View Full Version : Restricting Access to PPrune

30th Nov 2007, 10:31
Various opinions have been posted about the cause of the tragic MD83 crash in Turkey earlier today and, whilst I'm aware that many members of this forum frown on speculation as to causes of accidents, we all do it privately and some on this forum.

However, a Guardian journalist has taken a Pprune post and written:

A blogger on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network suggested the state of the wreckage implied the crash was a "slow speed impact" and maybe caused by a stalled engine or other problem as the pilot prepared to land.

I find it disgusting (but perhaps not altogether unsurprising based on my experience with how unprofessional journalists can be) that a seemingly reputable newspaper will publish an opinion from a source whose expertise is impossible to verify.

Here's the question: should these forums not be accessible by the general public? Is there any way of preventing the media from finding any old statement on the "professional pilots' rumour network" and publishing it as expert advice?

30th Nov 2007, 10:36
...so do we want them to go and grab even worse quote off other aviation forums?

30th Nov 2007, 10:48
Others forums should do the same (although clearly the real onus should be on the newspapers to ensure that they are reporting accurately and that any "expert" opinions are properly researched and backed up - personally, I wouldn't even use the Guardian as lining for a pet's cage but enough people do read it that we should be concerned about what it prints and where it gets its information from).

The important thing is that we have a forum where there can be a free and open debate and exchange of ideas that will not be used by a reporter who is too ignorant and lazy to do proper research.

30th Nov 2007, 10:49
If the Guardian had checked the poster's profile there's nothing in it to indicate that he/she has an aviation background. It's extremely bad journalism, but no reason to restrict access to PPRuNe. You have to consider that there are a great many members who are directly and indirectly (that includes SLF) involved in aviation who find PPRuNe a great source of information and insight into a fascinating industry.

Mercenary Pilot
30th Nov 2007, 11:00
should these forums not be accessible by the general public?

No, only to those flying 45 Ton aircraft built before 1983.

Seriously though, using PPRuNe as a reference source for a "news" paper is purely incompetent at best!

30th Nov 2007, 11:35
I personally treat anything I read on pprune with a great deal of caution, and do my utmost to verify (and corroborate) any information I want to publish or broadcast -- just as I do when I receive anonymous phone calls, or overhear snippets of conversations down the pub, or follow up stories from the papers.
Amongst the rubbish there are always a fair few gems, and the vast majority of people who've got in touch with me have been very helpful, and patient with somebody who isn't, I frankly admit, an aviation specialist. I'm grateful for everybody who's helped me to increase my level of knowledge over the last few months.
Best wishes
Ian Shoesmith
BBC News

30th Nov 2007, 11:39
I can see PPRUNES new owners really wanting to limit access, great for the advertisers. :ok:

30th Nov 2007, 11:46
New owners? I've been out of the loop for a while. What gives?

30th Nov 2007, 11:57
It is pleasing to see at least one journalist hasn't got his head in the clouds!

30th Nov 2007, 12:08
It never ceases to amaze me the way people get worked up over what is printed in the media! To suggest that the Guardian is a seemingly reputable newspaper shows the lack of recognition of all media as omething to be treated with suspicion if not contempt. They are all the same when it comes to trying to put accross their "read" on a story and will use or abuse ( edit to fit) any source to this end.
Surely those on this site who are professionals can recognise the stupidity and crass ignorance of posters coming up with suggestions of stall, engine failure etc immediately after the reporting of this accident. The statement then saying definately a low altitude thing (it hit the ground!) then confirms the imbecility of the post! As far as I'm concerned it is pointless trying to restrict access to this site, let them all come and let them be judged of their contributions. If you think someone is being crass and stupid then either ignore them and move on to a more enlightening post or respond and tell them so.

30th Nov 2007, 12:14
I think the public should treat any type media report with skepticism, especially ones that cited Professional Pilots "Rumour" Network.
It's not our job to educate or enforce on the public on how to decipher the media or news article, be it aviation related or not. I leave that to hopefully good parenting and professional educators.
I still occasionally raise my eyebrow with "intel report" let alone an article from the Guardian.
The old adage, don't believe everything you hear and half of what you read, still holds true.
I don't believe in restricting access to this site.
caveat lector

30th Nov 2007, 12:21
I am involved with a hobby Aviation magazine, and don't report anything read on Pprune except when I can back it up with information from other sources.

Remember that you can apply the poor journalism tag to virtually any subject...the reporting is only as good as the reporter, with all due respect to Shoey1976.

Yet another poster did remind us all recently about the fact that 'rumour' does appear in the forum title. and where there is rumour, there is almost always speculation.

Just because a poster on this forum has a number of stripes on his/her jacket, it shouldn't automatically give them sole licence to speculate.

LGW Vulture
30th Nov 2007, 12:29
Thread Starter - when you own or run the website then perhaps you might be able to make the decision to restrict access or not. Does anyone tell you how to run your life / job? :ugh:

This has been done to death already!

Dream Land
30th Nov 2007, 13:16
Without all the bad posts it would get a bit dull. :E

30th Nov 2007, 13:50
I am really puzzled here - the journalist correctly quoted part of a post on this forum, and declared his source; it is entirely correct that a blogger on this site said what the journalist wrote.

What, therefore, has he done wrong?

30th Nov 2007, 13:54
"A blogger on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network suggested the state of the wreckage implied the crash was a "slow speed impact" and maybe caused by a stalled engine or other problem as the pilot prepared to land."


I think some people are getting just a little too precious.

And please don't play the 'but this will really affect the paying public and affect the industry' card because to be honest Joe Public wouldn't have a clue whether you gave them the correct technical gubbins as to why the wheels fell off or just told 'em it was a dodgy phalange - still the same result.

Clarence Oveur
30th Nov 2007, 13:55
After the 'A' the chain fell off. This is not a blog, therefore there are no bloggers here. Even worse is quoting unnamed sources of unknown background.

30th Nov 2007, 14:12
As a child of six or seven I continually read everything I could find about aircraft as I was not financially able to partake in purchase of the full PPL library of recommended reading. The result was that my little brain was filled full of oft erroneous information promulgated by ill researched journalism.

While many members of Joe Public will have no interest in the accuracy of ANY of the information, to me there seems a large contingent with a genuine interest restrained only by the economic barriers to entry of our industry. The journalists SHOULD have an obligation due to this if nothing else, however factual information does not sell .... sensationalism DOES.

The few good journalists who ensure accuracy should be congratulated while those who perpetuate information which may be misconstrued should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Rant Over

30th Nov 2007, 14:20
OK, so this is my first PPrune post, and probably one of the few I will ever make. I am not involved in aviation except as a frequent flyer and as an adult who once had a dream of being a pilot. That never happened, and I ended up in accademia.

So, why am I posting? The reason is to perhaps give one reason why the quality of posts have droped, and that is that frequent visitors are not allowed to view the formums without registering.

While this may have changed, as of about two months ago, every week or so I would have to clear all cookies to be able to start viewing again. I found a solution to this by having all cookies deleted automatically on shutdown, however I can imagine all sorts of others just registering, and if you register you will post, and those posts may tend to be less mature...

.... just like this one!:O

Anyway my two cents worth!

What Traffic
30th Nov 2007, 14:27
While I certainly believe that a good steward of aviation will always work to further an accurate and unsensationalized image of the field, I have to ask how far that should be taken. Eventually you have to come to terms with the fact that the media is always going to misreport things, always going to be ignorant and inaccurate, and stop worrying about it. The responsibility to properly represent aviation shouldn't force you to restrict access to things like this just to prevent the media from exploiting it. At such a point you have done more to hurt aviation than help it.

Furthermore, such restrictions would inherently require arbitrary and contentious standards, coupled with a very time-consuming and labor intensive process to vet qualifications of the flood of incoming members.

Even more annoyingly, this has all been disputed ad nauseum, on this forum, many times before, (I lost my old username, I've been here for a while) and this should all be highly evident already. The corpse of the idea is already quite unpleasant, can we just leave it buried?

30th Nov 2007, 14:35
Heliplane's on a hiding to nothing here.
If the Guardian wants to report a rumour from a site with "rumour" in the title, then readers are in the clear and can, as they should, change newspaper to one that prefers to report facts or, if speculation is necessary, puts a name to the speculator.

However, regarding "Out Of The Loop", the new owners are Internet Brands, who seem perfectly respectable. No one can seriously object to Danny selling it -- it's his train set -- but it seems that a condition may have been not to, as he should have done, put a sticky announcing new owners and who they were. As they aren't the Moonies or Boeing, there is probably no need for concern, but semi-hiding it is, well, a bit cheap.

30th Nov 2007, 14:40
Easy there LGW Vulture - didn't mean to offend you...

I think you've missed the point - the implication in the Guardian article and the impression given to readers could be that the quote was from an aviation expert. This public perception is what counts.

Everyone with an interest in flying is affected by press and speculation and if the press are taking posts from this forum and reporting them in this way then it's fair to ask whether it's appropriate for a bank of random quotes/opinions from "aviation professionals" to be readily available to anyone who wants to quote an "expert".

Misleading reporting has serious consequences - I work in an area of the financial world that has been significantly effected by the continuing global credit crunch and our prolonged inability to transact in the international capital markets has been fuelled by outright false press statements and misleading articles. Many news sources clearly live by the saying: "never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

If we know that the press are getting information from this forum in an irresponsible manner, is it correct to just accept that and allow the public face of aviation to be damaged?

old,not bold
30th Nov 2007, 14:47
just told 'em it was a dodgy phalange

Watch it, sunshine. You'll have Danny breathing down your neck about criticizing Israel's friends before you know it.

30th Nov 2007, 14:53
As they always seem to be paid vast quanties of money for speculating or actually doing nothing ,I have put in a request to "come back next time" as an Expert.

LGW Vulture
30th Nov 2007, 14:55
Didn't take it personally Heli - it is just not your ball to take home, that's all!

Was there any irresponsible reporting here? Basically it was quoted verbatim and wasn't taken to be as the reason behind the accident - as far as I read anyway.

Your quote ... "Misleading reporting has serious consequences...."

That's a can of worms in itself!

30th Nov 2007, 15:09
Afternoon all,
My thoughts as an SLF........
I don't particularly blame the journo. He has a story to write, in a hurry, and used a reputable aviation message board for material. OK, the terminology (blogger) was less than acurate, but that's splitting hairs. If PPRuNe wasn't available then he would simply have gone elsewhere for comments.
I think restricting access to PPRuNe because journalists might quote from it would be a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I, for one, have an interest in aviation and find this site an excellent forum for news, rumors and to gain an insiders perspective of the aviation industry. While I have no more than a casual interest, there must be others who are considering careers in the airline industry who find PPRuNe informative if not inspiring.
The problem I've seen today is not so much that people are speculating on the causes of this tragedy (this is, after all, a Rumour Network) but that it's far from clear whether some of those people have the appropriate industry experience or qualifications to be passing judgement. At least not on a site that's run by and for aviation professionals. And unfortunately, it was one such suggestion that was picked up on and used by the journalist.
All I can suggest is that if there's any doubt as to the credibility of the contributor, check their profile. If it's blank, or has some smart alec comment that hints at an aviation background while remaining extremely vague, then politely point this out. Maybe they'll either clarify their position in the industry, re-write their profile or simply shut up and go away.
Thank you for your time.

30th Nov 2007, 15:22
Shouldn't all this wailing and gnashing of teeth about the terrible state of journalism be posted on some site about JOURNALISM, frequented by JOURNALISTS? At least on such a site the gallons of bile might serve a purpose...

30th Nov 2007, 15:32
There was one case where an Aussie journalist did a report a few days ago on the 1 to go crash in Thailand.
Was very good reporting, informative and correct.
From what I gather it turned the whole tide on the investigation with the Thai DCA.
But this was a rare occasion.

Dream Land
30th Nov 2007, 15:33
So, why am I posting? The reason is to perhaps give one reason why the quality of posts have droped
Sorry, no dictionaries indexed in the selected category contain the word droped. And spelling. :}

30th Nov 2007, 15:34
The vetting of expertise in the face of pseudo credibility damage to this site, should be done in the thread where the initial posting occured.

After all if there is so much concern how else are the "uninformed" news media to learn. Crying in our brew afterwards is only temporarily satisfying and changes nothing

Flap 5
30th Nov 2007, 15:50
Anyone know a good Journalist forum ... oh no I am losing the will to live again ... nurse! :uhoh:

Piltdown Man
30th Nov 2007, 15:51
Allow everyone in. The name and intent of the website are clear as is the message on the bottom of this page in red writing. But if we cast our minds back to where this thread started, the use of the quoted post allows us to judge the Guardian's other stories. IMO, if this is the standard of their journalism then we can treat virtually every other story they print as garbage.
He has a story to write, in a hurry, and used a reputable aviation message board for material. Is a piss poor excuse. That would be like saying "I couldn't find any facts, so I made them up (just like every other newspaper)". The message board may be reputable, but it doesn't mean that to say that its posters are.

30th Nov 2007, 16:05
Journolists regularly ask for help on this site, in doing so they make no pretence of their credentials and subsequently publish giving this site as a source of their article.

Personally, I don't see a problem with what they do.

Professional journo's are, for the most part, far more capable than any of you of sorting the bullshit from the near facts on this site and as it's a public forum, they are more than entitled to visit for informed (or otherwise) opinion.

If you would stop them publishing after getting information from this site, then you may as well ask for pprune to close, as they would go elsewhere and be significantly less informed.

30th Nov 2007, 16:27
regarding who owns it really, we will see which posts get deleted on a regular basis eh? that will give a clue.
depending which nation/government/leader you are criticising:suspect:

30th Nov 2007, 16:35
Stupid of the reporter to use an unverified source on a rumour forum. S/he will be seen to be a twit when the investigation is complete & it was found to be caused by non-responsive frattling in a failed thronomister. I have that on pretty good authority and may be quoted...

Mr @ Spotty M
30th Nov 2007, 17:16
Where the hell is Rainboe, when you have a thread right up his street.:ok:

30th Nov 2007, 17:22
I am drawn in to comment on the various comments on the standard of the Guardian journalism. Probably a bit contentious for a first post!
In this 24/7 life we have created with the web there is very little time to properly research stories and invariably mistakes and poor sources creep in as deadlines have to be met. In my experience the standard of journalism increases when deadlines are further away hence the weekly mags, sunday papers still thrive even when there more immediate competitors who have run the story on the web or in the press a day or so before. Those journos have the luxury to be able to properly research stories and check facts before the story goes to press - and they still get it wrong some times.
In my dim and distant past I was an apprentice at RR and had to write a thesis at college, I was enormously helped by Mary Goldring the then Economist Aviation columnist who pointed me in the right direction for the info I was after. Her articles had that luxury of weekly deadlines and were always well researched.
The Guardian journalist at least went to a well respected source of info.
I rather liken his job to that of a windscreen cleaner at the traffic lights - little time to do the job and is bound to make mistakes that you would not accept if you sent your car in to be valeted!

30th Nov 2007, 17:29
Heh. Journos trawling these waters has been one of the conditions for a while.

To answer the question "why is this bad journalism?":

Well, a journalist is supposed to be providing information on events. When a source is used, that source needs some relation to those events that provides credibility: as a witness, overseeing authority, relative, whatever. At the very least, the source needs as much credibility as the journalist writing the piece: otherwise, why cite the source? Why not say the same things unattributed?

In this case, the journalist explicitly cites an anonymous poster to a rumor bulletin board: a person of unverified identity with an aviation-oriented name, who's been on the board less than a month, has made six posts total, mostly expressing an apparent dislike for RYR.
Sorry, that doesn't meet the criteria for a source you'd want to cite. All it does, in fact, is say to the public, "If you want to see more people talking out of their tailpipes about this incident, google this website."
Plus, calling the dude a "blogger" is hysterical. I'm gathering the Guardian hasn't updated their style manual this century.

"Closing the board" would only make it worse. Right now, you've got a site with a healthy number of grudge keepers, members of akademia, flight simulator pilots, Anoraks, sociopaths, journalists, union agitators and lunatics. You even have some non-pilots.
What would happen if you restricted access based on verifiable identity, and the board somehow survived? A. There would be just as much talking out of the tailpipe; the signal-to-noise ratio would not change that much, B. It would be easier for malicious companies to get the names of those posting "rumours and news" and associate them with their current or prospective employees, C. All the BS and noise posted on the site (and it will remain accessible. This is the internet -- you can't have a conversation with 1000 people and expect it to remain confidential) will suddenly have more news value, because it's now given by a "verified aviation authority". And you can now seek more damages in court against posters, because that poster is not claiming to be some anonymous quack, but a "genuine aviation professional."

30th Nov 2007, 17:39
The Guardian is a responsible paper and is meticulous about publishing corrections. They do so every day. Instead of ranting why doesn't someone email the paper? It will do more good than moaning on here.

30th Nov 2007, 18:03
[x] Deja vu
[x] Done to death before
[ ] Thread serves a purpose
[x] Lock thread

30th Nov 2007, 18:16
Interesting the effect one photo can have. The first picture circulated was taken between a gap in trees and it gives the missleading impression that the plane is more or less intact. Some web sites are already talking "conspiracy" based on that one photo!

Later photos clearly show that there is nothing behind the trees and that those hidden bits of the plane are in fact missing and scattered over the hillside.

Sad day.

constable dean
30th Nov 2007, 18:42
you quote,
I find it disgusting (but perhaps not altogether unsurprising based on my experience with how unprofessional journalists can be) that a seemingly reputable newspaper will publish an opinion from a source whose expertise is impossible to verif


30th Nov 2007, 18:49
Where the hell is Rainboe, when you have a thread right up his street. Thank you Sir! I have to admit I am losing heart after all the recent idiocy that has been coming out here! I found it first went OTT in the Kenyan thread, with every 17 year old kid or plane enthusiast apparently becoming a trained Air Accident Investigator. The China Airlines 737 fire was another, with flightsim pilots telling us where we went wrong, and gruesome accident analysis by more idiots. Then we have Skydrol Leak's posting (no. 10, if not already removed) of genius in the Turkish MD83 accident http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=302525 (yes....a poster with 6 posts to his credit, and no claim to anything being quoted in a paper....like it!). Pleas to stop idle speculation get shouted down, and the stupid voices are getting overwhelming! In short, the gems of information seem to be very rare, the foolish speculation from any idiot with a 'puter is drowning out any common sense. There is no editing from on high, and what is deleted (from me at least) seems to be bizarre.

Another classic example of bad journalism is here from the Mail, quoting extensively from recognisable posts in Pprune: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=496112&in_page_id=1811 We could do a lot to stop the bad journalism by not leaving every foolish comment up here in the record!

This site is getting depressing through being overwhelmed by twerps. Because of recent events here, I suspect all will change over the next year- not for the better!

30th Nov 2007, 18:57
Let anyone post here, and take the hits, I say.
It's quite simple chaps: if you want to give a heads-up that you're technically qualified to comment, simply post 'MD-83 type-rated' or 'ATPL' or something similar at the beginning of your post...then post the body of your text. Should be obvious who is faking it from the waffle in the main body of the posting.
Eg: all I can tell from the photos is the inboard section of the leading edge slats (which is one interconnected piece) appear to be extended, but whether 't/o' or 'land' position, I can't tell. Other than that, I haven't a clue. This appears to me to have been a [email protected]@kin' hard crunch, contrary to other opinions here...not survivable IMO.

30th Nov 2007, 19:03
Don't close the forum to readers, tighten up your registration process .... ensure only real 'professional pilots' can register to join, not just anyone with a puter. This is possible - it's a while since I last installed a vbulletin board, but as far as i recall you can set up the forum to only accept registrations after an admin has okayed the request.

I read the guardian article and clicked the link, I have enough brain to wonder what the heck they're doing quoting a forum with 'rumour network' in the title! I read the thread with the quote, I wondered what else was on the forum - i do love a good conspiracy theory and this seem a good place to browse :O. I then wondered how easy it would be to register, and just how professional all these poster were ... well here i am 30 mins after reading the article posting ... says it all really.

30th Nov 2007, 19:11
be fair guys... at least it meant that a Grauniad journo could write a whole sentence without a spelling mistake!

30th Nov 2007, 19:32
Suehami, please at least make an effort to read into the history of the site a little before posting complete nonsense!

Individually vetting each and every person who requests access is time consuming for a small site of a few dozen people. Now look at the PPRuNe membership figures and note that the "few dozen" has become "few thousand"

Now who do you suggest will do all of this "simple" verifying of credentials?

This has been done to death, over and over and over again. For the sake of my sanity, let it lie! The site is as it is, a huge repository of useful information. It's up to the reader (or journalist) to decipher what is meaningful and what is utter tripe. Live with it!

30th Nov 2007, 20:16
Having read ad nauseam the complaints about the.....lack of rigour, shall we say, in some of the posts on PPRUNE and given the fact a closed forum is not in the offing. It would surely be a simple matter to introduce some form of credibility rating that fellow PPRUNERS could give any particular posting or indeed individual. In fact PPRUNE is almost unique in not having this function available to members.

That'll be 10 cred points please..:ok:

30th Nov 2007, 21:14
ARINC, great idea.

Oh, I don't like "insert username here" very much, he was scathing about something stupid I said, I know, I'll screw up his rating.

Sorry but in an uncontrolled forum, the rating would be meaningless, and another level of complexity for the staff to administer.

Nice idea though.

30th Nov 2007, 21:17
PPRUNE is almost unique in not having this function available to members.That's because the PPRuNe Gods disabled it years ago :D

Duck Rogers
30th Nov 2007, 21:21
Your problem being.................?:O

30th Nov 2007, 21:41
Well, well, well. Three threads in the last few days in which participants discuss how to exclude others. This seems to be a favorite human activity, keeping the heathens out.

Someone wants a validated forum for professional pilots, because he doesn't like reading "drivel" from others. Then someone else doesn't like a newspaper paraphrasing a comment from a PPRuNe contribution. Now someone else wants an assessment system.

First, journalists. We would never have learned so quickly about the MD-83 crash in Turkey had it not been for our colleagues of the press. Or of any of the other major (non-)safety events around the world. Count how many threads could have started if there were no newspapers or television/internet news.

Furthermore, aviation specialists of every stripe are as proud to be awarded honours every year by the two leading aviation journals as they are by the RAeS.

Given that "professional pilots" judge journalists by a comment in a (name your newspaper) article they do not like, I wonder if journalists judge the intellectual capabilities of professional pilots by the quality of the PPRuNe thread on restricting access?

Second, eliminating "drivel" by restricting access. I have been participating in news groups/weblogs/what have you off and on for 23 years. I started back when newsgroups consisted of contributions by serious computer scientists with the gumption to establish their own ARPAnet connection through colleagues and callback modems. No selection system I have seen has eliminated posts that some consider silly, in any forum. But I have seen fora killed off by zealous selection. Now that everyone has broadband, there is little cost associated with trawling posts for the ones one likes. No one is forced to read anything heshe does not like, or pay exorbitantly for the download.

Third, I think Skydrol Leak's comment on the MD-83 accident was rather astute. I hope those who have trashed himher prematurely will post an apology if it turns out that hisher observation was right.

Fourth, terminology. A Weblog is an instrument consisting of short essays by one or more people in a temporal order, posted on a particular WWW site, with or without comments from readers. It may be distinguished from a mailing list and also a newsgroup by its distribution mechanism. PPRuNe is technically indistinguishable from other Weblogs, except for the generous posting policy. I think it was appropriate for the Guardian to call it one.


30th Nov 2007, 22:15
Oh, I don't like "insert username here" very much, he was scathing about something stupid I said, I know, I'll screw up his rating.
Sorry but in an uncontrolled forum, the rating would be meaningless, and another level of complexity for the staff to administer.

Nice idea though

The nice thing about forum credibilty rating systems is that you generally need several votes to influence a rating. The odd negative rating would have little impact on an overall rating, similarly the odd positive rating would have little overall influence. There is no administration involved the script can be very simply set up to self audit the process.

That's because the PPRuNe Gods disabled it years ago
The PPRUNE forum is written in PHP and regardless of whether it's a bespoke script or off the shelf, any competent programmer could alter the script to incorporate or reinstate the voting system with very little work. It might be the relevant lines of code are simply remarked out.

New PPRUNE Gods please look into this !

10 more cred points please...:ok:

30th Nov 2007, 22:30
So if they have a voting system on a forum with slightly more highbrow content your happy to go along with the suggestion ?
There is of course a simple thread rating system in use on PPRUNE hence no doubt the thumbs down this suggestion has received. I am of course talking about a comprehensive method of rating threads with numerical scores.....
Ok I'll get my coat.

PPRuNe Towers
30th Nov 2007, 23:16
It's crap, we had it.

It's eye candy, we binned it.

Use your common sense, experience and a healthy leavening of humour.


1st Dec 2007, 00:18
That's basically what I was trying to say PPT.

As for "no admin" you've obviously not thought it through.

xxxxx has got a bad rating because yyyyy ganged up with zzzzz and aaaaa, and possibly bbbbbb because of some personal difference unrelated to the quality of posting.

Now, xxxxxx, quite rightly, takes offence at this unfair grading and complains to the mods/admin.

What would you have them say?

"Tough titty mister"

Going to lead to a lot of trouble.

A little selectivity, a bit of common sense and a large smearing of humour, live and let live!

Personally I prefer to form my own opinion of other posters, not rely on, quite possibly biased, hearsay and opinion of others.

1st Dec 2007, 00:25
Don't forget that a 'validated' system will also give the wannabes something to strive for. If you're annoyed by blatantly obvious frauds who are wasting space trying to get validation from each other, think how much worse it would be if they got feedback on how to sound 'aviationally correct.'

And PBL, about the term 'Blogger': yes, it comes from 'web log'. A log, whatever it may be, features content created by a single entity - a person or group - distinct from the readership. That distinction is maintained by the clear differentiation between articles written by that entity ('blog posts') and the discussion of the readers and authors (comments). A BBS is not a blog, nor is its descendent, the forum. A forum is structured so that the readers have an equal voice as participants. The role of 'superiors' is to serve as moderators.

So a forum poster is not a blogger. The forum analogue to 'blogger' is 'moderator' (or, if you're a fossil, a sysop)

1st Dec 2007, 01:11
This is a forum, an aviation forum. It is an open venue for exchange of facts and ideas and opinions and emotions. That is its purpose.

The moderators establish the guidelines, and so long as posts are within their guidelines, I see no reason for us to be overly concerned. Neither do I feel constrained by a visitor's quoting a post here. I consider it ludicrous that a professional reporter would cite as a credible source an anonymous blog from a website, albeit an aviation website.

I have over 5000 hours PIC in MD-80 series aircraft, but anything I would posit on this website would still be pure speculation as I have no first hand knowledge of the accident.

1st Dec 2007, 01:35
Must say (disclaimer: I'm not a pro) that I'm with the Professor on this one. At no point did the Grauniad article vouch for the accuracy of the claim and at least they stated where it came from so that anyone with an interest could follow the discussion.

I think that's a whole load different from paraphrasing posts on here without attribution and presenting them as fact, which I agree is horrendously sloppy journalism.

Red Top Comanche
1st Dec 2007, 01:39
So why don't we declare somewhere out level of competence.

I am a PPL with a few hundred hours on light aircraft but I still have an opinion. However A Captain of an A380 with 000's of hours has a far more credible point of view in an Airline forum.

Conversely I might have a more informed point of view if we are talking about a PA24.

If I was a journalist who can barely identify an aircraft at 100 paces then you could treat me with the contempt I deserve.

Just find a way to declare the information.


1st Dec 2007, 03:22
So, like I said, if you want cred. just a simple line like 'twin-prop 600hrs' or '20k+ heavy jet' or '30 yrs ATC Supv.' at the beginning of your post will set the tone. Those of us involved in aviation will be able to discern the fakers from the main body of the text that follows. Low-timers will get credibility for setting out their position just as SLF does now when he declares he's a pax.

Be honest, chaps, and put a one-liner before a technical post. How's about it?
Self-policing, without loading-up the moderators...

1st Dec 2007, 09:39
I'd like to propose some annual awards:

Best example of avaition related journalism
Worst example of avaition related journalism
Most accurate overall
Best Prune post of the year
Worst post of the year
Worst example of speculation.
Most significant contribution to safety.

and others?
perhaps too many already?
Ideally set up a method so that pruners can nominate posts at the click of a button. The posts with the most nominations at the end of the year wins. Someone writes up a critique of the winners - publish it as a press release, copy to rival newspapers etc.

PS: Just an ex glider pilot

1st Dec 2007, 10:17
Isn't it time the name of this website was changed from Professional Pilots Rumour Network. It's got very little to do with professional pilots anymore.

As everyone agrees it's an aviation website now, not just one for pilots as the name suggests.

The flight deck forum names should be changed as they're clearly no longer just for flight deck either.

If it's an aviation website for all lets not call it one for pilots.

1st Dec 2007, 17:48
Dreamland, I remember, not long after joining pprune, a post such as yours was replied to by a moderator saying "we don't have spelling police here". The reason being that many posters type hurriedly. They don't all, like yourself, have time to read and criticise minor typos.

bost regurds

Dream Land
2nd Dec 2007, 02:16
Just seemed to go along with the quality of the post theme. :rolleyes:

2nd Dec 2007, 02:20
Is this more shit from another forum we have to put up with in JetBlast?

You know we run a respectable house here in JB and it really pisses me off when mods think that just because something doesn't fit into another forum it can be dumped in JetBlast :*

Well the hell with it send it back. We don't want it.

...erm maybe I should actually read the thread now .... hic :}

Two's in
2nd Dec 2007, 02:44
I wouldn't bother Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! Nothing that hasn't been around in various guises many times before. Bit like New Labour but without the gripping intrigue.

2nd Dec 2007, 03:06
Now now two's, be fair, we haven't QUITE reached that level of incompetence yet.