Air traffic controllers 'repeatedly misread altitude'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Controllers have "repeatedly" misread the altitude of aircraft by thousands of feet because of badly designed screens at the new £623m control centre at Swanwick, it was claimed yesterday.
In at least one case, an aircraft was sent into a sector at the wrong altitude, although the mistake was spotted, according to a confidential submission by a controller to management at National Air Traffic Services (Nats).
Air traffic staff have also registered "great difficulty" in distinguishing Glasgow from Cardiff because the codes for cities – EGPF for the Scottish city, EGFF for the Welsh capital – are so similar and the print size so small. One controller had initially treated an aircraft as if bound for Cardiff and then discovered it was headed for Glasgow. Another report refers to a controller "mixing up" FL360 (36,000ft) and FL300 (30,000ft).
Although the partly privatised company claims that none of the complaints by controllers was safety related, a letter dated 18 January from the Health and Safety Executive said the design defects "may have implications for safety". The controllers who filled in the "feedback" forms also indicated that safety might be impaired, according to the magazine Computer Weekly.
A report from the Health and Safety Executive has pointed out that the screens do not meet Nats' own specifications. The HSE document says the print size on some screens is too small and the figures 0.8 and 6 can be difficult to distinguish.
Screens were designed to be read from 50cm away but many controllers sit about 70cm away, it says. The magazine reported that Swanwick controllers had "repeatedly" misread the altitude displayed on a screen by thousands of feet.
Computer problems at Swanwick delayed the opening of the new Swanwick centre in Hampshire from 1996 to January this year. Electronic glitches have caused flight delays and cancellations three times over the last two months. Last Friday computer problems led to hours of chaos at all of Britain's major airports.
Nats said the problems had been with planners who did not handle aircraft "live" on their screens. It said there had been no "safety-related incidents" and the CAA had said repeatedly that Swanwick was "safe". A spokesman added: "An improved display has been developed and prototype testing is due to begin shortly."
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments