Virgin flight turns back to JFK - security

[BRISTOLRE]

JUST FROM BBC NEWS

Virgin Atlantic: "Safety is top priority"
A London-bound plane with more than 230 people on board was turned back to New York after a security threat.
The alert on the Virgin Atlantic jet is thought to have been prompted after a flight attendant found a threatening note on an aircraft seat.

The threat to the Airbus A340, which landed back at Kennedy Airport one hour and 20 minutes after it took off at 0500 GM, is now being seen as a hoax.

The pilot had decided to return to JFK as a precaution, Virgin said.

Caution

Once the plane had landed, it was searched by New York port authority officials using sniffer dogs.

The FBI is investigating the incident and all passengers were screened again on their return to New York, US transport security spokesman Darrin Kayser said.

Virgin said the aircraft's passengers had understood the decision to "err on the side of caution".

"At no point was safety compromised. The safety and welfare of our crew and passengers is Virgin Atlantic's top priority," a spokesman said.

The airline regretted any inconvenience caused by the incident, he added.

The plane is expected to fly out of New York on Friday evening, landing at Heathrow at 0600 GMT on Saturday.

[srs what?]

:hmm: Yet again another piece of acurate reporting. :rolleyes:

[SQUAWKIDENT]

So what is wrong with the piece above?

Why is it so many commercial pilots "have it in" for journalists here?

Some of us are also pilots and make ever attempt to report aviation related news as accurately as possible - despite time contraints and pressure from editors to "sex" stories up.

I am a radio journalist AND a private pilot and I read these forums NOT to search for juicy titbits for my bulletins but to help me gain more of an understanding of commercial aviation from the professional pilots viewpoint. Whenever an aviation news-story breaks I will ALWAYS check here first to try and get an more accurate overview of the story in question BEFORE I read the wires for more details.

So please don't presume that all journalists are out to get you and make every aviation new story an inaccurate sensationalist event! Some of us enjoy flying aircraft as well albeit as a hobby rather than a career.

By the way - ACCURATE is spelt with TWO C'S...(or was that an intended pun;-)

Safe flying

Adam

[Jerricho]

Sorry Adam, but sometimes it is very easy to tar ALL journos with the same brush. Especially regarding pieces about the aviation industry. And it isn't just pilots. I remember reading an article in the Daily Mail once about something that happend at LHR, and the report was totally wrong. The reason I know, I saw it happen. Unfortunately, myself and most others in our professions can't and won't approach the media to set them straight.

When you read a large percentage of what has been published in news papers or on media web sites about an incident, a diversion for whatever reason or even Dubya's visit, glaring errors or inaccuracies are pretty much the norm. Or, the blatent attempt at sensationalism to sell the story (eg theAir Canada A340 thread at the moment). Some wave the "the public has the right to know" banner a little too easily, especially when what actually transpired isn't reported.

As you mention, you are a journalist and you try to get an accurate overview. I respect that. I think quite a few of your fellow journos could take a lesson or two.

[chiglet]

Adam,
I was "asked" to write an article for the Monthly Airport "Newspaper" :ok:
Five Thousand words, three weeks, four re-writes [for my {ATC} Boss], it was "published". 900 words, and "Evereything" was out of context:{
no comment
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Neo]

Squawkident -

If you as a journalist are keen to report accurately and fairly then you appear to most pilots to be one of very few who do.

The perception is that far too many journalists resort to sensationalism and are far too sloppy ever to report the news in the way that you do. Journalists as a whole have a bad reputation and that won't change until the good ones get the house of journalism in order. A task to equal the cleaning of the Augean Stables I fear!

If you wish to find just one example of the kind of abysmal journalism that seems all too prevalent, you need look no further than this:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=108891

As for using this site to trawl for information, please bear in mind that it has long since ceased to be the sole preserve of professional pilots. Please do not judge the professional pilot community by what you read here!

[srs what?]

My post was not to get at journos but merely to point out that I know for a fact that article isn't entirely correct.

[Tripower455]

Why is it so many commercial pilots "have it in" for journalists here?

Because, in many/most cases, the journalist makes gross errors that lead the uninformed to the wrong conclusion. I wince at almost every news report that is centered on aviation issues.

I view everything said in the media with a jaundiced eye, figuring that if they are so inaccurate in reporting about things that I know about, then they must be equally inaccurate on the things that I am not knowledgeable about.

If you accurately report on aviation issues, you are truly a (welcome!) minority!

[LatviaCalling]

As you probably know or will know very soon if you look at my bio, I was a reporter for United Press International, at that time a very respectable organization, for 17 years.

During this time I personally reported from the scene of one major air crash and covered several others via phone to the FAA and even before that to the CAB.

Before someone goes out to damn all the journalists for their coverage, let's look at the airlines. 1) You get the basic facts from the FAA or the airport control. 2) You get follow up facts from the emergency services. 3) And this is important. You get facts, or the facts that they want to tell you, from the airline PR people (we call them "flacks") in the journalism business.

The aircraft control and the emergency services are not likely to lead you astray, because they only give you the facts -- "yes we have X amount of casualties."

However, the airline "flacks" from the moment of go, try to spin you a story which is beneficial to their way of thinking, no matter if both pilots were pissed out of their minds, they missed their approach and crashed into the mountain beyond the runway.

I've said this on this site a number of times that it is not only the reporter's fault, but the airline, itself, has to take a large blame for any false reporting.

I admit that there are sensationalists in this business of reporting. They are what I call yellow journalism that would rather print something sensational without any merit, then get sued, then settle the suit, but look at all the papers they've sold. So they still come out ahead.

Back in my day, before going on the "wire," we double checked it and even three times checked it to make sure it was accurate.

Emil Sveilis

[100% N1]

When it comes down to it, it's not just aviation related stories which have the truth bent to make them more exciting. Any controversial issue which your average person doesn't know much about can be changed to any number of things. While I'm sure there are a lot of journos who try to write informative articles, there are also many that are only interested in selling papers and making money instead of letting people know the truth.

Which headline would sell more newspapers (both fictional of course)?

"Plane makes emergency landing after pilot was found to be drunk"

"Plane returns to airport due to minor problem, pilot was found to have BAC of 0.01"

I don't bother with any of the major newspapers anymore, they sensationalize everything too much. It's the small news stations that still have credibility with me.

[Timothy]

It has long amused me that all forced landings turn out to be "crashes within a mile of a school/hospital".

I have the information and the technology, but unfortunately not yet the time, to find out how much of England is not within a mile of a school or hospital, but when I have the time I will create a mapping and publish it. I bet it ain't a lot of the country!

W

[Right Way Up]

Any chance of this thread returning to its subject. Maybe instead of a "chat room" we can have a "fight room" where the "pilot vs journos" can slug it out beside the "airbus vs boeings". That way reasonable threads would not keep on being hijacked!