BA plane in near-miss

[Bright-Ling]

From the BBC News website:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

BA plane in near-miss

British Airways has confirmed that one of its Boeing 777 planes was involved in a near-miss in the skies over Hertfordshire on Monday.

BA Flight 202 from Detroit to Heathrow was flying over the county when the near-miss happened.

It is reported that an American plane was ordered to descend by flight controllers.

This brought it close enough to trigger the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoiding System on the flight deck of the BA jet.

The BA plane then climbed to avoid an accident.

British Airways says an air safety report has been filed and the incident will be investigated by the authorities.

A spokesman for BA said the planes were at least a mile-and-a-half apart.


-------------------------------------------------------------

B-L

[eal401]

I shall be looking forward to the Tabloid headlines:

BA Plane in Dive Terror Nightmare

etc, etc.

[phnuff]

I would prefer the headline

BA Crew show great skill in not littering Hertfordshire with bits of twisted aluminium

[bigmac]

Again the press seems to have its terminology mixed up. Surely a "near-miss" means a collision. It should properly say "near collision". It would be too much to expect them to use the correct term "airprox".

[Niaga Dessip]

Bigmac... I know what you mean, and I have no axe to grind for the press, but, "near miss" is a term used in this way in other contexts - not just aviation. To quote Collins English Dictionary:

"near miss: in incident in which two vehicles narrowly avoid collision."

It's a funny old language,

Regards, ND;)

[Jerricho]

Hey all,

I can tell you, once again, the press ain got an effin clue!

[Buster Hyman]

BA in near miss drama with Air Force 1!

"Did I just see Air Force 1" said the mysterious BA captain, moments before his aircraft swerved to the right to avoid a collision.

Luckily for all aboard the BA Airbus 777-800 Tristar, it was only Gulfstream 5, a much smaller jet & probably the reason why everyone survived this "Terror in the Sky"!! TM

[Jerricho]

And fore mentioned a/c encountered the wake vortex of the 777-800 and was neary flipped over!

[Algy]

So just to understand your point of view, BBC reports in straightforward, unexcitable terms something of moderate public interest that actually happened. This is not good enough for you apparently. In fact you are now reduced to having to take the p---out of hypothetical headlines that nobody has actually written. Very impressive.

How about you stick to flying aeroplanes and we stick to reporting stories, since we all seem to be about as good as each other at what we do.

[ThinkRate]

So just to understand your point of view, BBC reports in straightforward, unexcitable terms something of moderate public interest that actually happened. This is not good enough for you apparently. In fact you are now reduced to having to take the p---out of hypothetical headlines that nobody has actually written.

Hear! Hear!

And to think that just for once, this was the one instance that a topic was not sensationalistically exploited! Oh well! I guess some people are never satisfied.

:rolleyes:

[Rhodie]

Ah, using my incredible powers of deduction, well, and the comment

"How about you stick to flying aeroplanes and we stick to reporting stories, since we all seem to be about as good as each other at what we do."

I must assume, dear Watson, that Master Algy is a journalist...
(he says, as he reads the warning at the bottom of the page - something about
"In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.,")

Well, IT WORKED...!!

Algy, kind Sir - I AM a pilot - that's why I'm on this site and not making comments on Reuters or CNN or The Times of wherever...

and I think I'll STICK to MY site...

Hey, we got a reaction - too cool..... :E

[Jerricho]

How about you stick to flying aeroplanes and we stick to reporting stories, since we all seem to be about as good as each other at what we do.

Algy, I wasn't going to bite but the couple of beers I had last night (and I'm not working till Friday) is gonna change that.

Right from the start, I ain't a pilot, I'm a controller. And unfortunately as part of out terms of employment we don't have the luxury of being able to contact the media regarding ANYTHING that has been reported. And from personal experience, what is recounted by the media is just pure sensationalism, with a loose interpretation of the fact to make the story juicy (sexing up?) I was not long valid when I saw a story in the paper regarding a go-around, a perfectly safe and standard procedure used at every airport in the world if it is deemed the landing aircraft will not be able to complete an approach and land safely. However, the newspaper report was sensationalism to the extreme (How do I know? I was controlling when it happened). And even recently, the BBC's initial report on the DHL aircraft that was hit by a missile was incorrect. According to them, one of the engines had been hit, and blah, blah, blah. Absolute bollocks.

So, you have the audacity to imply that it "is not good enough for you apparently". Have we touched a nerve here? Was it you that gained this "scoop", reporting it with relish, waving your "the public has the right to know" banner high. The public has the right to know........THE FULL STORY. But as I have mentioned, those involved cannot provide their side.

How about you stick to reporting stories, and do us all a favour and stop trawling this forum for tid-bits, obviously trying to get that all important scoop. Seen it before. "Unconfirmed cources have said..................".

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[Buster Hyman]

:ok:

[L337]

Algy has a "WWW" link on his post, to the ATI website. He could not be more upfront about being a journo if he tried.

[Jerricho]

ATI?

A Terrible Investigator? :suspect:

[eal401]

ATI!! We have a subscription to ATI at work, it is a fantastic source of outdated airport information!

:E :E

[OzPax1]

Algy That's the stuff at the bottom of ponds innit...? :E

[ThinkRate]

Nice going gents!

Isn't it about time someone moved this thread to jetblast?

It certainly is neither Rumours nor News the fact that some folks in here have a general (not unfounded, mind you) thing about journos. Besides that however, it is certainly almost always not prudent to generalise.

Please get a grip. :ok:

[5milesbaby]

I think this is yet another incident that has happened that then gets VERY misreported as usual by knowledgeless Media types, blown therefore out of all preportion by the public, and once again ATC/Aviation is a terrible industry.

Jerricho, like many ATCO's, has a very valid reason for not liking news types, it would be nice to see a fair and concicive report one day taken from all angles and opinions, but I was always a dreamer, and why do they have to know anyhow? NOTHING HAPPENNED :sad: :ouch: :sad:

[Final 3 Greens]

Air Transport Intelligence, Jerricho, which is precisely what your posts are not demonstrating at the moment.

As a stakeholder in this matter, living in a part of Herts frequently overflown by airliners, I am pleased that the BBC reported this matter.

It was, in my opinion, a responsible article - even the last sentence quoted was to quote a BA spokesperson saying that the aircraft never got within 1.5 miles - sensationalist? I don't think so.

As for your comment 5 Miles baby that 'nothing happened', does that mean that we should not be concerned?

So we got away with this one :mad: That doesn't mean that nothing happened, it means there was no crash - don't confuse the effect with the causation.

Having had a 747 crash close enough to my house a few years ago, I have seen the after effects and I can assure you that it is not pretty.

[Jerricho]

F3G, I'll admit emotion was involved in my posting and have apologised to Algy for my childish dig at him and ATI, however, I stand by what I have said.

Even in this short report, shall we highlight the inaccuracies?

Flight Controllers..............who are they? Oh yeah, they be the guys in the control tower.

Planes were at least a mile and a half apart............what was the vertical separation? And reading this, would people actually know what the required separation standards are? I have seen reports of "jets 1000 feet from disaster". Hmmmmmm.

And did the "flight controller" just sit there and watch this all happen. With the topic of avoiding action conflicting with against an RA at the front of many people's minds..............or did the controller (and others involved) play a blinder against other conflicting traffic?

As a stakeholder in this matter, living in a part of Herts frequently overflown by airliners, I am pleased that the BBC reported this matter.

No where near one of the worst reports that I have seen, however, still not the full story. And realistically, what does the report achieve for you? Are you going to move house? Are you going to write your MP? Are people going to stop flying? Do you even know what time it happend? I have seen that "the public have the right to know" neon sign lit-up so many times. Aside from envoking an emotional "gasp" factor, what does it achieve?

[Final 3 Greens]

Jerricho

I understand your views and appreciate that you have apologised to Algy.

What does 'knowing' do for me? Not a lot directly, but it does keep the issue of crowded space in the public domain where MPs and others are influenced.

Sometimes the emotional gasp factor, as you put it, achieves more than any amount of rational and logical information.

I'm sure that you are right when you say that you have seen worse reports, but that s the point isn't it - most of us haven't and you have a NDA in your contact :-)

So, I say again, I don't think that this article was sensationalist and although I understand your frustration in 'knowing' that the report is not totally accurate, I'd rather live with that and have some public profile rather than have you know the full facts and stay quiet (as you must.)

BTW, how many 747 crash sites have you lived in close proximity to?

If you had seen the after effects of KAL Cargo, you might understand my view.

[Jerricho]

I'd rather live with that and have some public profile rather than have you know the full facts and stay quiet (as you must.)

Please F3G's, having read some of your previous posts, I cannot believe you honestly wish to recieve one side of a story, coming from the "side" that somewhat aggressively reports information in an attempt to gain veiwing numbers or sell newspapers. And I think you'll find I didn't imply this story by the BBC was sensationalist. I believe it was along the lines of "not having a clue" about this incident in the ways I have already highlighted.

And as an aside, we have all seen the documentaries about "Crowded Skies" et al. I ask again, keeping it in the public domain achieves what? LCCs are expanding their customer bases, new runway plans for SE UK. Numbers are increasing. We know this. Yet, having the media sprout some of the filth you see posted/linked to this site isn't achieveing anything. You yourself have admitted "not a lot directly where MP's and others are influenced". The only reactions I see that come from this thing are knee jerk ones that aren't thought through, and often do not include those professionals directly involved on a daily basis.

BTW, I really don't see the relevance of mentioning the KAL/EGSS incident. Not detracting from the sadness of the incident and the effect it may have had, being close to where you live, but this is almost bordering on a "media-type" attempt to envoke a non-objective response. Sorry, just the way I see it

[Final 3 Greens]

Jerricho

Your right, I don't want to hear one side, but the problem is that no one usually tells the other side.

As for KAL, I'm not being sensationalist - that's the outcome when you don't 'get away' with a serious incident ... thank god that the 747 landed in open countryside - but my reply was for 5 miles baby, not you - and in particular a comment that 'nothing' had happened which struck me as being complacement.

Air proxes are not 'nothing', although I wouldn't wish to sensationalise them either ... but they do need investigating and dealing with.

It's a shame that the BBC got it wrong (for I have no reason to doubt your opinion), but who can give them the right information? I still think that the article was respnsibly written ... as you probably know, I will challenge sensationalist journalism strongly.

Even if we disagree, I do see your point of view.

[5milesbaby]

I think this is yet another incident that has happened that then gets VERY misreported as usual by knowledgeless Media types, blown therefore out of all preportion by the public, and once again ATC/Aviation is a terrible industry.

Not many can quote themselves on here. I don't mean to be rude Final 3 Greens but I have lived close to a crash site and know the realities it can make you face. I also have been involved in Airprox's and have felt the mindgames they can also play. I have seen several badly reported incidents that I know the truth about, and the related trauma that the media put the individuals involved unneccessarily under.

I agree that this is a 'better' report, but still it mis-reports events and is factless. TCAS can activate an RA even if the a/c are safely separated. The a/c can be less that a mile apart but they can still be over 1500ft away. I know that this isn't the case in this event, but the real happennings and the reported happennings do not closely tie.

I say nothing happenned because all the safety related equipment together with skilled pilots and competent controlling in such circumstances prevented the a/c colliding - so basically worked. A/c all around the world get close to each other EVERY day, but these systems be it TCAS, radar conflict alert, or just plain human intervention stop nearly all becoming even closely considered to being an incident - why report with not much backup? Let the investigations bureaus find out the facts, not the media speculate on something they don't understand.

[Final 3 Greens]

5 Miles

The media pressurising people is another matter - I'm not dismissing this and take a very different view about it - even if justified by a utilitarian approach, there is the matter of individuals circumstances to consider. I also understand some of the challenges faced by an ATCO, especially after the court martial of the RAF officer recently.

The only unease I feel about your post is, without intending to, you are establishing a kind of censorship of the press by seeking to prevent them publishing ... and yes, I do accept that sometimes they go way over the top. It is a shame that there seems to be no official counterbalance - although the BBC did, in fairness, quote BA in a non sensational context.

I do understand TCAS (at least to the level to avoid triggering spurious alarms by sloppy use of the xponder in a light aircraft) and am sure that the incident was handled well - but it was still an incident and thus a legitimate subject to report IMHO.

Maybe we need to agree to disagree on this point - but you do have my sympathies for seeing the aftermath of a crash and in my case, the a/c missed my daughters house by only a few hundred metres, so that shook me somewhat.

[Jerricho]

F3G, I respect what you are saying and we probably going to have to agree to disagree.

The media does seem of trip over each other to get that all important scoop over their rivals, and especially early on in a "breaking story" speculation and assumptions do occur. I'm not implying the press be "sensored" over what they report, yet more concerned over the fact that many of these media sources seem to bestow on themselves a licence to "fill the gaps". And IMHO, the aviation industry seems to be more susceptible to this than other areas of public interest.

Further to what 5miles has mentioned, I have seen and experienced the frustration of seeing something being reported, compounded sometimes by the astronomical speed it makes the media. Often those directly involved are not aware of the full details, yet to see something on the TV or in print so quickly can be quite insulting. And the media's point of view......."who cares, we got the story first. If we have to, we can always retract it later."

It is human nature to focus on things that go wrong, and perhaps feel a complusion to wish to rectify the situation. But these emotions should be envoked for the correct reasons, not with half (if that) the story.

[flange lubricator]

Hey guys, you're not alone. I work for the Beardy one's train company. The press are at best, ill informed and at worst, ignorant. The story is ALL they care about and I have first hand experience of the LIES they print to spice up a story.

[LatviaCalling]

I'm trying to start this calmly after reading your postings, some lambasting the press -- others defending it.

What do you read when you get up in the morning with your cup of coffee? I assume it's the paper. Now, whether you subscribe to the yellow rag tabloid, or the more unsensational fold-over newspaper, that's your choice. But you read it and you spend money to buy it, and in all honesty, you probably believe what you're reading, because if you didn't, you wouldn't spend money on that printed paper.

I agree with many of you that TV news has dropped to a very low point, especially in the United States, where ratings are everything and contents are hyped to keep the watcher from pressing the button.

No matter what, however, at the first sound bite of an air tragedy, who's the first to post it on PPrune but you -- yes even those who complain about journalists from morning to night.

If it were not for reporters who would know about Indonesia's suicide pilot, the co-pilot on Egypt Air, taking off from closed runways, etc. If no one reported it, do you really think that the airport or the airline would be kind and willing enough to come out with a confession that we really f*cked up. NO!

I also make no bones about it that I was a United Press International (UPI) reporter for 18 years, stationed all over the world. I was also a private pilot. I wanted to be a commercial pilot, but the money ran short.

My conclusion on this whole subject is that there is a decent press that will and has to write or broadcast the story straight. What most of you are probably referring to is the tabloids where anything goes.

[hostie]

Final 3 Greens I would just like to point out that I used to live close enough to experience a 747 go down, in fact when KAL crashed my house shook so much I thought the whole airport had been bombed.
It took a long time for the story to hit the press as I was looking to find out what had happened.
However this does not excuse the press and the absolute ineptness of some of their people who open their mouths before engaging brain.
At that time Stansted was swarming with press for months, what with the crash and the hijack, it was near impossible to get to work through all the press vehicles that had taken over the roads to the airport.
I was astounded by some of the most incredible mistakes that these so called knowledgable reporters came out with, my favourite was a BBC reporter discussing how the crew on board the hijacked aircraft would be microwaving the meals for the passengers, I wonder how many times she'd been told to turn her mobile phone off too!?!?!?!?
Basically the reporters are (allegedly) only human, it's up to the controllers and researchers to confirm the facts BEFORE the pieces go to air (or press)
All airlines have press offices, if you know of an incedent that involves your company, the best thing to do is advise your press office, they will send out the information that is relevant and factual that can be used sensibly by the press.
This helps us all!!! ;)

[Final 3 Greens]

Hostie

I agree that some of the Stansted coverage was not appropriate -in fact if you search for the thread, you will find that I didn't much like the way that the results of the board of enquiry were reported either.

The reason why I didn't like the adverse comments that the BBC report about the airprox received on this thread was because it seemed to me to be trying to achieve a reasonable approach and tone.

But that doesn't make me FOP (friend of the press)
;)

Jerricho/5 Miles

Okay maybe we need to disagree in this instance, but I do appreciate the terrific job that you guys do and it's sad that the public are not overly aware of the professionalism that keeps them safe when were up there.

[Jerricho]

What do you read when you get up in the morning with your cup of coffee? I assume it's the paper

Sorry Latvia, gotta stop you right there. ASSUME. Very bad word in the aviation industry. You assume anything, it's probably goning to bite you in the ass. Not trying to tit for tat, but I don't read newspapers. Period. True, people read/access the media to "see what is going on in the world", but the also have emotions envoked and form opinions on what they have read. IMHO, if these responses are being based on inaccurate or incomplete information then the whole concept of "media" is flawed. And you're going to look like a dick if in discussing said topic with somebody who does know what actually happened, all you can say is "oh, I saw it in the paper/on the news".

You mention our referral to the Tabloid press. The report that has started this thread is the BBC, which is supposedly the foremost of UK journalism. They were the same media group that initially reported the DHL that was recently hit by a missile as having had one of it's engines hit. They were also responsible for the production of a "mock-umentary" the titled 'The day Britain stood still' which theoretically showed the timeline of events that lead to a mid-air at Heathrow. The show caused quite a heated response from NATS, with requests that it not be shown, as the producers didn't even consult with them. And as you may have seen, caused quite a lively debate on these forums.

No matter what, however, at the first sound bite of an air tragedy, who's the first to post it on PPrune but you -- yes even those who complain about journalists from morning to night.

And have you noticed that when it is posted, the responses from those in the aviation industry who readily apply their "bullsh!t detectors" and discuss why it is/isn't crap. Kinda like what's happening right here. As has been adressed here quite a few times, we don't have the luxury of being able to contact the press and tell them "what you printed/said was garbage". And those who aren't in the know do pick up valuable information about it.

[STS]

If you're getting your knickers in a twist that crap reporting is influencing people, just email a link to this site to your MP. Aviation safety is addressed by the Transport Select Committee, and I think it's fair to say Gwyneth Dunwoody (love her or loathe her) is far from being a pushover as recent events would suggest, or influenced by the tabloids. Besides, plenty of people from the industry are called as witnesses and give good testimony that is listened to. I doubt that will include the editor of a tabloid any time soon.

I don't have any experience of an MP being bombarded with letters about safety, a few I know get local groups who live on the perimiters of airports lobbying about noise and runways but that seems to be it. With sensationalist reporting, imho, I think it's still the old saying of today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip paper.