[Mark Caswell]

The BBC has a live update page on this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66637817

And here is the news piece on the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66637156

Please do leave comments below if you have been affected by the issues.

[openfly]

Just got straight through to the BA Gold line to check why I couldn’t check in for my flight tmw..wed… Told that BA.com is overwhelmed and can’t cope, so check in at LHR. Says a lot for the robustness of BA.com…!! Another cheap BA system?

[cwoodward]

Am I wrong in my impression that the control system was shown to be overly fragile (vulnerable) and without an effective back-up able to cope with the normal traffic flow ?

Perhaps time for a serious upgrade ?

[AndrewinHK]

cwoodward, my understanding is that NATS is well funded when compared to the likes of the FAA in the US. This failure was exacerbated by it being a very busy travel period, but it was resolved fairly quickly (in around 3 hours), and at no time was the airspace actually closed, just traffic flows reduced. NATS has had no such incidents since 2014, given the volume of traffic the systems are able to handle, it is a testament to how well the system actually operates. Eurocontrol had a similar failure in 2018 which took a few hours longer to resolve and delayed 50% of all flights in Europe. The FAA had a system failure in January this year which delayed 32,000 flights and canceled more than 400. In terms of funding, NATS underwent a generational airspace upgrade earlier this year, The West airspace changes enable the following projected benefits, 12,000 tonnes of CO₂ reduced per year within UK airspace. Savings are equivalent to the annual emissions of 3,500-family homes. Two hours cumulative reduction in flying time per day for aircraft using West airspace. 150,000 nautical miles of flying saved per year for aircraft using West airspace equivalent to seven trips around the world. NATS also was the first globally to implement the VCF at Heathrow some 14 years ago, the virtual contingency facility is now in the process of being upgraded, with a new system due in 2025.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Chris in Makati, Montysaurus, stevescoots

[cwoodward]

Thank you for the interesting information Andrew – however my question remains is the system adequately robust as well as being advanced and well funded. I ask the general question only as from what I have read the trigger for the failure appears to have been one ‘wrong’ input and I am yet to be persuaded as to why this situation could not recur.

[AndrewinHK]

cwoodward, looking at past incidents, these types of issues tend to happen once a decade, so I wouldn’t be overly concerned such an incident would occur again anytime soon. It raises questions of course about the operational ability of the system if there is a failure. The new VCF system at LHR will if ever needed (since implementation in 2014, it has never once been used) will be able to handle 100% of the traffic at LHR in the event of any failure of LHR ATC. The current system is able to handle 70%, so one assumes further fail safes could be implemented for the broader NATS network, although this will be considerably more expensive and complex than the LHR project. Given NATS presides over the busiest city airspace in the world with London Control, I don’t really have any concerns, or doubts about the ability of the management to resolve issues and further enhance the system.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Montysaurus

[cwoodward]

I don’t have personal concerns ether other than a strong suspicion that the public is being fed information that the NATS system is robust and modern when it seems that this is not the case.
The system has experienced the same problem previously when it appears to have also failed.

I READ- from reports being posted on specialist aviation engineering forums that-

“The NATS system is neither new or significantly robust and is based on a US system purchased in the seventies. It is part of the National Airspace System (NAS), which the UK obtained from the US FAA. The UK NAS airspace architecture is essentially the same today as it was in the 70s but of course updated to reflect the changing airspace over time. A key part of that software is a sub-programme called Route Conversion and Posting. This process of route conversion is obviously a very complex exercise. I understand at least one major UK NAS outage in the past was caused by errors in this process. Someone had managed to input an FPL route that passed NAS route validation (described in NAS-MD-311 Message Entry and Checking) but “did not compute” when route conversion was attempted and both the systems failed. it was a problem in the software logic, and the backup system runs the same software and failed”.

“What happened on Monday (AIUI) was the NAS programme “FLOPed” (Functional Lapse of the Operational Programme) – aka crashed. The programme was restarted successfully, but when the recovery data (the data that is in the system – including FPLs – that is recorded as a backup from time to time) was read in it FLOPed again. The rogue FPL was also in the backup recovery data.”

“all of these newer system updates are being added to the 1970’s framework NAS system that was — supposed to be replaced but appears to have a never ending lifespan—- and this with a New Combined Ops facility that lies idle still at Swanwick.”

If the above information is correct it reeks to me of NATS being inept or underfunded despite contrary reports in the press.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Paul, maxgeorge

[ASK1945]

I have no knowlege of the technicalities of the NATS, so won’t comment on these.

However, isn’t the real problem here the failure of the airlines and airports to have robust systems in place for the regular disruptions in air travel from various different aspects? The lack of good after-care is astonishing and the mark of poor management when things go wrong. The complaints of passengers, as quoted in the media, aren’t about NATS but about how poorly they are being looked after.

[AndrewinHK]

ASK1945, it is sad to see people sleeping on airport floors and such, but in this instance what are airlines and airports supposed to do apart from provide basic care? The failure of the ATC system is outside of their control, so EU261 does not apply. Travel insurance should cover such disruptions, I would imagine many don’t have. Travellers with the means and common sense would find alternate routings home, I feel for families who perhaps don’t have the means to splurge on expensive tickets, but again a lesson that travel insurance is crucial to cover such risks.

[ASK1945]

AndrewinHK wrote: “…………… in this instance what are airlines and airports supposed to do apart from provide basic care?”

Andrew, this is exactly my point. Reading the very, very many reports in the media, basic care, in its many forms, wasn’t and isn’t being provided. Additionally, you wrote “Travellers with the means and common sense would find alternate routings home”. Why should anyone need to have to do this? People on this Forum are usually experienced travellers so can, but in the wider world vast numbers are not, or maybe on their first trip. Joe public doesn’t necessarily have this expertise.

Your reference to insurance is irrelevant to the issue I was raising. Insurance cover – which we are agreed should always be in place – is for the reimbursement of costs incurred (which may not be relevant here, in any case) but it’s the duty of airport managements to manage the catastrophe in the first instance and the airline managements to manage the communications and repatriations.

So far, it looks like failure to me.

2 users thanked author for this post.

maxgeorge, cwoodward

[FDOS]

One thing that made me laugh this morning is WIllie Walsh saying the airlines should not be picking up the tab for the NATS IT issues – pot, kettle, black!

And in any event, EC261 Article 13 makes it clear that airlines may seek redress from 3rd parties.

Looks like Willie’s association members are going to have to take this claim to Court, if NATS won’t pay – hahahahhahahahahaha.

2 users thanked author for this post.

stevescoots, cwoodward

[AndrewinHK]

Given NATS is partly owned by British Airways and Easyjet, perhaps Mr Walsh should give them a call haha. Previous issues of ATC failures resulted in NATS compensating. The initial internal report comes out on Monday, lets see what they say.

[Author]

Posts