IN MODERATION

[ANOrak]

This forum has become seriously boring and I believe that I know why - too much MODERATION. Why do we need a moderator and how come he is instantly (and undemocratically) elected? Could this follow the electoral principals of ebaguM?

Why did such a Rotorhead specific topic of Aviators 1: CAA Nil receive 43 comments under Rumours and News yet none under Rotorheads except for the diversion from tailplane? Are helicopter people so dull? I think not but they are perhaps sensitive to criticism

So lets have an open forum and get rid of interjections from Popes, Archbishops, MODERATORS and any other 'Hollier Than Thou' interferons.

Over to you Helidrvr.

[helidrvr]

Good God man,

The "Military Affairs" thread to which you must be referring is over two months old. It was the result of some e-mail I received and provoked a lively discussion. My final comment there was as follows:

>> Well boys and girls, I think we may have just about run out of steam on this one.

Having received all your input I see no valid reason why the AAC and other military rotorheads shouldn't stay right here where it's warm and cozy. <<

Since then, I have made no further comment on any posts and I have NEVER deleted any. So how you can now lay at my feet your PERSONAL opinion of this forum's entertainment value is a mystery to me. A moderator has no control over what is posted here. His only function is to lurk in the wings in case things get out of hand somehow and to post any relevant information he may have come across elsewhere.

>> So lets have an open forum and get rid of interjections from Popes, Archbishops, MODERATORS and any other 'Hollier Than Thou' interferons. <<

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

This kind of personal attack is probably something which a moderator should try to temper, especially because it is made behind the veil of anonymity and therefore somewhat cowardly as well. Then again, maybe it isn't an attack at all but a well deserved compliment. "Hollier" means "happier" in the vernacular, doesn't it?

Strangely, my most recent post (only hours before yours) was about some airplanes taking a bubble bath. So your moderator, for one, at least made an attempt to insert some humor here. Can you say the same for yourself?

My advice to you is that, instead of (rudely) complaining to/about the moderator, YOU start some forum threads which might appeal to you and show the rest of us how it's done.

P.S.: Are you even a pilot, professional or otherwise? Your profile seems to indicate not. Please note that this forum is first and foremost, but not exclusively, intended to give professional pilots a way to exchange information relevant to our professional activities. We are really not here to amuse people who describe their occupation as "plane spotting".

[tailplane]

helidrvr:
I think ANOrak was actually referring to the "Court backs Helicopter Pilot v CAA" thread which celebrated a helicopter pilot's success in court against the CAA.

Re ANOrak's claim to be an anorak/plane spotter: I may be wrong but, judging by the rotary content of his other posts, his claim may be made with tongue just a little in cheek!

Keep up the good work.

[This message has been edited by tailplane (edited 25 April 2000).]

[helidrvr]

Tailplane,

In suggesting that I had somehow banished all the "good guys" from this forum, ANOrak had to have been referring to a thread started by me in February as a follow-up on some emails to me (in my capacity as moderator) which suggested that the military posts were getting unintelligible to all but the cognoscienti. It provoked some lively discussion and hot reactions on both sides, but mostly the consensus came down on the side of the AAC'ers and I happily acknowledged this. The rest of my message to ANOrak speaks for itself if you read it in this context.

Yes, in the circumstances the occupation of "plane spotter" listed in his profile on this forum was just too good a chance to pass up, especially if it was tongue-in-cheek on his part. Given his complaint about how boring this forum has become, I thought he might appreciate it if I kept things lively by taking up his challenge and throwing a few barbs back at him. In truth, I am sadly disappointed in him for his failure too shoot another volley back at me, if only for the entertainment value this could provide on an otherwise "boring" forum.

Cheers from your
Hollier Than Thou Iterferon ;) ;) http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

[tailplane]

It does seem odd that, although there was a very active response (in R&N) to the helicopter pilot story to which ANOrak referred, there was no response in Rotorheads itself. It may of course be that rotorheads responded in R&N, but few identified themseves as helicopter pilots.

The contributions included a very helpful post suggesting the best way to deal with CAA investigations - to which, as one ppruner pointed out, helicopter pilots are much more vulnerable than airline pilots.

There may be scope for you, as Moderator, to launch a new thread based upon the advice.
Just a thought for you to consider.


There have been a few threads over the months which have referred to this forum as being inactive. It's a fair comment, but I have no idea why that should be so. (That's not intended as a criticism of the Moderator.)

[This message has been edited by tailplane (edited 26 April 2000).]

[helidrvr]

Bill Kellogg's forum on JustHelicopters.com has blossomed exponentially in the last 6 months and the timing of this leads me to suspect that Rotorheads may have lost a substantial number of its posters to that forum, but that's just a wild guess and could be totally wrong.

As to your idea that I could transfer some of the relevant info from other forums to this one, I do that whenever I happen to come across one (s/a the 212 AD), but really don't have the time to actively search for such items. On PPRuNe, I have book marked the backdoor straight into Rotorheads and therefore miss most of the News & Rumors Posts. I'll try to keep a closer watch on N&R for helo relevant tidbits in the future.

In the case of the CAA vs. Helicopter pilots, I am in no position to comment since I do not hold a CAA license and have never worked on that side of the Atlantic.

All I can say is that if Tailplane's earlier mention of this topic didn't produce much discussion, then somehow the interest just wasn't there any more.

Cheers,
Interferon http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

[ANOrak]

Well done and thank you tailplane.

In order to help the Moderator I have regurgitated the expert advice which appeared in R&N and which was delivered by a part of Fixed n' Rotor

(I don't intend to raise Moderator's hackles any further because it sounds to me that plane spotting in Trinidad could be more interesting than here - drier and warmer anyway).

IF YOU HAVE AN "INCIDENT" WHERE YOU THINK YOU MIGHT BE INVESTIGATED BY THE CAA:
1. Make a full note at the time, or as soon as practicable afterwards.
If you make a note while details are still fresh in your mind, you will be allowed to use that note to help you if you are asked for an explanation or have to give evidence - possibly many months later.
2. Ask your witnesses to do the same thing, for the same reason and to give you a copy.
3. Take your witnesses' contact details at the time. Don't rely upon finding them again months later.
IF YOU ARE INTERVIEWED BY A CAA INVESTIGATOR:
1. Prepare thoroughly in advance. Try to anticipate the questions you will be asked.
2. It is usually a good idea to prepare a written statement to produce to the investigator at the interview, but do NOT do that unless you have checked it with a lawyer first.
3. Be extremely careful what you say at the interview.
The CAA will consider what you say when deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute you. If you are prosecuted, the interview notes will be read out in court. It can be difficult to explain why you want to change what you said in the interview.
4. Do not guess.
If you are not certain about something, say so. Make it clear that you are not sure and that you need to think about it further.
5. Do not fall for "I'm sure we can clear this up quite quickly" / "I'm sure this won't come to anything - just tell me what happened."
CAA investigators are ex-policemen who know how to lull you into a false sense of security. If they say "it will probably just be a small fine if you plead Guilty" remember that they have no control over the penalty. Think of the possible consequences to your job/next job application/insurance - as well as licensing action by the CAA. (You may have to plead Guilty in due course - but take advice first.)
6. Read the Investigator's record of interview very carefully before signing it.
Make sure that the note records exactly what you (and he) said. If it doesn't, make sure that is recorded, and add a correction. Check carefully that nothing has been accidentally omitted. If you have expressed something badly, add a correction now. Take your time and sign the record only when you are completely satisfied that it is accurate. This may seem obvious, but many people find themselves in difficulty later by just scanning the record. By signing, you are accepting that the record is a full and accurate account of what was said. Make sure that it is!
7. If you are asked to mark a chart or plan, make sure that the investigator clearly records that your markings are only approximate.
8. If you are to be interviewed by the CAA, it is usually better to take legal advice sooner rather than later.
(If you think I'm just trying to help my solicitor friends here, ignore my advice.)
IF YOU ARE PROSECUTED
Although every defendant is innocent until proved Guilty, pilots prosecuted by the CAA start off at a disadvantage because most non-aviators will presume that the CAA must be right because the CAA regulates aviation. This presumption can be overcome, but you will need a specialist defence team to do so.
Most CAA prosecutions are in the Magistrates Court where the likelihood of being acquitted is not very high. (You may have a right to elect for trial by a jury in the Crown Court, but that is more expensive, and pilots are not usually eligible for Legal Aid.)
1. Use specialist aviation solicitors.
They are used to dealing with the CAA, know how the sytem works, and are often able to negotiate to avoid a prosecution.
2. If you are prosecuted, you should insist that the solicitor or barrister who will represent you IN COURT is a pilot, as well as an aviation law specialist.
CAA experts have impressive CV's, but they often seem to forget what flying in the real world is really like the moment they join "the Authority". If the solicitor or barrister who represents you IN COURT is also a pilot who understands the aviation world, your chances of being acquitted, or at least of achieving a lenient penalty, will be much better. (See the Studland Bay case)
This is important, even if you are pleading Guilty, because the CAA usually honours the Court's view of the case. If the Court does not take a serious view of the offence, the CAA does not often take licensing action against the pilot.
My earlier contribution under Fn'R was, as most people realised, a bit of fun - except for the strictly legal parts. These suggestions are made seriously. I hope no ppruners will ever have occasion to need them.

[This message was edited by FIXED N' ROTOR (edited 15 April 2000).]

Thank you F 'n R (if you have any more gems please post in this Forum) and take note you helicopter pilots they may be useful one day - ANOrak.

[helidrvr]

ANOrak

>> I don't intend to raise Moderator's hackles any further <<

Aw shucks, I was hoping for more to keep the forum from getting boring. We were just getting started :)

>> it sounds to me that plane spotting in Trinidad could be more interesting than here - drier and warmer <<

Dryer and warmer? Yes, but nothing much to spot.

Thanks for the excellent summary.

Cheers,
Interferon

[ANOrak]

Moderator - although my interests are planespotting, if I ever have to make a choice I would go for the "drier and warmer bit" or should I ask the audience or 'phone a friend?

[helidrvr]

Spotter,

... and here I am, seriously planning to go to the Arctic for the next 4-5 months - go figure!