The Day Britain Stopped - TV Programme
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 35,000ft
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle,
Have you no sense of humour......it was a tv show badly researched, hardly a brain teasing exercise, unless there is some element of truth that people recognise as fact
Have you no sense of humour......it was a tv show badly researched, hardly a brain teasing exercise, unless there is some element of truth that people recognise as fact
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were some interesting/important issues raised in the BBC programme - I was enjoying the discussion here and didn't see the need for the flippant crap - there's another (similar) thread in JB for that 
So no problem with the sense of humour - just an issue with the "humour"
As for "facts":
Fact: Winter 1995/1996, Surrey Police close one side of M25 whilst Kent police keep other (opposite direction) side open (or vice-versa) - promise that new co-operative procedures will prevent recurrence.
(Scene in BBC prog where Surrey/Kent diversions "meet")
Fact: January 2003, several motorways gridlocked/blocked due weather/accidents - many dozens of people stranded, some hypothermic - Govt. launches inquiry to understand issues and prevent recurrence.
(Several scenes in BBC prog where this was illustrated)
Fact: After the Clapham and Southall train crashes the new systems in place (or about to be in place, or being investigated) would prevent recurrence.
(Waverley - the catalyst of the BBC prog)
Fact: 1997, go-around at Heathrow nearly catastrophic, procedures changed to prevent recurrence.
So are we saying the whole programme was wrong?
Are we saying only the bits that related to ATC were wrong?
Are we saying that it might be close, but not under those exact circumstances, so let's dismiss it?
Are we not 100% sure?
Or what
So no problem with the sense of humour - just an issue with the "humour"
As for "facts":
Fact: Winter 1995/1996, Surrey Police close one side of M25 whilst Kent police keep other (opposite direction) side open (or vice-versa) - promise that new co-operative procedures will prevent recurrence.
(Scene in BBC prog where Surrey/Kent diversions "meet")
Fact: January 2003, several motorways gridlocked/blocked due weather/accidents - many dozens of people stranded, some hypothermic - Govt. launches inquiry to understand issues and prevent recurrence.
(Several scenes in BBC prog where this was illustrated)
Fact: After the Clapham and Southall train crashes the new systems in place (or about to be in place, or being investigated) would prevent recurrence.
(Waverley - the catalyst of the BBC prog)
Fact: 1997, go-around at Heathrow nearly catastrophic, procedures changed to prevent recurrence.
So are we saying the whole programme was wrong?
Are we saying only the bits that related to ATC were wrong?
Are we saying that it might be close, but not under those exact circumstances, so let's dismiss it?
Are we not 100% sure?
Or what
Join Date: May 2003
Location: darkest oxfordshire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I found disturbing -- apart from the nagging feeling that "they're all actors" -- was the Heathrow Director's on-screen display.
I would have expected the view to be conventional, with North at the top. With 09 in use, aircraft would then be approaching and taking off from right to left.
As shown in this "documentary", everything was travelling from left to right.
Well, you know how you are programmed to believe everything you see on the telly: I assumed I'd misheard the controller somewhere along the line and they weren't using 09 at all. But this made it somewhat surprising when the flaming wreckage landed on Hounslow, when there must surely have been equally deserving places in the general direction of Slough....
Does the display have North at the top?
odmedod
I would have expected the view to be conventional, with North at the top. With 09 in use, aircraft would then be approaching and taking off from right to left.
As shown in this "documentary", everything was travelling from left to right.
Well, you know how you are programmed to believe everything you see on the telly: I assumed I'd misheard the controller somewhere along the line and they weren't using 09 at all. But this made it somewhat surprising when the flaming wreckage landed on Hounslow, when there must surely have been equally deserving places in the general direction of Slough....
Does the display have North at the top?
odmedod
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK but would prefer Fr/Esp (at least part-time)...
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the subject: Would it be an overstatement to say that both ATCos and Flt Crew are well aroused by the risks of traffic conflicts when in the terminal area? IMO this concern gets even higher on the list during GA amidst parallel/multi-RWY ops. Perhaps then the chain of events necessary to achieve this type of mid-air collision should include failures in GA navigational procedure/ SID navigation procedure/ ATC blindness/Comms failure or incorrect freq/ TCAS failure or RA ignorance/ Flt crew Airmanship or SA breakdown and v. bad luck on the mean free path stats front.
Not impossible but maybe less likely than some here seem to contend. If you're really worried I can recommend a pair of danger-sensitive sunglasses which turn opaque just before anything really scary hoves into view!
STF, many of the points about UK infrastructural fragility made by the programme were interesting - and this winter's M11 experience (gritting failures aside) could be the first of some chronic jams. What a shame that the balance of the drama was ditched in favour of exploiting fear amongst the flying public when the real tragedies in such a gridlock scenario would almost certainly be happening on the ground due to the paralysis of the Emergency Services.
As for the diversion question, all Flt crew have to risk-manage on this front. Usually, fuel for a nominated alternate will be carried until the GA. However, when the risk of diversion to that alternate is assessed as extremely low, the diversion fuel may be used under certain conditions to extend the holding time available for the destination airport. Nb that the fuel and the aircraft don't care how you use the fuel as long as you land with what is called 'reserve'. Therefore, you can improve the chances of avoiding diversion and gain time to consider other options such as weather/ATC updates (and the possibility of a diversion closer to the hold as a further fallback option). A real diversion from the GA right on planned fuel is a major concern in a busy ATC environment - especially if 40 other aircraft want to go to the same place. For this reason it would seem prudent to declare an emergency if you are not going to land with reserve. NB reserve fuel is ultimately available for use if a further emergency occurs to delay your final landing by which time we're well into MAYDAY territory and the sort of bad day out only to be experienced in the simulator. UK ATC are outstandingly helpful in these situations - another reason why the programme was in my view defamatory to ATCOs at London - you just don't get any better than these guys and girls...
Not impossible but maybe less likely than some here seem to contend. If you're really worried I can recommend a pair of danger-sensitive sunglasses which turn opaque just before anything really scary hoves into view!
STF, many of the points about UK infrastructural fragility made by the programme were interesting - and this winter's M11 experience (gritting failures aside) could be the first of some chronic jams. What a shame that the balance of the drama was ditched in favour of exploiting fear amongst the flying public when the real tragedies in such a gridlock scenario would almost certainly be happening on the ground due to the paralysis of the Emergency Services.
As for the diversion question, all Flt crew have to risk-manage on this front. Usually, fuel for a nominated alternate will be carried until the GA. However, when the risk of diversion to that alternate is assessed as extremely low, the diversion fuel may be used under certain conditions to extend the holding time available for the destination airport. Nb that the fuel and the aircraft don't care how you use the fuel as long as you land with what is called 'reserve'. Therefore, you can improve the chances of avoiding diversion and gain time to consider other options such as weather/ATC updates (and the possibility of a diversion closer to the hold as a further fallback option). A real diversion from the GA right on planned fuel is a major concern in a busy ATC environment - especially if 40 other aircraft want to go to the same place. For this reason it would seem prudent to declare an emergency if you are not going to land with reserve. NB reserve fuel is ultimately available for use if a further emergency occurs to delay your final landing by which time we're well into MAYDAY territory and the sort of bad day out only to be experienced in the simulator. UK ATC are outstandingly helpful in these situations - another reason why the programme was in my view defamatory to ATCOs at London - you just don't get any better than these guys and girls...
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the people pontificating on the incident at EGLL in 1997, this was a situation that was handled badly by at least one of the two ATCO's involved. From my point of view (and it's worth more than yours Jerricho ) ATCO's are trained from day one to expect the worse. We're asked "ok what would you do here?" by our instructors and when we answer they reply by throwing in the most unlikely emergency that they can think of. This is because we, as ATCOs and flight crew too, have to expect the worst. If you don't then when it comes, AND IT WILL, then it will bite you on the ass.
What has annoyed us is the protrayal of controllers as watching events unfurl, and the subsequent references on this very site to "pro active" controlling. Is there any other kind? We're paid to try and keep ahead of the game and if we think it's going wrong, for instance if Jerricho's on FIN, then we have to sort it out. It's not pro active anything, it's an obligation we have to the flying public and to ourselves. We're not arrogant, we're bloody well trained and good at our jobs as a result. Look at the UK's safety record compared with anywhere else.
The programme was made with minimal reference to real ATCO's. If it had have been, there would have been no programme. We could have told them what a stinking pile of sensationalist, fantasist, scare mongering tosh it was. All it has done is enraged an already struggling aviation community, amused drunk students and lined the pockets of people who should no better.
P7
Or even "know better".
) ATCO's are trained from day one to expect the worse. We're asked "ok what would you do here?" by our instructors and when we answer they reply by throwing in the most unlikely emergency that they can think of. This is because we, as ATCOs and flight crew too, have to expect the worst. If you don't then when it comes, AND IT WILL, then it will bite you on the ass.What has annoyed us is the protrayal of controllers as watching events unfurl, and the subsequent references on this very site to "pro active" controlling. Is there any other kind? We're paid to try and keep ahead of the game and if we think it's going wrong, for instance if Jerricho's on FIN, then we have to sort it out. It's not pro active anything, it's an obligation we have to the flying public and to ourselves. We're not arrogant, we're bloody well trained and good at our jobs as a result. Look at the UK's safety record compared with anywhere else.
The programme was made with minimal reference to real ATCO's. If it had have been, there would have been no programme. We could have told them what a stinking pile of sensationalist, fantasist, scare mongering tosh it was. All it has done is enraged an already struggling aviation community, amused drunk students and lined the pockets of people who should no better.
P7
Or even "know better".
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vaucluse, France.
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
odmedod: With LHR using the 09s, aircraft would be approaching over Windsor and departing towards Hounslow i.e. from West to East . With the radar display North Up, the targets would be moving from left to right on the screen, as depicted in the programme.
(Er ... yes!!)
(Er ... yes!!)
Last edited by Georgeablelovehowindia; 16th May 2003 at 05:25.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I laughed at the deportation comment! (Yes, I live in the wonderful London Borough of Hounslow)
OK - I think we have established that the ATC bit was rubbish. To look at some of the rest of it...
1/2 mile from M25 to Heathrow you are not under Surrey Police Control (as quoted to me by a Traffic Cop)
When the drivers were walked to the marquees...how did the car carrying marquees get through the gridlock? (you could see the car and trailer in shot)
At one point a fire fighter says into his radio "Make pumps six" (correct fire brigade pharseology) I am told that under teh circumstances, that would have been "Major Incident" (as told to me by a London Fire Brigade sub officer. 6 pumps actually isn't very many)
2 aircraft down over Hounslow, Heathrow Manager having to decide whether to send Airport Fire service or not - I refuse to believe that there is no standing orders about that. Recently there was a scrap yard fire off airport. You guessed it - Heathrow foam tenders in attendance.
Most of the footage of where the crash was showed the wrong areas (recognisable easily to locals)
The hoppa bus that the doomed family (didn't you just know they were going to be in the crash) was an unmarked white minibus - don't see many of those around Heathrow. (ok - that one is really picky)
Yep - I reckon that most of the programme was poorly researched.
Nobody is being complacent, but a TV drama, posing as a documentary that infers some X files type conspiracy within NATS and poor controlling deserves to be slated.
Chips
So are we saying the whole programme was wrong?
Are we saying only the bits that related to ATC were wrong?
Are we saying that it might be close, but not under those exact circumstances, so let's dismiss it?
Are we not 100% sure?
Are we saying only the bits that related to ATC were wrong?
Are we saying that it might be close, but not under those exact circumstances, so let's dismiss it?
Are we not 100% sure?
1/2 mile from M25 to Heathrow you are not under Surrey Police Control (as quoted to me by a Traffic Cop)
When the drivers were walked to the marquees...how did the car carrying marquees get through the gridlock? (you could see the car and trailer in shot)
At one point a fire fighter says into his radio "Make pumps six" (correct fire brigade pharseology) I am told that under teh circumstances, that would have been "Major Incident" (as told to me by a London Fire Brigade sub officer. 6 pumps actually isn't very many)
2 aircraft down over Hounslow, Heathrow Manager having to decide whether to send Airport Fire service or not - I refuse to believe that there is no standing orders about that. Recently there was a scrap yard fire off airport. You guessed it - Heathrow foam tenders in attendance.
Most of the footage of where the crash was showed the wrong areas (recognisable easily to locals)
The hoppa bus that the doomed family (didn't you just know they were going to be in the crash) was an unmarked white minibus - don't see many of those around Heathrow. (ok - that one is really picky)
Yep - I reckon that most of the programme was poorly researched.
Nobody is being complacent, but a TV drama, posing as a documentary that infers some X files type conspiracy within NATS and poor controlling deserves to be slated.
Chips
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah. What Point 7 said.
About the best summing up of the way I feel about it, certainly. I don't work in the London TMA, I don't know how dangerous or otherwise it is. If there IS a problem, and the BBC can help address it, I doubt that over-sensationalised and hopelessly inaccurate docu-soaps are the way to do it.
About the best summing up of the way I feel about it, certainly. I don't work in the London TMA, I don't know how dangerous or otherwise it is. If there IS a problem, and the BBC can help address it, I doubt that over-sensationalised and hopelessly inaccurate docu-soaps are the way to do it.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know I really miss working with you P7.....everything 190kts to 4 miles, sling 'em to you, knowing the calibre of you abilities will be able to sort it all out!!! "Can you accept a go-around for controller training?" Tee-hee....
*Down on knees* I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy! You gonna start you Special Training so you can come over later in the year and I can start laughing at you again?
(Sorry to everybody else for getting off the subject!)
*Down on knees* I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy! You gonna start you Special Training so you can come over later in the year and I can start laughing at you again?
(Sorry to everybody else for getting off the subject!)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I personally feel it was good that the death toll on the ground was minimalised, it made it more realistic to me. Have, for example, 2 747s piling in and killing thousands would have got ME on the sensationalist bandwagon.
It is of interest to me as a non-ATC person chatting to my boss and a colleague here at work who are both ex-ATCOs. My boss in particular is an ex-RAF and civil ATCO and the first person I would have expected to rubbish the programme. I was, therefore, surprised that she didn't. Whilst acknowledging the technical errors, she believes the film was not sensationalist and created debate on the subject of ATC procedures and the potential for a serious accident. Similarly, my colleague who has RAF ATC experience agreed with this view, again I'd have expected him to have said "what a load of cr@p" but he didn't.
At the end of the day, I'd rather have serious debate over the plausibilty of a serious mid-air than simple "clap-trap" dismissal. The latter simply means the programme hasn't worked.
By the way:
It actually wasn't badly researched at all, it was how the writers chose to use that research.
It is of interest to me as a non-ATC person chatting to my boss and a colleague here at work who are both ex-ATCOs. My boss in particular is an ex-RAF and civil ATCO and the first person I would have expected to rubbish the programme. I was, therefore, surprised that she didn't. Whilst acknowledging the technical errors, she believes the film was not sensationalist and created debate on the subject of ATC procedures and the potential for a serious accident. Similarly, my colleague who has RAF ATC experience agreed with this view, again I'd have expected him to have said "what a load of cr@p" but he didn't.
At the end of the day, I'd rather have serious debate over the plausibilty of a serious mid-air than simple "clap-trap" dismissal. The latter simply means the programme hasn't worked.
By the way:
it was a tv show badly researched
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It actually wasn't badly researched at all,"
Yes it was.
The system is not perfect - none is. There might be a mid-air one day; I doubt if a couple of pile ups on the M25 will have any bearing on it.
The BBC set the agenda for this. They contrived a scenario which in many respects, particularly ATC, was complete tosh. If people who know better criticise that it is no argument to say the scenario is not the issue. If the issue is an inevitable mid-air then they should state as much and then justify it.
Yes it was.
The system is not perfect - none is. There might be a mid-air one day; I doubt if a couple of pile ups on the M25 will have any bearing on it.
The BBC set the agenda for this. They contrived a scenario which in many respects, particularly ATC, was complete tosh. If people who know better criticise that it is no argument to say the scenario is not the issue. If the issue is an inevitable mid-air then they should state as much and then justify it.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: darkest oxfordshire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
george ... howindia:
Yes, of course! An aberration due to always approaching LHR from the direction of the M4!
This is why some women turn the road atlas upside down when travelling south.
I'll get me coat....
odme
Yes, of course! An aberration due to always approaching LHR from the direction of the M4!
This is why some women turn the road atlas upside down when travelling south.
I'll get me coat....
odme
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The next episode
The next programme in the series is even more unlikely.
In this programme we have a political party who rubbish the Government's plan to sell off ATC to the highest bidder.
This party then gets elected and lo and behold they sell off ATC.
The new Government manage to sell the ATC service to a bunch of airlines who do not know that the company has never in it's history made enough profit to service the massive debt which the airlines take on in order to complete the purchase.
Surprise, surprise the newly formed company almost goes bankrupt following an impossible terrorist attack on New York and another chunk of the company is sold to the nice people who own the airports.
We now have the laughable position where the very people who would like to squeeze everything they can out of the system have control.
I hope the BBC do not screen this episode as no one would ever believe this scenario could happen.
The lunatics have taken over the assylum!
In this programme we have a political party who rubbish the Government's plan to sell off ATC to the highest bidder.
This party then gets elected and lo and behold they sell off ATC.
The new Government manage to sell the ATC service to a bunch of airlines who do not know that the company has never in it's history made enough profit to service the massive debt which the airlines take on in order to complete the purchase.
Surprise, surprise the newly formed company almost goes bankrupt following an impossible terrorist attack on New York and another chunk of the company is sold to the nice people who own the airports.
We now have the laughable position where the very people who would like to squeeze everything they can out of the system have control.
I hope the BBC do not screen this episode as no one would ever believe this scenario could happen.
The lunatics have taken over the assylum!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Near the Palace of dreams
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Chips
On May 14th Mr Grubby asked when he was going to get his record back. You have been very vocal on this thread. Very quiet about his very rare record.
Suggest you get in touch before his Solicitor does.
Simon.
(not so nice)
On May 14th Mr Grubby asked when he was going to get his record back. You have been very vocal on this thread. Very quiet about his very rare record.
Suggest you get in touch before his Solicitor does.
Simon.
(not so nice)
Today's the day it was supposed to happen.
Despite the inaccuracies this still remains the most gripping piece of Television I have ever seen. So much so I have been thinking about this programme all week!
Despite the inaccuracies this still remains the most gripping piece of Television I have ever seen. So much so I have been thinking about this programme all week!
