PDA

View Full Version : Pull the pin....


RedTop
31st Oct 2005, 09:35
Pull the pin…roll it in…

Dear PPRuNe posters,

My name is James Moncur and I’m the tabloid journalist responsible for the “RAF probe ejector seat cock up theory” story that appeared in the Daily Record earlier this month.

Unlike you lot who have wonderful nicknames like: BEagle, The Rocket, Rakshasa and Redline Entry, us yellowbellied reporters have to make do with putting our real names on the top of our copy - you’ll see mine just above my e-mail address. The majority of us are reasonably well known in Scotland. In fact most people who read the paper are even aware of our personal phone numbers – mine, for instance, is 01382 561700…whoops..how did I let that one slip out?

Anyway, I digress….. for those of you objective enough to have got past the “I’m the tabloid journalist” line in the opening par of this post I thought it would be useful to outline the route I took to get the “nonsense spouted by this journo” into the Daily Record.

Background-

On the 16th Oct the Tornado crash just south of Leuchars made the front page of the paper.
I, like everybody else, was delighted that both crew members were safe and the rescue was so quick and efficient.
I fully expected the pilot and nav (both Lts – I presumed) to be named and made available for interview.
(You will recall the last incident at Leuchars involving the Tornado that landed on its belly. The 'heroic' crew were paraded within hours for a full press call. Great story, great PR and I’m sure RAF recruitment figures spiked for the month.)
After this month’s crash, 111’s squadron commander (I think??) held a conference on the Saturday and described the pilot’s call from the sea but the crew’s identities, their rank and crash details were kept under wraps for no obvious reason…….rearrange this well known phrase…bull to rag a red.
Ignoring that, however, the conference was covered and the paper moved on.

The following week-

I received a call from Leuchars informing me that the guy in the nav’s seat was an engineer who was up on a “jolly” granted him as a retirement present. He, I was reliably told, panicked just minutes into the flight and ejected both himself and the pilot. The incident and the eng’s involvement in it was the talk of the base and a potentially massive story.

I had to confirm a number of details quickly to determine the veracity of the story, namely: was the guy in the back ground-crew, if he was...what was he doing in the plane and, vitally, could he have taken the pilot with him in a premature ejection.

As a Fifer I have a number of good contacts on the base and immediately met one of them who confirmed that the eng was indeed in the back and that the rumour doing the rounds was that he may have been responsible for the crash.

I trust my contact implicitly and as a result the story had become more than just a “random nutter phone-in” job that we sometimes have to deal with.

Armed with the information above I went to the relevant authorities.
I had a conversation with a Leuchars’ spokesman and put everything to him: the engineer, the retirement jolly, the double ejection initiated from the back etc and asked for comment and guidance.
He initially told me that the crew members were a pilot and nav who were both Flight Lts and that my story was dead. I asked him to double check and to get back to me. He called back 10 mins later and admitted the guy in the back was indeed an engineer on the cusp of retirement! (Immediate confirmation of half the sources' info.)

But when pressed about the causes of the crash and back-seat ejection theory he refused to comment saying a BoI had been set up. I asked whether the BoI would investigate the eng’s possible role in the crash..he said everything would be looked into. No denial….no off-the-record guidance…..just a stone wall.

Now the spokesman would have had a pretty good idea what led to the crash, the pilot and eng would definitely have said something to somebody. The first question they would have been asked in the mess/by mobile/e-mail would have been: “What the f**K happened Iceman/Jester/Smudge???”

And I don’t care what any of you say, the pilot would have had some semblance of an idea what led to the crash….whether it was a catastrophic technical malfunction of some kind, human error, bird strike (a lot of migratory avians leaving St Andrews at this time of year) or the eng in the back popping them both out in a panic.
Leuchars would have known this info and some off-the-record guidance could have helped at this stage. The BoI would not have been pre-empted if the spokesman had chosen his words carefully.
No denial thus far, only stone walls and an unusual air of secrecy. Certainly no detailed off-the-record chat.

So can a nav eject the pilot as well? How’s a layman supposed to find that out?
Well….no use asking any of you lot for some basic technical guidance…... I can imagine the latter stages of the conversation on the doorstep of your Biggin Hill mansions: “F**k off tabloid scum….no point speaking to you….you’ll only get the story wrong.”

Cue, therefore, a phone-call to Paul Jackson, editor of Jane’s World Aircraft, the most senior and respected expert I know. I gave Paul every detail of the story and asked him if it was possible. He confirmed on the record that the rear seater in a Tornado can eject the pilot if the command eject system is set up accordingly.
Paul even recalled a number of incidents where a pilot was ejected from a perfectly serviceable plane by the back seater.

Interesting...let's raise the bar..

Phone call to MoD in London…spoke to young civvy press officer on the RAF desk and gave him every detail I had. Told him about Leuchars contacts, Leuchars spokesman’s chat, eng’ ejection theory, Paul Jackson and outlined the story I intended to write.
He confirmed a BoI would be set up and wouldn’t speculate on the crash. He added on the record that “everything from a possible technical malfunction to human error would be investigated.” I again asked him for some off the record guidance but he refused to help me.

I’ve now got more than enough to go on. An unusual level of secrecy about the incident. A number of independent sources at the base saying the same thing, no denial whatsoever from two official RAF spokesmen (not even off-the-record) and even a confirmation that, among other things, possible human error will be investigated. Combine these facts with one of the most senior aviation writers in the UK confirming the theory was possible and that he’s seen it happen before and the story is a shoe-in.

I stand by my original piece 100%. I have heard or seen nothing since the crash that shows otherwise.

If it helps, and I am speaking purely hypothetically here, if some of the core details I was given were inaccurate, this is how a conversation could have gone with an experienced PRO:

Spawn of Satan (SoS)- I'm preparing a possible story about the Tornado crash (give PRO every detail.) Can you comment on it and give us a bit of guidance as to what may have happened.

PRO- Give me half an hour, I’ll phone Leuchars and get back to you.

25 mins later-

PRO- “Here’s the comment I want to read if the piece runs: ‘This was a very serious incident and we are delighted that both crew members survived. A Board of Inquiry has been established to discover what caused the crash and until that is complete it would be inappropriate to speculate on the incident any further.’ Now put your pen down young man.”

SoS- “It’s down…I’m all ears.”

PRO- “Your sources are correct, there was an eng in the back but this is not uncommon. It is routine to give flights to ground crew, in fact there’s an official ballot at Leuchars most weeks. The BoI will look at everything and both crew members have been debriefed fully. I don't want to pre-empt the BoI but as a result of the interviews the most likely cause of this incident was probably a catastrophic technical malfunction of some kind…it happens sometimes. The BoI should pinpoint the problem if the salvage team manage to recover the plane relatively intact.
For your info the pilot did very well getting them both out so quickly and if you’re really interested, we’re pretty sure that the plane involved was not configured to allow the guy in the back to eject both him and the pilot at the time of the crash.”

SoS- “Cheers for that mate, that’s cleared a few things up. I’ll buy you a pint next time I’m in London. I doubt the initial story will run now. If we do a piece it will probably be along the lines of ‘Hero pilot’s lightning reactions saved pensioner passenger.’ Any chance we can get pics of them both?”

PRO- “The eng wasn’t a pensioner but the rest sounds great. I’ll see what I can do about the pics. Can you send me the cutting when it’s printed?”

And so begins a great relationship…..

Seriously though, this story highlights some very important issues. I gave the RAF every opportunity to help out and clarify the situation. But PROs in the MoD, like most large organisations, don't do off-the-record anymore which can cause problems at both ends.

If any of you have any say in how press officers are trained then feel free to phone me for a chat. I would never tell you how to do your job but I may be able to give you a few pointers. And I promise I won't even ask you for your real names.

Kind regards,

Spawn of Satan / Bile of Beelzebub / Dribble of Detritus*

*delete where necessary.

An Teallach
31st Oct 2005, 10:16
Good call, Redtop

However, from the other side of the fence (and nothing to do with the particular story under discussion), while you personally may be trusworthy, how is a PRO to know that 'off the record' will be respected?

Stories are rarely as simple as 500 words will allow and, as you have deadlines and yesterday's 'big story' is forgotten tomorrow, stalling and refusing to comment becomes sound strategy. Why feed titbits to jackals that will only act as Hors D'Oeuvres? If the story dies today, it is dead. While you personally may be interested, I doubt if your editor would give 1 column-inch to the result of this (or any BofI) once it is released. Why do you think politicians commission long-running enquiries? To kick issues into the long grass of course, from which few stories re-emerge.

On this particular story, outside military aviation circles, interest is negligible.

Surely the role of Media Ops (what the Mil call spin-doctors) is to kill stories which (may) reflect badly on the Service and promote the good ones? Surely you're not naive enough to rely on 'official spokesmen' for the truth? If you rely on spokesmen to further your career, I'm afraid you'll never be another Bob Woodward!

Anyway, I'd have thought Spawn of Satan (SoS) (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/) would be reserved for residents of Barclay Towers who produce on the Sabbath, are you getting delusions of grandeur? ;)

Wee Weasley Welshman
31st Oct 2005, 10:26
Sounds like professional tabloid journalism to me - which is something I wasn't sure existed.

I'd be amazed if an experienced Eng panicked himself into an ejection for no good reason. But then I know nothing at all about it other than when I sat on a bang seat I wouldn't put my hands within 5 inches of the handles for paranoias sake..

Cheers

WWW

speeddial
31st Oct 2005, 10:45
If you needed to know more than what's in the public domain you'll have been told by now, if not wait for the public announcement following the BoI like everyone else.

No ifs, no buts, you're a civvie looking to sell more newspapers, I don't see how you knowing more than what's been said so far would help the operational safety of the RAF.

airborne_artist
31st Oct 2005, 11:05
Let me tell you a story:

Many years ago, just after the Brixton riots, I was a TA soldier in regiment that wishes it does not have such a high profile . Annually a composite troop drawn from the two TA regts would travel to the US to spend a fortnight training with our National Guard opposite numbers. (And what a shower they were - just kit bunnies..)

Somehow a Guardian journalist got hold of information that TA units in general (luckily not ours in particular) were going to the US to train alongside the US NG. He then made the entirely erroneous extrapalation that, since NG units have a role to support the civil powers, and that since it was an NG unit that had opened fire on students at Kent State in 1970 (report (http://www.spectacle.org/595/kent.html)), that TA units would be training to carry arms on the UK streets to enable them to support the Home Office/Police in riot control.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and I called him to explain just this, but no apology or retraction was ever made.

diginagain
31st Oct 2005, 11:08
Sorry, James, as much as I like your post for its wit and clarity, I still don't believe that journos know anything about the concepts of honesty, integrity or truth.

While you may try to portray yourself as a paragon amongst journalists, I don't think it will make your task any easier.

KENNYR
31st Oct 2005, 11:31
Well done James, a very open and informative post........unfortunately the damage has already been done by the numerous unscrupulous journalists (and I use the word "journalists" in the broadest sense) who sensationalise the slightest incident to sell newspapers (I also use the word "newspapers" in the broadest sense).

Speculation hurts a lot of people and when the truth surfaces there are never any retractions or apologies tendered.

At least you have the bal*s to enter the lions den!!!!!

Brain Potter
31st Oct 2005, 13:44
Commendable nom d'plume - or was it a fluke? :ok:

VigilantPilot
31st Oct 2005, 13:56
Still sounds like a story being made from complete rumour and it sounds like you'd desperately love it to be an accidental ejection just to sell more papers.

Especially with follow up stories such as:

"ONLY BEING SICK SAVED ME FROM FILING AN EXPENSES CLAIM FOR £20M"

from that tabloid.

Wait for the BoI.

teeteringhead
31st Oct 2005, 14:54
Well it seems to me that there is at least one sensible honest tabloid jouro.

And with the balls to defend his corner, very reasonably IMHO. Welcome aboard RedTop, and don't mind the banter.....:ok:

Rakshasa
31st Oct 2005, 15:54
To answer for myself I'd say, Redtop, that you might be right... but you're probably wrong. Untill we hear the from BoI it's all just rumor and speculation.

And if the BoI finds differently and the Eng is named, could we expect a retraction of the implication that he may have been responsible?

Ginseng
31st Oct 2005, 16:11
Having some personal experience of the immediate aftermath of flying accidents at RAF bases, I would add that there are usually a number of interesting rumors, often repeated and expanded upon by people who really should know better. They usually consist of 10% truth (hard fact) and 90% invention. I appreciate that you guys have a living to make, but on balance I do not agree with your premise that anything said to you by a contact, at the base or elsewhere, is necessarily true and trustworthy. In fairness to the people concerned (and, by the way, I have no knowledge of this particular incident), I think the "no current further comment" approach is the correct one.

But welcome to the lions' den anyway. We aircrew are always happy to acknowledge someone with b***s!

Ginseng

Uncle Ginsters
31st Oct 2005, 16:26
James, whilst i commend your posting on here i feel that, for such a supposedly experienced journo, you're being somewhat blinkered. (because it might sell?!? or am i just a cynic?)

Whilst i'm sure your contact has his ear firmly on the Leuchars rumour-mill, it's just that - a rumour.
In these cases those rumours can start merely as 'professional' speculation or as something more sinister that could also read "SAC Bloggs denied pax trip so starts rumour to sully name of Sgt who pulled rank to get on said trip" or a million-and-one other possible goings on behind the wire (before you start - i am not even suggesting that that's anything like what happened here , but we all know how rumours can start:hmm:

If you read back over the various threads on Pprune covering accidents, you'll find them all full of conjecture and seedless rumour, that's the nature of most military types - any RAF Station is no different. You must take it as just that. IMHO reporting any of this would be unprofessional and potentially damaging to those involved in this accident.

It's simple - what sells more:
a. "Two survive F3 crash (but we don't know yet what caused it)
b. "£20M F3 crashes - premature ejection by excited pax"

Wait for the BoI, like the rest of us.
:ok:

Uncle G

FFP
31st Oct 2005, 16:34
Agree with previous comments on the "off the record": It's common knowledge that those given any Media Ops training are told there is no such thing as off the record. You may find the comments you make in print a few days later with the phrase " An RAF spokesman said ......"

Another point is that "Surely the pilot will know what caused it / have an idea" Very true, and he / she will be unlikely to make a noose for their neck by chatting about it / speculating themselves to all and sundry at Leuchars. I'll put money on it that the CCO / PRO at Leuchars would be the last person the pilot would chat to about it.

Finally, more than likely, the command eject would be not be selected for a pax flight (if it was one).

Red Line Entry
31st Oct 2005, 17:07
James,

You are being somewhat disengenuous when you portray yourself as a journalist following the truth wherever it may lead.

I have reread the article and it is quite true that you are careful to mention that the backseater ejection theory is only one of the options. However, the general tenor of your report is such that the average reader would put the paper down with the belief that it was the MOST likely option.

So why did you emphasise this particular aspect? Because it's more dramatic of course, and it sells papers. Add in a bit of conspiracy theory ("Unusually for an incident in which both crew members have survived without serious injury, the identities of both men have been kept secret.") and we have a government cover up!!

Yes, the RAF PR side handled itself badly, but does that justify writing unsubstantiated rumour?

Face it, James, you're not in the news business, you're in the entertainment business.

stillin1
31st Oct 2005, 17:10
Redtop.
Bloody well put case (much as it pains me to say so to a journo). A lot of well put replies too.
As you can see, I hope, the general plan is to deal with FACTS in our business. To get the facts is 99.9% of the time is a time consuming search. One that is rarely able to dove-tail with the "now" news requirements in your trade.
Result = the USUAL factually wrong uneducated guesses spouted by your colleagues and never retracted when later proven to be utter hoop!
Hopefully not being prone to outright lies (the PRO) - when you ask if the facts you have are correct you may well get a "yes you were correct" (i.e. Eng in the cheap-seats). That is - you were correct in that fact - not your whole supposition. A point that normally totally elides your ilk.
Bottom line - it is usually better to tell the average journo nothing rather than have your words changed beyond recognition to be used as the basis of the sensational story the guy wanted all along. Humdrum don't sell newspapers! :ok:

Vox Populi
31st Oct 2005, 17:18
Those who teach 'there's no such thing as off the record' hav no experience dealing with the press. In fact in my experience, the people who have the most jaded view of journos, are the ones who have had the least experience with them.

Off the record exists it is part and parcel of a well informed relationship. I have never been let down, and I have dealt with matters far more serious than the one under discussion.

As for media ops seeing their job as supressing bad news stories: that may be the way our current political master operates, but it is a short sighted policy that will damage the services in the end.

vp

matkat
31st Oct 2005, 17:44
Well I live in Balmullo and for those of You that don"t know then area is 2 Miles from Leuchars I was in the RAF for 13 years and still have many Friends at Leuchars after reading these rumours on here I asked 1 of Them( A Chief Tech on the squadron concerned) and He told Me that He had heard the rumours but He was adamant that the command ejection did not happen,I can understand what a great story this would be however it does not make it true,the only part I can confirm is that the back seat pax was indeed a Sergeant engineer.

diginagain
31st Oct 2005, 18:08
There you go, RedTop, and in a format the DR readers should be able to understand.

Easy money.

Lyneham Lad
31st Oct 2005, 18:52
.........He told Me that He had heard the rumours but He was adamant that the command ejection did not happen

There you have it then - straight from God himself (or should that be Himself?) :E

Jackonicko
31st Oct 2005, 19:20
Regular PPRuNers may be aware that I am one of the handful of regular journo visitors here.

The difference between newspaper, TV and radio (and especially Tabloid) journos (including the broadsheet defence correspondents) and the specialists who write for the defence media is that one lot want a story (that's the modern culture of general news organisations) while the other lot want the truth.

It's only slightly unfair to say that one group want to entertain, and the other wants to inform, educate and illuminate.

However you dress it up (and Mr Moncur dresses it well) the Leuchars accident is only ever going to be interesting to his editor if there's a "STORY" - preferably one involving a whiff of scandal or fault. And the pressure of competition means that stories like this can't be properly checked. With the luxury of a weekly deadline (and often longer) I can dig deeper, and if someone else gets a whiff of the story it doesn't matter. I do appreciate James' dilemma, and I don't envy him.

I do agree with him that DPR/DCC/Station PRO/CRO people are seldom as open or as helpful as we might want, and that with a more helpful approach some of the daft stories like Mr Moncur's (if it was daft) would not appear. But at the same time, journos are conditioned to expect to be lied to, and obstructed, and few have the faintest clue as to why there might be an entirely legitimate and explicable reason why Tornado aircrew's names might be witheld at the moment. Nor would they realise that PROs and CROs would not routinely know the cause of an accident, and might only know the quite reasonable line that a BOI was investigating the causes. Red rags to a bull? Only if the bull is painfully ignorant.....

What really grips my sh.it is Mr Moncur's assumption that he has a right (or even a duty) to write this story, and his cavalier willingness to pre-empt the due process of the BOI. I would draw a distinction between those who wanted an answer to real questions surrounding the loss of the Hercules in Iraq (where there was a real concern that there might have been a cover up of a potential structural issue, and where the loss of an aircraft and several crew in combat was of huge public interest) and of wanting an answer to this routine peacetime accident.

We are a broad church, and our congregation consists of some very different animals.

And yet we all bear the same tag of journo..... and we all suffer because of the mistrust and contempt which poor, inaccurate, and sensationalist reporters earn our profession.

speeddial
31st Oct 2005, 19:24
Well said Jacko...while the people here might jump on your now and then for asking naughty questions 99% of the time you're a very respected member of your profession here who respects the way the MoD cogs turn.

DaveyBoy
31st Oct 2005, 20:34
As a Fifer I have a number of good contacts on the base and immediately met one of them who confirmed that the eng was indeed in the back and that the rumour doing the rounds was that he may have been responsible for the crash.
But of course there would be a rumour going around the base speculating that the rear-seater might have pulled the handle. Any wannabe spotter who heard that there was a groundie in the back would know about Command Eject and ask themselves that, so naturally the boys and girls who make the things fly would wonder it too. That doesn't give the story any more credibility.

I'm sure that any hardcore "ufologist" would wonder whether the aircraft hit some extraterrestral vessel, and any paranoid Texan hermit living half-way up a mountain would wonder whether the goddamn Russkies shot it down with some secret new frickin' "laser". If they had any friends they might even have started a rumour about it. At the end of the day, your "contact" at Leuchars knows no more than the aforementioned freaks, so why give his/her ponderings the credibility (in the eyes of your readership, at least) of column inches? You know the answer is that you wanted a story, so you made one up out of the idle speculation of RAF tradesmen who know as many facts as you do.

I'm all for freedom of the press, and investigative journalism. Journalists should pry. They should try and expose cover-ups and reveal the truth. How else would BEagle know that our Beloved Leader is actually a Toothless Poodle who lied to Parliament and his country? Without the press we might all be merrily believing that Iraq was 45 minutes away from nuking us all when we went in. But quality investigative journalists don't run articles based on word-of-mouth from people who cannot be in a position to know the facts. Only sensationalist tabloid journalists out to entertain do that.
I trust my contact implicitly and as a result the story had become more than just a “random nutter phone-in” job that we sometimes have to deal with.
I don't doubt that your contact is very honest and reliable, but if he/she relates a rumour to you it is precisely that: a rumour. That doesn't mean it can't be true, but it doesn't mean you've "discovered" anything either. Until you either get a PRO to officially confirm or deny it (and if they can't do either it might just be that they simply don't know, and are being as honest as they can with you), or you dig around to the point where you get to interview the only person who definitely knows what happened (the pilot), you're either making stuff up, or printing stuff someone else made up.

Now relax, be happy and enjoy the fact that you get paid to make sensational stories up as long as there are people daft enough to buy your paper. Instead of coming on here and trying to justify yourself, buy yourself a beer and leave the proper journalism to the big boys.

Dave (not a made-up-name)

Safeware
31st Oct 2005, 21:55
I think that this is another 2 sided issue. The 'popular' press seek human interest stories for their readers and so, becasue there are no prizes for second place, have to chase these things when they come up. However, I think that the MOD is crap at media relations at this level - ie reacting to a 'story' - because it isn't the natural habitat of Stn personnel. Having seen the initial signal, even if it wasn't in a position to publish it on the Friday night or over the w/e, the Stn could have done much better in quashing the 'who pulled the handle?' issue much better.

Cynically maybe, but I think it is all because of mis-trust on both sides. Popular journalism takes a story and presents it however its readers would want to see it. Facts don't matter because it will be fish and chip wrappers before facts come out. People in the services don't like the sensationalist stuff they read in the popular press because it is transparent. Informed investigative jouralism takes co-operation and trust from both sides.

egthe rumour doing the rounds was that he may have been responsible for the crash probably started on the Sqn as a bit of banter. 'What happened Sarge, decide to get out early? 'Yeah, Yeah'. After a few chinese whispers, it isn't banter, and 'Yeah Yeah' has become someone's fact. I don't think anyone who works on/ in aircraft really believes that anyone would deliberately change the seat setting and then deliberately eject.

The issue of investigating what happened isn't going to be as interesting to RedTop - as he alludes to - a successful MB letdown for the nearly pensioned Pax is his human interest. Jacko, as he says, doesn't have the same pressures and is going to be more interested in the fact that the zyclone clutch failed, overheating the dylithium crystals thus causing the warp drive to explode, but can also hold off until the BOI establishes what happened. And unless it was a sensational previously unknown failure mode that was going to ground all Tornados, I don't think even he would get that excited. Why? Because **** happens, things fail, we investigate what happened to try and stop it happening again and move on.

sw

Jackonicko
31st Oct 2005, 22:28
Holy cr.ap, Safeware. You know me too well.

oldfella
1st Nov 2005, 01:09
This is the sort of thing that persuades most of us to say nothing.

From the original post by Mr Moncur:

“An unusual level of secrecy” – journalistic claptrap – MOD / RAF PR probably could have done better but unusual and secrecy – sensationalism.

“A number of independent sources at the base” – suggests that they had some official knowledge rather than just what they might have heard.

“no denial whatsoever from two official RAF spokesmen” – suggesting that there was something to deny. I know that “no comment” can be reported as refused to comment but this takes the biscuit, using no denial to give something strength.

“even a confirmation that, among other things, possible human error will be investigated” – of course it will, along with 101 other things - sensationalism

“one of the most senior aviation writers in the UK confirming the theory” – adds weight to the uninformed. This expert may also have mentioned that Command Eject has been around for about 20 years.

Well said by Jackonicko in his post but it’s difficult to be misquoted or misinterpreted if nothing is said unless authorised. I’m afraid that it’s journos like Mr Moncur who build the walls.

ORAC
1st Nov 2005, 05:04
An alternate view of Scottish Journalists (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-1851904,00.html).

Wee Weasley Welshman
1st Nov 2005, 06:15
I appreciate that 'wait for the official report' is always the wisest, fairest and best option. But sweet Jesus would it kill the RAF to change the drill so that press statements CAN be made in situations where sensational stories are in the wind about an accident?

Such as:

PRESS RELEASE: The BOI into accident X have made a preliminary finding that the ejection sequence was actioned by the front seat pilots lower ejection handle being pulled. That is all.

Then at least poor old Sgt Bilko isn't going to spend 9 months with half the world thinking he got scared and trashed the jet and the next rest-of-his-life explaining to anyone who remembers the incident that No he wasn't responsible actually.

Stonewalling for 9 months doesn't make as much sense as it did when the media was much smaller and nobody had got around to inventing an internet yet..

Cheers

WWW

Gary Lager
1st Nov 2005, 07:53
Wait until you have an 'incident' on one of your EJ flights (which would have far more scare potential for tabloid-reading morons than a military accident) and see if you feel like pushing for a 'preliminary finding' to be released to the press...

"An Easyjet pilot was suspended today after his 737 left the runway on landing. No Al-Qaeda involvment is suspected at this time. That is all"

...could happen to any of us, no? Factors involved could be complex and varied, and not necessarily any direct fault of the flight crew.

Yet see if that 'helpful' press release by the CAA/Easyjet helps set your mind at ease, while you are unable to comment to the press knocking on your door and ringing up your wife at work.

Trouble is, once you set the precedent for 'helpful' PR, you can't just release it if it's 'pilot-friendly' (quite rightly). And then everything has the potential to get unpleasant...

We must wait for the BoI. The public must be denied their incessanyt hunger for knowledge (see gossip) where necessary, to preserve the integrity of institutions working on their best interest.

If there is any blame to be apportioned or a chance to scare the public into buying newspapers, rest assured the press will have their day when the report is published. They'll dress it up and pretend like it happened yesterday instead of two years ago, like they always do (their peasant public aren't clever enough to be interested in things over a few days old, are they?).

So papers will still get their scoop/readers, just only once (with 'facts') rather than twice (with exciting B.S. on P1 and then 'facts' on P94).

I just do the crossword, me.

5206
1st Nov 2005, 09:01
I'm sure the jourmos will correct me if i'm wrong but “An unusual level of secrecy” Isn't that self generated by the press?

I seem to recall that a couple of years ago, because of the Human Rights Acts, people who were rescued by the emergency services could no longer be named in the press without their explicit permission. This sticks in my mind because there used to be open season on naming hillwalkers brought down by SAR / MRT and then it all changed to 'A 42 yr old man from Greenock' (well, not always the same guy).
Now, while it may seem that the MOD was being secretive, were the 2 guys just exercising their rights? Granted the Stn (if this was the case) could have helped itself by explaining this.

5206

RedTop
1st Nov 2005, 13:45
Dear PPRuNe posters,

In the words of a famous lager drinking Feng Shui expert "my work here is done."

I've sent private messages to everyone who bothered to read my opening post and reply to it. Thanks for taking the time.

My single intention when writing my durge was not to justify my story or even to defend tabloid journalism. It was written, believe it or not, to spark a debate and, as I'm sure most of you will agree, that has happened.

A debate needs all levels and all angles of argument to be productive and I hope what has been written by both me and the other posters will be beneficial to someone in your organisation. Over 1,000 people read the thread and I hope some of them are reasonably high up the RAF's food chain to possibly make a difference if they see fit.

Some of you were very responsive to what I had to say, others, however, were very obviously "not for turning." No big shakes...one thing you develop very quickly in this business is a very thick skin.

As expected, the most savage vitriol directed at me came from one of the handful of "in house" journalists you have. My intention was not to threaten the "supremacy" that Jacko has in the airspace over PPRuNe and I'll leave his hunting ground toot sweet. For your information, and I hope this doesn't break the PPRuNe private message "off-the-record" rule, I have apologised to him for leaving my scent all over his territory, and promised him I'd clean it up before I left.

When Jacko mentioned the "red rag to a bull" line in his first post he described me as "ignorant" and he was quite correct. I'm not an aviation specialist and I'm certainly not interested in the techno-babble that floats Jacko's boat.
Ask me how a jet fighter stays in the air and I'd start twitching....quiz me about the tactics four GR4s would employ to neutralise a brace of MiGs and spit would dribble down my chin. But if you want to know busty glamour girl Jordan's inside leg measurement....well...now we're talking.

I've jumped out of your planes a few times and know how to rig up a Lynx for a four-way abseil, but that's about it. However, from time to time, and this is the crux, I have to write about you and sometimes....shock horror....the story may have negative overtones. But, believe it or not, I like getting stories right and I actually take a random professional pride in stopping inaccurate copy hitting the paper, and I would urge you guys to help.

A healthy PRO/journo relationship works two ways. One very good example is the Army team in Scotland, who have got their sh*t very firmly in one sock. Through imaginative ideas and excellent packaging of stories they have had reams of free advertising and recruitment opportunities with us over the last couple of years. And because we have a grown-up relationship, when the drugs/fighting on the streets of Arbroath/death in Iraq stories hit their desks they get us on side very quickly and keep control of most tales from the outset.

I'm not after anyone's scalp, but I hope my post may be used to help RAF PROs in the future. Off-the-record briefings are vital in this day and age, but they have become less and less common. I don't know a single reporter who has abused this privilege because PROs who are willing to speak OTR are like gold dust. You only ever expose a PRO once with an ill-written quote in this game because he/she will never give you the chance to do it again.

Don't worry...nearly finished...

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion:

A step forward may be to invite a cross section of journos to speak to prospective PROs. And I don't just mean the local boys who are only allowed to write fluff and "home-town stories" or the specialists who want the full techno-babble chat, which probably happens already, but national tabloid and broadsheet reporters.
The press corps' church is indeed made up of very different "animals" and we all have our own agendas. The guys you invited to speak would never tell you how to do your job, but like my first post, they might explain the demands placed on them and the mechanics of putting a story together. And empowered with this information your PROs may feel slightly more comfortable and confident when dealing with us.

You'll be pleased to know that I won't darken the PPRuNe doors again now that my point has been made.

I may log on over the next few days to check personal messages...if there are any.....but I won't contribute to any forums.

Thanks for listening and the kindest of regards,

Spawn of Satan / Bile of Beelzebub / Dribble of Detritus*

*delete where applicable

Jackonicko
1st Nov 2005, 14:05
Y'see!

This is the problem with you proper journos, you just write so well.

If you detect any vitriol (and I don't think there was any, really, and if there was it was far from savage), then it's not really personal, it's that folk in your line of business have led to a blanket attitude to journos that does make it much more difficult for the specialists to do our job, since we're often greeted by much the same distrust and sometimes hostility.

It may also be a function of the fact that national tabloid and broadsheet reporters get much better and easier access than the "specialists who want the full techno-babble chat" since serving the latter is either seen as "preaching to the converted" or as encouraging those who ask the most embarrassing questions about technical and procurement f*ck ups.

It's the Mick Smiths, the Paul Adams and the Peter Almonds (and even the Gilligans) who get invited to cosy lunches with CAS.... and naturally I'm full of envy and bile, as I'm rather too fond of lunch....

I think that the welcome you got from many (notably Ginseng and Stillin) should reassure you that you're more than welcome in this airspace, though you may find (as I often do) that there is a great deal of friendly fire.

My real point to you is that you have to understand how the services work (why they might not be keen on giving out names of aircrew, why they are so sensitive about pre-judging BOIs, how far from aircrew CROs often operate and why that doesn't indicate anything sinister or in the nature of a 'cover up') if you are to do your job properly.

Mach the Knife
1st Nov 2005, 14:10
Oh do come on!!!!!!!!!!! No one really cares, lets get onto the important stuff. What is Jordans inside leg measurement?

Ewan Whosearmy
1st Nov 2005, 14:33
Rather than putting the boot into the journo, shouldn't this thread be used to acknowledge that this copy, flawed or not, could have been avoided had the RAF had a half-descent PR machine that was briefed-in on the incident and knew what it was doing?

If you don't have an effective PR machine then it is inevitable that the Press will have to draw its own conclusions; conclusions that might upset people (as is obviously the case here). So, instead of pointing the finger at journos who will write about incidents such as this no matter what, isn't it time that those who feel aggrieved by this ask their employers what they are going to to do avoid a repeat in the future?

Whether it be local CROs/PROs or the dinosaurs at Strike Command 'Corporate Communications' (now, there's a misnomer if there ever was one), the RAF needs to get with the times and start working *with* journalists.

The Americans are very familiar with this and, by-and-large, it works to their advantage. Perhaps the RAF should take a leaf out of their book?

RileyDove
1st Nov 2005, 14:47
From memory there is only one case of a navigator banging the pilot out of a servicable Tornado and that was over Germany in 1984 ish. It's a well documented case and happened when the navigator sensed a large amount off roll and trees very close by.
Not a design fault - the seats worked and they all lived happily minus one Tornado. As for the current settings I should
imagine that the command ejection is usually set to 'front' and
not 'both' to stop it happening .
As for a ground crew member getting a flight - well imagine how many televison presenters - so called celebs and other hangers on get flights so good to hear of someone worthy
getting some use of Martin-Baker's finest !

6Z3
1st Nov 2005, 15:23
Of course we all know that the findings of a Military BoI are the only gospel that should be taken as the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It would be gross negligence to think otherwise.....wouldn't it!?

FJJP
1st Nov 2005, 16:08
RedTop

Just to set a bit of a balance here - please don't tar the whole outfit with the same brush, just because you had a bad experience with one. Not too many years ago I had occasion to re-write a large chunk of the station crash and disaster plan, since I was designated disaster controller. I was involved in the aftermath of a number of crashes.

One of the sections of the plan was dealing with the media. There was to be a bus positioned at the gate, complete with a fully briefed escort. They were to be taken to the ops main briefing room, where they would be met by the PRO dispensing tea and biccys. As soon as they were settled, OC Ops would give a full off the record briefing of all the FACTS known to us - no holds barred. Questions answered to clarify. Speculation gently quashed - briefing about how the BOI worked. Then a full on the record statement, complete with interviews if requested, and by the time the briefing session was concluded a printed statement was ready for distribution.

One or two 'pool' media reps would be allowed to observe ops room activities, with the PRO prompting what was on or off the record.

The media reps taken to the officers mess, where they were given all assistance possible to communicate with whoever, and those that wanted to stay longer to await developments were wined and dined at our expense.

We had a first rate, well-trained PRO who maintained a network of media contacts. Our relations with the media was always amicable. I even got to know a few of the 'locals', who regularly rang to find out if there was anything interesting happening. We got a huge amount of positive press because of the way we made it as easy as possible for them to do their job.

And in my long experience in Royal Air Force Service, I rarely witnessed individuals being obstructive or unhelpful. The problems usually arose when a media rep was determined to get one of the execs to make a statement that would fit the sensationalist story he wanted to write - actually, the worst was a female, and it wasn't until the Staish threatened to kick her off base that she settled down to listen to what actually happened, unsensational though it was.

Make no mistake, we are well aware that the media has a job to do. Working together to divulge and report the FACTS is in both our interests.

pr00ne
1st Nov 2005, 16:22
There is a HUGE difference in the modus operandi, and indeed target audiences, of those who write for sycophantic spotter magazines and the tabloid press!

Jackonicko
1st Nov 2005, 16:32
Unfortunately too many of your New Labour pals see nothing inbetween the Tabloid Press and 'Sycophantic spotter mags' either, Prooooon.

matkat
1st Nov 2005, 17:11
I think You will find that the crash into the North sea(circa 88 or 89)was a phantom the pilot had indeed become incapacited and was subsequently proven to have died in the cockpit due to a stroke the nav did indeed eject but only after the aircraft started to climb and approach stall the whole event being witnessed by a following F4 from the same squadron(111 ?)the pilots body was subsequently recovered and buried with full military honours at ST Michaels cemetary.I know this for sure and all the associated detail as I was part of the recovery crew that carried the coffin from the Wessex to the ambulance.Please remember that the RAF F4s had no command ejection though American and German versions(Maybe other I just don"t know)versions did and I think only command from rear to front again I am not 100% about this.

Safeware
1st Nov 2005, 17:22
I also think you'll find that if a Nav thought that the pilot was incapacitated, he'd set the selector to BOTH before ejecting.

sw

matkat
1st Nov 2005, 17:48
No prob Mike,safeware no command ejection in the RAF F4 perhaps in the F4J though the incident in the North sea was an "M"

tonkatechie
1st Nov 2005, 17:51
Good job hunting down 'the truth' but unfortunately our man has been asking the wrong people. For future reference Mr RedTop, the only person you need to ask is the station hairdresser, or if you can't manage that, go evesdropping in The Hive.
Anyway, to save you the hastle, here's what happened:
There had been loads of problems with this particular jet which had failed to stay fixed, but seeing as it was coming up to the end of it's life the Sgt suggested crashing it. This saved the lads on the sqn from recovering any serviceable bits of kit off the jet. The pilot had just had a crappy annual report, and needed to raise his profile, so he volunteered. However, as the Sgt had come up with the wacky plan, he had to sit in the back to make sure the plan went ahead. The decision to ditch at sea was twofold - firstly, it saved anyone from doing crash guard, and secondly the Sgt wanted to get rescued by Sea King (thereby getting two PAX trips in one day).
So there you have it, now that's enough nonsense for everybody, can we get back to normal now please?

diginagain
1st Nov 2005, 17:53
Wasn't you, was it, tonkatechie? You've been missed, these last few days.:ok:

pr00ne
1st Nov 2005, 17:59
JN,

Don't thnk that you will find many politicians of ANY political persuasion reading the likes of AFM, AI, AN etc, but LOTS reading the tabloids, as well as the broadsheets.......................

DEL Mode
1st Nov 2005, 18:03
And there was me thinking it was a Lean RIE or VSA to fix the jets while they are in the air. Thus increase aircraft availability.

Don't need a nav, cause the Lean event was also preparing the pilot for conversion to Typoooooon..

Jackonicko
1st Nov 2005, 18:13
Call me unreasonable, but in my view, any politician who claims enough of an interest in defence to speak about it, to serve on a committee, or to have defence in their job title should certainly be reading JDW, Flight, and Aviation Week, and should also put aside any prejudice and read big chunks of AFM and Air International.

My point, though, was that between the 'sycophantic spotter mags' (and after its UAS/AEF feature this month Air Int qualifies!) and the tabloids there are the broadsheets and the industry rags, all of which are served by very different types of journo, with very different needs, expectations, agendas and expertise.

Safeware
1st Nov 2005, 18:46
matkat, MJ

Sorry, knowing better I didn't make myself clear, should have added, 'On a Tornado ...',

Interestingly, well maybe if you are a spotter it is, the Typhoon works in the opposite sense - Solo/Both vs Both/rear.

sw

fieldsnail
2nd Nov 2005, 06:26
28 October 1983:

Harrier on Holbeach Range
Tornado in N Sea - Navigator cmd ejected both crewmembers at LL after nothing heard from plt and ac descending (below 250 ft and going down) and rolling slightly. Navigator survived and although plt seen to leave ac body was never found.

The Harrier incident at almost the same time caused some initial SAR confusion as overdue action was taken on the Tornado.

fieldsnail

Andis
3rd Nov 2005, 12:20
There was also the case of the F3 that crashed into the sea whilst 'bugging-out' of a merge (c1988). It hit the sea and the Nav survived but with no recollection of having pulled the handle.

Remember that irrespective of what the command eject is set to (BOTH or REAR), the back-seater ALWAYS leaves first, irrespective of who pulls the handle.

Tarnished
3rd Nov 2005, 13:27
Mike Jenvey

A-10 avoidance was 8 Nov 84.

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/PROJECT/YEAR_Pages/1984.htm

Doesn't state it on the site but I know the driver.

Regards

Tarnished

snafu
3rd Nov 2005, 14:57
Just as an aside to the main thread, one of the reasons that aircrew should be wary of having their names given out and published in the media, is that it becomes 'open source' intelligence that would be available to any opposition that we might find ourselves operating against in the future. The publication of names, unit details, aircraft type, home base or family details could lead to some of this information being used against them by interrogators and increase the stress levels at a time when they will already be pretty high!

Personally, I would not want any information that could identify me, or particularly my family, divulged to the media (no offence to Jacko or his brethren), even in peacetime, because I don't want to put them at risk if anything ever happened to me on ops. For a start, we've all seen that AQ have people working in this country and I don't want the added pressure if the guano hit the expelair in the future.