NATS at the Public Accounts Ctte.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume since this is for PUBLIC Accounts all these notes
Everitt has promised in answer to the questions he didn't
have a clue about will also be made public. I also assume
he will be fed the usual non-answers (or do I mean pack of lies) from his great management team. Isn't it time Dunwoody and friends got someone operational to check out the bullxxxt.
Everitt has promised in answer to the questions he didn't
have a clue about will also be made public. I also assume
he will be fed the usual non-answers (or do I mean pack of lies) from his great management team. Isn't it time Dunwoody and friends got someone operational to check out the bullxxxt.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As shareholders, do we not have a right to call an EGM and look for a vote of no confidence in the present board?? Surely this 5% (or whatever has so far been allocated) must have some voting power
Just a thought, if we can then how do we go about it?
Just a thought, if we can then how do we go about it?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder if he will put that in the note to Mr Bacon. Anyone know where the good Mr Bacon can be found ?
You may find http://www.faxyourmp.com/ useful. However, an MP only has to respond if he's your MP.
HTH
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Chairman of the Transport Select Committee Gwynneth doesn't have to be your MP, so if you have any comments I think it worthwhile sending a letter. I have looked up her address:
Gwyneth Dunwoody MP
154 Nantwich Road
Crewe
CW2 6BG
or
House of Commons
Westminster
London
SW1A 1AA
Gwyneth Dunwoody MP
154 Nantwich Road
Crewe
CW2 6BG
or
House of Commons
Westminster
London
SW1A 1AA
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF3: I don't have the exact PSS numbers, and some dispute them, but the consensus is that at present we need between 380 and 410 controllers to be able to operate the Centre at full capacity at all times. Therefore to be 40 short on that is 10pct or more.!
The only reason the figures look better next year is that we are shelving off half the North Sea Sector to Scottish Control and Manchester are taking on another large piece of airspace over N Lincolnshire. This reduces the requirement for bodies at LACC.
Just remember: "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!!" You can make the numbers look as good as you like to get PPP through or open a Centre 'on time' six years late (and get a bonus), but the fact is that there are not enough bums on seats to operate the Centre at its published capacity, nor have there ever been. Those who told the Select Committee that we would have a surplus were either misled by their lower management or were, how shall we say to avoid libel, economical with the truth. Those same people have just been paid bonuses totalling close on £300,000!!!
Now we have the new senior management sitting before another investigation and unable to answer the simplest of questions about the day-to-day running of the highest profile facility in NATS. 'Computer Weekly' has a better grasp of what's going on than he does!
The only reason the figures look better next year is that we are shelving off half the North Sea Sector to Scottish Control and Manchester are taking on another large piece of airspace over N Lincolnshire. This reduces the requirement for bodies at LACC.
Just remember: "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!!" You can make the numbers look as good as you like to get PPP through or open a Centre 'on time' six years late (and get a bonus), but the fact is that there are not enough bums on seats to operate the Centre at its published capacity, nor have there ever been. Those who told the Select Committee that we would have a surplus were either misled by their lower management or were, how shall we say to avoid libel, economical with the truth. Those same people have just been paid bonuses totalling close on £300,000!!!
Now we have the new senior management sitting before another investigation and unable to answer the simplest of questions about the day-to-day running of the highest profile facility in NATS. 'Computer Weekly' has a better grasp of what's going on than he does!
Thanks for the response. If they are 10% under establishment they are sailing very close to the wind. Second question from someone not in the industry: who is the regulator, and what does he say about this?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regulator is Safety Regulation Group (SRG) which is a branch of the CAA based at Gatwick. Part of the selling point of PPP was that SRG would then become an independent regulator (rather than part of the same umbrella organisation as NATS) and therefore have more teeth.
I am not deeply involved in the process, but as far as I am aware, SRG has NEVER blocked anything involved in the operation or opening of NERC and is generally seen to be very proficient in the use of the rubber stamp. Indeed, a QC who was engaged to give an opinion on the legality of operating with the display problems we had felt it was an odd arrangement. He thought (as most people would) that a regulator should satisfy itself that the system is correct and that process should involve the inspection of facilities and questioning of procedures. In effect, NATS should PROVE that the system is correct. The NATS/SRG relationship seems to be one where NATS says it is OK and SRG has to prove otherwise!
Good, eh!?
I am not deeply involved in the process, but as far as I am aware, SRG has NEVER blocked anything involved in the operation or opening of NERC and is generally seen to be very proficient in the use of the rubber stamp. Indeed, a QC who was engaged to give an opinion on the legality of operating with the display problems we had felt it was an odd arrangement. He thought (as most people would) that a regulator should satisfy itself that the system is correct and that process should involve the inspection of facilities and questioning of procedures. In effect, NATS should PROVE that the system is correct. The NATS/SRG relationship seems to be one where NATS says it is OK and SRG has to prove otherwise!
Good, eh!?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eyeinthesky
I agree that the system with SRG and NATS isn't what it could be, however "The NATS/SRG relationship seems to be one where NATS says it is OK and SRG has to prove otherwise!" Uuumm, how can it be otherwise? I may be misinterpreting what you've said but surely you say to someone ' Here's what I've built and its great, works perfectly!' and its then up to them to say 'Well lets see how the brakes work, prove that they do!' I don't see how you prove something when no-one challenges you as to what works and how.
I know that the ATSSD took a keen interest in everything that was going on in the run up to 'O' date and subsequently. Many letters of challenge were sent to the NERC management team and they had to prove that what they were challenged on was correct or provide mitigation.
10% light on ATCO's accords with what I've heard for most watches. When you figure in another 10% sickness (including the long term) on a couple of watches that equals, uumm, well a LOT more than 12 short!
I know that the ATSSD took a keen interest in everything that was going on in the run up to 'O' date and subsequently. Many letters of challenge were sent to the NERC management team and they had to prove that what they were challenged on was correct or provide mitigation.
10% light on ATCO's accords with what I've heard for most watches. When you figure in another 10% sickness (including the long term) on a couple of watches that equals, uumm, well a LOT more than 12 short!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to Eyeinethesky's comments, the QC didn't just say it was an odd arrangement, but that it was worthy of challenge in the courts. The union backed NATS, not ATCOs, and refused to obtain an independent legal opinion or give advice to the membership
on their legal liability on the use of deficient equipment. That state of affairs remains unresolved. Let's not forget that the Chairman of the CAA (boss of SRG) picked up an £89,000 pay off from NATS for his efforts.
on their legal liability on the use of deficient equipment. That state of affairs remains unresolved. Let's not forget that the Chairman of the CAA (boss of SRG) picked up an £89,000 pay off from NATS for his efforts.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'New' Prestwick Oceanic & Domestic ATC centre ?
At the moment a new Oceanic and Domestic ATC centre at Prestwick is on hold (Nats has no money to build it !).
There may have been some alternative funding methods.
From Neil Kinnock European Transport Commissioner on 21 11 1996 in a letter to a member of NATS staff
...... the possibility of obtaining funding from the European Community will depend on its compatibility with the general rules for granting aid in the field of Trans European Networks and on the availability of funds. From the information at our disposal the Prestwick scheme would appear eligible. To date no application has been received from the UK Government......
The only questions are why did the Government not apply for it and does it still be eligible?
There is speculation that this is how the Irish Aviation Authority funded their operation.
Comments ?
There may have been some alternative funding methods.
From Neil Kinnock European Transport Commissioner on 21 11 1996 in a letter to a member of NATS staff
...... the possibility of obtaining funding from the European Community will depend on its compatibility with the general rules for granting aid in the field of Trans European Networks and on the availability of funds. From the information at our disposal the Prestwick scheme would appear eligible. To date no application has been received from the UK Government......
The only questions are why did the Government not apply for it and does it still be eligible?
There is speculation that this is how the Irish Aviation Authority funded their operation.
Comments ?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Ecosse
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A minor point 'Ear-OTG', the "new" Prestwick Oceanic Area Control Centre already exists and is simply awaiting the purchase of new kit to become operational - it is referred to locally as "the brown hut" and is an ugly addition to the side of the existing Ops room.
NSC or "New Prestwick Centre", (Latest attempt to be 'PC' about the fact that it covers both Scottish, N.Irish and English airspace), will not officially be home to Oceanic - provided of course the business case for 'NPC' can be made at all in light of Single European Sky proposals seeking to reduce the overall number of centres.
Looks like NATS could end up with a 'Get out of Jail Free' card in the form of the EC for eventually pulling the plug on 'NPC'!
NSC or "New Prestwick Centre", (Latest attempt to be 'PC' about the fact that it covers both Scottish, N.Irish and English airspace), will not officially be home to Oceanic - provided of course the business case for 'NPC' can be made at all in light of Single European Sky proposals seeking to reduce the overall number of centres.
Looks like NATS could end up with a 'Get out of Jail Free' card in the form of the EC for eventually pulling the plug on 'NPC'!
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't cover much English airspace, at least not until North Sea is taken over in March.
However it looks like the Scottish Borg is not going to be able to assimilate Sector 7 after all!
However it looks like the Scottish Borg is not going to be able to assimilate Sector 7 after all!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fish food, When Manch are assimiliated into NPC (or the North British Centre, or whatever its going to be called), then there will still be one less centre.
BDiONU, I think that Manch would be upset to hear that they don't cover much English airspace!
BDiONU, I think that Manch would be upset to hear that they don't cover much English airspace!
