Sensational?

[Drop The Dunlops]

Anyone who still believes that newspapers don't sensationalize incidents and occurrences should take a look at this picture on the Daily Mail website, accompanying an excerpt from the story of the 747 flame-out incident in Jakarta...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=431802&in_page_id=1770

[Drop The Dunlops]

Or is that just the 'white glow' that passengers reported seeing around the engine cowls?

[puff m'call]

Yes I agree the picture is some what dramatic but the account of what happened is probably quite accurate.

Having just done the very same scenario in my recurrent Sim I can see how it can be a drama, fortunately for me we landed safely and all got tea and medals.

Safe flying, and just remember, it's the stuff you don't see that gets you!:O

Cheers, Puff.

[Farmer 1]

I think it would be pretty difficult to sensationalise a total engine failure in a 747 full of pax.

[UAV689]

is it true that a 747 travels 10 miles forward for a height loss of 1000ft as the article states? I am a glider pilot and that seems a pretty good glide ratio to me!! great story though, and amazing skill shown by all the crew including all the stews keeping everyone calm.

[M.Mouse]

I would have said nearer 2 miles per 1000' would be nearer the mark.

[Drop The Dunlops]

Of course, I am not understating the absolute excellence of the crew in what must have been a 'sensational' piece of work in rescuing the situation.

The point I was making is that the accompanying picture is a completely inaccurate representation of the event, deliberately fabricated that way. I just don't agree with it, that's all. It's something I might expect to see in Hollywood fiction, not in a newspaper reporting the facts...

[UAV689]

think the article is commissioned by the national geo channel to promote the program! hence the sensationalism (is that a real word..)

[F900EX]

is it true that a 747 travels 10 miles forward for a height loss of 1000ft as the article states? I am a glider pilot and that seems a pretty good glide ratio to me!! great story though, and amazing skill shown by all the crew including all the stews keeping everyone calm.


The very best modern sailplanes can achieve a 60 to 1 glide ratio. Therefore a glide ratio of 10 miles (60,000 ft) to 1000 ft would imply that a 747 can achieve the same ratio as the best sailplanes. Obviously impossible.

A Cessna 172 can achieve about 9 to 1 at best glide speed.

I believe a 747 can actually achieve about 17 to 1.

[Clarence Oveur]

The point I was making is that the accompanying picture is a completely inaccurate representation of the event, deliberately fabricated that way.

The picture may be a completely inaccurate representation. It could also be a slightly inaccurate representation or even an accurate representation. Who can say. Nobody saw the event from outside of the aircraft.

To say that the picture was deliberately fabricated to be completely inaccurate would imply that you have mind reading abilities. Or that you just made that bit up.

[M.Mouse]

It's something I might expect to see in Hollywood fiction, not in a newspaper reporting the facts...

It wasn't in a newspaper it was in the Daily Mail.

[Flying Lawyer]

Drop The Dunlops "The point I was making is that the accompanying picture is a completely inaccurate representation of the event, deliberately fabricated that way."
The picture may or may not be an accurate representation of what occurred but to accuse the paper of deliberate fabrication is a little harsh. Note that the article quotes one of the passengers, Betty Tootell, who could see out of the window, saying: 'There were huge flames coming out of all four engines.' That may or may not be accurate, but it's what she said.
The title chosen for the forthcoming programme 'All Engines Failed!' is very close to the title of the book the same Betty Tootell wrote about the incident - almost 200 pages of it.

I'm sure BA pilots of a certain vintage will be glued to their tv sets to listen to Captain Moody's account. ;)

As for 'sensationalising', I think farmer 1's response to that was spot on.


(Edit)

The captain describes the incident on his website if you're interested: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/ericmoody/index.html

[SEAN911]

is it true that a 747 travels 10 miles forward for a height loss of 1000ft as the article states? I am a glider pilot and that seems a pretty good glide ratio to me!! great story though, and amazing skill shown by all the crew including all the stews keeping everyone calm..


Over my career I've flown B-727, B-707, MD-80, B-757, B-767, and DC-10.
On all of them you could glide 3nm per 1,000 ft. of altitude loss. With light traffic and clear conditions many pilots would reduce power to 'idle' at the top-of-descent, and then try to make it to touch-down without adding power. With judicious use of speed-brakes (if needed), flap selection, and landing gear 'down' it was amazing how often this could be accomplished.

[Few Cloudy]

And then it happened to KLM over Mt McKinley.
Difference was, no-one knew much of the effects of volcanic ash the first time - by Alaska it was common knowledge...

[Drop The Dunlops]

The picture may be a completely inaccurate representation. It could also be a slightly inaccurate representation or even an accurate representation. Who can say. Nobody saw the event from outside of the aircraft.
To say that the picture was deliberately fabricated to be completely inaccurate would imply that you have mind reading abilities. Or that you just made that bit up.


Well, maybe I over-reacted a bit then.

Just finished a busy week during which I had to explain to friends and passengers why a diversion by one of my Company's a/c was not a life-threatening emergency, as the media reported it. In addition to that a newspaper ran an article realting to a flight I operated about six months ago and completely twisted a normal event out of all proportion, despite my statement to the Company PR dept explaining the facts!

If the artist who produced that pic was just interpreting the passengers accounts then fair enough.

[Drop The Dunlops]

It wasn't in a newspaper it was in the Daily Mail.

True, I should've recognised that.

[DTY/LKS]

In ATC we use 2 miles per 1000ft for a "glider" just to be on safe side.

[The SSK]

If you think that picture's sensational, try clicking on the Norma Levy link to the right of it.:ooh:

[TopBunk]

I'm sure BA pilots of a certain vintage will be glued to their tv sets to listen to Captain Moody's account. ;)

;) ... precisely. He has dined out on that story almost constantly ever since. Alledgedly his offfspring has be known to introduce himself as 'xxxx, son of Eric'. :oh:

That said, one must recognise what the FLIGHT CREW achieved on that dark night as a piece of first rate aviation.

[misd-agin]

Poor representation of facts by the artist.

1. Night event. I've yet to see trees from ANY altitude at night. It's just dark.
2. Flames came out of the engine exhausts during start attempts(one at a time).
3. Drawing shows flames going sideways towards #1 engine. At 450+ KTAS?
4. Flames billowing up high above wing. At 450+ KTAS?
4a. Or are flames billowing sideways towards the tail? At 450+ KTAS?
5. Slats are extended. A/c was in cruise when the 'flames' were present.

Real engines fires don't look that, especially not at 450+ KTAS.