The Day Britain Stopped - TV Programme
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it was a very good programme and the scenarios were spot on. It is irrelevant that there were a few factual inaccuracies and those that dwell on that are missing the point.
Last week there was a go around when the subject aircraft RT failed on short final. Any pilot wondering what the ***k is going on could easlly miss the turning point on the go around procedure by a mile. And on 09L that would make the difference. Don't kid yourselves otherwise.
Wedge asks
"If LHR had to be closed, for the reason in the programme (no fire cover due to airport fire services attending the accident) or any other - with huge stacks of holding traffic, do the contingency plans include diversions to military airfields (eg Brize Norton/Lyneham?"
Well another home truth. There is no contingency plan. Its all down to the TC Traffic Manager who has to think on his feet.
NATS has reacted badly to this programme and they would do better looking at there shortcomings rather than trying to tell the world it could never happen.
Last week there was a go around when the subject aircraft RT failed on short final. Any pilot wondering what the ***k is going on could easlly miss the turning point on the go around procedure by a mile. And on 09L that would make the difference. Don't kid yourselves otherwise.
Wedge asks
"If LHR had to be closed, for the reason in the programme (no fire cover due to airport fire services attending the accident) or any other - with huge stacks of holding traffic, do the contingency plans include diversions to military airfields (eg Brize Norton/Lyneham?"
Well another home truth. There is no contingency plan. Its all down to the TC Traffic Manager who has to think on his feet.
NATS has reacted badly to this programme and they would do better looking at there shortcomings rather than trying to tell the world it could never happen.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC, you're right about the controller being arrested on suspicion of (what i assume would be) Manslaughter, however it is unlikely that she would have been led out of TC that night, after all the Met would have their hands ful dealing with the ensuing chaos!!!!
The programme itself was in my mind poorly researched and for the most part was aimed at scaring the hell out of the flying public. The scenario portryed, whilst plausible was woefully innacurate in far to many ways to be realistic.
Having read the info on tyhe BBC website, the actress who played the part of the controller ad libbed a lot of the time, her research was poor to the extent that she couldn't even manage to get the names of the holds right or even use standard phraseolgy (as per MATS 1 app E)
There then begs the question of corporate manslaughter, you can be sure that the Police would be looking at the procedures and if they were the cause of the accident then those on high have to accept a level of responsibility.
As it was the whole thing was nothing more than an attempt to scare the ill informed flying public.
When I was at the college of knowledge, a documenatry team approached NATS with a view to doing one of those fly on the wall programmes on ATC and in particular ATCO training with a view to following the careers of a few at CATC from Highfield Park through to unit validation.
Perhaps if NATS had not declined the offer then maybe joe public might realise that we're not the ones with the ping pong bats, we are highly trained professional people who take great pride in the work that we do, and that flying is SAFE because we are part of the team that wants to get them from A to B SAFELY.
The programme itself was in my mind poorly researched and for the most part was aimed at scaring the hell out of the flying public. The scenario portryed, whilst plausible was woefully innacurate in far to many ways to be realistic.
Having read the info on tyhe BBC website, the actress who played the part of the controller ad libbed a lot of the time, her research was poor to the extent that she couldn't even manage to get the names of the holds right or even use standard phraseolgy (as per MATS 1 app E)
There then begs the question of corporate manslaughter, you can be sure that the Police would be looking at the procedures and if they were the cause of the accident then those on high have to accept a level of responsibility.
As it was the whole thing was nothing more than an attempt to scare the ill informed flying public.
When I was at the college of knowledge, a documenatry team approached NATS with a view to doing one of those fly on the wall programmes on ATC and in particular ATCO training with a view to following the careers of a few at CATC from Highfield Park through to unit validation.
Perhaps if NATS had not declined the offer then maybe joe public might realise that we're not the ones with the ping pong bats, we are highly trained professional people who take great pride in the work that we do, and that flying is SAFE because we are part of the team that wants to get them from A to B SAFELY.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just a punter, who discovered these boards a while ago through a link from another site. I don't come here often, but saw the programme and thought I'd pop in to see what you guys who do the job thought of it.
I'll take all of your collective words on the factual inacurracies. However, from a punter's point of view, I thought that Air Traffic Controllers came across incredibly sympathetically. It seemed to me that you were portrayed as hard-working, conscientous people doing a very difficult job to the best of your considerable abilities. The fictional incident came about due to a number of reasons, not least a controller working too long hours as there was not enough cover, with too many aircraft.
Obviously this is incorrect. Obviously there is a surplus of controllers under NATS, relief is always there and sectors are never combined. Obviously no-one is ever expected to do a demanding job for too long a time. Obviously there is no commercial pressure to reduce delays, and this is never in any conflict with safety concerns. You should be complaining to the BBC about this gross misportrayal, and not about whether some alarm should have gone off in the tower or not.
I'll take all of your collective words on the factual inacurracies. However, from a punter's point of view, I thought that Air Traffic Controllers came across incredibly sympathetically. It seemed to me that you were portrayed as hard-working, conscientous people doing a very difficult job to the best of your considerable abilities. The fictional incident came about due to a number of reasons, not least a controller working too long hours as there was not enough cover, with too many aircraft.
Obviously this is incorrect. Obviously there is a surplus of controllers under NATS, relief is always there and sectors are never combined. Obviously no-one is ever expected to do a demanding job for too long a time. Obviously there is no commercial pressure to reduce delays, and this is never in any conflict with safety concerns. You should be complaining to the BBC about this gross misportrayal, and not about whether some alarm should have gone off in the tower or not.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: An island in the ocean
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lardy,
Sometimes it's good for us to hear a non-ATC perspective, thanks for your thoughts, and welcome to the lion's den...
In Australia recently, two light aircraft collided on final at a Secondary Airport. The tower controllers followed company procedure and notified the managers and media liaison section of Airservices Australia. No lawyers appeared, no media liaison officers appeared, no managers appeared.
The guys who watched the whole thing were too stressed to continue, so they signed off sick, shut down the tower and went home. A good thing in hindsight because the Police turned up at the airport and starting looking for someone to arrest and charge.
Only now, at the Coroner's enquiry, is AsA representing the controllers legally.
Sometimes it's good for us to hear a non-ATC perspective, thanks for your thoughts, and welcome to the lion's den...
In Australia recently, two light aircraft collided on final at a Secondary Airport. The tower controllers followed company procedure and notified the managers and media liaison section of Airservices Australia. No lawyers appeared, no media liaison officers appeared, no managers appeared.
The guys who watched the whole thing were too stressed to continue, so they signed off sick, shut down the tower and went home. A good thing in hindsight because the Police turned up at the airport and starting looking for someone to arrest and charge.
Only now, at the Coroner's enquiry, is AsA representing the controllers legally.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not an ATCO, but I know enough about aviation to spot the flaws in the mid-air portrayed. The rest of the programme was entirely plausible though and overall it was well produced and made IMO. I did not find it scaremongering at all, and for those who are complaining about it, there is a wonderful invention called an off button fitted to most TV sets. At the end of the day, it was drama and all dramas have inaccuracies.
What disturbs me is the ATCOs on here and other threads dismissing the whole thing as rubbish. Not all do, other ATCOs say "the programme was wrong, but such a mid-air is not impossible." They are the ones I would want in charge of any flight I was on, those who acknowledge that the system is not infallible, that mistakes do occur, that computers do fail etc. Those who blindly say "It won't happen" should not be employed in ATC and I would not want within a million miles of a radar screen when I am flying.
What disturbs me is the ATCOs on here and other threads dismissing the whole thing as rubbish. Not all do, other ATCOs say "the programme was wrong, but such a mid-air is not impossible." They are the ones I would want in charge of any flight I was on, those who acknowledge that the system is not infallible, that mistakes do occur, that computers do fail etc. Those who blindly say "It won't happen" should not be employed in ATC and I would not want within a million miles of a radar screen when I am flying.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The arrogance of ATCOs
Many non-atc ers on here are thinking that ATCOs are arrogant and we have a that will never happen attitude. This could not be further from the truth. Yes something like that might happen, but not as portrayed by the BBC.
The "arrogant" attitude coming across is in fact a case of if we dont shout from our corner nobody will. The BBC portrayed us as a group of people who sit back and let things happen. We do not, as yellow snow has pointed out above there are procedures that are ammended by proactive controllers to prevent such occurances.
It was pointed out above that the turn on the missed approach is 1500ft or 0 DME which ever is later, that is correct. It was also stated that the turn is not guarenteed, also correct. However a go-around is also not guarenteed - i have seen many a non-uk airline land after being instructed to go-around. Not much in ATC is guarenteed, however what i can guarentee you is we do our best to prevent this from happening!
Many non-atc ers on here are thinking that ATCOs are arrogant and we have a that will never happen attitude. This could not be further from the truth. Yes something like that might happen, but not as portrayed by the BBC.
The "arrogant" attitude coming across is in fact a case of if we dont shout from our corner nobody will. The BBC portrayed us as a group of people who sit back and let things happen. We do not, as yellow snow has pointed out above there are procedures that are ammended by proactive controllers to prevent such occurances.
It was pointed out above that the turn on the missed approach is 1500ft or 0 DME which ever is later, that is correct. It was also stated that the turn is not guarenteed, also correct. However a go-around is also not guarenteed - i have seen many a non-uk airline land after being instructed to go-around. Not much in ATC is guarenteed, however what i can guarentee you is we do our best to prevent this from happening!
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was house hunting in the UK and delayed my return to watch this dog's dinner.
For once, no mention of Swanick and a phone call to European Air Traffic Control in Brussel to close all British airspace finally saved the day.
A few hundred yards from any stop even an express train would have slowed to 10 - 20 m.p.h. unless the driver was asleep (surprised they didn't try that)
Two aircraft fall on Hounslow and only a few on the ground die; oh yea they'd all gone to a football match.
About the only believable bit was the family so dumb that despite all the warnings on the radio, they still set off for Central London to buy a scarf
WATWOT. With more research this could have been an interesting programme instead of a waste of time; and I still had the Chunnel and a 340 km. drive to do.
For once, no mention of Swanick and a phone call to European Air Traffic Control in Brussel to close all British airspace finally saved the day.
A few hundred yards from any stop even an express train would have slowed to 10 - 20 m.p.h. unless the driver was asleep (surprised they didn't try that)
Two aircraft fall on Hounslow and only a few on the ground die; oh yea they'd all gone to a football match.
About the only believable bit was the family so dumb that despite all the warnings on the radio, they still set off for Central London to buy a scarf
WATWOT. With more research this could have been an interesting programme instead of a waste of time; and I still had the Chunnel and a 340 km. drive to do.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But NATS is shouting your corner, well sort of. At least they have their lawyers out threatening anyone involved with advising the programme with legal action. What message this sends out is debatable.
This was an amusing quote. No doubt if hundreds had died you'd be screaming "Scaremongers!" Pan Am 103 fell on a populated area and killed 11 people, was that unrealistic too?
Two aircraft fall on Hounslow and only a few on the ground die;
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pan Am 103 fell on a populated area and killed 11 people, was that unrealistic too?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The world's biggest beach
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cpt Windsock
I hope he did go-around if he didn't have a landing clearance (unlike some european operators - Iberia/Air France). The point being is that the whole reason departures are kept on frequency and do not autochange to radar is so that the proactive controller can do something to achieve separation. It is something we train for.
The scenario in the show is pre 1997. After this procedures were changed and lessons learnt.
Lardy,
to answer you concerns. I as a controller do not bow to commercial concerns (another part of the show that was incorrect), I am not paid a bonus on reduced delays, my and all my colleagues primary concern is safety, everything else takes a back seat.
The programme gave the impression that the ATCO had been sitting there all day doing the same job, incorrect. She would've been on a watch and rotated around positions, if this watch had been short staffed flow control would then've been imposed to limit the workload to a safe one.
If as a controller we are going to be late for work for whatever reason we phone in, being the proactive people we are so contigency measures can be implemented like closing airspace etc.
Once again I cannot argue that a collision won't occur in the airspace above London because system is bursting at the seams at time of the day, however the BBC programme was poorly researched and ill informed.
Last week there was a go around when the subject aircraft RT failed on short final. Any pilot wondering what the ***k is going on could easlly miss the turning point on the go around procedure by a mile. And on 09L that would make the difference. Don't kid yourselves otherwise.
The scenario in the show is pre 1997. After this procedures were changed and lessons learnt.
Lardy,
to answer you concerns. I as a controller do not bow to commercial concerns (another part of the show that was incorrect), I am not paid a bonus on reduced delays, my and all my colleagues primary concern is safety, everything else takes a back seat.
The programme gave the impression that the ATCO had been sitting there all day doing the same job, incorrect. She would've been on a watch and rotated around positions, if this watch had been short staffed flow control would then've been imposed to limit the workload to a safe one.
If as a controller we are going to be late for work for whatever reason we phone in, being the proactive people we are so contigency measures can be implemented like closing airspace etc.
Once again I cannot argue that a collision won't occur in the airspace above London because system is bursting at the seams at time of the day, however the BBC programme was poorly researched and ill informed.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rodan
The fictional crash had 29 people killed on the ground. Please explain in full detail, giving examples, why this is unrealistic? As I already said, if it had been hundreds, people would have slated that too. By making the figure low, which IMO is perfectly plausible, the producers avoided some scaremongering.
By the way, with reference to an early comment, I did not mean to imply ALL ATCOs are arrogant, as I know well from experience they are not! Just a few who deny all possibility of things going wrong worried me and worried ex-ATCOs I work with.
By the way, with reference to an early comment, I did not mean to imply ALL ATCOs are arrogant, as I know well from experience they are not! Just a few who deny all possibility of things going wrong worried me and worried ex-ATCOs I work with.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Day Britain Stopped
I agree with a number of points already made about the inaccuracies in this programme, which certainly caused a great deal of backlash for good reason. More research could have resulted in a much more credible scenario which would have been taken more seriously and may have provoked more thought rather than alienating a whole bunch of people.
This aside, my main concerns relate to the NATS reaction to the programme. One of the messages that has emerged is one that I have heard from NATS before - "we've not had a major accident in 50 years so we must be safe".
This causes me concern because, as I understand it, it is up to any organisation involved in safety related operations to show that they have reduced risk to a point as low as reasonably practicable in their safety case. I know a great deal of safety analysis goes on in the industry, but it seems to me that when that analysis gets hard (like when you demonstrate how reliable a human operator is) the industry falls back on historic data rather than trying to work out how to solve the problem.
The argument that things have been safe for years so all's well is pretty much saying "we've been lucky so far". I somehow doubt that this would count as evidence that risk had been reduced as low as reasonably practicable. If (god forbid) an event like the one televised ever happened, and if something is not done to provide evidence of the current level of safety in the system, then I suspect that the NATS controlling minds would be found guilty of corporate killing.
This aside, my main concerns relate to the NATS reaction to the programme. One of the messages that has emerged is one that I have heard from NATS before - "we've not had a major accident in 50 years so we must be safe".
This causes me concern because, as I understand it, it is up to any organisation involved in safety related operations to show that they have reduced risk to a point as low as reasonably practicable in their safety case. I know a great deal of safety analysis goes on in the industry, but it seems to me that when that analysis gets hard (like when you demonstrate how reliable a human operator is) the industry falls back on historic data rather than trying to work out how to solve the problem.
The argument that things have been safe for years so all's well is pretty much saying "we've been lucky so far". I somehow doubt that this would count as evidence that risk had been reduced as low as reasonably practicable. If (god forbid) an event like the one televised ever happened, and if something is not done to provide evidence of the current level of safety in the system, then I suspect that the NATS controlling minds would be found guilty of corporate killing.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eal401
I can assure you that ALL ATCO's are fully aware of what might happen when things go wrong. We have to cope with that thought all our working lives.
Reading this thread, I can't see any ATCO denying that a mid air could take place. What they are upset about is the BBC showing a programme that implies that a mid air is inevitable by showing us a scenario that is laden with inaccuracies.
I can assure you that ALL ATCO's are fully aware of what might happen when things go wrong. We have to cope with that thought all our working lives.
Reading this thread, I can't see any ATCO denying that a mid air could take place. What they are upset about is the BBC showing a programme that implies that a mid air is inevitable by showing us a scenario that is laden with inaccuracies.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading this thread, I can't see any ATCO denying that a mid air could take place.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This aside, my main concerns relate to the NATS reaction to the programme. One of the messages that has emerged is one that I have heard from NATS before - "we've not had a major accident in 50 years so we must be safe".
Working in ATC Training, as I do, I can assure you that we are in no way complacent about the risk of a midair
The fictional crash had 29 people killed on the ground. Please explain in full detail, giving examples, why this is unrealistic? As I already said, if it had been hundreds, people would have slated that too. By making the figure low, which IMO is perfectly plausible, the producers avoided some scaremongering
Impressive response by the emergency services...when the motorways get clogged, so does most of Hounslow Borough due to it having main arterial roads passing through.
All this considered, I would expect many more than 29 killed on the ground.
All in all, whilst a mid air collision is possible in the UK, this progarmme was so full of errors that it was nothing short of scare mongering.
Oh, and its not pepsi or coke - we are not allowed drinks in the ops room
Chips
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eal401 I am glad that you found the remark amusing. The point that was being made was that should two transport aircraft, one departing and presumeably, not having access to the comparative prices, fairly full of fuel, land in the middle of a densely populated area - as was shown - then the probability is that the death toll would be in the hundreds. Having grown up in the vicinity of Lockerbie I was astonished and thankful that so few people there perished.
Any fatality is one too many.
The objectives of ATC begin with the words, " Expedite and maintain a safe and orderly flow ..."
BTW a question to those in TC, are you really monitored by CCTV?
Any fatality is one too many.
The objectives of ATC begin with the words, " Expedite and maintain a safe and orderly flow ..."
BTW a question to those in TC, are you really monitored by CCTV?
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not understand why a couple of people are making a comparison with Pan Am 103.
That aircraft was at a cruising Flight Level at high speed and broke up into a considerable number of pieces spread over a VAST area. That does not compare with an aircraft which would have been comparatively very low and slow. The two are totally different.
That aircraft was at a cruising Flight Level at high speed and broke up into a considerable number of pieces spread over a VAST area. That does not compare with an aircraft which would have been comparatively very low and slow. The two are totally different.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...and most of the Hounslow population have by then been deported as illegals..."
Ah yes. Let's inject some racist **** to stifle any sort of intelligent discussion.
Still, easier than thinking I guess
Ah yes. Let's inject some racist **** to stifle any sort of intelligent discussion.
Still, easier than thinking I guess