Gonzo230 wrote:I think the aviation heritage enthusiast/supporter community has to understand its own part in this.
I'm not referring specifically to APRES/UKHAT or any others, but there seems to be an assumption within our community that any new aviation group/aircraft support group/society/trust/charity etc etc should appear fully formed with notable trustees/experts/business plans already in place. When groups allow us to observe their early development and growing pains, it's very easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise.
However, do we not also, as a community, criticise those groups that are more private at this stage for not being open and transparent?
I think, if one actually analyses how any aviation heritage group starts, it's usually one or more 'enthusiastic amatuers' getting together. What has changed so that now we expect experts and experienced only to set these up?
Were Tim Prince and Paul Bowen experienced airshow organisers when they started forming ideas for IAT? Did they have a list of experts and a comprehensive business and funding plan when they started trying to drum up interest for an airshow? And look where that organisation is now and what it has provided over the years.
Have we created such a toxic environment?
While I agree with you to a degree, do you not also think that any group asking for public money should be fully transparent from the outset? If they were only using their own money then they of course have the right to do things in private, and without scrutiny.