Roy Hudd adds some more abuse to the site, which I shall ignore. But he has a reasonable (if not entirely accurate) point when he says,
You wrote about a flight EI169 "requesting permission to go-around", and then deny you ever referred to "permission to go-around".
I did not metion permission. What i actually wrote, was, "According to the IAA, an Aer Lingus pilot on flight EI 169 himself requested a 'go-around', because of the effect of wind on his approach..."
The IAA made it clear to me, and I understood it when writing the article, that some goarounds are directed by ATC and some are at the option of the pilot. I said nothing about ATC permission in my actual short article but accept that the phrase which I used could be read as implying that. I did not intend to be disingenuous, and think that it is something of a red herring as this issue is entirely incidental to the point of the little piece that I wrote. Also, stating that the pilot requested a goaround could not possibly scare any reasonable reader.
As regards Theamrad reproaching me for
coming onto the 'professional pilots rumour network' and, by the third post ... quoting forum rules to everyone else here
I can only point out that I did not originially come on this site but was put on it when my article was published here in breach of my copyright and contrary to the forum rules. The continuing abuse is also contrary to rules. I normally ignore anonymous or pseudonymous communications of any kind but decidecd to request permission of the administrator to respond and was eventually given it. I did so because the site does appear to be used by some serious professionals who rise above abuse but feel the need not to disclose their identity, and also becuase it is an interesting exercise to see the dynamics of such a site of this from the inside as a participant.
You appear to query my statement that the Sunday Independent is Ireland's most widely read paper across all social classes, but you can see independent research at
www.nni.ie. As regards media standards generally, I have concerns of my own but they are not as sweeping or simplisitc as some of those that have been voiced here.
I have explained to Moggiee that it is not the practice of broadsheet newspapers to give interviewees a promise that everything said by that interviewee will be included in the final article, or to allow a veto over the article by providing it in advance of publication. Such options would be unworkable. I appreciate his offer and he is of course entirely free not to proceed if he wishes. Editing is a normal everyday part of publishing, and I did show him the quotations that I would attribute to him.