The PFA
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Devon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Devon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Midlands
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: N E England
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PFA way, yes or no?
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
"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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Rod1
moderator Genghis the Engineer can undoubtedly confirm this, as I know that he is also aware of it as well.
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
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 21st Apr 2004 at 22:10.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBS downtime etc
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
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
Last edited by Timbo Goodwin; 22nd Apr 2004 at 07:12.
viva Osh Vegas
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Wichita, KS
Age: 52
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a little reply to Skylark4's post about EAA 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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: N E England
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by jbqc; 22nd Apr 2004 at 06:37.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
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!
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.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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