ATC taking risks at Heathrow

TriedandTested said:
One day they'll be a disaster. Only then will regulations/'margins' will be reviewed. You say safety is the number one priority?...i doubt that very much.
Click to expand...

You think that because you dont work in the aviation industry. Profit margins are so tight yet still no airline in it's right mind puts an aircraft at risk because if the plane crashes or people die smaller airlines go out of business.

No one in ATC either in their right mind puts an aircraft in danger.

Media talking out their arse again as they always do regards aviation.

Of course one day there will be a disaster, Aircraft crash. Impossible to make it 100% error free. The last big crash where people died was what Helios and that was pilot error.
 
Bes said:
What the hell? Do you think he wants to see hundreds killed?! Of course it is, muppet!
Click to expand...

Muppet? For having an opinion? Righto.

Of course i don't want hundreds of people killed. Jeez. If safety WAS the number one priority none of the above would be happening, they wouldn't be 'launching two aircraft far too close together'. Did you read the thread or skim down to my post and end up looking a fool?
 
Running a plane is like running a car. You have 5 different people with the same car and everyone will drive it differently.

The same goes with planes. Different operators get the same planes and run them completely differently. Differences in cruising speeds can be ~50kts on certain types which makes controlling a lot of traffic difficult. Certain operators will climb their planes like rockets, others will merely wait for the natural curve of the earth to gain them height...

The media are predictably exaggerating to create a story that will sell papers. I wouldnt believe all you read.

The TC guys do an impressive job. To shift that volume of traffic is a feat in itself. Safety it built into our operations and safety is always the controllers' top priority.
 
Last edited:
TriedandTested said:
One day they'll be a disaster. Only then will regulations/'margins' will be reviewed. You say safety is the number one priority?...i doubt that very much.
Click to expand...

We regularly have aircraft go tech and the pilot refuse to fly. So then it's AOG and that's expensive. And all we fly is freight, never mind people!

So yes, overall I would say that safety is number one priority, because if a plane falls out of the sky it is a Very Bad Thing.
 
TriedandTested said:
Muppet? For having an opinion? Righto.

Of course i don't want hundreds of people killed. Jeez. If safety WAS the number one priority none of the above would be happening, they wouldn't be 'launching two aircraft far too close together'. Did you read the thread or skim down to my post and end up looking a fool?
Click to expand...

No I read the whole thread thanks... I never said YOU wanted anyone killed... Perhaps you should read my post properly before calling me a fool for not reading the thread.

Just think about what you wrote, muppet... Do you think any ATC controller would deliberately put an aircraft in real danger?

They'd be struck off (and probably end up being murdered by some grieving family member- think the disaster over Russia(?) in the nineties I believe when a passenger aircraft and cargo plane collided).
The whole of Heathrow Airport and parts of London would probably be shut down for at least a few days whilst they sorted the whole mess out.
If the airline in question was not a flag- carrier, or very wealthy, it would face severe financial difficulties and possibly liquidation later on...

ATC'ers like Scuzi know what they are doing and the UK's exemplary safety record and bearing in mind London is one of {if not the} busiest bits of sky in the world is testament to that.

I suggest you think before posting inane crap next time. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Bes said:
I suggest you think before posting inane crap next time. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ah well, you're too smart for me. I mean, wow, look at me quoting an actual ATC and making a comment on his remark and suddenly I'm posting crap? HE said they launch aircraft too close together..not me. So yes, this does kind of suggest that safety isn't always their number one priority doesn't it?

And again, 'muppet', lovely...do you want me to perhaps use smaller words to help you understand my point? Bring it down a notch or two so you don't have to come flying in with insults, 'Bes'?

And just to clarify, i totally respect the difficult job ATCs do.
 
we need more of these reports so we get closer to getting a third runway.

If you think safety costs, try paying for an accident!
 
Last edited:
TriedandTested said:
So you don't think they'd be pushing things to the limit to help those margins look a little healthier? Also see my post above.
Click to expand...

No because thats not the way it works. A budget airline makes around £700 profit for a full 737. The airline has their slots and they want to make them, yet they certainly don't want to compromise on safety to meet them.

Airlines cannot really put pressure on ATC to get them down quicker. ATC would end up in a world of hurt if an accident happened and the airline would go out of business, after a accident that was because of safety.

Ryanair say have a decent market share and pretty healthy, yet if one of their planes decks in due to corner cutting they will be out of business inside a month.

Not once in the 12 years or so I have been releasing aircraft fit to fly has anyone ever put pressure on me to deliver a product I didnt consider safe. Tight budget or not.
 
Last edited:
*sigh*, Ok, twit, let me help you out here...

TriedandTested said:
AHE said they launch aircraft too close together..not me. So yes, this does kind of suggest that safety isn't always their number one priority doesn't it?
Click to expand...

We are under immense pressure to shift traffic expeditiously and sometimes the safety margins do have to be reduced in order to allow it. This is perfectly fine in the hands of an experienced controller
Click to expand...

So as scuzi says, safety margins are REDUCED, but this is PERFECTLY FINE...

Now to me, that suggests that safety is their number one priority, as:

Something is being done about it though. Every time they cut it too fine it is being noted and action is being taken.
Click to expand...

So yes, I would say it is about balance, and ultimately, they are still looking out for our safety as their number one priority.

You are entitled to your opinion, but when you go and make such comments, knowing full well there are people in the very profession you are attacking, reading your posts, it would be nice if you at least backed it up with something, no?
 
Bes said:
yadda yadda yadda
Click to expand...

It's not that difficult is it? Really? Scuzi is an ATC. He said: "There is a lot of pressure on the tower controllers to clear the backlog on the ground and to get planes in the air. God knows how many times I have called the tower to complain about them launching two aircraft far too close together and handing them to me to sort out." That's what i questioned...but thanks for steaming in all the same.

I haven't attacked any of the ATCs, ever. Just merely quoted them. I like to think there's a difference between the two.

And 'twit'? You cut me deep.
 
TriedandTested said:
It's not that difficult is it? Really? Scuzi is an ATC. He said: "There is a lot of pressure on the tower controllers to clear the backlog on the ground and to get planes in the air. God knows how many times I have called the tower to complain about them launching two aircraft far too close together and handing them to me to sort out." That's what i questioned...but thanks for steaming in all the same.

I haven't attacked any of the ATCs, ever. Just merely quoted them. I like to think there's a difference between the two.

And 'twit'? You cut me deep.
Click to expand...

Your original post didn't question anything- you just asked a rhetorical question, and aloofly stated you doubted it [safety was their top priority] very much. :rolleyes:
 
Bes said:
Your original post didn't question anything- you just asked a rhetorical question, and aloofly stated you doubted it [safety was their top priority] very much. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh my.

Once more, just for you. Scuzi said: "there is a lot of pressure on the tower controllers to clear the backlog on the ground and to get planes in the air. God knows how many times I have called the tower to complain about them launching two aircraft far too close together and handing them to me to sort out.

Then: "Safety is the number one priority"

I said: "You say safety is the number one priority?...i doubt that very much."

That any clearer? Was me not quoting him all too much for you?
 
Just to clear up, air traffic control is condicted with the following three objectives listed in order of importance.

1. Safety
2. Order
3. Expedition

Safety always comes first and an aircraft will never be put in danger in order to achieve expedition. If we were caught doing such a thing we could lose our licence in the blink of an eye - it just isn't worth it.

One of the best skills a controller can have is keeping expedition to an absolute maximum whilst keeping all safety margins in place. However, as humans, we do make mistakes and in an attempt to keep expedition up we do sometimes cut the safety margins a bit too fine. This can be quite serious but the margins allow for so much that it rarely causes any major incidents.

Mistakes are made and due to the massive volume of traffic into and out of Heathrow and the pressure on controllers to keep delays to an absolute minimum, these seem to have been happening a bit more often than usual of recent. Heathrow operates at 100% capacity for most of the day and the smallest of hiccups can send delays spiralling into the hours. Heathrow cannot accommodate much more traffic at all, if any. A third runway is needed in order to allow necessary and inevitable expansion to progress safely.

The problem that the media were reporting is being addressed and I cannot make it clear enough that they are as always blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

In other words, it's no biggie :)
 
I watched a program about managing airport traffic but it was mostly about JFK and they said on the programme that the main problem with aircraft taking off was the wake vortcies cause by the planes and that the larger the plane the larger the vortex.

That led me to a relatively simple idea for an invention and that was to use laser doppler anaenometry (sp?) (using lasers to measure fluid flow) to scan the air around the point of take off to see when the vortex has dispersed therefore maximising take off capacity in a safe manner. I thought it might be a great idea but then thought there would only be limited amout of airports that would need one therefore I was never going to become wealthy selling the idea.
 
It didnt fail I dont think, it was set to manual instead of automatic after the engineers were testing it, and the pilots didnt pick it up on their pre-flight checks, and neither did they once in the air and the alarms and warnings started arising.
 
Ex-RoNiN said:
How is the pressurisation system failing pilot error:confused:
Click to expand...

It didn't have pressurisation failure, there was nothing wrong with the systems either. Rising cabin altitude is the same warning horn as take off configuration. They muted the warning because they thought it was a take off config glitch.

During their pre-flight checks they didn't select pressurisation to auto it was in manual. The warning was to tell them they had rising cabin altitude.

Pilot Error.

Curiously another pilot made it into the flight deck and for some unknown reason (probably panic) stayed on portable oxygen instead of using the crew oxygen. He ran out of air too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom