The PFA
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responses
Nigel, great reply - couldn't agree more.
To those that ask for identities of individuals on BBS - don't, it is very risk prone if accompanied by criticism, and you only have to look at PFA web, or a magazine to find out. I only looked at this BBS having been told of postings which identifed ME as ex webmaster, and implied criicism. Like any one I will defend myself if someone causes me so to do. I am saddened that Penny (a good lass) ended up carrying the can - doesn't fit with my info - ce la vi.
I worked with Nigel on EC and although we agreed to disagree on a very small number of issues, I have a huge respect for him - he is a good guy and definately his own person - as am I. In-fact he took over the year of work I had done on the engineering review. Although he had a real struggle and eventually had to drop the task, he has managed to impliment some of the conclusions of that review and my hat goes off to him. In part Nigel managed to get a few steps further because he enjoys the support of the current chairman. Sadly I did not (different chairman) even doing the same task, so I therefore personally have little time for the man concerned. I was simply doing the job EC requested at the time. Either way, that is all part of bringing the PFA up to scratch with respect to the century we are now in - its a thankless task and very difficult, the constitution does us no favours, again hard to work with, hard to change. Having battled hard to do it I respect anyone that tries, and particularly anyone that gets further than I did.
Girl Flyday:
Just to confirm yr line 'will they have me'. THat is not an EC choice, it is a members choice. And, whether we like it or not if someone puts themselves forward for EC whilst there are spare places, they cannot fail to get in unless they have a specific record of activity that might cause the association a problem(bring into disrepute etc). I guess a severe police record, drugs etc, maybe flying orientated prosecutions etc, even then you would probably be OK!!!
Go on do it, if you call me via email and we chat i'll gladly second or propose you if you fancy the challenge. New faces would be good, but it is VERY hard work, and you will get no thanks!!!
ALl the best,
Timbo
To those that ask for identities of individuals on BBS - don't, it is very risk prone if accompanied by criticism, and you only have to look at PFA web, or a magazine to find out. I only looked at this BBS having been told of postings which identifed ME as ex webmaster, and implied criicism. Like any one I will defend myself if someone causes me so to do. I am saddened that Penny (a good lass) ended up carrying the can - doesn't fit with my info - ce la vi.
I worked with Nigel on EC and although we agreed to disagree on a very small number of issues, I have a huge respect for him - he is a good guy and definately his own person - as am I. In-fact he took over the year of work I had done on the engineering review. Although he had a real struggle and eventually had to drop the task, he has managed to impliment some of the conclusions of that review and my hat goes off to him. In part Nigel managed to get a few steps further because he enjoys the support of the current chairman. Sadly I did not (different chairman) even doing the same task, so I therefore personally have little time for the man concerned. I was simply doing the job EC requested at the time. Either way, that is all part of bringing the PFA up to scratch with respect to the century we are now in - its a thankless task and very difficult, the constitution does us no favours, again hard to work with, hard to change. Having battled hard to do it I respect anyone that tries, and particularly anyone that gets further than I did.
Girl Flyday:
Just to confirm yr line 'will they have me'. THat is not an EC choice, it is a members choice. And, whether we like it or not if someone puts themselves forward for EC whilst there are spare places, they cannot fail to get in unless they have a specific record of activity that might cause the association a problem(bring into disrepute etc). I guess a severe police record, drugs etc, maybe flying orientated prosecutions etc, even then you would probably be OK!!!
Go on do it, if you call me via email and we chat i'll gladly second or propose you if you fancy the challenge. New faces would be good, but it is VERY hard work, and you will get no thanks!!!
ALl the best,
Timbo
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well Girl Flyday it looks as if you are going to have to either disappear or put up for election. I think just at the moment the PFA could do with some new blood. I'm a PFA member and you can count on me to propose or second you too so it looks like you are in the running if you really want to be. PM me if you want to go for it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel;
There is a creditability issue here.
The PFA did not contact George from a date some weeks before the trial until the day after my post on the PFA BB in November, some 4 weeks after the trial ended.
Ken contacted George by phone that afternoon and about 15 minutes later graham posted on the BB that "PFA engineering are having on going discussions with Mr Adams"
That was not true!
Now either I am a liar or someone else is, its that simple.
Ken & Graham know the truth so they should either call me a liar or admit that Graham misled the membership.
And George is not 76, where did you get your info from?
Tony
There is a creditability issue here.
The PFA did not contact George from a date some weeks before the trial until the day after my post on the PFA BB in November, some 4 weeks after the trial ended.
Ken contacted George by phone that afternoon and about 15 minutes later graham posted on the BB that "PFA engineering are having on going discussions with Mr Adams"
That was not true!
Now either I am a liar or someone else is, its that simple.
Ken & Graham know the truth so they should either call me a liar or admit that Graham misled the membership.
And George is not 76, where did you get your info from?
Tony
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Winchester
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony, I spoke with Graham yesterday and this is what I was told. Simple as that.
With regards to delays in speaking with George I need to point out once again; you insist on tying the court case to the PFA's actions. We were not instrumental in bringing the CAA prosecution, the PFA members who were at the centre of this went to the CAA of their own accord after reporting the case to us. As a result of that we (as potential witnesses for the prosecution) could not open our discussions with George until after the case was over (that's the law). If it took four weeks for us to speak with George so be it (I really can't say from personal knowledge what is the truth about when Graham or Ken spoke with him).
My point however is that the CAA court case has no bearing on PFA investigation into George Adams case. If Graham lied then I agree it's a bad thing but I can't prove it one way or another, and frankly unless you are going to pin a character assassination campaign on the disputed timing of one phone call I can't see why you are being so dogmatic about it.
Have you spoken to George Adams about what he wants? My understanding is that he just wants to get on with his life here and that's why he hasn't re-applied for his approval.
I've emailed my phone number to you, so it's up to you if you want to contact me.
With regards to delays in speaking with George I need to point out once again; you insist on tying the court case to the PFA's actions. We were not instrumental in bringing the CAA prosecution, the PFA members who were at the centre of this went to the CAA of their own accord after reporting the case to us. As a result of that we (as potential witnesses for the prosecution) could not open our discussions with George until after the case was over (that's the law). If it took four weeks for us to speak with George so be it (I really can't say from personal knowledge what is the truth about when Graham or Ken spoke with him).
My point however is that the CAA court case has no bearing on PFA investigation into George Adams case. If Graham lied then I agree it's a bad thing but I can't prove it one way or another, and frankly unless you are going to pin a character assassination campaign on the disputed timing of one phone call I can't see why you are being so dogmatic about it.
Have you spoken to George Adams about what he wants? My understanding is that he just wants to get on with his life here and that's why he hasn't re-applied for his approval.
I've emailed my phone number to you, so it's up to you if you want to contact me.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: N E England
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having said I would report the PFA to the CAA, I have spoken to a friend within the CAA today.
It would appear that the CAA are still licking their wounds after the Adams & Burrows case.
I was told that the CAA are not best pleased with some within the PFA.
It would appear that some members of the PFA management and EC had information about the Kitfox aircraft that was not passed on to the CAA before the charges were brought.
The CAA were forced to throw in the towel when the defence revelled in court that the new owner Mr Sh.... had flown the aircraft for about 60 hours after he bought it and that on one flight he damaged the aircraft in bad weather and a window was ripped out of the aircraft. This was before he reported the previous repair carried out by Burrows to the PFA & CAA.
The CAA could not prove that "who did what damage" and dropped the charges of endangering an aircraft against Burrows and Adams. There were other reasons that the case could not be proved for the CAA but the main reason was the CAA witnesses had been less than honest before the court.
It would appear that some within the PFA knew this, including the Inspector Mr L.. (who was never suspended) but did not provide this information to the CAA.
"HAD WE (the CAA) KNOWN WHAT SOME WITHIN THE PFA KNEW THE CASE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO COURT".
I would seem that the owner Mr Sh.. and the inspector Mr L.. had friends in high places within the PFA and therefore were treated better than Mr Adams.
John
It would appear that the CAA are still licking their wounds after the Adams & Burrows case.
I was told that the CAA are not best pleased with some within the PFA.
It would appear that some members of the PFA management and EC had information about the Kitfox aircraft that was not passed on to the CAA before the charges were brought.
The CAA were forced to throw in the towel when the defence revelled in court that the new owner Mr Sh.... had flown the aircraft for about 60 hours after he bought it and that on one flight he damaged the aircraft in bad weather and a window was ripped out of the aircraft. This was before he reported the previous repair carried out by Burrows to the PFA & CAA.
The CAA could not prove that "who did what damage" and dropped the charges of endangering an aircraft against Burrows and Adams. There were other reasons that the case could not be proved for the CAA but the main reason was the CAA witnesses had been less than honest before the court.
It would appear that some within the PFA knew this, including the Inspector Mr L.. (who was never suspended) but did not provide this information to the CAA.
"HAD WE (the CAA) KNOWN WHAT SOME WITHIN THE PFA KNEW THE CASE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO COURT".
I would seem that the owner Mr Sh.. and the inspector Mr L.. had friends in high places within the PFA and therefore were treated better than Mr Adams.
John
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Winchester
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony,
You have my number, I have invited you to call me. I don't intend to keep this up here.
JBQC, you are wrong, simple as that. I don't know where you get your 'facts' from, but I was there and I was privvy to most of what went on. The two members you mention certainly didn't have friends in high places. For your information Mr Burrows is no longer a member of the PFA. It was our decision to refuse his membership renewal under the circumstances. Mr Sh and his inspector forced the investigation into George Adams, Mr Burrows etc. No one complained about their behaviour, hence they were not investigated, that's the way it works in the PFA.
You have my number, I have invited you to call me. I don't intend to keep this up here.
JBQC, you are wrong, simple as that. I don't know where you get your 'facts' from, but I was there and I was privvy to most of what went on. The two members you mention certainly didn't have friends in high places. For your information Mr Burrows is no longer a member of the PFA. It was our decision to refuse his membership renewal under the circumstances. Mr Sh and his inspector forced the investigation into George Adams, Mr Burrows etc. No one complained about their behaviour, hence they were not investigated, that's the way it works in the PFA.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Devon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree that it is not a life or death matter if Graham told a lie to the members, but it is important as it would demonstrate to us the true nature of the person. As far as I am concerned if the PFA CEO did misled us then he should go, there is no excuse.
Flying and being a pilot used to be something special, trust and integrity was part of the package.
I do think that the way our society has gone is regrettable. it seems to be OK to lie now, that goes from those who lead the country to those at the top of large companies. Perhaps we as members should want our association to be different.
Dawn
Flying and being a pilot used to be something special, trust and integrity was part of the package.
I do think that the way our society has gone is regrettable. it seems to be OK to lie now, that goes from those who lead the country to those at the top of large companies. Perhaps we as members should want our association to be different.
Dawn
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TonyR
Forgive me, I am a bit confused.
The PFA contacted Tony A 4 weeks ish after the case.
A short time later it said it was in discussions with Tony A
So why was this not true?
Rod1
Forgive me, I am a bit confused.
The PFA contacted Tony A 4 weeks ish after the case.
A short time later it said it was in discussions with Tony A
So why was this not true?
Rod1
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: N E England
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel,
Mr L.. knew about the damage done by Mr Sh.., but he did not inform PFA eng. he forced the PFA and forced the CAA to demand the suspension of Mr Adams, and he knew the case was founded on a lie. remember Mr L.. also gave the kitfox a new permit several months after Mr S bought it and never seemed to worry about the repair by Burrows even though there was a patch on the wing.
And if Mr L.. failed to see a repair which was obvious why is he an Inspector???
At least one EC member also knew that the kitfox was damaged and repaired by Mr Sh.. yet no one informed the CAA.
Did you know about the damage by Mr Sh.. before the trial??
Mr L.. stated in court that the evidence of the (Burrows) repair and the old wing spar had been destroyed, yet this evidence was in the possession of a Mr J.. (until recently anyway) a friend of Mr L..
George Adams was stitiched up by Mr Sh.. and Mr L.. in order to help Mr Sh.. get money out of Mr Burrows in a later civil action.
Thank God for the good lawyers who went in search of the truth and managed to find it.
John
Mr L.. knew about the damage done by Mr Sh.., but he did not inform PFA eng. he forced the PFA and forced the CAA to demand the suspension of Mr Adams, and he knew the case was founded on a lie. remember Mr L.. also gave the kitfox a new permit several months after Mr S bought it and never seemed to worry about the repair by Burrows even though there was a patch on the wing.
And if Mr L.. failed to see a repair which was obvious why is he an Inspector???
At least one EC member also knew that the kitfox was damaged and repaired by Mr Sh.. yet no one informed the CAA.
Did you know about the damage by Mr Sh.. before the trial??
Mr L.. stated in court that the evidence of the (Burrows) repair and the old wing spar had been destroyed, yet this evidence was in the possession of a Mr J.. (until recently anyway) a friend of Mr L..
George Adams was stitiched up by Mr Sh.. and Mr L.. in order to help Mr Sh.. get money out of Mr Burrows in a later civil action.
Thank God for the good lawyers who went in search of the truth and managed to find it.
John
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod1
After the court case finished a number of us who knew George contacted the PFA regarding the position of George as an inspector. We were annoyed that the PFA "office " had not contacted George, even to wish him well after the ordeal he had been through.
We were ignored by the PFA and after 4 weeks I posted a letter on the BB and sent it to all the struts and most of the inspectors.
The **** then hit the fan and the "office" being under pressure finally contacted George, but the CEO posted a message stating that "PFA eng" had been talking to George. That was at best misleading and at worst a deliberate lie.
Tony
After the court case finished a number of us who knew George contacted the PFA regarding the position of George as an inspector. We were annoyed that the PFA "office " had not contacted George, even to wish him well after the ordeal he had been through.
We were ignored by the PFA and after 4 weeks I posted a letter on the BB and sent it to all the struts and most of the inspectors.
The **** then hit the fan and the "office" being under pressure finally contacted George, but the CEO posted a message stating that "PFA eng" had been talking to George. That was at best misleading and at worst a deliberate lie.
Tony
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Winchester
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
I certainly didn't know about this before the court case, but I will be honest I am aware now about the 'other' issues. I've said it before, no one instigated an investigation by making it official.
The matter of George Adams is history (and not very nice history). I personally feel from the evidence I saw regarding George Adams that he was guilty of the charges made by the PFA (Please don't mention the court case again in this instance!).
It would be wrong to drag out all the facts again, but the EC minutes will show that I proposed that George be expelled from the association.That proposal was defeated and I was subsequently glad it was. The fall back was as stated earlier.
Tony, I'm sad you just keep going around in circles, believe me this isn't going to be resolved.
Dawn, there still are honest people around, but it's bloody hard to do anything without tripping over a forked tongue!
I certainly didn't know about this before the court case, but I will be honest I am aware now about the 'other' issues. I've said it before, no one instigated an investigation by making it official.
The matter of George Adams is history (and not very nice history). I personally feel from the evidence I saw regarding George Adams that he was guilty of the charges made by the PFA (Please don't mention the court case again in this instance!).
It would be wrong to drag out all the facts again, but the EC minutes will show that I proposed that George be expelled from the association.That proposal was defeated and I was subsequently glad it was. The fall back was as stated earlier.
Tony, I'm sad you just keep going around in circles, believe me this isn't going to be resolved.
Dawn, there still are honest people around, but it's bloody hard to do anything without tripping over a forked tongue!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TonyR
I agree it was a bit misleading, but it seems a bit of a thin reason to force someone to resign.
The important thing from my prospective is that the changes in the system appear to be sensible. They appear to offer a real hope that it will never happen again and my impression is the CAA are pleased with the changes.
I have followed this case for many months and I probably only have 50% of the facts. From what I know it appears to have been very badly handled, and I think Mr Adams deserved better, but is it time to move on?
----------------------------------
I have spent many hours over the last few days attempting to get to the bottom of some of what has been posted, with the exception of the Adams case.
I would however encourage people to do some of their own investigations, sorting out who is attempting to discredit who, and why, would make a good Morse.
NigelR, please give me a call, I need to check something you told me and have misplaced your number.
Rod1
I agree it was a bit misleading, but it seems a bit of a thin reason to force someone to resign.
The important thing from my prospective is that the changes in the system appear to be sensible. They appear to offer a real hope that it will never happen again and my impression is the CAA are pleased with the changes.
I have followed this case for many months and I probably only have 50% of the facts. From what I know it appears to have been very badly handled, and I think Mr Adams deserved better, but is it time to move on?
----------------------------------
I have spent many hours over the last few days attempting to get to the bottom of some of what has been posted, with the exception of the Adams case.
I would however encourage people to do some of their own investigations, sorting out who is attempting to discredit who, and why, would make a good Morse.
NigelR, please give me a call, I need to check something you told me and have misplaced your number.
Rod1
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Here and There
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod1 & Nigel
It would be nice to move on, and I accept people are fed up hearing about George A. However if you knew the man you would know that he would not do anything to endanger an a/c nor would want to bring the association in to disrepute.
Pfa management should have contacted George after the case, I am sure he needed all the encouragement he could get, just to stay keep his sanity.
If Ken or Graham either gave us a good reason for having to be forced to contact George, or tell us that things should have been handled better and they were sorry about that. This would perhaps show me and others that there is a we bit of decency within the PFA office, and we could then move on.
It is this "we are always right" attitude that really pissed people off
Ken
It would be nice to move on, and I accept people are fed up hearing about George A. However if you knew the man you would know that he would not do anything to endanger an a/c nor would want to bring the association in to disrepute.
Pfa management should have contacted George after the case, I am sure he needed all the encouragement he could get, just to stay keep his sanity.
If Ken or Graham either gave us a good reason for having to be forced to contact George, or tell us that things should have been handled better and they were sorry about that. This would perhaps show me and others that there is a we bit of decency within the PFA office, and we could then move on.
It is this "we are always right" attitude that really pissed people off
Ken
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Devon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If John is correct then Mr S.. & Mr L... also brought the PFA into disrepute. Why has no one on the EC or management made a formal compliant?
Surely it should not take a "member" to push the PFA to investigate this when the EC now seem to have the information about them.
I hope it is not a case where the people who shout loudest get there compliant heard.
Looking back over the information I have about the case it would appear that Mr B.. was not totally innocent, but neither were Mr S..and Mr L..
If they as the CAA seem to suggest withheld information that could have stopped the court case then I would kick them both out of the PFA.
I would be prepared to write to the EC requesting this but I don't know enough about the case, perhaps those that do have the facts should.
Dawn
Click here to see the Kitfox in question
Surely it should not take a "member" to push the PFA to investigate this when the EC now seem to have the information about them.
I hope it is not a case where the people who shout loudest get there compliant heard.
Looking back over the information I have about the case it would appear that Mr B.. was not totally innocent, but neither were Mr S..and Mr L..
If they as the CAA seem to suggest withheld information that could have stopped the court case then I would kick them both out of the PFA.
I would be prepared to write to the EC requesting this but I don't know enough about the case, perhaps those that do have the facts should.
Dawn
Click here to see the Kitfox in question
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
systems
Now, as you might have seen, I have complained gently about a few things 'core PFA', I was as stated by an EC member treated very badly, and there are still some appaling people on EC, BUT;
In defence of the PFA in the wider sense, the EC or management don't 'choose' to expell a member themselves. But, if a complaint is received they will investigate it and react accordingly. IE THey most certainly dont go looking for members to expel for their own reasons.
During my stint on EC I remember one of the two parties in this case complaining about the other with 'pretty loose facts'. Several letters were written asking for more information and hard evidence which up until my resignation were not even replied to. THerefore whatever the background nothing can be done - heresay is just not adequate.
To back up Nigels remark, that the ensuing court case found a particular result is nothing to do with what the PFA decide regarding its reputation and safety and whether to 'keep' an inspector, or an ordinary member. THere are many things I could do and say that would cause my suspension or expulsion, but they would never become courtroom material in a million years.
Also a significant factor in how these issues are dealt with is again the structure of PFA. Issues such as these are dealt with between management and EC. EC meet every two months, so fast turnrounds in the common proffesional sense are simply not possible. The current constitution does not allow it, that is the doing of the membership as a whole and not the current managment teams fault in any way. THere have been several attempts to change the consitution but those with over active imaginations usually force a stalemate at AGM - so we are still stuck.
As someone that has been in deeper with PFA than many, the constitution is the single most debilitating factor in all things PFA. Change it and much can be solved quite easily.
However the right people must be at the top, and they currently are not.
Regards,
Timbo
In defence of the PFA in the wider sense, the EC or management don't 'choose' to expell a member themselves. But, if a complaint is received they will investigate it and react accordingly. IE THey most certainly dont go looking for members to expel for their own reasons.
During my stint on EC I remember one of the two parties in this case complaining about the other with 'pretty loose facts'. Several letters were written asking for more information and hard evidence which up until my resignation were not even replied to. THerefore whatever the background nothing can be done - heresay is just not adequate.
To back up Nigels remark, that the ensuing court case found a particular result is nothing to do with what the PFA decide regarding its reputation and safety and whether to 'keep' an inspector, or an ordinary member. THere are many things I could do and say that would cause my suspension or expulsion, but they would never become courtroom material in a million years.
Also a significant factor in how these issues are dealt with is again the structure of PFA. Issues such as these are dealt with between management and EC. EC meet every two months, so fast turnrounds in the common proffesional sense are simply not possible. The current constitution does not allow it, that is the doing of the membership as a whole and not the current managment teams fault in any way. THere have been several attempts to change the consitution but those with over active imaginations usually force a stalemate at AGM - so we are still stuck.
As someone that has been in deeper with PFA than many, the constitution is the single most debilitating factor in all things PFA. Change it and much can be solved quite easily.
However the right people must be at the top, and they currently are not.
Regards,
Timbo
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Winchester
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
Tony Ringland did phone me last night and we had a valuable conversation. He has agreed it's time to let this die. I spoke with George Adams this morning with a majority mandate from the EC members whom I had emailed and phoned, thus I was able to speak to George as Vice Chairman of the PFA.
It is not required public knowledge what the details of these conversations have been, suffice it to say that both were positive and useful conversations.
As I have stated here, we are making strides to improve the whole of the PFA system and we have made several strides forward. If nothing else the George Adams affair has been the catalyst for this and momentum is now such that it isn't going to stop.
So give us a break and stop trying to find things in corners, it's a lovely weekend, go flying!
Dawn, as Timbo has said, it's not the EC's job to expel people, that's a last resort and only happens when a member asks us to take action, and then only after a full investigation.
Mr B by the way is no longer a member and will never be again, that was an EC decision.
Tony Ringland did phone me last night and we had a valuable conversation. He has agreed it's time to let this die. I spoke with George Adams this morning with a majority mandate from the EC members whom I had emailed and phoned, thus I was able to speak to George as Vice Chairman of the PFA.
It is not required public knowledge what the details of these conversations have been, suffice it to say that both were positive and useful conversations.
As I have stated here, we are making strides to improve the whole of the PFA system and we have made several strides forward. If nothing else the George Adams affair has been the catalyst for this and momentum is now such that it isn't going to stop.
So give us a break and stop trying to find things in corners, it's a lovely weekend, go flying!
Dawn, as Timbo has said, it's not the EC's job to expel people, that's a last resort and only happens when a member asks us to take action, and then only after a full investigation.
Mr B by the way is no longer a member and will never be again, that was an EC decision.
NigelR,
Congratulations, it seems that you have been able to apply some common sense to this debacle and sort out the "wheat from the chaff" amongst the elements of the story as portrayed on various BBs. I'm sure that if the remainder of the PFA EC and management team can do likewise then there is at least some hope for the future of the PFA.
Do you happen to know why the CEO has apparently stated that his aim is for the PFA to take over the BMAA? I find it curious that the PFA should choose to compete with another recreational aviation body in this way, as I cannot help but feel that working cooperatively would be better for the members of both associations.
Are the PFA EC agreed on this policy of competition? If so, then I wonder if such a view would be supported by the majority of PFA members. I fear that this news may well further alienate many microlighters against the PFA unless things are sorted out.
Congratulations, it seems that you have been able to apply some common sense to this debacle and sort out the "wheat from the chaff" amongst the elements of the story as portrayed on various BBs. I'm sure that if the remainder of the PFA EC and management team can do likewise then there is at least some hope for the future of the PFA.
Do you happen to know why the CEO has apparently stated that his aim is for the PFA to take over the BMAA? I find it curious that the PFA should choose to compete with another recreational aviation body in this way, as I cannot help but feel that working cooperatively would be better for the members of both associations.
Are the PFA EC agreed on this policy of competition? If so, then I wonder if such a view would be supported by the majority of PFA members. I fear that this news may well further alienate many microlighters against the PFA unless things are sorted out.