Originally Posted by
TwoOneFour
It was written by a journalist with relatively little knowledge of aviation matters. Not a professional aviation journalist. I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago......
.....and 10 minutes on the phone to research a few facts would have allowed him to write an article with all the sensationalist twaddle removed. Whilst the noises and aeroplane manoeuvres may seem dramatic to the non-aviator, any pilot (or even experienced traveller) could have explained to Mr Kenny what it was all about.
Mr Kenny could then have written an informative piece along the lines of "Ever wondered what happens when an airliner goes around?". He could have explained what happens, why it appears dramatic and why the go-around might be flown in the first place. He could have explained what the noises of the gear and flaps are, why the nose rises so much, why the aeroplane banks at relatively low levels. But that would not have been dramatic enough for him or his his editor, so we get this simplistic, shallow hype instead.
This is a rather poor example of work - utterly typical of the majority of journalists when they get near an aviation story. It doesn't even report facts so mucvh as the journalists's emotions - two very different things.
PPRUNERS - think on this. We know that 95% or more of all aviation-related stuff that appears in the popular press is poorly researched, innacurate, fabrication, hype or just plain nonsense. We know that because it's our field of expertise. Now think of how much you read in the press that is not in your field of expertise.....................