Outlook

First, allow me to declare that I am SLF.

Second, I have been reading PPRUNE for many years and always find interesting discussions and articles to follow and I find it a great way to start understanding some of the difficulties and challenges you guys face within your profession.

I can also see this thread going way off topic along with the way many other informative posts start out.

I can understand both sides to the argument when you professionals are trying to discuss things before a Walter Mitties destroys the debate. However, please don't under estimate how valuable and informative some of these posts are to those wanting to join the profession, learn respect for the profession or just learn from the PROFESSIONALS.

Danny, I wouldn't dream of making a suggestion on what direction you should follow - You guys and Gals are the experts not me. However, may I please make a small suggestion for pprune in general?

Would it be possible to alter the profiles of pprune to make people to "declare" if they are CPL, PPL, ATC, SLF, or whatever qual they may have and then display it below their name and join date in all posts they make...

This would result in minimal overhead for the admins and whilst it is obviously open to abuse if someone has been found to have made a false declaration then they could be banned for life.

I am not sure if I explained that too well but it was just an idea. I hope you don't mind.

Kahalaan

Hello Danny,

Just to add an IT perspective to this, as I'm sure who you want & annual admin fee (say £10 p.a.) will all come out in the wash....

1) Licence verification via a free (or low fee company) 'FAX to E-mail' service. That way admin costs are kept low as verification could come to a central pprune admin/mods a/c for approval etc. (Check out yac.com or similar).

2) PPayment authentication for said suggested site via PayPal or authenticated service taking a small % of fee....again to save on admin at your end. Again payment verification sent to a central pprune/admin/mods e-mail a/c for approval.

3) Consider 'offshore' webhosting - you may have US/San Diego stuff right now (as far as I can see without peeking too far) but way to go might be to get somewhere (ahem...less 'litigious'). Maybe need to speak to a Web Lawyer, as, for example, a USA hosted site may come back to haunt you at some future date....that all I'm sayin' on that.

Hope that's helpful on more of the IT side, Danny.

Go well!

K

Edited for typo....K

5milesbaby

If the new forum became visible to all to view then I'd suggest not putting up details about the contributors, even if under a user name anyone can see who works for who and what they do and that can lead to abuse. I also think that because of this exact problem many individuals will not want to contribute/join, myself included. I'm not saying this because I want to exclude anybody, but because the forum could be great if you get the right personnel. CHIRP deals with some of those matters that many would shy away from on PPRuNe open forums so a dedicated forum for human factors would be beneficial to those involved. Danny also has to draw a line somewhere if he's going to fully or partially restrict entry, there will always be a group that feels sidelined/unwelcome/excluded. My view is that CHIRP reports actual practical experiences and those best equipped to answer/debate issues are those that are currently working in the exact field, I accept that there are many who have vast theoretical knowledge on topics, but the forum proposed by Danny will benefit from just practical and professional aviation personnel.

Luke SkyToddler

I'm in favour of a referrals-only forum, for one simple reason : if anyone with a bit of ppruning experience was to quickly think of a mental top 20 of the chief pain-in-the-ass thread-destroying flame-war-starting got-an-opinion-on-everything pompous windbags in this place, the majority of them are either current or retired airline pilots. Plus one disturbed Australian billionaire PPL and one Ryanair management lackey who masquerades as a pilot anyway.

Either way, requiring proof of a professional licence will keep away a few of the opinionated spotters and SLF, but none of the real trouble makers. Hence, this new serious-discussion forum is just as likely to go down the same pan of triviality and personal agenda as all the other existing forums, unless access is restricted ONLY to those who have already demonstrated both sufficient level of specialist knowledge and a basic maturity level in the forums in general. There are plenty of folk on here who have either one or the other but not both.

An invitation-only regime would also enable the genuinely knowledgeable engineering / ATC / cabin personnel to dispense their wisdom when it's called for, and I for one would be very glad to learn from them as well.

overstress

SkyToddelr: I flamed a cc member in 'text speak' last week and got a b*ll0cking from a moderator (first one since 1997!) . Guess I'll be out then!

But i think the mods could pick those they wanted to be 'in' from a quick review of the forums. Perhaps people could also 'apply' via an on-line form? There could also be a JetBlast II where the excluded & unqualified can pontificate on BA 744 SOPs, etc and moan about not being included.

Not sure how much workload that would generate - I suspect a lot, which may rule it out.

If contributors were allowed in only on merit, it would have the added benefit of raising the tone of some of the threads in PPRuNe!

banana9999

Personally I don't think £1/month is enough. Danny charge £100/month and you can eat at Ramsay's every night

Zero"G"

Danny
Maybe a path in the direction of having Alpa/Bupa or any organised pilot/crew/atc association,witch a person is registered/member.You could request "clearance" from those associations to "verify" membership.That done,secure forum will be granted.It would only take emails and contacts with representatives of these organisations to explain the concerns and objectives of these measures.
Have a member number,verify authenticity,your cleared.
Regards
0'G

Midland63

Hi - haven't read all this thread yet but if I get the gist of it, I'd say:-

PPrune - the clue's in the name - "professional pilots"

... which means anyone who's not a PP should generally just but out.

I say that from the perspective not being a PP (just a SLF) who gains much interest and enjoyment from reading the views of the pro's but who tries to restrain myself from posting on a forum where 99 times out of 100 (make that 999 times out of 1000), I don't know what I'm talking about.

Oh well, broke my golden rule there ...

But my message would be to keep the Pprune faith and don't be persuaded into some alternative by the interruptions of non-PP's.

NK

Rananim

Elitism sucks.Restricting access to current airline pilots will not necessarily elevate the standard of debate.PPrune is an excellent source for opinion and debate on aviation,in particular safety matters.Open access actually enriches the debate in my view.Everybody on board here has their own inbuilt bs detector and if they find themselves fast forwarding through some of the postings to get to the pearls of wisdom,what harm can that be?

fernytickles

No offence meant to Danny or any of the PPRUNE team but why PPRUNE as a host for this forum particularly? Why not the good folks at CHIRP themselves? If it is to be a CHIRP discussion forum, can the people who are sent CHIRP reports themselves (I can't remember what qualifies you to receive a CHIRP report?) be the ones who have access to the forum? If, as someone pointed out earlier, the reports are in the public domain, therefore available to anyone, then surely "anyone" should be able to discuss them, rightly or wrongly, accurately or inaccurately?


Its an interesting idea, but I really don't see how you can decide what qualifies (or disqualifies) a person to post on the forum. Take our household, as an example - two aviation professionals, one with 2 ATPLs and an aviation career within and outwith the airlines, the other with 2 PPLs and a phenominal knowledge of aviation - which one should qualify?


If I had to send a photocopy of my licence, and if I were a very cautious, suspicious person, what proof could I be given that this copy is read and destroyed immediately so that no one else has access to it etc, etc. I just had to email a copy of my passport and licence to the TSA, and that made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck, even (or maybe because of?) sending to those folks.


I think, aside from the nonsense that appears on here, the exchange of knowledge from all over the world and all different facets of aviation is what makes this forum so interesting and informative. To restrict a forum to only a select bunch of aviation people would undoubtedly separate the wheat from the chaff, but I fear you would also lose an awful lot of the wheat too.


Another thought - aren't quite a lot of the subjects or situations reported to CHIRP already discussed, directly or indirectly, on a daily basis here in a variety of the forums?

A-3TWENTY

Hi Danny ,

I think this a request i have already seen on the PPRUNE long ago....

Exllent Idea...go ahead with it!!!!!

I Think ATCO`s should participate since we have lots of subjects that air traffic control related.And I think it is important to them understand what we think so they can help us when we most need.

About wanabees...Just approve the guys with ATPL.The rest leave them at bay.
They will still have the rest of PPRUNE . I will nor refrain myself or answering good questions in other secctions of PPRUNE.

Engeneers...Well an engeneer may be the guy who pushes you back...

The old eagles are welcome as well.


To register.:

Send the license or scan of the license and crew card.

To the old eagles the copy of the license even not valid and a copy of the ID.

It will be necessary to create a small DATABASE with the REAL data of the members to avoid people using the documentation of others.

Good idea !!!When is it going to start????

MachBuffet

Why not determine access protocols by asking company forum moderators to determine eligibility?

Skytrucker

Who wants the company to know your handle

AIMS by IBM

Why is it that so many important safety issues are being discussed on PPRuNe trough anonymous posters?

Because there is no whistle blower procedure available within EASA.

So many of us want to come forward but stay anonymous out of fear.

Why do the pro PPRuNe posters not send an e-mail to IASA that that’s what they want?

The recent Flight international points out that ATCO praise our system.....I think they are far to idealistic.

RogerIrrelevant69

I think Luke SkyToddler has the right idea - a referrals-only forum.

As a CPL holder who really only uses that privilege for doing PPL like things when the mood takes me, I really wouldn't have much to chip into a strictly professional forum like the one Danny proposes. However, I certainly would be an avid reader, as I am of CHIRP. Not sure what form I signed to receive CHIRP but it certainly never goes unread by me.

The new forum has to be more closed than the forums in PPRUNE with no place for the:
Mr.Angrys, Mr.RetiredAngrys, Mr.Nastys,
Mr.FlightSims (I refer you all to that never ending BA747 on 3 engines thread which was hijacked at one stage by the sim goons. I suspect that may be one of many reasons the new forum is being proposed),
Mr.MyMateDownThePubIsAPilotAndHeSays,
Mr.ThereAreNoJobsAndThereNeverWere (what does he call himself these days? A320Luggage is it?),
Mr.RyanairIsInFactHeavenAndAllOtherAirlinesAre****
and of course the obvious journos trawling for poo.

Tough one to administer I guess but worth doing right.

Flying Lawyer

As someone who wouldn’t be eligible to post in the proposed new forum ………

I think a forum for airline pilots to discuss matters which affect airline pilots is an excellent idea.
I’d prefer (self-interest) if it was open for the rest of us to read and learn, but can see good arguments both ways.
Other roles in the industry have their own forums. They aren't restricted - but they don’t suffer from the problem of unqualified people ruining discussions by posting uninformed, and often provocative, drivel which detracts and distracts from the discussion. For some reason I’ve never understood, it seems every man and his dog feels able to express an opinion upon what professional pilots should or shouldn't do in given circumstances.

I’m not sure I’m qualified to express any opinion on who should be allowed to post but, FWIW as an enthusiastic Ppruner and ‘outsider’ –
Anyone in the industry?
No. Although some nuisance posts are from outside, they are often from people in the industry – one group in particular seem to me as an objective observer to have chips on their shoulders about pilots. If the gates are opened too widely, even within the industry, it will achieve little or nothing - and not reduce the silly 'Who do pilots think they are' type of posts.
Retired airline pilots?
It would be a terrible waste to exclude people with maybe 25-30 years experience to offer. Surely someone will be able to vouch for their status, even if they no longer hold an ATPL.
ATCOs?
I can see the force of the argument.
Engineers?
I no longer understand what is meant by ‘Engineer’. Maybe Flight Engineers only – although there aren’t many of those left.
Cabin Crew?
There’s already an active forum for CC. If the ‘read only’ option is chosen, any cabin attendants wishing to learn about flying will be able to do so by reading discussions between pilots. If they have a question, they can ask it on one of the appropriate forums.
Wannabe pro pilots?
PPRuNe already has two superb forums for Wannabes. They can learn about operational matters by reading if the ‘read only’ option is chosen, and can ask questions on other forums.
PPLs? As a PPL myself - No, for the same reasons.

ChewyTheWookie

Quote:

“It seems to me that certain people just want to have their own little private members club so they can feel they are better than everyone else.”

Oh dear, your chip is showing.
Apologies for being blunt but IMHO that attitude provides a useful illustration of one of the reasons why a separate forum is a very good idea.
Please forgive me again for being a little blunt but, at 23 with a new PPL/50 hours, a couple of years as CC with BA and an enthusiasm for MS FlightSim (albeit with the B737 and A340 add-ons you recommend), I’m surprised you think you have anything to contribute to the specific type of forum proposed – professional pilots discussing flying issues. As a fellow PPL, I strongly recommend reading and learning from what the pros post and, if you have a specific question, asking it on an open forum relevant to the question. PPRuNe is a goldmine of information for PPLs like us. I’ve never found professional pilots (on PPRuNe or elsewhere) to be anything other than extremely helpful and patient when asked questions - but I’ve never presumed to offer them the 'benefit' of my opinions on flying issues.

Your comment also seems curiously at odds with your attitude towards a BA employee (non CC) who dared to express an opinion in a discussion in the CC forum concerning BA CC going sick. You disagreed with him (fair enough) but:

Quote:

"X, you are clearly a very ignorant person so I am going to go through things simply for you."

and

Quote:

“I am quite interested to know what X is actually doing in this thread. He is clearly not cabin crew or a pilot.

Hardly the 'open to all' approach you now advocate?

Mad (Flt) Scientist

Well, that's not entirely true. The simple fact is that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing in ANY field; airline pilots are certainly not the only people who will find the partially informed seeking to educate them about their own discipline. As a (presumed) lawyer, I'm sure you must get plenty of people explaining to you how the law is, or should be, for example .... and I'm sure some of those people are themselves pilots. We all like to pontificate on matters outside our own sphere of knowledge; it's a rare person who will simply say "Sorry, I don't know much about topic X, I'll pass on that discussion"

Most people in this discussion are using it in the context of LAEs - the people licensed to perform maintenance activities on the aircraft. It's also capable of extension to the whole design community, but we don't get licensed so would present an almost insurmountable obstacle to any kind of vetting process.

Danny

Thanks for the input so far. Nothing has been decided yet so please don't let emotions get too carried away. If, and that's a big if, I decide to do anything about it all opinions will be considered.

So far, what has grabbed my attention is the option of recommendation for entry into a private forum from existing members. It is also one other way of possibly verifying the bona fides of applicants should there be restrictions to access.

Also, please don't foget, as mentioned by Scroggs, that the rest of PPRuNe as you know it will still be here. My proposal is for some kind of restricted forum for a core group from amongst fellow workers. Access to selected industry observers would also be a possibility. Suggestions are still coming in and are being weighed up.

Rgds from NYC (standby callout)

Flying Lawyer

Mad (Flt) Scientist

I agree a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing in any field, and agree airline pilots aren't the only people occasionally frustrated by "the partially informed seeking to educate them about their own discipline."
However, we're discussing whether there should be a restricted forum on an aviation website where professional pilots can discuss flying matters with other professional pilots - undistracted by the partially informed.
If this was a legal website, I'd be in favour (for the same reason) of a restricted 'lawyers only' forum where lawyers could discuss legal matters with other lawyers.

Mad (Flt) Scientist

I don't necessarily disagree (see my original post) but the problem is that, to use the analogy you make, that if it's a forum for the discussion of problems in the (legal) system, and if you only had actual lawyers, and no police, or forensic scientists, and weren't sure if you wanted judges or not, and were debating whether a law Lord was or wasn't a good person to have there, ..... you might end up discussing the technical details of the law, but miss some of the bigger picture.

Or, back to the aviation world, pilots can discuss until they are blue in the face why someone did or didn't follow the manual-ordained procedure, and whether it was the right decision or not. But if there's no-one involved who's seen the manual development process, and can perhaps explain why it might be so apparently confusing or misleading, then the discussion may end up a little sterile.

And the other forums WILL undoubtedly suffer, even if they are still there; if the 'restricted forum' is seen to be a quieter place for discussion there will be an inevitable tendency for issues to be discussed there which would otherwise be discussed in, say, Tech Log or Safety CRM & QA. That will tend to lower the quality of discussion in the other forums, and you may find a vicious/virtuous circle develop (depending on which forums you read!).

For my own part, I find that observing the (often wide) range of pilot community opinions on aircraft operations to be a valuable background to my 'real job'; you could be building what you think is the best tool in the world, but if the toolmaker doesn't know much about how the tool is used .... so I would find it something of a loss personally. But I do understand the desire to keep discussions in a controlled environment, and it would be very hard to devise an 'admissions policy' that wasn't based on something simple like license status.