The Day Britain Stopped

[BRISTOLRE]

TONIGHT BBC2, 2100hrs BST

A powerful TV drama is being shown on Beeb 2 tonight about a ficticious event in the future, 19th December 2003 when Britian is paralysed by transport meltdown.

Included in this program as the "aviation" component is a midair collision over Hounslow (east of LHR) between a pax airliner and a "Czech" freighter.... mmmm.
An26 perhaps?

The collision is due to an overworked terminal controller making the "wrong" decision during a go-around and causing 2x aircraft to collide.

It will be interesting to see how facutal/detailed this inactment will be.

The author is said to be an advisor of the Civil Aviation Authority and senior ATC body saying it is an accident waiting to happen.

Extra news in depth on the BBC web-page.

[SunderlandMatt]

Should be an amusing watch, but itsn't Britain on the verge of a transport network melt down every single day!

I can't stand public transport! Last week I got a train from Newcastle to London, day return, it cost the company £172. I couldn't beleive it! :\

[BRISTOLRE]

Meltdown
I suppose your right - trains cancelled, engineering work over running, derailed rolling stock.....

Yes trains are diabolical in the UK, I agree.
Apex tickets do tend to be cheaper in advance of course but on the day tickets are EXTORTIONATE, London to Sheffield fares are around the £90 GBP mark!!
Reliability not that good either.

[under_exposed]

SunderlandMatt, thats because companies like to waste money. You can do Newcastle-London for £81.40

[BahrainLad]

SunderlandMatt, it's also the fare given automatically to people from Sunderland when buying a ticket at Central Station!

[fireflybob]

I suppose they will be telling us that this is "reality" television again!

Why do the luvvy duvvies have to indulge in all this scare mongering and put the fear of God into the travelling public?

[Miserlou]

This is in the future when TCAS has been removed from aircraft because it hasn't stopped any aircraft banging into each other.

It must have been along time since he retired, this 'advisor' chappie'.

[Shuttleworth]

..."Why do the luvvy duvvies have to indulge in all this scare mongering and put the fear of God into the travelling public?"
Well said Bob !

In my opinion the makers of this are are a bunch of prats who have contributed nothing to society.

For the record; here is BA's sensible response

BBC2 will broadcast tonight at 9pm a mock documentary drama entitled "The
Day Britain Stopped".

The programme depicts a day of transport gridlock in Britain. The story
line includes a national rail strike, congested motorways and a fictional
mid air collision over Hounslow caused by errors made by air traffic
controllers. One of the aircraft involved is in British Airways' colours.

It is important to stress that this programme is fictional and we do not
endorse its content.

The airline was not approached either to take part in the programme or
indeed give permission to use British Airways branding.

In the programme there is no suggestion of fault on the part of British
Airways in relation to the mid-air crash. We have urged the BBC, however,
to make clear the fictional basis of the programme and to ensure that it is
not misleading by implication.

The broadcast of the programme comes at a particularly unhelpful time for
an industry already facing a number of major challenges.

We have made clear to the BBC's senior management that the safety of
British Airways customers and staff is always our utmost priority.

Plus, we regard UK air traffic controllers as among the finest and most
professional anywhere in the world and we have the utmost confidence in
them.

[Dop]

The Beeb have a website up about this programme, here:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_day_britain_stopped/default.stm

There's a forum for making comments on the programme, and it's here:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_day_britain_stopped/2989691.stm

Ah, scaremongery. Got to love it...

[trolleydollylover]

Like Many who have watched this this evening it was a powerful program. Like it or hate it is a program that should be given its support as I believe that it is something that should raise important discussion, both in the CAA NATS and BALPA.

Although I dispair that it may play into the hands of the NIMBYS. I do wonder if it was directed by those who support the anti Air groups around Heathrow.

[Spitoon]

One might applaud it for raising serious issues if only it had not has so many factual inaccuracies in areas that I know about - I can only assume is was equally inaccurate and misleading in other areas also.

[rich49]

As a non pilot I must ask why conflict alarms in the tower and TCAS would not have prevented this scenerio? Or did the BBC 'forget' about them?

[Captain Airclues]

Why did a flight from Heathrow to Bilbao turn left after take-off from 09R?

Airclues

[El Grifo]

I thing words like "point" and "missing the" come into play here.

Are we fannying about with detail, or are we saying this could never happen.

[fatboy slim]

Excatly Airclues!! The whole program was based on a total falsehood - that a 09R departure would just turn left.

[BALIX]

Why did a flight from Heathrow to Bilbao turn left after take-off from 09R?

I wondered that myself...

The biggest omission that I could see was the absence of TCAS. Whilst the events over the German/Swiss border last summer prove it is not the be all and end all, it is definitely a major cotributor to safety after all else fails.

I guess it was ignored to make the programme more shocking.

[Silkman]

Unfortunately Joe Public will believe everything they saw tonight.
Extremely poor timing by the 'beeb' showing this at the moment. Talk about kicking an industry when it's already on it's knees.
As mentioned before, the researching leaves something to be desired.:mad:

[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

I mean I am sure there are "inaccuracies" in the minutiae of the program but the point is the same.

I work in an industry "on its knees". Why should the aviation industry have special treatment? Every other industry has it tough. I hate to hear the aviation industry bleating as if they have some god given right to omnipotence.

[Mr Chips]

I will disagree with you here Bill, as I have done in the ATC Forum

This programme was sensationalist rubbish. I watched it because we had been "warned" 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 Expert? 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.

Nobody is asking for special treatment for the aviation industry, all we are asking is that programmes are accurate. This one blatantly is not. It is interesting to see BAs response as posted earlier. NATS had a similar response to the BBC, but as I understand it, the makers have not entered in to dialogue with "us"


Captain Airclues - thanksw - I hadn't noticed the left turning Spain-bound flight...I was too busy wondering why Heathrow was so busy with outbounds when nobody could get to the airport!


Chips
Hounslow Resident, and certainly not a NATS Cheerleader

[J-Class]

Having just watched this, I'm very disappointed with the BBC.

Inaccuracies abounded, big and small, in a dangerous mix of fact and fiction. One might point out that BA doesn't fly its own metal to Bilbao from LHR (although it does have a codeshare with IB on the route); and that CSA doesn't operate freight-only flights into LHR, as far as I'm aware. Perhaps these were intentional errors; perhaps they were simply lazy. Who knows - the programme makers didn't seem to care.

Then there was the missed approach. No mention of the role of TCAS in preventing such incidents (too complicated for the viewer, perhaps?) Also no idea of why the CSA pilot veered onto the active runway during go around - not something which has happened to me on the many go-arounds I've been involved with as a SLF.

Yes, mid-air collisions have happened elsewhere and could happen in London. But to put forward such a loopy premise for one led me, as another correspondent has written, to question the research behind the entire programme.

Still, the Daily Mail will love it - it makes for better copy than things that are actually dangerous to your health (such as, er, the Daily Mail...)

[Edited for syntax]

[Jackonicko]

Should some kind of really unparallelled logjam happen (like after the WTC attacks), is there no contingency to be able to use other runways in the South East - not just Gatwick and Stansted, but Brize, Boscombe, Benson and Bleedin' Lyneham - and that's just the Bs?

After the real-life logjam of the M25, and the resulting lack of access for ambulances, is there any provision for increasing HEMS capacity by pressing military rotary wing assets into use?

Just two post-pub, rather pissed-up thoughts....

[Crepello]

Ah, but they couldn't have done that Jacko, as UK airspace had been closed "by just one phone call to Eurocontrol". So that's how they'd do it. Further revelations:

- Go-arounds "can be dangerous", but ATCOs are unaware of this due to a NATS coverup.
- The hold patterns for LHR and LGW are directly above the airports.
- An airport without fire cover won't allow immediate emergency landings (fuel-critical acft directly above.)

I also liked the part where an acft diverted to LGW after holding at LHR. LGW then decided they were full up, so diverted the acft to LTN. I'm no expert but this didn't seem quite right.

Throw in a GCSE-reject script, some delightfully hopeless acting and hey presto! Total crap.

Even after 90 painful minutes, the BBC hadn't tired of self-embarassment, post-mortemming this "thoroughly researched" gem on Newsnight. Paxman looked almost as dubious as the cast.

[Tinstaafl]

A crock. The whole program. About as factual as 'Airport 75', 'Earthquake' or 'The Poseiden Adventure'. Just less believable.

The pseudo-documentary format is just plain annoying. Especially since they chose to follow the relatively recent trend in documentaries to use melodrama, 2 second talking head snippets & re-enactments instead of archive footage, photos & diagrams that convey information. (Yes, I realise that such factual things are impossible for this complete fiction. Just having a rant....).

Switched it off after putting up with it for 20mins too long.

[Hwel]

Course it is cheaper to use archive footage of real incidents than pay for special effects. BBC - no money, redundancies industry on the brink, struggling to survive in its current form grasping at senasationalist straws.
Gary Liniker for Worst actor award.
Still bit of fun really, i'm just surprised they didnt put an airliner down on the m25 to start the whole thing off.
Who was the bloke who was supposed to be the BA captain. Did he just like dressing up and getting photos of himself in full uniform in strange places?:rolleyes:

[curmudgeon]

The most unrealistic part for me was that the Air Traffic Controllers ended up in Court, and were acquitted, all within 1 year of the accident.

In real life if anyone went to court, it would probably be round about the third anniversary!

cur

[Octopussy1]

Who WAS that expert chappie? The one who said he was the Cassandra of the aviation industry. Does anyone know him/rate him?

[BRISTOLRE]

Yes - TCAS points clearly missed.
For sure why the issue of a go-round aircraft taken towards an active runway wasnt even investigated either.
Standard missed approach & goround procedures on 09L take aircraft away from the airfield and active runways not over it.
Aircraft clearly turn to the north (towards Ealing) and yes why the hell should a flight to BIO be turning north on a usual DOVER SID.
Lost the plot there somewhat and facts/detail not researched fully.

[CaptAirProx]

Does anyone know what altititude they supposedly collided at??

As my knowledge tells me that TCASII/ACASII inihibits RA's whilst climbing when below 1100agl. And the same for descending when below 900agl.

The system only then gives TA's. Can you imagine a Traffic Traffic just when you had hit the tit and pitched up asking for go-around power, flap.....and gear up. What a bitch.

Maybe thats why TCAS was not used in the program?


Any thoughts.

[GroundBound]

Only saw a brief 2 minutes and decided it was a disaster movie in docu-form, so switched it off. However, I still think there are some points to be made.

Does it matter that the flight which turned left was supposed to be going to Bilbao in BA colours? Let's say it was going to EDI, that would remove some nit-picking about facts - but it wouldn't change the scenario, would it?

We should not forget that a couple of years ago there was quite a nasty at LHR, involving a Go-Around and a departure, so such a scenario does have valid roots. I expect the LHR procedures have been changed since then, but only *after* we nearly had a "nasty".

Sure, comment on the acting and the effect of such a program on the public - however do not dismiss the real posibility that such a thing could happen, just because they used the wrong aircraft type or colour of the pilot's uniform.

Safety is assured only by continually monitoring what is being done, and extending our thoughts to unlikley situations - which sometimes turn out to be true!

[Snoop]

Supposed to have occurred at 1800'

What a load of rubbish.

The most accurate portrayal seemed to be of the Junior Transport minister and his 'aid'. Both absolutely Clueless about aviation despite the aid 'having an interest' and yet they help make transport policy. At least that bit seemed accurate enough. ;)

[Jackonicko]

I also liked the aviation expert passenger who turned white on hearing that the BA flight was diverting to Gatwick. (Cos they wouldn't have sufficient fuel for that.....)

Diversion fuel for where, exactly, then? Booker? White Waltham?

[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.

[BOAC]

I only saw the last 30 minutes or so.

It is always said that the media never let facts get in the way of a story, but equally we, as pilots and controllers, should NOT let the second-rate production get in the way of a valid question.

'Dan Dare' echos this on the thread on the ATC forum.

Is there a potential problem?

Is it being addressed?

PS Jacko - under JAROPS, airlines can (and do) plan to have only enough fuel for a landing at a 2 runway destination airport, with VERY little left for any diversion. This may have been what that part of the programme was 'hinting' at? Sudden 'closure' of such an airport could place a significant number of aircraft in a low-fuel state.

PPS - Mods - can we somehow get the ATC thread and this combined?

[Doors to Automatic]

I watched this programme with great interest last night. Even as someone with limited expertise in LHR's operations I noticed that there were some flaws in the logic.

Leaving aside the interesting change in the aircraft type from a 319 at the gate to a 757 at the holding point to a 747 once airborne (!) and the technicalitlies of whether BA operates to BIO or whether such a flight would turn left after an easterly departure I would question the following:

1. Would an 09R departing aircraft turn left immediately after take-off? From my experience the turn takes place about 2 mins after t/o.

2. Would the Czech aircraft not slow down of its own accord or ask the tower to slow it down? After all presumably it would be going too fast to land anyway?

3. The ATC officer said at the start of the programme that go-arounds are often caused by inadequate spacing (1 per day) so this in itself is not an unusual occurance? Any anyway wouldn't it be the responsibility of the tower once handed over regardless of whether it was too close?

4. Would the tower not have an eye on this a/c anyway whilst keeping an eye on the Aer Lingus flight?

5. Would the Czech aircraft not be aware of the situation?

6. The Czech aircraft would have commenced its go-around from the start of the runway and used TOGA power, the BA flight would have rotated up to a mile further down and probably used a de-rated power setting therefore would the two aircraft not be at different heights even if they did cross the same point?


Having said all this and agreeing fully with those that said the programme could have been better researched I still thought it was an outstanding piece of television. It was no-where near as sensationalist as some of the cr*p that Channel 4 puts out and we must remember that most airline disasters happen as a result of a chain of freak events which often leave people asking "how on earth did that happen".

Whilst the exact sequence of events portrayed last night is probably unlikely LHR has witnessed a near miss or two in the past so the chance of a scenario similar to this taking place cannot be discounted.

[kala87]

The worst aspect of the programme, apart from the numerous errors and false assumtions, was the implied assumption that UK airports and ATC are in as bad a shape as our admittedly ramshackle rail system and overcrowded roads, when in fact, our aviation safety record is among the world's best.

Of course an accident like the one portrayed could happen. A 747 could run out of fuel and pancake on to Buckingham Palace. Anything in theory is possible in systems designed and operated by humans. The programme begs the question "so what?" LHR isn't the only airport in the world handling around 90 or so movements per hour on two parallel runways, is it? Surely the possibility of the kind of accident depicted has existed for as long as parallel runway operations have existed, which at LHR goes back to 1946.

The programme will reinforce a widely held view that aviation exists in a kind of barely controlled chaos, only just about held together by ATC, with aircraft coming within a whisker of hitting each other all the time.

[Freak]

I think GroundBound has got it spot on here. Where's the harm in examining all possibilities? Surely this leads to the most informed decisions and less of the knee-jerk "let's arm all pilots NOW" styles?

I expect the next post to be something like:


"Did you notice the drink the air traffic controller was drinking? I know them personally and I can tell you it was completely unrealistic to show a controller drinking a Pepsi - they all prefer Coke up there.

With this in mind I declare the whole programme hopelessly inaccurate and therefore completely useless and dismissable instantly.

Good, that keeps me in peaceful denial for a bit longer."


Having said all that I didn't see the programme......

[SunderlandMatt]

Dam!!! :mad: I missed it:sad: I'm especially annoyed because it sounds as if it was pretty good viewing :E

[under_exposed]

BillHicksRules, would you care to say what industry you are in ?

[eal401]

1800ft according to the narration.

SunderlandMatt, the programme is available on the BBC website in Realplayer format.

[BillHicksRules]

Under,

I work in the Electricity and Gas Industry.

Cheers

[Groundbased]

One of the things I found most misleading about
the program was the controller being led away
to "be interviewed by the Metropolitan Police" immediately
after the collision.

I've spent a lot of time reading accident and incident
reports and I've never heard of this occurring in this way.
What is unfortunate
about this is that it implies that any problems that may
exist with procedures etc are being exacerbated by
a culture of blame and liability along with an assumption
of negligence after any incident occurs.

Quite the reverse would appear to be true from all the reports
I have read, they explicitly state that the purpose of investigation is to identify areas where procedural changes may be needed
to positively influence flight safety. There is a myriad of
such reports freely available on the internet for reference.

I think the travelling public would
be much better served by a properly researched documentary explaining
the existence of confidential reporting programmes, CHIRP and the
whole safety and investigation process that is invoked afer
an incident/accident and how this feeds through into safety.
An example of this would be the changes implemented after the
airprox that did occur at LHR.

All that said, there is a risk that a collision may occur, that's a part
of life that we have to accept, but it would have been more productive
to show the lengths that everyone goes to to minimise the risk. I have
to say that to me docu-drama is a meaningless term. You are either
producing a balanced factual risk assessment or doing a piece of drama,
the two are mutually exclusive.

Cheers


GB

[david viewing]

I'm a bit surprised that no-one has raised the programmes' other main theme, the closure of motorways by accidents.

Since most of us drive to the airport, and the received wisdom is that this is much more dangerous than actually flying, surely we should be more concerned with the depicted and real life policy of Police in closing motorways "while gathering evidence" or something.

During these closures, numerous other accidents are likely with the probability of further injuries or fatalities. It seems to me that motorway closures are becoming a standard reaction these days and the M1 at Northampton is a case in point. There has even been a question in the Commons about a closure caused by a fire in a shed some distance from the motorway.

I think that the authorities should adopt a much more robust attitude to keeping motorways open at all costs, perhaps retaining a fleet of high speed bulldozers specifically to shovel the wreckage into the nearest field for the owners to collect later.

Little to do with aviation I know, but a much more true to life issue than the improbable go-around incident depicted in the programme!

[VectorLine]

I just watched the programme on video.

I actually thought it was good TV.

However, in the key scene their script really fell apart - were the actors ad libbing??

The ATCO transfers the EIN to EGLL Tower - freq 117.1 - then the CSA to tower on 118.7 !!!!!!????


:oh:

[El Grifo]

Thats fair enough vectorline, but

What was he drinking, Coke or Pepsi !!

[Look_Up]

I have never posted on PPRuNe anything other than brief comments, and I have no aviation training whatsoever, as I am just interested in the aviation world, particularly in the technical areas, so please forgive any inaccuracies or ignorance. I have in the past read many AAIB reports, including the one on the 1997(?) similar near miss.

I watched the programme with an open mind, not sure how accurate to detail the BBC would be or whether they would stretch facts to "improve" the storyline. I noted that they apparently tried very hard to use the right terminology (so far as I could tell), especially for ATC matters, such as mentioning bandboxing and Eorocontrol, but there were several issues that jumped out at me while watching it.

Why were neither TCAS nor Short Term Conflict Alert mentioned? Surely at the height at which the "collision" happened (1800' AGL) TCAS RAs would not have been inhibited?

Why was a Flow Control request not put in to Eurocontrol earlier to reduce the number of flights inbound?

Is bandboxing actually possible on the Heathrow Approach?

Why were aircraft stated as holding "over Heathrow" rather than at the usual points (Biggin Hill, Lambourne, Ockham, I think)?

Wouldn't the pilot whom ATC "forgot" to slow down on approach have noticed this abnormality at that rather late stage and at least have queried it with ATC? Would they have been able to set the correct approach configuration at the higher speed?

Wouldn't the flight departing for Bilbao have used a SID heading towards the south rather than the north anyway?

Was there not also a continuity/factual error, where two different frequencies were used when handing off two different flights to Heathrow Tower?

I realise that the premise for the whole programme was the "series of worst possible failures", but doesn't the whole storyline (including failures of STCA, TCAS and all the rest) actually exceed the "worst credible accident" scenario?

I look forward to your comments...

[Flypuppy]

BillHicks Rules,

Your assertion that if aviation were to disappear overnight and have no effect on the majority of people is twaddle. From the UK DTI website

107. A report by Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF)26 estimated that in 1998 the UK aviation industry accounted for £10.2 billion of GDP, 1.4 per cent of the total. This is similar in size to the car manufacturing industry, and around half the size of the food manufacturing industry.

108. The industry is also an important employer, supporting a large number of jobs, both directly in airport-related activities and indirectly in other activities. The OEF report estimated that the aviation industry directly supports 180,000 jobs in the UK.

I don't believe anyone is sticking their head in the sand as far as realising there are problems with the aviation industry (except possibly the government), but portraying an air disaster in such a way whilst ignoring the various safety nets and checks & balances that currently exist, is at best, mis-representing the true current situation and at worst using it as a dramatic device to up viewer figures.

To quote directly from the NATS website:
The fictional mid air collision which sits at the heart of the programme could not occur in the manner suggested, because of a whole array of safety procedures and mechanisms which the programme fails to take into account.

[moggie]

The ATCO transfers the EIN to EGLL Tower - freq 117.1 - then the CSA to tower on 118.7 !!!!!!????

Is 117.1 not a VOR frequency?

[Cornish Jack]

BillHicksRules
Fascinating couple of quotes -
"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."
"I work in the Gas and Electricity industry"
Hmmmm!.... Might one ask, in which country (or, figment of the imagination) does this paragon of Public Utilities exist?
I don't think even our best airline endeavours would be able to provide transport to such an idyllic situation.
By the way, just what is the Martian for British Gas or Seeboard?

:hmm:

[BahrainLad]

With reference to Bill Hick's comments, it's quite funny to think that one of the contributory reasons for the traffic chaos portrayed in the programme was the fact that a utility company had dug up one of the diversion routes and hadn't bothered to inform the Police.....

Of course, the program portrayed utility companies entirely unrealistically in this respect.....whilst treating those maniac ATCOs with no safety systems entirely realistically.

[under_exposed]

I liked the way he thinks nothing can happen without the electric or gas industry. Were these in existance when mankind appeared. How did they manage to sail the seas, build the great wall of China or write the works of shakespear ?

[Jerricho]

Gottabe said Bill Hicks, you certainly want to spread your limited opinion far and wide....................

I think you had better review your "smug" opinion of yourself as being more than the "average" civilian. Every other industry may have it tough, but do they recieve the same level of scaremongering and sensationalism as Aviation seems to get.

As I said in the ATC forum, I agree there are issues that require addressing, both in Aviation and may other areas of the Transport infrastructure (the whole point of the program, I know). But it is the use of certain facets of the program that John Citizen will sit there and think "Ohmigod, that's really the way it is!". And when the phones in ATC units around the country start ringing with people saying "Oh, oh, I have just seen 2 planes get very close to each other.....just like on the TV", or a jet full of passenegers who ARE involved in a Missed Approach procedure, well, if I may be so bold.....You think you got it tough, pal.

Sorry for the doubling up....Bill is your "High Horse" post on any other forum aside from this on and ATC? Just curious.

[Nigel Molesworth]

I've been an avid supporter of things and people that fly since Bomber Command had Lancasters & Lincolns. For me the programme was all about how our transport system, and the people working in it, is only just about managing to cope. I travel the UK motorways daily - and I feel it. That part seemed very real; I thought the programme was trying to say that a dedicated ATCO (aren't you all?) felt she should stay on because her colleagues were stuck on motorways & congested roads and couldn't get in. Then she stayed on again, trying to do her bit ....

Haven't many of you argued in the past that the system needs more (properly rewarded) people and needs to be more people orientated ? I too spotted some inaccuracies, but didn't let that cloud what I thought the message was. And, I thought, here's the media trying to tell the voting public a message that many of you would want said. And no, I'm not a journo ....

[fireflybob]

Perhaps we should remember that the raison d'etre of many TV shows now is driven by audience figures - the "ratings".

For reasons which are unclear to me, many people seem to like watching this sort of programme. "Casualty" is another programme which springs to mind. The TV has become the modern "dummy" for most of adult society.

If more of us started changing our viewing habits and the viewing figures started going down significantly then I am sure we would see less of these sorts of programme being transmitted.

[buffalowing]

It seems to me that this programme was about scaring people into submission .
Blair trying to impose his policies.

[Lucifer]

To be honest I thought it was actually quite good. That is up until the point when everyone was stuck in their cars on the M25, and the whole docu-drama theme was lost to sensationalism.

Quite frankly if they had stuck to a slightly more scientific-type of programme, and explained the lead-up to the crash with a bit more realism then it could be deemed to be far better...the point of it I am sure we can all see was simply that the transport network clogs up too easily and prevents safety-critical staff from getting to work, but as far as I can see the method of creating the crash from the plot was more akin to sensationaliam and drama than effective research.

Ignore the inconsistencies - the public don't care if a 757 changed to a 319, nor that the Bilbao flight doesn't go North - that simply discredits their research in our eyes.

What was annoying were the main facts of modern travel that were omitted to scare the unknowing public above all that:

TCAS WAS NOT MENTIONED - which as we all know is not failsafe as we have seen from the Swiss crash, but whose omission does nothing to reassure the public about safety.

If the main focus had stayed on the safety concerns of the breaking public transport network, which was NOT wholly unrealistic a scenario, it would have been fine, but the end popped up with those statements about NATS studies, aviation safety and 'black box thinking' towards aviation safety which is a wholly wrong portrayal of UK aviation in my opinion.

As such it ended on a note of "aviaition could be dangerous to your health" - far beyond the original and more important message that OUR TRANSPORT NETWORK IS CRAP.

Why the wholly rubbish diversion about the NATS staff being prosecuted without it seems due process was even in the plot, god knows?

Perhaps they were trying to scare us all into never making a human error or something perverse like that?

[Jerricho]

Some very goop points here,

but it seems to be agreed by a few people at TC that the portrayal of the Tower guys is far from the truth. Portraying them as sitting watching all this unfold without lifting a finger. As Gonzo and others have pointed out, where positive instrustions may be required in go-around situations, that's what we are there for.....CONTROLLING!!!! ATC = Air Traffic CONTROL. Missed Approach Procedures dangerous....yeah, only if the Tower guys sit there reading the paper and do nothing. A/c positioning from the holds....aslo dangersous if they were left to do their own thing.

I know I am harping on..........

[moggie]

Having looked at the BBC website (link on earlier posts) - the displayued comments sent in under the auspices of "Have your say on the programme" have not changed for over 24 hours.

Obviously, having your say is a waste of time unless it says "what a fabulous programme - I think THEY should do something about this, I am scared that an aeroplane will fall on my head"

The comments on there remind me of the old BBC programme "Points of View" which encouraged you to write in and would read out your letter if it said "I think the BBC is wonderful and would gladly pay double the licence fee".

[BillHicksRules]

Flypuppy,

Thanks for making my point for me with your “cut and paste” DTI stats. If I remember correctly a majority is more than half. So with less than 1/50th of the UK’s GDP generated by aviation and less than 1/300th of the UK population employed in said industry my point is upheld
As for the NATS quote, of course they are unbiased and impartial and have no axe to grind. I am not getting at NATS or ATCO’s as I know many of the wonderful people who do these jobs. I am just saying that this is a press release and as with any other is not worth the paper it is written on. My industry is as bad.

Cornish,

I live on a nice blue planet colloquially known as “The 3rd Rock from the Sun”. Fancy visiting me?

BahrainLad,

My industry was portrayed in a surprisingly good light considering how far the Beeb could have taken the scenario.

Under_Exposed,

All the things you mentioned happened before the discovery of electricity. Funnily enough today sailing, publishing and building all rely heavily on electricity and gas. However, my point was that planes stop flying right now millions of people would not notice. Whereas electricity stops flowing you have got millions in the dark and worse.

Jerricho,

I have not posted on any other forums regarding this. Hopes this makes life easier for you.

I think you do a great disservice to the general public. I agree that you will always have someone who believes all they see on TV. Then again these people also think that Eastenders, Coronation Street and Neighbours is real. The only thing that concerns me about those type of people is that they get to vote and own cars. The rest of us can be trusted, despite what the politicians think, to make informed decisions. Please allow us that.

In the long run treating the public as intelligent equals will do much more for the perception of the industry than any amount of spin. We can smell fear.

Allow me to re-iterate my support for all the hard-working people in all areas of the aviation industry you should be proud of the job you do. It is a shame you are let down by those who do not have the ability or desire to see your industry grow and improve correctly. There are too many of them. Let us help stamp them out.

[Mr Chips]

Jerricho, I have not posted on any other forums regarding this. Hopes this makes life easier for you.

Except on the ATC forum.

[paulo]

moggie - the bbc are not solely posting positive feedback. you've only got to read as far as the fourth comment to see a rejection of the programme.

I think the simplest criticism is that the scenario is more like 1997 than 2003. ACAS not required back then. :ooh:

I wonder if the writers used this AAIB Heathrow Airprox Investigation (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/formal/airp2/airp2.htm) as their inspiration.

[BillHicksRules]

Mr Chips,

He knew about that one. What I meant was that no further ones.

Sorry for not being pedantic enough for you.

Cheers
:(

[moggie]

I know that there is some negative feedback on the BBC website, but to my cynical mind it looks like the odd, token objection to make the rest of the "what a wonderful programme" stuff look more genuine!

Glad I live overseas and don't have to contribute to this kind of production.

[MasterCaution]

Whilst we can all go on about inaccurancies etc. in the program (and I do have to admit to looking for evidence in the footage of the wind being easterly after seeing the 09 ops on the LTCC scope fairly early in the program) it is interesting to see that the program has caused a large amount of discussion on this and other forums, and discussion is arguably what the program was trying to inspire.

MC.

[Jerricho]

Bill,

I'll probably cop an earfull for this, but.....

Are you talking about the same public that a large percentage reads the notorious Tabloid Newspapers. Perhaps a little harsh (and I apologise now if this offends), but the point is that we have an inability to formally fight our corner when information regarding our jobs is portrayed inaccurately to the public (if we did....well, NATS' policy on direct contact with the media is know far and wide). Never once has any ATCO on this forum or the ATC forum stated that circumastances may line up one day and the unthinkable happen. The emotional response has been over the portrayal of certain facets of what we do on a daily basis as incorrect, and the sensationalism BBC has attempted to use to gain more viewers. Thought provoking yes, as good journalism should be however, accuracy in ALL areas is required also.

And just for your information, my neighbours watched the program and asked me "is that really what could happen", my mother-in-law was straight on the phone after the show.....and these are people who I would classify as more than "average informed" about my job!

[eal401]

my neighbours watched the program and asked me "is that really what could happen",
Well, I hope you said, "yes but not in the circumstances shown."

[Jerricho]

Sure did......while explaining that the fine boys and girls in the tower wouldn't sit there and let the situation develop (except Point 7....he can do anything!)

[moggie]

I also liked the part where an acft diverted to LGW after holding at LHR. LGW then decided they were full up, so diverted the acft to LTN. I'm no expert but this didn't seem quite right.

Off topic slightly, but has anyone else here ever been dumped into a situation where they have been airborne without a single, legal airport within range? I have and can tell you it is no fun!

Manchester - Gander for refuel before on to Washington. Severe noise restriction on RTOW at Man because of 0500hrs departure. Good forecasts for Gander and alternate airfields and everything going nicely until about 20 minutes past point of no return when an unexpected blizzard closed every airport in eastern Canada leaving Goose Bay (300m RVR, skyobscured in snow) as the best airport that we could actually reach!

Boy, does something like that concentrate the mind - when you know that you do not actually have enough fuel to get to somewhere that is fit to land!

[BALIX]

Moggie

Don't leave us on tenterhooks - what happened??

[Faire d'income]

less than 1/50th of the UK’s GDP ( is ) generated by aviation

Bill that doesn't mean that if aviation vanished tomorrow that GDP would remain at 49/50ths of todays figure as you seem to intimate. The knock-on effects would be catastrophic to the economy. Tourism would be devastated, as would any other export/import industry dependant on fast travel ( high tech industries, most international businesses, major sporting events ) not to mention the quality of life.

In case you hadn't noticed Britain is an island, it would be majorly disadvantaged without aviation. I doubt the military action in Iraq would have been as quick without aviation. This is not to pat ourselves on the back. We ( the smug people who close ranks ) are human beings like you, we like our jobs and if we seem to know more about flying you then we are sorry, but that is the way it is. We do know more about it than you! We don't like sensationalistic media works painting a picture different to the one we are familiar with.

Aviation may have lots of room for improvement but Steven Spielberg wannabees will not recieve our endorcement. :yuk:

[Flap operator]

Trouble with this sort of programme format is the implication that this WILL happen, which is just the sort of sensationalism beloved of program makers and the likes of the Daily Mail,
"What do mean we hav'nt any news... MAKE SOME !! ".. and some people are taken in.

Given an infinate number of chimpansees, an infinate number of airbusses, and an infinate amount of time, it is inevitable that there will be an aircraft accident on every square centimeter of the planet.

There have been times when one could be forgiven for thinking that was happenning... 747 explodes over Scotland, followed a few months later by 737 crashes on M1.. the improbable does occur, but not just because a TV producer decides on the venue.

We all accept the risks, small as they are inherant in aviation, and try to remain aware of the incident-pit syndrome, that is why we learn from the mistakes of others, and incorporate the lessons in our training scenarios to prevent similar events.

Now we have precicely the type of hysteria that the program sought to generate appearing on Proon couched in tones that imply hostility towards a community of professionals, who believe it or not do not want to be involved in an accident.

Well done BBC :yuk: