PDA

View Full Version : "747 NEAR MISS DRAMA"


MASP
10th Feb 2006, 07:09
Donít get too excited, boys and girls. The heading is the banner headline of a page 3 story in Alice Springsí Centralian Advocate newspaper today (10 Feb. 06). Itís supported dramatically on the paperís advertising poster, and graphically on the front page. The report continues that great journalistic tradition of beating-up (conjuring might be a better word) aviation stories. In essence the piece is on passenger reaction to apparent wake turbulence experienced by a Qantas 737 passing 1,000 feet below a 747: all was according to Hoyle (which is reported, but in the usual secondary manner). A careful reading indicates there was nothing to report.

Kalium Chloride
10th Feb 2006, 08:31
A careful reading indicates there was nothing to report.


Amazing how often 'nothing to report' stories are nevertheless deemed newsworthy enough to plaster all over PPRuNe.

Reminds me of how the Great Judges of Newsworthiness on this forum haughtily declared that the recent 'London near miss' photo was a non-story - and then had to stand by and wipe egg off their faces as it generated a shedload of debate and controversy, thereby proving the journalists' sense of newsworthiness to be exactly right.

Rainboe
10th Feb 2006, 08:51
That is a very peculiar viewpoint of all that 'manufactured' garbage! Are you being facetious? It doesn't really come across in print!

egbt
10th Feb 2006, 08:57
and then had to stand by and wipe egg off their faces as it generated a shedload of debate and controversy, thereby proving the journalists' sense of newsworthiness to be exactly right.

After this I had to go back and re-read that thread and I still can't see why a picture of 2 a/c in the hold at legal separation should be considered newsworthy, except perhaps as an example of the photographerís art.

Who, apart from those who said it was a big deal, were wiping egg off their faces? Have I missed something :confused:

Having said that I am also not sure why this thread was started.

Kalium Chloride
10th Feb 2006, 09:05
I still can't see why a picture of 2 a/c in the hold at legal separation should be considered newsworthy


Then ask yourself why there's a whole thread on the matter! :p


The point is that the incident itself wasn't newsworthy. But 'newsworthiness' doesn't just cover the basic incident - it covers the debate surrounding the photo as well.

If it generates argument and debate, then it's probably newsworthy. Genuine non-newsworthy items die without even a mention.

newjourno
10th Feb 2006, 09:08
After this I had to go back and re-read that thread and I still can't see why a picture of 2 a/c in the hold at legal separation should be considered newsworthy, except perhaps as an example of the photographerís art.

Quite! It was a cracking, "cor blimey" picture. Nothing else. If you explain that there was nothing out of the ordinary going on, then it was fine to use it., as a bit of "light and bright" on a day when much of the news was fairly heavy. But too many news outlets over-wrote it. Much of the flak they received on here was deserved.

Tarq57
10th Feb 2006, 09:11
Perhaps it's the often sensational reporting of the non-event that causes debate, rather than the non-event.
Time to create new forum topic? Journalistic licence? Journalist loses licence?

newjourno
10th Feb 2006, 09:21
Perhaps it's the often sensational reporting of the non-event that causes debate, rather than the non-event.
Time to create new forum topic? Journalistic licence? Journalist loses licence?

Journalists? Licences? You mean..? Ha!

Some of us have high standards, and genuinely hate misrepresenting anything or getting things wrong. I was part of a team that got something wrong earlier this week and it hurt. Nobody damaged, nobody badly misled, it was something cosmetic that turned out to be something different than we'd portrayed. The biggest damage was the embarrassment. We'll learn.... Other sections of the media don't really seem to give a toss.

Hartington
10th Feb 2006, 10:13
I think the A321 I was on last night on approach to LHR flew through the wake of a preceeding aircraft (sudden and quite violent luch). Do you think I should sell my story to a "redtop"?! The gent next to me looked decidely worried (but then I think he was a nervous flier). I can spice it up a bit, if you think that would help.

Tarq57
10th Feb 2006, 11:04
To newjourno

Sorry for coming across as tarring you all with the same brush. Of course there are high standards in journalism, tv and written. I've even met one, years ago, he took the trouble to come to my workplace, make his intentions clear, and wanted the genuine aviation-based take on things. (Don't think he actually lasted very long as transport reporter).
My company and I think many others have rules about not talking to the media presumably because of past reportage styles, mistakes, out of contexts, liability etc. Which is a shame because often if the real events were accurately described to reporters with a few ethics, there probably wouldn't be all the hype. (Maybe!)
Because the person charged with the media releases couches them carefully and is usually a bit ignorant on the details, I guess it can come across as a cover up or whitewash.
But it doesn't change the fact: there's heaps of hype out there.

Rainboe
10th Feb 2006, 11:06
KC,
<<If it generates argument and debate, then it's probably newsworthy. Genuine non-newsworthy items die without even a mention.>>

That logic means because people talk about Big Brother, it must have some merit in it! It doesn't! I fear we are wasting bandwidth in the most important section here.

Kalium Chloride
10th Feb 2006, 11:16
Perhaps it's time for an experiment. I propose this:


If PPRuNe community wants to adopt an anti-media, anti-journo line then that's fine.

But it should stop being two-faced and hypocritical and take this policy to its logical conclusion - namely by ceasing to use any information which has been taken from newspapers, TV news bulletins, online news agencies.

That means members being barred from posting any information that they haven't found out for themselves rather than by reading the paper, watching the TV news, clicking online press agencies, or listening to radio bulletins.

You're welcome to discuss and post any information you've independently found out from your own hard work. That's fair.

Wonder how this will affect the interest level in PPRuNe. Any takers? :hmm:

Sonic Cruiser
10th Feb 2006, 11:21
Is this what they mean by 747 near miss!!!! (Not that the picture is of course!)



http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1000914&size=M&width=1024&height=780&sok=&photo_nr=&prev_id=&next_id=

chuks
10th Feb 2006, 11:55
There was once a piece of music out of Communist China, as we then thought of it, called 'The Yellow River Suite.' While it wasn't much as music goes the argument was that it was very important because so many people were listening to it!

In the same way, I think a lot of journalism is absolute garbage as far as presenting objective truth goes. But if the goal is to create public interest, a fuss, call it what you will, there it can be judged successful. This not-very-exacting standard would seem to be the one KC is aiming at, which must hint at what sort of journalism he practises. My apologies if it turns out he is a staff writer for 'Aviation Week and Space Technology.'

I believe the usual slogan is 'Don't get it right, just get it written,' yes?

Just look at the write-ups on accidents, such as the latest one. A helicopter mutated into a small Cessna somehow. Funny thing, that.

We had a bad one in Nigeria with eyewitnesses quoted in all seriousness as having seen a Boeing 727 'hovering around the airport.' Well, the witness was a preacher so that must have been so.

ChrisMorgan
10th Feb 2006, 11:58
Hi there chaps and chapettes,

I've been mooching around on here but decided to register today!

I post on A-NET as CHRISBA777ER.

In relevence to this topic - here's a piece i wrote the other day in light of the discussion over the pic (linked to). Its a tabloid sensationalist sarcastic take on a no-news event as in the picture.

http://photos.airliners.net/photos/middle/4/1/9/1000914.jpg

I enjoyed writing it and they liked it on n-net so i thought I post it here as its relevent to the thread.

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

HUNDREDS IN MID-AIR COLLISION TERROR

Horror

Hundreds of terrified passengers could only watch in horror as their plane was missed by a matter of what seemed like inches in a near-miss over Prague yesterday. A Jet Airlines Boeing A348 from India, with nearly 700 people on board narrowly missed a Lux Airlines Cargo Airbus 737 cargo jet, and it is thought likely that both crews had to take urgent emergency action to avoid a mid-air collision. An un-named passenger interviewed on landing at London's Heathrow airport said "I thought we were going to die. The jet came towards us, and people were screaming and crying. I thought my children and I were all going to die; it was awful". Another passenger is in hospital after suffering massive scald burns over nearly 90% of his body after a cup of coffee was spilt on him, probably by panicking passengers. A hospital spokesman told us "he is close to death and in terrible agony, and all because of this shocking near-miss. Its a terrible scene here. Someone must be blamed."

Death

Had the two jets hit each other, many hundreds of people would have been killed. An aviation expert from a leading airline website told us that "it is the fault of the poor climbing ability of the Airbus A340. All airlines flying this deathtrap are risking a fiery death. The Boeing 777 is far safer". We contacted a major UK airline that flies the French-built A340 for comment but the company declined to be interviewed. A company insider told us that "we take safety very seriously, but clearly this was a very serious incident, and very nearly a terrible accident. We are currently reviewing our safety procedures as a result of this near-catastrophe". Several passengers we interviewed at London Airport yesterday told us that had they known their flight was on a plane built in France, that they would book with another airline. We donít blame them.

Fiery Doom

The mid-air collision, and the fiery death it brings the passengers aboard is very common. Very recently, a British passenger jet collided with an Adria airways jet over Sarajevo and nearly thousands were killed, due to an Air Traffic Control blunder. With many near-misses over London every day (as evidenced by our exclusive scoop on thursday) it is clear that air travel is not as safe as it used to be, and we have compiled a petition to sign and send to Mr Blair calling for a complete ban on air travel in light of this horrific event. We urge you all to sign it, and do something to prevent another plane crash, in which perhaps thousands of innocent people may die, all because Tony Blair and his cronies lied to us over Iraq. We will not be lied to over this Mr Blair! Dont try and tell us air travel is safe - our pictures show that it clearly isnt.

Dont miss our Free Ryanair Flights Offer on Page Seventeen!

Ropey Pilot
10th Feb 2006, 13:27
KC and then had to stand by and wipe egg off their faces as it generated a shedload of debate and controversy, thereby proving the journalists' sense of newsworthiness to be exactly right.

I'm not having a go or trying to be facetious - but I honestly must have missed all this valuable debate - what was achieved?

I only saw a few interviews and the like and what they seemed to do was grudgingly accept that it was an optical illusion and then point out that a/c only have to be separated by 300m! can you imagine that - oh my goodness!

To illustrate the optical illusion they had a graphic with 'more than 300m' on the arrow showing the distance between the aircraft. Since they have that separation vertically and there was also a horizontal element it must have been significantly greater than that - but that wouldn't have got as many people on th edge of their seat would it! That is not 'encouraging debate' that is still sensationalism (or trying to smear the egg around their faces for having got their knickers so wound up in the first place).

The only outcome of the 'debates' I saw was that the media involved hammered home how 'little' distance there is between aircraft without explaining what systems are in place to let this happen then vaguely mentioned some sort of 'safety systems' alluded to how everyone could die if these failed:rolleyes: before cutting to the next article without a right of reply.

I do accept I may have been unlucky in the coverage I saw - but what was achieved by this coverage. (and if it was worthy of debate why not just ask the question - if I want a debate about the safety of children I wouldn't run a story of mass abductions of the under 10s make the entire country too scared to let the kids out of the front door and then say - oh sorry I just saw a dad picking up his own kid, but at least it started a debate!)

chuks
10th Feb 2006, 15:10
The journos can bang the drums about near-misses, windshear, and whatnot in aviation, complete with brilliant quotes from SLF who have not a clue about what really went on. 'There were people crying and praying...' yeah, well, check out a wedding, why don't you? I sure cried at mine! But tears and prayers do not a near-disaster make. No, you have to do a bit of risk analysis to be able to say what really happened. Most journos have neither the time, patience, skills or inclination for that. It's just a case of come up with a few inches to grab the interest of Joe Public before it's time to use this deathless prose as a wrapper for time-expired fish.

I remember one night when a little bit of finger trouble caused a sudden change of plan and an unplanned return for immediate landing. We sorted ourselves out, got going again and flew our trip. By the time we had got home the telephone was ringing; some creep journo with an aviation scanner had been eavesdropping on the tower frequency and wanted to know if we were minded to discuss what went on there. Good idea... not! My one chance at becoming famous for fifteen minutes and I blew it. Perhaps I am being unfair but I jumped to the conclusion that this fellow would not have taken whatever complicated explanation I had for having 'a fit of the dumb-*ss' at face value and then written a fair and balanced piece that would have sent all of his readers off to dreamland. No, more like 'Puddle-jumper in Death Plunge over Charlotte! Terrified Passengers Reduced to Weeping and Praying!'