Learmount at it again

[Kiltie]

Having heard Flight's boss's interview with Jimmy Young on Radio 2 today, I thought it was admirable how he quoshed the fiction presses' imagination on how certain engine manufacturer's had a poor record of failures etc. and how he generally backed the airline public transport sector.

However, his television interview yesterday which included ramblings such as sabotage theories was untactful and misdirected for a man of his media position.

[brabazon]

I'm not sure David Learmount is Flight's boss, just he tends to get introduced as that. He's the Operations/Safety Editor

Anyway, he was also interviewed yesterday on Radio 4's PM, where they were trying to make a big issue out of the CF6 "unsafe condition". David started off about the fact that many advisory notices are issued, but then went on a ramble about GE and Rolls-Royce.

In such cases you need to be quick and clear at rebutting such questions or say "let's wait and see what the NTSB say".

Maybe it's time for the industy to invite some of the main TV and Radio transport correspondents/news editors around their facilities to try to explain what the terminology that is used by the industry means.

[Boss Raptor]

Nothing new there...after a few valid sentences I have noticed in recent years that 'Mr. Learmouth' tends to either go off at a tangent, use technospeak (that I suspect he doesnt fully comprehend himself) or make vast statements which are either unqualified and/or his own very personal opinion...or all three!

Yet this is seen by the media/general public as the 'voice of our industry'!!

No thank you... :confused:

[InFinRetirement]

It's OK being a paragon of virtue, but before you degrade DL you should have to ask yourself one question. Have I the technical knowledge that he does ( and yes he does have it ), and could I, therefore, make informed statements?

Probably not. So ask yourself another question. Why do the press and media always want DL views - you rarely see others?

[No comment]

Mr Learmount definately isn't Flight's boss. I suspect you are also one of the people that slag off Flight International without actually reading it. (Mind you £2.40 is a bit dear) Anyhow, pick up a copy and check the inside if you really want to know who the editor etc. is...

My Main point:
Who then, do you suggest should answer questions from the Media? Bear in mind Mr Learmount does have a background in aviation...

[Viscount Sussex]

The NTSB?
:confused:

[sky9]

I haven’t seen or heard everything that DL has said on this issue however whenever there is an aviation news story both radio and TV look for an "expert" in their address books. Frankly I would prefer DL to the GAPAN "expert".

What I would really prefer is for the BALPA Technical Committee Chairman or the IAP Technical Committee Chairman :) to be available for interview.

In the meantime wouldn’t it be nice if scavenging jorno’s actually used their full names as user names on this Board and included in the Personal Title both who they worked for and a picture of themselves (£££££).

Possibly consideration could be given to a separate Forum for Journo’s Questions on this BB so that only people qualified to answer would do so rather than the multitude of "Bozo’s" who presently clutter up this board with their ill founded opinions.

[station calling]

It is indeed unfortunate that Dave "Learmouth" is the only person that the media deem worthy of interview, when accidents like this happen. I knew him in the RAF when he lost his medical category and he doesn`t seem to have changed.Perhaps it might have been more appropriate to have interviewed a senior Captain who is current on the A-300, or someone from AAIB.

[HugMonster]

Viscount, the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) conducts air accident inquiries in the USA.

[brabazon]

Sky9

I don't know which media you are watching or listening to miss DL, but he seems to have been on most.

Anyway, your suggestion about BALPA and/or the IAP Tech Committee's putting up spokespeople is interesting. Is this going to be taken up.

[Boeingman]

BALPA does make people available, but the news industry doesn't want 'lets wait and see' or its too early to tell' especially when they have 24hr rolling news to fill. They want 'pilots must carry guns' or 'it definitely was a terrorist act'.

Only unaccountable pundits can give this view. Some of the unmitigated tosh that has been spoken recently has really infuriated me.

Loose punditry is costing jobs.

[Suggs]

Thank God that it is David Learmount giving his opinion and the not The Govenor, although I have heard that he would freely make himself availiable.

[nomdeplume]

"..... the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) conducts air accident inquiries in the USA."

I think Viscount knows that, Hug.
That's why he suggested the Press should direct questions to them. :rolleyes: ;)

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

Why do the Press go to David Learmount?

Because it's pointless (from their point of view) going to someone responsible. A responsible person would say things like 'It's far too early to make any sensible comment, and it would be irresponsible to speculate.' The journos job is to sell newspapers, and they love to find a shock horror "scandal", someone to blame if they can.

Because journos have a list of people who just love self-publicity, and can be relied on to make a comment without knowing the facts, or to say something shocking, whichever is needed. They used to use that self-important prat, somebody Wilson from Gapan.
This happens in all spheres, not just aviation. All the same names keep coming up.

[flapsforty]

.....Because it's pointless (from their point of view) going to someone responsible...


nomdeplume whenever an aviation-related story crops up, Dutch media interview the chairman of the VNV (Dutch Balpa). His views are sought by the media and respected by the general public.

His predecessor was even something of a celebrity due to his frequent appearnces on the idiot box. These blokes do the cause of aviation a lot of good, because they are well spoken, able to give just the right mix of level-headedness & techno-talk made understandable.
They are not condescending, but invite the viewers and listeners to "think along with us" and to come "into our world".

Anyway, it's possible and perhaps Balpa should push itself a bit more??

[Epsom Hold 2]

If you want a more experienced pilot on the news, try Eric Moody (who was the BA captain who landed the 747 at Jakarta after losing all four engines in volcanic ash). After the SQ crash in Tai'pei this time last year, he claimed on Sky News that "they [the SQ pilots] turned it into a Cabriolet [sp?]." I found that extremely offensive, many people lost their lives in a horrible fashion and he was making a joke of it as though someone had harmlessly driven a truck under a low bridge. I know for a fact DL wouldn't stoop to that kind of thing, even though he's got a tenth of the airmanship of Moody at best. I am yet to meet a pilot who I think would be up to the job of appearing on TV and making any kind of sense, as opposed to babbling in technospeak, saying "it's too early to speculate" or making horrific jokes (likewise I am yet to meet anyone in the TV business - including those with PPLs - that I would ever fly with).

I think you guys should get used to DL, his TV experience alone makes him qualified in the eyes of the news producers, he must have racked up over 100 hours on the box including documentaries and news, making him something of a pro.

[Evanelpus]

It could have been worse, they could have interviwed Brendan O'Brien!!!!!

[The Nr Fairy]

If anyone's got any questions of DL, maybe they can ask him themselves at the Gatbash.

[PPRuNe Pop]

They will have hurry though I think there is only 8 places left. But I am certain David will be only too pleased to give you an 'interview'! :p

[Groundloop]

DL is slightly better than that idiot Paul Beaver who also pops up with monotonous regularity, sometimes as an "Aviation Expert" and sometimes as a "Defence Expert", depending on the story.

Remember DL is also advertising FI when he appears, probably why he is so keen to do it. Paul Beaver is just advertising Paul Beaver!

[Young Paul]

Also, most airlines are reluctant to allow pilots to speak to the media. Or anybody else unofficial for that matter. In schools, only one of the governors should speak to the media. Companies have press departments. Politicians have spin doctors.

The media have a habit of manipulating what anybody says to suit their own end (surely not!!!!!) - which is why most organisations think it is simpler to only allow narrow access to media.

Yes, it would be great to have people who know what they are talking about in the media. It would make for much more interesting stories. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Until the media are as accountable as the people who might tell those stories, it just won't happen. So the era of the media pundit will continue.

[Mowgli]

On the day of the A300 accident, I was on standby and was watching the box when the news unfolded. DL was interviewed shortly afterwards, and said that the A300 was not fly by wire/driven by computers so it wasn't anything to do with computers failing. I deliberately haven't used quotation marks because I can't recall his exact words. My point is, that at the time I was surprised that he said this because I thought all Airbuses were fly by wire, but apparently not. I'm a Boeing driver, but obviously I don't know enough about the Airbus fleet. Any Airbus drivers like to educate me?

On the point about being interviewed by the media, there are courses you can do to prepare you for TV interviews, I did one in a past life and they are very good at helping you not to say something damaging to your cause, and enabling you to get the important points out. Do we not feel that as a profession we are not being well represented? Perhaps it's time we were, and have professional representatives who've received some media training. It is very noticeable when you see people who haven't had any training on the box.

[Flap 5]

Mowgli makes a good point. I am current on the 737 but also have many thousands of hours on the A320 and A330. I therefore have no more than general knowledge of the A300 / A310.

David Learmount has many years of experience of reporting on a wide range of operational and safety matters in aviation. He is therefore in a position of providing a particular view on this accident.

We should all be careful about expressing a strong view about anything we are not familiar with. But we should not put down people who inform the rest of us, as long as their information is correct (as even the experts can get it wrong sometimes).

[Young Paul]

DL is correct - the A300/310 are not fly by wire. This is, in fact, "general knowledge", but was also covered in a little detail in the flight controls section of my A320 type conversion.

The distinction is that, in the A320, derivatives, and 330/340, the pilots' inputs do not directly command the flight controls. Instead, they signal a computer to say, in pitch, that the pilot would like to pull a different amount of G, or in roll, that the pilot would like to command a rate of roll. Consequently, there are also no heavy cable runs that could jam.

In non-FBW aircraft, control column input commands control surface deflection. Even in these, however, the input from the pilot may not directly translate to a control surface movement - other computers may modify demands. But there are cables that connect the control column to the control surfaces. In the event of everything else failing, these direct connections still exist, unlike in a FBW aircraft.

However, the point is pretty irrelevant, since there is actually no evidence of computer failure being implicated in any Airbus hull loss, to the best of my knowledge - this would imply that there was. Ten years ago, I would have said that it was too early to put computers in a life-critical application. Now, I tend to think that however many million aircraft hours creates a sufficient statistical level of confidence.

[Pirate]

A300-B4 is clockwork cockpit and traditional flying controls. Good automated engine control system, otherwise fairly basic systems. Good pilot's aeroplane

[gordonroxburgh]

Exile from Groggs

There is actually no evidence of computer failure being implicated in any Airbus hull loss

Wasn't the A320 accident with the Air France aircraft at Habsheim, France, caused when she went into the trees after a fly past caued by the FBW computer getting confused.

[TwinAisle]

Gordo - As an ex-AI'er, I rush to defend the A320 re Habsheim..

What happened at Habsheim was that a commercial airliner on a scheduled flight was diverted to do a low flypast at a small airport's airshow. The field at Habsheim is actually too short for the A320. The CVR reports the crew talking about the low flypast - followed by one of the crew remarking on the trees that were looming up fast. The thrust levers were then pushed fully forward, which as all the jet drivers know, does not give instant power - by the time the fans had wound up, they were ingesting tree. The computers had to ignore the full sidestick pull, since the aircraft would have stalled, given its airspeed and AoA. The computers were not "confused" - they merely acted to stop the aircraft stalling.

The real villain of the piece here is not the A320 or FBW - it is, as the DGAC stated - a pilot problem. Would any of the jet pilots here - Boeing, Airbus or anyone else - have lined their aircraft up onto a runway that was too short to land it on, done a low level pass (40 feet according to the CVR, which picked up the RA annunciator)at low speed and high AoA, flown towards a bank of trees, the tops of which were HIGHER than the aircraft - and then acted surprised when things went horribly and tragically wrong?

FBW is like an automatic gearbox in a car - automatic cars can still be driven over cliffs and into trees, but will be in the right gear on impact. FBW aircraft can equally fly into things, but will generally be under control when they hit.

[Epsom Hold 2]

The AF A320 that crashed at Habshiem was flown just above stall speed along the crowd line at 30 ft with a low power setting. The trees at the end were more like 70 ft. The computers worked perfectly, in that they didn't allow the angle of attack the captain needed, because the plane would have stalled anyway. The outcome would have been the same, or worse, in a conventional aircraft.

In actual fact if Airbus have had a problem with automation, it's on the hi-tech but conventionally controlled A300-600R (not the B4, which is indeed a nice aircraft as was pointed out above but it was a -600R that crashed in NY) and A310, in go-around mode. Put down to pilot error in each case (China Air Lines, Thai et al) but anyone who has seen the spectacular footage of the Tarom A310 out of control over Paris will agree that a go-around in the AB6 or 310 can be problematic.

[Mowgli]

Thanks Airbus people for the education on the early A300 series. As a Boeing "Luddite" I like the sound of the A300 with something solid connecting the controls to the control surfaces. No doubt in a few years when my company swops its Boeings for Buses I'll be a fly by wire convert, but I don't want to get into that here, I have enough debate about that at work with my Airbus colleagues. Hope they soon find out exacly what happened with the AA flight, and condolences to all affected by this tragedy.

[brain fade]

Come on! Give Learmonth a break. At least he's got some idea what he's talking about.
Out of every twenty aviation related articles i read in the papers; nineteen have obvious factual inaccuracies and ten are complete bolloc*s! Who (specifically) would do a better job? Lets have a show of hands!

[Young Paul]

In fact, I have been told that the pilot of the Habsheim aircraft was prosecuted and jailed. He deliberately overrode the fundamental FBW systems that would have protected the aircraft.

The drawback with FBW is that it can lead a pilot into thinking he is not flying an aeroplane. At the end of the day, all pilots need to remember that they have several tonnes of metal strapped to their bottom, and that metal will continue to follow physical laws. FBW should, however, prevent you from reaching the point where the laws will prevent you from flying.