N509QB Company name error/deletion

DougRobertson

I entered a new profile from the FAA N509QB registered record on this German kit-built Experimental class autogyro, and someone nearly immediately deleted part of the CORRECT name of the German Experimental class kit supplier which is Autogyro Gmbh. CAVALON is the aircraft kit manufacturer's MODEL name. Autogyro Gmbh has also built the Autogyro MTOsport and CALIDUS09; in business since 1999.

Again, the correct German company English language name is Autogyro Gmbh, which in German is-Gesellschaft mit beschrankter haftung, meaning German company constitution. I apologize for not having an umlaut symbol on my American English keyboard, but it is not necessary for the usual abbreviations, Gmbh or GmbH.

Please fix your error in the N509QB profile. As submitted by me to this site-the German kit company official name was exactly correct. I have to ask: What reference/s, if any are you using to make an apparently arbitrary yet wrong edit decision?

MalcolmClarke

The original upload was indeed listed as Autogyro Gmbh. I immediately revised it to Autogyro but a third party decided to change it back again.

We already have 36 entries in the database for AutoGyro and there is no justification for adding to the list of manufacturers with a duplicate name.

AutoGyro is used for the same reason that The Boeing Company is referred to as Boeing, Douglas Aircraft Company as Douglas, etc.

We are aware of AutoGyro Gmbh, Cavalon, MTOsport, etc which for some reason you have quoted.

The FAA database is not an entirely reliable source of identifying information, though no doubt fit for its own purpose.

There has been no error on my part, and the decision to make the change was well considered and neither arbitrary or wrong as you suggest.

ChrisHall

Doug

We have had this conversation several times, and have told you on several occasions that the admin team are trying to get a uniformed and clear database.

So all manufacture names are the same and free from spelling mistakes, abbreviations and initialisms we will continue to edit out what we feel necessary to achive this.

Chris

DougRobertson

Malcolm,

With all due respect, your answer and totally arbitrary change of an autogyro kit aircraft manufacturer's OFFICIAL name to just Autogyro makes absolutely no sense. Why do you have the kit manufacturer American Autogyro listed but not Autogyro Gmbh? There are also Pitcairn-Cierva Autogyros and Kellett Autogyros in this site's database. Answer me why you have not removed or modified those autogyro manufacturer's full names? What have you got against the legitimate German autogyro manufacturer named Autogyro GmbH? Duplicate name? You fail to recognize the wrong deletion of the true official manufacturer's name in some past has created this problem of your own making.

The person (a third party) who had to be on the Admin team here who corrected your error briefly for the N509QB listing as you state and then YOU erased the correction by your admission shows the "Admin Team" is not acting consistently as a team. I have taken this issue up before directly with Ken Wang, the site's founder. If Ken wants to get involved with this-let him do it here rather than private emails. I believe this site's members would want a justifiable answer and solution to this problem of perhaps unintended consequences.

You are messing with an absolutely correct FAA aircraft registration of N509QB that EXACTLY follows their specific requirements; and, as an Experimental class aircraft it must ALWAYS retain the first builder's name in any subsequent re-registration, another issue you apparently take issue with. Your heartburn with our FAA aircraft registrations is blurring any consistent, clear thinking, my opinion.

ChrisHall

Doug,

Why do have to persist with this when your question has been asked and answered serveral times in the past?

As you know ( but continue to disagree with ) there are three members on the Admin team who help in there own time and give many hours per week to this site. We all know there are still 10's of thousands of errors still in the database which we are working to correct, but our efforts are always being diverted by new errors being added on a daily basis or our time being distracted by answering the same question over and over.

Chris

DougRobertson

Chris,

You really fail to see this problem of your own making which is specious. It is NOT the same question at all. You have reduced the correct and full name of an aircraft manufacturer to a generic TYPE of aircraft-an autogyro. The Admin Team should have foreseen the difficulty that has brought. There are/were a number of autogyro manufacturers in the World. To falsely call one of them-specifically the established German company named Autogyro GmbH just Autogyro is wrong, misleading and demeans the manufacturer.

Consider there are fixed wing aircraft, variable-wing aircraft, rotary wing aircraft further broken down to helicopters, autogyros and gyrocopters, lighter-than-air aircraft further broken down into hot air or gas balloons, lighter than air rigid airships, drones or UAVs, towed-aloft sailplanes and powered sailplanes, or motor-gliders. To falsely assign a manufacturing company name to one of these categories without its TRUE name is just wrong. Autogyro alone is meaningless as a company name, raising questions, as it is NOT the aircraft's manufacturer name. Read that last sentence again, and let it sink in a bit.

MalcolmClarke

Doug.

I feel sure that you will probably describe the following as irrelevant.

I was born and brought up in Oxford just a few hundred yards from the Clarenden Press who publish the well known Oxford Dictionary.

I have referred to my copy of the Concise version which tells me that the meaning of the word arbitrary is .....

"based on or derived from uninformed opinion or random choice".

Webster is likely to be similar.

Therefore your comment is not only wrong as I have already informed you but it is also insulting.

Further, your sadly misleading comparison with other forms flying machines is specious, i.e. superficially plausible but actually wrong. It has not happened and it definitely will not; this is a unique but perfectly acceptable situation.

We frequently omit Co Ltd, Inc, Corp, Spa, etc and GmbH is yet another example of such unnecessary suffixes in the context of an aviation website.

Autogyro alone is NOT meaningless as a company name, it DOES NOT raise questions, and it IS quite rightly the aircraft manufacturer name to use in this context.

It is used similarly on other aviation websites and no confusion has or will arise.

I quote from your response.

"Your admission shows the "Admin Team" is not acting consistently as a team."

We have our own forum and frequently discuss related matters.

In this case, I feel that the original change was made in haste without the realisation that we already had 36 similar aircraft listed under Autogyro and I am happy to apologise for these events if this is what you are seeking.

Again I quote.

"I believe this site's members would want a justifiable answer and solution to this problem of perhaps unintended consequences."

What leads you to this conclusion? 68 persons have so far read this post but have not commented and so who other than yourself sees this as a problem?.

If you wish to pursue this pointless matter further, please raise it with Ken.

Subject is now closed as far as I am concerned - I have nothing further to add except that my valuable time is better spent further improving the accuracy of the database.

DougRobertson

Well Malcolm, I hereby point out to you after doing my site homework that there are at least five different autogyro manufacture headings on this site with much apparent confusion in and between them, to wit, a 1931 Buhl Autogyro listed not only on the Buhl page but also on a totally wrong autogyro manufacture page. I invite you to take the same looks that I just did again.

Under Autogyro T.E manufacturer you have an American Autogyro AA1 listed and also autogyros manufactured by Autogyro Europe (which was Autogyro GmbH's name before they dropped the name "Europe" in 2008). Under plain Autogyro manufacturer you have an Autogyro T.E. listed. Under Autogyro Europe you have listed a 2014 Autogyro EUROPE CAVALON which obviously belongs to Autogyro GmbH (without the Europe) which you refuse to list-(another example of "Europe" name dropped in 2008).

I also found Igor Bensen B-8 Gyrocopters wrongly listed in an autogyro manufacturer's page-I'll let you hunt for that.

Autogyro Europe/Gmbh built both production autogyros and kit autogyros for EAB applications; apparently you don't differentiate those.

I have more examples but I believe these are enough to show the fallacy of your changing aircraft manufacturer names at will, especially when they coincide in part with an aircraft type such as autogyro. The actions appear to be indefensible. You have not convinced me of any worth of dropping/changing/shortening aircraft manufacturer's official names. It adds site confusion per my cited examples.

MalcolmClarke

Doug.

What part of "Subject is now closed as far as I am concerned" do you not understand?

However, I do need to comment upon your continuing and unfortunate attitude toward the work I do for the benefit of all who have a connection to this website.

"I have more examples but I believe these are enough to show the fallacy of your changing aircraft manufacturer names at will"

Do you really understand the current status of this website? Despite devoting several hours of my time most days to correcting profiles and their content, I have to admit that a very large amount of work remains. Therefore it is not difficult to find areas which still require our attention, and such is the case here.

However, the Admin team is also dealing with all new input on a daily basis, and where we come across a single situation requiring a correction, this is usually dealt with immediately although other profiles related to it may not be simultaneously evaluated/corrected until some later date.

We simply cannot work on all areas at the same time.

"Fallacy" is, and I quote "a mistaken belief especially based upon an unsound argument." A rather unfortunate and inappropriate choice of words.

"changing aircraft manufacturer names at will" - do you honestly believe that that is what I do?

Like others in the team, I have a raft of well respected aviation websites which are frequently accessed in order that due consideration is given prior to any change being implemented.

"The actions appear to be indefensible."

"It adds site confusion per my cited examples."

This seemingly unending choice of such words serves only to demotivate and devalue the work that I do but for the present I am sustained by the fact that on this issue you stand alone.

May I once again suggest that if you remain unhappy about any matters relating to the decisions/work done by the Admin Team, that you contact Ken Wang direct, preferably through the private messaging system and he may be able to put your mind at rest.

ChrisHall

Doug

Why do you persist with this? You and ONLY you seem to have a problem with what the admin team do here. Your constant criticisms are demotivating and unhelpful. I have asked you in the past why don't you volunteer some of your spare time and help with the admin work on the site, but you always refuse.

May I also remind you of some of Ken's replys when you have critised what we are doing.

I trust the admin team with this site, their decisions are final. If you disagree with them, you may bring it up to me. Personal attack is not acceptable.

Ken

Regarding the home-built kits, there's two ways to name it. One way emphasize individual builders (FAA use this), while the other emphasize on the common factor (that is they are based largely on same kit type sold) of those kits. We need to decide on one of them, and it's admin team's decision to go with the common factor.

Ken

As Malcolm has already said twice, this matter is now closed and I for one will nolonger respond to any more of your criticisms.

Chris

Helicopterfriend

I don't believe his criticism is with the Admin Team, just the two people who have taken over the site as their own and are trying to eliminate the true description of the posted aircraft. I have been asked by several pilots as to why the changes have been made and I tell them because 2 people have convinced the Site manager that their idea is a good one (I asked them to send Ken an e-mail asking about the changes-unknown if they followed through). I do not want to get involved in this argument but by making your statements as you have, you have started a child like war with one photographer because you have your SET RULES and actually have no reason's to change the types other than you want to. I see nothing wrong with using the US FAA's sight as a reference to the type of plane, granted anyone can call THEIR plane whatever they want and we should abide by what the OWNER wants it called.

As you have probably noticed I have not been doing to much Admin work and I believe I'm going to stop. I didn't sign up to have people start changing things and using whatever means they can find to change things.

It is with great displeasure that I am no longer interested in being a site moderator, effective immediately

Walt

DougRobertson

Thank you Walt,

You are entirely correct in your assessment. Rather than addressing true specific site errors or inconsistencies that I have kindly pointed out, two people on the Admin Team insist on denigrating my specific issues needing attention. Note that the absolute errors pointed out in my last message have been completely ignored by them in their last responses; instead they resort to personal invective.

I understand your decision which has been some time coming, am sorry to lose you and wish you well. Your experience with aircraft owners' photos concerns on this site mirrors mine. Please stay in touch.

MalcolmClarke

I am genuinely disappointed that Walt has decided to discontinue his work with the Admin team, but I am also concerned that he also finds it necessary to denigrate me personally and the work I have carried out on behalf of the site membership.

It is puzzling that having been appointed to the team at the same time as Chris Hall and I, that nearly four years later he reveals his unhappiness for the first time.

Regarding the description of aircraft and the point repeatedly made that pilots should be able/allowed to name their aircraft as they wish.

Of course they should and further to register them similarly in their national register, but this is not necessarily the accepted recognition of such an aircraft.

Here is what I would believe is a typical example, illustrating this very point.

A photo recently uploaded to this site shows the 2013 built replica of the late Jim Moss's Gee Bee QED, registered by the owner/builder as

MOSS JIM JIM MOSS QED.

The internet states .......

"A highly modified replica of the Gee Bee Q.E.D. R-6 was built by Jim Moss and assistants powered by a 1,425 hp (1,063 kW) Wright R-1820 Cyclone. The aircraft flew its first flight on 26 September 2013".

In my view and in the view of many other more highly regarded sources, the correct/generally accepted identification is ......

Granville Brothers Gee Bee R-6H QED (Replica).

Such identification is in no way a criticism of the owner, pilot or the registration authority. It should be listed as such together with the other 38 examples of the type already in the database.

Finally, if anyone wishes to discuss this subject further, may they please do so without resorting to further personal and unnecessary invective.

Malcolm.