The Day Britain Stopped
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the things I found most misleading about
the program was the controller being led away
to "be interviewed by the Metropolitan Police" immediately
after the collision.
I've spent a lot of time reading accident and incident
reports and I've never heard of this occurring in this way.
What is unfortunate
about this is that it implies that any problems that may
exist with procedures etc are being exacerbated by
a culture of blame and liability along with an assumption
of negligence after any incident occurs.
Quite the reverse would appear to be true from all the reports
I have read, they explicitly state that the purpose of investigation is to identify areas where procedural changes may be needed
to positively influence flight safety. There is a myriad of
such reports freely available on the internet for reference.
I think the travelling public would
be much better served by a properly researched documentary explaining
the existence of confidential reporting programmes, CHIRP and the
whole safety and investigation process that is invoked afer
an incident/accident and how this feeds through into safety.
An example of this would be the changes implemented after the
airprox that did occur at LHR.
All that said, there is a risk that a collision may occur, that's a part
of life that we have to accept, but it would have been more productive
to show the lengths that everyone goes to to minimise the risk. I have
to say that to me docu-drama is a meaningless term. You are either
producing a balanced factual risk assessment or doing a piece of drama,
the two are mutually exclusive.
Cheers
GB
the program was the controller being led away
to "be interviewed by the Metropolitan Police" immediately
after the collision.
I've spent a lot of time reading accident and incident
reports and I've never heard of this occurring in this way.
What is unfortunate
about this is that it implies that any problems that may
exist with procedures etc are being exacerbated by
a culture of blame and liability along with an assumption
of negligence after any incident occurs.
Quite the reverse would appear to be true from all the reports
I have read, they explicitly state that the purpose of investigation is to identify areas where procedural changes may be needed
to positively influence flight safety. There is a myriad of
such reports freely available on the internet for reference.
I think the travelling public would
be much better served by a properly researched documentary explaining
the existence of confidential reporting programmes, CHIRP and the
whole safety and investigation process that is invoked afer
an incident/accident and how this feeds through into safety.
An example of this would be the changes implemented after the
airprox that did occur at LHR.
All that said, there is a risk that a collision may occur, that's a part
of life that we have to accept, but it would have been more productive
to show the lengths that everyone goes to to minimise the risk. I have
to say that to me docu-drama is a meaningless term. You are either
producing a balanced factual risk assessment or doing a piece of drama,
the two are mutually exclusive.
Cheers
GB
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a bit surprised that no-one has raised the programmes' other main theme, the closure of motorways by accidents.
Since most of us drive to the airport, and the received wisdom is that this is much more dangerous than actually flying, surely we should be more concerned with the depicted and real life policy of Police in closing motorways "while gathering evidence" or something.
During these closures, numerous other accidents are likely with the probability of further injuries or fatalities. It seems to me that motorway closures are becoming a standard reaction these days and the M1 at Northampton is a case in point. There has even been a question in the Commons about a closure caused by a fire in a shed some distance from the motorway.
I think that the authorities should adopt a much more robust attitude to keeping motorways open at all costs, perhaps retaining a fleet of high speed bulldozers specifically to shovel the wreckage into the nearest field for the owners to collect later.
Little to do with aviation I know, but a much more true to life issue than the improbable go-around incident depicted in the programme!
Since most of us drive to the airport, and the received wisdom is that this is much more dangerous than actually flying, surely we should be more concerned with the depicted and real life policy of Police in closing motorways "while gathering evidence" or something.
During these closures, numerous other accidents are likely with the probability of further injuries or fatalities. It seems to me that motorway closures are becoming a standard reaction these days and the M1 at Northampton is a case in point. There has even been a question in the Commons about a closure caused by a fire in a shed some distance from the motorway.
I think that the authorities should adopt a much more robust attitude to keeping motorways open at all costs, perhaps retaining a fleet of high speed bulldozers specifically to shovel the wreckage into the nearest field for the owners to collect later.
Little to do with aviation I know, but a much more true to life issue than the improbable go-around incident depicted in the programme!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just watched the programme on video.
I actually thought it was good TV.
However, in the key scene their script really fell apart - were the actors ad libbing??
The ATCO transfers the EIN to EGLL Tower - freq 117.1 - then the CSA to tower on 118.7 !!!!!!????
I actually thought it was good TV.
However, in the key scene their script really fell apart - were the actors ad libbing??
The ATCO transfers the EIN to EGLL Tower - freq 117.1 - then the CSA to tower on 118.7 !!!!!!????
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Below (and looking upwards)
Age: 59
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never posted on PPRuNe anything other than brief comments, and I have no aviation training whatsoever, as I am just interested in the aviation world, particularly in the technical areas, so please forgive any inaccuracies or ignorance. I have in the past read many AAIB reports, including the one on the 1997(?) similar near miss.
I watched the programme with an open mind, not sure how accurate to detail the BBC would be or whether they would stretch facts to "improve" the storyline. I noted that they apparently tried very hard to use the right terminology (so far as I could tell), especially for ATC matters, such as mentioning bandboxing and Eorocontrol, but there were several issues that jumped out at me while watching it.
Why were neither TCAS nor Short Term Conflict Alert mentioned? Surely at the height at which the "collision" happened (1800' AGL) TCAS RAs would not have been inhibited?
Why was a Flow Control request not put in to Eurocontrol earlier to reduce the number of flights inbound?
Is bandboxing actually possible on the Heathrow Approach?
Why were aircraft stated as holding "over Heathrow" rather than at the usual points (Biggin Hill, Lambourne, Ockham, I think)?
Wouldn't the pilot whom ATC "forgot" to slow down on approach have noticed this abnormality at that rather late stage and at least have queried it with ATC? Would they have been able to set the correct approach configuration at the higher speed?
Wouldn't the flight departing for Bilbao have used a SID heading towards the south rather than the north anyway?
Was there not also a continuity/factual error, where two different frequencies were used when handing off two different flights to Heathrow Tower?
I realise that the premise for the whole programme was the "series of worst possible failures", but doesn't the whole storyline (including failures of STCA, TCAS and all the rest) actually exceed the "worst credible accident" scenario?
I look forward to your comments...
I watched the programme with an open mind, not sure how accurate to detail the BBC would be or whether they would stretch facts to "improve" the storyline. I noted that they apparently tried very hard to use the right terminology (so far as I could tell), especially for ATC matters, such as mentioning bandboxing and Eorocontrol, but there were several issues that jumped out at me while watching it.
Why were neither TCAS nor Short Term Conflict Alert mentioned? Surely at the height at which the "collision" happened (1800' AGL) TCAS RAs would not have been inhibited?
Why was a Flow Control request not put in to Eurocontrol earlier to reduce the number of flights inbound?
Is bandboxing actually possible on the Heathrow Approach?
Why were aircraft stated as holding "over Heathrow" rather than at the usual points (Biggin Hill, Lambourne, Ockham, I think)?
Wouldn't the pilot whom ATC "forgot" to slow down on approach have noticed this abnormality at that rather late stage and at least have queried it with ATC? Would they have been able to set the correct approach configuration at the higher speed?
Wouldn't the flight departing for Bilbao have used a SID heading towards the south rather than the north anyway?
Was there not also a continuity/factual error, where two different frequencies were used when handing off two different flights to Heathrow Tower?
I realise that the premise for the whole programme was the "series of worst possible failures", but doesn't the whole storyline (including failures of STCA, TCAS and all the rest) actually exceed the "worst credible accident" scenario?
I look forward to your comments...
Chieftan o'the Pudden Race
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: Scotland usually, and often other parts of Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BillHicks Rules,
Your assertion that if aviation were to disappear overnight and have no effect on the majority of people is twaddle. From the UK DTI website
I don't believe anyone is sticking their head in the sand as far as realising there are problems with the aviation industry (except possibly the government), but portraying an air disaster in such a way whilst ignoring the various safety nets and checks & balances that currently exist, is at best, mis-representing the true current situation and at worst using it as a dramatic device to up viewer figures.
To quote directly from the NATS website:
Your assertion that if aviation were to disappear overnight and have no effect on the majority of people is twaddle. From the UK DTI website
107. A report by Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF)26 estimated that in 1998 the UK aviation industry accounted for £10.2 billion of GDP, 1.4 per cent of the total. This is similar in size to the car manufacturing industry, and around half the size of the food manufacturing industry.
108. The industry is also an important employer, supporting a large number of jobs, both directly in airport-related activities and indirectly in other activities. The OEF report estimated that the aviation industry directly supports 180,000 jobs in the UK.
108. The industry is also an important employer, supporting a large number of jobs, both directly in airport-related activities and indirectly in other activities. The OEF report estimated that the aviation industry directly supports 180,000 jobs in the UK.
To quote directly from the NATS website:
The fictional mid air collision which sits at the heart of the programme could not occur in the manner suggested, because of a whole array of safety procedures and mechanisms which the programme fails to take into account.
BillHicksRules
Fascinating couple of quotes -
"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."
"I work in the Gas and Electricity industry"
Hmmmm!.... Might one ask, in which country (or, figment of the imagination) does this paragon of Public Utilities exist?
I don't think even our best airline endeavours would be able to provide transport to such an idyllic situation.
By the way, just what is the Martian for British Gas or Seeboard?
Fascinating couple of quotes -
"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."
"I work in the Gas and Electricity industry"
Hmmmm!.... Might one ask, in which country (or, figment of the imagination) does this paragon of Public Utilities exist?
I don't think even our best airline endeavours would be able to provide transport to such an idyllic situation.
By the way, just what is the Martian for British Gas or Seeboard?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With reference to Bill Hick's comments, it's quite funny to think that one of the contributory reasons for the traffic chaos portrayed in the programme was the fact that a utility company had dug up one of the diversion routes and hadn't bothered to inform the Police.....
Of course, the program portrayed utility companies entirely unrealistically in this respect.....whilst treating those maniac ATCOs with no safety systems entirely realistically.
Of course, the program portrayed utility companies entirely unrealistically in this respect.....whilst treating those maniac ATCOs with no safety systems entirely realistically.
I liked the way he thinks nothing can happen without the electric or gas industry. Were these in existance when mankind appeared. How did they manage to sail the seas, build the great wall of China or write the works of shakespear ?
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gottabe said Bill Hicks, you certainly want to spread your limited opinion far and wide....................
I think you had better review your "smug" opinion of yourself as being more than the "average" civilian. Every other industry may have it tough, but do they recieve the same level of scaremongering and sensationalism as Aviation seems to get.
As I said in the ATC forum, I agree there are issues that require addressing, both in Aviation and may other areas of the Transport infrastructure (the whole point of the program, I know). But it is the use of certain facets of the program that John Citizen will sit there and think "Ohmigod, that's really the way it is!". And when the phones in ATC units around the country start ringing with people saying "Oh, oh, I have just seen 2 planes get very close to each other.....just like on the TV", or a jet full of passenegers who ARE involved in a Missed Approach procedure, well, if I may be so bold.....You think you got it tough, pal.
Sorry for the doubling up....Bill is your "High Horse" post on any other forum aside from this on and ATC? Just curious.
I think you had better review your "smug" opinion of yourself as being more than the "average" civilian. Every other industry may have it tough, but do they recieve the same level of scaremongering and sensationalism as Aviation seems to get.
As I said in the ATC forum, I agree there are issues that require addressing, both in Aviation and may other areas of the Transport infrastructure (the whole point of the program, I know). But it is the use of certain facets of the program that John Citizen will sit there and think "Ohmigod, that's really the way it is!". And when the phones in ATC units around the country start ringing with people saying "Oh, oh, I have just seen 2 planes get very close to each other.....just like on the TV", or a jet full of passenegers who ARE involved in a Missed Approach procedure, well, if I may be so bold.....You think you got it tough, pal.
Sorry for the doubling up....Bill is your "High Horse" post on any other forum aside from this on and ATC? Just curious.
Last edited by Jerricho; 15th May 2003 at 00:11.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been an avid supporter of things and people that fly since Bomber Command had Lancasters & Lincolns. For me the programme was all about how our transport system, and the people working in it, is only just about managing to cope. I travel the UK motorways daily - and I feel it. That part seemed very real; I thought the programme was trying to say that a dedicated ATCO (aren't you all?) felt she should stay on because her colleagues were stuck on motorways & congested roads and couldn't get in. Then she stayed on again, trying to do her bit ....
Haven't many of you argued in the past that the system needs more (properly rewarded) people and needs to be more people orientated ? I too spotted some inaccuracies, but didn't let that cloud what I thought the message was. And, I thought, here's the media trying to tell the voting public a message that many of you would want said. And no, I'm not a journo ....
Haven't many of you argued in the past that the system needs more (properly rewarded) people and needs to be more people orientated ? I too spotted some inaccuracies, but didn't let that cloud what I thought the message was. And, I thought, here's the media trying to tell the voting public a message that many of you would want said. And no, I'm not a journo ....
Perhaps we should remember that the raison d'etre of many TV shows now is driven by audience figures - the "ratings".
For reasons which are unclear to me, many people seem to like watching this sort of programme. "Casualty" is another programme which springs to mind. The TV has become the modern "dummy" for most of adult society.
If more of us started changing our viewing habits and the viewing figures started going down significantly then I am sure we would see less of these sorts of programme being transmitted.
For reasons which are unclear to me, many people seem to like watching this sort of programme. "Casualty" is another programme which springs to mind. The TV has become the modern "dummy" for most of adult society.
If more of us started changing our viewing habits and the viewing figures started going down significantly then I am sure we would see less of these sorts of programme being transmitted.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest I thought it was actually quite good. That is up until the point when everyone was stuck in their cars on the M25, and the whole docu-drama theme was lost to sensationalism.
Quite frankly if they had stuck to a slightly more scientific-type of programme, and explained the lead-up to the crash with a bit more realism then it could be deemed to be far better...the point of it I am sure we can all see was simply that the transport network clogs up too easily and prevents safety-critical staff from getting to work, but as far as I can see the method of creating the crash from the plot was more akin to sensationaliam and drama than effective research.
Ignore the inconsistencies - the public don't care if a 757 changed to a 319, nor that the Bilbao flight doesn't go North - that simply discredits their research in our eyes.
What was annoying were the main facts of modern travel that were omitted to scare the unknowing public above all that:
TCAS WAS NOT MENTIONED - which as we all know is not failsafe as we have seen from the Swiss crash, but whose omission does nothing to reassure the public about safety.
If the main focus had stayed on the safety concerns of the breaking public transport network, which was NOT wholly unrealistic a scenario, it would have been fine, but the end popped up with those statements about NATS studies, aviation safety and 'black box thinking' towards aviation safety which is a wholly wrong portrayal of UK aviation in my opinion.
As such it ended on a note of "aviaition could be dangerous to your health" - far beyond the original and more important message that OUR TRANSPORT NETWORK IS CRAP.
Why the wholly rubbish diversion about the NATS staff being prosecuted without it seems due process was even in the plot, god knows?
Perhaps they were trying to scare us all into never making a human error or something perverse like that?
Quite frankly if they had stuck to a slightly more scientific-type of programme, and explained the lead-up to the crash with a bit more realism then it could be deemed to be far better...the point of it I am sure we can all see was simply that the transport network clogs up too easily and prevents safety-critical staff from getting to work, but as far as I can see the method of creating the crash from the plot was more akin to sensationaliam and drama than effective research.
Ignore the inconsistencies - the public don't care if a 757 changed to a 319, nor that the Bilbao flight doesn't go North - that simply discredits their research in our eyes.
What was annoying were the main facts of modern travel that were omitted to scare the unknowing public above all that:
TCAS WAS NOT MENTIONED - which as we all know is not failsafe as we have seen from the Swiss crash, but whose omission does nothing to reassure the public about safety.
If the main focus had stayed on the safety concerns of the breaking public transport network, which was NOT wholly unrealistic a scenario, it would have been fine, but the end popped up with those statements about NATS studies, aviation safety and 'black box thinking' towards aviation safety which is a wholly wrong portrayal of UK aviation in my opinion.
As such it ended on a note of "aviaition could be dangerous to your health" - far beyond the original and more important message that OUR TRANSPORT NETWORK IS CRAP.
Why the wholly rubbish diversion about the NATS staff being prosecuted without it seems due process was even in the plot, god knows?
Perhaps they were trying to scare us all into never making a human error or something perverse like that?
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very goop points here,
but it seems to be agreed by a few people at TC that the portrayal of the Tower guys is far from the truth. Portraying them as sitting watching all this unfold without lifting a finger. As Gonzo and others have pointed out, where positive instrustions may be required in go-around situations, that's what we are there for.....CONTROLLING!!!! ATC = Air Traffic CONTROL. Missed Approach Procedures dangerous....yeah, only if the Tower guys sit there reading the paper and do nothing. A/c positioning from the holds....aslo dangersous if they were left to do their own thing.
I know I am harping on..........
but it seems to be agreed by a few people at TC that the portrayal of the Tower guys is far from the truth. Portraying them as sitting watching all this unfold without lifting a finger. As Gonzo and others have pointed out, where positive instrustions may be required in go-around situations, that's what we are there for.....CONTROLLING!!!! ATC = Air Traffic CONTROL. Missed Approach Procedures dangerous....yeah, only if the Tower guys sit there reading the paper and do nothing. A/c positioning from the holds....aslo dangersous if they were left to do their own thing.
I know I am harping on..........
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC Have your say
Having looked at the BBC website (link on earlier posts) - the displayued comments sent in under the auspices of "Have your say on the programme" have not changed for over 24 hours.
Obviously, having your say is a waste of time unless it says "what a fabulous programme - I think THEY should do something about this, I am scared that an aeroplane will fall on my head"
The comments on there remind me of the old BBC programme "Points of View" which encouraged you to write in and would read out your letter if it said "I think the BBC is wonderful and would gladly pay double the licence fee".
Obviously, having your say is a waste of time unless it says "what a fabulous programme - I think THEY should do something about this, I am scared that an aeroplane will fall on my head"
The comments on there remind me of the old BBC programme "Points of View" which encouraged you to write in and would read out your letter if it said "I think the BBC is wonderful and would gladly pay double the licence fee".
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flypuppy,
Thanks for making my point for me with your “cut and paste” DTI stats. If I remember correctly a majority is more than half. So with less than 1/50th of the UK’s GDP generated by aviation and less than 1/300th of the UK population employed in said industry my point is upheld
As for the NATS quote, of course they are unbiased and impartial and have no axe to grind. I am not getting at NATS or ATCO’s as I know many of the wonderful people who do these jobs. I am just saying that this is a press release and as with any other is not worth the paper it is written on. My industry is as bad.
Cornish,
I live on a nice blue planet colloquially known as “The 3rd Rock from the Sun”. Fancy visiting me?
BahrainLad,
My industry was portrayed in a surprisingly good light considering how far the Beeb could have taken the scenario.
Under_Exposed,
All the things you mentioned happened before the discovery of electricity. Funnily enough today sailing, publishing and building all rely heavily on electricity and gas. However, my point was that planes stop flying right now millions of people would not notice. Whereas electricity stops flowing you have got millions in the dark and worse.
Jerricho,
I have not posted on any other forums regarding this. Hopes this makes life easier for you.
I think you do a great disservice to the general public. I agree that you will always have someone who believes all they see on TV. Then again these people also think that Eastenders, Coronation Street and Neighbours is real. The only thing that concerns me about those type of people is that they get to vote and own cars. The rest of us can be trusted, despite what the politicians think, to make informed decisions. Please allow us that.
In the long run treating the public as intelligent equals will do much more for the perception of the industry than any amount of spin. We can smell fear.
Allow me to re-iterate my support for all the hard-working people in all areas of the aviation industry you should be proud of the job you do. It is a shame you are let down by those who do not have the ability or desire to see your industry grow and improve correctly. There are too many of them. Let us help stamp them out.
Thanks for making my point for me with your “cut and paste” DTI stats. If I remember correctly a majority is more than half. So with less than 1/50th of the UK’s GDP generated by aviation and less than 1/300th of the UK population employed in said industry my point is upheld
As for the NATS quote, of course they are unbiased and impartial and have no axe to grind. I am not getting at NATS or ATCO’s as I know many of the wonderful people who do these jobs. I am just saying that this is a press release and as with any other is not worth the paper it is written on. My industry is as bad.
Cornish,
I live on a nice blue planet colloquially known as “The 3rd Rock from the Sun”. Fancy visiting me?
BahrainLad,
My industry was portrayed in a surprisingly good light considering how far the Beeb could have taken the scenario.
Under_Exposed,
All the things you mentioned happened before the discovery of electricity. Funnily enough today sailing, publishing and building all rely heavily on electricity and gas. However, my point was that planes stop flying right now millions of people would not notice. Whereas electricity stops flowing you have got millions in the dark and worse.
Jerricho,
I have not posted on any other forums regarding this. Hopes this makes life easier for you.
I think you do a great disservice to the general public. I agree that you will always have someone who believes all they see on TV. Then again these people also think that Eastenders, Coronation Street and Neighbours is real. The only thing that concerns me about those type of people is that they get to vote and own cars. The rest of us can be trusted, despite what the politicians think, to make informed decisions. Please allow us that.
In the long run treating the public as intelligent equals will do much more for the perception of the industry than any amount of spin. We can smell fear.
Allow me to re-iterate my support for all the hard-working people in all areas of the aviation industry you should be proud of the job you do. It is a shame you are let down by those who do not have the ability or desire to see your industry grow and improve correctly. There are too many of them. Let us help stamp them out.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
moggie - the bbc are not solely posting positive feedback. you've only got to read as far as the fourth comment to see a rejection of the programme.
I think the simplest criticism is that the scenario is more like 1997 than 2003. ACAS not required back then.
I wonder if the writers used this AAIB Heathrow Airprox Investigation as their inspiration.
I think the simplest criticism is that the scenario is more like 1997 than 2003. ACAS not required back then.
I wonder if the writers used this AAIB Heathrow Airprox Investigation as their inspiration.
Last edited by paulo; 15th May 2003 at 20:57.