260Driver wrote: For everyone, I've got just two words... NASA FORM

Just don't go into your local FSDO and ask for one when you need it. They will then ask you "why do you think you need one?"
...And then they will say "I am sorry, I cannot give you one because you just told me why you need it". That comes from my own experience.

The purpose for this whole thread was simple. Let those that are involved discuss and share as they see fit. Far to often we see arm chair quarterbacks giving their own 2c and it is really irrelevant unless they were there.

I agree 100% with information sharing. Its how we all can grow as pilots. Let just make certain we share good positive info.

Zane- You nailed it

aktahoe1 wrote:
I agree 100% with information sharing. Its how we all can grow as pilots. Let just make certain we share good positive info.

Zane- You nailed it

I agree and with you both!

Zane did nail that one!

Twoupfront wrote:

S-12Flyer wrote:They ARE listening and watching. Plenty of evidence to prove it. Somehow I think the overall safety of aviation will improve just fine without full disclosure of every infraction. I have managed to extract plenty of valuable information from this site that had little or nothing to do with anyone getting thrown under the bus. Discression is not what most would call "sweeping under the rug." Do you report all your misdeads? Cheated on your taxes, bumped a car in a parking lot, ran a redlight, minor fender-bender that you settled without a report? The general public has no idea what should and should not be reported to the FAA. Heck, a lot of pilots don't. I doubt they will be too concerned about anything swept anywhere. They are more interested in a good you-tube crash video.

There it is again - "full disclosure".

I haven't pushed for full disclosure at all. It's as if some of you guys think that it's all monochrome: Either ignore it/sweep it under the rug, or have full disclosure.

I'm not saying I want the tail number or real name of anyone. I really don't care. And I don't necessarily want the place either (although, in some instances it will be good - i.e. low hanging, unmarked wires, a fence across a strip, whatever).

What I really think is counter productive is the false dichotomy of "either it didn't happen - whistle -", and on the other hand "we need to know everything about the person".

That hasn't been my point (and I doubt anyone else's point). My point has been that trying to ignore things, thinking that that might help, while the people who dislike GA and the authorities overseeing GA gets all the say, informed only by the naysayers.

It really doesn't matter that XX has a "perfect record" if it only means he's better at hiding incidents from the public and authorities. If that's the bar to reach, and the general public begin to grasp that the only "good pilot" is one that hasn't been caught yet, GA is dead and gone.

It's not about monochromatic dichotomy. It is about discretion. There is little or no value in exposing every incident that occurs. In any amount of detail. The web is rife with accident reports and dialog as to the causes. On this site the value come from discussions that include the pilot or people involved in the incident. Many of us feel that the dialogs should be initiated by them and not casual observers or someone with an ax to grind. Pictures and videos pretty much bump it into the "full disclosure" arena. What will kill GA is getting the public riled up about every little mis-step. Plaster enough pictures and videos on the web of airplane crashes and we will be on a radar screen we don't need. Stealth is not always a bad thing. Airing dirty laundry is seldom helpful.
I would hazard a guess the the overwhelming percentage of pilots do NOT frequent websites such as these. And even fewer read accident reports. The theory that open dicussion of every incident is some how keeping GA alive is absurd. I am far from a "super" pilot and I hope that, if and when I find myself with a "live to tell" incident, that I will be the one to share it. And I won't have to read all the armchair piloting from the uninformed. On this site at least.

Twoupfront wrote:

58Skylane wrote:
I do know some of the staff at the BLM office in Vale, OR office keep an eye on this forum.

Yup, and they will also read the posts pushing to hide incidents and so on.

I used the example earlier of peeing one's pants. Think about that again. The more the "community" (i.e. GA) is seen to be trying to avoid detection, trying to circumvent rules, and in general trying to push for not following the rules, the more enforcement and even more rules will be the result.

It's like crapping in one's own nest.

ADDED:
If the community is seen as utterly incapable, and most importantly; unwilling to self-regulate at any degree, I can't see how this hide-it-if-you-can isn't going to be the downfall of GA.

As for "Not-being-there", that's a problematic suggestion at best. If only the people there had anything to say, there would be no such thing as "human error", "misjudgement" or anything of the kind. We would all be masters - Except some of us would be idiots (I count myself in that category so far), and a few would actually be "Masters". Oh, and younger people with few hours behind them would be even less prone to "Human error" than more experienced and older pilots with lots more experience under the belt.

No one has suggested "hiding" anything. Only you. Not reporting every incident on this site is not hiding it. Mearly not making it more visible than need be.
Feel free to tell us every time you pee yourself or fart for that matter. It will NOT make the world safer.
Aviation is the most highly regulated industry out there. By all means let's whip up more frenzy and invite a couple more regulations.

S-12Flyer wrote:It's not about monochromatic dichotomy. It is about discretion.

I said "false dichotomy" as in "it's either at one extreme end or the other" and "monochrome" as in "Black and White" (i.e. at extreme ends of the spectrum), as you so kindly repeat in your very next sentence:

S-12Flyer wrote: There is little or no value in exposing every incident that occurs. In any amount of detail. The web is rife with accident reports and dialog as to the causes. On this site the value come from discussions that include the pilot or people involved in the incident.

S-12Flyer wrote:Many of us feel that the dialogs should be initiated by them and not casual observers or someone with an ax to grind.

I have already addressed the pitfalls of having a policy "only the pilot can hold a valid opinion", and I have - by now, ad nauseum - explained why the attitude of "hide what you can" and the pushing of that attitude is detrimental to GA in the long run.

S-12Flyer wrote:Pictures and videos pretty much bump it into the "full disclosure" arena. What will kill GA is getting the public riled up about every little mis-step. Plaster enough pictures and videos on the web of airplane crashes and we will be on a radar screen we don't need. Stealth is not always a bad thing. Airing dirty laundry is seldom helpful.

And, once again: The info will get out there. The question is whether the GA community will be seen to attempt to hide that info and work against the "public interest" as it hits the web pages, tv stations and news papers. There is no "damage control" in trying to hide something, or trying to ignore it. It very seldomly works.

I would hazard a guess the the overwhelming percentage of pilots do NOT frequent websites such as these. And even fewer read accident reports. The theory that open dicussion of every incident is some how keeping GA alive is absurd.

Again with the false dichotomies. I am not talking about everyone having to post everything. I am saying that when the cat is out of the bag, there's no point in trying to sweep it under the rug, or trying to force a defacto gag order (i.e. "radio silence", bla bla) on something that is already public. That will be seen by the broader public as if people are trying to hide something, regardless of the individuals concerned might not want to hide anything.

I am far from a "super" pilot and I hope that, if and when I find myself with a "live to tell" incident, that I will be the one to share it. And I won't have to read all the armchair piloting from the uninformed. On this site at least.

Hmm, advice or opinion is worth what you pay for it. I'll grant you that. However, this is actually not a question of armchair piloting, but rather Public Relations. . It's about how BCP.org, and broader; how GA is viewed. Some people on here think that the best way to do PR is to try to ignore things already out there, regardless how public the incident was and is.

S-12Flyer wrote:No one has suggested "hiding" anything. Only you. Not reporting every incident on this site is not hiding it. Mearly not making it more visible than need be.

Sigh. Do I need to explain once again what a false dichotomy is?
I am talking about how it is perceived. If it's perceived to be "attempting to hide" something, it's bad PR. Requesting "radio silence" and arguing that only the pilot could ever have an opinion will be seen as attempt to hide something, even if there's nothing to hide. If it were only done by a few people here and there, I could see how the public would be wrong in assuming the GA community as a whole. But the requesting "radio silence", editing of posts to remove videos and whatnot, will all look like attempt to hide something.

This is further amplified by the argument that it's bad if the public gets to know the details, or even generally, of the incidents. It's really not a way to instill trust in GA. Quite the contrary. That closedness speaks volumes about the inability, and the unwillingness, to try to keep it "clean". That is how it will be perceived. And I have to say, I won't blame them when they introduce harsher regulatory measures and limitations to how GA operates. "If they can't do it themselves, we will do it for them. If that doesn't work, we will make it so hard and expensive that very few will be able to do it. Preferably only commercial operators".

Feel free to tell us every time you pee yourself or fart for that matter. It will NOT make the world safer.

I'm sorry, but I know how PR works. I do it for a living. The "peeing in one's pants on a cold day" is an analogy. I thought it would be easy for everyone to grasp.

Aviation is the most highly regulated industry out there. By all means let's whip up more frenzy and invite a couple more regulations.

And that is exactly what you'll do by trying to sweep it under the rug after the fact.

Twoupfront wrote:

S-12Flyer wrote:No one has suggested "hiding" anything. Only you. Not reporting every incident on this site is not hiding it. Mearly not making it more visible than need be.

Sigh. Do I need to explain once again what a false dichotomy is?

I agree with S-12Flyer on this one. No one here is advocating hiding anything, rather the intent (as I have read it) is to keep speculation and rumors to a minum.

If I bend a plane the obligation on ME to act in accordance with the FARs, and the decision is MINE if I want to share the aftermath with friends over a beverage or share with the world via the internet.

Twoupfront wrote:And that is exactly what you'll do by trying to sweep it under the rug after the fact.

Frankly, I don't care what you think, and you've thought a lot here today.

According to your profile, you're a journalist. You're also a student pilot with only a few hours under your belt, by your own disclosure. You're also...in Denmark?

Consider me the editor. By principle, I don't edit people's posts, and generally allow free reign among the flying chat. However, where I see fit for purposes that trump the entertainment of curious readers, I will censor my privately owned website. Per the Newbie Guide and Terms of Use that you read and agreed to upon registration, persistent criticism of moderation actions will enflame my hemorrhoids and you'll get shat out the airlock. So if you want to keep playing, let it go.

aktahoe1 wrote:

260Driver wrote: For everyone, I've got just two words... NASA FORM

Just don't go into your local FSDO and ask for one when you need it.

For next time...and for anyone else who might need one. Been there, done that...
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/

Whatever happened to the "Stupid Things My Buddy Did" section ?!? Chris C

Frankly, I don't care what you think, and you've thought a lot here today.

According to your profile, you're a journalist. You're also a student pilot with only a few hours under your belt, by your own disclosure. You're also...in Denmark?

Consider me the editor. By principle, I don't edit people's posts, and generally allow free reign among the flying chat. However, where I see fit for purposes that trump the entertainment of curious readers, I will censor my privately owned website. Per the Newbie Guide and Terms of Use that you read and agreed to upon registration, persistent criticism of moderation actions will enflame my hemorrhoids and you'll get shat out the airlock. So if you want to keep playing, let it go.

Gary

"Frankly, I don't care what you think, and you've thought a lot here today."

I hate to come across as kissin' the boss's ass, but Amen Brother!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk because I'm still working and can't get my damned aircard connected.

Hey Zane, my BCP politics entry had rhyme and meter but your last post, dude, that was poetry of the highest order! Excellent work!

Thank you, Zane.

........Sigh. Do I need to explain once again what a false dichotomy is?........

If ya gotta explane to us what yer werds means....
Youz on the wrong forum!

lc

Thank you Zane! Seems to me he was trying to make an issue/argument where there wasn't one. Either way, it was getting old. And yes, that was poetry.

And S-12 was on the money as well.

Thanks Zane,

My blood pressure was starting to rise. I hope to know the half of it some day, but it can certainly wait.

Chet

Zane, if you're going to wield that editorial stick, perhaps you should apply it fairly across the board. I've been far more offended by recent posts (edit: in other threads) by some long time members.

oops, delete

Wow. This is getting a little hairy for what was intended... intended by me at least. Apparently my post got not only misunderstood but it even got the forum owner annoyed. I'm sure that the 20 immediate automatic "attaboys" that were posted will be soothing. But in fairness (and perhaps in my own defense after having inadvertently peed in the pool) I did not call for transparency in the all-encompassing manner that it was interpreted by some.

If it is necessary to camouflage or encode some of the story, or not mention the pilot's name, or the airport, or the extent of damage, then that part is fine. I certainly will agree that if there really are hostile entities of any flavor that monitor these forums, some security measures would be appropriate... and IMHO some others would not.

So perhaps a public statement that at least lets all the concerned people understand at least a little, without exposing anyone to any risk, is appropriate.

Example: "Some of you may know that a friend of mine had trouble with his Station Wagon recently, he was driving up a pretty short driveway on a rather steep hill, and one of his tires burst and he spun out. He had to call someone who was riding a Mule to bring him a spare tire, and since he bent a fender he hitched a ride back to town on the Mule and they're going back up the hill to put a new fender on in a day or two. Nobody needs to worry about it, the car isn't totaled, they should have it back in a couple of days, and my buddy sure was impressed that all of our mutual friends rounded up a tire so fast and were so concerned. He told me to send his thanks, but he doesn't want to talk about it just yet because so far his meddling, micro-managing Mother in Law doesn't know about his little fender bender and he'd rather keep it that way for right now. So that's why he hasn't been around here joking about it. He knows darn well that everyone is waiting to tell him "Just buy a Mule" after this is all over."

I'm reasonably sure that message would have somewhat satisfied everyone's curiosity, and not gotten anyone into hot water, or gotten anyone's playground taken away.

Regardless of whether anyone agrees that some message like the one above should have gone out, the fact remains I was not then, or now, arguing in favor of publicizing anyone's personal information, or publicly posting that anyone was breaking any rule or did something wrong.

So perhaps translucency, instead of transparency, is the ticket. Like one of those frosted glass windows that lets you know there is a person moving around somewhere in there, but the person still has privacy and Peeping Toms can't make out facial features.

Actually, there's a very simple solution to all this...."Don't be stupid"

If you're out flying, TRY not to do anything really stupid.

Now, since I and others seem to occasionally violate that basic tenet, then:

Don't be so stupid as to post a full description of your goof here or elsewhere on the Internet.

Finally, if you're going to "discuss" someone else's stupid pilot tricks, how about doing so "in a professional manner" and keep names/tail numbers out of it?

If someone does have an accident, SOMETIMES we can learn from that, but only if it's kept professional and courteous.

If it involves a fatality or serious injury, don't even THINK about discussing the accident causes publicly.

Please

MTV