The PFA
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: don't know, I'll ask
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FaPoGai, I wondered that too, but by the sounds of things it about what one might expect.
DawnB, I also don't think they are best pleased to have Pitts Specials in either, because of their noise problems at Turweston, and all most all the single seat Pits are permit a/c.
DawnB, I also don't think they are best pleased to have Pitts Specials in either, because of their noise problems at Turweston, and all most all the single seat Pits are permit a/c.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Devon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done PPRuNe you've cracked it and we are all famous.
Guess what we have made it on to the new PFA BB.
So have a look quick before it is deleted
Dawn
http://www.pfa.org.uk/cgi-bin/ultima...c;f=1;t=000007
Guess what we have made it on to the new PFA BB.
So have a look quick before it is deleted
Dawn
http://www.pfa.org.uk/cgi-bin/ultima...c;f=1;t=000007
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: N E England
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dawn B, If you are ever to get a husband you will have to moderate that costic tongue.
You will have hurt the feelings of some at the PFA, how could you ever suggest that "they" would delete a post.
John
You will have hurt the feelings of some at the PFA, how could you ever suggest that "they" would delete a post.
John
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Devon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John honey,
I could have two or three husbands a week if I wanted to,
But they always belong to other women.
Anyway I spend too much time with men at work to want one of my own, sure you are all the same
I could have two or three husbands a week if I wanted to,
But they always belong to other women.
Anyway I spend too much time with men at work to want one of my own, sure you are all the same
Last edited by DawnB; 18th Apr 2004 at 21:34.
Shortstripper wrote:
"The PFA is trying to negotiate a "sports" category not unlike the EAA system and this will be only be a good thing in my opinion."
VP959 replies (belatedly perhaps):
Actually, it seems that the PFA now has a declared intent, clearly and very recently expressed by "the PFA management", to become the ONLY recreational aviation body in the UK.
To move towards this end they have declared that they are now seeking to take away approval work from the BMAA, and have made it very clear that in their view there is no room for two associations looking after light powered aircraft. The intent seems to be to seek to drive the BMAA out of business.
Methinks that the PFA membership need to state their views on this "declaration of war" with the BMAA, as I cannot somehow see the present, mismanaged, poorly presented and hopelessly inneffective association truly managing to be the sole representative body for the lighter side of aviation.
Perhaps the fact that 30% of light aircraft in the UK are now microlights has caught the attention of the association that once refused point blank to have anything to do with them. I've no doubt the potential to earn dosh from all the extra microlight permit renewals, to waste on yet further infighting, might appear attractive.
"The PFA is trying to negotiate a "sports" category not unlike the EAA system and this will be only be a good thing in my opinion."
VP959 replies (belatedly perhaps):
Actually, it seems that the PFA now has a declared intent, clearly and very recently expressed by "the PFA management", to become the ONLY recreational aviation body in the UK.
To move towards this end they have declared that they are now seeking to take away approval work from the BMAA, and have made it very clear that in their view there is no room for two associations looking after light powered aircraft. The intent seems to be to seek to drive the BMAA out of business.
Methinks that the PFA membership need to state their views on this "declaration of war" with the BMAA, as I cannot somehow see the present, mismanaged, poorly presented and hopelessly inneffective association truly managing to be the sole representative body for the lighter side of aviation.
Perhaps the fact that 30% of light aircraft in the UK are now microlights has caught the attention of the association that once refused point blank to have anything to do with them. I've no doubt the potential to earn dosh from all the extra microlight permit renewals, to waste on yet further infighting, might appear attractive.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: N E England
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it is time for the rest of us in G/A to get behind the well run BMAA and give them the support they need.
Perhaps the PFA members who don't "need" to be members should consider their position
John
Perhaps the PFA members who don't "need" to be members should consider their position
John
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Midlands
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of you who beleive everthing you read here I would like you to understand that this whole thread, just like those on the PFA BB last year has been part of a personal vendetta against the PFA management by Tony Ringland and a couple of others.
People need to realise that this sort of thread could lead to the downfall of the PFA. Then where would homebuild owners be
Dave
Edited again.
(1) Do NOT re-post parts which have been removed by a Mod.
(2) If you want to slander people, do it on the PFA BB - NOT on ours.
Heliport
Moderator
People need to realise that this sort of thread could lead to the downfall of the PFA. Then where would homebuild owners be
Dave
Edited again.
(1) Do NOT re-post parts which have been removed by a Mod.
(2) If you want to slander people, do it on the PFA BB - NOT on ours.
Heliport
Moderator
Last edited by nongpsuser; 19th Apr 2004 at 07:46.
Guest
Posts: n/a
nongpsuser, I was hoping to let TonyR take a bit more line before reeling him in. It is clear to every thinking person that he does not act out of concern for the PFA but following his own agenda. You have said what I was reluctant to say although I did say earlier on that there are two sides to every story and we have heard much of the other side previously although the other side of the story is only just being told!
Edited. If you want to slander people, do it on the PFA BB - NOT on ours.
Heliport
Moderator
You meant libel no doubt. In any event I was very careful with my words and MY post did not contain in my opinion contain any libelous statement. If you read a libel then that is what you read into it. Unfortunately there are a few souls who would have everyone believe that they are pure white and the PFA is jet black. Be assured it really isn't like that. They have their own facist agendas.
Edited. If you want to slander people, do it on the PFA BB - NOT on ours.
Heliport
Moderator
You meant libel no doubt. In any event I was very careful with my words and MY post did not contain in my opinion contain any libelous statement. If you read a libel then that is what you read into it. Unfortunately there are a few souls who would have everyone believe that they are pure white and the PFA is jet black. Be assured it really isn't like that. They have their own facist agendas.
Last edited by Pinga; 19th Apr 2004 at 16:21.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pinga & nongpsuser,
I have posted facts which after being brought into the public domain in the Crown Court can be checked from court records.
If you read my letter to the PFA magazine, ( below) then perhaps ask the management what have they done about re-instating Mr Adams and have they got proper insurance for their inspectors. This letter has never been addressed, just like all the posts that were removed from the PFA BB.
You are right however after the way PFA have treated George Adams I dont really have a great deal of concern about its future.
"Dear Editor,
I would call on all PFA inspectors to take note:
The CAA lost another court case in Northern Ireland on October 15th involving a pilot / owner of a home built Kitfox and a PFA inspector. I need not enter into very much detail about the case other than to say that the owner pleaded guilty to what the Crown Court Judge said was a minor offence of failing to make a proper entry in the airframe logbook. The PFA inspector and the owner were charged with “Endangering an aircraft and persons therein” the judge directed the jury to bring not guilty verdicts to this charge in both cases, as the CAA had not proved their case. No defence was necessary and the PFA inspector was told by the judge that he left the court without a stain on his character. The pilot /owner was given a conditional discharge on the “minor charge”.
When the CAA brought forth the above charges, the PFA suspended the inspector. The inspector contacted the PFA insurers to seek help with legal costs. The insurance company refused to cover the legal costs as the charges were “criminal” and not civil. This could mean that if someone were to be killed in a PFA aircraft accident and the inspector was found negligent a charge of manslaughter could be brought which would be criminal. ARE YOU AWARE THAT PFA INSPECTORS ARE NOT COVERED BY PFA INSURANCE AGAINST LEGAL ACTION IF THE CASE IS OF A CRIMINAL NATURE.
The PFA representatives were shoulder to shoulder with the CAA and assisted the CAA to prosecute the above case even though it was revelled in court that the PFA chief inspector and the chief engineer stated to the CAA that the aircraft in question was safe to fly. This case cost in the region of £450,000 and ran for eight days before being stopped by the judge due to lack of evidence. I have two questions; Who is going to hold the CAA to account for wasting money? and Who would want to continue to be a PFA inspector?"
I have posted facts which after being brought into the public domain in the Crown Court can be checked from court records.
If you read my letter to the PFA magazine, ( below) then perhaps ask the management what have they done about re-instating Mr Adams and have they got proper insurance for their inspectors. This letter has never been addressed, just like all the posts that were removed from the PFA BB.
You are right however after the way PFA have treated George Adams I dont really have a great deal of concern about its future.
"Dear Editor,
I would call on all PFA inspectors to take note:
The CAA lost another court case in Northern Ireland on October 15th involving a pilot / owner of a home built Kitfox and a PFA inspector. I need not enter into very much detail about the case other than to say that the owner pleaded guilty to what the Crown Court Judge said was a minor offence of failing to make a proper entry in the airframe logbook. The PFA inspector and the owner were charged with “Endangering an aircraft and persons therein” the judge directed the jury to bring not guilty verdicts to this charge in both cases, as the CAA had not proved their case. No defence was necessary and the PFA inspector was told by the judge that he left the court without a stain on his character. The pilot /owner was given a conditional discharge on the “minor charge”.
When the CAA brought forth the above charges, the PFA suspended the inspector. The inspector contacted the PFA insurers to seek help with legal costs. The insurance company refused to cover the legal costs as the charges were “criminal” and not civil. This could mean that if someone were to be killed in a PFA aircraft accident and the inspector was found negligent a charge of manslaughter could be brought which would be criminal. ARE YOU AWARE THAT PFA INSPECTORS ARE NOT COVERED BY PFA INSURANCE AGAINST LEGAL ACTION IF THE CASE IS OF A CRIMINAL NATURE.
The PFA representatives were shoulder to shoulder with the CAA and assisted the CAA to prosecute the above case even though it was revelled in court that the PFA chief inspector and the chief engineer stated to the CAA that the aircraft in question was safe to fly. This case cost in the region of £450,000 and ran for eight days before being stopped by the judge due to lack of evidence. I have two questions; Who is going to hold the CAA to account for wasting money? and Who would want to continue to be a PFA inspector?"
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This board is up, running and has been like that for 8 unbroken years.
Where we interfered with your words we made the intervention both obvious (larger typeface and different colour) and the reasons for it abundantly clear. Something the other board apparently didn't consider worthwhile.
It is also a matter of policy that the PPRuNe EC ( i.e me and Danny) are open to criticism in public - something a few minutes with our search engine will prove again and again.
Rob Lloyd
PFA member since 1978
Where we interfered with your words we made the intervention both obvious (larger typeface and different colour) and the reasons for it abundantly clear. Something the other board apparently didn't consider worthwhile.
It is also a matter of policy that the PPRuNe EC ( i.e me and Danny) are open to criticism in public - something a few minutes with our search engine will prove again and again.
Rob Lloyd
PFA member since 1978
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: N E England
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My goodness the PFA have 2 supporters & slander & libel on PPRuNe
Where are the FACTS from the PFA management if Tony R is so wrong. They could not give him a truthfull answer so they closed the BB for weeks and hoped this would all go away.
I have the court transcript and Tony R has told it as it is.
John
PS. Pinga, I see you still do not say if Lord Trefgarne is a noisy moran or not
Where are the FACTS from the PFA management if Tony R is so wrong. They could not give him a truthfull answer so they closed the BB for weeks and hoped this would all go away.
I have the court transcript and Tony R has told it as it is.
John
PS. Pinga, I see you still do not say if Lord Trefgarne is a noisy moran or not
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately some of the posts on the PFA BB went too far and as a result the BBS has been closed for posting to non-members.
Discussion on this board is generally good humoured and uses well reasoned argument without being offensive.
Moderation on PPRuNe is independent and fair minded.
Sadly it seems that the protagonists are unable to carry on their argument here in a civilised manner either.
Mike
Discussion on this board is generally good humoured and uses well reasoned argument without being offensive.
Moderation on PPRuNe is independent and fair minded.
Sadly it seems that the protagonists are unable to carry on their argument here in a civilised manner either.
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
And so what if one case didn't hold up? The Crown Prosecution Service has many many cases where a "not guilty" verdict is returned every week! The way British law works is that the facts are presented and it is for the prosecution to prove it's case. In the instance in question it failed to do just that. Would you have the Crown Prosecution Service disbanded for losing a percentage of it's prosecutions. Mybe I shouldn't ask that question because the morons here probably would!
It may well be that the PFA have good sound reasons for not re-instating Mr Adams.
The fact is and remains that the PFA is a democratic association and there is a right and wrong way of bringing about change. Yes democracy is the value that is cherished by the majority of people including members of the PFA and Mr Adams faced the democratic process of trial. The facts were duly considered and a "not guilty" verdict returned. In a non democratic society, Mr Adams may well have been dragged out of his house and shot dead without the benefit of a trial!
Why do you morons have a problem with the process of British law, why do you morons have a problem with democracy?
Do you think that a true democratic process should be applied in some cases (Mr Adams) but not in other cases (The PFA exec.)?
Why do I waste my time on you people
It may well be that the PFA have good sound reasons for not re-instating Mr Adams.
The fact is and remains that the PFA is a democratic association and there is a right and wrong way of bringing about change. Yes democracy is the value that is cherished by the majority of people including members of the PFA and Mr Adams faced the democratic process of trial. The facts were duly considered and a "not guilty" verdict returned. In a non democratic society, Mr Adams may well have been dragged out of his house and shot dead without the benefit of a trial!
Why do you morons have a problem with the process of British law, why do you morons have a problem with democracy?
Do you think that a true democratic process should be applied in some cases (Mr Adams) but not in other cases (The PFA exec.)?
Why do I waste my time on you people
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's about time someone put a few facts on this thread. I'm member of the PFA EC, and no I'm not going to say who I am, neither will I necessarily continue to post here, but it's time a few facts were posted.
1. Mr Adams WAS invited to re-apply for his inspectors permit. He has to date not applied.
2. Tony Ringland has consistently attempted to cause mischief for the PFA, and continues to cite the CAA court case. Mr Adams was suspended for bringing the inspection process into disrepute, his behaviour was proved beyond doubt to the EC and engineering, whether or not he was found not guilty in court for specific offences had nothing to do with that.
3. The BB was down for technical reasons, due to the webmaster quitting without even giving notice of his intent.
4. JBQC was another consistent troublemaker on the PFA bb and he's not missed!
5. The EC have put a great deal of effort into righting many of the wrongs mentioned here and on the PFA BB. We are indeed volunteers who believe in the association. It's a pretty thankless task when we are misquoted and libelled by people who consistently snipe away frequently to their own agenda.
6. Lord T could never be called a moron (note the spelling please, illiterate gents) but his letter to the membership was another devisive instrument delivered as a direct result of his not being asked to continue as chairman.
So there, chew on those facts for a while, no doubt a few of you will launch yourselves into the attack, but try and stick to the facts and not turn to flights of fancy!
1. Mr Adams WAS invited to re-apply for his inspectors permit. He has to date not applied.
2. Tony Ringland has consistently attempted to cause mischief for the PFA, and continues to cite the CAA court case. Mr Adams was suspended for bringing the inspection process into disrepute, his behaviour was proved beyond doubt to the EC and engineering, whether or not he was found not guilty in court for specific offences had nothing to do with that.
3. The BB was down for technical reasons, due to the webmaster quitting without even giving notice of his intent.
4. JBQC was another consistent troublemaker on the PFA bb and he's not missed!
5. The EC have put a great deal of effort into righting many of the wrongs mentioned here and on the PFA BB. We are indeed volunteers who believe in the association. It's a pretty thankless task when we are misquoted and libelled by people who consistently snipe away frequently to their own agenda.
6. Lord T could never be called a moron (note the spelling please, illiterate gents) but his letter to the membership was another devisive instrument delivered as a direct result of his not being asked to continue as chairman.
So there, chew on those facts for a while, no doubt a few of you will launch yourselves into the attack, but try and stick to the facts and not turn to flights of fancy!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MD USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am Florida based FAA employee and former USAF pilot, and have been reading with interest this thread.
I met Tony Ringland about 10 years ago when I was looking over the fence at a little airport in Donegal Ireland, He was working under an old Cessna 180 on the ramp. He looked up and ask me if I wanted to go for a ride. He took me and My wife for the most wonderful flight through the mountains and along the west coast of Ireland, he would not even take a dime for the flight. I can tell you that he is one of aviation's nice guys and one of the best pilots I have ever met.
We have flown together over here a few times and he is just as happy in our old Cub out of my 900ft dirt strip as he is in my friends C340 at FL200. I would suggest to you all that Tony would only stand up for his friend if there was an injustice done by the PFA.
I have known and flown with the best and I count Tony a true pro and a good friend, so those of you who would tear the fella apart on this BB should wish you had this kinda friend to fight your corner.
John Anderson
I met Tony Ringland about 10 years ago when I was looking over the fence at a little airport in Donegal Ireland, He was working under an old Cessna 180 on the ramp. He looked up and ask me if I wanted to go for a ride. He took me and My wife for the most wonderful flight through the mountains and along the west coast of Ireland, he would not even take a dime for the flight. I can tell you that he is one of aviation's nice guys and one of the best pilots I have ever met.
We have flown together over here a few times and he is just as happy in our old Cub out of my 900ft dirt strip as he is in my friends C340 at FL200. I would suggest to you all that Tony would only stand up for his friend if there was an injustice done by the PFA.
I have known and flown with the best and I count Tony a true pro and a good friend, so those of you who would tear the fella apart on this BB should wish you had this kinda friend to fight your corner.
John Anderson
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the PFA's supporters rather than its detractors who are making it look bad here.
Now that they've re-opened their own sandpit perhaps they could all toddle off back there to play.
Now that they've re-opened their own sandpit perhaps they could all toddle off back there to play.
EC Man, I tend to agree with your sentiments, but perhaps you can enlighten us as to why the PFA seems to have now adopted a policy of taking over the other recreational aviation organisations.
I fear that this will only result in further division, at a time when all representative associations should be working together to defend our priveleges against the inevitable European regulatory onslaught.
Please tell us why this decision has been taken, as I am very curious indeed as to the PFA's reasons for taking this stance.
I fear that this will only result in further division, at a time when all representative associations should be working together to defend our priveleges against the inevitable European regulatory onslaught.
Please tell us why this decision has been taken, as I am very curious indeed as to the PFA's reasons for taking this stance.