New Specialist Airline Pilot Forum?
 

Looking for input for an idea I have about a new forum where flight safety reports etc. can be discussed. For example, there are quite a few issues raised in each issue of CHIRP that would warrant debate.

My initial thoughts are that the forum would only be accessible to current airline pilots. The main reason for that is because experience has shown that input from those with little or no experience only serves to inflame emotions and detract from the main topics.

The main problem of course would be validating eligibility for access. Whilst we can guarantee anonimity from each other on the forums, we would need some way to verify applicants were who they claimed to be and were qualified for access. What I am seeking is some ideas about how to go about this without generating too much extra workload.

I remember in the days before PPRuNe when the only real place for debate was the AvSig Forum on CompuServe and you needed to fax a copy of your licence to get access to the forum. Whilst I am contemplating what the level of access for this new forum should be, just a professional licence holder or must be in current employment on a recognised a/c type or whatever, I also have to decide whether it should be completely private or open for anyone to read but only accepted members can post.

Your thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated.

Aaaaaaaah the golden days of Avsig! How long ago was that Danny?

FW

Specialist Forum
 

Just my penny's worth

Forum open for any registered PPRuNe user to read, but only for approved people to post.
Use of real name verified by either a scan of licence with transport category aircraft type rating on it and/or ID-card would certainly reduce excesses.

AD

Danny,

I find this entire forum hugely useful - not just for all the great advice, but also for being able recognise bad advice, weigh up different opininons, etc. I am currently training for my ATPL, alongside a full time job, and often use these resources for help, and soemtimers just a distraction or a bit of light relief!

My view (obviously!) would be that just holding a professional licence should be sufficient - after all, if one of the main reasons is for discussing CHIRP, then that is exactly the kind of stuff low houred pilots-in-waiting should be reading up on.

Perhaps it's time to introduce a small handling fee for members to cover the admin to receive and validate an application? Most other forums that I am a member of have a "premium" area where a small fee gets much wider access.

DW.hether open or hidden - maybe hidden will give the opportunity for an area specifically for professionals to be able to discuss things in privacy - something that clearly many people want given the number of non-specialist members currently viewing and posting.

Only my tuppence worth.

DW.

Just an ordinary Pax speaking:

Don't make it readable by everyone, otherwise they will start up new threads, cross post and there will be thread drift everywhere! :( You folks talk about it amongst yourselves and anything that might be of help to the rest of the world - then open an announcement thread.

danny:

I don't know about European certification, but in the US anyone can check on pilot credentials by going to an FAA website.

For example, you or anyone could look up anyone's certification just by using name and state. For example: Jonathan Regas, Virginia

it would then display all with those name (hope not too many john smith's)
and all of their certification.

Would ATCOs be able to view it?

Hello!

Excellent idea! I am no airline pilot myself (although I have an ATPL), but I train future airline pilots and I think that a lot of useful and valuable information could be gained by people like myself just following this new forum passively.

Greetings, Max

danny:

by the way, here is the url for the FAA website to check on certification.

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airm...ry/default.asp

you can even look me up if you like

jonathan regas

(you won't need my state, only one of me) :-)

Good idea
 

I think it's a good idea and agree that people in training should have access too.

But, however access is regulated, can it not be as complicated as getting onto the pprune BA group - which I still haven't achieved as I'm essentially computer illiterate? :ugh:

Keep it simple, that's my strapline.

Sounds good but what about us ATCO's??

What about airplane designers (both in industry and science), aircraft systems designers, scientists designing the man-machine interface (cockpit), regulators, trainers, writers of training manuals, air traffic controllers, and all of those folks, who contribute to and build the foundations, that airline pilots rely on?

If those folks are excluded from those discussions, quite a few important aspects could not be handled, and both those aviation professionals as well as the airline pilots can not benefit from such discussions.

I am not sure the 'send us a copy of your licence' would work. what could stop me 'borrowing' one?
why can't you set up a screening mechanism so there would be, in all the major areas, (UK; US; Oz; Sand, etc.) someone local who would verify the bona fides and allow access?
In the case of employees working for airlines with their own areas here, the local Mod would be able to confirm.

:\
'Current airline pilots' is a fairly restrictive criteria. It excludes any pilot who my be retired, resting or out of work. Of course it also excludes others whose input could/would be invaluable.
Since most of us in aviation have a licence of some category or another, expired or not, and the information you might be seeking to provide would be of significant benefit to us, then what about a subscription fee and a scanned copy of the paperwork?
It might take you a little time to vet everyone but a one page licence copy would surely take you a very short time to approve or reject?
I think that most professional bodies have a subscription fee of some sort or another, at least those to which I belong do, and since that, in essence might be what you are trying to establish, then why not?
Good luck with an excellent idea anyway. :D
Anyway, you know from reading these, your own pages, how many out there have a clue about matters aeronautical!

With that statement in mind I would recommend access is restricted both on read and reply to licence holders only. Todays CHIRP could be tomorrows sensational headline!

Just a thought but CHIRP also has reports from cabin crew, ATC and engineers.

A forum discussing flight safety by airline pilots without input from other aviation professionals is unlikely to be able to analyise all aspects of a given situation in most instances.

Just airline pilots might also lead to a great deal of egotistical "willy-waving" of how much time on time, years in the industry etc. a particular individual has - let alone inter-company rivalries.

I'm probably just jealous because, as an employed biz-jet pilot, I wouldn't be allowed to play (nor the countless ex-airline pilots in GA)- or maybe there are no GA pilots who could add to a debate on flight safety;)

Sorry Tudor but the Journos already know about CHIRP and it often IS tomorrow's sensational headline!

On a more serious note, I too am a controller and I'd be keen to participate in such discussions. We must remember that aviation is a system - as clearly shown by many of the reports in CHIRP which cross professional boundaries.

My first thought was that maybe those who are eligible to recieve CHIRP in the post should be eligible to participate - but that, of course, is largely limited to UK licence holders. The benefit of the forum that you suggest is that it would have global input which would hugely increase its value. And I would strongly advocate that it is not an open forum so that there is less risk of honest professional debate being misinterpreted (whether in all good faith or maliciously).

I don't know what the answer to how to validate access rights - perhaps a combination of you moderators reviewing a short questionnaire of pertinent info plus a few quid to register for those that have the credentials would do the job.

But the idea gets my support.

Danny, I think your idea is an excellent one as it'll give us CHIRP readers/contributors and anyone else with the correct crudentials to discuss and learn without threads being hijacked etc. I'd make it a private forum so the real nitty gritty sensitive topics can be debated in good strength and good resolutions methodically worked out. If it is private, then I cannot see a problem with users having to log-in with their proper names if available, or just with numbers added on to the end to keep them unique, and a small charge could be applied to get titles added to all contributors with their company and type ratings so everyone knows which aspect the respondent is coming from. This way alone you'd possibly know if you got a gatecrasher as other company employees can verify or not, and as PPRuNe has already shown many times, contributors can see the differences between company and fleet SOP's just by looking at the title and see where a problem for one may not actually occur for another.

And all this from an ATCO, I'd like us to be able to be involved as more and more matters these days do tend to cross over and affect both sides, but obviously having strict rules and disciplinary procedures for those that try to build a bigger "us and them" debate. Will be very interested to see what you decide, good luck whatever you do!

5mb :ok:

Just a thought on validation
 

Checking in online databases may not help restrict access, afterall, at least until a database is built to stop duplication what is to stop me as SLF looking up a record and saying that it is me? - not that I would!

Whatever I decide to do and at what level access will be restricted to, I think that a minimal subscription will be in order to offset all the administration costs involved. Probably an initial trial period of say a month and then say £0.50 - £1.00 a month. Still not figured out how to handle the verification though. Could include a free pprune.com email address and require participants to register using real names or new pseudonyms but with, as mentioned above, qualifications in profile.

Maybe have member status and observer status to allow others directly connected. I do agree that ATCO's should be a part of it. Engineers & Technicians maybe. I remember the days when CHIRP was just pilots and ATCOS followed by engineering but I think thay have become a bit too PC with the addition of cabin crew and ground handling personel. Not that I don't think there's a place for debate for them too but you have to draw the line somewhere and this is primarily the 'Professional Pilot' Rumour Network.

Good input so far. Keep your views coming.

This sort of forum is well and truly overdue. There are simply far too many posers and muppets (as you put it) on pprune.

Forgive my ignorance but don't Air Trafficers, Engineers etc etc have licences?

If they have then perhaps a photocopy of said licences would suffice. They don't really need to be current for the young still have a lot to learn from the old.

Someone suggested that this wouldn't work because all you would have to do was borrow someone's licence and send a copy.

In this day and age would any professional lend someone their licence? If someone asked to borrow my licence I would be speaking to Special Branch very, very quickly!

Totally agree about CHIRP, the Cabin Crew section particularly seems to be being used to take swipes at their favourite Pilots! Havent noticed anyone admitting the mistakes you see in the other sections. I Think Ideally Pilots, ATCO's and LAE's, with proof of licence/RECENT (say last 10 yrs) experience. Think the LAE bit will be the hardest to confirm. Pilots with CPL and ATPL only, but job seekers allowed.

it shouldn't be too difficult to confirm ID of Employed guys by Master seniority list/roster x reference. Ie, Send in your name and say 2 weeks rosters. It would only take 1 guy in each company. I'll volunteer for BA!

Don't forget those of us who have retired from the scene

Depends what you mean by 'engineer' - those involved in the maintenance process are formally licensed, those on the design/certification sides don't, certainly in nothing like the same sense.

That being said, as one of the 'to be excluded' I would have no objection at all; I'd rather there be some discussion than none. I'd just ask that those of us 'second-class citizens' be borne in mind, and that you come out of the 'pilots' lounge' now and again and ask our opinions. Very occassionally we do have an input .....

Dan, a private forum within Pprune would be the way to go, I feel. Verification of eligibility is relatively easy if people can use their real identities (with licence and employee numbers, where relevant) to register, yet may use alter-egos to post.

On topics where specialist input is called for, you could invite known experts from ATC/Engineering to view and comment on threads as required. Or, if you prefer, you could open the forum to invited people from these or other fields on the basis of their knowlegeable and valuable posting history on the main forums.

I don't think there's anything to be gained by having the forum readable by people not qualified or invited to post. I also think that such a forum would need considerable encouragement from the nominated mods to get discussions going and keep them lively - the danger being that people would drift back to the open forums if they found the cut and thrust of these to be more interesting than the limited-access variety.

A charge to enter may actually encourage participation on the grounds that if you've paid, you might as well get involved. If you haven't paid, there's less incentive to stay.

I'm in two minds as to whether it's a good idea, but I think it could be done reasonably easily, and it would at least answer the criticism that many of our debates are trivialised by non-expert input.

Scroggs

Excellent idea Danny,

I would like to put in a word for us LAME's. I feel sure that, from time to time, we could be useful (a bit like in real life)! We have ready access to AMM's, IPC's and other technical data. And some of us are quite clever too (present company excluded).

Thanks for everything anyway;

Love

LP

Just a thought on eligibility. If a user has access to one of the private forums (i.e. airline) then surely the individual forum mods have done your work for you. Anyone else would have to be verified.

Sorry, Danny. Speaking as someone who would be eligible, I probably wouldn't take part.

CHIRP is already effectively in the public domain - that's why they go to all that trouble to dis-identify contributors. You can talk about CHIRP issues openly here. That's what PPRuNe is all about.

It's always attractive to be in a group that excludes others - until the thrill wears off and everyone wants to go back and join the party! Private forums nearly always turn out to be boring forums. They can be just as emotional and irrational as public ones and can also be dominated by a vociferous few who know less than they think. In any case, sensible discussion of CHIRP issues needs input from non-licence holders and that would be almost impossiible to control - unless you're planning a Danny's Cronies Forum (and I've nothing against that - it's your party).

You say input from those with little or no experience only serves to inflame emotion and detract from the main topics. I think there's plenty of evidence here of those with a _great deal_ of experience doing just that all the time. It's human nature, unfortunately.
Nevertheless there is also plenty of evidence that when people of great experience also choose to talk great sense, everyone else listens. The problem is it doesn't happen as often as it should.

No. Anything we've got to say on safety issues should be said here, open to debate, cross-examination and challenge. Sometimes it's the outsider who asks the most revealing question.

So what Danny is suggesting by going for a subscription is that an admission that most of our serious threads get sidetracked by those who have no idea of what we are discussing. Is the way forward then maybe that we could go along the lines of £10 per year to beat your gums with fellow professionals to your hearts content (with evidence to join) and perhaps £100 for life membership?

My only caveat would be to suggest that those professionals amongst us who insist that they are proffesionals forfeit £10 every time that they do it!

I could easily be tempted just to get the crapwriters out of the way.

Danny,

I understand and agree with the reasoning for this forum, and would fully support it if it were to go ahead.

However, so many Safety / ASR issue debates would perhaps be limited if only pilots could input. I don't know how you would manage access otherwise, so believe you will have no option but to limit this to currently serving pilots, but as a safety professional within the ground handling environment (responsible for ASR management and oversight covering all areas) I believe that any "ASR / Safety forum" will be somewhat limited without input from the likes of ground safety professionals (particularly on issues such as load control / despatch) and also engineering. (Not that I'm suggesting pilot's have a limited view in this respect :O )

That said, it would be totally unmanageable to open the doors wider, so I wish the forum success even if I am unable to contribute. (That's a few quid saved.....I'm off to the pub :) )

In Trim

One Question
 

I am a (very) occasional participant but I do spend a lot of time looking at the forums. I don't think I am ever going to be in aviation professionally, but I would like to be a ppl and would be very interested in the kind of things that would be posted to the new forum.

I agree with an earlier poster, that all should be able to access to read, but only those qualified to make comments should be able to make them. Of course, the question is whether only pilots are to have a voice, or other aviation professionals as well.

If that's the way it is decided to proceed, would there be different subscription rates for those with read only access?

Kulu has a point. If he is not allowed to read the learned argument then how is he to learn?

Learning should be our primary concern. I have been teaching since 1963 and it would have been very difficult without pupils!

So do you think we could have an open spat between pilots, engineers, ATC etc etc in public whilst allowing Kulu and his mates to watch and learn without them throwing spanners in the works or should we banish them completely?

It is not going to be easy.

I am also mindful of our professional colleagues in places like Bangladesh and Burkino Faso who would be left out because of the joining fee.

On balance I am in favour of all professional pilots who really want to join in paying £100 to put their money where their mouth is and perhaps having a joint membership for those of our professional overseas mates who see £100 as a fortune.

Apologies for a slight diversion........ :)

jondc9, the FAA offered certificate holders the right to remove their records from public access, as i signed the approval request, i doubt very much that you will find any public information regarding Mutt.


Mutt

Danny
It is, of course your web site to do with as you wish. The idea of CHIRPS is to inform everyone about a problem and include everyone in resolving it. I think the idea of discussing CHIRPS is very good, but to exclude anyone before the discussion starts is bad. I know that you spend a great deal of time moderating what goes on on PPRUNE and you wish to make sure this new idea does not get out of hand before it starts, perhaps a way forward would be to allow open discussion but to bar anyone who’s input is obviously uninformed or inappropriate

Admin Overhead
 

Danny - As someone who is not an aviation professional but is an IT professional I can't help but feel that you are inviting a huge amount of admin in trying to regulate membership of the proposed forum. But it's your call of course ... And the admin comes not just in entering suitably qualified members in the first place - but in maintaining the database thereafter ...

Very true and my thoughts exactly. The idea behind this forum is great so you could always try it as an open forum for a while and see how it goes. A sticky at the top to remind those not in a position to comment may deter a few. If it doesn't work you can always look into making it private again.

IMHO, unless you're writing your own roster at VS these days Danny, I think you will be taking on a huge workload for your spare time trying to admin who qualifies to post and who does not. As most have said though, it's your decision and I hope you can make it work.

Just my tuppence worth :ok:

I was thinking the same thing. It would seem to solve an immediate problem with a minimum of extra work load, though an increase in applications for posting on those forums may result in the near term with possible increased workloads on moderators into the long term.

As an SLF ex-scientist who gets very upset at public and journalistic ignorance/mis-information in my areas of expertise, and in light of the increased media coverage that PPruNe seems to attracting of late, it seems to me a good idea to have a forum for industry professionals (be they flight, cabin, ground crew or ATCO) where they can discuss, debate, and learn from each other without risk of Joe Public or Joe Journalist misunderstanding and, particularly, misquoting or quoting divergent or non-standard views as being representative elsewhere.

That suggests to me that forum areas not open to general posting are also closed to general reading. It's up to you guys to decide on posting and reading rights in different sections for flight, cabin, ATCO, ground etc.

I'm one of the non-professional lurkers who uses Pprune as the best insight bar none into commercial aviation. My interest is almost entirely personal - do you need justification for fascination? - but it doesn't fall into a neat categorisation of spotterhood, nerdy tech, history bufferhood, wannabeness or whatever. Aviation is fascinating, and Pprune is the good stuff.

I rarely comment, because there's rarely anything useful I can add, but I do learn a great deal. The issues covered in CHIRPS are always worth learning about, and I'd regret not having the view from seats 0A and 0H.

For what it's worth!

R

tell this yank what a CHIRP is? I think we have the same thing here but we call it a national transportation safety board ASR report.

people in trouble call them "get out of jail free cards"

jon

Confidential Human Factors Incident RePorting