Heathrow separation
Perhaps you could just do a search for his previous posts and work out what his views might be?
"Andrew" was right about that 90% RT saturation - at least it was when he did it.
"Andrew" was right about that 90% RT saturation - at least it was when he did it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: R4808E
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had a note from the mods saying that I have not posted for some time, so here goes
I think that ATC around London do a wonderful job
I flew as SLF into LHR with BR on a flight from BKK a couple of weeks ago, I had a window seat and it was a cloudless evening.
The views were fantastic, from entering the UK near to Clacton to touching down on 27L at LHR. What I couldn't get over was the amount of traffic in the air in the greater London area, it was a Sunday as well.
On turning off 27L I looked back and sure enough there are another 4 or 5 sets of landing lights descending behind us.
Well done guys, you do a great job.
I think that ATC around London do a wonderful job
I flew as SLF into LHR with BR on a flight from BKK a couple of weeks ago, I had a window seat and it was a cloudless evening.
The views were fantastic, from entering the UK near to Clacton to touching down on 27L at LHR. What I couldn't get over was the amount of traffic in the air in the greater London area, it was a Sunday as well.
On turning off 27L I looked back and sure enough there are another 4 or 5 sets of landing lights descending behind us.
Well done guys, you do a great job.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: lONDON
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZKDLI
I doubt that "Andrew" and 120.4 would agree with each other.
This is the view of 120.4 from a previous post.
"Minimising the loss of spacing is absolutely essential when the airport is being scheduled at 98% of its available capacity. Just half a mile lost on each gap is multiplied by the number of aircraft waiting and adds up to a huge amount of wasted fuel over a day"
So if trying to achieve this results in "errant controlling" according to Andrew, it wouldn't be something that 120.4 would condone.
I doubt that "Andrew" and 120.4 would agree with each other.
This is the view of 120.4 from a previous post.
"Minimising the loss of spacing is absolutely essential when the airport is being scheduled at 98% of its available capacity. Just half a mile lost on each gap is multiplied by the number of aircraft waiting and adds up to a huge amount of wasted fuel over a day"
So if trying to achieve this results in "errant controlling" according to Andrew, it wouldn't be something that 120.4 would condone.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slip and turn
your arguments show a huge flaw in your knowledge of what ATCOS do and how they do it... your comment about reducing v/s being a bad thing just amplifies exactly how little you know about what you are talking about.
As for mentioning pay and terms and conditions earlier on... they have absolutely no bearing on this subject... Whether we have a good pension or not means nothing.
Safety is the number one issue with ATCOS and with NATS. The fact that it is not mentioned in every sentence of every press relese NATS makes does not mean they have forgotten about it. Rather it shows that because of all the good things NATS are achieving in safety and performance, they can concentrate more on the business plan.
ATCOS who have incidents absolutely crap themselves... SAFETY IS OUR NUMBER ONE CONCERN... how difficult is that for you to understand?
There will always be instances of poor technique... we are only super humans after all, not immortals. There is a very good check system in place to cover these instances - there are numerous ATCOs out there who have had a period of re-training to iron out bad habits... our professionalism is probably the biggest contribution to policing standards.
your arguments show a huge flaw in your knowledge of what ATCOS do and how they do it... your comment about reducing v/s being a bad thing just amplifies exactly how little you know about what you are talking about.
As for mentioning pay and terms and conditions earlier on... they have absolutely no bearing on this subject... Whether we have a good pension or not means nothing.
Safety is the number one issue with ATCOS and with NATS. The fact that it is not mentioned in every sentence of every press relese NATS makes does not mean they have forgotten about it. Rather it shows that because of all the good things NATS are achieving in safety and performance, they can concentrate more on the business plan.
ATCOS who have incidents absolutely crap themselves... SAFETY IS OUR NUMBER ONE CONCERN... how difficult is that for you to understand?
There will always be instances of poor technique... we are only super humans after all, not immortals. There is a very good check system in place to cover these instances - there are numerous ATCOs out there who have had a period of re-training to iron out bad habits... our professionalism is probably the biggest contribution to policing standards.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing, I think you misunderstand me - maybe I didn't make myself clear - if so I apologise - I was just smiling at the whole sentence from UKAB which seemed to suggest that the name of the game was to prevent TCAS and STCA alerts ... and that NATS had done their bit (end of).
Of course I wasn't recommending that maintaining 4000fpm v/s within 1000ft of cleared level was a good thing
And as for wordcounts in press releases, I wasn't talking about press releases. I was talking about all documents published by your regulator which actually if interested parties were to Google with more cunning than alacrity might soon put a lot of your company's management under more effective public scrutiny (a good thing). We are able to do it thanks mostly to the Freedom Of Information Act - a statute from which NATS is probably exempt, but thank goodness your regulator is not.
I am sure very few reading this thread are interested in discussing the merits of individuals' performances, individuals' poor technique, human frailties, or even individuals' hurt feelings. I certainly am not interested in any of them in the context of this thread. Why are you? Beyond the slightly worrying ease with which NATS employees jump to take offense, all those things are wholly insignificant to the matter under question which is primarily how you measure safety in a very safe system, and especially given that insiders rather sadly default to "it's very safe / leave us alone".
You really shouldn't take these discussions of the system you work with so personally, nor for that matter claim so much credit for the lack of incidents in what is so obviously a very safe system i.e. it is largely a characteristic of the system you inherited and the training given to you, and planning done by your predecessors that incidents are scarce. Sure, you are continually developing an even better system ... But with all said and done, scarce doesn't automatically equal safe - that's the proposition under debate.
'Andrew' wasn't tarring you and your colleagues. He was pointing at no-one other than the system itself, which simply meant that some as yet unbounded flaw in the system seems to have permitted "errant" behaviour that risked compromising the safety of aircraft to slip through into "general acceptance" further than he as an expert observer thinks was good for your culture, or is good for us as the general public.
You may well as a group be skilled at catching dropping knives without drawing blood, but your business isn't a circus act, is it?
I have said before: Your business is our business.
And incidentally your management doesn't agree with you about the significance of your employment package including pension. They were worried sick at the thought of you working to rule when there was concern expressed by your airline customers about how on earth it made economic sense to keep your pension scheme afloat, when the rest of the working population has to bite the bullet with something far inferior thesedays. Your management thought they'd lose you, and the business would implode.
You are a highly strung group of people. As a group you are elitist. As a group you are particularly defensive against requests for information about the hows and whys.
Some of us want to know the extent of some of the feats you think you should daily undertake in our name, and what new systems you think you have working properly that support your ever more developed separation tactics.
I perfectly understand how close you guys get to risking your licences and livelihoods when other's eyes come off the ball and you have to pick up the pieces, but that might be a signal that things can't go on as they have been lately. Cue 'Andrew' and his decision to 'out' his report.
Perhaps things have already changed so much that a change in UKAIP is necessary to redraw the lines of legal accountability (liability) with regard to maintaining separation, for example? I don't think you are as accountable in law for the safe conduct of individual flights as US ATCOs, for example?
A change there might concentrate a few minds into real thought, instead of tripping off capital letter emphasis of all the old aviation cliches, ... oh and polishing the life out of that vastly over-subscribed 'p' club badge.
Please stop deflecting the debate with your implication that no safety debate is valid unless it is between insiders. Dare I say that is surely bordering on the arrogant, and at the very least might be misjudged in the open forum?
Of course I wasn't recommending that maintaining 4000fpm v/s within 1000ft of cleared level was a good thing
And as for wordcounts in press releases, I wasn't talking about press releases. I was talking about all documents published by your regulator which actually if interested parties were to Google with more cunning than alacrity might soon put a lot of your company's management under more effective public scrutiny (a good thing). We are able to do it thanks mostly to the Freedom Of Information Act - a statute from which NATS is probably exempt, but thank goodness your regulator is not.
I am sure very few reading this thread are interested in discussing the merits of individuals' performances, individuals' poor technique, human frailties, or even individuals' hurt feelings. I certainly am not interested in any of them in the context of this thread. Why are you? Beyond the slightly worrying ease with which NATS employees jump to take offense, all those things are wholly insignificant to the matter under question which is primarily how you measure safety in a very safe system, and especially given that insiders rather sadly default to "it's very safe / leave us alone".
You really shouldn't take these discussions of the system you work with so personally, nor for that matter claim so much credit for the lack of incidents in what is so obviously a very safe system i.e. it is largely a characteristic of the system you inherited and the training given to you, and planning done by your predecessors that incidents are scarce. Sure, you are continually developing an even better system ... But with all said and done, scarce doesn't automatically equal safe - that's the proposition under debate.
'Andrew' wasn't tarring you and your colleagues. He was pointing at no-one other than the system itself, which simply meant that some as yet unbounded flaw in the system seems to have permitted "errant" behaviour that risked compromising the safety of aircraft to slip through into "general acceptance" further than he as an expert observer thinks was good for your culture, or is good for us as the general public.
You may well as a group be skilled at catching dropping knives without drawing blood, but your business isn't a circus act, is it?
I have said before: Your business is our business.
And incidentally your management doesn't agree with you about the significance of your employment package including pension. They were worried sick at the thought of you working to rule when there was concern expressed by your airline customers about how on earth it made economic sense to keep your pension scheme afloat, when the rest of the working population has to bite the bullet with something far inferior thesedays. Your management thought they'd lose you, and the business would implode.
You are a highly strung group of people. As a group you are elitist. As a group you are particularly defensive against requests for information about the hows and whys.
Some of us want to know the extent of some of the feats you think you should daily undertake in our name, and what new systems you think you have working properly that support your ever more developed separation tactics.
I perfectly understand how close you guys get to risking your licences and livelihoods when other's eyes come off the ball and you have to pick up the pieces, but that might be a signal that things can't go on as they have been lately. Cue 'Andrew' and his decision to 'out' his report.
Perhaps things have already changed so much that a change in UKAIP is necessary to redraw the lines of legal accountability (liability) with regard to maintaining separation, for example? I don't think you are as accountable in law for the safe conduct of individual flights as US ATCOs, for example?
A change there might concentrate a few minds into real thought, instead of tripping off capital letter emphasis of all the old aviation cliches, ... oh and polishing the life out of that vastly over-subscribed 'p' club badge.
Please stop deflecting the debate with your implication that no safety debate is valid unless it is between insiders. Dare I say that is surely bordering on the arrogant, and at the very least might be misjudged in the open forum?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Slip and Turn,
As one humble example of NATS "elitist" and "highly strung" workforce [26 years in] whose militancy apparently leaves our management "worried sick" that they will "lose us" to a work-to-rule which would "make the company implode" I would like to point out two inconvenient facts.
Firstly, in 26 years I have never been involved in any kind of industrial action be it strikes, work-to-rules or anything else. To the best of my knowledge neither have any of my colleagues barring the possibility of small-scale regional disputes which may have escaped my notice. We have in fact been a very tranquil and compliant workforce which has given our management very few headaches when compared with employees of other similar agencies.
Secondly, whilst the NATS pension scheme is indeed a good one, the employer has just enjoyed a very substantial pensions holiday (five years I believe but would accept being corrected on this). During this time, the employees have paid in and the employer has not. Despite this, our pension scheme remains in SURPLUS. Some burden we are!
So we are not quite the unyielding worrisome problem you like to make out, are we? What exactly is your issue with us? Maybe you have had a rough deal with your own pension somewhere down the line but that is hardly our fault is it?
Now lets just cut out the unpleasantness and stick to the facts, OK?
Cheers, SHED.
As one humble example of NATS "elitist" and "highly strung" workforce [26 years in] whose militancy apparently leaves our management "worried sick" that they will "lose us" to a work-to-rule which would "make the company implode" I would like to point out two inconvenient facts.
Firstly, in 26 years I have never been involved in any kind of industrial action be it strikes, work-to-rules or anything else. To the best of my knowledge neither have any of my colleagues barring the possibility of small-scale regional disputes which may have escaped my notice. We have in fact been a very tranquil and compliant workforce which has given our management very few headaches when compared with employees of other similar agencies.
Secondly, whilst the NATS pension scheme is indeed a good one, the employer has just enjoyed a very substantial pensions holiday (five years I believe but would accept being corrected on this). During this time, the employees have paid in and the employer has not. Despite this, our pension scheme remains in SURPLUS. Some burden we are!
So we are not quite the unyielding worrisome problem you like to make out, are we? What exactly is your issue with us? Maybe you have had a rough deal with your own pension somewhere down the line but that is hardly our fault is it?
Now lets just cut out the unpleasantness and stick to the facts, OK?
Cheers, SHED.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slip and turn
you totally miss the point. The package we receive has nothing, not one iota, to do with how safe we will be. We do not walk into work and think "I've not had an incident for a few years... I think I will have one today for the hell of it". As ATCOS we are not elitist, we jus know that we have to be on th eball all the time.
We make mistakes, same as anyone else... however we are trained, over many years, to recognise those mistakes and rectify them very swiftly.
We are trained to work as a team and to point out mistakes made by colleagues as they happen, in a bid to prevent there being any nasties.
I do take slights on the system I work within personally... because I alongside every other ATCO/ATSA and ATCE make that system what it is. We are the ones who provide feedback, file reports etc that makes the process evolve. It may sound elitist to you, but it is only people who are at the coal face who can do this... not some person sitting in an office. Anyone sitting on their backside polishing their seat can come up with ideas on how to enhance safety... it is the operators who will prove or disprove any new procedures. If thats what you call elitist, then you need to re-visit the dictionary.
As for working to rule etc... the management should be worried. We are farily well paid... but consider the fact that we are responsible for the control of hundreds of aircraft per working week, involving thousands of lives. Sounds a bit melodramatic, but its basically true. Management want to change our pension... 99% of us consider the pension as payment in lieu... i.e. even though we are fairly well paid, any perceived lack of pay is made up for by the pension.
Working to rule means just that... we could drop the extra sectors that we are not required (contractually) to maintain. We could refuse to do overtime for a month. The company, the airlines and UK Industry and economy would suffer big time. Is that elitist - no, it's fact.
What you need to get through to your brain is that working to rule does not mean working unsafely... it means doing the minimum required to fulfil our contract. Safety will never be compromised.
Pensions are probably the one issue that would make a normally benign workforce stand up... however it would not have any implictions on safety.
The closing of ranks you think you see here is nothing like that. So, in this one instance (out of no doubt a few) that we are talking about, a Heathrow Director made a very bad judgement of error. It was noticed, reported and dealt with. What more do you want? Even 'Andrew' himself admits that that was th eworst incident he had seen in all his career... seem like a pretty damn good advertisemtn for the system to me.
The incident has come to light because 'Andrew' has decided, for whatever reason (especially as he claims he wants to have a quiet retirement), to go public about a report he collated at the request of NATS.
The report was probably restricted (a standard procedure for large companies)... therefore 'Andrew' has broken his agreement when he signed up to the Official Secrets Act. Sound far fetched? Well it isn't, its fact.
NATS commissioned this report... if as you claim they are so blinkered to safety, why would they bother?
you totally miss the point. The package we receive has nothing, not one iota, to do with how safe we will be. We do not walk into work and think "I've not had an incident for a few years... I think I will have one today for the hell of it". As ATCOS we are not elitist, we jus know that we have to be on th eball all the time.
We make mistakes, same as anyone else... however we are trained, over many years, to recognise those mistakes and rectify them very swiftly.
We are trained to work as a team and to point out mistakes made by colleagues as they happen, in a bid to prevent there being any nasties.
I do take slights on the system I work within personally... because I alongside every other ATCO/ATSA and ATCE make that system what it is. We are the ones who provide feedback, file reports etc that makes the process evolve. It may sound elitist to you, but it is only people who are at the coal face who can do this... not some person sitting in an office. Anyone sitting on their backside polishing their seat can come up with ideas on how to enhance safety... it is the operators who will prove or disprove any new procedures. If thats what you call elitist, then you need to re-visit the dictionary.
As for working to rule etc... the management should be worried. We are farily well paid... but consider the fact that we are responsible for the control of hundreds of aircraft per working week, involving thousands of lives. Sounds a bit melodramatic, but its basically true. Management want to change our pension... 99% of us consider the pension as payment in lieu... i.e. even though we are fairly well paid, any perceived lack of pay is made up for by the pension.
Working to rule means just that... we could drop the extra sectors that we are not required (contractually) to maintain. We could refuse to do overtime for a month. The company, the airlines and UK Industry and economy would suffer big time. Is that elitist - no, it's fact.
What you need to get through to your brain is that working to rule does not mean working unsafely... it means doing the minimum required to fulfil our contract. Safety will never be compromised.
Pensions are probably the one issue that would make a normally benign workforce stand up... however it would not have any implictions on safety.
The closing of ranks you think you see here is nothing like that. So, in this one instance (out of no doubt a few) that we are talking about, a Heathrow Director made a very bad judgement of error. It was noticed, reported and dealt with. What more do you want? Even 'Andrew' himself admits that that was th eworst incident he had seen in all his career... seem like a pretty damn good advertisemtn for the system to me.
The incident has come to light because 'Andrew' has decided, for whatever reason (especially as he claims he wants to have a quiet retirement), to go public about a report he collated at the request of NATS.
The report was probably restricted (a standard procedure for large companies)... therefore 'Andrew' has broken his agreement when he signed up to the Official Secrets Act. Sound far fetched? Well it isn't, its fact.
NATS commissioned this report... if as you claim they are so blinkered to safety, why would they bother?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If slip and turn wishes to continue holding the anonymous opinion of a disgruntled former controller with a personal agenda and a bit of a grudge over and above those of us that were doing the positions in question long before 'Andrew" first arrived and will be doing so long after 'Andrew' has left us then so be it, his increasingly rambling posts on the subject become ever more irrelevant.
Like Gonzo, I commend the ignore function to the house.
Like Gonzo, I commend the ignore function to the house.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for explaining how you feel, but seriously, why are we still reducing the system to individuals, and 'Andrew' to the status of a loose cannon? No-one is criticising individuals. Individuals inhabit the system, and individuals pay& benefits is maybe 70% of the system operational expenditure, but individuals are NOT the system.
PS Surely no final salary pension scheme which has taken an employers contribution holiday in the last 5 years is in surplus especially after the last couple of weeks
. Have you people taken your eye off that ball?? Fascinating.
Your HR boss Phil James told you a while ago that the pension scheme was costing well over 30% of your salaries - so if they haven't been paying in their whack since the very wobbly days of 2002, where's the salary 'in lieu' in it now?
The reason they haven't been paying in is because your customers (some that own half of NATS and some that don't, but who do regularly get to influence your budget via ERG) said they didn't want to, just like they don't want to pay to their own schemes or indeed for anything much thesedays. They just want you to push more tin and deliver sub-one minute average delays and NATS pays multi-million pound penalties if it fails to do so.
Is all that all broadly not so?
When the government finally decided that PPP was the way to go, they said then that NATS needed £100M+ pa capital investment per annum for at least a decade, and that was based on estimates now 10 years old. I think they expected at one point to get around £850M for the bit they sold. But some say they only actually got £50M in the end. How much private money has actually been invested in NATS? Has it really been enough to keep you state of the art?
...and again Roffa, don't take my position so personally - I am arguing one of many sides to what I am sure could be a useful debate. Debates involve opposing points of view. It's healthy, they told us so at school
Tell you what though, yours and HD's ill-disguised pointers to another PPRuNe member are surely not Queensberry 
. Fisticuffs were for PE 
, but seems you now want to duff him behind the bikesheds 
PS Surely no final salary pension scheme which has taken an employers contribution holiday in the last 5 years is in surplus especially after the last couple of weeks
. Have you people taken your eye off that ball?? Fascinating.Your HR boss Phil James told you a while ago that the pension scheme was costing well over 30% of your salaries - so if they haven't been paying in their whack since the very wobbly days of 2002, where's the salary 'in lieu' in it now?
The reason they haven't been paying in is because your customers (some that own half of NATS and some that don't, but who do regularly get to influence your budget via ERG) said they didn't want to, just like they don't want to pay to their own schemes or indeed for anything much thesedays. They just want you to push more tin and deliver sub-one minute average delays and NATS pays multi-million pound penalties if it fails to do so.
Is all that all broadly not so?
When the government finally decided that PPP was the way to go, they said then that NATS needed £100M+ pa capital investment per annum for at least a decade, and that was based on estimates now 10 years old. I think they expected at one point to get around £850M for the bit they sold. But some say they only actually got £50M in the end. How much private money has actually been invested in NATS? Has it really been enough to keep you state of the art?
...and again Roffa, don't take my position so personally - I am arguing one of many sides to what I am sure could be a useful debate. Debates involve opposing points of view. It's healthy, they told us so at school
Tell you what though, yours and HD's ill-disguised pointers to another PPRuNe member are surely not Queensberry . Fisticuffs were for PE , but seems you now want to duff him behind the bikesheds
Last edited by slip and turn; 22nd Mar 2008 at 12:36.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'n not looking to duff anyone up I'd just like to know why one of my former colleagues felt justified in taking the course of action he has done and making the comments he has, which I as a current operational Heathrow approach controller happen to strongly disagree with.
Also, anyone searching back through various threads can put two and two together and work out who 'Andrew' is on here.
I am also more than happy to debate with my peers, those that are able to understand and comprehend the relevant subject matter but not those that willfully ignore when patient explanations are put to them or who also seem to wander off topic such they apparently must have an agenda of their own.
Over and out.
Also, anyone searching back through various threads can put two and two together and work out who 'Andrew' is on here.
I am also more than happy to debate with my peers, those that are able to understand and comprehend the relevant subject matter but not those that willfully ignore when patient explanations are put to them or who also seem to wander off topic such they apparently must have an agenda of their own.
Over and out.
Last edited by Roffa; 22nd Mar 2008 at 13:43.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, and it was a good 18 months ago when a certain Heathrow controller said "I don't try and do 2.5nm, or even 3nm spacing, for fun. I do it because that is what is required to to keep the airlines happy at a capacity constrained airport."
...and then things got steadily worse?
...and then things got steadily worse?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The incident has come to light because 'Andrew' has decided, for whatever reason (especially as he claims he wants to have a quiet retirement), to go public about a report he collated at the request of NATS.
The report was probably restricted (a standard procedure for large companies)... therefore 'Andrew' has broken his agreement when he signed up to the Official Secrets Act. Sound far fetched? Well it isn't, its fact.
The report was probably restricted (a standard procedure for large companies)... therefore 'Andrew' has broken his agreement when he signed up to the Official Secrets Act. Sound far fetched? Well it isn't, its fact.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully understand that these aircraft are on an IFR flight plan but when they are in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) it's the pilots who must look out for other aircraft and not run into them. Time and again I've had to remind controllers not to panic when I'm in VMC.
In fact I think that even in the USA even in VMC the requirement to look out for other traffic is only there once cleared to go visual by ATC. That is based on my limited experience of flying a very big jet into SFB, with all those light aircraft around I think that you would be off your rocker to accept a visual clearance in a 360 seater aeroplane!
None of the above detracts from the fact that the Captain is responsible and if he/she feels the need to look out of the window then he can.
I found this article in last week's Times by David Owen on Tony Blair's psyche in the run up to the Iraq war very interesting. The last few paragraphs talk of strong religious beliefs and the single mindedness that can come about when you believe you are on the side of 'good' and only have God to answer to for your actions then you can convince yourself you are taking the righteous path even though every one of your colleagues disagrees with you.
After experiencing "Andrew's" many, many crusades on safety related issues over the last decade, I can see parallels between the article and this latest error of judgement.
Also, I'd like to sincerely thank "Andrew" for not using any incidents of mine during his 15 minutes of fame. I'd have been very upset if he had.
After experiencing "Andrew's" many, many crusades on safety related issues over the last decade, I can see parallels between the article and this latest error of judgement.
Also, I'd like to sincerely thank "Andrew" for not using any incidents of mine during his 15 minutes of fame. I'd have been very upset if he had.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many of those 20% under spaced vortex wake encounters happened in VMC when the IFR pilot was continuing a visual approach under the control of the Aerodrome controller when the spacing is only a recommendation? And how many occurred on the intermediate approach?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 120.4
NATS own documentation (not mine) shows that since Nov 2006, on average about 20% of wake-vortex pairs are under-spaced and this is consistent with rates measured before that time.
Then .4 says
Originally Posted by 120.4
Also, just under 1% of all arrivals cross the threshold before the preceding has vacated the runway. Most landings that roll 2,500m down are heavy and so have increased spacing behind. Therefore, as we have only about 2 go arounds on average per day, it is probable that most of this 0.8% of arrivals are in breach of legal minima.
The introduction of VMC to the analysis does what? Wake vortex is for all intents invisible, Mark I eyeballs have limitations, and I thought TCAS wasn't designed for maintaining separation in the last stages of approach, so are we just highlighting another anomaly where blame shifts but the primary means of monitoring and controlling the separation doesn't, zkdli?
Humour us - what's the intermediate approach angle you are getting at?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: lONDON
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
120.4, "Andrew" or whoever you are calling yourself today, it's a real pity that you are only prepared to make one post on this topic. In the past you have been such a vocal and prolific poster and it appears now that only the BBC is a good enough outlet for your opinions. As Andy Warhol once said ........
However, in the unlikely event that you will put your quiet retirement to one side for an hour or so, perhaps you could answer the following.
"I was about to walk out of the door for the last time, after which I would not be able to observe progress in this area".
How much time between walking out the door and going to the BBC did you allow for any progress to be made?
"My greater error was my tardiness in resolving that, which was down to a combination of “it’ll probably be alright” in my mind and no spare r/t capacity with which to do it".
I can't help but think that having made an error yourself, with procedures that you were obvioulsy happy to follow, you have now decided that this was due to an errant culture, rather than just a human misjudgement on your part.
Finally, why the anonimity? Was this the BBC's idea to add a little drama, or yours? If you are really so convinced by your own opinions - why hide?
To my knowledge, NATS hasn't even got enough controllers let alone a hit squad !!
However, in the unlikely event that you will put your quiet retirement to one side for an hour or so, perhaps you could answer the following.
"I was about to walk out of the door for the last time, after which I would not be able to observe progress in this area".
How much time between walking out the door and going to the BBC did you allow for any progress to be made?
"My greater error was my tardiness in resolving that, which was down to a combination of “it’ll probably be alright” in my mind and no spare r/t capacity with which to do it".
I can't help but think that having made an error yourself, with procedures that you were obvioulsy happy to follow, you have now decided that this was due to an errant culture, rather than just a human misjudgement on your part.
Finally, why the anonimity? Was this the BBC's idea to add a little drama, or yours? If you are really so convinced by your own opinions - why hide?
To my knowledge, NATS hasn't even got enough controllers let alone a hit squad !!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does everyone think we don't already 'work to rule'? Ours is one of the most rule-based professions around. Let's have a look at some of the things we would apparently stop doing if we worked to rule:
Anotherthing posted:
Working to rule means just that... we could drop the extra sectors that we are not required (contractually) to maintain. We could refuse to do overtime for a month. The company, the airlines and UK Industry and economy would suffer big time. Is that elitist - no, it's fact.
What you need to get through to your brain is that working to rule does not mean working unsafely... it means doing the minimum required to fulfil our contract. Safety will never be compromised.
1) Extra sectors: Voluntary (not denying they help in flexibility, but they are voluntary)
2) Overtime: Voluntary
3) Working 1 hour (or less, sometimes) on and half an hour off: less than the 90 mins we are supposed to at a busy unit and still less than the legal maximum of 2 hours on 30 mins off: not 'to rule'
4) Early goes: working less than our contractual hours: not 'to rule'
5) Half day's leave at short notice: not required to be allowed after roster publication but occurs regularly: not 'to rule'
6) Flexible shifts: not required if a business need can be shown for people to be in at normal shift times (and a 'work to rule' would probably create such a business need): not 'to rule'
I'm not denying that staff flexibility allows the operation to be run safely and in a slick manner, but be careful what you wish for if you talk about strict rule implementation of working practices. Noses and faces should not be separated to spite each other!
Anotherthing posted:
Working to rule means just that... we could drop the extra sectors that we are not required (contractually) to maintain. We could refuse to do overtime for a month. The company, the airlines and UK Industry and economy would suffer big time. Is that elitist - no, it's fact.
What you need to get through to your brain is that working to rule does not mean working unsafely... it means doing the minimum required to fulfil our contract. Safety will never be compromised.
1) Extra sectors: Voluntary (not denying they help in flexibility, but they are voluntary)
2) Overtime: Voluntary
3) Working 1 hour (or less, sometimes) on and half an hour off: less than the 90 mins we are supposed to at a busy unit and still less than the legal maximum of 2 hours on 30 mins off: not 'to rule'
4) Early goes: working less than our contractual hours: not 'to rule'
5) Half day's leave at short notice: not required to be allowed after roster publication but occurs regularly: not 'to rule'
6) Flexible shifts: not required if a business need can be shown for people to be in at normal shift times (and a 'work to rule' would probably create such a business need): not 'to rule'
I'm not denying that staff flexibility allows the operation to be run safely and in a slick manner, but be careful what you wish for if you talk about strict rule implementation of working practices. Noses and faces should not be separated to spite each other!