AirScrew

The tragic Singapore flight SQ321 has, quite rightly and understandably, generated much interest and concern across the media, the public, and the world.

But this forum in not primarily for the media and the public.

The contributions, views and comments from passengers and the public on the (now 3 I think) threads re SQ321 are numerous.

And so, the contributions and concerns from genuine pilots (and pro crew) are masked and distorted by the public.

Is it time to review the membership criteria, or somehow limit their contributions??

Discuss...

Loose rivets

Well it has been discussed over the decades with quite strong and varying inputs. The decision to leave it open to enthusiasts was not taken lightly.

I feel it was the right decision and that a broad spectrum of opinion more than compensates for the burden of noise. Frankly, old skippers banging on about things like their horizons filling with soapy water are a greater trial for the mods than bright young layman's minds.

ozbiggles

It is called the internet, in most countries it’s available for use.
If you want to start a pay per view site of your own, with your own rules and views, with paid admins, good luck to you.

Sea Plane Driver

Perhaps one section of this forum should be for PPRuNe purposes, like showing an ID/license for entry?

9 lives

Hopefully, those of us who are pilots recognize some of the less knowledgeable posts, which would seem to come from non pilots - and give them that lack of regard that they may deserve. If you limited PPRuNe to "pilots" only, what type of pilot? In 45 years of flying, I have never flown a jet, so I'm not really entitled to remark about airline flying. And, I know some airline pilots who seem to have lost the knowledge of light airplane flying that they might have once had.

Yes, the SLF/Pax posters can be "basic" in their thinking. Pilots (well, at least some of them) can probably tell that some of the posts are nonsense. And, the moderators seem to weed out the worst of the nonsense...

I remember many years ago here (as a very experienced GA pilot) following the posts of another poster with interest. This poster seemed to really have some good things to say. After some time, this poster remarked about taking their first flying lesson - what, this person is not even a pilot? They had me fooled! (I guess they were a very experienced simmer!). I've taken everything with a grain of salt since then....

Max Tow

I have some sympathy with the OP, and it does irk me when the press quotes something from here referencing " a professional pilot chat site", when clearly it often isn't.

Some of the uninformed comments, particularly following a serious incident or accident, do IMHO get in the way of sensible discussion or even reasoned speculation (the latter I guess falling within the "rumours" bit of the site title). However this is a commercial business and I wouldn't expect the owners to do anything to reduce the amount of contributors or viewers, given that even this R&N forum sometimes goes days without new comments. Indeed, the various sub-forums have, at the behest of the admins & developers, expanded in number and content well beyond the original R&N into areas such as the current "guess the airport" games in Aviation History, Ukraine land and sea war discussions in Military Aviation and "my local airport is better than yours" arguments in Airlines & Airports etc etc. All of which inform and/or entertain.
Regardless of that, even on core topics, different perspectives can add to the knowledge and experience here (e.g. from engineers, cabin crew, air crash investigators, OEMs, medical and legal professionals etc. etc.).

So I think to enforce the original professional pilot limitation (if it ever has been a reality since Danny kindly started the ball rolling years ago) would be stifling as well as commercial suicide. In any case, as with any chat behind the screen of user names, things are frequently not as they seem and it is always a case of "caveat emptor". On PPruNe I appreciate that logging in and searching profiles can sometimes give guidance to a poster's credentials, but this is time consuming and often doesn't yield anything.

My compromise suggestion, if the site name is to remain unchanged but frankly inaccurate, for understandable reasons of brand familiarity, would simply be to add something (script or badge) to the user names on the left column which flags the writer as "doing what it says on the box" - a sort of higher-tier forum member who has chosen to provide proof of being a current or retired professional pilot and is therefore commenting with that specific expertise - and just leave it at that.

Herod

In my opinion the site should stay open. There are a lot of non-pilots with relevant experience. Would you prevent a a medical or legal professional from adding to the value of the site? Having said that, the suggestion Max Tow is putting forward has value. Just don't limit it to pilots.

Me? Some 39 years experience, military and civil, fixed- and rotary-wing. When it comes to fast-jets, G/A etc, unless I have something useful to add, I shut up. "I know nothing"

spangzilla

I don't have any flying experience or expertise in anything else to share, so I lurk and read nearly all of the time because I think that is what I ought to do

But if the forum would tank if all the SLF / Pax were as quiet as me, you can't silence the others

But some of the pilots here can be full of it too, especially on climate change (denial)

jackharr

Under 'profile' simply give short background CV. In my case:
Retired 1998 after 18 years military, 22 years airline. Minimal fast jet experience.

pilotmike

As a pilot, I usually navigate my way around which posts are worth reading and which are dross by avoiding any that pompously end by instructing me to:
Another thing…. Remember this is the PROFESSIONAL Pilots Rumour Network, so following your argument to it's logical conclusion, would you support a push to limit it to just Professional Aircrew (and associated Professionals) in order to cut out the contributions and opinions of those whose connection to flying is limited to PPL, light aircraft, GA etc? Using your argument, why would Professional Pilots want "the contributions and concerns from genuine [Professional] pilots (and pro crew) are masked and distorted by the public mere private pilots"?

"Discuss…..!!"

ATC Watcher

This discussion is as old as PPRuNe . When Danny ( the founder of the site) started if was nearly 100% professional and was unique, moderation was easy . the site grew very fast, and was later sold to a company who gets its revenue from advertising , and needs the flow of traffic to maintain it. The idea was that moderators would "clean " the non-relevant posts from non professionals, and they do to a certain extend.

Now all that said, the most interesting discussions and debates on this forum over the years were with non-pilots included :a good example among many is the current one on Boeing where the input from a lawyer ( Willow-Run 6-3) and propulsion engineer (tdracer) are, and by. far some of the best contributions in understanding the Boeing debacle.

And if you still do not like it, or some posters remember you always have the " block button "

slfool

The clue is in my username

I come here when I want more detail on something and for informed opinion and yes, sometimes it's hard work sifting it out. But that applies to the contributions of some of the pros just as much as it does to non-pros, e.g. the "Autopilot disconnect followed by pitch up then stalled" on the LHR-SIN turbulence thread. It's a slippery slope, do you also start banning the weekend and retired fliers as well? Best for people to develop their critical reading skills I think, and the mods do keep the worst of the BS down.

SLF Steve

I just read here I never have posted except on this post. I’d have no problem having read only access.

Bergerie1

It is certainly educational to read what knowledgeable people like Willow Run, tdracer and ATC Watcher have to say. And it is good to read a wide range of views from some of our military and recreational flyers. As a long-retired airline pilot it is even interesting sometimes to see what some ignorant SLFs think. There are some weird ideas out there!

I think it best to leave it as it is and rely on the good sense of the users to sift the wheat from the chaff.

Expatrick

I do understand the OP's point but SLF should have the opportunity to comment, after all, they are the ones paying and there would be very few opportunities for pilots without them!

ShyTorque

Lovely plumage…

The topic has been discussed quite a few times before. I joined the forum in 1995 as member #72, when it was a bulletin board rather than an open forum like today and Danny Fyne used to send us all the day’s contributions.

When it grew, Danny needed some financial input from members and in return allowed us a coloured caption alongside our user details. I think it was then that the subject of a “membership” first came up. It was decided to allow it to be “open to the general public” and it has remained so since and as we know, the underlying reason is financial enterprise. There is a lot of chaff in the wheat as a consequence but without today’s viewing figures the site may well not exist at all.

On a personal note, having retired from professional aviation after some 45 years, I’m not here so often and visit often for entertainment as well as keeping more or less up to date with the industry. I use the “New posts” facility, which allows me to quickly ignore the subjects (and certain individuals) I consider not worth getting involved with.

IBMJunkman

I could see a section for credentialed people only. A gun forum I am on has a section for Licensed dealers. You supply your license number and it is checked in the government database.

PPRuNeUser0221

Just create a sub-forum (like the company ones) where access will be granted if you provide appropriate credentials, verifiable ones. Simple

thnarg

I bet I’m not the only (now retired) industry professional who has looked to Pprune since the Days of Danny whenever there’s an aviation event. I usually learn something while disregarding the idiots, and I can enjoy the subsequent journalistic hilarity. Yesterday was an excellent example.

Pprune is fine as it is.

clareprop

Drop a line to Internet Brands. I'm sure they'll be receptive to any proposal that limits their advertising revenue.