PDG up to thier old tricks??

[sikorsky27]

As this is a roumour network just wondered if anyone else through out the industry had sour grapes hastle caused by the above?

It always seems if they cant get the work they will start a dirty tricks campain against some one who could.

Any one heard about the supposed closure of Cumbernauld ops??

:mad::mad:

[paco]

I know they have a reputation of buying out the competition, but not dirty tricks as such. Please enlighten us!

Phil

[WylieCoyote]

Yeah please enlighten us...by the way theres quite a difference between a rumour and some b:mad:ks you made up because you have an axe to grind.

[capt tosspot]

I can chuck in my two penn'orth and say that PDG have always been fine with me when Ive done bits and bobs of work for them over the last year or so. Get paid on time, always answer emails, approachable - in short, no hassle at all. :ok:

[BigNumber]

SK76 seems to have gone very quiet.

Read into this what you will.

[airbourne1]

Just pehaps SK may be at work during the day guys!

I think through out the industry you will hear good and bad but people can only go on thier experiences, Just because a few may have had a good experience it dont mean all have.

There is enough work for all without needing to mess it up for others.

[Coffin Dodger]

I used to use PDG for occasional aerial photographic work when fixed wing wasn't practical. Great folk to deal with and totally professional.

[misterbonkers]

and as for closing Cumbernauld - what a load of codswallop!

the twins are all based there and working their socks off.

[sikorsky27]

Me personally I dont have an axe to grind, just wondered if anyone out there had come across some of the problems that other companies seem to be having?

The reason for a late reply is i've been at work!

A pilot was recently explaining how the above wonderful company had paid a photographer to lay in wait to take piccy's of other operator's / competitors going about thier work and then ring the CAA and feed them info that there are illegal public transport flight going on when there clearly was not. The CAA then looked into it and found that no rules had been broken! so a load of hastle and time wasted for nothing.

I does amaze me that the CAA still class dropping ground personnel out on to a moor or hillside as public transport! surely you cannot meet all the criteria for a public transport operation?

hopefully we can soon adopt what the rest of Europe is and class this correctly as aerial work - which it should be - but then I suppose it's less fee's to the campaign.

Surely the people in this very demanding and professional industry have better things to do than trying tricks like that on each other???

The Cumbernauld thing just came up in conversation with another pilot up north last week - perhaps he had an axe to grind.

:=

[Tarman]

S27 I don't know what your angle is on this, nor do I care, neither do I have any connection with PDG. From a business point of view, if you think that a competitor is cutting corners or trading illegally then it is surely in the interests of your company to have the regulatory authorities to investigate. If they find no evidence of foul play then that's the end of it.
Aviation, like every business in the UK, has to conform to the Restrictive Trade Practice Act. You are not allowed to divvy up contracts, It is not a cosy "we're all friends" industry with "enough for everybody". Business is business and only the fittest will survive. I think you need to get real.

[misterbonkers]

Well said Tarman.

PDG have a large fleet of helicopters, their own engineering, quality control, safety management etc. This all costs money, not to mention the CAA charges to boot. Everything has to be protected and if this means closely watching the one man bands/smaller operators that offer a better price then surely thats an acceptable practice? Surely thats acceptable to report potential misdemeanors/illegal public transport - especially if you're bending over backwards to do something by the book when others might not be - afterall short-cuts can be dangerous.

At the end of the day, in this scenario, it was found the other operator wasn't doing anything wrong. At least now they know that operating incorrectly should not an option and they should continue to do things by the book.

The 'paid photographer' was more than likely PDG staff (i'll put a wager on it) - sounds like a sensible use of resources to ensure fair and honest competition.

[equine rotorhead]

For my two bobs worth, I have just used PDG for the first time and found them to be very professional, helpful and curtious. My client was very happy with them.

[WylieCoyote]

S27,

I does amaze me that the CAA still class dropping ground personnel out on to a moor or hillside as public transport! surely you cannot meet all the criteria for a public transport operation?

Ofcourse it is PT!

Are you sure your not the one trying to hamper an already struggling industry? What the bl:mad:dy hell do you think we do, fly around purposely trying to find the most dangerous place to land.
If your new to the industry aswell as pprune you need to learn that this is buisness and although in history some may not have agreed with PDG's methods you can't go accusing people of dangerous practice!:=

[handysnaks]

Even a police flight with two qualified air observers is PT, welcome to the UK!

[Sliding Doors]

S27,

I does amaze me that the CAA still class dropping ground personnel out on to a moor or hillside as public transport!

What's your reasoning behind thinking it is not Public Transport?

CAA recently prosecuted a pilot who tried suggesting a similar flight wasn't PT. They directed him to the ANO and then for the readable version this: :ok:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/summary_of_public_transport.pdf

SD

[sikorsky27]

Firstly and utmost NO one has accused anyone of being dangerous:=

This is a very proffesional and demanding side to flying and I have the utmost respect for those that carry it out worldwide. I was involved in this a few year back so I do understand.

with regards to the aerial work AOC debate I was merely asking for a general opinion on this task as it would appear to be dealt with very different in Europe. I am fully aware of the difference between the two It appears that anyone directly involved in the operation may be carried under AW obbviosly that doesnt mean ferrying god knows hows many people out. My comment only came from speaking to pilots involved in the task ( some who work for the above ) and thier comments were they didnt believe that it should be AOC but no need to get the handbags out it was only to see what genuine guys involved feel.

Has anyone out there any idea when the EU OPS4 will be introduced into the uk? I read recently that this will encompass Filming,lifting, spraying, Firefighting etc under a more general AW category?

I am not having a go at the above, it just seemed a lot of people you come across have encountered problems and I just wondered what truth if any were in them. Didnt mean to offend anyone.:)

[paco]

EU OPS 4 will be "introduced into UK" as and when EARSA bring it out - it won't have to go through the parliamentary process like JAR OPS does at the moment. You won't need OPS 4 anyway, because aerial work is already excluded in JAR OPS 3 and my understanding is that, at least initially, there will be no major changes.

The peculiarity is with the UK ANO, which does not recognise "persons essential to an operation", but merely pilots or passengers and when you are carrying passengers the flight is therefore CAT. However, once the ANO becomes essentially redundant, meaning that it will still be on the British books but unenforceable, that may well change. But then, there has always been some argument as to whether it was laid before parliament properly in the first place........

Phil

[ShyTorque]

If you carry passengers on an underslung load, is it still PT.........?

[griffothefog]

In the net or the aircraft? :E

[ShyTorque]

We already know about inside the aircraft.. that's the easy question.

Heh, heh, heh! :E

[MightyGem]

Is it PT if a company pilot is flying a company aircraft with company personel in the back? I didn't think it was, or does post 9 not comply with this?