Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ascot5046

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: May 30, 2018, 08:04:00 AM »
"Many thanks for taking the time to reply Steve"

As Alexandr said - "simples". The same explanation should have come from "t'management" but there you go.

Sam's reply says volumes about the Trust.  if the aircrew were needed earlier and had to stay overnight, no question.  How much would the cost saved compare to a few 100lbs of JET A1 cursing through the engines. :(



2
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: May 24, 2018, 08:44:42 AM »
It's all very well to suggest that a no-blame culture surrounds the silica gel incident and it has a parallel in the RAF's "I learned about flying from that" stories. The UKAR claim is really off squonk! Compare these bags with surgical swabs for a moment - they are alway counted "out" after an operation. Result - no risk of contamination/infection/sepsis/death. Now consider if the engines had exploded after V1/rotate and, as has happened with Vulcans before, were not contained?

Someone signed off the B/F servicing and the result must rest with that person. 

BUT.........was this the seed that has spawned the (unconfirmed) claims that the airport will never allow fast taxi runs?

BTW, I am still being contacted as a founding guardian even though I cancelled my subscription way back last year. Paperwork, it would seem, is not keeping up with reality - ha! - how many FG's are still active?

3
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: April 14, 2018, 10:37:55 PM »
Still no repudiation of the comment that the airport will not allow fast taxy runs. :-\

Surely someone in "authority" can step up and make a statement.

4
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: April 07, 2018, 11:25:07 PM »
Well someone took it down without having the common decency to inform me of the reason.

If that person has the guts, put it back so that those that care can see and then their own judgements and comments.  OR tell me why I was so out of whack?

Ah, maybe I mentioned the TAFF word????

Taff, in the open, I expected better of you and, I suppose, do most of the remaining supporters either logging or just lurking and listening.

You were once a legend but now..... loyalties?......

How many minutes until this is taken down, comrades?

This is not personal but I fail to square what he is doing with the "volunteers" for the greater good of the Trust

But I've already heard from others that the airport will NOT allow 558 to use the runway i.e. Fast Taxy

Anyone care to correct this view?

5
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: April 07, 2018, 05:11:37 PM »
The words communication, openness and transparency seem to have been dropped from the lexicon of VTST.

There's so few of the loyal supporters left now and the prospect of a media campaign to "Give the peoples' aircraft back NOW" would seem the only way to hit back. Linking the present cold war feel about Russia right now and the last ever flying nuclear deterrent  V bomber languishing by a sewage farm might help raise awareness?

No, I must be hallucinating again  :-\

6
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: April 06, 2018, 06:27:19 PM »
Well someone has and it sucks.  And I have another forum member who confirms it as he read the content before it was taken down.  It seems I have ruffled feathers by speaking stuff way too close to the mark.

My take on this: Give the peoples' aircraft BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

7
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: April 04, 2018, 03:59:07 PM »
Seems the post I put up and Mike responded to has been taken down....... :( :(

8
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: March 01, 2018, 12:36:33 PM »
Just as well they "thought" about trestles and jacks for the jet, she'd be sat on her arse by now with all the snow about, unless the fat cats got their shovels out - er, no chance.

9
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: February 25, 2018, 03:08:48 PM »
Surely if "they" continue to prevent the general public from seeing the aircraft in a museum, they are in breach of the stated aims of the Trust.

Back in the day, people were told to keep away from Finningley so as not to cause gridlock in and around the area.  I guess there aren't enough of us left now to mount a protest outside the airport to make this happen and force the press to investigate the shambles that is now an ongoing reality.  Pity that.

10
Ways To Raise Funding / Re: Comments on the new hangar plans!
« on: January 17, 2018, 10:26:43 PM »
Anyone know if Carillion were involved?

11
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: December 09, 2017, 02:04:40 PM »
Like Dee, I'm going to give my renewal for Founding Guardian a miss. 

I've already sent back the raffle tickets with a message "Due to being on a fixed income, I have donated the money to The Dogs Trust"


12
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: December 08, 2017, 03:59:37 PM »
Just scanned the article Smiler had posted the link for.

Someone has got their head up their arse if they think that The Red Arrows could co-exist on a commercial airfield.  They fly upwards of 5 sorties per day during the season work up and even if the display practices were held over another airfield, the circuit  access requirements for the Reds is incompatible with the scheduled commercial operation.

If anyone doubts that, just recall how impossible it has been to get 558 to have taxi runs, as promised to everyone when the decision to drop her on her last legs a few years ago. Not wishing to open any wounds here, but was the memory of a preventable double engine destruction on the active runway a contributory factor on this one?

Smoke and mirrors, or what we used to call in the IT sales sector, Vapourware

13
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: December 03, 2017, 11:18:37 PM »
I've done what I can only do and stopped funding from my fixed income.  I'm also sitting on my next Founding Guardian subscription to see how long before anyone notices.

When I informed Dr. Pleming that I was cancelling all funding, he did reply, thanked me for my previous support and asked if I would elaborate on why I cancelled.

I did.

NO RESPONSE

So to quote an old service anacronym... he's NFI

14
Engineering / Re: How would you feel?
« on: September 07, 2017, 07:49:45 AM »
Seems to me that Sam would be a welcome addition to a group willing to engage the media about the state of things, unless he's had to sign the VTST version of the Official Secrets Act.

I don't think it's unreasonable to bring to public attention where things stand at this time, given the millions of squids they/we have given/raised.  The stated aim of the trust, post flying, is to preserve the aircraft for the people in a museum. Despite all the PR bluster, WHAT MUSEUM??????


15
Engineering / Re: How would you feel?
« on: September 05, 2017, 02:28:59 PM »
BBC Midlands Today are always asking for viewers to write in with stories they feel may be of general public interest.  I did email the Mail but didn't get a bite.

Any one of us could do this, but maybe an Open Letter criticising the trust for failing to uphold their duty to provide a museum after her flying life is over for the public to have access.  Maybe Club ex Co-Chairs would be willing to stand in front of the cameras??

I'm about to cancel the Flying Fund Draw entry in favour of a more deserving charity which ends all my financial contributions to XH558, apart from Founding Guardian, which may as well follow suit.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4