COVENTRY
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your frustrating me now.
Why was high-vis invented? Clearly in a few posters minds it was just some crazy fashion idea gone wild. You wear high-vis so you can be seen. Did i ever in a previous post mention solely being hit by aircarft? It stops you being hit by vehicles at night, as well as getting caught by an aircraft perhaps. It makes you more visible during the day from the tower. I for one would not go out on an open reasonably unlit airfield at night without one, do you think anyone going 40mph up and down a runway would see you? Or a tug reversing out of a hangar? No i don't think so. It was invented for a purpose no one would have invented it if it wasn't needed. So please can we stop trying to argue against it, you can't win, it wouldn't exist if you were right.
As for the circuit situation, when did i specify that it was dangerous to have more than 2 in the circuit? I never said that, infact i don't believe it. I've flown at Cranfield and had people in all sorts of circuits, it works for them. I should really point out the facts as well, Coventry only allowed booking for 2 aircraft in the circuit at any one time, that didn't mean more wern't allowed in the circuit. There are often 3 or 4 in the circuit - a reasonable number you would say. The reason they restrict it is because not only do you have aircraft who wan't to fly just circuits, but also aircraft who go local area and request circuits on the way back on, ontop of that you have inbounds and outbounds to fit in plus Instrument training of which there were often at least 2 happening simultaneously, both of those requesting go arounds, circle to lands and a circuits as part of their booking. Also i know that most pilots depending on traffic levels if there were no circuit slots available all effort was made to check with controllers coming on as to whether they would accept extra aircraft in the circuit when perhaps there wasn't other training traffic conflicting etc. So realistically the 2 in the circuit is bollocks, rarely have i heard on the frequency a controller telling people to land because they only allow 2 in the circuit. Its also worth pointing out that if you put an air traffic controller in the 'seat' they have alot more responsability, have to do alot more talking, planning, thinking and integrating to get traffic to flow, but having a controller of an air/ground or FISO allows all sorts of other things to go on including Instrument training and the like. You have to look at the bigger picture not just i want more in the circuit.
As to your final point, neither Wellesbourne nor White Waltham are trying to integrate the same traffic as Coventry. Wellesbourne has one buisness jet that come in very early and goes out in the afternoon, never getting much in the way of other traffic. Coventry had air/ground when it suited the traffic, as traffic changes to does the service required. Once you've been and visited an ATC tower at somewhere like Coventry you will see how difficult it is to integrate a jet and a 3 cessna's. Alot of controllers who've worked in the biggest and smallest airports have said how much more difficult it is to work with a massive array of traffic rather than just a specific (e.g. the sausage factory that is passenger airports)
As for the accident a very unfortunate mistake which had a variety of contributors to its occurance and it would very unfair of you to use that as proof of point because accidents happen. Oxford and opposing circuits comes to mind.
Why was high-vis invented? Clearly in a few posters minds it was just some crazy fashion idea gone wild. You wear high-vis so you can be seen. Did i ever in a previous post mention solely being hit by aircarft? It stops you being hit by vehicles at night, as well as getting caught by an aircraft perhaps. It makes you more visible during the day from the tower. I for one would not go out on an open reasonably unlit airfield at night without one, do you think anyone going 40mph up and down a runway would see you? Or a tug reversing out of a hangar? No i don't think so. It was invented for a purpose no one would have invented it if it wasn't needed. So please can we stop trying to argue against it, you can't win, it wouldn't exist if you were right.
As for the circuit situation, when did i specify that it was dangerous to have more than 2 in the circuit? I never said that, infact i don't believe it. I've flown at Cranfield and had people in all sorts of circuits, it works for them. I should really point out the facts as well, Coventry only allowed booking for 2 aircraft in the circuit at any one time, that didn't mean more wern't allowed in the circuit. There are often 3 or 4 in the circuit - a reasonable number you would say. The reason they restrict it is because not only do you have aircraft who wan't to fly just circuits, but also aircraft who go local area and request circuits on the way back on, ontop of that you have inbounds and outbounds to fit in plus Instrument training of which there were often at least 2 happening simultaneously, both of those requesting go arounds, circle to lands and a circuits as part of their booking. Also i know that most pilots depending on traffic levels if there were no circuit slots available all effort was made to check with controllers coming on as to whether they would accept extra aircraft in the circuit when perhaps there wasn't other training traffic conflicting etc. So realistically the 2 in the circuit is bollocks, rarely have i heard on the frequency a controller telling people to land because they only allow 2 in the circuit. Its also worth pointing out that if you put an air traffic controller in the 'seat' they have alot more responsability, have to do alot more talking, planning, thinking and integrating to get traffic to flow, but having a controller of an air/ground or FISO allows all sorts of other things to go on including Instrument training and the like. You have to look at the bigger picture not just i want more in the circuit.
As to your final point, neither Wellesbourne nor White Waltham are trying to integrate the same traffic as Coventry. Wellesbourne has one buisness jet that come in very early and goes out in the afternoon, never getting much in the way of other traffic. Coventry had air/ground when it suited the traffic, as traffic changes to does the service required. Once you've been and visited an ATC tower at somewhere like Coventry you will see how difficult it is to integrate a jet and a 3 cessna's. Alot of controllers who've worked in the biggest and smallest airports have said how much more difficult it is to work with a massive array of traffic rather than just a specific (e.g. the sausage factory that is passenger airports)
As for the accident a very unfortunate mistake which had a variety of contributors to its occurance and it would very unfair of you to use that as proof of point because accidents happen. Oxford and opposing circuits comes to mind.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1
Completely agree, WindSwept.
In addition, I think many of those saying that full ATC at CVT was unnecessary and expensive would be very surprised at what measures were imposed on the airfield by the various safety agencies.
I also imagine that if, given CVTs position, an uncontrolled field with high traffic levels would be 'officially frowned upon' by the authorities.
In addition, I think many of those saying that full ATC at CVT was unnecessary and expensive would be very surprised at what measures were imposed on the airfield by the various safety agencies.
I also imagine that if, given CVTs position, an uncontrolled field with high traffic levels would be 'officially frowned upon' by the authorities.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Solihull, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you
A 'thank you' to Didistutter.
A sentiment that I couldn't agree with more.
The events at Coventry are a sad time for many people. Personally, I've been based there for some years. With great regret I've moved my aircraft to Wellesbourne, admittedly to a really lovely flying club. But, the loss of jobs is a far bigger issue than that facing the people who are / were based there with their own aircraft.
And what do we see here? Some idiots arguing over semantics and pedantry.
What's worrying is that this is the case not just here, but also on other flying websites. I can't quite relate the genuine and decent people I meet at airfields to the argumentative SOBs I see here. . . .
Wishing a good future to those who have been hit by the closure of Coventry,
David.
A sentiment that I couldn't agree with more.
The events at Coventry are a sad time for many people. Personally, I've been based there for some years. With great regret I've moved my aircraft to Wellesbourne, admittedly to a really lovely flying club. But, the loss of jobs is a far bigger issue than that facing the people who are / were based there with their own aircraft.
And what do we see here? Some idiots arguing over semantics and pedantry.
What's worrying is that this is the case not just here, but also on other flying websites. I can't quite relate the genuine and decent people I meet at airfields to the argumentative SOBs I see here. . . .
Wishing a good future to those who have been hit by the closure of Coventry,
David.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Not close enough to my aircraft !
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, now groundschool has been knocked on the head, I need to find something else to do for a while so I did some digging yesterday.
It appears that Coventry City Council (so my freind tells me), have only just started to allow Sir Peter to see the books. This was due to CCC being a bunch of tightwads aparently and they were concerned at letting some of the figures loose as apparently with that one Flying Club going bump, no fuel sales, and rents not being paid by some, and now AFT doing a runner, it seems figures may not really stack up AT ALL !!
It seems that now AFT had started the move away from the field, things are certainly not as rosy as they had been in December when he looked at it first !
The other big problem apparently is that Marshalls STILL want the ATC contract at the original cost levels as they 'lost' over a 1/4 million £ (so she tells me). Marshalls will NOT give up their 'rights' yet apparently, until someone with a fat cheque book stumps up for the contract they lost. This she tells me is something that is coming from a 'Grump' big noise at Cambridge.
Apparently the charges being levied for Fire and Rescue are very high as well and above anything 'reasonable'
Any ATC guys on here care to share anything about Marshalls ?
It appears that Coventry City Council (so my freind tells me), have only just started to allow Sir Peter to see the books. This was due to CCC being a bunch of tightwads aparently and they were concerned at letting some of the figures loose as apparently with that one Flying Club going bump, no fuel sales, and rents not being paid by some, and now AFT doing a runner, it seems figures may not really stack up AT ALL !!
It seems that now AFT had started the move away from the field, things are certainly not as rosy as they had been in December when he looked at it first !
The other big problem apparently is that Marshalls STILL want the ATC contract at the original cost levels as they 'lost' over a 1/4 million £ (so she tells me). Marshalls will NOT give up their 'rights' yet apparently, until someone with a fat cheque book stumps up for the contract they lost. This she tells me is something that is coming from a 'Grump' big noise at Cambridge.
Apparently the charges being levied for Fire and Rescue are very high as well and above anything 'reasonable'
Any ATC guys on here care to share anything about Marshalls ?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: cardiff
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC and Fire Costs - Marshall
Seem to recall it was £2m a year, roughly a million for ATC and a million for Fire & Rescue service?
If anyone's insisting on reverting back to fulfilling the contract that was in place with Marshall, that just kills everything completely dead - good guys at Cambridge, but that level of cover is wholly inappropriate for where the airfield needs to start back up from - i.e. very basic FISO service, perhaps Cat 2 RFF at most, then build up from there progressively.
If anyone's insisting on reverting back to fulfilling the contract that was in place with Marshall, that just kills everything completely dead - good guys at Cambridge, but that level of cover is wholly inappropriate for where the airfield needs to start back up from - i.e. very basic FISO service, perhaps Cat 2 RFF at most, then build up from there progressively.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Coventry
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been away for a few days and have come back to see such a load of bad tempered rubbish on here.
Regarding the most recent posts. Marshalls contract was surely with WMIA Ltd, a company that has been liquidated? The only claim they might have is with Receiver of WMIA Ltd. What claim or rights could they possibly have against a new leaseholder or, indeed, Coventry City Council?
The Fire & Rescue Service was not sub-contracted, they were employees of WMIA Ltd and are therefore now redundant. Any new leaseholder can therefore make their own arrangements. There may be pressure from the receiver to buy the fire vehicles as part of an overall deal to buy equipment but I can't see anything else.
Regarding the most recent posts. Marshalls contract was surely with WMIA Ltd, a company that has been liquidated? The only claim they might have is with Receiver of WMIA Ltd. What claim or rights could they possibly have against a new leaseholder or, indeed, Coventry City Council?
The Fire & Rescue Service was not sub-contracted, they were employees of WMIA Ltd and are therefore now redundant. Any new leaseholder can therefore make their own arrangements. There may be pressure from the receiver to buy the fire vehicles as part of an overall deal to buy equipment but I can't see anything else.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Home
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nav3 wrote:
"It appears that Coventry City Council (so my freind tells me), have only just started to allow Sir Peter to see the books. This was due to CCC being a bunch of tightwads aparently and they were concerned at letting some of the figures loose as apparently with that one Flying Club going bump, no fuel sales, and rents not being paid by some, and now AFT doing a runner, it seems figures may not really stack up AT ALL !!
"
Why would CCC have access to the books? Woon't they be in the hands of the liquidator/receiver? CCC is merely the land owner (who is presumably owed rent by the now defunct WMIAL Ltd.)
Nav3 also wrote:-
"Marshalls will NOT give up their 'rights'"
Do Marshalls have any rights? They either provide a service to the new owners at an agreed price or they don't. Any money they lost to WMIAL is nothing to do with the new owner.... is it?
"It appears that Coventry City Council (so my freind tells me), have only just started to allow Sir Peter to see the books. This was due to CCC being a bunch of tightwads aparently and they were concerned at letting some of the figures loose as apparently with that one Flying Club going bump, no fuel sales, and rents not being paid by some, and now AFT doing a runner, it seems figures may not really stack up AT ALL !!
"Why would CCC have access to the books? Woon't they be in the hands of the liquidator/receiver? CCC is merely the land owner (who is presumably owed rent by the now defunct WMIAL Ltd.)
Nav3 also wrote:-
"Marshalls will NOT give up their 'rights'"
Do Marshalls have any rights? They either provide a service to the new owners at an agreed price or they don't. Any money they lost to WMIAL is nothing to do with the new owner.... is it?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ready to Depart
Age: 45
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the high vis is caa law
Can anyone?
In fairness to the author of that qoute, he cannot respond as he is taking a break to work on his communications skills.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pandora
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From CAP642. Airside safety Management.
High-visibility clothing
6.9.8 Irrespective of other measures that are taken to provide a safe environment for
personnel working in airside areas, all personnel who will be working outside (i.e. on
foot) on the movement area should wear high-visibility clothing.
Also covered in the H&S at work Act.
It will also be covered in the AOI's and ASI's of the individual airports.
As a matter of interest. Passengers are exempt if they are following a recognised walkway and are escorted. That is why walkways are marked at most airports with Pax.
For those who work on a busy ramp, especially at night it is obvious the difference it makes. For those working at small quiet operations then the benefit may not be so obvious.
High-visibility clothing
6.9.8 Irrespective of other measures that are taken to provide a safe environment for
personnel working in airside areas, all personnel who will be working outside (i.e. on
foot) on the movement area should wear high-visibility clothing.
Also covered in the H&S at work Act.
It will also be covered in the AOI's and ASI's of the individual airports.
As a matter of interest. Passengers are exempt if they are following a recognised walkway and are escorted. That is why walkways are marked at most airports with Pax.
For those who work on a busy ramp, especially at night it is obvious the difference it makes. For those working at small quiet operations then the benefit may not be so obvious.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed.
I doubt you would get an ATC's from Marshall's to contribute, they may end up being hung out to dry!
As for them getting involved i don't think they have to, obviously their contract was with WMIAL as was said. They may however hold some ATC related license's in their name that would be difficult or impossible for a new company to get back, hence why they may still be being asked to come on board.
It would probably be unfair to say they had any new buyer over a barrell because to be honest they have come out worst as an organisation (not including all the unfortunate job loses) but as we've already heard they have had to make their staff who worked at Coventry redundant, imagine the personal cost to the company in redundancy payments alone. Are they going to risk getting back involved with Coventry airport where the future is less than secure? We don't know but i guess its a hard place for them as a company to be.
I doubt you would get an ATC's from Marshall's to contribute, they may end up being hung out to dry!
As for them getting involved i don't think they have to, obviously their contract was with WMIAL as was said. They may however hold some ATC related license's in their name that would be difficult or impossible for a new company to get back, hence why they may still be being asked to come on board.
It would probably be unfair to say they had any new buyer over a barrell because to be honest they have come out worst as an organisation (not including all the unfortunate job loses) but as we've already heard they have had to make their staff who worked at Coventry redundant, imagine the personal cost to the company in redundancy payments alone. Are they going to risk getting back involved with Coventry airport where the future is less than secure? We don't know but i guess its a hard place for them as a company to be.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ready to Depart
Age: 45
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From CAP642. Airside safety Management.
High-visibility clothing
6.9.8 ...should...
High-visibility clothing
6.9.8 ...should...
In other words, it is not 'the law'.
Also covered in the H&S at work Act.
Even the HSE guidance pamphlet that explicitly covers operations around aircraft accepts that AIRCREW walking around their aircraft are at a significantly lower risk than other staff and that it is mearly suggested that pilots might consider wearing a hi-vis vest. On the other hand, it strongly recommends that persons at significantly higher risk do wear jackets - in particular baggage handlers (who work in dark, confined spaces - note, nothing to do with being hit by aircraft or vehicles), and marshallers who should wear a different coloured vest to help positively identify themselves!
It will also be covered in the AOI's and ASI's of the individual airports.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So does anyone know whether West Midlands Intl Airport Ltd is up for sale as a going concern, with all its current assets and liabilities, or whether its been wound up , liquidated or whatever the correct phrase is?
Ie does a prospective purchaser start with a clean sheet, new lease, previous debts written off, etc ?
It makes a big difference I'd have thought. I think its the former- ie I think the administrator is still trying to sell a company riddled with all sorts of liabilities. Is that right?
If he cant find a buyer then the company is liquidated? Does that give another chance for purchasers to buy off whats left and or negotiate afresh with CCC?
Ie does a prospective purchaser start with a clean sheet, new lease, previous debts written off, etc ?
It makes a big difference I'd have thought. I think its the former- ie I think the administrator is still trying to sell a company riddled with all sorts of liabilities. Is that right?
If he cant find a buyer then the company is liquidated? Does that give another chance for purchasers to buy off whats left and or negotiate afresh with CCC?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Coventry
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WMIA Ltd was wound up by the High Court. There is no administrator, just a receiver trying to sell what assets there were. There were probably even less assets than one might imagine as I believe some things that might have belonged to the company actually were owned by Coventry City Council (e.g. the Radar, ILS etc). Any new operator will start with a new agreement with Coventry City Council and otherwise a clean sheet.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: crawley
Age: 74
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry
It Does not cover more than 25% of your body as per
Regulation Bull****/Bull****/2010/56787899/hg/6677/8899/Little parts
I see www.ppekit/co.uk was quick to jump on the band Wagon at Booton of Page advert for Hi Viz Clothing.
I Thought this was a professional forum and not an advertizers source for extra trade
It Does not cover more than 25% of your body as per
Regulation Bull****/Bull****/2010/56787899/hg/6677/8899/Little parts
I see www.ppekit/co.uk was quick to jump on the band Wagon at Booton of Page advert for Hi Viz Clothing.
I Thought this was a professional forum and not an advertizers source for extra trade
Last edited by learjet50; 26th Feb 2010 at 17:27. Reason: spelling (Again)
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that a number of airports have made serious enquiries regarding the purchase of the ILS, radar, fire engines and other Telecomunications equipment in the tower and on the airfield.
A lot of it will be used for spares and consequently doesn't attract a huge price, but if the Council owners of the airport are prepared to release all this equipment for sale it makes it that much more difficult for any new operator to justify new investment.
The clock is ticking fast and the ineviatble seems nearer.
A lot of it will be used for spares and consequently doesn't attract a huge price, but if the Council owners of the airport are prepared to release all this equipment for sale it makes it that much more difficult for any new operator to justify new investment.
The clock is ticking fast and the ineviatble seems nearer.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When they realise that CCC will keep all the land, and that vested interests wish to keep previous manning levels, contracts and costs structures, they tend to walk away after doing a week or so of due diligence.
What is interesting is that normally receivers cannot wait to sell the remains of failed companies for whatever they can get, so long as their fees are paid, so I do wonder now what their hidden agenda is.