Heathrow separation
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 62
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S and T
I will try to explain some things.
Wake vortex spacing in the context that Andrew 120.4 was describing is only applied in the Final Approach phase. That is from the Final approach fix to (in the UK at Heathrow) 4 DME from touch down.
The spacing is only to be applied to aircraft that are flying an instrument approach. However, if an aircraft is making an IFR approach and is operating visually under the reduced separation in the vicintiy of the aeiodrome rules, the spacing becomes a recommendation. Some of the spacing at Heathrow is done under the reduced separation criteria. So the question was how many of the 20% were operating under the reduced separation in the vicinity of the aerodrome criteria. But I am sure that 120.4 would know about that rule so I didn't elaborate.
As for the question on intermediate approach, it is well known that 120.4 believes that vortex wake separations should be applied outside of the requirements of MATS pt1 to an area of the intermediate approach. Final approach is considered to be from the Final approach fix where specified, or from the completion of the base leg turn to final where one is not.
The final part of his post on legal minima for the landing is an interesting one and I am not sure if he is saying that the aircraft have not got a landing clearance prior to touchdown or not. If he is then the Heathrow tower controllers would be better able to answer that as that is a completly different area to the one of 120.4's current expertise.
I will try to explain some things.
Wake vortex spacing in the context that Andrew 120.4 was describing is only applied in the Final Approach phase. That is from the Final approach fix to (in the UK at Heathrow) 4 DME from touch down.
The spacing is only to be applied to aircraft that are flying an instrument approach. However, if an aircraft is making an IFR approach and is operating visually under the reduced separation in the vicintiy of the aeiodrome rules, the spacing becomes a recommendation. Some of the spacing at Heathrow is done under the reduced separation criteria. So the question was how many of the 20% were operating under the reduced separation in the vicinity of the aerodrome criteria. But I am sure that 120.4 would know about that rule so I didn't elaborate.
As for the question on intermediate approach, it is well known that 120.4 believes that vortex wake separations should be applied outside of the requirements of MATS pt1 to an area of the intermediate approach. Final approach is considered to be from the Final approach fix where specified, or from the completion of the base leg turn to final where one is not.
The final part of his post on legal minima for the landing is an interesting one and I am not sure if he is saying that the aircraft have not got a landing clearance prior to touchdown or not. If he is then the Heathrow tower controllers would be better able to answer that as that is a completly different area to the one of 120.4's current expertise.
Last edited by zkdli; 22nd Mar 2008 at 22:10. Reason: Spelling
An observation
Not surprisingly this 'going public' has touched some raw nerves within the ATC community.
But if the intention was to cause public and/or political controversy then it has signally failed. After the immediate splash on the BBC the subject seems to have sunk virtually without trace.
But if the intention was to cause public and/or political controversy then it has signally failed. After the immediate splash on the BBC the subject seems to have sunk virtually without trace.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far from it for me to intrude on controllers private grief on this one - but hang on a minute I am a pilot and frequently a passenger aswell on these aircraft. It is a public service you are providing. Why shoudn't we know about it?
Furthermore David Owen's book on hubris was about the arrogance of certain politicians who justify their actions using false pretexts. This disease has filtered down to the upper echelons of various organisations in our society. A report of this sort has to be passed to the relevant authorities as they are the guardians of public safety. By not doing so the person was making a decision that he was not entitled to make.
You should support Andrew in what he has done. If you don't I would suggest you are either someone with a guilty concience of having been part of the problem in the report or you are part of the management trying to cover it up.
Anyone for weapons of mass destruction?
Furthermore David Owen's book on hubris was about the arrogance of certain politicians who justify their actions using false pretexts. This disease has filtered down to the upper echelons of various organisations in our society. A report of this sort has to be passed to the relevant authorities as they are the guardians of public safety. By not doing so the person was making a decision that he was not entitled to make.
You should support Andrew in what he has done. If you don't I would suggest you are either someone with a guilty concience of having been part of the problem in the report or you are part of the management trying to cover it up.
Anyone for weapons of mass destruction?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zkdli, thanks for troubling to provide that explanation.
The threshold crossed before the runway is clear at the other end is something discussed many times on PPRuNe of course. Has 120.4 perhaps put a slightly different light on the normal observations by looking at the bigger picture that includes the tendency to 'shrink' or 'stretch' separation in the whole approach, and the knock-on effects, rather analysing just bits of it, do you think? Begins to sound more and more like the M4 fast lane concertina played out simultaneously below the approach on many mornings! Many of the worst emergency skid marks are out near Reading on that approach too ... no two are the same of course, and without impacts none are thought more of except for five minutes perhaps by a minority of the drivers who scared themselves, ... yet we all know what causes it - a general lack of two chevron type separation, perhaps mixed with slick lane changes by the 'clever' operators.
As for failing signally, Sallyann, Andrew 120.4's actions have certainly got a much broader audience thinking properly about it the last few days than the few that got to discuss his report originally, and from what he's told us, that's what Andrew 120.4 strongly felt was required. He was talking about this kind of stuff in PPRuNe 18 months ago and getting a good hearing, but evidently it didn't lead to the type of serious force for improvement he was hoping for.
Now at least NATS Group Exec and the regulators will have to revisit it afresh. I can't imagine it otherwise, can you?
Any public and/or political controversy might be a bi-product of further thinking not yet completed, but surely that won't be required to effect improvement?
The threshold crossed before the runway is clear at the other end is something discussed many times on PPRuNe of course. Has 120.4 perhaps put a slightly different light on the normal observations by looking at the bigger picture that includes the tendency to 'shrink' or 'stretch' separation in the whole approach, and the knock-on effects, rather analysing just bits of it, do you think? Begins to sound more and more like the M4 fast lane concertina played out simultaneously below the approach on many mornings! Many of the worst emergency skid marks are out near Reading on that approach too ... no two are the same of course, and without impacts none are thought more of except for five minutes perhaps by a minority of the drivers who scared themselves, ... yet we all know what causes it - a general lack of two chevron type separation, perhaps mixed with slick lane changes by the 'clever' operators.
As for failing signally, Sallyann, Andrew 120.4's actions have certainly got a much broader audience thinking properly about it the last few days than the few that got to discuss his report originally, and from what he's told us, that's what Andrew 120.4 strongly felt was required. He was talking about this kind of stuff in PPRuNe 18 months ago and getting a good hearing, but evidently it didn't lead to the type of serious force for improvement he was hoping for.
Now at least NATS Group Exec and the regulators will have to revisit it afresh. I can't imagine it otherwise, can you?
Any public and/or political controversy might be a bi-product of further thinking not yet completed, but surely that won't be required to effect improvement?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
120.4 and I discussed this........
.....a few months ago.
I was skeptical at the time. Who compiled this report? What definition of 'vacated the runway' was being used? Was the fact that on some runways we have displaced threshold taken into account? Which legal minima are we talking about?
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.
I was skeptical at the time. Who compiled this report? What definition of 'vacated the runway' was being used? Was the fact that on some runways we have displaced threshold taken into account? Which legal minima are we talking about?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
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?>>
ZKDLI.. The answer is just about none. At Heathrow radar control is employed about 99.9999% of the time. Visual approaches are quite rare and if vortex separation is required the controllers will usually maintain control to ensure the correct spacing. Never in all my time at Heathrow did I ever "recommend" spacing to a pilot and I don't recall it ever happening. At smaller airports with fewer movements it may be common, but not at Heathrow.
You further wrote: <<Some of the spacing at Heathrow is done under the reduced separation criteria.>>
When does that occur?? Are you referring to the time from which speed control ceases. ie 4DME? Otherwise I know of no other time.
ZKDLI.. The answer is just about none. At Heathrow radar control is employed about 99.9999% of the time. Visual approaches are quite rare and if vortex separation is required the controllers will usually maintain control to ensure the correct spacing. Never in all my time at Heathrow did I ever "recommend" spacing to a pilot and I don't recall it ever happening. At smaller airports with fewer movements it may be common, but not at Heathrow.
You further wrote: <<Some of the spacing at Heathrow is done under the reduced separation criteria.>>
When does that occur?? Are you referring to the time from which speed control ceases. ie 4DME? Otherwise I know of no other time.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vicinity of the aerodrome criteria ...
Take heart, zkdli
What you posted in response to HD about 'how many of the 20% were operating under the reduced separation in the vicinity of the aerodrome criteria' was I think of interest to us all - have you withdrawn it to redraft it, or is it lost now?
In the meantime might I quote what some kind person has posted on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_(Air_Traffic_Control)
QUOTE
In the vicinity of an aerodrome
... aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome tend to be flying at lower speeds. Therefore, if the aerodrome controller can see both aircraft, or both aircraft report that they can see each other, or a following aircraft reports that it can see the preceding one, controllers may reduce the standard separation to whatever is adequate to prevent a collision.
UNQUOTE
What part of UK AIP deals with 'vicinity of the aerodrome criteria' in HD's 99.9% under LHR radar control case?
Edit: Is it purely MATS part 1, Section 1, Chapter 3 (see http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf) or is it cross-referenced with something else, in MATS part 2 for example?
This isn't the prime case aired by the BBC, but would it be fair to suggest that accepted cultural use of it as a facility to minimise final spacing even further than might otherwise apply could well be one of the factors that encourage spurious knock-on upsets like the one as far out as Reading?
What you posted in response to HD about 'how many of the 20% were operating under the reduced separation in the vicinity of the aerodrome criteria' was I think of interest to us all - have you withdrawn it to redraft it, or is it lost now?
In the meantime might I quote what some kind person has posted on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_(Air_Traffic_Control)
QUOTE
In the vicinity of an aerodrome
... aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome tend to be flying at lower speeds. Therefore, if the aerodrome controller can see both aircraft, or both aircraft report that they can see each other, or a following aircraft reports that it can see the preceding one, controllers may reduce the standard separation to whatever is adequate to prevent a collision.
UNQUOTE
What part of UK AIP deals with 'vicinity of the aerodrome criteria' in HD's 99.9% under LHR radar control case?
Edit: Is it purely MATS part 1, Section 1, Chapter 3 (see http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf) or is it cross-referenced with something else, in MATS part 2 for example?
This isn't the prime case aired by the BBC, but would it be fair to suggest that accepted cultural use of it as a facility to minimise final spacing even further than might otherwise apply could well be one of the factors that encourage spurious knock-on upsets like the one as far out as Reading?
Last edited by slip and turn; 23rd Mar 2008 at 10:33.
s&t
I'm not qualified to judge what reaction the publicity will have within the regulators. As someone who both earns an income and spends much of it within aviation I can only trust that they are doing the right thing whatever that may be.
My observation was simply that in the wider world outside, the topic has come and gone very rapidly and I was slightly surprised at this. Even the anti-airport-expansion brigade has been quiet on the issue so far.
As for failing signally, Sallyann, Andrew 120.4's actions have certainly got a much broader audience thinking properly about it the last few days than the few that got to discuss his report originally, and from what he's told us, that's what Andrew 120.4 strongly felt was required. He was talking about this kind of stuff in PPRuNe 18 months ago and getting a good hearing, but evidently it didn't lead to the type of serious force for improvement he was hoping for.
Now at least NATS Group Exec and the regulators will have to revisit it afresh. I can't imagine it otherwise, can you?
Now at least NATS Group Exec and the regulators will have to revisit it afresh. I can't imagine it otherwise, can you?
My observation was simply that in the wider world outside, the topic has come and gone very rapidly and I was slightly surprised at this. Even the anti-airport-expansion brigade has been quiet on the issue so far.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's just because a large swathe of the general public only easily understand the concepts of delay or sudden-death in aviation, Sallyann, with precious little in between other than their basic feelings about being shaken or stirred, or whether 'it was a close one' as implied in this BBC story.
Probably even those of us that do understand good chunks of it still have families who whilst very capable in their own field, just trust to God or some other belief perhaps based on extremely basic knowledge of statistics, when they enter an aircraft.
Let's face it, from a layman's viewpoint most of us don't even understand how to build a paper aeroplane that flies well, let alone explain to ourselves why it is safe to sit in an aluminium cigar tube and let someone light the blue touch paper. Best we manage is that it is self-evidently "very safe", but that's not really a valid rationalisation, it's a state of mind we all revert to easily.
Thankfully, the concern raised in the BBC Report, however short-lived amongst a wide audience, has become a concise matter of public record, and therefore it must surely be reviewed again in depth by the proper authorities for risk of "we told you so" reports later, if for no other reason.
Probably even those of us that do understand good chunks of it still have families who whilst very capable in their own field, just trust to God or some other belief perhaps based on extremely basic knowledge of statistics, when they enter an aircraft.
Let's face it, from a layman's viewpoint most of us don't even understand how to build a paper aeroplane that flies well, let alone explain to ourselves why it is safe to sit in an aluminium cigar tube and let someone light the blue touch paper. Best we manage is that it is self-evidently "very safe", but that's not really a valid rationalisation, it's a state of mind we all revert to easily.
Thankfully, the concern raised in the BBC Report, however short-lived amongst a wide audience, has become a concise matter of public record, and therefore it must surely be reviewed again in depth by the proper authorities for risk of "we told you so" reports later, if for no other reason.
Last edited by slip and turn; 23rd Mar 2008 at 13:47.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A report of this sort has to be passed to the relevant authorities as they are the guardians of public safety. By not doing so the person was making a decision that he was not entitled to make.
You should support Andrew in what he has done. If you don't I would suggest you are either someone with a guilty concience of having been part of the problem in the report or you are part of the management trying to cover it up
You should support Andrew in what he has done. If you don't I would suggest you are either someone with a guilty concience of having been part of the problem in the report or you are part of the management trying to cover it up
I'm not management (thank god) but its the way its come about, if have problems with the way my sector is run i go to the appropriate people and talk about and/or put in a report, not run to the media because people won't listen to me.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
I can't but help believe that this plan of action was in your mind long before you left
Before God, I tell you that is not true.
.4
I can't but help believe that this plan of action was in your mind long before you left
Before God, I tell you that is not true.
.4
If that interview was actually after you'd left the timescale was very very short between leaving and the first, or at least the first I heard, of your BBC appearances to date.
So perhaps not surprisingly I'm a little curious, did you approach or have contact with the BBC, or did they approach you, while you were still employed by NATS? Either way would be a bit naughty.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the south
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shoey, ..
" if anybody has any other aviation concerns -- you know where to find me."
How about the ridiculous industry called airport security. Why do we as professionals have to put up with people who are no different to night club bouncers, making our working day so unpleasant?
I realise the travelling public aren't interested, so it doesn't make a good story.
In other words by "aviation concerns" you mean.....anyone got a good story ?
" if anybody has any other aviation concerns -- you know where to find me."
How about the ridiculous industry called airport security. Why do we as professionals have to put up with people who are no different to night club bouncers, making our working day so unpleasant?
I realise the travelling public aren't interested, so it doesn't make a good story.
In other words by "aviation concerns" you mean.....anyone got a good story ?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lurking123, Slip and Turn, Flap 5 et al;
Firstly – the above from S&T is a silly, pointless statement… the above is the job specification. It is not dangerous or otherwise. I work TC Area where I am allowed to use 3 miles spacing instead of the usual 5 miles that area controller’s use, partly because of the constraints of my airspace… or are you (and by default ‘Andrew’) claiming that practice is dangerous too?
From Lurking123:
Coupled with
Posted by Flap 5
Lurking123 and flap 5, you would both have valid points if there was any collusion to hide in this particular, or any other incidents, from the public
However… Lurking123… just because NATS is a part Public owned company does not mean that Joe Public should be allowed to be privy to commercially confidential reports. Or does the public want NATS to lose out to competitors by giving away all its development ideas before it can market them?
Flap 5 – yes it is a public service… the incidents are all investigated and are in the public domain already… A confidential report into those same incidents (that are already in the public domain) – collated by NATS in a bid to improve its understanding of shortfalls operationally and thus potentially as a business have no place in the public domain.
These incidents have already been reported, investigated and dealt with.
NATS is one of the leaders in Flight Safety… This can be seen with projects such as the introduction of MODE S, CAIT, www.flyontrack.co.uk, level bust awareness and workshops, etc etc.
The writing of this report by ‘Andrew’ is another tool to improve flight safety… We have a huge Human Factors department that does actually do some good stuff with cutting edge technology at times. One way in which it works is by checking constantly for trends.
If a bad trend is identified, steps are taken to understand the reasoning behind it (poor airspace design, poor documentation etc etc) and then a fix is made.
All ‘Andrew’ was doing – at the request of NATS, who S&T seems to think does not take safety seriously – was writing one of many reports done over the years when it is felt that improvements can be made in a particular area.
How often does it need to be said before some people will understand… These incidents are in the public domain if you look for them. They have already been investigated and dealt with, but each incident goes through the process individually. It is by being responsible and asking for facts and figures to be collated that further improvements can be made.
It’s a shame that a controller who was happy to take the money from NATS when they were not unfit to control has to wait until they retire before they ‘blow the whistle’. I personally do not know the chap, but I would be mightily pi
ed off if I found out that I worked alongside someone who harboured such doubts about safety but who had neither the balls nor the integrity to do anything about it until they left the company.
Finally, as S&T seems to be fixated by cash…This thread is not about money, however as you mentioned that our customers do not want to pay for our pension I might as well dispel that myth by asking you this… why shouldn’t they?
Every single company that sells or provides a service, for example NATS, indirectly makes their customer pay for the staff pension scheme… That’s how business is run. Companies make a gross profit, they pay overheads (including Pension), and then they end up with a net profit. It’s basic business FFS!
For someone who in post number 112 states
then claims
you show a lot of naivety S&T 
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 keep the airlines happy at a capacity constrained airport."
Firstly – the above from S&T is a silly, pointless statement… the above is the job specification. It is not dangerous or otherwise. I work TC Area where I am allowed to use 3 miles spacing instead of the usual 5 miles that area controller’s use, partly because of the constraints of my airspace… or are you (and by default ‘Andrew’) claiming that practice is dangerous too?
From Lurking123:
Another fact is that the Public are the single biggest shareholder in NATS and the issue is of public interest. By all means, scurry away and have a secretive huddle in the corner but that isn't exactly in keeping with the open and honest culture you are trying to portray.
Coupled with
Far from it for me to intrude on controllers private grief on this one - but hang on a minute I am a pilot and frequently a passenger as well on these aircraft. It is a public service you are providing. Why shouldn’t we know about it?
Posted by Flap 5
Lurking123 and flap 5, you would both have valid points if there was any collusion to hide in this particular, or any other incidents, from the public
However… Lurking123… just because NATS is a part Public owned company does not mean that Joe Public should be allowed to be privy to commercially confidential reports. Or does the public want NATS to lose out to competitors by giving away all its development ideas before it can market them?
Flap 5 – yes it is a public service… the incidents are all investigated and are in the public domain already… A confidential report into those same incidents (that are already in the public domain) – collated by NATS in a bid to improve its understanding of shortfalls operationally and thus potentially as a business have no place in the public domain.
These incidents have already been reported, investigated and dealt with.
NATS is one of the leaders in Flight Safety… This can be seen with projects such as the introduction of MODE S, CAIT, www.flyontrack.co.uk, level bust awareness and workshops, etc etc.
The writing of this report by ‘Andrew’ is another tool to improve flight safety… We have a huge Human Factors department that does actually do some good stuff with cutting edge technology at times. One way in which it works is by checking constantly for trends.
If a bad trend is identified, steps are taken to understand the reasoning behind it (poor airspace design, poor documentation etc etc) and then a fix is made.
All ‘Andrew’ was doing – at the request of NATS, who S&T seems to think does not take safety seriously – was writing one of many reports done over the years when it is felt that improvements can be made in a particular area.
How often does it need to be said before some people will understand… These incidents are in the public domain if you look for them. They have already been investigated and dealt with, but each incident goes through the process individually. It is by being responsible and asking for facts and figures to be collated that further improvements can be made.
It’s a shame that a controller who was happy to take the money from NATS when they were not unfit to control has to wait until they retire before they ‘blow the whistle’. I personally do not know the chap, but I would be mightily pi
ed off if I found out that I worked alongside someone who harboured such doubts about safety but who had neither the balls nor the integrity to do anything about it until they left the company.Finally, as S&T seems to be fixated by cash…This thread is not about money, however as you mentioned that our customers do not want to pay for our pension I might as well dispel that myth by asking you this… why shouldn’t they?
Every single company that sells or provides a service, for example NATS, indirectly makes their customer pay for the staff pension scheme… That’s how business is run. Companies make a gross profit, they pay overheads (including Pension), and then they end up with a net profit. It’s basic business FFS!
For someone who in post number 112 states
I think it's just because a large swathe of the general public only easily understand the concepts of delay or sudden-death in aviation
even those of us that do understand good chunks
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK well lets put that silly pointless statement in its full context ... that was Roffa 18 months ago retorting to 120.4 Andrew about his view of working to the rule of his latest job description at that time. And one other well-heeled protagonist (thx someone for that word - !) was Gonzo whose contribution was quoted inside Roffa's very same post in November 2006:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...0&postcount=66
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...0&postcount=66
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
s and t I really and honestly don't know why I bother replying to you but if you're going to quote me at least be good enough to get the context correct, not warped to suit your own skewed point of view.
The reply you quote was partly a reply to Gonzo and partly a general comment on some posts from my flight deck colleagues who mentioned tail wagging dog. It was neither a reply to nor a retort to P4. Go and read it all again. (My user name was Porco Rosso back then, had to change it as it was too similar to another users.)
Quite what the relevance of it all is to this thread escapes me and your apology, which I'm sure will be forthcoming, is accepted.
The reply you quote was partly a reply to Gonzo and partly a general comment on some posts from my flight deck colleagues who mentioned tail wagging dog. It was neither a reply to nor a retort to P4. Go and read it all again. (My user name was Porco Rosso back then, had to change it as it was too similar to another users.)
Quite what the relevance of it all is to this thread escapes me and your apology, which I'm sure will be forthcoming, is accepted.
Last edited by Roffa; 24th Mar 2008 at 21:33.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the rhetoric on this thread is astonishingly myopic.
If that is so, then it follows that no one can have any real objection to anyone discussing them in whatever manner heshe chooses.
However,
which does seem like a condemnation of someone exercising their democratic right to discuss events in the public domain anywhichway heshe wants.
PBL
Originally Posted by anotherthing
the incidents are all investigated and are in the public domain already
However,
Originally Posted by anotherthing
I personally do not know the chap, but I would be mightily pied off if I found out that I worked alongside someone who harboured such doubts about safety but who had neither the balls nor the integrity to do anything about it until they left the company.
PBL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL,
This is my last post on this subject as some people just cannot seem to get it through their skulls the actual salient points raised by this subject.
I mentioned that the incidents are in the public domain because the likes of slip and turn and lurking123 (and to a much lesser extent Flaps5 who asked in a mature and understandable way instad of being melodramatic) are claiming that NATS (and by inference the NATS employees who have posted on this thread) are trying to hide things.
The fact is, there is nothing to hide, and another fact is the details are already in the public domain. There is nothing to stop people from discussing what is in the public domain on this site, as long as when they do, they respect the anonymity of those involved.
PBL, I do not know what the safety culture is like in Germany (where your profile says you are located), I would expect it to be pretty good.
However the UK has for a long time led the way in 'open reporting'. Incidents are regularly replayed during annual emergency training... those who made the mistakes have to give their permission as they may be recognised during the playback of the tapes transcripts.
No one on here is saying that discussing an event is a bad thing - it oftnen stops others from falling into the same trap and it helps prevent incidents.
I'm afraid you have totally lost the whole point of this thread and in particular my statement which you quoted. My statement said clearly and categorically that I thought that 'Andrew' has got little or no integrity or backbone because of what he has done and what he has, in his own paraphrased words, turned a blind eye to. This is an experienced controller who claims to be worried about the way that NATS approaches safety in ATC.
Yet this controller did not have the balls to do something about it until he retired. How much would you trust someone like that? Where is the teamwork there? I don't mean lack of teamwork in the fact that he ran to the press, but the lack of teamwork that meant he waited until he retired before making any real noises... he was happy to sit and watch people make mistakes (and probably make them himself) whilst he was being paid by NATS.
This report was a collation of incidents that are already in the public domain. A report written at the request of NATS... probably using 'Andrew' as he was no longer fit to control. The purpose behind the report was to look for and identify trends in an effort to put a stop to them either by re-education or by changing procedures. It's the sort of report that companies around the world do when they strive to maintain a high class service. It has no place in the newspapers.
I'm signing off from this thread now because some conspiracy theorists are to dull or too ignorant to realise the above points in their bid to condemn NATS
This is my last post on this subject as some people just cannot seem to get it through their skulls the actual salient points raised by this subject.
I mentioned that the incidents are in the public domain because the likes of slip and turn and lurking123 (and to a much lesser extent Flaps5 who asked in a mature and understandable way instad of being melodramatic) are claiming that NATS (and by inference the NATS employees who have posted on this thread) are trying to hide things.
The fact is, there is nothing to hide, and another fact is the details are already in the public domain. There is nothing to stop people from discussing what is in the public domain on this site, as long as when they do, they respect the anonymity of those involved.
PBL, I do not know what the safety culture is like in Germany (where your profile says you are located), I would expect it to be pretty good.
However the UK has for a long time led the way in 'open reporting'. Incidents are regularly replayed during annual emergency training... those who made the mistakes have to give their permission as they may be recognised during the playback of the tapes transcripts.
No one on here is saying that discussing an event is a bad thing - it oftnen stops others from falling into the same trap and it helps prevent incidents.
However,
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherthing
I personally do not know the chap, but I would be mightily pied off if I found out that I worked alongside someone who harboured such doubts about safety but who had neither the balls nor the integrity to do anything about it until they left the company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherthing
I personally do not know the chap, but I would be mightily pied off if I found out that I worked alongside someone who harboured such doubts about safety but who had neither the balls nor the integrity to do anything about it until they left the company.
which does seem like a condemnation of someone exercising their democratic right to discuss events in the public domain anywhichway heshe wants.
Yet this controller did not have the balls to do something about it until he retired. How much would you trust someone like that? Where is the teamwork there? I don't mean lack of teamwork in the fact that he ran to the press, but the lack of teamwork that meant he waited until he retired before making any real noises... he was happy to sit and watch people make mistakes (and probably make them himself) whilst he was being paid by NATS.
This report was a collation of incidents that are already in the public domain. A report written at the request of NATS... probably using 'Andrew' as he was no longer fit to control. The purpose behind the report was to look for and identify trends in an effort to put a stop to them either by re-education or by changing procedures. It's the sort of report that companies around the world do when they strive to maintain a high class service. It has no place in the newspapers.
I'm signing off from this thread now because some conspiracy theorists are to dull or too ignorant to realise the above points in their bid to condemn NATS
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by anotherthing
I'm afraid you have totally lost the whole point of this thread and in particular my statement which you quoted. My statement said clearly and categorically that I thought that 'Andrew' has got little or no integrity or backbone
Instead, I was rather hoping there might be some discussion of the pros and cons of LHR separation practice and whether it promotes or might indeed diminish the allowed margins for error. I find such themes interesting, and some think I am expert on them.
PBL