The Day Britain Stopped - TV Programme

[2lo4zero]

Been reading about this on the NATS intranet. Sounds like the usual media load of bollocks about ATC. Wouldn't even talk to ATC folks! Ah well!

[Jerricho]

They are already making a follow up with Channel 4.....

"Help!!!! I'm a Journo! Get the facts out of here....."

[BN2A]

Ah, the one based on "I'm a non-entity - Get me in there..."

:\

[VectorLine]

Heres what Kenny Everit has to say about it - for those who dont read their emails and those who are non-nats

The Day Britain Stopped - Message for All Staff

You may well have seen trailers for, or read about, a forthcoming BBC
television programme called "The Day Britain Stopped", to be broadcast on
Tuesday 13 May at 9pm on BBC 2.
The programme, which calls itself a drama-documentary, is intended to
highlight lack of investment in Britain's transport infrastructure. It uses
a fictional scenario in which a national rail strike leads to gridlock on
the M25 and surrounding areas. Air traffic controllers are unable to get to
work and those that are there, stay on. Due to an error by a controller in
these difficult circumstances, a mid-air collision occurs near Heathrow,
with severe loss of life in the air and on the ground.

NATS has repeatedly explained to the programme makers the procedures and
failsafe mechanisms that are in place to prevent exactly the sort of
incident portrayed, but they have been reluctant to talk with us and we are
very concerned that the programme fails to meet its obligations to be
factually accurate. Consequently, it is likely to affect our reputation. Our
concerns are shared by the airlines, unions, BAA, CAA and the Department for
Transport.

Despite repeated requests, we have not yet been able to obtain a tape or
script of the programme. This is most unsatisfactory and also, I believe,
unfair. I have taken our concerns directly to Gavyn Davies, the Chairman of
the BBC Board of Governors, and as a result, we hope - even at this late
stage - to be able to view the programme and comment on it before
transmission.

The programme is already generating public interest so can I ask you, as
always, to refer any media calls you may receive to the Press Office at One
Kemble Street.

Please be assured that NATS is doing everything it can to ensure that our
concerns are properly examined before the programme is broadcast. I will
keep you informed of developments.


RICHARD EVERITT
Chief Executive

[Evo]

The Beeb sayeth; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_day_britain_stopped/3010345.stm

Whilst official rhetoric suggests that technology and human resources will be able to to keep up with predicted increases in air traffic volumes, the controllers themselves paint a different picture.

"An air crash is more likely than you would think. The chances of an accident are increasing by the day." "There is no spare capacity within the system anymore. Delays build up very quickly." " Air space is becoming saturated and we get nervous in holding situations."


Controllers speaking confidentially painted a 'gloomy picture'
More and more overload reports are being filed. Morale has plummeted because it is now harder to take leave. Without exception, everyone now retires early.

[Vizsla]

If NATS had their way H.G.Wells "War of the Worlds" would be banned.
Its only TV and as its "Too Highbrow" for the average moron viewer, those that do watch can form their own opinions.
I hear that "I'm an ATC -get me out of here" is a forthcoming live outside broadcast from Swanwick.

[Tapster]

Vizla

I like it!!!!!!!!

[paulo]

Newsnight debate following shortly.

[sr562]

Hi all,

Watched the last half hour of said program. What a load of s**t.

There was me thinking i had missed something when they started showing footage of a service being held for the victims in March 2004 (didnt realise it was a docusoap thing, and so got vey confused and started checking calendars and teletext etc).

As for the "incident", it was down to a controller not slowing an aircraft down on final approach. Now i am a mere student pilot, but i thought it was the pilots responsibility for his/her speed on final approach.

Anyway, glad i only saw the last half hour.

[El Grifo]

The response is not as knee jerk as I expected, I imagined some righter that right jumping up and blaming ASLEF for the whole "incident" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[incubus]

Apologies guys - another non-controller here.
AIUI, no speed control may be imposed within 4dme.

The speed control wasn't the "cause" of the incident portrayed - merely one of the circumstances. It contributed to a missed approach and I doubt it is particularly uncommon for whatever reason. It was the MA itself to which the finger was pointed.
I found it laughable that they suggested the tower controller was unaware of the spacing and that a missed approach was likely.

The programme was produced in a sensationalist manner, however the director and producer care to justify it, but I do think that many of the factors which were used as plot devices are quite feasible, even if the conclusions were not those of trained people (thinking specifically about manpower shortages amongst controllers)

I look forward to the next programme, where the scenario is worked by actual controllers :-)

[BillHicksRules]

Hello all,

As a better than averagely informed civilian I am dismayed at the responses given here by those "in the industry".

The "everything is alright" attitude coupled with "how dare anyone question us" allied to the "no whistle blowers allowed" is what is wrong with this country and is what the whole point of the programme

[Mr Chips]

I can't possibly agree with you Bill. This programme was sensationalist rubbish. I watched it because we had been "warned2 about it at work, and I expected that NATS had over reacted. how wrong I was. ATCOs unable to contact the tower because they were busy getting a Shamrock off the runway? No Go Around alarms? Heathrow ATCOs could get to work but LTCC ATCOs couldn't? Final Director bandboxed? bandboxed with who for God's sake?

Which bit REALLY got to me? The sight of an ATCO led away from TC by the police. I am certain that would NOT have happened as shown.

Must say, I am impressed that you can land two burning aircraft on Hounslow and only have a handful of fatalities on the ground, although most of the shots of the wreckage (1 mile from Heathrow) were actually filmed in neighbouring Ealing. Should have hit Heston/Cranford.

Total nonsense.

As for Newsnight - fair play to the professor of Transport (or whatever) who rubbished the entire programme. But who was that so called Aviation Expwert? I would love to know why he is EX CAA...and if he has a personal axe to grind - because that's how it appeared to me.

Chips
Hounslow Resident, and certainly not a NATS Cheerleader

[Aluminium Importer]

I agree Chips - lots of technical errors!

I find it interesting that a departure to Bilbao turned left of 09R towards the north for a start.


And the controller telling a Lufthansa to "come off Landboard (I assume Lambourne) heading 270" How the hell did she validate and who is her LCE?!

I agree - I've never managed to bandbox FIN before.

Still, the research was carried out slightly more thouroughly than 'Pushing Tin' with such lines as:

"callsign, maintain 250kts to the marker or I'll have to spin you"


Pish!

AI

[Yellow Snow]

Oh dear

Dramatically it was fantastic.

From an ATC point of view as a Heathrow controller it was utter tripe.

1) If it happened as portrayed the FIN controller was in no way responsible for the collision, only the go-around.
2) The tower controller (arrrivals) would've seen the two inbounds catching up and would've done something about it themselves. What's the point of Fin phoning up when the CSA's inside of 2 miles?????????? hyelllow!
3)Arrivals controller would've warned the deps controller who in the event of a go-around would've turned the outbound out of the way, not to mention possibly even left it on the ground, due to the possibility of a go-around.
4)Pleased to see someone else has mentioned the existence of the go-around alarm
5)Convenient for the programme makers that the CSA didn't fly the missed approach procedure, effectively turning himself out of the departures path.
6)Has TCAS been outlawed in the future.
7)How many Bilbao flights do BA operate from EGLL? (none) and if they did what in fcuk$ name was it doing on a BPK departure (thats a northbound to above average informed members of the public - Spain being well to the south)


Come on, How many other things did they get wrong??????

I'm not saying what happened couldn't happen, god forbid it ever did, but it wouldn't happen in the shamefully over dramatic way the TV programme made out.
The biggest threat we have is from foreign airlines departing and changing frequency to radar without being instructed if we then have a go-around it can be a buttock clencher.

The one thing they did get right.............
Woman are dangerous controllers:D ;) :D ;) :D

[Mr_Grubby]

Mr Chips.

So you are still alive !!
TV Prog. Utter nonsence, the way it was portrayed, but the mid air will happen. Hope it won't land on your house.
So where is my record ? You have had it 5 years now.

Mr G.

[bookworm]

So for those of us that aren't familiar with Heathrow procedures, what should happen with a missed approach on one runway and a simultaneous departure crossing the extended centreline of the arrival runway?

It's clear from the SIDs and IAPs that the procedures are not self-deconflicting. How are the aircraft separated and what safeguards are there for, e.g. comms failure?

[mr.777]

Did they purposefully forget to mention TCAS,or is there some rule that says it doesn't operate at certain altittude?Could this have prevented the collision?
777 (Trainee ATCO starting Mar04).

[doubledolphins]

Well, the whole thing started with a "high speed train crash" close to Edinbugh Waverly Station. Call me picky, but how many high speed trains go through the Capital City with out stopping? It all went down hill from then on. Only thing missing was the canned laughter.

[Tim_Q]

Yes, I too was somewhat puzzled by the high speed train crash "a few hundred yards from Waverley station" :confused: but I think the more vital facts about the air crash seem to be lacking too....
In my position (a mere ATPL student) I am unable to form an informed verdict. Like bookworm I too would like to know what happens in the tower during a missed approach at LHR to ensure aircraft seperation. In the programme there was virtually no communication between the 3 ATCOs controlling the approaching and departing A/C!? :rolleyes: I have heard a 'go around alarm' mentioned, anyone care to elaborate?
Cheers,
TQ

[Dan Dare]

OK, so it wasn't 100% on the facts and its easy to nitpick bits that we each know well. It is a drama and is limited by the understanding and imagination of the scrip writer (much like a real documentary or news reel).

BUT

Which bit of this show was implausible?

Train collision? Subsequent strike? Total gridlock on the roads? Staff shortages exasperated by said gridlock? People freezing to death in the gridlock? ATCOs in court held up as scapegoats?

Sorry, but that is all too real and mostly seen recently.

So the scenario for the midair wasn't spot on, but make the gridlock due to e.g. sudden, unexpected snow (where have I seen that lately?:ooh: ). Sudden runway closures for clearance. Gridlock on the roads (because you southern softies can't cope with a sprinkling of snow). ATCOs arriving late (like the next cycle). Others staying on late 'cos they can't get home anyway. Airports turning aircraft away due to limited parking stands. Lots of pressure to move aircraft with few staff and far from ideal conditions. Do none of you f**k up sometimes? Even more so when overloaded?

I think the underlying message in this mockumentary was all too urgent and should be a wake-up call rather than the "head in the sand" mocking shown by most of you here.

[Wedge]

Obviously from the reactions of informed ATCOs, the portrayal of the events leading up to the collision were uninformed nonsense. On the other hand, under completely different circumstances a similar near-miss incident did occur at LHR in 1997 (was this the incident they referred to at the end of the programme about the court case?)

Good point about the Bilbao flight being on a BPK departure! I suppose the fact that they got that wrong is a bit irrelevant though, in real life it would not really matter what the destination of the a/c was.

They did get some technical things right, even I know that the TWR freq at LHR is 118.7 (although I'm not an anorak!).

So a couple of questions for you ATCers - If LHR had to be closed, for the reason in the programme (no fire cover due to airport fire services attending the accident) or any other - with huge stacks of holding traffic, do the contingency plans include diversions to military airfields (eg Brize Norton/Lyneham) - and if so when do these come into effect? Would it ever conceivably be necessary?

Re: the TCAS. In real life it should have prevented the collision - but one question. I was once in the jumpseat on an LHR 9R departure, and shortly after rotation the TCAS came on "Traffic....Traffic.....". The pilots were not concerned so I assumed that it is normal to get a TCAS warning when taking off from a busy airport with so much other traffic about. But does this not mean that in the event of a real loss of seperation it would take longer for the pilots to react to the incident?

As a drama it was entertaining though, I especially liked the bit with Gary Lineker and Alan Hansen!

[Tim_Q]

One thing's for sure, an airliner crashing in the London area...it's happened before and it's bound to happen again some day. As the area becomes more and more populated, the greater the loss of life will probably be. All the more reason for good safety practises, and if this docuwatsit makes a few people look at things twice then it was worthwhile.

[BillHicksRules]

Hello again,

What none of you have answered is the point of the whole film which is that the UK's transport network is a breaking point.

My impression of the aviation industry as a whole at the moment is of an alcoholic who is in denial. The first step to solving the problems is admitting they exist. The second is to ask for help.

We the great unwashed can actually help.

I personally love to fly and have had a love of aviation for as long as I can remember. However what annoys me about the aviation industry is the smug, self righteous attitude of those upon who my life depends every time I take to the air.

It is the fact that in private amongst yourselves you express the same concerns as we the masses do. Furthermore you know exactly the problems and more importantly the exact solutions. Yet the speed with which you close ranks should anyone outside the circle dare to comment is staggering. I work in a industry, with competitive pressures, upon which the entire country is dependent. Without this industry nothing else would happen. We openly canvas comment and customer help in dealing with problems. The aviation industry is not essential. The whole thing could disappear tomorrow and the vast percentage of us would notice very little difference in our life. So our mail might take a little longer but other than that we would go about our daily lifes.

I apologise in advance for shouting but it is essential that this point is made:-

GET DOWN FROM YOUR HIGH HORSES

Let me put it another way. You are a service industry. Perception is paramount. Your customers percieve several potentially lethal problems. They also know that these are not insurmountable. This is not 9/11. There is no foolproof defence against a determined terrorist. All that can be done is to make it harder.

The problems in the aviation industry are able to be solved but not by sticking your heads in the sand at the slightest public concern.

[BALIX]

Which bit of this show was implausible?

Well, reading the replies on this thread and the one in Aircrew Notices, quite a bit of the show that related to ATC and airline operation was implausible. As for the rest, I don't have a clue how plauisible it was but with the inaccuracies in the ATC part it makes you wonder.

The thing is, mid air collisions between public transport aircraft do take place - in Europe there was one last year but the previous one was in 1977. They are very infrequent. The chances of dying on a public transport flight is very remote but if you do, chances are it will because of some mechanical failure, pilot error or some religious fanatic blowing the damn thing up.

Controllers do make errors and the system is not flawless but those errors tend to lead to nothing more than brown trousers and a few sleepless nights. What's more, brown trouser incidents are getting less despite the traffic counts going up.

Despite this, the programme deliberately gave out the impression that there is a procedure in place at Heathrow that is so flawed that a collision is inevitable. It was sensationalist and unbalanced and may well put people off flying at a time when the industry is still reeling from the far more real issues thrown up by 9/11.

Of course we shouldn't be complacent. We should strive to make sure that the extremely remote threat of two airlines flying in to each other is made as small as possible. But I don't think a BBC programme designed to shock is the way to do it.

[kevindelaney]

Seems like NATS aren't too happy at this either!!

http://www.nats.co.uk/news/news_stories/2003_05_13.html

[evenflow]

Tim Q

The missed approach alarm is pressed by the tower arrivals controller in the event of a go-around. It sets off simultaneous alarms in TC, Thames Radar and Northolt and is paticularly useful in the event of an unexpected go-around.

The standard missed approach is designed to keep the go-around away from departing traffic (for example with comms failure), however the departures and arrivals controllers tend to be more proactive, providing early turns, altitude restrictions etc.

The worst case scenario, is CSA going round off 09L with radio fail and not following the standard missed approach(as it didn't in the TV show) and the northbound departure off 09R getting airborne and switching over frequency to London before being instructed to. :{

[bookworm]

The standard missed approach is designed to keep the go-around away from departing traffic (for example with comms failure),...

Is it? Consider a missed approach on 9L and a BUZAD 3J SID on 9R. The missed off 9L is straight ahead to 1500 ft then left onto 040. The BUZAD 3J off 9R is left onto 053 at LON 2d (which is just about at the upwind end of the runway), no restriction on climb to 6000 ft.

It looks to me as if the aircraft are not separated without proactive controller input. Am I missing something?

[vertigo]

The missed approaches don't 'separate' , but do at least segregate the traffic. They were changed after a 1997 airprox very similar to the incident in the programme.


TCAS may have been omitted from the programme, but it's not failsafe , two recent incidents have taught us that. I would imagine it's much more difficult to fly an RA at 1800' than level 350 .
Maybe the programme makers were right to leave it out than confuse the issue by including it then discussing it's drawbacks.

People here seem much keener on picking up continuity errors such as northbound bilbao flights and wrong frequencies than the larger issues explored.

What about corporate versus personal culpability ?
Should you work beyond the end of your shift ?
What happens to the 40 aircraft holding for Heathrow if we lose both runways ?


Can anyone tell me how the go-around alarm would have helped in the incident detailed last night ? What could Northolt, Thames or Fin have done when tower had both aircraft ?

[Wedge]

Good post vertigo.

"What happens to the 40 aircraft holding for Heathrow if we lose both runways ?" Fair enough question to ask, but what is alarming is that you don't already know, looking at your occupation in profile!! :eek:

Care to take a stab at my two questions above? Are they relevant?

You are the first Atco I have seen who has not rubbished the programme and pointed out that despite a lot of factual inaccuracy it raised some serious questions.

[Gonzo]

Like bookworm I too would like to know what happens in the tower during a missed approach at LHR to ensure aircraft seperation. In the programme there was virtually no communication between the 3 ATCOs controlling the approaching and departing A/C!? I have heard a 'go around alarm' mentioned, anyone care to elaborate?

So what happens in the lead up to a possible missed approach?

As the arrivals controller, as soon as I notice, for argument's sake, an a/c not slowing down (through the final director forgetting, or the crew forgetting, or deciding to ignore the speed control, whatever the reason) I'll take some action, I certainly would not be sitting there fat dumb and happy somehow managing to not look at my radar or out the window, idly waiting for apporach to phone me to instruct me to send it around! Tee up the one ahead, maybe get the second one to reduce to a lower speed, or slow it down to min approach speed, I'd tell the departures controller sitting next to me that it would be tight, so if he had a possibly conflicting departure, he could send it straight ahead if airborne, or keep it on the runway. If it was looking like he wouldn't get a landing clearance, I'd see if I could switch one or the other to the other runway. In any situation like this, Arrivals and Departures co-ordinate very closely. It cannot be any other way.

Like has been said above, the only realistic way this could happen is if the go around is unannounced, goes radio fail and flies straight ahead instead of the missed approach procedure, AND a conflicting departure switches over to TMA without being told to, or also goes radio fail, AND TCAS for some reason doesn't function.

Gonzo.

[Jerricho]

BillHR,

Let me be the first to respond to you comment about high horses. I am sure I speak for all my colleagues when I say that I take the utmost pride in my job. And when a production like this highlights certain facets that are simply inaccurate, then you have to expect an emotional response (egs, controller being escorted from the front gates at LTCC by police, no mention of TCAS, portrayal of lack of communication between Approach and Tower).

However, you flippant comment about "smug, self righteous attitude of those who my life depends" reeks. I know I'm not infalliable, I am after all human. However, this doesn't stop me from providing the best service I can. Further more, you state the aviation industry is not essential. Who has their head in the sand now? It is a WORLDWIDE system that millions of people daily use. Mass population = mass transit. Following this premise, there are many things in life that aren't essential, but have become part of daily living (TV, Playstation, Home PC, Boat, Cat, Mobile Phone). And yes, I realise that this is along the same lines as your comment about UK transport network at breaking point. BUT, what you "assume" is a self righteous attitude from the poor guy sitting infront of a radar screen, talking to another poor bloke with 200 passengers strapped to his back is a very uninformed, narrow point of view indeed. Come to a centre or a tower one day....

You say you enjoy avition....is this you means of making a living? If not, what is you means of making a quid? You state you are staggered by how quickly we "close ranks" when directed comments from outside. Perhaps productions like this prove that the somewhat uninformed will believe and communicate incorrect information, seeing it as fact. How often have I picked up papers and seen articles on aviation that are sensationalist garbage ("Seconds from tragedy....." or "Concorde looses tail"). And when friends or friends of friends see this, the resulting questions always make me smile.

You wonder why we react like this...........I think you have missed the point. The program does raise some issues that require looking at, however there are some issues highlighted that are false, and it is these that I have the problem with. And being referred to as smug and self righteous.

[ATSA2]

As an ex LATCC and LTCC assistant, i was disappointed with the programme, the inaccuracies were woeful, and it seemed a classic example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. The producers had got into their heads that the EGLL go-around procedure is an accident waiting to happen, and then gone off the deep end from there.

I do believe that a mid air is going to happen somewhere over the London TMA, sometime in the next few years...the airspace is getting very crowded, and sooner or later 2 bits of aluminium will try to occupy the same bit of sky at the same time. For every ATCO saying "load of cobblers, it will never happen", there must have been more than a few saying " there but for the grace of god...."
I just hope that I'm not on duty when it does...

[Yellow Snow]

My worry now is for any go-around at Heathrow the passengers on board who have watched the programme are gonna be bricking it.
The truth,
On average we have about 3-4 go-arounds a day at Heathrow. None of them anything special just a normal day.
Because they are a normal occurance we train for them and control them regularly.

Bookworm the missed approach of 09L would turn passing 1500' or passing 0 DME. therefore turning inside the departure. If the was no proactive controller input (as there wasn't in the show) then I and my colleagues are not doing our jobs. The remark about altitude restrictions refer to proactive controller input, that's my job. Any normal occurrance during a shift in the tower needs proactive controller input, that's one of the reasons we're there.

Heathrow learnt an awful lot and changed it's procedures after the very near miss in 1997. I fully agree that our skies and airports are at/over the limit, but the scaremongering in the programme is completely disgraceful.

The programme shows only what we know already the entire transport infrastructure of this country is a shambles thanks to years of lack of investment and no cohesive transport policy.

What would happen if Heathrow closed and there are40 holding? These are the real questions that should be discussed, and I'm happy to do so without closing ranks, denying the problem exists whilst being smug

BillHicksRules,
Your comments are very insulting to a sector of the aviation industry that is passionate about their jobs and the safe conduct of all flights, I can only hope they were made in the heat of the moment.

And,
Can someone tell how they thought that closing a runway because of short staffing would help. It would be very foolish to go single runway with those traffic levels. You would mearly impose inbound flow control and one controller would work both runways with a safe manageble level of traffic, as we do now when we are short staffed.

[Jerricho]

Hey, thanks Yellow Snow, you just reminded me of something....

Reference the "closing a runway" bit of the show, didn't the controller say something about this would require even tighter spacing on final to get more a/c down on one runway.

Hmmmm, remind me, Single Runway Operation - 6 Mile spacing (or vortex of course *grin*). Good thing I can bandbox No. 2 then, isn't it. Seriously though, would we suspend departures and try and pack as many as possible?

I'll happily discuss the 40 holding senario. I guess it would degrade into some form of bidding situation "Right, who can hold for the longest and who for the shortest" while trying to establish which airports can take what. And during LVPS once, I had a United from the States in the hold at Bovingdon who was CAT 1 only, and diverted to Germany. So, there are other options. Any other thoughts?

Oh, and hope the power doesn't go off!

[jonnys]

Slightly off topic, but...

Are ATCOs insured in any way against such criminal prosecutions as the one in the programme? Seemed quite scary that the controller in the programme was immediately arrested under suspicion of 'multiple manslaughter'...

Do ATCOs (NATS), in their contracts, receive loss of license insurance as many commercial pilots do? Just an interesting thought. If any of you guys and galls in the know can clear this up, it'd be much appreciated!

And the programme itself...interesting points made, and disconcerting to watch, but I have to agree that too many technical errors and false representation of procedures were used to 'scare' the general public. Come on Beeb, get the facts right before taking the plunge.

[Llamapoo]

I heard about this programme and then came looking for the info. I might well sit down later and watch the programme from the website.

I've been struck by many differences in the type of 'infotainment' that North Americans gravitate towards (as opposed to the UK). In general, my assessment has been that North America is all about sensationalism (eating bugs, jumping off buildings, backflipping snowmobiles,...) but NOT when it comes to plausible real-life situations. In the UK it is often doom'n'gloom when factually-based programmes appear on telly. And while they do make a valid point, you have to wonder what effect they have on the constructive efforts being made by those in the know.

Shouting at ATCOs and pilots that they've all got their heads in the sand is probably on a par with telling your waiter to get his finger out (I wouldn't eat that burger now). BUT WAIT, ATCOs and pilots are highly trained and extremely professional people, so we should let them dissect the programme and be secure in the knowledge that they are still taking away the 'real' issues that they haven't already considered.

My view - it's all a ploy by the Canadian government to divert attention from SARS.:ok:

[bookworm]

Yellow Stone

Bookworm the missed approach of 09L would turn passing 1500' or passing 0 DME. therefore turning inside the departure.

It's 1500 ft or 0 DME whichever is later. The turn by 0 DME is by no means guaranteed.

If the was no proactive controller input (as there wasn't in the show) then I and my colleagues are not doing our jobs. The remark about altitude restrictions refer to proactive controller input, that's my job. Any normal occurrance during a shift in the tower needs proactive controller input, that's one of the reasons we're there.

That's a fair comment. But ATC procedures tend to be designed with a failsafe if there is no such intervention. Just as we trim our aeroplanes so they fly hands off, much of ATC procedure is designed in such a way that lack of action (or more importantly, lack of communication) doesn't lead to a hazardous situation. That's the whole rationale behind clearances. Without the need for a failsafe, we'd just have instructions. Of course you can't have an entire ATC system that requires no proactive controller input, in the same way that you can't fly an entire flight in an aeroplane without proactive pilot input. But we still trim, and procedures are still designed to be, for the most part, self-deconflicting. It's a question of stability.

Requiring such input, particularly where it has to be made on such an urgent timescale at such a busy time, does not make a procedure inherently unsafe, but it does make it more vulnerable than others to human fallibility, system failures and sheer bad luck. Some of each of those is typically involved in any aviation accident.

[Down Ampney]

The only people I've noticed being smug about this is the BBC. Before the programme started they made a point of stating how it's content had been "extensively researched". This gives the impression that what followed had authority and integrity. Controllers are well used to the general ignorance amongst the public about their profession. The ordinary viewer is in no position to question any of the points made in the programme. The result is alarm amongst the travelling public, and the residents of Hounslow, for no good reason. No amount of reassurance from the profession is likely to allay this.
Much of what was portrayed was inaccurate and implausible. The whole scenario was contrived to achieve the points the programme makers wanted to get across. In my view it was shameful.
The "extensive research" failed to discover the London Air Traffic Control Centre at Swanwick, or consider what part it might play in this scenario. Perhaps it is just a mirage! Even the "expert" on Newsnight seemed unaware it had opened, all he knew was that it was late.
This leads me to wonder if the "expert" and "extensive research" are somehow connected!
Finally, and most telling of all, they would never hold an England friendly international on the Friday before Christmas!

[bjcc]

Sorry to wind things up, but yes the controller would probably be at very least interview by Police very early on...possibly arrested depending on the outcome of the initial investigation. As I recall the instructions given in the met police are that in general any person concerned in the death of another would be arrested.
The decision to prosecute lays not with Police but with the Crown Procecution Service, and the chances are in the case of mutipule deaths they would put it before a jury to decide...afterall they would be critised if they didn't by public opinon.

[Captain Windsock]

I think it was a very good programme and the scenarios were spot on. It is irrelevant that there were a few factual inaccuracies and those that dwell on that are missing the point.

Last week there was a go around when the subject aircraft RT failed on short final. Any pilot wondering what the ***k is going on could easlly miss the turning point on the go around procedure by a mile. And on 09L that would make the difference. Don't kid yourselves otherwise.

Wedge asks

"If LHR had to be closed, for the reason in the programme (no fire cover due to airport fire services attending the accident) or any other - with huge stacks of holding traffic, do the contingency plans include diversions to military airfields (eg Brize Norton/Lyneham?"

Well another home truth. There is no contingency plan. Its all down to the TC Traffic Manager who has to think on his feet.

NATS has reacted badly to this programme and they would do better looking at there shortcomings rather than trying to tell the world it could never happen.

[radar707]

BJCC, you're right about the controller being arrested on suspicion of (what i assume would be) Manslaughter, however it is unlikely that she would have been led out of TC that night, after all the Met would have their hands ful dealing with the ensuing chaos!!!!

The programme itself was in my mind poorly researched and for the most part was aimed at scaring the hell out of the flying public. The scenario portryed, whilst plausible was woefully innacurate in far to many ways to be realistic.

Having read the info on tyhe BBC website, the actress who played the part of the controller ad libbed a lot of the time, her research was poor to the extent that she couldn't even manage to get the names of the holds right or even use standard phraseolgy (as per MATS 1 app E)

There then begs the question of corporate manslaughter, you can be sure that the Police would be looking at the procedures and if they were the cause of the accident then those on high have to accept a level of responsibility.

As it was the whole thing was nothing more than an attempt to scare the ill informed flying public.

When I was at the college of knowledge, a documenatry team approached NATS with a view to doing one of those fly on the wall programmes on ATC and in particular ATCO training with a view to following the careers of a few at CATC from Highfield Park through to unit validation.

Perhaps if NATS had not declined the offer then maybe joe public might realise that we're not the ones with the ping pong bats, we are highly trained professional people who take great pride in the work that we do, and that flying is SAFE because we are part of the team that wants to get them from A to B SAFELY.

[lardy]

I'm just a punter, who discovered these boards a while ago through a link from another site. I don't come here often, but saw the programme and thought I'd pop in to see what you guys who do the job thought of it.

I'll take all of your collective words on the factual inacurracies. However, from a punter's point of view, I thought that Air Traffic Controllers came across incredibly sympathetically. It seemed to me that you were portrayed as hard-working, conscientous people doing a very difficult job to the best of your considerable abilities. The fictional incident came about due to a number of reasons, not least a controller working too long hours as there was not enough cover, with too many aircraft.

Obviously this is incorrect. Obviously there is a surplus of controllers under NATS, relief is always there and sectors are never combined. Obviously no-one is ever expected to do a demanding job for too long a time. Obviously there is no commercial pressure to reduce delays, and this is never in any conflict with safety concerns. You should be complaining to the BBC about this gross misportrayal, and not about whether some alarm should have gone off in the tower or not. :rolleyes:

[Spank me baby!!!]

lardy,

Sometimes it's good for us to hear a non-ATC perspective, thanks for your thoughts, and welcome to the lion's den...:E

In Australia recently, two light aircraft collided on final at a Secondary Airport. The tower controllers followed company procedure and notified the managers and media liaison section of Airservices Australia. No lawyers appeared, no media liaison officers appeared, no managers appeared.

The guys who watched the whole thing were too stressed to continue, so they signed off sick, shut down the tower and went home. A good thing in hindsight because the Police turned up at the airport and starting looking for someone to arrest and charge.

Only now, at the Coroner's enquiry, is AsA representing the controllers legally.:rolleyes:

[eal401]

I am not an ATCO, but I know enough about aviation to spot the flaws in the mid-air portrayed. The rest of the programme was entirely plausible though and overall it was well produced and made IMO. I did not find it scaremongering at all, and for those who are complaining about it, there is a wonderful invention called an off button fitted to most TV sets. At the end of the day, it was drama and all dramas have inaccuracies.

What disturbs me is the ATCOs on here and other threads dismissing the whole thing as rubbish. Not all do, other ATCOs say "the programme was wrong, but such a mid-air is not impossible." They are the ones I would want in charge of any flight I was on, those who acknowledge that the system is not infallible, that mistakes do occur, that computers do fail etc. Those who blindly say "It won't happen" should not be employed in ATC and I would not want within a million miles of a radar screen when I am flying.

[GT3]

The arrogance of ATCOs

Many non-atc ers on here are thinking that ATCOs are arrogant and we have a that will never happen attitude. This could not be further from the truth. Yes something like that might happen, but not as portrayed by the BBC.

The "arrogant" attitude coming across is in fact a case of if we dont shout from our corner nobody will. The BBC portrayed us as a group of people who sit back and let things happen. We do not, as yellow snow has pointed out above there are procedures that are ammended by proactive controllers to prevent such occurances.

It was pointed out above that the turn on the missed approach is 1500ft or 0 DME which ever is later, that is correct. It was also stated that the turn is not guarenteed, also correct. However a go-around is also not guarenteed - i have seen many a non-uk airline land after being instructed to go-around. Not much in ATC is guarenteed, however what i can guarentee you is we do our best to prevent this from happening!

[Lon More]

I was house hunting in the UK and delayed my return to watch this dog's dinner.
For once, no mention of Swanick and a phone call to European Air Traffic Control in Brussel to close all British airspace finally saved the day. :ouch:
A few hundred yards from any stop even an express train would have slowed to 10 - 20 m.p.h. unless the driver was asleep (surprised they didn't try that)
Two aircraft fall on Hounslow and only a few on the ground die; oh yea they'd all gone to a football match.
About the only believable bit was the family so dumb that despite all the warnings on the radio, they still set off for Central London to buy a scarf :mad:

WATWOT. With more research this could have been an interesting programme instead of a waste of time; and I still had the Chunnel and a 340 km. drive to do.:zzz:

[eal401]

But NATS is shouting your corner, well sort of. At least they have their lawyers out threatening anyone involved with advising the programme with legal action. What message this sends out is debatable.

Two aircraft fall on Hounslow and only a few on the ground die;

This was an amusing quote. No doubt if hundreds had died you'd be screaming "Scaremongers!" Pan Am 103 fell on a populated area and killed 11 people, was that unrealistic too?

[rodan]

Pan Am 103 fell on a populated area and killed 11 people, was that unrealistic too?

Yes, you're quite right. And the small, rural town of Lockerbie has the same population density as Hounslow. Nurse!

[Yellow Snow]

Cpt Windsock
Last week there was a go around when the subject aircraft RT failed on short final. Any pilot wondering what the ***k is going on could easlly miss the turning point on the go around procedure by a mile. And on 09L that would make the difference. Don't kid yourselves otherwise.

I hope he did go-around if he didn't have a landing clearance (unlike some european operators - Iberia/Air France). The point being is that the whole reason departures are kept on frequency and do not autochange to radar is so that the proactive controller can do something to achieve separation. It is something we train for.

The scenario in the show is pre 1997. After this procedures were changed and lessons learnt.

Lardy,
to answer you concerns. I as a controller do not bow to commercial concerns (another part of the show that was incorrect), I am not paid a bonus on reduced delays, my and all my colleagues primary concern is safety, everything else takes a back seat.
The programme gave the impression that the ATCO had been sitting there all day doing the same job, incorrect. She would've been on a watch and rotated around positions, if this watch had been short staffed flow control would then've been imposed to limit the workload to a safe one.
If as a controller we are going to be late for work for whatever reason we phone in, being the proactive people we are so contigency measures can be implemented like closing airspace etc.

Once again I cannot argue that a collision won't occur in the airspace above London because system is bursting at the seams at time of the day, however the BBC programme was poorly researched and ill informed.

[eal401]

The fictional crash had 29 people killed on the ground. Please explain in full detail, giving examples, why this is unrealistic? As I already said, if it had been hundreds, people would have slated that too. By making the figure low, which IMO is perfectly plausible, the producers avoided some scaremongering.

By the way, with reference to an early comment, I did not mean to imply ALL ATCOs are arrogant, as I know well from experience they are not! Just a few who deny all possibility of things going wrong worried me and worried ex-ATCOs I work with.

[Keilo]

I agree with a number of points already made about the inaccuracies in this programme, which certainly caused a great deal of backlash for good reason. More research could have resulted in a much more credible scenario which would have been taken more seriously and may have provoked more thought rather than alienating a whole bunch of people.

This aside, my main concerns relate to the NATS reaction to the programme. One of the messages that has emerged is one that I have heard from NATS before - "we've not had a major accident in 50 years so we must be safe".

This causes me concern because, as I understand it, it is up to any organisation involved in safety related operations to show that they have reduced risk to a point as low as reasonably practicable in their safety case. I know a great deal of safety analysis goes on in the industry, but it seems to me that when that analysis gets hard (like when you demonstrate how reliable a human operator is) the industry falls back on historic data rather than trying to work out how to solve the problem.

The argument that things have been safe for years so all's well is pretty much saying "we've been lucky so far". I somehow doubt that this would count as evidence that risk had been reduced as low as reasonably practicable. If (god forbid) an event like the one televised ever happened, and if something is not done to provide evidence of the current level of safety in the system, then I suspect that the NATS controlling minds would be found guilty of corporate killing.

[BALIX]

eal401

I can assure you that ALL ATCO's are fully aware of what might happen when things go wrong. We have to cope with that thought all our working lives.

Reading this thread, I can't see any ATCO denying that a mid air could take place. What they are upset about is the BBC showing a programme that implies that a mid air is inevitable by showing us a scenario that is laden with inaccuracies.

[eal401]

Reading this thread, I can't see any ATCO denying that a mid air could take place.
You want to visit the thread in Aircrew Notices, the way the programme is simply dismissed in there is genuinely frightening. And God help anyone who questions those arguing against that view point! People are a tad more forgiving in here and open to debate! :)

[Mr Chips]

This aside, my main concerns relate to the NATS reaction to the programme. One of the messages that has emerged is one that I have heard from NATS before - "we've not had a major accident in 50 years so we must be safe".

I actually read this as "the report says there will be a midair every 20 years, we haven't had one for 50 so you can't take that report as gospel"

Working in ATC Training, as I do, I can assure you that we are in no way complacent about the risk of a midair

The fictional crash had 29 people killed on the ground. Please explain in full detail, giving examples, why this is unrealistic? As I already said, if it had been hundreds, people would have slated that too. By making the figure low, which IMO is perfectly plausible, the producers avoided some scaremongering

For example. When I lived in Heston (which is about 3 miles from Heathrow) I lived ina road 1/4 mile long with 200 houses in it. Average of 2 people per house, cold December evening most people will be at home. Two aircraft collide and come down leaving a three mile swathe of destruction...burning houses etc. I would suggest that most of the road would have been wiped out if the aircraft had it it...at least 100 killed on the ground. Hounslow and the surrounding area is very densley populated, unless by some miracle the wrecakge hit one of the park sin the area.

Impressive response by the emergency services...when the motorways get clogged, so does most of Hounslow Borough due to it having main arterial roads passing through.

All this considered, I would expect many more than 29 killed on the ground.

All in all, whilst a mid air collision is possible in the UK, this progarmme was so full of errors that it was nothing short of scare mongering.

Oh, and its not pepsi or coke - we are not allowed drinks in the ops room :ok:

Chips

[Lon More]

eal401 I am glad that you found the remark amusing. The point that was being made was that should two transport aircraft, one departing and presumeably, not having access to the comparative prices, fairly full of fuel, land in the middle of a densely populated area - as was shown - then the probability is that the death toll would be in the hundreds. Having grown up in the vicinity of Lockerbie I was astonished and thankful that so few people there perished.
Any fatality is one too many.
The objectives of ATC begin with the words, " Expedite and maintain a safe and orderly flow ..."

BTW a question to those in TC, are you really monitored by CCTV?

[BDiONU]

I do not understand why a couple of people are making a comparison with Pan Am 103.
That aircraft was at a cruising Flight Level at high speed and broke up into a considerable number of pieces spread over a VAST area. That does not compare with an aircraft which would have been comparatively very low and slow. The two are totally different.

[Warped Factor]

Lon,

BTW a question to those in TC, are you really monitored by CCTV?

Not that we're aware of......

WF.

[Vizsla]

Dont forget that this is staged in December 2003 and most of the Hounslow population have by then been deported as illegals,
or so Mr Plonket is telling us in May 2003

[rustle]

"...and most of the Hounslow population have by then been deported as illegals..."

Ah yes. Let's inject some racist **** to stifle any sort of intelligent discussion.

Still, easier than thinking I guess :rolleyes:

[Vizsla]

Rustle,
Have you no sense of humour......it was a tv show badly researched, hardly a brain teasing exercise, unless there is some element of truth that people recognise as fact

[rustle]

There were some interesting/important issues raised in the BBC programme - I was enjoying the discussion here and didn't see the need for the flippant crap - there's another (similar) thread in JB for that ;)

So no problem with the sense of humour - just an issue with the "humour" :)

As for "facts":

Fact: Winter 1995/1996, Surrey Police close one side of M25 whilst Kent police keep other (opposite direction) side open (or vice-versa) - promise that new co-operative procedures will prevent recurrence.
(Scene in BBC prog where Surrey/Kent diversions "meet")

Fact: January 2003, several motorways gridlocked/blocked due weather/accidents - many dozens of people stranded, some hypothermic - Govt. launches inquiry to understand issues and prevent recurrence.
(Several scenes in BBC prog where this was illustrated)

Fact: After the Clapham and Southall train crashes the new systems in place (or about to be in place, or being investigated) would prevent recurrence.
(Waverley - the catalyst of the BBC prog)

Fact: 1997, go-around at Heathrow nearly catastrophic, procedures changed to prevent recurrence.


So are we saying the whole programme was wrong?

Are we saying only the bits that related to ATC were wrong?

Are we saying that it might be close, but not under those exact circumstances, so let's dismiss it?

Are we not 100% sure?

Or what :confused:

[odmedod]

One thing I found disturbing -- apart from the nagging feeling that "they're all actors" -- was the Heathrow Director's on-screen display.

I would have expected the view to be conventional, with North at the top. With 09 in use, aircraft would then be approaching and taking off from right to left.

As shown in this "documentary", everything was travelling from left to right.

Well, you know how you are programmed to believe everything you see on the telly: I assumed I'd misheard the controller somewhere along the line and they weren't using 09 at all. But this made it somewhat surprising when the flaming wreckage landed on Hounslow, when there must surely have been equally deserving places in the general direction of Slough....

Does the display have North at the top?

odmedod

[G Zip]

Back to the subject: Would it be an overstatement to say that both ATCos and Flt Crew are well aroused by the risks of traffic conflicts when in the terminal area? IMO this concern gets even higher on the list during GA amidst parallel/multi-RWY ops. Perhaps then the chain of events necessary to achieve this type of mid-air collision should include failures in GA navigational procedure/ SID navigation procedure/ ATC blindness/Comms failure or incorrect freq/ TCAS failure or RA ignorance/ Flt crew Airmanship or SA breakdown and v. bad luck on the mean free path stats front.
Not impossible but maybe less likely than some here seem to contend. If you're really worried I can recommend a pair of danger-sensitive sunglasses which turn opaque just before anything really scary hoves into view!
STF, many of the points about UK infrastructural fragility made by the programme were interesting - and this winter's M11 experience (gritting failures aside) could be the first of some chronic jams. What a shame that the balance of the drama was ditched in favour of exploiting fear amongst the flying public when the real tragedies in such a gridlock scenario would almost certainly be happening on the ground due to the paralysis of the Emergency Services.
As for the diversion question, all Flt crew have to risk-manage on this front. Usually, fuel for a nominated alternate will be carried until the GA. However, when the risk of diversion to that alternate is assessed as extremely low, the diversion fuel may be used under certain conditions to extend the holding time available for the destination airport. Nb that the fuel and the aircraft don't care how you use the fuel as long as you land with what is called 'reserve'. Therefore, you can improve the chances of avoiding diversion and gain time to consider other options such as weather/ATC updates (and the possibility of a diversion closer to the hold as a further fallback option). A real diversion from the GA right on planned fuel is a major concern in a busy ATC environment - especially if 40 other aircraft want to go to the same place. For this reason it would seem prudent to declare an emergency if you are not going to land with reserve. NB reserve fuel is ultimately available for use if a further emergency occurs to delay your final landing by which time we're well into MAYDAY territory and the sort of bad day out only to be experienced in the simulator. UK ATC are outstandingly helpful in these situations - another reason why the programme was in my view defamatory to ATCOs at London - you just don't get any better than these guys and girls...

[Point Seven]

To the people pontificating on the incident at EGLL in 1997, this was a situation that was handled badly by at least one of the two ATCO's involved. From my point of view (and it's worth more than yours Jerricho;) ) ATCO's are trained from day one to expect the worse. We're asked "ok what would you do here?" by our instructors and when we answer they reply by throwing in the most unlikely emergency that they can think of. This is because we, as ATCOs and flight crew too, have to expect the worst. If you don't then when it comes, AND IT WILL, then it will bite you on the ass.

What has annoyed us is the protrayal of controllers as watching events unfurl, and the subsequent references on this very site to "pro active" controlling. Is there any other kind? We're paid to try and keep ahead of the game and if we think it's going wrong, for instance if Jerricho's on FIN, then we have to sort it out. It's not pro active anything, it's an obligation we have to the flying public and to ourselves. We're not arrogant, we're bloody well trained and good at our jobs as a result. Look at the UK's safety record compared with anywhere else.

The programme was made with minimal reference to real ATCO's. If it had have been, there would have been no programme. We could have told them what a stinking pile of sensationalist, fantasist, scare mongering tosh it was. All it has done is enraged an already struggling aviation community, amused drunk students and lined the pockets of people who should no better.

P7

Or even "know better".

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

odmedod: With LHR using the 09s, aircraft would be approaching over Windsor and departing towards Hounslow i.e. from West to East . With the radar display North Up, the targets would be moving from left to right on the screen, as depicted in the programme.

(Er ... yes!!)

:ok:

[Mr Chips]

Well, I laughed at the deportation comment! (Yes, I live in the wonderful London Borough of Hounslow)

So are we saying the whole programme was wrong?
Are we saying only the bits that related to ATC were wrong?

Are we saying that it might be close, but not under those exact circumstances, so let's dismiss it?

Are we not 100% sure?


OK - I think we have established that the ATC bit was rubbish. To look at some of the rest of it...

1/2 mile from M25 to Heathrow you are not under Surrey Police Control (as quoted to me by a Traffic Cop)

When the drivers were walked to the marquees...how did the car carrying marquees get through the gridlock? (you could see the car and trailer in shot)

At one point a fire fighter says into his radio "Make pumps six" (correct fire brigade pharseology) I am told that under teh circumstances, that would have been "Major Incident" (as told to me by a London Fire Brigade sub officer. 6 pumps actually isn't very many)

2 aircraft down over Hounslow, Heathrow Manager having to decide whether to send Airport Fire service or not - I refuse to believe that there is no standing orders about that. Recently there was a scrap yard fire off airport. You guessed it - Heathrow foam tenders in attendance.

Most of the footage of where the crash was showed the wrong areas (recognisable easily to locals)

The hoppa bus that the doomed family (didn't you just know they were going to be in the crash) was an unmarked white minibus - don't see many of those around Heathrow. (ok - that one is really picky)

Yep - I reckon that most of the programme was poorly researched.

Nobody is being complacent, but a TV drama, posing as a documentary that infers some X files type conspiracy within NATS and poor controlling deserves to be slated.

Chips

[rodan]

Yeah. What Point 7 said.

About the best summing up of the way I feel about it, certainly. I don't work in the London TMA, I don't know how dangerous or otherwise it is. If there IS a problem, and the BBC can help address it, I doubt that over-sensationalised and hopelessly inaccurate docu-soaps are the way to do it.

[Jerricho]

You know I really miss working with you P7.....everything 190kts to 4 miles, sling 'em to you, knowing the calibre of you abilities will be able to sort it all out!!! "Can you accept a go-around for controller training?" Tee-hee....

*Down on knees* I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy! You gonna start you Special Training so you can come over later in the year and I can start laughing at you again?

(Sorry to everybody else for getting off the subject!)

[eal401]

Well, I personally feel it was good that the death toll on the ground was minimalised, it made it more realistic to me. Have, for example, 2 747s piling in and killing thousands would have got ME on the sensationalist bandwagon. :)

It is of interest to me as a non-ATC person chatting to my boss and a colleague here at work who are both ex-ATCOs. My boss in particular is an ex-RAF and civil ATCO and the first person I would have expected to rubbish the programme. I was, therefore, surprised that she didn't. Whilst acknowledging the technical errors, she believes the film was not sensationalist and created debate on the subject of ATC procedures and the potential for a serious accident. Similarly, my colleague who has RAF ATC experience agreed with this view, again I'd have expected him to have said "what a load of cr@p" but he didn't.

At the end of the day, I'd rather have serious debate over the plausibilty of a serious mid-air than simple "clap-trap" dismissal. The latter simply means the programme hasn't worked.

By the way:
it was a tv show badly researched
It actually wasn't badly researched at all, it was how the writers chose to use that research.

[Down Ampney]

"It actually wasn't badly researched at all,"

Yes it was.

The system is not perfect - none is. There might be a mid-air one day; I doubt if a couple of pile ups on the M25 will have any bearing on it.

The BBC set the agenda for this. They contrived a scenario which in many respects, particularly ATC, was complete tosh. If people who know better criticise that it is no argument to say the scenario is not the issue. If the issue is an inevitable mid-air then they should state as much and then justify it.

[odmedod]

george ... howindia:

Yes, of course! An aberration due to always approaching LHR from the direction of the M4! :\

This is why some women turn the road atlas upside down when travelling south.

I'll get me coat....

odme

[mats3]

The next programme in the series is even more unlikely.

In this programme we have a political party who rubbish the Government's plan to sell off ATC to the highest bidder.

This party then gets elected and lo and behold they sell off ATC.

The new Government manage to sell the ATC service to a bunch of airlines who do not know that the company has never in it's history made enough profit to service the massive debt which the airlines take on in order to complete the purchase.

Surprise, surprise the newly formed company almost goes bankrupt following an impossible terrorist attack on New York and another chunk of the company is sold to the nice people who own the airports.

We now have the laughable position where the very people who would like to squeeze everything they can out of the system have control.

I hope the BBC do not screen this episode as no one would ever believe this scenario could happen.

The lunatics have taken over the assylum!

[simon niceguy]

Mr Chips

On May 14th Mr Grubby asked when he was going to get his record back. You have been very vocal on this thread. Very quiet about his very rare record.

Suggest you get in touch before his Solicitor does.

Simon.
(not so nice)

[Doors to Automatic]

Today's the day it was supposed to happen.

Despite the inaccuracies this still remains the most gripping piece of Television I have ever seen. So much so I have been thinking about this programme all week!

[Re-Heat]

eughhh! - nauseous feeling arising

[Jerricho]

Ahhh yes, that high water mark in the tide of media sensationalism.