• Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial RAF Rumour Network.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Blame Culture

Y

You Can Call Me Al

Guest
:( Given that certain ATC-related accidents have recently been resurrected (which, IMHO, should have long ago been laid to rest), how much, if any, sleep do YOU lose if dwelling on the implications to controllers of errors?

  • Do you think it appropriate that a professional error may lay you open to criminal proceedings? If so - should we be able to find an insurance in a similar fashion to Doctors etc?
  • Should a more distinct line be drawn between a negligent error and an error of judgement? And should such a distinction be made absolutely plain to all (oops - I think I've just answered my question!)
  • Should all JATCC students be briefed on this subject as part of the syllabus?
Your thoughts ….
 
S

Standards

Guest
You Can Call Me Al said:
:( Given that certain ATC-related accidents have recently been resurrected (which, IMHO, should have long ago been laid to rest), how much, if any, sleep do YOU lose if dwelling on the implications to controllers of errors?

  • Do you think it appropriate that a professional error may lay you open to criminal proceedings? If so - should we be able to find an insurance in a similar fashion to Doctors etc?
  • Should a more distinct line be drawn between a negligent error and an error of judgement? And should such a distinction be made absolutely plain to all (oops - I think I've just answered my question!)
  • Should all JATCC students be briefed on this subject as part of the syllabus?
Your thoughts ….

Firstly, I am no controller, so before you jump all over my thoughts, remember, they are just my thoughts!

1st point. Any professional error could lead to civil action being taken against anyone. You could find some insurance similar to a doctor but this may not be of any use if you lose in a court of law.

2nd point. If there were such a line, it could be "moved" in a court of law depending on how good the baristers were. Would you rely on a barrister appointed by the military to defend you? Lee Clegg did when serving in Northern Ireland! Good job The Sun was there to sort that out! So even though a line may well exist, it will always be moved, especially if someone has to be blamed.

3rd point. If you briefed JATCC students you may risk losing some to the fear factor! They do not all have £20 Titanium spoons to protect themselves with!

Hope this has helped you in your quest!

Standards!
 
H

HilstonPols

Guest
You Can Call Me Al said:
:( Given that certain ATC-related accidents have recently been resurrected (which, IMHO, should have long ago been laid to rest), how much, if any, sleep do YOU lose if dwelling on the implications to controllers of errors?

  • Do you think it appropriate that a professional error may lay you open to criminal proceedings? If so - should we be able to find an insurance in a similar fashion to Doctors etc?
  • Should a more distinct line be drawn between a negligent error and an error of judgement? And should such a distinction be made absolutely plain to all (oops - I think I've just answered my question!)
  • Should all JATCC students be briefed on this subject as part of the syllabus?
Your thoughts ….

Al, thought provoking stuff indeed!

1. I do think it is appropriate, imho there are too many people that are not prepared to face this most serious consequence of errors. Perhaps if those individuals were to accept the inherent responsibility of the controlling job they do each day then errors would be less frequent. That is just an opinion and is not directed at anyone in particular. After all the job of controlling ac, when done poorly, does threaten the lives of the crews involved. As to insurance, absolutely yes. It is not unreasonable to find ourselves potentially facing costs that would cripple even the most affluent of us (yes even The Controller:pDT_Xtremez_15: ). Would we be able to find such insurance? well that is a more difficult question. The premium would possibly be far too much for an individual to meet, if that was the case I doubt the RAF would meet it.

2. As we all know it is often extremely difficult to draw this very fine line, however it must be possible to refine it. During my time working at LATCC(mil) I saw a great deal of "paperwork" directed at the MASOR from our civilian counterparts. Generally this saw all and sundry running for cover, but when looked at closer it was often done in order to prevent repetitive problems. Surely that is good for all controllers in the long term! We in the RAF tend to not embrace this open behaviour. I am sure that many minor errors get "forgotten" by individuals or units, to protect careers or to prevent a fuss being made. I am not trying to suggest that RAF controllers are all devious or unwilling to accept responsibility but I would be surprised if each of us don't know of an incident that was brushed aside.

3. I feel that JATCC students must be made aware of the potential catastophic impact of controller or procedural error. Why shield them from the true nature of thier new employment. Some would say that this kind of honesty would simply scare them into withdrawing themselves from training. However, as I said in para 1 After all the job of controlling ac, when done poorly, does threaten the lives of the crews involved.
 
Y

You Can Call Me Al

Guest
Al, thought provoking stuff indeed!
Evidently a little too much thought required from our esteemed controlling fraternity, judging from the volume of replies from them!

Could it be that :
  • They don't consider that there is any pressure on them
  • Thet prefer NOT to think about it
  • 'It's OK, this sort of problem could only happen to a controller who is not as good as me'
Whilst I'm on me soapbox, what do we think we have learnt from the recently-released BoI report of the Ben MacDui accident? Have we been enabled to learn from any mistakes that may have been made?
Does everybody now fully understand their responsibilities? (eg: Do ALL aircrew appreciate the differences between RAS and RIS; do ALL controllers appreciate how to apply a RVC - especially if the pilot is NOT operating on QFE?)
Do you KNOW where 'duty of care' sits in your list of responsibilities (especially to aircraft under FIS)?

Just a small selection of the questions that occasionally trouble my fevered brow!

:pDT_Xtremez_26:
 
Last edited:

Hmmmm

SAC
188
0
0
Have we been enabled to learn from any mistakes that may have been made?

I think the silence is indicative of the lessons learnt. Regardless of the legal arguments (the man is innocent), I suspect that a significant number of us would look at the 'controlling' provided in the Ben McDui incident as pretty poor.

Snippets - "request descent to you minimum vectoring altitude" - whilst not a formally recognised phrase, it does sort of say what it means on the box. Personally, I would really question why an experienced controller (ex-instructor) didn't pick this up.This, combined with the "confirm" bit as a follow on from the F15 really sould have made the controller wake up.

The other lessons revolve around management and culture. Poor standardisation/supervision, order books that were gathering dust, a SATCO who was overly interested in her office etc etc.........

As I said, I think that many of us have learnt a number of lesson.
 
S

Standards

Guest
You Can Call Me Al said:
Whilst I'm on me soapbox, what do we think we have learnt from the recently-released BoI report of the Ben MacDui accident?

Having been to a brief regarding the fallout from this incident one thing I picked up on was that throughout the talk the controller involved was always referred to as "Ginger" (nickname changed) whereas another controller who was under the spotlight regarding a C130 crash in the Balkans was referred to as "Sgt Jones" (again, name changed). It could of course just be me (it often is!) but I and others there were left with the impression that Gingers corner was being well fought by "the system" whereas Sgt Jones' was not! I could be wrong, but surely when briefing a mixed audience we should be informed of "a controller" rather than naming names.

Standards!
 
Y

You Can Call Me Al

Guest
Re FF's link to PPrune, the aims of the 'support group' in this case, whilst laudable and entirely justified, should not be confused with the issues dropping-out of such cases in relation to controller responsibilities. As I understand it, the thrust of their argument is aimed at maintaining the controller's innocence with regard to criminal actions taken against him. They have not said, and could not say, that the controller, if given the chance to recount his actions in an ENTIRELY BLAME-FREE environment, would probably outline how he would modify his actions (from shift start to accident) such that others could learn from such an account.

A quick trawl through the hallowed pages of the Prune will reveal countless instances of argument and counter argument from a whole plethora of 'experts' with regard to the issues I have touched-on in this thread. That, in itself, tells a story....

:(
 
C

Cerberus

Guest
Duty of Care

Duty of Care

These days the term 'duty of care' is used in various ways as a 'catch-all' description to cover a controllers 'responsibilities'. However, nobody has ever defined exactly what 'duty of care' really means. I would like to hear someone come up with an accurate definition.

Cerberus
 
T

The Controller

Guest
Cerberus said:
These days the term 'duty of care' is used in various ways as a 'catch-all' description to cover a controllers 'responsibilities'. However, nobody has ever defined exactly what 'duty of care' really means. I would like to hear someone come up with an accurate definition.

Cerberus

Agreed Cerberus...so would I? However, therein lies the rub! 'Duty of Care' must really be a moral issue...and we know that YCCMA has few morals...whereas you and I have loads!!:pDT_Xtremez_28:
 
Y

You Can Call Me Al

Guest
'Duty of care' - let's face it, if the likes of Cerberus can't quantify it, what hope is there for the rest of us? :(

Another thought strikes me - where is the line drawn between 'over control' of FIS and 'duty of care'?

Controller - 'morals' - hmmmm, I've heard of this. :pDT_Xtremez_18:

Time for me nap.
 
Last edited:
100
0
0
Extract from the Telegraph as few years ago:

The HSE may, however, be about to receive a dose of its own medicine. Next week, the insurers for Thames Trains, one of the rail companies involved in the Ladbroke Grove crash - in which 31 people died - will try to sue the HSE for damages. The HSE approved the new layout of signals that Paddington Station needed when the link to Heathrow airport was built. The confusion caused by that layout, which made rail-drivers' jobs much more difficult, may have contributed to the crash. The HSE is trying to escape by claiming that it does not have a "duty of care" to rail drivers or passengers.

That defence sounds exceedingly odd, not to say paradoxical, coming from an organisation charged with protecting the health and safety of the public, and which says that Sir John Stevens is criminally liable for not warning his officers often enough that they might get hurt chasing criminals. But the HSE's attempt to evade the health and safety responsibilities to which it holds everyone else fits another, even more familiar pattern: one law applies to Government bureaucrats - another applies to the rest of us.

Says it all really.
 
T

The Controller

Guest
Interestingly (?), Wikipedia gives a definition(ish) of Duty of Care as follows....

Could this be the basis for an ATC 'definition'??:rolleyes:


In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they exercise a reasonable standard of care while performing any acts that could forseeably harm others. For an action in negligence, there must be an identified duty of care in law.

Duty of care may be considered a formalisation of the implicit responsibilities held by an individual towards another individual within society. It is not a requirement that a duty of care be defined by law, but it will often evolve through the jurisprudence of common law.

Individuals who are considered to be professionals within society are often held to a higher standard of care than those who are not. Engineers and doctors will be held to reasonable standards for members of their profession, rather than those of the general public in cases related to their fields.

Breach of duty of care, if resulting in an injury, may subject an individual to liability in tort. Duty of care is an important prerequisite in the tort of negligence, as the duty of care must exist and must have been breached for the tort to occur.

Examples

Duty of care is evident between drivers of automobiles on the road. Each individual driver owes a duty of care to each other to prevent accidents and drive in a reasonable manner. In the case of an automobile accident, drivers not paying attention or driving irresponsibly will have breached that duty of care.

Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers who ultimately purchase and use the products. In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 of the House of Lords, Lord Atkin stated:

My Lords, if your Lordships accept the view that this pleading discloses a relevant cause of action you will be affirming the proposition that by Scots and English law alike a manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer’s life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care.
 
C

Cerberus

Guest
Duty of Care

Duty of Care

The Controller - you clearly have too much time on your hands!! Get back to work where you can sit in the office and eat choccie bics all day!! Just don't pick up your wallet for a while or you'll damage yourself again!!

Looking at that definition, I assume that military aircrew also have a 'duty of care' towards military air traffic controllers, so what would they have to do to breach this arrangement?

Cerberus
 

Chaka

Sergeant
751
0
0
Maybe, but hands up all those who really think the RAF would stand by them should they fcuk up in the amateur metal welding dept?:pDT_Xtremez_42:

Unless you are very lucky, you're on your own!:pDT_Xtremez_21:
 
Y

You Can Call Me Al

Guest
Maybe, but hands up all those who really think the RAF would stand by them should they fcuk up in the amateur metal welding dept?
- It may well be that 'support' would be given - all the way to a not guilty verdict (if a criminal charge) or a BoI determining that the controller was blameless. The question is, how much support would be given by their airships when, (apparently completely disregarding such findings and, using their position as one-man judge, jury and appeal court,) overturning such findings?

It may well be that I am not in possession of the facts that are available to such high-ranking individuals, and, as such, can only form opinions based on what information trickles through to the pond-life. BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. If our system is to work, and be seen to work, it must be completely transparent and devoid of rumour. The facts have to be made known ASAP in a blame-free environment, (unless an individual is patently culpable, in which case that would be made known as a result of whatever action was taken.)

Or am I being too simplistic?

:pDT_Xtremez_38:
 
H

HilstonPols

Guest
You Can Call Me Al said:
-

Or am I being too simplistic?

:pDT_Xtremez_38:

No just realistic!

We know the truth already, the powers that be would rarely stand beside and defend anyone if there was the faintest hint that the organisation would have any measure of blame attributed to it. That might sound like a whine or a generalisation but history does not prove otherwise.

There is also of course the added problem of cost? With a dwindling bugget can they afford to "stand by thier man"

sounds like a cue for a song.....everybody sing along :pDT_Xtremez_08:
 
T

The Controller

Guest
HilstonPols...
sounds like a cue for a song.....everybody sing along
But I don't remember a song called "With a dwindling bugget can they afford to"!!:eek:
 
H

HilstonPols

Guest
It is a MODERN song so you are unlikely to know it. Ask a younger person to explain it to you:pDT_Xtremez_15:
 
Top