Regional events – the future

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:26 am

All this provarication is no good for anyone. The date for next years rally (if there is to be one) should already be published to give a focal point. If not you will not get the numbers as people will already be prioritising next years events.

A case in point..St.Omer. They rallied round(pun intended) at short notice to change their event in order not to clash with Sywell as it was originally advertised as THE event of the year. They are now heartily dissapointed at the way things have turned out,as their fly in is the high point of their year and represents a massive financial gamble for them.

I have been told in no uncertain terms that if the weather is good for the usual weekend and craps out for the re-arranged weekend they will do unspeakable things to me!

Some one at HQ needs to grow some balls and say CATAGORICALLY there will be a rally and the DATE IS.. or call it off NOW.

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:47 pm

Some of us trying to progress this issue John, and i'd like to believe we're making some headway.

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:49 pm

Brian,

“Some of us trying to progress this issue John, and i'd like to believe we're making some headway.”

We know you are doing your best Brian, but JC is right, if we do not know what is happening by very soon after Sywell, it will have to be 2011, not 2010.

Can you take up the issue of standards at the regionals for us? I think this thread has helped a bit, with most wanting some form of standard minimum criteria. I am very sceptical that you will be able to arrange a high quality official Rally with the CEO set against airside access, so we must encourage the local events who can get it right, and discourage the others. That way the good regional events will grow and grow and we may end up with 2 national events…

Rod1

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:56 pm

Brian I tried to pm you don't think it went?

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:56 pm

No PM received John. Try again or email me direct at [email protected]

macconnacher · Post by **macconnacher** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:45 pm

The Regional Rally idea seems to have got lost and we need to put it on track with some simple criteria. The events at Dunkeswell and Sherburn have been good even if the dreaded weather did make last years events relatively small.

Please support the Sherburn Northern Regional Rally.

Bill McCarthy · Post by **Bill McCarthy** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:06 pm

I can't see for looking - when is the Sherburn Rally. It looks more promising, and I haven't been before.

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:49 pm

Sherburn is August 8/9. Details on the Sherburn Aero Club site and will be in the next mag.

Peter Harvey · Post by **Peter Harvey** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:42 am

Mr Tickner (Welshman) wrote
"I read this thread in awe. Suddenly we have a CEO who was given a mandate to put a rally on who is now making the rules to suit himself, is that what I read?
The LAA is a Ltd company run by its members, for its members, and as such the CEO who is employed by the members via a committe does not have the right to alter a mandate. The CEO has obviously overstepped the position that he holds.If this is the new brush sweeping everything clean then we are doomed to be just an engineering club who also work for the CAA giving out Permits to fly. "

With some trepidation and against my better judgement (but it's 12.40am and I'm partricularly upset), I think I should say something here since you are misrepresenting my actions and intentions so drastically and furthermore questioning my motives and heart.

I do not have a mandate to put a Rally on. Sorry.

I don't write the rules. We're agreed on that. I carry a responsibility as a director and as such it's not the members who would be in the corporate manslaughter firing line should an incident occur at an event arranged by the LAA. The members, via the committee employ me to protect and enhance the interests of the Association. I do that to the best of my ability.

I do not, nor does anyone else in the LAA have a mandate for the airside arrangments for the Sywell Revival event.

Should a small person run into a live propellor, no matter what the circumstances, at a 'public' event such as the Revival, or Rally, or even a fly-in, then the severest questions and consequences can be expected. Please have some sympathy for the Sywell organisers who are doing their best.

Should WE hold a Rally next year, then I believe we can arrange what appears to be 'airside' access in the same way that the likes of Oshkosh achieve it, with huge swathes of airside switching to groundside at certain times. It takes more organising, more helpers and more cash, that's all.

Your personal attacks are quite unpleasant and I feel unwarranted. You are entitled to opinion, robust should you wish, but personal attacks are not in the spirit of this bulletin board. By all means contact me directly at the office should you wish to discuss this further. 01280 846786
Peter Harvey, CEO, LAA.

jamie_duff · Post by **jamie_duff** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:48 am

Peter I'm not sure that Welshman's post is neccessarily representative of all of the membership.

I'd like to think that most of us can understand that both you and the event organisers are trying their best to reach the best compromise when mixing the freedom/casual desires with the safety driven realities of modern life.

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:45 am

Peter,

I can understand your being concerned to rectify the innuendos published by someone who doesn't understand English manners too well.

'Welshman' is unfortunately one [unpleasant natured] corner of the LAA membership profile and long before you arrived has abused PFA/LAA staff from the shelter of his p.c.

He's retired = time to slag off people. And his self proclaimed hobbies are 'Flying,boating,fishing,shooting'

Seems to me he's carelessly indulging in the last two at your expense.

Mike Hallam (Also retired etc. etc. !)

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:50 am

Peter

Ignoring the Welshman issue, can you give us your opinion on the regional question?

Rod1

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:32 pm

I think it is odd that the response to the danger of propellers and aircraft is to ban people from access to them.
Change propellers /aircraft to cars on the street and it looks even odder. No-one is trained to access the roads yet is anyone inc unaccompanied children banned from access to them?

Hand everyone a note warning them of the dangers airside and leave them to get on with it.

I read today of a civil contractor in Iraq or somewhere similar who was badly wounded when travelling on company business. He sued his employer because he was not afforded an armoured vehicle. His case failed because the judge said it was not possible to be certain that an armoured car would have prevented his injury.

Similarly a toddler drowned in an unprotected pool of water on a holiday complex and the court judgement was that it was not the fault of teh owners because it is not possible to prevent accidents happening.

Seems to me we are a bit pessimistic and that legal advice always opts for the worse case senario rather than the likely senario based perhaps on previous judgements.

Eventually things go full circle ( I note the French girls are not going topless now on their beaches - too gauche). Some enlightened girls started the change and similarly some people in the UK will soon see the lawyers in the same light as previously high esteemed bankers are now viewed - incompetent & out for their own ends.

Then we will see sense, innovation, and adventure rise again in Britain.