Should I worry about...................?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should I worry about...................?
So did anyone see this programme on BBC1 last night?
As usual, Hammond, the presenter, gave a fairly balanced view, but I was a bit disappointed with the ATC aspects on two accounts.
Firstly, does anyone know who the heck Kim O'neill is, the 'expert' who had worked for the CAA for 8 years?? They did nothing to qualify his 'expertise' - why did he leave the CAA, what is he doing now etc!! He basically tried to paint a black picture alledging that go arounds on parallel runways are extremely dangerous (there obviously is an issue, but it is so well practised as to make it negligible) and also mentioned a/c head on at the same level -claiming that this happens daily and that only onboard equipment saves the day!! He also said that incidents are not reported so people do not know the number per year. This is obviously tosh - the general public may not have access to the info but we, as ATCOs certainly do.
Secondly, NATS, once again, refused to let anyone be interviewed. WHY???!!! What are management scared of? Do we have a PR department in NATS and if so, what do they do??
Here was a perfect opportunity to boost the company profile, but instead a phone call statement simply said 'we have carried out a survey of our ATCOs and they are all very happy'!!
Why does NATS continue to shoot itself in the foot?? The last example of this was when the HCS failed just before the summer and the Sun etc came out with crass diagrams of how we had to hand write information on scraps of paper!! The papers then wheeled out some retired BA pilot who stated that flying was now inherently dangerous and that ATCOS were not up to the job, stating that if it were not for onboard computers, the ATC system would collapse!!
It riles me that management let the ATCOS down by allowing such dross to be published without refuting the claims... they get paid enough so why can they not get off there backsides and start promoting the company - yes there are issues within it, but no more than any other large company
Should I worry about ......ATC?? Probably not.
Should I worry about ...... the managment? Yes
As usual, Hammond, the presenter, gave a fairly balanced view, but I was a bit disappointed with the ATC aspects on two accounts.
Firstly, does anyone know who the heck Kim O'neill is, the 'expert' who had worked for the CAA for 8 years?? They did nothing to qualify his 'expertise' - why did he leave the CAA, what is he doing now etc!! He basically tried to paint a black picture alledging that go arounds on parallel runways are extremely dangerous (there obviously is an issue, but it is so well practised as to make it negligible) and also mentioned a/c head on at the same level -claiming that this happens daily and that only onboard equipment saves the day!! He also said that incidents are not reported so people do not know the number per year. This is obviously tosh - the general public may not have access to the info but we, as ATCOs certainly do.
Secondly, NATS, once again, refused to let anyone be interviewed. WHY???!!! What are management scared of? Do we have a PR department in NATS and if so, what do they do??
Here was a perfect opportunity to boost the company profile, but instead a phone call statement simply said 'we have carried out a survey of our ATCOs and they are all very happy'!!
Why does NATS continue to shoot itself in the foot?? The last example of this was when the HCS failed just before the summer and the Sun etc came out with crass diagrams of how we had to hand write information on scraps of paper!! The papers then wheeled out some retired BA pilot who stated that flying was now inherently dangerous and that ATCOS were not up to the job, stating that if it were not for onboard computers, the ATC system would collapse!!
It riles me that management let the ATCOS down by allowing such dross to be published without refuting the claims... they get paid enough so why can they not get off there backsides and start promoting the company - yes there are issues within it, but no more than any other large company
Should I worry about ......ATC?? Probably not.
Should I worry about ...... the managment? Yes
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree completely with your comments about NATS shooting itself and us in the foot. It's also shooting the feet fo non NATS ATCOs too, by not using it's position as a major player to put right so many of the wrongs the media broadcast.
It wouldn't hurt NATS to run a bit of a day school for Journos, get them into TC, for an example, give them a talk about the job (from an ATCO), give them a walk around the ops room, and the opportunity to listen in, then a go in the sim so they can try out all that they've learned, and be shown what isn't acceptable controlling. And for good measure, when they're in the sim, simulate HCS failing, by giving them handwritten instead of printed strips.
It'd be a good bit of PR for NATS (and ATCOs in general), possibly a bit in a Sunday supplement, and there'd be a pool of journos who understand ATC a bit more then the "Disaster Hunters" we have at the moment, ready to report intelligently when there is an ATC related story.
It'll never happen though. NATS letting journos on to the site, in numbers. What if there was an airprox whilst one was listening in? What if HCS failed whilst they were in the building? What if.................
Instead we'll just let the media describe us as a bunch of
It wouldn't hurt NATS to run a bit of a day school for Journos, get them into TC, for an example, give them a talk about the job (from an ATCO), give them a walk around the ops room, and the opportunity to listen in, then a go in the sim so they can try out all that they've learned, and be shown what isn't acceptable controlling. And for good measure, when they're in the sim, simulate HCS failing, by giving them handwritten instead of printed strips.
It'd be a good bit of PR for NATS (and ATCOs in general), possibly a bit in a Sunday supplement, and there'd be a pool of journos who understand ATC a bit more then the "Disaster Hunters" we have at the moment, ready to report intelligently when there is an ATC related story.
It'll never happen though. NATS letting journos on to the site, in numbers. What if there was an airprox whilst one was listening in? What if HCS failed whilst they were in the building? What if.................
Instead we'll just let the media describe us as a bunch of
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, the word here is that NATS management DID invite the Beeb in to have a look at the Heathrow operation, and stick a camera in the face of the GM, but the Beeb said their schedule wouldn't allow that! Apparently they recorded a telephone conversation but didn't use it!
According to NATSnet, they then tried to get the Beeb to run a statement at the end of the programme, but Aunty said no to that, too!
Maybe we need a programme on "Should I worry about the BBC?"
According to NATSnet, they then tried to get the Beeb to run a statement at the end of the programme, but Aunty said no to that, too!
Maybe we need a programme on "Should I worry about the BBC?"
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Manchester
Age: 79
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation Expert?
There is a company called Surescreen Diagnostics
see www.surescreen.com
They seem to market equipment such as breathalysers and equipment for detecting drugs, explosives etc.
In their Summer 2004 newsletter there is a reference to Kim O'Neill - [you can find this on their website].
This person is hardly an expert on Air Traffic Control matters.
As regards NATS Management - well they are too busy issuing their staff with paper aeroplanes and the like to attend to important matters like this.
see www.surescreen.com
They seem to market equipment such as breathalysers and equipment for detecting drugs, explosives etc.
In their Summer 2004 newsletter there is a reference to Kim O'Neill - [you can find this on their website].
This person is hardly an expert on Air Traffic Control matters.
As regards NATS Management - well they are too busy issuing their staff with paper aeroplanes and the like to attend to important matters like this.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we should worry more about ATCOs who jump to conclusions 
The programme makers wanted to film interviews with controllers on operational positions. Quite rightly this was refused by NATS on safety grounds.
NATS offered them the facility to speak to operational controllers away from the operational environment, but the programme makers did not take up this offer and the best they could come up with was talking with NATS over the phone. They were probably hoping to film someone on sector and hoping to see a 'near miss' which they could show to the masses to make their poorly constructed points about the safety of the UK ATS system.
Whilst NATS management can often shoot itself in the foot, I think they made the right call by refusing to bow to sensationalist journalism. That should have all our support if ever faced with the same decision again.
The programme makers wanted to film interviews with controllers on operational positions. Quite rightly this was refused by NATS on safety grounds.
NATS offered them the facility to speak to operational controllers away from the operational environment, but the programme makers did not take up this offer and the best they could come up with was talking with NATS over the phone. They were probably hoping to film someone on sector and hoping to see a 'near miss' which they could show to the masses to make their poorly constructed points about the safety of the UK ATS system.
Whilst NATS management can often shoot itself in the foot, I think they made the right call by refusing to bow to sensationalist journalism. That should have all our support if ever faced with the same decision again.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies to Management, Natsnet does indeed say they tried to offer some input.
However, my comment re HCS failure etc still stands - in MY opinion, our PR needs to improve.
However, my comment re HCS failure etc still stands - in MY opinion, our PR needs to improve.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<The programme makers wanted to film interviews with controllers on operational positions. Quite rightly this was refused by NATS on safety grounds. >>
Things have obviously changed! I've been interviewed whilst working on several occasions and that guy who used to be on Tomorrow's World (James Burke?) interviewed working controllers for a number of excellent TV progs, but he was in a different clas from the guy currently under discussion. OK, maybe that's all over nowadays but no reason why they shouldn't use simulators.
My vote is with NATS Management - my experience with journos convinces me that the BBC is the culprit. You only had to watch that child of a presenter making his "phone calls" - and then somehow coming across a copy of Flight. Complete and utter nonsense the lot of it..
Things have obviously changed! I've been interviewed whilst working on several occasions and that guy who used to be on Tomorrow's World (James Burke?) interviewed working controllers for a number of excellent TV progs, but he was in a different clas from the guy currently under discussion. OK, maybe that's all over nowadays but no reason why they shouldn't use simulators.
My vote is with NATS Management - my experience with journos convinces me that the BBC is the culprit. You only had to watch that child of a presenter making his "phone calls" - and then somehow coming across a copy of Flight. Complete and utter nonsense the lot of it..
