Everyone please look at this

[Hallmark]

Unless New Zealand recently became a dictatorship headed by the executive of MFNZ there is no getting around the fact that allegations have supposedly been made, an investigation (or witch hunt) has apparently been undertaken, determinations reached and punitive measures imposed all without any opportunity for the allegations to be defended by the accused. Shame! Shame! Shame!

In my part of the world this would be immediate grounds for an application for an injuction to the Supreme Court to suspend the 'no fly' order, which I'd suggest would succeed without much effort. The council really need to answer for this and so much more...

Les if you signed up here to 'Bruce bash' I strongly suggest you have wasted your time, all you've done is shown that you're another of the in public terrorists trying to act as the fun police. With that in mind why don't you bow out before you prove further what a goose you are?

If an AXN crashing into the control tower (which was a completely staged event) is so offensive, write to the SWMAC and lodge a formal complaint citing the Law/rule that was breached and I feel sure the club will investigate the complaint, call the identified party to council and hear the matter THEN decide what, if any action should be taken!

Bruce bashers beware this is not the place to post - write it on a fresh sheet of toilet paper and use it to clean up your biomass!!!

[Gypsy]

So I created my own login.

He wasn't signing up to 'Bruce Bash' and he's not a goose and yes I'm married to the guy so I'm biased but I also have the pertinent information.

I think maybe, and I can't speak for Les, He was actually defending my honour as the list moderator. I quite clearly stated when the list went onto moderation why it was happening and what the limits of moderation would be so I really despaired when Bruce posted his message to the list last night because it placed me in the role of 'thought policewoman' an idea which I abhor.

If you take a look at my contribution to the lists on this matter over the past month I think you'll find I have been fair, considerate, and respectful to Bruce. I have offered him my help the benefit of my knowledge with respect to the fact that I once was one of those 'grumpy old men' on the NZMAA council albeit younger, female and not so grumpy.

Hallmark it seems that not giving 100% support to Bruce's standpoint on this matter constitutes Bruce Bashing and is cause for name calling and accusations towards someone you've only just met and therefore hardly know. I hope that isn't the case because if so I've just wasted 3 minutes of my life.

Gypsy

[lesterpk]

< Refreshed before submitting and I see the wife has been in as well, doesnt change anything I wanted to say >

My, into name calling arent we Hallmark. Do you do that to every one who may have a different opinion than you or am I special ?

I'm not here to "Bruce bash", rather as stated before I'm also interested in the truth coming out about all of this, as are you I'm sure. So far only one side of the story has been presented in public, no doubt at some time the MFNZ version will appear and the masses will be able to see both "sides". You'll note on the email newsgroups and other forums that many MFNZ members are calling for the MFNZ council to make some sort of statement to the membership, so I think that will have to happen sooner or later.

Its fair to say that Gypsy and I have had a few discussions around this issue over the last few weeks, and my personal view is that yes, it could have been better handled, from both sides. The original letter asked SWMAC to do 3 things, provide an undertaking that SWMAC and its members will fly to MFNZ and CAA rules, provide a copy of current club rules, and the take the steps neccesary to register the site so as to ensure insurance cover. While it contained typos and generally poorly written, the 3 requirements were hardly onerous. If I were on the commitee of a club (as I have been many times) that was asked to do similar, the first wouldnt have been hard, the second would have been a cut and paste from the club rules already in existance or from the new members welcome pack, and the third should have been done years ago.

I would be interested in seeing when Bruce posts it, the letter in reply to the MFNZ one. Did the SWMAC try and satisfy any of the 3 things? Did the letter say, heres what you asked for, now about those complaints, can we have some information so we can identify times/places etc.

I'm no stranger to how MFNZ works, I've been in a very public fight with them as pres of a club (gliders and electric only) when MFNZ supported another club (glow power mostly) moving in to a paddock 250m away at a very noise sensitve site. I've also been in a private fight as pres of a SIG that had a rule foisted upon us without consultation which would have moved almost all gliders into the large model category. So far I have a 2 win record and am well aware of what MFNZ can be at times.

The were/are options available to Bruce and SWMAC, but it seems to me the "go nuclear" option has been used up already.

[Hallmark]

< Refreshed before submitting and I see the wife has been in as well, doesnt change anything I wanted to say >

My, into name calling arent we Hallmark. Do you do that to every one who may have a different opinion than you or am I special ?

You're proving to be more 'special' by the minute...

You seem to be speaking for the organisation one minute by offering information such as the content of a letter sent to Bruce asking for certain information and making rather scurrilous allegations allegations about insurance cover requirements not being met. Then you extrapolate from some esoteric source that MFNZ will comment at some point where to date they have remained remarkably silent. As I see it this is yet more evidence that there is a rotten apple in this barrel and the more you offer by way of comments the clearer the mud seems to get.

Now unless you're a paid up member of SWMAC or a standing member of MFNZ, you will forgive my asking how is this any of your damned business? Defending your wife's honour may or may not be appropriate, but looking at her typing skills and structure of her sentences/paragraphs, she seems perfectly capable of doing this all on her own.

I understand you've been committee members or held some office or another there so you do not get to claim impartiality on any level. I however get to wear that shirt proudly because my information is based on the facts of what has been said and done in public and otherwise (you're not the only one with contacts Les). Oh and the fact that the councli were caught bold face lying and according to the documentation so too have MFNZ and possibly the CAA.

It seems you're introducing new information to the debate in THIS forum that was not previously here and (IMHO) has no use other than to try and save the rats from a sinking (MFNZ) ship. Do not endeavour to ameliorate MFNZs position by adding information that has no relevance to your part of this debate, that being you're siding with the organisation of which your wife is still active as the list moderator (a position that would not be granted lightly and restrictions placed at the request of a sitting member no doubt).

Anyway I am satisfied that MFNZ are in fact the ones bringing the hobby/sport into disrepute because they are well out of order here and about this matter as a whole!

[lesterpk]

The letter I referred to has been publicly posted in another forum (link http://www.parkflyers.org.nz/modules/newbb/dl_attachment.php?attachid=1340611540&post_id=52622) by a former SWMAC member, the facts are that the flying site has not been registered in the MFNZ database and the fact of that having not been done is that flying at the site is not covered by insurance. This is black and white, go read the insurance PDF on the MFNZ website. No scurilous allegations there, just the facts.

Its my personal opinion that MFNZ will at somepoint have to put out a statement to members, thats all.

It became my business when people falsely accused the moderators of doing things they have no inclination or reason to do. You are correct in your statement that I am not a curent MFNZ or SWMAC member, but then neither are you so apart from feeling the need to continually defend Bruce/SWMAC and attack me for posting verifiable facts, why are you posting?

Having not met me you make a gross error of judgement as to my motives. I dont care who is right or wrong, but if information is posted supporting one side of the story that I know to be false I'll call the person out on it, whether they be SWMAC/SWDC/MFNZ/CAA or whoever. I look forward to Bruce following up on his promise on the email list of posting all the documents, should make for interesting reading.

It may turn out that Bruce is right, or it may turn out MFNZ or CAA is right, in my experience in similar matters, the truth will lie some where in the middle.

I wish I had discovered these forums in a happier time, looks like lots of good information to be had amongst them.

Halmark - I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this topic.

Bruce - you have our personal emails, and Gypsy gave you our phone number a while back. Feel free to use them if you want some more help.

[pldb64]

Hi Les/Gypsy,

It seems that dealings with the MFNZ are far from easy and often occur without consultation! Your own experiences seem to add to the justification in people asking questions of the MFNZ on both this and the various SIG lists that you published earlier.

Personally i welcomed your input Les - the two experiences you've mentioned that relate to the MFNZ place the office bearers of that organisation into an even dimmer light than they may have already been in this forum!

To add to comments made above, i'm sure everyone who is fair minded would like the truth to come out and those responsible then be brought to account for their actions.

We'll all be waiting to hear what the MFNZ has to say for itself. If you're in a position to help make that happen, i think you're input will be warmly received.

Thanks
Peter

[bmsweb]

. . . in my experience in similar matters, the truth will lie some where in the middle.

I'm in agreement with you on the above statement, but in this instance I would honestly have expected Bruce to be the Childish one, (No Offense Bruce, because I know you like to . . . have fun and all ), but at the end of the day it appears MFNZ refused to comment on air and in fact mislead the Media and appear to have got caught out Internationally. If MFNZ is going to be telling lies and then get caught out, its really hard not to take Bruce's side in this matter.

I notice you said "but if information is posted supporting one side of the story that I know to be false I'll call the person out on it". So I guess based on this statement MFNZ have done no wrong at all??? That's right they are not saying anything!!

[RCModelReviews]

The original letter asked SWMAC to do 3 things, provide an undertaking that SWMAC and its members will fly to MFNZ and CAA rules, provide a copy of current club rules, and the take the steps neccesary to register the site so as to ensure insurance cover.

Yes we we sent a copy of our club rules, a commitment to enforce CAA and MFNZ regulations/rules and advised MFNZ that we would seek written permission from the SWDC to prove that we were authorised to use the field for model flying.

We approached the SWDC who said that they would only give us that permission once we had satisfied all of MFNZ's requirements.

Can you see the catch-22 situation?

The SWDC would not sign off on giving permission until we had the approval of MFNZ. MFNZ would not give us their approval until we had the permission needed from the SWDC.

One of our members, who is a lawyer, attended our meeting with the SWDC and pointed out that as affiliated members of MFNZ, any rules that our club might have would be additional to those of MFNZ so our simple "two rules" were more than adequate and in fact, filled in the gaps and voids that may exist within the MFNZ and CAA regulations.

Where do you go from there?

I would be interested in seeing when Bruce posts it, the letter in reply to the MFNZ one. Did the SWMAC try and satisfy any of the 3 things? Did the letter say, heres what you asked for, now about those complaints, can we have some information so we can identify times/places etc.

I will post it from another computer but it does address the issues as I described above -- but left us with the catch-22 situation I've described.

The were/are options available to Bruce and SWMAC, but it seems to me the "go nuclear" option has been used up already.

It was not our intention to "go nuclear" -- we actually encouraged people to *thank* the SWDC. It is just unfortunate that their decision to ban us was delivered a day after we invited people to deliver that thanks through the media. If we were still flying there then I'm sure the TV story would have been nothing but positive...

"Small Kiwi council helps local club become a world-wide hit on YouTube"

Instead, it turned around and bit the SWDC and MFNZ on the arse. We made the video unlisted as soon as we received the banning letter from the SWDC but by then the media had already received many hundreds of letters of thanks. When they contacted us I had to tell them that the situation had changed and we were now banned -- seemingly at the diktat of our national model flying body.

Also remember that:

MFNZ is unwilling or unable to provide the list of allegations and evidence to back them up.

We were faced with a catch-22 situation in respect to meeting the demands of the parties involved.

We were then threatened with trespass and forbidden to fly.

I think our options for a reasonable, sensible resolution were near-exhausted.

I think you'd have to agree that MFNZ owes all of its affiliated clubs the right to review any complaints laid against it and any allegations of wrong-doing.

We have been denied that.

I think you'd also have to agree that a representative body such as MFNZ has a responsibility to liaise with an affiliated club to try and resolve any issues that might arise *before* they bring in third parties.

I think you'd also have to agree that it beggars belief that MFNZ would go out and actively solicit complaints against one of its member clubs in the way they have.

I also think you have to agree that for MFNZ to blatantly lie about their involvement in this matter, in a way that was very clearly captured on national TV must challenge the veracity of all the vague, unspecified, claims of wrongdoing that it is leveling at the SWMAC.

Based on the feedback I've received over this issue -- all we've seen is the detonator - not the nuke.

However, I really hope everyone will put their sensible-shoes on and come to their senses over this ridiculous situation.

[RCModelReviews]

the facts are that the flying site has not been registered in the MFNZ database and the fact of that having not been done is that flying at the site is not covered by insurance. This is black and white, go read the insurance PDF on the MFNZ website. No scurilous allegations there, just the facts.

However, the field has been used for MFNZ-sanctioned events for nearly 30 years -- and the SWMAC has only been in existence for 6 years.

What about the 24 years prior to the SWMAC when people were flying plyon, aerobatics, helicopters and jets with no insurance?

When the SWMAC was formed, we naturally assumed that, in light of this long history of MFNZ-sanctioned model-flying events and the existence of a club at the site before us -- plus the fact that the airfield is clearly marked as a "model flying area" on the CAA's own records -- that it had been registered with MFNZ.

Why did MFNZ allow such a protracted period of model flying at the field? Did nobody bother to check before significant (and quite high-risk) events such as jet meetings were held there?

It's quite convenient to lay the blame at the SWMAC's door and perhaps we should have checked that the previous club and MFNZ had done their job properly -- but to lay the blame for 30 years worth of "uninsured flying" at our door is a bit steep.

[Hallmark]

Is it time to say or not yet???