SAFETY in ATC is all in the quality of service
 

its sad that ATC/ATS now is being blamed for the irregularity and unsafe flow of air traffic....are we to blame?...well...i think we should blame. but WHO?

Here in the UK with the advent of the ATSOCAS scheme ATCOs are expected to provide a free service to aircraft outside controlled airspace and accept the full legal liability for it, or have the CAAS (Civil Aviation Authority Stasi) investigate you to determine whether they agree that your refusal to provide a service (based upon common business sense) is in their eyes justified. Where else in the business world does this make sense?

Let's leave ATCOs to do the work that they are paid or contracted to do and tell the CAAS that if they wish a service to be provided to aircraft outside controlled airspace they fund it, if necessary charging users for it.

NATS receives enroute charges from all aircraft over 5700 kg, and all IFR aircraft over 2000 kg, regardless of the service provided and the airspace class they are flying in. "Where else in the business world" is a mandatory fee paid to a private service provider in the complete absence of a service.

Could say the BBC with a TV licence but that's not private yet.

The only other one is the water board even if you don't use any water, you have to pay to have the rainwater taken away.:{

I say we blame the ACC-people :-D

I'm wondering why this thread even started and why people bother to reply to it. Oh...right...

I agree SD....bravoex, rather broad brush you are using.....in that , is this just a general moan, or Doha specific?

For a first post, it does seem designed to bring forth inflammatory statements of the sort a sensationalist press might like. :=

look people.....
 

.....i believe that all atcs, even as they started their responsibilities on the hot seat, are and must have prepared themselselves of all the required knowledge based on existing procedures an because of these i dont see any reason that they are capable of compromising safety unless otherwise not.....if an investigation after an OHR will not end at ATS/ATC then my thoughts are correct; but if it would, then ATS/ATC is in fact really contributory to irregularities.then who will be the next to blame?....doha is a different issue.

I'm surprised you use the word "blame" - I don't believe it features in effective incident investigation, if that is what you're referring to: it's use is rarely of benefit to anyone except those who wish to benefit financially from the apportioning of....

Again bravoex, you are not stating anything that is of 'watershed' nature....you merely are rambling on about what is for all intents and purposes a given should you be an ATC.

If the tools you have been equipped with as an ATC are compromised (in other words, cannot be ascribed directly to your aptitude or ineptitude), and in so doing render the service you are delivering closer to what can be viewed as unsafe......well that is indeed another issue, not altogether new or earth shattering, but on its own cause for concern. Yet, many ATC's by the very nature of our job (and individual character) are able to circum-navigate most any problem.....pretty much all borne from the thinking on the run and ability to adapt characteristics that most, if not all of us posses.

However, again, this is not new or startling news, pretty much old hat.......so what exactly is your concern?...you seem to be battling with specifics...........