COVENTRY

[niknak]

I quite agree maybe marshalls should have asked what the guys working for them would take instead of trying to recuperate what it was going to cost them in redundancies!

Marshalls were/are employed at Coventry as an ATC Contractor to provide ATC staff and ATC Engineers, nothing more, nothing less.
In that respect they're no different from any other Service Provider, if the customer changes their terms of conditions than Marshalls have to cut their cloth accordingly.
It would be no different if it were NATS, Serco, Safeskys or Billy Smarts Circus were running that facility on behalf of the airport owners, they're only in it to make money.

as for the privious post of numbers of controllers I here that they were only looking at 10 or maybe 12 so makes you think that they were milking the system with WMIAL!

flyingbricksh

Bit of a naughty thing to put in a public forum, especially when you have no facts to back it up.
No doubt the Marshalls Directors will be along for a chat with you.

[Standard Noise]

The only ones I ever saw around the place was the one who used to tool around in an expensive 4WD vehicle, "inspecting" the runway while travelling down it at 80 mph.......A Vauxhall Corsa would have done the job equally well and much more economically so this just typifies the slack, wasteful bunch that was WMIA.

Now, in the good old days, there were only 13 of us plus 5 ATSAs (4 of the 5 ATSAs plus me all had A/G licences which were used during overnight callouts at the weekend), and we had a knackered old ex-CCC Astra van in a lovely shade of yellow, shame it kept breaking down on the runways and taxiways, oh, and couldn't be used for bird scaring off the hardstanding. As for the speed, once you are used to your runway, with experience, you can run down it an most speeds and still be able to pick up on anything unusual.
If they had an "expensive 4WD vehicle", then it's probably because someone bought it. You use the equipment available.

[Islander2]

What date did the ANO2009 become law then ? I know it was put before Parliament on 24th November 2009. And legislation may be amended before it is signed into law.

SI 2009 No 3015. It became law on 1st January 2010. And, as I said, its Articles 207 & 208 continue to require flying instruction for the purpose of gaining a licence, rating, etc to be undertaken only from a licensed airfield.

[lawnmowerman]

Here you go

The Air Navigation Order 2009 No. 3015

[call100]

Originally Posted by G-RICH

Islander2,
As for bird scaring, would a bird-of-prey as used by the RAF Bird Control Unit be more effective, eco-friendly and cheaper than a 4WD vehicle ?

Very inefficient way of bird control. Once they have been fed they are not interested in hunting and the surrounding bird population can tell the difference between one idling around and one on the hunt. So for a 12 hour scaring day they are pretty useless. They also present a hazard themselves....
Unless you have someone permanently on Bird control duties the effectiveness of any system will be minimal.
I suppose that sums up the difference between proper airports and local flying club airfields.

[WindSwept]

G-rich - you my sir are a muppet, you have just spouted off more incorrect rubbish than I've seen in this thread.

The airport can do what it likes if you look in nearly every airport in pooleys you are required and will be repremanded for not wearing high vis. This isn't just Coventry so I suggest you put your on then you wouldn't be repremanded for being an idiot.

As for vehicles they are likely to be leased and a 4x4 vehicle is neccessary for getting around the airport. But you would know that If you knew anything about one. Next you will be saying the fire engines are too big, except when your the one on fire!

ATC provided my Marshall are on a contract and as was said before will tailor their service to what the customer wants. They are also dictated by how many hours they can work and depending when they are required to work all are factors in how many you need, as is what the CAA say, they may not allow just one controller to work the whole night on their own, or perhaps they insist on certain manning for radar. As you have clearly demonstrated you know sweet f**k all so I suggest you keep quiet to save yourself looking too stupid.

If you think so many things are wrong then perhaps you should buy the airport you seem to know just how to run it right. You will probably get your eyes opened!

Moving on,

[NorthSouth]

Taking a couple of steps back from the detail (although I have been a user of Coventry on several occasions in the last few years and would like to see it continue), I invite you to contemplate the following:

1. In the past there were lots of local authority-owned airfields. Most of them didn't make any money but that didn't seem to worry the ratepayers.

2. Now, running airports is largely the preserve of multinational corporations with massive credit provided by multinational banks.

3. Privately-owned airports have difficulty making a profit.

4. Local authorities have been progressively starved of cash.

5. Multinational banks have received billions in taxpayers money

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

NS

[Standard Noise]

as is what the CAA say, they may not allow just one controller to work the whole night on their own, or perhaps they insist on certain manning for radar.

One ATCO cannot work the whole night on their own, they can however work a nightshift single manned as long as they have statutory breaks. The CAA don't give a monkeys as long as the rules aren't being broken.

The CAA don't specifically insist on manning levels for radar, but there is a formula to work out how many ATCOs are needed depending on days open, hours service is provided and positions manned.

G-RICH - we made (and drank) so much tea, one of the lads thought he had kidney stones!

NorthSouth

1. In the past there were lots of local authority-owned airfields. Most of them didn't make any money but that didn't seem to worry the ratepayers.

It wouldn't have worried the ratepayers of Coventry (as I was) either but then most local authorities didn't brief the local press about what a financial drain the airport was on the ratepayers to the extent that the ratepayers ended up disliking the place and wanting it gone. But because of mismanagement and a few 'moves', it always looked like the airport was a huge loss maker and that CCC were being terribly good eggs by propping it up with ratepayers' cash.

[turbroprop]

G-RICH is no muppet. Good points and much sense.

Yes there is a proposal being looked at by the CAA to allow flying training from un-licenced airfields. ( Which would mean no ATZ )
However with the amount of light aircraft that were using Coventry and hopefully will return then it would be wise to seek licenced status to keep the ATZ. Licenced airfield does not mean fully ATC is also required. Licenced airfields operate with a Air / Ground Radio.

I also have been victim of the CVT OPS yellow jacket brigade. In quiet periods they have been known to park near the maintenance hangars to have a go at personnel who are outside working even in areas where it would be impossible to knock them over as no vehicle could get near them. Also insisting everbody in a group wears a hi-viz vest. Using their logic why do not all passengers walking from a terminal to an aircraft wear one?

Looks like options for CVT as posted before are General Aviation / Maintenace in the short / medium term. Get costs under control and see what the future as the world recovers brings.

[the best protector]

To all those who are moaning about ATC having not much else to do except have ago a folks not wearing hi viz's etc.... Are you sure it was ATC personel?I have no reason to defend ATC but if there is one thing i do know is that ATC did not make a issue of driving around and having ago at people. rules were in place and if you broke them well who's fault is that. Why have ago at a department who have standards to work to and in this case are not to blame.

[Islander2]

You don't need full ATC just to operate light aircraft, just as the law requiring a man to walk in front of a car carrying a red flag was also abolished.

So, to be clear, your business plan would do away with the IAPs, thereby accepting the inevitable loss from the airfield of the revenues from Atlantic Flight Training, visiting IR training organisations, and almost all other non light-GA traffic?

I am not going to argue the case that the Licensing requirement for flight training will go. I will be proven correct sometime in the next few months.

There's no need to argue that case, since the thread has produced no opponents to the argument. What it has done is to call into question your grasp of the applicable legislation, with your emphatic, but nonetheless incorrect, statement about the ANO2009. Quite possibly, it has also highlighted a degree of misplaced optimism on timescales!

[Riverboat]

I used to work at CVT and am still a regular visitor. I read G-RICH's posting and thought "common sense for a change!". Then I read Windswept's posting, and realised there really ARE some muppets around, and that Windswept is possibly a real moron and should be forgiven for posting a load of rubbish.

My understanding is that there still is a runner, and this man, company or whatever it is, has been in the background for some time. That probably means that they already know a fair bit about CVT and its economics, and if they have any sense they will run it more or less along the lines G-RICH suggests.

Regarding flying training, it doesn't matter if this can be carried out on an unlicensed aerodrome in future, because CVT will clearly be licensed, even if only FISO controllers are used. But I imagine that fully qualified ATCOs will be needed so that the ILSs can be used, otherwise CVT would be settling for being another Wellesbourne Mountford, which would be OK except there already is one nearby.

The SCRATCO rules for ATCOs (it is something like SCRATCO but the acronym doesn't look quite right) would allow an ATCO to be on duty overnight. Mind you, I can't see why the airport would need to be open between maybe 2100 and 0700, and maybe with FISO service from (say) 1800.

[x1150]

I hope they get the airport sorted soon because when Coventry City get promoted to the Premiership and then into Europe the incoming fans will need an airport to arrive at.

[HeliCraig]

I am sat next to BHX at the moment, and they have just given a zone transit to a flock of flying pigs.

[0523 cov man]

x1150 what are you on can i have some 300jobs on the line at cvt dont take the pi** 0523 covman

[HeliCraig]

While you're there "0523 cov man", can you get some lessons in punctuation please? Reading your posts is hard work without it!

[x1150]

cov man

As someone who's been made redundant 3 times in Coventry I know the feeling only too well, no malice was meant but sometimes a little humour at times like these as long as it's not personal sometimes may be ok I cetainly was not taking the p**s

[flyingbricksh]

And still the rollercoaster goes on !

will there ever be an end to this "will it , won't it, will it, won't it "

really feel for those who have been caught up in the short sightedness of certain nimbys who "can't see the end of their own drive ways"

so much for capitalising on the 2012 olypics!

[NorthSouth]

Or perhaps by the short-sightedness of the people who, actively encouraged by the government, thought there was a bonanza to be made out of never-ending exponential growth of air transport and that every little airport ought to be teeming with low-cost airlines.
NS

[0523 cov man]

cvt

north south look back at your post and you have use cvt to fly from 0523 covman