PDA

View Full Version : Sensational reporting in London Press


CherokeeDriver
27th Sep 2006, 13:31
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23368385-details/Passenger+plane+%27seconds+from+disaster%27+over+London/article.do

jayteeto
27th Sep 2006, 13:43
Can I have a Glide Scope please?? It is supposed to help me keep my height........

Squealing Pig
27th Sep 2006, 13:52
This has to be of the worst journalism I have ever read.

The Evening standard journalist if that’s what He/She calls them self should hang their head in shame. Hope they do not consider themselves professional in any shape or form.

Real Report

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/september_2006/boeing_747_412__4x_els.cfm

SP

Bloody burnt the rice now cos of that!!!!

N380UA
27th Sep 2006, 13:58
This is some painful reading. :ugh: :{

Rev Thrust
27th Sep 2006, 13:59
Sensationalist garbage... reads like a bad take on a Biggles novel!

For anyone interested in the facts, the AAIB's report appears to be here:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Boeing%20747-412,%204X-ELS.pdf

The incident happened on 10th January 2006 and featured an El-Al Boeing 747-412, registration 4X-ELS.

"Seconds from Disaster?" :eek: From the tone of the article, so obviously written by a clueless cub who'd been told to trawl the AAIB site and 'find something to report', one wonders if this chap is now 'seconds from promotion'... in the context that even twenty years can be measured in seconds, if you're bored enough. :8

flyingbug
27th Sep 2006, 14:04
This is a shameful piece of reporting, and its great pity that the industry has to defend itself against such unfair inaccuracies.
As the final paragraph of the AAIB report states, the risk was considered minimal due to the cloudbase being at 1500' and therefore good ground visibility was available, and if that had not been the case, the GPWS system would have warned the crew prior to any CFIT.

Jetnoise UK
27th Sep 2006, 14:07
May I suggest that peeps leave a comment as invited at the foot of the page - I certainly have!:E

Boggart
27th Sep 2006, 14:19
Just sent a link for this thread to a friend of mine who works on the Standard/Lite.

A decent person who despairs an awful lot at the standard of most journalism today, I await a response with interest.

The SSK
27th Sep 2006, 14:23
I've seen worse

Nowhere does the word 'plummetted' appear, nor does the phrase 'passengers screamed in terror as...' He's obviously still learning his trade.

Algy
27th Sep 2006, 14:42
I don't think I've ever rubbished a brother journalist on Pprune before, but you are all quite right to note that this plumbs extraordinary depths of incompetence.
I'm going to be kind to the author and assume he/she was merely incompetent rather than irresponsible and cynical enough to:
* talk of steep dives that did not happen
* falsely describe the aircraft as being seconds from disaster
* describe a panic on board without having any idea whatsoever whether there was panic on board or not.
For those of us in the craft, if someone hypothetically were to do those things then actually the third would be considered the worst sin - ie simply making it up. Here at Flight, for all our other failings, we would fire them.

Mr Lexx
27th Sep 2006, 14:46
Just added my comment, although I do not think they will post it.

Jetnoise UK
27th Sep 2006, 14:51
Just noticed that my comment has been heavily edited with the link to the official report removed along my comments on the knowledge of the author and the sensationalist nature of the reporting. I have written a strong email to the editor at '[email protected]' complaining about the censorship of my comments and the nature of the original article. :mad:

Cheers,
Jet

Mr Lexx
27th Sep 2006, 14:56
But the editor lets through a comment from a septic defiling British engineering. God help us!

barit1
27th Sep 2006, 14:59
I submit there are many in professional aviation who, if pressed, might do a decent job as journalist.

But I doubt it works the other way around. :)

WHBM
27th Sep 2006, 15:00
I too have given them an earful.

However the Evening Standard style book says any story about aviation must include any two out of three of :

- Plunged
- Grimly wrestled with the controls
- Narrowly missed a school

I suppose we have to be glad that the "journalist" was so incompetent that these were missed out here.

lexxity
27th Sep 2006, 15:19
Good God!

Quote 1:
The co-pilot immediately tried to contact air traffic control to find out if there was a fault with the glide scope - but he could not get through because of radio congestion.

Quote 2: (immediately following the above quote)
The air traffic controller had also noticed the "unusually low altitude" as the plane dropped and immediately ordered the Boeing to climb again.

So which is true? Radio congestion, couldn't get through or was in contact with ATC?

Did anyone else follow the link to confusion over liquids? It's an even lesser story than plane "seconds from disaster".

Gainesy
27th Sep 2006, 15:30
Like others, I doubt they will publish my comment.

Mariner9
27th Sep 2006, 15:31
The accompanying aircraft photo quite clearly shows that two of the engines had fallen off - how could the AAIB have missed that? :ugh:

Jerricho
27th Sep 2006, 15:37
The ultimate puke inducer? Just what the hell does the last paragraph have to do with the story? Ooooh, a continuation of the sensationalist bullshit? Why not include "And my cat's breath smell of cat food?" Just as relevant.

BRL
27th Sep 2006, 15:49
How can anyone reading that take it seriously these days! It is like reading Viz...........

BOFH
27th Sep 2006, 15:49
Squealing Pig

The Evening standard journalist if that’s what He/She calls them self should hang

That'll do.

BOFH

Jerricho
27th Sep 2006, 15:58
Heh.

Me bets they won't publish my comment.

:E

hobie
27th Sep 2006, 18:22
The accompanying aircraft photo quite clearly shows that two of the engines had fallen off - how could the AAIB have missed that?

Why are photo's that totally mis-represent the aircraft involved, allowed? to be published :confused: ..... often a different airline .... different manufacturer .... different design/model .......

I recall asking a question on PPRuNe about a serious prang that resulted in all on board being lost (Cargo and 3 or 4 guys written off) ...... the post in question included a link to the media report including a photo showing a damaged aircraft and I posted a question with the photo attached asking why the crew were lost since the a/c didn't seem very badly damaged to me ......

I was blown out of the water by a fellow PPRuNe'r for including the photo that turned out to be of an incident that happened years before and that he was very conversent with (with no one injured as I recall) !!!!

It does $$$$$$$$$ me off when reporters stick in any old photo to fill a page ......

G-CPTN
27th Sep 2006, 18:26
Hell, it was a PLANK wasn't it? They could've printed a picture of an EGGWHISK - after all, they're also aircraft (allegedly).

Boggart
27th Sep 2006, 20:29
My friend on the inside who works on the Standard/Lite had the following to say about the appalling article.

‘Any flight that has a problem when flying over London is a story.’

Well I don’t think that anyone would disagree with that. However they go on to say that the ‘beefing up’ of the story was not a surprise as that’s what ‘sells’ newspapers and part of journalism these days is to sell newspapers.

Basically they said that the presentation of the story is ‘indefensible,’ the ‘glide scope’ error ‘appalling’ and the sensationalism about the ‘panic,’ sloppy journalism.

They doubt that the ES will retract the story but if push comes to shove they might but wouldn’t care anyway as ‘the papers have already been sold.’

The only crumb of comfort is that there could be a ‘general arse kicking’ over the story. Let’s hope so.

Doors to Automatic
27th Sep 2006, 22:32
I saw this pile of horse$hit in some free rag that was handed to me as I left London today.

The last paragraph of the AAIB report which includes the words "minimal risk" says it all about this incident! :ugh:

Globaliser
27th Sep 2006, 22:33
However they go on to say that the ‘beefing up’ of the story was not a surprise as that’s what ‘sells’ newspapers and part of journalism these days is to sell newspapers.We're rapidly approaching the time, IMHO, when newspapers should be forced by law to print fair and accurate reports.

I knew this one had to be bad. I'd already read the AAIB report, but completely failed to recognise the incident when reading the news reports.

Boggart
27th Sep 2006, 22:52
We're rapidly approaching the time, IMHO, when newspapers should be forced by law to print fair and accurate reports.

Globaliser,

Sorry I don't agree with you, I think that any form of media should be able to print/broadcast what they want, how they want.

BUT

When they F up they should give the correction/apology/retraction, the exact same position, space and typefaces & sizes for headlines (or airtime for Radio/TV), not just bury it next to the hatched, matched and dispatched.

Boggars

DenhamPPL
27th Sep 2006, 22:52
The funniest thing for me was constantly hearing this news story reporting that the aircraft flew as low as TWELVE THOUSAND FEET over London.

This gross error in reporting (an extra "0" crept into the newsroom copy presumably) was repeated ad nauseum in every BBC Radio London news programme throughout the day today.

Andy

Blues&twos
27th Sep 2006, 22:57
I noticed that not one of the journalistic sources (incl. TV report on BBC tonight) mentioned that the guys on the FD have eyes. All seemed to suggest that there was a possibility that the crew may well have simply flown into the ground in the middle of Putney because the the computer was telling them to.

Give me strength.

Floppy Link
27th Sep 2006, 23:04
it's been posted before but
http://radans.net/jens/planestory.html
:\
and yes, I forwarded it to the editor :E :ok:

pulse1
27th Sep 2006, 23:16
This story is obviously linked to an item on the BBC news tonight about surgical operations being carried out in zero gravity. This was achieved by over three hours of climbing and diving an Airbus while a cyst was removed from a patient. The Standard story, obviously missing this link, is describing a similar attempt by the Israelis to carry out circumcisions under zero gravity conditions. A big advantage I would have thought.

Blacksheep
28th Sep 2006, 04:15
Here at Flight, for all our other failings, we would fire them.I notice that Uncle Roger hasn't mentioned old Monty Orangeballs lately. Has he been fired?

The AAIB report makes for interesting reading. Something worth reporting certainly went on there, although the journalist concerned missed the point entirely. Monty Orangeballs would have got it right though...

eal401
28th Sep 2006, 07:00
The Evening standard journalist if that’s what He/She calls them self should hang

That'll do.

OK, so it's a bad article.

But expressing a desire for the writer to die? Jeez, what a sick, filthy piece of low-life you are.

Wazzoo
28th Sep 2006, 08:43
And now the BBC have got hold of it. Although thankfully no talk of panic and disaster not mentioned too many times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5386992.stm

Bahn-Jeaux
28th Sep 2006, 09:00
It is like reading Viz...........

No its not, The VIZ is more accurate.
Bet it flew over Tipton really.

WHBM
28th Sep 2006, 09:50
The only crumb of comfort is that there could be a ‘general arse kicking’ over the story. Let’s hope so.
OK, let's imagine the follow-up story in the ES about such an event

"There was utter panic in the Evening Standard newsroom today as tens of thousands of journalists were instantly dismissed for a piffling error in a story that a few readers, who think they are God's gift to aviation just because they know what all the knobs do at the front of an aeroplane, wrote in to complain about".

"Weeping journalists pointed out that the story, about an aircraft, had been accurately illustrated by some sort of aircraft, and at the very least they had (on this occasion) managed to print the picture the right way up".

"Journalists were seen commiserating with each other in a range of pubs afterwards, following which on their way home some PLUNGED to the pavement, while others attempting to drive away were seen to be GRIMLY WRESTLING WITH THE CONTROLS, and at the end of the street NARROWLY MISSED A SCHOOL".

Boggart
28th Sep 2006, 10:16
WHBM
That made I laugh, that did.
:} :}

mazzy1026
28th Sep 2006, 13:18
I am a PPL holder with 5 hours and I can see how badly that article was written. I think anyone with a bit of common sense, or even a few hours on MS flight sim could have done a better job. Something tells me that my comments won't be getting published though.

Stupid feckwit :mad:

Dave Gittins
28th Sep 2006, 13:19
I've just posted my comment and likened the minor, irreproducible electrical aberration in the ILS receivers to "Fuse blows on Bus .... near carnage as driver fails to indicate"

Will they print it ? :ok:

Bahn-Jeaux
28th Sep 2006, 13:26
Posted a comment too, many hours ago but its still at 8 comments so it looks like we have all wasted out time.
Surprise surprise.

419
28th Sep 2006, 13:34
Not knowing much about fixed wing avionics, I've a question.

Is there only a single glide slope receiver coupled to the autopilot, or is there more than one, and they operate on a comparator circuit, whereby any difference in the two will cause either a warning to be given, or for the glideslope part of the ILS to disengage.

SOPS
28th Sep 2006, 14:06
so...we all know its crap. So does that mean everything that is in the paper is crap??? I am starting to think so:confused:

Dave Gittins
28th Sep 2006, 14:39
419 ...there are apparently 3 receivers. Presumably something like what I knew in another lifetime as "triple validation"

Full details in the AAIB report

DGG

phnuff
28th Sep 2006, 16:12
Two years ago Prince Charles's plane was involved in a near-miss with an Airbus. Charles was flying in his private jet to Spain when it came within 900 feet of an Airbus A321 with 186 passengers on board. Aer Lingus said the Airbus had been flying under the control of London air traffic control at the time.

Anyone care to speclulate just what this had to do with the 747 incident?

Geez the press just stink!!

BOFH
28th Sep 2006, 23:01
eal401
But expressing a desire for the writer to die? Jeez, what a sick, filthy piece of low-life you are.

Being called that by you put a spring in my stride today - thank you!

Operating on the assumption that you did or could not read the original quote from which I merely elided the final three words to make a pithy remark, this does not excuse you from having made an unwarranted ad hominem attack on me. If you were so affronted, why did you not simply PM me and ask me to retract it?

I would never suggest that you were bullied at your (rather poorly-performing) school because you were short and fat, nor would I postulate that you were the butt of other boys' jibes because your father had a low-status job. I'd never stoop to proposing that your grades were miserable, landing you in a frustrating, woefully-paid position until they outsource punching bits of paper with inked stamps to somewhere more efficient, whereupon you eke out a sad existence on a mix of government handouts and meaningless positions until you perish, angry and bitter. That is best left to vulgar people.

People who resort to that contaminate internet fora.

It says on the door - Stay out if you are faint hearted - and if you need any assistance with the comprehension of what that means, I understand various remedial English facilities exist. If you need to attain a sense of humour, however, I have been unable to trace anyone who can help - although I shall write to your MP if you like.

BOFH

Jerricho
28th Sep 2006, 23:53
Fromt his point on EAL401 will be referred to as BOFH's bitch.

Ouch. :ouch:

TURIN
29th Sep 2006, 21:34
so...we all know its crap. So does that mean everything that is in the paper is crap??? I am starting to think so:confused:

Now you're getting it!

We get the journalism we deserve, so stop buying newspapers/subscribing to news tv and we may get a change just before hell freezes over.:}