View Full Version : Qf72. Do Airbus Must Stop Their A330/a340 Fleet.

24th Nov 2008, 22:37

I wondering this evening if Airbus Should or Should not stop their A330/A340 fleet after the disclosure of the causes of Qantas flight QF72 accident or incident.

I think that an aircraft that starts pitching down almost 9š degress with the A/P disconected has a severe problem, more if it follows the signals of a transient failing ADIRU.

I have recieved de O/B regarding this accident today, and I scared a lot when reading at the end of it:



It just says if this happen to you check the ADIRUs and the ATT sources, and isolate the failing one.

Neat. What a solution. I am feeling safer now.

Scarebus rules!

CONF iture
25th Nov 2008, 02:10
The world cannot afford to ground all the Airbus aircraft for a problem you can now handle
All you can do is limiting your exposure time by applying what I would call a new "memory item" but if you're unlucky enough it could always hit before you move ...

25th Nov 2008, 02:46
I answer your troll with another - if QF keep breaking 747s and you want the A330s grounded what exactly are they meant to fly longhaul?

25th Nov 2008, 07:38

25th Nov 2008, 08:13
Rainboe - The only problem I have with your game plan is: If this is a fault of the equipment but cause unknown could it happen on short finals?

25th Nov 2008, 08:30
Murphy can raise his head at any time...

25th Nov 2008, 08:46
One can only presume that Rainbow would obviously be happy to put his wife and kids on a flight in Indonesia with Garuda then!?

25th Nov 2008, 09:27
Rainboe - The only problem I have with your game plan is: If this is a fault of the equipment but cause unknown could it happen on short finals?

It can't happen on take-off or short finals since AoA protection doesn't work on this phases of flight. At least, that's what Airbus said...

Check Six krueger...

25th Nov 2008, 11:27
Thank god we've got the heroes out there still !

25th Nov 2008, 11:50
So, I'm guessing your the one that sits there with one hand on the stick and the other on the thrust levers.....AT ALL TIMES ?

White Knight
25th Nov 2008, 12:32
What a load of nonsense this entire thread is:ugh:

Better not breathe in case someone poisons the air - well, it's happened before:E

25th Nov 2008, 13:34
Maybe I missed something from the ATB....but I was not aware that the causality had been determined? Therefore, until then only directives can be given on how to better deal with such a situation should it occur again....oh and buckle up ;)

To suggest a grounding of the fleet is ludicrous!:ugh:

25th Nov 2008, 13:51
Rainboe, I'm guessing that's your real name??? I'm glad you lived through all those unfortunate aviation abnormalities, but your attitude towards them is quite blinkered ! Think outside your(percieved) tough guy world......It doesn't take a "professional pilot"(I'll leave you wondering) to realise the other options, in regards to addressing the problems..... actually, that's what professional pilots should do..........

25th Nov 2008, 13:51
Q A330 fitted with Northrop- Grumman ADIRU's. Honeywell equipped aircraft not included.

25th Nov 2008, 16:06
Back in the 50s they grounded the Comet.......
The British Overseas Airways Corporation temporarily suspended all Comet jet services following the crash off Rome while checks were carried out.
It was difficult to establish the exact cause of the crash because most of the wreckage was lost under water. But modifications were made and the Comet went back into service.
Then another Comet fell into the sea after leaving Rome on 8 April 1954, killing all on board. Comets were grounded again.

25th Nov 2008, 16:40
dazdaz,.you can't compare an in-flight incident like the one under discussion to the comet crash! Firstly it was the worlds first commerical jet airliner, therefore in those days, I suppose any accident that catastrophic in a new age of transportation would demand such a response. Secondly, there has been no crash of the A330 due to this incident or the factors involved before. The A330 has accumulated many thousands of flight hours and in-service experience of over 15 years. The comet had only 3 years of in-service life before the incident you mention. But also note that the comet had a few 'minor' incidents before the Rome crash (failure to get airborne and also aborted take off with injuries) that did not warrant the fleet to be grounded.

I suppose you also consider that all B777s should now be grounded until the full investigation of the BA crash is complete?

25th Nov 2008, 17:18
Nothing in the real world stops at the behest of isolated, individual faults - that is not limited to aviation at all.

If you cannot see how the real world works at all, arcticfan, you should get off the PC and see more of it, before you make sweeping judgements.

For example:

- A lorry driver's tyre fails, causing him to swerve and crash. Do you (a) ban all lorries on that tyre from driving on the road until a full and complete investigation has taken place, or (b), assess the likely causes of the tyre failure, establish it was an isolated incident, and issue advice to all operators of such tyres to minimise the likelihood of the crash being repeated, until such time as the scientific investigations are complete and it is established that the entire tyre fleet is safe.

Now, in considering your reply, think that no other tyres have ever failed and caused a crash, no deaths occurred, 20,000 lorries use that tyre, and those lorries carry $500,000 of goods each, daily. That equates to $10bn per day, or $3,650bn per year. The investigation will take a year.

Welcome to reality...

25th Nov 2008, 17:19
This scenerio is just not in the same category as the metal fatigue situation on the Comets.
The fly-by-wire Airbus fleet has accumulated millions of flight hours.And this occurance could be dealt with by the pilots(as demonstrated by the crew)even while a good fix is worked out by the manufacterer.

There are quite a few people out there(including some actually flying A/C)who think that the job requirement is just to mug up the SOPs and apply them in a mindless fashion.This understanding of a job description,actually insults even ground jobs in aviation.
So in their mind obviously any situation not contained in the SOPs should not arise,and if it does ground the fleet.
Becuase then they would actually have to use a sound understanding of the a/c design and the external environmental factors(if any) to figure out what is going on and shape an appropriate response.As was done by BA 747 Capt Moody and his crew in response to the volcanic ash encounter near Indonesia.
All i can say to them is that when a/c in service stop throwing the odd curve ball and SOPs become all encompassing there would beno need for pilots,just a software programme(containing SOP autoapplication!) would suffice.
Meanwhile i wish these whinners/alarmists find other more suitable vocations if any

26th Nov 2008, 03:10
The AD is http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/over/a330/A330-095.pdf (http://http//www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/over/a330/A330-095.pdf)
Strongresolve, I guess that this is what you are referring to. Armed with this knowledge, any future upsets are likely to be corrected even more rapidly, and probably without having to experience a bunt. I fail to see how this could be a grounding issue.

26th Nov 2008, 03:32
This was a relatively minor thing in the overall scheme of things, no loss of Life or Aircraft.

If Airbus and/or the Authorities didn't ground A300/A310s after the loss of the tail, or the A320s after several crashes, then they will not be grounding A330s over this incident.

26th Nov 2008, 05:36
I still have (unreasonble) worries flying but sit in the back often enough to be used to it by now. I am perfectly happy for me and my family to fly in A330/340 aircraft - my son flies from Oz to France in a week or so in just one of these and I am cerain he will have a perfectly fine flight.
I have total confidence in the guys (and girls) up front and after reading this forum for a long time can appreciate just a little of what is involved in getting us from a) to b) in very great safety. I cant recall reading such a lot of nonsense, grounding aircraft based on this incident - although I will be even more careful with my seat belt in the future. Keep up the great work guys (not the sime ones but).

26th Nov 2008, 07:42
Nice one Pax rat...but don't forget the engineers..... ;)

26th Nov 2008, 08:57
Pax Rat could be me too. I am a slightly and unreasonably nervous passenger and frequent these forums as a way of learning the reality of commercial aviation. It is safe and I know that by being here. I trust 99.9% of those up front, in the cabin, and in the hanger.

What I have learnt here is the value of PRUNE. I wish more people would learn more before typing!


26th Nov 2008, 09:06
If Airbus and/or the Authorities didn't ground A300/A310s after the loss of the tail, or the A320s after several crashes, then they will not be grounding A330s over this incident.
Well, given that the incidents you refer to were primarily caused by pilot error, it's hardly surprising. By the same logic, the 727 should have been grounded while pilots were crashing the things with worrying regularity while the became accustomed to the handling in tis early operational years.

26th Nov 2008, 09:37
Dozy, do you actual have anything relevant to add regarding the A330 incident or are you trying to score points? Going by your profile name, it appears you don't quite have the knowledge and experience to make any real input....but please enlighten us?

26th Nov 2008, 10:11
I used the example of Airbus, because is what I ride.

But I believe that no aircraft manufacturer is going to ground any fleet, even for one or two days. The economic pressure is very high.

Think about the B777 accident at Heathrow, what if the engines stopped over siberia or on a go around?

What if the Iberia A340-600 at Quito stopped 45 meters far away after the cliff?

What if QF72 control failure ocurred in a high congested traffic area?

We have the tendency to lesser the things and start calling serious accidents incidents if there is not casualities. But in the 60s, 70s no aircraft manufacturer had fear of grounding an entire fleet.

Yes, the industry is very safe and fail proof, but are we going to resign safety now? Are we happy with the safety level or we want more.

Here in Spain two months ago 162 people died in an aircraft crash. The problable cause was the reason another accident 20 years ago and this problem was well know by the industry.
I believe that we are resigning safety. In the Spanair flight the F/O was flying. He was only fliying that aircraft from one year, and probably he did the minimum sims to obtain the rating to saving costs. Probalby he didnt made any sim related to the first MD82 flaps accident, windshear or abnormal config recoveries during take off, and probably he only made one refesher sim before the accident.

We used to do that, but this was long time ago. I remember when I was in my 20s crashing a lot of times in the B727 SIM, due to uneven or unknow problems that I never experienced before.
I learn a lot then, but things have changed.

26th Nov 2008, 11:13
The A330 has an excellent safety record. It is not warranted to ground the worldwide fleet due to this isolated incident. I do agree with Strongresolves point that safety has been allowed to slip in some matters of aviation past. But I do not feel this incident is in the same arena.

Daily life as a Pilot involves dealing with the unexpected, being prepared for situations and dealing with them as best you can. We rely on other professionals to service and maintain the Aircraft, prepare our flight planning and assist us in safe Navigation. But ultimately, the final decisions about flight, fall back on our plate. Commanders responsibility. We are trained to deal with known failures and problems, we use out knowledge/experience to deal with unknown/multiple failures. Thats our Job.

I am not as brave as rainboe, but I have every faith in the A330 as a safe aircraft. :ok:.

Rainboe, what are civilians? hehe. Are they the military version of Joe Public ?:p.

26th Nov 2008, 11:23
We have the tendency to lesser the things and start calling serious accidents incidents if there is not casualities. But in the 60s, 70s no aircraft manufacturer had fear of grounding an entire fleet.

Yes, the industry is very safe and fail proof, but are we going to resign safety now? Are we happy with the safety level or we want more.

Strongresolve, As I recall, DC 10s were grounded for a while following the 1979 engine separation at O'Hare. But these are wider issues. Perhaps a new thread would be appropriate to share your more general concerns about aviation safety?

26th Nov 2008, 11:56
"If you look for 100% safety, you will do well to sit on the fence and watch the birds"

Wilbur Wright

26th Nov 2008, 12:40
Strong resolve

By your own admission, if those are your concerns, then you should not be leaving home and walking in a street or taking any form of transport.

Hotel Tango
26th Nov 2008, 13:19
"If you look for 100% safety, you will do well to sit on the fence and watch the birds"

Wilbur Wright


Except for the thousands that get hit by aeroplanes every year! :}

VSB via OL
26th Nov 2008, 13:46
Rainboe, I think you've scared him off!! :ok::ok::ok:

26th Nov 2008, 14:36
...And the Comet fleet had how many total hours/cycles at the time of grounding?

...And the A330/A340 fleet has how many hours/cycles now?

26th Nov 2008, 18:05

Let us remain encouraged by the fact that those to whom intelligent, professional, informed and respectful dialog is directed are capable of sifting wheat from chaffe and carry on, ignoring contributions with a high MSFS factor.

Ignoring ignorance, stupidity and/or the troll factor keeps such from gaining a foothold from which to contaminate otherwise worthwhile threads.

The experience and obvious accuracy by those who know, stands out as does the opposite. The moment such ignorance is responded to, the floor is theirs as is the thread, as is our attention.

Genuine questions by passengers, sincerely keen on learning, are equally easy to recognize and a good opportunity for learning, as are those suggestions borne of immature behaviour which isn't interested in learning but attention-seeking.

PPRuNe is "being strangled by idiots" because those who respond to same are facilitating and enabling it. Extinquishing such ill behaviour by ignoring it works as well here as with children.

For student pilots, one way or another, aviation itself will deal with the arrogance of "one-hour wonders". Ego, arrogance, over-confidence etc are unhealthy personal qualities brought to aviation and not qualities engendered by aviation.

Learning by asking is the mark of a true aviator, whether they have 10 hours in a Cessna or 30,000hrs in heavy transports. If someone thinks they're special just by holding a pilot's license, I'd recommend no one fly with them until they calm down and learn a bit...

Why rail, set one's hair on fire or raise one's BP when invisibility works just as well? Those who seek attention will not find it, while those who seek knowledge will learn either by simply shutting up and reading the contributions of professionals, or asking out of a personal effort put in through such reading.

For those who do not fly professionally but who continue to challenge those who do, let them live in chosen ignorance. Do we really think that it is only in PPRuNe that such approaches to life are expressed?


White Knight
26th Nov 2008, 18:44
Well said Rainboe, well said PJ2 - I just can't be bothered to spend enough time at the keyboards to argue with these 'experts'... However I do spend enough time in the left seat of 332/343/345 to be able to tell you all that they really are very excellent aeroplanes, funny ADIRUs or not:}

26th Nov 2008, 18:54
WK - "However I do spend enough time in the left seat of 332/343/345 to be able to tell you all that they really are very excellent aeroplanes, funny ADIRUs or not"

And the 320 series - fully agree; done the same since '92, - beautiful airplanes, esp, the 345.

And just to shove an oar in the water, non-moving thrust levers are a non-issue but to each his/her own.

26th Nov 2008, 22:38
You are completely correct in everything you have written on this thread. You display a maturity of knowledge borne, I guess, of many years in this industry. You have been harangued by people who, frankly, know nothing of the career experience as an airline pilot.
I respect your tenacity in doggedly arguing your case to these amateurs / tyros/ timewasters.
Years ago I gave up with "Rumours & News" due to dilettante attitudes that made me embarrassed to count those contributors among my professional (or maybe wannabe) aviators, hence I stopped contributing.
So after not inconsiderable thought about whether to reply or not (and a glass or two) I break my Golden Rule to congratulate you.

Should we ever meet downroute, the evenings on me! :D:D:D

26th Nov 2008, 22:53
I asume inherent risks and go flying when I have to. I prefer to see the planes from inside rather than from outside. My concern is not if I assume the risk, my concern is if every one in the industry is concerned about risks, at least like me.

In the military aviation, we went in harms way, but in civil aviation the game is take the plane from point A to point B, with a chance of success of 99,99%, and if it possible saving some fuel.

To acomplish this I have to be very well trained in flying and managing, I have to able to fly a plane manually in congested airspace with no risk or no room error, and manage all aircraft systems to reduce work load, increase passenger confort and economy. I have to be a Pilot/Aviator and a Manager. In this times, the first part of this is not a value anymore.

My concern is that aviation is becoming a bruch of SOPs. And not for safety, but economy.

Some years ago, no SOP told me when I should have the A/P conected. It only recomended to use it in dense traffic airspace. This is fine and very logic, because it reduces workload.

But now, the same SOPs require the use of A/P from 400 feet to final approach in any flight and any field. Also it denies me the use of A/THR, I only can use it in turbulent approaches or in the case of failures.

If I dont follow SOPs, and say, one day I dont use A/P or A/THR and I break the plane, for example in a hard landing, they are going to blame me for no following SOPs, not for doing the hard landing, even if the final cause have nothing to do with the SOPs requirements.

Lack of piloting skills is not a concern anymore. The only important thing in the SIM are the SOPs, because with this SOPs you dont need to fly the plane by hand, just do written things of the manual and follow ATC instructions. Only if the thing becomes ugly you have to disconect and fly by hand, and then, will you consider your self captable of flying an aircraft without A/THR?

If your plane has an unexpected problem, dont worry, follow the SOPs and we will see.

27th Nov 2008, 02:43
they have just as loud a voice as any sane pragmatic individual who knows what he is talking about.
In print, yes they do, but, stating the obvious, noise doesn't make something correct. Those who know and are sincere in their interest will learn, those who are forever needy will never learn; The professionals can tell the difference in an instant. Under the heading of 'some things we can't control', except that it detracts from and interferes with, the open dialog noise needn't matter. It is, after all, an anonymous dialog.

Anyway notwithstanding, your contributions are thoroughly readable and worth the sifting. You continue squishing the imposters and I'll continue ignoring them.


27th Nov 2008, 09:54

I think you both raise very valid points over the quality of post's by unqualified people - after 8 months or so of reading this even I can pick out the quality from the dross. As from the title you can see I am such a person, however I do find it a bit off that you tar all of us with the same brush - there are quite a few of us that only post when it is sensible to do so, make our status known when we post and engage in what we consider to be sensible discussions raising valid quiestions/points to hopefully further the ongoing discussion.

I myself am a little irked such as you both are when people make comments out of hand clearly displaying a lack of understanding or even of having read the thread. I think the policy should be if it is not going to add value dont post it (regardless of one's status) and mods delete it if it does not.

What I would say is that if you restrict this to only true professional pilots then you will be missing out on the different perspectives other people from other walks of life can bring - i.e. what about maintenance staff, cabin crew and flight engineers ? Your status being professional pilots is one to be respected however it could be in some situations your training and experiences lead you to think along particular lines whereas it may take someone unskilled such as SLF to pose different questions that then prompt you to consider other items (I am not saying that happens but it is a possibility).

My final point about clamping down on the forums is that it provides a great service to the populous. In reading this I see past the dross reported by SKY/BBC, the sensationalist junk printed in the press and get to view a balanced discussion of events in aviation. These forums provide an avenue that should there be a valid question, I can ask it and typically a professional pilot will answer it completely and factually - this is invaluable as you dont often meet a professional pilot down the pub and you cant exactly go bang on the cabin door when in flight saying you have a question.

In summary, whilst I agree there is a problem, I would hate to see a clamp down to address this - I would much rather people made their status known and were encouraged to consider what they were saying before hitting the submit button. I would much rather have to ignore the chaff rather than lose the use of a valuable resource.

Well I said my bit, have a good day - I am going back to reading rather than writing now.

p.s. No Flight Sim or PPL - just fascinated since visiting a B737 flight deck.

27th Nov 2008, 10:25
A330/340 will never be grounded doesn't matter what incident. Grounding of this type would cause bancrupcy of many airlines, especially in current economic climate.
There is one thing which most people know but never admit on a public: safety is not a priority number one in commercial aviation, and never been. Money are. Happy flying!

27th Nov 2008, 11:49
There is one thing which most people know but never admit on a public: safety is not a priority number one in commercial aviation, and never been. Money are.

Exactly so, and with good reason: If an airline does not have the money, there is no way it can be safe. :D

Roger Dixon
28th Nov 2008, 05:41
Not really fair to say that we non-pilots are all self-opinionated about how to fly one of them there new-fangled airyplanes.

As a 68 year-old professional engineer, public health specialist and so-called expert in occupational health and safety (with 1000's of hrs of obedient SLF behind my entero-gastric dysfunctions,) - there's one or two issues in this thread that I could take exception to old chaps. But I won't.

All I know is this: when I'm "self-freighting" and something goes amiss, the only people in the whole damn world that matter to me are the guys and gals up there behind the cockpit door. Period. Remember that. Stay rested - it's important!

5th Dec 2008, 07:33
I am not quite sure, wether everybody is aware, that there are incidents every day very
similar to that one. For example: An A320 pulled up hard during cruise flight ignoring the pilots following full down input.
As this was no system fault, but action as designed
nobody even searched for a solution (overspeed protection after positive windshear).
Luckily there was nobody above. Only some injured pax.
In an effort to protect their planes from pilot errors Airbus introduced the computer
errors. There is no way to avoid that. You cannot have both.

5th Dec 2008, 09:02
There were no injured pax.

But system function was normal. The only disturbing fact was, this happened in Oceanic Airspace and was a A340 or A330.

The aircraft was more then 6 kts in the overspeed regime ( red band ). With full sidestick forward the aircraft stays in the level up to Vmo +15kts. Then protection commands the a/c to go in a slight climb to stay at Vmo + 6kt with a full sidestick down input.

If you already had applied full stick forward before going in the red band it even goes to Vmo+30kts and deplets to Vmo + 15kts. Remember this all happens in the red band.

I do not know how you fell with your Baron or 737 flying around in the redband.

Stick to the facts...

little story for you Baron 737:
By the way: the A320 when it was new once got stuck in a holding pattern and the crew could not get out of it anymore.

The FMS would not comply anymore and the A/C started responding after the total electric was shut down and the systems were repowered and in direct law the a/c landed in emergency configuration :-))

Donīt be a wimp, fly Airbus :-)

5th Dec 2008, 09:46
we obviously are talking about different incidents. That is not astonishing, as you surely get one a week of that kind :-))

PS: what do you think is the normal action a pilot would do, when going into the red band during cruise flight ???? ...throttle back a bit ?? ....keep it simple
At least in a conventional plane you need a fraction of a second for that.

5th Dec 2008, 10:18
Regarding the A320 "stuck" in a hold I seem to remember that the problem was caused by a relatively newly qualified crew believing that the R1 button on the FMGS worked like a Boeing FMS so they kept pushing it twice thinking they were "selecting" and then "executing" when in fact it actually "exits" the hold at the first push and "resumes" the hold at the second push."

5th Dec 2008, 11:22
Will the mods kindly explain why they have zapped Rainboe's post/s? Reading these three pages from scratch is like only hearing one side of a conversation.

5th Dec 2008, 11:37
I deleted my posts. If my posts are deleted on the Airbus thread and I get banned for a week, then I my posts on this thread are good enought to be deleted by myself as well! Might be difficult to understand, but deletions work two ways, and I can damage a thread too! Deletions are used not only to keep a thread under control, but to remove unwelcome ideas and suggestions. In fact, they are used for anything!

The abusive message I got from a Mod with the banning message helped in that decision! When there is no way of comeback, it is easy to send a banning message like 'spare us your repetetive bollocks'! We all have to understand that what counts is not the discussion. It is thread post numbers (even if they get deleted) and ad clicks, nothing else.

Diesel Fitter
5th Dec 2008, 12:25
Well, thanks for nothing Rainboe - the entire context of this thread is now meaningless and it should be binned in its entitery.

5th Dec 2008, 12:34
Well it's largely based on lack of knowledge with non-experts calling the shots! I agree totally. Any pilot discussion seems to get taken over until the pilots get exasperated and leave it! Some of the contributions are bizarre, starting with arcticfan, leading on to other non pilot contributions that get nowhere. Total waste of time, so I removed mine and kept out!

You want evidence- look at the Airbus thread! Page after page of ...... nothing.

5th Dec 2008, 14:44
What do you think the a/c is doing when flying in the red band ?
it is pulling the power out and believe me, it is fast on an airbus. At least much faster then on my Boeing/MD a/c.

With the most engines it is anyhow like this, you pull the power the engines need a little time to spool down. You can be faster with the throttles but the engines are still at higher settings.

But I do not know which incident you are referring to, but I definitely do not fly around in the red band.
And also not once a week for sure. If something like in the incident above happens it takes a while to reach the next 1000ft. But the greatest thread is a TCAS RA in the other a/c that will force them to leave their FL as well.

But tell me about your incident or what story somebody told you. If the A320 is far in the red band is demanding a shallow pitch up to get out of the red band it is o.k.. You still got TCAS and you will most probably not be climbing with a 1000ft per minute.

Waiting for your story....

Conan The Barber
5th Dec 2008, 15:03
Rainboe's reaction is completely understandable.

For whatever reason it seems to have been decided that only two forms of communication is to be used by the swayers. None or abusive.

For every action there is a reaction.

5th Dec 2008, 18:22
Look at arcticfan's 3 contributions of page 1 of this thread! I get criticised and buffooned by an anonymous 4 poster? If I hadn't been flying big jets for nearly 38 years with over 20,000 hours, I might have been a bit offended, but this anonymous idiot can march into a professional pilot forum and start telling me how wrong I am? When I am merely putting forward the established practice of the industry? Fun-ny! Why should any professional have to explain himself to such a fool? And why should I leave my posts up there gracing him with a discussion?

There seems to be no place here where discussions between professionals can take place without first being interfered with, then completely taken over, which means the forum is not satisfying its original function. It's just like ainlinersnet- a place for airline 'enthusiasts' to discuss matters themselves and squeeze out professionals!

And Moderator- send me another of your abusive banning messages and there will be trouble! But then this post won't really survive, will it?

5th Dec 2008, 19:35
Sadly Rainboe arctic fan represents a particluar mindset that exists in certain Ozzie males, you know the type...they seem to pop up in aviation in the UK quite a lot :ugh:

5th Dec 2008, 19:41

I agree with you. This forum is the first in the Flight Deck Forum on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network. I am frustrated as you about idiots who know nothing about the job making assine comments on this forum.

I know it has been said before but I will say it again. I strongly believe that on a Website with the name this one has, there is a place for a forum where professional pilots can discuss matters without stupid comments from people whose only interest seems to be, to be rude to and about pilots.

Danny, please think again about a forum restricted to people who can demonstrate that they are Professional Pilots and who can make comments on a forum that has "Rumours & News - Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots." By all means have a forum for people who want to be rude about the profession - but I think there will be very few people whose forum this is - professional pilots - taking part.


5th Dec 2008, 19:48
Would it not be just as easy to ignore those who are not professional pilots and insist on pissing matches? Is that not what the Ignore List is for?

I speak as a non-professional pilot who tries his damnedest to be courteous and not put his oar in unless he actually knows something and would be devastated if he lost this resource.

6th Dec 2008, 02:57
My understanding is that Danny has no connection whatsoever these days with Prune, having sold it to the yanks!

6th Dec 2008, 11:57
It only took 59 posts before somebody blamed the Yanks !!!, that must be a record.:E:E:E

6th Dec 2008, 13:21
The way to counter the cranks / FS drivers / newbies is with facts, numbers, and logic, not shouting and pi55ing matches. :ok:

If they won't respond to reasonable dialogue, THEN stronger admonishment is in order. :=