Serving the Novice and Advanced - How?

Some recent exchanges on this forum remind me that the information presented here is subject to a fine line between ?protecting the novice builder? and exploring more advanced ?experiments?. I get it. On the one hand we need to provide reliable information pertaining to assembling a safe, reliable kit aircraft, but on the other, many of us are aware that Van has strongly embraced a ?design to cost? philosophy and there is certainly room for improvement/optimization. For the trained engineers and others familiar with the industry, ?design to cost? is a valid and appropriate aerospace design concept ? but it does leave the door wide open for individual customers (us) to pick at some low hanging fruit. And very often that discussion ends up on this forum. Sometimes the ideas are batted about and their flaws are uncovered as legitimately unsafe, while other times they are often dismissed simply because ??Van didn?t design it that way??

With the understanding that people are people and some will attempt to ?win? an argument at any cost, I?m wondering if perhaps we can create an environment where legitimate discussions can take place concerning the pros and cons of a proposed change based upon individual merit, rather than whether Van did it that way. Currently, there are other forums which embrace this type of discussion, but this does come up often enough at VAF that I?m wondering if we could use another subforum ? a ??if you don?t know better, stick to the plans?? area where there is less risk of leading the novice astray?

Any thoughts?

EXP

I'm with you been shot down more than once because someone thinks all exp are certified and no change allowed.Always wanted to start a thread on how fast beyond VNE has your RV been , but new I would be flamed till I was a crispy critter.
Bob

I know folks who have left the forum due to this.

For most of us, this is a hobby and it's supposed to be fun. ( it is a serious hobby and can have serious consequences so I don't take light of it, but if it ever isn't fun, I am out )

Trust, then verify. I never fully trust what I read here. I have other resources and tap them for a second, or more, opinions.

Nobody ever gets hurt building to plans, even if there are "better" ways to do it. I have incorporated things in my build that made a lot of sense, but turned out valueless. History is full of great ideas that have failed.

And always remember, we are in Experimental Aviation for our own education right? Why shouldn't we at least listen to ideas.

Still, this is a community of wide diversity, talent, and knowledge, and personalities. You won't be able to find a way to segregate only those you wish to collaborate with. There will always be naysayers. It is human nature.

I sympathize with you. I have probably contributed to the problem, but I am trying to be better, open minded, kind, and less opiniated.

Samuel L. Jackson - Pulp Fiction " I am trying really hard to be the shepherd."

Dont get me wrong, I'm not trying to segregate the audience into groups, rather, I'd like an area that provides open discussion for experiments but also provides fair warning to the readership that the content MAY NOT be endorsed by Van. The warning would be obvious and overarching so that it would relieve the burden of any members who feel the need to point this out every couple of posts.

And yes, education is the goal. Not that assembling an airplane kit isn't educational, but there are plenty of smart people on this forum that I have learned a great deal from over the years, but that rarely involves "tab A into slot B" kit assembly.

It would be nice to serve a wider audience of RV people, thats all.

How about a separate section "Deviations for the deviates" (call it what you want) with a sticky that explains the concourse of discussion. "We know this isn't per plans and has not been evaluated by Vans so don't remind us!"
I bet it would be very popular,

Yes, that's what I'm thinking.

+1

I'd like a section for that type of discussion.

Such proposals remind me of a Barry Goldwater quote, a short snip of which stated "My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them."

There is no virtue in trying to segregate speech by forum area. It's just an additional set of rules for little purpose. And anyway, it doesn't work. Folks will post as they please.

Let there be free exchange. When a builder proposes a modification to his own airplane, is he not asking for peer review? When someone proposes modification to another builder's airplane, isn't it best if that proposal is reviewed by peers? In either case, how can it be better if fewer readers see the discussion, or respond?

VAF is open to all, largely civil, and full of really smart people who are expert in their field. Let's not limit their contributions with fuzzy rules for special forums.

I'm novice, no doubt. I got my ticket in June 2014. Bought an RV-8 in February 2015. Never build a plane. I have about 260 hours total time now.

I read most of the "Advanced" stuff written here and must admit it sometimes stops me from moving forward on doing stuff I would like to accomplish. Most notably adding EI.

I often hold back my questions for the same reason many others do.

Many of you "Advanced" folks who post are very well mannered and tolerate us "Novice" to intermediate folks very well. Most notably are the vendors and advertisers. Folks from AFS, Garmin, Dynon, Stein, Ross and Bill L... Others include Gary Sobeck, DanH and Toolbuilder... Folks like these really go the extra mile to help guide you through the process and educate. They provided detailed posts with graphics or photos and videos. They are top notch. I have tremendous respect for all of you who contribute to make me, us, more informed.

I'll go back to my quite place again and listen. Someday I hope to be among the "Advanced". But first I will strive towards being the best "Novice" I can so someday I can move up to the "Intermediate" group.

Thanks everyone for all the great advise of the years.

DanH said:

...Let there be free exchange...

Click to expand...

That is certainly the end game and I would prefer "off plan" discussions to continue within the existing sections. Where this seems to fail however, is when discussions turn into battles of appendage size and someone invariably invokes the "...Van didn't design it this way..." trump card and shuts the discussion down. And of course I do acknowledge Doug's desire to serve the new builders first, and our collective responsibility to promote safe, funtional aircraft.

An "Off Plan" section of the forum has advantages and disadvantages and I honestly dont have an opinion favoring the effectiveness of one over the other. Hence my appeal for thoughts on the subject. Thank you for yours.

DanH said:

Such proposals remind me of a Barry Goldwater quote, a short snip of which stated "My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them."

There is no virtue in trying to segregate speech by forum area. It's just an additional set of rules for little purpose. And anyway, it doesn't work. Folks will post as they please.

Let there be free exchange. When a builder proposes a modification to his own airplane, is he not asking for peer review? When someone proposes modification to another builder's airplane, isn't it best if that proposal is reviewed by peers? In either case, how can it be better if fewer readers see the discussion, or respond?

VAF is open to all, largely civil, and full of really smart people who are expert in their field. Let's not limit their contributions with fuzzy rules for special forums.

Click to expand...

I fully agree.

Why would anyone proposing a modification (particularly if it is a bit extreme) not be open to hearing reasons it is a bad idea.

Rabbit trail..... The forums are full of threads that were started and propagated by people that obviously were severely lacking in the technical knowledge on the subject. To the extent that it could have easily gotten someone hurt (or worse). Others pointing out some of the details that obviously hadn't even been considered has been a very good thing

When these forums become a venue where only positive / ego boosting responses are expected (part of the everyone gets a trophy mentality?), it will have become a very useless and dangerous place.

Chkaharyer99 said:

I'm novice, no doubt. I got my ticket in June 2014. Bought an RV-8 in February 2015. Never build a plane. I have about 260 hours total time now.

I read most of the "Advanced" stuff written here and must admit it sometimes stops me from moving forward on doing stuff I would like to accomplish. Most notably adding EI.

I often hold back my questions for the same reason many others do.

Many of you "Advanced" folks who post are very well mannered and tolerate us "Novice" to intermediate folks very well. Most notably are the vendors and advertisers. Folks from AFS, Garmin, Dynon, Stein, Ross and Bill L... Others include Gary Sobeck, DanH and Toolbuilder... Folks like these really go the extra mile to help guide you through the process and educate. They provided detailed posts with graphics or photos and videos. They are top notch. I have tremendous respect for all of you who contribute to make me, us, more informed.

I'll go back to my quite place again and listen. Someday I hope to be among the "Advanced". But first I will strive towards being the best "Novice" I can so someday I can move up to the "Intermediate" group.

Thanks everyone for all the great advise of the years.

Click to expand...

This is well said and something to strive for. ALL of us were novices at one time and had to learn from experience and wisdom of others. Our goal now is to pass that knowledge along, along with an open mindedness to accept new forays. That's what progress is all about. Luckily in our area of interest (amateur-built aviation) experimentation is allowed and encouraged.

Vic

rvbuilder2002 said:

I fully agree.


Rabbit trail..... The forums are full of threads that were started and propagated by people that obviously were severely lacking in the technical knowledge on the subject. To the extent that it could have easily gotten someone hurt (or worse). Others pointing out some of the details that obviously hadn't even been considered has been a very good thing

When these forums become a venue where only positive / ego boosting responses are expected (part of the everyone gets a trophy mentality?), it will have become a very useless and dangerous place.

Click to expand...

Great points Scott. We all must take responsibility for this. Good intending folks armed with a little knowledge, or worse long standing opinion, can be dangerous. I also know folks who no longer visit here for this exact reason.
I have been on both sides, contributor to misinformation, and following down a path guided by misinformation from some of the "experts" here. Nobody is exempt.
Trust and Verify !

However, I sympathize with Michael. Not sure what the best approach is, if any. The forum works pretty darn well and is absolutely the best resource, but it is a public forum.

Everyone is good at something. It just might not be what they are doing.

Interesting and good points all around. Perhaps we should have a forum specifically for posting "flight test data". I think many of us would agree that all too often the discussions regarding modifications are lacking good data. A forum aimed at organizing flight test data would consolidate the information in one location, encourage the collection of high quality performance data, and encourage a facts-based discussion of what works and what doesn't work.

aturner said:

Interesting and good points all around. Perhaps we should have a forum specifically for posting "flight test data". I think many of us would agree that all too often the discussions regarding modifications are lacking good data. A forum aimed at organizing flight test data would consolidate the information in one location, encourage the collection of high quality performance data, and encourage a facts-based discussion of what works and what doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Very good idea. The only problem is that many of us, most of us, do not know how to conduct a proper test. I see a lot of dubious information posted that is missing a lot of important factors. I would bet there are very few posters here that could repeat tests even in the same conditions and achieve the same results time and again.

I thought the reason we didn't have such a forum was that it could be construed as an *encouragement* to make such mods. And in the inevitable case where someone takes it too far and dies trying it, Doug's site (and hence Doug) becomes a target in a lawsuit.

On the other hand, such a discussion will provide a opportunity for peer review and a good chance of heading off a disaster before it gets started.

A double edged sword, to be sure.

I totally get where you're coming from Mike, yet I am afraid that I don't know how a separate forum for what you want would work. Since every member has access to all the forums, the folks that don't like experimenting and mods can still go bash those who do, just in a different "file cabinet". You can see this in the "Alternative Engine" section of VAF, where someone has an honest question about a Subbie or Mazda, and the discussion devolves into bashing over alt engines. We've never figured how to stop that.

The only answer would be a moderator who gets rid of posts that aren't in the spirit of experimentation, and that's a judgement call, and then everyone gets accused of censorship.

As you said - a double edged sword (in a different context). If we want freedom of expression, we have to be willign to put up with critics - who also have freedom of expression.

If you figure out how to solve that small issue, let EVERYONE know!

I'd rather rely on individuals learning to make their own judgements from what they read and what the comments are about what they've read. From what I can tell, in general we don't have a problem.

In general this is a very sensibly-moderated forum.

Dave

Paul and Dave, agree that individual personal responsibility is the best solution. And I also aknowledge a certain amount of "bashing" is going to take place on a forum, and personally, I expect and appreciate the occasional "tune up" when I'm wrong (even if the delivery is harsh). Such exchanges sting the ego a bit, but my goal is to be smarter tomorrow than I was today.

So if the consensus is to "let it ride", I'm ok with that. However, I will bookmark this thread as a reminder when someone uses the "...consider the inexperienced reader..." statement as a silver bullet to end it. I have seen this admonition to "consider the inexperienced..." many times in this forum and have been on the recieving end of it more than once myself. Its usually found in any thread that discusses AN fittings, firesleeve, hose vs. hardline, pattern entry, radio use, self taught acro, approach speeds, "testing the envelope", transition training vs. "going for it", etc. Such an admonition is the reason I added the "Warning" in my signature line.

I'm looking forward to an environment of openness and education.

Toobuilder said:

I expect and appreciate the occasional "tune up" when I'm wrong (even if the delivery is harsh). Such exchanges sting the ego a bit, but my goal is to be smarter tomorrow than I was today..

Click to expand...

Great attitude. We all have egos, but mine has been bashed to pieces when it comes to this hobby. Every time I think I know something, someone much smarter or at least much smarter about the topic than me chimes in. That is a good thing. I just laugh at myself. My ego is defined in other aspects of my life.
So, carry a thick skin, like I know you do, and please keep the ideas coming, good, bad, and ugly! You are one of the great resources who post here.

Ironflight said:

As you said - a double edged sword (in a different context). If we want freedom of expression, we have to be willign to put up with critics - who also have freedom of expression.

If you figure out how to solve that small issue, let EVERYONE know!

Click to expand...

An anonymous post feedback system in this specific type of sub-forum would be nice (e.g. where individual posts could be rated as a helpful contribution to the discussion or a negative, not contributing).

This type of system would allow people who might not otherwise speak for fear of being judged positively or negatively to speak up. Accordingly, those bringing potentially beneficial outside-the-box ideas might receive support that they might not realize that they have, while on the other hand providing a means to down-vote critics who offer nothing more than rote cautionary platitudes that speak nothing to the specific critical idea being proposed.