Im no fan of some of the journalistic nonsense that gets into the press these days so am not defending sensationalist journalism.
I think some of you lot really need to get a grip in appreciating that not everyone is aviation minded, know how an aircraft operates, know crews are trained routinely for such event.To most people if an engine lets go in flight with a bang or should that be "huge explosive bang" and they see flames they assume they are going to crash and die....everyone saw what happened to Concorde ( different circumstances yes) and that ended tragically..
If the language appeared sensationalist do you not consider that your average person might have been scared and used emotive language?
The rugby player might have used "sheet of flame"to describe what they saw....or do witnesses have to be AAIB and cockpit qualified to describe what they saw.
If you'd witnessed the Paris Concorde crash I bet a pound to a penny "huge sheet of flame" would be a faily good description of events....
If I, as a 400hour PPL with a multi engine and aerobatic rating, saw an engine let go on takeoff whilst flying off on my hols, I being a total aviation expert, poster on PPrune (an aviation qualification in itself) and all round smart arse, of course couldnt care less, wouldn't be scared and would exercise, with square jawed steely eyed alacrity, restraint in my language if a journalist wanted my opinion...
