@G-BLEW said
Erm, CS, slight overreaction?
If it were you, a "commercial - communicator" , who charges a reasonable price to advertisers and readers alike and reacts immediately to criticisms of illegible information, ....yes, i'd totally agree and offer a fulsome apology and retraction...............but we're not, are we?
We're talking about a body that's largely unaccountable for the efficiency or cost -effectiveness of it's "mission", where the "customer" is faced with , as another poster described, "patronising" , poorly -timed and presented SAFETY -message material. As an outsider, I not only had difficulty reading the text, but the duration of some portions required advanced speed-reading skills or razor-sharp reactions to press the "pause" facility.
Surely, , to avoid further embarrassment, it would have been far better to have re-edited it between the initial presentation, the scathing criticism,and then the reposting. It really seems that the thing was not "beta- tested" (aka "test- marketed" ) before release to public consumption.
Perhaps I might have said "naive" " out of touch" or "out of their depth" instead?
Whatever, it comes across as a very poor, amateur effort, IMHO, eclipsing the recent (forgettable)" Sunny Swift" offering from EASA,, which was duly slated by the target audience.
If they're going to claim to be a professional and Authoritative organisation, at least they should present themselves as such.- they've let themselves down. perhaps us oldies have higher standards than the "snowflake generation"
Blunt? yes, Harsh? yes!....I could have sugar-coated it, but why?
P.S. It's still only a forum on the internet!
FLYER Club Member
