Is this a dying breed of Airman / Pilot for airlines?

[Dutchjock]

Why all the "200 hr boy wonder" bashing?

KLM gets the majority of their new pilots from their own 200-ish hour flights school and has always done so

Lufthansa same story, mostly 200 hr cadets

British Airways same story to a large degree.

Are these airlines not as safe as airlines that require recruits to race around in a cessna for 1500 hours?

[Dutchjock]

@ sevenstrokeroll and bubbers: Lovely stories, but that's not going to be of any use in todays airline environment

[xsbank]

There is a race to the bottom - by the time that a/c are automated to the point that there is no human (or cockpit, for that matter) on the a/c (you could charge a premium to sit up in the front room with the best view) the quality of the pilots will have deteriorated so much because of the low wages, the argument will be over. Anyone care to speculate when the first "drone" airline will take off? Probably about the same time they can figure out how to taxi them back and forth to the runways and to the jetways, automatically.

Ps. There is no more analogue TV so the antennae might be pointing anywhere.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Bubbers 44 is correct. I remembered the triangle patterns by LEFT means you have nothing LEFT, RIGHT means you can Receive only.

as to dutchjock...it is this example that I hope will remind all pilots how many little things might just help them in a pinch. While analog TV is out, regular antennas can still received digital broadcasting and might still be pointed towards the major city broadcasting transmitter.

I even taught my students how to follow power lines to major cities...imgaine your fancy computer plane down to nothing...and you are over the Nevada desert...even your compass is out...and there is a set of power lines...one way takes you to a major power station and the other way to a major city which uses the power...either way, civilization and help...and most likely an airstrip.

what I propose is teaching pilots how to think like PILOTS and not button pushers.

so, keep pushing those buttons and as long as they work...great...but when you are down on your luck, try thinking like a pilot.

[Dutchjock]

That's a bit dramatic sevenstrokeroll, but I get your point. Although I don't really see what makes you say button pushing and thinking like a pilot don't go together. Does handflying the machine make you such a better pilot?

[sevenstrokeroll]

dutchjock

hand flying just makes you more able to cope with handflying...when the other stuff breaks down.

believe me, if buttons never broke...:-)

[SNS3Guppy]

Why all the "200 hr boy wonder" bashing?

KLM gets the majority of their new pilots from their own 200-ish hour flights school and has always done so

Lufthansa same story, mostly 200 hr cadets

British Airways same story to a large degree.

Are these airlines not as safe as airlines that require recruits to race around in a cessna for 1500 hours?

Let's not forget that military aviators generally start with no experience. A USAF pilot graduates Undergraduate Pilot Training with 250 hours and an assignment to transition to some very sophisticated equipment. At a few hundred hours total time, that pilot can be operating supersonic tactical aircraft solo with more firepower on board than the entire second world war, and can fly that aircraft with no assistance to minimums on an approach, without the help of an autopilot.

Hours mean nothing. Experience, on the other hand, including one's training experience, means a hell of a lot.

[TopTup]

Thanks for getting this thread back on course.....

Guppy does have some interesting points, granted, but he admits to having zero experience in airline training departments, airline safety departments and airline operations in general. As he sates, airlines just didn't overly attract him. So be it. But he denies what we in airline training departments, airline safety departments and airline operations have witnessed and continue to witness over time. He has however argued based on his own experience (smaller [commuter] turboprops, corporate aviation and freighters [747 classic??]). Arguments are lined with ridicule and abuse from his own interpretation. Disagree, certainly! Seek to ridicule and abuse, no.

No where did I ever state that technical questions are REPLACED by "What do your parents think about you becoming a pilot?" I merely stated that they have now been included. He argues I did, and labels me a liar. Hence the backlashes.

This thread is about the dying breed of airman and airmanship in AIRLINE operations, as the title states.

I chose to use CX as an example as I have close colleagues there in senior training roles. CX have deliberately ignored the successfully interviewed applicants with many thousands of hours experience, most with jet experience. In their stead CX have deliberately recruited based on a cadetship ideology where ZERO flying experience is required. This permits them to offer T's & C's far, far below those offered to the successful candidates prior to the GFC (some 50% less). Recently these 60 successful candidates were offered a job as SO based on the same T's & C's as the cadet pilots: all this after waiting for some 2.5 years!!! All but one refused, I am told.

To deny airlines therefore actively SEEK lower time / experienced pilots is to deny the blatant obvious.

The point made by "Safety Concerns" is valid. My point is that airlines do follow (their version!) of these regulations and procedures. They have shown to be able to do so by ignoring applicants of higher standard (subjective point, perhaps, but I' take the QF Second Officer with 8000 hrs experience over someone with zero, 175 or 200 hrs). The regulations are upheld, but the bar is effectively lowered. My 2 years at AI as a TRE/I on the B777 fleet was shocking in the extreme. I had to resign as my conscience and integrity dictated.

Technology grows exponentially. In the words of Mr Earl Weiner (late 80's, early 90's pioneer of CRM), "Automation is dutiful yet dumb". Meaning if programmed incorrectly that same automation will quite happily and extremely successfully plough that aircraft into the side of a mountain. So, give me a pilot who has the knowledge, experience, hours, and training to know when the automation has failed the crew by either human error or software/hardware error....and then to competently know how to handle the situation to achieve the most successful possible outcome.

I can believe I can teach a "average" person from the street to take off and land a B777 within 4-5 hours in the sim. They will learn wrote what to do, and of course conduct an autoland (nil failures). They will have little to zero background KNOWLEDGE or EXPERIENCE to comprehend WHY they are doing what they are, but by pure definition one may argue that this person just took off and landed a B777. Give me another few weeks and I can run through some scenarios: normal and non-normal. In 2 months is this person an "airman"? Some believe yes.

[PBL]

Originally Posted by TopTup

In the words of Mr Earl Weiner [sic] (late 80's, early 90's pioneer of CRM), "Automation is dutiful yet dumb". Meaning if programmed incorrectly that same automation will quite happily and extremely successfully plough that aircraft into the side of a mountain. So, give me a pilot who has the knowledge, experience, hours, and training to know when the automation has failed the crew by either human error or software/hardware error....and then to competently know how to handle the situation to achieve the most successful possible outcome.

The answer to Prof. Wiener's quote today would be "that's so late 80's, early 90's".

Recall the first FBW commercial airliner came into service in 1988, not yet thirty years after jets were introduced to airline flying, and we are 22+years on from that.

There is no doubt that the QF 32 incident, with which this thread began, was handled in part by superior airmanship. There is equally no doubt, if you read the RAeS interview with David Evans, the check-check captain on the flight, that this superior airmanship was aided incomparably by the automation, which amongst other things gave the crew a detailed list of all that was awry, which they used to significant effect, in particular to calculate landing performance.

The USAF is installing a terrain-collision avoidance system in its fighter aircraft, and the people who developed that system are short listed for an Aviation Week Laureate Award this year. This was first mooted nearly thirty years ago, but it was clear then that knowledge of automation was not up to the task. Now, the USAF agrees it is.

Many of the significant airline accidents in 2010 could have been avoided had the standard manoeuvres which were being performed been automated, and the proverbial dog had bitten the pilots had they touched anything, as I argued in this blog post in September 2010, which was itself written to address a similar issue raised in another thread on this forum.

I think there is no doubt that automation will take up many more of the routine as well as non-routine tasks in flying a commercial aircraft. As we see these systems becoming more reliable in a wider variety of flight situations, we will see the requirements for successfully monitoring them correspondingly reduced. To put it bluntly, 200 hours programming a veridical simulator will be preferred over 1500 hours teaching people to fly C152s by most airlines, for good reasons. Not tomorrow necessarily, but in ten to twenty years.

PBL

[TopTup]

PBL:
Very true, and for the most I agree 100% with you regarding the role of automation, it's sophistication and reliability. Modern fighters simply cannot fly without it.

Why learn basic maths when a calculator can do it for you? The skills, the mental reasoning and mental processes need to be there as a foundation. Same ideology with our profession, I believe. Example: Ask your FO on your next flight when briefing a hold what he expects the aircraft to do passing overhead the fix: sector 1, 2 or 3 entry?? Why? Because "what if" the dutiful yet dumb computer makes a mistake? How will you (or the FO) know if those foundations are not there?

Ask any pilot who has experienced real life "torque roll" in a turboprop, or other and you'll see an entirely different perspective on Vmca. I struggle to convey the importance of understanding the 777-200LR's performance, all to do with a V2 floor, etc, etc (http://pilotlab.net/aircraft-manufac...higher-thr.pdf) yet the blank looks are worrying.

Personally, I whole-heartedly embrace technology. The 777's EFB and Perf Tool (all be it a very slow processor!) optimizes performance and can remove "book error" from poor interpolation, etc (but replaced by the possibility of "finger error"?) But I also believe it should be worked with the human element at an amicable ratio. Too often we are seeing over-reliance on automation to the job the pilots should be capable of doing themselves. Blindly relying on it is not only not right, it's stupid. Understanding it, working with it, etc is completely different and a quality an airman should seek and have.

The QF32 incident and Hudson Landing, as well as the 757 incident mentioned in my first post, shows how a profession team of airman were able to draw on a sound foundation, strong training and good experience to use the tools they had and to develop a means to achieve their task. Like Guppy (believe it or not!) I too believe that what these crews did was commendable in the highest, but not something we should deem as extraordinary. Sadly these skills, experience, decision making, etc, etc, etc are becoming rare in airline environments - even deliberately so since such attributes are (in my opinion) deemed as "cost liabilities" when someone else with zero to fresh CPL holder can be employed instead.

[SNS3Guppy]

Guppy does have some interesting points, granted, but he admits to having zero experience in airline training departments, airline safety departments and airline operations in general.

Your reading comprehension continues to drag at the lowest levels.

I said no such thing. I said that I do not work in the training department for my employer.

No where did I ever state that technical questions are REPLACED by "What do your parents think about you becoming a pilot?" I merely stated that they have now been included. He argues I did, and labels me a liar.

Again, you lie.

Was it not you, opening the thread, who stated "Interview questions used to be along the lines of "How did you accrue your hours? What lessons did you learn? Tell me about Vmca / Vmcg (piston vs twin jet).... How does the IRS work (then strap down gyros, etc...) Nowadays it's: "What do your parents think of you becoming a pilot?" (refer CX Wannabes forum)?"

It was.

Today you edited the post to change the wording slightly. Your original post, before you just went back and changed it, did not say that the questions have been included. You stated at the outset that formerly interviews were technical questions, but "nowadays, it's...", and then went on to cite HR questions which are not part of the technical interview.

You've lied, and now tried to cover your lie. Interesting that you felt this necessary. Unfortunately for you, I copied your original post and included it in my later responses to you. Perhaps you became tired of defending your original lie, and thus tried to cover it up by changing it. In doing so, you've lied again. I am not surprised.

I chose to use CX as an example as I have close colleagues there in senior training roles. CX have deliberately ignored the successfully interviewed applicants with many thousands of hours experience, most with jet experience. In their stead CX have deliberately recruited based on a cadetship ideology where ZERO flying experience is required. This permits them to offer T's & C's far, far below those offered to the successful candidates prior to the GFC (some 50% less). Recently these 60 successful candidates were offered a job as SO based on the same T's & C's as the cadet pilots: all this after waiting for some 2.5 years!!! All but one refused, I am told.

To deny airlines therefore actively SEEK lower time / experienced pilots is to deny the blatant obvious.

So you say, so you say. Incorrectly, but so you say.

Cathay already had the cadet program. Your argument is that simply because those formerly in the hiring pool weren't brought on board when the track for which they were interviewed was cancelled, the airline doesn't believe in high standards, safety, or training. It's non-sequitur, junk logic, but it's consistent with your reasoning throughout the thread.

The blatantly obvious part is that Cathay didn't leave the applicants hanging; when the track for which they interviewed was cancelled, Cathay did something they haven't done in the past; they offered experienced pilots the one opening that was available; the cadet program. The cadet program has been reserved for ab initio students; individuals with no experience couldn't apply, and Cathay had no obligation to offer that position to the poolies. The poolies had no obligation to take the job.

Being interviewed for a job and then not getting the job isn't uncommon. I've seen vacancy announcements throughout the years which were put out, then retracted, even after selections had been made. People interview for positions and sometimes sit in hiring pools for a year or more, then still never get the job. Cathay interviewed applicants, extended them a training offer, and then never brought them on board. At that point, at most places, it would be the end. Cathay offered to put these individuals into the training pipeline anyway, albeit not the track that they wanted. They opted to go elsewhere. Not a big deal, as the cadet program wasn't really established for them anyway. It was established to bring people up through the ranks, just like Lufsthansa and many other operators do...operators who choose to use pilots who have been brought up in their own company image from the ground up.

You have no evidence to show that Cathay has sought to hire inexperienced or incapable pilots. In fact, Cathay offered experineced pilots the cadet position, something they haven't done in the past. Surely you won't seriously suggest that Cathay should bump up the wages for cadets in order to accomodate experienced aviators who want to drop everything and start over?

[TopTup]

[Forest]Guppy: At best you are a sanctimonious arrogant self opinionated conceited fool. Even when trying to dilute the aggression existing between yourself, myself and the numerous here you seek to fire it up.

No one, least of all me EVER stated the cadets at or going to CX are of a poor quality. Lesser experience, yes. That's pretty obvious to anyone with an open mind and able to participate in a basic human dialogue. You actively seek to promote your own agenda - to hell with the facts borne from others' experience and knowledge. From experience I KNOW that the training at CX is some of the best I have seen from experience (to varying degrees) in safety and training departments in the US, Asia, India and Europe. Stop creating dirt to throw.

Airlines have the right to choose whom they hire, when and where. It's their bat and ball. CX offered candidates a job they did not interview for (DESO vs Cadet) and on 50% less package. Of the 60, 1 accepted. That speaks volumes for the said package offered to experienced applicants. Again, cease creating dirt to throw when your knowledge of the CX recruitment policies and procedures reeks of ignorance.

I edited the original post to reflect what I have stated time and time and time again: you interpreted my post one way, incorrectly. I have tried in vane to reason with you regarding my intentions and opinions. I stand by my original post, as well as the edited WORD I made to make it easy for the slow, more aggressive and simple people to comprehend. I even typed it slow for you.

You are so desperate to ridicule you tried to accused me of being a failed cadet applicant at CX.

You have alluded to your instruction days, in GA, period. From your previous posts and history you are an FO on a freighter with some past background as corporate driver in the ME, as well as GA in the States. No where have you alluded to your qualifications to comment on AIRLINE training, safety departments or interviewing standards, but for the receiving end yourself.

You boast about your own employers >50% failure rate from RHS to LHS, a fact (if true) ANY respectable airline or recruitment and training department would be ashamed of. You are proud of it.

Fella, you call a man a liar. Under the guise of anonymity you are proud of yourself. In a bar you would flat on your arse.

You show your utter ignorance, and try to offer prowess over it, again based on your own cocoon existence. CX has had a cadet program for a long time: offered ONLY to local HK residents. They were/are employed on "local terms" which was void of expat allowances. For the record I was but slightly part of the CX interview and selection processes in the early 90's. I worked with colleagues still there today very senior in the airline. But of course, [Forest]Guppy knows best of what CX recruitment was and where it is now..... As CX have always stated, the expat allowance package is in place as they believe(d) that an expat coming to HK should not suffer a loss of lifestyle in coming to HK. At the beginning of 2009 they changed this to open the doors to non residence: a global pool. They received some 17,000 applicants I believe. Prior to this (2008) they had interviewed and told some 60 pilots they were next to start as DESO's. They changed that policy to only hire cadets who effectively received 50% less salary. While [Forest]Guppy has ZERO knowledge of CX, it's recruitment, it's policies, he deems [quote from previous posts] his opinions to be the only "truth". All others' opinions, evidence and experience mean zero.

Some bought this thread back from the low levels you chased it down to, hence my avoidance to post for some time. As some educated people joined in and contributed professionally, it became worth discussing again. You had to again turn to abuse and ridicule.

As stated by me and others, you're not worth it. Next time you call a man a liar, try doing so without anonymity.

[SNS3Guppy]

Of the 60, 1 accepted. That speaks volumes for the said package offered to experienced applicants.

No, it doesn't. This is your incorrect logic, again. The applicants didn't accept a job for which they weren't interviewed, and which they hadn't sought.

They may as well have been offered positions sweeping floors, processing accounting reports, or making lunch in cafeterias. They didn't interview for those positions, either. That the applicants didn't accept the positions is no ringing condemnation on the position, or on the applicants. That you hold it up as evidence to the contrary is no great surprise, at at best, effort at deceit on your part.

Were you one of the applicants, and thus feel jilted? Is this all a personal rant because you didn't get the job you wanted?

I have tried in vane to reason with you regarding my intentions and opinions.

Try in vain next time. You won't get better results, but at least you'll have proper grammar.

sanctimonious arrogant self opinionated conceited fool.

I even typed it slow for you.

Idiot.

In a bar you would flat on your arse.

utter ignorance

cocoon existence

[Forest]Guppy

Wow. You're both an intellectual and a professional. Who'd have guessed? When a man has nothing intelligent left to offer, it's these insults with which you're left, then? Truly brilliant reparte, by the way.

Do this: learn to spell, spend less time at the bar, don't lie so much, don't change your posts to cover your lies, and you'll be much better prepared to have an intelligent discussion. Then again, don't start the thread based on a lie, and you'll have a better position from which to begin.

I edited the original post to reflect what I have stated time and time and time again: you interpreted my post one way, incorrectly.

No need to interpret you mate. I simply quoted you. I'd never presume to put words in your mouth, nor would I presume to assume. I'll leave that to you, as you do so well with it.

While [Forest]Guppy has ZERO knowledge of CX, it's recruitment, it's policies, he deems [quote from previous posts] his opinions to be the only "truth".

Ah. There's another assumption with which you're wrong, but then you contend to have made a quote here, too, when you have not. Another lie, then. Here's the thing; when you've lied here, I've quoted you making the lie, then shown it to be a lie. Perhaps when you get done with your vitriol and epithets, you could get around to doing the same?

Fella, you call a man a liar. Under the guise of anonymity you are proud of yourself. In a bar you would flat on your arse.

Quite possibly so, but only because I'd be laughing too hard to stand. Then again, I don't frequent bars, and you're pretty funny from the comfort of home, too.

No one, least of all me EVER stated the cadets at or going to CX are of a poor quality. Lesser experience, yes. That's pretty obvious to anyone with an open mind and able to participate in a basic human dialogue. You actively seek to promote your own agenda - to hell with the facts borne from others' experience and knowledge. From experience I KNOW that the training at CX is some of the best I have seen from experience (to varying degrees) in safety and training departments in the US, Asia, India and Europe. Stop creating dirt to throw.

So, to sum up, you opened with lies and false accusations condemning the industry (and since have changed it by editing the post, then lied about your opening comments after changing it. Your opening comments specifically pointed to Cathay procedures as unprofessional, specifically indicated that technical questions have been supplanted by parental approval questions, and blathered on about the industry in general. Now, you've changed your tune. Imagine that!

Whereas you've spent this entire thread rabbiting on about the downward spiral in the industry as a part of the airline's global agenda to hire the lowest common denominator in order to save money, and your flagship example (that you failed to cite or link, incidentally) is Cathay Pacific, now you tell us that the cadets are of excellent quality, and that the training program is among the best in the world. Sort of shoots your own platform down in flames, doesn't it?

It does.

[sevenstrokeroll]

a friend of mine got hired at cathay pacific about 7 years ago (very experienced) and he is now a747 captain.

I don't think I will follow this thread anymore...

[Jabiman]

I think that this thread is a very pertinent indication of the direction of the piloting profession. The side argument between the original poster and guppy also accurately reflects how strongly held opinions on the matter can derail the entire discussion.
I think that PBL is on the right track with this insight:

200 hours programming a veridical simulator will be preferred over 1500 hours teaching people to fly C152s by most airlines, for good reasons. Not tomorrow necessarily, but in ten to twenty years.

Though my opinion on this facet is different. I dont think it will happen in the US, it may happen within that timeframe in Australia and in the UK it has already happened.

[Shell Management]

PBL is on the right track

Competence is far more important that simple hours. Thats a postion the oil and gas industry has now acknowledged allowing lower experience levels is gained in a structured cadet programme with simulator use and LOFT designed to build competence efficiently.

1500 repeats of the same 1 of straight and level flights is just 1 hours experience.

I have encountered Guppy before. No point using facts to counter strongly held opinions with some people.

[TopTup]

As I stated very early (page 3):

I am by no way stating I am right, but that it is my opinion based on witnessed accounts, experience and other related evidence.

Some embraced the argument on offer, to support my views or to differ. They did so with integrity and professionalism. Guppy is completely void of all such attributes.

Shell M'ment: Too true. Silly of me for again arguing a nasty and ignorant fool. I say CX's training system is of a high standard, that the cadets have zero to very little experience - THAT's ALL! He turns this into "Cathay Pacific, now you tell us that the cadets are of excellent quality". No where was this written or inferred. Same as my first post, but he chooses to interpret via a disturbing, self absorbed logic. So be it.

ME:

"No one, least of all me EVER stated the cadets at or going to CX are of a poor quality. Lesser experience, yes. That's pretty obvious to anyone with an open mind and able to participate in a basic human dialogue. You actively seek to promote your own agenda - to hell with the facts borne from others' experience and knowledge. From experience I KNOW that the training at CX is some of the best I have seen from experience (to varying degrees) in safety and training departments in the US, Asia, India and Europe. Stop creating dirt to throw."

Guppy:

".....now you tell us that the cadets are of excellent quality..."

He makes up his own reasoning when void of anything else. Not poor = excellent? Logical to him alone. When dogmatically chasing a fight one will clutch at straws I suppose.

He'll argue an assumption here. No, it's called inductive reasoning. (Time to retaliate to this post will determine the time for him to google what inductive reasoning is).

From SR71:

I'll let my flying do the talking not my keyboard but I would suggest you lose some of the attitude.

and

Were my original questions unreasonable? Is your condescension really necessary? Is it impossible your explanation ever lacks clarity? Is your keyboard persona anything like your flightdeck persona?

From Old Fella:

SNS3Guppy. You, Sir, are one of the most self-opinionated individuals I have ever encountered. Your only response to being told that you have erred is to ridicule those who KNOW YOU ARE WRONG. At least have the intestinal fortitude to admit that you made a mistake, if not publicly, at least with a PM.

Just a few from this thread alone. Shell M'ment and 411A to name but another two elsewhere. Many, many others to be found amongst the existence he has on this web site.

Wow! 1.49 posts per day since 8 Oct 2005! Recently multiple posts on Xmas Eve, many, many Xmas, more on Boxing Day, same with NYE and NY Day. Most of us were enjoying time with family and/or friends.....

This is the true definition of why airmanship is more than stick and rudder skills or credentials and this clown is by demeanor as far from an airman as one could hope for. As I mentioned before, utter agony to be stuck in a cockpit with.

I would've PM'd you but the last person who tried this (from this thread) you, in true form, ridiculed & abused him publicly when he or she did. Guppy publicly replying to Old Fella:

You, with the reading comprehension problem, again. I saw your PM, fishing once more for material. Forget it. Don't waste my time.

[john_tullamarine]

Folk,

I really don't want to have to spend more of my time weeding out unacceptable commentary.

You don't have to like any given individual, or their opinions, or their comments. You may think them to be a fool, or worse - that is your prerogative.

But we do want to keep the invective out of the thread - if we aren't able to keep things under control at the poster level, then the mods will do what is necessary by edit or padlock.

The thread has some importance and should be an interesting and stimulating discussion - but not a vehicle for abusing the other fellow - play the ball, please, not the player.

[TopTup]

John: too true, and you'll see all too often on 11+ pages of this thread the same theme. I trust you please took the time to read all that has transpired. Nearly all contribute constructively, only this one person has turned it into a nasty environment. And true, my reactions do not assist. Please note in a recent post for my attempt to even settle things down. Guppy's contribution was, as predicable, demeaning and nasty for no reason. It's just the type of person he is.

Play the ball not the man, yes. There's also something to be said for fighting fire with fire. He's thrown too many deliberate and low punches for a very long time.

It was written earlier that people do become passionate about things in aviation and this forum. I'm guilty of that. One man, Guppy, has chosen to belittle, abuse and ridicule on a habitual basis without the experience in some fields or knowledge to do so. He plays on words or twists them to a meaning that are or were never intended only so he can attempt to satisfy a self righteousness. When repeatedly called a liar (and failed CX cadet, then aggressive Capt, then back to being a failed cadet again) simply because he interprets something differently to me, and others, then he deserves the reaction he gets and exposure of the past he possesses.

I started this thread as I too saw this topic important and worth discussing. Nearly everyone else agrees as well, but only Guppy labels it all lies, and me a liar. Yep - that'll raise emotions.

I hope it could get back on track again, as it has a few times until drawn into the sewer again by the one person, Guppy, time after time. I stayed away when he did do this, then joined back in when things seemed on track again, when some professional airman constructively contributed. Then as his overwhelming past on this forum bears witness to; Guppy turns it nasty and hence the strong reactions surface.

If the Moderators wish to step in, then please do! We could bring educated and professional debate back to the table.

[john_tullamarine]

I've had a wade through the thread and made a few edits to keep the overall thing on an even keel.

Main things to keep in mind, I guess -

(a) on Tech Log and CRM, we don't try to achieve a nanny state, PC, tea and scones gathering sort of ideal - such would be a waste of time and the result ever so terribly boring

(b) the nature of the piloting fraternity is that high egos abound and, indeed, a pilot with low ego is unlikely to achieve much success in the task

(c) the pilot who wishes to be all things to all people and friend to all .. is doomed to failure. Command is not about democracy although the best commanders will exploit the capabilities and knowledge of their associates to the benefit of achieving the goal at the time and, to the extent reasonably achievable, will encourage a pleasant workplace environment. Some do this better than others, of course, but that is the nature of humanity.

(d) our goal here is for folk, while debating with vigour and rigour, not to get down into gutter tactics and gratuitously abusive behaviour .. noting that criticism doesn't equal abuse, per se. One needs to accept that some folk are more diplomatic than others when it comes to delivering criticism ..

(e) we are, I think, fortunate to have a number of quite vigorous folk in the PPRuNe sandpit who call it like they see it albeit that sometimes such a manner irritates the more sensitive folk. Fact of life and it it not likely to alter much anytime soon.

(f) Why isn't it a rule on this forum that people be required to post in their public profile at least the basics of what empowers (or not) them to comment?

The question is a little idealistic, I think. This is not going to happen anytime soon regardless of whether it may/may not be a good idea.

However, for those readers who have a background in the Industry, it is not terribly difficult to weed out the technically ignorant from the savant. Sometimes both can get a bit circumlocutory and repetitive but that's life, I guess.



Keep in mind that the moderator need not agree, like, admire or enthuse about that which might be written. The moderating task is not to constrain the forum or individual threads/posts to the moderator's (or moderators') views. Rather the task is to provide a measure of control (if, and where, required) according to the requirements of the site and any published forum requirements.

In so doing, the moderator is subject to the lemma that one can please some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time .. but not all of the people all of the time.

Sometimes we do a good job while, at other times, we hang on to the tail of the tiger as best we might be able.