PFA Rally
Awesome but Affordable
If we do want a change in policy on the Rally or indeed the PFA itself then put those thoughts on paper rather than on a forum thread which must be almost as ephemeral as the spoken word. Send it to Graham Newby, the PFA CEO, or to Cliff Mort, the present chairman, at the PFA office at Turweston Aerodrome, Turweston, Brackley, Northants.
Why not come to the AGM if you are a member and if you are not then why not join.
After all the PFA is THE ONLY organisation which does fight for the interests of private, sporting and recreational aviation in conventional light aircraft and especially for those whose pockets are not bulging.
Without the PFA, and as a pensioner, I would find it hard to continue my own flying with the inevitable increase in cost that would result.
If you want change then change it from within - do not carp on the outside....!!
Cheers,
Trapper 69
_________________
http://www.tempest.ndo.co.uk
Why not come to the AGM if you are a member and if you are not then why not join.
After all the PFA is THE ONLY organisation which does fight for the interests of private, sporting and recreational aviation in conventional light aircraft and especially for those whose pockets are not bulging.
Without the PFA, and as a pensioner, I would find it hard to continue my own flying with the inevitable increase in cost that would result.
If you want change then change it from within - do not carp on the outside....!!
Cheers,
Trapper 69
_________________
http://www.tempest.ndo.co.uk
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-KEST,
Graham rarely answers questions on his own BB forum.
He has yet to reply to at least 25 emails and letters he received last October.
The AGM is not open to questions outside the agenda, and they only put on the agenda things they want to discuss.
The whole system is set up to keep a small group in power and the rest are treated like mushrooms. ie. kept in the dark and fed loads of manure.
So what else do you suggest??
Tony R
Graham rarely answers questions on his own BB forum.
He has yet to reply to at least 25 emails and letters he received last October.
The AGM is not open to questions outside the agenda, and they only put on the agenda things they want to discuss.
The whole system is set up to keep a small group in power and the rest are treated like mushrooms. ie. kept in the dark and fed loads of manure.
So what else do you suggest??
Tony R
Last edited by TonyR; 15th Jul 2004 at 17:13.
Awesome but Affordable
TonyR,
I stand by my last posting. The PFA, in the total absence of any alternative is what we now havr. It is a democratically run organisation and any member can exercise his vote to try to get his or her preferred candidate onto the EC. I do recall you were prominent in the furore last autumn regarding a situation which arose in Northern Ireland and involving an aggrieved aircraft purchaser and the original owner along with his inspector. It led to a totally nugatory and acrimonious slanging match in public that actually achieved sod all except to bring certain individuals into, in my personal opinion as a bored bystander, disrepute.
Please reread my previous post. The PFA whether you personally like it or loath is THE organisation that looks after my interests as the part owner of a home built and cherished sport biplane. It does the same for thousands of others who are indeed the silent majority. I do speak as a person involved with the PFA since 1957 when I learned to fly on Tigers at a PFA co-ownership group. I also belong to several other excellent GA organisations but the PFA is truly my spiritual home.
I doubt if I have altered your views one iota by this posting as evidenced by your incessant hammering on a door that had to be closed last year. Some folk love flying and some politics - I really do not like politicians..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will buy you a beer sometime.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
I stand by my last posting. The PFA, in the total absence of any alternative is what we now havr. It is a democratically run organisation and any member can exercise his vote to try to get his or her preferred candidate onto the EC. I do recall you were prominent in the furore last autumn regarding a situation which arose in Northern Ireland and involving an aggrieved aircraft purchaser and the original owner along with his inspector. It led to a totally nugatory and acrimonious slanging match in public that actually achieved sod all except to bring certain individuals into, in my personal opinion as a bored bystander, disrepute.
Please reread my previous post. The PFA whether you personally like it or loath is THE organisation that looks after my interests as the part owner of a home built and cherished sport biplane. It does the same for thousands of others who are indeed the silent majority. I do speak as a person involved with the PFA since 1957 when I learned to fly on Tigers at a PFA co-ownership group. I also belong to several other excellent GA organisations but the PFA is truly my spiritual home.
I doubt if I have altered your views one iota by this posting as evidenced by your incessant hammering on a door that had to be closed last year. Some folk love flying and some politics - I really do not like politicians..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will buy you a beer sometime.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was no reason for a public slanging match on the PFA BB last year.
The management did not reply to nurmerous letters, emails and telephone calls in the 4 weeks after the end of the court case.
I then went public on the PFA BB and the next day the PFA CEO responded to a question which was ask 4 weeks previously by another member, but he told a lie in his answer.
That was why the slanging match happened.
The management did not reply to nurmerous letters, emails and telephone calls in the 4 weeks after the end of the court case.
I then went public on the PFA BB and the next day the PFA CEO responded to a question which was ask 4 weeks previously by another member, but he told a lie in his answer.
That was why the slanging match happened.
G-KEST wrote: "After all the PFA is THE ONLY organisation which does fight for the interests of private, sporting and recreational aviation in conventional light aircraft and especially for those whose pockets are not bulging."
VP says:
BUT, it doesn't have to be that way. The CAA are happy to delegate authority to oversee homebuilt, or even factory built, light aircraft airworthiness, permit supervision etc to ANY suitable body, or indeed more than one come to that.
I guess that any reasonably well organised aviation association with the necessary technical and quality management expertise could look after the sector the PFA looks after at the moment, should they so choose to.
VP says:
BUT, it doesn't have to be that way. The CAA are happy to delegate authority to oversee homebuilt, or even factory built, light aircraft airworthiness, permit supervision etc to ANY suitable body, or indeed more than one come to that.
I guess that any reasonably well organised aviation association with the necessary technical and quality management expertise could look after the sector the PFA looks after at the moment, should they so choose to.
Awesome but Affordable
Absolutely right .
Any suitably organised outfit with the required level of expertise and an acceptable exposition could do the PFA's job in terms of responsibilities in respect of virtually all non-microlight permit to fly aircraft.
The real point is that no such organisation currently exists other than the PFA which does hold the necessary approvals from the CAA now.
It has taken over 50 years to establish the credentials of the PFA and respect world wide for the level of technical expertise they have in house and through their network of approved inspectors and test pilots.
Any alternative organisation might find it an extremely difficult task to reach a similar level of fitness to obtain and hold any official approval within any acceptable timescale.
The devil you know is better than the devil you do not especially if it is a democratically controlled operation where members can have a direct influence on policy.
Trapper 69
Any suitably organised outfit with the required level of expertise and an acceptable exposition could do the PFA's job in terms of responsibilities in respect of virtually all non-microlight permit to fly aircraft.
The real point is that no such organisation currently exists other than the PFA which does hold the necessary approvals from the CAA now.
It has taken over 50 years to establish the credentials of the PFA and respect world wide for the level of technical expertise they have in house and through their network of approved inspectors and test pilots.
Any alternative organisation might find it an extremely difficult task to reach a similar level of fitness to obtain and hold any official approval within any acceptable timescale.
The devil you know is better than the devil you do not especially if it is a democratically controlled operation where members can have a direct influence on policy.
Trapper 69
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Here and There
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
especially if it is a democratically controlled operation where members can have a direct influence on policy
Ken
G-KEST: "The real point is that no such organisation currently exists other than the PFA which does hold the necessary approvals from the CAA now.
It has taken over 50 years to establish the credentials of the PFA and respect world wide for the level of technical expertise they have in house and through their network of approved inspectors and test pilots.
Any alternative organisation might find it an extremely difficult task to reach a similar level of fitness to obtain and hold any official approval within any acceptable timescale."
VP says:
You're right about the situation today, but within a few months another organisation might well be able to take on the job equally as well. It certainly isn't a 50 year job to get to where the PFA is technically, although I know from first hand experience that the PFA's FD, JT and Co do a grand job and I'm not knocking them in any way.
As an example, there is another organisation that exists right now, with an equally good, or perhaps better in some respects, network of inspectors and test pilots, plus an established and CAA approved technical department. I doubt it would be terrifically difficult for them to expand their exposition to cover a wider field, if they chose to.
It has taken over 50 years to establish the credentials of the PFA and respect world wide for the level of technical expertise they have in house and through their network of approved inspectors and test pilots.
Any alternative organisation might find it an extremely difficult task to reach a similar level of fitness to obtain and hold any official approval within any acceptable timescale."
VP says:
You're right about the situation today, but within a few months another organisation might well be able to take on the job equally as well. It certainly isn't a 50 year job to get to where the PFA is technically, although I know from first hand experience that the PFA's FD, JT and Co do a grand job and I'm not knocking them in any way.
As an example, there is another organisation that exists right now, with an equally good, or perhaps better in some respects, network of inspectors and test pilots, plus an established and CAA approved technical department. I doubt it would be terrifically difficult for them to expand their exposition to cover a wider field, if they chose to.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the PFA BB Graham Newby has posted the following:
and conceded that the pricing structure was not right and will be overhauled and that they are keen on comments.
It is always nice to be vindicated but I think the most important point of that posting is that there is interest from the PFA for what people think, say and post.
I'd say that is a positive thing.
I think that the Rally needs to decide what it wants to be; either a PFA club event for mainly members which then can easily be run by the PFA itself or truly the biggest aviation event outside the US and probably needs to be run by a professional event organiser.
That does not mean that I think that those organising the Rally have done a bad job, far from it as I am all to aware of the hard work which is needed to set these things up, more that it is bloody hard work to organise an event of this scale with a mix of volunteers and commercial organisations and a lot of financial pressure.
FD
What can I say, other than we got it wrong this year,
It is always nice to be vindicated but I think the most important point of that posting is that there is interest from the PFA for what people think, say and post.
I'd say that is a positive thing.
I think that the Rally needs to decide what it wants to be; either a PFA club event for mainly members which then can easily be run by the PFA itself or truly the biggest aviation event outside the US and probably needs to be run by a professional event organiser.
That does not mean that I think that those organising the Rally have done a bad job, far from it as I am all to aware of the hard work which is needed to set these things up, more that it is bloody hard work to organise an event of this scale with a mix of volunteers and commercial organisations and a lot of financial pressure.
FD
Awesome but Affordable
VP959
Hello there - you are correct in that the BMAA does hold approvals from the CAA as well as the PFA and, for that matter DeH Technical Support however the nature of the tasks, IMHO, is very different (being humble is difficult..............!!!) As by far the youngest organisation, compared with the PFA, the BMAA has done really well in looking after Section S factory built micros and, more recently, many but not all homebuilt micros. I think there is some way to go before they could take on the larger task and the sheer variety of types on PFA administered PtoF is mind boggling. The BMAA test pilot introductory course is excellent having been priviledged to attend one this winter but it exists because they have so few TP around the country. It will be interesting to see what results from the present EASA NPA 2/2004 which just might alter the whole regulation and cerification scene for GA as a whole. I do hope so.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Hello there - you are correct in that the BMAA does hold approvals from the CAA as well as the PFA and, for that matter DeH Technical Support however the nature of the tasks, IMHO, is very different (being humble is difficult..............!!!) As by far the youngest organisation, compared with the PFA, the BMAA has done really well in looking after Section S factory built micros and, more recently, many but not all homebuilt micros. I think there is some way to go before they could take on the larger task and the sheer variety of types on PFA administered PtoF is mind boggling. The BMAA test pilot introductory course is excellent having been priviledged to attend one this winter but it exists because they have so few TP around the country. It will be interesting to see what results from the present EASA NPA 2/2004 which just might alter the whole regulation and cerification scene for GA as a whole. I do hope so.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
G-KEST,
You're right that the PFA has a wider range of "conventional" types, but the BMAA has a very wide range of aircraft under it's wing now. Also, virtually all microlights were homebuilt until about 20 odd years ago, so they have been looking after homebuilts almost since the day they were first approved. The number of homebuilts that the BMAA is looking after is roughly doubling every year (I think about 60 or so have been signed off so far this year), and IIRC the total number of A/C they look after is now greater than that in the whole PFA fleet by a fair margin.
Of course, they probably aren't really interested in taking on heavier types, but perhaps this might change if the PFA insist on trying to take over more microlight types, who knows?
I still can't quite understand why or how the element of competition ever set in between these two associations. IIRC the PFA actively rejected the idea of having anything to do with microlights at the time that the BMAA was formed. Someone once told me that the formation of the BMAA came about as a pretty direct result of the PFAs action, so it seems odd that rumours of the PFA extending their exposition to take on more microlight work from the BMAA seem to now be doing the rounds.
You're right that the PFA has a wider range of "conventional" types, but the BMAA has a very wide range of aircraft under it's wing now. Also, virtually all microlights were homebuilt until about 20 odd years ago, so they have been looking after homebuilts almost since the day they were first approved. The number of homebuilts that the BMAA is looking after is roughly doubling every year (I think about 60 or so have been signed off so far this year), and IIRC the total number of A/C they look after is now greater than that in the whole PFA fleet by a fair margin.
Of course, they probably aren't really interested in taking on heavier types, but perhaps this might change if the PFA insist on trying to take over more microlight types, who knows?
I still can't quite understand why or how the element of competition ever set in between these two associations. IIRC the PFA actively rejected the idea of having anything to do with microlights at the time that the BMAA was formed. Someone once told me that the formation of the BMAA came about as a pretty direct result of the PFAs action, so it seems odd that rumours of the PFA extending their exposition to take on more microlight work from the BMAA seem to now be doing the rounds.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With many types faling into both PFA and BMAA camps, and many inspectors doing work for both associations I think the BMAA could if they really wanted to take on heavier types.
Something must be done because if the PFA keeps on falling apart, owners will end up dealing directly with the CAA.
Even the PFA's latest brain storm of compulsory membership for all group owners will end up with less members in the association, it will be impossible to police and members are already leaving under protest.
There are some very good people in the PFA but the management just don't listen to them.
Tony
Something must be done because if the PFA keeps on falling apart, owners will end up dealing directly with the CAA.
Even the PFA's latest brain storm of compulsory membership for all group owners will end up with less members in the association, it will be impossible to police and members are already leaving under protest.
There are some very good people in the PFA but the management just don't listen to them.
Tony
Offering a slightly different viewpoint to those of G-KEST and VP959.
The PFA and BMAA have both, with the odd glitch, done a very good job for their members. Two large fleets, lots of pilots flying cheaply, a whole raft of hardwon privileges, not to mention Telford and Kemble show that very clearly. Both have from time to time had "bad patches", and it's fairly clear that just at the moment PFA is having one.
However, why is BMAA as successful as it is? - to a fair degree through comparing itself to the benchmark that is the PFA. Why is PFA looking at type-approved microlights? - because the BMAA has made such a success of them.
My point here is that a degree of overlap and competition is actually very healthy. Both are businesses and members organisations. In that capacity, they do compete to an extent - but the only thing that they can really compete with is standards of service.
If you had a single organisation, and no competition, there would be far less drive to ever-better standards of service (or not to charge more than the other mob) and you'd, well, get something not dissimilar to the CAA.
To give a simple example, let's say a new 3-axis homebuilt microlight comes along. With a single organisation, the Chief Engineer could reasonably say "well, it's a lot of effort to approve, our members already have something similar to fly - there's little benefit in pulling the stops out for this". With competition it becomes "we'd better do a good job on this, otherwise it'll go to the other organisation, and they'll have the long-term airworthiness and membership revenue - too many of them and I'll be out of a job".
Without doubt, this level of competition is very stressful to the staff and committees of both organisations, and to a lesser extent to people whose recreational or professional activities straddle both organisations. But, to UK light aviation as a whole, it's very healthy. Arguably if either organisation started taking an interest in gliders or SLMG as well then we'd probably see both even more stress for the professionals, and benefits for glider pilots too.
G
Stressed GA professional who enjoys his cheap flying.
The PFA and BMAA have both, with the odd glitch, done a very good job for their members. Two large fleets, lots of pilots flying cheaply, a whole raft of hardwon privileges, not to mention Telford and Kemble show that very clearly. Both have from time to time had "bad patches", and it's fairly clear that just at the moment PFA is having one.
However, why is BMAA as successful as it is? - to a fair degree through comparing itself to the benchmark that is the PFA. Why is PFA looking at type-approved microlights? - because the BMAA has made such a success of them.
My point here is that a degree of overlap and competition is actually very healthy. Both are businesses and members organisations. In that capacity, they do compete to an extent - but the only thing that they can really compete with is standards of service.
If you had a single organisation, and no competition, there would be far less drive to ever-better standards of service (or not to charge more than the other mob) and you'd, well, get something not dissimilar to the CAA.
To give a simple example, let's say a new 3-axis homebuilt microlight comes along. With a single organisation, the Chief Engineer could reasonably say "well, it's a lot of effort to approve, our members already have something similar to fly - there's little benefit in pulling the stops out for this". With competition it becomes "we'd better do a good job on this, otherwise it'll go to the other organisation, and they'll have the long-term airworthiness and membership revenue - too many of them and I'll be out of a job".
Without doubt, this level of competition is very stressful to the staff and committees of both organisations, and to a lesser extent to people whose recreational or professional activities straddle both organisations. But, to UK light aviation as a whole, it's very healthy. Arguably if either organisation started taking an interest in gliders or SLMG as well then we'd probably see both even more stress for the professionals, and benefits for glider pilots too.
G
Stressed GA professional who enjoys his cheap flying.
