The Day Britain Stopped
Should some kind of really unparallelled logjam happen (like after the WTC attacks), is there no contingency to be able to use other runways in the South East - not just Gatwick and Stansted, but Brize, Boscombe, Benson and Bleedin' Lyneham - and that's just the Bs?
After the real-life logjam of the M25, and the resulting lack of access for ambulances, is there any provision for increasing HEMS capacity by pressing military rotary wing assets into use?
Just two post-pub, rather pissed-up thoughts....
After the real-life logjam of the M25, and the resulting lack of access for ambulances, is there any provision for increasing HEMS capacity by pressing military rotary wing assets into use?
Just two post-pub, rather pissed-up thoughts....
Shining Example, apparently...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lone Star State
Age: 50
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, but they couldn't have done that Jacko, as UK airspace had been closed "by just one phone call to Eurocontrol". So that's how they'd do it. Further revelations:
- Go-arounds "can be dangerous", but ATCOs are unaware of this due to a NATS coverup.
- The hold patterns for LHR and LGW are directly above the airports.
- An airport without fire cover won't allow immediate emergency landings (fuel-critical acft directly above.)
I also liked the part where an acft diverted to LGW after holding at LHR. LGW then decided they were full up, so diverted the acft to LTN. I'm no expert but this didn't seem quite right.
Throw in a GCSE-reject script, some delightfully hopeless acting and hey presto! Total crap.
Even after 90 painful minutes, the BBC hadn't tired of self-embarassment, post-mortemming this "thoroughly researched" gem on Newsnight. Paxman looked almost as dubious as the cast.
- Go-arounds "can be dangerous", but ATCOs are unaware of this due to a NATS coverup.
- The hold patterns for LHR and LGW are directly above the airports.
- An airport without fire cover won't allow immediate emergency landings (fuel-critical acft directly above.)
I also liked the part where an acft diverted to LGW after holding at LHR. LGW then decided they were full up, so diverted the acft to LTN. I'm no expert but this didn't seem quite right.
Throw in a GCSE-reject script, some delightfully hopeless acting and hey presto! Total crap.
Even after 90 painful minutes, the BBC hadn't tired of self-embarassment, post-mortemming this "thoroughly researched" gem on Newsnight. Paxman looked almost as dubious as the cast.
A crock. The whole program. About as factual as 'Airport 75', 'Earthquake' or 'The Poseiden Adventure'. Just less believable.
The pseudo-documentary format is just plain annoying. Especially since they chose to follow the relatively recent trend in documentaries to use melodrama, 2 second talking head snippets & re-enactments instead of archive footage, photos & diagrams that convey information. (Yes, I realise that such factual things are impossible for this complete fiction. Just having a rant....).
Switched it off after putting up with it for 20mins too long.
The pseudo-documentary format is just plain annoying. Especially since they chose to follow the relatively recent trend in documentaries to use melodrama, 2 second talking head snippets & re-enactments instead of archive footage, photos & diagrams that convey information. (Yes, I realise that such factual things are impossible for this complete fiction. Just having a rant....).
Switched it off after putting up with it for 20mins too long.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Course it is cheaper to use archive footage of real incidents than pay for special effects. BBC - no money, redundancies industry on the brink, struggling to survive in its current form grasping at senasationalist straws.
Gary Liniker for Worst actor award.
Still bit of fun really, i'm just surprised they didnt put an airliner down on the m25 to start the whole thing off.
Who was the bloke who was supposed to be the BA captain. Did he just like dressing up and getting photos of himself in full uniform in strange places?
Gary Liniker for Worst actor award.
Still bit of fun really, i'm just surprised they didnt put an airliner down on the m25 to start the whole thing off.
Who was the bloke who was supposed to be the BA captain. Did he just like dressing up and getting photos of himself in full uniform in strange places?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Now back in London
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most unrealistic part for me was that the Air Traffic Controllers ended up in Court, and were acquitted, all within 1 year of the accident.
In real life if anyone went to court, it would probably be round about the third anniversary!
cur
In real life if anyone went to court, it would probably be round about the third anniversary!
cur
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Notts & Derbyshire border
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS points
Yes - TCAS points clearly missed.
For sure why the issue of a go-round aircraft taken towards an active runway wasnt even investigated either.
Standard missed approach & goround procedures on 09L take aircraft away from the airfield and active runways not over it.
Aircraft clearly turn to the north (towards Ealing) and yes why the hell should a flight to BIO be turning north on a usual DOVER SID.
Lost the plot there somewhat and facts/detail not researched fully.
For sure why the issue of a go-round aircraft taken towards an active runway wasnt even investigated either.
Standard missed approach & goround procedures on 09L take aircraft away from the airfield and active runways not over it.
Aircraft clearly turn to the north (towards Ealing) and yes why the hell should a flight to BIO be turning north on a usual DOVER SID.
Lost the plot there somewhat and facts/detail not researched fully.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know what altititude they supposedly collided at??
As my knowledge tells me that TCASII/ACASII inihibits RA's whilst climbing when below 1100agl. And the same for descending when below 900agl.
The system only then gives TA's. Can you imagine a Traffic Traffic just when you had hit the tit and pitched up asking for go-around power, flap.....and gear up. What a bitch.
Maybe thats why TCAS was not used in the program?
Any thoughts.
As my knowledge tells me that TCASII/ACASII inihibits RA's whilst climbing when below 1100agl. And the same for descending when below 900agl.
The system only then gives TA's. Can you imagine a Traffic Traffic just when you had hit the tit and pitched up asking for go-around power, flap.....and gear up. What a bitch.
Maybe thats why TCAS was not used in the program?
Any thoughts.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only saw a brief 2 minutes and decided it was a disaster movie in docu-form, so switched it off. However, I still think there are some points to be made.
Does it matter that the flight which turned left was supposed to be going to Bilbao in BA colours? Let's say it was going to EDI, that would remove some nit-picking about facts - but it wouldn't change the scenario, would it?
We should not forget that a couple of years ago there was quite a nasty at LHR, involving a Go-Around and a departure, so such a scenario does have valid roots. I expect the LHR procedures have been changed since then, but only *after* we nearly had a "nasty".
Sure, comment on the acting and the effect of such a program on the public - however do not dismiss the real posibility that such a thing could happen, just because they used the wrong aircraft type or colour of the pilot's uniform.
Safety is assured only by continually monitoring what is being done, and extending our thoughts to unlikley situations - which sometimes turn out to be true!
Does it matter that the flight which turned left was supposed to be going to Bilbao in BA colours? Let's say it was going to EDI, that would remove some nit-picking about facts - but it wouldn't change the scenario, would it?
We should not forget that a couple of years ago there was quite a nasty at LHR, involving a Go-Around and a departure, so such a scenario does have valid roots. I expect the LHR procedures have been changed since then, but only *after* we nearly had a "nasty".
Sure, comment on the acting and the effect of such a program on the public - however do not dismiss the real posibility that such a thing could happen, just because they used the wrong aircraft type or colour of the pilot's uniform.
Safety is assured only by continually monitoring what is being done, and extending our thoughts to unlikley situations - which sometimes turn out to be true!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supposed to have occurred at 1800'
What a load of rubbish.
The most accurate portrayal seemed to be of the Junior Transport minister and his 'aid'. Both absolutely Clueless about aviation despite the aid 'having an interest' and yet they help make transport policy. At least that bit seemed accurate enough.
What a load of rubbish.
The most accurate portrayal seemed to be of the Junior Transport minister and his 'aid'. Both absolutely Clueless about aviation despite the aid 'having an interest' and yet they help make transport policy. At least that bit seemed accurate enough.
Last edited by Snoop; 14th May 2003 at 19:26.
I also liked the aviation expert passenger who turned white on hearing that the BA flight was diverting to Gatwick. (Cos they wouldn't have sufficient fuel for that.....)
Diversion fuel for where, exactly, then? Booker? White Waltham?
Diversion fuel for where, exactly, then? Booker? White Waltham?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello again,
What none of you have answered is the point of the whole film which is that the UK's transport network is a breaking point.
My impression of the aviation industry as a whole at the moment is of an alcoholic who is in denial. The first step to solving the problems is admitting they exist. The second is to ask for help.
We the great unwashed can actually help.
I personally love to fly and have had a love of aviation for as long as I can remember. However what annoys me about the aviation industry is the smug, self righteous attitude of those upon who my life depends every time I take to the air.
It is the fact that in private amongst yourselves you express the same concerns as we the masses do. Furthermore you know exactly the problems and more importantly the exact solutions. Yet the speed with which you close ranks should anyone outside the circle dare to comment is staggering. I work in a industry, with competitive pressures, upon which the entire country is dependent. Without this industry nothing else would happen. We openly canvas comment and customer help in dealing with problems. The aviation industry is not essential. The whole thing could disappear tomorrow and the vast percentage of us would notice very little difference in our life. So our mail might take a little longer but other than that we would go about our daily lifes.
I apologise in advance for shouting but it is essential that this point is made:-
GET DOWN FROM YOUR HIGH HORSES
Let me put it another way. You are a service industry. Perception is paramount. Your customers percieve several potentially lethal problems. They also know that these are not insurmountable. This is not 9/11. There is no foolproof defence against a determined terrorist. All that can be done is to make it harder.
The problems in the aviation industry are able to be solved but not by sticking your heads in the sand at the slightest public concern.
What none of you have answered is the point of the whole film which is that the UK's transport network is a breaking point.
My impression of the aviation industry as a whole at the moment is of an alcoholic who is in denial. The first step to solving the problems is admitting they exist. The second is to ask for help.
We the great unwashed can actually help.
I personally love to fly and have had a love of aviation for as long as I can remember. However what annoys me about the aviation industry is the smug, self righteous attitude of those upon who my life depends every time I take to the air.
It is the fact that in private amongst yourselves you express the same concerns as we the masses do. Furthermore you know exactly the problems and more importantly the exact solutions. Yet the speed with which you close ranks should anyone outside the circle dare to comment is staggering. I work in a industry, with competitive pressures, upon which the entire country is dependent. Without this industry nothing else would happen. We openly canvas comment and customer help in dealing with problems. The aviation industry is not essential. The whole thing could disappear tomorrow and the vast percentage of us would notice very little difference in our life. So our mail might take a little longer but other than that we would go about our daily lifes.
I apologise in advance for shouting but it is essential that this point is made:-
GET DOWN FROM YOUR HIGH HORSES
Let me put it another way. You are a service industry. Perception is paramount. Your customers percieve several potentially lethal problems. They also know that these are not insurmountable. This is not 9/11. There is no foolproof defence against a determined terrorist. All that can be done is to make it harder.
The problems in the aviation industry are able to be solved but not by sticking your heads in the sand at the slightest public concern.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I only saw the last 30 minutes or so.
It is always said that the media never let facts get in the way of a story, but equally we, as pilots and controllers, should NOT let the second-rate production get in the way of a valid question.
'Dan Dare' echos this on the thread on the ATC forum.
Is there a potential problem?
Is it being addressed?
PS Jacko - under JAROPS, airlines can (and do) plan to have only enough fuel for a landing at a 2 runway destination airport, with VERY little left for any diversion. This may have been what that part of the programme was 'hinting' at? Sudden 'closure' of such an airport could place a significant number of aircraft in a low-fuel state.
PPS - Mods - can we somehow get the ATC thread and this combined?
It is always said that the media never let facts get in the way of a story, but equally we, as pilots and controllers, should NOT let the second-rate production get in the way of a valid question.
'Dan Dare' echos this on the thread on the ATC forum.
Is there a potential problem?
Is it being addressed?
PS Jacko - under JAROPS, airlines can (and do) plan to have only enough fuel for a landing at a 2 runway destination airport, with VERY little left for any diversion. This may have been what that part of the programme was 'hinting' at? Sudden 'closure' of such an airport could place a significant number of aircraft in a low-fuel state.
PPS - Mods - can we somehow get the ATC thread and this combined?
I watched this programme with great interest last night. Even as someone with limited expertise in LHR's operations I noticed that there were some flaws in the logic.
Leaving aside the interesting change in the aircraft type from a 319 at the gate to a 757 at the holding point to a 747 once airborne (!) and the technicalitlies of whether BA operates to BIO or whether such a flight would turn left after an easterly departure I would question the following:
1. Would an 09R departing aircraft turn left immediately after take-off? From my experience the turn takes place about 2 mins after t/o.
2. Would the Czech aircraft not slow down of its own accord or ask the tower to slow it down? After all presumably it would be going too fast to land anyway?
3. The ATC officer said at the start of the programme that go-arounds are often caused by inadequate spacing (1 per day) so this in itself is not an unusual occurance? Any anyway wouldn't it be the responsibility of the tower once handed over regardless of whether it was too close?
4. Would the tower not have an eye on this a/c anyway whilst keeping an eye on the Aer Lingus flight?
5. Would the Czech aircraft not be aware of the situation?
6. The Czech aircraft would have commenced its go-around from the start of the runway and used TOGA power, the BA flight would have rotated up to a mile further down and probably used a de-rated power setting therefore would the two aircraft not be at different heights even if they did cross the same point?
Having said all this and agreeing fully with those that said the programme could have been better researched I still thought it was an outstanding piece of television. It was no-where near as sensationalist as some of the cr*p that Channel 4 puts out and we must remember that most airline disasters happen as a result of a chain of freak events which often leave people asking "how on earth did that happen".
Whilst the exact sequence of events portrayed last night is probably unlikely LHR has witnessed a near miss or two in the past so the chance of a scenario similar to this taking place cannot be discounted.
Leaving aside the interesting change in the aircraft type from a 319 at the gate to a 757 at the holding point to a 747 once airborne (!) and the technicalitlies of whether BA operates to BIO or whether such a flight would turn left after an easterly departure I would question the following:
1. Would an 09R departing aircraft turn left immediately after take-off? From my experience the turn takes place about 2 mins after t/o.
2. Would the Czech aircraft not slow down of its own accord or ask the tower to slow it down? After all presumably it would be going too fast to land anyway?
3. The ATC officer said at the start of the programme that go-arounds are often caused by inadequate spacing (1 per day) so this in itself is not an unusual occurance? Any anyway wouldn't it be the responsibility of the tower once handed over regardless of whether it was too close?
4. Would the tower not have an eye on this a/c anyway whilst keeping an eye on the Aer Lingus flight?
5. Would the Czech aircraft not be aware of the situation?
6. The Czech aircraft would have commenced its go-around from the start of the runway and used TOGA power, the BA flight would have rotated up to a mile further down and probably used a de-rated power setting therefore would the two aircraft not be at different heights even if they did cross the same point?
Having said all this and agreeing fully with those that said the programme could have been better researched I still thought it was an outstanding piece of television. It was no-where near as sensationalist as some of the cr*p that Channel 4 puts out and we must remember that most airline disasters happen as a result of a chain of freak events which often leave people asking "how on earth did that happen".
Whilst the exact sequence of events portrayed last night is probably unlikely LHR has witnessed a near miss or two in the past so the chance of a scenario similar to this taking place cannot be discounted.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: west of the Tamar
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The worst aspect of the programme, apart from the numerous errors and false assumtions, was the implied assumption that UK airports and ATC are in as bad a shape as our admittedly ramshackle rail system and overcrowded roads, when in fact, our aviation safety record is among the world's best.
Of course an accident like the one portrayed could happen. A 747 could run out of fuel and pancake on to Buckingham Palace. Anything in theory is possible in systems designed and operated by humans. The programme begs the question "so what?" LHR isn't the only airport in the world handling around 90 or so movements per hour on two parallel runways, is it? Surely the possibility of the kind of accident depicted has existed for as long as parallel runway operations have existed, which at LHR goes back to 1946.
The programme will reinforce a widely held view that aviation exists in a kind of barely controlled chaos, only just about held together by ATC, with aircraft coming within a whisker of hitting each other all the time.
Of course an accident like the one portrayed could happen. A 747 could run out of fuel and pancake on to Buckingham Palace. Anything in theory is possible in systems designed and operated by humans. The programme begs the question "so what?" LHR isn't the only airport in the world handling around 90 or so movements per hour on two parallel runways, is it? Surely the possibility of the kind of accident depicted has existed for as long as parallel runway operations have existed, which at LHR goes back to 1946.
The programme will reinforce a widely held view that aviation exists in a kind of barely controlled chaos, only just about held together by ATC, with aircraft coming within a whisker of hitting each other all the time.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West Sussextershershire
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think GroundBound has got it spot on here. Where's the harm in examining all possibilities? Surely this leads to the most informed decisions and less of the knee-jerk "let's arm all pilots NOW" styles?
I expect the next post to be something like:
"Did you notice the drink the air traffic controller was drinking? I know them personally and I can tell you it was completely unrealistic to show a controller drinking a Pepsi - they all prefer Coke up there.
With this in mind I declare the whole programme hopelessly inaccurate and therefore completely useless and dismissable instantly.
Good, that keeps me in peaceful denial for a bit longer."
Having said all that I didn't see the programme......
I expect the next post to be something like:
"Did you notice the drink the air traffic controller was drinking? I know them personally and I can tell you it was completely unrealistic to show a controller drinking a Pepsi - they all prefer Coke up there.
With this in mind I declare the whole programme hopelessly inaccurate and therefore completely useless and dismissable instantly.
Good, that keeps me in peaceful denial for a bit longer."
Having said all that I didn't see the programme......
I missed it
I'm especially annoyed because it sounds as if it was pretty good viewing 