Thank you "Engines"

[Tourist]

I believe that many of us would agree that the Military Forum on Pprune is in a bad way.


There are various reasons for this including the sensitivities of actual active military aviators posting whilst we are involved on active operations, the growth of the forum Walts/Wannabies/Wierdos etc, but the upshot of it all is that this forum has less and less relevance to current military aviation.


Fewer actual current military you speak to bother to come on here any more because there is so much waffle to wade through.

[Courtney Mil]

Hear, hear. Although I am, as you know, retired.

[Ken Scott]

Perhaps, like the airline forums, there should be some form of password to get in? Then we might have less posts starting, 'I'm not in the military, but.....'

This forum does seem to attract an enormous number of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the military except for a desire to espouse their viewpoint, even if they have no idea about what's being discussed. Perhaps we ought to have some form of acronym filtering to isolate those who don't belong here?

[Lima Juliet]

What tosh. I like the old and bold chipping in - we ignore them at our peril. There is often more sense spoken by those outside the wire than those that are currently inside.

Now I retired 4 months ago but I am inside the wire every working day in uniform - so where would that put me in your little exclusive scheme? I know, I could be like some sort of comedy Ronnie Barker with an SD hat on one side and a bowler hat on the other! And I occassionally fly military hardware.

I say again, what tosh.

LJ

[Seymour Belvoir]

Be careful what you wish for because, inevitably, one day you too will retire from the mob.
Do you really want to be frozen out of something you have enjoyed and contributed to for the last umpty-ump years?

[bill2b]

LJ
I agree with you regarding the "Tosh" spoken in the first post.


Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.


Shame the "Tourist" considers "the growth of the forum Walts/Wannabies/Wierdos" to be beneath him as it would appear he is currently serving.
I did my 23 1/2 years and left 12 years ago but I still have a lot to do with the RAF via the Motorsport fraternity.
But it seems a shame that mr Tourist does not like the intrusion of people who are interested in the Military Aircraft side of things, there is loads of people at my workplace who love aeroplanes especially military ones.
Shame to dampen their interest by banning them like suggested

[ShyTorque]

There are various reasons for this including the sensitivities of actual active military aviators posting whilst we are involved on active operations, the growth of the forum Walts/Wannabies/Wierdos etc, but the upshot of it all is that this forum has less and less relevance to current military aviation.

And fewer contributors who can spell correctly. :E

[Rigga]

Methinks a "Tourist" Forum would be populated by too many antagonists?

The whole point of these forums are to discuss seriously or to chat idly about anything to do with aviation (and military aviation being a small part of the "Other" types allowed on Pprune).
If you want to discuss pure military things in a serious and undisturbed atmosphere then you'd have better luck going to the Mess bar or the crewroom.

...but I do agree that Engines appears to know his stuff.

[newt]

Give Tourist his own forum! What a good idea! Should we maybe start a petition to support such a move?

Come on Mods give us all a break and give him his own forum!!!:ok:

[Courtney Mil]

Well, maybe Tourist's point is directed more towards the small number of people that come here are just abuse and rant without any military background. As you all know, I'm retired (EDIT: not retired, redundancy at 49 after 30 years of service), but I don't think I scare off service folk. And I didn't think his comments were aimed at me or most of the rest of us here. Look at a couple of the threads this evening and I think it's easy to see people like Crystal, whomsoever that may be, that really are being stupid.

Just my opinion. Tell me if I'm wrong.

[NutLoose]

Does this mean as ex RAF I am no longer wanted here in Tourist eyes, if that is the case you could just about close the Caption Competition thread as a lot of posters are retired / ex forces, whilst Tourist can quite happily go back to Stacking blankets safe in the knowledge he has got one up on the rest of the world. :{:{

[glojo]

The written word alone is never the best format for communicating with folks we have never met and I fear we may be guilty of misunderstanding what Tourist was trying to say.

I should check to see if 'Engines' is still a serving member of Her Majesty's Forces but why should I? His\hers\their posts have all been extremely informative and I do not give a flying fig if they are retired or serving.

During my time earning the Queen's shilling we were taught that if we could not say anything nice about our colleagues, (apart from crap fats and pongoes) then keep quiet :ok::ouch:

Well said Tourist (I hope)

Regards
John the old wrinkly

[Courtney Mil]

Right on target as usual Glojo. Tourist. It may be useful to expand on your initial statement. I don't think everyone is understanding you correctly.

OR - everyone is understanding you correctly and it's time for some of us to move on. If the latter is correct, then don't feel you need to clarify. :uhoh:

Engines, how doe it feel to have a whole thread about you? Still want to hear more about guns! :ok:

[NutLoose]

What we need is an independent body setting up to look into this, as the majority he appears to be singling out are RAF, perhaps a member of the Army should adjudicate, they seem to also have a plethora of senior ranks, so perhaps a General would suit.... Do they still have Witch Finder in their career structure?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/WitchfinderPoster.jpg

Ahh more waffle for him to wade through :E

[Engines]

Good God.

I sincerely hope this thread closes down as soon as possible, because this forum should, I hope, be about exchanging informed opinion and fact for mutual benefit, certainly not trolling or abuse, and certainly not about any one person who posts, including me..

I think it should also be about humour and tolerance, because those are the key qualities that my service taught me.

I am ex-service, retired officer, ex-Fleet Air Arm, and an unashamed and proud aircraft engineer. I still work in the military aircraft business, helping to deliver stuff to the incredibly brave people who actually fly the kit in service. I hope that qualifies me to post. The day that anyone objects to my posts I'll be history.

Best Regards as ever, ( and thank you for the kind words)

Engines

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

Tourist - strange thread, but one with which I find myself in total agreement!:

Engines - as ever, very best regards!

Yours aye,

H-W

[tucumseh]

ex-Fleet Air Arm, and aircraft engineer

Say no more.:ok:

[downsizer]

Shouldn't all this man love be in the service pride thread? :\

[Tourist]

I think a few of you need to read what I wrote a bit more carefully.

At no point did I suggest getting rid of old and bold, and did not "single out" anybody except "Engines" and that was for praise Nutloose. (sorry about that)

I am suggesting that the growth of the "Walts/Wannabies/Wierdos " is killing this forum for actual current military members, and whilst the old timers are great, without the current guys it is no longer a "Military Aircrew" forum so much as a Royal British Legion Bar.

I have no problem with ex mil guys. For example, I don't think BEagle and I share a single opinion, but his factual knowledge on here is invaluable.

[GICASI]

Engines - "ex-Fleet Air Arm". Now to be known as "the Fleet Air Finger".

I know - back in my bath chair.

[Engines]

May I offer a couple of thoughts.

This has to be an open forum. That means we must always welcome anyone who wants to chip in. Anyone.

If those who come in are less well informed than others (and I include myself as a 'less-well-informed'), then they have a great chance to learn stuff. I do all the time.

If people come in with a poor attitude then that's sad, their problem and they can just be ignored.

If people come in and are abusive, well, we have moderators and also the 'ignore' option. Returning abuse is always, in my view, a bad move. That extends to inter-service banter, which always has the potential to move from 'edgy' to 'plain poor' - again, personal responsibility is the answer here.

As far as 'walts/wannabes/wierdos' go, I think we have to go for option 1 - they have their view, and we must allow them their space. If they are 'single-issue' and by honest argument, we can convince them that there's another point of view to consider, we will have done them a service. If we can't, well, at least we tried.

As long as all our posts are open, informative honest and courteous, we should be able to create the right tone and content. If they aren't we won't.

Best Regards as ever, to all those doing it at the sharp end.

Engines

[Trim Stab]

Very well said Engines.

Anyway, it is not only the military aircrew forum that this happens. Over on the "Bizjets, Ag flying, GA forum" we occasionally get posts from some wierdo-wannabe called "Tourist" who clearly has never flown a bizjet or ag-plane in his life, and finds it funny if a young girl is badly disfigured by walking into a prop:

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/470955-fashion-model-walks-into-aviat-husky-prop.html

We put up with him though.

[Saintsman]

If we didn't have none military personnel, we wouldn't get threads like this http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/473850-its-may-1941-its-night-you-have-land-but-how.html

Quite facinating and informative.

[NutLoose]

I would add if you banned the 'walts/wannabes/wierdos' you would also include in that those that come on here asking legitimate questions about joining the services. Oh, and those of them already serving :ok:

[LateArmLive]

I can see where Tourist is coming from, and have to say I agree with him.

Most of the contributors to this site seem to be ex-mil, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The problem seems to arise when somebody asks a genuine question about military aviation and gets the standard answers:

"I remember when I was on the VC10 and..."

"Don't know, but on the Lightning.."

"I've never been to Afghanistan, but in Belize we used to.."

I'm not for a second saying that these old/bold chaps should stop posting here as they seem to have a wealth of experience and great dits, but may it be an idea to start an "Ex military aircrew" thread? That would keep everyone happy and stop a few complaints.

Just a thought :)


ps - you can tell the spotters when they refer to the Tiffy - nobody in the RAF has ever called it that!

[Courtney Mil]

LAL,

And then you would lose excelent input like BEagle's answers on the new tanker a couple of months ago - just one example. You should be looing forward to the day you step out of the RAF and find yourself banned from your favourite forum as well. Because, overnight, your whole personality, knowledge and opinions will suddenly have changed and you would no longer be relevant

I'd also be interested to hear how you think the mods are going to police this. Unless we all submit a public statement declaring exactly who we are and what out credentials are, how will they know whom to admit and whom to expel. Do all you serving guys want to revel your identities to the world?

Finally, military flying didn't suddenly start 20 years ago, you know. But I do take your point about relevance to particular threads and promise to try harder in future. Of course, if there is relevant stuff from the past, I shall feel free to post appropriately.

Courtney

[NutLoose]

Finally, military flying didn't suddenly start 20 years ago, you know. But I do take your point about relevance to particular threads and promise to try harder in future. Of course, if there is relevant stuff from the past, I shall feel free to post appropriately.


Then it should be still relevant, most of the fleets are older than that :ok::E

[Tourist]

A few points.

Firstly, people are putting words in my mouth.

At no stage did I advocate banning anyone. Check if you don't believe me.
I also do not see how banning would work.

Secondly, I realise the incongruity of finding that the person who I acclaimed as a paragon of infallibility disagrees with me on this subject, but hey, an easy argument is dull:ok:.

My post was more of a moan about the unfortunate state of the Military Forum, and simply some praise for one of the few on here who genuinely impart knowledge.

I don't know how to fix it, but I know it is broken or at least unwell.

If you go on the civvy forums, it is immediately obvious that the ratio of professional aircrew/microsoft heros is better than 80/20, whereas on here I would guess at 60/20/10/10 ex-mil/mil/wannabies/wierdos.

There is a tipping point into unusability, and I think we are near it.

[Engines]

Tourist and others,

I'm actually quite optimistic about this forum, but agree that it can be harder work than all of us would like.

I'd just like to say a very heart felt thank you to those who have said such kind (but really not deserved) words. It's nice to be appreciated, but the people who should be appreciated, and given the utmost courtesy, are those men and women who are serving our country right now in whatever capacity, in whatever location.

I'd like to suggest that this thread could close down very soon, to avoid further embarrassment (to me especially!) and to allow the many really good contributors to this forum to resume normal business - hopefully, with humility and honesty

Best regards as ever to you all,

Engines

[Peter Carter]

So at what point do you move from Mil to ex-mil? (and thus your opinion becomes less valuable?)
I retired a few years ago after 35 years as a regular pilot, but I'm now VR(T) and share an AEF/UAS crewroom with an eclectic mix of regulars/airline pilots/industry; the banter is as cutting as ever and there is always an invigorating discussion on wide-ranging issues, many of them very current. I probably don't have the specific knowledge I had when I was active, but I still keep in touch.
On PPRuNe, I think most of us have enough nouce to detect an errant post and allow one's eyes to drift to the next.
i.e. it's nothing to do with the background of the poster; it's whether you feel it adds to the discussion.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Ken Scott - The problem with introducing a password locked forum is that such a move could then lead to some folk thinking that it is 'secure', perhaps leading to folk being a little more free, easy and forthcoming with certain information than they ought to. As it is some of the information folk have posted upon these hallowed pages has been a little close to the mark with regards OSA compliance.

I'm sure you don't need to be told that the security of a website such as this may be sufficient to stop the inner workings of some dull airline's crew rest policy leaking out but is totally insufficient to protect possible 'loose tounges', set free by a illusion of sanctuary.

The publicly-accessible nature of the current military aircrew forum generally keeps it 'honest'.

[BEagle]

My post was more of a moan about the unfortunate state of the Military Forum...Talking to some currently serving chums a couple of nights ago, they all said that PPRuNe's military aircrew forum has gone down the tubes over the last year or so...

"Too many moaners and whingers, Walts and spotters. A lot of the humour has gone and people are much ruder than they used to be...."

I'd probably never have found out the truth about Operation PINK RABBIT if it hadn't been for your amusing revelation, Courtney! Finding your weblog was even better!

Nice and sunny here today - almost good enough to consider getting out http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/223303-my-beautiful-weber.html ! A typically harmless PPRuNe thread of the old school.

[Tourist]

BEagle

"A lot of the humour has gone and people are much ruder than they used to be....""

Funnily enough, I agree that there is little humour on here, however I bemoan the lack of rudeness and swearing on here!

This is supposed to resemble a sqn crewroom, and is instead more like a stuffy catholic school staffroom.

My wife is an avid Mumsnet reader. Mumsnet is probably the largest, most used forum in the country and is a bastion of radio four listening, middle class mums including government ministers, etc. It is considered a major opinion setter amongst women for polititians, all the candidates for Prime Minister at the last election went on the forum to be interviewed and it is frequently hilarious and is absolutley filthy! There is at least one @nal sex thread or something about f1sting each week and everyone copes, yet on here, the forum for aviation warriors swearing and harsh banter is banned.


That shows how out of touch this forum is from real military or even normal life. We all know that we come back from a deployment with every second word begining with F or C, so lets grow up and stop being prissy.

The moderators, if indeed we must have them, should be young, serving military personnel to get the correct tone.

How many young Military 1st/2nd tour guys post on here? Can anybody think of one who posts regularly?
If we don't get them involved, it will only get worse.

The status qou is not really a solution.

[MightyGem]

Perhaps, like the airline forums, there should be some form of password to get in?
Hmm...this has been suggested on numerous occasions in the past, and has been pooh poohed just as often.

[BEagle]

"There is at least one @nal sex thread or something about f1sting each week and everyone copes....."

Well, much as you naval types might be personally interested in such antics, frankly I'm very glad that PPRuNe hasn't descended to such depths.

MightyGem, your post reminds me of the sage words of General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett:"You know, if there's one thing I've learnt from being in the Army, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a Major, who got pooh-poohed, made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh. He pooh-poohed it! Fatal error! Because it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers - who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment. Morale totally destroyed... by pooh-pooh!"

[MightyGem]

Perhaps, like the airline forums, there should be some form of password to get in?
Hmm...this has been suggested on numerous occasions in the past, and has been pooh poohed just as often.

[ShyTorque]

Obviously, in the interest of fairness, all these whinging ex-civvy, military folk should stop posting anywhere else on PPRuNE but here.... :hmm:

[orca]

I think that so long as you fall into the categories laid down then there is no problem. Some people clearly don't. There are two areas for concern. Spotters and observers, or whatever the crabs are calling them this week. I know it changed from navigators to WSOs for, errr, some really good reasons but it's probably changed again.

Notwithstanding this re-branding exercise neither spotters or WSOgators are allowed here.

The ROE for the forum is clearly laid out. Those that fly (not fly in) the hardware or the backroom boys. Nowhere does it mention watching while someone else flies, and the rear seat is not a back room. Ops support, IPT wallahs, MoD warriors and our dear spanner wielding grease chimps are all more than welcome as 'backroom' types.

I do accept that some naviWSOs do steer Preds around a bit so they are, quite rightly elevated to the position of being allowed a say.

Not my rules, just the ones that are on the opening page. Just saying.

If I were an observer or an aircrewman for that matter I would complain or write a letter.

[Two's in]

Surely on an internet forum like this, all posts that agree with your point of view are made by serious, professional like-minded individuals, and anybody disagreeing is a walt, wannabe or Flightsim adolescent?

[NutLoose]

Not all gamers are adolecents, I have an Xbox and had my half life service carried out several years ago :O

[Tourist]

BEagle

"Well, much as you naval types might be personally interested in such antics, frankly I'm very glad that PPRuNe hasn't descended to such depths."

So mums talking about sex is somehow worse than the thinly veiled stereotypical homophobia you just exhibited is it?
As you are well aware, I am not suggesting that this forum should turn into sexual discussion, rather I am suggesting that exactly your fuddy duddy old man attitude to swearing and rude words is at odds with the young military aviators this forum purports to be for.
Todays aviators are infinitely less offended by rude words than by outdated attitudes to homosexuality or any sexuality for that matter.

Shytorque

All the Forums have clear explanations about who they are for.

For example Rotorheads allows people like me because I meet the requirements of
"A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them"

I also meet the requirements of Military
"A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here."

plus Biz Jets AG GA etc (yes Trim Stab, I do have a history in corporate)
"The place for discussion of issues related to corporate, Ag and GA aviation. If you're a professional pilot and don't fly for the airlines then try here"

Plus occasionally I post on Tech Log:
"The very best in practical technical discussion on the web"

It has nothing to do with "fair", and everything to do with where I have interest, history and knowledge.

I avoid the ones which have nothing to do with me, as that is my personal choice.

Two's in

"Surely on an internet forum like this, all posts that agree with your point of view are made by serious, professional like-minded individuals, and anybody disagreeing is a walt, wannabe or Flightsim adolescent?"

No, I come on here for debate and different opinions among other things, but there is no fun in debating military matters with the likes of SAM etc. I might as well debate with my toddler, at least she has a better grasp of reality.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I think that so long as you fall into the categories laid down then there is no problem.

Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.

Not just for orca but for one and all and its just a simple observation but can anyone see anything in the above that suggests that non military folk, as in civilians in any shape or form fulfill the criteria to post in here :confused: :p:p:p

[Wrathmonk]

the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground

From the UK perspective, given the level of MOD contractorisation (sp?) (and not forgetting the Civil Servant contingent) I would suggest there are more civilians than current, ID holding, uniformed members of the UK Armed Forces that fulfil the requirements to post in here.:E

[Courtney Mil]

Well, it's healthy to have had this debate and, as usual and quite rightly, we have opinions that reach all corners of the envelope. May I suggest that it's not so much to do with who is posting or what their background or current occupation is, it's more to do with what they bring to the debate and what they take away from it.

Example: One poster here of my acquaintance has never been in the military at all. Yet he brings fascinating information from the defence industry from which we all benefit. By your rules, he shouldn't be here. Do you want to throw him out?

Example: Several posters were in military aviation, but are now in civilian jobs providing those that still serve with insight of what is coming. By your rules, they shouldn't be here. Do you want to throw them out?

Example: Several questions have been asked (by non-aviators, non-military) about fascinating mil av topics that have mainly been answered by old gits who remember or who take the time to share their knowledge. By your rules, the questioners and the answerers shouldn't be here. Do you want to throw them out?

If the split is 60/20/10/10, it will be a very dull place with just the 20 left.

Not sure, by your rules, that I can justify my place here - except that I've been here for many years, with an identity change after I left and didn't feel the need to be anon - so if you think my contribution make this forum a worse place, just say and I'll go elsewhere. With a sad heart.

I notice the retired folk don't complain too much about the serving guys. In fact I see a grerat deal of support here.

Courtney

[Mach Two]

I cannot argue with any of that. Two agreements with Courtney Mil in as many months!:sad: Personally I welcome anyone here that brings something to the feast. I have overstepped the bounds of the sensible in the recent past (first time in many years of membership) and have had my knuckles rapped by an ex-military member of the forum. I acknowledge the rebuke fully, because I respect the poster that picked me up and his interest in the forum, nothing to do with whether he is serving or not.

I agree with the above that it is all about what you say or what you ask, not who you are. I would like the vast majority of wise old owls to stay here and to feel welcome. It might be time to make an adjustment to the "entitlement" statement to include them.

There was a disgraceful display of stupidity here last night and I'm reasured that the system acted swiftly to stop it.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

From the UK perspective, given the level of MOD contractorisation (sp?) (and not forgetting the Civil Servant contingent) I would suggest there are more civilians than current, ID holding, uniformed members of the UK Armed Forces that fulfil the requirements to post in here.:E

I hear your suggestion and actually agree with you but in the interest of accuracy

Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.

Can you show me where it says civilian anywhere :ok:

[Mach Two]

Who cares? Stop being so picky and enjoy what people have to say.

[english_electric]

I'm really sorry to comment on this forum and I hope that I haven't made things worse, however I thought I'd make an exception and post something:

I am sure that I speak for all sensible non-military readers of this forum in stating that it is a real shame that your forum is being spoiled by walts, journalists and the idiotic minority. It would be a real shame if this forum were to be made private.

Personally, I never comment on any of these forums as I feel that it would be disrespectful to you guys to do so and also simply because I don't know what I'm talking about! (I'm actually a Police Officer!).

May I suggest that you keep this forum as public and simply ignore/ban people who comment and post inappropriately? I'm certain that you can weed these people out!

Anyhow, whatever you choose to do, I'd just like to say thanks for providing such interesting anecdotes and a truly amazing insight into military aviation over the years. Whatever you guys have been faced with in your careers, it is clear that we have/had first class and dedicated people defending the UK.

-Reading this all the time makes me just wish that I hadn't messed about so much at school now!!! :ugh:

Best Wishes!

Paul

[Tourist]

Courtney

Not sure who you are refering to when you talk about "your rules"


I am not against having ex mil on here by any means, but I do think that the preponderance should be weighted towards the serving types, and that is not going to happen with things as they stand.
Yes, there are those on here who provide very interesting discussion despite no mil background, but they are in the minority. A simple glance at some of the current threads with any service knowledge shows that they are just infantile.

Is there in fact any regular poster on here who is a first, second or third tour aviator or engineer, ie the people who this forum is for?

Anyone?

Most serving guys just laugh when you ask if they go on Pprune because it has nothing to do with them.

I reckon I am about the youngest regular poster on here (based fairly arbitrarily on general demeanor, I'll admit) and that is frankly appalling since I am old and haggard and in the process of leaving the mob!

If you go to the other forums, they are full of the people you would expect from the title.

For that to be correct of this forum, you would have to change the title to something very different involving straightjackets, care in the community, incontinence pants, acne, MS Flightsim, conspiracy theorys and prostate examinations.

I think that changes need to be made to make this a military forum. Not to ban others, but to realign the forum with the current military aviators.

[downsizer]

Just to lighten the mood....

3 pages so far and no mention of airworthiness, now standards are slipping...

[Kreuger flap]

Can you show me where it says civilian anywhereMilitary Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian:ok: hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.

Perhaps the name should be changed to "Military Aviation A forum for anybody to discuss current or historical military aviation subjects". This does not include discussing Navy destroyers or tanks only military aviation.

A lot of the current threads running on here belong in the Nostalgia and Historical forum.

[Courtney Mil]

OK, for "your rules" read "the rules that are being quoted here".

If there are too few serving folk here, I really don't think having fewer others would help, other than to make this a very quiet little corner of the internet. I have never felt intimidated by the other posters here (as a serving officer or since retirement) and I'm quite capable of stepping over the posts that are either not relevant or "infantile".

To be honest, whilst I was a member of PPRuNe when serving, I didn't come here that much, but only because it would have been a bit of a busman's holiday. I talked this stuff all day every day and in the bar, so why would I want to do more of it when I came home?

So encourage the new blood to come, but that's not the same as getting the old guys to leave.

I say again, it's more to do with what people bring here than who or what they are.

Courtney

[ShyTorque]

Tourist, I think you take this, and yourself, all too seriously. My post was made very much tongue in cheek, which, judging by your long reply, you failed to recognise. Perhaps the real problem is that you have lost your sense of banter, old chap (or is it young chap?).

Albeit now a civilian, in full time aviation employment, I did serve the military for almost two decades (with never a ground tour). I've also been here on PPRuNe since well before there was a military forum at all (in fact since before this website existed in its present form). I did help contribute financially (albeit in a fairly small way) to its continuation and expansion into what you see today, as we "old time regulars" were previously asked to do.

I can tell you that what you think is a new idea has in fact been debated a number of times before. It's impractical. How are the moderators to know if any contributor is "military" or not? This isn't an MOD site, it was actually begun by a civilian pilot.

The best solution is that you let the moderators moderate i.a.w. the current website owners' policy. Your own participation (or that of any other person) in any given thread isn't mandatory or exclusive.

:)

[Tourist]

Shytorque,

No, what I am suggesting is not what has been debated before.

As you say, there have been many previous suggestions that we should ban all non mil people.

That is not, as I have said repeatedly, what I am suggesting.

I am suggesting that we need to make this forum more appealing to current mil, and less welcoming to the freak show element that is encroaching. To have current mil moderators would be a start

For all that many here are defending themselves and their right to be here, I have not actually suggested otherwise. The people who I am talking about are wisely staying clear of this thread.

Lets be honest, we can all think of prolific posters who have no business here, and since they populate so much of the threads at the moment, why would any casually passing mil aviator join in rather than just move on in scorn.

There used to be on here not so long ago military personnel from UAS onward through flight training and on through their careers.

Where are they now?

Pprune mil forum is becoming a joke.

[Mach Two]

I for one would like to say that not all serving aircrew share that view.

[ShyTorque]

PPRuNe mil forum is becoming a joke.

As I said, it's not an official MOD website so why should that be of such concern?

Don't take it so seriously. Any military aviator worth his salt should be able to filter out the rubbish by simply ignoring it.

If you want a purely exclusive military forum then why not host your own? ;)

[Tourist]

Mach

No, of course not, but would you agree with my guesstimate of ratios of serving to ex-serving to wierdos?


Do you know of any young regular posting mil aircrew?


If they are not on here, then it is not a Mil forum, no matter what it says in the title.

ShyT

You need to learn to read:ok:

[Mach Two]

Right, ST. As was said before, let's all fill in a questionaire to prove our ID and have it published here for al to see! Perhaps Tourist would like a copy of our birth certificates and log books too. How else wll you know?

Right now there are 92 posters logged into this site, but 457 viewing. You tell me...

[NutLoose]

Not all have or ever wanted to have logbooks.. And never felt the urge to have one for my car either.. Perhaps a letter from mummy will suffice :E

[Mach Two]

Fair cop. You know what I meant. ;)

[Tourist]

Ok, I will say it again for the hard of thinking.


I am not suggesting that we make it mil only.
I am not suggesting that we make it mil only.
I am not suggesting that we make it mil only.
I agree that would be unworkable.
I agree that would be unworkable.
I agree that would be unworkable.

I am saying that we should try to make it less attractive to wierdos and more attractive to current serving military.

I suggested that having current serving mods might help, and I open the floor to other suggestions.

A mil forum without mil is embarassing.

Incidentally, If you knew me, then you would know that taking things seriously is something I have very rarely been accused of.

[Wrathmonk]

Tourist

When this topic has been raised before it is always pointed out that this is not a military site but a civilian one with just one minor board for military. I suspect we are little more than tolerated here - were the Military Aircrew board to go I suspect it would have little effect on visitor numbers (or even be noticed!). This is now a commercial site so revenue is everything. Anything seen as controversial (and I suspect some of the topics you previously mentioned would fall into that category:O) and may affect advertising revenue will soon be stepped on.

Sites such as ArRSe, Rum Ration and e-Goat (to name the 3 of the UK based ones - other military boards are available;)) are run by mil/ex-mil for the benefit primarily of the military (although they too seem to have a problem with trolls, walts and the never-served giving their opinion on everything) - each of these sites has a large number of boards dedicated to the various sub cultures/trades of that particular service (including a NAAFI/Diamond Lils/Pigs Pen where it seems pretty much anything goes [unlike Jet Blast which still expects 'Hotel Lobby' rules to apply]). Granted, these sites are not to everyones tastes, but perhaps where the yoof of today hang out. Or face-thingy.

Kreuger Flap

:D

[NutLoose]

More attractive to current service people, green background, porn section?

For one that was hoping to cut through some of the detritus, look what you have spawned lol....

[Courtney Mil]

Yes. I agree. As I suggested much earlier in this thread, I don't think you initial meaning was quite understood. But, a good debate.

I have noramlly agreed with most of your posts, T, and think this one drifted, but still a good debate to have had.

So, my suggestion: much like happened to the annoying idiot here last night, just ignore the crap and press on with the conversation around it. They will eventually get bored and wonder off - or get banned. We cannot legislate for everything.

Good thread, though. Poor Engines.

[newt]

"the people who this forum is for?"

"No, what I am suggesting is not what has been debated before."

"That is not, as I have said repeatedly, what I am suggesting."

"Most serving guys just laugh when you ask if they go on Pprune because it has nothing to do with them."

Just a few of the idiotic statements from Tourist! Mods, please give him what he wants. A forum all to himself and the under three's:ok:

[Lima Juliet]

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/710/Hawker_Typhoon_MkIA_1944.jpg

So no one in the RAF has ever called it Tiffy, eh? What tosh...:=

With respect to WSO, WSOp, Observer et al it is a thread entitled "Military Aircrew, nuff said? :ugh:

LJ

[Tourist]

newt

???

Courtney

Yes, I do feel bad about embarassing him because that was not my intention, however I am loath to delete the thread.

Wrathmonk

No, it is not "one minor board", it has far more posts than most others put together bar Jetblast.

The suggestion that having more liberal rules like that den of licentousness "Mumsnet" might lose advertisers is not really born out by the facts.
Look it up on Wiki. It is the biggest and most supported Forum site going, so filth does not tseem to put off advertisers.:)

Having just seen the post above, is it just me that finds it ironic that he can have that as his name,(and his is by no means the worst, or funniest!), but I cant write c### because it might upset the advertisers?

[Lima Juliet]

It's a very unusual Polish surname I'll have you know! :ok:

[NutLoose]

Ok... I'll say it...
The Engines Captain...... They canna take it......... Or can as the case may be.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/710/Hawker_Typhoon_MkIA_1944.jpg

So no one in the RAF has ever called it Tiffy, eh? What tosh...:=

With respect to WSO, WSOp, Observer et al it is a thread entitled "Military Aircrew, nuff said? :ugh:

LJ

WSOp = NCA = Non Commisioned Aircrew :p:p:p

PS. If you retired 4 months ago does that mean your are now a civilian :confused::confused:

[Two's in]

Tourist,

Another factor to consider is that ex-military posters have far more licence in what they post than those still serving. Not always an issue, but you are probably more likely to elicit a "warts and all" response when the poster is not overly concerned about the Official Secrets Act cramping his or her career aspirations.

PS. Yes I know the OSA stays extant once you've signed it, but it has slightly more "context" after you have hung up the uniform.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I am not against having ex mil on here by any means, but I do think that the preponderance should be weighted towards the serving types, and that is not going to happen with things as they stand.


Tricky to avoid this, given the rate at which the UK (and, soon, US and other) military is shrinking...the proportion of ex-mil to serving mil in the population will get significantly higher, and one can expect that the spilt of posters on here will follow suit...

[Engines]

Guys,

My last post on this thread, I promise, and possibly my last on this PPrune forum (see below).

Nutloose - great post. Humour always helps.

I'm not in the least embarrassed. I'm too old and ugly for that.

But I would respectfully suggest that some people might be taking this issue of 'who posts' a tad too seriously. It's a thread on an open forum, there are no real ways of controlling input without almost closing it, so we all have to get along together or just stop posting - a bit like not watching TV programmes you don't like.

If the serving military aircrew and support folk don't want anyone else on the thread at all, just say so and I, for one, will be off doing other stuff. Gentle reminders to trespassers every now and then should keep your turf clear.

Your call, let us retirees (and civilian types) know how you want it played. Really, you won't hurt our feelings, honest.

Once again, thanks to those who offered such kind compliments - they have been very much appreciated.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[ShyTorque]

ShyT

You need to learn to read

I can read enough to notice that your original post #1 has been edited by yourself this afternoon...... :p

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Engines et al,

The only thing of note is that none of "us" either own the site or moderate the forums and it's as clear as the nose on my face that those that do are more than happy with the status quo in here, look at Beags post count and you get the idea that things are fine the way they are

It's a healthy mix of mil, ex mil, non mil input and banter and never should that change. The forum entrance criteria is clear and precise and I never tire of tweaking the odd pompous tail with the "but you are only a bed wetting civvy" jibe but it's nowt but a tweak :ok:

[bill2b]

I reckon I am about the youngest regular poster on here (based fairly arbitrarily on general demeanor, I'll admit) and that is frankly appalling since I am old and haggard and in the process of leaving the mob!

Will you stop posting once you leave the "Mob" then ?
Or will you be coming back as a weirdo to join the rest of us "ex" low life

:bored:
I think this is a pretty sad post and any new viewer military or not would be put off coming anywhere near the site after reading it.


:ugh:

[COCL2]

Before you start to try limiting who can post on - or even view - this forum you have to define just who is your customer base,and just what the point of this forum is.

Is it for serving aircrew to discuss current theory and practice? If so it won't get far as its an insecure forum and no current serving are going to risk it.
Is it a forum for old duffers to air old reminisces?
Is it a general discussion forum for all matters of military aviation. not just current?
Is it for educating people from outside the aviation fraternity?

I suggest that very few of the threads on this forum have any relevance to current actual flying. Most are historical reminisces / romances, with a fair proportion of current political events as related to the prevailing threat.
Further, if you banned those who are non-aviators, and even more so if you banned those who are ex-aviators you would lose the majority of ACTIVE members of this forum. That is a problem for you. The forum only exists because of its ability to draw advertising revenue. Cut the number viewing and the revenue goes down. Cut it a a low enough point and the forum becomes non-cost-effective and will be shut.. You can already see that the forum owners don't regard this part of the site as worthy of effective moderation - probably because its not cost effective to provide the service.
If you want this forum to thrive, the key is in effective, consistent and valid moderation. At present you have a situation where trolls are allowed to go unpunished with personal insults, while lesser issues result in arbitrary bans with no explanation. Partly that is due to certain individuals clearly complaining to the mods about anyone they consider as "interlopers", creating a knee-jerk reaction creating arbitrary bans and punishments.
Something else to remember is that this forum is predominantly used by people from the UK, but is run by a commercial organisation in the USA. In the overall scheme of their activities, this forum probably does not register. If you cut the readership, you'll kill the forum
Finally, something to stick in your pipe and mull over, just whose forum is it? I get the impression that certain posters here seem to think they have some kind of proprietorial right, like its a private members club just for them within which they can blackball newbies.
Sorry, rant over

[dervish]

IMO anyone who worries about who posts on an open forum such as pprune has to get a life. Their motive surely can’t be just to keep it “current military” or have them as the majority of posters. It is unrealistic.

Reading pprune tells me people who make these pompous demands are reacting to an event, post or a thread which they have personal reasons for not wanting explored in depth. Think no further than Purdey on the Mull thread. So I ask myself what has been discussed recently that upsets our friend Tourist. The real purpose of the thread quickly became obvious. As Two’s In said,

Another factor to consider is that ex-military posters have far more licence in what they post than those still serving. Not always an issue, but you are probably more likely to elicit a "warts and all" response when the poster is not overly concerned about the Official Secrets Act cramping his or her career aspirations.

Very true and I suspect some recent warts and all posts have got too close for comfort.

[Courtney Mil]

Previous 2 posts, concur.

OK, leave Tourist alone now. I think we should all be able to see what he means and few could disagree. Time to lighten up AND take to heart his real point - which we all missed to start with to varying degrees.

Excellent points made on every side of the argument, AND M2 agreed with me for the second time ever - although can't recall what the first time was.

Whatever anyone says, this is still a good place for some thoughts.

Just a couple of closing thoughts that may be closer to a lot of people’s hearts.

A fair few of the threads are not flying related at all, more current politics that might involve aircraft in the future. So still valid ideas that current aircrew and those that support them might like to discuss.

One or two individuals have stirred up a lot of trouble here, but pleased to see that the main problem has recently been removed. So the mod system is working. Once the offenders have been removed, all the problems seem to cease too - just look at this thread.

At the moment, I don’t think there are any players in this game that are causing offense or not contributing good ideas. Yes, I know there is a former missile guy that can a bit whacky, but we can control that ourselves.

That is all.

[orca]

My personal opinion is that all should be welcome (But we do need the small print changed to allow observers). We seem to be quite good at putting down insurgencies, informing the ill informed and spotting the odd walt purporting to be what he/she isn't. Similarly our posts and profile very quickly mark us out for what we are/ aren't.

If I could have three wishes they would have nothing to do with one's credentials. I would like to see the 'Beadwindow police' disappear when open source/ unclass is being discussed. I would like to see the 'errr - facts only please police' disappear when a rumour is discussed on a rumour forum. Lastly I would like anyone posting news of a fatality in any form prior to official release to be banned for life (And tracked down and shot - but that's a little fanciful).

Oh, and we need a thread about how the decision to get rid of Harrier was at best ill considered but I can't think of a catchy headline.;)

[Mach Two]

Everyone is welcome.

On a more important note, I just noticed the Japan Cupid advert you get if you're not logged in. Maybe not being allowed in the door isn't so bad after all. Is that why we have 5 times as many people viewing as we do logged in. :rolleyes:

Goodnight all.

[Lima Juliet]

PS. If you retired 4 months ago does that mean your are now a civilian

Nope, just look at T E Lawrence's bio and you might get the clue...

[Tourist]

"Will you stop posting once you leave the "Mob" then ?"

Yes, I will lose the name Tourist, and move on to other forums. It is possible/likely that I might read occasionally, and even post if something comes up about the past, but I will not post on subjects that I am no longer current.


Dervish

You've lost me. Alude more accurately please. I'm happy for you to hint more clearly.

[Kreuger flap]

Is it for serving aircrew to discuss current theory and practice? If so it won't get far as its an insecure forum and no current serving are going to risk it.
Is it a forum for old duffers to air old reminisces?
Is it a general discussion forum for all matters of military aviation. not just current?
Is it for educating people from outside the aviation fraternity?

As the newest member in this thread which category from the above do you fit into? Current military aviator, old duffer or spotter? My guess is spotter.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"Will you stop posting once you leave the "Mob" then ?"

Yes, I will lose the name Tourist, and move on to other forums. It is possible/likely that I might read occasionally, and even post if something comes up about the past, but I will not post on subjects that I am no longer current.


Almost likewise, as of July this year I retire, as in leave the service become a civilian and never work again, afterall surely thats what retiring means.

With what we have in mind with regards travel I anticipate being way to busy to be coming here on a day to day basis dribbling on about WIWO or pontificating on matters I clearly know nowt about :ok:

[Shack37]

As probably one of the older "old duffers" who gave HM her shilling back in 1971 I rarely post on the Mil Aircrew thread anyway, unless it's a historic subject or something which interests me and to which I feel I can contribute.
May I suggest that others like me refrain from contributing to this thread voluntarily for fourteen days (if you have the will power) and leave it to the ultra current, still serving people who fit exactly the description below.

A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.


Perhaps we shall then see (lurking only) the improvement that Tourist wishes for.

[phil9560]

Getting out of hand again:(

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Instead of petulance one or two folk should go re read all Tourists posts in this thread again, especially #60 :ok:

[Shack37]

I am saying that we should try to make it less attractive to wierdos and more attractive to current serving military.

A mil forum without mil is embarassing.

Incidentally, If you knew me, then you would know that taking things seriously is something I have very rarely been accused of.

If current serving military can't deal with us petulant wierdos then we're DOOOOOOOMED Capn. Mainwaring.

[COCL2]

Kreuger flap
Yes, I may well be the most recent recruit to the posters here, but that does not diminish what I have to say. However I was reluctant to offer any comment until I saw some of the nonsense being offered. by others.
As for your comment about me, I can just see that you are rattling that bag of balls, looking for the black one so you can keep your little club private from us interlopers.

[Kreuger flap]

Just wanted to check your credentials. Spotter it is then.

[bill2b]

Kruger Flap

Are you a Tornado man by any chance
Funny your name is something that has not worked for years
Or perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps the KF has been reconnected nowadays and I'm out of touch.

Just wanted to check your credentials. Spotter it is then.

:bored::bored::bored:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Perhaps this thread has a point, if we are going to start to question folks credibility based on their forum moniker then perhaps things do need to change :=

[COCL2]

Perhaps what needs to change is the ease with Krueger Flap and others feel they are able to belittle or question others abilities or history.. As I said earlier, reading this forum one gets the impression that a small (but vociferous) number of the respondents here regard the forum as nothing more than an online version of their own gin-soaked old duffers club, in which newcomers are unwelcome.
What does it mater what someones history is, as log as what he says is valid? And the validity of what is said should be self-evident, or if not, then easily disproved.

[Tourist]

Equally COCL2, one might get the impression that this is a forum for teenagers that have a thing for Tom Clancy and a lack of real world social skills, experience and cynicism that all military share.....

[COCL2]

Yes, I can see a forum like that would appeal to you.

[LateArmLive]

Just out of interest:

How many of you that have posted here and are opposed to "banning" non-mil (not that it was suggested) are currently serving mil aircrew?



Didn't think so ;)

I have no issue whatsoever with ex-mil, spotters, freaks and weirdos hanging out on this site. My problem is when some of them post "facts" about current mil issues/events with no credibility or actual knowledge. That's all. The site does seem to have gone downhill in recent years, but then again - what hasn't?

I don't think moderation is the answer; in fact, there probably is no answer. We just all have to take whatever is read here with a great pinch of salt.
Who would have thought that on a rumour network!

[orca]

LateArmLive

You may have (perchance unwittingly) hit the nail on the head. A few years ago we could have had threads for a F3/SHAR grudge match, a discussion on the latest GR7/9 'when good VSTOL goes bad' video, some Nimrod dude spinning ASW dits and a Jaguar driver claiming to have taken off with two 14 KG PBs without afterburner....

The amount of jets about has declined dramatically as has the number of drivers and lookers. The 'serving/ ex/ never did' ratio has to have moved away from those actually doing the job.

Give it a couple more years and the Pred community will be on here with their 'there i was in an air conditioned office in Vegas' dits and at that point the pingers will unleash their 'I was in the dip I was' stories that they've had stored up since the cold war.;)

[teeteringhead]

Always thought this was (and was meant to be) more like a Happy Hour bar than a crewroom.

The threads are many and varied, as are happy Hour conversations; some are funny, some are interesting and/or informative. Others are none of the above and some are downright silly/puerile/boring (insert disapproving adjective of your choice).

What they have in common (threads and conversations) is that if they don't appeal to you for any reason - you don't have to listen/read or join in.

One hears strange conversations at Happy Hour from some fairly random people - both residents and visitors, but it would be a touche OTT to deny them entry to the bar.

And btw, I am no longer a regular but a reservist. I go to work every day in a (light blue) uniform, get peripherally involved in (military) flying but only very occasionally commit it myself. Still wear the wings though. Still have a MoD 90 as my only ID (wouldn't get into work without it), although I persist in calling it a 1250.

Can I stay please????:O

[Tourist]

Teeters

Yes, I quite agree with the Happy Hour Bar idea.

However, to continue down that line I feel that the bar has recently been attracting a lot of Chavs who don't really know the dress code/put the wrong music on the juke-box. The barman doesn't want to throw them out because they cause no real trouble and bring in cash. The Old timers are not going anywhere, after all it's their bar, but the youngsters this bar is really trying to attract are coming in, having a look around and then moving on somewhere where they are not going to have to put up with retards.
Initially, this has no real effect, but slowly over time the bar gradually dies as the old timers move on/forget how to find it until finally it is sold and reappears as a cocktail bar with stupid drinks with umbrellas in.

orca

How dare you disrespect pinger dits?!

Until now we have merely been shielding you from their awesomeness so that you may continue to fly without the knowledge of your inferiority crushing your spirit. We are nice like that.:ok: