Thread removal.

[JAKL]

I can no longer find the Indy Hiatt thread and was wondering why it has been removed.

I'd also like to ask, if a thread is removed by the management, should a reason be given?

[mikehallam]

JAKL. Brave of you questioning why.
I noticed it vanished, sunk without trace.

BUT Prrune is a private fiefdom and the owners can do what they like.
QED.

mike hallam.

[airpolice]

the owners can do what they like.

The OP can also remove an entire thread.

[JAKL]

If they thought they were doing the right thing and for the right reasons, surely they would of stuck to their guns.

Maybe they decided they had gone a bit too far.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Wasn't me,nor can I see where it went.

G

[eharding]

The OP can also remove an entire thread.

My understanding is that vBulletin does indeed consign the entire thread to the bit-bucket if the OP deletes the initial post.

Ho, and indeed, Hum.

[JAKL]

Obviously went the way of the Custer Channel Wing, the people with the most to loose, killed it.

[eharding]

Obviously went the way of the Custer Channel Wing, the people with the most to loose, killed it.

Right - uncancel the lynch mob, I've found another victim :8

[airpolice]

Lose: As in "The plot"

Loose: As in "Women"

[JAKL]

Well spotted Airpolice, lose, as in plot.

Maybe you can spot the missing plot!

[A and C]

I had been following that thread with interest and had it in my mind that IF the accusations were untrue pprune could be in deep trouble in the courts.

Some on thes pages jump in with both feet long before all the facts are known and fail to give a balanced opinion, in fact some times pprune is just like a kangaroo court...........looking to give the accused a fair trial by media and then hang them.

No wonder a few threads get pulled.

[fisbangwollop]

I am so surprised the thread ran for so long....it could have huge legal ramifications for the original poster, subsequent posters and PPRuNe.....how much of the story was actual fact??....well, maybe we will never know, on the other hand maybe the truth will come out in a court of law!!:cool:

[M-ONGO]

I'm disgusted that it took so long to remove. At least somebody has finally seen sense.

[riverrock83]

once its on the internet, it will be cached for ever. You can still read all posts in Google cache, Google:
site:pprune.org Indy Hiatt

[airpolice]

riverrock83 wrote: once its on the internet, it will be cached for ever. You can still read all posts in Google cache, Google:

Code:
site:pprune.org Indy Hiatt

Like so much of what is posted on pprune, and the web in general, this is nearly true.

[englishal]

I suspect that Pprune or the OP decided it was in their best interest to remove the thread. A good move in my opinion because no matter what the person was supposed to have done or not, airing someones private medical details on a public forum could give very reasonable grounds for a court case - as it has wider ramifications than simply "Aviation" - future employment, medical insurances, etc etc.....And if untrue, then I would suspect a court case would ensue.

[cockney steve]

Well, IMHO it served it's purpose, IE it alerted people to a potential risk,whilst the appropriate authorities chewed the cud and got their backsides into gear.

like it or not, GEP performed a public service with his initial posting.

I reiterate, he may have been somewhat indelicate in posting the medical details to substantiate his claim, but I'm damn sure "Towers" would NOT have allowed the O.P. let alone the ensuing thread, to stand, if there had been the slightest risk of litigation for Libel or Defamation of character.

For whatever reason, the subject acted in a reckless and unprofessional manner and I, for one, am glad that some holes in the Swiss Cheese have been blocked BEFORE they had a chance to line up.

GEP stuck his head above the parapet, he should be applauded, not pelted with rotten fruit. :*

[PPRuNe Towers]

The thread was removed as I'm relieved to say it had served its purpose.

For the seekers of dark clouds and lead linings no contact from m'learned friends - just flying shown to have ceased and unlikely to resume in the short term.

Rob

[rats404]

As a daily reader, an infrequent poster, and a PPL, I'm glad it has gone. I think the spirit of the intention was sound, the execution was not, and if flying has ceased there is little point keeping the information in he public domain.

[coldair]

I suspect GEP had a letter from the renowned Legal Firm 'Weavers of Warwickshire' which scared him off.

I would be rather worried too if that Legal Firm wrote to me.

[Pace]

I hope we all learn something from that thread ? That is not just the forum members but GEP and pprune too and Towers !! More than that I don't want to say as it won't be constructive.

Pace

[JW411]

On the other hand, you could go to "Biz Jets"/Robert Weaver and pick up the thread at #3458. Fascinating.

[PompeyPaul]

I thought, as a thread, it demonstrated admirably why you really need courts, with judges, evidence & a jury to decide people's guilt rather than the mob "mentality" judge, jury & executioner (usually by kicking to death) you see in the 3rd world in places like Cambodia, South African ghettos & PPRuNe.

[hoodie]

PompeyPaul: Nail. Head. Hit.

[BabyBear]

I thought, as a thread, it demonstrated admirably why you need courts, with judges & jury to decide people's guilt etc rather than the 3rd world mob judge, jury & excutioner you see in the 3rd world like Cambodia, Vietnam & PPRuNe.

The above puzzles me, given the thread achieved its aim and prevented any uneccesarry mishap when the system had failed.

Can't for the life of me work out why it would have been better to leave it to the authorities and run the risk of it going pear shape.

BB

[Cows getting bigger]

Get real.

The deleted thread was quite clearly linked to the other great GEP/PPRadar forum subject. In that, GEP commented on an unusual event where he spotted an individual possibly linked to RW who he then investigated , at length. It apparently turned out that ths individual may not have had a valid medical. GEP then, after apparently informing the CAA and seeing no viable response , decided to share too much detail with us. Did it categorically prevent a great tragedy or, as you put it, something from going pear shape? No.

This place has far too much implied character assassination without accountability. Yes, accusations may well be factually correct but please do not think that a post by an anonymous individual on a pilot specific forum has stopped some poor, unsuspecting individual from being killed by a pilot may be outside the detail of the law.

This whole debacle tells me a number of things. There are individuals here who have decided to adopt the role of aviation police because they tell us hey feel the CAA aren't doing things properly. They hide behind the line of flight safety first and foremost. The reality is that, whilst the intentions may be honorable, the method and manner of delivery is most definitely dishonorable.

You know, the really sad thing is that by posting the above, I fully expect to be ridiculed, undermined and targetted as an individual who, not agreeing with the rather convenient multiple poster and tame moderator party line, will be marginalized and maybe banned. I now see very little professionalism here and wonder what the founder of this once fine forum actually thinks.

[PompeyPaul]

Let's face it, how many threads have we seen on here talking about dead pilots with people, staggeringly, posting "He deserved it, he was an idiot" and stuff like that. It is a nasty, unpalatable and completely callous side to this board that I've always disliked.

I wonder if those posters are arm chair activists or whether they say stuff like that in real life? Would they really go to somebody's funeral and publicly tell the family, and everyone there, "Well he drank far to much and totally deserved to die and he was a bit of an idiot too got his just deserts really" ?

For some reason, being on a forum makes some people think it's all right to conduct yourself as a total ****. I use that swear word justly, some of the posts I've seen on here over the years have been breathtakingly awful.

[goldeneaglepilot]

I must admit I find it quite incredible that after the thread had been removed, so many people chose to perpetuate its content by referral by name and even by explaining to the lessor computer literate how to find it again using Google cache.

The thread (as has been stated previously) was removed at a point in time when it was seen to have achieved the desired result. For the sake of clarity the posting was nothing to do with her association with Weaver or indeed anything other than a genuine desire to try to prevent both a potential accident and the person continuing to create themselves a greater potential personal problem.

Perhaps the explanation of the steps that were taken by various people to try to explain to Indy (prior to posting on here) the merits and risks of her actions need repeating. So here goes:

Indy herself had stated to me that she had the angioplasty, which is a treatment to try to reverse a problem that in its self is extremely serious and life threatening. The underlying problem causes restriction of blood to the heart and causes inefficiency in the heart. It is exasperated by altitude (as the air gets thinner). I was told by a doctor that to help understand the implications of flying following an angioplasty (even as a passenger - until medically cleared) consideration should be made to how even a fit person will feel after going up a few thousand feet for a days fun at the ski resort, should a persons heart be affected by damage or disease then of course the effect will be compounded. I have good friends who are doctors and prior to any posting I spent time trying to discover if going flying was a real risk for someone following an angioplasty and just the extent of the real threat. I know the CAA are clear, its an automatic minimum 6 months of no flying medical following an angioplasty, but I needed to establish in my own mind if it was a real risk and balance that fact with what will probably be seemed as a selfish equation - should I remain silent on the matter and let fate run its course and thus prevent any personal criticism or is the risk to both herself and to others based on what facts I had established too great to remain silent.

A doctor described a person following angioplasty in the scenario described as a person playing Russian roulette not only with their own life but the life of others, with an unknown number of bullets in the chambers of the revolver. Legally something which should not happen but in reality something that was happening. It was said to me that I should consider a parallel situation of an apparently drunk driver - one that you had witnessed drinking in the pub but visibly struggling to function, should you ignore it and not say something to anyone (the potential passengers of the car - even if they are strangers) call the Police quietly and hope that they can get to the person to check that they are fit to drive or wait until after the person has crashed maybe killing a passenger on the way and then say to all your friends - yes I saw them drinking and they were drunk, bound to have happened.

In addition to this she decided to use her own aircraft to give a trial lesson after the ARC had expired. That was on a day when the weather at best was marginal VFR, I know as I flew that day. Due to the visibility that day the workload for a pilot was high.

Indy was approached by various people to try to get her to stop flying prior to the post. She ignored that. It was done quietly at that stage to help prevent embarrassment for her.

It should be remembered that angioplasty is a procedure that is ONLY ever done to help someone with a very serious life threatening condition. In terms of threat to flying activities and fitness to fly afterwards it requires more intensive tests to confirm that a person is fit to fly than someone who has had a heart attack.

Publishing the fact that Indy had an angioplasty was to draw attention to the severity of her health issues. They are unseen issues, if a person is affected by a stroke then the issues are often very visible but not in the case of someone with heart disease. She had no personal issue telling a stranger of her condition.

So to recap on the facts, Indy had made public to a stranger the nature of her health issues and treatment. She was very aware and understood the restrictions the issues placed upon her legal flying activities. She continued to fly and instruct. She flew her own aircraft after its ARC had expired.

The airfield that she operated at is not controlled by a control tower so it was almost impossible to get the airfield to stop her activities. The airfield has a number of people operating on it, a lot were unaware prior to the posts of her or any problems she faced

I am told that she has now stopped flying, mainly through the fact that many people at the airfield did become aware of the problems and she can not hide her activities anymore, everyone now knows who she is and is aware that she does not have a valid medical.

[Pace]

With power comes responsibility otherwise it becomes misuse.
I have posted before that Crusaders can be so blinded by what they see as their ultimate goal that they do not see the people they trad on or abuse in that quest .GEP has appointed himself and been appointed as the forum
Amateur detective and will happily state that all the information he puts up in the forums is publicly available.
It was not made publicly available to
Be taken out of context and without permission and plastered into prune for anonymous individuals to play with and make all manner of insinuations and judgements from!
Golden Eagle pilot would not like his own details, personal or otherwise plastered on an anonymous forum.
Golden Eagle pilot will call forum
Members but only from a withheld number to protect his own rights to privacy!
He cares nothing of others rights,
That is sad as he is a good man blinded by the Crusade and protected by the moderator.
There are forum
Codes of conduct which are flouted by those in power in prune yet used against posters at will.
I hope everyone learns something from
That thread
GEP yes if you have concerns go to the correct authorities with your information!
If you fail go again and again but don't allow people to be put into a home made court for ridicule and judgement by a bunch of anonymous people!
What makes you think you have the moral right to do that?

Pace

[WestWind1950]

it may sometimes seem that the authorities work "too" slow, but some times their hands are tied, especially after anonymous reports. But also after non-anonymous ones.... the authorities need HARD FACTS in order to do something, not just "rumours". Yes, they will check into stuff as far as they can, but data protection laws even prevent authorities from investigating into stuff. Often the CAA or whoever is working behind the scenes which WE, on the outisde, do not see!

example: the authority receives a report on a pilot that supposedly has epilepsy yet keeps getting a medical because he is friends with the doctor. So, on that information, what can the CAA do? Ask the doc how thoroughly he checked this guy? Insist the doc provide confident information and thus incriminate himself perhaps?
It turned out, the pilot did NOT have epilepsy! The report was wrong.

Once I heard rumours (this is over 15 yrs ago and no internet back then) of a pilot who lost his medical for power gliders, but he continued to fly ultralights since the requirements were "easier". What to do? The whole club knew about it and continued to let him fly their ul. Who am I to pass on the rumours, not knowing 100% if they were true? Confront the pilot and tell him what people are saying and gets all upset with his friends for spreading (possible) false rumours?

It's a very tough situation. But as I said on the removed thread... just let people know that there is a possibly critical "situation" with a certain person and if anyone wants further information to pm the thread opener. That way it all stays private and only those involved get further information.

[ralph1]

Can someone tell me how to post a question without having to reply to someone elses like I have done here:sad:

[peterh337]

If GEP is to be a self appointed amateur detective on pilots flying allegedly without valid papers etc etc etc, he has his work cut out :E

[Genghis the Engineer]

Can someone tell me how to post a question without having to reply to someone elses like I have done here:sad:

Once you've made a couple of sensible posts, so are no longer on "new users probation", just click the "new thread" box.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

If GEP is to be a self appointed amateur detective on pilots flying allegedly without valid papers etc etc etc, he has his work cut out :E

I don't know, anybody who can get Indy to tell them their full medical history and that they are flying illegally - despite GEP having already pursued a public campaign against a good friend of Indy's, and forced that friend to never go near his own business again, has pretty impressive powers of persuasion and investigation.

G

[mad_jock]

If you have ever had any dealings with a transexual person before you wouldn't find it suprising.

Normal rules do not apply. They will have been through experences that none of us that haven't experenced them will not be able to relate to never mind comprehend.

And thats not said out of any feeling of nastyness towards there life choices. Just out of experence with having dealings with two of them one of whom tried to top themselves on company property.

Both were hilarious and out going, as one of them said "I am am a woman now, if they could only fix being ginger" Said by a ginger 45 year old 16 stone transexual scaffolder with 2 kids.

[Pace]

G

GEPs abilities as an amateur private investigator are not in question ( I state "amateur" not in a derogatory way but to highlight as far as I know he does not represent any authority or neither does he do it as a profession but as a hobby)
For me the distaste comes from a broader question of whether someone should place selected and personal material taken without permission out of the context it has been placed and put in a new context.
That context is a public forum with anonymous posters!
The anonymous is very important!
If everyone published under their real names and were accountable that is better!
Not only is it an anonymous forum but it is then a free for all to be used for entertainment , ridicule , false allegations and created into the PPRUNE court of injustice a very wrong situation which has no moral justification.
As stated GEPS work is very commendable but should not be in an entertainment forum for entertainment only but taken to the relevant authorities!
PPRUNE should use their position to make sure that the evidence is properly dealt with by professional people not amateurs!
A lot of us take great offence at some of the goings on here and the act needs tidying up!
As far as a public service I was surprised how few pilots I know even know iof Weaver or infact PPRUNe ! not as many as we think!
So GEP when I Spout on about the N reg issue not many read it ; )
We are not a court a judge and jury. People have rights to privacy as much as you do GEP although I understand from your E Mail why you protect your own anonyminity.
Sorry for any typo errors but am in south of France flying the jet I fly and stuck with I phone ; )

Pace

[dublinpilot]

With power comes responsibility otherwise it becomes misuse.
I have posted before that Crusaders can be so blinded by what they see as their ultimate goal that they do not see the people they trad on or abuse in that quest .GEP has appointed himself and been appointed as the forum
Amateur detective and will happily state that all the information he puts up in the forums is publicly available.
It was not made publicly available to
Be taken out of context and without permission and plastered into prune for anonymous individuals to play with and make all manner of insinuations and judgements from!
Golden Eagle pilot would not like his own details, personal or otherwise plastered on an anonymous forum.
Golden Eagle pilot will call forum
Members but only from a withheld number to protect his own rights to privacy!
He cares nothing of others rights,
That is sad as he is a good man blinded by the Crusade and protected by the moderator.
There are forum
Codes of conduct which are flouted by those in power in prune yet used against posters at will.
I hope everyone learns something from
That thread
GEP yes if you have concerns go to the correct authorities with your information!
If you fail go again and again but don't allow people to be put into a home made court for ridicule and judgement by a bunch of anonymous people!
What makes you think you have the moral right to do that?

Pace


Well said pace. I agree totally. I hadn't read the thread until I saw this one, and have to say that I'm deeply uncomfortable with its contents. Someone's medical conditions should not be exposed in a thread like that and it was unnecessary to achieve the threads aims.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Well said pace. I agree totally. I hadn't read the thread until I saw this one, and have to say that I'm deeply uncomfortable with its contents. Someone's medical conditions should not be exposed in a thread like that and it was unnecessary to achieve the threads

Perhaps I should have put something along the lines of:


Not to worry, she might be a little poorly, can't give any details, she will tell you she is fine - so little point in asking her before a flight, might be worth a PM.



I am certain had that been done I would have been accused of being malicious.

Just a small question - has Indy subsequent to the post denied to anyone that she had the Angioplasty? Has she denied her flying activities? Has she denied using her aircraft after the ARC expired (flight from the same airfield to the same airfield, so before anyone says anything not a positioning flight)? Has she told anyone since the post that her medical is in fact valid and therefore her activities were legal and safe?

[englishal]

It should be remembered that angioplasty is a procedure that is ONLY ever done to help someone with a very serious life threatening condition
I think you should leave that up to the specialist cardiologist to decide. I am sure there are varying degrees of "serious" heart conditons (didn't Tony Blair have one), just like there are varying degrees of all "serious" illnesses (Asthma for example).

What this person discussed with their doctor is not our concern. Perhaps the angiplasty was a recommendation rather than an emergency treatment? Who knows and frankly who cares. The most likely time for complications to arise following this surgery is in the first could of weeks following the op. I am sure there are statistics to show this.

Finally, as these are anonymous forums, readers have no real idea about the OPs real motivation. For all we know it could be for their own personal financial gain?!

[goldeneaglepilot]

Finally, as these are anonymous forums, readers have no real idea about the OPs real motivation. For all we know it could be for their own personal financial gain?!

Englishal: I have stated my motivation. I invite you to demonstrate how I could be expected to make "personal financial gain" from this... Please tell me how??

In addition to that it might be worth doing a little reading before posting, or even ask a doctor or AME for their thoughts - I did both...

A starting point might be: Coronary angioplasty - Why it is necessary - NHS Choices (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Coronary-angioplasty/Pages/how-can-it-help-me.aspx)

Also the CAA opinion seems different to yours, hence why they declare the person medically unfit for 6 months minimum before considering the person fit for a European class 3 medical

Its treated by the CAA as in the same class of issues as a heart attack or coronary bypass surgery. If I followed your argument through these would also be a minor issue requiring little more than a couple of weeks before resuming flying.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1943/Coronary%20Artery%20Disease%20Algo0609.pdf

[Duckeggblue]

Finally, as these are anonymous forums, readers have no real idea about the OPs real motivation. For all we know it could be for their own personal financial gain?!


Come on chaps, the thread was deleted because the lady in question is no longer flying. Would that be the case if the assertions were untrue? Or do you think that this statement is fictitious too?

I suspect it was also deleted because there was never going to be agreement within the pprune community as to how this had been achieved and the thread was therefore no longer productive - just acrimonious.

With respect to Englishal's comment - which may have been tongue in cheek- I can only think that he suspects GEP has designs on taking over Indy's trial lessons ;)

[englishal]

Englishal: I have stated my motivation. I invite you to demonstrate how I could be expected to make "personal financial gain" from this... Please tell me how??
Sorry, misunderstanding, my fingers type too quick! I should have said "I don't believe it to be the case in this instance" but what I meant that in general on a public forum like this, people can manipulate things to their own advantage. I am sure GEP had honourable intentions with his post but the gerneral rule is you "shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet".

[airpolice]

GEP, without dragging it all up again, please explain how you KNOW that the pilot concerned was unfit.

I doubt that any of us care how you came to your conclusions, but was there ever any EVIDENCE?

I'm wondering if that's why the CAA were reluctant / unable to act.

If I tell you that I have failed my medical, will that make me a danger to others? I can accept that if I have indeed failed, then I should not be flying, but if my GP is happy, and I'm happy, then wtf has it to do with you?

By all means you are entitled to tell the CAA that you have heard something and seen something that is not a good fit with what you have heard. You should not, however, spread as fact, what you have been told.

How many people (falsely) claim to have lost their medical as a reason for selling an aircraft or share? I suspect that's like selling a bad car on the pretence of moving abroad so you can't take it with you, hence the need for a quick sale.

[Duckeggblue]

GEP has said several times that the pilot/instructor told him that she had a disqualifying medical condition.

What I don't understand about this thread is why some people seem to believe that she has chosen to tell GEP something that is untrue.

I believe that Indy's medical condition is indeed confidential - up until the point where she tells others about it and particularly if she tells them that she is disregarding the consequences of it. After that, I can't see why anybody objects when her plan of action is made public. You do not sidle up to somebody who has a reputation for upholding the rules and mention your disregard for them without expecting a reaction.

If GEP has deliberately been told a falsehood in order to precipitate a response so that he can be "shot at", then there is more to this thread than the subject under discussion.

[peterh337]

Someone's medical conditions should not be exposed in a thread like that and it was unnecessary to achieve the threads aims.Couldn't agree more.

I vaguely recall a thread in some "prof pilots" forum here on proon, a while ago. I upset a lot of people there (not like me, eh ;) ) by saying that an awful lot of airline pilots got their initial medicals in, ahem, places like Hungary :E

Why not expose all of those, and publish their rosters while at it so you can avoid those flights for your family holidays :)

I believe that Indy's medical condition is indeed confidential - up until the point where she tells others about it No; a conversation is confidential, unless the speaker specifically authorises the other person(s) to post it on proon :)

If the mods here decide to set up a forum called "Expose of pilots faking their privileges etc" then as I said one could have a lot of fun there. There would also be a lot of litigation...

[custardpsc]

(didn't Tony Blair have one),

He did indeed.He had electrical rhythmn reversion therapy for SVT. And the only reason we know that is because his medical condition was reported publically. I doubt he explicitly gave permission for that either. Both the condition and the treatment were reported publically and no fuss was made about that as I recall. Its still up on the bbc website let alone google cache.

Saying someone has had heart surgery is NOT the same as revealing someone's medical records or publishing something said to a medical professional in confidence. It may have been indelicate to put the fact up here and it is undeniably linked to wider battles but the original alleged behaviour was fairly serious too, especially coming from an examiner.

Seems like the matter is indeed closed and the offical policers of such things are dealing with it. Can only be good...

[boguing]

I had Angioplasty and three stents just before Christmas.

A couple of weeks later I was invited for an aeros flight in an Extra.

Called the cardio - OK for +4G/-3G?

You'll be fine.

As a result of the original thread, I asked the cardio whether the same would be true if I was the pilot?

Not a chance. We don't care if you pass out as a passenger, but do care about who you would kill as a pilot.

An unequivocal no.

I should have asked if there was any hope of getting cleared after demonstrating a degree of fitness, because writing this has just shattered a dream of wnnng the Lottery and flying my own Mosquito.

[airpolice]

From GoldenEaglePilot:

So to recap on the facts, Indy had made public to a stranger the nature of her health issues and treatment. She was very aware and understood the restrictions the issues placed upon her legal flying activities. She continued to fly and instruct. She flew her own aircraft after its ARC had expired.

So, is that really all you have? You hounded another Pilot based on that?

I ask again, GEP, how did you KNOW that you had FACTS? G-INFO could be behind with details of the ARC renewal, and the Pilot concerned may have lied to you for any number of reasons.

[goldeneaglepilot]

It's funny but posters such as airpolice seem hell bent on perpetuating the thread. Perhaps if you had read the original thread you might have more insight.

Also it has been posted that considerably more was known than was posted, including independent witness statements. It's sufficent to say that the authorities have all the information and I see no need to share the considerable information with Airpolice, no matter how much he does not like that fact.

You did get one thing right - she made the claims herself with respect to the Angioplasty, she was very specific. If she had lied then that was her choice to lie, if she had sinister motives for lies then again that was her choice. Fortunatly the statements were witnessed - which was her mistake. Had they not been then I would have been extremely reluctant to have posted for obvious reasons. With regards the ARC, the aircraft still sits outside the maintenance hanger awaiting work.

[Duckeggblue]

No; a conversation is confidential, unless the speaker specifically authorises the other person(s) to post it on PPRuNe

Should reduce pprune traffic a bit then - only specifically authorised rumours :)

[englishal]

I doubt he explicitly gave permission for that either.
I'm sure Tony Blair gave express permission for the medical records to be released and no doubt used the spin to his advantage somewhere along the line.

What I am worried about is the "yea but no but bloke in the pub told me, this geezer right, he had an XYZ done on his heart and he flies the space shuttle...." gets translated to "The medical records were made public"...

I should have asked if there was any hope of getting cleared after demonstrating a degree of fitness, because writing this has just shattered a dream of wnnng the Lottery and flying my own Mosquito.
You can always come and fly mine if I win the lottery, but if not, have a look at the FAA who have a pragmatic view on conditions like these. You can even get back your class 1 FAA (after various tests) and fly a United B777 from LHR to LAX as Captain after all sorts of heart surgery, including conditions mentioned in these threads.

[Warped Factor]

You can always come and fly mine if I win the lottery, but if not, have a look at the FAA who have a pragmatic view on conditions like these. You can even get back your class 1 FAA (after various tests) and fly a United B777 from LHR to LAX as Captain after all sorts of heart surgery, including conditions mentioned in these threads.

Shock horror, you could get back your JAA Class 1 and fly your BA B777 on the same route as well. Bit more research required before activating the CAA auto diss I think :rolleyes:

[Pilot.Lyons]

I dont have a clue what the thread was about and have googled it as mentioned but it still blocked so im still in the dark... Must have been juicy or it would not have had such a lot of interest even after its been deleted

[mad_jock]

I suspect the dealing with heart type things with multi crew only restrictions is pretty common between both systems.

I also suspect the dealing with Single pilot aircraft is also similar as well.

We had an FO that had been off for months recovering from something completely different, and had just been knocked back again for 3 months. I suggested "have you suggested a multicrew only restriction 6 month medical?" err no, two days later they were flying again. Unrestricted 6 months later and the full year.

Quite rightly the single crew standards are different to the multicrew.

[Pace]

Pilot Lyons

I love your living description "in a hole somewhere" ; )think my in a suitcase needs to be changed : )
Why do threads get deleted ? The official line will be that they have run their course or served their purpose! I am more sceptical than that and think its more likely that they are not going the way intended and doing damage in the wrong quarters but what do I know?

Going to change my name from Pace to Spouter to please GEP : )
GEP ; ) GEP all said in a light way looking forward to that drink!

Pace

[abgd]

He did indeed.He had electrical rhythmn reversion therapy for SVT. And the only reason we know that is because his medical condition was reported publically. I doubt he explicitly gave permission for that either. Both the condition and the treatment were reported publically and no fuss was made about that as I recall. The difference there is that Tony Blair was a celebrity, and was in charge of the country. His heart condition was fairly minor, and if they hadn't gone public then a lot of people (stock-markets etc) may have assumed that the problem was something much more serious.

On the other hand, just prior to the Iraq war I thought he looked absolutely on the edge, to the extent that he should have been discussing his state of mind with doctors. Even when you're prime minister, there are things that you choose to share... or not.

[Pace]

Remember too that Sir Winston Churchill suffered with severe depression! The Black Dog ! Would not have been allowed to have commanded an airline but did a good job with a country ; )

Spouter ; )

[goldeneaglepilot]

Good morning Spouter,

How can you find the time to post on here when you are sitting on the beach in the south of France presumably surrounded by pretty girls with almost no clothes on?

:D

[abgd]

Allegedly Churchill had bipolar disorder, and there's a theory out there that most heads of state become psychiatrically unwell before the end of their terms.

Mildly depressed people are possibly better at judging risk than non-depressed people. The question is whether someone in power gets ill to the stage where their cognition is deranged.

Anyway, Churchill did us proud, I agree.

[JAKL]

GEP, would that be Pace with almost no clothes on or the girls :ok:

I do hope they are girls down under and I'm not referring to Australia!

[Pace]

The girls ; ) flight planned out tomorrow am so ?? Until then sun sea and sun : )
Hard job this corporate flying

Gusher

[Pilot.Lyons]

Pace

Id rather be where you are than in my hole :p

It is pace isnt it? Hehe

[Pace]

Pilot Lyons yes it Pace! Spouter was just a private joke with GEP who reckons I do ; )
Just liked your description of living accommodation ; ) I know I dig many for myself ; )
Takeoff from S France in 30 mins so back to reality

Pace

[Richard Westnot]

Slight thread drift, but has anyone heard anything yet about about the other GEP crusade reporting Christopher Alexander at Hinton to the CAA ? :ugh:

I thought the case was to be heard just before Christmas or just after. :confused:

[Martin Sigerola]

Richard - You are indeed correct. There have been many hearings about Christopher Alexander at Oxford Crown Court over the last 9 months. He has faced two sets of offences, the first were for aviation related offences, the second set some what more serious in my opinion as they related to offences against a Sex Offenders Prevention order. The two sets of charges were interlinked.

The obvious question for other users on here is about my interest in this. Simple really, I have held a PPL since 1986 and have been a keen reader of this forum for the last 15 years. Work keeps me very busy so I have resisted the temptation to post on here before. My view is that getting involved with Internet Forums can quickly remove any free time that someone can have! My sisters children were members of a Church choir just outside Banbury - Mr Alexander became the conductor there for some time. None of us knew his history and she (and her children) were shocked when Alexander was arrested for breaching his Sex Offenders Prevention order.

He was arrested for his breaches of that Order - not for the CAA issues as he claimed on Flyer Forum

I feel I need to make it clear that what I am writing here is now public domain information and is free of any Court reporting restrictions. On Thursday 30th Jan it was reported on my local evening news.

In 2008 Alexander was convicted of a child related sex offence. Shortly after the offence Alexander (his current surname) changed his surname by deed poll from Ebbs to Alexander. Of course this thwarted any searches on Google which linked to his previous history.

Choirmaster admits sexually assaulting boy (From Gazette Series) (http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/1942565.choirmaster_admits_sexually_assaulting_boy/)

The offence from 2008 resulted in the Judge ordering that Alexander should never be allowed to work with children for his lifetime

To quote from the newspaper report in 2008 the Judge said at the time: Ebbs, who sat clutching a Bible in the dock throughout the hearing, was also ordered to sign the sex offenders' register for five years - and he was banned from working with children in any capacity for the rest of his life.
"That means no more choirs with children in them," the judge told Ebbs.


The two matters (aviation and sex offences) were linked to each other as part of the issues that Alexander faced was the fact that he employed a child at his flying school (Hinton Pilot Flight Training at Hinton airfield) to clean aircraft in exchange for flights.

The other was of course his work with a choir full of children.

The nine charges brought against by the CAA were related to personal licence issues. He was found not guilty at Oxford Crown Court on 25th January after a three day trial on these offences. Costs were awarded against the CAA but were not agreed at the end of the trial and would require another hearing for cost to be agreed. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened yet.

I also read the Flyer forum, Alexander had been a contributor there, openly in his own name since Nov 2012. He posted there on Wednesday (the thread was later removed) I quote below part of what he claimed
We called the doctor that did my medical, the CAA admitted that all the aircraft were fully legal etc etc, and on the last day I was found NOT guilty on all matters. A lot was made of the allegations made on PPRune which were all unfounded. We were awarded full costs which are in six figures. The civil action which they indicated today they will settle is in seven figures.

Lets be clear here, the legality of the aircraft was not a question for the trial, it was all about the legality of Alexanders own personal licence. I am amazed that (if) the CAA had agreed to a seven figure sum without so much as a hearing in such a short time scale. But then it would seem to be another case of "Chris say's - yawn..."

I can't remember any post by GEP (or anyone else) about Alexander in connection to this. I can remember some serious questions about the condition of his companies aircraft (Hinton Pilot Flight Training) I can also remember a post by GEP that praised the company after it had sorted out the issues with the maintenance. After that the thread was deleleted.

Christopher Alexander was due for trial next week with respect to the breach of the Sex Offenders Prevention Order. The trial was listed for 5 days.

On Thursday 31st January he was listed for "mention" before Judge Pringle

He changed his plea for the four charges that he faced in relation to the Sex Offenders Prevention Order to Guilty on two counts. The Judge decided to deal with it there and then. He was sentenced to a fine totaling £3500 plus costs of £1000 against him with the two remaining charges to stay on the Court record (they can be made active again in the future should anything else happen).

My sister has given a statement to a national newspaper that intends to run a story about Alexander shortly, the subject is about how easy it was for a convicted sex offender to change name by deed poll and to offend again. She has talked in her statement about how it has traumatized her children and shaken her trust.

Anyway - my little contribution over so back to my coffee and croissants here on a lovely weekend break with my family! No flying for me today :(

[Erich Von Stalhein]

Interesting that the above post from Martin Sigarola appears to have been on Pistonheads some hours ago and was then removed.

MS I don't know where you got your facts from but there are a number of inaccuracies.

Firstly the two sets of allegations were not linked - they were on separate indictments. Had they been linked they would have been on one. The prosecution accepted that there was no link.

I am surprised that you mention the matter concerning a boy at the flying school having said that these matters are in the public domain as this allegation was not proceeded with and, as far as I am aware, no detail was mentioned in open court. Was this reported on your local news? Which news report was this as there were section 39 orders in respect of the case and I believe these remain in force?

Secondly the choir he attended was not "full of children" The evidence presented in court was that the vast majority of the choir were adults. The allegation against Mr Alexander was that he was prohibited from attending a choir, without permission from the police, where there were persons under the age of 16. The evidence presented in court was that there were about four or five female choristers who were aged 15 but close to their 16th birthdays.

Mr Alexander had disclosed his previous conviction to the vicar and the church authorities and they were fully aware of it.

As far as the flying matters are concerned, as you rightly say, Mr Alexander was found not guilty of all matters. However, costs were not awarded against the CAA but from central funds. Although the CAA had been involved in the investigation the prosecution was actually conducted by the CPS. There will be no further hearing regarding costs as these will be dealt with administratively by the Court.


My sister has given a statement to a national newspaper that intends to run a story about Alexander shortly, the subject is about how easy it was for a convicted sex offender to change name by deed poll and to offend again.

Both the police and the church authorities were aware of his previous offending and his change of name. His change of name had absolutely nothing to do with any of the charges he faced and did nothing to hide his identity from the relevant authorities.

The "offending again" was leaving the UK to go on holiday without obtaining express permission from the police (although I understand that he had written to tell them he was going) and attending a choir where there were persons under the age of 16. He was fined. There were no allegations of further sexual offending. These were technical breaches of an order that in passing sentence the Judge said was far too widely drawn and needed amending.

[Richard Westnot]

Just back from shopping, but while we were out I received a text message from a friend saying that he considered GEP had responded on this thread.

I have just logged on to receive a further 3 messages stating the same. :ugh:

I will call you Martin, Kevin, David or whatever you like, but to keep it simple lets chose your preference of Martin this time.

What you say is accessible in the public domain, I do not know, I have not checked. If what you say is true, then obviously that is not condoned and as you quite rightly say, Chris Alexander has now been punished for that.

If any credit can be given in these circumstances, surely it is to Chris Alexander for telling the truth in Court. This must have been accepted by both the Judge and Jury in each case.

What concerns me more is Kevin Crellin/ GEP and his involvement in various other matters. You state that you do not have the time on internet forums but you seem to know a lot about various matters, which obviously does consume a lot of time.

I missed the Flyer Forum thread and cannot find it on a search, but again, you obviously was there and seem to have it recorded from your "quote" within your post.:confused:

Another thing that I find strange is this. Both yourself and Erich Von Stalhein are both new members effectively Feb 2013 both with a post count of 1. Erich seems to be displaying an avatar which you are missing. :confused:

One other thing. You and GEP seem to share a passion for croissants in your posts. :rolleyes:

Of course, this could all be just a coincidence. :ugh:

Again, I could be adding 2 + 2 and getting 5 but consider what Erich Von Stalhein has said about Pistonheads.

Then see this from Captain Bumble. :{

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=captain%20bumble%20pistonheads%20pprune&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pistonheads.com%2Fgassing%2Ftopic.asp%3 Fh%3D0%26t%3D1224078%26d%3D12053.59294%26nmt%3D&ei=1FENUdz-OI_K0AXB-YDwCw&usg=AFQjCNGU7mblph0ASTZqrD7jwkKQ6TRCoQ&bvm=bv.41867550,d.d2k

[Trinity 09L]

RW
I entered into brief private message(s) with CA when he posted on the F -forum. I challenged some of his facts and he provided unsatisfactory & incorrect quasi legal replies. The whole thread was quite rightly deleted.:ok: Regrettably the deed poll name change has been "abused" in the past. Now it happens here in unregulated cyberspace.

[Richard Westnot]

Trinity - surely anything unsatisfactory and incorrect would have been dealt with by the Court/s. ??

I am sorry, I do not understand what you are saying.

[Martin Sigerola]

We are not here talking about GEP - much as you would like to "Richard Westnott" Reading your posts you have a clear agenda.

I do read Forums, but as a rule of thumb I don't respond and don't post. This subject is close to my heart - it my family that have been affected.

You appear to have missed the Live Feed from Oxford Crown Court which listed the matter. You have have also missed the twitter account for the Court. Had you seen that then you would have known that Alexander went before the Judge at 10.43 and the next case started at 11.13. So it can be concluded that the guilty plea was dealt with in less than 30 minutes, including sentence.

In the original hearing the Judge ordered that Alexander would not be allowed to work with Children for the rest of his life. Plain and simple.

No after mention that the "Police would need to give permission" (to overturn the Judges order).

In my experience I have never heard a Judge make a statement such as the one claimed by EVS - AND fine someone £3500 plus £1000 costs

in passing sentence the Judge said was far too widely drawn and needed amendi

Both the CPS and the Court confirmed to me on Friday before I made my post that the matter is no longer subject to reporting restrictions with respect to Alexander. However common sense prevails and no one wants to identify the children, as such I have not been specific about the church.

I sat in the public gallery last year and listened to a pre-trial hearing of Alexander and at that stage both issues were being dealt with together. They were later separated into two trials.

How can entering plea a few days before a trial be classed as "coming clean"?

The whole sorrid affair has taken over a year and could have been concluded last year had Alexander placed his guilty plea then.

[Richard Westnot]

I speak for me. We = others speak for themselves. I was making reference to another GEP crusade and inquiry about the case between CAA/CPS and Chris Alexander.

Thanks for all the info. I say again, I do not condone what is reported or within the public domain on the other matters.

I am very pleased to hear the Chris Alexander was found not guilty in respect to the GEP involvement. :ok:

[Martin Sigerola]

I am very pleased to hear the Chris Alexander was found not guilty in respect to the GEP involvement. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

What an interesting thought.

GEP was seriously criticised at my local airport when it became common knowledge that HE had advised Alexander to change Solicitors / Counsel from his original Solicitors / Counsel - so that Alexander could have a fair trial with a competent legal team well versed in aviation matters who did their best to defend him.

I understand that GEP's defence for that line of action was that if Alexander was convicted it was after a fair trial with fair representation.

I have never met GEP but others have at Oxford, so I am only commenting third hand.

At the hearing I attended Alexander was represented by a local barrister from local Chambers, not Stephen Spence. So I presume that his legal team did change.

[Trinity 09L]

RW,
I was refering to his/the posting on the other forum not at Court. The content was quite rightly deleted, and I refer you to the identification process used to identify ISP's :ugh:, and the case rests.

[Richard Westnot]

Martin :rolleyes:

I personally do not believe that you are who you say you are. Please forgive me for that. If others fool for it, that is a matter for them.

You have had many agenda's with various people under various monikers but strangely, I have just learnt with the same ISP address. :ugh:

Crellin is a snake. Let's not mince our words about that, so if you say that you :} sorry I meant GEP seemingly helped CA, I would say that it was probably in his capacity of a solicitor :} sorry I meant fellow ppl.

If this was just a matter between you :} sorry GEP and CA, I would probably not take the view that I have. But it is not is it ?

A Judge did not believe a word that you :} sorry Crellin said, so if you now expect me to believe anything, then I am very sorry to say that I don't.

Come back, when you have read this.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=david%20henderson%20pilot&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.flyer.co.uk%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ff%3D1% 26t%3D80912&ei=qH0NUa_wKIi30QXks4C4DA&usg=AFQjCNFz9FawuzQCgRzMEGpCiYwnHNw2oA&bvm=bv.41867550,d.d2k

[dublinpilot]

So we have two new posters here who have been following the forum for 15 years but never bothered to register and post before.

Neither have any direct involvement in the case, yet both seem to have a detailed knowledge of it and choose this topic for their first post. :rolleyes:

Clearly neither is being 100% honest, and we have no way of knowing how honest they are, or what their interest is in the case.

Each will make their own judgement, but for me, I don' t trust a word from either of them.

[Martin Sigerola]

Richard - What a strange thought - it seems to be based on the assumption that GEP apparently likes croissants!

One other thing. You and GEP seem to share a passion for croissants in your posts. :rolleyes:

Do you have a personal issue with GEP? - I can't help but notice that you signed up on here about the time that all the postings started against him.

As I said before I have been a reader of this forum for many years, I can't help but wonder why you just happened to sign up here then an a large number of your posts seem to be directed at GEP.

I came on here not to talk about GEP, but to talk about Chris Alexander. I did keep a copy of his post on the other forum, which was his reply about his issues and trial with the CAA. I also saw that the person who had started the thread and Chris Alexander had the same IP address. I did also see that another poster had used an IP address that GEP had used.

I also read G-BLEW's comment after the thread was locked - which said that even with the same IP address it did not prove that it was the same person.

As I could see on there that GEP had not posted for many months on Flyer (I did look after the first post after what the post claimed) I could also see that both the original poster (a new sign up on that forum) and Chris Alexander posted seemingly from the same IP within a few hours of each post. That's how I read the message from G-BLEW.

Going back to Christopher Alexander: This was the post he made of flyer on Flyer, I have also copied the first post that started the thread. I am under the impression that on here threads are deleted if they mention GEP by name, so I have "*" some of the name.

It seems like a direct attack on GEP by both the original poster and Chris Alexander. He obviously feels that GEP was influential in the prosecution being brought. Surely though the CAA would have only proceeded based on hard evidence that they had in hand.

Just one small point - What Alexander claims about his 4.00am arrest is farcical. The offence Alexander claims he was arrested for is not an arrestable offence. The normal mode is via a summons.

Flying school owner found NOT guilty. (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=81536#p1141214)

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/styles/proglass_red/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1141214#p1141214)by wunwingpaul (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13112) » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:38 am
I am new here having come across from the "other place".

I note with interest that the owner of several flying schools was recently prosecuted by the Civil Aviation Authority for supposed flying and instructing without the correct tickets. The argument was all over a medical. I followed the three day trial and was there.

The guy had both a NPPL medical and an JAR class 2 but not issued in the UK. The CAA admitted that they based the case on allegations made on an internet forum called pprune by a guy called goldeneagle pilot.

The guy was found not guilty of all matters by an unanimous verdict. The CAA were ordered to pay full costs back to the school owner. It is understood that the CAA are now no longer allowed to bring prosecutions but that all future prosecutions now have to go through the CP


And Alexanders own post:

by Chris Alexander (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=12789) » 30 Jan 2013 18:32
Paul, with the greatest of respect sir, just like you are short of a wing (wunwing?) I think you are a little short of facts.

It was ME that was the subject of the prosecution so I do know a little about it.

In brief, these are matters that came out in court and are in the public arena, a person reporting to be called David ******** called both the CAA and local police reporting that none of our aircraft had C of As, insurance, radio licences, etc etc etc and that the instructors didnt hold licences.

The police checked with the CAA and I am told the CAA didn't have a record of a valid medical certificate. The police attended my house at 4am one morning and I was arrested for flying without a valid flight crew licence. (my means of not having a valid medical). At interview I explained I had both a JAR class 2 issued in Ireland and an NPPL declaration. The police knew nothing about aviation. I was charged the next morning, and refused bail on the basis that I posed a flight risk. I went before the magistrates the next morning and remanded in custody. It was stated that as I owned numerous aircraft I could "FLEE IN SOUTH AMERICA IN ONE OF THE SCHOOLS AIRCRAFT" ( yes- South America in a Pa38!!!!)

After a week in jail, I managed to get an application to a judge who let me out. I was advised not to say anything or produce anything to the CAA to "keep the powder dry". I still dont understand this bit.

I sought out proper legal advice in the form of a barrister called Stephen Spence who is also a pilot. There then followed long legal argument as the CAA tried to say that the burden of proof was upon me to prove I had a medical. Stephen said the burden was on the prosecution to prove that I didnt. This took many days in court whilst the barristers argued like two rhinos. Stephen won.

Then, and NOTHING to do with my case, the CAA lost the right to bring cases due to some European ruling and the case went over to the CPS. This is when it all went bad as the CPS really didnt seem to understand aviation law. Each hearing had a new CPS barrister, paperwork got lost by them etc etc etc.

We expected them to withdraw before the trial but to trial it went. 10 counts of flying without a licence- several counts of the same day- ie count 3 a flight to Popham, count 4 the flight back! etc etc.

We called the doctor that did my medical, the CAA admitted that all the aircraft were fully legal etc etc, and on the last day I was found NOT guilty on all matters. Alot was made of the allegations made on PPRune which were all unfounded. We were awarded full costs which are in six figures. The civil action which they indicated today they will settle is in seven figures.

If you get in trouble with the CAA get a good lawyer. You will find it hard to beat Stephen Spence- one of the very few barristers willing to take defence work.

I hope this is the end to all matters and that I can quietly get on with running safe, legal and fun flying schools and concentrate on good stuff.

So dont blame the CAA, dont deal in rumours, and above all enjoy your flying. The thought of losing your licences and not being able to fly brought that one home to me.

HAve fun guys.

[Richard Westnot]

Dublinpilot I hear what you are saying and you could be on the right track. I don't know. :confused:

What I do know is this. On the one hand a Court found CA telling the truth and on the other hand, a Court did not believe any word coming from Crellins mouth.

I am not a gambling man but I know where my money would be stacked between the two.

[wb9999]

GEP and CA both posted on the Flyer topic under aliases earlier this week. Looks like the same here today.

[Richard Westnot]

wb9999 yep, you are right.

Ha ha - Martina, tell us about the posts from "lostherway" are you a female now ?