Pathetic aftermath of PFA rally (Good News!)

[Alty Meter]

Fully agree with the compliments on the main PFA thread about the controller at the rally. Everyone I've spoken to thougth he did a thoroughly professional job the whole weekend.
But one person didn't agree with the general consensus.

I heard at Kemble yesterday one of the PFA Ops people got over-excited because the controller permitted the Extras team to do part of their routine when they returned to Kemble on Saturday evening. Those of us who were still there at about 7.15 saw a superb short display by very experienced aerobatic pilots. Too short but it was an unexpected bonus and free so who's complaining.

When they landed, Mr X accused them of dangerous flying :rolleyes: and wouldn't believe them when they said they had permission. He marched them off to the controller who confirmed the pilots were telling the truth and they hadn't done anything wrong.
Instead of just apologising and backing down, he got all moody because the controller hadn't consulted him first, threw his toys out of the pram and walked off the job saying he couldn't work with someone so unprofessional!

If the controller's a Pruner - Well done, Sir. Everyone else thought you did a superb job all weekend.
Dangerous? The mini display was safe and professionally executed, as you'd expect from an ex-Red Arrow synchro pair leader and a retired Group Captain.

Funny how there always has to be one ass-hole. :mad:
What a pompous dick-head! :* :yuk: :E

[DamienB]

And what was the end result of his complaint of dangerous flying then?

[Alty Meter]

I don't know if there's an end result.
I left something out of my last post because I don't know for sure if this part's true but on the understanding it may be a false rumour, I was told at work yesterday that Mr X rang up the CAA on the following Monday morning and tried to get the pilots prosecuted for dangerous flying. The CAA investigation people
couldn't see the problem as the pilots had DA's, Kemble's got rule 5 exemption and the controller gave permission.

Allegedly Mr X wouldn't leave it at that and started phoning other CAA departments and people he knows in the CAA to try get them prosecuted.
My F/O wouldn't tell me where he got all that from. He said it was 100% but I can't vouch for it myself.

I'm a bit dubious because Mr X is a pilot and I just can't see anyone being that nasty, but I don't know the man so perhaps he is?

Anyone else heard anything?

[Flap40]

I know one of the controllers who was working at the rally (there are several in the team) and he is one of the best that you will find anywhere. I am fairly certain that he is also a PPRuNer.

[stealthy]

Personally I wasn't there for that event but I know of the so called "Dangerous Flyers" and feel that this is ludicrous considering the wealth of flying experience and flying hours that they have between them - they both have taught many pilots in the RAF and in the civilian world and their knowledge and professionalism has been passed down the line to many of the current aviators that are on this forum. Their aerobatic skills and fast jet experience are second to none and they both have performed their aviation skills in front of, what must now be, millions of people with a clean safety record. Kemble's controllers are also excellent and professional and they watch these two professionals fly nearly every day. They know their limits but I have no doubt that they knew how safe these display pilots are. Should this case got further, after investigation, I feel that it is a mockery of the CAA over one person throwing his toys out of the cot. Both the pilot's did have DAs and if they are taken away it will be a very sad loss to the aviation world.
I believe the investigation is on going and believe that it is a complete waste of their time although I understand that these things have to be done if an official complaint is made. For the 2 pilots - keep your heads high and be proud that so many people are behind you and look forward to watching you fly your fantastic displays soon.

As for "The Compaliner" - if you were half the man that these 2 professionals are you would waken up, withdraw your complaint and get all this bad feeling away from PROFESSIONAL aviation. You may well know people in the CAA but far more people now know you for another reason and not that of professionalism.

[Tiger_ Moth]

If that's true, then that guy is the biggest stain on GA flying. Ever. What an a**hole

[Heliport]

I'm afraid it is true.

Both pilots are now under investigation by the CAA as a result of a complaint by a Mr Moody. :mad:

So that this does not reflect badly on the PFA, it should be pointed out that Mr Moody (an Easyjet Captain) decided to make a complaint against the pilots for his own motives, not as a representative of the PFA.

Heliport

[I have control]

What a complete ******.

[Daifly]

How do we write to to complain about the speed of his taxiing at LTN then...?

How thoroughly pathetic - it's hard enough to keep aviation in the good press without being shafted from within...

Weren't the CAA on site? Thought that they usually were for all big events like this - they were at Silverstone - I guess if someone makes a complaint it has to be investigated though.

[Dan Dare]

Not too impressed with the way the (ex?) PFA representative handled this. I suspect CAA enforcement branch were only involved in an effort to save face having had no back up from ATC when he tried to bo11ock the pilots.

The person in question HAS put a lot of work into many PFA rallies and I don't think that such a personal attack is appropriate on this forum.

[Captain Airclues]

If the CAA do prosecute, perhaps we could all chip in and hire Flying Lawyer?

Airclues

[Mike Cross]

I wasn't there at the time so I can't comment on this alleged incident.

Rule 70 says
(2) (a) The commander of an aircraft intending to participate in a flying display shall take
all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before he participates that:
(i) the flying display director has been granted an appropriate permission
under paragraph (4);
‘Flying display’ means any flying activity deliberately performed for the purpose of
providing an exhibition or entertainment at an advertised event open to the public;
One assumes that the comments above come from those who have read CAP 393 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF) and are happy that the rules were complied with.

If the PFA were resonsible for safety at the event it might not be unreasonable for them to object if they thought the rules were broken. Perhaps it would be best to await the result of the investigation. If no rules were broken, there should be no problem.

Mike

[Heliport]

Dan D
You're probably right about the 'face saving' but the reason Moody got "no back up from ATC when he tried to bo11ock the pilots" is no-one else thought the pilots had done anything wrong or dangerous as he alleged. But Moody wouldn't let it drop at that.
The version I heard, from a totally reliable and well-informed source, is the same as posted by Alty Meter.

Moody's next attempt to cause trouble for the pilots was to report them to CAA Enforcement but they didn't think the pilots had done anything wrong.
But Moody still wasn't content to let it drop. He'd failed with the PFA controllers and failed with CAA Enforcement, so he tried another approach.
He rang up someone in SRG and it was third time lucky - for him anyway. Some desk-pusher in SRG took up the cause and passed it back to Enforcement for an investigation.

Those are the facts. It wouldn't be right for me as a Mod to express a personal opinion. People can judge for themselves whether they think Moody's behaviour was perfectly reasonable, or petty, nasty and vindictive trying to save face regardless of the consequences to fellow pilots.

Mike C
The Rally had finished for the day. The 'incident' happened when the pilots recovered to Kemble (their home base) at just before 7.30pm.
The PFA didn't complain - Moody took it himself to do so.
"If no rules were broken, there should be no problem."
Some people might not agree with that proposition. Suppose it depends what view you take of one pilot causing trouble for another pilot. ;)

[blaireau]

Does this sad hand cranker perhaps resent military pilots?

[Mike Cross]

Heliport

As I said, I wasn't there at the time. I certainly don't have enough facts to make a judgement.

I can see a number of difficulties for anyone wanting to bring a case against the pilots, not least your point that the event was closed to the public at the time.

Another good defence would be that they were honing their skills with the permission of the ATZ controlling authority (I don't think it was ATC at that time?) and not putting on a display for the public.

My concern was more at the personally abusive nature of some of the posts. The public abuse of an identifiable individual by someone who hides his or her own identity is not pleasant.

Mike

[smarthawke]

Just to play devil's advocate here - and by the way, I was there.........

The Rally had not finished for the day - I seem to remember the AIC notified the Rally TRA as being active until 2000hrs and the impromptu display certainly occurred way before this. There were other aircraft arriving and departing immediately before the Extras did their thing.

Did the AIC make allowance for arrivals such as that performed by the Extras? I can't remember reading it in there that you could carry out a display on arrival if you wished to.

Beig such highly experienced and skilled 'professional' aviators I'm sure the pilots involved had copies of the AIC with them as stated as a requirement in the AIC for any arrival at Kemble during the Rally - especially as the TRA was still in force at the time.

Oh, and what if a non-radio aircraft was arriving at the same time in total compliance with the AIC?

Just a thought or two.......

[Ludwig]

So that we, the GA community can treat Mr Moody in the way he deserves should we encounter him, tell us his name, after all the victims have effectivley been named here.

[gasax]

I have to say I have more sympathy with smarthawkes view than many of the others.

I have been on the receiving end of a display given by a hugely experienced blah blah blah. He turned up at a fly-in and thrilled us all - and the neighbourhood with his skills (and diesel smoke!).

The end result was he created a firestorm with the locals that almost closed the strip. And throughout that entire process of appeasing the neighbours and the local paper all we got in terms of support was how incredibly skilled he was, how lucky we were to have him turn up.

A promise to report the entire incident to the CAA at least brought a promise he ould never darken our doors again.

Obviously this incident had none of that potential. But it does smack of the same lack of thought and consideration. This is the busiest piece of sky in Europe on that weekend, I'm sure it was much quieter about then - but if these guys are so professional, so egoless why did they bust the rules?

It's just the same as the 'run and break' boys - the rules, are for other people.

Let's see what the CAA investigation comes to.

[Blind lemon]

Good to see that we have are fair share of NIMBYS in the aviation community too.

;)

[virgin]

smartarse
If you knew anything about the pilots concerned maybe you wouldn't be so sarcastic about " highly experienced and skilled 'professional' aviators".
One of them flew with us for a short time when he first came out of the RAF and he is highly experienced, skilled and professional. He moved on and got a command in a very short time with another airline. Maybe someone who's CV includes Squadron Leader, the RAF Jaguar display pilot, and leader of the synchro pair in the Red Arrows doesn't qualify for the description of highly experienced, skilled and professional in your eyes?
I've never met the other one but my ex-RAF colleagues say he
had a distinguished RAF career, flew virtually every type the RAF operated in his career and when he retired a few years ago as Group Captain was still an active pilot despite his high rank.
Maybe he doesn't deserve the description either.

gasax
You've got a chip on your shoulder about military pilots "egos" that you made very clear on another thread so no surprise you agree with smartiepants. So they 'bust the rules' did they? Who says?
And a big difference between what you describe and what happened here is your people warned the pilot, they didn't go running off to the CAA which is what that Moody did.

You've both missed a fewpoints in your rush to criticise. Try reading the thread again from the top.
The two pilots didn't just fly in and do a beat-up. They did a practice at their home airfield when they got back to base and had permission from the PFA controller to do it.
The PFA didn't complain. One man who didn't get his own way kept going until he did.

AND despite what you two seem to think, irresponsible cowboys soon get spotted in professional aviation and they don't achieve half of what those two have achieved in their careers. BTW, I'm not ex-military.

In my book, the result of the investigation is irrelevent. It won't change what Mr Moody did which was childish and despicable. Git! :mad:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have no particular opinion about it, was there, didn't watch the display, did hear the rumblings at the time, but...

- However experienced these chaps were, presumably there was given the occasion some risk that somebody with very little experience and perhaps no radio could have turned up and flown into the middle of the display. On the other hand, where exactly did it take place? - was it in the middle of the approach (stupid) on a declared deadside (should be okay since no overhead joins at the rally so long as it was 100m or so from the runway centreline) or at a safe height above the runway centre (pretty much sterile space).

- Surely as aviators we should sort out our disagreements amongst ourselves, the sin surely is in escalating an issue to the CAA, rather than in feeling that something was unsafe - that's the sort of debate that goes on regularly at many airfields, and the fact that we do discuss it - often in heated terms - means that we all take safety seriously. That must be a good thing.

- I find myself wondering if whoever this chap Moody (who I don't know) complained to at the rally had given him a good listening to and discussed it, rather than telling him something along the lines of: I'm in charge, authorised it, and it's legal so what's the problem, he'd not have gone to the CAA, however reprehensible an action we may think that was regardless.

Just a few neutral thoughts, as an ex-military, now civil, PFA member, who has been practicing for a DA for 2 years but not got there yet, and would just rather see my fellow aviators arguing less noisily when somebody gets worried about something.

G

[smarthawke]

'Smartarse'? Oh very funny and very witty, or do I hope you wear glasses when flying? It is actually spelt: 'smarthawke'.

Is it that everyone ex-RAF is all things to aviation military or civil?

Did they or did they not not abide with the arrival procedures for the PFA Rally as stated in the AIC?

And for what's worth, their crossover was well off crowd centre........

People hate to see two sides of a story don't they? And don't they bite easily?

[Heliport]

Surely as aviators we should sort out our disagreements amongst ourselves, the sin surely is in escalating an issue to the CAA, rather than in feeling that something was unsafe - that's the sort of debate that goes on regularly at many airfields, and the fact that we do discuss it - often in heated terms - means that we all take safety seriously. That must be a good thing. I couldn't agree more. You've hit the nail squarely on the head Genghis.
From what I've heard from a source I've always found to be completely balanced and reliable, people did try to discuss it calmly with Moody. Unfortunately, he wasn't open to discussion and got angry because nobody agreed with him. (He wasn't the only experienced aviator there.)
The trouble seems to be that he'd gone off both barrels at the pilots without checking the facts first and wouldn't believe them when they said they'd OK'd their practice with ATC.
When he found out it was true, he started effing and blinding because he hadn't been consulted before permission was given, wouldn't be.
Moody then walked off the job saying he wouldn't work with them on the Sunday. Fortunately the PFA found someone to step into the breach so the Rally went ahead smoothly and successfully the next day without Moody. Perhaps that made him even more irritated?

smarthawke
Interesting questions, but surely the more interesting topic is the one raised by Allty M who started this thread?
What's your view on that?

[smarthawke]

Heliport

I personally don't think the 'display' itself was dangerous except for the fact that there was other traffic departing and arriving at the same time and as I said what if some non-radio machine had arrived at the same time?

With all these things it is best to wait for all the real facts to come out rather than all the perceived facts known by people who knew people who knew people that might have been there and perhaps witnessed the event.......!!

[gasax]

I fully agree smarthawke!

If these guys didn't do anything wrong, then the complaint to the CAA will come to nothing.

Then perhaps the stone throwing at Moody will be justified.

I cannot help but see the attitude here that these are great guys and so any complaint is unjustified - that cannot be so.

We all do stupid things sometimes. The attitude that I'm a great aviator and so the rules don't apply to me seems very inappropriate. I would n't suggest Moody seems the nicest type of person - but that is only one side of this story, started in a very sensationalist way.

If or when the CAA drop it then the insults might be more justified.

As for me having a down on military pilots - no not particularly, I know a couple and respect their skills. I do however find arrogance and rule breaking based on it, pretty boorish and utterly inexcusable particularly when the word professional is being used.

[virgin]

smarthawke
The facts have come out. They've been given several times by different people on this thread and nobody's suggested they aren't accurate.
The facts are Steven Moody was dead set on causing trouble for the two pilots and he kept going and going until he succeeded.

The issue AltyMeter started isn't what we think about the pilots flying (most of us weren't there so can't judge) but about Moody's antics which have caused so much trouble. That's the issue.
Read Genghis's post again. He makes a lot of sense.

gasax
How many times do you have to be told? They came back to Kemble in the evening, asked permission to do some practice and were given it.
You're entitled to your opinion of people who complain to the CAA instead os sorting it out locally. My opinion of Steven Moody won't change regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
BTW, I'm not a military man unless you count a couple of years in the ATC when I was at school.

[stiknruda]

Wow!

Lot's of converging viewpoints.

My point of view -

arrived at Kemble from the south just as the duo were doing their stuff, they finished and landed about 20 secs ahead of me...

the only inconvenience to me was that I was unsure when to call "final" as I was lead of a 2ship and was watching them like the proverbial hawk - no2 was experiencing intermittent tx probs but could rx

We (wingman and self) had been competing in an aero's comp at Bodmin and approaching Kemble was no more arduous/dangerous than climbing out/recovering when an aero's comp is in progress.

From my PFA involvement (I am a director of ULAIR), I know Steve Moody and he has always struck me as very sensible. I am aware that the Rally is a very stressful time for the Rally crew and can only imagine that the display whilst the TRA was active was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I understand the concern about non-rdo a/c but as my previous trip to Kemble this year was G-VFWE non-rdo whilst the Hunter was strutting his stuff late Friday afternoon, I would expect non-rdo pilots to be EVEN more vigilant.

It is irrelevant that the display duo were ex-mil they could have been civvies such as the Tiger Club Turbulent Team and the same furore would have errupted.

With ATC permission, even I, a provisional display pilot could have practiced aerobatics in the overhead and down to 501' above the aerodrome.


In short - shame it could not have been sorted out locally - all I can predict is that there will be no winners from this.

Stik

[Vere de fakawee]

OK, I've bitten my tongue for long enough. Here's my 2p worth. I wasn’t there so I am trying to say this without bias either way, so if anyone slags me off, I'll be round with my dodgy 'mates' from the East End of Bethnal Green to lean on them! Just like Mr M**dy might be now after most of you guys have effectively sentenced him by internet trial! Let’s wait for the facts before we slaughter someone online, and then do it properly. Where does Pprune stand on Libel (Slander? Can never remember which one)?

Virgin,

Maybe the 'facts' are not quite as accurate as people make out? Just because several people have mentioned them here online, doesn’t mean they are accurate! If anything, the 'facts' on Pprune mean that they are almost certainly 100% ill-informed gossip from people who heard it down at the flying club bar!

Has anyone seen anything written down WHY the pilots are being investigated? Are they actually being investigated by the CAA, or have they just been told off? What laws have they broken, if any? Maybe Mr M**dy was justified in taking it further on grounds that he thought it dangerous or irresponsible? Are all us pruners actually saying things on here that the 2 unlucky pilots might not want us to? Are we dropping them in it by what we are saying? Anyone considered that?

There are lots of 'rules' in the ANO [URL=http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF/URL] (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF) that apply to Flying Displays, overflight of people on the ground and low flying. Article 70, Rule 5 etc etc. Most of them appear to be stupid rules to most of us, but somebody wrote them for a reason. Has anyone actually considered that by flying a display over the airfield while the PFA Rally was taking place, that the pilots may have broken just one or two of these rules? Professional good guys (Military, ex-mil & civil) **** up from time to time in all spheres of aviation. I didnt see them fly at Kemble, but I did see them at Brize Norton earlier that day and FWIW, I thought their display was pants! Maybe they had a bad day?

Where's Flying Lawyer when you need him? :{

Vere de Fakawe the Devils Advocate:8
(Not ex-military but I watched an RAF Phantom at an airshow once……………………)

[InFinRetirement]

You can rest assured that Flying Lawyer is not far away. :ok:

As a past display pilot covering a fair few years I am at a loss to understand how this situation can arise.

There is only ONE place you can call if you want to practise on your home airfield and that is ATC. These two guys did just that. They asked ATC if they could practise. ATC said yes. Game over! ATC controls the sky and ATC controls the aircraft. No need to go around in circles looking for a reason to chastise this Mr Moody - he has no case. He has no authority to tell the controllers how to control the airspace under their jurisdiction. No laws have been broken if they were given permission!

It may be that the pilots were not happy about a particular part of their sequence that day and thought they should practise it. Just what I would have done, and did, many times. They are to be commended not hounded. Especially by a man who appears to have thrown a tantrum because his 'authority' was not sought and was not needed. If he, alledgedly, stormed around trying to find someone to complain to in the manner he is supposed to have done he should not be in charge of an airshow. He has certainly belittled the good name of the PFA and maybe one or two of the excellent senior members might tell him that.

Practise is absolutely vital for a display pilot. He has to do it somewhere and that is accepted by all in authority. Think of the furore if it were found that a pilot never bothered to practise and became a cloud of dust at some airshow! He must take practise very seriously and since one was a synchro Red he practised almost every day. Groupie would be the same - and I think I know both. If that is the case - they are consummate professionals.

Give these guys a break. They know what is best and I support them 100%.

[Flying Lawyer]

I always find it interesting when people confidently assert that pilots against whom complaints are made have nothing to worry about if they've done nothing wrong. (Isn't 'interesting' a useful word? ;) )
Perhaps they have no idea about what's involved, or perhaps they just don't care as long as they aren't the pilot under investigation.

The facts have already been posted by a number of people so there's no point in my repeating them. Unfortunately, the full facts are even worse than reported here.

The incident is being investigated by the CAA. That's not surprising given Captain Steven Moody's determination as already described by others. But, it doesn't stop there.

What Pruners may find difficult to believe - but it's nonetheless true – is that, having received a complaint, someone in CAA-SRG saw fit to suspend the pilots' Display Authorisations before an investigation had taken place. As a result, the pilots have had to cancel their bookings for the rest of the season. In short, guilty or innocent, they've lost this display season.

I don't understand the concern (expressed by some) that what Captain Steven Moody did has been revealed. Pprune is an aviators' website. Some may admire him for his actions - others will think he's behaved disgracefully.


May I ask for my fellow Ppruners' co-operation please?
There's a risk the pilots will be prosecuted based on Captain Moody's allegations. I hope you'll agree that, in those circumstances, it would be best if we guard against saying anything here which might damage the pilots' interests.
I suggest we now suspend any further discussion until the matter has been finally resolved.

FL

[Tiger_ Moth]

This is ridiculous. I just don't understand this guy's motivation for causing all this trouble. What's he got to gain?

It's no good saying that if the pilots did nothing wrong then nothing will happen to them because they still have to put up with being investigated and the worry that they might somehow be found guilty. It would also be annoying for them that this guy is able to act in this way towards them despite their doing nothing wrong.

If the facts that have been laid out here are correct, and it appears that they are then he simply does not have a case, ATC permission was asked for and granted, end of story.

[doubleu-anker]

What a complete and utter tosser this "Captain" (Differcult to bring myself to utter the word, outside work) Moody must be.

Captain?? Captain of what??

Who gave him, or anyone else, permission to call him "Captain" outside of his work place??

[Anthony Carn]

One would hope that when/if this is resolved in favour of the pilots and the controller, then the person in question causing all of this trouble will be judged as unfit to be involved in any future events.

That would only be fair, would'nt it ?

[robmac]

All of these posts and the entire atmosphere surrounding the entire "incident" do no credit to the spirit of adventure which exists inside every real pilot, military, civil, private.

We all know the difference between bureaucratic dangerous and the real thing. Can't comment on this other than to say I suspect it belongs in the first category.

Its a sad F:mad: ing world, such a lack of heart and soul.

[blaireau]

Moody's disgusting behaviour has caused damage in the best traditions of a kangaroo court. Much damage is now done.
To balance the injustice, perhaps his peers and colleagues are in a position to mete out some justice within their sphere of operations. It is unlikely that his "professionalism" is unimpeachable.
By the by, I have displayed in my military days and am capable of seeing both sides. That is; when there are actually two sides to see!

[Flyin'Dutch']

It is difficult reading through this thread, to see what all the issues are. If the facts are as presented it will be unlikely that this will go much further, but appreciate FL's point of view based on experience in this field.

Seems harsh (but may be from the CAA's viewpoint understandable) that with the revoking of the DA, and cancellation of ongoing commitments there are likely serious consequences for the financial well being of this team.

Where is the PFA in this?

As the person who has made these allegations was doing so in his position as Rally Ops person; do they support this action?

If this carries on and goes to court, will these pilots have to fork out for their costs themselves, or would they have insurance for this or depend on donations from supporters? Are they members of AOPA?

Squabbles like these are messy and unlikely to have anyone coming out of this smelling of roses.

Someone expressed surprise that people from within the aviation community would shop anyone for doing something naughty. I think that was a bit naive.

FD

[Tapster]

Is this the same SM who used to be an ATCO at EGPH in the early 80s.

Taps

[ShyTorque]

Presumably if the pilots involved are found not to have broken any rules then they will have a jolly good reason to sue both the individual making the report for slander and the person in the SRG who acted on it for loss of earnings and damages?

[Flyin'Dutch']

ST,

Not a legal eagle but I think that is unlikely to be the case.

Let's just hope that this matter can be brought to a swift and positive conclusion .

FD

[Orangewing]

Taps - you are correct, it is the same SM. :mad:

[Tapster]

Orangewing - I would have thought he would have gained a bit of maturity over the last 20 years but am obviously wrong. He was a self-opinionated sh?t then. Does anything change?:yuk:

[Ace BigCat]

I saw this "event" from the AV8 restaurant and it was brilliant. Apparently the complaint is around low level display flying over a crowd. Well the crowd was probably about 20 not the 1000 alleged for the open air gathering infingement as per rule 5. Superb flying but then of course it didn't fit in with Captain Sensible's schedule so that was that. I hope he reads these forums and realises what a total idiot he has made of himself by taking this action against a highly experienced pilot.

[Heliport]

Totally understand your sentiments, but please don't go into the facts whilst the incident is under investigation.

Hope you've contacted Ultimate High to offer help.

Ultimate High ([email protected])

Heliport

[goatface]

I don't know Mr Moody, and I wasn't there, but if the facts are as reported, the phrase "isn't life a little bit too short ....." comes to mind.
Regardless of his contribution in the past, if he can't cope with a simple explanation of the facts, I'm pretty sure aviation would be a better place if he stayed on the flight deck of his whizz bang jet.

Please don't forget that if someone makes a complaint to the CAA, they have a duty to follow it up, and that if Mr Moody did contact individual SRG officers, it's highly likely that they would not have been aware of that he'd been previously talking to colleagues.

[Heliport]

If any Ppruners saw the Extras practising at Kemble on Saturday evening of the PFA Rally, they might wish to e-mail ULTIMATE HIGH to see if they can be of any help to fellow pilots.

http://pprune.mail.everyone.net/email/images/envelope.gif : Ultimate High ([email protected])


Heliport

[Flyin'Dutch']

Original post taken out by myself as it was a reply (without comment on the occurence) to a posting which subsequently removed by the moderators as explained underneath.

Not deleted the entry as Heliports comment is probably a good conclusion of this thread until the CAA investigation is over.

FD

The post to which you refer has been deleted.
No comments about the incident itself will be permitted until the CAA investigation has been concluded.
Heliport

[DB6]

This is presumably why they could not make the Leuchars airshow and thus, instead of a whizz in an Extra 300, two lucky competition winners today got a half hour each in an Aerobat with yours truly :} . Actually they both enjoyed the Cessna anyway; perhaps ignorance is bliss!

[DamienB]

Heard a rumour today that both pilots have happily been well and truly exonerated... anybody know for sure?

Incidentally what a fascinating contrast this thread makes to the Denny thread... nuff said.


That rumour is definitely not true.

Heliport


(Edit)
See my post below.

[BELLEROPHON144]

Unfortunately AOPA can only give first aid legal advice if this does go to trial the pilots will have to fund all their costs themselves and have no guarantee of getting the money back if exonerated - it might be worth looking at setting up a legal expense insurance scheme if enough pilots are prepared to contribute the costs shouldn't be too bad - don't think it can't happen to you it can and may do!!

[Zlin526]

Anyone know what's happening to the Kemble two?? Is the CAA investigation ongoing? Has it hit the courts yet?

I also note that Steve Moody features in a 'Pilot' magazine profile this month. A fascinating read............ Whatever next?:confused:

[Heliport]

Does the feature mention his behaviour on the Saturday evening of the PFA Rally?
Or going off in a fit of pique and refusing to turn up on the Sunday because some people had the audacity to disagree with him and suggest he was making a mountain out of a molehill?
Or his actions the following week?
I bet it doesn't. ;)

I've been told by an extremely reliable source (not a rumour) that the CAA completed its investigation of this storm in a teacup before Christmas, gave the pilots a warning and the matter is at last concluded.
I suppose that's some small comfort to the pilots who lost the rest of their display season because some prat in SRG over-reacted and suspended their Display Authorisations while Moody's allegations were investigated. :(

Great choice for a 'Pilot profile' :rolleyes:

[EddieHeli]

Ironic that this months (Feb 2004 ) Pilot Mag has the pilot profile of Steve Moody and also has an in depth article about Ultimate High, 4 page spread and cover shot. Moody profile doesn't mention the toys out of pram incident though.

[Tiger_ Moth]

What an awful man!

[ANDY CUBIN]

Hello Chums,

As one of the two "condemned", I would like to express my thanks to all the words of support from a number of you. Although the matter has been almost settled and we have been cautioned by the CAA, there are still some outstanding issues. Until these are wrapped up, I am reluctant to comment further, however, I will post the full story on here in the fullness of time.

It raises many questions, that I am sure will ellicit further comment, but in the meantime, a thousand thanks go to Flying Lawyer for unstinting support - I cannot speak highly enough of him.

Everyone else (apart from 1!) is welcome to our crewroom at Ultimate High at Kemble for a coffee and a gossip, and if the weather is nice let's go flying.

2 Bulldogs joining the fleet soon folks - should be fun

Andy Cubin

[Heliport]

Andy Cubin

Very pleased that common sense prevailed!

Anyone whose opinion you'd have been concerned about was behind you anyway - regardless of the eventual outcome.

A useful reminder for us all: There's always one!! :rolleyes:

Heliport

[Flyin'Dutch']

AC et al at Ultimate High,

Glad to read that this chapter is coming to an end soon!

Hope to come to Kemble soon to come and say hello and have a whizz!

FD