Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
User avatar
By Talkdownman
#1754742
flybymike wrote:I’m impressed to learn that you and TDM ever agreed on anything. :wink:

Rest easy, FBM, it's not true. It can only be a figment of Mr. chevvron's imagination. Unlike he, I was never a Watch Manager. I managed to avoid becoming such a self-exalted , élitist, macho-posturing prima-donna.
flybymike, Bobcro liked this
By Liquor15_7924
#1754745
" I was never a Watch Manager. I managed to avoid becoming such a self-exalted , élitist, macho-posturing prima-donna."

Ha ha, brilliant. Same here and not the slightest regret. The place is full of pompous clowns now.

Tempted to quote something from Not Airway but I would get banned from here.
By chevvron
#1754760
Talkdownman wrote:
flybymike wrote:I’m impressed to learn that you and TDM ever agreed on anything. :wink:

Rest easy, FBM, it's not true. It can only be a figment of Mr. chevvron's imagination. Unlike he, I was never a Watch Manager. I managed to avoid becoming such a self-exalted , élitist, macho-posturing prima-donna.

Ah but after a 'clash' with my prima donna ex Heathrow boss (who as far as I know never gained a C of C on APS whilst working for NATS) where she tried to get me sacked, I was 'downgraded' and ended my days as an ordinary working controller so I was much happier.
I only applied for the Watch Manager post in order to avoid a compulsory posting anyway. :pray:
By Skylaunch2
#1755436
Farnborough continues to operate but with minimum staffing required. Most Farnborough/Wessex group airfields are now closed or restricted so nearly all sectors are bandboxed. Rumours that Farnborough may have reduced operating hours soon.
By chevvron
#1755725
Human Factor wrote:New Manchester LLR Procedures

Any reason why there can’t be a Farnborough LLR with the same assumed SVFR?

Apart from the fact D133 might get in the way on the rare occasions it's notified above 1300ft, they could use the 'corridor' I mentioned above at #1754676.
User avatar
By Human Factor
#1755818
They certainly could. My question is more along the lines of why was a Manchester style low-level route including implied SVFR not implemented when the airspace was changed?
By chevvron
#1755883
Human Factor wrote:They certainly could. My question is more along the lines of why was a Manchester style low-level route including implied SVFR not implemented when the airspace was changed?

Dunno mate; both myself and other Farnborough controllers suggested it on several occasions pre Nov 2008. :cry: and it would 'work' for either Fairoaks traffic or transits like it did during the airshow.
Simple to plot too; stay south of the OCK radial which goes through WOD and north of Bagshot Mast not above (say) 1500ft; watch out for H3 joiners/leavers and Bob was my uncle (died a few years ago).
kanga liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
#1755889
Where would you propose for the LLR?
There’s a fair bit more room between the Manchester and Liverpool runways that there is between Fairoaks and Farnborough.

Edit. Chevvers just posted above....
  • 1
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27