Controllers' Individual Responsibilty
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controllers' Individual Responsibilty
Scenario: Aerodrome Operator (Company X) instructs ATC at AAAA to introduce new procedures regarding provision of service. ATC at the unit does a hazard analysis and says risk is unacceptable unless our suggested mitigation is implemented. Company X says 'We've done our own hazard analysis thankyou, and consider we've done sufficient mitigation. All our other airfields are going ahead, now you have to as well'. Procedure makes it into AAAA's MATS 2 via SI.
Individual controllers at AAAA strongly suspect Company X does not have authority to introduce new procedures at their unit due peculiarities of local airspace, thus making them void and possibly illegal, and that Company's risk mitigation is a whitewash job for political convenience.
Individual controllers have a licence to protect. Question for PPRuNers:
1. Can they refuse to implement new procedures which their unit considers risky?
2. Does the MATS 2 protect them from repercussions, or can they be held personally responsible for an incident arising from new procedures?
Individual controllers at AAAA strongly suspect Company X does not have authority to introduce new procedures at their unit due peculiarities of local airspace, thus making them void and possibly illegal, and that Company's risk mitigation is a whitewash job for political convenience.
Individual controllers have a licence to protect. Question for PPRuNers:
1. Can they refuse to implement new procedures which their unit considers risky?
2. Does the MATS 2 protect them from repercussions, or can they be held personally responsible for an incident arising from new procedures?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
controllers can cover themselves by filling out a ca4114 observation form, not sure if this is a nats only thing, or an MOR stating their misgivings with the procedures. that way should the worst happen you can say ' ah, but i raised this issue in my report...' not the solution, i know, but it gives you some redress should you be following the procedures and it all go tits up. otherwise, you could always all write a confidential chirp report and send it along, and maybe they will investigate.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the restricted airspace and offset approaches for the mil were removed when they started spainish flights out of LXGB to Madrid.
Chirp it and make sure any objections or issues you have are in writing and acknowledged.
Chirp it and make sure any objections or issues you have are in writing and acknowledged.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not consider the HAZId conducted by the company to be valid unless all stakeholders had been involved in the process. They should have included radarman or his/her representatives, if they did not then the Hazid is invalid.
All this is great to hypothesize about however if the "Aerodrome Operator (Company X)" is allowed by whoever is the regulator for your airport to publish instructions to controllers then I would presume that they are also required to have safety management system with which they are required to comply. Have they? If they have then the instructions should be followed however.....ATCs like everyone else cannot follow an instruction that leads or could lead to someone else's death.
Just how serous is this? If you just don't like it then tough, but if it is a safety concern then does your employer or regulator have a confidential reporting system? If so use it, if not then take whatever opportunity arises to file a public safety occurrence report.
Bad instructions have consequences, watch out for them and act. Best of luck, taking on the accountants is never easy particularly for shift workers.
All this is great to hypothesize about however if the "Aerodrome Operator (Company X)" is allowed by whoever is the regulator for your airport to publish instructions to controllers then I would presume that they are also required to have safety management system with which they are required to comply. Have they? If they have then the instructions should be followed however.....ATCs like everyone else cannot follow an instruction that leads or could lead to someone else's death.
Just how serous is this? If you just don't like it then tough, but if it is a safety concern then does your employer or regulator have a confidential reporting system? If so use it, if not then take whatever opportunity arises to file a public safety occurrence report.
Bad instructions have consequences, watch out for them and act. Best of luck, taking on the accountants is never easy particularly for shift workers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The MATs Part 2 is checked out by the CAA as part of the Aerodrome's licence therefore it is up to them to say whether it is safe or not.
And it's not their job anyway. The service provider/operator is responsible for doing things safely. The CAA is there to make sure that the minimum rules are followed. We've moved on from 'following the rules guarantees safety in every situation' - that's why we do safety assessments etc. these days.
