PPRuNe discovered by The Guardian

[soay]

Their conclusion here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2250436,00.html) is that this is not a good place for nervous flyers!

[ronnie3585]

The only downside is what all my eavesdropping does to the unspoken contract of flight.

WTF! Unspoken contract of flight!? Is he havin a laugh.

Bloody journos:bored:

[Captain_djaffar]

pprune is my second community...its my newspaper...its my etc...etc...its my territory...

So come on doggy doggy journos...move off the grass...come on...move your ugly smeely feet off the green and shiny grass.

[znww5]

Just back from re-reading the piece myself and I can't really see what the problem is. The point he's making is that if pax want to continue to believe that all pilots are steely-eyed infallible demi-gods, don't visit pprune.

The fact is that most pax do want to believe that the folk at the pointy end are incapable of making a mistake - flying is alien to them and for many it is a temporary unpleasantness they endure in order to get to Ibiza every year.

Like many other pilots, pprune is an invaluable part of my flying - a source of information, news, advice and - like it says on the tin - rumours!

However, the forum is public and carries both the strengths and weaknesses of any public forum. Some of the previous comments (and no doubt subsequent ones too!) would be entirely justified if this was a private, vetted, heavily moderated forum which had been infiltrated by non-pilots with hidden agendas . . . . but that is not the case.

For me, the advantages of an anonymous public flying forum hugely outweigh any disadvantages - but of course it's your call :)

[DB6]

Very good feature, I'd say. Tells it like it is. Hope that chap's attitude spreads to some of his colleagues.

[Will Hung]

Nothing wrong with that well balanced article at all.

I've never understood why so many people on this forum jump on the Journalist bashing bandwagon. I work in construction. Newspapers often refer to concrete as cement, and anything steel is an RSJ. We don't become twisted with hate when we see these things.

Relax a bit. It'd be a better world if everyone did.

[shortstripper]

Not a bad article at all IMHO

SS

[helicopter-redeye]

Should help boost membership numbers and drive advertising revenue as a result.

Surprised a politician has'nt thought of this yet as a way of collected more stealth tax.

h-r;)

[SpeedbirdXK8]

Nothing wrong with that. I often tell my non-flying friends that if only they knew the half of it. Still and will always be the safest form of travel because the industry learns from its mistakes but you can't help everyone!

[Whirlybird]

Excellent, well-balanced article, with a lot of truth and humour. If you want to knock journalists, save it for those who deserve it, not the good ones.

Cheers,

Whirly
Pilot and aviation writer, who knows good writing when she sees it...which isn't often enough.

[Three Yellows]

The problem is, as I see it, that the journos (and now every pax that reads the Guardian) can not tell the difference between postings on here from experienced 22,000hour Jumbo captains from experienced 22,000hour flight sim captains.

[znww5]

Three Yellows - As far as journos on the trash papers are concerned I'd probably agree with you, but even without pprune they'd just fabricate a story to fill the space. Such people really aren't worthy of further attention.

As for other journos - and indeed pax reading this forum, I think as functioning adults they are all perfectly capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff. It may take them a little longer to get up to speed, but for the most part they, like us, can suss out who is genuine.

This is really all part and parcel of a public forum - nothing is guaranteed.

Anyway, got to get back to Xplane - doh! :ugh:

[Whirlybird]

The problem is, as I see it, that the journos (and now every pax that reads the Guardian) can not tell the difference between postings on here from experienced 22,000hour Jumbo captains from experienced 22,000hour flight sim captains.

That's the sort of sweeping elitist comment that doctors used to make about patients, barristers about juries, and politicians about....everyone. And I thought maybe things had changed!

It may be true of some journalists, pax, jury members etc, but not of all? Is it true of you? And do you like someone assuming you're a mindless idiot simply because you're not qualified in the speciality being discussed? And is such a supposition valid? Right....I thought not.

[boundless]

I'm an anaesthetist (U.S. folks should read 'anesthesiologist').

I'd be more than happy to set a Consultant Anaesthetists Rumour Network. Actually I've tried; several times. My colleagues all fail to bite the bullet(in) at the last minute, saying things like "we have to remember that it would be a public space" and "yes but no but...".

Would pilots and their ilk want/need to read the darkest and most speculative thoughts of the people who gas them under for their piles and the like?

There's been a bond growing over the years between our two professional groups in attitude to the analysis of human factors and reporting of systems errors. The existence of PPRuNe and the absence of any form of CARuNe would seem to constitute an anomaly in need of careful audit......and IMHO some vigorous shaking of feathers.