The Menaces of the "Guard Police" 31.5.08
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can one pilot believe that they know another pilot's distress and what is the most appropriate course of action? The only people who should comment about someone being on the wrong frequency surely is the D&D/ATCU concerned?
Cheers
Whirls
Cheers
Whirls
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuck this in the other thread but the questions may be relevant here as well
I've been reading this, and associated, threads with interest for some time. It raises some questions that perhaps the professional aviators could answer or comment on.
There seems to be a number of scenarios being discussed: -
Accidental transmissions on the frequency
Deliberate non-emergency transmissions as defined world wide (the chit chat, funny noises etc.)
The legal use of the frequency in UK airspace; which non UK crews may be aware of and disagree with so ignore, or non UK crews may not be aware of in the first place which lead to; -
The interruptions by self appointed "police" to legal and emergency use in UK airspace
In the case of the UK airspace issues
1/ If a professional crew is operating in the UK and knows the legal position and chooses to ignore it - are they operating legally?
2/ If a professional crew is not aware of the law as applies to UK airspace (or airspace in other countries) - are they operating legally in that airspace?
3/ Continuing on from 2 if an airline rosters a crew that is not aware of the law as applies to airspace they are to operate in or assumes they do know, but it, the airline, has not checked this fact - is that flight operating legally?
There seems to be a number of scenarios being discussed: -
Accidental transmissions on the frequency
Deliberate non-emergency transmissions as defined world wide (the chit chat, funny noises etc.)
The legal use of the frequency in UK airspace; which non UK crews may be aware of and disagree with so ignore, or non UK crews may not be aware of in the first place which lead to; -
The interruptions by self appointed "police" to legal and emergency use in UK airspace
In the case of the UK airspace issues
1/ If a professional crew is operating in the UK and knows the legal position and chooses to ignore it - are they operating legally?
2/ If a professional crew is not aware of the law as applies to UK airspace (or airspace in other countries) - are they operating legally in that airspace?
3/ Continuing on from 2 if an airline rosters a crew that is not aware of the law as applies to airspace they are to operate in or assumes they do know, but it, the airline, has not checked this fact - is that flight operating legally?
I've been interested in many of the posts on this thread and on similarly related ones on pprune. If I may add a bit more to my previous posts on the subject I hope I'll be able to clear up a few misconceptions and, perhaps, provide some information:
D&D in the London FIR, primarily, have access to three frequencies. They are 121.5, 243.0 and 245.1. All three have DF facilities dotted around the country. It may be possible (since the move to Swanwick) to select other frequencies on the kit in D&D but that will not be tied in to any DF. 245.1 is PETF - Practice Emergency Training Frequency - for the military to do their practice pans and training fixes on; thus not interfering with 243.0. There is no VHF equivalent PETF. If the guard police feel so strongly about this lack of a VHF PETF perhaps their airlines should lobby nats to provide D&D with one (and maybe help to fund it). All of the controllers in D&D are RAF. Their orders include the handling of practice emergencies on 121.5. The only times when they will not allow training calls on 121.5 is during actual aircraft emergencies (sensible enough) and whilst SAROPs are in progress during which the SAR crews require r/t silence on 121.5 so they can home in on ELTs/PLBs. Read that bit again, guard police. "..... the SAR crews require r/t silence so they can home in on ELTs/PLBs".
I hope this provides a little more of an insight to those not familiar with the workings of D&D.
I will be very interested, as I'm sure many others will be, in the outcome of a survey that was conducted at London Centre throughout May. It was commanded, by those much higher up the "foodchain" than the D&D controllers, to illicit exactly how much time was taken up on 121.5 by inadvertant transmissions, abuse, actual emergencies, practice emergencies etc. Of course, because of the radio equipment, not all transmissions were made whilst the aircraft were in the London FIR/UIR, but the survey will have logged all aircraft calls on 121.5 that were heard at Swanwick. I admit that I don't know what the purpose of the survey is - still, I'll bet that the time taken up by misuse/abuse and inadvertant transmissions far outweighs that of the practice pans/training fixes.
D&D in the London FIR, primarily, have access to three frequencies. They are 121.5, 243.0 and 245.1. All three have DF facilities dotted around the country. It may be possible (since the move to Swanwick) to select other frequencies on the kit in D&D but that will not be tied in to any DF. 245.1 is PETF - Practice Emergency Training Frequency - for the military to do their practice pans and training fixes on; thus not interfering with 243.0. There is no VHF equivalent PETF. If the guard police feel so strongly about this lack of a VHF PETF perhaps their airlines should lobby nats to provide D&D with one (and maybe help to fund it). All of the controllers in D&D are RAF. Their orders include the handling of practice emergencies on 121.5. The only times when they will not allow training calls on 121.5 is during actual aircraft emergencies (sensible enough) and whilst SAROPs are in progress during which the SAR crews require r/t silence on 121.5 so they can home in on ELTs/PLBs. Read that bit again, guard police. "..... the SAR crews require r/t silence so they can home in on ELTs/PLBs".
I hope this provides a little more of an insight to those not familiar with the workings of D&D.
I will be very interested, as I'm sure many others will be, in the outcome of a survey that was conducted at London Centre throughout May. It was commanded, by those much higher up the "foodchain" than the D&D controllers, to illicit exactly how much time was taken up on 121.5 by inadvertant transmissions, abuse, actual emergencies, practice emergencies etc. Of course, because of the radio equipment, not all transmissions were made whilst the aircraft were in the London FIR/UIR, but the survey will have logged all aircraft calls on 121.5 that were heard at Swanwick. I admit that I don't know what the purpose of the survey is - still, I'll bet that the time taken up by misuse/abuse and inadvertant transmissions far outweighs that of the practice pans/training fixes.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I don't understand here is why some of the people commenting here (clearly the ones who fly way up there) are trying to justify policing 121.5, because that is what you are doing with all this rubish about a CPL/ATPL whatever knows about VFR but your average PPL has no idea about what they do. Is there some sort of urge to become the worlds greatest 
when you sit in front of those glass instruments? As far as I am concerned anyone who deliberately interferes with another aircrafts transmission (whatever it may be) should be prosecuted, as some commercial pilots here have tried to justify it with 'we don't always hear the whole transmission' shouldn't that just secure the fact you shouldn't be transmitting at all. As DX has said it's only a matter of time before you step on an emergency and this time Guard never get the message.
Let the ATCO do his/her job.
when you sit in front of those glass instruments? As far as I am concerned anyone who deliberately interferes with another aircrafts transmission (whatever it may be) should be prosecuted, as some commercial pilots here have tried to justify it with 'we don't always hear the whole transmission' shouldn't that just secure the fact you shouldn't be transmitting at all. As DX has said it's only a matter of time before you step on an emergency and this time Guard never get the message.Let the ATCO do his/her job.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you should have read DX's opening post properly. The weather that she encountered was NOT forecast!! What an irresponsible and ill-considered comment. Now go and crawl back into your hole, and stay there.
I would implore pilots to ignore what DFC said, and if you do find yourself in a similar situation, call D&D. Or any other ATCU (preferably with radar). We're here to help. It's what we do.
I would implore pilots to ignore what DFC said, and if you do find yourself in a similar situation, call D&D. Or any other ATCU (preferably with radar). We're here to help. It's what we do.
However, even if the weather encountered was not forecast and the pilot had agreed with the met office information provided - they had come from an area with better wether and among others, the airfield they had departed from was still available in the good weather behind them.
There were 20+ aerodromes in the area traversed that the flight could have landed at safely.
However, the flight was continued in marginal conditions all the way to destination and required the emergency service to provide vectors all the way there.
I will say it again - it is not the initial call for help and using 121.5 to sort out the aircraft position that I have a problem with - it is the subsequent use of 121.5 for something that it is not designed for - non-emergency traffic vectoring to destination.
Never mind the guard police - picture another pilot unsure of position near Heathrow zone. They tune 121.50 and hear regular transmissions to a flight being vectored etc etc.
Do you not think that they will assume - emergency in progress don't make a call?
Regards,
DFC
Slight aside, but whenever I use the radio, each transmission is ended with my callsign. If I were an ATCO and someone was disrupting valid transmissions, i'd want to know who was speaking so I could address them and be sure of getting my point across, rather than a 'to whom it may concern' type transmission. Do the 'police' just speak without identification?
I only ask as I haven't experienced this myself.
Ginger
I only ask as I haven't experienced this myself.
Ginger
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the 'police' just speak without identification?
it is not the initial call for help and using 121.5 to sort out the aircraft position that I have a problem with - it is the subsequent use of 121.5 for something that it is not designed for
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Where ever my Blackberry says i am
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DX
You did absolutely the right thing despite what some might think
and your actions were that of an aviator and not some person who just flies.
Its part of my companies as it for most, sops to listen out on box two and i have heard some woeful abuses of 121.5 as i said in my last post. On one occassion two german pilots were doing the Muppets (how appropriate )Manama Na song
......how stupid is that. On that occasion it elicited from me a get off guard you idiots and it stopped. I like most of my colleagues dont say anything but on occasion its needed as im sure the ATCO has other things to do and just accepts the "you're on guard" as a by product of busyier skies.
You initial post did seam a little anti commercial pilot and i must admit that i took a smidgen of offence to it. I certainly can appreciate your anger and loathing towards the offending crew and they deserve to a pass a hedghog next time they sit on the pot.
We are not all bad and as you say Emirates saved your bacon or should that be halal beef lamb chicken.
We ALL should listen out for a few seconds as we should do when changing frequency and then decide what to do.
Im glad that your back on the deck safe and sound and im sure this has been a bitter sweet experience learning/curve and as i was once told we all must have at least one survivable emergency to learn.
I have a feeling that this issue is not going to go away easily until some smarty pants comes up with a way of identifying both culrpits of this problem.
Good luck to you and safe flying to all
Moggiee
I did say "seemingly" as that what it appeared to me as.
You did absolutely the right thing despite what some might think
and your actions were that of an aviator and not some person who just flies.Its part of my companies as it for most, sops to listen out on box two and i have heard some woeful abuses of 121.5 as i said in my last post. On one occassion two german pilots were doing the Muppets (how appropriate )Manama Na song
......how stupid is that. On that occasion it elicited from me a get off guard you idiots and it stopped. I like most of my colleagues dont say anything but on occasion its needed as im sure the ATCO has other things to do and just accepts the "you're on guard" as a by product of busyier skies.You initial post did seam a little anti commercial pilot and i must admit that i took a smidgen of offence to it. I certainly can appreciate your anger and loathing towards the offending crew and they deserve to a pass a hedghog next time they sit on the pot.
We are not all bad and as you say Emirates saved your bacon or should that be halal beef lamb chicken.
We ALL should listen out for a few seconds as we should do when changing frequency and then decide what to do.
Im glad that your back on the deck safe and sound and im sure this has been a bitter sweet experience learning/curve and as i was once told we all must have at least one survivable emergency to learn.
I have a feeling that this issue is not going to go away easily until some smarty pants comes up with a way of identifying both culrpits of this problem.
Good luck to you and safe flying to all
Moggiee
I did say "seemingly" as that what it appeared to me as.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO “standards” exist because we recognise the importance of common international standards in aviation. Where a member state departs in matters not concerned with safety that may be questionable, where it is concerned with safety that is unacceptable. I make that comment as much as I would prefer to say we are right and everyone else is wrong or should be familiar with the way WE do things and in the assumption that it is indeed we who have departed from the standard.
However, the fact is we are entitled and have filed a difference so users of our airspace should be aware of this difference and should be “re-educated” if they are not.
DXW clearly used the frequency for the purpose it is intended in UK airspace. Other users were not entitled to suggest otherwise, or use the frequency for another purpose other than a pan or mayday. That said, since it would seem DXW had not declared a pan, priorities would have needed to have been established had another pilot been TUP.
Whether DXW and/or D and D should have kept the frequency in use for a diversion to destination is an interesting issue. In the first instance IMO that was DXWs call and his call alone - it was not up for debate in the air why he wanted to continue to destination. I guess he could have been transferred to a discrete frequency when it was realised that the “emergency” would occupy guard for some time?
IMO back on the ground this is not an unreasonable debate.
On the one hand we may not have any idea why DXW wanted to continue to destination (although in this case I suspect it was more a matter that was what was offered by D and D) and it is definitely not for us to second guess those facts without knowing what they were. A pilot with many 1,000 of hours might have been happy to divert to the most immediate, however given the visibility was clearly improving a low time pilot might have been far more comfortable going to where he had planned and rehearsed. Should the pilot have been able to divert any where that presented enough runway on which to land? - of course yes, but that is not the point.
Should D and D have suggested and offered vectors to a nearer alternative? Possibly. That would have been a reasonably gentle hint to the pilot that in perhaps other circumstances that might present a better solution than risking becoming TUP again in worsening viz. It might have even resulted in the pilot and D and D agreeing that own nav could be resumed, thus clearing the frequency with the proviso that the pilot was welcome to call back if he became TUP again. D and D may well have felt there was nothing else relevant on frequency so they may as well vector DXW to destination, but at the back of my mind I guess it is possible another pilot was becoming TUP, but was reluctant to make the call because the frequency was obviously busy. That would be a shame for another pilot to end up infringing when the first pilot had been / or could have been “sorted out” and cleared off frequency.
DXW a very interesting post however. I have fortunately never had to use D and D for real but have made practise calls more than a few times. The service is excellent. I have to admit I have never experienced the barrage you did and would not have been anywhere near so polite!
I have been “berated” for diverting with an engine failure in a twin. It taught me a vital lesson. The opinion of some on these forums or elsewhere (and it is usually those who have in fact have very little experience) really doesn’t matter when you are dealing with an emergency or “urgency” in the air - the buck stops with you, and you alone must prioritise your safety. Guess what - if you hadn’t made the call, or in other circumstances diverted, or not told those “interfering” with your urgency it would have been the same pilots who would have berated you for your lack of airmanship.
Just a different slant on a few things for what it is worth.
However, the fact is we are entitled and have filed a difference so users of our airspace should be aware of this difference and should be “re-educated” if they are not.
DXW clearly used the frequency for the purpose it is intended in UK airspace. Other users were not entitled to suggest otherwise, or use the frequency for another purpose other than a pan or mayday. That said, since it would seem DXW had not declared a pan, priorities would have needed to have been established had another pilot been TUP.
Whether DXW and/or D and D should have kept the frequency in use for a diversion to destination is an interesting issue. In the first instance IMO that was DXWs call and his call alone - it was not up for debate in the air why he wanted to continue to destination. I guess he could have been transferred to a discrete frequency when it was realised that the “emergency” would occupy guard for some time?
IMO back on the ground this is not an unreasonable debate.
On the one hand we may not have any idea why DXW wanted to continue to destination (although in this case I suspect it was more a matter that was what was offered by D and D) and it is definitely not for us to second guess those facts without knowing what they were. A pilot with many 1,000 of hours might have been happy to divert to the most immediate, however given the visibility was clearly improving a low time pilot might have been far more comfortable going to where he had planned and rehearsed. Should the pilot have been able to divert any where that presented enough runway on which to land? - of course yes, but that is not the point.
Should D and D have suggested and offered vectors to a nearer alternative? Possibly. That would have been a reasonably gentle hint to the pilot that in perhaps other circumstances that might present a better solution than risking becoming TUP again in worsening viz. It might have even resulted in the pilot and D and D agreeing that own nav could be resumed, thus clearing the frequency with the proviso that the pilot was welcome to call back if he became TUP again. D and D may well have felt there was nothing else relevant on frequency so they may as well vector DXW to destination, but at the back of my mind I guess it is possible another pilot was becoming TUP, but was reluctant to make the call because the frequency was obviously busy. That would be a shame for another pilot to end up infringing when the first pilot had been / or could have been “sorted out” and cleared off frequency.
DXW a very interesting post however. I have fortunately never had to use D and D for real but have made practise calls more than a few times. The service is excellent. I have to admit I have never experienced the barrage you did and would not have been anywhere near so polite!
I have been “berated” for diverting with an engine failure in a twin. It taught me a vital lesson. The opinion of some on these forums or elsewhere (and it is usually those who have in fact have very little experience) really doesn’t matter when you are dealing with an emergency or “urgency” in the air - the buck stops with you, and you alone must prioritise your safety. Guess what - if you hadn’t made the call, or in other circumstances diverted, or not told those “interfering” with your urgency it would have been the same pilots who would have berated you for your lack of airmanship.
Just a different slant on a few things for what it is worth.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He just loves to be controversial in everything that he posts, he would argue black is white. I'm going to try the 'ignore' function on pprune from now on!
I tried to just permanently ban him from our forum here but I am not sure whether I have banned him from the entire site as it has been a while since I banned someone forever!
What's the situation with changing freqs during an emergency?
Is it better to stay on 121.5 and "hog" the freq for the duration of your problem, or attempt to change freqs in the middle of a situation and then potentially lose contact with D&D altogether?
Just a thought....
Is it better to stay on 121.5 and "hog" the freq for the duration of your problem, or attempt to change freqs in the middle of a situation and then potentially lose contact with D&D altogether?
Just a thought....
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's an emergency and you already have established, reliable comms with any station - why risk losing that by changing frequency?
I'd stick with someone who can hear me, whatever frequency they're on. Even if I am accused of "hogging".
I'd stick with someone who can hear me, whatever frequency they're on. Even if I am accused of "hogging".
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From experience of the half-dozen or so times I've been scrambled to someone still airborne in a light aircraft - stick with the comms you have, whatever it is (which includes 121.5). A SAR cab won't get comms immediately. If you change frequency it only complicates the problem - have you gone to a new freq or is it just that we are not yet close enough / high enough?
If I had a choice, 121.5 would be preferred - SAR cabs have an extra homing receiver so we can talk to other ATC agencies while homing to you on guard. But the most important thing is not to lose comms. Certainly do not leave 121.5 for some other frequency unless told to - D&D are likely to be of more use to you than just about anyone else - they are professionals specifically at emergencies, with resources at their fingertips that other agencies will have to go digging for, and they aren't working anyone else but you and your problem.
Sven
If I had a choice, 121.5 would be preferred - SAR cabs have an extra homing receiver so we can talk to other ATC agencies while homing to you on guard. But the most important thing is not to lose comms. Certainly do not leave 121.5 for some other frequency unless told to - D&D are likely to be of more use to you than just about anyone else - they are professionals specifically at emergencies, with resources at their fingertips that other agencies will have to go digging for, and they aren't working anyone else but you and your problem.
Sven
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My previous post on this question seems to have disappeared?
I thought the direction finding and triangulation system operated by D&D worked only on 121.5 (and a couple of UHF frequencies, such as 243.0 and 245.1).
So switching to another frequency is not an option.
I thought the direction finding and triangulation system operated by D&D worked only on 121.5 (and a couple of UHF frequencies, such as 243.0 and 245.1).
So switching to another frequency is not an option.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone who may be concerned that I was hogging 121.5 I'm sure Foxy Loxy will be able to confirm that transmissions to and from D&D were kept to the minimum necessary as she was also monitoring the frequency and heard it all from beginning to end. I didn't chatter on from start to finish, nor did I leave my thumb on the transmit switch, so it would have been possible for someone else with a problem to make a call to D&D and I certainly wouldn't have interrupted it.
BRL - YOU STAR!
BRL - YOU STAR!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the one hand we may not have any idea why DXW wanted to continue to destination (although in this case I suspect it was more a matter that was what was offered by D and D) and it is definitely not for us to second guess those facts without knowing what they were.
dp
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly DFC struggles with the english language - to the extent that he is unable to understand what the "Diversion" in "Distress and Diversion" stands for. If D&D are happy to help a pilot find their way to their destination then goods on them - it is, after all, part of their remit.
As DXW said, D&D would rather have people call early than have to pick up the bits later.
A question for the self-righteous:
How many of you have actually BEEN to D&D and spoken to the people there? I did whilst in the RAF and I know DXW has, too. It's a good thing to do - they can give you a very useful insight into the way they work, the service they can offer and how they would like YOU to interact with THEM.
As DXW said, D&D would rather have people call early than have to pick up the bits later.
A question for the self-righteous:
How many of you have actually BEEN to D&D and spoken to the people there? I did whilst in the RAF and I know DXW has, too. It's a good thing to do - they can give you a very useful insight into the way they work, the service they can offer and how they would like YOU to interact with THEM.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If D&D are happy to continue the use of 121.5 for training and emergencies, then so be it. I certainly won't complain.
Whilst the frequency can seem a bit cluttered occasionally. I for one wouldn't change a thing. I know a fair few people who are still breathing thanks to the efforts of D&D AND from the help of airline crew up in the clear blue who relayed calls.
The use of 121.5 for practice pans etc will seem annoying to some of those in the cockpits of many airliners, but given the level of stress I've seen being accepted as "normal", extreme reaction to something actually pretty trivial is not surprising.
I see 121.5 from an instructors, GA and airline pilots perspective and in the UK, I think we have a good system, if only we in the big fast things at high altitude could exercise a bit more discipline and cut out the chit chat, mucked up calls and general daftness that leads to most of the clutter.
I have NEVER heard a spurious call on 121.5 from a light aircraft, but I've heard hundreds from airliners. Glass houses and stones come to mind.
Whilst the frequency can seem a bit cluttered occasionally. I for one wouldn't change a thing. I know a fair few people who are still breathing thanks to the efforts of D&D AND from the help of airline crew up in the clear blue who relayed calls.
The use of 121.5 for practice pans etc will seem annoying to some of those in the cockpits of many airliners, but given the level of stress I've seen being accepted as "normal", extreme reaction to something actually pretty trivial is not surprising.
I see 121.5 from an instructors, GA and airline pilots perspective and in the UK, I think we have a good system, if only we in the big fast things at high altitude could exercise a bit more discipline and cut out the chit chat, mucked up calls and general daftness that leads to most of the clutter.
I have NEVER heard a spurious call on 121.5 from a light aircraft, but I've heard hundreds from airliners. Glass houses and stones come to mind.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dp
Without wishing to split hairs this is what she said in the original post - I didnt read all the subsequent posts so sorry if this was added too.
Clearly in the decision making process she agreed to continue to destination - as I also said because
"although in this case I suspect it was more a matter that was what was offered by D and D"
Anyway, that wasnt anything to do with the point I sought to make which was more concerned with there being a number of factors in a pilots mind that persuades him to take one course of action over another and more particularly a pilot with more experience to tackle a problem in a different way to one with less. That doesnt necessarily mean the pilot with less experience made the wrong decision - it may well be the correct decision for him.
Having checked my time and chart I was not where I should have been. I decided to call D&D (London Centre) for a position fix with a view to turning back. (I was in fact on track but not as far along it as I thought)The officer at D&D was most helpful and said he would route me well south of Wellesbourne.
Clearly in the decision making process she agreed to continue to destination - as I also said because
"although in this case I suspect it was more a matter that was what was offered by D and D"
Anyway, that wasnt anything to do with the point I sought to make which was more concerned with there being a number of factors in a pilots mind that persuades him to take one course of action over another and more particularly a pilot with more experience to tackle a problem in a different way to one with less. That doesnt necessarily mean the pilot with less experience made the wrong decision - it may well be the correct decision for him.