PDA

View Full Version : Abysmal Journalism concerning Aviation


Shark Patrol
16th Jan 2010, 04:53
Some more outstanding journalism about aviation, as witnessed on the news.com.au website. The story concerns a United Airlines flight that diverted to Brisbane (enroute to Sydney) because it was "running out of fuel" and had an "engineering problem".

United Airlines flight forced to land due to low fuel | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/united-airlines-flight-forced-to-land-due-to-low-fuel/story-e6frfq80-1225820344788)

This was probably no more than a 744 using a little more fuel than forecast and requiring a top-up. Hardly a major story, you would think, but what makes this truly appalling journalism is that the headline read "United Airlines flight forced to land due to low fuel". What's more, a picture was posted beside the story that showed an A319 that had landed with one main gear not locked down in Newark, USA, five days ago.

Maybe we should post every terrible/misleading/alarmist story about aviation on this thread, and then send it to Media Watch at the end of the year for comment. The Mods will probably have to limit the thread to make it a managable length though.

Arnold E
16th Jan 2010, 05:29
I would have thought that a regular scheduled airline flight not being able to make its stated destination because it was running low on fuel, is cause for some concern.

airsupport
16th Jan 2010, 05:46
I would have thought that a regular scheduled airline flight not being able to make its stated destination because it was running low on fuel, is cause for some concern.

So would I, especially if I was on it. :eek:

yssy.ymel
16th Jan 2010, 05:49
Arnold,

A diversion for fuel reasons is not always a call for concern. Headwinds are a general cause. In any case, they diverted to Brisbane with appropriate reserves in their tanks for that destination. Storm in a teacup.

In any case, that article is ridiculous. Have just sent it to Mediawatch.

airsupport
16th Jan 2010, 06:07
In any case, they diverted to Brisbane with appropriate reserves in their tanks for that destination.

Yes, but that was NOT their scheduled destination. ;)

Maybe it is a slow news day. :ok:

Wod
16th Jan 2010, 06:21
I would have thought that a regular scheduled airline flight not being able to make its stated destination because it was running low on fuel, is cause for some concern


No, Arnold.

LAX-SYD for most 744 will be payload limited, maybe to less than full pax capacity. Without getting into the arcane world of saleable capacity calculation, most carriers will take the offering, limited, load, on the day in the knowledge that the forecast enroute wind component might be lean or fat. The tech call risk is a legitimate piece of commercial judgement.

(Mind you, it was easier HNL-SYD, when you could expect the same crew to continue to destination)

Been part of aviation forever. LAX-SYD you can drop into NAN, NOU or BNE; there is no risk to life or limb.

And, who knows, SYD threw in a risk of fog or something nasty late in the flight.

As others have said. Non-event.

Capt Claret
16th Jan 2010, 06:33
Ho-hum.

In the good ole days of the semi-transcontinental 146, it was not uncommon to have to drop into Kalgoorlie for a (fuel) tech stop. Particularly if a 100 series was scheduled and the winter westerlies were strong.

Generally the decision wasn't made until the load ex ASP was finalised, and some times, not until established in the cruise and actual conditions determined.

Pax would be advised when appropriate with an explanation that not enough fuel could be carried, yadda, yadda, yadda. I'd be very surprised if the explanations weren't passed on by non-technical people as "we had to go to Kalgorlie because the plane ran out of fuel".

Just because a layman's explanation gets reworded, doesn't mean there is any cause for concern.

tmpffisch
16th Jan 2010, 06:39
Emergency landing? One must have mistook the fuel truck for a fire truck

hoboe
16th Jan 2010, 07:41
Maybe it is a slow news day.

Absolutely it was a slow news day, what a crock of shite!

Firstly it didn't land at 11.30am in Brisvegas, it was about 6.30am (7.30am Sydney). Secondly there was no engineering problem!

As someone else pointed out about the unforecast headwinds, they decided to divert abeam Brisbane as they were going to be short for holding at YSSY and then diversion to YBBN. They landed at YBBN, got some fuel, and left. Nothing more, nothing less...

yssy.ymel
16th Jan 2010, 08:16
@airsupport,

No perhaps it wasn't their destination. But neither are flights that are re-routed from Melbourne to Sydney, or Sydney to Canberra, or Adelaide to Melbourne or Perth to, well, anywhere but Perth, and so on. There are unique conditions for any of these flights. But to headline a "news" article with "ZOMG!!!! NO FUEL ON PLANE!!!! POSSIBLE DITCHING IN PACIFIC! UA ENGINEERING EMERGENCY!" is just ridiculous.

Media these days are "social media" sites like twatter, er, *******, where things that are trending (UA emergency landing in Newark, anything QF related, Airbus sucks bollocks, etc) have sensationalist headlines attached to them with unrelated "content" (bodgy images) slapped into a HTML stylesheet and regurgitated to us as "news".

Remember, Rupert wants to charge you for this trash.

The standard response from the bureau desks when you inform them of their faux-paux is "oh, this is just a reuters wire, we don't check for accuracy or content". That's not journalism - that's just plain :mad: lazy in my very humble opinion.

Masif Eego
16th Jan 2010, 08:18
"unforecast headwinds" .....my a$$. You guys do know that grib data is quite accuirate and updated every 6 hrs. Did anyone else divert ?

Doesn't UA carry Altn fuel everywhere.

Piss poor effort if you ask me...............

DeeJayEss
16th Jan 2010, 08:24
Gawd I'm getting sick of these stupid B011ocks stories from our supposedly professional news service.

Is there anything we can actually do about this? Sure we can all post it to mediawatch, but is there anything else we can do? Can the ombudsman do anything?

DeeJayEss
16th Jan 2010, 08:28
Masif Eego - how many over water longhaul flights into a jetstream have you flown? Maybe listen to those around us who actually have experience before you make comments like that.

However, in fairness, I will eat my hat if it comes out that there was an issue that they're hiding, but I am going to wager that that is going to be a very slim chance.

Still reckon this is pi$$ poor journalism though.

yssy.ymel
16th Jan 2010, 08:28
@massive ego
Sure. a lot can happen in 6 hours. 6 hours is a bit under the half the 14 hours it takes to do LAX-SYD.

So, I get six hours into the flight, and oh, there's the headwinds. CLACKACLACKA on the ACARS "HEAD WINDS PROBABLE".

Oh cheers, thanks for that.

hoboe
16th Jan 2010, 08:32
"unforecast headwinds" .....my a$$. You guys do know that grib data is quite accuirate and updated every 6 hrs. Did anyone else divert ?

Doesn't UA carry Altn fuel everywhere.

Piss poor effort if you ask me...............

Masif Eego,

Yes I know all about grib winds, and I have also seen them be way off the mark, and also not updated as they are meant to be.

Regarding the comment above and your a$$, I was just trying to provide some factual information rather than speculation...

I was the controller that diverted him to Brisbane and asked him why he was doing so. The answer is in my previous post.

yssy.ymel
16th Jan 2010, 08:37
DeeJayyEss

Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, most of these stories come in from other wire services (AAP, Reuters, etc). They don't have real journalists, and probably no journalists with aviation experience, so it's basically "a lie can circle the globe before the truth has even got its boots on" scenario.

There was a big mediawatch expose last year about it, but the on line content providers don't really care. It's a shame.

Tempo
16th Jan 2010, 08:44
I don't have any idea about the UA fuel policy. However, I can say that at the airline I work for, it is perfectly legal and quite common to depart for you destination WITHOUT having the required legal inflight fuel requirements to make your destination. However, you DO have the legal requirements to go to a SUITABLE airport enroute. As the flight progresses, more and more options become available until hey presto, you have the inflight requirements to make destination (Flight Fuel, VR, FR etc etc). If however, the headwinds are stronger than forecast and if you departed with absolute minimum fuel and max payload, then yes, it is possible to not make destination. Result, make a TECH STOP. This is obviously what United did.

i.e. WHO CARES!!!!!!!

601
16th Jan 2010, 08:46
Yes, but that was NOT their scheduled destination.

airsupport

How do you know. Were you one of the crew.It appears they had a scheduled destination of Melbourne but what was their flight planned destination?

Maybe they planned to Brisbane knowing that the winds were against them with the idea of recalculating abeam Brisbane.

Or don't they teach recalculating abeam these days.

US-bound plane diverts after fuel problem
United Airlines

A Los Angeles-bound flight was forced to land in Brisbane because it was low on fuel.

By the way, which way WAS it going?

Worrals in the wilds
16th Jan 2010, 09:21
Secondly there was no engineering problem!
There was, but it was discovered after landing. It wasn't the reason for the initial diversion. The aircraft is still at YBBN (down at the old terminal) awaiting some tender loving care.

Agree 100% about the standard of aviation journalism.

airsupport
16th Jan 2010, 09:22
I really couldn't care less. :rolleyes:

However there is more to this than some of you are making out, why did the original aircraft not just go on to Sydney after refuelling? ;)

Arnold E
16th Jan 2010, 09:38
WOD
Please let me know what airline you fly for and preferably your flight schedule, because any pilot that considers running low on fuel for any reason is a NON EVENT, is a pilot that I dont want to fly with.:eek:

You too Charlie

A Comfy Chair
16th Jan 2010, 10:26
WOD
Please let me know what airline you fly for and preferably your flight schedule, because any pilot that considers running low on fuel for any reason is a NON EVENT, is a pilot that I dont want to fly with.

You too Charlie

Their fuel state was calculated to be one that they didn't want to continue to Sydney with, so they refueled in Brisbane. The point here is that they didn't run low on fuel.. they made a decison to tech stop in order to avoid running low!

Anyone who has ever operated USA - AUS direct knows the fuel/payload limitations, and the fact that forecast winds can change dramatically over such a long flight. They also know that if the winds are stronger than predicted, the various places to stop for fuel enroute.

If an aircraft lands in Brisbane with low fuel, then it is something to think about. But if an aircraft lands in Brisbane to AVOID a low fuel state, we'll I'd be thinking the pilots are doing their job.

Going Boeing
16th Jan 2010, 10:32
Arnold E, you appear to not get the point. My apologies if you are an experienced commercial pilot and I'm telling you to suck eggs, but every airline has strict rules about the amount of fuel required for every phase of flight. When UA departed the US, they would have had the required amount of fuel on board. Throughout the flight, they may have experienced increased headwinds or Sydney's weather may have changed which could have added a requirement for an additional 60 minutes of holding fuel. If they did not have sufficient fuel to meet the increased requirements to continue to SYD then they were required to proceed to a suitable alternate (observing the required fuel reserves at all times) to take on additional fuel. Noumea and Nadi would also have been available if an earlier diversion was required.

There is absolutely nothing newsworthy about this diversion as this was professional aircrew doing their job the way they should do.

Arnold E
16th Jan 2010, 10:39
Ok I admit I dont fly shiny jets ( actually to be honest, dont really want to ), having said that I know I am also paranoid about fuel, but I can say one thing, whilst all sorts of misfortune may befall me, running out of fuel wont be one of them.

yssy.ymel
16th Jan 2010, 10:49
Going Boeing - you've said what I was trying to say. Thanks.

Reeltime
16th Jan 2010, 10:57
Arnold try to read what the professionals are saying here. The aircraft in question didn't run low on fuel, it just didn't have the required fuel to continue to destination.

In all likelyhood the crew departed LAX knowing they were going to be tight on fuel, and would have known that a tech stop (fuel stop) would be a reasonable possibility, and this would have been planned for. This is not unusual in longhaul airline operations, what would you have them do..not depart LAX?

Don't jump on here and criticise posts, when it's obvious that you don't know what you're on about.

Keg
16th Jan 2010, 11:36
...I know I am also paranoid about fuel,

And you don't think we aren't also? Strewth, few things frighten me more than 250 plus punters and crew and very little 'go' juice available! (Unless I'm on fire of course! :ok: )

I'll give you another example of a diversion. Taxiing out of MEL recently for SYD we get advised that SYD now has 30 minutes traffic holding. That's OK because we reckon we've got about 45 minutes on top of min op because we'd already loaded a bit of extra. En route we get climbed to a higher than preferred level (lower levels all very bumpy) which cost us some gas. We also get told holding now is 37 minutes. We get held at FL380 instead of our preferred level and that costs us more gas. After all that we could have continued to Sydney and made a legal approach on just above min fuel. However given all the variables in play (possible weather diversions en route from where ATC were holding us for the un forecast TS into Sydney, the good chance of an extended circuit due to traffic and the fact that it would have been nice to have a 'go around' and another approach at the end of all that) we lobbed into Canberra for extra fuel.

My point? Sometimes things change and Plan A is not going to work any longer- despite the best intentions at the beginning of the flight and a conservative fuel order in the first instance. It's not bad airmanship, it's not trying to 'cut it fine', it's not even about 'saving money'. It's about aviation being a dynamic and changing environment (particularly over the 14+ hours of a LAX-SYD sector) and dealing with issues as they arise.

...whilst all sorts of misfortune may befall me, running out of fuel wont be one of them.

I certainly hope that's the case. Not being a 'min fuel' guy myself, I can tell you that the knot in the stomach when you're looking at arriving with less than you want to when there is poor weather around isn't a nice one. Diverting for more fuel tends to make that feeling go away pretty quick smart.

So I hope we can all leave this UA diversion into Brissie as just one of those things that happen in aviation from time to time and not get all wound up about it.

Arnold E
16th Jan 2010, 11:48
it just didn't have the required fuel to continue to destination.
Hmmmm, fair enough guys, as I said, I dont fly long haul or shiny jets, I take on board what you say. And Keg, I'm glad i'm not the only one paranoid about fuel.:ok::ok:

woftam
16th Jan 2010, 12:18
This thread is a typical example of why these forums have little or no interest any more to the "P" pilots of the original PPRune .
The uninformed and waste of bandwidth posts made by people with no idea of what they are talking about have slowly but surely outnumbered the educational and informed opinions of days gone by.
There was always light hearted jibes and "one liners" but the ignorant amateur posts were rare.
It is pretty obvious to the "P"s that what you were legal with ex LAX may or may not be legal when you arrive in the circuit in SYD. Answer? Divert enroute.
Nothing to see here.
Move along. :ugh:

Blogsey
16th Jan 2010, 13:22
Woftam, was thinking the same.
A good idea initially to highlight the inflammatory nature of aviation journalism in Aus by the professionals who commit it (aviation) has inevitably resulted in a debate with the peanut gallery (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=peanut%20gallery). Whodathunk....

hoboe
16th Jan 2010, 15:18
Hoboe

Somewhat confused here. As an ATC, YOU diverted HIM ??? I would have thought that HE told YOU that HE was diverting. Please explain !!

Symantics my friend,

If you can't figure it out, go and have a Bex and Coke and a long liedown...

Sunfish
16th Jan 2010, 18:45
While not a professional pilot, merely an amateur, permit me to make a small comment.

The tenor of the general comments in this thread only reinforce general perceptions of professional pilots as aloof, condescending, disconnected, idiots with no understanding of human behaviour, let alone empathy with the travelling public.

It's no big deal to YOU to divert to Brisbane, but to the first time traveller it IS.

That's because they do not have the same perspective of what is going on that you do, how could they?

Don't you understand? Perceptions are reality.

It probably was a slow news day.

To a first time flyer, with no knowledge of aviation, diverting is a big deal.

Assuming they were merely told the cause was "fuel", they are entitled to assume that there is not enough fuel to get to Sydney, just as if they were driving the family car.

What we do not know is what the passengers were told about the situation when they were told of the diversion. The timing, content and delivery of that announcement should have stopped this story in its tracks.

To put it another way; it's not what YOU think, it's what THEY perceive, and railing at other, less informed, peoples perceptions of what is happening is pointless and generally marks the complainer as a fool.

Comfy Chair summed up what apparently happened rather well I thought.

woftam
16th Jan 2010, 19:17
Sunfish, I rest my case. :ugh:

assymetric
16th Jan 2010, 20:54
Brisbane to Sydney Greyhound bus had to stop outside
Newcastle for emergency refuelling. Company reported all passengers
were in good condition.:D:D:D:D:D:D

Reeltime
16th Jan 2010, 22:04
...and as the aircraft taxy's in at BNE a rather agititated pax (lets call him Sunfish) fumbles for his mobile and tries to dial it. His hands are shaking in a rage making it difficult, but he eventually gets on to his journo mate:

S: I nearly died..sob

J: Whoa there..who is this?

S: It's me...these bastards did this on purpose..don't they know who I am?

J: Oh its you Sunny

S: I'll sue them, thats what I'll do!

J: You're gonna sue United?

S: No you idiot! Qantas!

J: But I heard it was United..

S: Yeah but this is Qantas fault..it's got to be! Damned Sydney-centric arseholes...sob

...and so on and so forth..:hmm:

Fantome
16th Jan 2010, 22:27
By dear old Binos in 2004 -


I have maintained for a long time that an outsider who didn't know any Australian pilots, and who formed his/her opinions based purely on what they read in the D&G forum would come to the conclusion that the vast majority of pilots are insular, argumentative, back-stabbing, intolerant, egotistical, narrow minded know-alls.

What a shame that is. I have met so many great people in aviation over the years, and had many memorable, err, social interactions with them. We are fortunate to work in a field which has so much potential for camaraderie, yet we seem determined to play a horrible game of one-upmanship online.


At one end of the spectrum there are to be found those men and women in whose friendship you may rejoice and in whose wise heads much true lore of the air resides. And that rare commodity, common sense. And at the other, people more akin by nature to the plague carrying rat than any civilised example of homo sapiens. ( And were this a part of the sermon for today, then a reference to Hebrews 13.8 would not be out of place, eh MTR?)

Wiley
16th Jan 2010, 22:42
Imagine the size of the headlines if the United captain had a six pack, finely toned pecs and had been Cleo's runner up playmate (playbloke?) of the month!!

(For anyone of the politically correct persuasion who is outraged by this comment, my ire is directed towards the media and their method of handling this and another recent story and not anyone lucky enough to have a six pack and finely toned pecs.)

Arnold E
16th Jan 2010, 23:07
As I said guys, fair enough, I bow to your superiority, I am only a humble cpl not an atpl.:p

Reeltime
16th Jan 2010, 23:23
No problems Arnold, and we don't think we're superior either..

Good luck with the flying. :ok:

bonvol
16th Jan 2010, 23:32
All this journo business does raise some interesting points.

To educate the punters on what happens in the real world of aviation I am thinking of giving a "factual" PA next time the weather down the track is cactus.

Something like this....
............................................................ ..................
Welcome aboard Flight 123 from Los Angeles to Sydney.

Unfortunately, as luck would have it we can't quite get enough petrol in the tanks to get to Sydney so we plan on falling in the ocean about a hundred miles out, crack the liferafts and paddle the rest of the way…hehe only joking folks!

Actually, we are a bit short of petrol so we are going to Brisbane instead. Now, I know what you are thinking….you bought a ticket to Sydney and thats where you wanna go.

Funnily enough, so do I. My banged up Corolla is sitting in the car park collecting all sorts of fallout and I would like to take it home before it completely falls apart.

But I digress. Once we get the big bomber into the sky we have a magic procedure we carry out that makes fuel as we go. Sometimes we can make enough fuel so that we can get all the way to Sydney. The problem is, sometimes it doesn’t work.

Now there is another problem I think I need to share with you. Despite our best efforts the rain, wind and pestilence sometimes conspire to confound our fuel making abilities. It’s the work of the devil I am sure but it does happen.

If this bad turn of events takes place it’s possible, unlikely for sure, but possible that we wont even be able to make Brisbane. But don’t worry, we have a plan for that too. We can go to all sorts of exotic South Pacific Islands, take your pick.

My old Co-pilot Simon once said “Tahiti looks nice so we went there”. Please leave your requests with the flight attendant and ohh, be aware there is a small fee to make requests.

So settle back, relax and enjoy the superb in flight service as your crew flies you to Sydney or perhaps Brisbane, Fiji or wherever the good winds take us.

Sunfish
17th Jan 2010, 02:46
Would you like to see the journalists comments on your attitude to what they write?

I know its self referential, but it might be fun to see the response from the people that ultimately pay your wages to the perceived contempt in which you hold them.

"Self Loading Freight", "Punters" indeed.



...and having said all that, I do want the PIC of any commercial flight that I take to have a healthy ego, but not at the expense of belittling their customers.

.And giving praise where its due, Qantas staff used to be very good at imparting concise and understandable information in a way that didn't belittle anyone and at the ame time managed their expectations and perceptions.


....including a late Sunfish, who once had to be called on the PA, and the nice Qantas gate Lady said "No need to hurry, because they can't take off without me, and I'm behind you."

parabellum
17th Jan 2010, 03:24
The tenor of the general comments in this thread only reinforce general perceptions of professional pilots as aloof, condescending, disconnected, idiots with no understanding of human behaviour, let alone empathy with the travelling public.


Sunfish - You seem to be forgetting that PPRuNe is primarily for professional pilots. Other aviation professionals are also very welcome. If Joe Public comes to this forum and is genuinely seeking information, a couple of sensibly worded questions would almost certainly have yielded sensible answers, but statements such as the original by Arnold E and one or two others are perceived as criticism coming from quarters that are unqualified to offer it.

PPRuNe is unique in that it lets non aviation people inside an aspect of professional flying, (that is pilots talking to pilots and other aviation professionals), when in most other professions their forums are private and open to qualified members only.


There is nothing new about re-dispatch flight planning.

frigatebird
17th Jan 2010, 03:47
"Show of hands, Fletcher Christian wants to know how many passengers will support him to take over the ship, launch the Captain in the launch, he's a good navigator - learnt under Cook, he'll make it, - so we can go our own way and pick up the wimmen" ..

Wiley
17th Jan 2010, 05:50
Sadly, frigatebird, thanks in no small part to the education system much of Generation Y has grown up with, where they're taught to question and have no respect for all or any authority figures, for many of them, if they were in a position to do so on an airliner, they would do something along the lines of what you suggested. The chav factor creates almost the same attitude in (far too many!) older people who have little to no recollection of any education they may have received.

Maybe we have something to thank Mr Bin Laden for in having that cockpit door securely locked(!)

Not too many years ago, I diverted from the old Hong Kong to Macau because of monsoonal weather when we missed out on the 13 IGS. During the refuel at Macau, I was roundly unbraided by a very angry passenger (I have to admit, not a Generation Y-er) for not getting him to his destination on time.

All I could say to him was that the only way I could have got him to HKG on time was in the middle of a rather large smoking hole. He wasn't amused and didn't back down one bit. He need to be in Hong Kong now, no excuses, and wasn't interested in hearing any reasons why he couldn't be.

rmcdonal
17th Jan 2010, 07:30
He need to be in Hong Kong now, no excuses, and wasn't interested in hearing any reasons why he couldn't be.
What we need is a new modification to eject said pax over their destination, then they can't complain. :ok:

Sunfish
17th Jan 2010, 07:40
Parabellum:

Sunfish - You seem to be forgetting that PPRune is primarily for professional pilots.

Have you ever met senior trial lawyers or surgeons who regularly disparage their customers in such a manner as pilots? I think not, and certainly not on a public forum like Pprune.

Furthermore, the disparaging attitude to customers demonstrated here and elsewhere regularly on Pprune is highly counter productive if you take it to work. I should add that maybe it's the wannabees who are doing it, but I wouldn't know. I'm not a wannabeee, too old to be a commercial pilot and would have been bored out of my tree if I'd tried it.

To put it another way; Why do you think Bob Hawke and Peter Abeles were able to stick it to you all those years ago? Because you were portrayed in the media as stuck up over paid ****holes, and you did nothing to counter that image, and every post that refers disparagingly to your customers reinforces that image. A little humility might be worth a lot to you one day.

To put it yet another way; Don't slag your customers for any reason, it's not a good idea.

Arnold E
17th Jan 2010, 08:21
Actually parabellum, how do you know I am "unqualified to comment" I was going to let it go, but I didnt think I was unreasonable to any person in particular.

Yeah ok, just had a look at post 22. I unreseveadly appologise.

parabellum
17th Jan 2010, 08:47
Have you ever met senior trial lawyers or surgeons who regularly disparage their customers in such a manner as pilots? I think not, and certainly not on a public forum like PPRuNe.

Very simple answer Sunfish, if you don't like what you see go elsewhere, this is a Professional Pilots Forum that you have chosen to put your ear to the keyhole of, now, where are the professional surgeons or lawyers forums? I said before, PPRuNe has put you, Joe Public, in a unique position, being able to eavesdrop, yes, eavesdrop on Professional Aviators discussions, show us the legal and medical forums, if you can get in, see how well respected you are there, I happen to know, having both medical and legal members of family, that you are in for a shock, trial lawyers and surgeons see you as dollars and cents, nothing more.

I'm not a wannabeee, too old to be a commercial pilot and would have been bored out of my tree if I'd tried it.


Now that is what I call a disparaging attitude! This is a Professional Pilot's forum, remember?

(I won't go near the '89 stuff, it gets one banned!).

parabellum
17th Jan 2010, 08:51
No problem Arnold E, all is fair in aviation and PPRuNe!;)

framer
17th Jan 2010, 09:03
Sunfish,
I am starting to think that you might have a bias against pilots......either that or you are having a blast winding people up juuuust the right amount so they think you're serious.
I think you are on the wrong track with the whole "pilots regularly disparage their customers " thing. It may seem that way sometimes on here but I can't think of one example from my experience flying airliners in NZ, SE Asia , or Australia, and thats from working with probably thousands of pilots with diferent airlines. I really can't.
Why do you come on here if you are neither a PPilot nor a wannabe? Thats a serious question, I am interested to know.
Have a nice day,
Framer

yssy.ymel
17th Jan 2010, 09:06
Not being a frequent commentator on the forums, but having contributed to this one, it's drifted entirely off topic.

Sunfish - you are obviously a very frequent commentator on here, but I have to admit that most of your posts on this particular topic (and a lot of other ones as well) take the same path - "Professional pilots don't give a damn about their PAX and you should take stock about your attitudes because they suck". Whilst professional pilots may say this on this forum, when they are firmly planted in either the left or right (or back right in a hats off to the old timers) I am pretty sure that all they really care about is the safety and comfort of their PAX. Be careful that your comments don't turn into whining. The terms SLF and punters is a term of endearment, so get over yourself.

Arnold - like I said earlier in this now irretrievably convoluted thread - an aircraft may divert to another airport for any reason. PAX may be informed, or not. I think "Ladies and Gentlemen, due to unforeseen [insert reason here], we have realised the need to divert our flight to [insert airport here]. We apologise for the inconvenience. Please accept a tasty beverage whilst we get you to your destination" is entirely acceptable. The responses to your posts were in no way denigrating - if anything else it shows what poor reporting does to people who are not in possession of all of the facts, and what can happen when poor reporting influences the great unwashed. Sunfish that includes the SLF and punters.

The aim of this thread was to discuss what poor journalism and wire reporting does to the aviation industry. If this thread was any indication, it invokes FUD as to what airlines regularly do in the case that they find that their initial fuel loading will not cut the mustard due to unforeseen conditions- recalculate and divert to a suitable strip. There may well have been an "engineering fault" on that poor 744 - but to see a thread move so quickly from a "professional" discussion to "why do pilots hate their passengers" is staggering, and to be honest, unprofessional to say the least.

</off soapbox>

lunars
17th Jan 2010, 09:18
The good old honest Journalisim has been dead for many many years.
And also many journalists too
RIP

Shark Patrol
17th Jan 2010, 10:29
Having started this thread, it has been fascinating to watch the way it has drifted away from its original intent. In the meantime, the original story itself has also drifted considerably.

I was very interested indeed to notice that within 30 minutes of making my initial posting, the title of the article had changed to "United Airlines aircraft diverts ...". A much more appropriate choice of words, I thought.

But today, the story has reverted back to its original title and, on the link on the news.com.au website, it is being described as a "US-bound" United Airlines flight. Now, if it was indeed US-bound and had to divert into Brisbane for fuel, that would be a problem.

Sadly, the revised article that appeared today is no improvement on the drivel of the original article. The misleading photograph remains, with the very first sentence describing the "forced landing" of the aircraft in Brisbane. Sorry journos, but a diversion for fuel does not constitute a "forced landing" although the use of such inflammatory terminology is sure to appear more newsworthy.

The journalist has now apparently even contacted the ATSB, who said that it was "not unusual for long haul flights to be forced to refuel close to their destination". But I thought the aircraft was "US-bound"?

The revised article can be found here:

United Airlines flight forced to land due to low fuel | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/united-airlines-flight-forced-to-land-due-to-low-fuel/story-e6frfq80-1225820344788)

No wonder "UA officials could not be contacted for comment". They were probably alternating between laughing and crying at the rubbish that has been published in a national newspaper.

frigatebird
17th Jan 2010, 13:14
Sunfish, stick to navigating small boats, but don't go out of sight of land. (and carry an extra jerrycan of fuel)

Sunfish
17th Jan 2010, 18:40
My point is simply that it is unwise and counter productive to disparage your customers and their legitimate fears, even if they are unfounded, something that some people here take a particular delight in doing at every opportunity.

Do it in private if you must, but it is a very unhealthy attitude to entertain for anyone engaged in any business.

tail wheel
17th Jan 2010, 20:15
Sunfish. Nothing in this thread is as abysmally misleading, inaccurate and disparaging as the original media article. Nor is PPRuNe or this thread paraded to the general public as quality journalism.

Can we stick to the thread subject - or has this thread now passed it's use by date? :ugh:

airsupport
18th Jan 2010, 00:05
IF these diversions for fuel are as common as many of you say, why on Earth do the Airlines schedule these flights like this now, it must be so inconvenient for all concerned, the paying passengers of course but even for the Crews.

I have done numerous flights Australia to the US and return, years ago they used to always be scheduled to have a stop, usually Honolulu, even on my most recent trip we were scheduled via Auckland.

I do realise that nobody here actually does the schedules ;) but why don't the Airlines involved in these regular diversions just schedule a stop so everyone knows and can plan for it, AND they could carry higher payloads AND also avoid this adverse publicity? :confused:

Shark Patrol
18th Jan 2010, 00:50
Airsupport,

All things aviation usually involve managing an ever-changing and evolving set of conditions. To make money, airlines look to maximise their payload (passengers and freight) while minimising their costs (crew and fuel).

On ultra-long haul flights (such as LAX/SFO to SYD/MEL for example - the flights mentioned in these "articles") airlines often limit their offered payload so that they can carry the required fuel to cover the required distance for the statistical/forecast average headwinds and the forecast destination weather.

However, aircraft do not operate in a perfect world and weather conditions (either enroute headwinds or destination weather) can often change. In such circumstances, an enroute fuel stop may be required (as happened with the UA aircraft). The fact of the matter is that most times, the planned flight will be completed normally, however, refuelling stops do sometimes occur. But they are hardly the emergency situation portrayed in the sensationalist news.com.au article.

Airlines will not plan refuelling stops routinely because passengers do not want to be inconvenienced and will always try to fly direct. Imagine the extra costs required for turnarounds and increased crewing requirments to cover a contingency that is usually not required. Therefore, airlines are left having to juggle the offered payload to meet the prevailing conditions.

Hope this explanation clarifies the situation for you.

Keg
18th Jan 2010, 01:03
airsupport, diversions don't happen all the time and so would be considered to be uncommon. However, just because they are uncommon, doesn't make them unusual, dangerous, strange or any other word you can think of. They are simply a fact of aviation. Inconvenient for all concerned? Sure. Do they have flow on issues that can take days to rectify? Absolutely. Should anyone be concerned about them when they occur? No.

airsupport
18th Jan 2010, 01:07
After more than 40 years in the Industry, all over the World, I do have a rough idea of how things work. ;)

Just many on this thread were implying that this was almost an every day thing, thus my question. IF it happens that often then it is crazy scheduling, and upsetting for pax, crew and those pesky media people.

IF it is a fairly rare thing, well okay, the Company are taking a gamble.

Keg
18th Jan 2010, 03:42
... I do have a rough idea of how things work.

Really? All evidence to the contrary! :E :}

airsupport
18th Jan 2010, 03:58
Sorry, I forgot where I was posting and the idiots that lurk here. :mad:

parabellum
18th Jan 2010, 04:04
airsupport - In ten years of flying the B747-400 on long haul, a lot of it trans Pacific, I had to divert only twice for fuel.

Wiley
18th Jan 2010, 05:03
air support, I think you could paraphrase what everyone (or at least everyone who flys the line) is saying with: "Diversions are relatively infrequent, but when they do occur, for a half way competent crew, (which we'd like to think we all are!), they're usually a no sweat exercise."

The UA diversion into Brisbane certainly didn't rate the reports it was given in the Australian media.

Edited to add that I hadn't seen Keg's more than adequate reply saying more or less the same thing when I posted the message above.

Keg
18th Jan 2010, 05:16
airsupport, after 40 years in the aviation industry you didn't develop a sense of humour, a thick skin and the ability to work out when someone is kidding at your expense? :suspect: :}

airsupport
18th Jan 2010, 06:09
I did actually, just it is very hard to tell here on PPRuNe. :ugh:

My sincere apologies IF that was the case with you. :ok:

max1
18th Jan 2010, 07:31
For info, flights from the West Coast of continental USA have an agreed maximum of 10 minutes of traffic holding into Sydney.
ATC, and the airlines concerned, are well aware of the fuel requirements of these long haul flights and they are accorded a priority.
This is a nothing story. Next we'll be getting stories about the screech and smell of burning rubber as they landed.

my oleo is extended
18th Jan 2010, 09:25
The Jouno tool's were hoping it would divert to Norfolk to make some really exciting news !
Journo's are like cockroaches and deserve nothing short of being squashed and trampled into oblivion.

ozaggie
18th Jan 2010, 10:09
Keg, I love you. Will you marry me? sorry I stink like Jet A1, but I've got some good claret!!!!

DeeJayEss
18th Jan 2010, 11:22
It's like the "emergency" landing into Sale a few weeks ago. Remember that article? The world practically stopped in Gippsland because a 737 landed there. What about the regular Envoy callsign that goes down to do circuits???

FoxtrotAlpha18
19th Jan 2010, 03:30
This would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic... :}

You old women prattle on about "abyssmal journalism", yet you can't even agree amongst yourselves whether it was an emergency, a precaution, or good judgement on the crew's part. I only read the first two and a half pages of this thread before my eyes glazed over, but up until then we still didn't know if the aircraft landed with a tech issue or not, or whether it is still at YBBN or it continued on to YSSY that morning...:D

People in glass houses and all that...:*

teresa green
19th Jan 2010, 04:35
One United 747/300 did lobb into Willie one night on way to SYD, and it certainly was out of gas. The poor ol RAAF were dumbfounded, bleating to QF to do something, who inturn got a crew out of bed and did a wingtip to wingtip. Now the press had a field day with that, not surprisingly. Also not surprisingly the crew were stood down, pending a inquiry. It was in the late eighties, and cannot remember the final result, but kept us all interested for days.:ouch:

The Green Goblin
19th Jan 2010, 07:48
Sunfish is just bitter and twisted, bit like the last aircraft he flew :eek:

Yeah Sunny, if I bent two 172s landing in benign conditions I'd have contempt for the good folk who do it seamlessly everyday too.

You patronize and post condescending remarks about aircrew, then polish it off with how bored you would have been it you had of pursued a professional flying career. Do you realize what the forum you are posting in is? Why do you continue to jaunt pprune if you have a complete disdain for aircrew and the airlines? Secretly you admire aircrew, love Qantas and wished you could have been a Qantas Pilot. It's just a pity in your heart you know you are shithouse and can't fly really well no matter how much you hit the books and practice.

Get in, sit down, shut up and hang on :E

Did I mention shutup?

Worrals in the wilds
19th Jan 2010, 07:51
or whether it is still at YBBN or it continued on to YSSY that morning...:D

After the initial diversion, a second United 747 arrived in YBBN later in the day to pick up the pax (sent from YSSY, apparently). It departed that afternoon and the first 747 was towed to the old terminal area for repairs to the #4 engine. They spent Sunday fixing it and it departed for LAX late Sunday night.

parabellum
19th Jan 2010, 08:22
FoxtrotAlpha18 - Don't see the point of your post. It has been made abundantly clear by the professionals contributing to this thread that the refuelling stop in BNE was a total non event and simply part of a recognised procedure that has been in place for years.

yssy.ymel
21st Jan 2010, 11:35
I did indeed send this particular article through to Mediawatch with a suggestion that they keep an eye on aviation journalism.

They thought it was a good idea, and obviously must have contacted that bastion of good journalism "news.com.au" as the picture has been removed from the website, but the text is still there.

I'd encourage forum participants to continue to forward this sort of rubbish to Mediawatch. It might actually provoke changes in the way the these "journalists" report aviation news.

Ken Borough
22nd Jan 2010, 00:22
Yes, it might be in some eyes 'abysmal reporting' but does anyone know the facts? The diversion reportedly was as a result of 'low fuel' and many have attributed this state to be a result of 'unforecast headwinds'. This may have been true but why did UAL keep the aircraft in BNE for a couple of days after the diversion?

Could the low fuel and unforecast winds be the result of a mechanical condition on the aircraft that caused an abnormal operation that led to low fuel and unforecast winds and the subsequent diversion? Perhaps it's best to not shoot the messenger, no matter how abysmal, until the facts are known rather than rely on 'facts' reported by some acne-ridden spin-doctor?

maggotdriver
22nd Jan 2010, 02:50
The UAL diversion was normal, but I was told the other day by an engineer that that a certain Asian carrier "x?" diverted into Brisbane the other day. Thay had flown 7:40 odd back of the clock, made two approaches to the Gold Coast and then diverted to Brisbane. Refueled went to the Gold Coast and made another four approaches.
Anyone who's interested can find out how rapidly the risk of an accident increases after two approaches let alone tired and two man crew as well. It may be inconvenient for customers sometimes, but when your operating heavy crew and at the edge of the range of the aeroplane as in UAL you expect to divert sometimes. If I was a journalist I would be FAR more interested in the other diversion and the possible ramifications of it..

Pat S
26th Jan 2010, 23:12
I know that i'll get slammed for this but i'm going to defend some journo's! I work for one of the major media organisations in this country - no, i'm not a journo but i work alongside them. I agree that reporting on aviation issues can sometimes be misleading but i think that we need to put things into perspective. Firstly, most journo's probably don't know and don't need to know the difference between a 737-700 and a 737-800 nor a Boing 777 or an Airbus A346. Now, i know this will come as a great shock to most of you but it's no different to a bunch of trainspotters complaing that a journo got a Tangara train mixed up with Silverside (here in Sydney). Where i work, most journo's are working on 3 to 4 stories at one time and working to a deadline. If they get something wrong in the first version of their story, they will correct it when they are alerted to it. If you see that some info is wrong in a story, let them know. They'll appreciate it (at least where i work they will). Also, they could be working on a story at 2am, 5am etc so sometimes they're not able to get all the facts. Btw, the journo's where i work often check this forum (or me if i'm around now that they know i'm an aviation nut) however as someone else pointed out earlier on, there seems to be quite a bit of debate on this forum as to the exact cause of a certain incident.

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth and no, i don't work for news.com.au.

mrdeux
27th Jan 2010, 00:27
Pat S, I'm afraid I can't think of any positives for the journalists. Sure they may be working on 3 or 4 stories at once, but are you actually telling us that they will all be inaccurate.

I was given a copy of that appalling book by Matthew Benns (The men who killed Qantas). There is not a shred of investigation in it. Mostly he has cut and pasted newspaper articles (taking them as fact...they must be they were printed) as well as selected items from the ATSB, which he himself quite clearly doesn't understand.

Maybe I'll give the local hack some leeway with regard to accuracy, but this is a lad who seems to specialise in aviation. I'm sure it was once a respected profession. But not any more.

Shark Patrol
27th Jan 2010, 01:07
Pat S,

I take your point regarding the differences between aircraft types/designations for the purpose of the story. It is annoying to us in the indistry, but wouldn't matter a fig to anyone who isn't.

My main objection to the original story was the headline that mentioned "Forced Landing in Brisbane" and showed a picture of an aircraft incident that occurred to the same airline, but on a different aircraft type, six days previously on the other side of the world. Such journalism is misleading to the point of slander.

Secondly, the journalist concerned seemed to take some time contacting the ATSB to follow-up the story. But when told it was still a non-event, used inflammatory and emotive terminology to turn the incident into something it clearly (and confirmedly) wasn't.

Hope your journo mates will run their stories your way in future before they publish them, so that we won't have a repeat of this abysmal story.

psycho joe
27th Jan 2010, 01:27
Pat,

You have to understand that most professional pilots have spent their entire adult lives working with exact numbers for a multitude of legal / procedural and safety reasons. In an industry where a seemingly minute detail can have massive consequences, it incenses Pilot's no end when journo's seem to make up stories with little regard to truth or accuracy (in general). :hmm:

It's largely thanks to these "journalists" that the general public (and some pilots) hold true the misconception that not only do aircraft operate themselves but they (the aircraft) possess some sort of higher brain function that tells the mindless pilot how to fly. :ugh:

airsupport
27th Jan 2010, 02:03
It's largely thanks to these "journalists" that the general public (and some pilots) hold true the misconception that not only do aircraft operate themselves but they (the aircraft) possess some sort of higher brain function that tells the mindless pilot how to fly.

You mean that is NOT true...... ;)

Worrals in the wilds
27th Jan 2010, 03:38
Firstly, most journo's probably don't know and don't need to know the difference between a 737-700 and a 737-800 nor a Boing 777 or an Airbus A346.

Or the difference between just about anything. It's not just aviation reporting that is rushed, sloppy, emotive and misinformed. Legal, historical, environmental and foreign coverage is also lousy, and that's just four topics my household has enough expertise in to pick up the errors in the morning rag. It's led us to believe that modern journalists are incapable of reporting anything accurately.

Sadly, it was not always thus; one of the above householders is a history researcher and reckons you can generally treat an old newspaper article as a primary source, ie have complete faith in its accuracy. The book mentioned above shows what happens if you try doing that today:(.

The print media can moan all they like about decreased sales being due to the free product on the internet, but I believe their breathlessly emotional, poorly written, crappy product is just as big a factor.

Atlas Shrugged
27th Jan 2010, 03:47
Journalists annoy me.

When are they ever going to learn - YOU ARE NOT THE STORY!!!

Journalists are parasites. From war correspondents or editors, they live off the doings and misdoings of others. We do, they tell. Without us, there are no stories and nothing for them to live on.

Just for the record the definition of "parasite" in the Oxford Dictionary is "a person who lives at the expense of another person or of society in general."

Journalists piggyback on the courage or failings of others.

A very small few may have talent, but most have big egos. They think of themselves as the heroes of their stories, as the courageous fighters for truth, as the saviours of the nation and all humanity. Faaark me!

Have a think about Watergate, when two reporters brought down a presidency and were rewarded by successive bestsellers and a film in which two real-life nought-heads were played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. Journalism boomed and began to be written for other journalists and for prizes, not for what it should have been written for. It was thought of as "the" career for the allegedly well-educated, well-connected young voyeur who didn't want any responsibility (just a byline, thanks - I really don't want to get my hands dirty, I just want to make fun of the young soldiers or cops who get theirs dirty every day)

Have a think of some journalists who've reported from Iraq. The faces in those talking-tools on the tele leap to mind. We can all remember who the reporters are.

Have a think now, of one decorated hero from Iraq. Just one. Out of the Congressional Medal of Honour winners, or from among those awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, or out of the hundreds whose courage earned them a Silver Star or a Bronze Star with V-Device.

If you can't think of a single hero, can you at least picture one face?

What you do remember is the smarter-than-thou mugs of the journalists posing in helmets and flak jackets behind the cafeteria in the Green Zone. Pathetic soft-cocks! Let's make fun of that.

I can't for the life of me remember why I bothered typing this - it's 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back and wasted it on a bunch of pathetic Journos.

[/RANT]

Biggles_in_Oz
27th Jan 2010, 09:55
I agree with you Atlas S, but.......,
if it isn't reported, the perception is, that it never happened.

Having said that, there are still good journos and crew who do a professional job and report without letting excessive ego taint the story.
I believe reportage was better before the internet age arrived and 'instant' public gratification became the new paradigm.

Worrals in the wilds
27th Jan 2010, 15:30
Biggles, I'm sure that's a big part of it, but I think the rot started in the late 80s with the 'news as entertainment' phenomenon. Instead of presenting unbiassed facts, news now has to be exciting, emotive and entertaining. This leads to a trend for big, breathless headlines that generate excitement, such as FORCED LANDING BY PLANE IN TROUBLE, because 'Routine fuel stop by aircraft with a relatively minor engine problem' just isn't nearly as attention grabbing. I don't know whether it's the journos or the public that drives this crap but it's nearly killed accurate reporting. :ugh:

Sunfish
27th Jan 2010, 18:19
The reason such stories get written is behavioural there is considerable research that demonstrates the peoples perceptions of risk is a direct function of how easily they can imagine an accident affecting them.

We thus have parents desperately scared for their children being abducted by unknown pederasts when statistically the kids are far more likely to be killed by mothers rotten driving. Yet which risk are the parents concerned most about?

So it goes with aviation. The fear of death by falling is ingrained very very deeply in our subconscious and for good reason, and that translates directly to air travel as anyone who has ever talked about the "wing release button" to a passenger in a C172 has demonstrated.

Pilots who criticise an inaccurate journalist and deride their passengers unfounded fears are merely demonstrating their ignorance of human behaviour and a lack of empathy.

lowerlobe
27th Jan 2010, 20:43
We seem to have two extremes here...
Firstly, most journo's probably don't know and don't need to know the difference between a 737-700 and a 737-800 nor a Boing 777 or an Airbus A346.
I don't agree..if you are going to write an article on something then I would imagine if you have pride in your work you would go to the trouble of getting your information correct.....

If you are not going to know the difference between an aircraft with two engines compared to another with four then you probably won't go to too much trouble to check the validity of other aspects of your story....

In other words is the old cliche about not letting the truth get in the way of a good story really true....I suspect it is.
Then we have this post...
Journalists annoy me....

Journalists are parasites. From war correspondents or editors, they live off the doings and misdoings of others. We do, they tell. Without us, there are no stories and nothing for them to live on.
Atlas...Do you ever read the papers or magazines to get news or anything of interest?

I can't think of anyone who does not but most of us understand the reality of journalism and have our own filter to make up our own mind...

The problem with most articles on aviation is that they seem to sensationalise the issue rather than be objective....

YPJT
28th Jan 2010, 00:34
The latest instalment of quality aviation journalism.
Jetstar plane 'screamed straight up into air to avoid buildings' (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/jetstar-plane-screamed-straight-up-into-air-to-avoid-buildings/story-e6frfku0-1225824258538)

I don't know what is more pathetc, the reporting or idiots clammering for their 15 minutes of fame.

Capt Kremin
28th Jan 2010, 02:02
Journalists are no different from other professions in that they are under pressure from management to do more with less. Therefore there is no expertise among them on virtually any subject, a tendency to simply quote the most sensationalistic quote, and a lack of follow up and accountability.

The rise and fall of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a classic symptom of this. Journalists have no science expertise and hence report the most sensationalistic quotes they can find. "The Earth is warming" some claimed.
And so the cargo cult and politicization of science commenced. But the journalists who originally reported it had absolutely no idea about the veracity of the claims, and in the end, no reason to kill the golden goose by basic investigation of the facts.

Did I mention they sell more papers that way too?

Now there is starting to be considerable doubt as to both the claims of some climate scientists and the objectivity of same, the jounalists who bought it hook line and sinker will start to quote the more sensational claims of the sceptics and the cycle will commence anew. Watch for "Climategate" to gather pace like an avalanche in the next few months.

In general news there are NO news reporters with any expertise in aviation. So when Ms Christ from Bundaberg mistakes a simple go-around for a near-death experience, they simply quote her because its sensational.

Jetstar seems to be the current flavor of the months but these things are all cyclical.

Atlas Shrugged
28th Jan 2010, 04:14
Pilots who criticise an inaccurate journalist and deride their passengers unfounded fears are merely demonstrating their ignorance of human behaviour and a lack of empathy.

Like I said, they are parasites.

Atlas Shrugged
28th Jan 2010, 04:17
Atlas...Do you ever read the papers or magazines to get news or anything of interest?

No. I do not read papers. Magazines occasionally.

my oleo is extended
28th Jan 2010, 09:11
Pat S,
Please take your support of Journalist parasites to another planet. But before you do :

I agree that reporting on aviation issues can sometimes be misleading but i think that we need to put things into perspective. Firstly, most journo's probably don't know and don't need to know the difference between a 737-700 and a 737-800 nor a Boing 777 or an Airbus A346. Now, i know this will come as a great shock to most of you but it's no different to a bunch of trainspotters complaing that a journo got a Tangara train mixed up with Silverside (here in Sydney).

By your admission Journo's do not know or understand much about aviation. That means everything they report is unsubstantiated,biased, based on no actual fact or truth or as we have long known - plain bul#*it. Good to see that you admit that.
And again,

Where i work, most journo's are working on 3 to 4 stories at one time and working to a deadline. If they get something wrong in the first version of their story, they will correct it when they are alerted to it. If you see that some info is wrong in a story, let them know. They'll appreciate it (at least where i work they will). Also, they could be working on a story at 2am, 5am etc so sometimes they're not able to get all the facts.

Ha. Almost every article they write is ficticious, bogus, lies, sensationalism, deceptive, incorrect and again pure unfiltered A Grade bul#*it. And again, by your admission, the Journo's could be working on a story at 0200 or 0500 ( boohoo spare me a tissue ) and not have all the valid facts before they run the story anyway, and they and you feel that is a valid,fair and honest thing to do - to still report a half arsed crock anyway ?
Finally,
Anyway, just my 2 cents worth and no, i don't work for news.com.au
Guilty by association. Seeing that you are 'close' to some of these Journalist maggot infested pigs, please let them know that every time they report innacurately, with bias, stretch the truth or even 'emeblish' as they like to do, they are putting peoples careers in jeopardy and at times even safety at risk. One can only hope that ( god forbid ) the next time a passenger jet spears into the ground nose first the majority onboard are Journalists.

Good evening......

Blogsey
2nd Feb 2010, 22:29
From Qantas plane drama after tail strike (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-plane-drama-after-tail-strike-20100202-na83.html)

Passenger Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, 33, who was flying with her one-year-old son, said she thought she detected the pilots throttling off to slow the engines while the plane was still climbing.

As per normal.....
I think journalist should research before quoting passengers, and qualify a statement like that: "which aviation professionals report is entirely normal".

hoboe
5th Feb 2010, 01:06
Ms Xxxxxx, an experienced parachutist of 300 jumps, said that she felt no impact, or any unusual noise from the plane during take-off

Is that comment supposed to give her some sort of credibility?

When was the last time she did a PJE from a B767, and what's it got to do with a tail strike?

Captain Dart
5th Feb 2010, 07:27
Why don't we all go back to calling journalists 'reporters'?

Ex FSO GRIFFO
9th Feb 2010, 02:24
Oh Dear.....What a load of......

I've been on hols - nice - and wot 'ave I missed???

Back in 'dem good ole days' in SY FSC, United OPS used to send OPC (Operational Control Messages) to SY FSC for relay via HF to its SY bound flights from about the FIR boundary onwards.

Those msgs would read something like "For UAL XXX, if you can make (Next reporting point) by time xxxx, at an alt of FL 360 or better, with a G/S of xxxknots or better, with a fuel state of xxx or better, proceed to SY. If not then divert to BN".

This was roughly the format of the OPC from UAL - as far as the ole memory banks can recall.....

These would be duly received from UAL OPS Control just prior to the acft reaching the next reporting point - which were ALL relayed back to UAL OPS Centre - where THEY would do the numbers and direct the pilot accordingly. :)

And, of course, the flight would simply proceed to SY with a close eye on the fuel state as per the above mentioned parameters.....:cool:

Sometimes. I heard they would actually have to divert to refuel for reserves, weather, holding, etc etc......:uhoh:

So, I guess they might still use a similar system?? :confused:

And, despite the curfew, it was not uncommon for the 747 of the time to arrive off SY 30 mins or so prior to 6am, and be allowed, by agreement that providing no reverse thrust was utilised and so annoy the 'sleeping beauties of SY', they would land RWY 34 from over Kurnell and let it roll to the end.....

OPS NORMAL!!! And that was in the early/mid 70's......:ok::ok::eek::eek:

SOME Reporters.....BAH HUMBUG!!:ugh::ugh:

breakfastburrito
9th Feb 2010, 03:12
Griffo, I think you are referring to "Operational Control"? My understanding is for some operators, the licensed dispatcher is responsible for the pre-flight fuel & en-route diversion decisions. I stand open to correction.
Occasionally you hear position reports including fuel on HF. I have heard a company message being passed from ATC to the aircraft with a cryptic code referring to their flightplan, which I assumed was a pre-formatted diversion code message from the dispatcher.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
9th Feb 2010, 07:55
G'Day Mr B.,

Yes, it was OPC exercised by the Company, UAL in this case.

We also passed / relayed many other 'OPC' type and other msgs to and from as per each company's requirements.

e.g. Continental, for their company's purposes had a 'DEP' msg listing the taxi time, the take-off time, (Which at SY could be 'considerably apart' - around 40 mins or so on one day I do remember...) and the load / fuel in weights.

The total point being that some companies in those days did 'it' themselves, and 'diversions' were quite the norm.......

ATC still had the 'OPs Control' function at that time as well, under the jurisdiction of the 'SOC' - Senior Ops Controller.

e.g. Many years ago, waaay back when, a mate en route from Moruya to SY in a Be-65 Queenair, cruising at 6,000ft had a donk fail not far out of SY and at first they wanted him to track via Bindook VOR.....to which he said 'No Thanks'....

Then, To get him in under the 'steps' and avoid a bit of work, the msg was
'From the SOC, descend to 2,000.

The response from the pilot - 'For the SOC - NO WAY!' Like, who would give away alt. from a struggling acft just to please ATC?
He made it to SY on a looong progressive descent to the runway from 6,000!

True story....:ok::ok:

Capt Claret
9th Apr 2010, 01:35
Recently added to the ABC News website.

From the editorial it seems to be a simple missed approach, described as an "airport emergency". Sheesh! :ugh:


Airport emergency in Adelaide rain
Updated 37 minutes ago

PreviousNextSlideshow: Photo 1 of 2

Singapore Airlines jet was on approach as another aircraft was still on the runway - file photo (flickr)

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201004/r545584_3196974.jpg

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200606/r92222_3196786.jpg

There has been an emergency at Adelaide Airport as a Singapore Airlines flight was forced to make a second landing attempt on a wet runway.

Airport management said there were safety concerns because another plane was still leaving the main runway.

But an airline official said the pilot chose to go around because heavy rain in Adelaide had reduced visibility.

There were 265 people on board.

They finally got into the terminal at about 8:30am ACST.