New Specialist Airline Pilot Forum?

[Danny]

Looking for input for an idea I have about a new forum where flight safety reports etc. can be discussed. For example, there are quite a few issues raised in each issue of CHIRP that would warrant debate.

My initial thoughts are that the forum would only be accessible to current airline pilots. The main reason for that is because experience has shown that input from those with little or no experience only serves to inflame emotions and detract from the main topics.

The main problem of course would be validating eligibility for access. Whilst we can guarantee anonimity from each other on the forums, we would need some way to verify applicants were who they claimed to be and were qualified for access. What I am seeking is some ideas about how to go about this without generating too much extra workload.

I remember in the days before PPRuNe when the only real place for debate was the AvSig Forum on CompuServe and you needed to fax a copy of your licence to get access to the forum. Whilst I am contemplating what the level of access for this new forum should be, just a professional licence holder or must be in current employment on a recognised a/c type or whatever, I also have to decide whether it should be completely private or open for anyone to read but only accepted members can post.

Your thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated.

[Fokkerwokker]

Aaaaaaaah the golden days of Avsig! How long ago was that Danny?

FW

[Atlanta-Driver]

Just my penny's worth

Forum open for any registered PPRuNe user to read, but only for approved people to post.
Use of real name verified by either a scan of licence with transport category aircraft type rating on it and/or ID-card would certainly reduce excesses.

AD

[dwshimoda]

Danny,

I find this entire forum hugely useful - not just for all the great advice, but also for being able recognise bad advice, weigh up different opininons, etc. I am currently training for my ATPL, alongside a full time job, and often use these resources for help, and soemtimers just a distraction or a bit of light relief!

My view (obviously!) would be that just holding a professional licence should be sufficient - after all, if one of the main reasons is for discussing CHIRP, then that is exactly the kind of stuff low houred pilots-in-waiting should be reading up on.

Perhaps it's time to introduce a small handling fee for members to cover the admin to receive and validate an application? Most other forums that I am a member of have a "premium" area where a small fee gets much wider access.

DW.hether open or hidden - maybe hidden will give the opportunity for an area specifically for professionals to be able to discuss things in privacy - something that clearly many people want given the number of non-specialist members currently viewing and posting.

Only my tuppence worth.

DW.

[PAXboy]

Just an ordinary Pax speaking:

Don't make it readable by everyone, otherwise they will start up new threads, cross post and there will be thread drift everywhere! :( You folks talk about it amongst yourselves and anything that might be of help to the rest of the world - then open an announcement thread.

[jondc9]

danny:

I don't know about European certification, but in the US anyone can check on pilot credentials by going to an FAA website.

For example, you or anyone could look up anyone's certification just by using name and state. For example: Jonathan Regas, Virginia

it would then display all with those name (hope not too many john smith's)
and all of their certification.

[GT3]

Would ATCOs be able to view it?

[what next]

Hello!

Forum open for any registered PPRuNe user to read, but only for approved people to post.

Excellent idea! I am no airline pilot myself (although I have an ATPL), but I train future airline pilots and I think that a lot of useful and valuable information could be gained by people like myself just following this new forum passively.

Greetings, Max

[jondc9]

danny:

by the way, here is the url for the FAA website to check on certification.

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/default.asp

you can even look me up if you like

jonathan regas

(you won't need my state, only one of me) :-)

[SlowDescent]

I think it's a good idea and agree that people in training should have access too.

But, however access is regulated, can it not be as complicated as getting onto the pprune BA group - which I still haven't achieved as I'm essentially computer illiterate? :ugh:

Keep it simple, that's my strapline.

[10 DME ARC]

Sounds good but what about us ATCO's??

[Austrian Simon]

What about airplane designers (both in industry and science), aircraft systems designers, scientists designing the man-machine interface (cockpit), regulators, trainers, writers of training manuals, air traffic controllers, and all of those folks, who contribute to and build the foundations, that airline pilots rely on?

If those folks are excluded from those discussions, quite a few important aspects could not be handled, and both those aviation professionals as well as the airline pilots can not benefit from such discussions.

[fantom]

I am not sure the 'send us a copy of your licence' would work. what could stop me 'borrowing' one?
why can't you set up a screening mechanism so there would be, in all the major areas, (UK; US; Oz; Sand, etc.) someone local who would verify the bona fides and allow access?
In the case of employees working for airlines with their own areas here, the local Mod would be able to confirm.

[cavortingcheetah]

:\
'Current airline pilots' is a fairly restrictive criteria. It excludes any pilot who my be retired, resting or out of work. Of course it also excludes others whose input could/would be invaluable.
Since most of us in aviation have a licence of some category or another, expired or not, and the information you might be seeking to provide would be of significant benefit to us, then what about a subscription fee and a scanned copy of the paperwork?
It might take you a little time to vet everyone but a one page licence copy would surely take you a very short time to approve or reject?
I think that most professional bodies have a subscription fee of some sort or another, at least those to which I belong do, and since that, in essence might be what you are trying to establish, then why not?
Good luck with an excellent idea anyway. :D
Anyway, you know from reading these, your own pages, how many out there have a clue about matters aeronautical!

[Big Tudor]

In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.
With that statement in mind I would recommend access is restricted both on read and reply to licence holders only. Todays CHIRP could be tomorrows sensational headline!

[benhurr]

Just a thought but CHIRP also has reports from cabin crew, ATC and engineers.

A forum discussing flight safety by airline pilots without input from other aviation professionals is unlikely to be able to analyise all aspects of a given situation in most instances.

Just airline pilots might also lead to a great deal of egotistical "willy-waving" of how much time on time, years in the industry etc. a particular individual has - let alone inter-company rivalries.

I'm probably just jealous because, as an employed biz-jet pilot, I wouldn't be allowed to play (nor the countless ex-airline pilots in GA)- or maybe there are no GA pilots who could add to a debate on flight safety;)

[Spitoon]

Sorry Tudor but the Journos already know about CHIRP and it often IS tomorrow's sensational headline!

On a more serious note, I too am a controller and I'd be keen to participate in such discussions. We must remember that aviation is a system - as clearly shown by many of the reports in CHIRP which cross professional boundaries.

My first thought was that maybe those who are eligible to recieve CHIRP in the post should be eligible to participate - but that, of course, is largely limited to UK licence holders. The benefit of the forum that you suggest is that it would have global input which would hugely increase its value. And I would strongly advocate that it is not an open forum so that there is less risk of honest professional debate being misinterpreted (whether in all good faith or maliciously).

I don't know what the answer to how to validate access rights - perhaps a combination of you moderators reviewing a short questionnaire of pertinent info plus a few quid to register for those that have the credentials would do the job.

But the idea gets my support.

[5milesbaby]

Danny, I think your idea is an excellent one as it'll give us CHIRP readers/contributors and anyone else with the correct crudentials to discuss and learn without threads being hijacked etc. I'd make it a private forum so the real nitty gritty sensitive topics can be debated in good strength and good resolutions methodically worked out. If it is private, then I cannot see a problem with users having to log-in with their proper names if available, or just with numbers added on to the end to keep them unique, and a small charge could be applied to get titles added to all contributors with their company and type ratings so everyone knows which aspect the respondent is coming from. This way alone you'd possibly know if you got a gatecrasher as other company employees can verify or not, and as PPRuNe has already shown many times, contributors can see the differences between company and fleet SOP's just by looking at the title and see where a problem for one may not actually occur for another.

And all this from an ATCO, I'd like us to be able to be involved as more and more matters these days do tend to cross over and affect both sides, but obviously having strict rules and disciplinary procedures for those that try to build a bigger "us and them" debate. Will be very interested to see what you decide, good luck whatever you do!

5mb :ok:

[Memetic]

Checking in online databases may not help restrict access, afterall, at least until a database is built to stop duplication what is to stop me as SLF looking up a record and saying that it is me? - not that I would!

[Danny]

Whatever I decide to do and at what level access will be restricted to, I think that a minimal subscription will be in order to offset all the administration costs involved. Probably an initial trial period of say a month and then say £0.50 - £1.00 a month. Still not figured out how to handle the verification though. Could include a free pprune.com email address and require participants to register using real names or new pseudonyms but with, as mentioned above, qualifications in profile.

Maybe have member status and observer status to allow others directly connected. I do agree that ATCO's should be a part of it. Engineers & Technicians maybe. I remember the days when CHIRP was just pilots and ATCOS followed by engineering but I think thay have become a bit too PC with the addition of cabin crew and ground handling personel. Not that I don't think there's a place for debate for them too but you have to draw the line somewhere and this is primarily the 'Professional Pilot' Rumour Network.

Good input so far. Keep your views coming.

[JW411]

This sort of forum is well and truly overdue. There are simply far too many posers and muppets (as you put it) on pprune.

Forgive my ignorance but don't Air Trafficers, Engineers etc etc have licences?

If they have then perhaps a photocopy of said licences would suffice. They don't really need to be current for the young still have a lot to learn from the old.

Someone suggested that this wouldn't work because all you would have to do was borrow someone's licence and send a copy.

In this day and age would any professional lend someone their licence? If someone asked to borrow my licence I would be speaking to Special Branch very, very quickly!

[Hotel Mode]

Totally agree about CHIRP, the Cabin Crew section particularly seems to be being used to take swipes at their favourite Pilots! Havent noticed anyone admitting the mistakes you see in the other sections. I Think Ideally Pilots, ATCO's and LAE's, with proof of licence/RECENT (say last 10 yrs) experience. Think the LAE bit will be the hardest to confirm. Pilots with CPL and ATPL only, but job seekers allowed.

it shouldn't be too difficult to confirm ID of Employed guys by Master seniority list/roster x reference. Ie, Send in your name and say 2 weeks rosters. It would only take 1 guy in each company. I'll volunteer for BA!

[arem]

Don't forget those of us who have retired from the scene

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Forgive my ignorance but don't Air Trafficers, Engineers etc etc have licences?

Depends what you mean by 'engineer' - those involved in the maintenance process are formally licensed, those on the design/certification sides don't, certainly in nothing like the same sense.

That being said, as one of the 'to be excluded' I would have no objection at all; I'd rather there be some discussion than none. I'd just ask that those of us 'second-class citizens' be borne in mind, and that you come out of the 'pilots' lounge' now and again and ask our opinions. Very occassionally we do have an input .....

[scroggs]

Dan, a private forum within Pprune would be the way to go, I feel. Verification of eligibility is relatively easy if people can use their real identities (with licence and employee numbers, where relevant) to register, yet may use alter-egos to post.

On topics where specialist input is called for, you could invite known experts from ATC/Engineering to view and comment on threads as required. Or, if you prefer, you could open the forum to invited people from these or other fields on the basis of their knowlegeable and valuable posting history on the main forums.

I don't think there's anything to be gained by having the forum readable by people not qualified or invited to post. I also think that such a forum would need considerable encouragement from the nominated mods to get discussions going and keep them lively - the danger being that people would drift back to the open forums if they found the cut and thrust of these to be more interesting than the limited-access variety.

A charge to enter may actually encourage participation on the grounds that if you've paid, you might as well get involved. If you haven't paid, there's less incentive to stay.

I'm in two minds as to whether it's a good idea, but I think it could be done reasonably easily, and it would at least answer the criticism that many of our debates are trivialised by non-expert input.

Scroggs

[Le Pen]

Excellent idea Danny,

I would like to put in a word for us LAME's. I feel sure that, from time to time, we could be useful (a bit like in real life)! We have ready access to AMM's, IPC's and other technical data. And some of us are quite clever too (present company excluded).

Thanks for everything anyway;

Love

LP

[Cough]

Just a thought on eligibility. If a user has access to one of the private forums (i.e. airline) then surely the individual forum mods have done your work for you. Anyone else would have to be verified.

[Albert Driver]

Looking for input for an idea I have about a new forum where flight safety reports etc. can be discussed. For example, there are quite a few issues raised in each issue of CHIRP that would warrant debate.
My initial thoughts are that the forum would only be accessible to current airline pilots. The main reason for that is because experience has shown that input from those with little or no experience only serves to inflame emotions and detract from the main topics.

Sorry, Danny. Speaking as someone who would be eligible, I probably wouldn't take part.

CHIRP is already effectively in the public domain - that's why they go to all that trouble to dis-identify contributors. You can talk about CHIRP issues openly here. That's what PPRuNe is all about.

It's always attractive to be in a group that excludes others - until the thrill wears off and everyone wants to go back and join the party! Private forums nearly always turn out to be boring forums. They can be just as emotional and irrational as public ones and can also be dominated by a vociferous few who know less than they think. In any case, sensible discussion of CHIRP issues needs input from non-licence holders and that would be almost impossiible to control - unless you're planning a Danny's Cronies Forum (and I've nothing against that - it's your party).

You say input from those with little or no experience only serves to inflame emotion and detract from the main topics. I think there's plenty of evidence here of those with a _great deal_ of experience doing just that all the time. It's human nature, unfortunately.
Nevertheless there is also plenty of evidence that when people of great experience also choose to talk great sense, everyone else listens. The problem is it doesn't happen as often as it should.

No. Anything we've got to say on safety issues should be said here, open to debate, cross-examination and challenge. Sometimes it's the outsider who asks the most revealing question.

[JW411]

So what Danny is suggesting by going for a subscription is that an admission that most of our serious threads get sidetracked by those who have no idea of what we are discussing. Is the way forward then maybe that we could go along the lines of £10 per year to beat your gums with fellow professionals to your hearts content (with evidence to join) and perhaps £100 for life membership?

My only caveat would be to suggest that those professionals amongst us who insist that they are proffesionals forfeit £10 every time that they do it!

I could easily be tempted just to get the crapwriters out of the way.

[In trim]

Danny,

I understand and agree with the reasoning for this forum, and would fully support it if it were to go ahead.

However, so many Safety / ASR issue debates would perhaps be limited if only pilots could input. I don't know how you would manage access otherwise, so believe you will have no option but to limit this to currently serving pilots, but as a safety professional within the ground handling environment (responsible for ASR management and oversight covering all areas) I believe that any "ASR / Safety forum" will be somewhat limited without input from the likes of ground safety professionals (particularly on issues such as load control / despatch) and also engineering. (Not that I'm suggesting pilot's have a limited view in this respect :O )

That said, it would be totally unmanageable to open the doors wider, so I wish the forum success even if I am unable to contribute. (That's a few quid saved.....I'm off to the pub :) )

In Trim

[Kulu]

I am a (very) occasional participant but I do spend a lot of time looking at the forums. I don't think I am ever going to be in aviation professionally, but I would like to be a ppl and would be very interested in the kind of things that would be posted to the new forum.

I agree with an earlier poster, that all should be able to access to read, but only those qualified to make comments should be able to make them. Of course, the question is whether only pilots are to have a voice, or other aviation professionals as well.

If that's the way it is decided to proceed, would there be different subscription rates for those with read only access?

[JW411]

Kulu has a point. If he is not allowed to read the learned argument then how is he to learn?

Learning should be our primary concern. I have been teaching since 1963 and it would have been very difficult without pupils!

So do you think we could have an open spat between pilots, engineers, ATC etc etc in public whilst allowing Kulu and his mates to watch and learn without them throwing spanners in the works or should we banish them completely?

It is not going to be easy.

I am also mindful of our professional colleagues in places like Bangladesh and Burkino Faso who would be left out because of the joining fee.

On balance I am in favour of all professional pilots who really want to join in paying £100 to put their money where their mouth is and perhaps having a joint membership for those of our professional overseas mates who see £100 as a fortune.

[mutt]

Apologies for a slight diversion........ :)

jondc9, the FAA offered certificate holders the right to remove their records from public access, as i signed the approval request, i doubt very much that you will find any public information regarding Mutt.


Mutt

[yellowbobbyjet]

Danny
It is, of course your web site to do with as you wish. The idea of CHIRPS is to inform everyone about a problem and include everyone in resolving it. I think the idea of discussing CHIRPS is very good, but to exclude anyone before the discussion starts is bad. I know that you spend a great deal of time moderating what goes on on PPRUNE and you wish to make sure this new idea does not get out of hand before it starts, perhaps a way forward would be to allow open discussion but to bar anyone who’s input is obviously uninformed or inappropriate

[Feline]

Danny - As someone who is not an aviation professional but is an IT professional I can't help but feel that you are inviting a huge amount of admin in trying to regulate membership of the proposed forum. But it's your call of course ... And the admin comes not just in entering suitably qualified members in the first place - but in maintaining the database thereafter ...

[Jet2]

You say input from those with little or no experience only serves to inflame emotion and detract from the main topics. I think there's plenty of evidence here of those with a _great deal_ of experience doing just that all the time. It's human nature, unfortunately.


Very true and my thoughts exactly. The idea behind this forum is great so you could always try it as an open forum for a while and see how it goes. A sticky at the top to remind those not in a position to comment may deter a few. If it doesn't work you can always look into making it private again.

IMHO, unless you're writing your own roster at VS these days Danny, I think you will be taking on a huge workload for your spare time trying to admin who qualifies to post and who does not. As most have said though, it's your decision and I hope you can make it work.

Just my tuppence worth :ok:

[DrKev]

Just a thought on eligibility. If a user has access to one of the private forums (i.e. airline) then surely the individual forum mods have done your work for you. Anyone else would have to be verified.

I was thinking the same thing. It would seem to solve an immediate problem with a minimum of extra work load, though an increase in applications for posting on those forums may result in the near term with possible increased workloads on moderators into the long term.

As an SLF ex-scientist who gets very upset at public and journalistic ignorance/mis-information in my areas of expertise, and in light of the increased media coverage that PPruNe seems to attracting of late, it seems to me a good idea to have a forum for industry professionals (be they flight, cabin, ground crew or ATCO) where they can discuss, debate, and learn from each other without risk of Joe Public or Joe Journalist misunderstanding and, particularly, misquoting or quoting divergent or non-standard views as being representative elsewhere.

That suggests to me that forum areas not open to general posting are also closed to general reading. It's up to you guys to decide on posting and reading rights in different sections for flight, cabin, ATCO, ground etc.

[Self Loading Freight]

I'm one of the non-professional lurkers who uses Pprune as the best insight bar none into commercial aviation. My interest is almost entirely personal - do you need justification for fascination? - but it doesn't fall into a neat categorisation of spotterhood, nerdy tech, history bufferhood, wannabeness or whatever. Aviation is fascinating, and Pprune is the good stuff.

I rarely comment, because there's rarely anything useful I can add, but I do learn a great deal. The issues covered in CHIRPS are always worth learning about, and I'd regret not having the view from seats 0A and 0H.

For what it's worth!

R

[jondc9]

tell this yank what a CHIRP is? I think we have the same thing here but we call it a national transportation safety board ASR report.

people in trouble call them "get out of jail free cards"

jon

[Bumblebee]

Confidential Human Factors Incident RePorting

[innuendo]

It would be a shame not to have access to the comments from the wealth of experience that must exist with most of the retired Professional Pilots.

[Chazbird]

First post for me. In the U.S. there is a very useful forum along what's been proposed here. It's called Bluecoat, this is for airline pilots (& retired) ATC, avionics engineers, safety analysis people, and I think, regulators - its main focus is aircraft automation issues, but the topics stray every once in awhile, all quite useful though,and somehow they keep out the extraterrestials, but I forgot how. (Now I remember, it's a e-mail thing, so maybe that's much easier to manage). Myself, I'd like to be included even if I'm not a current airline pilot (but was) and have worked more than a decade at a not to be named US government aviation human factors research center. So if I'm included, however its done, then I can make a second post.

Chaz

[broadreach]

Interesting conundrum, how to bring in the wealth of experience that's out there while still filtering out the silliness. Thinking slightly outside the box, would not retired pilots and ATC staff be amongst the most worthy contributors? More time, experience and less axes to grind?

Then, current (verifiable) license holders, flightdeck and ATC.

All have to register and describe qualifications, confidentially and accepted on face value at first, with the proviso that your moderator(s) will be harsh with anyone suspected of posing. Free for first x months, then a questionnaire of the "is continuing on this forum worth £10/50/100 a year to you?".

Later, when the dust's settled and if you then think the contributions would be constructive, allow in others, engineers, IT etc, with the same proviso.

Easy to say all this off the cuff. We're going through something slightly similar in my own company. Have to be wary of cannibalising the existing structure. Good luck!

[Searider]

First off let me say that I have nothing more than a passing interest in avaiation. I fly a sim ocationally and have a fondness for complex and mechanical things. I read this formum ocationally because I am interested in how people approach problem solving, particularly in time critical situations. The 'infomed' speculations are as interesting as what eventually turns out to be the facts.
Ok, having said that, I also read a forum for professional photographers at http://www.sportsshooter.com/index.html
They faced a similar problem of wanting to exclude non-professionals and how to vet the appropriate people where "appropriate" is hard to define.
There approach is to make the forums viewable by all but only approved pro's can post. There veting process is what I think might be of interest. They use a referal system. Esentially, you must be "sponsored" by an existing member. If you "sponsor" someone that is not appropriate, both of you loose privilege. Presumably, you would have some way to seed the population.
I would hate to see this new forum not be viewable by myself because I think that only the Un-informed speculations would be left for public viewing.

Good luck in finding a solution to the excess bagage.

[lomapaseo]

.....................
Maybe have member status and observer status to allow others directly connected. I do agree that ATCO's should be a part of it. Engineers & Technicians maybe. ................

From first page Looking for input for an idea I have about a new forum where flight safety reports etc

I don't mind sharing my name with the forum administration. I spent many years on Avsig using my real name, but have shied away from exposing my name to ridicule on this forum in a free for all.

I don't have a license, but you may care to know that I do have a significant influence on both the investigation and the safety related corrective actions.

I would be happy to particpate in the discussion, but I would not bother to be an observer since it would only upset me even further than by reading regular Pprune postings where at least I can act as a devils advocate. :)

[Bangkokeasy]

If you want to ensure the qualifications of a participant in such a forum, probably the only way is to obtain some sort of positive referal from an employer or professional organisation. As has been pointed out, licences can be borrowed and copied, like it or not! Once an application has been made in this way, there would need to be a disconnect between those details and a username "handle", to ensure anonymity.

[overstress]

Danny

Why not keep it to a regulated PPRuNe forum? Just 'invite' all current airline forum members, they are already regulated by each company 'mod'.

We could then work out a way to invite ATCOs, engineers & the retired.

I would contribute to such a forum.

[ICT_SLB]

First post for me. In the U.S. there is a very useful forum along what's been proposed here. It's called Bluecoat, this is for airline pilots (& retired) ATC, avionics engineers, safety analysis people, and I think, regulators - its main focus is aircraft automation issues, but the topics stray every once in awhile, all quite useful though,and somehow they keep out the extraterrestials, but I forgot how.
Chaz

Chaz,
When I joined quite some time ago, Bluecoat (named after the UK school by the way) required a potted bio which was vetted by the Moderator. If you were deemed acceptable you got the password. I beleive that most PPruners already have submitted something very similar and a quick search of previous posts would soon show if they had the requisite knowledge & experience (pilot's license or not).

If you followed that methodology, you'd find that my colleague, Mad (Flight) Scientist, far from being left out, would be welcome as he has provided quite a lot of technical input to the Flight Testi & other forums.

[john_tullamarine]

I would second those suggestions which look to a referral filter for the existing membership .. that way, any invitees have an auditable track record in the wider forums of PPRuNe and the lunatic fringe could be restrained (regardless of whatever qualifications and experience they may have). One would envisage the hierarchy having an over-riding say so that non-PPRuNe folk of distinction could be enticed into the particular forum.

Restricting such discussions to one or more segments of the Industry would be counterproductive, I suggest .. the Industry now is a very multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary sort of animal and the discussions really need to be in a similar vein.

[UNCTUOUS]

Where would this leave retired ATP's - and Service Pilots who may have many tens of thousands of hours on Transport type a/c?
.
Excluded obviously.

[Spitoon]

Thinking about this some more, it seems to me that because most of the posters keep their identity anonymous - myself included - for a variety of reasons it also permits one to play devil's advocate (or just devil) - myself included - from time to time without fear of retribution.

If we want a truly professional forum to discuss important matters of relevance to our business, there is no place for anonymity. Perhaps access to the forum should be predicated, amongst other things, on names and profiles being 'correct'.

[scroggs]

I think the point should be made that nothing Danny's proposed will change or affect Pprune's existing forums, as far as I can tell. There would still be every opportunity for the mischief, mayhem and, yes, serious comment that already exists here. However, I think what Danny is looking for is a forum with a greater sense of purpose and gravitas than exists in the current structure, but with (geographically) wider participation, and probably a wider remit, than the current officially-sponsored print forums (such as the afore-mentioned Chirp).

I think that such a forum's membership would probably become more or less self-selecting once its character is understood. Chirp is open to all aviation people, but its nature discourages the frivolous and the mischievous which are a feature of R&N. Tech Log is an example of a forum already existing here on Pprune which has established a more (though not totally) serious-minded atmosphere, yet it has no bars to entry. Moderation, at least in the early stages, would have to be tighter than it is now, but that's relatively easily achieved in a closed forum (we already have the technology to pre-moderate all posts before they appear on a forum).

Membership based on the current airline forums isn't as simple as it would first appear - some are open to all employees of that airline, not just pilots or other Ops professionals. Thus I think it inevitable that membership of any new forum would be initially by invitation, and subsequently by referral. This would successfully exclude those who just want an elitist airline-pilot 'club' and allow in those who are known to add value to discussions, whatever their role in aviation.

I have to say that I still reserve judgement as to whether such a forum is necessary or desirable, but I think the organisational issues aren't insurmountable and, given a lot of TLC in the early stages, it could be valuable if its discussions become influential in the industry. I happen to think that that's already the case, despite the sometimes high noise to signal ratio on R&N.

[Jonty]

I think its a very good idea.

There are times when safety related issues need to be discussed, and we all know that the press reads these pages. I think that an airline only forum would be a great help to aviation professionals from all over the industry. I don't think that access should be restricted to airline pilots only though. I think it should be open to all professional pilots (instructors, biz jets ect..) and also to ATC personnel, Flt Engs (any left?). We all have a vested interest in our industry and a new forum would help us debate the issues and challenges what are facing us with other professional within our industry. And I hope that comment can be made without causing the hysteria that can be seen on R&N from time to time.

But how you would restrict access is beyond me unless you could get the CAA to confirm who has professional licenses, or set the forum up in conjunction with CHIRP.

[N380UA]

It seams that there is great need for a professional aviation debating platform which may exceed CHIRP in itself. As it was mentioned several times above, aviation is a system, encompassing pilots, engineers, ATC etc.

I think we could separate aviation into two categories; people in leisure aviation i.e. GA, students etc. and people in professional aviation, employed by an official, recognized company.

Those of us that earn a living working in this industry may have a need for discussions such as CHIRP on a professional level without any distraction from the medias or wannabes. However, the leisure aviation people could learn a great deal from such discussion and thus increasing the overall safety of aviation – they should be able to read-only.

For the verification process to stay as simple and cheap as possible, weeding out the pros from the amateurs one could use the professionals business email. Anyone that wishes to be verified for such forum must give the work email address to receive an access code. When the address ends in something like @lufthansa.de, @delta.com @boeing.com @it or nats.co.uk it should be evident that it is a pro.

[AIMS by IBM]

Just put a copy of the license or busines card under the posters name or trough a link to his/her profile.


Do not expect the boys from the CAA or manufacturors etc......to post, they will never be critical of a potential custumer or political friend.

Or maybe we should do as most pro's .... shuffle it all a couple of meters under the ground.

[ComJam]

Good idea I reckon, far to much bull**** from unqualified, know-it-all types on the open forums.

I take it the plan would be to open it to ALL qualified Professional Pilots, including those of us who don't fly for airlines?

Cheers

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

I think your plan is great Danny. As has been pointed out, it does not change the existing forums but merely guarantees some degree of sense from poeple who are genuine professional pilots. I personally would probably open it to retired pilots but would disclude those who have not flown for a recognised airline even if they have a licence.

[egbt]

Sounds like a good idea but I think read only access would be useful for those of us on the fringes of the industry. PPL’s etc.

Alternately perhaps some form of accreditation so that posts on all boards could be flagged to show which credentials of the individual posting have been verified, perhaps with the grade of licences or whatever shown allowing some judgement to be made as to the veracity of the post.

[Tuba Mirum]

Danny, as a pax with a professional interest in the management of risk, I would be sad not to have access to such a forum, though I fully understand the need to avoid excess muppet input.
I like the idea of entry by sponsorship to allow posting - this puts a lot of inertia in the way of people who, once banned, seek to re-enter under a different moniker. I'm not sure whether the idea of restricting readership to avoid duplicate threads holds water - I would have thought forum mods would be in a position to stamp on any threads duplicating flight safety subject matter.
Having said that, I wouldn't want to be any part of a hindrance to proper discussion among professionals, if entry by license or whatever seems to be the only practicable solution.

[ILS 119.5]

I think the private forum is a good idea. I have not read all the comments yet so I apologise if I am repeating anything. I personally think it should be open to all licenced Commercial Pilots/ATCO's/Engineers. Aviation is about safety and CHIRP is produced for that reason. If we all work together it will continue. A private forum limited to pilots only is all and well but input from others (ATCO's/Engineers) should be welcomed.
On the negative side it would be difficult to validate all applications and I'm sure someone who was not licenced would find a way in and then all is lost.
Rgds
ILS 119.5

[ChewyTheWookie]

I completely disagree that a private forum is the way to go. There are far too many people with excellent and educated points to make who would be excluded simply because they form part of a group which is generally considered to be a problem.

I am currently a cabin crew member which would immediatly exclude me from this forum, however I am also halfway towards a comercial license (unfortunately stopped due to failed medical) and am now looking to pursue a career in air traffic. I have always shown a keen interest in the safety issues and things that happen the other side of the door and feel I have been able to make some decent points in debates. Please do not exclude people such as myself simply because a few of the people in our jobs have been a nuisance.

[Skytrucker]

Dan,

There is plenty of room within Pprune for contributions on any subject from anyone inclined to participate. A specific forum for discussion of CHIRP should be confined to those it directly affects, holders of validated commercial flying licences and ATCOs. Verification by you receiving an e-mail copy of licence with last LPC/OPC.

[ChewyTheWookie]

CHIRP affects far more people than just pilots and ATCOs. I know you'll probably hate to hear it but cabin crew are on that list too...

[Skytrucker]

So please feel free to participate in the cabin crew forum. Should you wish to limit the forum to current cabin crew only then please propose this to the moderator. You will probably find the improvement dramatic.

[excrewingbod]

CHIRP affects far more people than just pilots and ATCOs. I know you'll probably hate to hear it but cabin crew are on that list too...

Indeed, one could argue that a fair proportion of flight crew CHIRPs are because of the interaction with other sectors of the industry.

I suspect the only way to have a sensible discussion in such a forum, is to have each post approved by a moderator before it is published, although the current safety forum appears to plod along without too much nonsense.

There are 'muppets' in all walks of life, regardless if they are 'qualified' or not. PPRUNE appears to have more than its fair share of them. One only has to look at the, now closed, 'BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR thread' to see some of the posts from those purportedly 'qualified' to discuss such matters.........

[ChewyTheWookie]

So please feel free to participate in the cabin crew forum.

You assume I want to just participate in the cabin crew forum.

I don't see why I should be blocked from joining in discussions about issues which will hopefully be relevant one day in my line of work (as I said before I am applying to be an ATCO). I personally do not feel I am a "muppet" as someone so eloquently put. If I make a statement based on my limited knowledge that turns out to be incorrect I am happy to be corrected. I also enjoy the opportunity to ask questions about the issues brought up. The cabin crew forum certainly isn't going to give me any useful info about flying across the Atlantic on 3 engines is it?

Unlike certain people, I never pretend to be qualified. If anyone asks I freely admit that I am a private flyer with 50 hours (and proud of it!).

[Hand Solo]

And that is the point. You are not a specialist and so unable to contribute to specialist discussions. If you want to learn about a specific issue then there is nothing to stop you asking about it on a regular forum. However as a non-specialist you do not have the necessary technical knowledge or training to contribute a specialist opinion.

[ChewyTheWookie]

How do you know I don't have the necessary technical knowledge? You simply make assumptions.

[Oh that's super!]

How about the likes of:

- Retired pilots
- Sim instructors that lost their medical
- Military pilots
- Aviation safety professionals (with licence but not flying professionally or seeking to fly professionally, or without licence) including safety investigators
- Aviation medical examiners

Even though they are not 'airline pilots', they could have very valuable contributions to make (and often/usually equipped with highly specialist knowledge). Excluding them could narrow the scope of input.

[lomapaseo]

Sorry to post more than once on this interesting thread, but after reading further discussion, I'm inclined to support the idea of referrals by already respected members such as Mods, in lieu of so called government issued licenses.

[Hand Solo]

Sorry Chewie but we've been down this road before. You are a steward who's studied for a CPL, you have 50 hours flying, you have previously claimed extensive knowledge here and in other forums based entirely on sitting on the flight deck jumpseat and talking to flight crew at work. You do not hold a CPL, you have never completed a type rating course on an airliner, you do not hold an aircraft engineers or an air traffic controllers licence, ergo you do not have specialist technical knowledge in these areas. It is not an assumption, its a fact, and its this sort of inane sidetracking that a specialist forum would prevent.

[fyrefli]

I like the idea posted way up there ^^^^^^ somewhere about having a Professional Pilots only forum that the rest of us can read but not post to.

There are, I suspect, quite a number of people on PPRuNe who, like myself (qualified paraglider pilot for over a decade, 800 hours - not much but not bad with no engine! - regularly fly cross-country in the UK, need to understand and avoid airspace, regularly fly in Class G with the rest of you etc.) read it avidly and learn an awful lot, whilst refraining from posting unless we actually have something meaningful and distinct to say.

Best of both worlds?

Cheers,

Rich.

[ChewyTheWookie]

Hand solo, does a BEng in Mechanical Engineering including Aeronautics not qualify me at all?

[Hand Solo]

Not really, mine doesn't. Low level aeronautical theory is a good building block but the concepts are frankly a bit too abstract and removed from realistic application to be useful. Plus we have plenty of specialist professional engineers, aerodynamicists and test pilots to explain the structural, mechanical and aerodynamical aspects of the discussion, which in any case crop up rarely here. BTW I thought your degree was in Sound Engineering. From Hull.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

we have plenty of specialist professional engineers, aerodynamicists .....

You won't have if you want to use licensing as a criteria; as I mentioned above, only those directly on the maintenance side of engineering are licensed. The rest of us are just 'employed'.

[Go Smoke]

Hi Danny,

I'm just humble GA with 500 hours and I would never presume to post on the professional forums, however I do love to read them.

I'm passionate about aviation and find the pro forums intensely interesting and infomative.

I would still like to be able view the topics and discussions and think perhaps the idea of limited access but wider viewability would be a good balance.

Thanks,

GS

[nnc0]

Unfortunately I only ever acquired a PPL, long since expired and like Chewie, I find myself on the verge of being silenced.

In my defence though for being included I do however have several degrees in engineering and have worked in aerodynamics, performance, structural design and flt test (flown em as well) as well as other aircraft specialties. I've also developed procedures (SOPs, Supp techniques, Abnormals, QRH etc) for manufacturers and airlines drawing heavily on human factors and CRM. It might be a longshot but with the right odds I'd take the bet that you've probably used some of my stuff.

Hand Solo said "...the concepts are frankly a bit too abstract and removed from realistic application to be useful. Plus we have plenty of specialist professional engineers, aerodynamicists and test pilots to explain the structural, mechanical and aerodynamical aspects of the discussion...."

From my own experience, that exact attitude has led to quite a few embarrassing moments for crew. It's almost like saying "Lets not go back to basics and lets not keep an open mind." Hardly a sound basis for discussing CHIRPs.

Professionally, I'd dismiss any report or send it back if it didn't contain feedback from all concerned.

If my own experience has shown me anything it's that looking at an issue from one perspective alone often stultifies(?) the discussion and leads nowhere with nothing being resolved.

[scroggs]

Unfortunately I only ever acquired a PPL, long since expired and like Chewie, I find myself on the verge of being silenced.

Really? Why? There is no proposal to change the rest of Pprune, simply a suggestion that a new, private forum be introduced. That doesn't disenfanchise anyone - there are already several private forums to which you do not have access.

I am strongly of the opinion that this forum, should it go ahead, be just like the other private forums - exclusive to those deemed qualified to contribute. To avoid it being taken out of context by others (such as the Press, and those resentful of any perceived exclusion) it should be wholely private; not readable by anyone not a member. Should any particular topic become of relevance to any organisation outside Pprune, or should expert comment be required from outside the membership, access could be given temporarily as required.

Pprune as it is now will continue unchanged (in this context), and those not part of the new forum need hardly be aware of its presence.

[ChewyTheWookie]

Sound Engineering. From Hull.

Erm, no...

You may be confused by the fact that I used to be a sound engineer but my degree was in mechanical engineering.

It seems to me that certain people just want to have their own little private members club so they can feel they are better than everyone else. Forget this silly idea and just carry on as before. If a post is not suitable then the moderator can simply remove it.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

What Ho! Scroggs.

The previous posts to yours @17.17Z precisely indicate why your opinion, in my opinion, makes a very great deal of common sense.;)

[Outlook]

First, allow me to declare that I am SLF.

Second, I have been reading PPRUNE for many years and always find interesting discussions and articles to follow and I find it a great way to start understanding some of the difficulties and challenges you guys face within your profession.

I can also see this thread going way off topic along with the way many other informative posts start out. :ugh:

I can understand both sides to the argument when you professionals are trying to discuss things before a Walter Mitties destroys the debate. However, please don't under estimate how valuable and informative some of these posts are to those wanting to join the profession, learn respect for the profession or just learn from the PROFESSIONALS.

Danny, I wouldn't dream of making a suggestion on what direction you should follow - You guys and Gals are the experts not me. However, may I please make a small suggestion for pprune in general?

Would it be possible to alter the profiles of pprune to make people to "declare" if they are CPL, PPL, ATC, SLF, or whatever qual they may have and then display it below their name and join date in all posts they make...

This would result in minimal overhead for the admins and whilst it is obviously open to abuse if someone has been found to have made a false declaration then they could be banned for life.

I am not sure if I explained that too well but it was just an idea. I hope you don't mind.

[Kahalaan]

Hello Danny,

Just to add an IT perspective to this, as I'm sure who you want & annual admin fee (say £10 p.a.) will all come out in the wash....

1) Licence verification via a free (or low fee company) 'FAX to E-mail' service. That way admin costs are kept low as verification could come to a central pprune admin/mods a/c for approval etc. (Check out yac.com or similar).

2) PPayment authentication for said suggested site via PayPal or authenticated service taking a small % of fee....again to save on admin at your end. Again payment verification sent to a central pprune/admin/mods e-mail a/c for approval.

3) Consider 'offshore' webhosting - you may have US/San Diego stuff right now (as far as I can see without peeking too far) but way to go might be to get somewhere (ahem...less 'litigious'). Maybe need to speak to a Web Lawyer, as, for example, a USA hosted site may come back to haunt you at some future date....that all I'm sayin' on that.

Hope that's helpful on more of the IT side, Danny.

Go well!

K

Edited for typo....K

[5milesbaby]

If the new forum became visible to all to view then I'd suggest not putting up details about the contributors, even if under a user name anyone can see who works for who and what they do and that can lead to abuse. I also think that because of this exact problem many individuals will not want to contribute/join, myself included. I'm not saying this because I want to exclude anybody, but because the forum could be great if you get the right personnel. CHIRP deals with some of those matters that many would shy away from on PPRuNe open forums so a dedicated forum for human factors would be beneficial to those involved. Danny also has to draw a line somewhere if he's going to fully or partially restrict entry, there will always be a group that feels sidelined/unwelcome/excluded. My view is that CHIRP reports actual practical experiences and those best equipped to answer/debate issues are those that are currently working in the exact field, I accept that there are many who have vast theoretical knowledge on topics, but the forum proposed by Danny will benefit from just practical and professional aviation personnel.

[Luke SkyToddler]

I'm in favour of a referrals-only forum, for one simple reason : if anyone with a bit of ppruning experience was to quickly think of a mental top 20 of the chief pain-in-the-ass thread-destroying flame-war-starting got-an-opinion-on-everything pompous windbags in this place, the majority of them are either current or retired airline pilots. Plus one disturbed Australian billionaire PPL and one Ryanair management lackey who masquerades as a pilot anyway.

Either way, requiring proof of a professional licence will keep away a few of the opinionated spotters and SLF, but none of the real trouble makers. Hence, this new serious-discussion forum is just as likely to go down the same pan of triviality and personal agenda as all the other existing forums, unless access is restricted ONLY to those who have already demonstrated both sufficient level of specialist knowledge and a basic maturity level in the forums in general. There are plenty of folk on here who have either one or the other but not both.

An invitation-only regime would also enable the genuinely knowledgeable engineering / ATC / cabin personnel to dispense their wisdom when it's called for, and I for one would be very glad to learn from them as well.

[overstress]

SkyToddelr: :uhoh: I flamed a cc member in 'text speak' last week and got a b*ll0cking from a moderator (first one since 1997!) . Guess I'll be out then! :O

But i think the mods could pick those they wanted to be 'in' from a quick review of the forums. Perhaps people could also 'apply' via an on-line form? There could also be a JetBlast II where the excluded & unqualified can pontificate on BA 744 SOPs, etc and moan about not being included.

Not sure how much workload that would generate - I suspect a lot, which may rule it out.

If contributors were allowed in only on merit, it would have the added benefit of raising the tone of some of the threads in PPRuNe! ;)

[banana9999]

Personally I don't think £1/month is enough. Danny charge £100/month and you can eat at Ramsay's every night :D

[Zero"G"]

Danny
Maybe a path in the direction of having Alpa/Bupa or any organised pilot/crew/atc association,witch a person is registered/member.You could request "clearance" from those associations to "verify" membership.That done,secure forum will be granted.It would only take emails and contacts with representatives of these organisations to explain the concerns and objectives of these measures.
Have a member number,verify authenticity,your cleared.
Regards
0'G

[Midland63]

Hi - haven't read all this thread yet but if I get the gist of it, I'd say:-

PPrune - the clue's in the name - "professional pilots"

... which means anyone who's not a PP should generally just but out.

I say that from the perspective not being a PP (just a SLF) who gains much interest and enjoyment from reading the views of the pro's but who tries to restrain myself from posting on a forum where 99 times out of 100 (make that 999 times out of 1000), I don't know what I'm talking about.

Oh well, broke my golden rule there ...

But my message would be to keep the Pprune faith and don't be persuaded into some alternative by the interruptions of non-PP's.

NK

[Rananim]

Elitism sucks.Restricting access to current airline pilots will not necessarily elevate the standard of debate.PPrune is an excellent source for opinion and debate on aviation,in particular safety matters.Open access actually enriches the debate in my view.Everybody on board here has their own inbuilt bs detector and if they find themselves fast forwarding through some of the postings to get to the pearls of wisdom,what harm can that be?

[fernytickles]

No offence meant to Danny or any of the PPRUNE team but why PPRUNE as a host for this forum particularly? Why not the good folks at CHIRP themselves? If it is to be a CHIRP discussion forum, can the people who are sent CHIRP reports themselves (I can't remember what qualifies you to receive a CHIRP report?) be the ones who have access to the forum? If, as someone pointed out earlier, the reports are in the public domain, therefore available to anyone, then surely "anyone" should be able to discuss them, rightly or wrongly, accurately or inaccurately?


Its an interesting idea, but I really don't see how you can decide what qualifies (or disqualifies) a person to post on the forum. Take our household, as an example - two aviation professionals, one with 2 ATPLs and an aviation career within and outwith the airlines, the other with 2 PPLs and a phenominal knowledge of aviation - which one should qualify?


If I had to send a photocopy of my licence, and if I were a very cautious, suspicious person, what proof could I be given that this copy is read and destroyed immediately so that no one else has access to it etc, etc. I just had to email a copy of my passport and licence to the TSA, and that made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck, even (or maybe because of?) sending to those folks.


I think, aside from the nonsense that appears on here, the exchange of knowledge from all over the world and all different facets of aviation is what makes this forum so interesting and informative. To restrict a forum to only a select bunch of aviation people would undoubtedly separate the wheat from the chaff, but I fear you would also lose an awful lot of the wheat too.


Another thought - aren't quite a lot of the subjects or situations reported to CHIRP already discussed, directly or indirectly, on a daily basis here in a variety of the forums?

[A-3TWENTY]

Hi Danny ,

I think this a request i have already seen on the PPRUNE long ago....

Exllent Idea...go ahead with it!!!!!

I Think ATCO`s should participate since we have lots of subjects that air traffic control related.And I think it is important to them understand what we think so they can help us when we most need.

About wanabees...Just approve the guys with ATPL.The rest leave them at bay.
They will still have the rest of PPRUNE . I will nor refrain myself or answering good questions in other secctions of PPRUNE.

Engeneers...Well an engeneer may be the guy who pushes you back...

The old eagles are welcome as well.


To register.:

Send the license or scan of the license and crew card.

To the old eagles the copy of the license even not valid and a copy of the ID.

It will be necessary to create a small DATABASE with the REAL data of the members to avoid people using the documentation of others.

Good idea !!!When is it going to start????:) :)

[MachBuffet]

Why not determine access protocols by asking company forum moderators to determine eligibility?

[Skytrucker]

Who wants the company to know your handle :E

[AIMS by IBM]

Why is it that so many important safety issues are being discussed on PPRuNe trough anonymous posters?

Because there is no whistle blower procedure available within EASA.

So many of us want to come forward but stay anonymous out of fear.

Why do the pro PPRuNe posters not send an e-mail to IASA that that’s what they want?

The recent Flight international points out that ATCO praise our system.....I think they are far to idealistic.

[RogerIrrelevant69]

I think Luke SkyToddler has the right idea - a referrals-only forum.

As a CPL holder who really only uses that privilege for doing PPL like things when the mood takes me, I really wouldn't have much to chip into a strictly professional forum like the one Danny proposes. However, I certainly would be an avid reader, as I am of CHIRP. Not sure what form I signed to receive CHIRP but it certainly never goes unread by me.

The new forum has to be more closed than the forums in PPRUNE with no place for the:
Mr.Angrys, Mr.RetiredAngrys, Mr.Nastys,
Mr.FlightSims (I refer you all to that never ending BA747 on 3 engines thread which was hijacked at one stage by the sim goons. I suspect that may be one of many reasons the new forum is being proposed),
Mr.MyMateDownThePubIsAPilotAndHeSays,
Mr.ThereAreNoJobsAndThereNeverWere (what does he call himself these days? A320Luggage is it?),
Mr.RyanairIsInFactHeavenAndAllOtherAirlinesAre****
and of course the obvious journos trawling for poo.

Tough one to administer I guess but worth doing right.

[Flying Lawyer]

As someone who wouldn’t be eligible to post in the proposed new forum ………

I think a forum for airline pilots to discuss matters which affect airline pilots is an excellent idea. :ok:
I’d prefer (self-interest) if it was open for the rest of us to read and learn, but can see good arguments both ways.
Other roles in the industry have their own forums. They aren't restricted - but they don’t suffer from the problem of unqualified people ruining discussions by posting uninformed, and often provocative, drivel which detracts and distracts from the discussion. For some reason I’ve never understood, it seems every man and his dog feels able to express an opinion upon what professional pilots should or shouldn't do in given circumstances.

I’m not sure I’m qualified to express any opinion on who should be allowed to post but, FWIW as an enthusiastic Ppruner and ‘outsider’ –
Anyone in the industry?
No. Although some nuisance posts are from outside, they are often from people in the industry – one group in particular seem to me as an objective observer to have chips on their shoulders about pilots. If the gates are opened too widely, even within the industry, it will achieve little or nothing - and not reduce the silly 'Who do pilots think they are' type of posts.
Retired airline pilots?
It would be a terrible waste to exclude people with maybe 25-30 years experience to offer. Surely someone will be able to vouch for their status, even if they no longer hold an ATPL.
ATCOs?
I can see the force of the argument.
Engineers?
I no longer understand what is meant by ‘Engineer’. Maybe Flight Engineers only – although there aren’t many of those left.
Cabin Crew?
There’s already an active forum for CC. If the ‘read only’ option is chosen, any cabin attendants wishing to learn about flying will be able to do so by reading discussions between pilots. If they have a question, they can ask it on one of the appropriate forums.
Wannabe pro pilots?
PPRuNe already has two superb forums for Wannabes. They can learn about operational matters by reading if the ‘read only’ option is chosen, and can ask questions on other forums.
PPLs? As a PPL myself - No, for the same reasons.

ChewyTheWookie “It seems to me that certain people just want to have their own little private members club so they can feel they are better than everyone else.”Oh dear, your chip is showing. :rolleyes:
Apologies for being blunt but IMHO that attitude provides a useful illustration of one of the reasons why a separate forum is a very good idea.
Please forgive me again for being a little blunt but, at 23 with a new PPL/50 hours, a couple of years as CC with BA and an enthusiasm for MS FlightSim (albeit with the B737 and A340 add-ons you recommend), I’m surprised you think you have anything to contribute to the specific type of forum proposed – professional pilots discussing flying issues. As a fellow PPL, I strongly recommend reading and learning from what the pros post and, if you have a specific question, asking it on an open forum relevant to the question. PPRuNe is a goldmine of information for PPLs like us. I’ve never found professional pilots (on PPRuNe or elsewhere) to be anything other than extremely helpful and patient when asked questions - but I’ve never presumed to offer them the 'benefit' of my opinions on flying issues.

Your comment also seems curiously at odds with your attitude towards a BA employee (non CC) who dared to express an opinion in a discussion in the CC forum concerning BA CC going sick. You disagreed with him (fair enough) but: "X, you are clearly a very ignorant person so I am going to go through things simply for you." and “I am quite interested to know what X is actually doing in this thread. He is clearly not cabin crew or a pilot.Hardly the 'open to all' approach you now advocate?

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Other roles in the industry have their own forums. They aren't restricted - but they don’t suffer from the problem of unqualified people ruining discussions by posting uninformed, and often provocative, drivel which detracts and distracts from the discussion.

Well, that's not entirely true. The simple fact is that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing in ANY field; airline pilots are certainly not the only people who will find the partially informed seeking to educate them about their own discipline. As a (presumed) lawyer, I'm sure you must get plenty of people explaining to you how the law is, or should be, for example .... and I'm sure some of those people are themselves pilots. We all like to pontificate on matters outside our own sphere of knowledge; it's a rare person who will simply say "Sorry, I don't know much about topic X, I'll pass on that discussion"

Engineers?
I no longer understand what is meant by ‘Engineer’. Maybe Flight Engineers only – although there aren’t many of those left

Most people in this discussion are using it in the context of LAEs - the people licensed to perform maintenance activities on the aircraft. It's also capable of extension to the whole design community, but we don't get licensed so would present an almost insurmountable obstacle to any kind of vetting process.

[Danny]

Thanks for the input so far. Nothing has been decided yet so please don't let emotions get too carried away. If, and that's a big if, I decide to do anything about it all opinions will be considered.

So far, what has grabbed my attention is the option of recommendation for entry into a private forum from existing members. It is also one other way of possibly verifying the bona fides of applicants should there be restrictions to access.

Also, please don't foget, as mentioned by Scroggs, that the rest of PPRuNe as you know it will still be here. My proposal is for some kind of restricted forum for a core group from amongst fellow workers. Access to selected industry observers would also be a possibility. Suggestions are still coming in and are being weighed up.

Rgds from NYC (standby callout) :ok:

[Flying Lawyer]

Mad (Flt) Scientist

I agree a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing in any field, and agree airline pilots aren't the only people occasionally frustrated by "the partially informed seeking to educate them about their own discipline."
However, we're discussing whether there should be a restricted forum on an aviation website where professional pilots can discuss flying matters with other professional pilots - undistracted by the partially informed.
If this was a legal website, I'd be in favour (for the same reason) of a restricted 'lawyers only' forum where lawyers could discuss legal matters with other lawyers.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

I don't necessarily disagree (see my original post) but the problem is that, to use the analogy you make, that if it's a forum for the discussion of problems in the (legal) system, and if you only had actual lawyers, and no police, or forensic scientists, and weren't sure if you wanted judges or not, and were debating whether a law Lord was or wasn't a good person to have there, ..... you might end up discussing the technical details of the law, but miss some of the bigger picture.

Or, back to the aviation world, pilots can discuss until they are blue in the face why someone did or didn't follow the manual-ordained procedure, and whether it was the right decision or not. But if there's no-one involved who's seen the manual development process, and can perhaps explain why it might be so apparently confusing or misleading, then the discussion may end up a little sterile.

And the other forums WILL undoubtedly suffer, even if they are still there; if the 'restricted forum' is seen to be a quieter place for discussion there will be an inevitable tendency for issues to be discussed there which would otherwise be discussed in, say, Tech Log or Safety CRM & QA. That will tend to lower the quality of discussion in the other forums, and you may find a vicious/virtuous circle develop (depending on which forums you read!).

For my own part, I find that observing the (often wide) range of pilot community opinions on aircraft operations to be a valuable background to my 'real job'; you could be building what you think is the best tool in the world, but if the toolmaker doesn't know much about how the tool is used .... so I would find it something of a loss personally. But I do understand the desire to keep discussions in a controlled environment, and it would be very hard to devise an 'admissions policy' that wasn't based on something simple like license status.

[Kahalaan]

3) Consider 'offshore' webhosting - you may have US/San Diego stuff right now (as far as I can see without peeking too far) but way to go might be to get somewhere (ahem...less 'litigious'). Maybe need to speak to a Web Lawyer, as, for example, a USA hosted site may come back to haunt you at some future date....that all I'm sayin' on that.

Hi Flying Lawyer, (Not sure if you saw my whole post earlier)

As a bit of a Forum/IT, 'nerd' myself, I'd appeciate your comments on the legalese post I made earlier (part quoted above), as I think that might help Danny/PPrune in the longer-term re: some sort of 'verified' PP forum.

e.g. As forums are going right now, there is little 'legalese' in stopping anything being said, apart from, say, actions of Mods etc., deleting/ASBO'ing people etc.,

However, my view is that if such a 'closed/subscribed' forum (as suggested) is hosted in, say the UK or USA (Currently it's USA for PPrune), then there might be a 'legal' comeback to those who post on such a site. i.e. PPrune, might get subpoenaed to divulge any such discussions relating to aviation in any relative court action. An example could be, say a problem with a specific aircraft air conditioning problem, say discussed 'professionally' amongst 'verified' pilot members on a given PPrune forum then leading to individual commentators being asked to appear in court?

I hope I've made that clear. If not, please come back. i.e. Once someone is 'verified' as a member of the intended forum....then one becomes available to be 'subpoenaed' on a 'professional' level from the country which hosts the website (currently under USA law, for example, for PPrune.org.). Therefore, if there is an 'incident' in future that relies on say, CHIRPS (or whatever the new forum addresses, 'Professionally'...with 'verified' members)....isn't there a case to look at maybe an 'offshore' webhost, such as 'Tuvalu' (.tv) just as an example, to help PPrune 'verified members' be 'unaccountable' (despite the best intentions/professional opinions) of their posts.

I mean, I'm happy to express incidents in all honesty on a forum online....whether I want to be 'subpoenaed' for what I say is another matter. I will already have given the facts to the company involved and would rather their specialists account for that, than have days offline to deal with another vein of 'legalese'.

Would appreciate your comments overall, Flying Lawyer.

Regards,

K.

[AN2 Driver]

Like Flying Lawyer I would not qualify for the "new" forum / forum section as I am neither currently employed by an airline nor is my license valid at this stage. But I think that there should be some things considered on a broader basis then the "them and us" discussion that has evloved over recent threads.

I started in Fora as a member now almost 20 years ago, and I have seen this discussion about unwanted members come and go. In recent years, I saw exactly the same thing you now contemplate happen in several other forums. Trolling went out of control, people locked out by the dozens, many of them long standing members who lost their control over the trolling. In the day and age where everyone can open a new forum at the touch of a button, fora split into fractions over such things, most of the time with considerable damage to both those who left and those who stayed.


The shouts for a strictly moderated and seregated forum with only "qualified" people were to have access, to restrict this by paying access, e.t.c. tend to become very loud at times like this. In some instances loud enough for some enterprising soul to go ahead and do exactly that. Restricted access, paid forum, open to people with credentials only, strictly moderated. The result in 2 of the experiments I saw happen over the last years was sobering to say the very least.
- Of those "elite" specialist screamers who went bonkers on who they perceived as trolls (and had helped to sustain them by feeding them), not a fraction joined the new place. Why? Part reason they had nobody there to shout at and to let out their frustrations and prove how clever they really were when amongst "peers".
- The new place became a totally sterile environment, there was no life to speak of, because everyone became scared to appear "unprofessional" to those who decided what professionalism was. While the old places lost some members, it kept going at the usual rate, the trolling actually decreased and it's still around today. The new places either become a 10 member closed society or shut down within a few months out of pure boredom.

I've seen some of the same, not the same extent, happen in AVSIG, the old compuserve community. It still exists to my knowledge, it's paid access and most of the classic members are gone. The list goes on. Whether we are talking cat's lovers or nuclear power issues, fan forums of the music industries (in comparison to which this forum is TAME :\ ) or medicine forums, you see the same happening all over.

I personally think that the only way a member can "earn" his place in a forum community is by merit of his postings, not by his / her professional position. I much prefer a world whereby the membership of a forum grow together. Excluding large portions of an industry on suspicion that anyone who is not lucky enough to be a flight deck crew member is not "qualified" to even talk to the ones who are, would in my view be the loss of those in the new shell as much as the loss of those who remain behind. There will be trolls on both sides, make no mistake, and I am almost sure that those who openly seek confrontation with them will continue to spin 10page + threads on the love live of the pavement stones on both sides of the fence.

PPRUNE is today, in my consideration, one of the foremost aviation fora in the world. I think the new forum would be it's and the membership's loss. Excluding whole groups of aviation professionals so that the pilot talk can stay between pilots will not bring the result you aspire any more than it did it in other places.

Danny, what good does it do if you tell those of us who are not "invited" into the new place that the old one is still here? So basically, while you experts do the serious stuff in the new sections, we low life can play out here without annoying the pros? What a place would this forum then become if it went the way you hint at here? All the pros gone to Xanadu and just the "jurnos" and other "smelly people" like 80 % of the aviation industry here?

My own prediction is that while in the initial phase of enthusiasm the closed section might prosper briefly and the rest of the forum go a tad quieter than it is now, many of those who scream the loudest today will be back here to tell the ones they are upset about now how wrong they are, along with those who seek true dialogue across the industry rather than within a closed group.

You are hosting one damn nice forum here. Don't change that by taking the wrong turn at Albuqueuque here.

Best regards
An2 Driver.

[5milesbaby]

I think a little clarification is needed for the "engineers" group. I'm not one myself but over the years I've been looking in on PPRuNe have had some valuble replies from several different engineers.

Personally I'd say there are several different engineers that I feel should be included should a restriction be in place. ATC engineers know vastly more about our kit, comms and radars than any ATCO could ever imagine, and on certain CHIRP issues have valid comment. I'd also say that a/c maintenance engineers, those that know everything there is about how each aircraft is built, repaired, maintained and serviced have good input. Flight Engineers, a breed vastly reduced in numbers these days should certainly be included. Beyond these groups I'm not aware of any other engineers that could actually contribute full factual technical information beneficial to the sort of topics raised in CHIRP, but will be happy to be corrected.

[PAXboy]

Pax speaking: The field in which I now work for the majority of my time, is specialised and unusual. My colleagues and I seek out each other in groups a couple of times a year and we also have a closed user discussion group, accessed via the Web.

What we do affects other people's lives (but, fortunately, not in the death sense!) and there is NO WAY that I want outsiders listening whilst we wrestle with problems practical, managerial, ethical and emotional. We NEED that private space and I cannot imagine that outsiders will be of help in this proposed forum. The work of which I speak has involvement from a range of other people and companies but we have other forums and times to discuss matters with them.

If you try and discuss a complex subject with ALL the possible inputs (Pilots, CC, ATC, LASE etc.) at the same time then I think that you will never reach a conclusion. Perhaps it would work to discuss the subject and reach a reasonable consensus amongst the flyers and then take that DRAFT to the next group involved and refine it further. Going through a couple of layers may well be faster than trying to have everyone contribute at the same time. Afterall, that is what happens at the moment and that is, probably, one of the reasons why there is the suggestion to make a new forum!

As has been suggested, any subject could be brought out into one of the established public forums as a new thread.

[lomapaseo]

.......................
The shouts for a strictly moderated and seregated forum with only "qualified" people were to have access, to restrict this by paying access, e.t.c. tend to become very loud at times like this. In some instances loud enough for some enterprising soul to go ahead and do exactly that. Restricted access, paid forum, open to people with credentials only, strictly moderated. The result in 2 of the experiments I saw happen over the last years was sobering to say the very least.
- Of those "elite" specialist screamers who went bonkers on who they perceived as trolls (and had helped to sustain them by feeding them), not a fraction joined the new place. Why? Part reason they had nobody there to shout at and to let out their frustrations and prove how clever they really were when amongst "peers".
- The new place became a totally sterile environment, there was no life to speak of, because everyone became scared to appear "unprofessional" to those who decided what professionalism was. While the old places lost some members, it kept going at the usual rate, the trolling actually decreased and it's still around today. The new places either become a 10 member closed society or shut down within a few months out of pure boredom.
I've seen some of the same, not the same extent, happen in AVSIG, the old compuserve community. It still exists to my knowledge, it's paid access and most of the classic members are gone.

Good post and I agree in total.

Regarding the bolded sections, yes I was an active member of Avsig, but dropped out when it became too sterile and at the same time I had to pay to express an opinion in my field of expertise.. In the grand scheme of things I charge a good deal for my credible opinions (listed against my good name and reputation) so I have no interest in paying somebody to read what I write.

At least with Pprune, as it currently is, I don't pay a cent and I don't risk my reputation when I post opinions under my handle.

[highcirrus]

Hi Danny.

If it aint broke, why fix it?

[Dan Winterland]

An excellent idea Danny. WRTo verification, the only thing I can suggest is that you ask for a volunteer who you know, or can verify from each airline who is able to check other members of his airline through their staff numbers.

[ExSimGuy]

I commented on another thread in R&N on a suggestion by Loose Rivets, and then thought the comment would be usefully added here:

I'm "justapax" these days, and I don't often post on R&N unless I feel that I have something useful to offer (rarely) or want something clarifying that I can't find out elsewhere. (a lot has changed since the VC-10!!) But I read R&N a lot, and learn from it.

Now that I'm "no longer a professional", I'd be excluded from the new forum and, if all the "serious discussion" took place there, I think that R&N would suffer badly (and, in turn, so would PPRuNe.org). Would there now be 2 choices for the "professional" to post "intersting" events? Would the Professional bother to post in R&N or just in the "New" forum? Would PPRuNe (the existing one) become just R&N (heavily diluted), Pax&SLF, JB, GatBashes?

Loose Rivets' suggestion was that we might have some sort of "tag" under our name on the left side of the thread, to indicate our "professionalism". At least that would give readers an idea of the knowledgability of the poster? (similar to the suggestion by "Outlook" earlier here)

[N380UA]

In regards to verification or rather eligibility to participate on a given forum we could rate each other similar to the way it is practiced on eBay and display the rating (i.e. similar as the threads are today) together with the handle.

Then, just keep it all the way it is now. This way, there is a sort of self governance of those that participate on pprune. It would keep the trolling to a minimum yet allow of everybody to comment or ask questions keeping in tradition of knowledge exchange to improve the safety of out industry. It would allow for members that are not currently flight deck or ATC but with a vast knowledge on the subject matter to contribute and perhaps even see a problem from another angle, coming up with a solution.

With such self monitoring system a member will think twice what he has to say. If a member is only trolling and receives only minus points from the community then he may even eventually be denied access to pprune altogether. However a certain grace period must be allowed for to smooth out any "personal vendetta" amongst members which may be bullied out by someone else.

[overstress]

If it aint broke, why fix it?

But it is 'broke'. Didn't you see the BA744 thread?

Invitation & referrals.

[AN2 Driver]

But it is 'broke'. Didn't you see the BA744 thread?
Invitation & referrals.

And because of one thread you are going to risk a whole community?

Bit of an overreaction, don't you think?

[jondc9]

trying to remember the exact quote from "the discourse of machiavelli".

it was the very arguments and shouting in the ancient senates of greece and rome that created democracy (poor paraphrase, forgive me).

Many feel that the 747 thread was broken. Many feel that only those who actually fly long haul 747 might rightly comment.

These people are IMHO wrong. There is a lesson to be learned from any contribution to a forum. From any tangent it takes. We all learned the marvelous capabilities of a very redundant aircraft.

But the bigger questions might be summed up as:

Can the plane do it?

Do the regulations allow it to be done?

And finally:

Should it be done? (can we, may we, should we?)


My views then and now are: Yes, maybe, and no.



to leave anyone out of a forum makes it a club of self sustaining illusion. one captain I know put it best: how can I be wrong, I am the captain?


regards

jon

[panda-k-bear]

That's the problem with the word "Engineer", isn't it? It covers a multitude of sins from the bloke who comes to fix your washing machine to the girl who designed and certificated your aircraft in the first place. And everything in between.

On a forum, private or otherwise, where the actual design, operability and functionality of aircraft and their systems may be the key to understanding how and why a particular event occurred there are engineers who are qualified to explain what the drivers may be - and who know about how a system is desinged and operates in more depth than a pilot perhaps needs to know (the "widget" factor).

There's certainly a good case for including engineers, I would have thought, provided that they are the "right" engineers, if you catch my drift. Administrating that is another story!

[overstress]

And because of one thread you are going to risk a whole community?
Bit of an overreaction, don't you think?
Yes, I do think your comment about risking 'a whole community' is a bit of an over-reaction :)
Ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back?
Also, with the posting 2 above this one we're risking Danny padlocking this thread as well ;)
As Flying Lawyer alludes further above, professional pilots are a patient lot, willing to explain to the interested. I think that perhaps that patience was squeezed to the limit recently when those qualified to comment were frustrated by a continual bombardment of ignorance.
I don't think there's any danger that members of the proposed forum would entirely vacate these hallowed forums, but you might find that a serious thread on, say, B744 flight continuation policy, :eek: might end up with only MS Flight Sim protagonists involved.

[Pax Vobiscum]

If Capt Pprune & his mods (whom God preserve) are prepared to go to the trouble of identifying and verifying professional (however that is defined) forum members, why not simply extend the 'Ignore' option to enable those who so desire to exclude from their sight all postings by non-professionals? Or am I missing something??

[Heliport]

N380UA
"we could rate each other"

We had a 'rate this member' facility when the site's software was changed at the beginning of the year. It was good in theory but hopeless in practice. The facility was removed after a trial period which showed that friends gave each other high scores and the more juvenile amongst us gave people with whom they disagreed low scores. Hard to believe in an adult forum, but true all the same.

H.

[jondc9]

"qualified to comment"!


and who among us is qualified to judge who shall comment?

historically, perhaps Lindbergh, Read, Alcock, Brown, the Wrights, D.P. Davies. who else?

:-)
jon

[international hog driver]

With pprune being nearly 10 years old (yes boy and girls 10 years) maybe it is time for a slight change. I remember when it was a daily bulletin board format emailed to you with two forums, Rumours and Jet Blast, Danny was pushing the Gemstone to fraggle rock and back and in his spare time giving us the genesis of this wonderful forum. After the great crashes where we lost our membership and had to start again we now have what we have.
People got up and down and hot under the collar, legends like Capt I F Snailtrails were about and these pioneers helped guide us to what we have today.

However today pprune is like all the internet a mass audience show, open to all comers. I really think that we can show what we know and pass our combined experience to those that follow behind and those others that just have an interest….. remember how interested in aviation you were before you took that first faithful step??

Personally I think that a system like what Searider (post 44) suggest is reasonable having used the same system before. Firstly you have to be nominated by another member, before you can post. If you bugger it up then you both get sin binned. It can all be done electronically no serious admin required.

People that suggest specific airline based forum mods be able to check out individuals but what about those of us who work as contractors and flip from private to commercial contracts form operator to operator with joe blow executive one week and corruption airlines the next?

Unrealistic, no I don’t think so, do-able. Open forums for all to read but you must be “sponsored” to post. Some of us post our current types, mine is there, pretty common really they have only made over 5000 except you just have to think outside the square.

Others want to remain anomous, and that’s hard when you get to flight ops and you pprune handle is written on the schedule.

My vote.

New forum, Yes
Paper work verification…. No
Sponsorship….. Yes

Give it a go and see if it floats, if the system does not work and the place becomes a cob-web site, then we just get Slasher, Onan, and a few of the JB old salts to run amok.

(Edit for Heliport) Sponsorship is different to rating, if you missbehave, your both gone. I would think very carefully about who i would sponsor and trust in return.

[overstress]

historically, perhaps Lindbergh, Read, Alcock, Brown, the Wrights, D.P. Davies. who else?

God?

I mean qualified on type, Jon, as you well know. You're a bit like a dog with a bone, aren't you?

[BEagle]

A self-professed private clique of 'professional airline pilots' would hardly be in keeping with the nature of PPRuNe.

The 'sim goons' are soon outed, so what's the big deal?

What would this proposal seek to gain?

Don't fix what ain't broke!

[AN2 Driver]

Yes, I do think your comment about risking 'a whole community' is a bit of an over-reaction :)


Ok, true, as basically all those not egligible for the hallowed halls would still be here.


As Flying Lawyer alludes further above, professional pilots are a patient lot, willing to explain to the interested. I think that perhaps that patience was squeezed to the limit recently when those qualified to comment were frustrated by a continual bombardment of ignorance.
I don't think there's any danger that members of the proposed forum would entirely vacate these hallowed forums, but you might find that a serious thread on, say, B744 flight continuation policy, :eek: might end up with only MS Flight Sim protagonists involved.

And what good would that do? By moving the "quality posters" as you call them out of sight, you'd basically leave this place here to exactly the people you don't want here. And they'd be the only ones visible to the outside, as the elite plays elsewhere and outside the public eye... Now what's more scary?

[banana9999]

I want a secret forum and I'm willing to put food on Danny's table for it!!!


:cool:

[arcniz]

lomapaseo wrote:

In the grand scheme of things I charge a good deal for my credible opinions (listed against my good name and reputation) so I have no interest in paying somebody to read what I write.

At least with Pprune, as it currently is, I don't pay a cent and I don't risk my reputation when I post opinions under my handle.


Goes for me too, altho I'd chip in a bit now and again if it didn't have to involve Paypal..... as a contribution, rather than a tax.

One OTW thought - a method that might address this connundrum neatly if it were technically feasible in the Jelsoft software universe:

The suggestion is to have restricted THREADS inside generally open forums. (forii?) The person who is Thread starter can define a list of eligible participants when starting the thread.... or can select from pre-fabbed eligibility lists of specific and diverse flavors (left-handers, Wentworth nuts, etc.) Then these 'throttled' threads can come or go, their exclusivity can be enforced, and pprune life will proceed on without having to do any major engine repairs while in mid-flight.

Please note that my published suggestion, above, is intended to constitute public disclosure of this novel technical and business method from a patent point of view; it is free for the taking, free for all.

[Ignition Override]

Danny 'has his work cut out for him', as some say, along with his staff. Like the RAF WW2 solo (multi-engine) bomber pilots over well-defended targets, having compound systems problems (no autopilot alt. hold?) long before they cross over the I.P. :ugh:

Good luck. I hope your intell. and wx briefings are accurate.

[Frangible]

Practically, to verify the credentials of all who would wish to join the forum would be a huge task. Far simpler, less cumbersome and fairer too would be simply to make the moderators screen the posts. Any dumb or diversionary posts can simply be killed at source. Some immediacy might be lost - but that shouldn't matter: Pprune is not CNN - but if all posts were screened by the moderators before going up on the board, everyone would be happy. No silly or ill-informed posts on the site, and no need to have special membership conditions or fees.

I offer this as a practical solution because serious discussion of safety issues should involve ATCOs, LAEs, meteorologists, communications specialists, systems safety engineers, air accident investigators, retired air crew, cabin crew, people involved in aircraft manufacture, software specialists, materials specialists -- maybe even a manager could have something useful to say. I would go further and say that it is an indication of a less than ideal attitude towards safety to assume that only pilots have anything worthwhile to say on the subject. Many of the most lively and informative threads Pprune has been responsible have had central contributions from non-pilots.

[flyingbug]

Danny,

its a really great idea; I hope it goes ahead. There are plenty of forums for all parties with an interest in aviation to participate in, but I for one would certainly welcome a dedicated CHIRP type thread/site open to professional pilots only/ATCOs etc. More than willing to pay a subscription to a site where informed discussion can take place, withou threads degenerating into vilification. I think that the thread should not be viewable to non-qualifying members; there are plenty of other threads for general avaition discussion.

FB:)

[flyingbug]

Just an ordinary Pax speaking:

Don't make it readable by everyone, otherwise they will start up new threads, cross post and there will be thread drift everywhere! :( You folks talk about it amongst yourselves and anything that might be of help to the rest of the world - then open an announcement thread.

Just a quick postscript; I think that PAXboy talks sense in his posts and agree with him.
Cheers,

FB:)

[bunkabuser]

Well!
Let us retired guys in we have years of informed experience to draw upon!
Bunkabuser

[Skytrucker]

If you're retired, enjoy it. Take up as many leisure pursuits as you have time and energy for. Have a laugh with the old boys you once flew with and revel in the days when modern aircraft actually needed a pilot. Just let the aviation world carry on without you, your experience is good but it is just that-experience! Currency, recency and present day involvement is what we are needing not well meaning but outdated opinion. We are all big boys and can hold our own in discussions. Enjoy the summer and long may you draw your well earned pension.:)

[Volkoff]

And if you experienced one's are allowed in,you can chip in to the one's who are starting in the whole aviation thing!!!

[Loose rivets]

If you're retired, enjoy it. Take up as many leisure pursuits as you have time and energy for. Have a laugh with the old boys you once flew with and revel in the days when modern aircraft actually needed a pilot. Just let the aviation world carry on without you, your experience is good but it is just that-experience! Currency, recency and present day involvement is what we are needing not well meaning but outdated opinion. We are all big boys and can hold our own in discussions. Enjoy the summer and long may you draw your well earned pension.:)

Ah, so you don't want to hear about the use of flaps to hop over a fuel bowser, or the time we got a 4" lightning hole right through the wing, or the time we were thrown upside down in a four engine airplane, or the time we lost all our instruments...and I mean all of them. The sixty knot gust on the rear quarter on touch-down, I would have thought would have been interesting, if not, perhaps the time the ASIs both went eighty knots in opposite directions and we were thrown over the buildings at Palma. Oh, and the 45 minuets with totally frozen elevators and trim. Then the bit about the Russians...dodging them got us a feel for flying the airplane at the pointy end of the envelope: stalling and over-speeding at the same time can be....absorbing. Yeh, then there was the time with the drunk captain, oh and the psychotic one who would like to do flying displays for female visitors to the flight deck. Then there was the other time we lost all our instruments, and........

Nah, you're right, boring, not worth a mention really.

[Trash Hauler]

Hi Danny,

If nothing else this thread shows that there are many people other than ATPL holders who are seriously interested in discussing safety incidents and who can provide valuable input. I understand the frustration caused by spurious and unrealistic comments however, the questions posed by those 'outside' of the cockpit often result in valuable discussion that probes the issues to a level than would otherwise occur.

I suggest a forum that is open to those who can provide bonafide proof of a discipline that is:

Directly related (eg flight crew)
Allied (eg maintenance, engineering, dispatch, ATC etc)
Representative of objective thinking (eg tertiary qualified)
Expert in a related discipline (aviation medicine, human factors etc)


How to implement:

1) Registration with your real name and a scanned copy of a valid (not current) qualification. This information to be kept private by Pprune.
2) One time fee of (USD$10) to cover costs of admin.

It won't be perfect but it will filter a lot of the c:mad:p that currently get's posted.

Cheers

Th

[bunkabuser]

Dear Skytrucker,
One of the most patronising, pompous posts I have ever seen on this forum...don't worry I won't bother!
Bunkabuser

[Jet II]

I was going to keep out of this but..

If this new forum is supposed to be concerned with safety incidents, if its restricted to flight crew only, I do wonder how accurate some of the conversations/debates are going to be.

How many flight crew have the relevant access to to maintenance documents (MM's, SRM's, AB's etc.) and manufacturers web-sites such as Boeing Online and Airbus Online for specific aircraft details and procedures?

If your looking to have a serious converstaion about safety without access to the relevant materials then you might as well just start a thread in Jet Blast.

just my five-penny worth:ok:

[Skytrucker]

Sorry Bunkabuser. I was only trying to drive home the point that what we are looking at here is a forum to permit discussion of current safety issues and the effects they may or may not have on the individuals dealing with the situations that have arisen. I am not trying to deter experienced pilots from imparting their knowledge to any interested party, there is as much space as you need to do that on these forums if you want to. Situations change rapidly in aviation and the problems change too. If you are no longer a part of that system, and you no longer are once you retire, then please leave it to those involved.

[RogerIrrelevant69]

Skytrucker , that sounds like a load of old bullsh!t.

When you are put out to pasture are you suddenly going to have no valid opinion about the current aviation scene?

It's a profession pure and simple and like most professions the details, practices and standards don't change that quickly.

[208]

as an engineer I like to read the relevent contributions, and contribute if I think I have anything to add

[overstress]

Skytrucker is right, IMHO. Rules & regs change and the retired will not necessarily have mechanisms to keep up with this. I think his argument stands, the kind of discussions I envisage may not be enhanced by the out-of-touch. The rest of PPRuNe will still be here.

What's wrong with a forum entitled "Serving Pilots' Forum - a place where current airline pilots can discuss issues away from the rest of us" ;)

1) Registration with your real name and a scanned copy of a valid (not current) qualification. This information to be kept private by Pprune.
2) One time fee of (USD$10) to cover costs of admin.

A great idea - can I send a scanned copy of my $10? :D

[herewegoagain]

ChewyTheWookie, you have some issues and not to mention a very bad attitude. I've read some of your comments in this forum and in some of the cabin crew forums, I am amazed as to how certain individuals like yourself think the world cannot move forward without you.

"I don't care what the pilots do, or what any other airline does. It is not fair to get cabin crew working all day and not setting aside a single minute for them to rest and have a proper meal."

Harsh reality is that you chose to be an air steward and were prepared to work unsocialable hours with or without breaks, you think that BA cabin crew have got it so hard and it seems that you are very spoilt and do not know how the real world works.

[Bomber Harris]

Yeah, why don't we gather up all the retired pilots and electrocute them in order to save oxygen on the planet. Then we can share out all the hours in their logbooks to the young guys so they become instantly experienced and can have great discussions on safety issues.:yuk:

I need to reboot my computer an log on again to check I really read these posts correctly!!!

[standardbrief]

i think there should be a forum for only professional pilots and retired professional pilots.

there are plenty of forums for everyone to get involved as engineers and atc etc have plenty to teach the rest of us.

is it possible for current type ratings etc to be reasearched from the caa/jaa/faa license number? as this is quick and easy to provide.

as far as admin cash im sure it would not be a problem to everyone but why not see if balpa or ialpa type organisations would not fund it as it would be a gold mine for them.

it is the professional pilots rumour network after all

[overstress]

Bomber Harris: I need to reboot my computer an log on again to check I really read these posts correctly!!!

Why not just refresh the page? :cool:

When you retire and hand in your security pass, you immediately start going out of recency. You don't keep up with SOPs, AISs, etc etc. You have a wealth of experience to offer PPRuNe, that's not in question, we are trying to debate the point as to whether or not the opinions of the retired would contribute to the proposed new forum.

The recent B744 thread had some venerable contributions from those retired members who had flown the Classic, the VC10 and the B707. Their combined experiences are considerable, but none of them were relevant to the thread.

I realise some won't get the point, but that's irrelevant too.

[bunkabuser]

B 744 ...thirteen years in command.....is that relevant?
Bunkabuser :confused: :confused:

[RogerIrrelevant69]

bunkabuser,

Apparently not. Unlike other professions such as medicine, law and engineering, it would appear that once you retire from aviation you have nothing whatsoever to contribute to a professional forum. In fact it's probably best you get a full frontal lobotomy the day after your retirement to prevent any opinions about your former profession entering and clouding your fast retreating mental faculties.

[Brian Abraham]

I'd opt for the lobotomy if only to forget the pleasure and fun the game provided and that I can no longer indulge. :{

[4Greens]

Professor James Reason has probably contributed more to Flight Safety than a large number of operational pilots. Discuss!

[anotherthing]

Danny,

I have only just come across this thread so have not read all the replies, but it is an excellent idea.

Forgive me if I am repeating what may have been mentioned on previous pages as I have not waded thorugh all replies.

5milesbaby on page one mentioned using real names as it would be a private forum - I would be happy with that but could forsee problems as topics that are being discussed may have been raised anon.

A small subscription fee would help cover the effort to create a secure (person wise) forum.

Any way of verifying people as per the private airlines/NATS forums already on PPrune??

I think that real names and identities are a must for anyone wishing to join - available only to the moderators, but a good way of cutting out any willy waving or slanging matches.

There are still calls for a private 'current pilots only forum' as well - if the guys who give up their time to moderate and develop PPrune are happy to do this, all well and good - however - as an ATCO I would feel that discussing CHIRPS etc without ATCO and possibly engineer input would not be entirely beneficial.

Good luck sorting this one out!!

[LowObservable]

Skytrucker is right.
People like him need their own private forum.

[overstress]

Bunkabuser. Of course your 13 years in the LHS is relevant. The point I was trying to make (not very well) is: where do you draw the line? There are many retired pilots who all have a huge fund of knowledge and experience. But at some point, as things move on in aviation, your knowledge becomes less current, in the strictly technical sense.
Postings like "on the XXX back in the '70s we used to do it like this" are fascinating, but contribute little to a discussion about a more modern a/c.
So what I mean is, the day after you retire, your knowledge is current and extremely relevant. There is then a sliding scale for all of us, until we become the dribbling old boy in the nursing home, the staff whispering: "yes, that senile one, used to be an airline pilot" :ooh:
The question is, where do you make the cut on this sliding scale? When I'm retired, I hope to forget all my SOPs instantly and get out and enjoy it!
ATB
Overstress

if I am repeating what may have been mentioned on previous pages as I have not waded thorugh all replies

May I humbly say that much of the frustration I have with PPRuNe is exactly this - people can't be bothered or don't have enough time to speed-read a thread to see if they're making an *rse of themselves before they post. :ugh: 'Anotherthing' - not that your posting falls into this category ;)

[bunkabuser]

Overstress!
I really don't care too much about this.....thirteen years in B744 LHS....twenty four rears left hand seat four engine heavy jet. SOPs come and go but the B744 goes on for ever!
Bunkabuser ....back to sleep! :zzz:

[JW411]

I think it is a worldwide phenomena which I have heard being described as the arrogance of youth.

[overstress]

Overstress!
I really don't care too much about this

Point taken!

the B744 goes on for ever!

Agreed!:)

[LowObservable]

WTFDIK but...

I seem to have read more than a few accounts of totally current, qualified pilots who don't think it's worth listening to those they deem less knowledgeable. These accounts come from those CVR recordings and the document eventually includes the phrase "the aircraft impacted...."

[overstress]

LO: That was in a flight deck. This is an anonymous forum.

Your point is: :???:

[pontius's pa]

Danny

In theory an excellent idea

Unfortunately, there is a rather distasteful prurience and rush to judgement over any incident that comes to the attention of some posters to this forum, including opinions expressed by those professional pilots who you wish to entertain on your proposed forum.

"any info on xx at yy?
Who was involved" (I really don't like this bit)

Such an incident is then followed by a seemingly never ending chain of analysis by those without the facts (or often the knowledege) to formulate an opinion of the causes of the event.("I don't know anything about the 737 but..." type of remark is pitiful). Sometimes appalling ignorance of the basics is exposed. Regretfully, these remarks/comments are frequently made by pilots who clearly hold professional pilots licences.

Even more sadly, there is on occasions a "holier than thou" judgement made on the actions of unfortunate crew involved.

Great idea. I only wish it would work in practice, but I have my doubts.

I won't even comment on the "what about us" postings made on this thread by those that would not qualify to join.

Anyway, good luck, whatever you decide

[LowObservable]

Overstress: Proverbs 16:18

[lomapaseo]

So Pontius, why do you bother to put up with us?

Off with their heads should it be?

[pcpilot2]

A couple of points.
This idea sounds a bit elitist.
The next step will be to have forums dedicated to crew on a/c over 20 tonnes and on it will go.
I'd like to know on what side of the fence do the the people for and agin this idea sit on the 744 debate.I mean is this a way to silence the opposition?.
Don't forget we all started off as wanabees.
These days with the security and all there is no way of showing youngsters what we do.I can still remember standing behind the crew flying up the Qld coast in a DC-9 asking tons of questions and the old fokkers coming in from the outback.
I suppose this could be one way bolstering the training scene.Eg to get onto the 'airline pilot forum' on pprune one has to have a cpl for instance.Next minute there is rush on flying sckools.
With the 744 thread don't let it worry you.The crew on the spot did what they knew to be right and if they weren't sure all they had to do was pick up the phone to ops for clarification.What anyone else thinks is irelevant.
Thanks.

[overstress]

the old fokkers coming in from the outback :}

Plenty of those here on R&N ;)

[JW411]

Now then, the B744 has been in service for over 20 years. If the likes of "overstress" had been on the B744 for 20 years then he would most likely already be an old f*rt. Since he seems to be claiming to be a bright ray of sunshine then we have to assume that he has only been on the aeroplane for "five minutes" as we used to say.

So why is it that he and his like seem to think that "bunkabuster's" 13 years in the left seat of the B744 doesn't count for much for he is "out of date"? I would have thought that such experience was worth listening to!

[clicker]

I like the idea although I myself would not be allowed to enter the discussions as I'm no longer in the airline business having "moved out" after redundancy changed my career direction.

I would therefore also support inclusion of other related job holders. In my 8 years in airline operations I learnt a lot, so people with longer time lines could, no doubt, make some very useful inputs.

Trouble is how do you keep out the Jouno's and their leeches?

[N380UA]

les vieux ont au moins cet avantage qu'ils sont certains d'avoir été jeunes, par contre aucun jeune ne peut être absolument certain de devenir un jour vieux.

[GearDown&Locked]

Monsieur de La Palisse dixit N380UA LOL :E

[banana9999]

Let's get this money-spinner underway.

When's the Pprune IPO?

[Parkbremse]

here's another suggestion: create a new open forum with a strict posting policy, premoderation and with consequently and permanently banning people who have nothing useful to contribute. That way, everyone is invited to quietly listen and learn from the professionals and those who are a pain in the neck, are going to be excluded. And with respect to journos and the media, nothing going to stop them quoting posts out of context to produce a good story, whether or not there is a new private forum.

i would certainly disappointed if i, as a wannabe, have to wait for my first employment to be able to follow the worthwhile debates on incidents/accidents.

[loubylou]

if you must

i appreciate that threads can get out of control, emotive and off topic, but to be honest even if you had a restricted forum, i would suspect that you would still find there would be emotive, off topic , out of control threads. But instead of folk getting all irritated with the posters who add to a thread from a position of no knowledge, you'll prob'ly have folk getting irritated with low experience "current airline pilots" and then have to create a forum especially for "current airline pilots" who have xxx hours , then captains only, - then maybe captains who have xxx hours on xx amount of types.
anyhoo.......:p

louby

[westhawk]

I started to post numerous times on this thread and ended up being unable to put into words what I was thinking. I suppose it all comes down to how one feels about arbitrary exlusionary policy. And that admittedly depends greatly upon which side of the exclusionary fence one finds oneself! Recognizing that this is the case left me at odds with my own ethos and I could not find a way to rationalize my feelings on this matter, Still can't.

However, I know of one solution that may fill the bill. Simply form a list of individuals whom you would like to invite to participate in this new "pros only" forum and who will agree to an identity verification procedure to join. Send them PMs and make no public announcement. Run the forum so it is invisible to the common rabble (of which group I may well be a member!) and there will be no further need for the elite to be bothered by the nonsensical ramblings of mere mortals and online posers!

I did not think of this on my own. It has allready been done elsewhere. I just happen to be one of the chosen in that case, so it's OK! If you think you have a problem on this board, you should see some of what else is out there. Actually, it is my hope that some solution other than segregation can found to rectify this problem of impertinent and sophomoric behaviour. (spelled your way!) The mods really do a very respectable job of keeping things under some semblance of control on this board without being overbearing. It's tough when immature participants feel they must resort to nationalism and name calling rather than discuss aviation matters in an adult manner. This is the only site I've seen so far which has a truly international composition. Please be careful not to diminish the importance of this site by segregating it's finest contributors from the general membership. Who is to set the example for others to follow?

If you really must form a separate forum, consider doing it as I have suggested since I feel this will do the least amount of damage to the present forums. Either that, or consider attacking the problem from the bottom by getting rid of the problem children. I know, that's a whole different can of worms!

Best of success in whatever you decide.

Westhawk

[Brian Abraham]

While I'm not an airline jock I would hate to be excluded as there are aspects which cover ALL aviation. Nor would I like to see excluded others who are not in the profession but have valuable imputs and insights to make. I recollect a poster on the subject of the application of computers in designs such as the Airbus giving an educational insight into computers and their workings though he had nothing to do with aviation personally. A great contribution to the discussion. Like westhawk have pondered the question at length and my humble offering is,
1. Charge a fee
2. Attached to the credit card details attach a scanned copy of licence, professional qualifaction etc to establish you are what you say you are
3. Fill out profile to reflect the facts rather than as a canvas to exercise creative abilities
4. On completion of above and Danny/Mods are satisfied as to the bona fides some obvious sign be given that the poster has "passed the test". What that may be only Danny/Webmaster would be able to decide what is feasable. I thought perhaps your posting "handle" could be put up in a different colour than the regular Royal Blue - change to red for example.

Of course it all takes administrative effort. It might then be possible to ascertain what credence to give to posts made. On the other hand if the airline boys are dead set on wanting their own sand pit where all are excluded go for it. Perhaps you need to hold a referendum Danny.

[Daysleeper]

Mrs Daysleeper subscribes to a parenting website, recently they have had a problem with "fake" parents , strange I know. The solution was to get parents to send in a picture of their babys holding a bit of paper with the username on it. Anyone can still post but only those who have carried out this "verification" will have a kind of signature thingy.

So how bout a photo of your aeroplane with your username written in the dirt on the gear doors or something...

[slam_dunk]

So how bout a photo of your aeroplane with your username written in the dirt on the gear doors or something...

My company keeps our a/c always nice and clean, does that mean i can't join ? :uhoh:

[overstress]

However, I know of one solution that may fill the bill. Simply form a list of individuals whom you would like to invite to participate in this new "pros only" forum and who will agree to an identity verification procedure to join. Send them PMs and make no public announcement. Run the forum so it is invisible to the common rabble (of which group I may well be a member!) and there will be no further need for the elite to be bothered by the nonsensical ramblings of mere mortals and online posers!

The best idea yet! In fact, for all we know, there may be such a thing, here as we type! :cool:

[ATC Watcher]

Jumping on board after a long silence, reading rapidly through the posts, so apologies for duplication if any.
Being almost 10 years on Pprune, I always liked to read the other views, to fill the gaps of my own knowledge.
I know quite a lot of my small piece of puzzle, but to get the big picture, I like to hear about knowledgeable people about their own puzzle piece.
So basically, making a new safety orientated forum with only " active ATPLs over 20 Tons" debating makes little sense to me.

One of the first very good thread here was the Silk air 737 one, and I remember that a familly member of the F/O ( Crokett if my memory serves me well ) contributed and had access to some info as next of kin we did not. His contributions to the thread were very valuable, and he was an outside aviation person ( not anymore I guess ).

On the general idea of Danny to select persons to run a parallell forum dedicated to safety , I like the idea, but only if the results are seen by everyone in the end. otherwise it does not make sense to me either.

As to confidentiality, for safety issues, in this new forum ,one could use his real name and position, I see no problems in that. Anyway I think by now, many here know by now who I am, what I do and who I work for, and I do not mind anymore.
As to the finances, a symbolic figure would be in order ( e.g :1 EUR or GNP month) if you ask more there would be no-one from Holland (and Scottland) I guess. :)

[LLuke]

I am fed up with the off-topic posts, the (NOT!!!) funny posts and posts from miss informed people (both professionals and enthousiasts).

I find it scary/worrying that many of these posts appear to be posted by colleagues :eek:

I would welcome a specialist pilot forum, but I am not sure it would solve the nuissance postings, unless we would restrict posting rights of 90% of the people. But how about a style like http://slashdot.org where points and catagories are given to posts? It would be great that I as a reader can select the minimum scores per category to filter out the garbage.

[chandlers dad]

A couple of points.
This idea sounds a bit elitist.
The next step will be to have forums dedicated to crew on a/c over 20 tonnes and on it will go.

I'd like to know on what side of the fence do the the people for and agin this idea sit on the 744 debate.I mean is this a way to silence the opposition?.
Don't forget we all started off as wanabees.

These days with the security and all there is no way of showing youngsters what we do.I can still remember standing behind the crew flying up the Qld coast in a DC-9 asking tons of questions and the old fokkers coming in from the outback.

I suppose this could be one way bolstering the training scene.Eg to get onto the 'airline pilot forum' on pprune one has to have a cpl for instance.Next minute there is rush on flying sckools.
With the 744 thread don't let it worry you.The crew on the spot did what they knew to be right and if they weren't sure all they had to do was pick up the phone to ops for clarification.What anyone else thinks is irelevant.
Thanks.

Not sure that I would put a weight limit on it. Watching someone bring in a DC-3 a few weeks ago to a wet and windy runway in Africa, I bet that that pilot could teach us all a few tricks. I flew a diesel-3 for a while and know the handful he was working with.

I learned more from an old BOAC Captain when I was a pup than a lot of other pilots I ever flew with. We flew a Visount 700/800 series with him for years and for me it was "shut up and watch," in other words the old school of command and CRM. Now that I am "that old fart" in the left seat I do not command the way he did but sure try to teach (and learn as well) as best possible while flying. Now that I teach EFIS/FMS its interesting to remember back but many of the old lessons are still very valid.

Sending a copy of a ATP or CPL should be enough IMHO. Scan and email the thing to the MOD. I am the moderator of a internet aviation forum and we do not require proof of license but the new members have to prove that they are aviation related to keep the spammers off. So far its worked and no hassles.

CD

PS there are still ways to show the kids and newcomers about flying. I take them out in my WW2 era fabric taildragger as often as possible. Was at a large fly-in in June and a friend of mine flew for five hours straight, giving kids and parents alike rides in an old taildragger (am on the board of directors there so could not fly myself) so there are ways to get them up and in the air at times.

[matt_hooks]

I think this is an excellent idea!

I understand that you need to draw the line somewhere, but I also agree that there are more than just pilots in the aviation industry, as you recognise in your posts danny.

As an aerospace engineering graduate and trainee wannabe pilot type, I would be more than interested to learn from the discussion of people who are "in the loop" so to speak. I also think that on some areas it might be extremely useful to have the input of those outside the loop, as they may be able to provide useful insights into some matters, for example the computing example quoted earlier, and also might be able to provide a different point of view.

Unfortunately to allow this the only possible solution would be pre-moderation of all post, which I readily accept would be far too time consuming!

One possible solution would be to have two levels of access. One for people who are directly related to the day to day workings, for example pilots, instructors, ATCO's, possibly engineering. These people could be verified as has been discussed earlier and have posting rights. A second group could consist of people such as myself, in training or in other sectors that might find the information useful but may well not have a great deal to contribute. This again could be verified by checking of licences, or a letter from a recognised training organisation etc. This group would have access only to read the posts, or possibly to make posts but in a pre-moderated manner rather than freely like group A.

The third thing I think would be useful would be to have a thread within the "public" part of the site where any important conclusions etc. could be posted to allow people who might find them useful to see them. I'm sure there are many pro's on here who wouldn't necessarily be interested in taking part in the discussions but would be very interested in the outcome.

Just my 2p worth!

[Wino]

My 2 cents

Completely CLOSED forum, (not readable by the rest of the masses) and real names, not handles....


Cheers
Wino

[scroggs]

You're welcome to start your own, Wino. Have fun!

To others who have just discovered this thread, read through it completely before commenting. Check the date of the thread. Realise that the points made have been read by Pprune Admin, given the appropriate weight for their value, and inwardly digested. Appropriate action has been taken.

Scroggs

[LLuke]

"Appropriate action has been taken."
That's great -I think? Looking forward for any announcement resulting from these actions.
Ciao,

[scroggs]

What announcement?

Scroggs

[212man]

My only comment is that I'm sure the new forum would be great, but equally pprune would slide down hill rapidly as all the professional content disappeared.

[LLuke]

"Realise that the points made have been read by Pprune Admin, given the appropriate weight for their value, and inwardly digested. Appropriate action has been taken."

I personally hope for any action that will improve the quality of posts on this board. From the fora I read, only Tech Log is O.K. (imho) on the others only some threads appear to be (tightly) moderated.

Regarding the appropriate action, I assumed it will result into something noticable that will be introduced with an announcement. (e.g. the introduction of this specialist forum)

[Jando]

... I would welcome a specialist pilot forum, but I am not sure it would solve the nuissance postings, unless we would restrict posting rights of 90% of the people. But how about a style like http://slashdot.org where points and catagories are given to posts? It would be great that I as a reader can select the minimum scores per category to filter out the garbage.
I'm not qualified to comment about the necessity of a specialist pilot forum, but I am qualified to comment on a moderation style like the one used by Slashdot. Yes, it works, and I also browse Slashdot with a high enough minimum score to filter out the most obvious garbage. But you get what you're asking for, and with a moderation style like Slashdot what you get is not necessarily a measure of quality but a measure of popularity instead - thus be careful what you're asking for.
Overall I believe there's only one thing that can guarantee a high quality message board - and that is high quality moderation.
1) If you guys want a specialist forum - go ahead, let everybody post and read the forum but announce from the get-go that this will be a sharply moderated forum and that every post that is removed from that forum will get the poster an immediate 6 month ban on his IP number for the whole of PPRuNe. :8 That will make many people think twice about posting in that forum I hope.
2) And if you guys want a forum that's closed to the rest of the world (for posting and reading) then there's no better way than an invite-only forum.
Sadly both of these methods increase the workload of our dear hosts and moderators ... perhaps time to announce a few more moderators out of the pool of high quality posters here on this board?

[Wino]

Scroggs,

I read the whole thread, and was well aware of the date on them. If you (as moderator) feel that the thread had no more worth and that the whole topic was dead, you should have closed the thread, rather than take a shot at me...

If the debate is over (as you imply) then you failed in your moderating duties by leaving the thread open.

What Danny seams to have been suggesting with the specialists thread was a little outside of the scope of pprune as it is right now, which is fine. It would make a nice addon, but the nature of what he is asking would be at cross purposes with the anonomous aspect off the greater pprune area.

Cheers
Wino

[westhawk]

The best idea yet! In fact, for all we know, there may be such a thing, here as we type!
I'm inclined to wonder myself. Particularily in view of cryptic nature the following quotes! :)
To others who have just discovered this thread, read through it completely before commenting. Check the date of the thread. Realise that the points made have been read by Pprune Admin, given the appropriate weight for their value, and inwardly digested. Appropriate action has been taken.
What announcement?
So I suppose those outside the loop are left to speculate as to what "appropriate actions" may have been taken! That's fine with me since the owners of this board are free to act as they see fit. However I'm still somewhat curious as to the nature of the "appropriate actions" taken anyway. Anyone in the know willing to share perhaps?


Best regards,

Westhawk

[The Privateer]

Hey Danny,
When you make it exclusive for those holding a current license or in current employment it sounds as if you might also exclude the retired members of the fraternity who have a lot of experience to offer, and who were active when they first joined PPRUNE but have recently retired. I hope this is not your intention.
However, PPrune is a *professional* pilots' forum and I do think we should only have professionals contribute and yes there has been more than enough 'uninformed opinions' from wannabes and passengers which should be excluded or confined to a sub-forum. Besides, there are countless Private Pilot Forums on the Web anyway.
You may have to do something similar to what the airline forums do on this site and have a staff verification, but whatever system you decide on it is going to involve a lot of work screening, even if people send a JPG of their License for you to check you may have to recruit helpers.
I think the easiest way to do it is on a TRUST BASIS. Until current members attach a small sized JPG of their license page they are considered UNVERIFIED PROFESSIONAL. If on eventual inspection (at your own pace) it is found that they have uploaded a jpg of a library ticket or Mickey Mouse then they can be publically shamed and deleted.
All new applicants however need to upload a jpg of their licence immediately to gain entry. I am not sure what bandwidth load this may place on your server but I think it may work out fine. Once you have verified them you can delete the JPG.
But please do not exclude the retired fraternity and please allow old licences to be accepted.

[overstress]

Privateer : or Mickey Mouse

didn't know the large-eared one had an ATPL ;) ;)

[MOR]

With regard to moderation, it is mostly good here on PPRuNe, but occasionally appallingly bad.

I found myself banned recently, apparently for the appalling sin of arguing a point. Whoever did it didn't give me a reasonable explanation, and didn't have the courtesy to identify themselves. There was no warning given, and no attempt to edit the offending (??) posts. The other party to the argument, who had been quite insulting, was left alone as far as I can tell.

Now I don't really care much about the ban - gave me a chance to do some work on the house instead of PPRuNing - however, the manner in which it was done was quite appalling, so much so that I suspect it was personal.

My only plea, therefore, is that if this new forum was to go ahead (and it is a very good idea), that the moderation would meet the same standards of professionalism that we exercise in our duties as pilots, ATCOs or engineers.

[pilotbear]

Seems to me like posts are removed for 'other' more political reasons quite often.
As to another 'elitist club', isn't the fact the world is at war with itself due to one group of people believing their views, beliefs, religions, society etc are better or more valid than anothers.
Everybodys view or opinion is valid providing it is not insulting or condecendingly put across. Trouble is there are a few without the vocabulary to avoid this.:ok:

[scroggs]

Until you pay the moderators, you will have to continue to rely on the band of unpaid willing volunteers who give up their spare time to keep this place running. Each of those volunteers is an individual, with their own style, preferences and betes-noirs. Inevitably, there will be differences in how each one interacts with members and the material they post. Some prefer to moderate in the background of the forum(s) they are responsible for, others are more visible. The fact that this site not only continues to exist, but is continually expanding, is testament that the overall style and tenor of moderation here is about right. Naturally, individual instances may provoke controversy and disagreement but that goes with the territory. At the end of the day, the ref is always right!

As for the proposal for a separate, pilots-only forum, I would have thought that it would be obvious, given the time elapsed since this thread was started, that the idea has been considered in depth and rejected as not currently a practicable proposition. The more obeservant amongst you will have seen several changes to Pprune in the last couple of months, some in response to suggestions that have been put forward here and elsewhere. However, the overwhelming feeling is don't fix what ain't broken*.

Scroggs

* Naturally, anything I say may be denied, opposed or just plain ignored by Danny and Rob and so this post may be completely wrong! ;)

[Raw Data]

At the end of the day, the ref is always right!

Only when the ref is properly trained and appropriately certified!

Seriously though... I never got banned, but I have seen a few interventions by moderators that range from just bad-mannered to appallingly one-eyed. Yes, you may be volunteers, but if you accept the responsibility, then you should also be prepared to be completely fair and impartial at all times. Just because you (very willingly) give up your time to moderate, doesn't give any moderator the right to engage in personal vendettas, or embark on their own particular agendas. This has certainly happened in the past (although it is rare).

Overall the standard is high, but I did follow the thread that I presume MOR is on about, and I can't for the life of me understand why a ban was called for...

[LLuke]

I still like my http://slashdot.org example with categories and points. I understand that the moderators are busy, but wouldn't it then be time to call for more? I appreciate the open nature of this board, but now sometimes posts get deleted with for me no obvious reason -moderators nerve touched?- while other equally bad postings remain. How about opening a new forum called trashcan, where people can not post, only read and where all OT/funny single line posts, offensive posts or other below standard posts disappear to? This could be programmed as a single button action for the Mr and Mrs moderators, with a small group of senior moderators to take more important political/policy decisions? Not close to http://slashdot.org but (imho) better than it is now.

[scroggs]

Actually, the 'trashcan' principle is used here, but only moderators can see posts in there. I can't comment on the 'slashdot' system; I haven't used it and it's not up to me anyway.

Whatever rules and guidelines exist for moderators (and they do exist), the interpretation will be down to the individual mod on the day. If he or she is feeling a bit less tolerant than usual, or there's been a run of PITA threads, patience may get thin and the moderation may be harsher than you might like. However, if you want absolute consistency then hire robots. People aren't like that - witness the controversies that very highly-paid international football referees get into over decisions that players and fans don't like. Why do you think we are likely to be any different?

Scroggs

[Raw Data]

If he or she is feeling a bit less tolerant than usual, or there's been a run of PITA threads, patience may get thin and the moderation may be harsher than you might like. However, if you want absolute consistency then hire robots.

So extrapolating that logic a bit, it is OK if I just fly the approach a dot low if I've had a crappy day? Or four whites if I'm feeling particularly happy? Maybe I should just make up my own minima if the F/O is giving me grief...

I don't think it's asking too much for moderators to be fair and consistent. Nobody is twisting your arm, you clearly want to do it, so why not do it well? Why apply a lesser standard than you would in your job? This is now a large, international forum, and it deserves the best moderation possible. If moderators feel that they can't act in that capacity, then with the greatest of respect, they should move aside.

[scroggs]

Really? Who's going to die if I make a moderation decision that upsets you? Get real.

The moderation here is done very well. Believe me. Of course, you have the option of going elsewhere if you don't like it here. You have no contract with Pprune and we, in turn, have none with you.

Scroggs

[overstress]

I've had a long association with PPRuNe and gladly paid for my blurb thingy opposite. But I'm about to 'retire' from the forums for a second time due to the excessive 'noise'. It's like trying to have a chat with fellow pilots in the crewroom except that at the far end there is a door open and the public is filing past (like at an airshow) calling out and making ill-informed comments.

See you all in a few months, maybe. :{ :{ :{

[chandlers dad]

Really? Who's going to die if I make a moderation decision that upsets you? Get real.
The moderation here is done very well. Believe me. Of course, you have the option of going elsewhere if you don't like it here. You have no contract with Pprune and we, in turn, have none with you.
Scroggs

No one would die, but attitudes like that will get you everywhere! And this is coming from someone who is a list owner, admin or moderator on several other internet forums. BTW, I get paid as much as you do for all the work, zip, zero, nada, nothing.

If I took that attitude with the forums I work with the people that I help would slap my wee wee, and I would probably deserve it.

Its not my place to start patting myself on the back. When the members say the moderators are doing a good job then they/we deserve it, otherwise I usually shut up about how I am doing my job, but then thats just me.

[MOR]

Of course, you have the option of going elsewhere if you don't like it here.

Ah, yes. The standard (amongst some mods) "if you don't like it, p*ss off". How very erudite. How very adult.

Who is going to die? Well, if you must insist on being such a drama queen, nobody. A true professional doesn't lower his standards just because lives aren't at risk.

Most of us come here in spite of attitudes such as yours - you certainly don't enhance the experience. I'm with RD on this one.

[scroggs]

I'm not patting myself on the back, CD. If someone wishes to take issue with my particular style, that's fine; I can cope! But I watch the efforts of the 60-odd moderators here and marvel at the way they hold this place together, despite occasional (and quite vitriolic) abuse from some of our less, ahem, sanguine members... They're not after gushing praise, but the occasional thanks does make the day a whole lot brighter - and it does come, sometimes from the most unexpected direction!

All I'm trying to point out is that the mods are people, and like people in any role, they sometimes make mistakes. There is also no requirement for them to agree with those that post in these forums, simply that they enable the discussion and referee the manner in which it is held. In many forums here, the discussion style can be quite combative, and so the moderation sometimes has to be a bit rough and ready. Even with the numbers of moderators that we have, it's not possible to constantly monitor each and every thread - that's why we have the 'report post' facility so that you guys can warn us when things may be taking a wrong turn.

Ultimately, this is just a talking shop. Sometimes the conversations are serious and useful, other times they're humorous and trivial. Sometimes they're complete tripe! But it's not life and death, and if people start to take it that seriously, maybe it's time to step back for a while.

Scroggs

[chandlers dad]

Scroggs,

As a fellow Mod, I know exactly what you are saying and I feel the same way most of the time.

Taking an additude (and it appears that you did have one in #194) is helping no one and making most people feel like MOR's comment.

The "If you do not like it, then leave" attitude is helping no one. Lets work together and make it work better. If someone has a complaint then it might be worth actually stepping back and looking at it from their viewpoint instead of jumping on their nuts.

Mods are people and they have good and bad days. When they have bad days it might be better to go off and have a pint at the pub IMHO. Thats what I do and started doing that after a few of my posters on another forum took me aside and pointed out where I was wrong. We are all human and at times make mistakes. (well, except for some copilots and they know it all! :) )

[ZAGORFLY]

I totaly agree with your idea to clean up a little the forums, however restricting to only pilots you will loose a lot of enthusiasts like me that only here have a voice in the aviation cyberspace. My idea : If you visit Cathay Pacific virtual pilots web you will find that they have smartely selected the forum users by using a technical (serious) questionaire. Other places ask you a tecnical question i.e. Airbus:wich color hydraulyc system is powered by RAT. Boeing: RR powered 747-400 how many are the autostart push bottons? etcetera.

[MrNosy]

This may already have been said in one of the other posts so I apologise if i'm repeating the point but, while I think it would be a good idea for a site, I think it should be open to all aviation professionals and academics with aviation interest not just pilots. I am not a pilot myself but the job I do means that I end up researching a lot of accident information which otherwise would not be generally known. Pilots obviously have unique knowledge and practical experience but they don't know everything; engineers, ATC, service providers, academics etc can all contribute valuable insights.

[Lou Scannon]

Please don't leave out the oldies who have retired. We lack current information but as the saying goes..."There is no thing as a new accident" and with memory data bases going back up to eighty years....

[wileydog3]

Looking for input for an idea I have about a new forum where flight safety reports etc. can be discussed. For example, there are quite a few issues raised in each issue of CHIRP that would warrant debate.

My initial thoughts are that the forum would only be accessible to current airline pilots. The main reason for that is because experience has shown that input from those with little or no experience only serves to inflame emotions and detract from the main topics.

Your thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated.

The hangar has moved into cyberspace and learning IS moving from the formal to the informal and from brick classroom to the internet. A lot of information which used to be found solely in the formal classroom is now available to the constant student on the internet.

You will see more and more often ancora imparo meaning "I'm still learning". When I first started flying in the 60s, the distilled wisdom was usually found by hangar flying with the old boys who had been there, done that. A lot of listening and asking questions.

It is no doubt a problem but we need neophytes to ask questions. They are not intimidated by boundaries nor are the so soaked in the culture that they merely accept things as 'the way it is."

Limiting the input to current airline pilots may dampen down the background noise but it would also limit the expanse of input. The airlines fly into a very limited number of airfields when compared to the fractionals and corporate airplanes. And most of the time those airports serving the airlines are fairly pristine compared to the airports other fliers are using (no ILS, funky approaches, hazardous terrain)

I'm new to this website but have found it very informative and educating.
Do it.

[ExSimGuy]

Is this board about to close to "non-current aviation staff"?

From elsewhere on this board, posted by someone who should know what''s happening . . .

Those who need a licence/validation/airside pass will be covered in the first two sections with a new display format. Rest follows filling up the rest - approx 9 forums get closed or amalgamated.

I know that Danny has been considering changes, but if R&N becomes restricted to the "select few" it will be a sad day.

Assuming JB gets the chop, it will not worry me too much as I have pretty much given up on it, but PPRuNe and R&N has been my best source of airline info for a number of years, whilst Mid-East and SLF fora have also been a "happy hunting ground".

Can anyone clarify what is planned?

[Human Factor]

More importantly:

a) How will they verify genuine information?

b) How can I be sure that any genuine information I provide is going only to a reputable destination?

c) Will it mean we get rid of these poxy adverts below?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

c) Will it mean we get rid of these poxy adverts below?
It costs money to run a web site. The advantage of using adwords rather than other funding sources is that it takes you a few minutes' work, once, ever(*), and the money starts rolling in and just keeps rolling in.

All other methods of fund raising are vastly more effort.

(I stuck a few ads on just one page on my site, just to see what happened. Adwords instantly started paying my hosting costs several times over, and continues to do so, and I've had exactly zero complaints.)

(*) Unless you keep fiddling with format and layout of course.

[green granite]

(I stuck a few ads on just one page on my site, just to see what happened. Adwords instantly started paying my hosting costs several times over, and continues to do so, and I've had exactly zero complaints.)


It's amazing where all this "non-real" money comes from :hmm:

[ExSimGuy]

We have sponsors ads on banners at the top of the page, and pretty unobtrusive Google ads on the left side in "spare space".

If many/most of the contributors here can't/won't splash a few bucks for PTs and Avatars, the site has to be paid for somehow (with the size of the membership, it's not just "hosting" costs, the "bandwidth" charges must give Danny nightmares!)

And I certainly don't think the site has excessive ads!

(keeping this small, to minimise bandwidth :E )

* interesting (I think so anyway!) note - I just picked one thread at random on R&N and, out of 12 posts, only 2 had contributed by PT or Avatar. Another "random check" on JB showed 4 contributions in 11 posts - does that mean anything :confused:

(probably only that "stats" can be used to prove anything , and what does this suggest anyway? :} )

[Human Factor]

Just to make myself clear and to stop the thread getting further off track, I have no problem with advertising on PPrune. I appreciate that it's essential. However, I'd like to express a preference for it not to happen at the bottom of my posts. In the margins perhaps, but away from the main post. Maybe I'm being pedantic (don't answer that).:rolleyes:

Right, back to the thread......

[ACL1011]

I am not an airline pilot. I don't work in aviation. But I have an interest in commercial aviation and this is my favourite forum to browse. I have never posted, or I may have once (can't remember) but only to contribute information about a medical query. There are times I wish I could post to ask a question, but don't want to muck up the thread with what would probably seem like an inane question to the pros.
Likely, the vast majority of non-aviation folk who browse this forum either browse only or make decent contributions. It would be a shame that a few people ruin it for the majority, although alot of those 'few' likely don't realise how they are being annoying.
Running a website/forum of my own, I know it would be quite the feat and costly to boot to ensure that everyone with access to this forum was who they said they were. Additionally, it may create a false sense of security for the posters. Might I suggest people take advantage of the 'ignore user' feature?

[jondc9]

ignore!

ha.

it is the very thunderous debates that make this place interesting...even the name calling.

if you limit this forum in any way you should change the scope and title, and to those who self limit using "IGNORE" you are closing your collective minds.


the forum has gotten quite dull in recent weeks.

j

[harpic]

What would you call it?

PPrune Elite?


If you think I'm submitting copies of my licence to you, or giving you £1 a month - think again buddy.

With BLOGGING on the increase the days of pprune are numbered anyway.

[TwinAisle]

Can I just turn the discussion around for a minute?

What is the point of having this closed forum?

If it is designed to be a place where aircrew can discuss the aircrew aspects and implications of CHIRP, then it should be closed to anyone else, viewing not allowed either.

If it is designed to be a place where CHIRP reports can be analysed and discussed amongst people who may well be able to add to the debate, then allow ATCOs, licensed engineers, regulators, perhaps even airline senior management to take part.

The big issue I am trying to illustrate is that if you define what this forum will be for before you start it, then the answer to who should have access will become clear.

For the record, as an airline manager rather than a commercial pilot, I would be happy for such private fora to exist. I suspect I would add very little to it of value anyway.

Could we have another forum like it for discussions on airline business issues though? AA&R is, despite the best efforts of the mods, dissolving into a discussion amongst spotters about how they could do a better job than Walsh/O'Leary/AN Other....

[chippy63]

Whatever I decide to do and at what level access will be restricted to, I think that a minimal subscription will be in order to offset all the administration costs involved. Probably an initial trial period of say a month and then say £0.50 - £1.00 a month. Still not figured out how to handle the verification though. Could include a free pprune.com email address and require participants to register using real names or new pseudonyms but with, as mentioned above, qualifications in profile.

Suggest you bill either quarterly, six-monthly or annually in advance to cut down your admin!

[Danny]

Sorry, but this thread was revived after a post was merged into it. The original thread was just a discussion document but a few people seem unable to comprehend what that means. The post that was merged into it and revived it was about a mention elsewhere that we are in the process of revamping the forums and that some forums will be merged together thereby reducing the overall number of forums.

With regards to private forums that are only accessible to subscribers, that is a separate issue and no decisions have been taken on that for now.

[ExSimGuy]

Thanks for the clarification Boss ;) :ok:

[The Real Slim Shady]

There are times one would wish to discuss or debate certain issues without involving ATC, engineers, cabin crew or your granny: we do this behind the locked door.

What Dan is suggesting is no different: if a subscription is necessary and verification of one's status, is it any different to the "club" we already belong to?

[alf5071h]

A significant issue in the forum has been poor discipline; self discipline in both thought and action (posting).
Discipline is the founding value in our profession. The forum offers opportunity to learn, exchange views, and seek personal improvement, but for those who lack discipline, particularly novice participants, their involvement reduces the potential offered by this unique facility.

We now have forum rules; these have to be both respected and enforced.
Moderators have to moderate, instilling discipline; professional contributors have to set an example so that we all might improve.
Novice participants should seek the skills and disciplines worthy of association with a professional group, and those invited ‘outsiders’ must remember the rules of etiquette and good manners applicable to any guest. If they seek knowledge through learning then this too requires a disciplined approach; first think about the question to asked, is the information available elsewhere, are you asking the ‘right’ question.

To progress this forum we must take something which is good and improve it, this requires all of us to exercise controlled thought involving consideration of the subject based on personal knowledge, if something will be of value to others, is it fact or supposition, or just rumour.

In terms of airmanship (professionalism) we have to build on self discipline with skills of thought and communication, which in turn enable knowledge. (after T. Kern – Airmanship.) I hope that Pprune will regain many of its earlier values which include the discipline revered by professional contributors.

[scroggs]

Sorry, but this thread was revived after a post was merged into it. The original thread was just a discussion document but a few people seem unable to comprehend what that means. The post that was merged into it and revived it was about a mention elsewhere that we are in the process of revamping the forums and that some forums will be merged together thereby reducing the overall number of forums.
With regards to private forums that are only accessible to subscribers, that is a separate issue and no decisions have been taken on that for now.

Sorry, my fault! I merged the threads as it seemed to be a continuation of the 'future shape of Pprune' discussion, and demonstrates the fact that the site is evolving as time goes by. In any case, the debate over the way Pprune is presented, paid for, and used should be a live one for all our benefit.

Scroggs

[jshg]

I agree that Pprune is spoiled by poor discipline. Some threads/topics contain useful information, well-argued on all sides with (almost) no mud-slinging - like the current one on approach speeds which has already sharpened my attitude to 160kt to 4. Sadly, many others degenerate to be of little practical use.
If there were a way of weeding out the degeneration then I don't think there would be a need for a 'SuperPprune'. How that could be done is quite a different and difficult matter. More muscular intervention by moderators perhaps - which would require more time/money to be invested by them.
I've returned to reading Pprune after several years' boycotting. Danny has shamed me into buying a PT and I'm looking in to it at the moment. Perhaps this could be the way forward for Pprune?

[Loose rivets]

I for one, often tend to start a pprune session after dinner and plenty of wine. It's in lieu of heading for the ‘Greasy Spoon' and relaxing with one's crew; it's good fun. However, the discipline mentioned above, should extend to only posting on this dedicated forum, while maintaining the same standards of sobriety as one would with being on duty.

Discussing Chirps issues, with comments from others, would add a whole new dimension to receiving the cold print through the post.

I think it could be a very important aviation site.

[caracaskid]

Since I am being invited to comment. I would like to state how useful these forums are to a safety engineer in learning from other people's experiences both good and bad. Whilst I do not practice in the aviation field the lessons learned can be applied in other areas and perhaps sometimes experiences of other areas of industry might be of use to those at the sharp end of the plane. The only negative comment I would make is that sometimes people who put their head above the parapet on the site tend to get their heads well and truly bitten off. I would like to make a plea to be allowed continued access to all the forums and if the professionals are really concerned perhaps make some areas read only

Cheers