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.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

lardy,

Sometimes it's good for us to hear a non-ATC perspective, thanks for your thoughts, and welcome to the lion's den...:E

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.:rolleyes:

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.

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!

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. :ouch:
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 :mad:

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.:zzz:

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?

Yes, you're quite right. And the small, rural town of Lockerbie has the same population density as Hounslow. Nurse!

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.

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.

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.

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.

You want to visit the thread in Aircrew Notices, the way the programme is simply dismissed in there is genuinely frightening. And God help anyone who questions those arguing against that view point! People are a tad more forgiving in here and open to debate! :)

I actually read this as "the report says there will be a midair every 20 years, we haven't had one for 50 so you can't take that report as gospel"

Working in ATC Training, as I do, I can assure you that we are in no way complacent about the risk of a midair

For example. When I lived in Heston (which is about 3 miles from Heathrow) I lived ina road 1/4 mile long with 200 houses in it. Average of 2 people per house, cold December evening most people will be at home. Two aircraft collide and come down leaving a three mile swathe of destruction...burning houses etc. I would suggest that most of the road would have been wiped out if the aircraft had it it...at least 100 killed on the ground. Hounslow and the surrounding area is very densley populated, unless by some miracle the wrecakge hit one of the park sin the area.

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 :ok:

Chips

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?

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.

Lon,

Not that we're aware of......

WF.

Dont forget that this is staged in December 2003 and most of the Hounslow population have by then been deported as illegals,
or so Mr Plonket is telling us in May 2003

"...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 :rolleyes:

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

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 :confused:

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

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...

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".

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!!)

:ok:

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

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.

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!)

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 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.

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

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!

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)

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!

eughhh! - nauseous feeling arising

Ahhh yes, that high water mark in the tide of media sensationalism.