Poor Aviation Journalism

[Guptar]

Just bought a copy of Australian Aviation, the December 2013 issue. I haven't been a read for almost a year due to falling standards. I must add, that I had faithfully purchesed every copy since it was the Pacific Defence Reporter so that's something like 30 years as a loyal reader.

So I pay my $10 thinking it cant be that bad still. However, I have nearly choked on my coffee at Doug Mcdonalds column. "Shorter is Better".

Two little jems stand out.

"Flying higher to go further bred the 747SP in 1975. Capable of 8,300nm Qantas and Pan Am operated them from the US west coast to Sydney cruising at 45,000 feet...although making 50,000 feet on occasion"

I have heared of some SP's getting that high, but only on a crew only ferry.......but with pax???? I do stand to be corrected.

"Qantas flew a 747SP non stop from London to Sydney in 1989"

Now I know my eyes may not be that good but even I can recognize a 747-400 as apart from an SP. I watched that flight land.

Is this the standard of journalism to be expected of our national flagship aviation publication. Basic facts not even correct.

[waren9]

i stopped reading years ago. seemed to be aimed more at spotters

[Wunwing]

I never heard of any SP at 50,000 feet even on ferry flights for any operator.In fact I never heard of them going above 43,000 feet.

Never heard of an SP service to London although they did fly to Frankfurt for a while.

We did fly them to Taiwan under another name.

We did fly them to West coast of USA and to Wellington.

In the end we used them anywhere that the classic operated mainly through Asia.We used them so much that we joked that despite having a fleet of 13 classics the rest must be in a shed somewhere as we only seem to operate the 2 SPs

But what would I know, I was only an FE on them?

Wunwing








Wunwing

[Captain Dart]

I stopped buying it after its shrill and unbalanced reporting of 'that year'.

The editor of the time even had a go at the pilots in his teary retirement editorial when he handed over the reins a few years ago.

That makes it nearly a quarter of a century since I have paid for 'F-18s and QANTAS Monthly'! Dare we hope for a balanced article for the 25th anniversary in 2014?

[Trojan1981]

That makes it nearly a quarter of a century since I have paid for 'F-18s and QANTAS Monthly'! Dare we hope for a balanced article for the 25th anniversary in 2014?
:D

That's exactly what it is. Stacked full of barely disguised press releases and marketing. Written by spotters, for spotters (not that there's anything wrong with that :cool: ).

I read Flight International for industry news etc. Is there an alternate publication for Australia, or is there not enough happening here?

[bankrunner]

There's plenty happening here worth writing about, but only a few journos (such as Phelan and Sandilands) have the nads to write about it.

[Tankengine]

Ceiling for all 747 models with Qantas was 45100':hmm:
Gave up my subscription over ten years ago.;)

[poteroo]

Yup - Australian Aviation is really about promoting the big end of town. Little of interest to GA anymore, especially since they dropped out the recent registrations listing. Even their 'politics' is big end J-curve oriented.

Australian Flying is better for GA, even recognises RAAus, HGA,APF,and others these days. They do need to get another lead author and get into analyses of Oz accidents - rather than in RSA. Pilots want to read stuff pertaining to their own patch.

happy days,

[Keg]

Owen Zupp is one of the few worth reading.

I did the survey a little while ago and made some similar points to the above. In general though I don't mind it though my mother in law generally pays for my subscription each year and I'm not sure I'd buy it myself if she didn't.

As for Geoffrey Thomas. :rolleyes: :ugh:

[Capt Fathom]

Strangely enough, Owen Zupp is shown as the Technical Editor of the magazine. Does he, or the other editors check the contributions for technical accuracy!

That article Guptar mentions is cringe-worthy.

I liked the embellished description of the Townsville to Brisbane domestic operation in the SP.... with the STOL landing in Brisbane to keep the pilots current for Wellington!

[LeadSled]

with the STOL landing in Brisbane to keep the pilots current for Wellington!

This is the kind of bollox that only a supremely aviation ignorant "the full anorak" journalist could produce -- and I did enough landings into Wellington in the SP to know.

Tootle pip!!

[Pinky the pilot]

I did the survey a little while ago and made some similar points to the above.

So did I Keg. Unfortunately I'm not expecting much in the line of any changes.:(

since they dropped out the recent registrations listing

Found that irritating as well.

[Trojan1981]

Owen Zupp seems ok. I like his flight test articles, and I have enjoyed bits and pieces of his writing elsewhere. Doesn't he have a job that would preclude him spending too much time contributing to the magazine?

[emergency000]

Owen Zupp is a QF FO, or at least he was when I worked for QF.

[Duff Man]

But you must be wrong!

Australian Aviation‘s managing editor & publisher Gerard Frawley was announced as Aviation Journalist of the Year for 2013 at the National Aviation Press Club’s award ceremony

source: AA?s Frawley aviation journalist of the year | Australian Aviation Magazine (http://australianaviation.com.au/2013/12/aas-frawley-aviation-journalist-of-the-year/) (i.e. themselves)

No idea who comprises the "National Aviation Press Club" ... google showed up nothing except Australian Aviation and Airservices Australia.

Maybe it's a conspiracy against Ben Sandilands?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Australian Flying is better for GANow that IS funny! :ooh:

Dr :8

[T28D]

Yup, Journalistic PAP and Thomas is a disgrace, note that his awards come from fellow journalists not aviators.


Therein lies the disgrace, he doesn't need facts, just reasonable English and lots of column inches.


I also stopped buying the F18/Qantas magazine 10 years ago.

[Wally Mk2]

I think it's pretty well accepted that aviation & the written word by a journo don't go 2gether, like the word 'should', that to is not to be used with flying especially when airborne:-)

There's not really a good aviation rag around these days besides the net has killed off anything worth reading.

Stay safe out there in the skies guys/gals over this silly season & may ATC give us all 'direct to':ok:............yeah like to see that!:E

Wm2

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

The Lazy Journalists Plane Story Generator (http://www.radans.net/jens/planestory.html)

[Wally Mk2]

Good one there 'foxy' love it!:ok:
Too much choice there though for these guys:E


Wmk2

[4Greens]

50,000 ft was and is not allowed as in the event of cabin pressure failure the pax need pressure breathing.

PS PPRUNE is as better at keeping up to date than most aviation magazines.

[nitpicker330]

Brilliant!! :ok:

[Jenna Talia]

The Register Listing still appears in the iPad version. Don't know about the mag though.

[Gerard Frawley]

Hi all,

If we make a mistake in the magazine I take full responsibility for it.

I’m not sure about QF 747SPs at 50,000ft, it doesn’t sound right, but it was certainly a 744 and not a SP that flew that London-Sydney nonstop in 1989.

Frankly I am a little embarrassed about that and I apologise to our readers.

Owen Zupp is technical editor in the sense he is the senior technical writer, and not that he edits every technical article. So I want to make clear he didn’t see that article before it went to press.

I am sorry Guptur if you thought your $9.85 wasn’t value for money, and that you think our standards are dropping. I like to think we have good quality control processes in place, but stuff gets through sometimes, and that is always an opportunity to see why a mistake happened and how to stop it in the future.

A more general point - I am always on the look out for people who can write and who have a good knowledge of/experience in/passion for aviation. If you think the quality of aviation journalism, either in our magazine or more generally, is lacking, I'd welcome genuine inquiries from you to join our stable of writers and become part of the solution - like my editor Julian Green, who has management experience running airports, like Owen Zupp who as well as being an accomplished author is a 737 driver with SMS design experience, like Dave Prossor who is a grade 1 instructor, or Gordon Reid who worked in airline ops at TN, or Ian Thompson who ran the ATC towers for Airways New Zealand. Or Doug Macdonald, a veteran of DCA and SAR.

I'll leave it to others to judge if my 20+ years at Australian Aviation counts as relevant industry experience or not.

Finally, if you haven’t seen the magazine lately, please email me and I will happily set you up with a three-month free trial subscription. I’d love to know what you think about it. It has changed a lot since 1989.

Compliments of the season to all.

Gerard Frawley
Managing Editor & Publisher
Australian Aviation

[BEACH KING]

The lazy Journalists Plane Story Generator
Pretty good program that....except for one basic bug error.
They have made a mistake in the "Type of Aircraft " field. There shouldn't be any choice selections, as it's always reported as being a "Cessna"

[Pinky the pilot]

Good on you Gerard for coming onto the thread. I sincerely hope any feedback you get is constructive.:ok:

I for one wouldn't mind seeing the register listing return to the previous format.

BEACH KING; Unfortunately, how true!

[VH-XXX]

Now that we have moved on, speaking of poor aviation journalism, I was having a laugh at this piece of drivel from the website of the National Vehicle Service Register. Obviously some car mechanic now thinks that they are a LAME too.

Ignore the fact that this is about Jabiru engines, it could be any engine, it's the journalism that I'm criticising.


http://nvsr.com.au/articles/article10.html

They seem to think that they know more than Jabiru, the Jabiru engine plant and years of design and testing.

No references, incorrect facts and just general un-informed drivel really.

One of the symptoms, and it is common to all Jabiru engines, is that when you shut-down there is a distinctive clunk-clunk before it stops completely. This clunk-clunk is caused by the engine trying to run itself in reverse as a result of the offset pistons.

Oh really, so they all do that do they?


For some reason, as yet unexplained logically, Jabiru have chosen to put their pistons in reverse. They were made for General Motors motor vehicles, all of which run clockwise, which is correct based on the offset, but Jabiru engines rotate anticlockwise meaning they are all installed wrong.

Maybe that's why they are in 'backwards' !!

General Motors eh, really? Where is the evidence of this? They are not made for General Motors, they are a modified piston from the same company that makes GM pistons.

What a load of cods-wallop. Every engineer I've spoken to about this issue has given me multiple reasons why these pistons should be turned around.

How about a reference, a quote, the name of a mechanic? The author may as well just say... "THEY say that they are in backwards." Who are they?

Jabiru are popular with flying schools because they offer easy shared access to controls via a v-shaped stick between the left and right seat.

Really? I would have thought that an aircraft with dual controls like a Cessna would be more popular. Drivel.


What should happen now

CASA should ground every Jabiru airplane! It's that simple. The ATSB needs to review any previous accident reports involving Jabiru, particularly when engine failure was considered a possible cause.

Based on what? Do "reversed" pistons cause engine failures and have they?

I've seen first hand the damage done to big-end shells as a result of excessive belting when the piston is trying to go in the opposite direction to engine rotation.

That's interesting. How about all of those out of whack props causing fretting of the crank-case? Where is the evidence that "belting" of the pistons are causing damage to big-end shells?

Drivel!

Due to this crap above and persons who believe that they know better reporting this to CASA and the ATSB, Jabiru had to spend a lot of money and time to produce the following retort:

http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/AVDALSR088-1_Piston_Offset.pdf

[BreakNeckSpeed]

What are you all saying?! That the article in the local rag about the 4 seat single engine Cessna 747 turbo shuttle with 4000 passengers traveling non stop from Sydney to Dubai wasn't true!?!

To be fair to Mr Frawley and his team, the main issue I have had with similar magazines (including his own) is not the errors in fact, but rather that typically the "facts" are quite outdated by the time a new edition is published- but what else does one expect from reading a monthly magazine?

If you want up to date, to the minute articles, accept that they will be written by whatever spanker is sent by the local newspaper to cover the story - and as such, will probably be full of gaps! Not much we can do really!

[Trojan1981]

Good on you Gerard for coming on here. I know you will receive constructive feedback :ok:

Good point about the age of the news once it is published BreakNeckSpeed, it's not just Australian Aviation that has this problem, and this is where Flight International has an advantage.

[Keg]

In some respects Aus Aviation has addressed this point. Their weekly emails have the headlines whilst the monthly mag has the more in depth analysis behind those headlines. Admittedly, sometimes the analysis isn't crash hot- particularly the regurgitated press releases by GT- but some of it has been quite informative.

[girl with a stick]

Dream Job:

Position Vacant
Editor, online aviation magazine
Staff writers: the articulate contributors of PPRuNe

...I can't believe I'm biting but as the editor of another Australian aviation mag, I echo Gerard's comment:

I am always on the look out for people who can write and who have a good knowledge of/experience in/passion for aviation.

As print media struggles to provide interesting and relevant articles to a declining audience, you can't imagine how frustrating it is to observe such an untapped crowd as the dedicated daily posters of PPRuNe.

I can't speak for the other editors, but if you feel the standard of aviation magazines is spiral diving towards the paddocks, email us for our submission guidelines.

We even pay for high quality work...

[Jenna Talia]

Since when is a woman allowed an opinion? :E

[Oracle1]

I am an AME, Level 2, I have a PPL and an RA Aus Cross Country rating and I also have a Bachelor Of Bus In Com (Journalism) and I haven't had a reply to an email when I've been looking for freelance work? Try and get that combination of qualifications together. The media has no idea what is happening at the coalface of aviation.

[Kharon]

One of the reasons GOS and the other half assed 'Australian' publications are diminishing is fear and a complete lack of reporting skills. Apart from the independents, Phelan and Sandilands, no editor would dare to tackle the real stories. The ABC have been offered real stories, complete with proof both empirical and substantive; main stream rags have been offered, at no cost complete dossiers on issues that would curdle the public porridge; always the same puling, gutless response – lawyers.

Pprune rules; media need not apply. The tales are told here, for all to see: a little initiative, basic comprehension of the English language, a little wit, some clever writing, a modicum of plain old fashioned 'journalistic integrity', and research would soon see Phelan with some competition for the awards he wins. Birds – What birds?, now that's fearless reporting.

Well, they're annoying pipsqueaks, ain't they.

Perspective – Anyone?.

Start here: ProAviation. (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1912)

Comment: This may well be the reason for the saga described here. No unbiased, fair and competent investigator would have ignored valuable evidence and muddied the waters so much – implying Operator fault in a manner that prevented defamation litigation. Nor would they have gone to such lengths to ensure the Operator was deprived of any capacity they might have had to mount an adequate defence against the allegations.

On the subject of “glaring negligence,” I know of one case where an Operator (around 1994-95) purchased a “newly-overhauled” Chieftain engine, only to find – after the engine failed on only its second flight in his aircraft – that several mandatory replacement parts had never been replaced at the so-called “overhaul.” He had his own engineers strip it down and write a full report, but was unable to get any useful response or follow-up from CASA.

To add insult to injury, he received an NCN around the same time because a co-pilot on a freight route familiarisation did not have a Dangerous Goods Certificate – even though the PIC had one, and the “observer-pilot” was booked in for a DG course prior to starting the route as PIC.

[Sarcs]

Ben pretty much sums it up in one line from his article..Is air traffic control a saleable government service? (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/13/is-air-traffic-control-a-saleable-government-service/)
The reports are usually ignored by the general media because they requiring reporting, rather than the receipt and redirection of public relations statements.
{Note: Mistakes not edited because Ben's blog operates in a 24/7 news cycle}

Kind of reminds me of that classic line..."the truth you can't handle the truth"...[YOUTUBE]A Few Good Man "You Can't Handle the Truth" - YouTube

The irony is if aviation journos, or even the MSM, continue to ignore the real issues that matter then the IOS readership will continue to dwindle..and dwindle..:( until there is no GA here in Oz and the only audience will be the big end of town Skygods...:{

TICK..TOCK on the playschool clock!:ugh:

[Engineer_aus]

If we make a mistake in the magazine I take full responsibility for it. Every edition there is multiple mistakes, to the point that I have a quick flick through at the news agent and put it back down again.




I am sorry Guptur if you thought your $9.85 wasn’t value for money, and that you think our standards are dropping. I like to think we have good quality control processes in place, but stuff gets through sometimes, and that is always an opportunity to see why a mistake happened and how to stop it in the future. Standards in articles has dropped since the "new version" has come out, and some very poor photography as well.

A more general point - I am always on the look out for people who can write and who have a good knowledge of/experience in/passion for aviation. If you think the quality of aviation journalism, either in our magazine or more generally, is lacking, I'd welcome genuine inquiries from you to join our stable of writers and become part of the solution I have emailed you a few times with no reply. So I have given up trying to help.

I'll leave it to others to judge if my 20+ years at Australian Aviation counts as relevant industry experience or not. You have good experience but the quality of the magazine is dropping rapidly.


All I can say mate is listen to the people. I would love to see the results of the survey that you got us to do.

[DancingDog]

I actually prefer the new layout, it flows better and is easier to navigate so to speak.

It is indeed a spotters magazine, keep that in mind. We have Australian Flying for actual pilots.

One thing you could do Gerard is get rid of Geoffrey Thomas, his sucking up to the Qantas board makes his pieces rediculously biased.

Also could the topics that never seem to venture beyond the very back pages, such as rotary wing ops and warbirds, get a main feature article every now and then please.