PDA

View Full Version : Qantas and Journalism


packrat
12th Sep 2009, 23:04
major news channels carried a brief and blunt message: a Qantas flight had been diverted so as to land at an Australian Air Force base.
Shortly afterwards, an addendum: the diversion followed an incident "involving another plane."
Given Qantas recent history, the brevity of the reports left much to be desired.
Visiting the Qantas website this morning to ascertain the facts met with a website that was broken.
So what did happen?
True, QF 842 from Sydney to Darwin did land at Tindal RAAF base. And it was held there.
But, this is the back story: when QF842 arrived at Darwin's small airport, it could not land because of "an incident" involving a light aircraft. Put into a holding pattern, the pilot wanted to play safe on fuel: Darwin is a long way from anywhere else in Australia: in fact it's nearer to many places in Indonesia than to any other civilian airstrip capable of taking large commercial aircraft. The flight normally uses a Boeing 737-800 but it has not been confirmed if that was the aircraft on that occasion. But nothing at all turns on the aircraft in use. The pilot decided that if he could not put down, he should make provision for additional fuel. And so he arranged to fly some 300km south to Tindal. There the aircraft was refuelled and waited until it was told it could fly to Darwin and land.
Qantas pilots have a reputation for pragmatism. The term "no-nonsense Aussies" might have been coined for them. With bluntness tinged with humour, they are renowned for cutting comments - even about passengers. And everyone loves them for it.
The decision to go to Tindal was an example of that pragmatism. Why fly around in circles for an unknown length of time, burning fuel, when it's only have an hour to a pitstop? And why risk running low on fuel and having to declare an emergency? A Jetstar flight from Cairns made the same decision.
What happened to the light aircraft?
The wheels fell off. Literally. Its undercarriage collapsed as it ran down the runway.
But even that information is misreported: one published report says the undercarriage on the Cessna broke on take-off and another says it happened on landing.
Whichever, the aircraft suffered damage on the main runway and although it was dragged away quickly, the airport authorities spent a couple of hours making sure that both the tarmac and the nearby grass was free of debris. After all, it doesn't take much to cause a catastrophe as the Paris crash of Concorde demonstrated.
And so, the fact is that this was a good news story for Qantas. But it was presented in such a way that it appeared to be exactly the opposite.

CaptCloudbuster
12th Sep 2009, 23:21
Thankyou Packrat for highlighting this GOOD NEWS STORY.:ok:

Well done to the QANTAS and JETSTAR crews. :D

The media "professionals" in this country have much to account for!:mad:

T-Vasis
13th Sep 2009, 05:50
There was a third aircraft that also diverted to Tindal - an A330 (Private Charter)

zube
13th Sep 2009, 07:12
This has happened at Darwin numerous times in the past. Don't know why it rated a mention in the "news".

Those routes from the south pass over Tindal anyway. If there is any doubt as to how long the runway would close you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise its a great idea to hold near, or land at, Tindal if needed.

As I say all in a day's work and not really news.

Arnold E
13th Sep 2009, 12:50
Just as a matter of interest, what was not factual about the report?:confused:

obira
13th Sep 2009, 22:26
'Arnold E has not been blind drunk at the controls in the last few days.'

Anything there that's not factual?

obira

lowerlobe
13th Sep 2009, 22:54
Arnold E.....

Obira is right in that it is not what is factually correct in an article but what is inferred that causes the problem...

desmotronic
13th Sep 2009, 22:57
a Qantas flight had been diverted so as to land at an Australian Air Force base.
Shortly afterwards, an addendum: the diversion followed an incident "involving another plane."


sounds perfectly factual and reasonable..:rolleyes:

lowerlobe
13th Sep 2009, 23:25
a Qantas flight had been diverted so as to land at an Australian Air Force base.
Shortly afterwards, an addendum: the diversion followed an incident "involving another plane."
sounds perfectly factual and reasonable.
Perhaps if you read nothing more intricate that comic books....

desmotronic....

So you don't see any inference that the QF aircraft was involved in an incident with another aircraft...:rolleyes:

The journo could have said ....."the the diversion of the inbound QF aircraft and others to Tindal was due to a light aircraft whose landing gear collapsed on landing at Darwin.The authorities closed the runway until it was cleared of debris.

No other aircraft were involved with the light aircraft and the pilot and passengers in the light aircraft were no injured.

The light aircraft was removed from the runway however,it took some time to ensure the runway was free of debris".....

But he/she didn't did they?

nitpicker330
14th Sep 2009, 04:41
Why would it take 2 hours to clear away the small amount of debri from a Cessna's wheels!!!!:D

So based on that it would take about a week to clear up a large widebody from the Runway!!:*

That is not good enough.:confused:

desmotronic
14th Sep 2009, 05:13
lowerlobe,
nope. do you think you are just a touch paranoid..

lowerlobe
14th Sep 2009, 05:36
desmotronic...

Nope ,Are you disingenuous or perhaps naive?

Then again it depends on the level of reading you're used to...