The PFA
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Winchester
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VP959, thanks for your support and confidence. As for the business of our taking over the world...... Take it from me, Graham didn't make any such statement. Whoever is spreading this rumour needs to look to their source, it simply isn't true.
Any negotiation upon type approvals that cross the PFA/BMAA boundaries are being discussed between the two associations in a spirit of mutual co-operation. Inevitably the demise of the temporary SLA class, and subsequent VLA etc etc, has meant that there are aircraft which fit new categories. Where the PFA Engineering department did all the approval work, you can see we would be loath to hand it over, especially where it has suddenly become a 'factory built' machine under section S for example.
There's nothing sinister going on.
Any negotiation upon type approvals that cross the PFA/BMAA boundaries are being discussed between the two associations in a spirit of mutual co-operation. Inevitably the demise of the temporary SLA class, and subsequent VLA etc etc, has meant that there are aircraft which fit new categories. Where the PFA Engineering department did all the approval work, you can see we would be loath to hand it over, especially where it has suddenly become a 'factory built' machine under section S for example.
There's nothing sinister going on.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Here and There
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel
I wish you well in your efforts but it would be nice if Graham would explain himself better, ie. Adams on the BB and BMAA takeover rumours etc.
Ken
I wish you well in your efforts but it would be nice if Graham would explain himself better, ie. Adams on the BB and BMAA takeover rumours etc.
Ken
Last edited by locksmith; 24th Apr 2004 at 22:38.
NigelR,
I have PM'ed you, as I'm afraid the PFA CE did exactly as I said. I gather it may have been prompted by the Eurostar issue, but was not phrased as such to the BMAA.
Just to clarfy the often stated error re: the SLA "class that never was".
When Section S issue 2 was agreed, raising the maximum weight limit for microlights from 390kg to 450kg, there was a problem with the amendment cycle of the Air Navigation Order (the Statutory Instrument, that amongst other things contains the legal microlight definition). As it wasn't possible to change the legal definition of a microlight in the ANO in time for the issue of Section S issue 2, the CAA issued a new microlight definition but worded as Small Light Aircraft, which aligned with the actual title of Section S. As soon as the ANO came up for amendment the mythical SLA class disappeared, as it was only a legal artifact in the first place.
Most "SLA's" happened to fall into the BMAA camp anyway, as they were microlights all along. In fact, during the couple of years that the SLA definition was extant it covered all microlights anyway. The PFA has only ever had a small handful of microlights, probably no more than about 200 machines in total I suspect, whereas the BMAA fleet is about ten times that size or more.
I guess if the PFA can look at competing with the BMAA for it's main income stream, then the BMAA should do the same and look at seeking approval to oversee Gp A homebuilts.
I find this very odd behavior for an association that refused point blank to have anything whatsoever to do with microlights 25 years ago. In fact, the PFA's action back then directly led to the formation of the BMAA. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap........."
I have PM'ed you, as I'm afraid the PFA CE did exactly as I said. I gather it may have been prompted by the Eurostar issue, but was not phrased as such to the BMAA.
Just to clarfy the often stated error re: the SLA "class that never was".
When Section S issue 2 was agreed, raising the maximum weight limit for microlights from 390kg to 450kg, there was a problem with the amendment cycle of the Air Navigation Order (the Statutory Instrument, that amongst other things contains the legal microlight definition). As it wasn't possible to change the legal definition of a microlight in the ANO in time for the issue of Section S issue 2, the CAA issued a new microlight definition but worded as Small Light Aircraft, which aligned with the actual title of Section S. As soon as the ANO came up for amendment the mythical SLA class disappeared, as it was only a legal artifact in the first place.
Most "SLA's" happened to fall into the BMAA camp anyway, as they were microlights all along. In fact, during the couple of years that the SLA definition was extant it covered all microlights anyway. The PFA has only ever had a small handful of microlights, probably no more than about 200 machines in total I suspect, whereas the BMAA fleet is about ten times that size or more.
I guess if the PFA can look at competing with the BMAA for it's main income stream, then the BMAA should do the same and look at seeking approval to oversee Gp A homebuilts.
I find this very odd behavior for an association that refused point blank to have anything whatsoever to do with microlights 25 years ago. In fact, the PFA's action back then directly led to the formation of the BMAA. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap........."
Last edited by VP959; 24th Apr 2004 at 19:36.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Here and There
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel, this is a quote for the Pfa BB, Question your CEO
"Ernest, you got in just in front of me.
Graham, if you do not intend to read or respond to posts in the topic area which bears your name, would it not be a good idea to delegate the responsibility to someone else to answer on your behalf or change the title. May I suggest "Grahams 'Ignore' Folder."
Mike W"
Why the HELL is this man CEO,
He, as Dawn said, is the reason why most of us are FU..ING fed up to the teeth.
Ken
"Ernest, you got in just in front of me.
Graham, if you do not intend to read or respond to posts in the topic area which bears your name, would it not be a good idea to delegate the responsibility to someone else to answer on your behalf or change the title. May I suggest "Grahams 'Ignore' Folder."
Mike W"
Why the HELL is this man CEO,
He, as Dawn said, is the reason why most of us are FU..ING fed up to the teeth.
Ken
Last edited by locksmith; 24th Apr 2004 at 22:33.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the "Good guys" on the EC,
I have been a member for over 10 years.
I know Graham, and this past year or so he has said and done some things which have not been in the best interests of the Pfa.
Most of the members I have spoken to over this last few days feel the same as Locksmith & Dawn.
The CEO must go in order to help restore some form of creditability to the Association
Paul
I have been a member for over 10 years.
I know Graham, and this past year or so he has said and done some things which have not been in the best interests of the Pfa.
Most of the members I have spoken to over this last few days feel the same as Locksmith & Dawn.
The CEO must go in order to help restore some form of creditability to the Association
Paul
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh look, another real person arrives..
I'm a member of the exec committee and I think the other members are horrible..
No, I'm actually from N Ireland and I think you're all a bunch of liars..
No hang about, I'm a model who also flys, and I think you're all incompetent old gits...
Actually I'm a PFA member who holds no office but has noticed that in both this topic and the old one on the PFA board there are an amazing number of user-ids being created specifically to log on and slag the pfa. Low to nil post numbers an reinforcing each others postings.
At least one of the real people, is I suspect using multiple ids.
Any moderators checking ip addresses and timings? And why is this topic still on this forum and not on Jet Blast.
No, I'm actually from N Ireland and I think you're all a bunch of liars..
No hang about, I'm a model who also flys, and I think you're all incompetent old gits...
Actually I'm a PFA member who holds no office but has noticed that in both this topic and the old one on the PFA board there are an amazing number of user-ids being created specifically to log on and slag the pfa. Low to nil post numbers an reinforcing each others postings.
At least one of the real people, is I suspect using multiple ids.
Any moderators checking ip addresses and timings? And why is this topic still on this forum and not on Jet Blast.
Posts: 1
noticed that in both this topic and the old one on the PFA board there are an amazing number of user-ids being created specifically to log on and slag the pfa.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G,
That's exactly the point I was making in my choice of user-id. Easy to do, and I think its happening.
And lest it isnt clear, the post was knocking those posters, not the pfa, which I support.
That's exactly the point I was making in my choice of user-id. Easy to do, and I think its happening.
And lest it isnt clear, the post was knocking those posters, not the pfa, which I support.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Here and There
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beleive it or not some of us did not even know about PPRuNe as we used the Pfa BB and PPRuNe was not really advertised much there.
Just because we do not have 300 + posts does not mean we are not "real people"
You might also discover that there might even be more than 3 or 4 members who do not like the way things are run
Ken
Just because we do not have 300 + posts does not mean we are not "real people"
You might also discover that there might even be more than 3 or 4 members who do not like the way things are run
Ken
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons I resigned from the PFA 10 years ago was because it had started to become an Association comprised of whingers instead of do-ers!
I see from this thread, and the PFAs own Bulletin Board that nothing seems to have changed.
I see from this thread, and the PFAs own Bulletin Board that nothing seems to have changed.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Devon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any one for Popham?
I see Graham has invited members to "come into the PFA tent for a natter"
I would like to ask him a few questions so if anyone else would like to join in I'll see you there on Sat
Dawn
I see Graham has invited members to "come into the PFA tent for a natter"
I would like to ask him a few questions so if anyone else would like to join in I'll see you there on Sat
Dawn
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Winchester
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks I've disputed this PFA takeover of BMAA. I asked Graham today and this was his response. I have his permission to post it here.
Nigel
I'm not sure where this information is coming from, but it is factually
incorrect. To save time I will answer in bullet point fashion:-
1) I, nor anyone else to my knowledge, has suggested to the BMAA that we are
seeking to take over Type approved microlights.
2) I have spoken to Chris Finnigan and discussed the point that Factory
Built, ie Type approved microlights, that are derived from homebuilt types
that the PFA has approved would, from a safety point of view, be better
looked after by the PFA. If you take the Eurostar as an example, when Nigel
Beale applied for approval as a homebuilt we spent some man months reviewing
the design submission and asked for fairly major changes to be made knowing
that it was going to be sold in large numbers. As a Type approved microlight
the CAA, on the back of our work, have issued the Type Approval and the BMAA
are now responsible for it. If, or when there is a problem in the future
with a type approved Eurostar will we stand back and say " Your problem" to
the BMAA? Of course not. Just as with the shadow problems currently we will
sort them out.
3) We currently have a gentlemens agreement with the BMAA, that if an
aircraft is approved by the PFA as a homebuilt then we will look after all
future aircraft of that type and if an aircraft is cleared by the BMAA then
they look after future aircraft of that type.
4) We are suggesting, and it is only a suggestion, that we should extend
this gentlemens agreement to factory built versions of homebuilt types.
5) Far from starting a war, I am trying to suggest a way forward that will
prevent a war. With all the problems of EASA, and don't forget although
microlights are exempted under Annex 2 pilot licensing and operations
affecting the BMAA are a threat, Eurocontrol with it's one sky initiative
and next years mandatory insurance issues we must not fight.
6) If the person who has written this cares to talk to Chris at the BMAA he
will back this up.
7) I would like to know who it is that claims to be an EC member and has
suggested the BMAA extend their approvals, as this certainly would start a
war.
Graham
Nigel
I'm not sure where this information is coming from, but it is factually
incorrect. To save time I will answer in bullet point fashion:-
1) I, nor anyone else to my knowledge, has suggested to the BMAA that we are
seeking to take over Type approved microlights.
2) I have spoken to Chris Finnigan and discussed the point that Factory
Built, ie Type approved microlights, that are derived from homebuilt types
that the PFA has approved would, from a safety point of view, be better
looked after by the PFA. If you take the Eurostar as an example, when Nigel
Beale applied for approval as a homebuilt we spent some man months reviewing
the design submission and asked for fairly major changes to be made knowing
that it was going to be sold in large numbers. As a Type approved microlight
the CAA, on the back of our work, have issued the Type Approval and the BMAA
are now responsible for it. If, or when there is a problem in the future
with a type approved Eurostar will we stand back and say " Your problem" to
the BMAA? Of course not. Just as with the shadow problems currently we will
sort them out.
3) We currently have a gentlemens agreement with the BMAA, that if an
aircraft is approved by the PFA as a homebuilt then we will look after all
future aircraft of that type and if an aircraft is cleared by the BMAA then
they look after future aircraft of that type.
4) We are suggesting, and it is only a suggestion, that we should extend
this gentlemens agreement to factory built versions of homebuilt types.
5) Far from starting a war, I am trying to suggest a way forward that will
prevent a war. With all the problems of EASA, and don't forget although
microlights are exempted under Annex 2 pilot licensing and operations
affecting the BMAA are a threat, Eurocontrol with it's one sky initiative
and next years mandatory insurance issues we must not fight.
6) If the person who has written this cares to talk to Chris at the BMAA he
will back this up.
7) I would like to know who it is that claims to be an EC member and has
suggested the BMAA extend their approvals, as this certainly would start a
war.
Graham
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nongpsuser
You have made only nine posts on PPRuNe.
Each one has been on this single topic.
Each one has been an attempt to stifle open discussion.
Each one has been offensive, some more offensive than others.
Not one has contained an intelligent or constructive argument. (I appreciate that may be beyond your abilities.)
If you don't like open discussion, find a BB more to your liking.
Heliport
SuperModerator
NigelR,
If a public written statement, like the above, setting out clearly the PFAs formal policy for all to see, had been made some time ago, then I strongly suspect that there would be a lot more support for the PFA management and also that one or two members might still be with the PFA. A number of people in the BMAA would perhaps also be feeling somewhat less threatened.
Clearly this doesn't undo what has already been said and done (much of which was precise and true at the time that it was written), and it's also clear from other correspondence that the PFA EC is less than united in it's views on this.
Can we please have an assurance that PFA management take more care in what they say in future and also that the EC work towards healing the rift that has caused one or two of their number to seek to cause mischief by delighting in reporting the CEOs, perhaps unguarded and unnofficial, comments to others.
Perhaps an assurance that clearly marked private correspondence (you know precisely what I mean here) doesn't get forwarded or copied to others might help as well, as it does little to enhance the reputation of those who indulge in it and reflects badly on the association they work within.
As a final point, I have no interest whatsever in the George Adams affair, and have refrained from commenting on it, yet have been reported elsewhere as being one of those baying for the PFAs blood over this. This is untrue, as anyone who reads my old posts will be able to deduce fairly quickly. I'd appreciate it if you cleared up this misapprehension with your CEO as he clearly thinks otherwise. Clearly the way that this was handled may also be a source for learning from experience for the PFA, as it does seem to have been somewhat badly managed from the perspective of a bystander.
May your PFA recover from this and get back to it's former self.
If a public written statement, like the above, setting out clearly the PFAs formal policy for all to see, had been made some time ago, then I strongly suspect that there would be a lot more support for the PFA management and also that one or two members might still be with the PFA. A number of people in the BMAA would perhaps also be feeling somewhat less threatened.
Clearly this doesn't undo what has already been said and done (much of which was precise and true at the time that it was written), and it's also clear from other correspondence that the PFA EC is less than united in it's views on this.
Can we please have an assurance that PFA management take more care in what they say in future and also that the EC work towards healing the rift that has caused one or two of their number to seek to cause mischief by delighting in reporting the CEOs, perhaps unguarded and unnofficial, comments to others.
Perhaps an assurance that clearly marked private correspondence (you know precisely what I mean here) doesn't get forwarded or copied to others might help as well, as it does little to enhance the reputation of those who indulge in it and reflects badly on the association they work within.
As a final point, I have no interest whatsever in the George Adams affair, and have refrained from commenting on it, yet have been reported elsewhere as being one of those baying for the PFAs blood over this. This is untrue, as anyone who reads my old posts will be able to deduce fairly quickly. I'd appreciate it if you cleared up this misapprehension with your CEO as he clearly thinks otherwise. Clearly the way that this was handled may also be a source for learning from experience for the PFA, as it does seem to have been somewhat badly managed from the perspective of a bystander.
May your PFA recover from this and get back to it's former self.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Here and There
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a member of both the PFA & BMAA. I am willing to accept what Graham has said regarding the BMAA.
Graham's alleged hostile take-over bid for the BMAA has been discussed widely by BMAA members over the last week or so.
Where did this all start? I would not like to think that the members of the BMAA invented it.
I hope we do not have two associations with paranoid leaders, worring more about the "other camp" than managing their own.
Ken
Graham's alleged hostile take-over bid for the BMAA has been discussed widely by BMAA members over the last week or so.
Where did this all start? I would not like to think that the members of the BMAA invented it.
I hope we do not have two associations with paranoid leaders, worring more about the "other camp" than managing their own.
Ken
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Winchester
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to my previous post, and just to balance the picture, here is a statement from Chris Fiinigan CEO of the BMAA, perhaps we can put this one to bed now too!:
"It is NOT true that Graham Newby told me that the PFA were intending to
> take over Type Approved microlights.
> Nor is it true that he made a statement to me stating that he saw the PFA
> as the only recreational aviation organisation for the future and felt
> that the BMAA should just be left looking after any microlights that were
> not regulated.
>
> While attending the PFA offices to carry out an audit on the NPLG
> licensing system, I was invited to comment, in an informal meeting
> involving PFA Engineering staff and Graham Newby, led by Andrew Moore, on
> their proposal to extend their exposition to cover factory built
> microlights that had first been approved as PFA homebuilt aircraft. My
> comments were that I believed that the BMAA Council would not welcome this
> news, as my perception of their collective view was that microlights were
> our business and only heavier homebuilt and factory approved aircraft were
> the PFA's business. I also said that I would report the meeting to the
> BMAA Chairman as it would need to be discussed at the next BMAA Council
> meeting to confirm that my perception was correct. That formal
> discussion has not yet taken place and so BMAA policy has not changed,
> although clearly BMAA Council members will be formulating their views for
> the debate.
>
> I enjoy a cordial professional relationship with Graham Newby, and we
> "compare notes" on many issues to our mutual advantage.
> Our respective engineering staffs also co-operate on issues that affect us
> both, but we don't "live in each others' pockets".
>
> I was pleased to meet the new PFA Chairman Cliff Mort at the London
> Airshow, where he explained to me his views on taking the PFA forward
> which included, if I remember correctly, making it more of a pilot's
> association like the BMAA. All elected officials have their views which,
> in democratic organisations such as the BMAA and the PFA, are collectively
> debated before becoming policy and should, of course, reflect the majority
> view of the members who elected the officials. Employed staff like
> Graham and I are paid to implement such policy, not to make it.
>
> While I know that in the past there have been proposals for a merger of
> the two organisations, these were firmly rejected by the BMAA membership,
> and I personally (through my regular contacts with many of our membership)
> don't think that such a proposal would gain significant support in the
> forseeable future. Instead we are developing our European voice through
> our membership of the European Microlight Federation, which now has 16
> national microlight representative organisations in membership, as it is
> clear that EASA will pose the biggest challenges that microlight aviation
> will face in the next ten to fifteen years.
>
> I find it unfortunate that bulletin boards and other internet based
> discussion fora allow opinionated but anonymous individuals to inflame
> such debates when they would often do better to reflect in a mature and
> responsible manner before posting. Personally I try never to post
> something in an e-mail or on a bulletin board that I would not be prepared
> to say face to face or put my name to. Freedom of speech has a few
> drawbacks, but a little self-discipline can work wonders!
>
>
> Chris Finnigan
> Chief Executive
> BMAA "
"It is NOT true that Graham Newby told me that the PFA were intending to
> take over Type Approved microlights.
> Nor is it true that he made a statement to me stating that he saw the PFA
> as the only recreational aviation organisation for the future and felt
> that the BMAA should just be left looking after any microlights that were
> not regulated.
>
> While attending the PFA offices to carry out an audit on the NPLG
> licensing system, I was invited to comment, in an informal meeting
> involving PFA Engineering staff and Graham Newby, led by Andrew Moore, on
> their proposal to extend their exposition to cover factory built
> microlights that had first been approved as PFA homebuilt aircraft. My
> comments were that I believed that the BMAA Council would not welcome this
> news, as my perception of their collective view was that microlights were
> our business and only heavier homebuilt and factory approved aircraft were
> the PFA's business. I also said that I would report the meeting to the
> BMAA Chairman as it would need to be discussed at the next BMAA Council
> meeting to confirm that my perception was correct. That formal
> discussion has not yet taken place and so BMAA policy has not changed,
> although clearly BMAA Council members will be formulating their views for
> the debate.
>
> I enjoy a cordial professional relationship with Graham Newby, and we
> "compare notes" on many issues to our mutual advantage.
> Our respective engineering staffs also co-operate on issues that affect us
> both, but we don't "live in each others' pockets".
>
> I was pleased to meet the new PFA Chairman Cliff Mort at the London
> Airshow, where he explained to me his views on taking the PFA forward
> which included, if I remember correctly, making it more of a pilot's
> association like the BMAA. All elected officials have their views which,
> in democratic organisations such as the BMAA and the PFA, are collectively
> debated before becoming policy and should, of course, reflect the majority
> view of the members who elected the officials. Employed staff like
> Graham and I are paid to implement such policy, not to make it.
>
> While I know that in the past there have been proposals for a merger of
> the two organisations, these were firmly rejected by the BMAA membership,
> and I personally (through my regular contacts with many of our membership)
> don't think that such a proposal would gain significant support in the
> forseeable future. Instead we are developing our European voice through
> our membership of the European Microlight Federation, which now has 16
> national microlight representative organisations in membership, as it is
> clear that EASA will pose the biggest challenges that microlight aviation
> will face in the next ten to fifteen years.
>
> I find it unfortunate that bulletin boards and other internet based
> discussion fora allow opinionated but anonymous individuals to inflame
> such debates when they would often do better to reflect in a mature and
> responsible manner before posting. Personally I try never to post
> something in an e-mail or on a bulletin board that I would not be prepared
> to say face to face or put my name to. Freedom of speech has a few
> drawbacks, but a little self-discipline can work wonders!
>
>
> Chris Finnigan
> Chief Executive
> BMAA "