Richard Everitt Soundbite of the day
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
From: Sunny Warwickshire
Information_Alpha, it was on the Today programme Radio 4 this morning,try:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listen/listen.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listen/listen.shtml
Last edited by radar707; 19th December 2002 at 22:26.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
Sticking my unwise head into the lion's den, could it be that Mr. Everitt has been advised by the same people who refused to raise the base of some 2500 ft LTMA near North Weald some years ago, on the grounds that simultaneous SID's from Gatwick and various other movements, followed by one or more radio failure(s), would result in airliners at 6000, 5000, 4000 and 3000 feet at the same place, hence making it safe by everyone following procedures - at the expense of denying us some badly needed open FiR (as it was then - Class G now)?
At least the advisers would be consistent if this is how it came about.
At least the advisers would be consistent if this is how it came about.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
I guess that he never saw the event of two frieghters with no communication that just about pranged a couple of years ago over here. Funny how quickly we talked to them when one of them got a bit shaken up by the wake turbulence of the other.
regards
regards
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
From: USA
Boy, I should know better than to post this but here goes (stand by for incoming)
I've listened to the sound bite three times, and the Everitt part particularly ,and can't find the statement about com failure not being a safety problem from Mr. E.
What team is the good Mr. E leading that is working on the issues of service and delay on daily basis, planning for next summer?
Following are notes from the Richard Everitt portion of the clip posted by BBC 4 :
We are pleased about Swanwick
we don't have enough controllers...we are addressing the issues.
Presenter- - Morale is in toilet...
We always have a few controllers that leave over time. Fewer controllers 40 less than we sould like, are addressing the issue through our management.
Chissolm says ability to stay in business depends on reputatuion.
Mr. H Our service is principly aboutsafety and we are gettiting safer. Anear misses on front pages. Reporters don't have the time or info to go into things No category A AIRPROXes inthe last year. Most cases not that close, lost separation, not on collision courses
We have to work on number s of controller s and delays. June and July difficult last month better , problemes a few weeks ago, last week better.
We are learning how to use a new system. West Drayton wouldn't have done it .. We will have to deal with an increase in number of flights from 2 million to 3 million.
I've listened to the sound bite three times, and the Everitt part particularly ,and can't find the statement about com failure not being a safety problem from Mr. E.
What team is the good Mr. E leading that is working on the issues of service and delay on daily basis, planning for next summer?
Following are notes from the Richard Everitt portion of the clip posted by BBC 4 :
We are pleased about Swanwick
we don't have enough controllers...we are addressing the issues.
Presenter- - Morale is in toilet...
We always have a few controllers that leave over time. Fewer controllers 40 less than we sould like, are addressing the issue through our management.
Chissolm says ability to stay in business depends on reputatuion.
Mr. H Our service is principly aboutsafety and we are gettiting safer. Anear misses on front pages. Reporters don't have the time or info to go into things No category A AIRPROXes inthe last year. Most cases not that close, lost separation, not on collision courses
We have to work on number s of controller s and delays. June and July difficult last month better , problemes a few weeks ago, last week better.
We are learning how to use a new system. West Drayton wouldn't have done it .. We will have to deal with an increase in number of flights from 2 million to 3 million.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: UK
Iron City,
I think this is the bit folks are talking about....
JH: What about messages cutting out? It's worrying if the pilots cannot make contact.
RE: Well firstly can I say it is not an aviation safety issue, it is something that we don't want to happen.....
So, no problem then
Didn't the last issue of the NATS "Safety Matters" booklet have a centre page spread on loss of comms?
Maybe a few copies need to be sent up to OKS.
Big John.
I've listened to the sound bite three times, and the Everitt part particularly ,and can't find the statement about com failure not being a safety problem from Mr. E.
JH: What about messages cutting out? It's worrying if the pilots cannot make contact.
RE: Well firstly can I say it is not an aviation safety issue, it is something that we don't want to happen.....
So, no problem then
Didn't the last issue of the NATS "Safety Matters" booklet have a centre page spread on loss of comms?
Maybe a few copies need to be sent up to OKS.
Big John.
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
From: UK
Iron City. Looks like you have the wrong clip. The one we are talking about clearly has John Humphries asking about R/T cutting out and Everett replying "this is not an aviation safety issue."
The clip is titled
"This programme has learned about problems in National Air Traffic Control. Richard Everett responds - but do you feel safe flying? "
( 19/12/2002 )
The clip is titled
"This programme has learned about problems in National Air Traffic Control. Richard Everett responds - but do you feel safe flying? "
( 19/12/2002 )
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 3
Probably not strictly on the subject of the tread, but the standard ICAO loss of radio procedures are in desperate need of amendment.
Any airline aircraft built within the last fifteen years that has suffered a total loss of radios is obviously suffering other, possibly dire technical difficulties, so the last thing the crew needs to do is delay their landing by maintaining cruise level until reaching the approach aid and then descending in the hold. This might have been a great idea with a DC 4, where the cruise altitude was 9,000’, but maintaining 37,000’ until overhead the approach aid and then wasting twenty minutes descending in the hold is just plain silly. At the very least, it gives the loss of radio crew an extra problem of arriving at the instrument approach minima with considerably less fuel than they would have had if they had been able to descend at their normal descent point some 120 miles before the initial approach aid.
The current procedures also cause far more problems for both ATC and every other aircraft in the area, for in unnecessarily lengthening the time the aircraft in difficulties remains airborne, they inconvenience and delay all other traffic in the area much longer than they should.
The Australians (who are, let’s face it, not usually renowned for ‘cutting edge’ aviation legislation of procedures), saw this problem as early as 1984, when they changed their national loss of radio procedures to the far more sensible ‘maintain expected flight profile and proceed to land without delay’. (I don’t have a copy of the Jepp in front of me, but I’m sure someone will set me straight if the intent of the Oz procedures is anything other than that.)
In this age where damn near every flight attendant in every crew I’ve ever flown in carries a mobile phone, why in the world doesn’t ICAO come up with a really novel loss of radio procedure, (and one which I suggested some three of four years ago to my local CAA) and publish a phone number to ring in the event of loss of radios on the chart or in the Emergency Section of the Jepp?
Gawd, if we could convince them to institute something as earth-shattering as the Australian procedure or the phone number idea, we might one day get someone to address the question of offset enroute tracking.
I’m not holding my breath on either…
Any airline aircraft built within the last fifteen years that has suffered a total loss of radios is obviously suffering other, possibly dire technical difficulties, so the last thing the crew needs to do is delay their landing by maintaining cruise level until reaching the approach aid and then descending in the hold. This might have been a great idea with a DC 4, where the cruise altitude was 9,000’, but maintaining 37,000’ until overhead the approach aid and then wasting twenty minutes descending in the hold is just plain silly. At the very least, it gives the loss of radio crew an extra problem of arriving at the instrument approach minima with considerably less fuel than they would have had if they had been able to descend at their normal descent point some 120 miles before the initial approach aid.
The current procedures also cause far more problems for both ATC and every other aircraft in the area, for in unnecessarily lengthening the time the aircraft in difficulties remains airborne, they inconvenience and delay all other traffic in the area much longer than they should.
The Australians (who are, let’s face it, not usually renowned for ‘cutting edge’ aviation legislation of procedures), saw this problem as early as 1984, when they changed their national loss of radio procedures to the far more sensible ‘maintain expected flight profile and proceed to land without delay’. (I don’t have a copy of the Jepp in front of me, but I’m sure someone will set me straight if the intent of the Oz procedures is anything other than that.)
In this age where damn near every flight attendant in every crew I’ve ever flown in carries a mobile phone, why in the world doesn’t ICAO come up with a really novel loss of radio procedure, (and one which I suggested some three of four years ago to my local CAA) and publish a phone number to ring in the event of loss of radios on the chart or in the Emergency Section of the Jepp?
Gawd, if we could convince them to institute something as earth-shattering as the Australian procedure or the phone number idea, we might one day get someone to address the question of offset enroute tracking.
I’m not holding my breath on either…
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,266
Likes: 1
From: Berkshire, UK
<<The current procedures also cause far more problems for both ATC and every other aircraft in the area, for in unnecessarily lengthening the time the aircraft in difficulties remains airborne, they inconvenience and delay all other traffic in the area much longer than they should>>
In 30+ years working Heathrow traffic I don't think I experienced more than a handful of true radio failures, ie those that lasted until after landing. Mostly the pilots did what we expected and we simply carried on with the landings allowing slightly larger-than-usual gaps around the RT failure so there was no serious delay. We had to assume it was simply radio failure otherwise the pilot would have squawked something more appropriate. One assumes that in a real emergency they'd come straight in - and in a radar-controlled environment such as the London TMA ATC is perfectly equipped to deal with such action.
What always worries me - especially in the context of the current thread - is that ATC has NO procedures for the event of total RT fail at their end. There are backup RT facilities at every position, but if they fail you're in bad trouble and you can't do much apart from sit back and watch what happens - and watching two a/c at the same level quietly heading straight for each other which you can't talk to is far more effective than Exlax. We can't squawk "RT Fail" and we can't use the outside phone to ring pilots' mobiles!! ("Directory enquiries, which name?" "Er.. can you give me the number for the BA 757 just turning inbound at Bovingdon?"). In my, albeit limited, experience of such events pilots sensibly reverted to the previous frequency or another ATC unit nearby... resulting on the guy on the "failed" sector suddenly receiving 20 phone calls asking "what do I do with the Midland/ Speedbird/ United?" etc.
Hey - it's great to be retired!!!
In 30+ years working Heathrow traffic I don't think I experienced more than a handful of true radio failures, ie those that lasted until after landing. Mostly the pilots did what we expected and we simply carried on with the landings allowing slightly larger-than-usual gaps around the RT failure so there was no serious delay. We had to assume it was simply radio failure otherwise the pilot would have squawked something more appropriate. One assumes that in a real emergency they'd come straight in - and in a radar-controlled environment such as the London TMA ATC is perfectly equipped to deal with such action.
What always worries me - especially in the context of the current thread - is that ATC has NO procedures for the event of total RT fail at their end. There are backup RT facilities at every position, but if they fail you're in bad trouble and you can't do much apart from sit back and watch what happens - and watching two a/c at the same level quietly heading straight for each other which you can't talk to is far more effective than Exlax. We can't squawk "RT Fail" and we can't use the outside phone to ring pilots' mobiles!! ("Directory enquiries, which name?" "Er.. can you give me the number for the BA 757 just turning inbound at Bovingdon?"). In my, albeit limited, experience of such events pilots sensibly reverted to the previous frequency or another ATC unit nearby... resulting on the guy on the "failed" sector suddenly receiving 20 phone calls asking "what do I do with the Midland/ Speedbird/ United?" etc.
Hey - it's great to be retired!!!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
From: United Kingdom
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
Once again a very valid point. The Ostrich approach is always a NATS management favourite when it comes to comms. failure from the ATC end. Mind you, it'd wake those sleepy Tels boys up, eh?!
However, for anyone to even insinuate that cutting out RT, let alone RT fail, is not an avaition safety issue is both careless and, shall we say, lacking in any kind of appreciation of what we're all trying to do. If the bit that is missed from the transmission is a heading or level that is safety critical (as most are) or even avoiding action well God alone knows what might happen. It's about time these very well paid directors got their £2000 suits out of their meetings and actually got a working knowledge of ATC, or even any kind of avaition related subject, before they pontificate on what is correct and what is not. We don't tell Dicky Everitt who makes the most comfy cashmere socks, please don't tell us what is and isn't safe.
Once again a very valid point. The Ostrich approach is always a NATS management favourite when it comes to comms. failure from the ATC end. Mind you, it'd wake those sleepy Tels boys up, eh?!
However, for anyone to even insinuate that cutting out RT, let alone RT fail, is not an avaition safety issue is both careless and, shall we say, lacking in any kind of appreciation of what we're all trying to do. If the bit that is missed from the transmission is a heading or level that is safety critical (as most are) or even avoiding action well God alone knows what might happen. It's about time these very well paid directors got their £2000 suits out of their meetings and actually got a working knowledge of ATC, or even any kind of avaition related subject, before they pontificate on what is correct and what is not. We don't tell Dicky Everitt who makes the most comfy cashmere socks, please don't tell us what is and isn't safe.