[/img]Airside access at Sywell fly-in
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Nigel Ramsay
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:13 pm
- Location: Middle Earth
-
Bill McCarthy
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:06 pm
- Location: Caithness
-
Nigel Bailey
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:36 am
- Location: Suffolk
I was a member of the PFA for many years, but allowed my membership to lapse for quite a long time after becoming totally disillusioned with the negative way things were going. The demise of the International rally was high on this list, but after recently hearing that the LAA were “restructuring” themselves and looking favourably at recreating the national/international rally again I took the decision to renew membership just a few days ago. Hearing that there was to be a "LAA" rally at Sywell I called the Aviator and noted that they are fully booked, but I’m number one on the list for a cancelled room for my wife and I.
Maybe I should have read the strings on this forum before phoning the Aviator, because with a heavy heart I see that nothing much has changed. Bickering, arguing and poor decision making are still in abundance. But what has absolutely staggered me is that we have employed another CEO that is virtually anti rally!!
I can remember in the PFA days chatting to others about why they were members of the PFA. Most people with permit type aircraft said… 1)PTF 2)The Rally 3)The Magazine. People without permit type aircraft (me included) and spotters said… 1)The Rally 2)The Magazine.
Now with this in mind, if we don’t have a rally, the magazine is the only reason for most people to be members of the LAA. Granted it is bloody good, but is it enough to maintain or even increase the membership?
But really and truly saddening is how much the LAA have given way to the ridiculous and unwanted interference of the health and safety lot. What a compete cringing mess the issue of airside admission is going to be a Sywell and it’s no point saying that the LAA had nothing to do with this because there is plenty of evidence to show that they did. I can fully understand members on here getting really upset about it and it’s no use placating them as if they were naughty children because they are quite right to vent their anger. How demeaning it is going to be for experienced pilots arriving by road to have to be chaperoned airside by a well intentioned, but inexperienced member of the Milton Keynes Flying Circus. Can you imagine what it will look like if Mark Jefferies turns up having driven over from nearby Little Gransden and is seen in the middle of a tardy group of punters being herded from plan to plane being schooled on the dangers of propellers by someone who almost certainly had never even touched an aircraft propeller? Frankly it doesn’t bare thinking about, but it does illustrate the rather limited thinking of those that are responsible for the organisation of this event.
Andre’s piece comes across to me as quite authoritarian and in line with the stereotypical H&S dogma that we see so much of these days. But I take total issue with him on his phrase “For me, as Indeed for everyone else, safety HAS to be THE number ONE priority” Well sorry Andre, this is total rubbish, THE number ONE priority has to be HAVING FUN, because that is what we have all lost due to this nonsense. I’d prefer to think that safety has to be seen as an IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION assisted with signage, leaflets and above all common sense. Silly internet courses leading to badges for LAA members on safety around aeroplanes is simply pandering to this idiocy. If we must be seen to be doing something, then I suggest about half a page in the magazine illustrating and bullet pointing the relevant information.
As the LAA are no longer involved in the Sywell Revival Rally, I will politely ask Mr Bletso-Brown to think again, swallow his pride and allow ALL LAA members unrestricted and unhindered access airside. If I’m unsuccessful with my powers of persuasion, I will be joining many of the other members by voting with my feet.
Maybe I should have read the strings on this forum before phoning the Aviator, because with a heavy heart I see that nothing much has changed. Bickering, arguing and poor decision making are still in abundance. But what has absolutely staggered me is that we have employed another CEO that is virtually anti rally!!
I can remember in the PFA days chatting to others about why they were members of the PFA. Most people with permit type aircraft said… 1)PTF 2)The Rally 3)The Magazine. People without permit type aircraft (me included) and spotters said… 1)The Rally 2)The Magazine.
Now with this in mind, if we don’t have a rally, the magazine is the only reason for most people to be members of the LAA. Granted it is bloody good, but is it enough to maintain or even increase the membership?
But really and truly saddening is how much the LAA have given way to the ridiculous and unwanted interference of the health and safety lot. What a compete cringing mess the issue of airside admission is going to be a Sywell and it’s no point saying that the LAA had nothing to do with this because there is plenty of evidence to show that they did. I can fully understand members on here getting really upset about it and it’s no use placating them as if they were naughty children because they are quite right to vent their anger. How demeaning it is going to be for experienced pilots arriving by road to have to be chaperoned airside by a well intentioned, but inexperienced member of the Milton Keynes Flying Circus. Can you imagine what it will look like if Mark Jefferies turns up having driven over from nearby Little Gransden and is seen in the middle of a tardy group of punters being herded from plan to plane being schooled on the dangers of propellers by someone who almost certainly had never even touched an aircraft propeller? Frankly it doesn’t bare thinking about, but it does illustrate the rather limited thinking of those that are responsible for the organisation of this event.
Andre’s piece comes across to me as quite authoritarian and in line with the stereotypical H&S dogma that we see so much of these days. But I take total issue with him on his phrase “For me, as Indeed for everyone else, safety HAS to be THE number ONE priority” Well sorry Andre, this is total rubbish, THE number ONE priority has to be HAVING FUN, because that is what we have all lost due to this nonsense. I’d prefer to think that safety has to be seen as an IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION assisted with signage, leaflets and above all common sense. Silly internet courses leading to badges for LAA members on safety around aeroplanes is simply pandering to this idiocy. If we must be seen to be doing something, then I suggest about half a page in the magazine illustrating and bullet pointing the relevant information.
As the LAA are no longer involved in the Sywell Revival Rally, I will politely ask Mr Bletso-Brown to think again, swallow his pride and allow ALL LAA members unrestricted and unhindered access airside. If I’m unsuccessful with my powers of persuasion, I will be joining many of the other members by voting with my feet.
-
Simon Clifton
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:59 pm
- Location: Worcestershire
I have been monitoring this thread from the start, but now feel moved to say something.
It is with the deepest sadness that 'innocent fun' has been killed by 'compensation culture'. But killed it has been, RIP. There is little anyone can do about it, and that includes the CEO of the LAA.
I'll give you an example, a very nice ex flying instructor of mine (one of the sort that just loves to fly) was sued by an air-experience customer when a minor accident happened (he hurt his leg). I won't go into the details, but the instructor lost his business, home, and died a couple of years later a broken man. There is also the case of a fatal flex-wing incident which shook the foundations of our sister organisation recently. There was a death 30 metres from my hanger door 4 months ago, someone is in custody.
This is a total injustice, but the lawyers won and will continue to win. Another incident will happen again soon.
I'll be the first to say that unfettered access to parked aeroplanes is a key goal of the LAA, but I'll also be the first to stand behind Peter in protecting ourselves from compo seeking idots.
The majority of this thread has been in clarifying this point and coming up with 'contolled access' suggestions, none of which are ever going to really satisfy anybody who really wants 'uncontrolled access'.
If you grant me that the world has changed, then these are all false choices, and we might as well get on with that that we can influence and control.
Simon Clifton
~~~~~~~~~
It is with the deepest sadness that 'innocent fun' has been killed by 'compensation culture'. But killed it has been, RIP. There is little anyone can do about it, and that includes the CEO of the LAA.
I'll give you an example, a very nice ex flying instructor of mine (one of the sort that just loves to fly) was sued by an air-experience customer when a minor accident happened (he hurt his leg). I won't go into the details, but the instructor lost his business, home, and died a couple of years later a broken man. There is also the case of a fatal flex-wing incident which shook the foundations of our sister organisation recently. There was a death 30 metres from my hanger door 4 months ago, someone is in custody.
This is a total injustice, but the lawyers won and will continue to win. Another incident will happen again soon.
I'll be the first to say that unfettered access to parked aeroplanes is a key goal of the LAA, but I'll also be the first to stand behind Peter in protecting ourselves from compo seeking idots.
The majority of this thread has been in clarifying this point and coming up with 'contolled access' suggestions, none of which are ever going to really satisfy anybody who really wants 'uncontrolled access'.
If you grant me that the world has changed, then these are all false choices, and we might as well get on with that that we can influence and control.
Simon Clifton
~~~~~~~~~
-
Simon Clifton
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:59 pm
- Location: Worcestershire
-
Nigel Bailey
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:36 am
- Location: Suffolk
Simon
Edmund Burke, an Irish statesman and Member of Parliament in the 1700s is credited by some people for being the originator of the of the phrase:-
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.
Whilst I would not go as far as to suggest that the H&S brigade and the compensation scavengers are evil, I would maintain that the phrase is applicable to both.
The bottom line of course is the way that high court judges try a case and whilst we carry on accepting their flawed judgement and hugely one sided findings nothing will change quickly. It seems to be the case in this country that we have become ridiculously politically correct to the detriment of the majority. The minority party always seems to hold the better hand regardless of the impartiality of the law.
Picking up on another post on this forum, I understand that none of the nonsense we are having to put up involving slot times for rally arrivals and chaperoned visits to airside happens at Oshkosh and Sun and Fun, where they deal with vastly more aircraft than anything in this country. This is in the USA where all this Compo idiocy started, so why do we have to “put up” with it here?
Answer = Because we accept it!
Edmund Burke, an Irish statesman and Member of Parliament in the 1700s is credited by some people for being the originator of the of the phrase:-
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.
Whilst I would not go as far as to suggest that the H&S brigade and the compensation scavengers are evil, I would maintain that the phrase is applicable to both.
The bottom line of course is the way that high court judges try a case and whilst we carry on accepting their flawed judgement and hugely one sided findings nothing will change quickly. It seems to be the case in this country that we have become ridiculously politically correct to the detriment of the majority. The minority party always seems to hold the better hand regardless of the impartiality of the law.
Picking up on another post on this forum, I understand that none of the nonsense we are having to put up involving slot times for rally arrivals and chaperoned visits to airside happens at Oshkosh and Sun and Fun, where they deal with vastly more aircraft than anything in this country. This is in the USA where all this Compo idiocy started, so why do we have to “put up” with it here?
Answer = Because we accept it!
-
Simon Clifton
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:59 pm
- Location: Worcestershire
Nigel quoted Burke....
Nigel I am aware of that quotation. It is wise indeed, but it does not help guide me as to what to do about it. I think it is too easy to expect the LAA Exec to make a stand on this basis.
I am interested in how the US organisers handle liability. I think you are right that they exported compo culture, so why can't we import some of their operating methods that handle it?
What are their methods then?
Cheers
S
~
Nigel I am aware of that quotation. It is wise indeed, but it does not help guide me as to what to do about it. I think it is too easy to expect the LAA Exec to make a stand on this basis.
I am interested in how the US organisers handle liability. I think you are right that they exported compo culture, so why can't we import some of their operating methods that handle it?
What are their methods then?
Cheers
S
~
-
Simon Clifton
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:59 pm
- Location: Worcestershire
Peter
I'm all for turning up in my plane to a big rally having decided on the day, be 15th on final (no slots - whoops that's another topic!), and trusting the general public to sensibly walk amongst the parked planes.
I agree the risk is small, even very small, that someone would get hurt, and that it is impossible to make the risk zero.
Your F1 example from the weekend is only partly relevant, if that spring had hit a member of the crowd, you can bet there would be litigation (or even just the threat of litigation) and a massive payout. I thought that loose wheel was going into the crowd at one point...
Anyway, I think I have made my point well enough, who'd be the LAA Chief Exec huh?
Simon C
~~~~~~
I'm all for turning up in my plane to a big rally having decided on the day, be 15th on final (no slots - whoops that's another topic!), and trusting the general public to sensibly walk amongst the parked planes.
I agree the risk is small, even very small, that someone would get hurt, and that it is impossible to make the risk zero.
Your F1 example from the weekend is only partly relevant, if that spring had hit a member of the crowd, you can bet there would be litigation (or even just the threat of litigation) and a massive payout. I thought that loose wheel was going into the crowd at one point...
Anyway, I think I have made my point well enough, who'd be the LAA Chief Exec huh?
Simon C
~~~~~~
-
Nigel Bailey
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:36 am
- Location: Suffolk
Simon
The points I’m making with regard to all the overblown safety nonsense are aimed at the individual. I wouldn’t expect the LAA Executive committee to take a sole stand on this and suffer the consequences. I think that if everyone made their own personal stand against it, it would have a far more reaching effect. In the sense of this forum string, I think we may have a bigger chance of changing the situation at Sywell if all the members that have an axe to grind on the issue, and that includes me, emailed or preferably wrote to Mr Bletso-Brown stating their opposition to the situation and reasons why.
As for the way that the Americans are running their rallies, I think we could do much worse than to have a close look at their operating procedure and see if we can learn something from it that would improve our own.
Peter
I agree entirely with your post and in my view reasonable precautions were taken at all the PFA rallies that I attended. We had good marshals and they worked damned hard too. They were there at the most dangerous times, for example, on arrival escorting the aircraft in, parking and shutdown and they were there for start up and taxi out. Very well organised and very well received by all pilots.
You’re also correct about pilots worrying about small children causing damage; I was one of those pilots standing there with an imaginary baseball bat as some parent allowed one of their little “harmless” wrecking balls to get just a bit too close for my comfort!
But never the less I am totally opposed to the restrictions that are planned to apply at Sywell. If people can’t get up and close (within reason) to the aircraft, then they are never going to learn the necessary respect for them.
The points I’m making with regard to all the overblown safety nonsense are aimed at the individual. I wouldn’t expect the LAA Executive committee to take a sole stand on this and suffer the consequences. I think that if everyone made their own personal stand against it, it would have a far more reaching effect. In the sense of this forum string, I think we may have a bigger chance of changing the situation at Sywell if all the members that have an axe to grind on the issue, and that includes me, emailed or preferably wrote to Mr Bletso-Brown stating their opposition to the situation and reasons why.
As for the way that the Americans are running their rallies, I think we could do much worse than to have a close look at their operating procedure and see if we can learn something from it that would improve our own.
Peter
I agree entirely with your post and in my view reasonable precautions were taken at all the PFA rallies that I attended. We had good marshals and they worked damned hard too. They were there at the most dangerous times, for example, on arrival escorting the aircraft in, parking and shutdown and they were there for start up and taxi out. Very well organised and very well received by all pilots.
You’re also correct about pilots worrying about small children causing damage; I was one of those pilots standing there with an imaginary baseball bat as some parent allowed one of their little “harmless” wrecking balls to get just a bit too close for my comfort!
But never the less I am totally opposed to the restrictions that are planned to apply at Sywell. If people can’t get up and close (within reason) to the aircraft, then they are never going to learn the necessary respect for them.
-
jamie_duff
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:34 am
- Location: Aberdeenshire
Every does make their own personal stand against something... right up until the point where they suffer a little pain and realise they could get a big fat wad of cash for it.
It doesn't even need to be the person injured who brings on the legal trouble. The CPS can do that all by themselves, or even relatives of anyone killed or seriously injured.
This is the world we now live in, sadly.
It doesn't even need to be the person injured who brings on the legal trouble. The CPS can do that all by themselves, or even relatives of anyone killed or seriously injured.
This is the world we now live in, sadly.
