Did i read 4 Forces have gone bust too ???
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Rye, E.Sussex, UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at this thread, I am very disappointed by the number of people who have - or are intending - to pay up front for a course. ALL flying training companies are at risk of going under at some time so NEVER PAY THE LOT UP FRONT!!!! particularly if they are offering large discounts for doing so. As stated by me for the last ten years and recently on this forum by Alex Whittingham (Bristol Groundschool), for large course costs, always pay by installments and by credit card if possible. You may then be sure that you are protected regardless of whoever you sign up with.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a lot of people out there who are getting very hot and bothered about all this, and with reason in the case of the students who have been left out of pocket and the instructors no redundant. What is needed now is an effort by all concerned to try and turn this around for the benefit of those students.
I know that other schools are certainly not gloating about the demise of PPSC and 4Forces as it sends a collective shiver down the spines of all in this business. Also many of the other schools are bending over backwards to help at little more than cost price. Alex Whittingham for one, and I know that Atlantic Flight Training are approachable, as no doubt are the other schools.
There are still plenty of schools out there. See what they can offer, and check their answers to the question, "what are your long term prospects".
Scroggs, I think you ought to reconsider your response to a fellow Pruner who, at the end of the day was just exercising his right to pass comment on this board, whether one agrees or not.
I know that other schools are certainly not gloating about the demise of PPSC and 4Forces as it sends a collective shiver down the spines of all in this business. Also many of the other schools are bending over backwards to help at little more than cost price. Alex Whittingham for one, and I know that Atlantic Flight Training are approachable, as no doubt are the other schools.
There are still plenty of schools out there. See what they can offer, and check their answers to the question, "what are your long term prospects".
Scroggs, I think you ought to reconsider your response to a fellow Pruner who, at the end of the day was just exercising his right to pass comment on this board, whether one agrees or not.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's get a few things straight here. The failures of 4Forces Aviation and PPSC have, quite naturally, made potential customers of other schools a little jumpy. That's quite understandable, and has generated a couple of threads along the lines of 'is so-and-so school financially stable?'. Of course, it's very difficult for anyone without access to a company's accounts to know the answers to those questions, so no-one really ends up any the wiser. As a result, the threads go round in circles.
However, we are also getting a rash of speculative posts about other schools which, whether deliberately or not, create uncertainty which can very tangibly affect those companies' income. Speculation is not rumour, and harmful speculation is not acceptable here.
What I was getting at in my message to Silver Fox was that his speculative post about 'another Bournemouth operator' is in itself damaging, and, as he appears to be an instructor for another school, could be taken as malicious by the subject(s) of his speculation. That is potentially dangerous legal ground, and I don't want us to go there - partiularly as it is Pprune that is legally liable unless we can identify the poster.
I made no threat to anyone, and I am not doing so now, but I do warn all of you that Prune's rumour network status does not give you carte blanche to say, or imply, what you like about who you like. This is a public message board and that carries legal liabilities and responsibilities. If you abuse us by speculating in a way that could have legal repercussions for us, we will react. If you don't like that, tough. Take your speculation elsewhere.
Edited for late-night typos!
[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: scroggs ]
However, we are also getting a rash of speculative posts about other schools which, whether deliberately or not, create uncertainty which can very tangibly affect those companies' income. Speculation is not rumour, and harmful speculation is not acceptable here.
What I was getting at in my message to Silver Fox was that his speculative post about 'another Bournemouth operator' is in itself damaging, and, as he appears to be an instructor for another school, could be taken as malicious by the subject(s) of his speculation. That is potentially dangerous legal ground, and I don't want us to go there - partiularly as it is Pprune that is legally liable unless we can identify the poster.
I made no threat to anyone, and I am not doing so now, but I do warn all of you that Prune's rumour network status does not give you carte blanche to say, or imply, what you like about who you like. This is a public message board and that carries legal liabilities and responsibilities. If you abuse us by speculating in a way that could have legal repercussions for us, we will react. If you don't like that, tough. Take your speculation elsewhere.
Edited for late-night typos!
[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: scroggs ]
Sometime in the last week I had to damp down specualtion that SFT were going bust on another thread here somewhere. I have dug around the FTO industry and can find nothing to support such rumours.
By phrasing a rumour in vague "Bournemouth based" terms you damage more than just SFT. What about Airbourne school of flying or PAT or the other schools at Bournemouth?!?
I think you'll find that the problems at the moment fundamentally lie with JAA GROUNDSCHOOL providers.
The heinous possibility of someone using this forum to smear a commercial rival NECESSITATES a very firm line from the Moderators. We WILL NOT tolerate malicious underming of schools.
*IF* this means that genuinely posted rumours by well intentioned PPRuNe'rs occassionally get scrubbed then SO BE IT. Negative unsubstantiated rumours about a FTO is uniquely damaging. This is one of the reasons we require someone actual name before letting such posts stand.
Scroggs was absolutely correct in his action. Action I would have taken had I reached the thread first.
Everybody just chill a little please.
WWW
By phrasing a rumour in vague "Bournemouth based" terms you damage more than just SFT. What about Airbourne school of flying or PAT or the other schools at Bournemouth?!?
I think you'll find that the problems at the moment fundamentally lie with JAA GROUNDSCHOOL providers.
The heinous possibility of someone using this forum to smear a commercial rival NECESSITATES a very firm line from the Moderators. We WILL NOT tolerate malicious underming of schools.
*IF* this means that genuinely posted rumours by well intentioned PPRuNe'rs occassionally get scrubbed then SO BE IT. Negative unsubstantiated rumours about a FTO is uniquely damaging. This is one of the reasons we require someone actual name before letting such posts stand.
Scroggs was absolutely correct in his action. Action I would have taken had I reached the thread first.
Everybody just chill a little please.
WWW
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scroggs.
Rumour:-
General talk or hearsay of doubtfull accuracy.
Current or unverified statement or assertion.
If those two definitions do not accurately describe the nature of this site(or the comment that I made), then I suggest that a change of name should be considered to avoid the potential liability mentioned in your post
Rumour:-
General talk or hearsay of doubtfull accuracy.
Current or unverified statement or assertion.
If those two definitions do not accurately describe the nature of this site(or the comment that I made), then I suggest that a change of name should be considered to avoid the potential liability mentioned in your post
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what the Moderators are trying to get across here is that there is a difference between rumour and libel.
Libel can and does ruin lives. All right, this is a rumour network and rumours can also be libelous. But I think we need to exercise some responsibility when we post our rumours.
Libel can and does ruin lives. All right, this is a rumour network and rumours can also be libelous. But I think we need to exercise some responsibility when we post our rumours.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox,
would I get you to defend us in court on the basis of your definition? No chance. Look up libel and slander and, while you're at it, check out the legal liabilities of those who publish anonymous bulletin boards. If, after that, you are still wondering why we are sensitive to this sort of thing then you are less intelligent than I'm still prepared to give you credit for.
Let me put it simply: if you anonymously say, or imply, 'I think Wonder Planes Aviation is on dodgy ground' on this board, without including justification, it is legally Danny Fyne and the rest of us moderators that are liable if in fact that company is in good health and takes exception to any suggestion otherwise on Pprune.
As we all run Pprune in our spare time from professional aviation, and without payment, we are naturally keen to avoid anything which might have severe financial consequences for us and our families.
Of course you, under your cloak of anonimity, run no such risk. That is why we insist that any posters of potentially damaging, slanderous, or libellous 'rumour' provide us with both their real identities and contact details and the source of the rumour. You are, of course, aware of this, as you signed up to the rules of this site when you joined.
Like I say, you are not at liberty (in any walk of life) to say what you like about who you like. Responsibility is a heavy burden, and we aren't shouldering it alone.
would I get you to defend us in court on the basis of your definition? No chance. Look up libel and slander and, while you're at it, check out the legal liabilities of those who publish anonymous bulletin boards. If, after that, you are still wondering why we are sensitive to this sort of thing then you are less intelligent than I'm still prepared to give you credit for.
Let me put it simply: if you anonymously say, or imply, 'I think Wonder Planes Aviation is on dodgy ground' on this board, without including justification, it is legally Danny Fyne and the rest of us moderators that are liable if in fact that company is in good health and takes exception to any suggestion otherwise on Pprune.
As we all run Pprune in our spare time from professional aviation, and without payment, we are naturally keen to avoid anything which might have severe financial consequences for us and our families.
Of course you, under your cloak of anonimity, run no such risk. That is why we insist that any posters of potentially damaging, slanderous, or libellous 'rumour' provide us with both their real identities and contact details and the source of the rumour. You are, of course, aware of this, as you signed up to the rules of this site when you joined.
Like I say, you are not at liberty (in any walk of life) to say what you like about who you like. Responsibility is a heavy burden, and we aren't shouldering it alone.
