Light Aircraft Strikes Fin on Cable During PFL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, Scotavia.
I do realise that - but if my Nimrod aircrew contacts are correct the "cheaper" element of flying is only available to serving RAF personnel. Is that correct?
It would be interesting to know what the cost differntials are and how the "cheaper" RAF personnel rates are funded.
Perhaps as a civilian member you can tell us?
I do realise that - but if my Nimrod aircrew contacts are correct the "cheaper" element of flying is only available to serving RAF personnel. Is that correct?
It would be interesting to know what the cost differntials are and how the "cheaper" RAF personnel rates are funded.
Perhaps as a civilian member you can tell us?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=painter34]
[ You maintained throughout that your aim was only to promote safe flying, however on more than one occasion you used words such as 'bully' to describe this individual. ]
If somone is a bit of a bully does that make the other party less likely to challenge their actions decisions or authority? I would say so. And this has been a contributory factor in past accidents and incidents. So layoff painter, get someone else's playground crisps
[ You maintained throughout that your aim was only to promote safe flying, however on more than one occasion you used words such as 'bully' to describe this individual. ]
If somone is a bit of a bully does that make the other party less likely to challenge their actions decisions or authority? I would say so. And this has been a contributory factor in past accidents and incidents. So layoff painter, get someone else's playground crisps
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would the lot of you get a grip.
The person I feel sorry for is the poor sod that has got the secondary duty of over seeing this sorry mess.
I have never been and will never be a member of the club. And most will have met me and spoken to me if they have been on the pigeon trophy over the last few years (the fat tall good looking instructor flipping burgers, instead of short fat ugly looking instructor or thin instructors)
This crap has been going on for years. Every time you speak to someone you hear "well we have got him this time" be it VAT or kiting out an aircraft or whatever. And the other stuff which I am not going to repeat on PPrune. And to be honest I don't think its solely due to the club members there are alot of other people in the area who would like to see his down fall.
If the RAF chaps really don't want civi club members and don't want perm staff members, deal with it and make your views known to the powers that be. Its your club your airfield your pack of cards.
The civi's wind your bloody knecks in and shut up. Your are there under sufferance if you create to much hassel the whole lot could be chucked.
The person I feel sorry for is the poor sod that has got the secondary duty of over seeing this sorry mess.
I have never been and will never be a member of the club. And most will have met me and spoken to me if they have been on the pigeon trophy over the last few years (the fat tall good looking instructor flipping burgers, instead of short fat ugly looking instructor or thin instructors)
This crap has been going on for years. Every time you speak to someone you hear "well we have got him this time" be it VAT or kiting out an aircraft or whatever. And the other stuff which I am not going to repeat on PPrune. And to be honest I don't think its solely due to the club members there are alot of other people in the area who would like to see his down fall.
If the RAF chaps really don't want civi club members and don't want perm staff members, deal with it and make your views known to the powers that be. Its your club your airfield your pack of cards.
The civi's wind your bloody knecks in and shut up. Your are there under sufferance if you create to much hassel the whole lot could be chucked.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kind of agree with you Mad Jock. But let's not forget the underying issue - safety.
Thirty years ago there was a Dyce (Aberdeen) instructor who was renowned both for his skill and his cavalier disregard for safety when it came to showing off. To his credit he was a good pilot who got away with it. But to my knowledge two of his students didn't. Both hung on the instructor's every 'gung-ho' word and subscribed to the "it won't happen to me" school of thought. One creamed the ground trying to fly under a power line near Dyce and the other wrapped a 172. It put one chap in hospital for many months.
Point here is to learn from disasters and near disasters. The more people read this link - both good and bad bits - the better. They might think twice about getting too low unecessarily and that might make the sky, and the ground for that matter, a lot safer for all of us.
And to hell with civis shutting up in respect of the RAF club - from what I know of similar clubs I've been in while in the Service they NEED the civis as part of their constitution to be able to operate, to be seen to be 'inclusive' and get the permission they need and the funding they obviously receive. Service clubs do pretty well as it is - I know I've been there!
MFC was not operational when I used to land at Kinloss but I hope they continue. It's great to have a light aviation club on an RAF base - but Service members should not get carried away with their 'rights'. Their 'rights' actually belong to all of us - them and the rest of us taxpayers.
Thirty years ago there was a Dyce (Aberdeen) instructor who was renowned both for his skill and his cavalier disregard for safety when it came to showing off. To his credit he was a good pilot who got away with it. But to my knowledge two of his students didn't. Both hung on the instructor's every 'gung-ho' word and subscribed to the "it won't happen to me" school of thought. One creamed the ground trying to fly under a power line near Dyce and the other wrapped a 172. It put one chap in hospital for many months.
Point here is to learn from disasters and near disasters. The more people read this link - both good and bad bits - the better. They might think twice about getting too low unecessarily and that might make the sky, and the ground for that matter, a lot safer for all of us.
And to hell with civis shutting up in respect of the RAF club - from what I know of similar clubs I've been in while in the Service they NEED the civis as part of their constitution to be able to operate, to be seen to be 'inclusive' and get the permission they need and the funding they obviously receive. Service clubs do pretty well as it is - I know I've been there!
MFC was not operational when I used to land at Kinloss but I hope they continue. It's great to have a light aviation club on an RAF base - but Service members should not get carried away with their 'rights'. Their 'rights' actually belong to all of us - them and the rest of us taxpayers.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Grantown Scotland
Age: 70
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astonishing he is not even a member
Get a grip mad Jock says, phew thats a lot coming from some one who sits shouting from the side lines. Before I was a civvy I served at Kinloss, so do know a lot about the club and its genesis. The ethos of the RAF is safe operation ,even the title of this forum originates from a wartime flight safety publication. So you can be certain that any flying club operating as part of RAF adventure activities comes under far more scrutiny than a civvy club. There is even a need to adhere to an RAF flying order book. I have visited about ten civvy clubs over the past twenty years and only found one that took safety as keenly as MFC.With 22 years working in Air traffic I have witnessed some awful airmanship from other flying club aircraft who should have known better. If the MFC screwed up bigtime they would be off the airfield.
The secondary duty officer I C has an affinity withn the club and like me wishes that the stirrers would speak up in person instead of waffling on with ill informed gossip.
Club fees do vary for full(RAF) members and associates(civvy) not by a huge amount. Civvy members are needed to keep the club in business. Contrary to belief a lot of the serving RAF want nothing to do with aircraft when they are off duty.Hourly rates are lower than some clubs this is mostly because you have to do a lot of the work yourself, not just drive up and fly off.Its certainly not a case of the taxpayer paying a subsidy.
The secondary duty officer I C has an affinity withn the club and like me wishes that the stirrers would speak up in person instead of waffling on with ill informed gossip.
Club fees do vary for full(RAF) members and associates(civvy) not by a huge amount. Civvy members are needed to keep the club in business. Contrary to belief a lot of the serving RAF want nothing to do with aircraft when they are off duty.Hourly rates are lower than some clubs this is mostly because you have to do a lot of the work yourself, not just drive up and fly off.Its certainly not a case of the taxpayer paying a subsidy.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scotavia - your final point is inaccurate. No one mentioned 'subsidy'. Facilities like air traffic are being used by MFC and I would be very surprised if they are billed directly for this or any airfield facilities provided. If I'm wrong please provide the evidence. There's no doubt that MFC benefits greatly (RAF and civilian members) from being on an RAF airfield and that should be acknowledged. How else are fees kept low? And don't waffle about doing the work yourselves - every service and civilian club I have been connected with in more tha 30 years of commercial and light aviation has involved a considerable amount of "self work" from dedicated bands. That's how it should be.
I take your comments on standards very seriously - I too have had to oversee similar operations. And that is why this thread appears to have generated so much heat. Safety is paramount - and even more so on an RAF, or other Service, station.
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of this particular situation I and any other sensible aviator knows that 20 ft alg is far too low to be safe for an exercise when the likehood of being 'surprised' by a power line exists. That's what has to be tackled and steps taken to ensure it never happens again. I hope for the sake of MFC this has been taken to heart and they can continue to hold their heads high knowing they meet the highest levels of professionalism and safety consciousness.
I take your comments on standards very seriously - I too have had to oversee similar operations. And that is why this thread appears to have generated so much heat. Safety is paramount - and even more so on an RAF, or other Service, station.
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of this particular situation I and any other sensible aviator knows that 20 ft alg is far too low to be safe for an exercise when the likehood of being 'surprised' by a power line exists. That's what has to be tackled and steps taken to ensure it never happens again. I hope for the sake of MFC this has been taken to heart and they can continue to hold their heads high knowing they meet the highest levels of professionalism and safety consciousness.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Scotavia and the likes I think your pompous spat stating how wonderful RAF Clubs safety record is with the extra discipline and rules required, while implying Civilian Clubs are less competent, less safe, less able is utterly distasteful and NOT PROVEN
Our club prides itself on follwing rules to the dot, who are you to say we don't scrutinise our own operations!
Our club prides itself on follwing rules to the dot, who are you to say we don't scrutinise our own operations!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: outer space
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never has been answered has it, question of NOT making a pan or mayday after the strike, Or about doing a barrel roll in the CIRCUIT
good questions that should be answered yet totally ignoed by the fools who seem more intent on sucking up to those in power than making a sensible judgement,
good questions that should be answered
good questions that should be answered yet totally ignoed by the fools who seem more intent on sucking up to those in power than making a sensible judgement,
good questions that should be answered
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Silver Lining
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buck rogers.
are you going to appologise to those concerned for starting a thread which has now been shown to be slanderous through the publication of the facts in the aaib report?
or are you a pussy?
perhaps you should be a man and confront whomever with whatever axe you have to grind directly instead of spreading sensationalist lies through the anonyminty of this forum.
are you going to appologise to those concerned for starting a thread which has now been shown to be slanderous through the publication of the facts in the aaib report?
or are you a pussy?
perhaps you should be a man and confront whomever with whatever axe you have to grind directly instead of spreading sensationalist lies through the anonyminty of this forum.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grow up Met Man - issues were raised and needed to be answered. Buck Rogers did well to start the thread so we could all get a clear picture of what actually happened.
Clowns like you are typical of the gung ho brigade who litter the light aviation world.
What was important here was safety. It's been discussed, it's been examined and those in authority have reported.
Let's hope lessons have been learned all round
The idea that it's wrong to ask questions and point fingers about those in authority is right wing nonsense. Instructors need to be head and shoulders above the rest. Squeaky clean.
Clowns like you are typical of the gung ho brigade who litter the light aviation world.
What was important here was safety. It's been discussed, it's been examined and those in authority have reported.
Let's hope lessons have been learned all round
The idea that it's wrong to ask questions and point fingers about those in authority is right wing nonsense. Instructors need to be head and shoulders above the rest. Squeaky clean.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Silver Lining
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=buck rodgers]This happened with an experienced instructor and professiona pilot, who then landed in a field and inspected the damage (there was some but cannot confirm the extent) and then said instructor chose to fly aircraft back to base with his student .
the above quote is from the first posting on the thread, posted by Buck Rogers.
if you've read the aaib report you'll know that the initial claims made by Buck Rogers were hearsay, or worse, lies, so what was actually discussed initially was not what actually happened.
like you say sir max, "What was important here was safety. It's been discussed, it's been examined and those in authority have reported." any recomendations from the report sir max?? flight safety must be based on facts, not slanderous rumours. having read the report i consider it to have been good airmanship shown by the instructor concerned in view of the fact that he couldn't land ahead.
sir max, i am not a clown nor am i gungho, in fact your wrong on all counts. perhaps you are letting your assumtions of your fellow aviators cloud your judgement.
i have never said that it is wrong to point fingers or ask questions, but it's wrong in anyones book to make accusations about someone in a public forum which are then proven to be false and not appologise for doing so. perhaps you never understood my initial post sir max.
i say again:
buck rogers
are you going to appologise to those concerned for starting a thread which has now been shown to be slanderous through the publication of the facts in the aaib report?
the above quote is from the first posting on the thread, posted by Buck Rogers.
if you've read the aaib report you'll know that the initial claims made by Buck Rogers were hearsay, or worse, lies, so what was actually discussed initially was not what actually happened.
like you say sir max, "What was important here was safety. It's been discussed, it's been examined and those in authority have reported." any recomendations from the report sir max?? flight safety must be based on facts, not slanderous rumours. having read the report i consider it to have been good airmanship shown by the instructor concerned in view of the fact that he couldn't land ahead.
sir max, i am not a clown nor am i gungho, in fact your wrong on all counts. perhaps you are letting your assumtions of your fellow aviators cloud your judgement.
i have never said that it is wrong to point fingers or ask questions, but it's wrong in anyones book to make accusations about someone in a public forum which are then proven to be false and not appologise for doing so. perhaps you never understood my initial post sir max.
i say again:
buck rogers
are you going to appologise to those concerned for starting a thread which has now been shown to be slanderous through the publication of the facts in the aaib report?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Met Man - have you missed the point of PPRUNE? It's a forum to write and discuss all things aviation. So you're agrieved that your club and incident have been brought up on these forums? Well that's too bad, no appologies for sticking a giant pin in your ego but you can't pull rank here 
.
Makign childish remarks to others on these forums is poor conduct
I have read the report and note the swift amendment of your flying operating rules so PFL's are not continued below 100' AGL. Sensible amendment if you ask me and others should read and consider this practise too.
. Makign childish remarks to others on these forums is poor conduct
I have read the report and note the swift amendment of your flying operating rules so PFL's are not continued below 100' AGL. Sensible amendment if you ask me and others should read and consider this practise too.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Silver Lining
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dont think i have high voltage. its a forum to discuss rumours and news, not lies. you are wrong. i am not agrieved that this club or incident has been discussed here, i dont have a particularly large ego but it is intact with no pins stuck in it, and i am not pulling rank since i have no rank to pull. i merely have morals.
i think it is you who has missed the point of my posts. i have made no childish remarks, and we both know that it is poor conduct to start a thread with lies and not appologising when proven to be lies. to make it clear, i think that buck rodger should appologise to the club publicly for starting this slanderous thread with lies. its not a difficult concept to grasp.
its obvious from some of the posts on this thread that some are not concerned with safety but have an alterior motive. any discussion about safety needs to be based on facts, not slanderous misleading sensationalist lies.
i have to agree that the ammendment to the club flying order book is a good thing to come out of this incident, and would be a good order to be implemented in other flying order books.
i say again, again:
buck rodgers,
are you going to appologise to those concerned for starting a thread which has now been shown to be slanderous through the publication of the facts in the aaib report.
i think it is you who has missed the point of my posts. i have made no childish remarks, and we both know that it is poor conduct to start a thread with lies and not appologising when proven to be lies. to make it clear, i think that buck rodger should appologise to the club publicly for starting this slanderous thread with lies. its not a difficult concept to grasp.
its obvious from some of the posts on this thread that some are not concerned with safety but have an alterior motive. any discussion about safety needs to be based on facts, not slanderous misleading sensationalist lies.
i have to agree that the ammendment to the club flying order book is a good thing to come out of this incident, and would be a good order to be implemented in other flying order books.
i say again, again:
buck rodgers,
are you going to appologise to those concerned for starting a thread which has now been shown to be slanderous through the publication of the facts in the aaib report.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Silver Lining
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in retrospect, you are right high voltage. "or are you a pussy?" does read a bit childish which is not how i meant it to read, for which i appologise to Buck Rodgers.
i should of asked "or are you affraid?" and i actually meant to ask it after
"perhaps you should be a man and confront whomever with whatever axe you have to grind directly instead of spreading sensationalist lies through the anonyminty of this forum."
to clarify my original post:
buck rogers.
are you going to appologise to those concerned for starting a thread which has now been shown to be slanderous through the publication of the facts in the aaib report?
perhaps you should be a man and confront whomever with whatever axe you have to grind directly instead of spreading sensationalist lies through the anonyminty of this forum.
or are you affraid?
i should of asked "or are you affraid?" and i actually meant to ask it after
"perhaps you should be a man and confront whomever with whatever axe you have to grind directly instead of spreading sensationalist lies through the anonyminty of this forum."
to clarify my original post:
buck rogers.
are you going to appologise to those concerned for starting a thread which has now been shown to be slanderous through the publication of the facts in the aaib report?
perhaps you should be a man and confront whomever with whatever axe you have to grind directly instead of spreading sensationalist lies through the anonyminty of this forum.
or are you affraid?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
Sounds like a fist fight might well be the best way to sort things out !
As for the discussion sounds like the accident report is the definitive conclusion and the case should now be closed
No axe to grind and don't know the club or the people involved
Sounds like a fist fight might well be the best way to sort things out !
As for the discussion sounds like the accident report is the definitive conclusion and the case should now be closed
No axe to grind and don't know the club or the people involved
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've enjoyed the PFL discussion here but must add the aggressive posturing from certain participants can only lead me to believe there is something else to be debated, allthough not necessarily here on PPRUNE, and preferably without resorting to a fist-fight as suggested by Unfazed.
I would say this to you Metman, you joined this thread late on and have simply demanded an appology for what you call lies and sensationalism. I am presuming you represent or are from the club - why else come on here and take such a line? The truth is one of your aircraft was involved in quite a sensational incident and this will attract attention from all the airmchair critics out there, which I would add include myself. I doubt you will get your appology and I also doubt some of the other points posed will receive a response either. Nonetheless I dislike people like yourselve who come on here and attempt to intimidate other users, by making mindless and childlike statements which are more akin to playground politics than intellectual debate.
Perhaps all parties should now draw a close on this one.
I would say this to you Metman, you joined this thread late on and have simply demanded an appology for what you call lies and sensationalism. I am presuming you represent or are from the club - why else come on here and take such a line? The truth is one of your aircraft was involved in quite a sensational incident and this will attract attention from all the airmchair critics out there, which I would add include myself. I doubt you will get your appology and I also doubt some of the other points posed will receive a response either. Nonetheless I dislike people like yourselve who come on here and attempt to intimidate other users, by making mindless and childlike statements which are more akin to playground politics than intellectual debate.
Perhaps all parties should now draw a close on this one.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Silver Lining
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have made no demands high voltage. only asked if buck rodgers is going to appologise, not to me, but to the club and the instructor involved. for the record, i am no representative of the club, merely a member.
i think sensible discussion, genuinely about flight safety, armed with the facts of the incident is a good thing, and have never once thought otherwise, however we all now know that facts were not what was initially discussed. it appears to me that the thread was started by someone with an alterior motive, spreading misleading lies to achieve his own objectives whatever they may be, which has mislead a lot of the armchair critics on this forum.
perhaps there is something left to debate, and not on pprune as you said. that is why i also said to buck rodgers, "perhaps you should be a man and confront whomever with whatever axe you have to grind directly instead of spreading sensationalist lies through the anonyminty of this forum." in my original post.
i am sorry if you think of me as aggressive, i think i am straight to the point but that's just a difference of oppinions. the points i have raised were not mindless but well aimed at buck rodgers which you seem to have taken offense to, and i have already appologised for appearing as childish which was not how i intended to come across. if you read back through the thread you will see that the "playground politics" started with the begining of this thread. i merely think an appology is due from buck rodgers.
i agree that we should now draw this to a close as you seem to be misunderstanding me with every post i make.
unless buck rodgers has anything further to say?
MetMan out.
i think sensible discussion, genuinely about flight safety, armed with the facts of the incident is a good thing, and have never once thought otherwise, however we all now know that facts were not what was initially discussed. it appears to me that the thread was started by someone with an alterior motive, spreading misleading lies to achieve his own objectives whatever they may be, which has mislead a lot of the armchair critics on this forum.
perhaps there is something left to debate, and not on pprune as you said. that is why i also said to buck rodgers, "perhaps you should be a man and confront whomever with whatever axe you have to grind directly instead of spreading sensationalist lies through the anonyminty of this forum." in my original post.
i am sorry if you think of me as aggressive, i think i am straight to the point but that's just a difference of oppinions. the points i have raised were not mindless but well aimed at buck rodgers which you seem to have taken offense to, and i have already appologised for appearing as childish which was not how i intended to come across. if you read back through the thread you will see that the "playground politics" started with the begining of this thread. i merely think an appology is due from buck rodgers.
i agree that we should now draw this to a close as you seem to be misunderstanding me with every post i make.
unless buck rodgers has anything further to say?
MetMan out.