Still happens. A good headwind would be required.

Why wouldn't an experienced ATCO from Oxford or Bournemouth validate?! Plenty of ab-initios manage it with zero experience!
Classic pretentious attitude from the OAPs on this forum.

In my experience in air traffic I have seen folk of high and low abilities (out of the college and from other units) validate at traditionally difficult places such as Heathrow and Gatwick easily and struggle at traditionally quieter units (won't specify, don't want to offend). I personally think that the quality of OJTIs matter more towards validation than raw ability. If someone reasonably competent from Oxford or other not 'busy IFR big jet' units go to Gatwick then I think a few good OJTIs should validate them. Not a view shared by everyone I'm sure, and I stand ready to get slammed by someone saying I haven't worked at a top 2 in Britain unit therefore I don't know 😋

That'll be why the GM is still there, on the new contract, with the Germans having been "outed", by NATS, for collusion with the opposition.

The "tool" reference remains I'm afraid ( to both).

It seems to me that the incestuous management team selection practices are coming home to roost at NATS. It also doesn't help when a lot of 'managers' are used to giving orders and struggle to get their heads around the idea that their colleagues like to be treated as people not machines.

That wouldn't work at a busy airfield. That's not even what Gatwick aims for in LVPs!

It doesn't help that some NATS managers are sent on a course at Henley College where they seem to teach them to be deliberately conforntational.(NB I did say 'seem')

<<We aim to issue IFR clearances at 4nm but no later than 2>>

Do you mean landing clearance?

I did 2 (or was it 3) 'Assessment Centres' for management jobs with NATS having 'rescued' an Air Training Corps Squadron from oblivion by my management practices by treating the cadets as 'young adults' instead of children.
It was pretty obvious the centres were just whitewash, going through the motions and that the decision was made before the assessment started; needless to say I was never selected as I got the label 'not a people person' on my records from somewhere, (never did figure out who or why).

"Doesn't suffer fools gladly" was written on one of my annual appraisals way back in the early 90s. I have avoided management positions throughout my entire nearly 30 year career. 'Nuff said?

In an interview, whenever asked the inevitable 'What is your worst trait?', reply 'I don't suffer fools very well'. They are never sure how to take that. Didn't seem to do me any harm. :)

Doh !! My comment was in response to a quote about landing clearances so is quite clearly about landing clearances.

Keep up at the back !!

Just following the broader guidance contained with 493 Section 3 Chapter 2 Para 10.1.

Always wise when operating with types of significantly different speeds.

Isn't that referring to Approach Control passing landing clearances though? Or am I missing something?

Hi Gonzo - no you are right; thus why I specified "Broader Guidance". We need to cater for the scenario of Gulfstream 5 approaching 4 mile final with a PA28 at 2 mile final and having a safe and managed arrival for the G5 and also a save and managed go-around for the G5, in the event that the PA28 ahead is actually doing a go-around. Caveat - taking into consideration the met conditions at the time. All this coupled with a single exit point on the runway and the inability to issue a "land after clearance" in such a scenario due to the speed differential. This is more about the boarder SMS piece of how we operate safely with our diverse aircraft types constrained by the physical characteristics of the aerodrome.

Hope that helps but things into context. Fred