COVENTRY

[valkyrie42]

Wise words from DW and Manx please listen to them - DW I sincerely hope you get all your money back.

[manxcat]

Wise Words

DW and Valkyrie,

Many thanks for the sage advice.

We'll watch and learn how things unfold.

Best of luck to you both.

manxcat

[Frogga]

Whoever buys the airport needs to start small and slowly work up.

Look at the local airfields that are around such as Wellesbourne and Leicester, well run, small staff numbers but successful. Coventry needs to adapt that approach to begin with to attract all the aircraft that ar annoyed or have left Coventry.

Once this has been done then maybe try and attract more in the way of Bizjets and Cargo, but at the right price.

[call100]

Pilots should stick to things they know.....Running airports is not one of them. Not knowing the reasons for the rules/practices does not mean they are invalid.
Anyway, I think the Council has bigger (too big) ambitions for the airport and this is part of the problem. They don't seem to think that the City will be of any worth if it's not got an airport.
I notice that all the land around the airport has been pencilled in for housing. That adds another twig to the fire....The latest people interested in the airport at least seem to have a grasp of the realities and their plans look workable. Once DD is done and if they proceed, then surely that is the time to discuss what is and what isn't.

[Frogga]

The latest people interested is Sir Peter Rigby, big into aviation who owns Companies at Gloucester and Cranfield, and is also the UK Importer for Cessna now. Lets hope he makes a good job of the airport and start with small staff numbers so that the operating costs are minimal and he can develop the airport properly.

[Standard Noise]

but since we have radar cover from BHX is it not just unnecessary duplicate to have it at CVT ? Many are the occasions where I was held up while ATC had to wait for clearance from BHX for a Thomson 737 to depart so they were a pretty expensive bunch of people to have to just make a telephone call.

G-RICH - now you're straying into an area where you know less than nothing, trust me.

[flyingbricksh]

SN well said with regard to G-RICH

G-RICH dont go where angels fear to tread !

ATC is one area you realy don't want to go even less upset

[call100]

Originally Posted by G-RICH

Call100,

Have you ever actually been there ? And where is this little nugget hidden ?

CCC don't have the planning control of the airport - Warwickshire District Council does. CCC's writ runs North of (running from East to West) from the Tollbar Island, down Rowley Road, up to the A45, along to Stonebridge Island, down the A46, then to the West aloing the Finham boundary. Anything south of this, which is the entire airport, WDC does the planning for.

Since they would not approve a small airport terminal, extensive housing development is unlikely.

There is a current readily available site on the flattened, cleared remains of the old Peugeot site for housing.

The precedent here is when the old Triumph motorcycle works was redeveloped into housing in the 1980s.

Who are these "latest people" interested in the airport then ?

Penny B, come back, all is forgiven.

Probably been there more than yourself and probably a bit before you even knew it existed.
Thanks for the Lecture, but it's not necessary, as usual you got the wrong end of the stick.
Where did I say it was CCC that was planning anything? Again you assume, it really is making you look stupid.
If you read the Local paper...Of course that is if you are local...You would have known about the proposals and the consultation documents.
If you don't know by now who is doing DD on the airport at the moment, after all the discussion on here, then that explains your lack of understanding of what was written.
So far your batting average is zero with little hope of improvement....Keep up the good work.

[C_J]

I think the housing plans for near the airport that Call 100 was referring to are the ones proposed by WDC last week.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2010/02/18/more-coventry-green-belt-land-threatened-92746-25862103/

The reports only say that they are green belt land around Baginton, so I suppose that rules out the airport site being part of this plan.

[Frogga]

They are building houses on the Peugeot at Stoke in Coventry, not sure how many however.

[Frogga]

Wellesbourne has 1 FISO on duty most of the time, and they are capable of 6 in the circuit any time, its just bad management and stupidity that messed Coventry up, now they have paid the price!!!

[Standard Noise]

but since we have radar cover from BHX is it not just unnecessary duplicate to have it at CVT ? Many are the occasions where I was held up while ATC had to wait for clearance from BHX for a Thomson 737 to depart so they were a pretty expensive bunch of people to have to just make a telephone call.

OK, let me elaborate........
Air Traffic at Birmingham is provided by NATS, they are contracted by the airport authority to provide ATS for Birmingham Airport, no more, so why would they do it for Cov? NATS is a commercial organisation, it does not provide free ATS just to keep a few pilots happy.
CCC (and subsequent owners, as feckless as they may have turned out!) have never felt the need to contract out ATC to NATS or disestablish it altogether. This has mainly been because there was a hope that the airport could be built up.

The fact that you have been held up because a clearance was needed for a commercial flight is neither here nor there. Maybe you didn't notice that the 33 approach at Birmingham dissects the 23 climb out/05 approach at Cov? Or that the MSA doesn't allow 737s on an IFR flight knob about at 1499 feet. Not to mention that once a/c pass 1500 feet they are in Birmingham's airpsace (or at least that was the case back in my day)?

I'm not against the airport running without ATC, but the friends that I have who still work there are ATC staff and I'd like to see them continuing in employment.

If you wish to include me in the 'G-RICH is a wker' brigade, then that is your privilege, all I said was that your knowledge of my profession is nil and intimating that your continued ATC bashing was pointless and does nothing for your argument.

Oh, and while I'm at it.....

so they were a pretty expensive bunch of people to have to just make a telephone call.

ATCOs, no matter where they work are not just telephonists! And you have the cheek to call me patronising!? Live in a glass house do you? Or have you joined the wker brigade you so despise?

Oh, and for your information, a similar system of releases for a/c works over at Belfast City. Been to the Belfast City thread to run it down have you or are you being selective?

[call100]

G-RICH

God you are hard work...Do you want us to do all the work for you....The report in the Telegraph led to the WDC core strategy paper......Find it yourself...Remembering my original statement said 'proposals' and 'land around the Airport'. Stop being the Wnker you allude to and the thread might flow better. You are of the thinking that if you haven't heard about it, it ain't true..I'm not in the habit of making it up!!
I'm not on here to engage in a pointless fight, but I owe you nothing. If you jump in with both size 15's it's obvious you are going to get some flack...Take a deep breath and pull your neck in...
I think you'll find we all want an operating airfield...

[Frogga]

A FISO needs to be trained at the airfield that they are working at. This is a simple process and can be done in a short period of time. The costs are small and the costs for 3 or 4 FISOs to man the tower would be far far smaller that full ATC.

Lots of airfield have FISOs and handle Business Jets, and they would be able to communicate with Birmingham for Radar Clearances for Airways Departures.

[Frogga]

Im not the man at all G-RICH, i just pointed out that it would be cheaper to have a FISO service at Coventry rather than full ATC, although if the scheduled cargo was to restart at Coventry then I believe a full ATC service is necessary (not 100% sure though).

Im unsure how much you actually know about the information you talk about on here too.....

[WindSwept]

FISO's can't handle 6 in the circuit because they don't have to handle anything! They bare little to no responsability to what goes on and are an aid to safety by acting as a constant person who can pass traffic information to you. If you hit someone because they didn't notice it isn't their fault. Thats how you can 'handle' 6 in the circuit.

G-RICH
I don't think SN is trying to protect just the employment at Coventry ATC but more ATC in general. If you seriously think that its as simple as just getting on with it then your wrong. Its highly complicated more so than buzzing around in your cessna, there are alot of limitations placed on what is allowed to happen and what isn't! Its not just a case of that ATCO is an idiot he won't let more be in the circuit, there are rules and ATC is a service they provide what they are told to provide. If you had a problem you should have raised it with the airport. I don't think you will get a member of ATC to actually spend the time to explain everything to you because it would take days, and to be honest you don't care anyway. All you want is an airfield tailored to EXACTLY what you want. Does it suit others? No i don't think so, just yourself. Why would so many ATPL/CPL students come to coventry to learn 1.Full ATC 2.Range of aircraft for intergration 3. ILS boths ends an NDB and controllers who are willing to spend the time to offer those services to everybody.

Also if you think Birmingham are going to look after you forever you will be very suprised. They are acting in an interim in the belief that Coventry will reopen with ATC to take the workload again. NATS have said it before that Birmingham ARE NOT there to provide any services to traffic other than that they are getting paid for or HAVE TO work. So enjoy it while it lasts.

You can't compare one airport to another based solely on the service you recieve because there are other restrictions. As for the 4x4's and high-vis, all your doing is talking out of your arse to be quite honest. Acting like a child because you don't like the rules. How do anticipate servicing all the ILS equipment around the site in the winter? Is it really going to harm you wearing a high-vis - are you alergic perhaps? (im pretty sure your safer the more visible you are - is that not correct?)

You can't have the airport just to suit you personally and all the other hobby pilots around. There is cargo to be done, buisness jets to land and commercial flight training to take place. Im sorry but Coventry is not aiming to be a club airfield like leicester it has the potential to be more (and has in the past been more). All of those place standards on the minimum levels of service the airport has to provide and what is required to attract that traffic. The airport would go no where if you just turned it into another leicester*.

Its short sited to think only about how you want it for yourself, those who choose to base themselves out of their have to take the positives (full ATC with radar, ILS etc) with the negatives (you have to wear a high-vis and put up with other much bigger/faster traffic)

*Lecister - onto leicester, there is nothing wrong with it, i've flown out of there many times and its excellent for what it is, but where do all their pilots go for commercial training or to shoot an ILS - Coventry is certinally one of them.

[lawnmowerman]

Since they would not approve a small airport terminal

wrong!
Warwick dc granted planning permission for a passenger terminal for 1 million passengers a year. The airport built it but has subsequently (perhaps unwisely) converted it to a business executive facility. The bigger 2 million passenger facility was rejected by planning inspectorate, call in and the high court.

I think the housing plans for near the airport that Call 100 was referring to are the ones proposed by WDC last week.

Coventry Telegraph - News - Coventry News - More Coventry green belt under threat

The reports only say that they are green belt land around Baginton, so I suppose that rules out the airport site being part of this plan.

Most of the airport land is in fact Green Belt land, and if/when it ceases to be operational airport, redevelopment of the land is by no means a planning formality.

[cvt person]

There appears to be some considerable confusion as to which land has and has not been designated for future housing development.
Warwick District Council as obliged by the government drew up a plan to identify possible areas of land within the district to meet future housing needs, As well as areas around Warwick and Leamington this identified a track of land south of Coventry in the Kings Hill Area. At this stage other possible sites including some in the Baginton area close to the airport were considered and rejected. These proposals then went out for public consultation. As part of this consultation it was possible to suggest alternatives to the areas Warwick District Council was proposing. This prompted a rash of landowners suggesting their land as possible alternatives - building land is worth a lot more than farming land. Some of these landowners coming forward are in the Baginton Area in the vicinity of the airport. These alternatives are now out for consultation over the next 6 weeks. Given that these areas have already been rejected by the district council, and that the Baginton parish council vigorously objected to a set of traffic lights in the proposed area as urbanisation, the chances of these pieces of land finishing up in the areas that are eventually designated as housing land is remote.

[wsmempson]

QUOTE "Is it really going to harm you wearing a high-vis - are you alergic perhaps? (im pretty sure your safer the more visible you are - is that not correct?)"

windswept, can you produce any evidence of pedestrians ever having been hit by a taxiing aircraft? Anywhere in the world? (This should not include anecdotes concerning pilots or ground crew walking into the rotating propellers of parked aircraft...).

The only concrete safety evidence concerning high-viz polyester tabards, centres about how dangerous they are in proximity to fuel bowsers as a result of the static electricity that they can generate. In this respect, high viz vests are extremely dangerous, and should really be outlawed from a H&S point of view.

As for more than two aircraft in the circuit being dangerous, I'll pass your comments on to Wycombe Air Park where there are regularly 4 aircraft in the fixed wing circuit, and sometimes as many as 7. In addition to that, the glider circuit may be active, as may the helicopters. Wycombe Tower seems to do a perfectly decent job of maintaining separation and I think that they might be a bit upset at your suggestion that what they are doing is by definition unsafe.

As for busy airfields where there is only air to ground radio or an information service, neither Wellesbourne (where there is an information service) nor White Waltham (which is air to ground) have a huge problem with airprox's or in flight collisions. Whereas, if memory serves, there was a recent incident concerning two aircraft at coventry?? (Sorry if I don't remember the details.)

[volrider]

Come in late on this one and after reading a few posts it seems a lot of anger is around.
I think that had it not been for the recent downturn in "everything" that Cov would have survived as a passenger airport, sadly things overtook it. I flew from there to a few places with Tomson and I found it refreshing to the larger BHX, however I think that the region can support two airports and would like to see COV back flying again. I know the council or whoever did not help with plans etc, but fingers crossed it can happen again