gandalph

Some more history on this one: Pacific Wrecks

There was indeed a Zero as well as the ex C H Degotardi real state Co's Lockheed 10b Electra, a DC2 and a hangar full of other interesting craft that I have forgotten. Degotardi were supposedly notorious known for flying potential customers from Bankstown to Katoomba to look at potential properties and then even flying them back IF they bought a property (urban myth?) . IIRC Sid's Mechanic got into a bit of trouble with the DCA as it then was, by flying his Tiger Moth under the Sydney Harbour Bridge on the day of Sid's funeral as a mark of respect. I believe Sid's Dragon ended up in Great Britain somewhere, the Anson was mothballed because of the problem with the glue used to bond the main spars. No idea what happened to the rest of the treasures.

Easy to spot. Most of us will have our flying jackets made of strong canvas with the sleeves fastened behind our backs, and two beefy blokes in white coats very close by...

Bernie, that would've been Sid Marshall's DH Dragon ( not a Rapide though). My dad was mates with Sid and we'd go to the corner near Milperra road road for a chat every few weekends. If there weren't many passengers for the Dragon Sid would often say to me "you'd better hop in to keep the tail down." I got to see quite a lot of Bankstown and surrounds. Do you ever go up in his Avro Anson?

Thanks SDQDI, brilliant!

No Turbs, I was not. That interpretation is bit a Machiavellian isn't it? IF I'd had any suspicions of that nature I would have raised them with the AEC not here. I think I saw only one poster who appeared to be voicing doubts about the legitimacy of the electoral process. I hope that's cleared that up!

I'm not sure what you're hinting at there Turbs. What I meant was that the vote was NOT carried by a show of hands at the meeting. The majority of the membership that voted by Proxy voted in favour of the motion and those votes were cast (if not counted) some time before the meeting. You're not trying to out pedant the pedant are you?

What? Fairness and accuracy? YES! Dont you?

Do you mean things like this Don? I thought that would have been deleted by now but it's still there. Perhaps that one wasn't brought to the attention of the Moderators?

To be fair (and accurate) Keith, it was announced by the President quite early in the meeting that Don had indicated that he either had stepped down as Treasurer. That announcement was made well before the votes were counted and announced though I suppose you could say that the YES vote had suceeded well before the date of the meeting.

The tenants have let the property go a bit.

Ian you seem to want to pick a fight with me. I'm not interested! Sorry. I haven't taken your word. I haven't not taken your word. I haven't disputed your claim, I haven't supported your claim. Let me say it again, plainly, clearly, simply and unambiguously, so there is no mistake about what I'm trying to say. I think it would help support your assertion that: if you published the email. If you don't want to or can't then that's fine. That's your choice. I'm NOT telling you what to do. Do whatever you feel you need to do. I was offering an opinion and within that opinion there was some advice from someone with a fair bit of experience in matters like this. But it was only ADVICE. Take it, leave it. it's cost you nothing and you're free to value it at cost. I won't be offended if you choose to ignore it. But I'm just a bit tired of you assuming that everything I write is a personal attack on you. IT IS NOT! As for attitude, G'day kettle, my names pot.

I have to disagree Ian, I don't think I've gone off on any tangent. I was just responding to Turbo's comment that it's sometime difficult to provide proof of an assertion. I was responding in the context of your statement that you have proof of what would seem to be unethical behaviour by the Board and suggesting that it would help forumites if they could see the document that led you to make that claim. I'm not sure how you can assert that I haven't given due consideration to any other element or reasoning I'm not making judgement one way or another because I don't know what is in the email. My original post did not make any judgement about your claim in #191, I simply suggested it might help your cause if you could see your way clear to publish the email. I don't believe that anything I've said today is critical of your opinion or of your decision to hold back the email until July. Happy to discuss further if you still feel Ive missed a crucial point.

You could well be correct Turbo, but the decision to show and tell, or not, would reside with Ian. However, as he has chosen to publish his opinion of the intent of the email ( and I seriously doubt that anyone here would challenge his right to do just that) the test of whether the information is sensitive or not has already been taken, so there should be no impediment giving readers here the opportunity to judge for themselves by seeing Ian's claims in the context of that email. If Michael Linke marked the email as personal and confidential or without prejudice then Ian could be justified in withholding it, but otherwise it's probably difficult to justify just providing an interpretation rather than at least the relevant parts of the text. But it is still a free world and no one can or should want to compell him to release it if he doesn't want to, though I note from post #191 that Ian is thinking of releasing it but not for another couple of months. But as you recognised #192 it's can be difficult to retain credibility if you can't provide prove for your argument.

Perhaps Ian could publish here the email from the CEO. That way we could make our own judgement on the topic and decide for ourselves whether the RAA is indeed being brought "into disrepute all over again without any recourse....". We might even be able to decide for ourselves on the basis of the evidence provided if indeed " it has started!!!". To paraphrase Jerry Macguire : "Show us the money! ( or evidence)".

I can't say I'd be happy to know that the RAA was sharing private identifying information or allowing access to parts of their membership database with another organisation (the usual governmental and legal requirements excepted - though their trampling on the privacy rights of individuals doesn't fill me with joy either) . Neither can I see much positive about requiring members of this site having to forego the anonymity provided by their forum user names to access the proposed locked sections of the sites such Ian proposes. I think the ability to speak your mind here without running the risk of the lynch mob turning up at your door one dark night is something we would want to preserve. The downside to that argument is that there will always be the loony fringe who post here simply to stir up controversy. But the "ignore" button takes care of them. The graph that Ian has posted might show a chronometric link between the drop in visitors and the RAA constitutional debate gaining traction in the forums but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate causality. As others have said there could be a raft of other factors at play.

Holy snappin duck poo, that's ugly! The side view puts me in mind of a multi level sheep truck.

D.R. What device(s) do you have for recording the engine data? Seems like pretty impressive gear.

Yes Turbs I know . But with my current restricted access it takes ages for me to get to a thread and then ages to get my response uploaded so crossed messages are inevitable.

Thank you for clearing that up Turbs. I did re-read and the post and it did not seem to me that you were generalising, but I'm happy to take your word that you were and that I misunderstood what you were saying. In deference to Ian's sensibilities and concerns about the deleterious effects these sort of disputes have on the site's stats, I'll say no more on this matter. Though as Ian has admitted he's already taken care of that side of things.

Thanks Bill for responding. I'm glad you cleared that up. It takes me out of the sights somewhat. I chose to assume that Turbs was not taking aim at me directly but as he appeared to be responding to a post I'd made, you can understand why I was a bit on edge about his post. Let's hope Keith can also confirm that he's not under attack by me as well.

Yes, I thought you might know the cause. So I'm not banned because nobody is banned, and I'm not suspended because you're not doing that during Moratorium May, you've just got irits with me because we've disagreed publicly on a few things. I've told you in several PM's that I regard this site as a huge asset to the sport of recreational flying and that I value it very highly, but I've also questioned some inconsistencies when I've come across them. If you regard that as a bad attitude then I guess in your eyes I'm guilty. I don't plan to quit challenging inconsistencies and I don't plan to quit calling bull when I see it, for example you recently allowed a poster to allege that the President would "lose" preferences during the recent vote i.e accuse him publicly of electoral fraud, but you warned another poster for being disrespectful to members when he put up an admittedly gloatingly bad post. about the recent vote. I see that as inconsistent management of the site and I don't see how it can improve the quality, reputation or credibility of the site. BUT I also accept completely, absolutely and unreservedly that as site owner and administrator you can play the game and manage the site however you like. However we are drifting a bit off topic here and perhaps further discussion should be in private not here. Happy to send you a photo if you want one, though I can't imaging why you would want to be into that much pain! Maybe we can meet for a friendly coffee (my shout) while you're in town and see what we can sort out in a gentlemanly kind of way. You know how to contact me if you'd like. I wonder why I'm going through Ainslie, I'd have thought I'd be routed through Melba exchange. Yes I did try to register under a different name to see if the problem was with my computer or with my logon, you'll note that I didn't try to post under that name.

Ian, I agree with the sentiments expressed above and I agree also that my post was off topic and for that I apologise, but I say in my defence that I was responding to what seemed to be an allegation that I had bullied and attacked Bill and Keith, an accusation which I strenuously deny. I'm sure you'll agree that that sort of accusation and character attack goes against all that you are trying to instill on this site. I'd be delighted to leave the matter there and if Keith and or Bill want to discuss it with me then I invite them to do in elsewhere or via private messages. That's assuming of course that whatever is currently crippling my access to this site is fixed to allow those discussions to take place. I assume you've had no success in finding out what the problem with my access to this site is? Regards CS

Turbo, lighten up mate, lighten up! The coffee comment was meant in jest. I don't give flying duck whether you have coffee in the morning or not but I do think you jumped the wrong way with that post. That is My opinion, and if I've understood your post, you support people having opinions. IF I believed you were insinuating that I have bullied or attacked Keith and/or Bill, then I would be very offended by such a libellous statement but I assume (well I hope) you were speaking generally. If you were directing it at me then I'd have to say that you are so very wrong. Keith and I differ on some things and I have asked Keith - a very long time ago - to provide some supporting facts for an assertion he made (I don't remember what it was about but Keith was being a bit cryptic as he sometimes is and I was trying to find out what he was saying.) If that's bullying or attacking then I am uncle to all the monkeys in creation. As for Bill, I can't recall ever responding to a post from Bill , but I'm sure Bill will put me right if he wants to, so I really don't know what you're on about.

A little bit edgy this morning Turbs? Hadn't had the morning coffee when you hit the keys? Your jibe about not having an original thought in my body... that was severe! I'm not sure I'll recover from that one. Do,you perchance write Bills' Zingers for him? However I am glad that you have come out in favour of free speech. I fully support a persons right to offer an opinion and FT has offered heaps. My suggestion was that he should consider stepping out from under his bushel and putting his ideas on how the RAA should be run into practice. He, like you, has offered many opinions on ways that the RAA could do better. Perhaps you could both stand as the progeressive reform team. How could you take umbrage at that?