Closed Threads Complaint.

[autobrakemedium]

Why have the following threads been closed:

Gatwick go around
Hijackers Trial in Saudi
ATR 72 emr landing in BOH
Thai Airways resignations?

They do not seem to have been moved, are not derogatory and seem appropriate for the Rumours and News forum.

Are our moderators geting trigger happy?

[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: autobrakemedium ]

[Crosswind Limits]

Yes very valid point Autobrakemedium! I am more curious than most as I started one of the topics mentioned that was then abruptly closed. On the face of it I can't think of a good reason either!!??

[InFinRetirement]

I think you will notice, if you look, that in the case of the Thai Airways resignations, there were TWO threads identically worded on the same subject. They WILL ALWAYS get closed. Quite right too.

The others were probably moved to an appropriate forum. You can check that out by opening them to see where they have been moved to.

Wasting space on an already over stretched server is not good for it - you, me or Danny.
He pays the massive bill!

[autobrakemedium]

I take your point on the Thai thread if that is the case, but the others have no indication that they have been moved.

[McD]

You're right, autobrake medium ... give me a little while to communicate with some of the other admins/moderators, and I'll find out what happened with those threads. If they've been closed in error, I'll see about getting them re-opened. If they've been moved, we'll edit the locked post to show where they went.

[Hamrah]

ABM,

I'm not sure who closed the threads but I would comment as follows:

Saudi Hijacker thread is probably relevent and should be left open unless it degenerates into Xenophobia or racist comments

Go-around in Gatwick is certainly not rumours or news and is just a waste of space

ATR in Bournmouth is over a year old

The Thai resignations is covered on another thread.


H

[airmail]

I was one of the posters of the Thai Airways Thread, as happens in a busy forum such as this, someone else (SLF in this case) posted the same news from the same source at the same time. I didn't realise until later otherwise I would have deleted mine.

Having said that, it does appear to me that there are a lot of threads being closed/moved although this is probably a result of PPRUNE being so successful rather than 'content control' by the various moderators.

[Raw Data]

You can't help but smile, can you... :rolleyes:

The next time you feel moved to complain, take a moment to consider how much you pay for this service, and how much effort you put into running it. If the answer to those two questions is "nothing" and "none", I can't really see what you are "complaining" about...

[Capt PPRuNe]

I closed some of the threads yesterday because of the reasons mentioned by some of the other moderators. I have editorial contro of this website and I have to decide what stays and what gets moved elsewhere or deleted. I very rarely delete a thread and even then we retain a copy in our admin forum.

GO-around threads are invariable boring and a waste of time unless there was something exceptional about it. Too many spotters want to know and this is not a spotters website.

I have been running PPRuNe for over six years and grown it from a single forum to what it is now and without that kind of editorial control it would just be like so many other forums where everything just degenerates and nothing makes any sense. I will continue to take editorial control and some of you will not like all the decisions that I make but someone has to make them if you want to continue using PPRuNe as it is.

If anyone is not happy with an editorial control there is a 'contact us' link at the bottom of every page and you can use that to contact us. We do reply to EVERY query eventually. WHat I will not let happen is have this forum used as a sounding board for anyone who can't be bothered to make their complaint directly to me. It is a Rumours & News forum and this thread like many others is going to be moved. In this case to the Aircrew Notices forum.

After a long day on the flight deck I do not need to come back to this kind of thread.

[tilii]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

[Cough]

Danny - I feel it is the majority of us who appreciate (it never takes too long to figure out) why you do these things. At the end of the day it is all for our benefit.

Thanks.

[slj]

Can someone please help?

I'm trying to find the "UK Chief Pilots and the 'Old Boy' network...II" that was on the Aircrews forum on the 7 September.

An e mail from PPrunePop yesterday stated it was on Aircrews. Even after refreshing the page it does not show the missing thread on the titles. The threads at the moment start with Air canada 767's posted this morning and end with Pink Echo 32 miles final posted on 4 Sept.

Can anyone help solve the mystery?

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: slj ]

[Wig Wag]

Like wise I am concerned at the absence of the 'UK Chief Pilots' thread.

I started the thing. Hardly surprising that it was a popular topic given the nature of patronage in some companies.

A direct question to the moderators:

Was this thread deleted and if so why?

Thanking you for your consideration.

[PPRuNe Pop]

[b]slj]

It would appear that the thread to which you refer was deleted by the originator.

Sorry, I know nothing of an e-mail apparently sent by me.


PPRuNe Pop
Administrator
[email protected]

[Davaar]

Given the "100 postings" philosophy, Wig Wag, I did think that "management" had been fair in finding or suggesting a new home for the thread, and that the explanation for the second deletion must lie elsewhere than with management. This is now confirmed.

Ethical problems are rarely simple, and although I demurred at Devil's Advocate's cavalier approach, as I perceived it, one may (a) have unspoken concerns at third party situations and (b) find oneself tempted or even forced to "express" a view, explicitly or tacitly. X may be asked by Y for an assessment of Z, whose employment X had, unknown to Y, terminated for, say, incompetence or dishonesty. X has not sought to interfere, but his silence in response may be as much an implied condemnation of Z as a reasoned comment; but reasoned comment, however fair, may land X in trouble if Z finds out. None of this was of X's seeking.

These are not uncommon problems, and this thread was touching on them, so ..... someone did delete the thread: Why?

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: Davaar ]

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: Davaar ]

[Holt CJ]

To slj, Davaar, et al, I can assist with your enquiries. It was I who started the 'UK Chief Pilots ... II' thread when it was suggested by Captain Prune. It seemed to be going nowhere, so I posted an additional poser with respect to the pilot 'A' v airline 'B' scenario.

Responses showed promise until tilii chose to draft a new thread on the Rumours and News forum which quoted my second poser. From that point onwards, things became quite dramatic. Tilii's post was locked and moved by PrunePop into "Administration", tilii posted protest which perhaps questioned the integrity of moderators, and the protests were 'disappeared'.

Not wishing to become embroiled in this rather unsavoury situation, and in any event not entirely happy with the second version of the thread, I decided to close it by removing the very first post. I then posted a farewell to my friends, which was also 'disappeared', presumably by a moderator.

Tilii's new thread came out of 'Administration' onto the Aircrew Notices forum from whence it subsequently disappeared, by whose hand I have no idea.

In the final analysis, it matters little who did what and why. It was, I think, more important from my personal viewpoint to decide whether or not I wished to take the discussion further. I chose to finish it. I was a little disappointed to see that my farewell post had been disappeared, so I will say again, farewell to all. It was interesting while it lasted.

[Paterbrat]

The thread was indeed fascinating reading with good cut and thrust on both sides. I personaly did not find Devil's Advocate cavaliar and in fact only replying in the manner in which he had been addressed, however as in all these cases it is generaly a matter of one's own perception.
The topic touched upon seemed to be of interest to the 'mob'in general and has appeared to generate an interest to follow itand the opinions generated.
I did find tillii a little hot and strong at times and possibly just a wee bit personal. To the principal contributors thanks for the entertainment/opinions/elightenment.
As always seduced into spending far more time on the site than intended

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: Paterbrat ]

[TomPierce]

HoltCJ

There will always be reasons for actions, whatever they are, some are less savoury or understandable than others. However, I would be pleased if I can bring my tuppenceworth back into your original argument. If you wish not to answer that is fine of course.

As I saw it you had a situation where Flight Time Limitations in CAP371 (FTL) had been exceeded, as stated in the Company's Operations Manual. I trust this is correct so far? This referred to an "instruction" or whatever, which was given to, I think you said 'A' from 'B', his boss I believe.

Also please correct me if I am wrong, but I also believe that 'A' was actually and actively engaged in Ground School studies, or was about to finish them, prior to actual flight training. So, by definition 'A' was not engaged in flying. When then these studies were finished 'B' instructed 'A' to then make himself available a couple of days later to undertake Flight Training. I hope that is all correct too.

It then seems that there was immense opposition to this by 'A' because it contravened the Ops Manual and FTL because he was tired and needed a couple of days off(?) and 'A' decided that he would not accept this instruction, and resigned because it contravened CAP371. 'B' then apparently required that a bond 'A' signed up to be paid up.

Why did 'A' resign? In the situation above, if I have correctly understood it, CAP371 and the Operations Manual do not apply here because it was nothing to do with flying. Therefore, Ground School cannot be considered as being part of the FTL and 'A' therefore does not have a case until he starts a duty period commencing and ending will an operational flying duty. Including, of course, positioning time, which is limited, and depending on the time of day and the number of sectors he can fly in accordance with CAP371.

CAP371 is a tool designed by Douglas Bader and others many years ago which has not changed that much, but I have never seen it refer to any ground school time being included in it in direct regard to Flight Time Limitation.

As a clearly learned gentleman you would enlighten me if this is not the case. Then, perhaps, I shall consider that my age has after all caught up with me after many years of flying.

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: UncleTomCobbly ]

[Holt CJ]

To UncleTomCobbly and all, and all, this thread is about complaints regarding closures. I neither wish to upset the forum moderator nor, as an 'interloper', ever again start a new thread. I am very happy to answer your questions where genuinely worthy. If you would like the debate on the subject of pilot 'A' v airline 'B' to continue, might I suggest that you create a new thread and pose your questions upon it.

Uncle Tom, to slake your thirst in the meantime, I would direct your attention to paragraph 22.2 of CAP371 and respectfully suggest that your own, as well as many other Pruners', understanding as to this document's creation, its place in aviation law, and its fundamental requirements, is somewhat wide of the mark.

Regards from Holt CJ.

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]

[slj]

Holt CJ

I did not see any of the protests or farewells.

I was a litlle surprised on reading that you had removed the thread that there was no message of explanation or farewell. Now I know the truth.

It has been an interesting few weeks of discussion, thought, comment on a problem that I would have thought was of,at least, passing interest to moost pilots etc.

Good luck Holt CJ and thanks for your contribution.

[Davaar]

In fact, Paterbrat, I had noted Devil's Advocate as a promising consultant for the firm's labour relations practice (turn right at our front door, end of the block, round the corner, up the alley, and knock at the unmarked brown door in the mews).

[Crosswind Limits]

Capt PPRuNe,

Your point is taken and I admit that in hindsight my Gatwick Go-around thread was more than a little naff. However, I must point out that I am not a spotter per se and therefore feel a little aggrieved to being indirectly labelled as such. If you really must know I am a self-sponsored ATPL student who happened to be at the CAA last week sitting exams.

In future I will be a little more careful when posting in Rumours or any of the other non-wannabe forums.

Regards,

Crosswind Limits