The PFA

[TonyR]

Could some of you who know about these things give the PFA a hand to fix their BB

Perhaps they prefer it when it is out of use, members not being able to ask whats really going on at PFA HQ????

[Heliport]

The request has a slight irony. ;)

Whenever someone refers to something on Pprune on their BB, all the PFA 'powers that be' seem to do is make very 'superior' disparaging remarks about the poor standard of posts on Pprune. :rolleyes: We're no better than the average flying club bar etc etc

When some PFA members suggested they could improve their BB if they followed the Pprune model, that went down like a lead balloon. :)

BTW, having looked at the PFA BB a few times, I can see what you mean but I'm not a member so it doesn't affect me. That 'S. A.' chap is quite something, isn't he. :rolleyes:

[Sir George Cayley]

Not so sure I want to know whats going on at PFA HQ.

With what I have heard recently my respect for the elected part of the organisation has taken a bit of a knock.

I know we're all human etc but why do the extremes of human nature always seem to surface in these types of organisations.

We will need a coordinated strong voice for all rec-aviation in this country over the next few years and the PFA could focus this if only they would put as much effort into it as their petty squabbles.

Sir George Cayley

[bingoboy]

I sent an email asking about the Bb being down and when service night be resumed but have had no reply (must be nearly a week now).

They are probably very busy trying stop Shadows (possibly one our safest aircraft) from being banned from flying at the end of this month. (hope the fact that the last pfa update on this subject was 19/02 is not a bad omen)

[Croqueteer]

I'm trying to find out what a "BB" is, but I have to use 15 words.

[Mr Wolfie]

Bingoboy - only waiting a week?!

I sent an email to [email protected] on 8 Feb asking if they could send my a current list of "accepted" aircraft (the list on their website is hopelessly out of date - no RV7, RV8, Zodiac 601XL, Tecnam Super Echo - those are just the ones I know about - how many more are missing?).

Not a difficult request I wouldn't have thought, but other than an acknowledgement on 12 Feb, a month later I am still none the wiser.

I would complain directly to the PFA, but I can already visualise the reply - "blah blah .... move offices to Turweston ..... blah blah .... working on EASA .... blah blah .... if you think you can do better - stand for the EC yourself ... blah blah:hmm:

I suspect that the BB has recently been restricted to members, and then totally removed, is because the sheer volume of vented frustration, complaints and general dissatifaction with the way the the organisation is behaving was causing acute embarrasment. Furthermore, the responses by EC members to some of the complaints made on the BB showed a complete contempt for the membership at large.

Mr. W
-an increasing disallusioned pfa member:(

[PPRuNe Towers]

bb= bulletin board

From the time pre-internet where a site like PPRuNe, i.e a bulletin board, had a phone number and you dialed in directly to us and us alone.
---------------------------
I've been a PFA member since 1977 and I think there is genuine reason to believe that the elected leadership has been both factionalised and dysfunctional for a considerable time. The parallel goings on at Australian Aopa are far more public and indicate what may well be going on behind closed doors in the UK. The website and bulletin board in Australia is always the first victim of purges, bannings and even writs.

Would anyone of you have the text of the good Lord Trefgarne's farewell letter to hand? I'm downroute at the moment and perhaps it really should have a wider audience.

As to the leadership being sniffy and sniping regarding PPRuNe that's just a feature of committee psychology - everyone feels they have to maintain 'standards' they don't actually believe in or follow themselves. The whole concept of PPRuNe was offered to Balpa but the committee creatures all swore it couldn't succeed - how right they were. Far more worrying is if there are other readers who feel the same attitude of looking down their elected noses at the hoi polloi rank and file PFAers is felt to the same degree as I experienced.

I won't be losing any sleep over their reactions - they however have to consider this. More traffic and UK PPL's here in a day than they manage in a 100 days - and I'm being very generous to them there.

Just to really get them really thinking - only 7% of PPRuNers post messages. The PFA are really losing out on a huge audience of actual and potential members. We have a policy of allowing permit group aircraft shares to be traded and not binned as advertising. It looks like, at the moment, we're doing more for the association than they are for themselves. It's a great pity - I'm a huge believer in the PFA and its full time staff, operate a permit Jodel (my 4th) and think the quality of the magazine is such that it should now be on the newsstands.

Regards
Rob Lloyd
Member 31099

[scottish_ppl]

I think this thread is a bit one sided. My experience of the PFA appears a little different.

I have been in touch with the PFA by email, telephone, and the much-maligned bulletin board in the last few months. On all occasions the response has been prompt and helpful.

I have been a regular reader of the pfa bulletin board and do not recall any PPrune bshing on it. The depth of knowledge displayed when any technical topics are discussed on the board are impressive, and it is a shame that it does not attract more traffic. Other threads, such as those stirred by the original poster here have not served anyone very well in my opinion.

My email asking about the board was answered promptly: they are trying to get it fixed over this weekend and early next week. Hopefully they will succeed.

I really hope we dont get into a PPrune versus the PFA thread here as I think they both have their place, and maybe a slightly diffferent audience, although I personally certainly use both.

And just in case anyone asks, I have no connection to the pfa other than as a satisfied ordinry member. I do not have any connection to, or even know, anyone who holds any office in the organisation, either elected or an employee.

[bingoboy]

Yes but where is the pfa Bb and where are the email replies to basic Q's ??

Is there anything in the rumour that the PFA Kemble Rally is off ?

[Datcon]

It could be true.
I was told at the end of last summer by someone who flies from Kemble the owners wouldn't have the rally back if Steve Moody was in charge again. That was 100% reliable gen. I haven't asked him about it recently so I don't know if the owners stuck to their guns or backed down, probably depends how much money they make out of the rally. I wouldn't blame them if they stuck to their guns. Moody's ginormous ego and running off to the CAA caused a lot of hassle for Kemble as well as for the two pilots he was desperate to dob in it with the CAA.

[CSX001]

The word round these parts is that it has nothing to do with the events surrounding Mr Moody last year.

It is said that the PFA lost a bucketful of money on the Rally last year and are looking to raise the costs to exhibitors substantially this year. Unfortunately for the PFA, competing events like the London show has made it possible for potential exhibitors to stick a couple of fingers up at the PFA, and now the Rally looks seriously underfunded.

If the latest round of menacing letters sent to exhibitors doesn't put them off the PFA for good, I don't know what will :D:D

Charlie
x

[Potter1]

Been told that as of the current time there is only 50% chance of the rally going ahead this year. Lack of exhibitor sign up and lack of sponsorship has been cited.

I think if the rally stops this year it’s going to be a long time before we see it again.:(


P…..

[TC_LTN]

I am a PFA member and I do miss the BB so I emailed the illustrious organisation and received the following prompt response;

Dear Mr Smith

Apologies for the bulletin board - I am still working on the problem - it is technical and I have not had time nor enough experience to deal with it. I now have received a quote from someone who knows the system very well and I really do hope to have it up and running by the end of this week.

Regards
Penny

I have heard all kinds of disturbing rumours about the PFA over the past 48 hours. I just think that the organisation is incredibly important to so many aviators in the UK and particularly those who can only afford or are able to operate on a Permit to Fly. While the organisation is far from perfect, let’s just be careful that we don’t contribute to any premature crisis just by perpetuating rumour and innuendo.

[Mr Wolfie]

So what exactly is going on?

BB still down, still no response to emails, a steady stream of rumours that the Rally is to be cancelled ......... anyone out there any the wiser?

Mr W.

PS. I just looked at the PFA web site to see if there is any announcement (there isn't) and happened to notice that entrance to the Rally for this year is now £25 / £40 for non-members and even a tenner for members. Does this not seem a little extortionate?
:mad:

[cubflyer]

According to the PFA web site, their Bulletin board should be up and running again next week.

Dont know why Mr Wolfie doesnt get replies to his emails, it seems that most other people do. I always get a prompt reply to any questions

The Rally is on, but there has been a slower than usual uptake by exhibitors. A discounted rate has now been offered I am told.
It does appear that there have been a few who have decided to exhibit at the London Airshow and not yet confirmed that they will be at the Rally.
Seems like a strange decision to me. The cost of exhibiting at Earls Court is 5 times that at Kemble and who is going to go?? You cant fly-in, all the hassle of going into central london and then £18 to get in for what is just a smaller version of the PFA Rally exhibition area but probably without most of the aircraft except a few roadable examples. I cant see many people bothering going

see you all at Kemble in July

[Genghis the Engineer]

I suspect the London Airshow thing is probably only half the story.

When you look at it, we now have competing for revenue...

- Popham microlight show
- PFA Rally
- Aerofair
- Telford International Airsports Exhibition
- London Airshow

And possibly some special events as well. The traders are (in my experience) getting fed up with too many expensive "be here, or your customers will think you're not serious" shows at which they rarely sell much anyway (okay, not universally true - but certainly the case with the more expensive products).

I suspect that they'd all be delighted to see all but two closed down - probably leaving the PFA rally in the summer, and Telford (or better still, somewhere more convenient) in the middle of winter.


Incidentally, it's worth bearing in mind (we've all read Lord Trethgarn's letter !) that it's an error to think of the PFA as a single homogenous organisation. The professional staff at Turweston are quite distinct from the political side (the EC), which in turn is a different beast to the regular meetings of struts. Plus some activities - I think including the website and magazine are farmed out somewhere else again. So, if you think you're getting poor service out of one part of the PFA, that almost certainly only indicates a problem in one place, not with the whole Association.

G

[Mr Wolfie]

Cubflyer wrote:

see you all at Kemble in July
...well I sincerely hope that you will.

On a personal note, I have really enjoyed previous rallies at Cranfield & Kemble and would be dissapointed to miss it this year. (Plus I've already arranged "board & lodgings").

More seriously, if the rally doesn't go ahead (& not due to unforseen circumstances such as Foot & Mouth as happened 3 years ago) then I think it points to a shaky future for the long term health of the association.:sad:

Mr. W

PS. All those who have said that they get prompt responses to emails to the PFA - could someone get a current list of accepted aircraft on my behalf as I am now fed up of trying.:bored:

[Stampe]

I,m told ythe BB will be back next week re-registration will be required by membership number and name and posts will be under real names.Now that should improve the quality of any debates greatly.Anonymous forums are of little value and if your not a member then you don,t get a say.My contact tells me that the rally lost nearly £60000 last year in what were nearly perfect conditions!!.I,m ambivolent about the rally after 35 years near solid attendance (Leicester was the first one) I,m rallied out and all these new fangled kit planes don,t float my boat.There may be a lot wrong with the PFA but its all we,ve got and they turn the paperwork roundon my Permit aircraft very quickly.For those voiciferous complainers why not get involved they,re always short of volounteers including on the EC the governing body!!.

[TonyR]

I see the pfa BB is still down.

Quote from G..the Eng.."I think including the website and magazine are farmed out somewhere else again. So, if you think you're getting poor service out of one part of the PFA, that almost certainly only indicates a problem in one place, not with the whole Association".

I think you have hit the nail on the head regarding the PFA.

The Ass does not have a proper structure and is open to too many personal opinions.

I hope the rally goes ahead but I take the point that traders are "showed out" with having to spend too many days a year away from the office.

I would like to see the PFA continue but someone at the top needs to listen to the membership and turn the Ass around to provide a totally professional approach.

[Flying Lawyer]

Anonymous forums are of little value
A few (million) people seem to think PPRuNE is of more than a little value, judging by the volume of posts and readers - about 700,000 per day.

[bingoboy]

The Bb is still down.
It is quite surprising in this day and age that the PFA can't find someone with the knowledge and aptitude to run their Bb.

The last rally was lovely mainly I think because of the weather and the great Kemble bar but it did seem to lack something I'll call focus.

Perhaps the same could be said of the PFA themselves at present.

[Genghis the Engineer]

does not have a proper structure and is open to too many personal opinions

Err, isn't that because it's an association rather than a private company or 3rd world dictatorship?

G

[cubflyer]

Mr Wolfie,

I have sent you a private message with the list of approved types that you were after. I asked Monday night and it was waiting for me tonight.
The Web site will be updated with this info shortly I am told

lots of interesting aircraft to choose from!

[ToryBoy]

If they're so kack at running there own site can't we get Big Red L to allow a PFA forum here?

[Mr Wolfie]

Cubflyer- many thanks - however I also received an email from Francis Donaldson on Tuesday with the current list (and an apology for the 5 week wait).:bored:

As you say there are some interesting designs listed and a few surprises there too. For example, contrary to what it says in the magazine ads placed by the UK Zenair rep, the Zenair Zodiac XL is not yet fully accepted (nor is the Vans RV9). Both are "cleared to build" though.

Even more interesting are the inclusion on the list of those types that were registered with the PFA but then abondoned before acceptance - a 5/6 scale Mosquito anyone??:ok:

Mr. W

[cubflyer]

Glad you got the list Mr W. dont know about the Zenair CH601XL clearance, I think one is flying, but maybe all the test flights arent completed yet. As far as the RV-9 is concerened, it wont be approved yet because a UK built example hasnt flown and gone through the PFA test program. I believe several are getting close, one Wilksch diesel powered.

[TonyR]

The PFA may be an association, they have a "duty of care" to their members.

They are providing a service and being paid for it so we can expect the Ass to be run in a professional maner.

My children's School website and School magazine are run better totally by the pupils.

Anyway "Pink Headsets" are much more important!

[vfrflyer]

they have a "duty of care" to their members


If only that could extend to education! Whenever there's a pfa fly-in to an aerodrome with ATC all hell breaks loose as the PFAers do exactly as they please, ignore instructions and ignore the 'readback list':E

[TonyR]

I think you will find thats a very small minority of pfa ers

not my experience at flyins. some times the ATC make such a mess they should just let the pilots sort themselves out.

[vfrflyer]

I think you will find thats a very small minority of pfa ers

I would like to think so, but it would require me to accept i only come across the same small minority every time!

[goddammit]

some times the ATC make such a mess they should just let the pilots sort themselves out


In my experience the mess usually results from

PFAers do exactly as they please, ignore instructions and ignore the 'readback list'

An even more flexible approach is often required to accomodate the PFAers, but the nature of ATC requires some CONTROL be retained, if only so there is someone to blame when they fly in to each other. :hmm:

[Ludwig]

Drifting a bit off topic here, but what about the fly-in at a full ATC airfield, and then refuse permission to those with crap RT, that might buck a few ideas up. as it does seem that standards are collapsing.

[Flyin'Dutch']

I think that the slighting of certain groups of aviators or aviation professionals is counterproductive to having a serious discussion about the PFA.

If you have specific experiences by all means share them so that they can be debated in a constructive manner. Generalising as people have been doing in the last few posts is not helpful and will only result in a slanging match, achieving zilch.

Of course just my opinion,

;)

FD

[goddammit]

i did generalise about the group of flyers concerned, which was unfair to any members of that group that are not guilty and i look forward to them proving me wrong.

I thought i was quite specific about my experiences with them. Surely you don't expect me to note their callsigns and list them here:E

[Skylark4]

Mister Perfection,
Just because you hear bad radio work or are otherwise offended by someone who is not as good as you are, do not assume that (a) he is a member of the PFA or, (b) that he would be any better if he wasn't a member of the PFA.
The PFA does not train any pilots.
Most PFA Fly-ins and the Rally in particular, are not restricted to PFA Members.

Mike W

[Flyin'Dutch']

GDMT,

The pile of CAS infringements after the PFA Rallye makes for depressing reading.

However I am pretty sure that this is due to a combination of the following:

1. Complex airspace structure.
2. Attendance by a large proportion of people that may be fly relatively few hours per year.
3. The lack of a dedicated facility to give these people assistance when things start to go wrong.

But not necessarily linked to being a paid up member of the association.

Now before all and sundry stumble over each other to point out that any competent PPL should be able to read the AICs and navigate properly (all things I agree with entirely) would the conclusion not have to be that the facts bear out that there is an issue which needs addressing in a proactive and creative way. May be necessitating some lateral thinking?

FD

[shortstripper]

Skylark hit the nail on the head ...

As flyer ... I certainly admit to not being the best at ATC and radio procedures. I'm not terrible though and can certainly navigate as well if not better than many. I've predominantly flown PFA aircraft and been in the PFA for nearly 20 years. However, I've also flown under the asepsis of the CAA (seem to remember being trained the CAA way like most here), BGA, and BMAA ... so which "bit" of me is the not so good bit?

Drop the "them and us" and realise that "ALL" flyers (and ATC) have their good and bad moments. If you don't think that's you ... don't worry, it will be one day!!!

SS

[goddammit]

Flyin'Dutch' hit the nail on the head!

It's not about comparing others to one's own level of competence, but to the recognised level of competence required to aviate.

Skylark4 seems to be the only one making assumptions!

If the environment looks to complex for an individual they should seek guidance at the planning stage, and then decide if they're up to it.

[Spiney Norman]

I know I'm going to get slagged off seriously here but... As a PFA member I'm worried that the rally has become a God that must be worshipped!! That money has to be poured in for no profit each year and it's weakening the ability of the PFA to fight it's corner with Europe, Airfield haters, etc. I was at Kemble last year and it was good but.. Would I like the PFA to be a strong voice for aviation or a Fly-in organiser? Well. with, as I understand it, a threat to PFA permit aircraft now developing from Europe, I know which I'd prefer.

Spiney
P.S. Apologies for going slightly off subject here!

[shortstripper]

Very true Goddammit,

But that applies to all, and IMHO is no better or worse with PFA flyers than any others. I think that's exactly what Skylark meant too.

Of course FD makes great sense too ... perhaps his post below is the most relavent?

"I think that the slighting of certain groups of aviators or aviation professionals is counterproductive to having a serious discussion about the PFA.

If you have specific experiences by all means share them so that they can be debated in a constructive manner. Generalising as people have been doing in the last few posts is not helpful and will only result in a slanging match, achieving zilch.

Of course just my opinion,

FD"

SS

[Skylark4]

Spiney,
How can you be wandering off topic on this thread. It has taken over the function of the whole PFA Bulletin board. Unfortunately, it gets just about the same number of posts as the PFA Board did. I still want it back though.

Mike W

[Flyin'Dutch']

I do not have the accounts to hand and so have not got a clue how the financial make up of the association is divided over the various activities.

It is obviously tempting to say that the Rally needs to be self funding and if not that it should be axed but that would miss the point completely.

For an association like the PFA to work well one needs to have some joint up thinking and in that I would see a very clear role for the Rally even if it was to be a loss leader.

The number two spectator sport after football in this country is air shows. What does the Rally not have anymore? An air show! Why? Part of the reason IIRC was that it would interfere with the arrival and departure of visitors. The result may well be that a lot of enthusiasts will shun away rather than come, pay and support the event.

One of the main functions of the PFA is to support the permit aircraft and home building. For this there is an extensive network of inspectors and the technical support unit at HQs. The cost of this network and the support from the professionals is extremely inexpensive to the permit holders and it is my impression that a lot of people within the association think that this is the holy grail.

The desire to keep these costs low is noble but may well be artificial. For this it would be interesting to see what fraction of the outlay of the aircraft one pays now for permit issue and renewal compared to say 30 years ago.

The cost of the average homebuilt with the arrival of the new stuff (both kits and modern materials) has soared compared to the previous generations where people built from plans alone.

People are prepared to pay the premiums for that as it gives them the performance they are looking for. Surely a more up to date remuneration for the PFA from this angle would not be out of step.

I fear that if the Rally goes, the PFA will do itself a disservice on the PR front.

I joined the Association at the gates as it seemed good value to join, get a year's membership, 'free' admission, an interesting magazine, support the good cause and fuel my romantic notions that one day I may well build my own.

Reality dictates that the latter is unlikely to ever happen but every year I just get that value feeling reaffirmed and I suspect many 'non building' members with me.

FD

[cubflyer]

Some pilots who are PFA members might not be great on the radio, but then again neither are a lot of Club pilots. The difference that I see though, is most PFA pilots can sort themselves out without being told what to do on the radio, whereas a numbe of club pilots cant seem to cope.

I go to a lot of PFA fly-ins and cant remember many at airfields with ATC. So I'm not sure of where the original poster on this subject was thinking of. Ludwig suggested a fly-in at an airfield with full ATC and turn away those who arent great on the radio! Interesting. Last fly-in I went to where there was full ATC was so bad because ATC couldnt cope with the arrival rate of aircraft and there werent that many! So if you want an interesting fly-in dont go to somewhere with full ATC.

As for the infringements of Lyneham during the PFA rally. You will find that most of the identified aircraft were either foreign visitors, or club aircraft. So probably not many PFA members there. The one aircraft that got investigated further by the CAA was a PA-28 from somewhere up north, Teeside I think. He made an approach to Lyneham, only went around after flares were fired at him. Then flew through the South Cernay parachute drop zone before making an approach at Aston Down. He did eventually find Kemble!

Watching the rally arrivals and being involved in the brieifings for departures, we see that there are the odd idiots in PFA aircraft, but by far the majority who do stupid things like orbits on final or dont follow the procedures are in factory built club/private aircraft, of course they could be PFA members too, but maybe not. Most of the people who dont understand the departure procedures seem to be factory built aircraft pilots. Similary are the pilots who call up for joining instructions, having not read the AIC!! Including a Citation on a company flight one day at Cranfield!

Someone commented about not attracting people because of no airshow. This is not the case, in previous years when there has been an airshow, the numbers have not been any different, the airshow has not attracted any extra visitors. Most people who come, are there to see the vast array of aircraft flying in, meet up with their friends, look at the exhibits, rather than being at just another airshow.

Anyway, the good news is that despite a few rumours to the contrary, the PFA rally is definitly on this year. This has been confirmed by Steve Petter, the Rally Chairman following a PFA Executive Comittee meeting last night.
Exhibitor bookings are picking up and two major sponsors have signed up.

So see you all at Europe's best aviation event at Kemble 9,10,11 July.

[shortstripper]

Good stuff Cubflyer ... see you there

ss

[TonyR]

A lot of what has been said about poor airmanship should certainly not be confined to PFA flyers.

Would you not agree that if someone who may be a very experienced pilot but flys locally from a farm strip and rarely visits large airports will soon loose the ability to stay sharp on the radio.

The licence revaladition system should provide for this using flights with instructors to encourage such pilots to conduct a few flights to ATC airports and around some busy airspace.

I normally fly from an international airport where everyone is used to being told what to do and where to go and most are very sharp on the radio. However such pilots when visiting a flyin or rally often expect the ATC to give onward instructions before the will make the next turn. then when they are not being "minded" by ATC they can cause just as much difficulty as those who know what to do but can't speak on the radio.

I also fly a Rallye aircraft from a farm strip so I tend to meet three types of pilots. Some who "can talk and not fly" and others who "can fly but not talk" and "some who can do both"

Inspite of all that most will find their way around the sky and most will keep out of trouble and as far as I am concerned the more who keep flying the better, PFA or other.

Tony Ringland

PS. beginning of which week will the PFA BB be back???

[Flyin'Dutch']

CF,

Good news that the Rally is definitely on.

I will enjoy coming along and having a look.

Have to say that the (apparent) rumours were yet another hiccough which made me wonder whether all is well with the PFA.

FD

[Mr Wolfie]

Cubflyer / Flying Dutch -

Good news indeed that the rally is on. Lets hope for good weather and a big turn-out. Hopefully, the Association can put some of the recent acrimony behind it and start to look forwards again. A Pprune meet-up perhaps?

Mr. W

PS. TonyR - re the BB - don't you know - Tommorrow never comes!

[Mike Cross]

We hope to re-open the bulletin early next week - apologies for any inconvenience caused.
A good general purpose answer, on the basis that "next week" is clearly a temporal state that we never reach.:p

If it were "We hope to re-open the bulletin on the 29th" (of February) we would, in the fullness of time, eventually get there.

Mike

[TonyR]

The membership are being treated like Mushrooms

ie. kept in the dark and fed loads of s..t

[robin]

Still no sign of it back on line

Any news????

[TonyR]

I think we must say goodbye to the PFA BB, even with the new head of engineering in place they cannot seem to fix the problem.

At least free speach is still available on this forum.

Pfa BB RIP

[jbqc]

I think you may find most of the pfa BB users use this forum anyway

[Zlin526]

The passing of the PFA BB is no great loss. Most of it consisted of petty bickering amongst members about useless trivia. I resigned from the PFA years ago because of that very reason.

At least Ppruners bicker about interesting things!:{

[Hansard]

Did the previous Head of Engineering not make the move to Turweston?

Is the new one an existing member of staff?

[stiknruda]

"Did the previous Head of Engineering not make the move to Turweston?"

There was no such post at Shoreham. The Director of Engineering was appointed so to allow the Chief Engineer and Deputy Chief Engineer to concentrate upon their day jobs, ie approving aircraft and mods for flight.

The Dir of Engineering has a broader role and it encompasses such things as governance, CAA liason and liason with the plethora of associated bodies and parties that were preventing the CE and DCE from turning around work packages with the speed that was desired of them.

Hope that this helps,

Stik

[shortstripper]

I've suddenly started getting loads of spam to my .ukpilots.net email address. This is a pfa email account and has always been very spam free. Am I the only one or has somebody now managed to harvest the PFA's email account holders list?

SS

[shortstripper]

I've suddenly started getting loads of spam to my .ukpilots.net email address. This is a pfa email account and has always been very spam free. Am I the only one or has somebody now managed to harvest the PFA's email account holders list?

SS

[Evo]

They'll probably claim it as a membership benefit :(

Do you subscribe to any mailing list with that address? I've got an email address that is used only for the Flyer list, and that's now getting spammed frequently - at some point an email with my address on must have been copied elsewhere and harvested...

[shortstripper]

Nothing new mailing list wise. I thought about it after and looked at a message "properties" it looks like it is a .ukpilots.net problem as the spams are going to loads of other pfa email addresses too.

b:mad:y shame as it was my one spam free address :(

SS

[Tall_guy_in_a_152]

I registered on the Flyer Forum last week using my "best" spam-free email address (stupid, yes, I know) and it as received about 5 spams a day since.

Could be a coincidence, but I doubt it.

TallGuy.

[bcfc]

I wouldn't necessarily blame Flyer, PFA or any other service you subscribe to. These B:mad: d spammers 'sniff' the world-wide information superweb for email addresses. The main way to stay spam-free(ish) is never subscribe to these services and never inlcude the email address in a form being submitted unencrypted.

Was working for me until Mrs bcfc ordered some flowers using my mail address and now the spam flood gates are well and truly open.

Topical understatement of the year...

Spam Beeb article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3586755.stm)

[BlueRobin]

Tall guy, did you elect to make your e-mail address public on the FLYER Forum?

The option to make your e-mail address public on the forum is turned off by default when you sign up. If you have switched it on, any robot out there on the web can harvest e-mails addresses of a website. FLYER do NOT use the registered e-mail addresses from the forum for marketing purposes or give them out to anyone else



BR
FLYER Forum moderator.

[Tall_guy_in_a_152]

Blue Robin
I set "show your email address" to No.

I did add a link to my www page though (I just removed it). Maybe the email harvester is clever enough to work out an email address from the home-page?:uhoh: It was a major UK ISP.

Do you think it is worth a post on the FF to see if there is a pattern developing?

TallGuy.

p.s. I wasn't blaming the Forum, just commenting.

[BlueRobin]

Wel I'm registered for FF using my work address and don't get any spam period. :ok:

[Mike Cross]

We hope to re-open the Bulletin Board on Tuesday 6th April and apologise for the inconvenience caused. 2.4.04

Mike

[Datcon]

No inconvenience at all.

[Boing_737]

BlueRobin,
I am guessing that work has a decent spam filter on their email server. Many ISPs have a similar thing. Check out their homepage, and they may have something like [email protected]. You forward the spam email to the address and it adds the email characteristics to the filter. Not 100% effective, but helps...:ok:

[jbqc]

From PFA

We hope to re-open the Bulletin Board on Wednesday 7th April and apologise for the inconvenience caused. 2.4.04

Was Tue 6th

"If tomorrow never comes" should be the PFA theme song

JB

[FNG]

7th April came and went, and, guess what?

[Mike Cross]

We hope to re-open the Bulletin Board this week and apologise for the inconvenience caused.

Webmaster - Wednesday 7th April 04 :(

Definition from Dictionary.com
The final sentence appears to have hit the nail on the head.

<World-Wide Web> (Sometimes "webmistress") The alias or role
of the person(s) responsible for the development and
maintenance of one or more web servers and/or some or all of
the web pages at a web site. The term does not imply any
particular level of skill or mastery (see "webmonkey").

[Alty Meter]

No problem.
The suspense (ok, idle curiosity) of wondering when the PFA BB will reopen is the most interesting thing that's ever happened to it in its boring history by a long way.
If Pprune would allow it, a running 'PFA' thread on this forum would be much better IMHO.
Ordinary members could discuss things freely AND not have the committee types and their awestruck groupies wading in whenever someone has the audacity to dare suggest the top brass are doing something wrong.

[stiknruda]

AM - is this a hook? If so, you can start reeling in, now!

"not have the committee types and their awestruck groupies wading in whenever someone has the audacity to dare suggest the top brass are doing something wrong."

The PFA as an organisation does have a curious system of governance. Permanent staff (some technically qualified, the majority clerical) are led by a committee of unsalaried volunteers. Those volunteers are there for a variety of reasons, generally the only thing that they have in common is a genuine love of grass-roots flying. A more disparate and eclectic cross-section of society would be hard to find.

Love it or hate it, the PFA has a very important role to play in private aviation today.

Some years ago, so disillusioned was I with the state of affairs that I felt that something positive had to be done for the Association, I went to PFA HQ and expressed my concerns. Some months later I was approached by the Chairman and persuaded to put myself forward for EC candidature as my comments and criticisms were deemed useful and valid.

I had never been on a committee but had built an aeroplane and I had been a succesful MD of a company with a turnover in excess of $14m, pa. I rather naively assumed that committee work would be a rather refreshing challenge.

As with all non-cohesive units, in-fighting and empire building is prevalent. During the tenure of the previous chairman, all out guerilla-like faction fighting occured on many occasions!

I am no longer on the EC as I was not able to make the difference that I had hoped. In general most of the EC members that I have met over the years, have been there for the right reasons, the constituition of the PFA as it currently stands does not lend itself to easy governance and occasionally personalities and egos do rather get in the way, too.

What also does not help the smooth running of an Association for amateurs run by amateurs is the constant sniping from afar and behind the safety of a computer by members and sometimes non-members on the BB. I admit that even today the EC, the Chief Exec et al, do not seem terribly good at disseminating information to the membership via the website and for historic reasons seem to prefer PF for any missives.

PFA members have voted for the Executive. If you do not feel that the organisation is going the way you want it, then vote them out or even stand yourselves. It is the easiest thing in the world to bitch about something, especially when not in possession of all of the facts, it is far harder to actually do something about it.

I remain passionate about the PFA. I own 2 PFA types, one that I built from drawings and am currently making good progress with my new build project.

Stik

[Skylark4]

It's a fair bet that whoever is trying to get the PFA BB up and running is an unpaid volunteer who is not professionally qualified for the task and has a full time job to do as well. I admit that it does the PFA no favours at all but that's the way it is. If you could do better, go and do it. If you couldn't, or are not prepared to, Shut up.

Mike W

[Flyin'Dutch']

If you could do better, go and do it. If you couldn't, or are not prepared to, Shut up.

S,

Happily agree with the first part of your statement, however can not do the same with the latter.

Those in office of any organisation or club have the duty to discharge themselves of their responsibilities in the best way possible.

If the membership of the club has founded concerns they should be able to vent them in a constructive manner, stating that you can just 'do it yourself if you know better' holds no water.

FD

[jbqc]

Look the PFA is being run by a group of idoits who have created handy we numbers for themselves.

If any other company was run by such it would go bust in a few months

JB

[Flyin'Dutch']

JB,

To write potentially libelous statements on here is neither very clever nor very helpful when trying to have a meaningful discussion.

Just my opinion of course.

FD

[Heliport]

Thankfully, we haven't yet reached the state where describing a group of people as idiots is libellous. :D

[Skylark4]

Dutch,
Sorry, I see nothing wrong with my put up or shut up call. As far as I know, the PFA has no DUTY to provide a BB. I don't think the membership has ever voted on whether or not we should have a presence in the WWWeb. I think we should and I wish it was a hell of a lot better than it is. I have neither the skills nor the time to help (but have done my bit in other directions in the past and, hopefully will in the future).
How do we know that the people doing all the complaining are members?
The easiest way to stop the complaints is to abandon the service. Just close it down altogether.
If you can't help, don't hinder.
Or, as someone has as a tag line to his posts:-
Lead, follow or get out of the bluddy way.

Mike W

[Flyin'Dutch']

Obviously there may well be/have been folks that were complaining on the PFA BB but ISTR that most people on there were posting under their real name rather than an alias.

It is clear that a lot of people are a more thoughtful and careful when they are posting under their real name.

You can take the view that the PFA does not have to provide a BB but that would be pretty shortsighted. There can be no doubt that the internet and BB have their limitations and can be misused by people to whip up negative sentiments.

It can however also be a very efficient thermometer to gauge what is happening out there and be a fond of knowledge for its membership.

How you view these benefits/risks may well depend on how you stand in life as an individual/organisation.

As you so eloquently state you can live by slogans. On the whole more the domain of despots.

Nowt wrong with some constructive debate and positive criticism. Or do the people you work and live with get treated to a healthy dose of rhetoric when they raise an issue?

FD

[Pinga]

So the PFA board is down! So Bl@@dy what? Plenty more BB's including this one isn’t there? If I was with the PFA hierarchy I would chuck out the BB for keeps. With all the bitching going on, I think that the PFA and mankind is better off without BB's judging by the total kiddy cr@p posted on them. Why should the PFA spend money for the benefit of those intent on bringing it into disrepute?

[jbqc]

When the CEO gets caught out telling a PORKY on the BB he is an idiot

JB

[Pinga]

Well then it's in the interests of all at the PFA to protect the CEO from himself then!

Why should the PFA spend money for the benefit of those intent on bringing it into disrepute?

Even if it is their own CEO eh what! :E

[stiknruda]

JB wrote "Look the PFA is being run by a group of idoits who have created handy we numbers for themselves.

If any other company was run by such it would go bust in a few months"

JB - am just a bit confused now about who the idiot is? The PFA is not a company it is an association run by unsalaried volunteers. As for handy we (sic) numbers - most of the NC and EC spend several hours unpaid hours a week on Association business.

Quite certain though, who is a muppet! If you have missed the point of this, drop me a PM with your phone number and I'll happily give you a call and talk you through the intracacies of the governance model of the PFA.


Stik

[BFG]

"If Pprune would allow it, a running 'PFA' thread on this forum would be much better IMHO. Ordinary members could discuss things freely AND not have the committee types and their awestruck groupies wading in whenever someone has the audacity to dare suggest the top brass are doing something wrong."

Top idea but it won't work while the PFA VIPs and their hangers on stand by this stupid notion nobody's entitled to say they think the EC are doing anything wrong or could do anything better unless their prepared to stand for election themselves.
This idea ordinary members of an organisation aren't allowed to say anything critical is potty and very convenient for the 'important' types to stifle any criticism. :rolleyes:

[Genghis the Engineer]

As somebody of mild public notoriety in the GA world, I simply won't post anything other than some very bland statements in a non-anonymous forum, I can't afford to. If or when the PFA noticeboard comes back if as-threatened it's going to be real-names only, they'll have to live without me - as would Pprune if that happened.

G

[Keef]

Yes, G, but we all know who you are, don't we ;)

My worry with the PFA wasn't that the committee (unpaid) says "put up or shut up"; it was that the outgoing and highly respected bosswallah reckoned he needed to write to me to tell me things aren't right.

As some geezer in olden times writ, "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ah, but the fact is that if I post criticising anybody in my real name of Lord Brabazon, it causes all sorts of fuss - whilst if posting under an alias, then people may well guess who I am, but can't take heed of the fact - it's only the words that count, not who said them.

Surely however, in this day and age, a house divided against itself is a healthy democracy? Does Pprune suffer because people publically criticise Danny? Does anybody stop voting Tory because they criticise the government? (possibly for other reasons, but not that one anyway).

G

[stiknruda]

To expand upon a previous post to make sure that I have managed to get my thoughts over in a way that cannot be misconstrued....

I am very aware that the PFA does have serious issues that need to be addressed. Bitching and sniping don't help - if you want to see change then do something to evoke change!

Join a strut, let your NC rep know how you'd address the issues. Canvass an EC member - contact him, full details are available within every PF. Contact HQ, do something constructive, bitching on a BB that makes up part of the PFA's electronic shop-front to the world really does nothing to enhance the image of the PFA.


GtE - you do yourself a disservice, notwithstanding the fact that I know who you are, M'Lord, your posts (across pprune & the pfa bb) are generally useful, informative and timely! They are also brief, clear and pretty concise.

Stik

[jbqc]

When the chairman can at a whim without the EC or NC even being informed, suspend the chieff engineer it tells us all that the PFA is run by paid staff at the office and if they could they would even delete this thread

JB

[Genghis the Engineer]

GtE - you do yourself a disservice, notwithstanding the fact that I know who you are, M'Lord, your posts (across pprune & the pfa bb) are generally useful, informative and timely! They are also brief, clear and pretty concise.

Leaving aside the undeserved complement (but thank you anyway), you make my point for me. Even if they suspect, the reader doesn't absolutely know who I am, they can then only judge the worth of my words on the basis of those alone - if they disagree they can do so without concern about my holding it against them, since I don't technically know who they are either. And equally, they can't hold what I've said against myself, anybody I happen to work for, or any organisation that I belong to.

G

N.B. As I recall it was the Chief Inspector, not the Chief Engineer who was suspended by the (then!) chairman. And also not informed was the CAA, who weren't best impressed about a key member of a delegated organisation being sent home without their knowledge either.

[jbqc]

Of course you are right it was the chief inspector, But when his lawyer got on the ball he was soon re-instated

But then no one knows anything about this

Just like the Adams case when the pfa helped the caa to build a case against a pfa inspector in N Ireland only to find the main witnesses (another pfa inspector and a member) lied to the caa in statements to get the case to court and then lied in the crown court only to have the charges withdrawn by the caa after 8 days and 450K spent in costs.

Even the evidence was not secured by the pfa as had been requested by the caa.

Did I mention I thought the ass was run by idoits.

JB

[Potter1]

If anyone is interested?!


P....

[FNG]

Bit quiet there at present. Someone should start a "Pink Homebuilds" thread.

On second thoughts....

[jbqc]

I suppose we should wish their little "closed shop" well

JB

[Pinga]

And how long do you think you would last if you berated the management of PPRuNe? I would suggest that it would be for a lot shorter time than the PFA have endured abuse! If everybody uses the PFA board responsibly then it has a chance of survival.

[jbqc]

Pinga

Just what are you saying??

The CEO told a lie on the BB to save face and it backfired on him.

The PFA has been run like a bad youth club and those of us who "were" members were told to shut up.

Some of us were told we would be put out of the ass and we could not then own an another homebuilt.

They then close the BB for weeks and bann non members because people ask a few searching questions.

And you defend them??

JB

[Heliport]

It's back, but the odd thing is all the old posts have been removed.
Perhaps they were accidentally lost when the BB was down for maintenance.

:confused:

[DamienB]

Not that posts ever disappear here eh?

(watches this one vanish...)

[Heliport]

DamienB

You're right. Posts do occasionally 'disappear' here. Moderators remove posts if people flout the rules. eg By trying to use PPRuNe to promote and/or advertise their own business ventures without paying our (very modest) advertising charges.
But, of course, you know all about that.

However, we don't remove posts just because they're silly so don't worry, your post above won't 'vanish'.

Heliport
Super Moderator

[TonyR]

This year I left the PFA and put my money with AOPA USA, very good mag and website.

How about an ex PFA ers flyin??

Tony R

[Pinga]

jbqc
The CEO told a lie on the BB to save face and it backfired on him.
Well, he has to live with that and so do you. He is after all the CEO.

Some of us were told we would be put out of the ass and we could not then own an another homebuilt.
Now you know that you need to toe the line then don't you? That's the way that life is, either play the game by the rules or take a walk. The owner of this site sets rules as well. If you don't like it then that's unfortunate (for you). I for one am fed up with the destructive anarchists who have used the PFA BB for their own deviant agendas. There is in my view nothing useful that can be achieved by maintaining a constant assault upon the PFA which it has thus far reluctantly tolerated . It is in my view quite within it's rights to deal with anarchists in any way that it so choses even deleting posts on it's BB (big deal).

They then close the BB for weeks and bann non members because people ask a few searching questions.
Maybe they closed the BB to give those anarchists some time to recover from their feeding frenzy and cut them some slack time to consider their positions.

For heavens sake the PFA is there for the benefit of it's membership and some of us have homebuilts that we would otherwise find very difficult to fly if the PFA went out of existence. There are more democratic ways of bringing about change other than acting in a deplorable unruly manner. Even British governments have been overthrown, but not by the likes of noisy militants demonstrating at the gates of Downing Street if you get my drift!

[Ludwig]

Maybe I am missing something (I wouldn’t be surprised!), what is it about the PFA then that stirs up the bitching/anti-bitching stuff? I am a member of the PFA for one reason only and that is because it’s cheaper to run my a/c under their auspices than directly via the CAA. I pay my subs and my permit fees and that’s that. I am not remotely interesting in building things, I don’t care whether they are based in Shoreham or Timbuktu or whether they hold a rally or not. Is it just an ego thing with those with low self esteem jockeying for what they perceive as some measure of personal worth by running something or trying to interfere with someone else’s life, or is it an ignorant membership wrecking the expert actions of a misunderstood band of dedicated, competent management team?

Perhaps some of the devotees could explain what the point of the PFA is, apart from taking a chunk of GA out of direct contact with the CAA?
:=

[Pinga]

Is it just an ego thing with those with low self esteem jockeying for what they perceive as some measure of personal worth by running something or trying to interfere with someone else’s life, or is it an ignorant membership wrecking the expert actions of a misunderstood band of dedicated, competent management team?

Exactly, in addition it's those who are trying to elevate their own perception personal worth and importance!

The majority of the membership have had enough of the noisy morons who seek to undermine the PFA to the detriment of the majority of it's members who are happy to see the PFA continue pretty much unchanged.

[Mike Cross]

P'raps there is an answer:-

Separate out the business of airworthiness into a wholly owned subsidiary that is run on commercial lines with a proper management structure. PFA as owners task the management team with producing a commercial rate of return on the investment but is not involved with the day to day running of the organisation.

Those who own or are building Permit aircraft do not then have to be members of the PFA but pay the same amount and become customers of the airworthiness business. If they are aggrieved then their remedy is the same that it would be against any other company.

The PFA itself is then a separate members organisation that runs the strut system, the Magazine, the Rally, Young Eagles, Coaching Scheme etc. Those who are members of the PFA have a voice as members and are there because they choose to be rather than because they have to be by virtue of having bought a Permit aircraft. If of they break the rules they can be expelled just like any other club.

Mike

[Pinga]

And exactly why should the PFA fragment itself just to suit a rowdy minority?

I reproduce Sticknruda's post of 10 April since he is a true wordsmith
To expand upon a previous post to make sure that I have managed to get my thoughts over in a way that cannot be misconstrued....

I am very aware that the PFA does have serious issues that need to be addressed. Bitching and sniping don't help - if you want to see change then do something to evoke change!

Join a strut, let your NC rep know how you'd address the issues. Canvass an EC member - contact him, full details are available within every PF. Contact HQ, do something constructive, bitching on a BB that makes up part of the PFA's electronic shop-front to the world really does nothing to enhance the image of the PFA.
....

I endorse these words of wisdom entirely

[TonyR]

The PFA management is totally to balme for the lambasting they received on their BB during last winter. They took sides with the CAA against an Inspector, the CEO told a lie when he answered a question on the BB, they did not return telephone calls or reply to letters or emails from at least 10 members here in N Ireland.

They took the word of others who were shown to have lied to the CAA and in court. The member who made the complaint about the Inspector had made false entries in his logbook,

They said they investigated the matter yet the aircraft in question was based at my farm strip and I was one of only 4 people to see the damage. I wrote to the PFA telling them I was willing to provide them or the CAA with any information I had, but was never contacted.

The CAA ended up with egg on their face because the PFA did not carryout a full investigation into the matter and even the evidence of the repair was "lost or destroyed". The CAA were only made aware in court that the aircraft was not secured by the PFA as evidence, and was left with the owner to do what ever he wanted to do with it.

£450,000 of CAA and taxpayers legal aid money were wasted and 8 days of crown court time.

The Inspector was cleared of all charges yet the PFA wanted more blood and refused to accept the court findings.

The Chief Inspector was the only one in the office with the balls to stand up for the Inspector and he even was suspended for doing so by the former chairman.

I would rather give the CAA the extra money to fly than be forced to join this bunch of wasters and I dont need a silly user name to say so.

Tony Ringland

[email protected]

[Pinga]

So far as your allegations go, they may or may not be true, there are often two sides to every story and we have heard yours. I can tell you that regardless of any errors or otherwise made by the PFA executive, you do not have a mandate from all the other members or even a majority to destroy the PFA.

I dont need a silly user name to say so.
Why then don't you take up Sticknruda's suggestions instead of posting on this forum with or without a silly user name?;)

[Mike Cross]

The majority of the membership have had enough of the noisy morons who seek to undermine the PFA to the detriment of the majority of it's members who are happy to see the PFA continue pretty much unchanged.
This is unfortunately just the sort of statement people are complaining of. What mandate do you hold from "the majority" to speak on their behalf?

The members present at the AGM did not appear to me to share your opinion. Were I asked for an adjective it would be "concerned" or "worried" rather than "happy to see the PFA continue pretty much unchanged"

While I do not necessarily endorse Tony Ringland's opinions I do not believe he is acting out of malice but out of a sincerely held sense of injustice. Dismissing those whose opinions you do not share as "noisy morons" is unhelpful. It polarises opinions and prevents reasoned debate.

Mike

[Pinga]

The members present at the AGM did not appear to me to share your opinion

Maybe because those present were mostly the noisy morons to which I was referring to.:)

How many times do I have to refer you back to Sticknruda's post, that is the way forward, berating the executive of the PFA on a public BB is most certainly not the way forward.

[2Donkeys]

Sad to see that despite its own BB now being back in action, the PFA "fight" continues to spill out into the surrounding streets.

I'm not a member of the PFA, nor do I fly the sort of aircraft that would naturally take me in that direction, but this chapter has definitively persuaded me that the PFA is not a good home for people like me who are disenchanted with UK AOPA.

There was a time not so long ago, when PFA activists were actively reaching out to those who felt that UK AOPA was ineffective. That would be a real uphill battle now.

2D

[jbqc]

I do not know Tony R or George Adams but I managed to get the transcript of the crown court trial as I have been following the recent CAA cases. (most of which they have lost)

The defence council took the CAA and the PFA to pieces and made complete fools out of both. Ken Craigie was a CAA witness yet he defended Mr Adams.

The PFA Inspector Mr L...., a CAA witness was told by the Judge that his evidence was full of contradictions and he would direct the Jury to disregard it

The new owner and his friend both claimed to have flown the aircraft from N Ireland as P1 and both logged flights as P1 which were not even in the aircraft logbook.

They had some expert from the CAA who sat for the whole trial and when he took the stand the CC Judge sent the jury out and said "Did you examine the aircraft? ("NO") "Well we are not going to listen to any more of this third hand testimony" and sent him home.

What a bloody waste of time and money

It was more like a script from "Yes Minister" or a "Carry-on" film.

So I think Mr Adams and his friends like Tony Ringland have a right to be pissed off with the Ass.

Some of my friends went to the AGM but were not allowed to even ask a question, so don't lecture us on how we should all tow the line. The PFA is in a mess and if those at the top had any concern for the Ass they would go.

John Brown

[TonyR]

Pinga

If you were reading the PFA BB last year you will have noticed that there were more than a few members who were concerned about the way things were being run.

But as someone has already said most members dont give a s..t as long as someone inspects their a/c and gives them a permit to fly.

Even a couple of potential members were put off by the unnecessary editing of posts, like the fella who tried to cool things down by putting a couple of photos of Kylie on the thread and was told by the CEO "the PFA will not have soft porn on this site".

He was an airline pilot who was going to buy a PFA aircraft, he went on to buy a C of A aircraft and did not join.

I would love to see a good flying association in the UK and Ireland and there are many like me who have plenty of experience to give but do not have the time to sit on ECs or NCs etc. For the moment I will continue to support AOPA USA.

Tony R

[jbqc]

Hey Pinga.

Maybe because those present were mostly the noisy morons to which I was referring to.

What about the letter from Lord Trefgarne, was he a "noisy moran" or should he have shut his mouth and let the ass continue as is.

J B

[DawnB]

Well I really did miss the PFA BB but now I've found some of my old friends here, I wont need the PFA

Dawn

[jbqc]

Hi Dawn,

You better not put any photos of yourself here in case you get deleted.

John

[Lomcovaks]

Well,

I've had a good look at the 'New PFA Bulletin Board' and it strikes me as being a half-dozen apparatchiks and apologists for the disgraceful state of what has been going on in the PFA telling each other how nice it is to post on the bulletin board and slap each other on the back, metaphorically speaking, for dreaming up a ruse to prevent open discussion and criticism.

Very boring...I can't see it catching on.

[shortstripper]

Cheers Lomcovaks!

I must be one of those "apparatchiks and apologists" you mention as I've recently logged back on to the PFA BB and made a couple of posts. :ouch:

This whole episode has really left me feeling depressed. How can one incident cause such major disruption ... or was it just the straw that broke the camels back? I've been a PFA supporter for as long as I can remember and I will be for as long as it continues. I well remember a feeling of unease when PFA Ulair was first mooted ... but that's a long while ago now :ugh:

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the PFA BB back up and running well. It held a very useful purpose for those who want more than the politics of the ass. It was a good way to communicate ideas on our aircraft, building problems and many of the other less controversial but never-the-less useful pooled knowledge base. It's a shame that so many are baying for blood and can't see through the red mist to give all we who simply want to get on with things the chance to do so. I'm not saying the politics aren't important ... but please don't shoot the messenger! :{

Ivan

[DawnB]

This whole episode has really left me feeling depressed. How can one incident cause such major disruption ... or was it just the straw that broke the camels back?

I think the Adams thing was the straw, It brought out the true nature of those in management, that they are not up to the job.

I think the CAA should put out to tender the whole business of homebuilt aircraft and get some professional company to run the permit system.

Dawn

[Pinga]

TonyR
I would love to see a good flying association in the UK and Ireland and there are many like me who have plenty of experience to give but do not have the time to sit on ECs or NCs etc. For the moment I will continue to support AOPA USA.
Ah so you want to leave it to others to sit on EC’s or NC’s do you? Well if you leave it to others you will never play a constructive part in the organisation will you? There are loads of clever sods who would have done things differently if it had been up to them! Well the PFA is an association and YOU do have an opportunity to either get involved or leave it to others. If you choose to leave it to others then you will never be a leader.

Dawn B
I think the CAA should put out to tender the whole business of homebuilt aircraft and get some professional company to run the permit system. :} that is an intended joke right? Yes, I can see it now, a new company run by highly paid "professionals" administered by highly paid professionals in the CAA. Permits being charged on a cost plus basis, a permit to fly shouldn't cost more than a couple of thousand a year and of course, this new organisation will be as efficient and flexible as the CAA is now I guess! :confused: Yes, this new company will be all things to all people and so there will never be any dissent, we shall be one step further towards a perfect world.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because this thread is pointless and it's clear that after all said there is no moderation intended by those intent of bringing the PFA into disrepute. I just hope that those noisy morons are happy with the consequences of the damage that they are doing, the consequences of which may well result in less flexibility and more legislation, increased costs and possibly even the demise of the permit system altogether.

[DawnB]

Pinga

I grew up with homebuilt a/c, if I wanted to see my Father it was in the workshop.

I have two concerns about the system.

1; There are a lot of "new" pfa type of owners, many with little or no engineering experience and little flying experience. They buy a homebuilt and tend to treat it like a "boy racers" car, doing mods and fitting toys without ever getting approval or an inspection. Some Inspectors must not be doing a good job and the eng dept do not police the system well.

What got to me about the Adams case is that there are lots of other un-reported accidents in both PFA and BMAA aircraft, often these are repaired and sold on the this "new" type of owner. I know I should do my duty and report anything like this that I know about. But some Inspectors don't even bother reporting them.
__________________________________________________

2; The approval of type like the Europa. "The great British hope". I have seen 3 aircraft accidents in the last 10 years. All in Europa mono wheel aircraft. All with high time pilots on board. All landing.

Talking to the pilots I was told that the aircraft will fly before it can be controlled properly. "you are in the lap of the gods for a few seconds at take off and landing" said one pilot.

So why has the PFA spent so much time promoting this aircraft when there are many safe aircraft not being allowed on the register ( and some like the Shadow grounded). It seems that the process is handled by a few people who can get carried away with something they fancy rather than good old aero engineering principles.

I have 1800 hours on 30 type, over 600 on 20 tailwheel type and 100 or so gliding. I have never flown an aircraft that could not be controlled on the ground, (some require a bit of skill) so what the hell is the Europa doing in the air at all. See the SRG publications over the last few years I think the Europa averages about 4 bumps per month.

I don't have the answer to the problem but the PFA need to change.

Dawn

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think the CAA should put out to tender the whole business of homebuilt aircraft and get some professional company to run the permit system. Wouldn't work Dawn, for a very simple reason. There are probably about 8 Engineers in the country with the experience and qualifications to run an aircraft homebuilding system. Four of those work for either PFA or BMAA, and the other four are probably all being paid far more, and have more sense than to touch what are incredibly political jobs.

). It seems that the process is handled by a few people who can get carried away with something they fancy rather than good old aero engineering principles. Absolute rubbish - talk to anybody who has had an aircraft approved through either organisation about how much work they've had to do. The amount of work is enormous, and every project I've had sight of has been one where Francis or Guy has insisted upon some changes BEYOND the minimum safety standards, to ensure that the aircraft was good enough.

But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of these aircraft are idiosynchratic, some were approved before current safety standards were in force, and occasionally designers do their damndest to pull the wool over the eyes of the approving Engineers. On the whole they do a good job.

And I think that the PFA would be the first to tell you that some of their types - a Kitfox or Europa for example - should not be flown by anybody without specific training on the type.


Having said that, I do agree with you that some aspects aren't run well. The average operators manual for a permit aeroplane would be more useful recycled as firelighters, and I include CAA permit aircraft in that - very often the handling advice is "best guess", the performance figures were written by a salesman, not produced by rigorous flight test, and operating limitations are sometimes based upon a rather tenuous basis - what is the X-wind limit in a monowheel Europa for example? As you say, unapproved mods and repairs are rife, as are people being paid to build an aeroplane for somebody - with little or no supervision and without the vested interest to get it right that an owner has. And too many people jump into ideosynchratic permit aircraft without proper training on type.

Nonetheless, we (the Brits) have by far the best system in the world for homebuilt aeroplanes, with huge choice and a safety record which is still pretty damned good. I don't think that we should lose track of that. This is basically down to the professional staff at PFA and BMAA, a few talented individuals at the CAA, and those who support them - it's certainly not down to luck.

G

[shortstripper]

But is killing off the PFA and creating a new organisation the way to go ...

IMHO ... Hell NO!!!

Whenever there is major change in almost anything these days, it is used as a way of bringing in draconian legislation and restrictions. That could easily KILL the homebuild movement in the UK ... is that wahat you'd like to see?

The PFA is trying to negotiate a "sports" category not unlike the EAA system and this will be only be a good thing in my opinion. It will protect the well meaning inspector and place MORE responsibility on the owner. It will also protect previous owners and builders, again, a GOOD thing. That way the new owner/pilot will be responsible and if they know B..all about aeroplane maint or building they should get in a man who can, or get instruction. If they bodge something and ultimately kill themselves then I'm afraid it's their own stupid fault. After all if you apply the same thinking with cars you'll see that is what happens now. We have an MOT system, but if "boy racer" goes out straight after the MOT and modifys his car then kills himself, his family can't sue the MOT station or previous owner. If something was wrong with the car when he/she bought it which subsequently leads to their death, they may have a case, but most of the time it's "buyer beware" ... why not the same for simple homebuilt aircraft?

We should stop blaming others and take more responsibility for our own actions. The same applies for the PFA board and way it's run ... if you want to change things then vote for them or better still volunteer and try to get voted onto the committee.

Ivan

( why is it that sometimes the spelling of a word completely eludes you? I tried spelling committee in all sorts of ways and non looked right ..... :rolleyes: )

[jbqc]

To those who have tried to change things and attend the AGM etc there has been much hostility from current members backing up the existing EC & NC.

The management have tried to silience anyone who would question a decision.

So how do we change things when open debate is not allowed within the Association.

JB

[DawnB]

I have gone to strut meets and to other events and would have a few years ago been willing to get involved...etc, but..

I am a 30 something with tits and although I have more experience in GA aircraft than a lot of those without tits I felt like they were going to ask me to make the tea and bake buns for the next meeting.

Dawn

[Genghis the Engineer]

Then stop faffing around with the amateurs (talented and interesting people 'though they are) at strut meetings and go and talk to the professionals, who are far too busy to worry about whether you've got tits or not and already have somebody to make the tea.

With your experience, you'd be well placed to become a check/test pilot with PFA or BMAA, and if you've got formal engineering qualifications, an inspector as well.

Don't believe me? take a short drive East to Old Sarum, where you can meet Leslie (airfield manager, examiner, and long term member of both organisations) or Fiona (Chief Instructor and Chief Engineer of the Shadow school there, BMAA instructor, BMAA and PFA inspector). I'm sure both would, if they've the time (turn up when the weather's crap!) be delighted to tell you about their long term, and tits-neutral involvement with permit aircraft.

G

[DawnB]

Thanks G. I will do that next time I am home, am working away at moment.

Dawn

[jbqc]

has anyone here flown a monowheel Europa?

I also saw one run off the edge of the runway in zero wind

JB

[Flyin'Dutch']

FFF has one!

FD

(FFF = Flying for Fun he resides on these shores)

[jbqc]

Has FFF had a bump in his?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Nope, but I've seen one crash as well. Landed behind me at Compton Abbas in 10-15kn Southerly (sporting in anything at CA), lost control just after touchdown, veered off the runway and through the hedge.

G

[TonyR]

Is there anyone who has not seen a Europa crash??

I saw one veer of the runway over here, thankfully not much damage and no one hurt. again a high time pilot. Another pilot from here had one of the first to be built and it had a couple of bumps.

I heard the same story as Dawn, "they will fly before they can be controlled", sounds a bit scary, I prefer to tell the aircraft what to do.

Also noticed the accident reports at about 4 per SRG issue, keeping up with the Jabaru.

However the Ulster Flying Club have managed to crash about six of their brand new C172s over the last few years, "drivers perhaps"

[DawnB]

Hey lads, just noticed that the PFA members can give each other *******"STARS" *******on the new BB, can we have some to give away, please??

[Pinga]

The way things are going on this thread, if we ever allmeet up, some of us at least are going to get to see stars. :mad: :ouch: :{ :\:E :ok:

[jbqc]

Pinga

I think you will find most people here are very reasonable with a lot of experience to share. Some are a bit pissed off with the association, some of us were members of it for years.

Did you ever give us your thoughts about the letter from Lord Trefgarne?

Or is he just a noisy moran like me?

Dawn,

It would almost make me want to register on the BB again, but I think "they" would refuse me a 5 star rating.

John

[Pinga]

No, you are right; I didn't give you an opinion on the letter from Lord Trefgarne did I!

The point I have been trying to get over is that the PFA is an association and all members should make a deliberate effort to bring about constructive change NOT destructive change. Public bickering and tantrums do nothing to improve the PFA or its image. What are YOU going to do to bring about CONSTRUCTIVE change? The PFA is an association not a dictatorship and the members can bring about a change. My whole point is that there is a right way and a wrong way of doing just that.

[TonyR]

Pinga

I think John's point is that the EC and management have become a tight little clan and they run meetings, even the AGM in a way to avoid anyone who would like to voice a different opinion having a proper say.

I know from experience that when I tried to ask for an explaination queitly through the office, I was fobbed off. At that time in October 03 when we were seeking "fair play" for our friend George Adams we had no option but to go to the BB.

I see you still do not say if Lord Trefgarne is a noisy moran or not

Tony

[DawnB]

Hey Tony,

Where can you fly to in N ireland, have had some bad experiences there last year.

EGAD: Very hostile and unhelpful, some bitch kepy on about Special Branch even though we had that all sorted by fax prior. I think it was the CFI who was a bit of a nasty bastard also, made us move our aircraft after it was parked under the instructions from the a/g radio. Not much of a welcome compaired to a few years ago.

EGAC: Cost about £60 landing, parking one night.

EGAA: Woodgate, God do you have to bribe the re-fuelers to leave their coffee. Very nice and helpful ATC though.

EGAE: Bastards all :- ATC, Security, Staff in shop, it'll be a cold day in hell before I'm back.

I have written to complain where I thought it was necessary.

So where do you fly from.

Dawn.

[TonyR]

Sorry to hear about that Dawn.

Newtownards (EGAD) would tend to agree. Hope this will change soon.

Belfast City (EGAC) not really interested in GA

Aldergrove (EGAA) I usually fly from there will pass on your post to Woogate re fuel. and ATC always like a pat on the back.

City of Derry (EGAE) Also fly form there, and it can be a bit hit and miss with ATC, Security and staff, please write to the operations manager.

The good news is Eniskillen (EGAB) is re-opening soon and hopefully will be more GA friendly.

I also fly from a farm strip at home will email you details about local private strips, most are for STOL aircraft though.

Just in case you all think we are wandering, there are a lot of PFA members and aircraft in N Ireland, most are based at private strips and all are very friendly.

Tony

[FaPoGai]

Greetings all

Now have I got this wrong?

The EC of the PFA ,against the instincts of the majority of its members moved from Shoreham(user friendly since Bleriot)
to Turweston where the leader of the local council and a few cohorts are hell bent on restricting and no doubt closing the field down?
I truly believe that they have lost the plot.

Rgds. FPG (a PFA member,reluctantly)

[DawnB]

And if you own a PFA microlight you cant fly to the PFA office.

Strange place to move to.

Dawn

[Ludwig]

FaPoGai, I wondered that too, but by the sounds of things it about what one might expect.

DawnB, I also don't think they are best pleased to have Pitts Specials in either, because of their noise problems at Turweston, and all most all the single seat Pits are permit a/c.:confused:

[jbqc]

I suppose a lot of the EC live closer to the new office at Turweston.

Still there are other less restrictive airfields in the area.

[DawnB]

Well done PPRuNe you've cracked it and we are all famous.

Guess what we have made it on to the new PFA BB.

So have a look quick before it is deleted

Dawn

http://www.pfa.org.uk/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000007

[jbqc]

Dawn B, If you are ever to get a husband you will have to moderate that costic tongue.

You will have hurt the feelings of some at the PFA, how could you ever suggest that "they" would delete a post.

John

[DawnB]

John honey,

I could have two or three husbands a week if I wanted to,

But they always belong to other women.

Anyway I spend too much time with men at work to want one of my own, sure you are all the same

[TonyR]

Just had a look at the PFA BB, seems not all are happy clappy PFAers.

Most seem to want to have a BB like this one.

[VP959]

Shortstripper wrote:

"The PFA is trying to negotiate a "sports" category not unlike the EAA system and this will be only be a good thing in my opinion."

VP959 replies (belatedly perhaps):

Actually, it seems that the PFA now has a declared intent, clearly and very recently expressed by "the PFA management", to become the ONLY recreational aviation body in the UK.

To move towards this end they have declared that they are now seeking to take away approval work from the BMAA, and have made it very clear that in their view there is no room for two associations looking after light powered aircraft. The intent seems to be to seek to drive the BMAA out of business.

Methinks that the PFA membership need to state their views on this "declaration of war" with the BMAA, as I cannot somehow see the present, mismanaged, poorly presented and hopelessly inneffective association truly managing to be the sole representative body for the lighter side of aviation.

Perhaps the fact that 30% of light aircraft in the UK are now microlights has caught the attention of the association that once refused point blank to have anything to do with them. I've no doubt the potential to earn dosh from all the extra microlight permit renewals, to waste on yet further infighting, might appear attractive.

[jbqc]

Perhaps it is time for the rest of us in G/A to get behind the well run BMAA and give them the support they need.

Perhaps the PFA members who don't "need" to be members should consider their position

John

[nongpsuser]

For those of you who beleive everthing you read here I would like you to understand that this whole thread, just like those on the PFA BB last year has been part of a personal vendetta against the PFA management by Tony Ringland and a couple of others.

People need to realise that this sort of thread could lead to the downfall of the PFA. Then where would homebuild owners be

Dave



Edited again.
(1) Do NOT re-post parts which have been removed by a Mod.
(2) If you want to slander people, do it on the PFA BB - NOT on ours.

Heliport
Moderator

[Pinga]

nongpsuser, I was hoping to let TonyR take a bit more line before reeling him in. It is clear to every thinking person that he does not act out of concern for the PFA but following his own agenda. You have said what I was reluctant to say although I did say earlier on that there are two sides to every story and we have heard much of the other side previously although the other side of the story is only just being told!



Edited. If you want to slander people, do it on the PFA BB - NOT on ours.

Heliport
Moderator

You meant libel no doubt. In any event I was very careful with my words and MY post did not contain in my opinion contain any libelous statement. If you read a libel then that is what you read into it. Unfortunately there are a few souls who would have everyone believe that they are pure white and the PFA is jet black. Be assured it really isn't like that. They have their own facist agendas.

[TonyR]

Pinga & nongpsuser,

I have posted facts which after being brought into the public domain in the Crown Court can be checked from court records.

If you read my letter to the PFA magazine, ( below) then perhaps ask the management what have they done about re-instating Mr Adams and have they got proper insurance for their inspectors. This letter has never been addressed, just like all the posts that were removed from the PFA BB.

You are right however after the way PFA have treated George Adams I dont really have a great deal of concern about its future.

"Dear Editor,

I would call on all PFA inspectors to take note:

The CAA lost another court case in Northern Ireland on October 15th involving a pilot / owner of a home built Kitfox and a PFA inspector. I need not enter into very much detail about the case other than to say that the owner pleaded guilty to what the Crown Court Judge said was a minor offence of failing to make a proper entry in the airframe logbook. The PFA inspector and the owner were charged with “Endangering an aircraft and persons therein” the judge directed the jury to bring not guilty verdicts to this charge in both cases, as the CAA had not proved their case. No defence was necessary and the PFA inspector was told by the judge that he left the court without a stain on his character. The pilot /owner was given a conditional discharge on the “minor charge”.

When the CAA brought forth the above charges, the PFA suspended the inspector. The inspector contacted the PFA insurers to seek help with legal costs. The insurance company refused to cover the legal costs as the charges were “criminal” and not civil. This could mean that if someone were to be killed in a PFA aircraft accident and the inspector was found negligent a charge of manslaughter could be brought which would be criminal. ARE YOU AWARE THAT PFA INSPECTORS ARE NOT COVERED BY PFA INSURANCE AGAINST LEGAL ACTION IF THE CASE IS OF A CRIMINAL NATURE.

The PFA representatives were shoulder to shoulder with the CAA and assisted the CAA to prosecute the above case even though it was revelled in court that the PFA chief inspector and the chief engineer stated to the CAA that the aircraft in question was safe to fly. This case cost in the region of £450,000 and ran for eight days before being stopped by the judge due to lack of evidence. I have two questions; Who is going to hold the CAA to account for wasting money? and Who would want to continue to be a PFA inspector?"

[nongpsuser]

So Tony Ringland can post what ever he likes and you do nothing. So much for free speech on this BB

[PPRuNe Towers]

This board is up, running and has been like that for 8 unbroken years.

Where we interfered with your words we made the intervention both obvious (larger typeface and different colour) and the reasons for it abundantly clear. Something the other board apparently didn't consider worthwhile.

It is also a matter of policy that the PPRuNe EC ( i.e me and Danny) are open to criticism in public - something a few minutes with our search engine will prove again and again.


Rob Lloyd
PFA member since 1978

[jbqc]

My goodness the PFA have 2 supporters & slander & libel on PPRuNe

Where are the FACTS from the PFA management if Tony R is so wrong. They could not give him a truthfull answer so they closed the BB for weeks and hoped this would all go away.

I have the court transcript and Tony R has told it as it is.

John

PS. Pinga, I see you still do not say if Lord Trefgarne is a noisy moran or not

[Mike Cross]

Unfortunately some of the posts on the PFA BB went too far and as a result the BBS has been closed for posting to non-members.

Discussion on this board is generally good humoured and uses well reasoned argument without being offensive.

Moderation on PPRuNe is independent and fair minded.

Sadly it seems that the protagonists are unable to carry on their argument here in a civilised manner either. :( :( :(

Mike

[Pinga]

And so what if one case didn't hold up? The Crown Prosecution Service has many many cases where a "not guilty" verdict is returned every week! The way British law works is that the facts are presented and it is for the prosecution to prove it's case. In the instance in question it failed to do just that. Would you have the Crown Prosecution Service disbanded for losing a percentage of it's prosecutions. Mybe I shouldn't ask that question because the morons here probably would!:rolleyes:

It may well be that the PFA have good sound reasons for not re-instating Mr Adams.

The fact is and remains that the PFA is a democratic association and there is a right and wrong way of bringing about change. Yes democracy is the value that is cherished by the majority of people including members of the PFA and Mr Adams faced the democratic process of trial. The facts were duly considered and a "not guilty" verdict returned. In a non democratic society, Mr Adams may well have been dragged out of his house and shot dead without the benefit of a trial!

Why do you morons have a problem with the process of British law, why do you morons have a problem with democracy?

Do you think that a true democratic process should be applied in some cases (Mr Adams) but not in other cases (The PFA exec.)?

Why do I waste my time on you people:rolleyes:

[ECMan]

It's about time someone put a few facts on this thread. I'm member of the PFA EC, and no I'm not going to say who I am, neither will I necessarily continue to post here, but it's time a few facts were posted.

1. Mr Adams WAS invited to re-apply for his inspectors permit. He has to date not applied.
2. Tony Ringland has consistently attempted to cause mischief for the PFA, and continues to cite the CAA court case. Mr Adams was suspended for bringing the inspection process into disrepute, his behaviour was proved beyond doubt to the EC and engineering, whether or not he was found not guilty in court for specific offences had nothing to do with that.
3. The BB was down for technical reasons, due to the webmaster quitting without even giving notice of his intent.
4. JBQC was another consistent troublemaker on the PFA bb and he's not missed!
5. The EC have put a great deal of effort into righting many of the wrongs mentioned here and on the PFA BB. We are indeed volunteers who believe in the association. It's a pretty thankless task when we are misquoted and libelled by people who consistently snipe away frequently to their own agenda.
6. Lord T could never be called a moron (note the spelling please, illiterate gents) but his letter to the membership was another devisive instrument delivered as a direct result of his not being asked to continue as chairman.

So there, chew on those facts for a while, no doubt a few of you will launch yourselves into the attack, but try and stick to the facts and not turn to flights of fancy!:}

[FAA Old timer]

I am Florida based FAA employee and former USAF pilot, and have been reading with interest this thread.

I met Tony Ringland about 10 years ago when I was looking over the fence at a little airport in Donegal Ireland, He was working under an old Cessna 180 on the ramp. He looked up and ask me if I wanted to go for a ride. He took me and My wife for the most wonderful flight through the mountains and along the west coast of Ireland, he would not even take a dime for the flight. I can tell you that he is one of aviation's nice guys and one of the best pilots I have ever met.

We have flown together over here a few times and he is just as happy in our old Cub out of my 900ft dirt strip as he is in my friends C340 at FL200. I would suggest to you all that Tony would only stand up for his friend if there was an injustice done by the PFA.

I have known and flown with the best and I count Tony a true pro and a good friend, so those of you who would tear the fella apart on this BB should wish you had this kinda friend to fight your corner.

John Anderson

[Fly Stimulator]

It's the PFA's supporters rather than its detractors who are making it look bad here.

Now that they've re-opened their own sandpit perhaps they could all toddle off back there to play.

[VP959]

EC Man, I tend to agree with your sentiments, but perhaps you can enlighten us as to why the PFA seems to have now adopted a policy of taking over the other recreational aviation organisations.

I fear that this will only result in further division, at a time when all representative associations should be working together to defend our priveleges against the inevitable European regulatory onslaught.

Please tell us why this decision has been taken, as I am very curious indeed as to the PFA's reasons for taking this stance.

[S-Works]

Wow what a cool cat fight! This is even more fun than the GPS is evil debate!!

I never realised flying was so full of politics.

[DawnB]

Ok I have taken a step back an looked at the big picture

Seems like those who know Tony R think he is a decent fellow just standing up for his friend George Adams.

Seems like from, Lord Trefgarne to any other member who has questioned the EC or Management over the last year or so is a trouble maker.

Fact: Two members gave incorrect statments to the CAA, this influenced the CAA's decision to the Adams the case to court.

Fact: Mr L.... another Inspector gave contradictory evidence from the witness stand in the Crown Court,

Have any of the above been suspended. I am sure they in the eyes of the CAA and the Court have brought the association into disrepute

Fact: Ken Craigie was suspended by the then chairman. WHY????

Was it because he refused to suspend George Adams as he thought Mr Adams did nothing wrong????

I know the EC and Management don't want to deal with these questions. but the "Facts" are there for all to see.

Dawn

[Flying Lawyer]

It's the PFA's supporters rather than its detractors who are making it look bad here. My thoughts exactly.

Pinga appears to consider that repeatedly describing those with whom he disagrees as 'morons' is a form of intelligent argument - although, to be fair to him, he did vary it to 'facist' for one post.

I'm not a member of the PFA. I looked at their BB a few times some months ago because I wanted to see what, if anything, was being said about a specific incident. Some posts by those who appeared to be the PFA 'establishment' contained a number of 'explanations' which I knew to be untrue.
My reading of that topic and a few others while I was browsing left me with the impression that criticism of any decision of the governing body, or the conduct of any member of it, was very unwelcome.

ECMan
"note the spelling please, illiterate gents"?
If you're going to stoop to pointing out the spelling mistakes or typing errors of those with whom you disagree, it's always wise to take extra care with your own. It's 'divisive', not "devisive". ;)

[ECMan]

Dawn:
George Adams was suspended after a complaint was made by a PFA member (reasons already stated). The others you mention have not been the subject of any such complaints received at HQ. Had we received such complaints then they would have had to be investigated - it's that simple

At no time will we ever discuss the suspension of one of the association employees, that is a matter for the management and the employee.

VP959:
As an EC member I know of no such 'takeover' plans! The rumour mill is rife. We are arguing over a specific type as we did all the approval work when it was directly a PFA type as opposed to a BMAA type. In other words we spent the time and money on it, so why shouldn't we hang on to it? But that's about as far as it goes, though there are strong arguments for amalgamation of the organisations into a National Airsports Association or what ever you would call it.

M'Lud - you are quite right, divisive it is then!:\

[jbqc]

Just thought I'd have a look before bed!

Another FACT for you EC man,

The PFA CEO told a lie in answer to a question from another Irish PFA member Mr B McC in November 2003.

When one of our beloved "ministers" or senior civil servents get caught out making such a gaff they go or they are pushed.

How are we to believe this man (or those who condone him) in the future?? Will he say anything to save face, be it the truth or not??

John

[DawnB]

Seems like you are more than willing to splash information about Mr Adams suspension all over the mag. Should he not have the same rights as Ken Craigie

[Flying Lawyer]

ECman
I returned to add something and found you'd already posted.

Steve Moody's tantrums at the 2003 Rally, and subsequent determined and persistent demands that the CAA investigate his complaints against the two Extra pilots, did more to damage the reputation of the PFA amongst aviators generally than the dispute mentioned here.
I read what the 'powers that be' within the PFA said on the BB and know much of it wasn't true.

eg Denying that Moody lost his temper and walked off in a fit of pique on the Saturday evening, refusing to work on the Sunday because he wouldn't work with people who (in his view) were 'unprofessional.' (Unprofessional = the controller on duty at the relevant time didn't support the line Moody took and refused to report the pilots.)

eg Claiming Moody only reported the pilots to the CAA to protect the PFA. What utter nonsense. If that was true, Moody would have accepted the response he got when he first reported the incident to the CAA. (ie The CAA noted his complaint but didn't consider an investigation was necessary.)
Moody wouldn't accept that. He went to different departments until he found someone prepared to initiate an investigation of his complaint.


Tudor Owen

[DawnB]

It's funny how "not telling the truth" is perfectly OK with the PFA EC & CEO.

Tony Ringland is accused of "making mischief"

JBQC Is accused of being a "troublemaker"

Mr Adams was suspended for "bringing the inspection process into disrepute"

At lease none of the above are "lairs"

Good night

Dawn

[FAA Old timer]

Aviation professionals and pilots require two things,

HONOR (you might spell it honour caus I dont want to be told off by a fancy lawyer) Which means ADHERENCE TO WHAT IS RIGHT

And HONESTY

I have been flying over 50 years and 23,000 hours including two wars without a scrape.

My engineers and fellow pilots were honorable and honest. If your PFA is not then it will fail.

John Anderson

[ECMan]

JBQC:
IF our CEO lied, then prove it. Prove it beyond doubt and put those facts to the EC as a formal complaint and we will be obliged to investigate your complaint. This is the problem with all this BB stuff, rumour and accusation. Make it official and we WILL act. The EC isn't a weak or inefectual body when it has the tools to work with.

I for one don't want to be associated with a weak or inefectual EC!

Flying Lawyer:
The events relating to Steve Moody were reported at the next EC meeting by Steve Petter who runs the rally. I believe it is true that none of the EC were privy to no more than the facts related to us by way of a 'rally report'. Difficult therefore to comment on what was indeed a very unfortunate affair.

Dawn: two different things; Ken Craigie is an employee of PFA Ulair Ltd. He was subject to company policy, his suspension was part of an internal investigation and he was re-instated. The facts of this will remain confidential. Mr Adams was a member of the association and the subject of a formal complaint by a member. If it wasn't for the continual baying of the hounds on the BB I suspect his suspension would also have remained more discreet! It was not the original intention of the commitee to publish the facts.

As for lies, I suggest you too prove that; see my last post. We are obliged to look into any formal complaint, we cant look at rumours. Are you a PFA member? I assume as you mention the magazine that you are; so why not do something positive to get to the bottom of this rather than make more bullets for those who would cause mischief?

[TonyR]

EC man

Why don't you ask Graham about the lie on the BB?

But I'll tell you anyway.

B McC ask Graham on the BB around the 15 October ( I'll look up the print outs tomorrow) When will George Adams be re-instated as the case was now over.

About 4 weeks passed and the PFA had made no contact whatsoever with George, not even to wish him well.

I then put a letter on the BB around the 12 Nov (after having waited over 4 weeks for a reply to several emails)

The S..t hit the fan and members began to question the management.

Ken then contacted George by phone the same day and within 10 minutes of that phone call Graham answered B McC's question on the BB stating that the PFA were having "on going" discussions with George Adams.

That was a lie. The PFA were NOT having "on going" discussions with George. This was a face saving exercise.

If you want a signed statement you can have one

Tony R

PS. thanks John A, I was very supprised to see your message must give you a call soon.

[jbqc]

ECMan

The FACTS about the CEO and the porkey on the BB were given to us all on the PFA BB last year.

Even Steve A was going on about it, and how "it was just a mistake" and "what did it matter anyway"

A lie is a lie and as FAA old timer says we have a right to expect "Honour and Honesty" in this business.

If you knew your aircraft engineer would lie to you, would you let him keep on working at your aircraft??

And I also know lots of lies were told about the Moody incident.

So when you can prove to me beyond all doubt that the PFA has a code of "Honour and Honesty" I will rejoin.

John Brown

[ECMan]

Tony R:
I'll say it again! Make an official complaint to the Chairman, don't seek to blacken the reputation of a fantastic association which is made that way by it's members! Where else can you fly aircraft for the costs we have made possible? £17.00 per hour wet is typical of PFA types, most of the CAA certified types don't even dream of these kind of costs. As for engineering standards we have an enviable reputation for safety. That comes with a price of vigilance. The details of the Adams case don't need airing here, but you cosistently fail to recognise the actual cause of George's suspension by harping on about the court case - it's irrelevant, even if the CAA hadn't prosecuted the PFA would have done the same thing for reaasons already stated (see the Chairman's statement in a previous magazine).

Mr Adams has the opportunity to renew both his membership and his Inspector's approval and already knows that. Personally I'm not suprised that he hasn't renewed given the circumstances, but that notwithstanding, he DOES have the opportunity.

And the rest of you posting here:

The PFA is indeed a great association. This kind of public sniping is eating away at it and will undoubtedly effect membership levels in the future. Why do it? You aren't fixing anything, this type of protest never does.

The Executive Commitee is made up of volunteers. At one time a prospective member needed to be sponsored by another member (easy to achieve), but then they had to win sufficient votes from the membership to defeat opposing candidates (either existing or prospective). That is a truly democratic process and ensures popular candidates are voted onto the EC and indeed allows for the removal of less popular members.

It's been several years since that situation existed; apathy rules and the EC is down to 11 members from a possible 18. Even Tony R and JBQC could be EC members right now; having a positive effect on the problems they perceive rather than doing the equivalent of running their car keys down the side of a nice car!

[TonyR]

ECMan,

I don't know if you are aware that many of Mr Adams' friends wrote to the PFA before and after the CC case. Most of us did not even get a reply.

The PFA BB was the only way we could force the management to answer us.

If you are working with the EC to help the ass, then I too suggest the words "Honour and Honesty"

Those would be words I would use to describe George Adams but not those at the PFA office.

Tony R

[Genghis the Engineer]

Where else can you fly aircraft for the costs we have made possible? £17.00 per hour wet is typical of PFA types

Hmm, tricky, the BMAA and BGA perhaps? Oh yes, and maybe the BBAC. Probably the BHPA is rather cheaper now you mention it.

Which makes VH959's point rather well I think. Co-operation within, and between the five big sport flying associations is what we all need.

We're all on the same side boys and girls - even George Adams (who I know and also think is an excellent and competent chap - although thankfully I've never been involved in this sad and messy debacle over his qualifications and the infamous prosecution).

Did George Adams deliberately set out to enganger life - of course he didn't. Does Graham Newby deliberately set out to seriously offend much of the microlight establishment with his takeover bids on type-approved microlights - of course not. Did the PFA's EC members think that they were doing the best thing for the PFA by censoring critical debate - almsot certainly they did. Did any of them realise that their "opponents" also feel that they had the best interests of sport aviation at heart, probably not, and that's the problem.

You've all seen Top Gun, there's a little pep talk by one of the instructors at the start of the course "always remember guys, whatever's happened, at the end of the day we're all on the same side". There is an enemy out there - it's the weather, NIMBYs blocking our airfields, a few genuinely deranged individuals true. But everybody discussed in this thread, including those being criticised, were on our side and should be treated as such.

Sermon over.

G

[Girl Flyday]

Did I miss something? How did the 'Extra' incident at last year's PFA Rally come into all this? But I suspect many people's account or opinion of that particular fiasco may be coloured by their own interests and/or involvement, rather than on all of the facts - whether they be in Steve's, the PFA's, ATC's, or the 'display' guys camps.

I think I have a pretty good idea of the exact sequence of events on the day, having been there in the midst of it all and having witnessed and/or heard all three sides of the story from all the parties involved (being not directly involved with any of them) - but yes, the whole thing was indeed 'unfortunate' - and I suspect left everyone concerned with no option other than to try to cover their own backs. But who can blame them? Many potentially had a great deal to lose, and surely it doesn't take a mastermind to consider the implications of what went on to everyone involved...

I suspect there are a few people who wish things had happened differently on that particular occasion though!

GF

[ozplane]

Interesting suggestion that a grouping of all the relevant bodies e.g PFA, BGA, BMAA et al to form a National Airsports Association might be the way to go. An additional group without a "natural" home is the non-PFA types such as Luscombes, Airtourers, Cubs and the like. The owners of these types are probably very familiar with their aircraft, probably more so than the CAA and need an approval authority without the overheads of the CAA. I joined AOPA at Fly for 6 months to see what their view was. Anybody else feel the same way? We certainly need a voice on the Mode S issue, no electrics, cost etc and at the moment I would be a solo voice in the wilderness.
BTW on the issue of morons and morans, I seem to remember from my days in Kenya that a moran was a Masai warrior. Nice to think of the bold peer in a red loin-cloth carrying a spear.

[GCHQ]

EC MAN and Others

A very good friend of mine happens to have previously been the webmaster of the PFA BB and website.

He DID NOT leave the task as suggested, and is quite pissed off to hear from me that it is suggested he did, and that he left the BBS not working in the process.

THIS IS NOT TRUE.
a)
He left the job nearly a year ago, yes a year ago. Since then the PFA heads had no respect for the BBS and did absolutely nothing about maintenance as he often advised them to do.

b)
He left the task because he and his employees began to lose trust in the PFA finances and whether they would be paid or not. With some significant health concerns he just did not want to take the risk any longer

c)
The BBS went down following a major but shortlived hiccup some time ago - I know because he actually looked at what needed fixing to do it free of charge a week after it failed. He discovered that nothing was wrong - it was switched off!. IT REMAINED DOWN SINCE OUT OF CHOICE. Most PFA staff know this.

I think the company that hosts the bb is someone called Griffin systems, anyone can check this if they wish to - try web search?

d)
He was also an EC member and left because of petty and pointless bickering and behaviour he believed to be corrupt at times - legally so. Some of the stories, particularly around the Trefgarne letter period would make you sick if like me you are a PFA member.

e)
From what I understand there is much that should be looked at, I even considered standing for EC myself. But the EC have some dangerous people that totally drown the good ones.

W. H.

[Flying Lawyer]

Girl FlydayDid I miss something? How did the 'Extra' incident at last year's PFA Rally come into all this? If you think this thread is only about the Adams dispute then, yes, you have missed something. That is only one issue raised by some in support of their wider criticisms.
Alleged untrue explanations by office-holders:
I've read posts about the Extras incident (and the aftermath) in the PFA BB by people who appeared to hold office in the PFA which, to my knowledge, were at best inaccurate. (I accept they may have been misled about the facts and posted their views in good faith.)
Alleged stifling of criticism:
I've read attempts by certain individuals to stifle any criticism of the EC or particular office-holders - not only criticism of Moody but other issues..
Alleged damage to the reputation of the PFA:
In my opinion Moody's behaviour damaged the reputation of the PFA much more than discussion of the Adams dispute here. I suspect few people outside the PFA know about that, but Moody's conduct was widely criticised amongst aviators generally and in other threads on Pprune at the time.

I know all the facts of the 'Extra incident, including: what happened, how it happened, who said what and when, Moody's conduct on the Saturday evening and in the following week when he pestered the CAA to investigate his complaint. I have read the witness statements made by all those involved, and considered the ATC exchanges before the Extras did their practice display. I don't know what you've seen, but you certainly haven't seen all the documents I've seen.

the whole thing was indeed 'unfortunate'
I agree. (I'd have used a stonger word.)
"and left everyone concerned with no option other than to try to cover their own backs."
You've fallen for the story put about by some in the PFA in an attempt to justify Moody's actions. Perhaps you missed what I said in my previous post? Moody reported the incident to the CAA on the following Monday. The CAA noted his complaint but didn't consider an investigation was necessary. He wouldn't accept that answer and pressed on until they had no option but to investigate his complaint.

Whether or not the pilots were deserving of criticism is, as you say, a matter of opinion. However, what happened after they landed is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Since you were there and heard everything, I challenge you to deny that Moody lost his self-control and was swearing at people who disagreed with him, that he walked off in a fit of pique, that he claimed the controller (a licensed ATC'er) was unprofessional because he dind't think the pilots had done anything worth reporting and refused to be bullied into reporting them, that Moody refused to work on the Sunday saying he couldn't work with 'unprofessional' people.
I realise you may not know that he then embarked upon his campaign the following week in an atempt to justify his petulant over-reaction.
The PFA version (as given to members on the PFA BB) is that Moody reported the incident to the CAA purely to protect the PFA's position and left it to the CAA to take any action they thought necessary. That is simply not true: He persisted until he found someone in the CAA prepared to investigate his complaint.
The eventual result?
After months of investigation, the pilots were cautioned by the CAA and that was the end of the matter - but, by that time, they'd lost the rest of their display season because their Display Authorisations were suspended pending the investigation of Moody's complaint.

Having looked at all the witness statements from an independent perspective, and applying considerable experience gained over many years involvement in aviation cases and disputes, it would be fair to say I found myself 100% in what you describe as the "ATC and 'display' guys camps" and formed a very low opinion of Moody, or 'Steve' as your refer to him.
Independent?
I'd never met any of the parties involved until this incident. (I was aware of the pilots' fine reputations, but only discovered later that they had respectively been awarded an MBE and OBE for services to aviation.)

NB: My criticism is not of the PFA in general. It's limited to Moody's conduct and to those in the PFA who were party to closing ranks and covering up his behaviour by misinforming members about what he actually did.
eg The 'protecting the PFA' story. Denying he lost his temper when others said he was over-reacting. Denying he accused the controller of being unprofessional. Denying that he refused to return on the Sunday leaving the PFA to find someone else to step into the breach.
My comments are not meant as a criticism of the PFA as an association.

Tudor Owen

[Girl Flyday]

Flying Lawyer - I have sent you a PM...

GF

[MikeGodsell]

Have followed this thread from the beginning!
How very very sad all this is.
What a lot of ego-strutting and back covering is being displayed.
I have had really good experiences of dealing with Francis Donaldson and the PFA engineering staff, and thank them for their hard and dedicated work.
But for the rest of the PFA bunch.....
Perhaps to the want-list of honesty and trustworthiness should be added HUMILITY... for the sake of all of us private flyers who just want to continue to get into the sky with the minimum of cost and bureaucracy.
Some people seem to get their kicks more from the exercise of a bit of power, rather than facilitating our joy at being up there with the birds.
In sadness
Mike Godsell :{

[jbqc]

ECMan

What do you say now about the HONESTY of the PFA and the switching off of the BB

He discovered that nothing was wrong - it was switched off!. IT REMAINED DOWN SINCE OUT OF CHOICE. Most PFA staff know this.

How can this bunch of people run the association when they continue to lie to the members.

[locksmith]

Could someone tell us all in plane english, what George Adams did wrong, all this "duty of care" bull**** will not wash with us anymore.

Ken and Francis both accepted that George did nothing to endanger any aircraft but it would appear that those at the top would rather beleive Mr Sh... & Mr L... than George who had been an Inspector for over 15 years.

George is still the most senior inspector with the BMAA and with SAAC. both these organisations trusted in George and supported him during the trial.

George should not have to ask to be re-instated he should be welcomed back by the PFA as they need men like him.

Tony Ringland has been called all sorts by PFA EC and management, all he did was ask a few questions on behalf of the members here in N Ireland, none of which have been addressed to date.

Tony is one really decent man and is one of the best all round pilots in the country. If he has a spare seat he will always take a young PPL or SPPL along for the trip and has done a lot to introduce new pilots and to get old pilots back in the air.

I am now considering selling my PFA permit a/c and going with the BMAA as I can no longer trust the PFA

Ken

[DawnB]

GCHQ

If what you have said is true and I beleive it to be so the PFA as it stands should have their licence suspended by the CAA. If they lie about the BB they will lie about anything.

We cant trust this association and I know people are worried about their aricraft being grounded but it is now time to cut out the rotten wood from UK homebuilt aviation. The engineering dept could continue to run under the supervision of the CAA until the PFA are sorted out.

Dawn

[Rod1]

ECMAN

I have had several conversations with a number of PFA people, including at least one member of the EC about the BBS and why it was off line. I also offered help in this area. I am reluctant to post what I know without first checking a few things with you. My email is; [email protected]. Your anonymity will remain.

Rod1

[TonyR]

I also think it is time the CAA took action against this bunch,

GCHQ
and behaviour he believed to be corrupt at times - legally so.

So much for "Honour & Honesty"

Tony R

[ECMan]

Rod 1.

I seriously need to remain anonymous! Send me a PM here and I'll reply.

[nongpsuser]

I see you all have changed tact and are playing on this honesty thing. Devious lot aren't you, even a couple of lawyers complaining about lies!

We would all be sorry if the PFA was closed down and the CAA took over.

I would rather have things the way they are than risk the CAA having total control of my aircraft

[VP959]

locksmith,

I sympathise with your views, and it would be simple for me to seek to encourage you to move to a BMAA type, but I also happen to feel very strongly that all of the recreational aviation associations in the UK should work together harmoniously.

Unfortunately building harmonious relationships between associations isn't exactly helped by Graham Newby's insistence on taking over control of Type Approved microlights from the BMAA. The stated aim of the new PFA management of becoming the ONLY recreational aviation association in the UK also fills me with morbid dread I'm afraid................

Perhaps the BMAA might like to consider expanding their CAA Exposition to include delegated responsibility for Permit group A types? If competition is what is wanted, then I'm sure the BMAA, which already has a Permit aircraft fleet that is more than twice the size of the PFA's, will be well up to the challenge.

At least the BMAA doesn't seem to suffer the vicious infighting that has been so prevalent in the PFA in recent years.

[DawnB]

The way I see it is that highly respected members of the aviation community are asking the PFA, EC and Management, some questions that they don,t want to answer, and anonymous idiots are trying to stand up for them by throwing insults at everyone outside their little gang.

What do you call the member of a "gang", surely not a "gangster" ?????

And yes the BMAA would do a better job

Dawn B

[FAA Old timer]

The PFA don't seem much interested in the honor & honesty thing.

At least thats what it looks like from 4000 odd miles away.

John Anderson

[VP959]

I fear you may be right, FAA Old Timer, which doesn't fill my heart with joy. I'm also an EAA member and notice that despite significant levels of criticism from certain minorities over Sport Pilot they seem to have weathered the storm fairly well. I guess the ultralight people are none too pleased about Sport Pilot, but when all is said and done fat ultralights have been tearing the backside out of CFR 14 Part 103 for years, so they shouldn't really be too surprised at the changes.

Overall I really wish that our PFA could be managed even 10% as effectively as the EAA. I know that the PFA is much smaller, but that doesn't excuse the lamentable degree of mis-management that seems to have been such a feature over the past few years.

In my view there is a place for dedicated associations to both look after the particular individual specialist interests of their members and work together with other bodies, without competition, to represent a cohesive recreational aviation federation. Perhaps this is just a pipe dream, but I do feel it would make us more effective when trying to fend of madness like compulsory Mode S etc.

[jbqc]

OK ECMan, lets get really serious.

There have been various posts today which accuse the PFA of everthing from telling lies to corruption. All you have told us in reply is that you want to remain anonymous.

If the PFA is to survive, are you, and the "few good men" left on the EC willing to call an EGM having all positions on the EC up for re-election and a proper debate about the behaviour of the Management?

Are you willing to condem those who lied to the members about, Steve Moody, George Adams and the BB being "broken"?

If so, I for one will say no more on this BB about the PFA until after the meeting.

John Brown

[nongpsuser]

JBQC> Who the hell are you to make demands on an association to which you no longer belong.

[DawnB]

nongpsuser; did you read my post about "anonymous idiots"

Good night folks

Dawn

[ECMan]

JBQC: Trying to get to the truth of a lot of this stuff, even by asking the individuals concerned is a bit like trying to stuff a King Size duvet into it's cover! I wouldn't be willing to ask for an EGM as inevitably none of you are in posession of all the facts about most of what you criticise here (except perhaps the rally incident which Flying Lawyer seems to be fully conversant with).

There are a few good men on the EC and I hope I am one of them. It's going to take time to get to the bottom of a lot of this, I for one know a lot more than I would possibly be prepared to let on, but let's just say there's a lot to be said for allowing enough rope.....

I've tried to give some facts as understood by the EC and I've told the truth as I see it. I suspect i know a lot more than many of the detractors here, but you all seem to think you know best, ah well.

I still maintain you are doing us no good sniping from the bushes, why don't YOU call an EGM.... ah forgot, you aren't a member!

I may just retire gracefully from this BB for the moment as I can't see this going anywhere really, not here anyway, but that doesnt mean I'm giving up, but I too have a life to lead and an aeroplane to fly:cool:

[TonyR]

ECMan

I think you will find that I and others are in full possession of the facts about the Adams Case.

I don't think the PFA EC or Staff have ever considered what it was like for George Adams to have the prospect of a criminal trial with a possible prison sentence hanging over him for over two years.

The PFA & CAA took the word of two other members, one being an Inspector, both who were revelled in court as having lied in statements.

The PFA NEVER even contacted George after the case to wish him well. I was with George at his home about an hour after the case was over and the BMAA office rang him to congratulate him.

George was left to fund his own defence and dumped by the PFA on the word of two discredited members and he has yet to receive an apology.

So you are going to run off like the rest and keep your head down in case those "dangerous men" on the EC and at the office get upset.

Tony Ringland

[ECMan]

Tony, I don't run! Just can't see any point here, I truly sympathise with your complaints and I seriously can't imagine what it must have been like for George Adams during those two years. As I said before, the democratic processes of membership in the PFA allow for a formal complaint to be made, when it must be investigated. This was done by one of the two members you mention and the rest is history as they say. Personally I really wish one of you had done a similar thing, it would perhaps have balanced things a bit. Leaves a bad taste for all of us. The truth is that one's hands are tied by the rules of the association when a matter like this occurs. If individuals (especially those who may bend the truth) report facts from their official positions it is very difficult to make decisions within the bounds of the rules which contradict those facts (ask Flying Lawyer about that!). One may have gut feelings about this but there are 11 members at a meeting and majority rules I'm afraid, it's called democracy (laughable isn't it). I wish you well.:\

[bpilatus]

if someone ask me now to join PFA what you think will be any answer I may have?

bit of a nonuseful thread we have got going here it does not teach me anything except the answer to my question I just ask.

[locksmith]

ECMan, I as a member of the PFA am not very happy.

I can't ask a question on the PFA BB because Graham never replies to them and I don't beleive him anymore anyway.

I have read about the lies and possible corruption within the PFA and seem powerless to do anything.

You now seem to say that you (one of the good guys) are not in a position to do anything either.

So apart from calling in the CAA to investigate the PFA what do you suggest the ordanary members do???

It would also appear that the company that hosts the PFA BB will confirm GCHQ's story that the BB was closed down by Graham to stop members asking questions.

If there was a decent bone in their body the Chairman and the CEO should go.

I also see that despite promises the latest EC meeting notes have not been put on the PFA site.

Ken

[Skylark4]

A few people are citing the EAA as being the perfect organisation. I think you will find that this is not the case. First of all, there is no direct comparison as the EAA does not have the Permit aspect that the PFA does. The American system is different.
What follows is not criticism of the EAA, it is not guaranteed true but it is what I understand to be true. I am perfectly willing to be corrected by anyone who knows better.
The Eaa was started by Tom (?) Poborezny and was run as a benevolent dictatorship by him and his buddies for many years. His family is still effectively in charge. There are many in the USA who do not like this arrangement. The EAA is the biggest and best homebuilt organisation on this planet.
I have always maintained that the best form of government is the benevolent dictatorship.
You must also remember that the EAA is AMERICAN and they do things differently over there. When I went to Oshkosh in 2001, I met several retired guys who had moved to Oshkosh so that they could be more effective volunteers for the EAA. They run the Museum, the vintage airfield(can't remember the name) and Airventure itself. When they die, they also leave great wads of cash to the organisation or some specific part of it.

Mike W

[DawnB]

Hi Folks,

I really think the CAA should be contacted about the alleged behavior of the PFA management.

My father was a member for years until he died and I even keep the membership in his name, but today's PFA is not what it was and all this lying to members etc is really pissing me off.

I do not want to make a formal compliant to the CAA but like locksmith I see no other way to sort the management out.

Any thoughts???

Dawn

[Rod1]

DawnB

Give me a few more hours. I have a plan, which I am working on off line. Things may not be what they appear.

Rod1

[DawnB]

Rod1: sounds like a line from the "A" team but I hope it works.

Dawn

[email protected]

[nongpsuser]

You lot are still at it, over 200 bloody posts and the PFA in tatters, what a f...ing waste.

Are you all mad the CAA will ruin GA as we know it if this line continues.

Dawn B, stop and think before contacting the CAA.

Although they will probibily read this all anyway.

[Rod1]

I have given ECMan every opportunity to explain this discrepancy off line, but he has not responded.

I have spoken to several members of the EC about the BBS issue, including two face-to-face meetings. I was told;

1 There had been a meeting, which had expressed very considerable annoyance at what was going on with the BBS, particularly on the Adams issue. This meeting decided to make the BBS members only, (which I disagree with), and to arrange strong independent moderation, which is a good idea.

2 The person who had originally worked on the BBS was no longer involved and there was a disagreement with this person. As a result of this the PFA did not have the passwords to make the necessary changes and were having the board re-done from scratch. It was not implied that the parting of the ways was recent. The above also explains the length of time the BBS was down for.

This info seems similar to the information supplied by GCHQ. Would he like to comment on the passwords info?

Now ECMAN has fiercely defended his anonymity. He claims to be a member of the EC, but has not provided any proof of this in terms of knowledge of events, or identity. If he is a member of the EC he is one of eight people ( I can exclude three myself). ECMan has seriously damaged PFA credibility, but what if he is not on the EC? Puts a very different completion on things.

Rod1
Not on the EC and not anonymous.

[jbqc]

I think you might need the "A" team for this lot.

I spoke to an EC member today and he is totally sick about the way the association is run, the "bullies" on both the EC and NC force their own views on the rest. I was told that there are little meetings before the EC when the "bullies" and management decide what do do. I was also told that the truth will always come a poor second to the "covering of each others back" and the more senior management would walk over anyone to keep their positions.

Rod1, I don't know what sort of plan you have, but very serious measures must be taken before the whole PFA permit system falls apart and people are left looking at aircraft they can't fly

John

I can exclude another two and they were not talking to you. But there is a dicussion within the membership of the EC to find ECMan

[locksmith]

Can you spot the odd one out??

Honour, Honesty, Credibility & PFA

ah..er..

[Rod1]

The more I dig, the more I seem to find alternative agendas. If we take out ECMAN, most of what is left is old news. I am increasingly of the opinion we have been manipulated in an attempt to bring the PFA into disrepute. I do not think the organisation is perfect, far from it, but it is not as bad as it is being portrayed and some of the criticism is coming from people with old scores, which have little or nothing to do with the day-to-day operation of the PFA.

Take the “PFA to take over the world by force” rumour, for example. It appears to come from a collaborative initiative, jointly under discussion between BMAA, PFA and the CAA. I am still finding out about this, but it is real Sunday Sport stuff to suggest the PFA are doing any wrong, on this one.

I am building my own aircraft and have a very high regard for the engineering side, which is the main part the CAA are interested in. I will start a new topic on my experiences and we will see how people rate the “PFA way”, my direct, personal experience would give them 7 or 8 out of 10 for admin and engineering, both of which seem immune to most of the politics.

This thread has become corrupted and should be taken with a large dose of cynicism.

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm sure I've said this before, but it's worth repeating.

The professional staff (in particular the engineering department) at PFA are a very different beast to the political side. It's entirely possible for many people to get an excellent technical service (and in my experience they do) whilst simultaneously many people are rather frustrated with the political side of the organisation.

G

[Rod1]

This board has been very critical of the PFA. I do not think it is a perfect organisation but…..

I started out with 50% of a 1978, 180hp 4 seat CofA machine which I had flown for a long time. I am 2/3 of the way to finishing a modern Carbon fibre a/c which will cruse at 125k+, and lift two people out of a short strip with baggage and 4 hours fuel. The a/c has a partial glass panel and if I wanted the equivalent from a new CofA machine it would cost me £150,000+, which I do not have.

The running costs are so much less that I will have saved the full cost of the aircraft over 10 years of operation, and the second-hand value is currently very good indeed. The down side is 750 hours (ish) of hard graft. The up side will be that I can afford to fly a well equipped, new aircraft for a very long time using £12 of fuel per hour!

The project is registered with the PFA: I would give them about 8/10 for service until now and I feel the engineering and inspection side is working very well, in my case.

The finished a/c will spend lots of time touring France and will handle far better than its heavy metal brothers.

So, am I mad, or is this a very good way of getting an new executive express for the cost of a 25 year old family hatch?

Rod1

[Mike Cross]

Flying Lawyer

Steve Moody is not as far as I know an employee of or a member of the Executive Committee of the PFA.

Also as far as I know the complaint to the CAA was made not by the PFA but by Steve Moody.

It would probably have been a good idea for the PFA management to make this clear at the time and thereby disassociate themselves from the complaint.

I am happy to be corrected on any of the above if I have got it wrong.

Mike

[VP959]

Rod1 wrote:

"Take the “PFA to take over the world by force” rumour, for example. It appears to come from a collaborative initiative, jointly under discussion between BMAA, PFA and the CAA. I am still finding out about this, but it is real Sunday Sport stuff to suggest the PFA are doing any wrong, on this one. "

VP959 replies:

Go ask Graham Newby the question. I can assure you that what I wrote, about the PFA seeking to take over Type Approved microlights from the BMAA, and the stated PFA aim of seeking to be the only recreational aviation association in the UK, is correct. I'm sure moderator Genghis the Engineer can undoubtedly confirm this, as I know that he is also aware of it as well.

[Rod1]

I have spoken to Graham. I spoke to the CAA as well. I have only 1/2 a responce form the BMAA as the boss is on holiday, but I will be in contact with him late next week. The initative is joint and there appears no hostility. If this changes, I will post again, but what is happening appears friendly and sensible. Does not make such a good story though!

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

moderator Genghis the Engineer can undoubtedly confirm this, as I know that he is also aware of it as well.

Well I think that the fact that I'm a moderator on another forum is completely irrelevant, and am pretty sure that that it's only 3-axis microlights ( I rather suspect that Francis is a bit scared of flexwings and can't be persuaded otherwise). But yes, I am aware of it.

Reliable rumour tells me that other things are ongoing jointly between BMAA and PFA - Shadow undercarriages seems a big player (and they are both understandable keen to prise as much as possible away from the Gnomes of Gatwick), but I can't see BMAA willingly handing it's main revenue stream over to anybody else, even the PFA. It's as likely that PFA would happily hand the Rans and Jabiru to the BMAA.

Whether either should do so is of-course a completely different question, and whilst I wouldn't venture an opinion, would be fascinated by other people's.

G

[Timbo Goodwin]

I have been told of a few issues going on within this BBS regarding rumour and inuendo etc. Having just registered, I have read as much as I can, but cant find a posting a friend has told me about. I don't propose to get drawn into this, but offer the following:-

I will simply clarify the facts which I will stand up in any situation and re-confirm.

A couple of years ago I undertook to look after the bbs and web site of the PFA because the CEO had fallen out with the then supplier (or the otherway around cos i am not trying to make a point here, tho maybe I should have guessed).

This work was done as an emergency and at the time was not seen to be long term by ourselves.

We unknotted huge problems and aquired most passwords as needed from the PFA or the hosts Griffin Systems.

Over the next year or two we did a huge amount of work and reworked the site as requested.

At some point during this period I became an EC member.

I begun to be concerned about the proffesional reliability we experienced and my staff became increasing disillusioned with the work for the PFA. Frankly we become concerned about payments and reliability of payments and in the 'attitude' of 'our contact'. It is fair to say that we never felt fully respected for the work and effort we put in.

Brought to a head by a personal health issue we decided to not risk working for the PFA in a professional capacity any longer. We continued to help them in any way that we were capable of doing, a) as a favour, b)Free of charge

This was around a year ago and any suggestion that the PFA did not have passwords for the web site and associated parts, eg BBS is a complete untruth. We passed them several times, when and if they were requested. I have logged in several times to extract information directly requested by the PFA office. In fact as far as the BBS is concerned, it is hosted by Griffin internet systems, and they, as a PFA supplier, can also use the main Admin passwords if required. Apart from my own emails, there is more than one office member that can confirm the BBS password was known soon after my ceasing work for the PFA(1 day after it was requested).

My EC membership clearly continued although I obviously realiesed I did the PFA no favours by withdrawing our internet and web services.

After some months of increasing concern at EC about what was happening, treatment of staff, and involvment in trying to 'fix things', I was asked to undertake to 'sort' the engineering department out and its relationships with others. This was done under the specific guidance of expert consultants employed specifically for the purpose. At the beginning of this process the EC were reaonably commited to do whatever was required. During this process however some of the EC members (NB. EC includes the then chairman) become obstructive, petty, and in my view naive to the extreme in their actions as they begun to rubbish the hired experts. Despite those concerned having failed 100% to sort anything out in the 10 yrs or so of their own EC service they blocked any attemped change by others.

They continue, and I see at least 2 possibly 3 individuals that in no way should be EC members-they are simply not fit.

As stand in 'Engineering director', trialling the position for a full time employment (now done)the PFA and myself understood were 'protected' against prosecution (if there was a serious incident) because the very problems that were identified by CAA and consultants were actively being fixed. Additionally, as we were following some of the best advice available, the CAA were completely 'on-side'. They were fully informed and fully involved. In-fact, at that time they suggested they might like to use the 'systems' we were finalising as models for other 'approval organisations' similar to the PFA. In view of this I ensured that the PFA owned the interlectual property aspect of the work so we might be able to recover some of the costs later on.

This turned out to be a dream following totally devisive interference from 2 or 3 on EC completely stalling the proceess. This came after a period of enforced inactivity by the consultants due to the PFA not honoring previous payment agreements.

The end result is that the review project stopped dead, the EC were not willing to do the very things that were clearly needed (interestingly they are now following those very recommendations). Additionally, I felt very vunerable because we were no longer actively addressing known problems, and having witnessed first hand the atrocious behaviour of an EC individual regarding Lord Trefgarne just before the AGM I wondered what I was part of - I resigned.
I could say more about this (there is much) but won't.

Back to BBS.
It failed and was down for a short while. Having noticed this I spoke with Griffin systems and PFA office. There WERE NO PASSWORD ISSUES WHATSOEVER in the events that followed. I noticed the message still said that the server was down - surprising since I knew it wasn't, which I also felt was unfair to the hosts 'griffin'. I was told by PFA office that there was no hurry to return it due to recent BBS content. At this time it was simply left 'switched off' whilst the flack died down.

At some point a decision was made to upgrade the 'infopop' bbs software which again has NO BEARING on BBS being on or off. Infopop will simply turn the board off, upgrade it, and switch it on again shortly afterwards, as they did last upgrade. Given infopop is american based, this happens in the middle of our night and is not useually even noticable. The fact is that the BBS could have been available a long while before.


Again about these issues there is much more, but it helps no-one to dredge them up.

However, given somewhere on this forum I have apparently been critised, or possibly by implication, I hope I have said enough to despute those statements and show the facts. To anyone, please ensure statements are accurate before publicising them, because I for one get pretty pissed when I discover I am being used to 'obscure' or at least cloud, events. Don't do it - otherwise I will get really verbose!!

Best regards,

Tim Goodwin ex PFA webmaster :O

[spitfire]

Just a little reply to Skylark4's post about EAA (http://www.eaa.org) It's certainly not a "benevolent dictatorship" under the control of the Poberezny family and I should know because I work for EAA. It's a non-profit organisation run on pretty traditional business lines, with the notable exception that it's supported by the most incredible culture of volunteerism it's ever been my pleasure to experience.

Is it a perfect organisation? "No".

Does its staff and management get knocked all over the place on internet bulletin boards by people who have an axe to grind with particular issues - "Yes".

But at the end of the day do we still manage to pull together in our passion for aviation??? Well in the case of the USA and EAA I have to answer emphatically "Yes... If anyone gets a tad disillusioned... Oshkosh gets it out of their system once a year.

Let's hope it works out the same way for PFA.

[jbqc]

Tim

I spoke to an EC member last night and he confirmed what GCHQ & you have said about the BB. I also was told that you were treated very badly by a couple of members. It would also appear that there are others who have not been paid for services.

He also said on another issue that it is the intention of the PFA CEO to be the only sport aviation organisition, and to do his best to take over the permits of "all" aircraft type registered with the BMAA. He would leave the BMAA any "de-regulated" aircraft like the proposed u/l single seats etc.

It is the 3 or 4 lying Ba.....ds within the EC and upper management that have wrecked the PFA, I will be writing to the CAA making a fromal complaint about the Management of the PFA.

Rod1, I now think we know who the ECMan is and it would seem he "IS" an EC man, and a good one.

Mike, Steve Moody was totally supported by the EC and Management.

John Brown

[Flying Lawyer]

Mike Cross

Thanks for clarifying Moody's status, and I don't think you've got anything wrong.
I believe the complaints (plural) to the CAA were made by Moody, but he did so as Ops Manager (or whatever his title was) of the Rally.
I know others present when the incident occurred didn't agree with his behaviour, couldn't understand what he was making such a fuss about, tried to calm him down and were taken aback by his tantrums.

I totally agree it would have been a good idea for the PFA management to make this clear at the time and thereby disassociate themselves from the complaint. Unfortunately, when the incident was mentioned in the PFA BB, they did the opposite.
There was a closing of ranks around Moody, supporting his actions, claiming he acted in the best interests of the PFA and, even denying he'd walked off in temper saying he wasn't prepared to work with people who weren't professional. (The controller - a professional - didn't think the pilots had done anything wrong and stuck to his guns refusing Moody's demands that he report them to the CAA.)

I remember posts by the CEO and by some chap called Arnold (possibly a police constable) supporting Moody. That said, I noticed Mr Arnold was very active in other threads running around like a little terrier snapping at anyone who criticised the EC. There were suggestions that if people 'knew the facts' they wouldn't criticise Moody - which was ironic because they were hiding and distorting the true facts! :rolleyes:

I'm told that some PFA members (don't know who or their positions if any in the association) even wrote to Pprune trying to stifle criticism of Moody in the threads running on this site at the time. To Pprune's credit, the discussion was allowed to continue.

If the management had dissociated the PFA from Moody's actions, the PFA's reputation wouldn't have been damaged by the actions of one man. Supporting him, and denying things he'd done, simply made matters worse.

[Mike Cross]

John

Thanks for the info. The notes on the EC meeting of 5 September 2003 do not mention any vote by the EC supporting Steve Moody or indeed any discussion of the subject.

Mike

[Rod1]

Timbo Goodwin

Thanks for the clarification. You have a PM.

Rod1

[Girl Flyday]

I note that despite his defence of the Extra Pilots and condemnation of Steve Moody at last year's PFA Rally, Flying Lawyer has yet to confirm the legality of the display aircraft involved making a low-level pass at right angles to the runway - directly across both crowd lines?

I am neither condemning nor condoning the behaviour of any of the parties involved on that day, but from a personal point of view would be interested to know if this was a legal manoeuvre - because if so, then perhaps his comments are justified. But if not…?

[Mike Cross]

GF
Steve Moody was perfectly within his rights to report the matter as would anyone who witnessed the routine.

The CAA investigated and made their decision as to whether or not Article 70 (which refers to flying displays) had been breached.

A Flying Display is defined in the ANO thus:-
"‘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;"

Were the pilots concerned "deliberately performing for the purpose of providing an exhibition or entertainment at an advertised event open to the public"?

As I understand it no prosecution ensued which would suggest that the CAA investigation decided they were not.

Mike

[Eartotheground]

As another of what looks like an increasing number of ex-PFA members, I think all this talk of Moody throwing a wobbler at the rally is just clouding the issue - which is that to an ordinary, subscription-paying member, beyond taking our membership fees, the 'powers that be' within the PFA seem totally disinterested in the views of 'ordinary members'. They give the impression of being an arrogant, aloof, old-boys network - and the only way anyone can join the ranks of the EC is by invitation. Hardly democratic!

But FWIW, my take on last July's events is this:

1. Unlike previous years, the PFA did not have any sort of display authorisation from the CAA for the PFA Rally at Kemble.

2. Late in the day, the home-based Extra team approached controllers in the caravan to ask if they could go through a few routines - and the controller(s) agreed. I am assuming that this was on the grounds that the Extra team have some sort of general permit to do aeros at their home airfield anyway - and this was 'out of PFA ours' - ie when the airfield had officially reverted back to the usual FISO service, and was not therefore still under the special CAA rally rules and regs.

3. Anyway, the 'display' started - and yes, Moody went beserk. Whether this was because he thought the Rally 'no aeros permit' rule was being broken, or just because he hadn't been consulted, I've no idea. AFAIK, ATC authorised a couple of specific manouvres, and then the team requested that they do a couple of their 'routines' without having to talk to ATC between each one - and ATC said OK.

4. But then during this (no doubt adding fuel to Moody's aready raging fire), the team then flew quite low - in a direction which ran from directly over the main crowdline, to more or less over the control tower, crossing somewhere over the runway - as GF says, directly over both crowdlines, at roughly right-angles to the runway.

5. This is where things start turning PARTICULARLY messy. Given that Moody is already letting rip at everyone and his dog, the fact that a possibly illegal manouvre has now been performed is just going to turn him into a man on a mission. Yet how can ATC back him up? If they join him in his prosecution, then they have to admit they gave the go-ahead - but that they possibly weren't fully aware of what the team would do - which seems to me tantamount to saying "Fair enough, here's my licence - I never really liked being an ATCO anyway!" So it was bound to get messy. Moody ain't the sort of guy to give up - being like a dog with a bone at the best of times - but then again, if he HAD backed down, and some smart-arse spectator had gone to the CAA about 'dodgy low flying, endagering his wife and kids!' - yet the rally organisers had tried to sweep it under the carpet, then what???

IMHO, Moody totally overreacted initially - but then the pilots pushed their luck a bit and showed off ("hey, this'll look good - and most of the day-trippers have gone by now, and so it's not THAT much different to when we do it over an empty airfield!") - and the **** hit the fan. Moody (apparently) is hell-bent on 'protecting the PFA' - but the controllers and pilots stand to lose their licences, from the course of action he takes. So it's inevitable that it gets messy, and everyone seems to be telling a different story.

So apart from the fact that he did indeed use a lot of words that my mother wouldn't like - and threw his toys out even before the questionably 'fly-past' occurred, how exactly has Moody brought the PFA into disrepute???

One quick question to Girl Flyday though... are you a good friend of 'Steve'? ;-)))

[Penny Sharpe]

I have read the comments regarding the PFA bulletin board and would like to say the following:

I can confirm there was nothing untoward about the closure of the bulletin board. A decision was taken by the Executive Committee to make postings on the board a "PFA member only" facility. The board was originally closed down for 2 weeks due to a problem with our server provider and I therefore took this opportunity to upgrade and do the necessary changes. Unfortunately due to my inexperience with this type of work and my other duties within the PFA, specially the increased workload due to the PFA Rally, it took me much longer than anticipated to get the necessary changes done. I take full responsibility for this and apologise to all of those to whom it has obviously caused such great distress.

Penny Sharpe
PFA Office Manager

[Girl Flyday]

Ha ha, 'Sky'! :p It's just that being female, calling someone solely by their surname doesn't really come naturally to me (boys do it all the time at school, I guess) - and seems a little impolite!

Mike Cross - thanks for clearing that up for me.

GF

[Ludwig]

A sacrificial lamb?:=

[Eartotheground]

It sure looks like it to me!

Mint sauce, anyone? :D

[stiknruda]

E2G writes,

"They give the impression of being an arrogant, aloof, old-boys network - and the only way anyone can join the ranks of the EC is by invitation. Hardly democratic!"

if that is the impression, then I am afraid to say it is not an accurate facsimile, EC membership is open to all members, all you need is to be proposed (and seconded?)

I read very closely the words of Timbo G. Tim and I were EC members at the same time, I resigned a year before TG as I was pretty unhappy about the way things were going. TG and I discussed resigning as soon as KC's suspension became evident. Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of this episode, the very way that it was done sucked. Resigning in protest seemed to be the right thing to do until we realised that the "baddies" on the EC would certainly outnumber and out gun those with a more pragmatic approach to dragging the Association into the 21st century and preparing the association for the modern litigous world.

I was not going to post any more on this thread as it seemed pretty futile. I last posted when the page count was in low single digits.

The catalyst that caused this latest missive was Penny Sharpe's ritual falling on sword.

However, like others, I wonder whether she fell or were more sinister forces queuing up to push her? Knowing Penny as I do, I suspect the latter and could hazard a guess at the architect of the act!

Stik

[Eartotheground]

Thank you for putting me straight, Stik - although not knowing nobody in the postion to 'propose' me, that's tantamount to the same thing :hmm:

But what does the PFA have to offer to 'spamcan pilots' (like me) anyway? I came to the conlusion the answer to that was 'not a lot' - and that I would also be looked down on to boot for not flying a 'proper' aircraft anway - which is why I am no longer a member.

Incidentally, re rally costs, and the role of volunteers there - I have 'volunteered' on a couple of occasions - but response was always "I'll make a note of that" - and that was the last I ever heard :8

(And that was in the days before I started moaning about them, too!) ;)

[stiknruda]

E2g

you re-join, I'll propose you and am sure that we can find a friendly to second you!

As for being a spam can driver- you'd be surprised how many of the EC do just that!

Stik

[Flying Lawyer]

Girl Flyday

I'm never quite sure if it's 'proper' to repeat the contents of PMs in the forum so, as a matter of courtesy, I'll ask your permission first:
In light of your latest post about the Kemble fiasco, do you have any objection to my posting copies of the two PMs you sent me on Tuesday this week?

Perhaps you'd like to post them yourself so that everyone can read them? If you haven't kept copies, I can help - they're still in my mailbox. Just give me the word and I'll copy & paste them in full.
First @ 13.47: I won't repeat your description of what you heard and saw in Ops that day, but you said "I have to be a little careful in what I say!"
Second @ 15. 11: Again, I won't repeat contents but you gave the reasons why you "don't really want to antagonize anyone..." in the PFA.
Do I need to go on? Or is that sufficient to jog your memory?
Shall we post them? Or are you going to continue the hypocrisy of saying different things on and off the forum?
It would also answer the question others have asked since your last post. So far, you have been less than frank in your response to that straight-forward question and have tried to evade it by humour. (Your secret is safe with me - unless and until you give me permission to reveal it. ;) )

In answer to your latest question:
Having carefully considered all statements taken from PFA witnesses by the CAA investigators, the R/T exchanges, the pilots' accounts of what occurred, the statements of independent witnesses, the pilots' Display Authorisations and Kemble's Rule 5 exemption, I did not consider the pilots had committed any offence. Accordingly, I advised them in clear and unequivocal terms that they should contest any charges brought against them.
The CAA investigated the matter very thoroughly and the pilots were not charged with any offence.

________________

Eartotheground
I agree with much of what you say, although not all.
You're certainly right about people watching their backs when the CAA investigated. I noticed that in one statement in particular. It didn't cause a real problem - we could have overcome it easily by other evidence.

Simply for information -

The pilots practised their standard routine.

If there was a shred of truth in the story put about by some PFA VIPs that Moody simply wished to protect the PFA from any complaint or criticism, then his call to the CAA Enforcement Branch on the following Monday would have served that purpose.
The fact is Moody wouldn't accept the response he got from the EB so tried SRG. He didn't like the response he got from the first SRG man so he kept going and eventually found someone who was prepared to instigate an investigation provided he made a formal written complaint.

Damage to reputation?
Moody did all that as the OPs Mgr (or similar) of the Rally.
I've already said why I think the repuation of the PFA was damaged. See my earlier posts. I base my opinion on views expressed to me by many people in aviation and numerous posts on this website in the aftermath of the Rally - the overwhelming majority of which were very critical. The PFA should have made it clear Moody was acting in a private capacity and dissociated itself from his actions. Since it failed to do so, Moody's conduct was inextricably and understandably linked to the PFA.
________________

BTW, just in case anyone thinks I'm biased because of a professional/financial involvement .....
I'd never met the pilots until this incident and felt so strongly that they were the unfortunate and undeserving victims of Moody's attempts to save face after his petulant behaviour at Kemble that I gave my services free of charge throughout. Moody had made a fool of himself and, instead of backing down and apologising, he set about trying to prove he was right and those who'd disagreed with him were wrong - with complete disregard for the potentially serious consequences to others.
Although no harm was done in the long term, the pilots lost the rest of their display season because some :rolleyes: in SRG saw fit to suspend their DA's pending the outcome of the investigation. By the time it all came to nothing, the season was over.

[smarthawke]

Eartotheground, you wrote:

I am assuming that this was on the grounds that the Extra team have some sort of general permit to do aeros at their home airfield anyway - and this was 'out of PFA ours' - ie when the airfield had officially reverted back to the usual FISO service, and was not therefore still under the special CAA rally rules and regs.

The 'event' actually occurred at a time that the TRA was still active according to the AIC.

My only problem with it was what if a non-radio aircraft was landing into sun on the grass totally in accordance with the AIC only to find a low level Extra coming the opposite way down the runway.....

[Flying Lawyer]

smarthawke

When they returned to Kemble, the pilots offered to do a practice routine (8 mins I think from memory). The PFA controller initially asked them to hold while he cleared some departing a/c, and then called them in when he considered it safe to do so.
You may have a point but, if it shouldn't have happened, it's hardly the fault of the pilots. They made an offer, it was accepted, and they were given ATC clearance. It's all in the ATC tapes.

Tudor

[jbqc]

Ok Penny, very good, but why would an EC member tell me that the CEO kept the BB closed and used words like "I'll shut that b...... Ringland up" and "we have got to keep those f...... troublemakers off the BB.

The problem is when one starts a chain of lies it is hard to stop.

JB

[DawnB]

Penny, I hope you are not letting those men push you around in there.

What you say might have some truth in it but I have also been told that it was Graham who refused to allow the BB to be switched on again until the dust settled.

You do yourself no favours by becoming a little office girlie who takes all the blame.

Dawn

[Evo]

you re-join, I'll propose you and am sure that we can find a friendly to second you!


Hello :)

[nongpsuser]

Can someone tell me what is this all about.

It's all She said and He said and They said.

And who cares if Penny is stupid enough to do what she is told, and so what if Girl F is besotted with Steve M or even worse, and if Graham called people names.

I dont give a damm, but I DO want to have a PFA to permit my aircraft next year.

[Mike Cross]

Hear Hear

Mike

[locksmith]

So Penny, are you going to tell us who suggested you post on PPRuNe.

Nongpsuser. I do not want to be a member of an association full of people who don't know the difference between the truth and a lie.

I also am only a member because of my aircraft, thats not what I want. I want to have an association to be involved with. A group of like minded pilots who fly for fun and help each other out.

The decent pilots are already out there but the association is not. at least not the PFA.

Ken

[nongpsuser]

Locksmith

If you take away the couple of "hot shot" Lawyers and the mouthy "paddy" Mr Ringworm, the other "no brainers" are only jumping on the band wagon.

I think more members should be supporting the PFA instead of letting this lot destroy it.

[locksmith]

Speaking of "no brainers" did you notice that I am also a "PADDY".

Are you saying that the Lawers and Tony R have brains or what the hell do you mean??

[FNG]

I have not joined this thread before, but was tempted to do so when Stik posted this morning. Evo beat me to it in offering to second E2G for the EC, if he or she wishes to rejoin and stand. Speaking as both a lawyer and a paddy (and PFA member), I'm somewhat miffed by the implications in nongpsuser's last post, but will let that go. I do not have sufficient information to comment on the affairs of the PFA, but support open debate, and trust Stik's judgment, so will also second the candidature if E2G wants it.

[Evo]

I figured that if Stik approved it was good enough for me, even if his choice of Pitts-paint is a bit dodgy. I guess if all else fails Stik and I can get together and nominate FNG...

[nongpsuser]

Look Tony R started this thread because they would not let him play on the PFA BB anymore. He may have been anoyed at the PFA because of the Adams case but if the PFA think that Adams did something wrong then why should they let him back as an Inspector.

JBQC gets hold of some info from the court case and from some "so called" EC member and he hammers the PFA because some member told a lie. and him (a Lawyer) worring about a lie.

Flying Lawyer comes from another direction to discredit the association because "one" member lost his temper and went to the CAA.

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THE REST OF YOU WHO BELEIVE THIS CRAP ARE "NO BRAINERS"

[aiglon]

Before I start, can I make it absolutely clear that I am NOT commenting on either of the main complaints that this thread seems to be about. I merely wish to offer my thoughts on whether or not it is right to complain.



I dont give a damm, but I DO want to have a PFA to permit my aircraft next year.

nongpsuser, I would suggest that it is people with attitudes like yours that are the real cause of the decline. Your approach seems to be "I've got what I want so don't rock the boat" regardless of whether what you end up with is actually worth having.

I don't fly a permit aircraft but I was a PFA member, for quite a few years; I was also a member of AOPA. At one time I actually began to feel that the PFA was the future for light aircraft GA (at least in the context of PFA v AOPA), they seemed to take a users view of the world and be prepared to stand up and be counted. Then I started to get disillusioned - can't really put my finger on why, maybe it was the silly debate over moving from Shoreham - anyway, I did not renew my membership. I was not sufficiently emotionally attached to the PFA to fight for it but neither was I so blindly dependent upon it that I was going to turn a blind eye.

AOPA was a different matter, I was also disillusioned with them but I tried fighting. In the end, I gave up because one individual was not prepared to enter into a debate on what was wrong. I did not want to quit AOPA but I was not prepared to turn a blind eye and pretend it was OK just because I "needed it" to represent me (moot point).

All of which rambling is my weary way of trying to say that if people feel strongly enough about what is wrong with the PFA then they absolutely should fight for it. Burying your head in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist just so the association doesn't collapse is actually a sure way to achieve exactly that result.

Aiglon

[A_Pommie]

I've tried to stay out of this because I can see no good coming from this thread but I'm fed up with this slagging off of the PFA.
Firstly I was in the north side Aircraft Park when the Extras were doing what they did. I'm not going to argue with FL over how high or how legal. I didn't comment at the time because I hoped it would all blow over.
I would like to ask how many people on this thread are current PFA members, how many have stood for election and how many actually show up and help out rather than whine how things would be better if they did it. So are you prepared to stand up and be counted.
I' the chairman of my local strut, not because I think I'll be any good but because it needs to be done. I have worked on all but one rally since 1989. The, I asked but they didn't want me excuse is pretty poor really, most struts look after a bit of the rally and always need more help. Even it's only a couple of hours on one day it all adds up.
If you don’t like the association then as a member you have the power to change it, if you can’t be bothered to help then do you really have the write to complain?

[TonyR]

nongpsuser,

Thanks for the complement.

If the PFA would tell us all what George did wrong instead of this "duty of care" ****e, we may understand the reason for them not re-instating him.

If the PFA would have answered the letters from members about the case then I would never have gone to the BB.

If the PFA would have read the petition from over 50 members here (in paddyland) requesting that George be re-instated.

If the PFA had not taken the word of a couple of liars then the case would never have come to court. (I was in court and heard them being exposed as liars).

If the PFA had listened to the engineering dept the case would not have come to court (remember the chief inspector was suspended for standing up for George)

Now don't start about the CAA taking the case anyway, the CAA got its info from the PFA.

If the PFA would stop looking up and covering each others arseholes then you might have a chance of getting this association on the rails again.

Tony Ringland (humble engineer and paddy)

[jbqc]

Nongpsuser

I would suggest that you go and get a GPS because you seem to be lost, and if you get too close to the EC you will be looking up their rear end and not seeing the road ahead.

JB (Lawyer, born Canada, live England, 1/2 Paddy)

[FAA Old timer]

Hey nongpsuser,

I don't suppose you are going to holiday in Ireland this year.

You got to be careful when you insult a paddy and remember there are more of us outside Ireland than in.

Do "you" have a name?

John Anderson (Born Lisburn, N Ireland, live US)