Rule Proposal for POA ROC

SkyHog said:
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.
Click to expand...
You mean like telling people that if you ever have a kidney stone, you'll never fly again? You yourself have done that a few times.
 
dmspilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
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?
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Fearless Tower said:
You mean like telling people that if you ever have a kidney stone, you'll never fly again? You yourself have done that a few times.
Click to expand...

Actually, what I have said repeatedly is that you're in for a nightmare for what is a really minor medical issue, and you may never fly again (as is my issue).
 
SkyHog said:
Here's a few:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89447

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89288

For how it should be done, here (he is wrong, but not authoritatively so:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1980916&postcount=13
Click to expand...

What I see in those threads is people who have either misinterpreted the regulations, or been taught an incorrect interpretation, and are being set straight by those who know better. That's a large part of why this forum is useful. As for people stating their incorrect interpretations "authoritatively," MOST people who think they're presenting correct information are going to come across that way. The only difference between the people you would come down on and those you would not is that one side is right and the other side is wrong. Thus, what you're proposing is tantamount to trying to make a rule against being wrong. Sorry, no sale!

And you need to stop calling people stupid. It's a lousy way to teach, it increases resistance to what you're trying to teach, and it undercuts your credibility.
 
I am grateful to the people who are wrong because it helps to create the opportunity for me to learn.
I have learned a lot from the responses to the interpretations of the FAR and the AIM on POA.
I have learned a lot from the process of looking things up that seem peculiar to me.
As a CFI it helps me to understand how a student may misunderstand and reminds me to look everything up in the latest edition of the FAR/AIM and think about the meaning of each word very carefully.
At this time my local FSDO is going to a higher authority to interpret the wording of my letter of deviation authority (LODA) so I can train in an experimental aircraft I own. There are at least two divergent interpretations of the wording: “No demonstration flights are authorized” and “Pilots participating in the training described in 5.1. above training programs must hold an appropriate category and class rating and must meet the requirements of 14 CFR Section 61.31 (d), (e), (f) and (g).”
I do not want a POA where everyone is correct.
I would prefer that people held their arrogance in check and presented corrections in a friendly, helpful way.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
Actually, what I have said repeatedly is that you're in for a nightmare for what is a really minor medical issue, and you may never fly again (as is my issue).
Click to expand...

Generally true, but you have on a few occasions made the statement I mentioned (out of understandable frustration, no doubt).

Not trying to pick on you, Nick, but my point is simply that I don't think there is a single one of us here (other than maybe some lurkers) who has not at some point posted something that was in error. Most of us have been guilty of unintentionally perpetuating OWTs. It happens. We get corrected, and hopefully learn something in the process.
 
One of the key benefits of POA is taking advantage of the "wisdom of the crowd". Information from any individual is far less reliable than the consensus of a larger group. Inaccurate information is quickly corrected, and accurate information is validated. Increasing the size of the crowd and/or increasing participation will improve the accuracy and quality of feedback. Sanctioning members that may be mistaken on a particular regulation, will not improve crowd size or participation.
 
One of the things I like about the Internet is that my good ideas seem to spread, and my bad ideas get ignored (mostly - :eek:).
 
I hesitate to post on POA because I find there is usually someone to denigrate my ignorance or imagine some weakness in my flying that will kill me.
I am pleased that more people don't succumbed to this trepidation.
I find pleasure in sharing what I have learned and don’t feel a desire to make the other person wrong in order to feel more right.
It would reduce the value of POA for me if there was a rule banning people for ignorance or poor social skills.
 
Vance Breese said:
I hesitate to post on POA because I find there is usually someone to denigrate my ignorance or imagine some weakness in my flying that will kill me.
I am pleased that more people don't succumbed to this trepidation.
I find pleasure in sharing what I have learned and don’t feel a desire to make the other person wrong in order to feel more right.
It would reduce the value of POA for me if there was a rule banning people for ignorance or poor social skills.
Click to expand...

It's not about ignorace. Ignorance is completely forgivable, and can be corrected with education or research.

It is ignorance in the face of facts that is problematic.
 
SkyHog said:
It's not about ignorace. Ignorance is completely forgivable, and can be corrected with education or research.

It is ignorance in the face of facts that is problematic.
Click to expand...

Except, there are no "facts" involved. You're talking about banning people for having different "interpretations" of rules and regulations.

Interpretations are not facts. Even those given by the FAA are subject to change by the FAA, or overruling by the NTSB, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court. Even an interpretation "settled" by the Supreme Court is not a "fact", but is still an interpretation, subject to later revision/overruling by that Court (See Lochner v. New York or Sandford v. Dred Scott for examples).

An interpretation is, at its core, an opinion. So you are proposing to punish people for having the wrong opinions. That is an approach that I like to refer to as "censorious asshattery".
 
SkyHog said:
It's not about ignorace. Ignorance is completely forgivable, and can be corrected with education or research.

It is ignorance in the face of facts that is problematic.
Click to expand...

may I suggest that persisting in the ignorance is a bigger a problem.
 
To me there are two levels of ignorance.

The first level is lacking knowledge. This results in the posting misinformation.

The second level is the deliberate disregard of knowledge. This results in the posting of disinformation.

Disinformation ought to be removed especially when the attitude of the poster is trollish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top