All London airspace closed

[DaveReidUK]

the UK's continued dallying over airport expansion is one of the real culprits in this incident

I thought that by now I had heard all the arguments on both sides of the airport expansion debate.

But "let's build a new runway in the southeast in case Swanwick has another system failure" is a new one.

[eglnyt]

Airport capacity is certainly part of the equation. The disruption ran far beyond the initial failure period because there isn't any slack at Heathrow to accommodate the delayed flights and there weren't any stands for arriving aircraft because of the delay to departures.

[ExXB]

In (yet another) BBC report they have this quote:

A spokesman for Nats said it typically invested £140m per annum, and would be spending an additional £575m over the next five years on its systems.

er, then that would be £115m per year, a 25m annual reduction. (And no, I don't understand in context what they mean by 'additional').

But what can you say for an organisation owned by both governments and airlines, a recipe for disaster.

[slip and turn]

But what can you say for an organisation owned by both governments and airlines, a recipe for disaster.

And what pray might be said for an air traffic control organisation 49% owned by UK government, 21% by a pension specialist that looks after university staff pensions but with a name out of Star Trek, then Monarch airline's pension fund and three or is it five* other airlines with about 5% each ?
* I thought Virgin, Thomas Cook, Deutsche Lufthansa AG and TUI sold their bits to USS but their names are still apparently on the list? Maybe they kept a per cent or two for old times sake.

[Gonzo]

What was it someone said earlier that the "new" centre at Swanwick cost?

A couple of billion ?

Are we just taking 'what someone said earlier' as fact?

And how much is salted away in the taxpayer funded NATS pension fund ?

Salted? In what way? And where do you get the impression that it's taxpayer funded? It isn't, by the way.

But hey, who lets facts get in the way of a good argument?

[mercurydancer]

CEO failure

The fact of life is that computer systems fall over. They do that. It is unrealistic to assume that computers will work faultlessly all of the time, every time.

So Swanwick went into emergency measures. It means that the emergency procedures have been applied and that they worked in that every aircraft was diverted where necessary and all landed safely. I trust that if there were any fuel shortage calls from any aircraft then PPrune would have had many posters making it clear how many aircraft were involved and how close they were to danger. No reports so far. So Swanwick did what they needed to do to ensure safety and they did that. This could not have been saved by a simple Ctl Alt Del.

As a frequent SLF I have two modes - if I am in the air I want my ass to get on the ground. Safely. Where that landing is, is optional. Diversions are part of life. They happen. I dont get myself wound up over them. If I am in an airport, then no sweat, as long as the bar is open I am happy. Delays happen.

I have often found that to approach the airline staff and state that I wont be hassling them for the next flight out if I really dont need to be on that flight works wonders. Its one less passenger they know wont throw a hissy fit. They seldom forget and usually help out with essentials like food and a comfy bench to sleep on.

So, in all this rather normal activity, what has gone wrong? Richard Deakin. He should be sacked forthwith for telling lies. He stated that the problem would not occur again. That is not possible. It will occur again, possibly not in the same way but as sure as something else will. I dont trust any CEO who will blatantly lie.

Secondly, one line of code? If I recall my most basic programming code lines refer to each other. So one poor line of code is being blamed? That is a simplistic and patronising comment from him. In fact such a silly comment worries me more than anything. Although I do not hold to this line of thought, some might - if there are millions of lines of code, and one goes wrong then there are some millions more to worry about! Panic! An absolutely stupid comment. If his computer systems are not reliable then he should really not be making excuses. He should either admit it and resign, or use the millions to get a more reliable system.

Deakin, IMHO should have said something like "A computer system failed. My staff worked very efficiently and without delay to ensure flight safety. They did this admirably and although there were significant problems, no passenger was put in danger. NATS takes flight safety as the ultimate priority and despite the difficulties faced that was achieved."

[FlyGooseFly!]

Unless I've missed it - has the actual problem been identified? Other than "a techinical failure"; "a system crash" etc., caused by additional workstations being turned on during a period of high taffic..... and the mysterious faulty data code line.

I for one, am utterly dismayed that one line of code can shut down the entire system. I feel that information readily available to some is being deliberately kept close for "security reasons" - read: butt protection.

I had an "in" to a fairly high level of NATS a few years ago, the chap I knew was very sincerely and totally committed but nice guy as he was - he wouldn't have been my first choice of a manager for a large wiring installation - yet this was part of his remit ....... after the previous guy had apparantly disappeared in almost Nick Leeson fashion and surprise, surprise, leaving behind a simiar disaster and a rumoured complete recable to resolve.

Standing by for the flak.

[DaveReidUK]

So one poor line of code is being blamed? That is a simplistic and patronising comment from him. In fact such a silly comment worries me more than anything.

It's entirely feasible that it's correct.

[gordonroxburgh]

Quote:
So one poor line of code is being blamed? That is a simplistic and patronising comment from him. In fact such a silly comment worries me more than anything.
It's entirely feasible that it's correct.

a simple logic operator (< > <= =>) round the wrong way in an obscure less used sub-routine could easily have gone un detected.

[mercurydancer]

It would be interesting to see what the code linked to. Computer systems dont rely on one line of code but to what each line relates to. In my business its called a root cause, and I think that term is very widely understood. How that root cause could be understood so accurately and so soon is a mystery to me. In complex systems a simple root cause is very hard to find.

In the main I repeat my previous post. The emergency measures worked well. its good that they did.

[118.70]

He conceded that some of their systems were "fairly elderly", adding: "The system we had a problem with last night has code written in the early '90s."
Nats is investing a "huge amount" in new technology, Deakin said, with £575 million set to be spent over the next five years to move towards more resilient, internet-based systems.

from Strip Air Traffic Boss Richard Deakin Of Xmas Bonus, Says MP

If I was running mission-critical code, would I really want to base it on the internet ?

[slip and turn]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

Originally Posted by me

What was it someone said earlier that the "new" centre at Swanwick cost?

A couple of billion ?

Are we just taking 'what someone said earlier' as fact?

Nope we don't have to if you know better.

Originally Posted by Gonzo

Originally Posted by me

And how much is salted away in the taxpayer funded NATS pension fund ?

Salted? In what way?

As in stashed, existing and eventual retired members, for the index-linked use of ... wouldn't that be a fair summise?

Originally Posted by Gonzo

And where do you get the impression that it's taxpayer funded? It isn't, by the way.

Oh? In what way is it not taxpayer funded? Oh you mean the changes in the last few years? But they didn't wind up the taxpayer funded gilt-edged bit which is regularly salted and examined for missing gilt and patched up nicely for the older stagers, now did they?

Originally Posted by Gonzo

But hey, who lets facts get in the way of a good argument?

Well you are welcome to give us some - afterall, NATS is a public private partnership so there's no reason for us to be kept in ignorance by you or anyone else, now is there?

So dear fellow, is the NATS pension fund worth £6BN now, more or less? The expected annual growth in such a number would be rather more than the feeble numbers we've been knocking around for suggested investment levels in NATS operations. And the annual growth wasn't all that, then who would be patching up the hole? Do tell - there's a good chap! We're all in it together you know

[reynoldsno1]

There is a small niche collection of software companies in the US that exist wholly to maintain the programs that control many of the current missile systems that were originally installed in the 60's & 70's. I don't think an 'upgrade' is possible - it would require a whole new system to be installed.

[carlrsymington]

Swiss cheese

Single line of code... Very possible.
I have 12 years experience as a performance test engineer and the combination of factors times volume is what I try to replicate when testing.
It looks like one combination of many mi!llions didnt, work.
I'm sorry someone didn't find it in testing but did anyone die?
It looks like a great result except I wonder what a comparison group looks like...
How often do they fail... There is your answer....

[mercurydancer]

Essentially that is the issue. Computer systems as well as any other systems fail. That is the way things are. A safe system was instituted as soon as the problem was identified. That is good management. Flight safety was not compromised.

NATS CEO? Not worth his salary.

[2Planks]

The continued media frenzy over this issue is getting tedious as is every call from hack journalists/politicians demanding the CEO loses his bonus/ resigns/ is sacked. Things go wrong - that's life - what is important is the fall back procedures and safety. I stand to be corrected but as far as I can see no passenger or crew member was put at risk.


And remember the strike in Italy on Friday - more flights were cancelled or delayed because of that issue (looking at the various airlines websites) but not a murmur in the Press on that snag.


As I have said before, this incident was unfortunate/unacceptable, but if every time an aircraft had an avoidable incident necessitated a CEO resigning the revolving doors would be rotating that fast the crosswind at LHR would be out of limits!!!


He who lives in a greenhouse should not throw stones - just saying

[DC10RealMan]

Slip and Turn.

I am glad to know that you take such an interest in my pension fund and it is even more satisfying that the pension that I paid 15% of my salary into for thirty years is so healthy.
I don't think that NATS pensioners, myself included need to defend the terms and conditions of their pension scheme and to which they have paid many hundreds of thousands of pounds over many decades to guarantee a decent retirement.
My suspicion is that you are a journalist looking for a story along the lines of "Index linked Civil Servants hit hard working families" accompanied by a diatribe which will probably include a line involving a hero pilot, a school, and screaming children and a photograph showing a marshaller.

[Del Prado]

Slip and Turn, you have proven time and again on ATC threads that you don't know what you're talking about. I recall in the past you trying to argue separation standards with a Heathrow tower controller.
A simple use of Google (other search engines are available) would find the cost of the Swanwick centre was around £640 million and not a "couple of billion".

I am sorry to say you come across as an agitator with a general interest in aviation but no professional background in the industry so why are you so vociferous in your attacks when you appear to speak from a position of ignorance?

[Del Prado]

And to the best of my recollection National Air Traffic Services, the pre privatisation government agency as was, was consistently profit making and a net contributor to the public purse so your allegations of a "taxpayer funded pension pot" is very wide of the mark.
That's in stark contrast BTW to all the other ANSPs in Europe. The French, Italian, even the German ANSP have pension funds that are paid for by their governments which hardly makes for a level playing field when comparing NATS with their peers.

[Gonzo]

Correct, Del Prado.

s&t,

Any shortfall in the pension, and there has been such over the past few years, has been met by increased employer contributions and changes in staff T&Cs.

Knock yourself out!
Annual Report & Accounts | NATS