This summer passed at Budapest Ferihegy Airport almost without any noteworthy events. So much so that the bureaucrats were really in trouble figuring out what to do. In the end they managed to make a “serious” incident from a non-event. They are still mulling over this incident and it has even become one of the feature items in this fall’s refresher training. Here is what happened.
It was at the beginning of the summer that the airport was getting ready for a routine taxiway closure announced by NOTAM. Maintenance was going to work on the taxiway, pumping water from the adjacent drainage canal. This was reason enough to close taxiway A4, one of the busiest. This routine operation should not have been a problem had a small error not entered the picture, setting in motion the domino principle where a series of small errors created a bigger one. I still believe however that if we never had anything more serious than this, we should be grateful… Anyway, the Airport Supervisor (who goes by the abbreviation DAM) was still checking Runway 31R when the NOTAM-announced closure time of the taxiway arrived.
Since he could not reach the taxiway in time to place the barriers, he resorted to using his radio to announce to the tower that the taxiway was now closed. This was acknowledged by the tower planning controller but he failed to notify the ground controller sitting right next to him. As luck would have it, the ground controller cleared a departing aircraft at about the same time via the same taxiway, now closed on paper. In the meantime the pumping tender has also moved onto A4 ready to start its work. When its driver saw the aircraft taxiing (I stress… taxiing!) aircraft, he panicked and left the scene in a hurry. It was said that the pilots have not noticed anything untoward, they certainly did not report anything. They taxied to the runway and took off normally. Only the report of the driver and an airport person who had looked out the window accidentally revealed that an “event” had taken place. This was the long awaited trigger for the bureaucrats and they spent the whole summer evaluating this serious event.
Since I did not became an incident investigator (I will come back on this in a little while) I can only draw my conclusions here. First of all, the airport supervisor should only announce the actual closure of a taxiway when he had placed the barriers. I think this amount of flexibility in the start time announced by NOTAM should be possible when there is slippage of the start as a result of the late arrival of the supervisor. My bosses say this flexibility is not acceptable. Well, never mind… My other conclusion is that we should re-think the task allocation in the tower in the context of the opening and combining of the different working positions. Unfortunately the solution that for me seems to be the most logical is rejected even by the majority of my colleagues. This is not rocket science and all we would need to do is some figuring of the GRD, CDC and TPC tasks, especially now that the control of the apron has been take away from us. The point is, the three working positions could be combined during low traffic periods in ways different from what is currently practiced.
Why I did not become an incident investigator? Good question and I can only guess the answer. It has often been observed in the past that there was no tower expert among the ranks of the incident investigators. We felt this especially when we, the tower controllers got blamed in most cases when something happened even if we were of the opinion that others should also share the blame. After us having complained about this repeatedly, management finally decided to take steps to remedy the situation. Back in April they put on a kind of “road show” and coming to the tower they invited our colleagues to make used of this unique opportunity and apply to become investigators. Of course I expressed my customary pessimism but they urged also me saying that people with long experience were especially needed. In the end I let myself be convinced and applied. Then waited. And waited more. After about two months I was called in for an interview. When I arrived there, things looked suspicious: none of the road-show participants were there. Instead an HR gal in her twenties and a former colleague from the ATC Evaluation Unit were present. They asked me a few questions with the gal being the more active. What kind of questions, do you ask? Well, all kinds but of the professional variety. Of course it was difficult to see what kind of professional question a person may ask who was not yet born when I was already working in the tower. It was clear that none of my arguments convinced them and my nice words to the effect that you needed very experienced controllers to be incident investigators and that I would approach the subject from the human side of things especially since I knew practically the whole tower complement were in vain. But she did asked whether I could cook. This kind of blew a fuse in me but I kept my calm. I have been wondering ever since what answer would have been the most appropriate in the circumstances to a question like this.
After this interview I gave up any hope of ever being involved in incident investigation. Once again I fell into the trap of bureaucracy. I thought, naïve as I am, that my bosses encouraged me for a reason and that the precise discovery of the events in an incident were really important. But once again I was disappointed. The winners were all young tower controllers…
One more thing that disturbed the summer calm. This is also the best proof yet of just how far from each other approach and aerodrome control has drifted over the years. On a nice summer day we got an email from the ATC Evaluation Unit with a draft rule, supported by scientific arguments, that described how separation could be maintained throughout on final approach. To our astonishment the experts concluded that the best solution would be for approach control to retain control of the aircraft almost to the threshold and to transfer control to the tower when the aircraft was within a mile from the threshold. We read the text again and again in the hope that we had misunderstood something but no, they were quite serious in wanting to cut our remaining tiny area of responsibility even more. And this when not so long ago the apron was taken away from us… In the end this paper had one beneficial effect, after I do not know how many years the tower as one man stood up against it. I will not go into the technical details as that would require a separate post of several pages, let it suffice to say that the managers of the aerodrome control unit realized that the fact that something is supported by scientific arguments does not mean that it has to be accepted as the only truth. To be sure, we raised the issue at the fall-winter preparation course and argued against any new curtailing of the tower responsibilities. If all units worked in accordance with the existing rules, no separation infringements on final would occur. But to achieve this, they would have to enforce proper adherence to the rules at the other units too, not only the tower.
Finally it is my pleasure to report a huge personal success. In a short 10 year period I succeeded in having the just a tad obsolete paper Tower Journal removed from service. Back in the 80’s this Journal was a very useful thing, we recorded every event in it. With the developments in the IT environment, events were recorded electronically and other information, like attendance, runway conditions, etc. were also noted in some other way. About ten years ago we discussed the matter with the then division boss, agreeing that the paper journal was no longer needed. Some three years later I asked our managers if they had any news about getting rid of the paper journal. The answer was the usual noncommittal blabla. Three years passed again, same question, same answer. Then as if a miracle had taken place, when I raised the matter at the Supervisor meeting, I got a positive response. The division chief, who became a deputy director in the meantime, took up the matter. It took a mere 6 more months before the news came that we no longer had to use the paper journal. Unfortunately I was on leave that day and so I could not take delivery of the last paper Journal which they wanted to present to me as the most ardent proponent of its demise. Well, this did not happen but the big success has made me bold. I am now fighting to terminate the paper daily report.
I have exactly ten more years before I retire.