slowclimber, totally agree with you however with a serious head injury, the terrible sound that the Trislander makes would only making your throbbing head worse.

It was not an in-flight refusal and subsequent diversion!
 

I was working that evening and feel that the media have misled the public by failing to divulge all parts of the story (something they frequently do). The plane was running much later than expected and for whatever reason Southampton were unable to stay open. As a result the flightplan was changed to Bournemouth at least 30 mins before the a/c got airborne giving plenty of time for the ambulance to get there before it landed.

Thanks OA32... Brilliant..... maybe that will silence some of the critics. Looks like it's a "nothing" story after all.

I agree with Aero Mad. The Tri...thingy is the last vehicle I would wish to travel in with a head problem.

Thanks for your reply, OA32. That seems much more reasonable. The Guernsey - Bournemouth flight by Trislander is actually quicker than Guernsey - Southampton! :ok:

If what OA32 says is true and that the decision was made 30 mins before the delayed departure the diversion starts to make aeronautical and medical sense.

Can anyone pass on more information that will negate the need for any of us aviation people to feel embarrassed about this event?

1) Always treat media reports with suspicion.

2) Never judge until all facts are known.

;)

3) Never talk to a journalist - however innocent you THINK your statements are, they will find a way of 'twisting' it to their own agenda eg leaving out a single important word such as 'reported', 'alleged', 'unnofficial' etc.
Example: Aircraft departs your airfield but instead of following noise abatement, this is cancelled by ATC in order to avoid delay due to a transit aircraft with more than minimum separation being maintained. Member of the public complains, and is told this in all innocence and honesty.
Press are informed by the complainer and in the local paper it becomes a headline 'DEPARTING JET IN NEAR MISS DRAMA'! with ATC being the villians.
Nuff said?

So a non story, so why didn't our NATS spokesperson just explain the story fully, instead of even mentioning staff shortages??

Again ATC portrayed as villains, when as ever there is a simple explanation.

Love how I've been regarded as a NATS Controller just for criticising shoddy journalism and people taking 1 news report as pure fact. :E I'm afraid my brain isn't strong enough for ATC! And I would rather shoot my foot than deal with a Ryanair pilot !

Nimmer - I have a friend who works in PR and says most companies have terrible "Corporate Communications".

How about this scenario, BAA will not pay NATS for sufficient controllers to cover past 2300? NATS has apparently made multiple offers, but BAA not interested in paying for coverage. So hardly a NATS staffing problem, cannot understand why NATS are apologising for something that is not of their making.

Do not know all details of the AUR diversion, but understand that SOU closed on schedule at 2230 that evening and the aircraft had already re-filed to BOH.

Any coverage past 2300 is purely voluntary on the part of controllers. However have heard that NATS managment have in the past expressed their displeasure to controllers when some have not volunteered to stay for late arriving scheduled flights.

Don't blame ATC, BAA are the ones that should hold their hands up and publicly apologise.

Still missing the point. The airport would not have been quoted as saying that "On this occasion Nats were unable to provide staffing cover beyond our closing time" if it was the airport that was unable to stay open, or do we have proof that it was BAA who refused the flight? I don't think it was ever actually alleged that the situation involved an in-flight diversion, but the time taken to refile, organise handling at the new destination, plus the extra road ambulance journey time back to Southampton all adds up at a critical time. I believe there were delays in getting the ambulance to Bournemouth too.

I have never refused to stay on beyond the end of a shift, unpaid, to ensure a Cat A flight has been handled safely and quickly - and I hope I would never have to.

Slow climber

Who has provided any evidence to show that the flight plan indicated CAT A status, or other information received by BAA stated that it was CAT A flight?

Slowclimber,

I think it is maybe you who are 'missing the point'! Read the post by OA32 who was working that evening, and who has a profile that indicates they work in the Channel Islands...

Refiling if it was a CAT A flight would have taken minutes. That is of course if it was filed as a CAT A flight.

As for your point about aircraft handling - it would have been just as difficult (in fact probably more so) to arrange at EGHI out of hours than it would at EGHH which operates H24 :ugh:

It is very difficult from a licensing (airport operating point of view) to extend at short notice, this has nothing to do with SRATCOH or individual ATCOS.

The Southampton area in particular is harshly policed due to the New Forest NIMBYS (I myself am a New Forest dweller). As an aircraft operator, it extremely irresponsible and unnprofessional to plan a flight to an airport that you know will be closed. As appears to be the case in the reported incident, the aircraft operator did the responsible thing and when they knew they would be outside the operating hours of EGHI they planned for EGHH instead.

The facts of this story are known by (probably) a small number of people... I would trust OA32's version over that reported by the media.

As an aside, as you mentioned it, the fact that the ambulance was delayed in getting to Bournemouth has absolutely nothing to do with NATS, nor the Airport Authority, an unfortunate additional factor maybe, but nothing to do with the airport.

Hey! That's good Isle of Wight technology and manufacturing you're knocking! Britten-Norman is the last remaining UK independent commercial aircraft producer! According to Wikipedia:

Well alright, a low noise signature for a 1970 prop aircraft but apart from that I think it's pretty useful for an ambulance flight! There'd be no point paying for a nice looking Lear Jet if the nearest tarmac strip was hours away...

Sorry. Thread creep.

Now I wonder who spilled the story to BBC News - the family of the patient? The ambulance driver? :)

Hangten.. You wanna take a ride in one; you wouldn't want to do it again! My wife and I flew Jersey-Guernsey and return and vowed never to get anywhere near one again!

Hey, Sheds were built in my neck of the woods, but it doesn't mean I'd want a ride in one if I was ill!

HR, you're nasty ;). hangten, for your info Alderney has an 880m tarmac runway. Not enough for a Lear, though!