The PFA
So close, and yet so far!
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Uk
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note that despite his defence of the Extra Pilots and condemnation of Steve Moody at last year's PFA Rally, Flying Lawyer has yet to confirm the legality of the display aircraft involved making a low-level pass at right angles to the runway - directly across both crowd lines?
I am neither condemning nor condoning the behaviour of any of the parties involved on that day, but from a personal point of view would be interested to know if this was a legal manoeuvre - because if so, then perhaps his comments are justified. But if not…?
I am neither condemning nor condoning the behaviour of any of the parties involved on that day, but from a personal point of view would be interested to know if this was a legal manoeuvre - because if so, then perhaps his comments are justified. But if not…?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GF
Steve Moody was perfectly within his rights to report the matter as would anyone who witnessed the routine.
The CAA investigated and made their decision as to whether or not Article 70 (which refers to flying displays) had been breached.
A Flying Display is defined in the ANO thus:-
"‘Flying display’ means any flying activity deliberately performed for the purpose of providing an exhibition or entertainment at an advertised event open to the public;"
Were the pilots concerned "deliberately performing for the purpose of providing an exhibition or entertainment at an advertised event open to the public"?
As I understand it no prosecution ensued which would suggest that the CAA investigation decided they were not.
Mike
Steve Moody was perfectly within his rights to report the matter as would anyone who witnessed the routine.
The CAA investigated and made their decision as to whether or not Article 70 (which refers to flying displays) had been breached.
A Flying Display is defined in the ANO thus:-
"‘Flying display’ means any flying activity deliberately performed for the purpose of providing an exhibition or entertainment at an advertised event open to the public;"
Were the pilots concerned "deliberately performing for the purpose of providing an exhibition or entertainment at an advertised event open to the public"?
As I understand it no prosecution ensued which would suggest that the CAA investigation decided they were not.
Mike
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As another of what looks like an increasing number of ex-PFA members, I think all this talk of Moody throwing a wobbler at the rally is just clouding the issue - which is that to an ordinary, subscription-paying member, beyond taking our membership fees, the 'powers that be' within the PFA seem totally disinterested in the views of 'ordinary members'. They give the impression of being an arrogant, aloof, old-boys network - and the only way anyone can join the ranks of the EC is by invitation. Hardly democratic!
But FWIW, my take on last July's events is this:
1. Unlike previous years, the PFA did not have any sort of display authorisation from the CAA for the PFA Rally at Kemble.
2. Late in the day, the home-based Extra team approached controllers in the caravan to ask if they could go through a few routines - and the controller(s) agreed. I am assuming that this was on the grounds that the Extra team have some sort of general permit to do aeros at their home airfield anyway - and this was 'out of PFA ours' - ie when the airfield had officially reverted back to the usual FISO service, and was not therefore still under the special CAA rally rules and regs.
3. Anyway, the 'display' started - and yes, Moody went beserk. Whether this was because he thought the Rally 'no aeros permit' rule was being broken, or just because he hadn't been consulted, I've no idea. AFAIK, ATC authorised a couple of specific manouvres, and then the team requested that they do a couple of their 'routines' without having to talk to ATC between each one - and ATC said OK.
4. But then during this (no doubt adding fuel to Moody's aready raging fire), the team then flew quite low - in a direction which ran from directly over the main crowdline, to more or less over the control tower, crossing somewhere over the runway - as GF says, directly over both crowdlines, at roughly right-angles to the runway.
5. This is where things start turning PARTICULARLY messy. Given that Moody is already letting rip at everyone and his dog, the fact that a possibly illegal manouvre has now been performed is just going to turn him into a man on a mission. Yet how can ATC back him up? If they join him in his prosecution, then they have to admit they gave the go-ahead - but that they possibly weren't fully aware of what the team would do - which seems to me tantamount to saying "Fair enough, here's my licence - I never really liked being an ATCO anyway!" So it was bound to get messy. Moody ain't the sort of guy to give up - being like a dog with a bone at the best of times - but then again, if he HAD backed down, and some smart-arse spectator had gone to the CAA about 'dodgy low flying, endagering his wife and kids!' - yet the rally organisers had tried to sweep it under the carpet, then what???
IMHO, Moody totally overreacted initially - but then the pilots pushed their luck a bit and showed off ("hey, this'll look good - and most of the day-trippers have gone by now, and so it's not THAT much different to when we do it over an empty airfield!") - and the **** hit the fan. Moody (apparently) is hell-bent on 'protecting the PFA' - but the controllers and pilots stand to lose their licences, from the course of action he takes. So it's inevitable that it gets messy, and everyone seems to be telling a different story.
So apart from the fact that he did indeed use a lot of words that my mother wouldn't like - and threw his toys out even before the questionably 'fly-past' occurred, how exactly has Moody brought the PFA into disrepute???
One quick question to Girl Flyday though... are you a good friend of 'Steve'? ;-)))
But FWIW, my take on last July's events is this:
1. Unlike previous years, the PFA did not have any sort of display authorisation from the CAA for the PFA Rally at Kemble.
2. Late in the day, the home-based Extra team approached controllers in the caravan to ask if they could go through a few routines - and the controller(s) agreed. I am assuming that this was on the grounds that the Extra team have some sort of general permit to do aeros at their home airfield anyway - and this was 'out of PFA ours' - ie when the airfield had officially reverted back to the usual FISO service, and was not therefore still under the special CAA rally rules and regs.
3. Anyway, the 'display' started - and yes, Moody went beserk. Whether this was because he thought the Rally 'no aeros permit' rule was being broken, or just because he hadn't been consulted, I've no idea. AFAIK, ATC authorised a couple of specific manouvres, and then the team requested that they do a couple of their 'routines' without having to talk to ATC between each one - and ATC said OK.
4. But then during this (no doubt adding fuel to Moody's aready raging fire), the team then flew quite low - in a direction which ran from directly over the main crowdline, to more or less over the control tower, crossing somewhere over the runway - as GF says, directly over both crowdlines, at roughly right-angles to the runway.
5. This is where things start turning PARTICULARLY messy. Given that Moody is already letting rip at everyone and his dog, the fact that a possibly illegal manouvre has now been performed is just going to turn him into a man on a mission. Yet how can ATC back him up? If they join him in his prosecution, then they have to admit they gave the go-ahead - but that they possibly weren't fully aware of what the team would do - which seems to me tantamount to saying "Fair enough, here's my licence - I never really liked being an ATCO anyway!" So it was bound to get messy. Moody ain't the sort of guy to give up - being like a dog with a bone at the best of times - but then again, if he HAD backed down, and some smart-arse spectator had gone to the CAA about 'dodgy low flying, endagering his wife and kids!' - yet the rally organisers had tried to sweep it under the carpet, then what???
IMHO, Moody totally overreacted initially - but then the pilots pushed their luck a bit and showed off ("hey, this'll look good - and most of the day-trippers have gone by now, and so it's not THAT much different to when we do it over an empty airfield!") - and the **** hit the fan. Moody (apparently) is hell-bent on 'protecting the PFA' - but the controllers and pilots stand to lose their licences, from the course of action he takes. So it's inevitable that it gets messy, and everyone seems to be telling a different story.
So apart from the fact that he did indeed use a lot of words that my mother wouldn't like - and threw his toys out even before the questionably 'fly-past' occurred, how exactly has Moody brought the PFA into disrepute???
One quick question to Girl Flyday though... are you a good friend of 'Steve'? ;-)))
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Turweston Aerodrome
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PFA BULLETIN BOARD
I have read the comments regarding the PFA bulletin board and would like to say the following:
I can confirm there was nothing untoward about the closure of the bulletin board. A decision was taken by the Executive Committee to make postings on the board a "PFA member only" facility. The board was originally closed down for 2 weeks due to a problem with our server provider and I therefore took this opportunity to upgrade and do the necessary changes. Unfortunately due to my inexperience with this type of work and my other duties within the PFA, specially the increased workload due to the PFA Rally, it took me much longer than anticipated to get the necessary changes done. I take full responsibility for this and apologise to all of those to whom it has obviously caused such great distress.
Penny Sharpe
PFA Office Manager
I can confirm there was nothing untoward about the closure of the bulletin board. A decision was taken by the Executive Committee to make postings on the board a "PFA member only" facility. The board was originally closed down for 2 weeks due to a problem with our server provider and I therefore took this opportunity to upgrade and do the necessary changes. Unfortunately due to my inexperience with this type of work and my other duties within the PFA, specially the increased workload due to the PFA Rally, it took me much longer than anticipated to get the necessary changes done. I take full responsibility for this and apologise to all of those to whom it has obviously caused such great distress.
Penny Sharpe
PFA Office Manager
So close, and yet so far!
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Uk
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha ha, 'Sky'! 
It's just that being female, calling someone solely by their surname doesn't really come naturally to me (boys do it all the time at school, I guess) - and seems a little impolite!
Mike Cross - thanks for clearing that up for me.
GF
It's just that being female, calling someone solely by their surname doesn't really come naturally to me (boys do it all the time at school, I guess) - and seems a little impolite!Mike Cross - thanks for clearing that up for me.
GF
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E2G writes,
"They give the impression of being an arrogant, aloof, old-boys network - and the only way anyone can join the ranks of the EC is by invitation. Hardly democratic!"
if that is the impression, then I am afraid to say it is not an accurate facsimile, EC membership is open to all members, all you need is to be proposed (and seconded?)
I read very closely the words of Timbo G. Tim and I were EC members at the same time, I resigned a year before TG as I was pretty unhappy about the way things were going. TG and I discussed resigning as soon as KC's suspension became evident. Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of this episode, the very way that it was done sucked. Resigning in protest seemed to be the right thing to do until we realised that the "baddies" on the EC would certainly outnumber and out gun those with a more pragmatic approach to dragging the Association into the 21st century and preparing the association for the modern litigous world.
I was not going to post any more on this thread as it seemed pretty futile. I last posted when the page count was in low single digits.
The catalyst that caused this latest missive was Penny Sharpe's ritual falling on sword.
However, like others, I wonder whether she fell or were more sinister forces queuing up to push her? Knowing Penny as I do, I suspect the latter and could hazard a guess at the architect of the act!
Stik
"They give the impression of being an arrogant, aloof, old-boys network - and the only way anyone can join the ranks of the EC is by invitation. Hardly democratic!"
if that is the impression, then I am afraid to say it is not an accurate facsimile, EC membership is open to all members, all you need is to be proposed (and seconded?)
I read very closely the words of Timbo G. Tim and I were EC members at the same time, I resigned a year before TG as I was pretty unhappy about the way things were going. TG and I discussed resigning as soon as KC's suspension became evident. Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of this episode, the very way that it was done sucked. Resigning in protest seemed to be the right thing to do until we realised that the "baddies" on the EC would certainly outnumber and out gun those with a more pragmatic approach to dragging the Association into the 21st century and preparing the association for the modern litigous world.
I was not going to post any more on this thread as it seemed pretty futile. I last posted when the page count was in low single digits.
The catalyst that caused this latest missive was Penny Sharpe's ritual falling on sword.
However, like others, I wonder whether she fell or were more sinister forces queuing up to push her? Knowing Penny as I do, I suspect the latter and could hazard a guess at the architect of the act!
Stik
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for putting me straight, Stik - although not knowing nobody in the postion to 'propose' me, that's tantamount to the same thing 
But what does the PFA have to offer to 'spamcan pilots' (like me) anyway? I came to the conlusion the answer to that was 'not a lot' - and that I would also be looked down on to boot for not flying a 'proper' aircraft anway - which is why I am no longer a member.
Incidentally, re rally costs, and the role of volunteers there - I have 'volunteered' on a couple of occasions - but response was always "I'll make a note of that" - and that was the last I ever heard
(And that was in the days before I started moaning about them, too!)
But what does the PFA have to offer to 'spamcan pilots' (like me) anyway? I came to the conlusion the answer to that was 'not a lot' - and that I would also be looked down on to boot for not flying a 'proper' aircraft anway - which is why I am no longer a member.
Incidentally, re rally costs, and the role of volunteers there - I have 'volunteered' on a couple of occasions - but response was always "I'll make a note of that" - and that was the last I ever heard
(And that was in the days before I started moaning about them, too!)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E2g
you re-join, I'll propose you and am sure that we can find a friendly to second you!
As for being a spam can driver- you'd be surprised how many of the EC do just that!
Stik
you re-join, I'll propose you and am sure that we can find a friendly to second you!
As for being a spam can driver- you'd be surprised how many of the EC do just that!
Stik
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Girl Flyday
I'm never quite sure if it's 'proper' to repeat the contents of PMs in the forum so, as a matter of courtesy, I'll ask your permission first:
In light of your latest post about the Kemble fiasco, do you have any objection to my posting copies of the two PMs you sent me on Tuesday this week?
Perhaps you'd like to post them yourself so that everyone can read them? If you haven't kept copies, I can help - they're still in my mailbox. Just give me the word and I'll copy & paste them in full.
First @ 13.47: I won't repeat your description of what you heard and saw in Ops that day, but you said "I have to be a little careful in what I say!"
Second @ 15. 11: Again, I won't repeat contents but you gave the reasons why you "don't really want to antagonize anyone..." in the PFA.
Do I need to go on? Or is that sufficient to jog your memory?
Shall we post them? Or are you going to continue the hypocrisy of saying different things on and off the forum?
It would also answer the question others have asked since your last post. So far, you have been less than frank in your response to that straight-forward question and have tried to evade it by humour. (Your secret is safe with me - unless and until you give me permission to reveal it. )
In answer to your latest question:
Having carefully considered all statements taken from PFA witnesses by the CAA investigators, the R/T exchanges, the pilots' accounts of what occurred, the statements of independent witnesses, the pilots' Display Authorisations and Kemble's Rule 5 exemption, I did not consider the pilots had committed any offence. Accordingly, I advised them in clear and unequivocal terms that they should contest any charges brought against them.
The CAA investigated the matter very thoroughly and the pilots were not charged with any offence.
________________
Eartotheground
I agree with much of what you say, although not all.
You're certainly right about people watching their backs when the CAA investigated. I noticed that in one statement in particular. It didn't cause a real problem - we could have overcome it easily by other evidence.
Simply for information -
The pilots practised their standard routine.
If there was a shred of truth in the story put about by some PFA VIPs that Moody simply wished to protect the PFA from any complaint or criticism, then his call to the CAA Enforcement Branch on the following Monday would have served that purpose.
The fact is Moody wouldn't accept the response he got from the EB so tried SRG. He didn't like the response he got from the first SRG man so he kept going and eventually found someone who was prepared to instigate an investigation provided he made a formal written complaint.
Damage to reputation?
Moody did all that as the OPs Mgr (or similar) of the Rally.
I've already said why I think the repuation of the PFA was damaged. See my earlier posts. I base my opinion on views expressed to me by many people in aviation and numerous posts on this website in the aftermath of the Rally - the overwhelming majority of which were very critical. The PFA should have made it clear Moody was acting in a private capacity and dissociated itself from his actions. Since it failed to do so, Moody's conduct was inextricably and understandably linked to the PFA.
________________
BTW, just in case anyone thinks I'm biased because of a professional/financial involvement .....
I'd never met the pilots until this incident and felt so strongly that they were the unfortunate and undeserving victims of Moody's attempts to save face after his petulant behaviour at Kemble that I gave my services free of charge throughout. Moody had made a fool of himself and, instead of backing down and apologising, he set about trying to prove he was right and those who'd disagreed with him were wrong - with complete disregard for the potentially serious consequences to others.
Although no harm was done in the long term, the pilots lost the rest of their display season because some
in SRG saw fit to suspend their DA's pending the outcome of the investigation. By the time it all came to nothing, the season was over.
I'm never quite sure if it's 'proper' to repeat the contents of PMs in the forum so, as a matter of courtesy, I'll ask your permission first:
In light of your latest post about the Kemble fiasco, do you have any objection to my posting copies of the two PMs you sent me on Tuesday this week?
Perhaps you'd like to post them yourself so that everyone can read them? If you haven't kept copies, I can help - they're still in my mailbox. Just give me the word and I'll copy & paste them in full.
First @ 13.47: I won't repeat your description of what you heard and saw in Ops that day, but you said "I have to be a little careful in what I say!"
Second @ 15. 11: Again, I won't repeat contents but you gave the reasons why you "don't really want to antagonize anyone..." in the PFA.
Do I need to go on? Or is that sufficient to jog your memory?
Shall we post them? Or are you going to continue the hypocrisy of saying different things on and off the forum?
It would also answer the question others have asked since your last post. So far, you have been less than frank in your response to that straight-forward question and have tried to evade it by humour. (Your secret is safe with me - unless and until you give me permission to reveal it.
)In answer to your latest question:
Having carefully considered all statements taken from PFA witnesses by the CAA investigators, the R/T exchanges, the pilots' accounts of what occurred, the statements of independent witnesses, the pilots' Display Authorisations and Kemble's Rule 5 exemption, I did not consider the pilots had committed any offence. Accordingly, I advised them in clear and unequivocal terms that they should contest any charges brought against them.
The CAA investigated the matter very thoroughly and the pilots were not charged with any offence.
________________
Eartotheground
I agree with much of what you say, although not all.
You're certainly right about people watching their backs when the CAA investigated. I noticed that in one statement in particular. It didn't cause a real problem - we could have overcome it easily by other evidence.
Simply for information -
The pilots practised their standard routine.
If there was a shred of truth in the story put about by some PFA VIPs that Moody simply wished to protect the PFA from any complaint or criticism, then his call to the CAA Enforcement Branch on the following Monday would have served that purpose.
The fact is Moody wouldn't accept the response he got from the EB so tried SRG. He didn't like the response he got from the first SRG man so he kept going and eventually found someone who was prepared to instigate an investigation provided he made a formal written complaint.
Damage to reputation?
Moody did all that as the OPs Mgr (or similar) of the Rally.
I've already said why I think the repuation of the PFA was damaged. See my earlier posts. I base my opinion on views expressed to me by many people in aviation and numerous posts on this website in the aftermath of the Rally - the overwhelming majority of which were very critical. The PFA should have made it clear Moody was acting in a private capacity and dissociated itself from his actions. Since it failed to do so, Moody's conduct was inextricably and understandably linked to the PFA.
________________
BTW, just in case anyone thinks I'm biased because of a professional/financial involvement .....
I'd never met the pilots until this incident and felt so strongly that they were the unfortunate and undeserving victims of Moody's attempts to save face after his petulant behaviour at Kemble that I gave my services free of charge throughout. Moody had made a fool of himself and, instead of backing down and apologising, he set about trying to prove he was right and those who'd disagreed with him were wrong - with complete disregard for the potentially serious consequences to others.
Although no harm was done in the long term, the pilots lost the rest of their display season because some
in SRG saw fit to suspend their DA's pending the outcome of the investigation. By the time it all came to nothing, the season was over.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 22nd Apr 2004 at 12:53.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eartotheground, you wrote:
I am assuming that this was on the grounds that the Extra team have some sort of general permit to do aeros at their home airfield anyway - and this was 'out of PFA ours' - ie when the airfield had officially reverted back to the usual FISO service, and was not therefore still under the special CAA rally rules and regs.
The 'event' actually occurred at a time that the TRA was still active according to the AIC.
My only problem with it was what if a non-radio aircraft was landing into sun on the grass totally in accordance with the AIC only to find a low level Extra coming the opposite way down the runway.....
I am assuming that this was on the grounds that the Extra team have some sort of general permit to do aeros at their home airfield anyway - and this was 'out of PFA ours' - ie when the airfield had officially reverted back to the usual FISO service, and was not therefore still under the special CAA rally rules and regs.
The 'event' actually occurred at a time that the TRA was still active according to the AIC.
My only problem with it was what if a non-radio aircraft was landing into sun on the grass totally in accordance with the AIC only to find a low level Extra coming the opposite way down the runway.....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
smarthawke
When they returned to Kemble, the pilots offered to do a practice routine (8 mins I think from memory). The PFA controller initially asked them to hold while he cleared some departing a/c, and then called them in when he considered it safe to do so.
You may have a point but, if it shouldn't have happened, it's hardly the fault of the pilots. They made an offer, it was accepted, and they were given ATC clearance. It's all in the ATC tapes.
Tudor
When they returned to Kemble, the pilots offered to do a practice routine (8 mins I think from memory). The PFA controller initially asked them to hold while he cleared some departing a/c, and then called them in when he considered it safe to do so.
You may have a point but, if it shouldn't have happened, it's hardly the fault of the pilots. They made an offer, it was accepted, and they were given ATC clearance. It's all in the ATC tapes.
Tudor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: N E England
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Penny, very good, but why would an EC member tell me that the CEO kept the BB closed and used words like "I'll shut that b...... Ringland up" and "we have got to keep those f...... troublemakers off the BB.
The problem is when one starts a chain of lies it is hard to stop.
JB
The problem is when one starts a chain of lies it is hard to stop.
JB
Last edited by jbqc; 22nd Apr 2004 at 16:27.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Devon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penny, I hope you are not letting those men push you around in there.
What you say might have some truth in it but I have also been told that it was Graham who refused to allow the BB to be switched on again until the dust settled.
You do yourself no favours by becoming a little office girlie who takes all the blame.
Dawn
What you say might have some truth in it but I have also been told that it was Graham who refused to allow the BB to be switched on again until the dust settled.
You do yourself no favours by becoming a little office girlie who takes all the blame.
Dawn
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Midlands
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone tell me what is this all about.
It's all She said and He said and They said.
And who cares if Penny is stupid enough to do what she is told, and so what if Girl F is besotted with Steve M or even worse, and if Graham called people names.
I dont give a damm, but I DO want to have a PFA to permit my aircraft next year.
It's all She said and He said and They said.
And who cares if Penny is stupid enough to do what she is told, and so what if Girl F is besotted with Steve M or even worse, and if Graham called people names.
I dont give a damm, but I DO want to have a PFA to permit my aircraft next year.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Here and There
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Penny, are you going to tell us who suggested you post on PPRuNe.
Nongpsuser. I do not want to be a member of an association full of people who don't know the difference between the truth and a lie.
I also am only a member because of my aircraft, thats not what I want. I want to have an association to be involved with. A group of like minded pilots who fly for fun and help each other out.
The decent pilots are already out there but the association is not. at least not the PFA.
Ken
Nongpsuser. I do not want to be a member of an association full of people who don't know the difference between the truth and a lie.
I also am only a member because of my aircraft, thats not what I want. I want to have an association to be involved with. A group of like minded pilots who fly for fun and help each other out.
The decent pilots are already out there but the association is not. at least not the PFA.
Ken