Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By chevvron
#1778275
oakworth wrote:I thought ATC was provided by Safeskys.

That's correct.
But Safeskys suffered from a number of 'shyster' types who had got an ATCO License by taking courses at colleges who, unlike NATS, did not provide field training and thus had an ADV/ADI rating but no experience. Several of these had job offers from 'bigger' airfields with the proviso they must complete validation training on their ADV/ADI rating before they could start so they went to Booker, completed their validation training, then promply resigned and went elsewhere thus causing a high turnover of staff and staff shortages.
Couple this with the fact it's a CAA requirement to have ATC rather than AFIS there due to the 'complicated' operations with (effectively) non radio gliders operating parallel to powered aircraft .
Safeskys changed hands in 2017 and whilst the previous owner/founder (who happened to live in High Wycombe) always offered decent terms and rates of pay (I did some freelance work for him at Dunsfold and he often offered me jobs elsewhere) I'm not sure about the new owners as the webite is just a blank page.
By patowalker
#1778313
chevvron wrote:Couple this with the fact it's a CAA requirement to have ATC rather than AFIS there due to the 'complicated' operations with (effectively) non radio gliders operating parallel to powered aircraft .


Are gliders at Booker a wildlife hazard? :)
By bencoder
#1778321
I believe the plan at WAP is to move the glider runway to the other side of the hard runway, to free up space on the south side for construction.

Perhaps they've decided to remain closed to speed up this process, but I can't understand the entire lack of any communication
#1778327
chevvron wrote:
oakworth wrote:I thought ATC was provided by Safeskys.

That's correct.
But Safeskys suffered from a number of 'shyster' types who had got an ATCO License by taking courses at colleges who, unlike NATS, did not provide field training and thus had an ADV/ADI rating but no experience. Several of these had job offers from 'bigger' airfields with the proviso they must complete validation training on their ADV/ADI rating before they could start so they went to Booker, completed their validation training, then promply resigned and went elsewhere thus causing a high turnover of staff and staff shortages.
Couple this with the fact it's a CAA requirement to have ATC rather than AFIS there due to the 'complicated' operations with (effectively) non radio gliders operating parallel to powered aircraft .
Safeskys changed hands in 2017 and whilst the previous owner/founder (who happened to live in High Wycombe) always offered decent terms and rates of pay (I did some freelance work for him at Dunsfold and he often offered me jobs elsewhere) I'm not sure about the new owners as the webite is just a blank page.


Of course, other opinions of Safeskys are available.
User avatar
By defcribed
#1778343
The website still shows 'closed due to government guidance' and the latest update appears to be an update from the chief bod published back in March.

Failure to update the website, especially at a time like this, is usually a pretty good indicator of disinterest in the business as a going concern.

If you have an aeroplane there then I'd go and get it (and of course stop paying them).
By Bathman
#1778352
Let's face it the place is worth more as building land.

The costs of running ATC must be horrendous and is it really needed?

One advantage of ATC might be instrument approaches and attracting corporate traffic but the runway is a bit short. And for no practical reason it takes 10 years and 200 grand to get a GPS approach approved. Then it's use is so strangled that it wasn't worth bothering.

No wonder GA is slowly dying.
User avatar
By James Chan
#1778354
Let's face it the place is worth more as building land.


So are many other GA fields and car parks too, but infrastructure is required in order for this industry to survive.

The costs of running ATC must be horrendous and is it really needed?


Unfortunately if movements decrease with no prospect of increasing again in the near future, then ATC is one of those things that will be downgraded. :(
#1778356
Bathman wrote:No wonder GA is slowly dying.

One of the main reasons recreational flying isn't more widely participated-in is because some people refuse to accept it is [and is supposed to be] a fun, recreational activity like golf or football, and instead want to pretend it is something more; which 98% of the population aren't interested in.

Let's get out of the 1950s mentality and realise that in the 21st Century people want fun stuff to do, that recreational flying could fit that bill, and a benefit would be greater uptake and less NIMBYism and airfield closures.

Reading this place sometimes is a bit like stepping back in time by 60 years.

:cyclopsani:
cockney steve, Bobcro liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
#1778364
There is a certainly an enjoyable and recreational aspect to all forms of activities, but unfortunately asking people to preserve airfields because one wants to fly for fun makes about as strong a case I think, as to ask NCP to preserve car parks because one wants to drive around town for fun!

With such things there's an infrastructure element to it where people fly for business or essential work/job matters, and there are others who will fly for personal use for any number of very valid reasons.
#1778365
James Chan wrote:There is a certainly an enjoyable and recreational aspect to all forms of activities, but unfortunately asking people to preserve airfields because you want to fly for fun makes about as strong a case I think, as to ask NCP to preserve car parks because you want to drive around town for fun.

Read what I wrote again. I'm not suggesting people preserve airfields for me, I'm suggesting they preserve them FOR THEM.

Make it fun. Take away the politics, alphabet soup of mish-mash organisations, old people knowing everything and not listening. Etc...

More 21st C. Less old man's club

:cyclopsani:
James Chan, flyguy liked this
#1778375
James Chan wrote:asking people to preserve airfields because one wants to fly for fun makes about as strong a case I think, as to ask NCP to preserve car parks because one wants to drive around town for fun!


Or as much sense as preserving golf courses for people to have fun hitting a ball around, or cricket, football or rugby grounds so people can enjoy playing sports....
User avatar
By James Chan
#1778424
Also true - it'll also depend if the local community finds it an accessible and valuable amenity, and maybe even depend on it for various reasons.

Or seen as some sort of elitist 'club' for the few which brings them nothing but noise - in which case they wouldn't mind if it had gone.