[ QUOTE ]
Doug, I've been mulling over what to say to you this morning. And whether to say anything at all because I realize when it comes right down to it, this is your game and you have the sole privilege of taking your marbles and going home when you don't like something. And that's what I feel you did by locking the Ameriflight thread. And I'm very disappointed in you. I realize what I'm about to say will put me on the chopping block with your minions, but I don't care. I can take it. And what I have to say needs to be said.
[/ QUOTE ]
No chopping block with minions, that's not how business should be done, nor how it'll be done. The Ameriflight thread was going nowhere, for a variety of reasons. Having it restarted as "Answer to Phatty's question", is going well, IMO; a fresh start, if you will. Whatever Ameriflight's program is, PFE/PFT/PF-whatever, the subject of PFT was sparked, and the flow of the debate took off in that direction, right or wrong. That being said, I'll address the personal attack portion next.......
[ QUOTE ]
You see, you didn't seem to mind when Phatty was getting pummeled about PFT in general. Which, I'll remind you again, was NOT his original question. The Ameriflight thread was like the "Who's in Sanford" thread because instead of answering the question asked many seemed free to preach to advance their own agenda. That's fine. But when someone doesn't take your advice . . . well . . . get over it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Like I stated, the PFT subject is the direction the conversation began to take, due to it being (intentionally or unintentionally) mentioned in the initial post. Threads ebb and flow apart from the first thread, and even away from the initial meaning; taking a life of their own sometimes, so to speak. Realizing now that discussion of PFT wasn't intended; the discussion became one of pro/con of PFT. Fine. But what was unacceptable was the personal attacks, regardless of where they came from. They had NO bearing on the discussion in any way, and the guilty know who they are.
On advice, and I'm not referring to any one person in the site, just an overall observation. Many times, people come and ask a question/want advice on something, but only want answers they
want to hear, or answers that support what they're doing. Then, when they get an answer they don't like or don't want to hear, they get bothered by that. Again, I'm not referring to specifics, just making a general observation. Second, when advice is asked of industry professionals (referring to the PFT) about particulars of their industry, they generally know what they're talking about. One may not like the info they provide, and that's fine, but the point is, they're on the scene and know the lowdown. If their advice isn't going to be given the due regard it deserves, then why ask their advice in the first place? If one's mind is already made up, why fish for qualifiers? It's the same thing I deal with here when on scene of a battle situation: I request from the control agencies this and that kind of support, only to get overridden by some command post weenie 800 miles from the battle area who thinks he has more SA on the ground battle in progress than the guys on the scene.
[ QUOTE ]
As a lawyer, my clients pay me to give them advice. Guess what? Sometimes they don't take it. It took me maturing in my profession to understand that just because one of my clients chooses not to follow my advice it doesn't mean they think what I told them is wrong. Or stupid. Or any of the other adjectives that have been used against Phatty and me over the past few days. My clients take the advice I give them and then make their own decision about the course of action they feel best about. Get it? What's right for them, not what's right for me. Because it's not about me. And in this instance it's not about you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Addressed above. Again, I reiterate. Personal attacks are wrong and unprofessional. Referring to the PFT issue (and the PFT issue only), the general feel for the subject was given by a number of people, right or wrong as a feeling, for better or for worse. They're on scene far closer than I am, so if they say that's the general feel, who am I to counter? I'm not there, I don't know any better. I know this wasn't the initial topic, I'm merely addressing the follow-on issue that occurred.
[ QUOTE ]
So, after all the mudslinging and angry responses in the Ameriflight thread people finally settled down and Phatty was beginning to get real advice on his original question. As DE727UPS so aptly put it, too bad it took 250 posts to get there. But the point is it did get there and then **wham** you shut the door. Which leaves me with the impression you didn't like that Phatty was finally getting real suggestions on Part 135 training. And that's sad.
[/ QUOTE ]
Phatty's question is being answered in the fresh thread, which will hopefully remain untainted and cover the intended topic, versus the perceived topic; now that they're cleared up. A door may have been shut, but another one of equal dimensions was opened.
[ QUOTE ]
Now I could turn on my heel and stomp away from this site in frustration, but I won't. I've been on here for more than this one, awful thread and I know there's lots of good information to be gleaned from your users. And for the most part I think the users on this site are pretty terrific.
Now that I've said my peace, I hope everyone has a lovely day. Fly safe.
[/ QUOTE ]
For whatever reason, the thread took the subject turn it did. The personal attacks were wrong and the guilty know it. These have all been addressed, and the original topic is back in hand.
For my personal take on PFT (not part of the subject at hand) is simply this: the "Will Fly For Food" T-shirts that were originally meant as a joke in the early '90s, are now being taken very seriously by many airline management types. Unfortunately, it's being accepted by too many pilots too.
So who IS in Sanford?