Time to Update the Rules

[jaredyates]

This site was started by Eric and Mark a few years ago, back when Yahoo crippled their "groups" function. It was a scary transition time, taking the discussion from a primarily email-based group to this web-based venue. Here we are, a few years on, and things are going very well, thanks to so many folks who are regular contributors. Things are not perfect of course, but very well. We are in a much better position, much less dependent on outside entities to keep our content available for the long term.

But as we have grown, perhaps it is time to revisit our original rules and give them a read-through/update. It's important that new folks have a good understanding of the efforts we take to keep things productive. Here is what we currently have in the sticky, and that goes out to new members who register:


Welcome to the Bearhawk Forums. I sincerely hope that you will enjoy being a member here and gain (as well as share) a lot of insights and knowledge about the Bearhawk4-Place, Patrol and LSA airplanes.

Please take a minute to read the few simple rules that we follow as members of the group:

1. This is an aviation related group. What that means is that all posts must be somehow aviation related. To keep it interesting, posts do not have to be strictly about the Bearhawk, Patrol or LSA, but should be at least somehow aviation related (airplane build techniques, flying, fly-ins, etc.).

2. Politics (see exception*), religion, porn, or graphic language will be not be tolerated.

* The exception to the "no politics" rule is that discussions about proposed laws or regulations that would directly affect aviation, freedom of flying, aviation fuel taxes, airport use charges, etc. are fine as long as they are directly aviation related. Just use common sense.

3. Anyone interested in learning about Bearhawk airplanes is welcome - you do not need to be a plans holder to join or be on this group.

That's really it - follow the rules and everyone will be happy.

Please take a moment to post a message and introduce yourself to the group. We always appreciate it when you include your name as well as your city & state, in your signature at the bottom of your post. You might just find out that there are some builders close by that you can pay a visit to.

Thanks for joining and have fun!

Here is what I'd like to propose as our new rules/welcome message. Would anyone like to suggest any improvements or other changes? Anything I'm leaving out?

Hello,

Welcome to the Bearhawk Forums. We sincerely hope that you will enjoy being a member here and gain (as well as share) insights and knowledge about the airplanes designed by Bob Barrows (Bearhawk 4-Place, Bearhawk Patrol and Bearhawk LSA)

Please take a minute to read the few simple rules that we follow as members of the group:

1. This is an aviation related group that operates for the benefit of Bearhawk folks. All posts must be somehow aviation related.. Posts do not have to be strictly about the Bearhawk, Patrol or LSA, but should be at least somehow related (airplane build techniques, flying, fly-ins, etc.).

2. All contributions must be on-topic (per rule number 1), respectful, and civil. Posts must not advocate or document unsafe or illegal choices. Disagreement and discussion are welcome (even expected) as long as the tone is productive and civilized.

3. Certain types of highly divisive or offensive content will be removed without further consideration. These include politics (see exception*), religion, porn, graphic language, and solicitations to buy unrelated stuff.

* The exception to the "no politics" rule is that discussions about proposed laws or regulations that would directly affect aviation, freedom of flying, aviation fuel taxes, airport use charges, etc. are fine as long as they are directly aviation related. Just use common sense.

4. Anyone interested in learning about Bearhawk airplanes is welcome - you do not need to be a plans holder to join or be on this group.

That's really it - follow the rules and everyone will be happy.

Please take a moment to post a message and introduce yourself to the group. We always appreciate it when you include your name as well as your city & state, either in your the signature at the bottom of your post, or in your profile. You might just find out that there are some builders close by that you can pay a visit to.

Thanks for joining and have fun!

[BTAZ]

"Posts must not advocate or document unsafe or illegal choices"

As defined by whom?

Are Auto Engines unsafe?

Experimental fuel injection/engine management?

Non-traditional covering(such as Latex paint)?

I know I wouldn't want to be the decision maker but certainly value seeing the discussions between various contributors.

[jaredyates]

"Posts must not advocate or document unsafe or illegal choices"

As defined by whom?

Are Auto Engines unsafe?

Experimental fuel injection/engine management?

Non-traditional covering(such as Latex paint)?

I know I wouldn't want to be the decision maker but certainly value seeing the discussions between various contributors.

Very fair point about safety, can you think of a better way to express it, or do you think it should be left out?

[whee]

Safety is somewhat of a subjective thing so perhaps expressing the intent of that rule in a different way would be good. Maybe something like not advocating for something you have no first hand knowledge of or experience with?

[BTAZ]

I think inferring that the site is moderated for "unsafe or illegal choices" would imply some liability.

I think it would be better as a clear disclaimer this isn't the case and the final decision is in the hands of the builder.

[Archer39J]

Might be getting a little in the weeds over the phraseology. As determined by the person who pays to host the forum seems reasonable to me, but that's just my opinion...

[jaredyates]

I write the check but ultimately it is the Beartracks subscribers who put the money in the system.

[way_up_north]

Since this thread is essentially about me....ill help you out.....

"Posts must not advocate or document unsafe or illegal choices"

The Bearhawk moves towards being tail heavy when being loaded(typically)....so you guys are willing to spend $6000 on oratex to lift 20 pounds off the tail wheel....

me scratching my beard think..."wow $6000 smakers...thats a lot of pancakes"

So then I say........."why not leave the cheap covering on and try a wet wing(fuel in front of the spar) to move some of the weight forward during operations near full gross"........(save money on covering and have a plane better situated in the CG range at near gross)

my suggestion brings down heaven and earth....

That in a nut shell is the reason for this re-writting of the rules....

I don't think you're too hot on my grammar either.....

[jaredyates]

The proposed update is per your request, but also because your request makes sense. The safety point is not directed at you.

[Bdflies]

I always seem to have more opinions than intelligence, so I’ll take a swing.

Jared, I don’t think I would make the change. This is not to say that I advocate discussion of evading lawful authorities, but would rather the group be 'self-policing' as has been the case. It could be that a member is truly uninformed about applicable FARs or just wandering in the direction of a FAA problem. If such an occasion arose, under the proposed rules, the discussion could be squelched before correct information was exchanged. I think this would be a disservice to all. I’ve been following the 'Sell your Bearhawk' thread with interest. I’ve been immersed in the EAB world since the 80’s and have seen the evolution of FAA oversight. I don’t see the harm in discussing the changing regulatory environment, even though the letter of the FARs hasn’t changed. That wouldn’t suggest endorsement of an activity outside of the current regulations. In fact, the thread in question seems to support my suggestion that such subjects would self-police, by virtue of members opining with more current knowledge of the rules.

I understand that Jared is responsible for presentation and maintenance of this forum and I, for one, am very grateful for those efforts! My way of thinking would always be to err on the side of less oversight.

Bill

[jaredyates]

Interesting insight all around, thanks and keep it coming please.

[BravoGolf]

Jared,

One of the best part of the EAB community is the innovation it has brought to GA aircraft. The concept of "unsafe" can be pretty subjective. The building community experience must allow for members to ask questions, describe solutions or modifications without fear of reprisal. I have been a user at VAF and I have found that overtime folks have become pretty quick to be dismissive of new ideas or modifications. A kind of "if its not done in the manner the factory describes it must be wrong" mentality. I hope this forum does not follow that path.

Don't get me wrong, there are modifications that won't work for whole series of reasons. But the builder would benefit from a conversation why and alternatives how it might work. That has to be part of the process. As the Bearhawk grows in popularity there will be more and more inexperienced builders coming to the forum. It seems a much better place for them to try out that mod is here instead of on the first test flight.

[svyolo]

I have no issue with the way it is currently being moderated. Great forum.

[nichzimmerman]

I agree with the direction you're headed. Here are a couple cents for you to consider. First, put the onus on the contributor to do a brief litmus test before throwing something out there:

"Contributors must make every effort to present ideas and practices conforming to known legal and safety guidelines. Where these guidelines are not clear, contributors must clearly state the highly experimental nature of the idea."

One of the things I have appreciated most about this group is that I can find (almost) no content that is either actively or passively agressive. No one wants to read comment from someone who has a bone to pick. I suggest we preserve that with:

"Disagreement and discussion are welcome (even expected) as long as the tone is productive and respectful and cannot be construed as offensive."

​​​​​​​And most importantly, the policing tool:

​​​​The moderator reserves the right to delete posts or threads which violate stated rules. The moderator may privately request the offending contributor to rephrase the post in conformance with these guidelines.

[jaredyates]

Thank you for your suggestions, your ideas are good as are so many others in this thread. One concern I have is that a poster might not realize how experimental an idea is before posting. To keep picking on Michael, I see the example of making the leading edge of the wing out of weldable aluminum for fuel storage is a nearly insurmountable engineering challenge, but that might not be universally agreeable, or even obvious at all to the original poster. And while I'd like to have some way for other readers to more readily see when an idea is scary to other folks, I'm not sure how we'll be able to do it without stifling creativity, or creating the expectation that all remaining ideas on the site are viable or advisable. Sometimes we don't know what we don't know, but how else are we to learn? Perhaps the best flag is in the following replies from other builders. If we don't have discussions in the archive about the things like nosewheel conversions, spring steel gear, etc, then we are destined to repeat them.

I did add "not offensive" to draft 2, and while your last point is true, I think I'll leave it out for now since it's self evident.

[Battson]

The safety comment is the only part which I think you could improve, the rest is good.

[OhioLSA]

First, I want to thank Jared for all that he does here. I think most of us understand his feeling the need to "reign in" some of the more contentious discussions that come up from time to time.
But upon further thought, I agree with Bill, who states it well: "...err on the side of less oversight." Or, perhaps, less official or sanctioned oversight. The oversight comes from the responses of members who see something they disagree with and call it out. Shady information is countered by a flood of good information. And sometimes the author of a not-so-good idea will continue to vociferously tout that idea in spite of the groundswell of counter voices, in which case everybody eventually walks away shaking their heads. Oh well, that happens sometimes.
Still, the "marketplace of ideas" allows everyone to shop for those ideas that make the most sense.

[fairchild]

I would worry that the proposed changes could be construed by an ambulance chasing lawyer to imply that everything that passes through your filter is guaranteed safe. Lets take a step back here--- we are building home made airplanes and then flying them...….. I don't think anyone could claim that's inherently safe..... Flying cant ever be made 100% safe... I think safety is
something everybody SHOULD participate in all the time. I think that should include wheat works and what doesn't-- and why ….
Just my 2Cents...… Im here to learn all I can ! (and try not to break anything in the process)

But maybe-- reserve the right to edit or delete whatever you need to based on you good judgement- that seems to have worked fine up to now - right ?
I have never read anything here so far that I thought was "out-there"....... beyond the kinds of things that homebuilders wonder about ... :-)