|
er... I hope you're not suggesting that the Mosquito and co. are somehow more worthy than a Vulcan are you?! |
Hi, Blacksheep. I couldn't agree more!!!!! Financing again would be the problem. I doubt that the HLF would want to be involved in a series of smaller projects though.
|
safely housed examples of the Vulcan
Three in the UK to be precise - not a great deal really. I doubt if there would be the same enthusiasm to support a project to get a Mosquito flying (it's not as if WWII isn't already well represented at air shows, is it?!) besides, Kermit Weeks already has one. As for being a "futile" attempt to keep the Vulcan flying for a few years, I don't think it was futile. The idea was sound, it's just been mismanaged very badly. |
Tim,
Firstly, I do applaud your brave and persistent efforts on behalf of the Vulcan to keep the discussion going on this forum. About a year or so ago I had the 'temerity' to question the viability of the project on this forum and was threatened with a ban (via pm) until I got the main pprune admins to intervene. So much for freedom of speech... Regarding your comments about the HLF, the problem is surely that it would cost a huge amount of time and money to have inspectors(?) who followed each and every project through to completion. Although it is the taxpayers' money, it is in effect going back to the taxpayer to use for the benefit of communities/interest groups/charities etc. Uncomfortable as it may be, I think you just have to trust the groups to complete their projects, and accept that human nature being what it is, some will fall by the wayside. Equally, you can't really expect the HLF to keep pouring money into a project until it is completed - this would clearly be unfair on the many projects who no doubt are refused funding in the first place. I think the only exception to this might be in the case of a public building (a museum perhaps) where it was half-finished and thus stood derelict for lack of funds. An old aircraft (IMHO) does not qualify. I must say I was amazed the Vulcan got HLF funding in the first place, considering the problems involved and the relatively small audience for it. |
I accept that HFL obviouly couldn't devote resources to constant monitoring of projects they've funded, but at present they seem to have gone to the other extreme. Having given TVOC a substantial amount of money, they now seem to be completely disassociated with the project.
But the most important point (as I keep trying to hammer-home) is that the money HLF gave will be wasted if the aircraft doesn't fly even for just a few years. It seems like complete stupidity to sit-back and allow the project to fail when, for the sake of a bit more money (and a tiny amount by HLF standards) they could see the project through and make the initial expenditure worthwhile. It really is that simple, and yet nobody seems to have had the good sense to pursue this matter with the HLF. People seem keen to create stupid petitions, pointless campaigns, futile fundraising pleas, endless silly hopes for sponsorship, and yet the key to solving the problem is staring them in the face. Why are people so scared of pressuring HLF? Just because HLF say they won't put any more money into the project? Why hasn't anyone got the enthusiasm to take-on this issue and raise public awareness of how ridiculous HLF's position is? It's our money and we have the right to demand that it's spent as we see fit, surely? Just because HLF says no, doesn't mean we should take that as being their final position - ultimately they don't have the right to simply dismiss things so easily. The longer this saga plods on, the more convinced I am that TVOC simply don't want to have HLF involved any more, for reasons which they want to keep to themselves. Likewise, it seems equally clear that people are perfectly happy to whine and moan on forums, and to click a box to sign a petition, but nobody is prepared to do anything which actually stands a chance of getting a result. For some reason, people seem to be scared of taking-on HLF and their stupid attitude, even though HLF should be accountable to us - the people who give them the money in the first place. As I've said before, HLF is the only option, it really is that simple. Everything else is a waste of time no matter how much people might argue otherwise. |
Why hasn't anyone got the enthusiasm to take-on this issue and raise public awareness of how ridiculous HLF's position is? It's our money and we have the right to demand that it's spent as we see fit, surely? No good supplying just the bullets is it...? |
So last year I made a request to the HLF under the FOI for some bits of information after an appeal to anyone for suggestions, this is what I received back, unedited:
Dear Mr Charlton, Thank you for your email. We are in the process of consulting with the applicant to ascertain whether there is any commercial information contained in the application forms that it would not be proper for us to release. In the interim we are aware it has been a little while, and therefore thought it was better to respond on these other questions as quickly as possible; and that if you are able to give us a steer on any particular information from the application form that you are interested in, we may be able to pull that out more quickly. In relation to this specific query, to start with perhaps I could provide with the following information for each of the various applications: HF-01-00951 - Vulcan to the Sky - Rejected Vulcan to the Sky NHMF 2002 (9) 10 DECISION: REJECT Vulcan to the Sky Limited sought a grant of £2,500,000 (57% of eligible costs) to purchase and restore the Avro Vulcan XH558, to fly at air shows in the UK. Expert advice and officers’ advice was not supportive. The aircraft was in good condition for static display and not at risk, and while possibly the only one that could be restored to flying condition there were 20 presently in preservation. Its maximum permitted flying life if the project was approved would be 5 to 8 years. The Board noted that the restoration of aircraft to flying condition was a low priority for HLF funding, primarily because of the flying risks, but agreed that exception to this could be made on the basis of the merits of individual applications. However, they agreed that, in view of the short flying life of the aircraft, the heritage and public benefits would be insufficient to provide value for money for the grant sought. The Board rejected the application, on the grounds of (1) low priority, and (2) poor value for money for HLF funding. HG-03-00079/1 - Vulcan To the Sky - Approved Vulcan to the Sky; HG-03-00079/1 HLF 2003 (11) 14 DECISION: STAGE ONE PASS (£2,497,000; 61%) In November 2002, the Board had rejected an application by Vulcan to the Sky Trust for a grant of £2,500,000 to purchase a Vulcan ZH558, carry out a major maintenance programme, and return it to flight. The decision had been based on the low priority of restoring aircraft to flying condition and poor value for money. The project had since been revised, with the Trust now seeking a Stage One Pass of £2,497,000, the aircraft having now been valued at £125,000. The revised project had addressed the risk involved in returning aircraft to flying condition. Undertakings had been obtained from BAE Systems and the Civil Aviation Authority on their involvement in managing risk and ensuring airworthiness. The risk was now believed to be no greater than for any commercially operated aircraft licensed to carry passengers. The Board agreed that, in view of the low risk and that fact that several other Vulcan aircraft existed, a grant might be awarded subject to conditions including suitable insurance and an evaluation programme. It was agreed that other grants to restore aircraft to flight would not be considered until the results of the evaluation were known. The revised project had also addressed value for money concerns and developed public and educational benefits. The aircraft would now be displayed at various shows around the country over a longer period. Although some Trustees were concerned that the public benefits would still only last for a relatively short period of time, others were persuaded by the increased public enjoyment of the sight of this particular aircraft in flight. Although the Royal Air Force was not providing a cash contribution towards the project, the Vulcan would be flown by RAF crew who would provide training for others. At the end of its flying life, it would be transferred to the Imperial War Museum’s collection at Duxford for display and taxi run demonstrations. Links with Duxford were already being forged. The Board noted that the specific issues raised when the previous application was rejected had been addressed, and the support for the project from local people, volunteers, and the Committee for the East Midlands. The Board agreed the application was a high priority for funding. They approved a Stage One Pass of £2,497,000 (61% of eligible costs), subject to the following conditions: - The Trust should submit with their Stage Two application for HLF approval a plan detailing all the access, interpretation and education programmes and materials for the first year of operation plus a strategy for the next four years; this should included details of staffing, measurable targets, and links with partner organisations. - The Trust should also devise and implement an evaluation strategy for measuring the benefits delivered through this programme, and through the presence of the Vulcan at events where it would fly. The results from would need to be shared with HLF on a regular basis. - The Trust should have in place adequate insurance to be able to repay HLF grants should any loss or damage be sustained by the aircraft during its flying life. 20 Vulcan to the Sky; HG-03-00079/2 HLF 2004 (6) 20 DECISION: AWARD GRANT OF £2,734,000 (63%) (INCLUDING UPLIFT OF £238,000 ON STAGE ONE PASS) In December 2003 the Board had approved a Stage One Pass with a view to a grant of £2,497,000 towards an application by the Vulcan to the Sky Trust to restore a Vulcan A-bomber to flight, to allow it to be displayed throughout the country over its remaining 10 to 15 years flying life, after which it would retire to Duxford to become the centre of their Cold War exhibition. The Trust had addressed the Stage One requirements by producing education, access and interpretation plans and a project evaluation strategy. An uplift of £238,000 was sought to cover an increased rental charge for the hangar. Expert advice was supportive. The Board agreed it was a high priority for funding, and awarded a grant of £2,734,000 (63% of revised eligible costs), subject to the special conditions as recommended. 3. HLF has had no requests, formal or informal, for further funding. 2 & 4. HLF monitors all large projects to ensure that the approved purposes are achieved and that Lottery money is properly spent. When projects are awarded a grant a monitor is appointed. A monitor was appointed to the Vulcan project and has been closely involved in overseeing the project on behalf of HLF since the grant was awarded. The monitor's role is to oversee the project on behalf of HLF, visit the project regularly, examine progress on the works involved, all expenditure and invoices and scrutinise project management. The monitor provides us with regular reports on the project's progress and any requests to drawdown money. Should the monitoring process highlight any problems or concerns, HLF's case officer will meet the grantees with the monitor and agree ways of resolving the issues. Similarly, we have a great deal of monitoring paperwork, some of which we may not be able to release (most likely, given the financial reporting made, because of a commercial confidentiality) and in any case not without consulting with the grantee to ascertain this. Again, if you are able to be more specific in defining your interest in any way I can probably respond to that more promptly. HLF appointed a monitor in January 2005 to monitor and oversee the Vulcan restoration project. The monitor has held and continues to hold monthly on-site meetings with the grantees. Monitoring concentrates on the grantees’ mobilisation on site and all works undertaken as part of the grantee’. This covers scrutiny of : 1. Acquisition of the aircraft 2. Taking a legal charge over the aircraft 3. Acquisition of the hangar lease 4. Completion of the main works supplier’s contracts and indemnities 5. Completion of contracts and indemnities with sub-contractors 6. Establishing Original Equipment Manufacturers contribution to the project 7. Completion of Aircraft hull insurance 8. Compliance with CAA rules for the major overhaul back to flight 9. Compliance with the CAA registration process 10. Fundraising programme development and progress 11. Education programme development and implementation 12. Drawing down HLF grant – monthly requests with full documentation 13. Initiation and regular review of Management Information System 14. Cost Plan and Risk Management Plan initiation and reviews 15. Staff recruitment and employment 16. Arrangements for post-flight housing and display The monitor provides a full progress report to HLF each month. The report covers all of the above aspects of the project, highlights any problems or issues that need to be resolved and advises whether further funding should be released. |
You seem to be the one doing all the talking and constantly badgering other people to do what YOU think is right. So, what are you waiting for?
Suggest you read previous posts before commenting. I already said that I tried, a long time ago, but nobody was interested in helping us. But thanks for the pointless snipe;) |
Andrew, I'm inclined to think that HLF's monitor doesn't actually do much monitoring. A cynic would think that he merely ticks boxes and collects his wage from HLF...
However, the most interesting line is:- 3. HLF has had no requests, formal or informal, for further funding. So, after all this wringing of hands and all the last-ditch pleas for money, TVOC haven't even bothered to ask for any more money? Oh dear... |
I was pretty surprised at that response too. I don't recallthe exact appeal message but I recall reading one and the implication, if indirect, was that traditional lines of finance had been exhausted hence the pass the hat appeal, i.e. asked and refused. It does seem that unless something has been done since this FOI reply was filled out, that they didn't even ask for further help.
|
It's quite absurd isn't it? If you read the endless threads on various sites, you ocassionally see HLF mentioned and everyone immediately dismisses the notion of seeking more money from HLF, usually with the throw-away comment that HLF are unwilling to provide any more funding - as if the idea had been explored. But when you read things like your response from HLF, it suggests that TVOC haven't even bothered to ask.
Madness, complete madness. |
This is a dire state of affairs and I am sure others on here, irrespective of views, would wish that your hard graft and commitment were not lost to the project.
It would be nice to think that someone at TVOC would read this and respond, not neccessarily to specific points you raise but in generality as it is symptomatic of a disconnected leadership not just from the donors but from their volunteers. Very sad and thank you for your contribution, enjoy a lie in. |
I agree with Andrew - good that someone within the team is willing to say what they think and I hope it encourages more to do the same before the people running this project grind it into the ground completely.
|
I sincerely hope the posts are not removed - it would be nice to think that Pprune, alone amongst the range of enthusiast sites and aviation magazines, could actually discuss the realities of this project, rather than wasting time on the usual pointless chat found elsewhere. It's refreshing to hear from someone who has actually been involved and I hope that others will come forward too and say what they think. It's pretty clear that the TVOC management have no intention of saying anything of any significance to anyone unless - or until - they're forced to.
|
Not sure why the post should be remnoved, it's about the most valid and straight talking one we've had to date, keep it up.
|
Why doesn't that surprise me?!
I know from experience that TVOC only communicate with people when they want to, and as soon as they can't be bothered or when they think someone might be inclined to ask some difficult questions, the lines of communications go dead. It's a sorry business. I'm glad that you've said what you think and I hope others do the same too. I don't know why everyone seems to be so reluctant to point the proverbial finger at TVOC's management - maybe it's some sort of fear that if too many questions are asked then the whole project might come tumbling down? But let's face it, I think we've reached a stage where it's starting to topple in any case so if there's anything we can do to prevent things becoming even more dire then let's do it, don't you think? Surely, we have the opportunity here on Pprune to gather the "serious" people together and combine our talents in order that we can demand some sensible dialogue with TVOC and/or HLF? If we don't then who the hell will? |
Strange this. I have also had a post removed from the TVOC site very recently: mild and inoffensive, it was intended to provoke a response to topical concerns. Hard to understand.
|
I haven't posted on here for a while but thought it a real shame reading what's been posted on the last few posts.
as one who has been greatly despised (to some toe-curling degree I hasten to add!) by TVOC management for a considerable time, due to my voicing my own grave concerns about the management of the project since October 2007, it would be all too easy to simply say "I told you so!" Not quite though. what brunty558 has said, several of us have known for quite a while, along with a lot of other stuff. However, it's a great pity that it's 'come to light' now, as this is the first time in quite a while that I personally have felt positive about 558's future. I know that seems daft, given the current financial situation and the Sword of Damocles hanging over 558, but my reasoning is actually very simple - the new management structure! Various things that I have been working on for over a year are finally beginning to bear fruit, with respect to publicity and funding for 558. Putting it into plain English, Rusty's departure is the best thing to happen in a long long time; she was a completely disorganised and counterproductive control-freak, determined to have her fingers in every pie, whether it was the concern of the Commercial Manager or not. I had many spats with her, usually resulting in her editing or deleting my posts on the forum and even various threats of legal action (to which i always replied "bring it on!") All to try and silence me and promote her own version of the truth. The more I learned about her 'management style' the more I realised just how much she (and a few others) were getting away with and the resulting mess that TVOC certainly was. Now her role has been re-ordered and filled by someone who actually seems to 'get it'! Hallelujah! my emails now get answered promptly, telephone calls happen as planned and finally it appears that there IS someone at the helm that GENUINELY thinks of 558 as OUR aeroplane, with many valuable supporters who have good ideas! That, believe me, is a completely new concept for TVOC! my only caveat to all of that is that 'things' got too far down the slope for too long - so much so that the new structure and people will have a much harder task than they might have had six or twelve months ago; so much damage has been done. If things continue in the positive way that they have shown so far, there are certain people whose faces simply won't fit anymore - by default. Thus the transformation will be complete! seeing things slide further and further down the slippery slope over the past few months, I really never thought I'd hear myself saying this but things ARE looking better, little bit by little bit. I'm a long way off shouting the sickening "Keep the Faith" battle-cry, but I now have far more confidence in the management than at any time in the past. brunty558, thanks for the stalwart effort and support you've given over the months and years - I'm sorry that you've been driven to your decision, but I genuinely hope that I'm proved right in the medium term and you can possibly reconsider in the future. sm |
What are your thoughts on the new "Press office"? I haven't seen so much as a single word from them (him?) as yet.
What exactly is happening on the TVOC forum? Is anything of any relevance being said or is it just the usual pointless banter? More importantly, have TVOC actually said anything about how things really are progressing (or not)? And, most importantly, has anything been said about HLF? I assume not? |
I can't answer you in any official capacity, but...
press office I have been speaking with him for more than 18 months and I can't think of anyone better to be given the task to be honest. the fact that he is (not meaning to sound condescending!) 'only' a club member - a very conscientious one at that - is significant in itself. he has shared my own concerns for some time and approached TVOC directly at the start of 2007 to offer his not-inconsiderable services. we have discussed several things over the months and bounced ideas off each other - i know that he is keen, motivated and effective, but bear in mind that he will only ever be as good as the information that he is given! it also brings the club activities closer to TVOC - another thing which was long overdue - it has appeared for too long that they were both on opposing sides! don't forget that anything is better than the wall of silence that so many of us screamed and shouted about not so many months ago. forum I haven't looked myself for a wee while, but I am aware that there are a few squabbles going on at present. I can't say much about the banter really as I've been an instigator of much of it myself!:} what I think should be realised though is that there is nowhere near as much genuine 558 stuff as there was two years ago - for obvious reasons. what is good about it though is that it still represents a valuable 'place' for 558's core supporters to chat - without that the project would have died a long time ago. Rusty & Co never appreciated just how indispensible the forum is for continued core support. progress again, I think that there is very little to report. I know that there are some feverish goings-on in the background to get things organised - particularly with respect to finances/creditors etc. the 'new team' certainly did as promised before Christmas and published the figures that we have begged and begged and begged for. I know from my own conversations that this was considered long overdue, and the general 'sweep it under the carpet' routine has been reversed as a matter of urgency. I personally don't expect to hear much in the short term, so I won't be disappointed if we don't! HLF what were you hoping for? as far as I'm aware, the HLF involvement is done and dusted. I think it foolhardy for anyone to assume that they have any control over 558; the HLF have given millions to countless causes that have fallen by the wayside. I'm no HLF expert by any means, but I think that those three letters have to be forgotten about - unless of course another application is made, but that's a different matter entirely! overall, as long as we can all sit tight and see 558 through this current hiatus, she stands a much better chance of displaying this year that she did this time last year! cracks appeared a long time ago - they went unchecked and steadily became gaping chasms, despite some very conserted efforts from the supporters to keep it going. now there is a very real chance of fixing these, but with a small pallette knife and a tiny tub of Polyfila, it won't happen overnight! sm |
Thanks for the very full reply - good to finally be getting down to some serious discussion at last!
Press office - well I would agree that he will only be as good as the information he's given, but I hope that doesn't mean that he's going to simply act as a "mouthpiece" for the rest of the team. Heaven-forbid that the management found yet another excuse to avoid actually communicating with anyone! Does this also mean that if/when he is approched with new ideas to help TVOC, the offers won't simply be ignored now? I very much hope so. However, my main worry is that I haven't seen the new "press office" translate into any press coverage anywhere. I hope that whoever the guy is, he understands that a press officer has to be proactive not merely reactive. Forum - Oh wel 'nuff said. I agree that the forum serves a useful purpose in enabling supporters to talk to each other but in a wider sense, I doubt if it's had any effect on the amount of money going into the programme. In fact I worry slightly that reading endless squabbles over nothing actually deters people from making dontaions! Progress - I'm not quite so convinced that everything's fine. I think Dr.Pleming has made it very clear that there's a serious shortfall of money still outstanding so unless this money looks like being found (and I assume that it doesn't look like being found?) then I don't see much to be enthusiastic about? Fundamentally, no matter what changes might or might not be made to TVOC, if ther money still isn't there, it's a waste of time. HLF - Well, as I've said in previous posts, HLF is the only obvious way in which longer-term funding for the aircraft could be secured. As you say, the HLF involvement appears to be "done and dusted" which seems - to put it mildly - completely crazy! Surely, if TVOC are doing anything worthwhile to seriously find funding, then they should be putting a lot of effort into trying to persuade HLF to provide it. I've already explained why, and if they haven't done that, then surely it's time that someone was asking them why not? Oh well, the saga continues... |
I have not posted for a while but have been keeping an eye on things and too tell you the truth am amazed it is this close too collapse and still people are backing the management (sorry SM). Yes Rusty was a complete control freak but was certainley not just her with an air of arrogance and a self centred approach too the project, and those people are still there. I feel really sorry for the volunteers I know many of them travelled miles a few times a week and were owned hundreds of pounds in petrol money while the management swanned about in the tri-becas at the weekend wasting precious money. As for Pleming this is a man who said that he never looks at forums as they are a waste of time maybe its time you changed your tune Bob and really quickly because you have f****d up big time. These are the people who with enough belief could save your sorry ass. If it does all go pear shaped then I hope the management could be held responsible, the mismangement, deciept and lies on all levels beggars belief. How you can sell things on ebay with a certificate of authenticity too say its from 558 when its not, how you can take a mans half million pounds he has given to save the vulcan and then the first thing you do is buy half a dozen brand new lap tops for the management, how you can lie to the seat fitting team that Martin Baker said the seats were safe too fit and put engineers and flight crews lives at risk, all of this and so much more makes me sick. I know this will probably be deleted in 30 seconds flat, but I feel so much better now. DG
|
Well said DG.
It seems the truth will out eventually. I know Dr P probably isn't a reader of the forums as last year, whenever it was, I emailed him and he called me back and we chatted for an hour or so. I know he does care passionately about the project but I am not persuaded he is the right man to be a leader of the project. That's not a personal attack by the way simply a realistic observation based on many years in business. HLF seem to be out of the frame, presumeably on the basis that money has been spent and they haven't a major ongoing role so it seems it is down to donors / supporters as the last stakeholders. |
My rudimentary understanding of HLF funding:
Any group/charity/organisation that qualifies for HLF backing do so on the understanding that it’s a ONE OFF payment and not a source of regular funding/income. Basically they will give you the money to get your project off the ground but will NOT provide the finances to keep operating on a weekly/monthly/yearly basis. Why should HLF bail out 558. As has been said they have funded other projects that have gone tits up why should 558 be any different she’ll fly again just you watch. Brad |
I'm not sure anyone is actually suggesting an HLF bail out.
The question is do they have any continuing oversight and should TVOC make any second approach formally, even if as you say HLF decide not to oblige. |
Why should HLF bail out 558
I've already explained previously. Surely, having donated a hefty amount of cash to the project, it will be recognised as having been spent for nothing if the aircraft doesn't fly again (or doesn't fly for more than a few weeks). The HLF donation will be seen (quite rightly) as a waste of Lottery buyer's money. Clearly, HLF have a golden opportunity to preserve the value of their original donation by giving a bit more cash - peanuts as far as their budgets are concerned, but it would be enough to ensure that the money they have already spent has been worthwhile. Anyone can see the logic of this argument? It's easy to say that HLF have rules about one-off donations, rules about this or that, but it doesn't matter. The rules are meaningless as they're self-imposed and can be changed as quickly as they were implemented in the first place. Ultimately, HLF money is our money and we have a perfect right to see it spent as we see fit. If HLF have any objections to spending a bit more on 558 then let's hear what their reasons are. If the reasons aren't plausible (particularly if they use their own self-imposed rules to wriggle-out) then it's up to us to go to the Government ministers responsible, as they obviously have the power to dictate what HLF does or doesn't do. Simply rolling-over and taking no for an answer is precisely the sort of attitude that public bodies love. However, the important point to remember is that (according to HLF's letter to Andrew) they haven't even been asked! So, while Pleming keeps whining about last chances, and begging school kids to dig into their pocket money (presumably to finance another laptop or two), he has failed to pursue the most obvious means of securing finance for the aircraft. It's absolutely ludicrous! What is his reason for not approaching HLF? Presumably he must either think that they would say no (but why didn't he at least ask and fight the decision - that's his job isn't it?), or he simply couldn't be bothered to find out. They can be the only possible reasons, unless he specifically doesn't want to have HLF involved again - why would that be? Because TVOC haven't met the terms of the original donation? Sorry, but this saga is just completely ridiculous. We've listened to the garbage about no sponsors appearing (even though Pleming intimated that they were figuratively queueing-up to come forward) and how we're expected to dig into our pockets, as if having a "whip-round" is ever going to solve the problem. And yet, the one obvious source of reliable money for the aircraft hasn't even been pursued... and people wonder why I think TVOC's management are a joke?! |
just to clarify what i meant by "done and dusted" - the HLF grant, in simple terms, was given for 558's restoration to flight As is obvious, that has been done. The fact that the grant was secured predominantly on the basis of TVOC's Education Programme, and whether that part of the deal has been fulfilled adequately seems to me to be something of a moot point. In my own opinion, the Education Programme has, to date, been a joke - little more than ticking HLF's box.
I have personally been banging on about it being the very core of TVOC's efforts, to significantly boost support across the board. I won't say that I've been a lone voice on this, but until very recently no-one at Brunty seemed to 'get it' whether part of the HLF's remit is to smack TVOC's wrists for not dealing with the education, i really don't know - but i very much doubt it. I'm pretty certain though, that for HLF to come to the rescue now would require a new application, which would take far longer to achieve that we've realistically got! Even then, there's no guarantee of success anyway. Not sure what you meant Tim about the forum's value; it could be read either way. Even so, we as a group (the forum members) have achieved incredible success, particularly saving the day back in February 2008 when the project was near collapse. Not that it seemed fully appreciated at the time by the management, but without us 558 would never have had a second test flight! DG - no need to apologise! I completely agree, particularly with respect to Dr. Pleming - the buck stops with him and should never have allowed certain people to screw things up for so long. It was clear to me that whatever management structure was supposed to be in place back then was an absolute joke - a ship adrift in rough seas with no-one at the helm. Certainly Dr. P is still there, but my understanding of the new management structure is such that TVOC are now more than capable of running things in the way that they should have been long ago, irrespective of Dr. P The disorganisation was almost institutional, with many of TVOC believing their own hype - the main protagonist in this respect was Rusty, in my opinion. Now that she has gone, killing off the rest of the rot will be somewhat simpler i feel. I'm not trying to say that all is fantastic at Brunty, as there is a lot more to be done yet, but the main difference now is that the shortcomings have finally been admitted (it used to be "we're wonderful - go away!") and that things are already being done to address the problems. a long way to go, but all the right noises seem to be coming from all the right places - at long last! sm |
I hope you're right, but regardless of whatever "noises" TVOC now make, would we be correct in assuming that no new sources of money have been found? If so, I can only refer back to the contents of my previous post - TVOC's activities and attitude (be it good or bad) is of no significance if no money has been found. That's the key point that we need to be addressing, surely, and that's why I keep banging-on about HLF. Do you think TVOC have approached HLF since Andrew's letter, or do you think they ever will? If not, do you agree that they're missing the only plausible chance (and I accept it is a chance - but easily the best one) of finding the money that's needed?
|
again, i can't answer definitively in an official capacity but i do know that the main efforts at present are one step 'before' any new source of money; as we all know, TVOC are in debt and i know that Michael Trotter has moved mountains to keep the creditors 'sweet' - aka keeping the wolf from the door.
to owe someone a lot of money and then be able to bang on their door and encourage them to become a supporter of the very cause that has cost them money is astonishing! I'm sure many of you know that I've been banging on about cost cutting measures for months - what's the point in raising extra income if it's simply haemorrhaging from every pore. From what i know, this is in hand - just a shame that it wasn't dealt with long ago! but that's the story of this whole project really isnt it! sm |
Indeed, if you go back over past threads, I've done my fair share of carping about that too! I know from the people who have told me in confidence that a huge amount of cash has been wasted over the years, and that doesn't even include more well-known sagas like the cost of hangarage (which might well have still been free of charge had it not been for one person), and so on.
The way that so many people have been figuratively kissing TVOC's proverbial butt has been almost sickening at times. Sure, they got the aircraft back into the air but so what? Anybody could have done the same management and PR job, and probably more effectively and less expensively. It's time that people accepted this and stopped treating TVOC (and by that I mean the management - not the engineers and the people who do the real work) as if they're somehow beyond reproach. They've spent our money, and lots of it. |
Thought HLF said that they will not pay for an aircraft to fly, but can pay for its restoration to flight, if HLF pay more money out to 558 then they should have bailed out every other scheme they funded and then went tits up.
You cant have one rule for one and one rule for another. Whats more important paying for one aircraft (of which a dozen of the same type are preserved on the ground) to fly or saving the last of the great tea clippers or preserving a great building that has much more significant heritage value to the nation? Sorry but 558 would ot get my vote, I cant see her being ground after one poor season she will fly again mark my words. |
Splashdown - I don't disagree with any of your comments but at the same time, you must be able to see that a contrary position is just as valid?
It's really about how you perceive the HLF payments. If you regard a further payment as "bailing out" that's one thing, whereas "making additional expenditure in order to ensure that the first payment wasn't entirely wasted", is another thing. As for having one rule for one thing and another for another, simple answer is that you can have any rules you like! As I've said, it's our money, and HLF might think it's acceptable to hide behind self-imposed rules, but rules can be changed when necessary - that's what our MP's are for. But we're assuming we know what HLF's position is - seems they've never even been asked! And as for judging whether 558 is more or less significant than any other artefact, well obviously it's subjective and it's irrelevant. Point is, the money needed is nothing as far as HLF is concerned so surely it's a simple case of asking whether they think it's acceptable to throw-away money, or simply pay a bit more to justify the first payment? Cornerstone, I think "fraud" would be pushing it! It's not about fraud, it's about wasting huge sums of money and "milking" a project for money which could have gone on more important things. It's not illegal but in view of the nature of the project, I think it's just as objectionable. |
funnily enough, despite respecting and agreeing with everything that the likes of DG and brunty558 have said, i still find it difficult to believe that there has been any milking/wastage/diversion of funding undertaken intentionally
whilst I'm not Dr. P's greatest fan, you can't ignore that it was he that got the ball rolling in the first place with nothing in the bank and very little else. similarly, the whole team certainly have put in the hours etc - some more than others - i don't question any of TVOC's employees' dedication, intentions or motives at all, just their managerial acumen! what i personally think happened is that (probably when the HLF money came in) the whole project out-grew the abilities of those managers in place at the time. in the bear-pit that is business and commerce, failing to realise one's own limitations is a fundamental mistake - simply giving a position to someone who'd previously been doing it for free is not the way to employ the most efficient workforce. TVOC's employment decisions have looked somewhat nepotistic to say the least! i also see TVOC as having tried very hard to be the truly modern and professional streamlined outfit that they realised that they needed to be to get 558 back in the air again; the trouble was that it was a very flimsy veneer of professionalism stretched thinly over a very amateur core. again, by the nature of the limited funds etc, no-one could expect TVOC to have hired the likes of Gerry Robinson - you can't lead a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget; but again that is precisely where limitations have to realised from day one. sadly sponsors are rather good at seeing through such thin veneers. sure, the 'credit crunch' wasn't exactly helpful, but have we seen a lack of adverts on TV? is there suddenly a swathe of corporate sponsors tearing up their agreements with football clubs and such like? again, a very convenient hook upon which TVOC could hang their shortcomings without appreciating the core problems unfortunately TVOC very evidently ignored and wasted so many 'human assets' that were at their disposal - a massive mistake in my opinion as there were so many skilled people who offered their services and never even got a reply. it's little wonder that a general attitude existed among supporters that TVOC saw 558 as their aeroplane - that is until the coffers ran dry, at which point the "peoples' aeroplane" line was again trotted out! lastly, due to the passion for 558 of a vast number of people (OEMS, contractors, creditors, supporters etc) TVOC management bathed in the glory of so many unsung people and organisations, without whom 558 would still be a box of bits on a hangar floor. in short, they believed their own hype and genuinely couldn't understand why anyone could have anything bad to say about them; "we made the Vulcan fly therefore we are better than sliced bread" thankfully, that is in the past - largely. certainly some of the old team remain, but I'm sure that the recent changes will either force those to 'step up to the plate' or they will simply be left behind. there are two or three employees at Brunty that have been very much in the background for a long time; they were always kept firmly under the iron fist that was Rusty, but i know that they always 'got it' even if she didn't. I'd put money on them now coming forward and being allowed to shine for the first time. in a recent conversation with one of the management team (since the re-org at Brunty) i heard a very encouraging comment - "the problem has been that everyone wanted to be the one single person that saved 558; it can't work like that, it's a team effort" - hit the nail on the head there me thinks - at last, someone is capable of looking in the proverbial mirror without ignoring the warts and boils! as I've said before, all good and encouraging noises which would've been nice to hear some months ago, but that was then and this is now - better late than never. skin of teeth maybe, but this is encouraging - stormy seas still, but no longer is the pilot-less ship adrift. sm |
SM
I have not been around for very long but I think you make some very good points , SM Quote...should never have allowed certain people to screw things up for so long. Care to name names? SM Quote... Even so, we as a group (the forum members) have achieved incredible success, particularly saving the day back in February 2008 when the project was near collapse. Not that it seemed fully appreciated at the time by the management, but without us 558 would never have had a second test flight! As I say I haven't been around long, what happened in Feb 2008?? SM Quote... Certainly Dr. P is still there, but my understanding of the new management structure is such that TVOC are now more than capable of running things in the way that they should have been long ago, irrespective of Dr. P Can you tell us what/who is the "New Management Structure" composed of ? SM Quote...killing off the rest of the rot will be somewhat simpler i feel. To whome do you refer here?? :confused: |
find it difficult to believe that there has been any milking/wastage/diversion of funding undertaken intentionally
I don't find it difficult at all when people on the team have told me of specific cases where lots of money (and I mean thousands, not a few bob) has been wasted on "expenses" and on costs which could have been avoided if certain individuals hadn't acted irresponsibly. As for the notion that Pleming deserves credit for "getting the ball rolling" I just don't see how. Big deal - there must be countless people (particularly former RAF Vulcan people) who could have done the job, and probably done it more successfully and much less expensively - probably for free in fact. Are we really buying into the notion that managing the restoration and operation of one aircraft requires a salaried full-time position? What rubbish! Likewise I don't see how getting an HLF grant, and a gratuitous donation from a well-wisher is a great achievement at all. It's hardly ground-breaking stuff, is it? But it's pointless dwelling of the way the project has been handled. It's what happens now that worries me. Didn't Pleming say that unless the latest pile of dosh dropped on his desk by the end of this week, that would be the end of it? Or was this just another of his regular "last chance" announcements? Will TVOC try and go back to HLF and seek their support? I suspect not. If they don't though, I fail to see what other options they have. Can anybody seriously think of one? Seriously? No, me neither. One other thought - when you dig through the whole TVOC set-up, who, precisely, actually owns the aircraft now? I think that might be a fundamental point which ought to be established. |
Incidentally Saracen, regarding the whole sponsorship saga, my view is that the whole notion of gaining major sponsorship was a non-starter right from the beginning. I know Pleming insisted it could (and would) happen but his pronouncements have been seen to be worthless. I don't buy the notion that sponsors were ever lining-up to finance the aircraft. The credit crunch is merely a convenient excuse.
I accept that donations (and major ones) were always a possibility but sponsorship? Nope. It's not about recognising TVOC's professionalism (or lack of it), it's about recognising a valuable sponsorship asset. The Vulcan never was one, simple as that. It's fine for plane spotters to get excited about seeing 558 at an air show but a major company couldn't possibly care less. Why would they have the slightest interest in promoting their company to an air show audience? More to the point, how would a company get any return on their investment at all? They can't (thank heavens) paint their company colours on the aircraft, so what can they expect in return for their money? A "sponsored by..." comment from Sean Maffet over an air show PA system? Big deal! The whole idea is ludicrous. There was always the hope that some big players might finance the aircraft as a one-off goodwill donation - one person did of course. But it's pretty clear that there ain't any more on the horizon. This is why I keep banging-on about HLF. What other straw is there to cling to? Surely, nobody seriously believes that individual donations from enthusiasts is going to keep the aircraft flying? |
...is there suddenly a swathe of corporate sponsors tearing up their agreements with football clubs and such like? |
Saracenman, I think you're very close to hitting the nail on the head.
Tim, I klnow you've got the bit between your teeth and fair enough, but I don't seriously think anyone has deliberately wasted money. You might very well have a fundemental disagreement over how it was spent etc and justifiably object to their spending on cetain people or items but thats very like the "F" word mentioned a few posts ago to suggest it was deliberately misspent. Anyhoo, isn't the gist of the last few excellent posts that leadership has been lacking and it would be good to know how / if it has really changed and is it too late. On the basis Dr P was good enough to speak to me once before, maybe I should write to him again and see if the answers vary and hear it from the horses mouth rather than all this supposition unless someone else wishes to. Any better ideas? |
Naming names
where appropriate i have done so, where inappropriate i have omitted names - intentionally. February 2008 a public announcement made by the VTST Chairman Keith Mans that if adequate funding was not found by the 31st March 2008, the project would be wound up. it was nothing more than a statement; no plea for we club/forum members to actually do anything other than donate. a few of us put some considerable time into a hugely successful publicity campaign regarding 558's plight (in particular an email campaign which was a forum incentive) in less than three weeks, the funds were found, club membership doubled (something which has not occurred since), fantastic press coverage and even a Parliamentary Early Day Motion. we unquestionably saved 558 at that time and enabled the test flight programme to proceed. Structure again, I'm not in any official capacity to give a full flow-diagram of the 'new-look' TVOC but i am aware that the whole project has been compartmentalised into three specific areas, with a clearly defined 'line of command' for each. whereas before, the stock answer to a problem was usually "well if i had been aware then i would've done something about it" - no more! everyone knows what their defined role is, who reports to them etc etc - just like any other organisation Other Tim McLelland - i too have spoken to many people involved directly with 558 and i do agree that vast amounts have been wasted. this however does not equate to an institutionalised attitude of "wow, this Vulcan project is a fab opportunity to line my own pockets and deceive the public!" i struggle to think of one single TVOC employee who had a thought like that! ineptitude, inefficiency and poor management are a far cry from criminal behaviour! i agree about the sponsorship problems - the fact is that there was never really anything that they would get for their money. i think that sponsorship will come, once the whole project is given a proper focus, and that they can be seen to be a properly organised and managed organisation. Tim McLelland - there's a gulf of difference between those that can do something and those that actually get down and do it! Dr. P did start the ball rolling and achieved something quite remarkable in that, in a sea of people who said that the CAA would never allow a complex ex-mil jet to fly in civvy hands, looked at the facts and said "well there's nowhere that says it can't be done!" Long before any restoration started, Dr P managed to gather the required support from OEMS etc - not an inconsiderable achievement when you realise the complexity of what was involved. i have a huge respect for what he achieved in that respect but i seriously question his abilities as a manager and project-leader Blacksheep - point taken! i don't follow football so it was probably not the best analogy, but I'm sure you take my point anyway! :p sm |
I struggle to think of one single TVOC employee who had a thought like that!
Well, for example, a one-day business trip (in the UK) equating to expenses of £7,000? Hmmm... Anyway, Andrew, go for it! Would be fascinating to see what response you get (if any). |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:24. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.