Zachary wrote:
...As a former CAF colonel, and potentially one again down the road, I find it interesting to know how decisions are made at the top. I'm sure many folks feel the same way when EAA's "politics" get brought up now and again. I'd wager there's some facts strewn about amongst the heresay in this thread that critical thinkers can spot and appreciate.
There may be facts as you say, Zachary, but how are you going to spot them? As has just been said, it's more like a messy divorce, and the 'facts' are being presented to support an
a priori point of view.
As I said, I'd be hard pressed to say what's what. A comparison would be the Twin Mustang saga, where, despite a lot of noise smoke and a bit of disinformation, it was possible to draw a conclusion.
maradamx3 wrote:
I say keep the information coming. Just as some may not want to hear or read about this topic, I don't want to hear those of you saying you don't want to hear or read this stuff. You think someone is going to obey your "recommendation" and stop posting? Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses here. It is, after all, a message board - under "General Discussion" - "The Wix Hangar". General discussion - fairly broad range of topics could go there. "The Wix Hangar", ok, maybe aviation related?? Check. What's the problem? Where does it say what topics cannot be discussed, or can only be discussed? As said earlier, if you don't like it, don't click on the thread. I find it interesting, as do several others based on the amount of traffic. Thank you to all who have contributed to this thread discussion.
The problem, Tommy, as I see it, is it
isn't a 'discussion' but a polarised, adversarial rant. Should one side offer the other a gold wrapped diamond and a lifetime apology, we'd still not hear the end of it. There's too much history.
As I said before, the only resolution, rather than throwing or hiding mud, will be within the CAF's governance. I also note (and add) that there is not a mention of an active, likely challenge to the current running of the CAF, which therefore implies that while the matter may be unpopular with some, it's not going to be changed
through due process.
As a journalist writing about vintage aviation, one of the sadder parts of my job is listening to rants and bitching by some about others. Generally, unless there's some benefit or injustice to address successfully, I don't report it; as I said before, it mainly makes the winger look bad.
We've had one line drawn under the matter, it all went quiet, and here we are again. I can draw a conclusion from that. In that, I can clearly see that the 'outside' team aren't going to get what makes them happy again from the CAF.
Of course people are going to watch the thread. It's 'interesting' like a road crash or a domestic in the front yard. Like both of those it isn't going to be resolved by the rubberneckers, but by those involved.
Finally, I note that the CAF is solvent, stable and in the process of getting aircraft like
Fifi into the air. One person's good financial practice is another's fraud. Unless you can bring that latter complaint home constitutionally (within the organisation) or legally (to the organisation) then it's just sour grapes. This wouldn't be the first time there's been a spinoff group from the CAF. That's positive energy, well used. This isn't.
Please note that none of what I've said is comment on any
person, or their own views, but based on input to this thread only.
I've been advised that if I don't like it, I should keep out. That's it, I'm happy to leave this pig wrestle.
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
And memories that would NEVER have been thinkable in any other organization.
