And was it ? Of course not.With responsibility for the control of over 200,000 square miles of air space over
England and Wales, NATS, based in Hampshire at Swanick, has been a disaster from
day one, maybe even before then.
Intended to replace ageing and outdated technology, which was prone to failure
and the cause of many delays and safety risks, NATS has not fared much
better than its predecessor.
When the government privatised the control of our skies there were fears from
many quarters, including the banks who thought it was a financial flawed proposal, but
the government reassured us that everything would be fine, and it would be able
to stand on its own two feet.
A reassurance which proved worthless as NATS approached bankruptcy, provoking
Stephen Byers, Transport Minister, into an embarrassing U-Turn and having to hand
over 30 million GBP in loans to keep it afloat.
Keeping NATS financially afloat is one thing, keeping planes in the air is
another.
NATS has been plagued with problems, both great and small, since it opened. Many
have tested passenger's patience to the limit, while others have raised serious
questions about air safety.
Minor delays are one thing, and there are many reasons why these occur, although
air traffic control itself has been responsible for around half of all delays.
Major six hour delays and complete cancellations are however unacceptable. Not
only do they have an immediate effect, but the repercussions take a long time to
settle down. Passengers may not only be delayed, but miss connecting flights,
meetings and even entire holidays.
The cause for system failures is usually never really made public, and usually
consists of some off-hand comment about it being a minor thing, all fixed now,
bye, have a nice trip.
The major problems in May, 2002, leading to 6 hour delays and many cancellations,
with Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead and Liverpool bearing the brunt of the
failure, were brought about by the regular monthly upgrade of computer systems.
When operators returned after the upgrade, they found they were unable to log on
to the systems. Emergency procedures were put in place to maintain safety, with
the result that flight handling capacity was halved. Although fixed in just five
hours, the knock-on effects lasted a lot longer.
Financial problems and system failures have not been NATS's only worries. Within
weeks of its opening, it was revealed that operators had complained to the Health
and Safety Executive that the text on their visual displays was so tiny that it
was almost impossible to read, and air traffic controllers were struggling to
distinguish the digits 0, 6 and 8 from each other.
The official NATS' and the Civil Aviation Authority's responses were that the
problem didn't affect air safety, only
operator conditions. So operators misreading numbers isn't going to cause a
problem ? The increase in necessary effort and corresponding fatigue isn't
going to lead to a greater chance of operators making mistakes ? It is this type
of response which makes the public so suspicious that they are unsure if it is
really their interests that are being protected here.
Computer Weekly magazine has reported a number of instances of failure caused
by the small text. In one, an airport label of EGPF was misread as EGFF
resulting in a Glasgow bound plane being routed to Cardiff. In another, a
controller confused FL360 with FL300, misreading the altitude of a flight by
some 6,000 feet. The controllers themselves have classified such errors as
safety related, and it is obvious to see why.
The problems and delays caused by NATS are a great embarrassment, not just
within the UK, where the government tells us everything is fine and dandy, but
internationally. Those unable to fly into Britain, or facing huge delays while
trying to do so, must be wondering what sort of backwards country they have
chosen as their destination.
It's no surprise that some people are so scared to fly; if the hijackers don't
get you, there's every chance that ground control will.
Serco throw In the Towel
Facilities management company, Serco, has confirmed that it has pulled out of
negotiations which could have seen it underpin the financial future of NATS.
Although Unions were not happy about the possible involvement of Serco, the
UK Government is desperate to find a public sector company willing to invest
in, and support, NATS which has seen a drop in revenue since the September,
2001 terrorist attacks.
NATS is currently lobbying for increased fees to raise revenue, however,
this has created a catch-22 situation, with the consortium which owns a large
portion of NATS ( including British Airways, British Midland, Easyjet and
Virgin Atlantic ) as any increases in costs will impact on their own profits.
The finacial future for NATS remains undesirably shakey.
