Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Sky Gods

mh wrote:

debunk a layman’s strong notion

My favourite quote from Just William is “any conversation can be prolonged indefinitely by directly contradicting the other person.”

EGHO-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

Capitaine wrote:

“any conversation can be prolonged indefinitely by directly contradicting the other person.”

No, it can’t.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Yes, it can ! (Sorry could not resist)

Last Edited by Ibra at 23 Nov 12:48
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Like most people here, I am not stupid, mh, and I see exactly who you are referring to

Is that so?

I think there is a difference between arguing different (political / social) opinions and a factual expertese discussion.

For instance, if you post something in a wording that is painted somewhat anti-EU or anti-EASA, I can live with it (aswell as you got to live with my comments), but that’s on opinion-level. That’s not what I ment.

Someone claims: “But on EASA aircraft you cannot do any Maintenance”
Answer: “Yes you can, look at Part M here and here and here!”
two weeks later the same person claims: “But on EASA aircraft, as everyone knows, you cannot do any maintenance youself”
Answer: “Yes you can, look at Part M here and here and here!”
two weeks later the same person claims: “But on EASA aircraft, as everyone knows, you cannot do any maintenance youself”
Answer: “Yes you can, look at Part M here and here and here!”
two weeks later the same person claims: “But on EASA aircraft, as everyone knows, you cannot do any maintenance youself”

This get’s old after the gazillionth repetition and even willing experts loose their swing. Anyone can claim random stuff faster than any expert can prove it wrong and if that one is english native and the expert is not, his effort increases further.

This happens all over internet forums, not exclusively here. But this place, too, get’s filled with sky gods. Other than hand selecting the posts and peer reviewing the content, there is no way to control this anyway.

So if you want to attract customers by social media and content marketing, you need to go the way of Mike Bush and Savvy: Publish stuff under your control and spread it on social media, but do not engage in time-robbing discussions with strangers who have a strong opinion and too much time, but no clue what they’re talking about.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

Someone claims: “But on EASA aircraft you cannot do any Maintenance”

That statement (posted without any qualifier) is so obviously wrong (and this is so widely known) that I would not waste time on it. Well, I would post a reference to the pilot maintenance privileges section of Part M and that’s it.

We’ve had a few trolls over the years and they have gone, AFAICT.

So if you want to attract customers by social media and content marketing, you need to go the way of Mike Bush and Savvy: Publish stuff under your control and spread it on social media

Mike Busch participates on US social media, quite a bit. However as with most success stories, it’s a matter of timing. He (and John Deakin) came onto the scene at the right moment, when the internet just arrived as a discussion medium for the masses, and GA operations were shrouded in mystery. Then, over many years, he has built up the reputation of a Pope. But his “message” is really fairly simple. I think it was Bosco who wrote recently that Mike only ever says four things, and he’s not wrong

Every maintenance company and every avionics shop has a website, but almost nobody goes to these because they get negligible SEO – because they have almost no relevant content. If the people put a lot of time into generating content (articles, etc) they would get a lot of hits, but they don’t want to do that, presumably because they want people to come to them and pay for the work. And everybody knows that the company will not write anything negative about itself. So it is just another website, with zero inherent credibility.

Posting on a forum which is a good tech discussion site and which has a good SEO (like EuroGA has) brings business because you are (hopefully) generating detailed and relevant content, and because there is an opportunity for others to participate, both positively and negatively. Thus the credibility of the business in question is elevated. The forum being moderated prevents overt fighting, which is another key factor in getting “industry” participation. Posts like “+1” will not generate anything, including credibility.

But this place, too, get’s filled with sky gods

I don’t agree. Everyone here is pretty much on the same level. You are judged by what you write, no more and no less. Also, EuroGA was designed specifically to prevent “big characters” emerging, e.g. by not displaying total posts (which merely intimidate newcomers).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I commented previoulsy that the trouble with a forum is occasionally one or more posters will take a strong stance in a particular direction. Sometimes, what they have to say is very convincing, and, where it concerns a factual subject, often accepted. This is epsecially true of some of the well known and often repeated myths – and I guess that is how and why they become just that. Fortunately, often (but not always), someone else will attempt to set the record straight. The trick is then to work out who really knows.

Very occasionally no one really knows, and then we all end up totally confused, especially when someone claims they do.

and an example .. .. ..

well, my favourite was IMCr mimimium where it was so often repeated that there were higher minimium for the IMCr than the IR (I dont mean RVR minimium) that most people ended up believing this was so, but occasionally someone would point to the legislation and observe these were recommendations. Of course they often were told they were wrong, and if they werent wrong they were stupid or dangerous, but I guess that is the way of things – no one seems to like to admit they are wrong these days.

There are many such examples. Pilots are much more prone to make up laws than legislators, it seems.

And the “ill-advised”, as opposed to illegal, argument just runs and runs. If you point out that something is ill-advised but not illegal, you get lambasted and told that you are encouraging people to be dangerous (and sometimes, if the accuser is too certain of their facts to go and check, illegal).

I consider those pontificators, and there are a couple even here, are worse than the so-called sky-gods, because they are laying down laws that don’t exist.

EGKB Biggin Hill

well, my favourite was IMCr mimimium where it was so often repeated that there were higher minimium for the IMCr than the IR (I dont mean RVR minimium) that most people ended up believing this was so, but occasionally someone would point to the legislation and observe these were recommendations.

Oh yes, that old UK forum chestnut That one, along with any other bit of dross like that I can think of, would not last 5 minutes here on EuroGA. Even if nobody else demolished it, I would have done so. You well know, Fuji, that I fought those battles too, a decade ago, on the UK sites I don’t post on anymore (except for a trip writeup) and I am happier for it.

I consider those pontificators, and there are a couple even here, are worse than the so-called sky-gods, because they are laying down laws that don’t exist.

Well, you knew what I will say: post an example!

The calibre of a lot of people on EuroGA is just too high to let the obvious stuff stay. Somebody will come up with a reference sooner or later. This is one great example. It would have to be something obscure e.g. some avionics interconnection issue.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Well, you knew what I will say: post an example!

Making unpublished approaches in IMC in the UK is the one that comes up time and again.

Another bete noir is the oft stated belief that insurance companies don’t pay up if an irrelevant irregularity is found.

Or people being prosecuted for airspace infringements.

It’s what you, personally, describe as FUD.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Yes you can, look at Part M here and here and here!

I can’t remember anyone actually posted a reference to any specific paragraph in Part M, ever. I mean quoting what it say. All references I have seen is " look in Part M"

NCO (I believe, but could be mistaken) lists up something about what a pilot-owner can and cannot do.

There are different kinds of everything.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top