

If the occupants of Waterside are reading this thread, BIGBATMAN has just given them priceless information for free.

However, I know from 27 years in commercial (and some local govt) life in Britain that, when you tell a 'manager' about a problem and some ways to resolve it, the reply is usually along the lines of:

• We know about this and are developing a solution

Babel Fish translation: Shut up and go away. We are not going to spend any more money as we are getting away with it and I have targets to meet. Don't tell anyone else about this.

• We do not think that this is a problem as our statistics show that all key time demarcations are being met

Babel Fish translation: Shut up and go away. We are not going ...

You will know other standard replies which include the shocked look on their face that confirms that they did NOT know what the problem was but pretends that they do and fobs you off.

What Waterside has yet to realise is the colossal damage done to the company by T5 and having their own staff speaking to the media (such as here) to tell the truth. It means that BA have used up all the last reserves of patience and desire to help their employer. The company may be said to be emotionally bankrupt for their staff no longer feel anything towards the company other than the hope to find another good job before it gets bought out.

M.MOUSE is also correct. The decision to use automation to (supposedly) eliminate human failings has been a very successful ploy of technology salesman in the past 20 years. But it creates a vicious circle with the few remaining humans in the system. This problem has been discussed in the BA Mgmt thread.

Excellent post BIGBATMAN :ok:

So they (BAA/BA) have bought into the technology and are not allowing it to be used to its best advantage.

But the technology is (apparently) capable of automatically scanning for obstacles? And there are still 4 Mk1 eyeballs in the cockpit.

The Safegate can be remotely programmed, so why not let the person allocating a/c to stand pre-program it, thereby removing the need for the TRM to manually enter the data?

BTW BBM, what technology are they using to 'sweep' the stands for obstructions? I used to worry about on/off switches on Weather Radar - are your reproductive and other bits being swept now all day everyday by something that equally well 'sees' into every corner or have they fitted every movable-apron-nonorganic with some kind of passive transponder?

Laser.

Regards