Jump to content

How to kill off one man


Recommended Posts

Advert


I have been following this for some time.

Both sides have done stupid things but does look like the top people in MFNZ are out to get him any way they can (in my humble opinion)....

He needs some very good legal advice and help.

I don't think our own BMFA would ever take anything as far?????
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have watched several of his videos and found them very useful, he is not afraid to tell it like it is, and I have not seen anything that I would disagree with. Unfortunately this does not go down well with those on the receiving end of criticism. In this instance I suspect that nzmaa have no defence otherwise they would not have resorted to underhand tactics, but would have been prepared to challenge him openly and show that he is wrong. I think I will send a donation to help him, particularly as his video channel is funded by donations, and I have found them useful and interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the various forums you will find it is not as black and white as Bruce makes out. From what i read apparently there had been a number of instances of bad flying, e.g. planes chasing go-karts and complaints raised by some of the full size pilots using the airfield. This instigated a letter from MFNZ asking them to implement the recommended safety rules which is what Bruce was referring to and refused to accept

Bruce makes a big thing of the MFNZ not policing it's members, but surely it is down to the clubs operating at a site to do this?

On the MFNZ side I think they mishandled the situation by invalidating his competence certificate. By all means refuse his membership renewal, but a person's ability does not change so I don't see the justification for invalidation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason I am unable to add a comment to his Utube vid so I thought I'd post it here as part of my take on the situation.

"Well I think they've boxed you in by setting the conditions for others to do their dirty work for them. Fly on the airfield and then post a video and you provide the evidence for your own successful prosecution for breaking the law of the land (CAA). The airfield owner/opperator will also be in the firing line for not ensuring compliance with the law by all using the airfield and face a potential heavy fine or loss of opperating licence. Use another certified model flyer as your 'buddy' and they will find out who it is, by using the airfield opperator to gain the info under the pretexed of ensuring compliance with the law, and the modeller will then loose his cert of competance. Thus no legal way to fly on the airfield.
You need another site outside the ATZ."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, big surprise. if you publicly and flagrantly break the rules you will eventually suffer the consequences. It is not as if he was not warned...there were complaints from full size aircraft operators. I don't think MFNZ actually had a lot of choice about things once they got to the point they did, and I doubt if there is really any sort of vendetta against him personally.

If you are flying models in a way that adversely affects full size aircraft you are going to lose out, and probably lose access to the site. If you make a big enough nuisance of yourself, then you are going to be expeled from your club or even the national organisation. At that point it does become reasonable to question if he actually is competent to fly...not in the sense of having the ability to twiddele the stick, but in the sense of whether or not he is someone you wish to trust to fly models. This becomes a very important question if you are the one carrying the insurance risk.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce does like courting controversy... not only is he up against the local council and the MFNZ, he's also up against various governments for building a DIY cruise missile- and subsequently getting done on the grounds of tax evasion (bit of an Al Capone move I suspect).

From the various e-mails, statements and posts flying round it's quite obvious that the MFNZ are mightly annoyed with him and quite clearly some of the statements they have made (such as the one on their website today) shows that its partially personal rather than following due process. Equally, some of the things they have said (and which he has had a hissy fit about) seem fair enough. It seems reasonable that if he's not in the MFNZ he can't use the MFNZ wings as proof of competency.

This all started ages ago when (as a result of some of his videos) the MFNZ wrote to him as head of the club (SWMAC) saying he needed to ensure the members flew according to the MFNZ regulations. To me that seems fair enough. However the response was not good. Consequently the club was banned from flying at their field by the council after being contacted by the MFNZ. In response to this he buzzed the council offices with a quad (albeit it a small one)!

Some of the things the MFNZ have done have crossed the line from due process into personal vendetta and some of them appear to be disproportionate (such as now saying that if he ever wants to rejoin the MFNZ he would have to do so as a commercial organisation because he gets money for the videos from Youtube). However, it does appear that the majority of the culpability here lies with Bruce. There was dangerous flying going on at the club he ran, the MFNZ wrote to him saying it was a breach of MFNZ rules as well as invalidating insurance and not only did he refuse to enforce the rules he put videos on Youtube moking them and saying publically that he was never going to do so. He gave the MFNZ no option- he publically said "no I'm not going to, what are you going to do about it" and they showed him.

Some people have got a chip on their shoulder and a bad attitude unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all walks of life, whether that be a model club or society in general, there are people who think the rules, made for the greater good of everyone, don't apply to them. Take for example those drivers who think it's acceptable to use a hand held mobile whilst at the wheel. They know it's dangerous, they know it's illegal, but they do it basically because they are selfish individuals who care little for the safety of other road users. I have no sympathy for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The email from the MFNZ makes very interesting reading and it dose look like Bruce is his own man, not always right, it’s a shame as he makes some very good videos and it looks like this will run and run.

Let’s hope he takes his foot out of his mouth and continues making good videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a mess! Some faults on both sides here I think and some fair points on both sides. Its just such a pity that they are both digging themselves in so deep, saying things that can't be easily "unsaid". They are steadily removing all possibilities of a compromise that would satisfy everone. Crazy.

It won't happen but the only way I could see this being settled would be for an external third party (preferably from outside of NZ, perhaps form AMA or BMFA or the like?) with no previous history in this dispute, the wisdom of Soloman and the patience of a saint to arbitrate. But my guess is that neither MFNZ, nor the person concerned, would agree to be bound by the outcome of such an arbitration. Sad.

BEB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame its gotten to this point.

This comment made me squint a little...

"Mr Simpson only setup this as a commercial operation to support himself. If so, he should never have been part of MFNZ as our charter is only for hobby members flying for recreation"

Isnt that like saying you cant joint the BMFA if you also own a model shop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well both sides have said a lot a fairly silly things if you ask me!

One point to bear in mind here chaps - obviously I don't know about the MFNZ set up - but here in the UK, our insurance is only valid for recreational use. If you fly models for a living - or for payment - it would be invalid and you would have to make your own arrangements. I don't know but it could be this aspect they are refering to?

BEB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...