mark_pilkington.
The 75th Anniversary Celebrations of the 1934 Air Race were held over the last weekend 23-25th of October, with the historic TAA DC-3 Hawdon / VH-AES being dressed as the KLM DC-2 “Uiver” and setting off from Melbourne on firday afternoon with a full compliment of members of the Australian National Aviation Museum and 3 special guests, the son and grandsons of the “Uiver’s Navigator, the Van Brugge’s had flown over from the Netherlands especially for the anniversary events.
The DC-3 Re-enactment flight arrived over Albury at 6pm and flew around over the town on the same day, 75 years later than that stormy night when the KLM race entrant was hopelessly lost in storms, with a Nangchung camera ship.
Two precautionary approaches with gear down were undertaken the Albury Racecourse in full view of 300 guests assembled at a large hangar at the adjacent Albury Airport awaiting the Albury City Council’s Uiver Commemorative dinner to commence.
The re-enactment flight landed and taxied up to the Hangar and a throng of local and dutch media crews and the disembarking passengers were welcomed by the Mayor of Albury and the Dutch Ambassador to Australia.
A private aircraft display then followed with a Lockheed 12, harvard and Alan Arthur’s P40.
A very enjoyable night was had with formal speeches, film clips, a taped personal message to the people of Albury from the CEO of KLM, fine food, dancing and a radio play of the Uiver landing in 1934 by the local Albury Theatre company.
The next day saw the towns people treated to a free airshow with the same aircraft and more on static and aerial display.
The opportunity was taken to inspect the new Albury Airport terminal opened on Friday, and the “Uiver” cafe with its “Illusion” mural of the Uiver landing.
The re-enactment flight departed Albury @12.30 for the return flight into Melbourne, but with a secret stopover for lunch at an aladins cave of warbirds somewhere in northern Victoria, full of new and under construction P-40’s, a P-39, Japanese Tony, Boston, Kingfisher, vampire, Mirage, Jindavik, Sea Fury, Corsair and Vengeance.
The two near completed P-40’s were both without their cowls providing an interesting contrast between the merlin powered P-40F and Allison powered P-40N. – (Unfortunately no photos available)
The re-enactment flight continued down to Melbourne with low fly overs of Flemington Racecourse, (the 1934 finishing line) and the Laverton RAAF Base the Melbourne landing ground for the race entrants.
Arriving into Moorabbin at @3.30pm the aircraft was welcomed by the Mayor of the City of Kingstone, and local state MP in a formal reception at the Royal Victorian Aero Club.
At the Australian National Aviation Museum members a guests were treated to an interesting talk on flying the race route by Australian adventurer Lang Kidgy, recalling his own recreation flights of the Smith Brothers Vimy flight of 1919, and Bert Hinklers solo flight in an Avian in 1928.
A powerpoint presentation was then provided by museum member John McCulloch on the race and its entrants.
The Museum launched its 2009 edition of Plane Chocolate, a 32 page booklet on the 1934 air race, an update of its 50th anniversary edition in 1984.
Museum guests to the lecture, and to the museum over the weekend were treated to the museum’s own DC-2 being dressed in Uiver markings, and a display of 1934 Air Race memorabilia. A special treat at the lecture was the evening display of a small DH comet model signed by the two winning pilots on the evening of their arrival into Melbourne.
On sunday the DC-3 returned to its base at Tullamarine carrying a further 18 members of the museum.
The Museum’s 1934 Air Race Exhibition remains on display for the rest of the week as part of Victoria’s History Week 2009 celebrations.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkington.
Missed out on a copy of the Happy Educator Air Race souvenir map on evilbay a month ago,
but won this rare competitor’s race Mildenhall dinner menu to make up for it!
OO+!TqBKue4sdgg!~~_12.JPG)
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonOpen request to Key Publishing Forum Management
Gentlemen,
this thread is not for debating the recent issues of membership ban, but to provide a simple thread for members to add their names to the following request should they be so inclined:
as a member of your forum I respectfully request that the KP forum management instruct or empower the KP Webmaster to do one of the following three things based on an expectation raised through commitments via the Moderators for KP to provide a clear statement of the situation:
1. Provide a clear statement regarding the banning of Andy/Tangmere in his various forms clarifying the reasons.
2. Review that decision and withdraw the ban and provide Andy/Tangmere with a final warning over what ever transgressions he is accused of?
3. Make a clear statement “No correspondance will be entered into” and allow the remaining forum members to take it or leave it
I support KP’s right to enforce their rules, however the apparant commitment made via the Mods to provide a statement on this situation more than a week ago, requires to be honoured.
This needs to be done in the interest of been seen to be fair, and to bring this incident to a completion.
Regards
MARK PILKINGTON
mark_pilkingtonOpen request to Key Publishing Forum Management
Gentlemen,
this thread is not for debating the recent issues of membership ban, but to provide a simple thread for members to add their names to the following request should they be so inclined:
as a member of your forum I respectfully request that the KP forum management instruct or empower the KP Webmaster to do one of the following three things based on an expectation raised through commitments via the Moderators for KP to provide a clear statement of the situation:
1. Provide a clear statement regarding the banning of Andy/Tangmere in his various forms clarifying the reasons.
2. Review that decision and withdraw the ban and provide Andy/Tangmere with a final warning over what ever transgressions he is accused of?
3. Make a clear statement “No correspondance will be entered into” and allow the remaining forum members to take it or leave it
I support KP’s right to enforce their rules, however the apparant commitment made via the Mods to provide a statement on this situation more than a week ago, requires to be honoured.
This needs to be done in the interest of been seen to be fair, and to bring this incident to a completion.
Regards
MARK PILKINGTON
mark_pilkingtonActually I’m not really sure of the communications that are occuring between the Mods and KP Peter, and I dont mean that flippantly, I expect there are requests going in? but are you getting anything back – or simply deafening silence??
I havent expected the Mods to break any confidences or give us an update of internal discussions but since you have opened that door it has seemed Bruce has had some indication of the reasons behind this situation, are you all getting such briefings or feedback or only Bruce??
In the end however I do think KP need to clear the air themselves, (I cant see they can do any more damage than this festering sore is already doing??)
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonActually I’m not really sure of the communications that are occuring between the Mods and KP Peter, and I dont mean that flippantly, I expect there are requests going in? but are you getting anything back – or simply deafening silence??
I havent expected the Mods to break any confidences or give us an update of internal discussions but since you have opened that door it has seemed Bruce has had some indication of the reasons behind this situation, are you all getting such briefings or feedback or only Bruce??
In the end however I do think KP need to clear the air themselves, (I cant see they can do any more damage than this festering sore is already doing??)
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonWhy would there be no response from Key? They don’t care about it and hope that the subject will just quietly die?Or is there more to it than has been posted publically hence the gag order…??? IMHO, I think it is the latter and that this might be more serious than Andy or anyone else thinks..(Like I said my comments only and just an opinion)
Peter,
Frustrated,Moderator
Peter, I sympathise with the position KP have placed you and the other Mods, and understand the frustration that must exist that now has you pouring fuel on the fire of speculation yourself by raising the suggestion that no comment by KP is an indication of the seriousness of Andy’s contravention of the rules, KP need to bring this situation to a head, and an end.
for better or worse, I think this situation has now been allowed to fester on for so long that the KP Webmaster should do one of the following three things:
1. Provide a clear statement regarding the banning of Andy/Tangmere in his various forms clarifying the reasons.
2. Review that decision and withdraw the ban and provide Andy/Tangmere with a final warning over what ever transgressions he is accused of?
3. Make a clear statement “No correspondance will be entered into” and allow the remaining forum members to take it or leave it.
The forum has now lost at least one valuable contributor in protest over KP’s management of the situation, and there are no doubt others who have done so without public announcement, there is now the risk for KP that further silence on this matter will only alienate the remaining forum members, and this attitude will be promoted to the wider enthusiast reader audience of their publications.
While we all enjoy the KP forum, its value and attraction is in its contributors, not in the infrastructure provided by KP, and there are many existing forums members could be encouraged to move to, let alone set one up given the ease and low cost to do so.
I support KP’s right to enforce their rules, however the apparant commitment made via the Mods to provide a statement on this situation more than a week ago, requires to be honoured.
Can I suggest you and the other Mods seek KP to provide some type of statement in regard to this mess?
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonWhy would there be no response from Key? They don’t care about it and hope that the subject will just quietly die?Or is there more to it than has been posted publically hence the gag order…??? IMHO, I think it is the latter and that this might be more serious than Andy or anyone else thinks..(Like I said my comments only and just an opinion)
Peter,
Frustrated,Moderator
Peter, I sympathise with the position KP have placed you and the other Mods, and understand the frustration that must exist that now has you pouring fuel on the fire of speculation yourself by raising the suggestion that no comment by KP is an indication of the seriousness of Andy’s contravention of the rules, KP need to bring this situation to a head, and an end.
for better or worse, I think this situation has now been allowed to fester on for so long that the KP Webmaster should do one of the following three things:
1. Provide a clear statement regarding the banning of Andy/Tangmere in his various forms clarifying the reasons.
2. Review that decision and withdraw the ban and provide Andy/Tangmere with a final warning over what ever transgressions he is accused of?
3. Make a clear statement “No correspondance will be entered into” and allow the remaining forum members to take it or leave it.
The forum has now lost at least one valuable contributor in protest over KP’s management of the situation, and there are no doubt others who have done so without public announcement, there is now the risk for KP that further silence on this matter will only alienate the remaining forum members, and this attitude will be promoted to the wider enthusiast reader audience of their publications.
While we all enjoy the KP forum, its value and attraction is in its contributors, not in the infrastructure provided by KP, and there are many existing forums members could be encouraged to move to, let alone set one up given the ease and low cost to do so.
I support KP’s right to enforce their rules, however the apparant commitment made via the Mods to provide a statement on this situation more than a week ago, requires to be honoured.
Can I suggest you and the other Mods seek KP to provide some type of statement in regard to this mess?
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonBruce is correct. For those that want to know.. google this up or search the forums through google cache. It has nothing at all to do with a certain online auction site. If you do not know the true facts or reasosn then do not speculate on this forum!!!!!
Peter,
for better or worse, I think this situation has now been allowed to fester on for so long that the KP Webmaster should do one of the following three things:
1. Provide a clear statement regarding the banning of Andy/Tangmere in his various forms clarifying the reasons.
2. Review that decision and withdraw the ban and provide Andy/Tangmere with a final warning over what ever transgressions he is accused of?
3. Make a clear statement “No correspondance will be entered into” and allow the remaining forum members to take it or leave it.
The forum has now lost at least one valuable contributor in protest over KP’s management of the situation, and there are no doubt others who have done so without public announcement, there is now the risk for KP that further silence on this matter will only alienate the remaining forum members, and this attitude will be promoted to the wider enthusiast reader audience of their publications.
While we all enjoy the KP forum, its value and attraction is in its contributors, not in the infrastructure provided by KP, and there are many existing forums members could be encouraged to move to, let alone set one up given the ease and low cost to do so.
I support KP’s right to enforce their rules, however the apparant commitment made via the Mods to provide a statement on this situation more than a week ago, requires to be honoured.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonBruce is correct. For those that want to know.. google this up or search the forums through google cache. It has nothing at all to do with a certain online auction site. If you do not know the true facts or reasosn then do not speculate on this forum!!!!!
Peter,
for better or worse, I think this situation has now been allowed to fester on for so long that the KP Webmaster should do one of the following three things:
1. Provide a clear statement regarding the banning of Andy/Tangmere in his various forms clarifying the reasons.
2. Review that decision and withdraw the ban and provide Andy/Tangmere with a final warning over what ever transgressions he is accused of?
3. Make a clear statement “No correspondance will be entered into” and allow the remaining forum members to take it or leave it.
The forum has now lost at least one valuable contributor in protest over KP’s management of the situation, and there are no doubt others who have done so without public announcement, there is now the risk for KP that further silence on this matter will only alienate the remaining forum members, and this attitude will be promoted to the wider enthusiast reader audience of their publications.
While we all enjoy the KP forum, its value and attraction is in its contributors, not in the infrastructure provided by KP, and there are many existing forums members could be encouraged to move to, let alone set one up given the ease and low cost to do so.
I support KP’s right to enforce their rules, however the apparant commitment made via the Mods to provide a statement on this situation more than a week ago, requires to be honoured.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonJames,
sorry to see you go, your contributions will be greatly missed.
It is disappointing to loose a contributor to a forum, but I’m sure there is a life after KP for all of us, and I’m sure your contributions will be available to many of us on other sites.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonJames,
sorry to see you go, your contributions will be greatly missed.
It is disappointing to loose a contributor to a forum, but I’m sure there is a life after KP for all of us, and I’m sure your contributions will be available to many of us on other sites.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonHello Stuart
I cannot see any reason that Key owes anyone other than Andy an explanation. They clearly state the conditions of posting and they must feel he has violated these in some way. Wether they are right or not is a matter between them and Andy.
I appreciate what Andy brought to the forum as much as anyone but this subject has been done to death, its becomming more like facebook than a historic aviation site.
We do not pay to post here, its a service offered by Key they dont owe any of us anything.
It would be unfair on Andy if the reason he was banned were made public, if he wants to disclose them thats his business, but certainly not any of ours.
Graham, having watched many “maintain the rage” for what seems over a week or more, I am pleased to see your comments above finally mentioned in the debate.
We all seem to be assuming because we havent seen any evidence, that there is none justifying a ban, but we have no knowledge of what might have been transacting in PM’s etc outside the threads, that may have caused offence? etc.
I would agree the only person entitled to any explanation is the banned member, (even if KP advises them that the “judges decision is final”) and obviously that person can then choose to make the reasons public if they should choose to do so, and probably understandable if they disagree with them.
On the other hand a banned member who accepts his fault, might prefer to leave the reason unpublished and out of the public domain, and KP probably have a duty to not disclose the reasons to the rest of us simply on that basis alone.
In this particular case I suspect the banned member is making his own enquiries with KP as to the reason for the ban? if he has no suspicions to the offence?, and hopefully the webmaster will provide some explanation to that person on their return?
I am sure following representation by the Mods of the concerns expressed here that KP will or are reviewing this action to make sure its justified (when the webmaster is available to them), if they review and consider it is justified, I dont see that they need to then justify it to us?
Over on Wix a valued member was banned due to constant conflicts with the owners rules, and after a number of warnings. No amount of forumite “democracy” or lobbying is going to change that situation, “too many bridges burnt”, the decision is made, and it has become a principle of the owners decision being respected now rather than just the original issue. I think here too the owner’s rights to enforce their rules should be respected.
It is disappointing to loose a contributor to a forum, but in the cycle of life, being banned from one online aviation forum doesnt seem a major life changing experience?, I’m sure there is a life after KP for all of us.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonHello Stuart
I cannot see any reason that Key owes anyone other than Andy an explanation. They clearly state the conditions of posting and they must feel he has violated these in some way. Wether they are right or not is a matter between them and Andy.
I appreciate what Andy brought to the forum as much as anyone but this subject has been done to death, its becomming more like facebook than a historic aviation site.
We do not pay to post here, its a service offered by Key they dont owe any of us anything.
It would be unfair on Andy if the reason he was banned were made public, if he wants to disclose them thats his business, but certainly not any of ours.
Graham, having watched many “maintain the rage” for what seems over a week or more, I am pleased to see your comments above finally mentioned in the debate.
We all seem to be assuming because we havent seen any evidence, that there is none justifying a ban, but we have no knowledge of what might have been transacting in PM’s etc outside the threads, that may have caused offence? etc.
I would agree the only person entitled to any explanation is the banned member, (even if KP advises them that the “judges decision is final”) and obviously that person can then choose to make the reasons public if they should choose to do so, and probably understandable if they disagree with them.
On the other hand a banned member who accepts his fault, might prefer to leave the reason unpublished and out of the public domain, and KP probably have a duty to not disclose the reasons to the rest of us simply on that basis alone.
In this particular case I suspect the banned member is making his own enquiries with KP as to the reason for the ban? if he has no suspicions to the offence?, and hopefully the webmaster will provide some explanation to that person on their return?
I am sure following representation by the Mods of the concerns expressed here that KP will or are reviewing this action to make sure its justified (when the webmaster is available to them), if they review and consider it is justified, I dont see that they need to then justify it to us?
Over on Wix a valued member was banned due to constant conflicts with the owners rules, and after a number of warnings. No amount of forumite “democracy” or lobbying is going to change that situation, “too many bridges burnt”, the decision is made, and it has become a principle of the owners decision being respected now rather than just the original issue. I think here too the owner’s rights to enforce their rules should be respected.
It is disappointing to loose a contributor to a forum, but in the cycle of life, being banned from one online aviation forum doesnt seem a major life changing experience?, I’m sure there is a life after KP for all of us.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkington. Heres an “EXACT” copy of a mark V spit,
30,000 UK Pds gets you an unfinished 2/3rd hand built wooden replica with no engine?, however the cockpit is spitfire “full size”?
regards
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
