NEWQUAY
And I certainly don't care for the "regulatory structure" being the overarching consideration. The job of all these public bodies, equally, seeing as their salaries are paid out of the public's purse, is to get the airport and the public's needs met in a safe, efficient, sensible manner. They can adapt their structures as they wish to achieve that. Not to start scoring points or to have a "my bureaucracy's more important than your bureaucracy" approach.
I wish someone could tell us what the actual safety issues are that were OK on November 30, justify shutting the airport down in December, and will lead to it reopening and being OK again later in December. And by safety issues I don't mean Safety Cases not signed off in the right colour of ink. I've had it with Safety Cases, ISO 9000 certification, and all the rest of the bogus administration hoo-hah we have to put up with currently.
I've had to deal with a couple of organisations today regarding changes to the UK VAT rate today. One was trying to be helpful and coming up with sensible approaches, the other has done nothing all day except whine about it not being their job, and sending missives everywhere to this effect. In the time it took them to send these messages they could have actually fixed and overcome the problem. Guess which one of these two the Newquay situation reminds me of.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA's view of it
BBC NEWS | England | Cornwall | Airport closure was 'responsible'
The difference is that up to now the ATC, equipment and procedures were operated solely by the RAF. All this equipment is now decommissioned and will, probably, be removed from site.
The new civilian side will be using new equipment, from a new tower with new staff. Apart from commissioning tests, as far as I am aware, this new equipment has not been used operationally.
Or to put it another way, up until now it was operating under the RAF safety case, they have "gone" so it can no longer operate under that.
The delay appears, for whatever reason, to be in approving the new safety regime/case
BBC NEWS | England | Cornwall | Airport closure was 'responsible'
The difference is that up to now the ATC, equipment and procedures were operated solely by the RAF. All this equipment is now decommissioned and will, probably, be removed from site.
The new civilian side will be using new equipment, from a new tower with new staff. Apart from commissioning tests, as far as I am aware, this new equipment has not been used operationally.
Or to put it another way, up until now it was operating under the RAF safety case, they have "gone" so it can no longer operate under that.
The delay appears, for whatever reason, to be in approving the new safety regime/case
Last edited by west lakes; 1st Dec 2008 at 19:12.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: way out there
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM,
i take it you are some sort of bean counter then. Don't worry there is a long history of bean counters not getting the point when it has come to aviation.
We are not talking about some ISO 9000 paperwork that some door handle is in the wrong place. This is about flight safety and does not mean the CAA should cut corners or adjust their standards to get it done. The standards and procedures are there for a reason they work and are safe.
TIME TO SPARE GO BY AIR
i take it you are some sort of bean counter then. Don't worry there is a long history of bean counters not getting the point when it has come to aviation.
We are not talking about some ISO 9000 paperwork that some door handle is in the wrong place. This is about flight safety and does not mean the CAA should cut corners or adjust their standards to get it done. The standards and procedures are there for a reason they work and are safe.
TIME TO SPARE GO BY AIR
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WBHM
The point I think you are missing, well two points really, is that the reason that aviation is so safe is that there is a fairly rigid set of rules which taken together make it safe, and that the CAA is not some kind of equal partner in an effort to get you flying. The CAA is there to make sure the rules are followed, end of story, so that aviation stays safe.
The sort of cosy arrangement that you seem to want, with all parties getting their heads together to sort things out in a co-operative kind of way, is exactly the sort of arrangement that results in a disaster, because the priority for all concerned becomes to get the place open at all costs.
Now you can rant away about stupid pettifogging rules and how anyone with commonsense can always get by safely, but the next time you go flying without a second's doubt about whether you'll get there in one piece, just reflect on the fact that your confidence comes from a safety culture that revolves around sticking to the letter of the rules, without exceptions, and the safety record that has resulted. You would be astonished, I think, at how much paperwork is completed during a simple turn-round, but the fact that it is, and that jail looms for anyone who gets it wrong, is why you can relax and enjoy it.
There has never been any secret about what the rules would be when CCC took over. The blame for not getting things done properly and on time lies fair and squarely with that useless organisation, and not with the CAA or the RAF.
A child of 10 could have told them 2 years ago what was needed and how and when to do it. Unfortunately the organisation employs no-one who could have understood.
Sorry that's a bit of a rant in itself. I'm deeply involved with safety, and I have experience of CCC.
The point I think you are missing, well two points really, is that the reason that aviation is so safe is that there is a fairly rigid set of rules which taken together make it safe, and that the CAA is not some kind of equal partner in an effort to get you flying. The CAA is there to make sure the rules are followed, end of story, so that aviation stays safe.
The sort of cosy arrangement that you seem to want, with all parties getting their heads together to sort things out in a co-operative kind of way, is exactly the sort of arrangement that results in a disaster, because the priority for all concerned becomes to get the place open at all costs.
Now you can rant away about stupid pettifogging rules and how anyone with commonsense can always get by safely, but the next time you go flying without a second's doubt about whether you'll get there in one piece, just reflect on the fact that your confidence comes from a safety culture that revolves around sticking to the letter of the rules, without exceptions, and the safety record that has resulted. You would be astonished, I think, at how much paperwork is completed during a simple turn-round, but the fact that it is, and that jail looms for anyone who gets it wrong, is why you can relax and enjoy it.
There has never been any secret about what the rules would be when CCC took over. The blame for not getting things done properly and on time lies fair and squarely with that useless organisation, and not with the CAA or the RAF.
A child of 10 could have told them 2 years ago what was needed and how and when to do it. Unfortunately the organisation employs no-one who could have understood.
Sorry that's a bit of a rant in itself. I'm deeply involved with safety, and I have experience of CCC.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Devon
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently according to the local BBC the latest delays are due to the CAA not being happy with run off areas etc. CCC have stated the the work to rectify this is very much weather reliant. Ha ha thats a joke with the weather we get down here in the winter.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
job of all these public bodies, equally, seeing as their salaries are paid out of the public's purse, is to get the airport and the public's needs met in a safe, efficient, sensible manner.
The CAA have bent over backwards to help Newquay, but don't forget that there are many other airports trying to get major Projects across the line at the moment and Newquay have no right to exclusive support.
I've never been so insulted in my life 
How can said run-off areas be satisfactory for public transport operations on November 30 and not on December 1 ?
But they haven't actually had a success because the field has been closed. Plenty of marks from me for bending over backwards and actually achieving something. But that hasn't happened.
CAA not being happy with run off areas etc
The CAA have bent over backwards to help Newquay
).
As TCAS FAN has asked who were the consultants, let's name and shame them or were the council really stupid enough to try to do this single handed?? Surely it is time that heads rolled.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No the Council brought in specialist groups to manage the various parts of the Project. I believe the Project was managed by APD and Turner/Townsend. The Navaids were all provided by Selex.
Thanks, by the way if you want a copy of the masterplan the Council are charging £40 for it!!! Not much good for a consultation document that pensioners etc may not have internet access to is it?
So it would appear then that APD consulting who look on the face of it to have plenty of experience in these matters might just know exactly what went wrong!
They are also responsible in part for the master plan so if the handover was a c@ck up why should the master plan be any different?
So it would appear then that APD consulting who look on the face of it to have plenty of experience in these matters might just know exactly what went wrong!
They are also responsible in part for the master plan so if the handover was a c@ck up why should the master plan be any different?
Last edited by GROUNDHOG; 2nd Dec 2008 at 15:27.
You can have the best laid out masterplan in the world written by the best people but its a bit like putting a drunken chav in a Ferrari and expecting him to compete in F1.
CCC resemble the drunken Chav in case anybody is wondering
CCC resemble the drunken Chav in case anybody is wondering
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can said run-off areas be satisfactory for public transport operations on November 30 and not on December 1 ?
An example, in the Electricity Industry the minimum height of 11,000 volt overhead lines used to be 5.7m over fields and 5.9m over roads. The latest legislation sets this height at 6.0m. There is no requirement for companies to go and raise every line to the new height unless major work is being carried out anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see how this can be the fault of the CAA, the requirement was clear and professionals were used to run the Project. IF they've been allowed to do their job unimpeeded then they shoudl have delivered. Suspect this is one of those jobs that nobody can claim any credit from.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Devon
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been announced that it has cost Cornwall County Council upto £6 million in the last Twelve months in consultants fees to get the airport ready for the handover to a civil airport.Thats alot of £5s to get back from the passengers in airport tax.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Devon
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the Locall BBC news and a Cornwall County Council official it is highly unlikely that the airport will reopen this side of Christmas. They reckon the delays have been caused due to the fact they were unable to carry out certain works like the replacement of the runway lighting as the RAF were still using the airbase and other works could only be carried out at night when the airbase was closed over night. Forgive me if I seem a bit thick but didnt they know the RAF would use the base upto the day they left and civil flights were still coming and going aswell when they set the handover date in the first place and they would have these problems.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I lay my head is home.
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's Rich!
...delays have been caused due to the fact they were unable to carry out certain works like the replacement of the runway lighting as the RAF were still using the airbase...
My understanding is that those "in the know" believed many months ago that the airport would not be ready on 1 Dec, rather than the last minute hitch that has been reported.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Somewhere in England!
Age: 67
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a bit rich from Cornwall County Council. As I understand it the RAF ceased military flying on 31 July and wanted to close the airfield. The Council asked the RAF to provide air traffic services until they were ready as closing the airfield would mean financial problems. The runway resurfacing and lighting replacement has been completed on time with the RAF accepting the risk of continued operations not the Council.
In an video on the this is Cornwall - News, Sport and Entertainment news from Cornwall site the Colin Jarvis (Deputy Director, Cornwall County Council) states the CAA complimented them on the runway and standard of runway lighting. He also says the CAA complimented them on the way they worked on a live airfield - as indicated earlier I think the RAF staff managed that risk.
The major show stopper as far as the Council are concerned is air traffic control is not up and running, that was totally in their hands.
Pie
Edited: SID East beat me to it!
In an video on the this is Cornwall - News, Sport and Entertainment news from Cornwall site the Colin Jarvis (Deputy Director, Cornwall County Council) states the CAA complimented them on the runway and standard of runway lighting. He also says the CAA complimented them on the way they worked on a live airfield - as indicated earlier I think the RAF staff managed that risk.
The major show stopper as far as the Council are concerned is air traffic control is not up and running, that was totally in their hands.
Pie
Edited: SID East beat me to it!