Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 All the discussion here seems to be about pilot licensing and wing registration. The arguments against are all from the point of view that "we" dont want to have imposed on "us" the sort of regulation that others have to endure, so "we" should resist all regulation. I have never advocated either pilot licensing or wing registration. Many people seem to believe they know me or know my thoughts and are eager to put words in my mouth (or make absurd claims whilst hiding behind forum nicknames). If you are in the least bit interested in what I actually think, my proposal is simply for instructor registration and re-validation and mandatory pilot training. Cost has been raised as an objection yet across the Irish Sea instructor registration at the IAA costs a small admin fee and some forms showing instructor qualification, insurance at the training site and other basic registration information like an example of your sylabus and your exam. There is no need to try to compile a single sylabus, all the ones I've seen are more or less identical anyway. Instructors may not instruct without third party insurance (by law in Ireland) and all training facilities (airfields) are insured for third party risks. There is no great cost to the instructor merely some forms and some checking of credentials. (I know that the system does not work well in Ireland but for other reasons not the registration process). Re-validation of instructors is normal in many other sports and certainly other branches of aviation. BHPA instructors are re-validated each year and their schools, CFIs and facilities are inspected each two years (that will answer the comment made earlier about the suitability or condition of my own training equipment). This process is funded out of the membership fee and already exists for instructors licensed by that organisation. Ask your own instructor who last inspected his school/insurance and when. The renewal of registration can simply require proof of re-validation and proof of current insurance. No extra cost there. Regarding pilot training, if it were mandatory then Darren Hill would now be facing a prosecution and be required to show proof of training. Future Darren Hills would be accepting the risk of prosecution in the same way all the other law breakers mentioned in the opposing arguments are dealt with if caught. There is no extra cost to us; the criminal justice system covers all that. Regarding use of certified PPE components, many of the components in use on our equipment are off-the-shelf items with an already existing PPE equivalent. There would be an extra equipment cost here. An example is the maillons used on all wings to connect the lines to the risers and the shackles that connect the swinging arms to the carabiner strap. PPE versions already exist, if they had to be used a typical wing cost would rise by 5E to 10E. My argument is not that these are good ideas in themselves but that they reprersent the minimum we might persuade those that regulate us to accept. (assuming I am correct that regulation will come on the heels of the increasing incidence of the "Darren Hill" type event). In answer to Simon's question "who do I represent", I would say I represent the voice of reason in a sport populated by highly opinionated and, if some of the posters in this thread are representative, in many cases not very bright middle-aged men. You have seen for yourselves the range of views expressed here from outright rejection of any suggestion of regulation, to support for licensing and wing registration, interspersed with the abusive and the idiotic. My own suggestion is very specific and quite limited; simply "instructor registration and mandatory pilot training". Who would gain? People seeking instruction would have some level of assurance that the instructor was insured and was approved by someone other than themselves. Instructors would gain by not having to compete with cowboys. The general public would gain by having some assurance that it is not just a free-for-all for immature males in mid-life crisis and the "powers that be" would have a solution presented to them without having to invent one in response to a paramotor crash on a playground full of kids at the local park. (it wouldn't stop the crash happening it would pre-empt the knee-jerk legislation following). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 In answer to Simon's question "who do I represent", I would say I represent the voice of reason in a sport populated by highly opinionated and, if some of the posters in this thread are representative, in many cases not very bright middle-aged men. OK, so how many people stand with you in your mission.? Who is in your team? Or is it just you? SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Francis, I read your post on the news website before I saw anything about it here. The way you presented it made me think that you were doing more harm to paramotoring than the report of the incident itself; you were making your points in the wrong place to the wrong audience and I couldn't (still can't) understand what you were trying to achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 In answer to Simon's question "who do I represent", I would say I represent the voice of reason in a sport populated by highly opinionated and, if some of the posters in this thread are representative, in many cases not very bright middle-aged men. OK, so how many people stand with you in your mission.? Who is in your team? Or is it just you? SW on this forum it appears that the people who style themselves as: phil1975 Farmer_Dave Matt_k haze trm8620 hold some level of agreement that some form of regulation is inevitable and that it might be better to propose it rather than have it imposed. ( I say this based on their comments in this thread and do not seek to put words in their mouths). Elsewhere there is similar mixture of resistance and reluctant but resigned acceptance. Most people I speak to are at least able to retain a level of civility when discussing it though. There is an awakening to the level of growth in the sport that "Haze" mentioned and a concern that "instructing" may not be what it could or should be, particularly with regard to "valid insurance" and "external approval". There is also the unresolved AAIB "letter of recommendation" to the CAA following Kevin's death over the quality of engineering and components in our machines. These things rumble on quietly in the background and eventually "someone" is forced to "do something". Giving that "someone" a ready-made solution might prove more palatable than having to accept whatever "they" come up with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Francis, I read your post on the news website before I saw anything about it here. The way you presented it made me think that you were doing more harm to paramotoring than the report of the incident itself; you were making your points in the wrong place to the wrong audience and I couldn't (still can't) understand what you were trying to achieve. Steve you need to read them in the context of Lee's response. My comments are the view that might be taken by an informed member of the public horrified by the legality of the flight that resulted in the crash in such a public place frequented by the local populace and unaware that such a thing is possible. Lee's comments show the bulk of the activity as being responsible and carefully thought out. What is left is the gap, the bit that is out of control, the bit that needs addressing. The public are left in no doubt by the comments in that newspaper that it is not Paramotoring that is the risk but the ability of anyone to take it upon themselves to get airbourne in the manner that Darren Hill chose. That is the bit (the small bit) that needs addressing. And it needs addressing by everyone, not just paramotorists but everyone. As a paramotorist I want the freedom to fly that I currently enjoy. As a Dad and a frequenter of parks and member of the general population I want my lawmakers to make it illegal to fly if I have no training and I want anyone that does to face a big fine or imprisonment. I also want to know that instructors are properly qualified, insured and supervised. I have the right to comment in any newspaper I like. You have the right to fly a paramotor. Either of those rights can be curtailed at the stroke of a lawmaker's pen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyfreefly Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Where Do Grandfather rights apply with your new proposed training and licence system Will everybody who has been flying paramotors for Ten years all of a sudden be req to undertake lessons and training .... Also I have been flying microlights for years and years and have flown into lots of airports over those years NOT ONCE has anyone ever asked to see my flying licence/or radio licence.....dispite some iffy landings in the early days PS Everybody needs a licence to drive a motorcar or motorcycle but it never stops the people who havent got one driving/riding if they CHOOSE to do so...So how will licencing stop Them Training is good nobody SHOULD fly without it but at the end of the day the choice as with anything else is our choice right or wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I am NOT proposing pilot licensing. I am proposing it be made illegal to fly without having undertaken a recognised training programme and I am proposing the means of establishing the recognition of that training programme. So anyone flying without having undertaken "recognised training" would face a prosecution, if caught. If you never crash and never give cause for alarm you will likely get away with your crime and no-one will care. If you crash the first thing you will be asked by the officer is where did you get trained. Two or three heavy fines would send a loud clear message that you are expected to undertake some training, and pilots crashing with no training are acting illegally as far as Joe Public is concerned so "Something has been done". You may say "but what about the self-trained"? You may have sympathy with self trainers and "learning from your mates". That would be where you and I hold very different opinions. My feeling is that your opinion would not be shared by those that make the laws. Grandfather rights for those already flying but having had no recognised training may have a case, or there could be some basic competence test and exam (or that could be imposed on everyone at the start?). Those already instructing would need to register to be validated and then re-validated each year or two thereafter with up to date certificates of insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outkast Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Right chaps I am going to chip in here and kinda agree with Francis, I am not in agreement that we should be regulated but I think there wil come a time when we will have to show some form of competance, as this sport grows so ineviatably so will the "incidence" rate, we will increasingly be coming into contact with the general public, wether that encounter is good or bad. as with all pastime there will be those that ignore all reason and sometimes common sense and think they can do there own thing, the problem with regulation is it only effects those that abide by the law, after dunblane we saw a ban on handguns, wich was aimed at the criminal comunity, instead it has hurt those who already followed the law and those that dont simply carried on using guns. regulation can only work if it is enforcable, thats fine if we are talking about having to have a liscence to drive a car but how many people have you heard of that have been "pulled over" and given a producer while flying? The law dont bother us as long as we dont bother them, thats the way it is, no point in rocking the boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatix Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 [My comments are the view that might be taken by an informed member of the public horrified by the legality of the flight that resulted in the crash in such a public place frequented by the local populace and unaware that such a thing is possible.The public are left in no doubt by the comments in that newspaper that it is not Paramotoring that is the risk but the ability of anyone to take it upon themselves to get airbourne in the manner that Darren Hill chose. That is the bit (the small bit) that needs addressing. And it needs addressing by everyone, not just paramotorists but everyone. I could easily buy an inflatable dinghy and paddle out into the busy shipping channel at Dover, causing all sorts of mayhem and public outrage. Would that be the fault of RYA training instructors, the shop who sold me the dinghy or a lack of some sort of dinghy registration scheme ? No it would be the fault of one idiotic individual choosing to put his own life at risk, and potentially that of other people. This is what Darren chose to do, yet instead of making this clear in your public missive, you chose to portray the whole sport of paramotoring in a bad light. Instead of public scaremongering you should have perhaps discussed your comments, ideas or proposals in a rational manner with the people involved. What is left is the gap, the bit that is out of control, the bit that needs addressing. The public are left in no doubt by the comments in that newspaper that it is not Paramotoring that is the risk but the ability of anyone to take it upon themselves to get airbourne in the manner that Darren Hill chose. That is the bit (the small bit) that needs addressing. And it needs addressing by everyone, not just paramotorists but everyone. As with the previous motoring analogies, no amount of legislation, recognised training schemes, registration, insurance or whatever can prevent the actions of one irresponsible individual. I can think of several existing laws under which Darren Hill could face a successful prosecution if the authorities see fit. Orchestrating a witch hunt won't do anything to improve the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trickyh Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Our sport already has a darwinesque element already built into it. What with ground handling, correct fuel mixing, meteorolgy etc. Most ebay purchasers have either seized the engine, chopped their hands off or smashed the cage and prop before they even get to Darrens level. I think our intrepid aviators problem was that he was too impatient to finish any training and to listen to what the instructors had to say. He ended up in the unenviable position of being airborne with out the safety net of someone being on the radio to talk him down! A crash was the inevitable outcome and yes it was fortunate he didn't hit anybody. This could have been avoided with training, and I am sure in hindsight, Darren would rather not be in the position he is now and I wish him a speedy recovery. Like the gun/dinghy/kitesurf analogy, you are always going to get people who think this looks easy and get into it via the cheapest route possible. They are the ones who are the greatest danger to themselves and you CANNOT legislate against stupidity. Rich P.S Please dont let me stop you going on though Francis. I think our sports average demographic is middle aged men going through a mid life crisis (if the fly-in is anything to go by) And you are currently alienating most of them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatix Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I have never advocated either pilot licensing or wing registration. If you are in the least bit interested in what I actually think, my proposal is simply for instructor registration and re-validation and mandatory pilot training. Well you seem to be contradicting yourself Francis. If you want all pilots to have proof of some formally recognised training then that is effectively a "Licence" in anyone's language. If you want a means of identifying errant pilots who infringe airspace then you would need some form of wing registration surely ? Regarding pilot training, if it were mandatory then Darren Hill would now be facing a prosecution and be required to show proof of training. Future Darren Hills would be accepting the risk of prosecution in the same way all the other law breakers mentioned in the opposing arguments are dealt with if caught. There is no extra cost to us; the criminal justice system covers all that. Even with training, the CAA / CPS could prosecute Darren Hill (and others) if they deem it in the public interest. Existing laws cover several areas where he could face prosecution. Regarding use of certified PPE components, many of the components in use on our equipment are off-the-shelf items with an already existing PPE equivalent. I note you are a dealer for a certain brand of British built paramotor .... I am not questioning the build quality of that machine (which I believe is excellent) but assume you have put your own house in order by independently certifying all the components in it before you offer it for sale ?? People in glass houses ... I would say I represent the voice of reason in a sport populated by highly opinionated and, if some of the posters in this thread are representative, in many cases not very bright middle-aged men. Well I guess I am middle aged and opinionated, but with a Mensa tested IQ well into the upper 10th percentile I trust that doesn't include me ? I have tried to discuss your points reasonably and without abuse but cannot agree that you represent "the voice of reason". Of course there will be a wide range of views on this forum. I agree that training is highly recommended (perhaps even mandatory) - with more emphasis on piloting than just "driving" the machines. The BHPA has a register of approved schools & instructors, as I'm sure Simon does with the PMC. Ongoing training, revalidation, insurance, and perhaps independent inspection of school equipment is not a bad idea. Beyond that though the human factor takes over. As on our roads there are some good and bad drivers. Some of the licensed, law abiding drivers are frankly terrible behind the wheel, whereas some of the best and safest drivers occasionally break certain laws. On the road you can face a fine or points on your license, in the air the penalty is potentially much higher .... PS - most of these posts are academic to me as I hold a formally recognised qualification or rating, from an approved BHPA school, full insurance, an up to date logbook of every flight, and each flight I make is usually with a running HD video helmet camera and GPS recording of track log. Enough to indemnify (or incriminate) me should any incident arise or be called into question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilzy Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 As always Francis you are missing the point at what most are saying on here, is that wether we agree or not at what you say the point at which is most annoying is that you are portaying yourself as the voice of Paramotoring and that you and you alone are the most qualified. You do not speak for us nor are you the senoir instructor that governs all. By all means have you say Francis but DONT under the pretense that you are representing the Paramotoring on a whole most of what you say is damaging to this sport and you seem to show no thought at what you say. And you certainly do not speak, act or represent the community at all. NEIL RIDER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) Aquatix, (is that your preferred form of address?) I admit to indulging in retaliatory abuse after being heckled by the "not very bright". I ask that you review everything I have said and show me where I have argued for either pilot licensing or wing registration? I hope I have not contradicted myself but if I have, inadvertently, let me clarify my actual position. My original remarks in the MEN state that neither pilot licensing or wing registration are not mandatory nor is training ; I made no argument that they should be. Lee Ganley's subsequent post eloquently stated the current position regarding responsible usage. I came on here because my words were misrepresented and added to. I clarified my actual position and have been repeating that since. It may be you are seeing contradiction in the words attributed to me by others? You now appear to agree with the central principles I advocate; that some level of control/accountability of instructing is essential and that training should be mandatory? Mandatory training can be ignored but those doing so will know they are acting illegally. That is a very different situation from knowing you can legally fly with no training at all. And very different from a licensing scheme. Much more than that it enables prosecutors (and the public) to make a very clear distinction between the legal flyer and the illegal one in the event of an accident or incident. If you now see hyperbole in the method you will recognise Kierkegaard as the model. Edited July 18, 2011 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I could easily buy an inflatable dinghy and paddle out into the busy shipping channel at Dover, if that was happening on a regular and increasing basis you can have little doubt that something would be done. As with the previous motoring analogies, no amount of legislation, recognised training schemes, registration, insurance or whatever can prevent the actions of one irresponsible individual. The analogies you mention focus on the licensing aspects of motoring. I am not proposing licensing of pilots. Drivers are not obliged to undertake recognised training by law. The test and the licensing scheme make that redundant. The licensing scheme requires massive resources to administer. Requiring the undertaking of a recognised training scheme is an alternative to that level of regulation and beaurocracy. But it does necessitate the regulation of instruction. (No one seems to be arguing against that aspect of my proposal). I can think of several existing laws under which Darren Hill could face a successful prosecution if the authorities see fit. Orchestrating a witch hunt won't do anything to improve the situation. Who is orchestrating a witch hunt? My ideas are to turn the rising tide of paramotor usage without training and to prevent a free for all in instruction once the sport's exponential growth makes instructing attractive to anyone who wants to earn from it regardless of qualification. Double glazing is a good analogy here, originally a boom for cowboy operators, now subject to building control and a register of installers. Or solar panel installation, from the outset restricted to approved contractors who are registered. Your arguments continue to focus on the fact that there will always be law breakers. I don't dispute that. You use the fact that there will be law breakers to argue that no laws are necessary? That is where I disagree. The public can see a distinction between legal users who may at times have accidents and law breakers who recklessly endanger lives by disregarding the laws put in pace to protect the public from their choices. My argument is not that laws are a good thing but that the laws I am proposing are better than the laws that could very easily be imposed. Darren has already paid a massive personal price. You say that there are laws under which he could be prosecuted but do not say what they are. If you mean taking off from Council land they would struggle to find the byelaw preventing such usage and the penalty would be minimal. If you mean the low flying rule the low flight over the houses was a "landing approach" and/or "an emergency". Certainly Darren would have taken off with no thought of flying illegally because what he did IS legal. Had he been fully aware that training is mandatory and that he could be fined a large sum of money for flying without he might have chosen differently? I do find your analogies increasingly surreal and your focus not on my actual proposal but on resisting all regulation at any cost. I wonder if you are playing to the gallery rather than entering a rational debate? I think our sports average demographic is middle aged men going through a mid life crisis (if the fly-in is anything to go by) And you are currently alienating most of them Alienating them from what or whom? Reality? How many of the members of your fly-in currently sit on committees set-up to discuss these issues with the CAA? Or even know who does sit on those committees to bargain for paramotoring and its interests on your behalf. Reality is a concrete wall and you appear not to have it on "visual" just now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilzy Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Hang on Hang on this is Dell, Dell come on its you aint it!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 As always Francis you are missing the point at what most are saying on here, is that wether we agree or not at what you say the point at which is most annoying is that you are portaying yourself as the voice of Paramotoring and that you and you alone are the most qualified. You do not speak for us nor are you the senoir instructor that governs all. By all means have you say Francis but DONT under the pretense that you are representing the Paramotoring on a whole most of what you say is damaging to this sport and you seem to show no thought at what you say.And you certainly do not speak, act or represent the community at all. NEIL RIDER Neil you are now speaking for "most" when actually the discussion clearly shows a range of views are held and some more extreme than my own. I am well used to people being annoyed by me but also well used to them coming to similar view-points over time. I couldn't care less about personal popularity. The fact is that people do speak on your (paramotorists) behalf at high level in the law making process. That you have no knowledge of them or what it is they are saying is a problem for you and if you want to shoot the messenger then go ahead, your aim is poor and your bullet easily evaded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_p Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 A lot of this makes sense Francis, and I am most likely in agreement with you. But, your actions in responding to the incident do not back up your stated desires. Scaremongering is the very thing that will FORCE regulation and not allow us to bring it in ourselves in a manner that works well for pilots and public. That goes against your statement that we must do something before it is done for us, this makes me suspicious of your intent, whereas I would of likely been an advocate. The response you wrote was realy bad for all paramotor pilots, including yourself. As for the incident, I hesitate to comment as I am obviously only going by what I have heard but, the bloke involved seems like an absolute w4nk3r. I'm sorry but its selfish idiots like this in all walks of life that keep causing problems for everyone else. The picture in my mind of that dickhead flying low over the houses waving like he was some kind of hero, "woohoo, look at me, yeah I'm so cool" with absolutely no idea that maybe nobody gives a shit and would rather not have to hear his noise, it kind of makes my blood boil. I am also fairly glad (not happy anyone is hurt, I would never wish that on anyone) that this individual is unlikely to be furthering his involvement in Paramotoring. We have a responsibilty to fly correctly and particularly well within the limits with regards proximity to public. we do get noticed, I fly in an area where I know a few people and I do get noticed when I fly. This is despite mostly maintaing a height of 2kft or above. I rarely go lower when I am flying anywhere near any house business etc. (unless I am taking off/landing). Its less efficeant and I would gain more distance timne flying at 500-1000 ft but is causing the annoyance to peolple worth the extra economy. We also have a responsibilty to make sure that it is not acceptible to fly, ground handle, start your engine in any way that would cause annoyance or possible danger to the public. even if you are technicaly abiding to the letter of the law. Common sense is required at all times, just think, could this piss someone off? If we hear of people doing this then it should be pointed out to them, we need to get to a position where it just isn't socialy acceptible to act like a plank as its puts our sport in danger. This can be achieved through forums such as this and giving good positive advice to new pilots. We could also maybe do with more regular recognised open flying sites where new pilots (and Old) can gain experience or just fly in an area that is safe and away from the public. This way it is less likely that a pilot woulkd chooes a public park, cricket club or whatever. This is why I am a member here, I am not a very active member but I do subscribe as I can see work being done here to create a club structure with fields etc. And the most important factor, new pilots can contact existing piolts for advice. I would sugest that if an organisation was to regulate us then the BHPA would be the better choice. I would think that it is much better we are included as part of the free flight comunity than as part of a powered aircraft organisation like the BMAA. this would I think afford us more privelages and less absolute regulation. All the discussion here seems to be about pilot licensing and wing registration. The arguments against are all from the point of view that "we" dont want to have imposed on "us" the sort of regulation that others have to endure, so "we" should resist all regulation.I have never advocated either pilot licensing or wing registration. Many people seem to believe they know me or know my thoughts and are eager to put words in my mouth (or make absurd claims whilst hiding behind forum nicknames). If you are in the least bit interested in what I actually think, my proposal is simply for instructor registration and re-validation and mandatory pilot training. Cost has been raised as an objection yet across the Irish Sea instructor registration at the IAA costs a small admin fee and some forms showing instructor qualification, insurance at the training site and other basic registration information like an example of your sylabus and your exam. There is no need to try to compile a single sylabus, all the ones I've seen are more or less identical anyway. Instructors may not instruct without third party insurance (by law in Ireland) and all training facilities (airfields) are insured for third party risks. There is no great cost to the instructor merely some forms and some checking of credentials. (I know that the system does not work well in Ireland but for other reasons not the registration process). Re-validation of instructors is normal in many other sports and certainly other branches of aviation. BHPA instructors are re-validated each year and their schools, CFIs and facilities are inspected each two years (that will answer the comment made earlier about the suitability or condition of my own training equipment). This process is funded out of the membership fee and already exists for instructors licensed by that organisation. Ask your own instructor who last inspected his school/insurance and when. The renewal of registration can simply require proof of re-validation and proof of current insurance. No extra cost there. Regarding pilot training, if it were mandatory then Darren Hill would now be facing a prosecution and be required to show proof of training. Future Darren Hills would be accepting the risk of prosecution in the same way all the other law breakers mentioned in the opposing arguments are dealt with if caught. There is no extra cost to us; the criminal justice system covers all that. Regarding use of certified PPE components, many of the components in use on our equipment are off-the-shelf items with an already existing PPE equivalent. There would be an extra equipment cost here. An example is the maillons used on all wings to connect the lines to the risers and the shackles that connect the swinging arms to the carabiner strap. PPE versions already exist, if they had to be used a typical wing cost would rise by 5E to 10E. My argument is not that these are good ideas in themselves but that they reprersent the minimum we might persuade those that regulate us to accept. (assuming I am correct that regulation will come on the heels of the increasing incidence of the "Darren Hill" type event). In answer to Simon's question "who do I represent", I would say I represent the voice of reason in a sport populated by highly opinionated and, if some of the posters in this thread are representative, in many cases not very bright middle-aged men. You have seen for yourselves the range of views expressed here from outright rejection of any suggestion of regulation, to support for licensing and wing registration, interspersed with the abusive and the idiotic. My own suggestion is very specific and quite limited; simply "instructor registration and mandatory pilot training". Who would gain? People seeking instruction would have some level of assurance that the instructor was insured and was approved by someone other than themselves. Instructors would gain by not having to compete with cowboys. The general public would gain by having some assurance that it is not just a free-for-all for immature males in mid-life crisis and the "powers that be" would have a solution presented to them without having to invent one in response to a paramotor crash on a playground full of kids at the local park. (it wouldn't stop the crash happening it would pre-empt the knee-jerk legislation following). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilzy Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Francis i am no scholar and i leave the talking to those who i trust and those that know best, i am however pointing out the obvious when you read not just this forum but a few and in general i find that most of us do disagree with what you say and there is quite a few that disagree with what you do, i dont believe that you have the intereasts of paramotoring to heart when you spout what you do without a clear thought of its consequenses you are selfish and dangerous to this sport and should and i also am lead to believe that you are NOT one of those trusted to talk on our behalf at a higher level (i too have the odd friend in the CAA). There is plenty of evidence on other forums and media sites that are easily available to people like me to research the sport and those that stick there heads above the parapit, these site and people that use them i quite clear on the thoughts on you and your skill levels. Not my thoughts but others to which have helped me decide on your credentials within this sport, and again i ask you to "go away" and stop this destruction of this sport which i would hazad a good guess many others will on that agree. Neil Rider (neathandial) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I note you are a dealer for a certain brand of British built paramotor .... I am not questioning the build quality of that machine (which I believe is excellent) but assume you have put your own house in order by independently certifying all the components in it before you offer it for sale ?? People in glass houses ... O yes that tired old chestnut. I used to be a dealer for parajet but that did not stop me criticising a number of design flaws that eventually led to me being banned from publishing here. You now see some of those flaws addressed in the new model. I don't think you need worry about me not being equally vocal about the Bulldog. But your point is well made, I am obliged to guide purchasers to equipment and would be happy to have support from consumer legislation to ensure such components as have a certificated option are insisted upon. I do restrict my own dealerships to equipment that I have personally tested in wide ranging conditions, so my range is fairly limited. Not a very clever business model I know but, as you might have guessed, I am not a very clever businessman. At least my customers can comfort themselves that my own neck is on the same line as theirs but before them, (as a recently reported incident will testify). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Neil et al, It is always a mistake to focus on the individual rather than the idea. Look at the current line up at Westminster. It makes little difference whether you or anyone else thinks well or badly of me. The ideas I have presented have now been acknowledged and agreed with by at least 50% of the posters on this thread. My suggestion is that you all leave my name out of it and talk about the ideas themselves. In that way I will be able to "go away" and not have to keep coming back to correct the misrepresentation of what I have or haven't said. So its a deal then is it? You lot stop using my name in your posts and I will "go away"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Francis Francis Francis Francis Francis FrancisFrancis Francis FrancisFrancis Francis FrancisFrancis Francis FrancisFrancis Francis FrancisFrancis Francis FrancisFrancis Francis FrancisFrancis Francis FrancisFrancis Francis FrancisFrancis Francis FrancisFrancis Francis Francis I dont think that people want you to go away... I think you just shocked a few people with the way in which you posted your message to the news paper. It has to be said, It is very likely that at some point in the future we will have some form of regulation (although I do believe this is a long way off based on conversations I have had with the CAA over the last 5 years). What I don't know is if the way you are going about 'helping' is the best way. Which ever way you go about it, you will NEED the support of every one of us and the other pilots in the UK. Laws only change by majority votes and petitions have real power to stop law changes... (it becomes a numbers game) I think you should stay, and work out with as many people as you can the BEST way to produce a simple low impact solution for the good of the sport in this country. SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatix Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Aquatix, (is that your preferred form of address?) Well others address me as Alan, but they tend to know me from previous contributions to this forum so perhaps you weren't to know. I ask that you review everything I have said and show me where I have argued for either pilot licensing or wing registration? Whether you call it a license, rating, endorsement or qualification amounts to the same thing in the form of evidenciary proof of formal training (mandatory or otherwise). You also wanted a means of identifying errant pilots who infringe airspace, so if you are against wing registration how else would you hope to achieve this aim ? You now appear to agree with the central principles I advocate; that some level of control/accountability of instructing is essential and that training should be mandatory? You can search my previous posts for views and discussion on this subject. I am certainly not against measures that will improve the standard of piloting, improve safety and reduce accidents / incidents. Mandatory training might improve matters but does little to change the "human error" factor. Much more than that it enables prosecutors (and the public) to make a very clear distinction between the legal flyer and the illegal one in the event of an accident or incident. I don't believe the general public make any distinction between pilots and mandatory training (without a formal licence) will do little to change that. I could easily buy an inflatable dinghy and paddle out into the busy shipping channel at Dover, if that was happening on a regular and increasing basis you can have little doubt that something would be done. It is happening regularly (I know from personal work and contacts within Inshore Rescue and RNLI - have you not seen some of the recent campaigns on TV and in national press ? As yet there is little "something" they can do to prevent the problem. I do find your analogies increasingly surreal and your focus not on my actual proposal but on resisting all regulation at any cost. I thought it more relevant than double glazing or solar panel installation and yes, I am against heavy handed outsider regulation as I have already suffered the ill effects of this in other areas of outdoor sports and personal business, including the demise of my previous company through such government meddling. Perhaps your views are being misinterpreted, and you would be better setting them out in clear detail to show who or what body would be responsible for implementing any further regulation, control or registration of instructors, training, pilots, equipment certification etc, along with a timeframe and costs for implementation ? You could set up a poll and rational discussion on such views / changes so the people affected can have their say without feeling put upon by a self proclaimed "voice of reason". This could avoid any personal attack and identify which areas you have some support for your ideas and which aspects people are opposed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trm8620 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 1, I'm not middle aged 2, I agree with some of what has been posted on this thread, but not the way you posted on the news papers website, that was destructive to the sport of paramotoring in the uk (however you justify it). 3, You DO NOT represent me as a paramotor pilot and I ask you to stop trying. I think it is a shame we don't have a "British paramotor aircraft association" to represent us. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock Posted July 18, 2011 Author Share Posted July 18, 2011 Its not just the ppg world francis has upset.he did the same with the powered hang glider form flphg.he criticisize the makers of power units there as well.even the bhpa stop talking and commenting on francis posts.francis are you looking to be chairman of this new world order on flying when it arrives,you pick faults with other manufacters machines.but you yoursleft have moddifeid your wings,ie/hanglider wires the world over are fitted with crimp wire ends,standard the world over.but you know every hg manufacter is wrong.you fitted boat swaggles on your wing wires, bolted together,your scooter tow is well, if anyone else seen it at the nats would run a mile before putting there life on the line with it.if the likes of the bhpa refuse to have anything to do with you that says it all.we dont need a nanny state in ppg/flphg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock Posted July 18, 2011 Author Share Posted July 18, 2011 I wish you luck Francis in your quest to railroad your way into becoming a 'somebody' in aviation. Hopefully God has blessed you with better piloting ability than your hearing. /////// This is a snip at one of dozens francis got from the flphg world,this was from the country leading avaition dealer,flylight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.