Forum interest lagging ...

[Prairie Chicken]

Is it just me or are others finding our Forum is less interesting these days?

Maybe it is just too darn depressing this year, what with all the RIP messages and causal discussions going on.

Or is it that some of the posters with strong opinions (and perhaps not enough tact) are no longer with us? Heck, I'm starting to miss Hedley & Cat! Even though I frequently did not agree with them they did keep things interesting. Now I hear another poster of strong views has been scolded for his posts. While I don't agree with personal attacks, I don't believe in censorship either.

Anyone else feeling the same?

[xsbank]

Exciting like porridge.

[Expat]

I have been away a month. But I am back...

[Prairie Chicken]

Glad to hear that Expat.

They say porridge is good for the bowels, but it sure is bland ....

[Expat]

Glad to hear that Expat.

They say porridge is good for the bowels, but it sure is bland ....

With brown sugar, Afghan bread, and a shot of vodka, not so bad!

[Siddley Hawker]

Exciting like porridge.

Depends on how you wield your spurtle.

[thisgoodone]

I'm new here, everything is interesting. I do find this forum quite helpful, maybe some day i can reciprocate

[mcrit]

PC:
Your observations are dead on. Certain members of the powers that be are not shy about inviting people to leave. They are certainly making the board a more harmonious place, but one might ask at what cost this harmony comes.

[iflyforpie]

Certain members of the powers that be are not shy about inviting people to leave.

What do you mean? I'm pretty sure there are several reincarnations of previously banned members floating around here that are emboldened to spread vitriol because of their new-found anonymity.

[mcrit]

mcrit wrote:
Certain members of the powers that be are not shy about inviting people to leave.


What do you mean? I'm pretty sure there are several reincarnations of previously banned members floating around here that are emboldened to spread vitriol because of their new-found anonymity.

I know what you are talking about ifly, and I think that you are quite right that some former members have come back under new userids. That wasn't what I was talking about. I'm not going to go into details other than to say some of the powers that be have sent some, (in my opinion), out of line PMs to more than one member of the forum. I'm going to leave it at that because going any further will start a bun fight.

[Sulako]

Threads like this come up from time to time. The board continues to grow.

[PanEuropean]

I can't comment on any past history of bickering between participants, because I have not read any posts where that occurs.

BUT... My pet peeve is that the signal to noise ratio here on AvCanada is way too high. When I visit this forum, I click on the "View New Posts" button, and it is not uncommon to find up to 30% of the new posts in the list have absolutely nothing to do with aviation, let alone aviation in Canada.

I'd like to see forum management start to become more aggressive about weeding out the "junk mail" - for example, posts about Ghaddafi in Libya, posts about Canadian politics that have nothing to do with aviation, and other dross.

If I wanted to read "Reader's Digest", I could go buy a copy of Reader's Digest. When I come here, I want to read something closer to what you find in "Business and Commercial Aviation", not Reader's Digest.

Quality of content, not quantity, is the key to attracting and retaining forum participants.

Michael

[CL-Skadoo!]

People are employed and have lives, avcanada is far more entertaining during a massive recession. I come on here, make sure my colleagues are safe and employed, then I am out.

[Cat Driver]

Or is it that some of the posters with strong opinions (and perhaps not enough tact) are no longer with us? Heck, I'm starting to miss Hedley & Cat!

Apparently Hedley got himself banned, to bad because I have met him and admire his knowledge.

Me, I post far less these days because as the old forum members fade away and new ones take their place I find I have less and less in common with their views of aviation but that is no problem as things change as time passes.

I am a strong believer and supporter of SMS, when diligently conducted, but is it possible that we are starting to see a trend as a result of the move toward SMS? I certainly hope not, and from a statistical perspective I can't see such a dramatic change so soon, but is it possible?

Just wondering if anyone else had the same thought?

The question you pose is a truly disturbing one because one would think with progressive thinking and progressive insite into decision making coupled with more modern equipment one would expect a dramatic drop in the number of accidents.

Maybe our generation were not as accident prone because we flew aircraft that were not as automated and less reliable mechanically so we were more focused on actually flying the things and thinking ahead of the aircraft without checking paper to make sure we had it right?

Anyhow Prairie Chicken I still read the forum quite often but I just don't really have much to offer these days.

[Donald]

Maybe our generation were not as accident prone

Is that statement statistically accurate?

[Cat Driver]

Is that statement statistically accurate?

I don't know, it is a question not a statement. I guess I am using myself as my statistic because that is the one that matters most to me.

Am I wrong to think that modern aircraft should be safer and modern training should produce better pilots?

And SMS should be an improvement, or is SMS letting the foxes guard the hen houses?

[Doc]

Threads like this come up from time to time. The board continues to grow.

True. It grows. But some seem to be mistaking quantity for quality? There are no lessons to be learned from sanitized, politically correct threads. This site is a great learning tool, but lessons must be allowed to be taught, or nothing will be learned. Airplanes will continue to have accidents. Pilots will continue to be pushed into the same old mistakes. Pilots and passengers will continue to die. As the OP put it, too many RIP type of messages. Most of which could be prevented, but fail to be. It's irritating and frustrating to see threads pulled and sanitized that have lessons to be learned that could potentially save lives.
Prime example. The recently pulled thread about a certain Navajo that failed to maintain a positive rate of climb, which, so easily could have resulted in the deaths of all aboard. Somebody seems to think there is no valuable lesson here?

[Sulako]

Cat, I totally agree with you wrt SMS - it's a great idea as long as everyone is on board, but I really worry that unscrupulous operators will be able to easily pervert it and keep doing bad stuff while showing nice shiny paperwork at audits - sorry, I mean PVI's.

On the Navajo-into-the-trees thread - it wasn't pulled permanently, it just went off the rails a bit and needs to be cleaned up a little. I'll try to do that now actually.

[Cat Driver]

Thanks Sulako, I have never been comfortable with the way SMS has been forced on aviation with what seems to be less direct hands on over site by the regulator.

I often think back to the days when we worked with the regulator and saw them as friends who helped us stay alive by fair regulation and recurrent check rides.

It seems like a lifetime since we went for coffee, I am so pleased with the news of your new baby.......life is short Sulako treat every moment with your family as if it is the most important thing in life......because it is.

. ..

[trey kule]

The philosophy behind SMS is without a doubt valuable. When the good folks at ICAO decided to formalize the process however, it intended only for international carriers. Some eager beaver in TC recognized the goodness of it, and convinced TC to implement it as a formal process accross the board. In typical TC fashion, they set about implementing it with all operators, including the small AOC holders..Ignored the common sense observations as being those who are simply resistant to change, touted their successess at world wide conferences, and went about educating the unwashed masses, and then, of course, brought in enforcement.
It is typical TC logic to admit there is problems with something they are doing, and then , in the same breath, completely ignore them.

SMS is a great idea. But it only works if everyone buys into it, and not in small operations at all, if it becomes a formalized paper pushing exercise. But that is where we are at. Again it is all about the paperwork, and operators do not have to subscribe to the philosophy as long as they can show nice paperwork. Really to bad, because there was a better way, in my opinion, to implement a good idea.

And as people would like to argue and discuss things, I am of the opinion, that no matter how extensive the training is in a flight college, it simply does not eliminate the need for experience.
CRM, SOPs, regulation regurgitation, and SMS are only good when the experience gradient in the cockpit is similar when it comes to basic flying. And that , unfortunately , is not what is happening nowadays, except with the major carriers.

It is far easier to land a heavy in a CAT II situation then a Navajo in a non-precision approach to some northern airstrip. And added to that is the right seat pilot is really a student, and not a functioning flight crew member.

I think there are solutions. TC has to do what other regulators have done, and start making some experience regulations for FO positions for any company using FO's. There is just no way that a 250 hour pilot with absolutely no cloud experience is of any use when the wx is at minimums and something goes a bit sideways. And worse, it not only does not help CRM, but actually degrades it in those situations...and they are the critical ones.

I have always liked the fact that Canada never had type ratings for small aircraft, and kind of laughed at third world countries that did, but I am more and more seeing the merit in requiring an FO to have a type rating for planes like Navajos and King Airs..Not just a PCC with the Captain having a single pilot PPC.

Anyways, I am sure that every young pilot will disagree with me here, and explain how it is I dont understand the necessity of letting low time pilots become crew members so they can learn and get experience....

I really would like to see more well thought out solutions to the challanges we all face in , than
the typical RIP, condolences,,,,,,,and then on to the wild speculation under the guise of it being a learning experience...Seems to me the real lesson for many should be to just have some patience until all the facts come out....the NT thread reminded me of a bunch of grade school kids with their "breaking news" gossip.

[Doc]

Bloody well stroked, trey kule. As usual.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Two crew only makes things safer if there are both good SOPs and more importantly the training in a two crew environment that teaches the practical use of those SOPs. This is where the PPC process IMO usually fails. The PPC ride on your piston twin or light T prop is usually all about the airplane driving skills and the PNF is pretty much along for the ride.

At great personal risk and running and ducking for cover......... I think Canada should require completion of a Multi Crew Course (MCC) as a requirement for all pilots to operate a 2 crew aircraft under part 7 of the CARs.

[LousyFisherman]

Am I wrong to think that modern aircraft should be safer and modern training should produce better pilots?

History says you are. Technology is used to allow idiots to do what only geniuses used to be able to do.

I am so pleased with the news of your new baby.......life is short Sulako treat every moment with your family as if it is the most important thing in life......because it is.

[/quote]
This is the truth.

Back to the diversity issues. I usually don't look at the water cooler, seeing this thread was a fluke while contributing to a thread I watch. I still find useful threads in the other forums but there is a high level of "silly" repeat threads, often to do with job and work prospects so I contribute much less than I used to.

Most important if the board is still growing then it has a chance to evolve yet again.
Then Cat can be the mentor to some young buck (say about 50) who has lots of hours, lots of experience and lots of knowledge. All he/she wants to do is help the really young pilots and doesn't understand why he/she collects so much abuse.

LF

[Rockie]

This is a fact.

SOP's are all too often built to accommodate what operators call "the lowest common denominator". Instead of training the "lowest common denominator" up to an acceptable standard they create nonsensical procedures designed to replace a thinking human brain.

That has to stop, as does the use of the term "lowest common denominator". I've hated that insulting term from the first time I heard it.

1. Start training pilots properly, and;
2. Transport Canada get off your ass and start looking out for public safety like you're supposed to instead of leaving the public at the mercy of operators and SMS. SMS does not mean "not my job".

[Doc]

This is a fact.

SOP's are all too often built to accommodate what operators call "the lowest common denominator". Instead of training the "lowest common denominator" up to an acceptable standard they create nonsensical procedures designed to replace a thinking human brain.

That has to stop, as does the use of the term "lowest common denominator". I've hated that insulting term from the first time I heard it.

1. Start training pilots properly, and;
2. Transport Canada get off your ass and start looking out for public safety like you're supposed to instead of leaving the public at the mercy of operators and SMS. SMS does not mean "not my job".

He shoots. HE SCORES!!!!!
BINGO!

SMS all too often = everybody sign the memo and don't do that again.....