Geoffersincornwall

Hi Mods! What chance of creating a Forum Sub-Section that deals with those issues relating to the helicopter world that are currently lost in the vast tide of fixed wing rhubarb.

How about we have Rotorheads, then Flight Instructors and Examiners, Military Flying, and Private Flying. Plus others - suggestions please.

I think the more accurate focus will lead to more contributions.

G.

feathering tickles

Good idea.

helimutt

This is sarcasm right? Or am I missing something?

feathering tickles

I think it is a good idea (but could be it's just me and GinC!)

For example - I can't be bothered to troll through the main PPRUNE Instructor and Examiner bit because it's mostly full of fixed wing dross, but a specific Rotary FI/TRI/FE/TRE sub-section would be of interest.

misterbonkers

agreed! FI/FE/TRI/TRE section would be good!

Geoffersincornwall

FT has it right, it's a fag to wade through the FW stuff and when you ask a question on these forums you never get a response because they are all on another planet.

G.

500e

Location: button moon, next to mr spoon
Only joking

Teefor Gage

Methinks you is missing something!
Geoffers' idea is very good as it would certainly help focus all the rotary related info. What do the Moderators think?

Fareastdriver

Just one thread 'Rotorheads' is a gross underepresentation of the helicopter industry as a whole. I also think it is a good idea to split it into general interest, training and revenue sections.

Thud_and_Blunder

I think the idea of having sub-divisions within the Rotorheads main forum is a very good idea. In defence of helimutt, it's possible that he might've not seen that it is for sub-forums (fora?) within Rotorheads, not a repeat of the already existing forums that exist elsewhere within PPRuNe.

heliski22

Yep, good idea! Well said, Geoff!

SASless

One participates within a Thread.

Current system seems fine to me....you want something to do specifically with Helicopters....go to Rotorheads. If one is interested in the topic within a Thread....pitch in!

I look at Rotorheads Forum as being the center of the Universe for all things Helicopter. The Industry needs to come together as a whole if we are to progress as a trade, profession, and collegial group of people.

I would vote to keep things as they are.....otherwise the tendency would be to skip over several sub-forums as one assumes there is little of current personal interest to be found.

Now...you do get the benefit of seeing all the Active Threads within the Rotorheads Forum as you scroll down through the Threads thus you might trip into what might be a missed topic if you did not enter that particular sub-forum.

In a left handed way that encourages people to read things they might not normally do...and perhaps get a bit of vicarious cross training which cannot hurt anyone.

Senior Pilot

The idea of Rotorheads sub-forums has been discussed a few times over the years (search Forum in thread titles) and has taken a number of variations. Through the PPRuNe Forums that we have now (I know that Fora is technically correct, but we tend to use Forums by default these days!) there are few aviation topics/specialisations that aren't covered already.

While I understand the desires expressed here, we have found that Rotorheads generally is more of a community than other sections of PPRuNe and as such gets a great deal more latitude than elsewhere. Creating sub forums is fraught with problems: what topics would be appropriate in which sub forum, how do we decide what sub forums should be created, and how do we resolve cross-posting? As mentioned, how do we keep up interest in small specialised sub forums? How do you find a topic that has been previously discussed, in which sub forum?

The Mil Forum is a single forum and covers FW, helicopters, instructing, etc etc, without sub forums.

Even more important, how do I moderate it all and make choices of where to direct threads/posts without upsetting the OP?

Please keep discussing the idea, as I don't have a definitive answer: these are just issues that need consideration from my point of view. In defence of Geoff's concern that the plank posters don't respond to FI issues on the other Forum: that's why we have FI threads here on Rotorheads

PPRuNe Towers

SASless wrote a post that's sums up our feeling very well indeed - especially the last sentence.

It's my 17th year of running PPRuNe and my biggest single regret is us dealing with the scale of the site by turning it into a series of geographical, job type and specialisation ghettos that many people never venture out of.

It's our fault, it's the way we coped with the overwhelming traffic. I do have at least a partial solution for it but the funding for the software to allow a single thread to exist across more than one forum has never been set aside or simply has been seen as 'far too difficult.' In this way a training thread could exist here, the instructors' forum and also the most relevant geographical one.

I actually think we've got far too many forums and over the period I'm discussing the number of visits has grown immensely but the number of pages read per visit has halved - the ghetto effect.

Regards to all,
Rob

Geoffersincornwall

..... so from now on all the Fora in Pprune now have an invisible prefix 'Fixed Wing'. I can live with that. It will at least prevent me from labouring under the illusion that if I post on any other forum (Trainers and examiners, military etc etc) that I will get a response. Plank people are generally of the opinion that helicopters are objects that defy the natural laws of motion, gravity aerodynamics and common sense so we will remain within our SILO and read interesting posts that we otherwise would not have seen.

maybe the positive thing to do is to change the Fora titles so that the categories state:

Fixed Wing Airline Forums
Fixed Wing Non-airline Forums

Etc etc - that would at least add clarity to the situation. We could then be in a
section called...... way for it ......

ROTORHEADS - the forum that is home to all things relating to helicopters and gyroplanes.

Newbies would not misunderstand that if they are an FI(H), TRI(H) they should not post on the Forum of that name because they will get little if any response.

One way or another let's decide what we want (happy with SAS's analysis and Pprune towers) but please can be have a system that reinforces that rather than one that depends on chance to direct our members.

G.

ShyTorque

I've been here longer than most (1995) and seen many changes, including the initial introduction of a separate Rotorheads section, and indeed, the introduction of a website, rather than the original BBS and email system.

I think I'd still prefer to keep the present format, for similar reasons to SASless.I hold a QHI ticket (now ex-military but also civilian) and an ex-military QFI one too, plus a CPL(A). Although I'm not instructing for now. I've flown military all roles, civilian SAR, Police, VIP/corporate, etc etc , so my interest is fairly wide ranging and I enjoy reading the whole lot. It's easy enough to miss out a topic if it provides no interest.

maeroda

my two cents.

In my opinion the forum structure is quite ok as it is; I like it more than other kind of aviation/gettos multi sub forums over the net.

Maeroda (hems helo driver)

Thomas coupling

I like it as it is, it's borne the test of time, you can 'nip in' and quickly check out the area you are interested in and catch a little bit of something different going on too. It's worn and shiney, the room smells of leather and coffee.............
Ooops, nearly lost it then.....nurse?

500e

It does not seem to be broken? so why fix it

helimutt

i had misread it, my apologies. Now I understand what you mean. Good Idea.