Once again nginear avoids the answer about what those actually involved in the 'incident' did.

Your story doesn't make sense. First of all we have the Watch Manager taking control and sorting out the incident. In which case, why didn't he/she file a report direct with the CAA as per the law ?? Then we have the incident being reported to the ATS Manager. Was this by the Tower Controller ?? Someone else ?? Did they file direct with the CAA as per the law ??

No good these people blaming non reporting on the ATS Manager when the legality is that the responsibility for doing so ultimately lies with them. Did you 'hear' why they didn't report things to the CAA then ??

Or is it simply some attempt to sling mud at the ATS Manager ?? Time to put up or shut up on this issue.

ILS 119.5, nginear, qcode

If the 3 of you get together you should be able to write the next blockbuster fiction novel, buy an aiport and then be able to afford to fly safely world-wide whilst making babies.
It is a luvverly thought. Poor old gene pool gets diminished a tad though!!!!!

Go on - just for a laugh - come up with a FACT,
ANY FACT that supports any of this boll#x :yuk:

Feel free to be as abusive to me as you wish - just start off with 1 FACT. Not "I heard", "rumour has it", "my mate said". Go on, 1, just 1 fact, please...............

Or better still pass the fact to the people who should be dealing with the matter :mad:

Sits back and waits, tis only a matter of time............... :E

Stillin1

If you want facts then please read the original post. I would never post anything which is untrue. You seem to have something against certain members of this forum and take any posts personally.
Why don't you tell us all what your so called qualifications are rather than being anonymous. Are you a you sptty faced kid with nothing better to do or (which is more likely) do you actually work at the unit and involved in the cover up.
Please tell us.

Ok, cut the bull!!!! nginear.

Tell us the unit involved, if you have the balls to.

Not the names of those whom you think were involved.......just the unit.

The challenge is down AGAIN. Stop trying to dodge the question.

Put up or shut up. :mad:

Broke rule 1 - NO FACTS
Nothing personal

This is too easy:cool:

Oh! - Answer to your Qs - my choice. No. No

Next!:mad:

Happened at LBA with one of ours. Obviousely logged in the a/c log book. The incident was reported to the Air Traffic Manager by another controller who was not there at the time and therefore could not report himself not knowing the true facts. However it did happen and not reported by the ATCO concerned.

The intercom between tower and approach was something along the lines of:
Approach: My mum and Dad were on that one.
Tower: Yeah, and you nearly fu***ng killed them.

You asked me, so I have told you.

Myself and my colleagues discussed this post before it was originally aired. We all felt strongly, in the interests of aviation safety, that it should be posted.

Rgds.

Playing the game here:

Why didn't the operator report it?

Still smells of bull!!!!! and rumour.

There's those word again. And tell me, just what is being achieved, in the interests of saftey, by posting it here??

LBA controllers out there?

I've flown into LBA many times and maybe the pilot had the first one visual and did not realise how close due to it being night and all the other lights around. Maybe the tcas was not working at such close proximity to the ground. Maybe they were IMC. Regardless of what anyone says if true cannot be allowed to happen again. I'll ask around some of my mates who the skipper was involved and what exactly happenned.

From my point of view the point of posting here indicates that there is a "human factors" element. Either there is a problem with the reporting scheme, there is a problem with the unit management or there is a problem with the people involved. In any case human factors are involved and need to be examined to stop any future problems. This is why reports have to be submitted and examined to stop future incidents and to improve any flaws in the system.

OR

There is the human element of "the boy who cried wolf" :rolleyes:

Still waiting for actual facts, which are glaringly inadequate. You guys could write for the Sun.

Hi, names's Gary; long time listener, first time caller:

What a/c have log books which require entry of ATC incidents? If the aircraft had actually hit each other, then there'd be something to put in the (technical?) log!

Huh?

I would suggest (include it in your thesis if you like) that until aviation is run by robots, who are programmed by robots, then every single thing that ever happens in aviation has a 'human factors element'. You seem quick to forget that every day, every thing that goes right has a 'human factors element' as well. But wannabe human factors 'experts' don't very often point out when things go right, do they? I'll save my respect for the real HF boys in the AAIB, who have operational experience as well as a few books under their belt.

Or: there isn't a problem at all (as people have attempted to suggest) and therefore your ominscent input is not required. What a shame that would be!

For anyone with lots of free time to devote to 'non-reporting of incidents', and how they affect public safety, why don't you take a good look at the medical profession in the UK - lots of subject matter there for your thesis! You might even make a difference - but then, doctors and nurses aren't as exciting as aeroplanes, are they? ;)

I would have to respectfully disagree with you there :D

Wow! Energy, insight, compound sentences, even punctuation! Gary, you sound like Jerricho did before he got all bitter and stuff… :ok:

Just kidding buddy… I know it’s the weight of the world what done this to you…

Correct, they do not, but it is all in the equation. The whole idea is to make all the rights outweigh the wrongs and to ensure any of the wrongs (as we are all Human) are supressed to ensure they do not happen again. I know it all sounds like a load of cr*p, but thats the way it is. At the end of the day it is to ensure Aviation Safety.

Like making an assumption about something that you have no factual information on?:rolleyes:

I`m with Jerricho on this one, we`ve had very little in the way of factual information.

nginear, if all you`ve got to go on is hearsay and a bit of banter between Tower and Approach you and your colleagues should maybe have " discussed this post " for a little longer " before it was originally aired ".
Excuse my cynicism but it is obvious from previous postings that you have a problem with the Satco at your unit as this is the second time you`ve tried to drop him in it

Having bitten my tongue long enough I have a question for nginear . Do you understand the difference between fact and hearsay?

Definition
hearsay [Show phonetics]
noun [U]
information you have heard, although you do not know whether it is true or not:

No facts there just:

And for qcode I assume that you're aware that ATC has its own HF organisation, there are at least 10 HF experts which work for my company, 2 of whom I have worked closely with. They deal in facts not supposition and rumour. I can never recall either of them saying that they'd heard from their mate Bill down the pub that his mate Chalkie had heard about this problem with the ATC screens and you need to get it fixed. :bored: :bored: :bored:

BD

Folks, as we have come to page six of this one, our elustrious Human Factors "expert" and his !!!!! stirring mate aren't interested in facts........they have achieved their goal of casting dispersions on LBA staff. And I think it's just going to keep going round and round, with our little friends ignoring anything that fall outside of their agenda (guess that's whay there's a warning at the bottom of the page here)

I've read back through and every time they are challeneged to provide facts, we receive a piss weak "I have heard" or "I have no evidence, but........." (I still love that on). Yet we keep seeing the "I'm the champion of saftey and justice" nappy being waved.

I honestly hope our little HF friend here changes his "investigation style" if he truely wants to get anywhere in the industry. As BDiONU very rightly states

I'm betting $10 now that if there is a reply, I know what it's going to be :E

Jerricho
£20, and
I know who!:E

If it's that much of a concern, have you CHIRPed it?