Page 8 – Key Publishing

patb

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 126 total)

← 1 2 3 … 7 8 9 →

Author

Posts
October 9, 2003 at 2:49 pm in reply to: copy of e-mail to Old Warden #2119492

patb
Participant

there is no way that I am suggesting that OW invest in catering facilities rather than restoration. Exactly the opposite. By investing in the catering side, they can actually create revenue.

I would guess that any museum that seeks to maximise the funding for the restoration of it’s exhibits at the sacrafice of it’s infrastructure will not last long. Most punters judge their enjoyment of an airshow on the total experience rather than simply the list of aircraft seen. And it is this judgement which decides if they return again and what they tell their friends.

My complaint to OW was both that the catering is poor and that they are missing out on potential revenue.

October 8, 2003 at 1:14 pm in reply to: copy of e-mail to Old Warden #2120347

patb
Participant

one of my points to OW was that they are missing out on potential revenue by not offering better food. I think many people are happy to pay £4/5 for something decent. Setting up a shed selling donkey burgers simply shows no imagination. There is no real reason why they have to use outside contractors who turn up with the fish and chip vans on the morning. They run so many events thoughout the year that I am sure that they could invest in some better quality catering units. (they cold even hire them out to DX when the dates don’t clash) In the long term, they would repay for themselves both financially and from a good will basis from punters who want something better than a piece of donkey in a 5p bread roll. I realise why many of you take picnics but from OW’s point of view, every visitor who brings a picnic is lost revenue.

I don’t want to go into marketing speak but the demographics at OW is different from other shows with a more mature audience who I am sure may pay an extra £1 for the chance not to wait 20 mins to be served and also some decent food. OW has fantastic potential (similar in my mind to Brooklands) with a very strong brand/image and they are really not making the most of it.

I am hoping to go to France next year for a couple a shows and I have heard that they do have decent grub

The cafe is a very nice place for a tea and pastie but only on a non-display day. As soon as we saw the the line of punters waiting to be served at the cafe , we thought why bother?. Again, more lost revenue.

Final point, with so many of us using digital cameras, perhaps next year we should run a competiotion for best/worst food and best/worst toilets. Each nomination must come with a colour photo as evidence. Perhaps Flypast could sponsor a “Golden Burger” Award (or “Golden loobrush 🙂

October 7, 2003 at 4:28 pm in reply to: copy of e-mail to Old Warden #2120692

patb
Participant

I try to hint within the e-mail that more burger vans is not the solution. I am sure that they could come up with something a little more up market (hog roust, BBQ etc), the quality of the catering is always a reflection of the rest of the event. Yes, I do try to take a picnic, but sometimes some hot food hits the spot.

August 24, 2003 at 10:01 am in reply to: good pub in old warden? #2089947

patb
Participant

thanks for all the advice. Only had time to try the Hare and Hounds which was very good. Will try to visit them all next season

August 22, 2003 at 11:44 am in reply to: Duxford to ban aerobatics??? #2090838

patb
Participant

so if landing and take off are the most dangerous areas of flight for warbirds (and indeed all aircraft), if we want to keep them flying, other ways of reducing the accident figures have to be looked at. Stopping aerobatics would seem a logical option, despite a hard one to come to terms with for all of us.

I hate the idea of taking my son to airshows in future and boring him of stories about the good old days when Spitfires did loop the loops.

But can we clarify that we are talking about a possible restriction that would apply to airshows only. Then the issue will be that if private warbird owners are still going to be free in their own time to do aerobatics, there does seem little point in restricting our right to take pleasure in watching them. This them moves the argument on to how more likely bystanders are to be injured by a warbird doing aeros rather than straight and level.

Looks like am am arguing with myself now! brain starting to hurt.

August 22, 2003 at 11:09 am in reply to: Duxford to ban aerobatics??? #2090846

patb
Participant

I don’t want to put words into Steve’s mouth but I assume that the figures he quotes take into consideration the flying hours. There are few warbirds around compared to things like Cessnas etc and I would guess that warbirds are flown for fewer hours per average week. So of course the annual accident list will be dominated by 172’s and Arrows and alike but that really isn’t the point.

I am sure that Ford Focus’s are near the top of the accident list in terms of pure numbers. That doesn’t make them unsafe, just popular

I have to agree with Steve 100% regarding his comments on self regulation. It has to be in Duxford’s interest’s to be pro-active on the safety issues rather than let the regualtors step in

August 22, 2003 at 10:01 am in reply to: Duxford to ban aerobatics??? #2090862

patb
Participant

making decisions concerning the possible banning of warbird aerobatics should be backed up by facts rather than perceptions. I wonder if any studies have (or will) be done based on accidents (and fatalities) per hour flown in the same way that these surveys are done for airliners.

My gut reaction would be that these figures would show that aerobatics in a warbird is clearly more dangerous than straight and level flight (and driving on the M25).

August 21, 2003 at 4:17 pm in reply to: Duxford to ban aerobatics??? #2091348

patb
Participant

Surely, if you look at the hours that a warbird spends doing aerobatics compared to straight and level flight, it is a certainty that problems will occur (some leading to accidents) whilst simply flying from A to B. But, pro-rata, problems are more likely during aerobatics. You will always be able to find some other factor that occurs more often simply because it happens within an environment that is more common, but we don’t then use that to justify doing the more dangerous thing.

( I am more likely to be killed in a car crash but I don’t use that fact to justify knife juggling) I balance the risk versus the advantages. Aerobatics for warbirds adds to the risk and gives us little back.

Even though we are dealing with an emotional subject (both with the lives of the pilots and the cherished aircraft), the bottom line has to be statistics and risk management.

August 21, 2003 at 12:31 pm in reply to: Duxford to ban aerobatics??? #2091427

patb
Participant

I am not sure that I understand the logic behind listing aircraft that have crashed within non-aerobatic situations and using that to attemptt to justify the continuation of warbird aerobatics.
Risk management is always going to be a compromise. Is there anyone on the forum that thinks that warbird aerobatics is as safe as a straight, level flypast?
In the long term, having no warbird aerobatic displays will reduce the number of accidents and even save lives. (to test this theory, pretend that warbird aerobatics were banned at airshows 20 years ago)
Although I would be personally dissapointed, how many airshow visitors would decide not to come because of this single issue? very,very few.
Yes, if you take it to an extreme, you ban the flying of warbirds full stop, but this is where the compromise comes in. If we can make warbird airshow flying safer but still have a thriving airshow circuit in the UK, then why not?

again, just my 2 pence

August 5, 2003 at 1:34 pm in reply to: L39 forced lands near Duxford – ‘pilot uninjured’ #2097442

patb
Participant

“After two double fatalities in two years, one of which involved the M11, it’s time the pilots at Duxford stopped playing silly buggers with valuable antiques.”

Before I write to the editor of the Telegraph to complain, can I just confirm the statement above is untrue?

July 23, 2003 at 1:36 pm in reply to: Dayton Ohio 2003 Airshow #2102063

patb
Participant

just got back from dayton yesterday, very interesting show, will post pics if someone can point me towards instructions on how to attach jpg

June 22, 2003 at 9:40 pm in reply to: Valance By ways update #2109243

patb
Participant

I went to the open day on Saturday. Over the boundary on the Gatwick Airport area was a very strange all grey beast with the tail of a DC10 and what looked to ne the nose of a 747. Someone was actually on a cherry picker paiting it with a hand roller.

Any ideas?

June 14, 2003 at 7:55 pm in reply to: Brooklands fly-in today #2111168

patb
Participant

thanks for the photos, all very nice.

But if they are going to organise a fly-in and advertise it, does it not make sense to try to earn some cash from it? thats all I was saying.

And there was nothing around telling people that the Vangaurd was going to start up, simple things like signs up saying, “came and see the Vanguard at 2pm” and then pass the bucket round etc.it’s not rocket science

June 10, 2003 at 9:54 am in reply to: Corsair 4FU Wing Hinges #2112440

patb
Participant

I am off to Duxford on Sunday, I can try to get some close up shots if available and send them over to you

June 9, 2003 at 3:41 pm in reply to: Old Warden, Tiger Moths, Wind, and more hair loss #2112740

patb
Participant

yes, that was me, don’t worry, I can see when I man is not happy with the world and you fell into that catagory. I was hoping that the weather would get better but no luck. It was clear that many of the Moth owners wanted to leave to avoid getting stuck over night, can’t blame them. Hope you get your ride some other time 🙂
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 126 total)

← 1 2 3 … 7 8 9 →