The PFA
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Devon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok I have taken a step back an looked at the big picture
Seems like those who know Tony R think he is a decent fellow just standing up for his friend George Adams.
Seems like from, Lord Trefgarne to any other member who has questioned the EC or Management over the last year or so is a trouble maker.
Fact: Two members gave incorrect statments to the CAA, this influenced the CAA's decision to the Adams the case to court.
Fact: Mr L.... another Inspector gave contradictory evidence from the witness stand in the Crown Court,
Have any of the above been suspended. I am sure they in the eyes of the CAA and the Court have brought the association into disrepute
Fact: Ken Craigie was suspended by the then chairman. WHY????
Was it because he refused to suspend George Adams as he thought Mr Adams did nothing wrong????
I know the EC and Management don't want to deal with these questions. but the "Facts" are there for all to see.
Dawn
Seems like those who know Tony R think he is a decent fellow just standing up for his friend George Adams.
Seems like from, Lord Trefgarne to any other member who has questioned the EC or Management over the last year or so is a trouble maker.
Fact: Two members gave incorrect statments to the CAA, this influenced the CAA's decision to the Adams the case to court.
Fact: Mr L.... another Inspector gave contradictory evidence from the witness stand in the Crown Court,
Have any of the above been suspended. I am sure they in the eyes of the CAA and the Court have brought the association into disrepute
Fact: Ken Craigie was suspended by the then chairman. WHY????
Was it because he refused to suspend George Adams as he thought Mr Adams did nothing wrong????
I know the EC and Management don't want to deal with these questions. but the "Facts" are there for all to see.
Dawn
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
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.
Pinga appears to consider that repeatedly describing those with whom he disagrees as 'morons' is a form of intelligent argument - although, to be fair to him, he did vary it to 'facist' for one post.
I'm not a member of the PFA. I looked at their BB a few times some months ago because I wanted to see what, if anything, was being said about a specific incident. Some posts by those who appeared to be the PFA 'establishment' contained a number of 'explanations' which I knew to be untrue.
My reading of that topic and a few others while I was browsing left me with the impression that criticism of any decision of the governing body, or the conduct of any member of it, was very unwelcome.
ECMan
"note the spelling please, illiterate gents"?
If you're going to stoop to pointing out the spelling mistakes or typing errors of those with whom you disagree, it's always wise to take extra care with your own. It's 'divisive', not "devisive".
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dawn:
George Adams was suspended after a complaint was made by a PFA member (reasons already stated). The others you mention have not been the subject of any such complaints received at HQ. Had we received such complaints then they would have had to be investigated - it's that simple
At no time will we ever discuss the suspension of one of the association employees, that is a matter for the management and the employee.
VP959:
As an EC member I know of no such 'takeover' plans! The rumour mill is rife. We are arguing over a specific type as we did all the approval work when it was directly a PFA type as opposed to a BMAA type. In other words we spent the time and money on it, so why shouldn't we hang on to it? But that's about as far as it goes, though there are strong arguments for amalgamation of the organisations into a National Airsports Association or what ever you would call it.
M'Lud - you are quite right, divisive it is then!
George Adams was suspended after a complaint was made by a PFA member (reasons already stated). The others you mention have not been the subject of any such complaints received at HQ. Had we received such complaints then they would have had to be investigated - it's that simple
At no time will we ever discuss the suspension of one of the association employees, that is a matter for the management and the employee.
VP959:
As an EC member I know of no such 'takeover' plans! The rumour mill is rife. We are arguing over a specific type as we did all the approval work when it was directly a PFA type as opposed to a BMAA type. In other words we spent the time and money on it, so why shouldn't we hang on to it? But that's about as far as it goes, though there are strong arguments for amalgamation of the organisations into a National Airsports Association or what ever you would call it.
M'Lud - you are quite right, divisive it is then!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: N E England
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just thought I'd have a look before bed!
Another FACT for you EC man,
The PFA CEO told a lie in answer to a question from another Irish PFA member Mr B McC in November 2003.
When one of our beloved "ministers" or senior civil servents get caught out making such a gaff they go or they are pushed.
How are we to believe this man (or those who condone him) in the future?? Will he say anything to save face, be it the truth or not??
John
Another FACT for you EC man,
The PFA CEO told a lie in answer to a question from another Irish PFA member Mr B McC in November 2003.
When one of our beloved "ministers" or senior civil servents get caught out making such a gaff they go or they are pushed.
How are we to believe this man (or those who condone him) in the future?? Will he say anything to save face, be it the truth or not??
John
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECman
I returned to add something and found you'd already posted.
Steve Moody's tantrums at the 2003 Rally, and subsequent determined and persistent demands that the CAA investigate his complaints against the two Extra pilots, did more to damage the reputation of the PFA amongst aviators generally than the dispute mentioned here.
I read what the 'powers that be' within the PFA said on the BB and know much of it wasn't true.
eg Denying that Moody lost his temper and walked off in a fit of pique on the Saturday evening, refusing to work on the Sunday because he wouldn't work with people who (in his view) were 'unprofessional.' (Unprofessional = the controller on duty at the relevant time didn't support the line Moody took and refused to report the pilots.)
eg Claiming Moody only reported the pilots to the CAA to protect the PFA. What utter nonsense. If that was true, Moody would have accepted the response he got when he first reported the incident to the CAA. (ie The CAA noted his complaint but didn't consider an investigation was necessary.)
Moody wouldn't accept that. He went to different departments until he found someone prepared to initiate an investigation of his complaint.
Tudor Owen
I returned to add something and found you'd already posted.
Steve Moody's tantrums at the 2003 Rally, and subsequent determined and persistent demands that the CAA investigate his complaints against the two Extra pilots, did more to damage the reputation of the PFA amongst aviators generally than the dispute mentioned here.
I read what the 'powers that be' within the PFA said on the BB and know much of it wasn't true.
eg Denying that Moody lost his temper and walked off in a fit of pique on the Saturday evening, refusing to work on the Sunday because he wouldn't work with people who (in his view) were 'unprofessional.' (Unprofessional = the controller on duty at the relevant time didn't support the line Moody took and refused to report the pilots.)
eg Claiming Moody only reported the pilots to the CAA to protect the PFA. What utter nonsense. If that was true, Moody would have accepted the response he got when he first reported the incident to the CAA. (ie The CAA noted his complaint but didn't consider an investigation was necessary.)
Moody wouldn't accept that. He went to different departments until he found someone prepared to initiate an investigation of his complaint.
Tudor Owen
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Devon
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's funny how "not telling the truth" is perfectly OK with the PFA EC & CEO.
Tony Ringland is accused of "making mischief"
JBQC Is accused of being a "troublemaker"
Mr Adams was suspended for "bringing the inspection process into disrepute"
At lease none of the above are "lairs"
Good night
Dawn
Tony Ringland is accused of "making mischief"
JBQC Is accused of being a "troublemaker"
Mr Adams was suspended for "bringing the inspection process into disrepute"
At lease none of the above are "lairs"
Good night
Dawn
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MD USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation professionals and pilots require two things,
HONOR (you might spell it honour caus I dont want to be told off by a fancy lawyer) Which means ADHERENCE TO WHAT IS RIGHT
And HONESTY
I have been flying over 50 years and 23,000 hours including two wars without a scrape.
My engineers and fellow pilots were honorable and honest. If your PFA is not then it will fail.
John Anderson
HONOR (you might spell it honour caus I dont want to be told off by a fancy lawyer) Which means ADHERENCE TO WHAT IS RIGHT
And HONESTY
I have been flying over 50 years and 23,000 hours including two wars without a scrape.
My engineers and fellow pilots were honorable and honest. If your PFA is not then it will fail.
John Anderson
Last edited by FAA Old timer; 9th Jun 2004 at 17:07.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBQC:
IF our CEO lied, then prove it. Prove it beyond doubt and put those facts to the EC as a formal complaint and we will be obliged to investigate your complaint. This is the problem with all this BB stuff, rumour and accusation. Make it official and we WILL act. The EC isn't a weak or inefectual body when it has the tools to work with.
I for one don't want to be associated with a weak or inefectual EC!
Flying Lawyer:
The events relating to Steve Moody were reported at the next EC meeting by Steve Petter who runs the rally. I believe it is true that none of the EC were privy to no more than the facts related to us by way of a 'rally report'. Difficult therefore to comment on what was indeed a very unfortunate affair.
Dawn: two different things; Ken Craigie is an employee of PFA Ulair Ltd. He was subject to company policy, his suspension was part of an internal investigation and he was re-instated. The facts of this will remain confidential. Mr Adams was a member of the association and the subject of a formal complaint by a member. If it wasn't for the continual baying of the hounds on the BB I suspect his suspension would also have remained more discreet! It was not the original intention of the commitee to publish the facts.
As for lies, I suggest you too prove that; see my last post. We are obliged to look into any formal complaint, we cant look at rumours. Are you a PFA member? I assume as you mention the magazine that you are; so why not do something positive to get to the bottom of this rather than make more bullets for those who would cause mischief?
IF our CEO lied, then prove it. Prove it beyond doubt and put those facts to the EC as a formal complaint and we will be obliged to investigate your complaint. This is the problem with all this BB stuff, rumour and accusation. Make it official and we WILL act. The EC isn't a weak or inefectual body when it has the tools to work with.
I for one don't want to be associated with a weak or inefectual EC!
Flying Lawyer:
The events relating to Steve Moody were reported at the next EC meeting by Steve Petter who runs the rally. I believe it is true that none of the EC were privy to no more than the facts related to us by way of a 'rally report'. Difficult therefore to comment on what was indeed a very unfortunate affair.
Dawn: two different things; Ken Craigie is an employee of PFA Ulair Ltd. He was subject to company policy, his suspension was part of an internal investigation and he was re-instated. The facts of this will remain confidential. Mr Adams was a member of the association and the subject of a formal complaint by a member. If it wasn't for the continual baying of the hounds on the BB I suspect his suspension would also have remained more discreet! It was not the original intention of the commitee to publish the facts.
As for lies, I suggest you too prove that; see my last post. We are obliged to look into any formal complaint, we cant look at rumours. Are you a PFA member? I assume as you mention the magazine that you are; so why not do something positive to get to the bottom of this rather than make more bullets for those who would cause mischief?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC man
Why don't you ask Graham about the lie on the BB?
But I'll tell you anyway.
B McC ask Graham on the BB around the 15 October ( I'll look up the print outs tomorrow) When will George Adams be re-instated as the case was now over.
About 4 weeks passed and the PFA had made no contact whatsoever with George, not even to wish him well.
I then put a letter on the BB around the 12 Nov (after having waited over 4 weeks for a reply to several emails)
The S..t hit the fan and members began to question the management.
Ken then contacted George by phone the same day and within 10 minutes of that phone call Graham answered B McC's question on the BB stating that the PFA were having "on going" discussions with George Adams.
That was a lie. The PFA were NOT having "on going" discussions with George. This was a face saving exercise.
If you want a signed statement you can have one
Tony R
PS. thanks John A, I was very supprised to see your message must give you a call soon.
Why don't you ask Graham about the lie on the BB?
But I'll tell you anyway.
B McC ask Graham on the BB around the 15 October ( I'll look up the print outs tomorrow) When will George Adams be re-instated as the case was now over.
About 4 weeks passed and the PFA had made no contact whatsoever with George, not even to wish him well.
I then put a letter on the BB around the 12 Nov (after having waited over 4 weeks for a reply to several emails)
The S..t hit the fan and members began to question the management.
Ken then contacted George by phone the same day and within 10 minutes of that phone call Graham answered B McC's question on the BB stating that the PFA were having "on going" discussions with George Adams.
That was a lie. The PFA were NOT having "on going" discussions with George. This was a face saving exercise.
If you want a signed statement you can have one
Tony R
PS. thanks John A, I was very supprised to see your message must give you a call soon.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: N E England
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECMan
The FACTS about the CEO and the porkey on the BB were given to us all on the PFA BB last year.
Even Steve A was going on about it, and how "it was just a mistake" and "what did it matter anyway"
A lie is a lie and as FAA old timer says we have a right to expect "Honour and Honesty" in this business.
If you knew your aircraft engineer would lie to you, would you let him keep on working at your aircraft??
And I also know lots of lies were told about the Moody incident.
So when you can prove to me beyond all doubt that the PFA has a code of "Honour and Honesty" I will rejoin.
John Brown
The FACTS about the CEO and the porkey on the BB were given to us all on the PFA BB last year.
Even Steve A was going on about it, and how "it was just a mistake" and "what did it matter anyway"
A lie is a lie and as FAA old timer says we have a right to expect "Honour and Honesty" in this business.
If you knew your aircraft engineer would lie to you, would you let him keep on working at your aircraft??
And I also know lots of lies were told about the Moody incident.
So when you can prove to me beyond all doubt that the PFA has a code of "Honour and Honesty" I will rejoin.
John Brown
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony R:
I'll say it again! Make an official complaint to the Chairman, don't seek to blacken the reputation of a fantastic association which is made that way by it's members! Where else can you fly aircraft for the costs we have made possible? £17.00 per hour wet is typical of PFA types, most of the CAA certified types don't even dream of these kind of costs. As for engineering standards we have an enviable reputation for safety. That comes with a price of vigilance. The details of the Adams case don't need airing here, but you cosistently fail to recognise the actual cause of George's suspension by harping on about the court case - it's irrelevant, even if the CAA hadn't prosecuted the PFA would have done the same thing for reaasons already stated (see the Chairman's statement in a previous magazine).
Mr Adams has the opportunity to renew both his membership and his Inspector's approval and already knows that. Personally I'm not suprised that he hasn't renewed given the circumstances, but that notwithstanding, he DOES have the opportunity.
And the rest of you posting here:
The PFA is indeed a great association. This kind of public sniping is eating away at it and will undoubtedly effect membership levels in the future. Why do it? You aren't fixing anything, this type of protest never does.
The Executive Commitee is made up of volunteers. At one time a prospective member needed to be sponsored by another member (easy to achieve), but then they had to win sufficient votes from the membership to defeat opposing candidates (either existing or prospective). That is a truly democratic process and ensures popular candidates are voted onto the EC and indeed allows for the removal of less popular members.
It's been several years since that situation existed; apathy rules and the EC is down to 11 members from a possible 18. Even Tony R and JBQC could be EC members right now; having a positive effect on the problems they perceive rather than doing the equivalent of running their car keys down the side of a nice car!
I'll say it again! Make an official complaint to the Chairman, don't seek to blacken the reputation of a fantastic association which is made that way by it's members! Where else can you fly aircraft for the costs we have made possible? £17.00 per hour wet is typical of PFA types, most of the CAA certified types don't even dream of these kind of costs. As for engineering standards we have an enviable reputation for safety. That comes with a price of vigilance. The details of the Adams case don't need airing here, but you cosistently fail to recognise the actual cause of George's suspension by harping on about the court case - it's irrelevant, even if the CAA hadn't prosecuted the PFA would have done the same thing for reaasons already stated (see the Chairman's statement in a previous magazine).
Mr Adams has the opportunity to renew both his membership and his Inspector's approval and already knows that. Personally I'm not suprised that he hasn't renewed given the circumstances, but that notwithstanding, he DOES have the opportunity.
And the rest of you posting here:
The PFA is indeed a great association. This kind of public sniping is eating away at it and will undoubtedly effect membership levels in the future. Why do it? You aren't fixing anything, this type of protest never does.
The Executive Commitee is made up of volunteers. At one time a prospective member needed to be sponsored by another member (easy to achieve), but then they had to win sufficient votes from the membership to defeat opposing candidates (either existing or prospective). That is a truly democratic process and ensures popular candidates are voted onto the EC and indeed allows for the removal of less popular members.
It's been several years since that situation existed; apathy rules and the EC is down to 11 members from a possible 18. Even Tony R and JBQC could be EC members right now; having a positive effect on the problems they perceive rather than doing the equivalent of running their car keys down the side of a nice car!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECMan,
I don't know if you are aware that many of Mr Adams' friends wrote to the PFA before and after the CC case. Most of us did not even get a reply.
The PFA BB was the only way we could force the management to answer us.
If you are working with the EC to help the ass, then I too suggest the words "Honour and Honesty"
Those would be words I would use to describe George Adams but not those at the PFA office.
Tony R
I don't know if you are aware that many of Mr Adams' friends wrote to the PFA before and after the CC case. Most of us did not even get a reply.
The PFA BB was the only way we could force the management to answer us.
If you are working with the EC to help the ass, then I too suggest the words "Honour and Honesty"
Those would be words I would use to describe George Adams but not those at the PFA office.
Tony R
Where else can you fly aircraft for the costs we have made possible? £17.00 per hour wet is typical of PFA types
Which makes VH959's point rather well I think. Co-operation within, and between the five big sport flying associations is what we all need.
We're all on the same side boys and girls - even George Adams (who I know and also think is an excellent and competent chap - although thankfully I've never been involved in this sad and messy debacle over his qualifications and the infamous prosecution).
Did George Adams deliberately set out to enganger life - of course he didn't. Does Graham Newby deliberately set out to seriously offend much of the microlight establishment with his takeover bids on type-approved microlights - of course not. Did the PFA's EC members think that they were doing the best thing for the PFA by censoring critical debate - almsot certainly they did. Did any of them realise that their "opponents" also feel that they had the best interests of sport aviation at heart, probably not, and that's the problem.
You've all seen Top Gun, there's a little pep talk by one of the instructors at the start of the course "always remember guys, whatever's happened, at the end of the day we're all on the same side". There is an enemy out there - it's the weather, NIMBYs blocking our airfields, a few genuinely deranged individuals true. But everybody discussed in this thread, including those being criticised, were on our side and should be treated as such.
Sermon over.
G
So close, and yet so far!
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Uk
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did I miss something? How did the 'Extra' incident at last year's PFA Rally come into all this? But I suspect many people's account or opinion of that particular fiasco may be coloured by their own interests and/or involvement, rather than on all of the facts - whether they be in Steve's, the PFA's, ATC's, or the 'display' guys camps.
I think I have a pretty good idea of the exact sequence of events on the day, having been there in the midst of it all and having witnessed and/or heard all three sides of the story from all the parties involved (being not directly involved with any of them) - but yes, the whole thing was indeed 'unfortunate' - and I suspect left everyone concerned with no option other than to try to cover their own backs. But who can blame them? Many potentially had a great deal to lose, and surely it doesn't take a mastermind to consider the implications of what went on to everyone involved...
I suspect there are a few people who wish things had happened differently on that particular occasion though!
GF
I think I have a pretty good idea of the exact sequence of events on the day, having been there in the midst of it all and having witnessed and/or heard all three sides of the story from all the parties involved (being not directly involved with any of them) - but yes, the whole thing was indeed 'unfortunate' - and I suspect left everyone concerned with no option other than to try to cover their own backs. But who can blame them? Many potentially had a great deal to lose, and surely it doesn't take a mastermind to consider the implications of what went on to everyone involved...
I suspect there are a few people who wish things had happened differently on that particular occasion though!
GF
Last edited by Girl Flyday; 20th Apr 2004 at 14:17.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ashwell, U.K.
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting suggestion that a grouping of all the relevant bodies e.g PFA, BGA, BMAA et al to form a National Airsports Association might be the way to go. An additional group without a "natural" home is the non-PFA types such as Luscombes, Airtourers, Cubs and the like. The owners of these types are probably very familiar with their aircraft, probably more so than the CAA and need an approval authority without the overheads of the CAA. I joined AOPA at Fly for 6 months to see what their view was. Anybody else feel the same way? We certainly need a voice on the Mode S issue, no electrics, cost etc and at the moment I would be a solo voice in the wilderness.
BTW on the issue of morons and morans, I seem to remember from my days in Kenya that a moran was a Masai warrior. Nice to think of the bold peer in a red loin-cloth carrying a spear.
BTW on the issue of morons and morans, I seem to remember from my days in Kenya that a moran was a Masai warrior. Nice to think of the bold peer in a red loin-cloth carrying a spear.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: essex
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More untruths
EC MAN and Others
A very good friend of mine happens to have previously been the webmaster of the PFA BB and website.
He DID NOT leave the task as suggested, and is quite pissed off to hear from me that it is suggested he did, and that he left the BBS not working in the process.
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
a)
He left the job nearly a year ago, yes a year ago. Since then the PFA heads had no respect for the BBS and did absolutely nothing about maintenance as he often advised them to do.
b)
He left the task because he and his employees began to lose trust in the PFA finances and whether they would be paid or not. With some significant health concerns he just did not want to take the risk any longer
c)
The BBS went down following a major but shortlived hiccup some time ago - I know because he actually looked at what needed fixing to do it free of charge a week after it failed. He discovered that nothing was wrong - it was switched off!. IT REMAINED DOWN SINCE OUT OF CHOICE. Most PFA staff know this.
I think the company that hosts the bb is someone called Griffin systems, anyone can check this if they wish to - try web search?
d)
He was also an EC member and left because of petty and pointless bickering and behaviour he believed to be corrupt at times - legally so. Some of the stories, particularly around the Trefgarne letter period would make you sick if like me you are a PFA member.
e)
From what I understand there is much that should be looked at, I even considered standing for EC myself. But the EC have some dangerous people that totally drown the good ones.
W. H.
A very good friend of mine happens to have previously been the webmaster of the PFA BB and website.
He DID NOT leave the task as suggested, and is quite pissed off to hear from me that it is suggested he did, and that he left the BBS not working in the process.
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
a)
He left the job nearly a year ago, yes a year ago. Since then the PFA heads had no respect for the BBS and did absolutely nothing about maintenance as he often advised them to do.
b)
He left the task because he and his employees began to lose trust in the PFA finances and whether they would be paid or not. With some significant health concerns he just did not want to take the risk any longer
c)
The BBS went down following a major but shortlived hiccup some time ago - I know because he actually looked at what needed fixing to do it free of charge a week after it failed. He discovered that nothing was wrong - it was switched off!. IT REMAINED DOWN SINCE OUT OF CHOICE. Most PFA staff know this.
I think the company that hosts the bb is someone called Griffin systems, anyone can check this if they wish to - try web search?
d)
He was also an EC member and left because of petty and pointless bickering and behaviour he believed to be corrupt at times - legally so. Some of the stories, particularly around the Trefgarne letter period would make you sick if like me you are a PFA member.
e)
From what I understand there is much that should be looked at, I even considered standing for EC myself. But the EC have some dangerous people that totally drown the good ones.
W. H.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Girl Flyday
If you think this thread is only about the Adams dispute then, yes, you have missed something. That is only one issue raised by some in support of their wider criticisms.
Alleged untrue explanations by office-holders:
I've read posts about the Extras incident (and the aftermath) in the PFA BB by people who appeared to hold office in the PFA which, to my knowledge, were at best inaccurate. (I accept they may have been misled about the facts and posted their views in good faith.)
Alleged stifling of criticism:
I've read attempts by certain individuals to stifle any criticism of the EC or particular office-holders - not only criticism of Moody but other issues..
Alleged damage to the reputation of the PFA:
In my opinion Moody's behaviour damaged the reputation of the PFA much more than discussion of the Adams dispute here. I suspect few people outside the PFA know about that, but Moody's conduct was widely criticised amongst aviators generally and in other threads on Pprune at the time.
I know all the facts of the 'Extra incident, including: what happened, how it happened, who said what and when, Moody's conduct on the Saturday evening and in the following week when he pestered the CAA to investigate his complaint. I have read the witness statements made by all those involved, and considered the ATC exchanges before the Extras did their practice display. I don't know what you've seen, but you certainly haven't seen all the documents I've seen.
the whole thing was indeed 'unfortunate'
I agree. (I'd have used a stonger word.)
"and left everyone concerned with no option other than to try to cover their own backs."
You've fallen for the story put about by some in the PFA in an attempt to justify Moody's actions. Perhaps you missed what I said in my previous post? Moody reported the incident to the CAA on the following Monday. The CAA noted his complaint but didn't consider an investigation was necessary. He wouldn't accept that answer and pressed on until they had no option but to investigate his complaint.
Whether or not the pilots were deserving of criticism is, as you say, a matter of opinion. However, what happened after they landed is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Since you were there and heard everything, I challenge you to deny that Moody lost his self-control and was swearing at people who disagreed with him, that he walked off in a fit of pique, that he claimed the controller (a licensed ATC'er) was unprofessional because he dind't think the pilots had done anything worth reporting and refused to be bullied into reporting them, that Moody refused to work on the Sunday saying he couldn't work with 'unprofessional' people.
I realise you may not know that he then embarked upon his campaign the following week in an atempt to justify his petulant over-reaction.
The PFA version (as given to members on the PFA BB) is that Moody reported the incident to the CAA purely to protect the PFA's position and left it to the CAA to take any action they thought necessary. That is simply not true: He persisted until he found someone in the CAA prepared to investigate his complaint.
The eventual result?
After months of investigation, the pilots were cautioned by the CAA and that was the end of the matter - but, by that time, they'd lost the rest of their display season because their Display Authorisations were suspended pending the investigation of Moody's complaint.
Having looked at all the witness statements from an independent perspective, and applying considerable experience gained over many years involvement in aviation cases and disputes, it would be fair to say I found myself 100% in what you describe as the "ATC and 'display' guys camps" and formed a very low opinion of Moody, or 'Steve' as your refer to him.
Independent?
I'd never met any of the parties involved until this incident. (I was aware of the pilots' fine reputations, but only discovered later that they had respectively been awarded an MBE and OBE for services to aviation.)
NB: My criticism is not of the PFA in general. It's limited to Moody's conduct and to those in the PFA who were party to closing ranks and covering up his behaviour by misinforming members about what he actually did.
eg The 'protecting the PFA' story. Denying he lost his temper when others said he was over-reacting. Denying he accused the controller of being unprofessional. Denying that he refused to return on the Sunday leaving the PFA to find someone else to step into the breach.
My comments are not meant as a criticism of the PFA as an association.
Tudor Owen
Did I miss something? How did the 'Extra' incident at last year's PFA Rally come into all this?
Alleged untrue explanations by office-holders:
I've read posts about the Extras incident (and the aftermath) in the PFA BB by people who appeared to hold office in the PFA which, to my knowledge, were at best inaccurate. (I accept they may have been misled about the facts and posted their views in good faith.)
Alleged stifling of criticism:
I've read attempts by certain individuals to stifle any criticism of the EC or particular office-holders - not only criticism of Moody but other issues..
Alleged damage to the reputation of the PFA:
In my opinion Moody's behaviour damaged the reputation of the PFA much more than discussion of the Adams dispute here. I suspect few people outside the PFA know about that, but Moody's conduct was widely criticised amongst aviators generally and in other threads on Pprune at the time.
I know all the facts of the 'Extra incident, including: what happened, how it happened, who said what and when, Moody's conduct on the Saturday evening and in the following week when he pestered the CAA to investigate his complaint. I have read the witness statements made by all those involved, and considered the ATC exchanges before the Extras did their practice display. I don't know what you've seen, but you certainly haven't seen all the documents I've seen.
the whole thing was indeed 'unfortunate'
I agree. (I'd have used a stonger word.)
"and left everyone concerned with no option other than to try to cover their own backs."
You've fallen for the story put about by some in the PFA in an attempt to justify Moody's actions. Perhaps you missed what I said in my previous post? Moody reported the incident to the CAA on the following Monday. The CAA noted his complaint but didn't consider an investigation was necessary. He wouldn't accept that answer and pressed on until they had no option but to investigate his complaint.
Whether or not the pilots were deserving of criticism is, as you say, a matter of opinion. However, what happened after they landed is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Since you were there and heard everything, I challenge you to deny that Moody lost his self-control and was swearing at people who disagreed with him, that he walked off in a fit of pique, that he claimed the controller (a licensed ATC'er) was unprofessional because he dind't think the pilots had done anything worth reporting and refused to be bullied into reporting them, that Moody refused to work on the Sunday saying he couldn't work with 'unprofessional' people.
I realise you may not know that he then embarked upon his campaign the following week in an atempt to justify his petulant over-reaction.
The PFA version (as given to members on the PFA BB) is that Moody reported the incident to the CAA purely to protect the PFA's position and left it to the CAA to take any action they thought necessary. That is simply not true: He persisted until he found someone in the CAA prepared to investigate his complaint.
The eventual result?
After months of investigation, the pilots were cautioned by the CAA and that was the end of the matter - but, by that time, they'd lost the rest of their display season because their Display Authorisations were suspended pending the investigation of Moody's complaint.
Having looked at all the witness statements from an independent perspective, and applying considerable experience gained over many years involvement in aviation cases and disputes, it would be fair to say I found myself 100% in what you describe as the "ATC and 'display' guys camps" and formed a very low opinion of Moody, or 'Steve' as your refer to him.
Independent?
I'd never met any of the parties involved until this incident. (I was aware of the pilots' fine reputations, but only discovered later that they had respectively been awarded an MBE and OBE for services to aviation.)
NB: My criticism is not of the PFA in general. It's limited to Moody's conduct and to those in the PFA who were party to closing ranks and covering up his behaviour by misinforming members about what he actually did.
eg The 'protecting the PFA' story. Denying he lost his temper when others said he was over-reacting. Denying he accused the controller of being unprofessional. Denying that he refused to return on the Sunday leaving the PFA to find someone else to step into the breach.
My comments are not meant as a criticism of the PFA as an association.
Tudor Owen
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 20th Apr 2004 at 13:51.