Leaderboard

I suggest some look at this differently. The user "Safety Officer" took the time to make a pretty extensive post full of information. Instead of saying "thanks" or perhaps critiquing anything in the post, you crap all over it because you don't know the user's real name. Then, the logic becomes that the post is bad data because you don't know the user's name. To put it politely, that's absolutely foolish. There have been plenty of times well known "names" give bad advise. Name or no name make no difference as to the value of said advise. Having a title or no title doesn't makes no difference. If you feel otherwise, you're bound to be fooled. So, does anyone have anything to say about the actual post by S.O.? Does anyone agree with the content he/she posted (for free)? Or does anyone have a critique of the content?

That is the choice of a poster. The credibility of a poster is determined by their historical posts, not their name. I think Safety Officer's posts speak for themselves.

Names don't make an article or writer, content accuracy does. If you know Rotax you'll know what's in the article is all good info. If you don't know Rotax then research. Rotax seems to like the article when I ask them about it and it should be on their forum blog shortly. If you read Rotax blogs many times it just says Rotax owner. Of course you can choose not to believe and that's okay to. If you develop a vibration or already have one you don't have to read this for help.

I guess I don't get it, either. If you physically took your plane to a mechanic and he/she refused to provide a name and credentials, then I would agree with the hospital analogy. But this is an open internet forum -- nothing here is official, even if it comes from someone who does provide their name and certifications. As a newbie I have found the advice here invaluable, from many sources. When I did my first oil change, I printed out a post from Roger for reference. Roger provides his credentials, but I used the information because it was well-reasoned, made sense, and I from past forum use have a positive opinion of Roger's expertise. But could I use that information in any legal capacity; i.e. logbook entry or justification of method used? Of course not. Like most here I have also gotten plenty of good advice from "non-credentialed" posters. FredG, a few months ago you gave me some advice about flap use, which I found helpful. I used the advice despite the fact that you are anonymous and provide no credentials because it was logical and made sense and I had a good opinion of your previous posts. I can think of several scenarios where a poster might wish to remain anonymous, for reasons unrelated to the usefulness of the information. I would hate for that person to stop posting in response.

I don't get it. Whats the difference between his name and yours? Or anyone's? I don't see a CV/Bio posted with your name or any other poster. Would you take advice from a poster with the name "RotaxGuru" with no posting history, or poor history? Or "JoeBlo" with 1,000 thoughtful, informative posts. In any case, you could always PM the person to discuss your questions or comments. What exact policy would make you happy? v

I believe the Safety Officer also writes the tech articles for the Rotax forum.

I've said earlier that the content is good. Pretty much anything I would say is already in there.

Sounds like you are making my point for me. If, as you correctly state, nothing here is Flight Design or Rotax approved, and this is a discussion forum, and you always double check relevant information against other sources, then why do you have a problem with a poster who provides valuable information but chooses to remain anonymous? Edit: ignore me, I'm an idiot. I replied to DougG, when I thought the response was from FredG. The similar "G"s confused my lame brain...

This does not make sense to me. This is a discussion forum. Some of the info posted on this forum does not make sense to me. If it is relevant I still check other sources or make contact with the poster to better understand. Nothing here is officially Flight Design or Rotax approved. If that is what you are looking for you need to look elsewhere. Having said that there is a wealth of excellent info from excellent people here. They have helped a lot of people who use good judgement.

I work in a safety sensitive business and anonymous guidance is not accepted. In my work, professionals are willing to put their name to their recommendations. No matter the rationalizations here, it still doesn't fly. Clearly, the administrators of the list think this is ok, so this is how things will stay.

Welcome to the hospital. Your surgery will be done by Jane Doe and supervised by John Doe. Best of luck. If you don't get it then you don't get it. I can't fix that for you. I don't give guidance on how to maintain an airplane. When Corey and Tom give advice, I actually know who I'm getting advice from. And, when they post, they do include their credentials. That is how the rest of the world works. I get it, the CT Flier "Safety Officer" is special. What exact policy would make me happy? That the "Safety Officer" - who appears to consider his guidance to be authoritative - identify himself. As you already knew.