Why did she repeat herself? :p

The "drop down window which the controller chose not to use" (or words to that effect) doesn't exist.

I haven't read the article, but thats one pretty big inaccuracy

(Edited cause I was being a jerk!)

Frangible

Some of the inaccuracies are

- the drop down menu Chippy mentions
- the "alarm" that began buzzing at the controllers desk
- anything that John Stewart has to add

As this topic came up last year (see here) I'll repeat what I said. I was one of the Heathrow controllers working when the incident happened and having read the article the inacuracies and spin are laughable. As NATS employees have signed a non-disclosure agreement, they can't legally approach the media and point out exactly what happened when tripe like this is reported. Those involved know what transpired, and some bottom feeder has taken only a slight portion of it to "report the truth" to the public.

Jerrico Wrote:

As NATS employees have signed a non-disclosure agreement, they can't legally approach the media and point out exactly what happened when tripe like this is reported.

Surely its better to make sure the journo is properly briefed before he/she writes it...

I can guess what happened here: no proper briefing, no interview, just a short statement issued in response to faxed questions.

Garbage in garbage out.

VP

Agreed, it is better if journalistic sources are properly briefed with the full story by the NATS Media office. Perhaps better support of the workers is required, and in some instances the full story being revealed rather than a statement will eliminate guessing and fabrication or filling the blanks.

But even then, there will be occurences where the full story isn't as exciting or "though provoking" as the media would like it to be (sexing up?). It's the nature of the beast, and we've been here many, many times before.

BTW, having not seen the report the Times online quotes “The avoiding action by the controller did little to take the heat out of the situation......". Anybody got any links?

Stupid Question
 

Not being anything to do with aviation at all, I would like to ask what is probably a silly question about Binos' quote from the paper.

Was there any truth at all in the basis of the story (that the plane was about to land on a highway and didn't)?

I know enough to be able to ignore the rest of the tripe in the article so please don't flame me for that; but I would be interested to know whether the whole thing was made up or only the bit after the first sentence!

The drop down menu
 

does exist, just not at LTCC.

I think the 'to table' function at Swanwick is what the journo is referring to - although, we are not allowed to use it :rolleyes: . We also had a similar function at LATCC if I remember correctly. Mind you, I had no idea how to operate that green panel on the mediator suites.

Jerricho,

not a slap in the face for the traffic managers, merely a critisism of NATS policy of applying minimal flow control at the expense of excessive airborne holding.

TM's are always under pressure to reduce flow rates. The people who apply that pressure (in my opinion) don't adequately take into account all safety issues involved.

Reducing flow rates means less traffic which would improve safety. Or did you mean reduce flow measures ??

Yeah, what pprune radar said.

600 FEET!!!
Bloody hell. That's not even a shot on goal by even an amateurs standards!!!

Seen better game over SIT under Athens control. Now that crowd truly know how to get your head out of your butt!!!

In my estimation the West Drayton gang are the world's best, bar none.
Good game!
(shouldn't they have called it a near HIT????)

:ok:

Del Prado,

Check your PMs.