Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1843246
JAFO wrote:If it was your school and you operated in that way, I wouldn't want to rent from you again.

I think that demonstrates my point well. Many seem to have made their minds up about the school based on a single post without the school having an opportunity to put their side, or more importantly, to hold their hands up and say sorry, we'll put it right.

It seems many did the same and gave the school a bit of a kicking whilst the thread lasted.

I defy anyone witnessing their business getting slated so not to be **** off.

Here's another example of the school being found guilty by trial by internet.
A4 Pacific wrote:If he has one iota of common sense, he won’t be giving this business the opportunity to turn down his future custom.

Tell me A4, do you honestly believe starting a post as he did is the professional way to go about resolving an issue with a business?

How would you feel reading that thread if it was your business?
By A4 Pacific
#1843249
How would you feel reading that thread if it was your business?


The OP didn’t identify the school. He specifically made that point! The vast majority here haven’t a Scooby doo who the school is. Many of us have the luxury of not caring. But those not in that fortunate position should not be denied information upon which to base expensive decisions.

I’m just of a view that whoever it is, on the basis of what the OP wrote, I personally wouldn’t be spending any more of my hard earned money there.

What’s wrong with that?
TopCat, JAFO liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1843252
Miscellaneous wrote:
How would you feel reading that thread if it was your business?


I would feel the need to address it. No business wants customers who are dissatisfied. Two of the options:

a) are to boot out the unhappy customer for having the temerity not to enjoy giving me their hard-earned in exchange for a below par (in their view) service.

b) or talk with the customer and see what I could do to resolve it amicably.

In my experience it is easy to turn b) into a marketing and promotional opportunity. Option a) rarely leads to business success and retirement to the Maldives.

There is, of course, c) just ignore it all and hope it goes away. It won't.

Rob P:
A4 Pacific, TopCat, Flyin'Dutch' and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1843255
A4 Pacific wrote:What’s wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing, be so kind as to point me at where I suggested there was something wrong with that.

Now, if I may explain why I wouldn't want his custom. Because I wouldn't once again want not to be given an opportunity to address a customers dissatisfaction and have him run to the internet and have folks exclaim.
A4 Pacific wrote:I’m just of a view that whoever it is, on the basis of what the OP wrote, I personally wouldn’t be spending any more of my hard earned money there.

What's wrong with that? Seems good business sense to me.

b) or talk with the customer and see what I could do to resolve it amicably.

@Rob P but they weren't given an opportunity BEFORE the customer's story was all over a flying forum and members had concluded the guilt of the business.

Bad form by any measure!
Last edited by Miscellaneous on Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Shellie liked this
User avatar
By Iceman
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1843257
I’d expect any school, be they renting to either a freashly-minted PPL or to a seasoned 25000 hour ATPL SkyGod, to sign out (authorise) every single flight, irrespective of how many flights the person has done with the school. This is no reflection of the capability of the pilot, merely a procedural issue that the school has authorised the flight(s) in their aircraft. If people have a problem with obtaining such an approval then they [i]are[i/] the problem.

Iceman 8)
Shoestring Flyer, patowalker, AndyR and 2 others liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1843259
lobstaboy wrote:
TopCat wrote:
Then two crusty gnarled types came in (obviously hugely experienced skygods), looked at the TAFs for a minute, and one said to the other....

"Mm, I don't really like the look of the weather, I think I'll stay on the ground today". The other one nodded, and then they left.

My friend and I looked at each other in disbelief as the weather was rarely any better. We went over the TAFs again, decided that after all we hadn't missed obvious TS or TCU, or SHRAGS, and it was going to be lovely all day. So we went flying and it was great.

I only say this as I think it's hugely important for people to ensure they have the opportunities to learn to make sound flying judgements for themselves.


Yes, a good story about having confidence in your own decision making. And yet, by implication you are criticising the other pilots for their decision.

Er no. I am absolutely implying no such thing. You might be inferring criticism, but you can't blame me for that.

People generally are far too quick to interpret something in a particular way and assume that that's how it was meant. Funny isn't it, how it absolutely never happens they interpret it more positively than it was meant - it's always negative.

Do you know for sure their level of experience? Or what they had been planning to do? Where were they going to go? Was the weather benign for their whole route for instance?

I had no idea of any of those things, which was why our disbelief had nothing to do with them - it was about the possibility that there'd been something wrong with our (mostly my) planning. The comment on the weather was so extraordinary given what it was like outside, and what the TAFs were saying, that we genuinely thought we might have missed something.

My post above had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with criticising anyone, and everything about learning how to take responsibility for the whole judgement-forming process. Which, actually, I thought the other thread was about.

The trouble with having opportunity to learn to make judgements for yourself is that if you get it wrong you may be dead. I don't think any of us should ignore advice that is properly explained and comes from a reliable source - that way you learn by being able to say "Oooh that's nasty, I'm glad I was warned about that, that's a good learning experience," rather than "Oh bu99er I'm frightened, I wish someone had warned me about this."

I agree, but I don't think anyone on this thread or the other one has been suggesting anything of the sort.
JAFO liked this
By A4 Pacific
#1843261
What's wrong with that? Seems good business sense to me.


Nothing at all.

At least it would free the customer from any utterly misguided loyalty to avoid naming the school.

That identity would be of assistance to anyone wishing to select one of many available organisations to hand over a five figure sum to.

So it’s all good. :thumright:

There were many different and potentially illuminating facets to this story. Not merely that the renter was told he wasn’t ‘up to’ the (benign) conditions.

From what has been written so far, I don’t think ‘he’ is/was the problem at all here!

Perhaps I’m wrong?
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1843266
TopCat wrote:
lobstaboy wrote:
The trouble with having opportunity to learn to make judgements for yourself is that if you get it wrong you may be dead. I don't think any of us should ignore advice that is properly explained and comes from a reliable source - that way you learn by being able to say "Oooh that's nasty, I'm glad I was warned about that, that's a good learning experience," rather than "Oh bu99er I'm frightened, I wish someone had warned me about this."

I agree, but I don't think anyone on this thread or the other one has been suggesting anything of the sort.


OK I accept most of what you've said @TopCat (the bits I've left out of the quote I've copied). Because, as has been pointed out by foxmoth I now think the gnarled old skygods were probably extracting the Michael having seen how long you took over your decision making on what was obviously a glorious day. I think it's called pilot humour ;)

But I don't agree with the bit of your post that I've quoted. That's exactly what has been suggested - that the OP was told he couldn't fly without a proper explanation and without the opportunity to learn from it. That's what all the fuss is about.

Anyway I'm out now...
Last edited by lobstaboy on Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1843268
Perhaps the school owner who allegedly is known by some and visits here might like to post his reaction to this thread under 'anon' in the ''It happened to me'' Section.

Then the rest of us with views might hear both sides of the story.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1843276
Iceman wrote:I’d expect any school, be they renting to either a freashly-minted PPL or to a seasoned 25000 hour ATPL SkyGod, to sign out (authorise) every single flight, irrespective of how many flights the person has done with the school. This is no reflection of the capability of the pilot, merely a procedural issue that the school has authorised the flight(s) in their aircraft. If people have a problem with obtaining such an approval then they [i]are[i/] the problem.

Iceman 8)


Maybe I have ever only been hiring from cavalier outfits but other than signing the book there has been, other than when I had my PPL just in my pocket, never been any 'authorising' of any flights.

What sort of bollox is that?

How do they authorise flights which take their aeroplanes away from base?
PeteSpencer, Kittyhawk liked this
User avatar
By MattL
#1843282
Authorisation is a military concept so will certainly happen in military clubs and some with military links / staff legacy I am guessing. In the clubs I’m involved in, PPL hirers will usually be given self authorisation approval after they have a little experience post licence issue. It is basically a way of someone providing a little bit of mentoring / oversight in the pre flight planning phase.
JAFO, flybymike liked this
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1843285
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Maybe I have ever only been hiring from cavalier outfits but other than signing the book there has been, other than when I had my PPL just in my pocket, never been any 'authorising' of any flights.

What sort of bollox is that?

How do they authorise flights which take their aeroplanes away from base?


You had a PPL and were hiring Part 21 aircraft. A different world.
By IMCR
#1843286
Miscellaneous wrote:
A4 Pacific wrote:What’s wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing, be so kind as to point me at where I suggested there was something wrong with that.

Now, if I may explain why I wouldn't want his custom. Because I wouldn't once again want not to be given an opportunity to address a customers dissatisfaction and have him run to the internet and have folks exclaim.
A4 Pacific wrote:I’m just of a view that whoever it is, on the basis of what the OP wrote, I personally wouldn’t be spending any more of my hard earned money there.

What's wrong with that? Seems good business sense to me.

b) or talk with the customer and see what I could do to resolve it amicably.

@Rob P but they weren't given an opportunity BEFORE the customer's story was all over a flying forum and members had concluded the guilt of the business.

Bad form by any measure!


Hold on just one moment.

I dont see any evidence the club was identified.

The CFI (or whoever it was) appears to have simply refused to authorise the flight. No expanation. It would have taken a moment to give a reason.

The internet is littered with trade related sites giving reviews and feedbacks, even on professional firms these days. It is one person's opinion and we all know this. A sort of Check-a-Trade of flying schools.

There was nothing here to stop the club engaging on Flyer or with the original poster (better the last in the first instance).

It seems to me a new pilot who doenst know how these things work was simply asking for a view as to whether events were reasonable for a situation that is pretty generic from my experience.

I see no harm done and I think it unjustified to make such an issue out of this.

Of course the club could turn away his business in future, but I dont see why on the basis of what has been written. If I were they I would far rather have a chat with the pilot who would seem more than willing to report back and presumably support his club if the explantion is reasonable.
A4 Pacific, Ben K, JAFO and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1843289
patowalker wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Maybe I have ever only been hiring from cavalier outfits but other than signing the book there has been, other than when I had my PPL just in my pocket, never been any 'authorising' of any flights.

What sort of bollox is that?

How do they authorise flights which take their aeroplanes away from base?


You had a PPL and were hiring Part 21 aircraft. A different world.


This chap has his licence and was wanting to hire an aeroplane, innit?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8