VP959, thanks for your support and confidence. As for the business of our taking over the world...... Take it from me, Graham didn't make any such statement. Whoever is spreading this rumour needs to look to their source, it simply isn't true.

Any negotiation upon type approvals that cross the PFA/BMAA boundaries are being discussed between the two associations in a spirit of mutual co-operation. Inevitably the demise of the temporary SLA class, and subsequent VLA etc etc, has meant that there are aircraft which fit new categories. Where the PFA Engineering department did all the approval work, you can see we would be loath to hand it over, especially where it has suddenly become a 'factory built' machine under section S for example.

There's nothing sinister going on.

Nigel

I wish you well in your efforts but it would be nice if Graham would explain himself better, ie. Adams on the BB and BMAA takeover rumours etc.

Ken

NigelR,

I have PM'ed you, as I'm afraid the PFA CE did exactly as I said. I gather it may have been prompted by the Eurostar issue, but was not phrased as such to the BMAA.

Just to clarfy the often stated error re: the SLA "class that never was".

When Section S issue 2 was agreed, raising the maximum weight limit for microlights from 390kg to 450kg, there was a problem with the amendment cycle of the Air Navigation Order (the Statutory Instrument, that amongst other things contains the legal microlight definition). As it wasn't possible to change the legal definition of a microlight in the ANO in time for the issue of Section S issue 2, the CAA issued a new microlight definition but worded as Small Light Aircraft, which aligned with the actual title of Section S. As soon as the ANO came up for amendment the mythical SLA class disappeared, as it was only a legal artifact in the first place.

Most "SLA's" happened to fall into the BMAA camp anyway, as they were microlights all along. In fact, during the couple of years that the SLA definition was extant it covered all microlights anyway. The PFA has only ever had a small handful of microlights, probably no more than about 200 machines in total I suspect, whereas the BMAA fleet is about ten times that size or more.

I guess if the PFA can look at competing with the BMAA for it's main income stream, then the BMAA should do the same and look at seeking approval to oversee Gp A homebuilts.

I find this very odd behavior for an association that refused point blank to have anything whatsoever to do with microlights 25 years ago. In fact, the PFA's action back then directly led to the formation of the BMAA. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap........."

There would appear to be a common complaint from the majority of posts on this thread.

The CEO

Dawn

Nigel, this is a quote for the Pfa BB, Question your CEO

"Ernest, you got in just in front of me.
Graham, if you do not intend to read or respond to posts in the topic area which bears your name, would it not be a good idea to delegate the responsibility to someone else to answer on your behalf or change the title. May I suggest "Grahams 'Ignore' Folder."

Mike W"

Why the HELL is this man CEO,

He, as Dawn said, is the reason why most of us are FU..ING fed up to the teeth.

Ken

Is Graham just too busy to reply to questions or does he just take his wages and not give a damm?

To the "Good guys" on the EC,

I have been a member for over 10 years.

I know Graham, and this past year or so he has said and done some things which have not been in the best interests of the Pfa.

Most of the members I have spoken to over this last few days feel the same as Locksmith & Dawn.

The CEO must go in order to help restore some form of creditability to the Association

Paul

Oh look, another real person arrives..
 

I'm a member of the exec committee and I think the other members are horrible..

No, I'm actually from N Ireland and I think you're all a bunch of liars..

No hang about, I'm a model who also flys, and I think you're all incompetent old gits...


Actually I'm a PFA member who holds no office but has noticed that in both this topic and the old one on the PFA board there are an amazing number of user-ids being created specifically to log on and slag the pfa. Low to nil post numbers an reinforcing each others postings.

At least one of the real people, is I suspect using multiple ids.

Any moderators checking ip addresses and timings? And why is this topic still on this forum and not on Jet Blast.

G

G,

That's exactly the point I was making in my choice of user-id. Easy to do, and I think its happening.


And lest it isnt clear, the post was knocking those posters, not the pfa, which I support.

It would help though if Graham would even answer the questions on his own BB.

John

Beleive it or not some of us did not even know about PPRuNe as we used the Pfa BB and PPRuNe was not really advertised much there.

Just because we do not have 300 + posts does not mean we are not "real people"

You might also discover that there might even be more than 3 or 4 members who do not like the way things are run

Ken

One of the reasons I resigned from the PFA 10 years ago was because it had started to become an Association comprised of whingers instead of do-ers!

I see from this thread, and the PFAs own Bulletin Board that nothing seems to have changed.

Any one for Popham?

I see Graham has invited members to "come into the PFA tent for a natter"

I would like to ask him a few questions so if anyone else would like to join in I'll see you there on Sat

Dawn

Folks I've disputed this PFA takeover of BMAA. I asked Graham today and this was his response. I have his permission to post it here.

Nigel
I'm not sure where this information is coming from, but it is factually
incorrect. To save time I will answer in bullet point fashion:-

1) I, nor anyone else to my knowledge, has suggested to the BMAA that we are
seeking to take over Type approved microlights.

2) I have spoken to Chris Finnigan and discussed the point that Factory
Built, ie Type approved microlights, that are derived from homebuilt types
that the PFA has approved would, from a safety point of view, be better
looked after by the PFA. If you take the Eurostar as an example, when Nigel
Beale applied for approval as a homebuilt we spent some man months reviewing
the design submission and asked for fairly major changes to be made knowing
that it was going to be sold in large numbers. As a Type approved microlight
the CAA, on the back of our work, have issued the Type Approval and the BMAA
are now responsible for it. If, or when there is a problem in the future
with a type approved Eurostar will we stand back and say " Your problem" to
the BMAA? Of course not. Just as with the shadow problems currently we will
sort them out.

3) We currently have a gentlemens agreement with the BMAA, that if an
aircraft is approved by the PFA as a homebuilt then we will look after all
future aircraft of that type and if an aircraft is cleared by the BMAA then
they look after future aircraft of that type.

4) We are suggesting, and it is only a suggestion, that we should extend
this gentlemens agreement to factory built versions of homebuilt types.

5) Far from starting a war, I am trying to suggest a way forward that will
prevent a war. With all the problems of EASA, and don't forget although
microlights are exempted under Annex 2 pilot licensing and operations
affecting the BMAA are a threat, Eurocontrol with it's one sky initiative
and next years mandatory insurance issues we must not fight.

6) If the person who has written this cares to talk to Chris at the BMAA he
will back this up.

7) I would like to know who it is that claims to be an EC member and has
suggested the BMAA extend their approvals, as this certainly would start a
war.


Graham

NigelR,

If a public written statement, like the above, setting out clearly the PFAs formal policy for all to see, had been made some time ago, then I strongly suspect that there would be a lot more support for the PFA management and also that one or two members might still be with the PFA. A number of people in the BMAA would perhaps also be feeling somewhat less threatened.

Clearly this doesn't undo what has already been said and done (much of which was precise and true at the time that it was written), and it's also clear from other correspondence that the PFA EC is less than united in it's views on this.

Can we please have an assurance that PFA management take more care in what they say in future and also that the EC work towards healing the rift that has caused one or two of their number to seek to cause mischief by delighting in reporting the CEOs, perhaps unguarded and unnofficial, comments to others.

Perhaps an assurance that clearly marked private correspondence (you know precisely what I mean here) doesn't get forwarded or copied to others might help as well, as it does little to enhance the reputation of those who indulge in it and reflects badly on the association they work within.

As a final point, I have no interest whatsever in the George Adams affair, and have refrained from commenting on it, yet have been reported elsewhere as being one of those baying for the PFAs blood over this. This is untrue, as anyone who reads my old posts will be able to deduce fairly quickly. I'd appreciate it if you cleared up this misapprehension with your CEO as he clearly thinks otherwise. Clearly the way that this was handled may also be a source for learning from experience for the PFA, as it does seem to have been somewhat badly managed from the perspective of a bystander.

May your PFA recover from this and get back to it's former self.

I am a member of both the PFA & BMAA. I am willing to accept what Graham has said regarding the BMAA.

Graham's alleged hostile take-over bid for the BMAA has been discussed widely by BMAA members over the last week or so.

Where did this all start? I would not like to think that the members of the BMAA invented it.

I hope we do not have two associations with paranoid leaders, worring more about the "other camp" than managing their own.

Ken

Further to my previous post, and just to balance the picture, here is a statement from Chris Fiinigan CEO of the BMAA, perhaps we can put this one to bed now too!:


"It is NOT true that Graham Newby told me that the PFA were intending to
> take over Type Approved microlights.
> Nor is it true that he made a statement to me stating that he saw the PFA
> as the only recreational aviation organisation for the future and felt
> that the BMAA should just be left looking after any microlights that were
> not regulated.
>
> While attending the PFA offices to carry out an audit on the NPLG
> licensing system, I was invited to comment, in an informal meeting
> involving PFA Engineering staff and Graham Newby, led by Andrew Moore, on
> their proposal to extend their exposition to cover factory built
> microlights that had first been approved as PFA homebuilt aircraft. My
> comments were that I believed that the BMAA Council would not welcome this
> news, as my perception of their collective view was that microlights were
> our business and only heavier homebuilt and factory approved aircraft were
> the PFA's business. I also said that I would report the meeting to the
> BMAA Chairman as it would need to be discussed at the next BMAA Council
> meeting to confirm that my perception was correct. That formal
> discussion has not yet taken place and so BMAA policy has not changed,
> although clearly BMAA Council members will be formulating their views for
> the debate.
>
> I enjoy a cordial professional relationship with Graham Newby, and we
> "compare notes" on many issues to our mutual advantage.
> Our respective engineering staffs also co-operate on issues that affect us
> both, but we don't "live in each others' pockets".
>
> I was pleased to meet the new PFA Chairman Cliff Mort at the London
> Airshow, where he explained to me his views on taking the PFA forward
> which included, if I remember correctly, making it more of a pilot's
> association like the BMAA. All elected officials have their views which,
> in democratic organisations such as the BMAA and the PFA, are collectively
> debated before becoming policy and should, of course, reflect the majority
> view of the members who elected the officials. Employed staff like
> Graham and I are paid to implement such policy, not to make it.
>
> While I know that in the past there have been proposals for a merger of
> the two organisations, these were firmly rejected by the BMAA membership,
> and I personally (through my regular contacts with many of our membership)
> don't think that such a proposal would gain significant support in the
> forseeable future. Instead we are developing our European voice through
> our membership of the European Microlight Federation, which now has 16
> national microlight representative organisations in membership, as it is
> clear that EASA will pose the biggest challenges that microlight aviation
> will face in the next ten to fifteen years.
>
> I find it unfortunate that bulletin boards and other internet based
> discussion fora allow opinionated but anonymous individuals to inflame
> such debates when they would often do better to reflect in a mature and
> responsible manner before posting. Personally I try never to post
> something in an e-mail or on a bulletin board that I would not be prepared
> to say face to face or put my name to. Freedom of speech has a few
> drawbacks, but a little self-discipline can work wonders!
>
>
> Chris Finnigan
> Chief Executive
> BMAA "

Locksmith,

I am sure it did not originate from the BMAA, as they would have nothing at all to gain from such a rumour. From what I can recall it was first mentioned to me some months ago by a fairly prominent PFA member. More recently it was mentioned to me again, from several different sources within the PFA, but all telling the same story, which is pretty much as JBQC reported on 22nd April.

Thankfully PFA official policy now seems clear, so I think it perhaps best if we put this issue to one side and get back to aviating.

Nigel,

I was going to suggest you could now take the rest of the week off; but you might need the money for your phone bill.

Tony

Contrary to popular belief Tony, EC members, chairpersons and directors of PFA Ulair don't get paid! We do however get our (relevant) phone calls paid for.....

No week off, National Kit Car show on Sunday/Monday, much to do.

Sorry to give the Pfa another pasting but has anyone else had their Pfa email address shut down without warning??

I wondered why mine was not working very well over the last few weeks and then I read this,

I think the association have a bloody cheek to cut off this service without warning anyone.

Perhaps the good old Nigel can get some answers.

Ken

Ken,

I've just gone on line after a hectic wek-end. I will look into this providing you don't continue to call me 'good old Nigel'!

Graham is on holiday, we have an EC meeting this coming Friday and this will become A.O.B.

I can tell you that this whole PFA net thing occurred as described on the PFA site by Graham. A guy called Alan Aburrow-Newman was the original webmaster before Timbo. This was an idea of his to earn cash for the PFA but as with much IT became obsolete as an idea very quickly.

There must be a way of sorting this and I agee we should try and limit inconvenience as much as possible.

Don't expect an answer for a couple of weeks as GN is away.

Sorry Nigel, no offence ment,

I'll leave it with you

Ken

Yep ... It's happened to me as well now!

Mine was working up until a couple of days ago and I'm now well hacked off! :mad:

I have an ebay account that uses that address and I can't even change it because it requires a verification email back to the old email to allow you to change. As I expect many are aware ebay works a lot on trust which is shown in the form of "feedback" which takes a long time to aquire. If I eventually have to re register as another user I will lose all that good will and it will effect my buying or selling power.

I can't log on to the PFA bulletin board now for similar reasons as my .ukpilots.net email was used to register there too ... so there goes another "identity" :ugh:

I've always been a staunch PFA supporter, but even my patience is getting a bit frayed now! I know the PFA are not internet wise as such ... but if you undertake to provide a service and then drop it, it will reflect very badly on your proffessionalism and creditability!

SS

email
 

I added a little towards explanation on the PFA BBS from when I was webmaster, and yes its very, very annoying what has been done. Like you, when I lost an email address i wasted days trying to recover services and accounts from eleswhere that could only function if they sent the confirmation email to the original address. Re Ebay, try contacting customer services, cos in the end you can get it changed but it takes ages-saves losing reeferences tho,

Good luck,

Timbo

Safety
 

Hi Guys n Gals
Just bin watchin and thought......


Deleted





Happy Flying



If you want to make allegations of that sort, try doing so in the PFA forums where you'll have to provide your ID and PFA Membership Number before you're allowed to post.
We don't like people abusing the anonymity we allow our members, and don't want you on our website.

Heliport
Moderator

To Heliport

I am a friend at Juglylugs flying club, and after hearing his side I felt compelled to come online and see what your side of the story is.
I've read what Jugylug posted before you took it down. Now, fair enough, you are a moderator and that means you have to pull some posts occasionally. But what I've read from Jugylug was telling the truth. Even if you were unsure of this, afterall, this is a RUMOURS forum. Whilst you've got people mentioning those involved by name in other threads you chose to remove this one...
Like I said, a moderator has to moderate, but can you please justify your decision here?

Thanks,
FlyWales

Isn't it amazing how these people appear on a forum with only one or two former posts and start stirring the pot straight away? :rolleyes: There wouldn't be a "not so well hidden" agenda going on here would there?

Perhaps if jugylug or flywales had a few more posts in the bag before jumping straight in with the heavy political stuff they might have a bit more credibility. As it is they just appear to be yet another couple of A:mad:S determined not to let go of a well chewed stick.

Things happen that are regrettable but do we really have to bog this forum down with recriminations in the same way as happened with the PFA board?

Well moderated Heliport :ok:

SS

...and the moderators don't have to justify anything they do. This is a privately owned forum. The forum's owners are generally very tolerant of vigorous debate, but it is unfair to them to post here potentially actionable criticisms of identifiable individuals. Contrary to the caterwauling that went on recently in relation to another thread of some notoriety, no one who chooses to post here has any "right" to say what they like.

'Someone' registered as 'juylug' and posted libellous material.
I deleted it, wrote to him with an explanation and banned him from the thread.

'Someone' then registered as 'jugylug' and re-posted the same libellous material.
I deleted it, posted an explanation which is still there, and banned him from the forum.

Now 'someone' claiming to be 'a friend' registers and posts concerning the deletions.

'Someone' must think we're completely stupid. :rolleyes:

Heliport
SuperModerator

H,

Why not close the thread.

All that has been said has been said etc etc etc.

FD




SuperMods and Admins only intervene in forums in exceptional circumstances. eg To remove posts which contain libellous material, as I did above.
PPRuNe policy is only to close threads when it is absolutely unavoidable. There's nothing which would justify closing this thread. Threads fade away naturally when all has been said.

Heliport

The PFA
 

Until now I have been rather unsure what my membership has actually brought me. Several calls to the engineering department last year resulted in no response and the website's forum had to be shut down on more than one occasion due to a serious amount of air rage that hit the forum unexpectedly. The feelings were heated and written from the heart.

I pondered over my decision to have bought a Permit a/c at that point and nearly regretted becoming a member. I considered selling the steed and reverting back to a C of A machine just to escape the wrath and apparent disorganisation.

I have kept my head down recently and have emerged with very different views about this establishment. Although I haven't had to call the PFA's "ivory towers" for any help or advise I have had some recent contact with one of their inspectors who has helped me out with some maintenance issues. I have been pleasantly surprised by the level of co-operation and professional advice that this person has offered. He has put up with up to 5 of my calls in one afternoon with perfect integrity and humour. He has his own business and could have easily told me to call back when less busy.

I found his number through the PFA website and all I can say is that I wish i'd found it 7 years ago.

My views on the PFA have changed and I hope the core organisers of this establishment realise quite what level of input their "on the ground" personnel have with their image and reputation.

Being one who calls a spade a spade I would say that I can't help feeling that the men on the ground are perhaps let down somewhat by the better remunerated glory takers at a certain well known airfield.

I'm loaded and ready to take 10 paces.....:ouch:

Good to hear something positive about the PFA for a change instead of all the moans and groans :)