[flyingeeza]

"virtualtcranfield.ac.uk" web address doesn't exist according to my provider...

[Rob P]

http://virtualtour.cranfield.ac.uk/

[flyingeeza]

http://virtualtour.cranfield.ac.uk/

Aha...cheers Rob P.

[Paul_Sengupta]

I think I must be missing something.

I understand that Cranfield have some elaborate plans. I understand that there's a lot of investment happening and they want to become a centre of excellence at the same time as being a biz-jet base.

I don't see how any of that is relevant to continued operation at the operator's discretion when there's inadequate fire cover.

I also don't see how my employer or the aeroplane I fly is of any relevance to the above?

[James Chan]

Bobcro, your last post at #1591839 doesn't seem to have come out correctly? You've just re-quoted yourself there.

[flyingeeza]

Bobcro, your last post at #1591839 doesn't seem to have come out correctly? You've just re-quoted yourself there.

This is a good thing. That means he can no longer delete it.
Only Bossman can delete it now, but that's also okay because I reckon certain folks have screen-grabbed it already.

[Rob P]

Bobcro, your last post at #1591839 doesn't seem to have come out correctly? You've just re-quoted yourself there.

Haven't you ever done that? I have. You go back in to your post to edit, hit the 'quote button' instead of the 'edit button' and then happily carry out your edit on the new copy, not the original. If you check you will see the differences. Easy to do on a phone screen.

Rob P

[chevvron]

Paul_Sengupta's post seemed as well thought out as it needed to be, unless I'm missing something.

All the Aerodrome has to do in legal terms is state the reduced fire cover (or the fact that there is no fire cover available), and leave it up to operators/pilots to decide whether to continue to operate or not.

Of course, it's also the Aerodrome's perogative to shut, for whatever reason it may deem suitable.

Correct. I don't have access to the Manual of Air Traffic Services any more but there used to be a 'speech' that ATC were supposed to read out in such circumstances something like 'Message from aerodrome authority, Aerodrome Fire Service depleted; all landings/takeoffs for aircraft larger than XXm prohibited'.
In addtion, having just one fire fighter sick when the AFS is Cat 2 shouldn't cause the AFS to shut down completely; they should be able to reduce to Cat 1 cover only thereby allowing continued operations by Cat 2 aircraft provided the type hasn't operated in/out more than a certain number of times (I think the figure was 700 but may have changed) in the preceding 3 months.

[JoeC]

?

[SteveX]

Pathetic. I don't need a fire engine near me driving on roads. I don't need one when flying into unmanned strips legally. Pathetic pointless rules made by unrealistic so called humans for those that want to fly at this place.

[Bobcro]

I think I must be missing something.

I don't see how any of that is relevant to continued operation at the operator's discretion when there's inadequate fire cover.

It isn't the Operator who at his discretion has the right to operate at Cranfield but the licence holder who determines who can and cannot operate and in this case it is Cranfield. For them to remain insured they need Cat 2. There may be a case for it changing to Cat 1 but only if a valid safety case is presented at some later date. Interchanges on here will not resolve that issue.

I also don't see how my employer or the aeroplane I fly is of any relevance to the above?

You would be surprised how many potential customers for be it for IT services, electronic or building work view their potential partners background and social media to see what the company and staff are up to. If people are known to imbibe too much, not that you do, or post in the early hours when IT support is needed on site at 0700 next day then this may be noted. Many contracts are awarded on a points scoring basis and all factors may be taken into consideration. Local support from a company in MK would score higher than one based 2 hours away.

There were posts about a company and individuals associated with the Jet Centre and these have been read by Main Board members.

I noted your registration G-DOGG as these posts are monitored and you have shown 'interest' in visiting. Posters of the plans for the developments are being printed and will shortly be on display in the existing executive terminal for pilots to view and discuss. If there is sufficient interest then no doubt the date for an 'Open House' will be announced.

[James Chan]

or post in the early hours when IT support is needed on site at 0700 next day then this may be noted

Could I add that anyone posting during "unusual hours" may well be overseas in a different time zone or working on a different or flexible shift pattern?

Just saying...

[Bobcro]

Pathetic. I don't need a fire engine near me driving on roads. I don't need one when flying into unmanned strips legally. Pathetic pointless rules made by unrealistic so called humans for those that want to fly at this place.

Ah

SteveX I am sure that the Airport Director would be interested to see the terms and conditions under which you can operate turbine powered or other aircraft into EGCN out of published hours or with reduced fire cover.

Standing by.

[GonzoEGLL]

Is it just me or is this turning into a very bizarre thread?

[neaton]

It is not just you.