[Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Kim Ellis
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:47 am
Location: Mengyuan, Moolboolaman, Qld, Australia
Contact:

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Post by Kim Ellis »

bruce wrote:I have heard it said that flying/navigating VFR is often more challenging than IFR, I would add that VFR without flight following can be even more so, hence the flight!
You'll get no argument from me on that one Bruce. Captain Kyle regularly drags me around New Zealand VFR. An hour or so of VFR in the ATR 72 from Auckland into Queenstown and I am so tired, both physically and mentally, I never want to see another plane (that wears off of course after 24 hours, LOL).
Nick Warren
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:09 pm

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Post by Nick Warren »

Keith,

Thank you for your reply. I understand the business model as it stands, and support the cause. I will certainly respect your wishes as discussed. I too, hope that one day Norcal will be a possibility again, but there is still much of Socal to explore and flying for a training purpose can be accomplished in any airspace, home or distant. Thank you again.

Nick
Keith Smith
Posts: 9943
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Pompton Plains, NJ
Contact:

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Post by Keith Smith »

I will get a response in here asap, tied up in calls for the evening.
Jeff N
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:17 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA / KSNA

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Post by Jeff N »

Nick Warren wrote:Keith,

Thank you for your reply. I understand the business model as it stands, and support the cause. I will certainly respect your wishes as discussed. I too, hope that one day Norcal will be a possibility again, but there is still much of Socal to explore and flying for a training purpose can be accomplished in any airspace, home or distant. Thank you again.

Nick
Ditto what Nick said.
Keith Smith
Posts: 9943
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Pompton Plains, NJ
Contact:

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Post by Keith Smith »

Bruce,

A Bay Tour with no radar service (ie, you get under the Bravo) would be the limit of what we can do. The way you handled it was fine. I suspect, though, that the scope of that will creep up to others requesting flight following...some controllers doing it, some not doing it, etc. That would be the almost unavoidable slippery slope.

You didn't do anything wrong with your request. I'm just explaining what I think is likely to start happening, and how we're not yet equipped to handle that.
bruce
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:45 am
Location: UK

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Post by bruce »

Keith Smith wrote:............ I suspect, though, that the scope of that will creep up to others requesting flight following...some controllers doing it, some not doing it, etc. That would be the almost unavoidable slippery slope.
Fine , I see where you're coming from. Nuff said.
twharrell
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:02 pm

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Post by twharrell »

Just ran into this announcement of a permanent KSFO service. Great news, Keith, and thank you! I'm guessing your commercial client liked it enough for you to keep it or you simply got more interest than you thought.

Todd
Regards,

Todd
Keith Smith
Posts: 9943
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Pompton Plains, NJ
Contact:

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Post by Keith Smith »

We made it permanent because of the level of interest, and also because we verified that while it's more work for the controllers to handle, it's not an unbearable amount of work.
Post Reply