Heathrow separation
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading this thread I registered with pprune specifically so I could voice my support for "Andrew"s actions in making his report public. You only have to read some of the vitriolic comments and personal attacks here to see how whistleblowers are treated - I don't blame him one bit for waiting until he had retired. You can see from this thread how he would have been treated if he'd spoken out publically while still employed !
I have read all the posts in this thread, but I am still not clear on how the ATC system is financed in Britain - one poster mentioned penalties if air traffic was delayed. Perhaps someone could enlighten me (sounds like a certain recipe for chiselling away at safety margins if it's true).
Regards to all, Rob.
I have read all the posts in this thread, but I am still not clear on how the ATC system is financed in Britain - one poster mentioned penalties if air traffic was delayed. Perhaps someone could enlighten me (sounds like a certain recipe for chiselling away at safety margins if it's true).
Regards to all, Rob.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penalties for delays:
The CAA, under the auspices of the Economic Regulation Group, sets limits on NATS with regard to how much it can charge for its services, how much delay per flight it can impose to allow it to fit everyone in SAFELY, and other limits. At present, NATS has to perform to a reducing cost to tthe user year on year, at inflation less a certain percentage (I can't remember the exact numbers). It has to do this in the face of air traffic growing at between 4% and 6% per year and a requirement to provide equal access for all in UK airspace. How many other companies have to this type of arrangement?
Because everybody wants to take off at 0900 and come home again at 1700, some delays are inevitable for this to happen safely. Therefore, the ERG agrees an acceptable level of delay (in average seconds per flight) for NATS to do this. If they exceed this figure (and I'm not going to say here what it is but I'm sure if you're determined enough you could find out from public information), then a financial penalty system comes into force.
You might think that this and safety are mutually exclusive, but you should know that the actual delay performance in last year's (safe) operation was not much more than half the penalty threshold level.
Hope this helps.
The CAA, under the auspices of the Economic Regulation Group, sets limits on NATS with regard to how much it can charge for its services, how much delay per flight it can impose to allow it to fit everyone in SAFELY, and other limits. At present, NATS has to perform to a reducing cost to tthe user year on year, at inflation less a certain percentage (I can't remember the exact numbers). It has to do this in the face of air traffic growing at between 4% and 6% per year and a requirement to provide equal access for all in UK airspace. How many other companies have to this type of arrangement?
Because everybody wants to take off at 0900 and come home again at 1700, some delays are inevitable for this to happen safely. Therefore, the ERG agrees an acceptable level of delay (in average seconds per flight) for NATS to do this. If they exceed this figure (and I'm not going to say here what it is but I'm sure if you're determined enough you could find out from public information), then a financial penalty system comes into force.
You might think that this and safety are mutually exclusive, but you should know that the actual delay performance in last year's (safe) operation was not much more than half the penalty threshold level.
Hope this helps.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You only have to read some of the vitriolic comments and personal attacks here to see how whistleblowers are treated - I don't blame him one bit for waiting until he had retired. You can see from this thread how he would have been treated if he'd spoken out publically while still employed !
What people are objecting to is the way he has taken the companies money, whilst quite happily using the procedures that he feels are so unsafe. Its not like he developed these opinions after he left the company, they had to be there while he was with NATS. If he'd spoken out, put reports in, while in the company they would have been investigated. He chose not to, and then ran to the BBC as a "whistleblower".
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rob
...I am still not clear on how the ATC system is financed in Britain - one poster mentioned penalties if air traffic was delayed. Perhaps someone could enlighten me ...
ERG is one such...but luckily it is Freedom of Information Act accessible and so is largely already published if you know where to look ...
Try Google for site:caa.co.uk ERG (NATS OR NERL OR NSL)
Originally Posted by eyeinthesky
Because everybody wants to take off at 0900 and come home again at 1700
Originally Posted by 1985
What people are objecting to is the way he has taken the companies money...
Last edited by slip and turn; 25th Mar 2008 at 12:33.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eyeinthesky - Thank you for an informative an courteous response.
However, I am afraid that after over 35 years of working for both government and private industry I have grown cynical watching teflon-coated greasy pole climbers and assiduous bean-counters working to trim a little bit here and a little bit there. It requires continuous and thankless effort to resist their salami-slicing tactics. While safety may not have been compromised yet in this case, I am afraid it will only be a matter of time.
I believe that problems will always arise when dollar-based performance criteria are mixed with safety considerations. The current political mantra is that we need to corporatise and privatise (and don't blame me for those bastardised words!) services so that "market forces" keep them efficent - well I'd rather spend a few extra dollars/pounds on an air ticket than risk being killed by a system with a world-beating efficiency rating and safety margins shaved razor-thin.
However, I am afraid that after over 35 years of working for both government and private industry I have grown cynical watching teflon-coated greasy pole climbers and assiduous bean-counters working to trim a little bit here and a little bit there. It requires continuous and thankless effort to resist their salami-slicing tactics. While safety may not have been compromised yet in this case, I am afraid it will only be a matter of time.
You might think that this and safety are mutually exclusive, but you should know that the actual delay performance in last year's (safe) operation was not much more than half the penalty threshold level.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing, just to clarify.
I am not a conspiracy theorist nor do I have any axes to grind with NATS. My observation was raised at two specific comments. Firstly, your observations regarding "Restricted reports and Official Secrets Act". A report which examines and comments upon flight safety issues should not be restricted and I'm having some difficulty in understanding how any element would be covered by the Act. Secondly, a previous comment where someone suggested something along the lines that this discussion should be continued on the NATS part of the forum.
I don't know why Andrew chose to do what he did; he's not the first nor will be the last. Surely a far more interesting discussion would be about how accurate the report was and the subsequent action that NATS has/is taking to address any concerns. Please tell me why you feel such a report has no place in the public (ie the 49% shareholder) domain.
PS. I don't think I've ever been described as melodramatic. Thanks.
I am not a conspiracy theorist nor do I have any axes to grind with NATS. My observation was raised at two specific comments. Firstly, your observations regarding "Restricted reports and Official Secrets Act". A report which examines and comments upon flight safety issues should not be restricted and I'm having some difficulty in understanding how any element would be covered by the Act. Secondly, a previous comment where someone suggested something along the lines that this discussion should be continued on the NATS part of the forum.
I don't know why Andrew chose to do what he did; he's not the first nor will be the last. Surely a far more interesting discussion would be about how accurate the report was and the subsequent action that NATS has/is taking to address any concerns. Please tell me why you feel such a report has no place in the public (ie the 49% shareholder) domain.
PS. I don't think I've ever been described as melodramatic. Thanks.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MORs and AIRPROXs are public domain, and rightly so.The more 'speculative' safety reports, which might identify trends, postulate future developments, are not pure facts and official investigation. The writer's opinion now comes into it.
Describing 'Andrew' as a whistleblower is false. He has not blown the whistle on anything. All the incidents were investigated and if AIRPROXs or MORs, would have been published in the respective digests. If lessons had to be learned, CAA SRG ATSD would have worked with TC's safety department to ensure that they were disseminated appropriately.
I do a lot of work within the area of safety. Most of what I help to create is 'commercial in confidence', because it is speculative, and has commercially sensitive information in it. The regulator, CAA SRG, does of course see and examine it, it just isn't available to order from their website by the general public.
A line has to be drawn somewhere as to what is allowed into the public domain. Incidents which fall under certain definitions have to be reported and published, by law. Public domain, and all ATCOs would agree with that.
What about others? I can file a 'safety observation', which might detail a mistake I felt I was about to make, in an effort to highlight it to other ATCOs. Safety wasn't compromised. I didn't actually make a mistake, but thought that I might, given different circumstances. Should that be public domain? It still gets logged into our Safety Tracking and Reporting database, and CAA SRG are informed if deemed appropriate by the reporter or unit safety dept., so any lessons learned are again disseminated across the unit and UK ATC as a whole.
NATS has a very open safety culture, people speak out about safety all the time. If someone doesn't feel able to, for whatever reason, there is always the excellent CHIRP.
If every little thing was open to the general public, then I'd venture that the safety culture would actually be less open than it is now.
Describing 'Andrew' as a whistleblower is false. He has not blown the whistle on anything. All the incidents were investigated and if AIRPROXs or MORs, would have been published in the respective digests. If lessons had to be learned, CAA SRG ATSD would have worked with TC's safety department to ensure that they were disseminated appropriately.
I do a lot of work within the area of safety. Most of what I help to create is 'commercial in confidence', because it is speculative, and has commercially sensitive information in it. The regulator, CAA SRG, does of course see and examine it, it just isn't available to order from their website by the general public.
A line has to be drawn somewhere as to what is allowed into the public domain. Incidents which fall under certain definitions have to be reported and published, by law. Public domain, and all ATCOs would agree with that.
What about others? I can file a 'safety observation', which might detail a mistake I felt I was about to make, in an effort to highlight it to other ATCOs. Safety wasn't compromised. I didn't actually make a mistake, but thought that I might, given different circumstances. Should that be public domain? It still gets logged into our Safety Tracking and Reporting database, and CAA SRG are informed if deemed appropriate by the reporter or unit safety dept., so any lessons learned are again disseminated across the unit and UK ATC as a whole.
NATS has a very open safety culture, people speak out about safety all the time. If someone doesn't feel able to, for whatever reason, there is always the excellent CHIRP.
If every little thing was open to the general public, then I'd venture that the safety culture would actually be less open than it is now.
Last edited by Gonzo; 25th Mar 2008 at 17:03. Reason: formatting
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by anotherthing
It has no place in the newspapers.
I notice that while I was typing Gonzo gave a very reasonable sounding answer...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is always the excellent CHIRP.
Actually, there is also the very excellent University of Bielefeld's RVS research group, whose presence is not unknown here from time to time.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that special clearances are awarded into private forums on PPRuNe by the more enlightened insiders.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In front of the Tube
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Depressing
This thread has been near the top of the flight deck forum for a few days now, and yet there does not appear to be much comment from the Heathrow based pilot community.
I find this perplexing. Could this be because pilots in and out of Heathrow are not concerned by any apparent reduction in safety standards? I would not have thought so. Could it therefore be because they do not perceive any change in safety standards? I would like to know, and would welcome more posts from the pilot community. Sadly, I fear by now most will have become so bored by the bitching and internal bickering on display here that they will have ceased to take an interest and I will never know.
I have known 'Andrew' for a number of years. I am a Heathrow Approach controller. I would like to think that I am better placed than some to pass comment on his opinions and actions. To berate him (as many have) for keeping quiet whilst he worked for NATS is totally unjust. Those of us who worked with him have known for years about his disquiet regarding our procedures. He passionately believed that his concerns were valid and was very vocal on the subject.
However, I do not share his opinion that the Heathrow Approach operation is unduly skewed towards service delivery at the expense of safety, nor do I know of a single colleague who agrees with his opinion. The way we vector aircraft onto the ILS is as safe now as it has ever been. The truth is that 'Andrew's' very specific viewpoint about the Heathrow operation was at odds with all of those around him.
I believe this powerful conviction in his erroneous beliefs, allied to his perception that nobody else was listening led him to speak to the BBC - a spectacularly ill-conceived act.
However, I believe the vitriolic responses from some quarters on this thread are totally out of proportion and do more harm to the reputation of the ATCO community as a whole than any of the 'revelations' on last weeks' news.
Post 120 I find particularly unpleasant. Having just joined this forum, I've just read the rules for posting. Post 120 is in contravention of them. Why is it still here?
I find this perplexing. Could this be because pilots in and out of Heathrow are not concerned by any apparent reduction in safety standards? I would not have thought so. Could it therefore be because they do not perceive any change in safety standards? I would like to know, and would welcome more posts from the pilot community. Sadly, I fear by now most will have become so bored by the bitching and internal bickering on display here that they will have ceased to take an interest and I will never know.
I have known 'Andrew' for a number of years. I am a Heathrow Approach controller. I would like to think that I am better placed than some to pass comment on his opinions and actions. To berate him (as many have) for keeping quiet whilst he worked for NATS is totally unjust. Those of us who worked with him have known for years about his disquiet regarding our procedures. He passionately believed that his concerns were valid and was very vocal on the subject.
However, I do not share his opinion that the Heathrow Approach operation is unduly skewed towards service delivery at the expense of safety, nor do I know of a single colleague who agrees with his opinion. The way we vector aircraft onto the ILS is as safe now as it has ever been. The truth is that 'Andrew's' very specific viewpoint about the Heathrow operation was at odds with all of those around him.
I believe this powerful conviction in his erroneous beliefs, allied to his perception that nobody else was listening led him to speak to the BBC - a spectacularly ill-conceived act.
However, I believe the vitriolic responses from some quarters on this thread are totally out of proportion and do more harm to the reputation of the ATCO community as a whole than any of the 'revelations' on last weeks' news.
Post 120 I find particularly unpleasant. Having just joined this forum, I've just read the rules for posting. Post 120 is in contravention of them. Why is it still here?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots are always concerned about apparent lowering of safety standards-anywhere. Ask yourself this question. Will "Andrew"'s revelations lead to an increase in separation and a subsequent reduction in movements at Heathrow (or any other busy airfield)? No, of course it won't.
"Andrew"'s concerns sound more like the anger of a man who is experiencing shock after his perceived career has been brought cruelly to an early end. He is hitting out at his former employer and colleagues. Perhaps in time, he will modify his opinions.
Pilots and the travelling public are maybe losing interest, as the incident referred to was not the first nor the last of its' kind and we all expect the safety precautions in place will prevent such an incident becoming a tragic accident. As the media have lost interest, then perhaps so should we.
"Andrew"'s concerns sound more like the anger of a man who is experiencing shock after his perceived career has been brought cruelly to an early end. He is hitting out at his former employer and colleagues. Perhaps in time, he will modify his opinions.
Pilots and the travelling public are maybe losing interest, as the incident referred to was not the first nor the last of its' kind and we all expect the safety precautions in place will prevent such an incident becoming a tragic accident. As the media have lost interest, then perhaps so should we.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
s and t,
Fair enough I suppose as misunderstanding, willfully or otherwise, appears to be your default setting!
I think I'll join anotherthing and finally bow out of this one as well.
Yes my sincerest apologies, Roffa, I must have completely misunderstood your position 18 months ago and again recently
I think I'll join anotherthing and finally bow out of this one as well.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In a house
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could not sit and allow some of the issues, mostly raised by Slip and Slide to go unchallenged. I do not, nor never have worked for NATS but I have worked at both HMP West Drayton and The English Riviera!
There is no problem with the safety culture within NATS. Many of the managers are themselves controllers, with many decades of safety culture imprinted on their brains. The Safety Management system within NATS is very mature and I would argue, cutting edge. There is no culture of covering things up, reports are filed when required and investigated completely. There are automatic systems to improve safety and monitor safety performance and NATS are proactive on developing future tools to further advance the safe and efficient operation of their business. It would make no sense for them to do otherwise, as the implications of a major incident are unthinkable. The Safety Culture is entirely in tune and in concert with other ANSPs and the CAA.
There are indeed targets and NATS recently had it's own "Destinations" targets programme. Safety of the operation was at the TOP...the top 5 IIRC.
I think what has irritated most NATS posters on here, is that the release to the media, of what was a safety survey was not considered, it was uncontrolled and all it has done, is to fuel speculation and feed media frenzy. The release to the BBC has done NOTHING to improve safety.
I do not know the controller concerned, but I do know many others and I share their feelings. There was, is and will always be, a very good system to highlight issues to management and get things resolved. Regardless of what pressures S&M thinks that NATS controllers are under, the facts are that they do a cracking job, to the best of their ability and always have safety at the forefront of their mind. If things get a little busy, they have many tools at their disposal to deal with those situations. Even computer mouse failure rates are recorded and monitored.
I can understand why Mr Shoesmith is interested....he wants a story and what better one than to talk about danger to the travelling public...good for ratings and keeps him in a job/bonus and he can always argue the case that he is doing the public a favour with his investigative journalism. I cannot understand however, what G&T's beef is?
I speak with FIRST HAND knowledge of the NATS operation.
There is no problem with the safety culture within NATS. Many of the managers are themselves controllers, with many decades of safety culture imprinted on their brains. The Safety Management system within NATS is very mature and I would argue, cutting edge. There is no culture of covering things up, reports are filed when required and investigated completely. There are automatic systems to improve safety and monitor safety performance and NATS are proactive on developing future tools to further advance the safe and efficient operation of their business. It would make no sense for them to do otherwise, as the implications of a major incident are unthinkable. The Safety Culture is entirely in tune and in concert with other ANSPs and the CAA.
There are indeed targets and NATS recently had it's own "Destinations" targets programme. Safety of the operation was at the TOP...the top 5 IIRC.
I think what has irritated most NATS posters on here, is that the release to the media, of what was a safety survey was not considered, it was uncontrolled and all it has done, is to fuel speculation and feed media frenzy. The release to the BBC has done NOTHING to improve safety.
I do not know the controller concerned, but I do know many others and I share their feelings. There was, is and will always be, a very good system to highlight issues to management and get things resolved. Regardless of what pressures S&M thinks that NATS controllers are under, the facts are that they do a cracking job, to the best of their ability and always have safety at the forefront of their mind. If things get a little busy, they have many tools at their disposal to deal with those situations. Even computer mouse failure rates are recorded and monitored.
I can understand why Mr Shoesmith is interested....he wants a story and what better one than to talk about danger to the travelling public...good for ratings and keeps him in a job/bonus and he can always argue the case that he is doing the public a favour with his investigative journalism. I cannot understand however, what G&T's beef is?
I speak with FIRST HAND knowledge of the NATS operation.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S&T
QUOTE
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeinthesky
Because everybody wants to take off at 0900 and come home again at 1700
Common misconception. Let's think big picture, not just Heathrow as it stands, and the knock-on effect of the Oceanic one way overnight toggle system ... This is the new millennium. Ryanair have long ago already told ERG that they don't want NATS propounding this out at breakfast home for tea nonsense
UNQUOTE
No, let's take Heathrow as an example, seeing as this is where it all started. A quick scan through Heathrow's Departures website this morning shows the following scheduled (i.e. tickets sold for this time) departures:
0830 2 flights
0835 4 flights
0840 6 flights
0845 2 flights
0850 5 flights
0855 8 flights
0900 3 flights
That's 30 in 30 mins, which is beyond the achievable airport movement rate, even for some of the more 'inventive' of controllers. Some of these flights will therefore get a delay (and did this morning), and the picture is repeated across Europe. You can't tell me Ryanair has no departures scheduled at that time, either!
The point is that ATC has to manage the peaks and troughs safely with minimum delay. That is what we do. Last year's traffic volumes were another record, and still the average delay per flight caused during this safe operation was just over half the ERG limit. Of course the relationship between the two needs careful management.
Here's an idea: next time aircrew or airport information announce an ATC delay in that bored and critical voice they generally use, perhaps they should add: "This flight has been delayed to ensure your safety". Then people might not moan so much.
QUOTE
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeinthesky
Because everybody wants to take off at 0900 and come home again at 1700
Common misconception. Let's think big picture, not just Heathrow as it stands, and the knock-on effect of the Oceanic one way overnight toggle system ... This is the new millennium. Ryanair have long ago already told ERG that they don't want NATS propounding this out at breakfast home for tea nonsense
UNQUOTE
No, let's take Heathrow as an example, seeing as this is where it all started. A quick scan through Heathrow's Departures website this morning shows the following scheduled (i.e. tickets sold for this time) departures:
0830 2 flights
0835 4 flights
0840 6 flights
0845 2 flights
0850 5 flights
0855 8 flights
0900 3 flights
That's 30 in 30 mins, which is beyond the achievable airport movement rate, even for some of the more 'inventive' of controllers. Some of these flights will therefore get a delay (and did this morning), and the picture is repeated across Europe. You can't tell me Ryanair has no departures scheduled at that time, either!
The point is that ATC has to manage the peaks and troughs safely with minimum delay. That is what we do. Last year's traffic volumes were another record, and still the average delay per flight caused during this safe operation was just over half the ERG limit. Of course the relationship between the two needs careful management.
Here's an idea: next time aircrew or airport information announce an ATC delay in that bored and critical voice they generally use, perhaps they should add: "This flight has been delayed to ensure your safety". Then people might not moan so much.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree it is probably the nature of the current pickle at Heathrow, and because I am not on an open-ended expense account, I have never been stuck in the middle of it. All my (few) LHR flights have been 'cheap' slots. I suppose there is some kind of informal 'market' between airlines with differential pricing for the 0900ish and 1700ish slots versus the rest? Does NATS get the lion's share of the premium paid? Because perhaps NATS should, and perhaps NATS should have set that premium. Or maybe they do already and the demand is still overwhelming? You'll perhaps forgive me if I have a feeling the simple matter is that NATS do not have a say because BA call most of the shots at Heathrow on a legacy basis?
And seriously, I can't remember the last time I managed anything better than a "grabbit and run" yesterday's Radisson croissant before a Ryanair flight or anything much beyond an 0100 Horlicks before falling into bed afterwards
Actually, I am sure there must be graphs of passenger runway throughput numbers versus airborne time somewhere, perhaps overlaid with the Oceanic Departures, and Arrivals 'spread', and any other 'immovables'. That might be interesting.
Can we see it, anyone?
And seriously, I can't remember the last time I managed anything better than a "grabbit and run" yesterday's Radisson croissant before a Ryanair flight or anything much beyond an 0100 Horlicks before falling into bed afterwards
Actually, I am sure there must be graphs of passenger runway throughput numbers versus airborne time somewhere, perhaps overlaid with the Oceanic Departures, and Arrivals 'spread', and any other 'immovables'. That might be interesting.
Can we see it, anyone?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I suppose there is some kind of informal 'market' between airlines with differential pricing for the 0900ish and 1700ish slots versus the rest? Does NATS get the lion's share of the premium paid? Because perhaps NATS should, and perhaps NATS should have set that premium. Or maybe they do already and the demand is still overwhelming? You'll perhaps forgive me if I have a feeling the simple matter is that NATS do not have a say because BA call most of the shots at Heathrow on a legacy basis?
Now, some might agree with you that these slots OUGHT to be auctioned off to the highest bidder, with BAA & NATS recouping the gains to pay for service provision, an interesting debate.
TheOddOne
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets remember a couple of things:
1) Airlines want pilots to use as little fuel as possible (always with the cynical caveat that nothing they say precludes good airmanship dah, dah,)
2) ATCOs have to get as many aircraft in/out as they can cope with.
3) If it was left to pilots and ATCOs to get the job done, all would be dandy, as each has a vested interest in a safe outcome.
When I was instructing, one of my students was an ATCO and i have to say i would not want your job for anything. I have the greatest respect for the fact that someone felt this story had to be told. I have yet to approach LHR without a 'proximate traffic' call due to traffic on TCAS, but have always concluded you guys on the ground know what you are doing
- if I did'nt, i would not go on the flightdeck. This is re-inforced by the fact that up to know, we have got away with it.
We pilots probably tend to second-guess Air Traffic as we have a TCAS display and very rarely are we right.
Lets respect the man's right to voice his concerns.
As for LHR- I'm with Boris, buldoze the s#*thole and put it somewhere else!
1) Airlines want pilots to use as little fuel as possible (always with the cynical caveat that nothing they say precludes good airmanship dah, dah,)
2) ATCOs have to get as many aircraft in/out as they can cope with.
3) If it was left to pilots and ATCOs to get the job done, all would be dandy, as each has a vested interest in a safe outcome.
When I was instructing, one of my students was an ATCO and i have to say i would not want your job for anything. I have the greatest respect for the fact that someone felt this story had to be told. I have yet to approach LHR without a 'proximate traffic' call due to traffic on TCAS, but have always concluded you guys on the ground know what you are doing
- if I did'nt, i would not go on the flightdeck. This is re-inforced by the fact that up to know, we have got away with it.We pilots probably tend to second-guess Air Traffic as we have a TCAS display and very rarely are we right.
Lets respect the man's right to voice his concerns.
As for LHR- I'm with Boris, buldoze the s#*thole and put it somewhere else!
