Rule Proposal for POA ROC

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,510
Location
Middle of nowhere Texas
Display Name
Everything Offends Me
Home Airfield
KLUD
Can we please get a rule added that provides for an instant suspension or ban upon repeat occurrences where someone posts authoritatively a false interpretation of the FARs?

It is beyond tiresome, and since POA is publicly searchable, having these posts on here only furthers the "CFI regurgitation scourge" that plagues general aviation.
 
I promise to play nice if we can clean that garbage up. You'll see the model SkyHog from now on if we can just ban people that repeat CFI uttered "facts."
 
Sac Arrow said:
Who's going to be the judge?
Click to expand...

judge-reinhold-fast-times-ridgemont-high-1982-photo-GC.jpg
 
Thats the problem, even 'faa experts' do not agree on the interpretation at times. The only true test is repeated judgments on the same issue.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Thats the problem, even 'faa experts' do not agree on the interpretation at times. The only true test is repeated judgments on the same issue.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately some truth to that. You can sometimes get two different opinions from different FAA guys in the same office. It can get even worse trying to get two different FSDOs to agree.
 
I thought there already was a rule: Caveat Lector!

Let's not forget the System of Dr. Tarr & Prof. Fether.
 
Last edited:
Making a rule against being wrong would be a nightmare to adjudicate and enforce.
 
Palmpilot said:
Making a rule against being wrong would be a nightmare to adjudicate and enforce.
Click to expand...

It's not "being wrong," It's being an idiot and trusting anything someone told you without verifying it's authenticity, and then repeating it in the hopes someone else buys in also.
 
Can you point us to the post(s) that prompted this?
 
It's not "being wrong," It's being an idiot and trusting anything someone told you without verifying it's authenticity, and then repeating it in the hopes someone else buys in also.
Click to expand...

Most of the time such posters reveal themselves for what they are. You can't go too far down the road of being an idiot before being set straight, on POA. As it should be.
 
No, no.

The only way to "Build a community" is to ban everyone and everything that does not comport with your idea of what is right.
 
JeffDG said:
No, no.

The only way to "Build a community" is to ban everyone and everything that does not comport with your idea of what is right.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what he proposed.
 
SkyHog said:
Its not "my" idea for what is right, it is what the FAA considers right.
Click to expand...

I doubt that basing it on that would go very far in eliminating the subjective element from forum moderation. One of my old-timer friends often speaks of "the myth of one FAA," meaning that one can't assume that the agency will speak with one voice on any given issue.

Even in those cases where an assertion is provably wrong, determining whether it's an honest mistake or not is inevitably a subjective judgment. Let's try not to turn the forum into an imitation of a police state, OK?
 
Palmpilot said:
I doubt that basing it on that would go very far in eliminating the subjective element from forum moderation. One of my old-timer friends often speaks of "the myth of one FAA," meaning that one can't assume that the agency will speak with one voice on any given issue.

Even in those cases where an assertion is provably wrong, determining whether it's an honest mistake or not is inevitably a subjective judgment. Let's try not to turn the forum into an imitation of a police state, OK?
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that if anyone comes here, and says, with authority, something like "You can't log PIC unless you have a private pilot certificate or higher," or "you are prohibited from slipping with flaps inserted on a Cessna 172," they should take a vacation for spreading stupidity. If our CFIs won't do the job they are supposed to, then maybe POA should.

Or at least, let me call them an idiot and not have to worry about being suspended as a result.
 
If such a rule were to be adopted, all potential violations would need to be reviewed by R&W and Henning, who's conclusions and sanctions would not be subject to appeal.
 
I haven't visited there for several years but there is one specific type club forum where misinformation is the rule rather than the exception.
 
SkyHog said:
A

Or at least, let me call them an idiot and not have to worry about being suspended as a result.
Click to expand...

You can't call them an idiot.

But you can say that their post (advice) was completely moronic.
 
Palmpilot said:
That's pretty much what he proposed.
Click to expand...


Fair 'nuff...I wasn't that clear about what I was replying to.

I'm just studying what qualifies as "building a community" in these parts. Seems that censorious asshattery is the key factor in what the MC wants to see.
 
SkyHog said:
Or at least, let me call them an idiot and not have to worry about being suspended as a result.
Click to expand...

How about presenting your opinion on the topic, possibly some sources to back up your opinion ("1972 Cessna 172 POH page 16 says 'slipping with flaps permitted'" or something like that) and allow readers to compare their unsubstantiated response to your well-thought-out and referenced response?
 
Another awesome and low-energy way to respond to nonsense on any board, which I have used to great success, is to smile, roll your eyes, sip more wine and move on to the next thread!
 
The posts that inspired this thread were

1. posted by someone who is not a pilot
2. patently false
3. made a mockery of the issue

I reported them but unfortunately they're still there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top