Pathetic aftermath of PFA rally (Good News!)
I have no particular opinion about it, was there, didn't watch the display, did hear the rumblings at the time, but...
- However experienced these chaps were, presumably there was given the occasion some risk that somebody with very little experience and perhaps no radio could have turned up and flown into the middle of the display. On the other hand, where exactly did it take place? - was it in the middle of the approach (stupid) on a declared deadside (should be okay since no overhead joins at the rally so long as it was 100m or so from the runway centreline) or at a safe height above the runway centre (pretty much sterile space).
- Surely as aviators we should sort out our disagreements amongst ourselves, the sin surely is in escalating an issue to the CAA, rather than in feeling that something was unsafe - that's the sort of debate that goes on regularly at many airfields, and the fact that we do discuss it - often in heated terms - means that we all take safety seriously. That must be a good thing.
- I find myself wondering if whoever this chap Moody (who I don't know) complained to at the rally had given him a good listening to and discussed it, rather than telling him something along the lines of: I'm in charge, authorised it, and it's legal so what's the problem, he'd not have gone to the CAA, however reprehensible an action we may think that was regardless.
Just a few neutral thoughts, as an ex-military, now civil, PFA member, who has been practicing for a DA for 2 years but not got there yet, and would just rather see my fellow aviators arguing less noisily when somebody gets worried about something.
G
- However experienced these chaps were, presumably there was given the occasion some risk that somebody with very little experience and perhaps no radio could have turned up and flown into the middle of the display. On the other hand, where exactly did it take place? - was it in the middle of the approach (stupid) on a declared deadside (should be okay since no overhead joins at the rally so long as it was 100m or so from the runway centreline) or at a safe height above the runway centre (pretty much sterile space).
- Surely as aviators we should sort out our disagreements amongst ourselves, the sin surely is in escalating an issue to the CAA, rather than in feeling that something was unsafe - that's the sort of debate that goes on regularly at many airfields, and the fact that we do discuss it - often in heated terms - means that we all take safety seriously. That must be a good thing.
- I find myself wondering if whoever this chap Moody (who I don't know) complained to at the rally had given him a good listening to and discussed it, rather than telling him something along the lines of: I'm in charge, authorised it, and it's legal so what's the problem, he'd not have gone to the CAA, however reprehensible an action we may think that was regardless.
Just a few neutral thoughts, as an ex-military, now civil, PFA member, who has been practicing for a DA for 2 years but not got there yet, and would just rather see my fellow aviators arguing less noisily when somebody gets worried about something.
G
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Smartarse'? Oh very funny and very witty, or do I hope you wear glasses when flying? It is actually spelt: 'smarthawke'.
Is it that everyone ex-RAF is all things to aviation military or civil?
Did they or did they not not abide with the arrival procedures for the PFA Rally as stated in the AIC?
And for what's worth, their crossover was well off crowd centre........
People hate to see two sides of a story don't they? And don't they bite easily?
Is it that everyone ex-RAF is all things to aviation military or civil?
Did they or did they not not abide with the arrival procedures for the PFA Rally as stated in the AIC?
And for what's worth, their crossover was well off crowd centre........
People hate to see two sides of a story don't they? And don't they bite easily?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely as aviators we should sort out our disagreements amongst ourselves, the sin surely is in escalating an issue to the CAA, rather than in feeling that something was unsafe - that's the sort of debate that goes on regularly at many airfields, and the fact that we do discuss it - often in heated terms - means that we all take safety seriously. That must be a good thing.
From what I've heard from a source I've always found to be completely balanced and reliable, people did try to discuss it calmly with Moody. Unfortunately, he wasn't open to discussion and got angry because nobody agreed with him. (He wasn't the only experienced aviator there.)
The trouble seems to be that he'd gone off both barrels at the pilots without checking the facts first and wouldn't believe them when they said they'd OK'd their practice with ATC.
When he found out it was true, he started effing and blinding because he hadn't been consulted before permission was given, wouldn't be.
Moody then walked off the job saying he wouldn't work with them on the Sunday. Fortunately the PFA found someone to step into the breach so the Rally went ahead smoothly and successfully the next day without Moody. Perhaps that made him even more irritated?
smarthawke
Interesting questions, but surely the more interesting topic is the one raised by Allty M who started this thread?
What's your view on that?
Last edited by Heliport; 22nd Aug 2003 at 23:29.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport
I personally don't think the 'display' itself was dangerous except for the fact that there was other traffic departing and arriving at the same time and as I said what if some non-radio machine had arrived at the same time?
With all these things it is best to wait for all the real facts to come out rather than all the perceived facts known by people who knew people who knew people that might have been there and perhaps witnessed the event.......!!
I personally don't think the 'display' itself was dangerous except for the fact that there was other traffic departing and arriving at the same time and as I said what if some non-radio machine had arrived at the same time?
With all these things it is best to wait for all the real facts to come out rather than all the perceived facts known by people who knew people who knew people that might have been there and perhaps witnessed the event.......!!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully agree smarthawke!
If these guys didn't do anything wrong, then the complaint to the CAA will come to nothing.
Then perhaps the stone throwing at Moody will be justified.
I cannot help but see the attitude here that these are great guys and so any complaint is unjustified - that cannot be so.
We all do stupid things sometimes. The attitude that I'm a great aviator and so the rules don't apply to me seems very inappropriate. I would n't suggest Moody seems the nicest type of person - but that is only one side of this story, started in a very sensationalist way.
If or when the CAA drop it then the insults might be more justified.
As for me having a down on military pilots - no not particularly, I know a couple and respect their skills. I do however find arrogance and rule breaking based on it, pretty boorish and utterly inexcusable particularly when the word professional is being used.
If these guys didn't do anything wrong, then the complaint to the CAA will come to nothing.
Then perhaps the stone throwing at Moody will be justified.
I cannot help but see the attitude here that these are great guys and so any complaint is unjustified - that cannot be so.
We all do stupid things sometimes. The attitude that I'm a great aviator and so the rules don't apply to me seems very inappropriate. I would n't suggest Moody seems the nicest type of person - but that is only one side of this story, started in a very sensationalist way.
If or when the CAA drop it then the insults might be more justified.
As for me having a down on military pilots - no not particularly, I know a couple and respect their skills. I do however find arrogance and rule breaking based on it, pretty boorish and utterly inexcusable particularly when the word professional is being used.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
smarthawke
The facts have come out. They've been given several times by different people on this thread and nobody's suggested they aren't accurate.
The facts are Steven Moody was dead set on causing trouble for the two pilots and he kept going and going until he succeeded.
The issue AltyMeter started isn't what we think about the pilots flying (most of us weren't there so can't judge) but about Moody's antics which have caused so much trouble. That's the issue.
Read Genghis's post again. He makes a lot of sense.
gasax
How many times do you have to be told? They came back to Kemble in the evening, asked permission to do some practice and were given it.
You're entitled to your opinion of people who complain to the CAA instead os sorting it out locally. My opinion of Steven Moody won't change regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
BTW, I'm not a military man unless you count a couple of years in the ATC when I was at school.
The facts have come out. They've been given several times by different people on this thread and nobody's suggested they aren't accurate.
The facts are Steven Moody was dead set on causing trouble for the two pilots and he kept going and going until he succeeded.
The issue AltyMeter started isn't what we think about the pilots flying (most of us weren't there so can't judge) but about Moody's antics which have caused so much trouble. That's the issue.
Read Genghis's post again. He makes a lot of sense.
gasax
How many times do you have to be told? They came back to Kemble in the evening, asked permission to do some practice and were given it.
You're entitled to your opinion of people who complain to the CAA instead os sorting it out locally. My opinion of Steven Moody won't change regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
BTW, I'm not a military man unless you count a couple of years in the ATC when I was at school.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!
Lot's of converging viewpoints.
My point of view -
arrived at Kemble from the south just as the duo were doing their stuff, they finished and landed about 20 secs ahead of me...
the only inconvenience to me was that I was unsure when to call "final" as I was lead of a 2ship and was watching them like the proverbial hawk - no2 was experiencing intermittent tx probs but could rx
We (wingman and self) had been competing in an aero's comp at Bodmin and approaching Kemble was no more arduous/dangerous than climbing out/recovering when an aero's comp is in progress.
From my PFA involvement (I am a director of ULAIR), I know Steve Moody and he has always struck me as very sensible. I am aware that the Rally is a very stressful time for the Rally crew and can only imagine that the display whilst the TRA was active was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I understand the concern about non-rdo a/c but as my previous trip to Kemble this year was G-VFWE non-rdo whilst the Hunter was strutting his stuff late Friday afternoon, I would expect non-rdo pilots to be EVEN more vigilant.
It is irrelevant that the display duo were ex-mil they could have been civvies such as the Tiger Club Turbulent Team and the same furore would have errupted.
With ATC permission, even I, a provisional display pilot could have practiced aerobatics in the overhead and down to 501' above the aerodrome.
In short - shame it could not have been sorted out locally - all I can predict is that there will be no winners from this.
Stik
Lot's of converging viewpoints.
My point of view -
arrived at Kemble from the south just as the duo were doing their stuff, they finished and landed about 20 secs ahead of me...
the only inconvenience to me was that I was unsure when to call "final" as I was lead of a 2ship and was watching them like the proverbial hawk - no2 was experiencing intermittent tx probs but could rx
We (wingman and self) had been competing in an aero's comp at Bodmin and approaching Kemble was no more arduous/dangerous than climbing out/recovering when an aero's comp is in progress.
From my PFA involvement (I am a director of ULAIR), I know Steve Moody and he has always struck me as very sensible. I am aware that the Rally is a very stressful time for the Rally crew and can only imagine that the display whilst the TRA was active was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I understand the concern about non-rdo a/c but as my previous trip to Kemble this year was G-VFWE non-rdo whilst the Hunter was strutting his stuff late Friday afternoon, I would expect non-rdo pilots to be EVEN more vigilant.
It is irrelevant that the display duo were ex-mil they could have been civvies such as the Tiger Club Turbulent Team and the same furore would have errupted.
With ATC permission, even I, a provisional display pilot could have practiced aerobatics in the overhead and down to 501' above the aerodrome.
In short - shame it could not have been sorted out locally - all I can predict is that there will be no winners from this.
Stik
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Back of beyond
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I've bitten my tongue for long enough. Here's my 2p worth. I wasn’t there so I am trying to say this without bias either way, so if anyone slags me off, I'll be round with my dodgy 'mates' from the East End of Bethnal Green to lean on them! Just like Mr M**dy might be now after most of you guys have effectively sentenced him by internet trial! Let’s wait for the facts before we slaughter someone online, and then do it properly. Where does Pprune stand on Libel (Slander? Can never remember which one)?
Virgin,
Maybe the 'facts' are not quite as accurate as people make out? Just because several people have mentioned them here online, doesn’t mean they are accurate! If anything, the 'facts' on Pprune mean that they are almost certainly 100% ill-informed gossip from people who heard it down at the flying club bar!
Has anyone seen anything written down WHY the pilots are being investigated? Are they actually being investigated by the CAA, or have they just been told off? What laws have they broken, if any? Maybe Mr M**dy was justified in taking it further on grounds that he thought it dangerous or irresponsible? Are all us pruners actually saying things on here that the 2 unlucky pilots might not want us to? Are we dropping them in it by what we are saying? Anyone considered that?
There are lots of 'rules' in the ANO [URL=http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF] that apply to Flying Displays, overflight of people on the ground and low flying. Article 70, Rule 5 etc etc. Most of them appear to be stupid rules to most of us, but somebody wrote them for a reason. Has anyone actually considered that by flying a display over the airfield while the PFA Rally was taking place, that the pilots may have broken just one or two of these rules? Professional good guys (Military, ex-mil & civil) **** up from time to time in all spheres of aviation. I didnt see them fly at Kemble, but I did see them at Brize Norton earlier that day and FWIW, I thought their display was pants! Maybe they had a bad day?
Where's Flying Lawyer when you need him?
Vere de Fakawe the Devils Advocate
(Not ex-military but I watched an RAF Phantom at an airshow once……………………)
Virgin,
Maybe the 'facts' are not quite as accurate as people make out? Just because several people have mentioned them here online, doesn’t mean they are accurate! If anything, the 'facts' on Pprune mean that they are almost certainly 100% ill-informed gossip from people who heard it down at the flying club bar!
Has anyone seen anything written down WHY the pilots are being investigated? Are they actually being investigated by the CAA, or have they just been told off? What laws have they broken, if any? Maybe Mr M**dy was justified in taking it further on grounds that he thought it dangerous or irresponsible? Are all us pruners actually saying things on here that the 2 unlucky pilots might not want us to? Are we dropping them in it by what we are saying? Anyone considered that?
There are lots of 'rules' in the ANO [URL=http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF] that apply to Flying Displays, overflight of people on the ground and low flying. Article 70, Rule 5 etc etc. Most of them appear to be stupid rules to most of us, but somebody wrote them for a reason. Has anyone actually considered that by flying a display over the airfield while the PFA Rally was taking place, that the pilots may have broken just one or two of these rules? Professional good guys (Military, ex-mil & civil) **** up from time to time in all spheres of aviation. I didnt see them fly at Kemble, but I did see them at Brize Norton earlier that day and FWIW, I thought their display was pants! Maybe they had a bad day?
Where's Flying Lawyer when you need him?
Vere de Fakawe the Devils Advocate
(Not ex-military but I watched an RAF Phantom at an airshow once……………………)
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can rest assured that Flying Lawyer is not far away. 
As a past display pilot covering a fair few years I am at a loss to understand how this situation can arise.
There is only ONE place you can call if you want to practise on your home airfield and that is ATC. These two guys did just that. They asked ATC if they could practise. ATC said yes. Game over! ATC controls the sky and ATC controls the aircraft. No need to go around in circles looking for a reason to chastise this Mr Moody - he has no case. He has no authority to tell the controllers how to control the airspace under their jurisdiction. No laws have been broken if they were given permission!
It may be that the pilots were not happy about a particular part of their sequence that day and thought they should practise it. Just what I would have done, and did, many times. They are to be commended not hounded. Especially by a man who appears to have thrown a tantrum because his 'authority' was not sought and was not needed. If he, alledgedly, stormed around trying to find someone to complain to in the manner he is supposed to have done he should not be in charge of an airshow. He has certainly belittled the good name of the PFA and maybe one or two of the excellent senior members might tell him that.
Practise is absolutely vital for a display pilot. He has to do it somewhere and that is accepted by all in authority. Think of the furore if it were found that a pilot never bothered to practise and became a cloud of dust at some airshow! He must take practise very seriously and since one was a synchro Red he practised almost every day. Groupie would be the same - and I think I know both. If that is the case - they are consummate professionals.
Give these guys a break. They know what is best and I support them 100%.
As a past display pilot covering a fair few years I am at a loss to understand how this situation can arise.
There is only ONE place you can call if you want to practise on your home airfield and that is ATC. These two guys did just that. They asked ATC if they could practise. ATC said yes. Game over! ATC controls the sky and ATC controls the aircraft. No need to go around in circles looking for a reason to chastise this Mr Moody - he has no case. He has no authority to tell the controllers how to control the airspace under their jurisdiction. No laws have been broken if they were given permission!
It may be that the pilots were not happy about a particular part of their sequence that day and thought they should practise it. Just what I would have done, and did, many times. They are to be commended not hounded. Especially by a man who appears to have thrown a tantrum because his 'authority' was not sought and was not needed. If he, alledgedly, stormed around trying to find someone to complain to in the manner he is supposed to have done he should not be in charge of an airshow. He has certainly belittled the good name of the PFA and maybe one or two of the excellent senior members might tell him that.
Practise is absolutely vital for a display pilot. He has to do it somewhere and that is accepted by all in authority. Think of the furore if it were found that a pilot never bothered to practise and became a cloud of dust at some airshow! He must take practise very seriously and since one was a synchro Red he practised almost every day. Groupie would be the same - and I think I know both. If that is the case - they are consummate professionals.
Give these guys a break. They know what is best and I support them 100%.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always find it interesting when people confidently assert that pilots against whom complaints are made have nothing to worry about if they've done nothing wrong. (Isn't 'interesting' a useful word? 
)
Perhaps they have no idea about what's involved, or perhaps they just don't care as long as they aren't the pilot under investigation.
The facts have already been posted by a number of people so there's no point in my repeating them. Unfortunately, the full facts are even worse than reported here.
The incident is being investigated by the CAA. That's not surprising given Captain Steven Moody's determination as already described by others. But, it doesn't stop there.
What Pruners may find difficult to believe - but it's nonetheless true – is that, having received a complaint, someone in CAA-SRG saw fit to suspend the pilots' Display Authorisations before an investigation had taken place. As a result, the pilots have had to cancel their bookings for the rest of the season. In short, guilty or innocent, they've lost this display season.
I don't understand the concern (expressed by some) that what Captain Steven Moody did has been revealed. Pprune is an aviators' website. Some may admire him for his actions - others will think he's behaved disgracefully.
May I ask for my fellow Ppruners' co-operation please?
There's a risk the pilots will be prosecuted based on Captain Moody's allegations. I hope you'll agree that, in those circumstances, it would be best if we guard against saying anything here which might damage the pilots' interests.
I suggest we now suspend any further discussion until the matter has been finally resolved.
FL
) Perhaps they have no idea about what's involved, or perhaps they just don't care as long as they aren't the pilot under investigation.
The facts have already been posted by a number of people so there's no point in my repeating them. Unfortunately, the full facts are even worse than reported here.
The incident is being investigated by the CAA. That's not surprising given Captain Steven Moody's determination as already described by others. But, it doesn't stop there.
What Pruners may find difficult to believe - but it's nonetheless true – is that, having received a complaint, someone in CAA-SRG saw fit to suspend the pilots' Display Authorisations before an investigation had taken place. As a result, the pilots have had to cancel their bookings for the rest of the season. In short, guilty or innocent, they've lost this display season.
I don't understand the concern (expressed by some) that what Captain Steven Moody did has been revealed. Pprune is an aviators' website. Some may admire him for his actions - others will think he's behaved disgracefully.
May I ask for my fellow Ppruners' co-operation please?
There's a risk the pilots will be prosecuted based on Captain Moody's allegations. I hope you'll agree that, in those circumstances, it would be best if we guard against saying anything here which might damage the pilots' interests.
I suggest we now suspend any further discussion until the matter has been finally resolved.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 23rd Aug 2003 at 07:07.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Age: 40
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is ridiculous. I just don't understand this guy's motivation for causing all this trouble. What's he got to gain?
It's no good saying that if the pilots did nothing wrong then nothing will happen to them because they still have to put up with being investigated and the worry that they might somehow be found guilty. It would also be annoying for them that this guy is able to act in this way towards them despite their doing nothing wrong.
If the facts that have been laid out here are correct, and it appears that they are then he simply does not have a case, ATC permission was asked for and granted, end of story.
It's no good saying that if the pilots did nothing wrong then nothing will happen to them because they still have to put up with being investigated and the worry that they might somehow be found guilty. It would also be annoying for them that this guy is able to act in this way towards them despite their doing nothing wrong.
If the facts that have been laid out here are correct, and it appears that they are then he simply does not have a case, ATC permission was asked for and granted, end of story.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a complete and utter tosser this "Captain" (Differcult to bring myself to utter the word, outside work) Moody must be.
Captain?? Captain of what??
Who gave him, or anyone else, permission to call him "Captain" outside of his work place??
Captain?? Captain of what??
Who gave him, or anyone else, permission to call him "Captain" outside of his work place??
Last edited by doubleu-anker; 23rd Aug 2003 at 07:05.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of these posts and the entire atmosphere surrounding the entire "incident" do no credit to the spirit of adventure which exists inside every real pilot, military, civil, private.
We all know the difference between bureaucratic dangerous and the real thing. Can't comment on this other than to say I suspect it belongs in the first category.
Its a sad F
ing world, such a lack of heart and soul.
We all know the difference between bureaucratic dangerous and the real thing. Can't comment on this other than to say I suspect it belongs in the first category.
Its a sad F
ing world, such a lack of heart and soul.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PORTUGAL
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moody's disgusting behaviour has caused damage in the best traditions of a kangaroo court. Much damage is now done.
To balance the injustice, perhaps his peers and colleagues are in a position to mete out some justice within their sphere of operations. It is unlikely that his "professionalism" is unimpeachable.
By the by, I have displayed in my military days and am capable of seeing both sides. That is; when there are actually two sides to see!
To balance the injustice, perhaps his peers and colleagues are in a position to mete out some justice within their sphere of operations. It is unlikely that his "professionalism" is unimpeachable.
By the by, I have displayed in my military days and am capable of seeing both sides. That is; when there are actually two sides to see!
Last edited by blaireau; 25th Aug 2003 at 02:39.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is difficult reading through this thread, to see what all the issues are. If the facts are as presented it will be unlikely that this will go much further, but appreciate FL's point of view based on experience in this field.
Seems harsh (but may be from the CAA's viewpoint understandable) that with the revoking of the DA, and cancellation of ongoing commitments there are likely serious consequences for the financial well being of this team.
Where is the PFA in this?
As the person who has made these allegations was doing so in his position as Rally Ops person; do they support this action?
If this carries on and goes to court, will these pilots have to fork out for their costs themselves, or would they have insurance for this or depend on donations from supporters? Are they members of AOPA?
Squabbles like these are messy and unlikely to have anyone coming out of this smelling of roses.
Someone expressed surprise that people from within the aviation community would shop anyone for doing something naughty. I think that was a bit naive.
FD
Seems harsh (but may be from the CAA's viewpoint understandable) that with the revoking of the DA, and cancellation of ongoing commitments there are likely serious consequences for the financial well being of this team.
Where is the PFA in this?
As the person who has made these allegations was doing so in his position as Rally Ops person; do they support this action?
If this carries on and goes to court, will these pilots have to fork out for their costs themselves, or would they have insurance for this or depend on donations from supporters? Are they members of AOPA?
Squabbles like these are messy and unlikely to have anyone coming out of this smelling of roses.
Someone expressed surprise that people from within the aviation community would shop anyone for doing something naughty. I think that was a bit naive.
FD
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,582
Received 440 Likes
on
233 Posts
Presumably if the pilots involved are found not to have broken any rules then they will have a jolly good reason to sue both the individual making the report for slander and the person in the SRG who acted on it for loss of earnings and damages?