Page 4 of 4

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:10 am
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).

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:44 pm
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

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:24 pm
by Keith Smith
I will get a response in here asap, tied up in calls for the evening.

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:57 pm
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.

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:14 pm
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.

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 3:49 pm
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.

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:08 am
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

Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area

Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:15 am
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.