Future of the Fairford deployment section

[Gary]

Rather than this being discussed every time a NOTAM get issued, please have your say in here. The aggravation this deployment has caused with both the U2 and bombers, the staff are looking at making changes

Possible options

1. Continue as it is

2. Drop the bomber name from the section and allow all movements to be posted, possibly setting up two daily threads one for any bombers, one for the U2s

3. Dropping the dedicated section altogether and just use the original Fairford section.

4. Any suggestions you may come up with

It's your forum, what would you like to see. Some options would mean some people who will remain nameless having some restraint and not wildly posting, some would cause more work for the staff etc

[Yammer]

Option 2 sounds good pleae

2. Drop the bomber name from the section and allow all movements to be posted, possibly setting up two daily threads one for any bombers, one for the U2s

[nitro999]

Personally I'd prefer all daily movements in one place, as easiest to track, rather than having to keep an eye on 2 or 3 different threads. So option 3 for me please!

[herc15]

I would back Yammer and nitro999 with Option 2.

[Mike]

Deleted.

[thevulcan]

Option 2 I agree.

[tornado17]

If we're dropping the bomber section, I'd go for option 3. The reason is that, having read elsewhere on here, the U2's are here for 5 years, just better keeping it all in the Fairford section with a daily log. It works as is being proved on the Prestwick, Aldergrove and other bases threads. It saves having more than 1 movements thread for the same base. It has been proved time and again that some struggle with that!!

[Thunder]

As the U-2s are seemingly going to be around for up to 5 yrs, surely they can be covered within the Fairford section as it currently is, with a new thread for each day. Any future Bomber deployments could then be covered by a sticky subsection within the Fairford section.

What needs sorting out is the amount of duplicate posts which are being posted by members too lazy to read through the threads, when the answer has already been addressed, the amount of drivel, speculation, off topic and misplaced posts needs addressing also. All in all it’s currently not as bad as some make out, although there’s always room for small improvements, however some members need to take a couple of minutes to familiarise themselves with the site and rules.

[martin condon]

I agree with Tornado 17 as it works elsewhere and all the info is in one place, as long as people bother to read it and not just ask a question which has already been answered already (if in doubt just scroll up to the first message).

[POL]

Sorry, I may be missing something but for every other airfield the rules are that movements must be posted in Heads Up & OTT. Why should Fairford be any different.

We have Coningsby, Lakenheath and Marham "daily ops" posts in the Heads Up section and they work very well. Can we not simply do this for Fairford please?

I don't expect to go to the RAF Fairford section to find current airborne movements, in the same way I don't go in to the Marham section to find out if any F-35s are airborne.

[bizfreeq]

Daily movements post in the Head's Up section for me, as said above, works for Marham and Lakenheath so why not in this instance? Too many threads to check if it's all split up into bomber and U-2 posts then another for support stuff as has happened in the past just because people can!

[Gary]

Chris

The trouble is most of the other sections you've highlighted abide by the rule, for some reason this is one of the sections that doesn't. The bomber section was implemented to try and stop it. The demand I believe is still there for a dedicated expanded Fairford section. The trouble comes once someone posts a NOTAM it's seen as far game to post and forget the guidelines.

There is a thread explaining what the airfield section should be about viewtopic.php?f=6&p=690454#p690454

tornado17

The bomber section wouldn't be dropped just the word bomber. As ive said the demand I believe is still there for the dedicated section just needs to be revised

Thunder

You've hit the nail on the head, trouble is I can't see an easy solution without people showing restraint. The few active staff can't always be online to monitor and by the time one gets online and do something, all hell can have broken loose. My personal circumstance working nights mean from 06.30 until about 13.30 I'm snoring on my 4 on pattern anyway. May be time for some more mods

[Mike]

I agree with Chris's (EGVP) idea, however dozens of members (and new members) suddenly re-appear/appear when a bomber deployment is due and they are not familiar with the way Lakenheath, Marham & Coningsby's movements are normally reported and would then post stuff in the Fairford section (when the info is already in the OTT section).
The usual influx of new members wouldn't be able to see the OTT section anyway - which leads to more complications.

There is simply not enough active staff either.

[dervish]

Chris (EGVP) is right.

If people insist on posting repetitive stuff in the wrong places and don't read what is already there then ban them for a week. If they can't get their FC fix they'll start to follow the rules ;)

[Bucky P]

Option 3 works for me.

[Thunder]

I was always under the impression that the ‘heads up’’ott’ section was for reporting a/c operating within the UK that aren’t based within the UK(some will argue that’s the Bomber deployments), or for a/c seen in areas that they aren’t often seen ie: I wouldn’t post a heads up for a Lossie Typhoon seen over Inverness, but would for a F-35. For me the reporting of based a/c movements should be under each individual base, otherwise what’s the point of each base having a dedicated section?

Unfortunately this confliction of ideas and interests is down to the success of FC, and there’s no way on Earth everyone will find common ground and agree a move forward, it’s our Brexit

[dervish]

I was always under the impression that the ‘heads up’’ott’ section was for reporting a/c operating within the UK that aren’t based within the UK(some will argue that’s the Bomber deployments), or for a/c seen in areas that they aren’t often seen ie: I wouldn’t post a heads up for a Lossie Typhoon seen over Inverness, but would for a F-35. For me the reporting of based a/c movements should be under each individual base, otherwise what’s the point of each base having a dedicated section?

I tend to think of 'heads up' as being for immediate and active things regardless of whether they are operating at home or away - in my interpreation it's what is happening 'right now'.
The individual airfield sections are primarily for info about what is based there and other stuff for people who collect registrations.

[Yammer]

Yes it's that simple

[rh226]

Unfortunately, simplicity doesn't always work - especially with the lazy......

Mobile phone user (not representative of the clan):- "I can't be bothered to scroll through everything to find the correct thread. It's such a drag on a mobile. I'll just post in the 1st (possibly) relevant thread I come to.

There, my information is now on the forum. I've done my bit." .......err, which thread?


With apologies to the responsible mobile posters on here.

[ChrisCwmbran]

You've hit the nail on the head, trouble is I can't see an easy solution without people showing restraint. The few active staff can't always be online to monitor and by the time one gets online and do something, all hell can have broken loose. My personal circumstance working nights mean from 06.30 until about 13.30 I'm snoring on my 4 on pattern anyway. May be time for some more mods

Is it perhaps worth considering selecting a couple of people to be specific moderators for that section - perhaps locals or people who usually know what is going on there.

I still encourage the existence of a factual thread that contains no questions or messages of thanks, but just real updates on what is going on in whichever section it ends up.