Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby CJS on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 7:29 pm

Dan O'Hagan wrote:
Alanko wrote:Just a thought, but should this be in the public domain, post-Shoreham and all? Word of private test runs with unqualified crew on an active airport might not go down so well in all quarters.


A non-flyer. No comparison.

Getting tired of holier-than-thou members telling people what can and can't be discussed on these forums.


No-one's holier than you Dan ( :-P ). Seriously though, I agree - just as long as the spag is accurate we should be free to discuss (within legal limits & forum rules of course) as we please.

I'll tell you one thing the last few days reading this particular thread has taught me: whether or not you bemoan the lack of topside passes and so on, we should all be bloody grateful for the BBMF and that it's they who are the custodians of the Lancaster and some of 'our' most important historically significant aircraft.
"Forewarned is forearmed"
How do you know I didn't?
User avatar
CJS

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Alanko on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 7:32 pm

Dan O'Hagan wrote:Getting tired of holier-than-thou members telling people what can and can't be discussed on these forums.


Better log yourself out then.
Alanko

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby CJS on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 7:40 pm

Alanko wrote:
Dan O'Hagan wrote:Getting tired of holier-than-thou members telling people what can and can't be discussed on these forums.


Better log yourself out then.


Oh do stop it.
"Forewarned is forearmed"
How do you know I didn't?
User avatar
CJS

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Alanko on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 7:53 pm

CJS wrote:Oh do stop it.


My concern is genuine. The press clearly read through forums! The Daily Mail quoted posts from Key verbatim. We are discussing a vintage aircraft being operated on a live airport by spirited but totally unqualified volunteers. It seems that all of this information has been divulged purely because things have become toxic in the SPT camp. A shame because I wanted to see the Shack fly, and another nail in the coffin generally.
Alanko

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby WG655 on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 8:07 pm

Important to note this information was first announced on the SPT's official social media channels - the information is out there in the public domain already and therefore censoring discussion about it on UKAR following this statement is entirely unnecessary.
User avatar
WG655
UKAR Staff

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Maisie on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 8:07 pm

To add to my stress level, this year new untrained members of crew have been put in positions on board the aircraft for private "test" runs when I wasn't on site. Not only is this poor behaviour from a safety point of view, it equates to some £3000 used in fuel this year alone for private - not public - "test" runs.


Who on earth thinks they can get away with that? :wall: :wall: :wall:
6D | 7D | 60D
11-16 f/2.8 | 24-105 IS L | 70-300 IS USM | 50 f/1.4 | 100 f/2.8 | 400 f/5.6
Maisie

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Brevet Cable on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 9:02 pm

WG655 wrote:Important to note this information was first announced on the SPT's official social media channels - the information is out there in the public domain already and therefore censoring discussion about it on UKAR following this statement is entirely unnecessary.

Not to mention the fact that the statement has also been posted on the FC & Flypast forums.
Brevet.. Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby qwerty on Wed 31 Aug 2016, 8:46 am

The rules and regulations change between public and private operation of equipment. When no money has changed hands and the public are not invited(private land) it is perhaps surprising what can be done, racing high performance cars, armoured vehicles, diggers,bulldozers, taxying Harriers around a field. Anything goes where the sea is concerned. There is a huge gap between ground running engines and a criminal act. So the press who read these forums know that this is not news worthy.
qwerty

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Alanko on Wed 31 Aug 2016, 9:59 am

Brevet Cable wrote:
WG655 wrote:Important to note this information was first announced on the SPT's official social media channels - the information is out there in the public domain already and therefore censoring discussion about it on UKAR following this statement is entirely unnecessary.

Not to mention the fact that the statement has also been posted on the FC & Flypast forums.


Lets hope the CAA don't take notice!
Alanko

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Brevet Cable on Wed 31 Aug 2016, 10:20 am

qwerty wrote:There is a huge gap between ground running engines and a criminal act.

Is there an aviation equivalent of 'TWOC-ing' ?
Surely carrying out unauthorised "test runs" could also constitute theft , given that it's claimed that £3000 of fuel was used during these unauthorised runs ?
And what would have happened if an incident had occurred , particularly if third-parties were involved ? Would the Insurance company have stumped up , or would they have refused due to the fact that the runs were unauthorised ?
Brevet.. Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Gregg on Wed 31 Aug 2016, 10:40 am

If you've been donated funds to restore it to flight or pay for a hangar, but instead use it to have fun with your mates then isn't that an issue for the charity commission? I know a chap that's given over £300 and is spitting feathers.
Gregg

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Brevet Cable on Wed 31 Aug 2016, 10:56 am

Gregg wrote:I know a chap that's given over £300 and is spitting feathers.

Mine was about half that , including Gift Aid..... and if I'd known about these issues at the time ( early April ) I certainly wouldn't have donated.
Brevet.. Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby HeyfordDave111 on Wed 31 Aug 2016, 4:11 pm

Much as i like the Canberra and would love to see it airborne again, surely 'Shackleton to the sky' would have been a better project and its an AVRO too!
Got to love Russianhardware
HeyfordDave111

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby planenuttoo on Wed 31 Aug 2016, 5:24 pm

HeyfordDave111 wrote:Much as i like the Canberra and would love to see it airborne again, surely 'Shackleton to the sky' would have been a better project and its an AVRO too!


Now that would depend on the owner and supporters agreeing to it, but inhouse bitching will solve nothing, they need to deal with it, which it appears is happening now.

Sadly, none of this will help the project, whoever holds the reins, within the eyes of the CAA when it will be asked to agree to future tests and maintenance.
User avatar
planenuttoo

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Thoughtful_Flyer on Wed 31 Aug 2016, 5:28 pm

Alanko wrote:
CJS wrote:Oh do stop it.


My concern is genuine. The press clearly read through forums! The Daily Mail quoted posts from Key verbatim. We are discussing a vintage aircraft being operated on a live airport by spirited but totally unqualified volunteers. It seems that all of this information has been divulged purely because things have become toxic in the SPT camp. A shame because I wanted to see the Shack fly, and another nail in the coffin generally.


So you would suppress the truth for fear of it being misreported? Seems to me that is a dangerous road to go down.
Thoughtful_Flyer

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Alanko on Wed 31 Aug 2016, 7:39 pm

Thoughtful_Flyer wrote:So you would suppress the truth for fear of it being misreported? Seems to me that is a dangerous road to go down.


In this one case yes, trusting it is indeed the truth. If this hurts the historic aviation community then it isn't really my problem as I have other hobbies, but this stuff seems to be the lifeblood of a few round these parts.
Alanko

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby AndyXH558 on Wed 31 Aug 2016, 8:41 pm

may i suggest with all respect... follow those other hobbies instead of being a keyboard warrior.
User avatar
AndyXH558

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Alanko on Thu 01 Sep 2016, 10:52 am

AndyXH558 wrote:may i suggest with all respect... follow those other hobbies instead of being a keyboard warrior.


I fail to see how I'm being a keyboard warrior, especially when Dan O'Hagan et al post on here. Out of curiosity I had a look at SPT's "official social media channels", and they're hardly heavily subscribed. By contrast, as I said before, the press have demonstrably crawled through PPRUNE and Key Publishing threads looking for dirt (for want of a better word). At a time when they are deriding Andy Hill for simply driving a car or walking his dog, do you think they will take the time to tease apart the nuanced issues surrounding the collapse of the SPT, or is it more likely that they could seize on the story, and especially the section Maisie helpfully highlighted, on a slow news day?

This is just an idea that struck me as fairly obvious when this all erupted, but isn't being taken very well for some bizarre reason. I see it simply as damage control at a time when historic aviation is taking a bit of a kicking, and clearly lacks a degree of credibility in the eyes of many. If we aren't allowed to hypothesise the cause of the Shoreham crash then maybe we should apply the same judicious self-moderation and refrain from reproducing endlessly the comments of those within SPT with an axe to grind until the dust has settled slightly? Surely both forms of discussion serve to hurt this community? Only when posters use their best 6th form debating methods to pick me up on the dangers of censorship did I feel the need to indicate that I don't personally have a horse in this race, but clearly others do.
Alanko

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby LN Strike Eagle on Thu 01 Sep 2016, 11:56 am

How much "damage control" do you expect to achieve if we were to cover this story up, considering that it's already been reported elsewhere on sites like Key, Pprune and FC?

The information, as has already been pointed out, is now widely in the public domain and no amount of moderating on UKAR will alter that.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"
User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby FTS on Thu 01 Sep 2016, 12:03 pm

LN Strike Eagle wrote:How much "damage control" do you expect to achieve if we were to cover this story up, considering that it's already been reported elsewhere on sites like Key, Pprune and FC?

The information, as has already been pointed out, is now widely in the public domain and no amount of moderating on UKAR will alter that.


Careful, you're using logic! :lol: That statement is all over Facebook as well.
Last edited by FTS on Thu 01 Sep 2016, 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FTS

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Brevet Cable on Thu 01 Sep 2016, 12:14 pm

Look at how much grief VTST received for the time when the PtoF wasn't ready at the start of the season ( and the further grief they got when it was found they were covering for someone else's failings for that foul-up ) ... or the spat when XH558 wasn't booked for RIAT ... or when they were extremely vague about the whys & wherefores of 'Silicagate' ( and the fact that they wouldn't say who was at fault )

A statement had to be made as to why the various events involving WR963 were all cancelled ( and if what's been posted on other fora is correct , the sudden departure of several people involved in the restoration ) , not only to avoid speculation but also to keep those who had donated informed.
Should the statement have been worded as it was and as detailed as it was , well that's down to individual interpretation.
Damned if he did , damned if he didn't , really.
Brevet.. Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Brevet Cable on Thu 01 Sep 2016, 12:20 pm

LN Strike Eagle wrote:How much "damage control" do you expect to achieve if we were to cover this story up, considering that it's already been reported elsewhere on sites like Key, Pprune and FC?

From what I've seen , the only thing posted on PPRuNe is the initial statement announcing the immediate cancellation of events.....the statement by Dave Woods hasn't been posted on there ( or if it has been , it's not in the WR963 topic )
Brevet.. Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Pringles on Mon 05 Sep 2016, 8:05 pm

More news from the Chairman:

Hello all,

I would like to thank you all very much for your support since I posted my statement regarding the issues surrounding Avro Shackleton WR963; the comments on Facebook and individual messages and e-mails have raised my spirits considerably. I want to reiterate that the statement covers what is the end of a chapter for the old Shackleton, but it is certainly not the end of the story.

As owner of the aircraft, I have no intention of leaving her to deteriorate. Over the course of the last few days I have talked long and hard with my wife, family and friends, and the consensus is that we have all invested too much time and effort into WR963 to give up now.

Plans are being made, and I will be taking further action be assured on that, though I do need time to be sure that I do the right thing for WR963, and her loyal supporters. I'll let you all know more in a short while.

So WATCH THIS SPACE!

Once again thank you all.

Dave Woods
If life gives you melons then you're probably dyslexic
User avatar
Pringles

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Dragon Rapide on Mon 05 Sep 2016, 8:15 pm

Encouraging words I guess...... :smile:
Listen to that Gipsy music.....

Dragon Rapide
Dragon Rapide

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby craig.mason on Thu 08 Sep 2016, 10:14 am

I donated money to this project in the hope that i would see the Shackleton WR963 return to were she belongs thrilling the airshow fans at airshows around the country so was very disappointed with the first statement put out second statement sounds more positive hopefully she will one day return to the skies
Canon 550D
EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS II Lens
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II
EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM
User avatar
craig.mason

PreviousNext

Return to Aviation Waffle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ColeTheDemolisher, ericbee123, Matt35027, Skymonster, Victor 23 and 19 guests