Inconceivable

Thought that would get your attention.

To the individual seeking information on the CRJ, despite what the self-important would like to have you believe, this information is *not* SSI. There may be specific pages in your Flight Operations Manual that relate to security procedures which are designated as sensitive, but this designation can only be made by the government, not our illustrious mods or the company. Most importantly, these pages are specifically noted on each affected page. Redistribution of company manuals does constitute a violation of copyright, but this is likely defensible under the Fair Use exception as long as the individual does not (1) profit, or (2) mass disseminate the information.

That said, I do agree with the mod that you are best served by getting the company-specific information in training. The CRJ does not have many differences at the 200 level, but when you move to Boeings you will find it is best to wait and learn what they want you to learn and not pick up extraneous info about variations that your company does not operate. A Google search will turn up websites with some basic systems info if you are still chomping at the bit. Personally I recommend a review of your basic IFR stuff - hold procedures, raw-data NDBs, re-reading the AIM - all the stuff you may have gotten rusty on but don't want to have to be reviewing while in the sim.

To the mod who closed this guy's thread: shame on you. With all the whinging that takes place on this board and in cockpits, regional and legacy, about the supposed immaturity and lack of professionalism of regional pilots way to go and discourage someone who is actually trying to be a motivated professional pilot and exceed the bare minimum. If you are so determined to keep this board from being another FlightInfo maybe you should promote this kind of discussion - or do you prefer the "Surejet Sucks" and "Hats vs. Leather Jackets, Episode XXXVIII" threads?

To TonyB: When in doubt, it's located in the aft equipment bay. And the dry weight of the entire wing assembly of the 200LR is 4,747 pounds - a little trivia from the factory for you there.

SSI. Give me a break.

Positive_Rate

Salukipilot4590

I like where this thread is going

johnso29

I think you need to re-title this thread. In fact, I'm being nice & giving you the option to do so. But you don't have much time.

Oh, & if you have a problem with the moderation on this board perhaps you should volunteer your time and be a moderator. I invite YOU to keep up with everything on this board, since it's obviously so easy.

Next time you have an issue with a moderator on this board take it up with the moderators. Don't air it out here. Highly inappropriate.

BoilerUP

Anybody who thinks airplane information is "sensitive security info" doesn't have the faintest concept of what SSI *truly* is. If it were truly "sensitive", there's no way in HELL the DHS would allow SmartCockpit - Airline training guides, Aviation, Operations, Safety to exist.

As for complaints about moderators...its certainly not an easy or an appreciated job, having to clean up the acts of self-professed "professionals". That said, APC's moderation has, in my own experience, been uneven and heavy-handed at times. I've addressed my concerns with individual mods when I've had beef, but when a moderator can't answer a direct question like "Exactly what in the TOS was violated?" (had that happen more than once myself) it tends to get a little frustrating.

APC is substantially better than Flightinfo, and I greatly appreciate the founders & mods for maintaining that...but in this post-9/11 world let's not automatically jump to the conclusion that any request for information is a terrorist conspiracy, shall we?

HSLD

APC's policy is to remove posts that detail cockpit procedures and specific airline operating procedures. The security section of the forum rules gives forum administrators and moderators the autonomy and final say in removing a thread that contains SSI.

mmaviator

maybe a section where we can bash moderators? wasn't my idea.

johnso29

Do you have your company's permission to post their company material on a public web board? I invite you to check your companies social media policy, as I know several companies that do not allow it. Be careful.

HSLD

Thanks for the compliment, we truly want APC to a resource where pilots help pilots. My experience is that the mods are seen to reflect the general attitude of the forum user population. When the forum dialog becomes toxic and mods step in to enforce the forum rules, it's often the mods who are accused of being heavy handed. I guess thats all part of the glamour and notoriety of being a community volunteer. I agree that the users of APC are much better than self-policing than on other forums, and that affects the quality of forum dialog much more than moderator actions.

I don't recall you and I having an exchange regarding the nuances of the forum rules. I'd be the guy to contact and I'd be happy to clarify the posting rules. I back the forum mods 100%, they're dedicated and experienced - frankly we're lucky to have them.

With respect to SSI, we'll have to agree to disagree about posting detailed airline cockpit procedures, crew movement, or anything else that could affect a crew's safety at work or on a layover. We feel that that there are some things that shouldn't be posted in public and shared with the world.

BoilerUP

I would 100% agree that those particular topics should not generally be shared...though I have previously asked what hotel a certain airline RON'd at in a certain city as a way of verifying the quality of a certain property I was planning to stay at.

I personally don't think a request for aircraft systems, cockpit flows, etc. is anything to be concerned with...that said, your website and your rules and I respect that (as everyone else should).

And thanks, BTW, for the respectful tone - no way a member would EVER get that from FI's "websitemaster".