"Many Madrid ATCO's are hoping for an accident to happen "
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EU
Age: 45
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just referring to that it's kind of rude to wish something bad to happen when it did happen on Spanish soil, yes, a long time ago, and yes, mainly because of pilot error, but still... And according to this guy nothing has changed about the controllers skills of English and the procedures to maintain this skill... So it kind of has some links to the past as well, as miscommuniation and poor language skills sure helped a lot to form the accident back in '77, and might as well just "help" to arrange something like this again... Anyway, flying to Spain in April, hopefully will get back here in one piece later...
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotel tango : If it is because of the merlot you are forgiven ..
Carlosii : Spain had a lot of accidents and many of those were in Teneriffe (North) Some could have been easily prevented , had Spain a strong independant safety regulator, Unfortunately despite the accidents very little changed.
I was told recently theat they plan to use again Tenerife North extensively for Charter traffic. Since nothing changed much there since the 70,s , especially not the weather pattern, one can wonder the merit of that decision and wait for the accidents to come back ? Maybe this is also what the Spanish controller here wanted to say.
Carlosii : Spain had a lot of accidents and many of those were in Teneriffe (North) Some could have been easily prevented , had Spain a strong independant safety regulator, Unfortunately despite the accidents very little changed.
I was told recently theat they plan to use again Tenerife North extensively for Charter traffic. Since nothing changed much there since the 70,s , especially not the weather pattern, one can wonder the merit of that decision and wait for the accidents to come back ? Maybe this is also what the Spanish controller here wanted to say.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this forum article neads reading in full, rather than the small element quoted to understand it's context.
One hugely frustrated employee, amongst an organistaion of many others. The full article goes on to question training/examination quality and other such areas of concern.
Not for one moment do I believe ANY Spanish controller genuinely wants an accident - but would prefer to think that he, and many of his colleagues, believe that only an accident, involving foreign investigative participation, will reveal fully the sad state of current Spanish ATC provision.
I regularly fly to/from Spanish airports (not MAD/BCN admittedly), and have done since the days when the likes of PMI/AGP were procedural. Whilst I find the current quality of service hugely questionable, not for one minute do I think they genuinely want an accident. I have never worked on the other side of the RT to such a frustrated, de-motivated set of individuals - the question is why have things deterioated so far without being checked by International agencies?
I have never in recent years received ANY formal response to a filed safety report from AENA - so huge inaction and disinterest on behalf of the ANSP
It's about time IFATCA/IFALPA paid the current situation SERIOUS attention!
ATC Watcher - I know your finger is far closer to the pulse than my own, but seriously doubt the 'Charters' will stand being pushed from TFS to TFN - most of the resorts are far closer to TFS, and they will NOT stand any forced move in detrement to their customers. Neither could TFN withstand the volumes of traffic that TFS handles.
30W
(Pilot not ATC)
One hugely frustrated employee, amongst an organistaion of many others. The full article goes on to question training/examination quality and other such areas of concern.
Not for one moment do I believe ANY Spanish controller genuinely wants an accident - but would prefer to think that he, and many of his colleagues, believe that only an accident, involving foreign investigative participation, will reveal fully the sad state of current Spanish ATC provision.
I regularly fly to/from Spanish airports (not MAD/BCN admittedly), and have done since the days when the likes of PMI/AGP were procedural. Whilst I find the current quality of service hugely questionable, not for one minute do I think they genuinely want an accident. I have never worked on the other side of the RT to such a frustrated, de-motivated set of individuals - the question is why have things deterioated so far without being checked by International agencies?
I have never in recent years received ANY formal response to a filed safety report from AENA - so huge inaction and disinterest on behalf of the ANSP
It's about time IFATCA/IFALPA paid the current situation SERIOUS attention!
ATC Watcher - I know your finger is far closer to the pulse than my own, but seriously doubt the 'Charters' will stand being pushed from TFS to TFN - most of the resorts are far closer to TFS, and they will NOT stand any forced move in detrement to their customers. Neither could TFN withstand the volumes of traffic that TFS handles.
30W
(Pilot not ATC)
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 W : I hope you are right. But in 2011 TFN handled 4 Millions pax ( double of what it was in 2000) TFN today has half the traffic of TFS , which it was supposed to replace in 1978 .
Yes, the North european tourists generally prefer to go to TFS, but the local and business population prefers TFN , so TFN was never closed as planned and is now ( this is what I was told ) even " marketed" and trying to attact new businesses/airlines.
And the sudden fog still comes in a few minutes, just as always.
Yes, the North european tourists generally prefer to go to TFS, but the local and business population prefers TFN , so TFN was never closed as planned and is now ( this is what I was told ) even " marketed" and trying to attact new businesses/airlines.
And the sudden fog still comes in a few minutes, just as always.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: guess where...
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll start stating that I'm a spanish atco. Obviously I could be faking this and it would be impossible for you to know, so take my post with the usual credibility for internet forums. In any case I speak only for myself so do not quote me stating that "spanish atcos" have said XXX ...
The original statement about a controller wishing an accident to happen is neither true not false but something in between. I know this is very nuanced and I'll probably be flamed for it but I'll try to clarify it.
Obviously no one wishes for any person to die. Period. Under any circumstance. But... if some nefarious evil prompts me with the option to have one dead or 10 then that single one will have to go.
I assume the author of that letter had something like that in mind. While under no circumstances wishing for an accident, there are obvious systemic flaws that will cause accidents in a not too distant future. The thinking might go that if there is one accident that will draw the attention to it and if there is a proper investigation (that is a big IF in spain... have a look at the Madrid Spanair accident "investigation") then corrective action might be taken to prevent a higher number of casualties further down the line.
We all know aviation is based on "Tombstone technology" in the sense that changes are only implemented once there are sufficient deaths to justify the costs. You don't have to like it, I certainly don't, but it is a fact.
Take for example the DC10 cargo door problem that lead to American Airlines 96 and which wasn't solved untill the accident of Turkish Airlines 981 added sufficient bodycount.
I think this is the general meaning of the originial letter, but I would be second-guessing it's author which I don't know personally.
Ah, by the way, comments such as
are absolutely accurate but for other reasons that the author thinks being his intention obviously pejorative.
If Aena had only slashed our salaries by half that would be a loss for us but would have no impact on safety. If Aena had left our salaries alone but reduced our rest time during shifts, increased our annual workload, disregarded sector capacities (see http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...-23rd-dec.html ) amidst a lot of further niceties that would impact safety regardless of our salary.
Since the Ministry of Works did both things at once, our concern about our salaries and safety have emerged at the same time. I don't have the numbers at hand but if I remember correctly in 2010 Spain had 47 class A incidents (near misses), France about 10 and the rest of european countries two, one or none. That is an indisputable fact (or would be if I provided the link... I think it was on the eurocontrol ACE report...) which points to a serious breakdown in safety and which can not be blamed directly on the atcos (they were esentially the same as the previous years).
As usual this is only the tip of the iceberg and the problem is much worse... which gets us again at the point where an accident would perhaps shed some light into this cesspit and perhaps save some lives further down the line. I wouldn't want an accident under any circumstances but I can not rule out the possibility that the net result would be positive in the long run... and I certainly agree with you if you think that is a very disturbing thing to say in our profession.
The original statement about a controller wishing an accident to happen is neither true not false but something in between. I know this is very nuanced and I'll probably be flamed for it but I'll try to clarify it.
Obviously no one wishes for any person to die. Period. Under any circumstance. But... if some nefarious evil prompts me with the option to have one dead or 10 then that single one will have to go.
I assume the author of that letter had something like that in mind. While under no circumstances wishing for an accident, there are obvious systemic flaws that will cause accidents in a not too distant future. The thinking might go that if there is one accident that will draw the attention to it and if there is a proper investigation (that is a big IF in spain... have a look at the Madrid Spanair accident "investigation") then corrective action might be taken to prevent a higher number of casualties further down the line.
We all know aviation is based on "Tombstone technology" in the sense that changes are only implemented once there are sufficient deaths to justify the costs. You don't have to like it, I certainly don't, but it is a fact.
Take for example the DC10 cargo door problem that lead to American Airlines 96 and which wasn't solved untill the accident of Turkish Airlines 981 added sufficient bodycount.
I think this is the general meaning of the originial letter, but I would be second-guessing it's author which I don't know personally.
Ah, by the way, comments such as
And as usual their concern surfaced only when their T&C deteriorated!
If Aena had only slashed our salaries by half that would be a loss for us but would have no impact on safety. If Aena had left our salaries alone but reduced our rest time during shifts, increased our annual workload, disregarded sector capacities (see http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...-23rd-dec.html ) amidst a lot of further niceties that would impact safety regardless of our salary.
Since the Ministry of Works did both things at once, our concern about our salaries and safety have emerged at the same time. I don't have the numbers at hand but if I remember correctly in 2010 Spain had 47 class A incidents (near misses), France about 10 and the rest of european countries two, one or none. That is an indisputable fact (or would be if I provided the link... I think it was on the eurocontrol ACE report...) which points to a serious breakdown in safety and which can not be blamed directly on the atcos (they were esentially the same as the previous years).
As usual this is only the tip of the iceberg and the problem is much worse... which gets us again at the point where an accident would perhaps shed some light into this cesspit and perhaps save some lives further down the line. I wouldn't want an accident under any circumstances but I can not rule out the possibility that the net result would be positive in the long run... and I certainly agree with you if you think that is a very disturbing thing to say in our profession.
