ppg crash into street

[jock]

Francis thoughts before he became a flphg instructor.we are all his little darlings welll££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ Re: keep it clean

[Richwill15]

Firstly i should clarify my own position  

I am just an ordinary member of the public who has an interest in flying and i am also interested in this type of aviation. I have never so much flown or indeed handled either a paraglider or paramotor. 

All comments are my own opinion and based on my reading material from a variety of sources. I wish to clarify I have no axe to grind or argument with anyone. 

I would also like to state that in my own humble opinion, it is difficult to portray emotions in writing properly unless a very skilled writer (I do NOT class myself as one of those either). Anyone with a modicum of online experience will have seen the online arguments despite the presence of numerous "smileys". 

Francis, the response on the MEN website seemed alarmist and did NOT mention your proposal. I am not sure of the relevance regarding the demographic. Indeed my first thought was wondering what your agenda was. 

Far from reassuring the public that this is a rare event it appeared you wanted to tell the readers that the skies are full of middle aged men who are only too happy to plummet from the skies above maiming and murdering any Innocent children in the vicinity. 

I wish to state the above paragraph is sensationalist clap-trap. But I wanted to illustrate how easy it is to sensationalise what was after all an accident. 

I don't believe the personal comments are helpful from any party. 

The CAA currently have chosen to treat this as a sport and as such not requiring licensing or the rigmarole of certification. The idea I guess is that responsible citizens make their choices. Hopefully logic would prevail and there wouldn't be a multitude of bodies falling from the sky. If I'm not mistaken, the statistics speak for themselves. 

Regarding incursions into restricted airspace or breaches of air law? Unfortunately there are a number of selfish people who put their own needs/wants ahead of anyone/everyone else. Whilst I don't recall any commercial jet being brought down by a paramotor I'm sure the possibility does exist. My point is that irrespective of regulations accidents can and will happen. I do not believe that being taught by a licenced instructor would not reduce the possibility. In a single seat aircraft one has to assume responsibility for ones own actions. 

I think people look at the sport as the cheapest way to get airborne. Any right minded person will make an informed judgement over the need to obtain suitable training and equipment. If not? Then it's very much a case of buyer beware. Yes it is terrible if innocent people are hurt or killed and in that case I would imagine the clamour for regulation would indeed be vociferous. Again however, whilst there have been fatalities I cannot recall there being any more than more traditional and highly regulated aviation activities. 

We live in a state where there is oversight and control of many of our activities. Some of it is required and understandable. Some isn't. I do actually understand your stance on licensing instructors but feel you're trying to fix something which IMHO is not broken.

Can I see a time of regulation? Perhaps, but I hope it's a long time coming. Surely every one of you is flying for the thrill, experience, fun? 

[garyfreefly]

Anyway Can we go back to the Hangman Game......on page 5 of this topic

Ive been giving my next suggestion some thought and I am now ready to have another go

is there a ....rich.... in it

[jock]

Anyway Can we go back to the Hangman Game......on page 5 of this topic

Ive been giving my next suggestion some thought and I am now ready to have another go

is there a ....rich.... in it

Thers def/ an // ich. in it,my idea of a good instructor is someone who has lots of hrs flying.ie-flying hrs then decides he wants to become an instructor.not someone who has little hrs then wakes up and thinks.i can make money from these little darlings.........the only difference i can see from murray.hay./and dell, is we get no videos from the ich/////.who started this post///////////////oopps.

[matt_k]

Anyway Can we go back to the Hangman Game......on page 5 of this topic

Ive been giving my next suggestion some thought and I am now ready to have another go

is there a ....rich.... in it

[Guest]

Francis, the response on the MEN website seemed alarmist and did NOT mention your proposal. I am not sure of the relevance regarding the demographic. Indeed my first thought was wondering what your agenda was. 

A good analysis there "Richwill15", you do well to wonder at my agenda. My reason for coming in on this thread in the first place was to begin to clarify my agenda for you.

Sadly you then go on to imbue my remarks with meanings that are not contained in the words I wrote, Just as the less articluate "Jock" attempted to do, provoking my initial intervention here.

Far from reassuring the public that this is a rare event it appeared you wanted to tell the readers that the skies are full of middle aged men who are only too happy to plummet from the skies above maiming and murdering any Innocent children in the vicinity. 

But then I am unclear whether you are saying what I said is "sensationalist claptrap" or that the way you re-write what I wrote is the claptrap?

I wish to state the above paragraph is sensationalist clap-trap. But I wanted to illustrate how easy it is to sensationalise what was after all an accident. 

Our opinions differ: I would say it was hardly an "accident", it had an inevitability about it that made it sub-consciously pre-meditated.

But you omit from your analysis the subsequent post from Lee Ganley, as if the MEN readers are left with nothing to balance the stark reality of the current regulation, yet, clearly, they are given a very balanced account of the state of play by him.

regarding my agenda, as a paramotrist (or soon to be) you will want to know who has approved the instruction you are purchasing? How will you set about that? By asking the instructor? What will you ask to see? How will you verify it?

I would have thought the agenda is transparent.

[outkast]

besides regulation would cost too much to bring in, the only time we will get any kind of regulation is when someone at the CAA finds a way of making a profit out of it, thats how goverment works nowadays.

[Trickyh]

I would have thought the agenda is transparent.

You gotta admire him though?

The biggest problem I see is the next time our ''little darling'' Francis is in the park with his son's enjoying the sunshine.. He'll be far too busy looking for overweight middle aged men falling from the sky to prevent the pi**ed up chav with the staffy/pit bull cross from tearing his throat out

And my learned friend.. maybe I was a bit obtuse with my earlier post, but the only people you are successfully alienating is your very limited customer base(?)

Rich

[clivefreeman]

Francis you are starting to make superdell sound sane, are you in competition with him ?

[aquatix]

Francis, the response on the MEN website seemed alarmist and did NOT mention your proposal. I am not sure of the relevance regarding the demographic. Indeed my first thought was wondering what your agenda was. 

But you omit from your analysis the subsequent post from Lee Ganley, as if the MEN readers are left with nothing to balance the stark reality of the current regulation, yet, clearly, they are given a very balanced account of the state of play by him.

Francis, the problem is that at the time you posted your alarmist snippet to the MEN readers you had no idea (or care ?) that anyone would take the time and trouble to 'balance' such opinion. Having just re-read your post I still find it hard to believe it was written by somene who actually participates in paramotoring.

As for this "agenda" of yours, surely if your proposals / concerns were genuine and honourable you would have taken the time to discuss them first amongst the people concerned - ie; paramotorists ? Other than some vague proposal for mandatory training from regulated instructors I am still unclear as to your actual agenda, as so far you only seem to have alienated people and lost any sympathy for your 'noble cause'.

Perhaps you were having a bad day when you posted your original comment, in which case the decent thing would be to delete it, apologise and start a genuine discussion which might actually benefit the future of the sport ?

[Trickyh]

I blame Jock for this mess....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Why?

.

.

,

,

Well, if he hadn't posted the link from the MEN in the first place, Franky boy wouldn't have seen it and we wouldn't be here 8 pages later!!

Rich

[outkast]

Francis you are starting to make superdell sound sane, are you in competition with him ?

at least superdell puts his money where his mouth is where his flying skills are concerned, not sure we can say the same for a certain BHPA qualified instructor

[russel]

Francis ,turn the F-----g record over..

One guy does something stupid and you obviously have a grudge to bear from something previous that you needs a band wagon to jump on to relight it.

The serious accidents that have happened so far have been in controlled environment that had little risk to the general public.

One at a flying field, national competition and a balloon event. Not one member of the public was involved or put at risk; I have had BMAA Foot launce for 7 years but have learnt more information since from the paramotor community. Once a month I received a BMAA magazine that included a leaflet that had all the reported accidents/near misses from the CAA for that month. Only once was a paramotorist mentioned for a cause of change of direction (not a near miss) over Dartford from a city airport plane. This was never mentioned again but reported because the pilot had to.

You are clearly stating that there is an increase in Airspace violations because one guy crashes into a wall and another waves has he crosses an airfield clearly thinking he was ok to do so. At the Nationals 2010 two Air force jets crossed the airspace we were in at low level even though a notam was issued but they are still as normal has far as regulations are . If you have evidence to support your claims of air space violation then put this to the proper authorities and stop Crying WOLF.

We are treated in the aviation industry like pot is treated by the police, we are a nuisance at times but generally we are well behaved and just need to keep our heads low and get on with it.

You are waving it in their faces under the pretence of reducing airspace violations.

You go on about Kevins incident and its repercussions because of mechanical failure.

A British Airways plane crash landed at Heathrow because it lost both engines through fuel pump faults related to temperature issues dropping from altitude. The pumps are still the same but procedures when reducing altitude have changed to stop the risk.

Kevin was reported has not recovering from a spiral dive, So I guess the CAA would say that more height was required and exit a spiral earlier at height. I don’t think that they really have the time to worry about us with the Olympic airspace to control next year.

I belonged to a RC model club a few years ago which reported two deaths in London alone, and this is seriously regulated with a safety committee member on site before you can fly.

Bottom line is get a life Francis and gate crash someone else’s party. Life will still go on contented if as suggested before that you take up knitting.

Russel

[garyfreefly]

Got it Got it .......by God I think Ive Got it....is it errrm

francis_rich

Have I won

[clivefreeman]

Gary have you been peaking, right thats it Garys been cheating everyone. !!

No one gets it in three gueses. Do they ?

[slapper]

Not low flying with you again Aquatix till you

get rid of that GPS.

[aquatix]

Not low flying with you again Aquatix till you

get rid of that GPS.

It's OK - the GPS has a 'delete' button !

Anyway I'm still trying to grow my hair back after your last low pass over me !!

[Guest]

Alan, my post at MEN contained nothing but statements of fact.

You have no way of knowing what I care about and no way of knowing what balance may or may not have followed or from what quarter. It is not me that is shifting positions throughout this thread.

Again, I suggest to all that you move away from being too concerned about me or my agenda or (thank you, Rich) my customer base and focus on the ideas themselves. If I cared about alienation I would not act as I do.

As for crashing your party, Russell, had my name not been mentioned and false statements made about my intentions I would not have posted here. Continuing false statements and false attribution keep bringing me back to correct them. As I said before, stop invoking my name and you will hear no more from me here.

[garyfreefly]

NO WAY.... I deny it.....I never cheat.....sometimes the answer is right infront of you

ps

my grandad was very fond of a couple of old sayings they went something like this...

Listen what everybody has to say......then make up your own mind.....(I HAVE)

if you listen to an idiot for long enough you will learn something eventually (Again I Have)

[Guest]

I blame Jock for this mess....

Why?

Well, if he hadn't posted the link from the MEN in the first place, Franky boy wouldn't have seen it and we wouldn't be here 8 pages later!!

Rich

True enough but the actual debate that is happening here within your "joking" is clearly of interest to many as can be seen from some of the responses either agreeing with or challenging the underlying agenda of instructor registration and mandatory training. That is the reason for at least 4 of the 8 pages. The remainder are irrelevant and puerile; akin to the "gas-works gang" bullying the fat kid. Don't hide behind forums and nicknames say it to my face next time we meet.

[aquatix]

Alan, my post at MEN contained nothing but statements of fact.

In that case you can provide the evidence supporting your "fact" that "Many are designed and built from bits of junk cobbled together."

For whatever reason, your post only misrepresented the sport and majority of pilots to the general public, when you could have simply stated the truth that Darren chose to ignore the training that was available to him and go it alone.

Anyway, thats enough to pass a wet & windy day - normal unregulated flying will resume soon !

[Trickyh]

Looks like ''our Francis'' has been a busy boy. with his agenda...

From the BMAA forum

http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=14&m=4074&g=75633#m75633

Posted 2/3/2010 10:11 AM (GMT +1)

Reason I ask Graham is that I have begun writing the draft consultation paper to propose a change to the SPHG definition and would value any insight from the CAA and the BMAA on the underlying philosophy for the current form of words.

I am seeing widespread and increasing illegal and untrained usage and feel that some action needs to be taken now in order to protect our sport, which is essentially gliding rather than "powered" aircraft. Essentially the proposal is to remove the term "foot-launched" from the definition and replace it with a maximum wing loading. This will have the immediate effect of making training much more widely available through BHPA schools in both PPG and PHG variants.

A separate proposal to address untrained usage by making the undertaking of a recognised course of training mandatory for SPHG, similar to the Irish CAA's requirement to have undergone training.

These proposals stand independently but, together, address the safety and operational concerns many have expressed in the exponential growth of sub 70kg craft non-licensed flying in the UK

Working for the common good are we m8?

Rich

[Guest]

Don't hide behind forums and nicknames say it to my face next time we meet.

If you had said that to me, I would have got my dad on to you. LOL

SW

[Guest]

Looks like ''our Francis'' has been a busy boy. with his agenda...

From the BMAA forum

http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=14&m=4074&g=75633#m75633

Posted 2/3/2010 10:11 AM (GMT +1)

Reason I ask Graham is that I have begun writing the draft consultation paper to propose a change to the SPHG definition and would value any insight from the CAA and the BMAA on the underlying philosophy for the current form of words.

I am seeing widespread and increasing illegal and untrained usage and feel that some action needs to be taken now in order to protect our sport, which is essentially gliding rather than "powered" aircraft. Essentially the proposal is to remove the term "foot-launched" from the definition and replace it with a maximum wing loading. This will have the immediate effect of making training much more widely available through BHPA schools in both PPG and PHG variants.

A separate proposal to address untrained usage by making the undertaking of a recognised course of training mandatory for SPHG, similar to the Irish CAA's requirement to have undergone training.

These proposals stand independently but, together, address the safety and operational concerns many have expressed in the exponential growth of sub 70kg craft non-licensed flying in the UK

Working for the common good are we m8?

Rich

O dear, how very disappointing.

SW

[Neilzy]

Looks like ''our Francis'' has been a busy boy. with his agenda...

From the BMAA forum

http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=14&m=4074&g=75633#m75633

Posted 2/3/2010 10:11 AM (GMT +1)

Reason I ask Graham is that I have begun writing the draft consultation paper to propose a change to the SPHG definition and would value any insight from the CAA and the BMAA on the underlying philosophy for the current form of words.

I am seeing widespread and increasing illegal and untrained usage and feel that some action needs to be taken now in order to protect our sport, which is essentially gliding rather than "powered" aircraft. Essentially the proposal is to remove the term "foot-launched" from the definition and replace it with a maximum wing loading. This will have the immediate effect of making training much more widely available through BHPA schools in both PPG and PHG variants.

A separate proposal to address untrained usage by making the undertaking of a recognised course of training mandatory for SPHG, similar to the Irish CAA's requirement to have undergone training.

These proposals stand independently but, together, address the safety and operational concerns many have expressed in the exponential growth of sub 70kg craft non-licensed flying in the UK

Working for the common good are we m8?

Rich

O dear, how very disappointing.

SW

And all this from a man WHO cant even launch a wing 7 attempts youtube, and from a pilot who forgets to buckle his leg straps a BHPA Senoir Instrutor MY F@#KING ARSE.

Its a good job everybody laughs at him and see him for what he is!!!!!!!