"Air traffic bidder was guilty of 'inadequate' training "

[Der SimMeister]

From the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/Transport/2001-03/air260301.shtml

[Bright-Ling]

For those too lazy to read (it is worth it!) the article, SERCo basically didn't service the 32 Sqn (Royal) 146 correctly.

This is part of the text that amazes me..

The "error" would have been detected if royal passengers had been travelling because there were particularly stringent departure procedures under such circumstances.

So, safety only matters when someone 'important' is on board?!?!?

Of course the check list reads:

OIL.......Check Pressure and quantity (only when Royals on board)

SERCo ARE JACK OF ALL TRADES - MASTER OF NONE

[HugMonster]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">A spokesman for Serco pointed out that bmi british midland, one of eight airlinesinvolved in a "not-for-profit" rival bid for Nats, was involved in a similar incident in 1995.</font>

For this read:-

"A spokesman for Serco decided he was 'bang to rights' so decided to indulge in a little 'knocking copy'"

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">"We still maintain these aircraft so we clearly have the full confidence of our customer," said the spokesman. "After the incident the RAF complimented us on the speed and comprehensiveness of our own inquiry."</font>

For this read:-

"We still maintain these aircraft so clearly although we no longer have the confidence of the customer, they've laid off all their own engineers so have no choice but to use us," said the spokesman. "After the incident the RAF sarcastically enquired whether our own inquiry could possibly have been thorough enough."

[ayrprox]

:rolleyes:
Oh AFTER the incident they were complimented on their own enquiry.Thats nice.
The words closing door and horse bolted come to mind