Please, someone in Perth gaffa-tape GT!

[Chocks Away]

Seriously, this old fool is no aviation expert and his repeated interviews on CNN over AirAsia are disgraceful :ugh:
His speculation and wayward beliefs do nothing but incite the media for more wayward stories, in an already volatile situation.
Please, someone in Perth shut that goon up :yuk:

[onetrack]

Chocks - People like GT are employed by the media because they can produce the BS that sells newspapers. It's been a long time since truth and accuracy had anything to do with what journalists write and publish.
What makes it worse is the modern trend for instant and constant "news", when none is to be had.

In the old days, we were lucky to see a newspaper once a week, and we "caught up" on the news when one did come to hand.
Now, if 5 minutes has passed without a tweet producing "news just to hand" - a website carrying a "breaking news" item - a TV station carrying a "scoop" - or some other breathless media pronunciation indicating a startling find, then the world is bound to cease turning.

One only has to see the poor levels of journalism in articles where simple words are misspelled, where words are left out, making no sense of the paragraph (indicating a total lack of proof-reading), where totally irrelevant and misleading pictures are added to flesh out articles (did you see the article about Flight QZ8501 that contained a photo of MH17 wreckage?), and the generally poor levels of knowledge and understanding of the subject the particular journalist is writing about.

There is nothing to indicate that there will be any change to the pattern. It's essentially a race to the bottom.

[KrispyKreme]

So what qualifications does GT have? Or is he just a plane spotter with a journalism side?

I am also getting sick of his dribble, still like the footage of him in the B777 sim trying to take off with the park brake set :D

[YPJT]

I have heard GT's operational experience was as a check in, ramp rat or similar.
He does peruse this site so must have the hide of a rhinoceros.

[Dora-9]

In today's The Australian, he's quoted as saying "an aeroplane cannot fly through a thunderstorm".

Really?

He really hasn't a clue, has he?

[Arm out the window]

You guys have beaten me to it - I'm about to write to the Australian (for what it's worth) about the guff spouted by someone named Anthony Khan who quotes Thomas as an aviation expert in an article which is as full of factual errors and uninformed speculation as it is empty of journalistic integrity.

[The Green Goblin]

His aviation experience is as a punter and as a bag chucker for MMA based in Carnarvon. I'm sure he's seen the inside of the Chairmans lounge a few times too!

You can contact him personally if you wish. He is on Facepprune :)

[Dora-9]

Arm out the window:

I emailed Anthony Klan twice, immediately after reading his Friday & Saturday articles, commenting on how misleading and just plain wrong they were - of course I've had no response.

Give it a go - you'll feel better!

PM sent.

[Arm out the window]

Thanks, I will!

Although before I bag him out too much I'd better make sure I get his name right - it is Klan, as you said.

[Ascend Charlie]

.....and his nickname is Ku-klux.....

[Boney]

The Australian is owned by Rupert Murdoch, along with the "thinking mans paper", the Telegraph in Sydney.

The thinking mans paper is pathetic and The Australian is so blatantly the Liberal Party newsletter.

The owner is the same scumbag who got busted for tapping the mobile phone of a murdered school girl in the UK and her parents then believed she was still alive because her phone was being accessed.

If you actually expect honesty and integrity in any media this low life owns, then you are a bit naive. If you a customer and follow it up with his Fox News or Sky News, then you don't know any better, I suppose?

[Arm out the window]

I don't really expect anything much from them, but will punch off a letter to the editor anyway - seems like the aviation section of the Aussie shuts down for a few weeks over Christmas so they've lassoed someone without too many clues on the subject to fill up half a page.

Journos like to talk about integrity; maybe someone in the organisation cares a little bit anyway.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Would someone be able to post links to GT's articles?
I would like to write to him also, and better have his quotes correct before I do.

Ta
Coolnames

[displaced gangster]

And on the other side of the coin we have our favourite aunty, the Labor/Green partisan production company, the ABC.

The difference is a consumer can decide to spend and buy the Australian, the ABC doesn't give me that choice, they use my taxes to fully fund it.

[dr dre]

The difference is a consumer can decide to spend and buy the Australian, the ABC doesn't give me that choice, they use my taxes to fully fund it.

Mate, look at how much the various worldwide News Limited papers/TV shows/websites openly are in favour of right wing conservatives. You don't think when those right wingers get into power they return the favour by doing such things as cutting the funding of their competitors or kill programs that may damage them, or look the other way as they openly break the law?

In terms of aviation, look at which news websites demonise pilots as overpaid and lazy, because they only "work" 100hrs a month? Which news websites publish the "we were seconds from death" hype articles? Which sites are running random speculation stories about the Airasia accident (What happened to AirAsia Flight QZ8501: Seven theories (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/airasia-flight-qz8501-what-really-happened-seven-theories-debunked/story-fnizu68q-1227172542539))?

If you think the ABC is to biased (I believe it's a far sight ahead of News Corp in quality) I'll leave you with the words of the great Stephen Colbert: Reality has a well known liberal bias ;)

[LewC]

"Mate, look at how much the various worldwide News Limited papers/TV shows/websites openly are in favour of right wing conservatives." You mean like the Courier Mail?

[vee1-rotate]

Let's not get too specific though, in the big scheme of things. Every media outlet today, be it the evening news, the daily newspaper or the local radio news thrives on sensationalism. If they can't make Joe Bloggs stop and watch/listen with bullsh!t headlines and even more horrid reporting, then it isn't worth reporting.

The sad part is a large proportion of posters on sites like these are just as bad, if not worse than the journalists of today. The first few pages of an aircraft accident thread helps to prove that.

[Dora-9]

For the sake of completeness, here are the emails I sent to "The Australian" about Anthony Klan's articles on Friday and Saturday. I'm not saying they're even close to perfect; I was a little steamed up at the time. I used my real name on the emails, changed to "D-9" here.

I ignored all the other tripe that's been published (e.g. Neil Hansford claiming that they shouldn't have planned that route; aircraft caught in updrafts will stall etc etc) and merely concentrated on GT's ravings.

The strong implication in one article was that Rockwell-Collins developed the multi-scan radar solely at the behest of Qantas - I really struggle to accept this! Can this be possibly true, or is GT re-transmitting more Qantas propaganda?

Friday:-


Dear Mr Klan,

Re: “Storm-tracking radar missing from doomed AirAsia flight” (The Australian, Friday January 2nd).

At best, this is an extremely misleading (and demonstrably false) title. They HAD a weather radar! The article mainly seems to comprise the regurgitated opinions of one Geoffrey Thomas. As far as I know, Mr Thomas has no piloting or engineering qualifications, nor has he ever attended an Air Safety Investigation course, yet he is always ready with an opinion which is invariably greeted with groans from the professional aviation community. You chose to publish his illogical theory that “the failure of AirAsia to be fitted with multi-scan radar likely contributed to Sunday’s crash...”.

I’m not for a moment defending AirAsia, but his comment is utter rubbish.

The only area in which “multi-scan” radar differs from earlier, and far more common, airborne radars is that a computer calculates the altitude of storm build ups, rather than the crew having to guesstimate this using the tilt control. Your quote attributed to Qantas that this radar “...gave pilots a better digital picture of the height of storms...” is absolutely correct – and that’s main difference. How you can then move from this fact to saying that this absence contributed to the AirAsia accident? What Mr Thomas doesn’t seem to realize is the build-ups within the Intertropical Convergence Zone (as existed over the Java Sea) inevitably have tops well above the capability of any airliner (perhaps not Concorde), so that assessing if you could fly over the storms is irrelevant; you cannot “top” them anyway and have to pick your way around them.

These “multi-scan” radars are relatively new; the vast majority of the world’s airline fleet fly safely with the earlier manually tilted (and perfectly adequate) radar. If Mr Thomas was correct, wouldn’t we read about these airliners being spat out of thunderstorms on a daily basis?

I would also challenge the statement that “...multi-scan radars detect ice and hail” – radars detect raindrops, not hail (unless you’re very close). And, other than hail, there’s no ice present in thunderstorms, only rain that might freeze on the airframe.

Thank you for reading this,

regards,

"Dora-9"

(A retired airline pilot).

Saturday:-

Re: “Storm detector might have saved doomed AirAsia flight”, The Australian, January 3-4.

Can you put up with me again, Anthony?

As I explained (hopefully) in my email last night, I fail to see how a “multi-scan” radar would have made any difference to this flight's fate.

In your fifth paragraph, you state that “storm-related accidents have plummeted since the 60’s...” - an interesting choice of words, by the way! It indicates that earlier, manually tilted, radars have well and truly done their job, so how you can say that a “multi-scan” radar would have saved this day is baffling. The big difference is that the newer radar makes assessing the height of the clouds easier - even your diagram shows a cell topping out at over 40,000 feet, so any possibility of overflying was highly unlikely!

“...some experts believe may have contributed to the accident.” Apart from Mr Thomas, in no way, other than in his self promotion, an expert – who else claims this? It’s flawed logic for him to state that not having a multi-scan radar contributed to this accident. Since getting above the storm wasn’t an option – the type of radar becomes irrelevant. I’ve canvassed half a dozen friends, all retired or current airline pilots with heaps of experience who have flown behind both types of radar (as I have) – none agreed with his statement.

Again, “Multi-scan radar” can only detect water droplets, not hail. It uses a computer programme to detect vertical movement in the droplets, which is LIKELY to indicate the presences of hail and turbulence (very strong updrafts/downdrafts form hail). There’s nothing new here; this technology was present in the Ansett B737-300’s that I flew over thirty years ago. The limitation was the short range (40 nautical miles), reading Rockwell-Collins’ material this limitation still applies (40 miles travelling at 400 – 500 knots is very close indeed). Note carefully what Rockwell-Collins state in your 14th paragraph – they only talk about detecting raindrops. And they make the thing, so they should know!

Then we have Mr Thomas’s quote: “An aeroplane cannot fly through a thunderstorm”. This opinion is so demonstrably incorrect to make me wonder about how little he really knows about aircraft operations. Aeroplanes DO penetrate storms. Leaving aside deliberate penetrations (weather research etc), there have been many inadvertent storm penetrations over the years. They usually result a truly violent ride, frightening the hell out of the passengers (and crew). Unpleasant, decidedly unsafe, but it certainly does happen. No sane person would deliberately do this, but I repeat – despite Mr Thomas' pontifications - it does happen.

Cheers Anthony,

Dora-9.

[YPJT]

Perhaps a complaint to the press council? (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/making-a-complaint/)

[Pinky the pilot]

Perhaps a complaint to the press council?

Worth a try I should think. And I tend to share the OP frustration and annoyance with GT.

Dora-9; Thank you for making known the content of your e-mails.:ok: It will be interesting to see if Mr Klan writes any correction articles.:hmm:

I won't hold my breath though.:ugh:

[kaz3g]

Perhaps a complaint to the press council?

I hate to disillusion anyone but my experience with the APC is that it isn't interested in pursuing complaints against its members...hasn't even provided me with the courtesy of a reply to my last complaint on behalf of a deceased person who was totally demeaned in an article about the manner of her death.

They are not a Regulator and they rely on their members for funding.

Kaz

[FGD135]

The striking thing about these GT bashing threads - and I've seen a few - is that they never take account of the fact that GT, or some other journalist, is addressing the non-aviation minded general public.


The substance of these threads would have some validity if GT was a pilot himself, addressing only pilots. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE, and I would have thought that should have been obvious.


The only quote in this thread from GT was something about "can't fly through thunderstorms". So you are quibbling that he used the word can't when he should have used the word shouldn't?


Let me tell you a little something about the word can't. It would have to be the most misused word in the English language. In everyday spoken English, people use can't when, 90% of the time, they should really have used shouldn't, mustn't, or unable, etc. GT is just using the common, everyday language that is the most accessible to the man in the street.


Make a complaint to the Press Council that some journalist used can't when he should have used shouldn't and you will be the laughing stock of the Press Council office.


I have an enormous respect for anything GT writes. Unlike people on this thread, however, I know and accept the constraints he has to work to. I therefore know how to read him. I regularly go out of my way to read his articles.


Do yourself a favour and get a copy of his "Qantas Flightpaths" book. Read it and you will then find you have an enormous respect for the man.


If GT wants to keep his job - and I'm sure he does - he has to continue using the words, phrases and language that he is currently using.


People on this thread need to open their minds a little to understand the situation he is in.


By the way: When he is speaking on television, he is REQUIRED to say his piece in as few words as possible, preferably with a touch of sensationalism thrown in. I would wager that NONE of the posters on this thread could do the TV bit anywhere near as well as he does.

[tipsy2]

I would wager that NONE of the posters on this thread could do the TV bit anywhere near as well as he does.

They couldn't do any worse either.:ok:


Tipsy

[mostlytossas]

FGT135, Your not GT's mum by chance?

[Arm out the window]

My beef was with Anthony Klan's article, which looked like it was thrown together from a bunch of half-grasped ideas, and in which he quotes Thomas as an aviation expert. There's a lot more garbage in there but I picked on a few to address. Here's what I wrote to the Aussie; if you haven't seen Klan's article, have a read - I think any pilot will cringe, and it's not because he's written it in terms the public will understand, it's because he clearly doesn't understand what he's writing about (with an assertion of authority) himself.


Subject: Letter to the Editor – Weekend Australian Newspaper


Dear Sir or Madam,


Anthony Klan’s speculative, poorly-researched and error-filled article on the crash of flight QZ8501 (‘Storm detector might have saved doomed AirAsia flight’, 3/1) should not have been published. His implication that an improved weather radar would have saved the flight is plain wrong – the flight crew were clearly aware of the storm cell in front of them, having requested a climb to avoid it, but would have been better off trying to go around rather than climb over a severe thunderstorm.
Mr Klan states that it is most likely that a severe updraft sent the flight into an aerodynamic stall, and that excess weight can significantly lower the speed at which a plane stalls. In fact, the exact opposite would be true in both cases – updrafting air tends to increase airspeed, lessening the likelihood of a stall, and the heavier an aircraft is, the higher its stall speed will be. A stall may very possibly have been involved in the accident, but not for the reasons put forward in the article.
Other clearly incorrect assertions from the article are that traffic collision and avoidance systems ‘automatically take over the controls of collision-bound planes’, or that the lack of an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) signal indicates that the impact with the ocean wasn’t severe – in fact, it might suggest the opposite, that impact forces were severe enough to render any ELT or its associated antenna unserviceable.
Mr Klan is not wrong in suggesting that flight through a severe storm led to the loss of this aircraft, but he should heed the advice of the AirAsia chief executive whom he quotes in his article as saying it would be improper to speculate on the cause of the crash, particularly as he appears to have only a tenuous grasp on aviation-specific matters.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

FGD,

I find your post gobsmackingly ignorant in a number of areas, not least that you think it is ok for GT to keep telling half truths and spreading misinformation.
" he has to continue using the words phrases and language..."

One of the major problems with the Media today, is the lack of trust that the public has in their ability to tell a story in a factual, non biased manner.

If GT keeps on with much of his ill informed 'journalism' he is continuing to erode any trust that might be left between the papers and their readers.

Also, on the word 'can't' . You seem to think that it not a problem to use it in this case. I suggest that word does a lot of harm to aviation and to travellers, particularly those nervous flyers. If they read this type of stuff, they will believe it and never understand the truth. In many cases, it is the fear of the unknown, or the 'incorrectly known' that feeds problems.

As for his TV appearances, sure he needs to keep it short, but I fail to see where that means he has to speak rubbish.

I have done many TV/Radio and newspaper interviews on aviation related matters, and never once have I had to speak crap to be put to air/print. You simply speak the facts and let the editor/producer sort it out.

There is no need for sensationalism, I would have thought that over 155 people dying, would be sensationalist enough!


I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media. Some already write for magazines, so a factual, informed, researched article on something as important as this story, would be a walk in the park for them.

Perhaps you should 'open your mind a little more to understand the situation he is in'.

Now, I realise that you are a troll, and that I have just fed you, but you know what? I feel better :p

Coolnames

[gerry111]

Kaz3g,


Perhaps the 'Australian Press Council' is simply a Trade Union, appropriately protecting its members?


A little like 'The Law Society of NSW'. A Trade Union for solicitors.


And the 'NSW Bar Association'. A Trade Union for barristers?


"They are not a Regulator and they rely on their members for funding."


That's it.

[FGD135]

Arm,


His implication that an improved weather radar would have saved the flight is plain wrong – the flight crew were clearly aware of the storm cell in front of them, having requested a climb to avoid it, but would have been better off trying to go around rather than climb over a severe thunderstorm.Plain wrong? How do you know this? Were you there in the cockpit?


"... would have been better off trying to go around ...". This is pure speculation on your part, given that you weren't there in the cockpit. And what makes you describe the thunderstorm as "severe" when you weren't there witnessing events? The reality is that nobody knows anything about the part the weather played. The weather *may* have been a factor - that is all we know.


You are guilty of the speculation of which you accuse Klan.


Was Klan's piece presented as opinion, or as a regular report? If it was titled "Storm detector might have saved doomed flight", then I would suggest it was opinion, in which case he has licence to speculate all he wants.


... updrafting air tends to increase airspeed, lessening the likelihood of a stall ...If you look at a vector diagram of the resultant air flow when an updraft is suddenly added in, you will see that the wing is suddenly at a greater angle of attack. For this reason it is not unreasonable to say that a stall is a likely result.


Other clearly incorrect assertions from the article are that traffic collision and avoidance systems ‘automatically take over the controls of collision-bound planes’. My understanding is that for some aircraft, the autopilot, if engaged, *will* fly the TCAS RA manoeuver. If my understanding is correct then your assertion is wrong, in which case you are guilty of the same inaccuracies of which you accuse Klan.


Mr Klan is not wrong in suggesting that flight through a severe storm led to the loss of this aircraft...This statement makes it sound like you were there, in the cockpit, witnessing events. Were you there?


allthecoolnamesarego,


...you think it is ok for GT to keep telling half truths and spreading misinformation.Could you please give some examples? I find it incredible that the only example I have seen presented in this thread is that he used the word can't when he should have used the word shouldn't.


I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media.Rubbish. Complete and utter rubbish. A typical grossly exaggerated claim that anonymous bloggers make everyday on the internet.


Examples of the "half truths" and "misinformation" please.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

FGD135-

The A380 has the autopilot coupled to the TCAS for an RA event. I doubt many other aircraft have that technology fitted. Maybe the 787. The 350 yes, and I presume the 320NEO. It certainly isn't the norm.

I whole heartedly agree with Arm out the Window's comments. GT is an embarrassment to the aviation fraternity.

You are praising his layman speak ability- Please, Don't kid yourself, he knows NADA.

The fact is this.

No one, absolutely no one knows what happened to that flight. CBs may have had naught to do with it. The emergency directive OEB recently released RE frozen AOA probes affecting V alpha prot may have been an issue, hell maybe Aliens were involved.

Until the CVR/FDRs are recovered, can GT and his ilk spare us the laymen's version to aviation 'expertise'.

[Chocks Away]

I'll help you there, before you go back and climb under the rock you came from FGD. You're wrong I'm afraid (& very wrong for supporting the git GT) :ugh:

GT on CNN said the aircraft landed upside down on the water... in another interview he said it broke up in flight due to the indication of a unclothed body being found floating... I won't go on. :yuk:

Radars and the facts: The A320 IS equipped with an advanced radar able to detect such CB's and turbulence. Quote from the manual:
...RDR-4B advanced weather radar and our new IntuVue family of 3-D volumetric weather radars are the most advanced weather surveillance equipment in the industry. For the A320 family, the RDR-4000 model of the IntuVue family allows pilots to detect and reroute around storms sooner for improved safety and route efficiency. Its advanced turbulence detection and windshear capability has demonstrated over a 50% reduction in turbulence encounters.

Question here is were they utilising it correctly?

Now how do we know major CBs were a factor?
Just by looking at the repeated and multiple weather replays run by BBC/CNN et all, of the time in question. There were MAJOR reds and magentas (=Severe to Intense)! IF you have any idea or experience of the monsoon trough (ITCZ) you know that to penetrate such moisture is stupid and you can not out-climb any CB's, so divert as much as is needed. It's the only way. This vision together with personal experiences, is what qualifies many of us to make such a comment as ARM did. Together with Havoc's comment above regarding frozen probes & Alpha vanes, it scratches on the surface of further possibilities.
So ARM it seems would be correct then.

P.S. Sidetrack but no aircraft can automatically fly or is rated to fly an "RA" yet, apart from A380/350 and 787. Company policies may also limit this use of automation (Interesting Cathay incident on this, by the way).

P.P.S. You think it's rubbish, that many of us pilots can do a better job than GT? Pull yuh head out, please. Many of us on here have done so in various capacities already, well before he started getting his noggen on the idiot box!

(edited and toned down once off my soap box)
Happy Landings.

[kaz3g]

Kaz3g,


Perhaps the 'Australian Press Council' is simply a Trade Union, appropriately protecting its members?

A little like 'The Law Society of NSW'. A Trade Union for solicitors.

And the 'NSW Bar Association'. A Trade Union for barristers?

"They are not a Regulator and they rely on their members for funding."

That's it.

Cant speak for how various law associations in other jurisdictions operate, but the Law Institute in Victoria retains some regulatory control.

But the most significant regulatory control is exercised by the Legal Services Board supported by the Legal Profession Act and a myriad regulations with severe penalties for breaches.

Lawyers are actually the most heavily regulated of the professions and the LSB enforces the statutes vigorously.

The rules include a number of ethical obligations to ensure trust and confidence between lawyer and client. It also requires that legal advice provided be accurate and a true reflection of the law as it stands. Breaches of these requirements regularly result in de-registration and fines or imprisonment.

There is no similar restriction on the activities of the media and I've never heard of a journalist being dismissed because he got the facts wrong.

Kaz

Lawyers also pay into a Practice Insurance fund so that anyone "injured" by a practitioner's negligence or malfeasance is able to be recompensed should that lawyer's assets be insufficient to meet the damages claim. Lawyers are individually liable for their professional conduct and can't hide behind the vicarious liability of the employer.

[Arm out the window]

Hi FGD. I take it you're pretty happy with Anthony Klan's article then?

Without trying to get into a point-scoring table tennis match, I think the two main start points for my argument (and call them speculation by all means, but not wild speculation a la Klan) are:

1) a thunderstorm probably caused the demise of the aircraft, and

2) you're better off going around big storms than trying to go over them.

Was Klan's piece presented as opinion, or as a regular report?

There's no clear statement that it's just opinion, and the clear implication with the quotes from the 'aviation expert' in question, detailed diagrams and so on is that the article presents authoritative information.

I would suggest it was opinion, in which case he has licence to speculate all he wants.


Perhaps the aircraft is with Elvis on the moon! Speculate all he wants - not at all. The style and content of the writing shows he doesn't know much about flying, and someone like that shouldn't be allowed to write half-page articles on aviation in national newspapers.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

FGD,
Rubbish, complete and utter rubbish

I'll let you think about how stupid that comment is for a second....no I won't actually. It seems you might struggle with reason. Let me spell it out for you.
A (or if numbers are easier for you -1): You don't know who I am (it is an anonymous forum!)
B (2) therefore, it follows that you don't know who I know (following me thus far?)
C (3) you don't know the qualifications and personalities of those people I am suggesting (the ones you don't know- still with me?)
D (4) you can't possibly claim that my claim is utter rubbish, made on an anonymous forum, because of...well, start at point A (1)

Examples....

Too many to list here, watch it and see how many you can find. "This is what happened"
"We are in a spin"
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/video/watch/22226497/flight-mh370-simulator/



Mar 27, 2014 - Uploaded by CNN
http://youtu.be/0f8vJFFg1Q4
"Debris is ABSOLUTELY aircraft wreckage"


The Daily - 2SER - Real Radio 107.3 FM (http://www.2ser.com/component/k2/itemlist/category/569-the-daily?start=10)
"Planes can not fly though the middle of a thunderstorm"

Reporter: "Did the pilot make the right decision to climb.?
GT: "Oh absolutely, he would have been trying to get over this Thunder cell"

There's a few to start with.

Any other requests?

[Kharon]

Just wondering, is GT is worth the Pprune bandwidth? Seriously? As you do over the Christmas period, you go to BBQ's, dinners and lunch and the like, and meet a fairly wide selection of people. What I have observed is nearly all have a similar 'interest' span, I have met no one recently who has even a vague notion of who GT is when I raise the question; few were aware of the accident details other than broadly knowing an 'accident' had occurred, (yes, it was awful, pass the tomato sauce please) and none who quoted him to me as a source of information. Not that I encourage 'shop' talk, in fact I avoid it whenever politely possible.

Was having breakfast at a friends place recently, the TV was on tuned to one of those truly dreadful 'morning shows' when the GT visage appeared; being a guest, I could not just grab the remote, so I sat quiet watched the eight or so others. After the four minute advert break I asked what they had made of the GT spiel; "Oh that accident, terrible business - would you like more bacon?" Four minutes and a plate of porridge was all it took to erase the item from conscious memory. Just for fun, I asked a question about one of the adverts shown; total recall. It's a funny old world out there

GT and the stations are in the business of selling advertising space, not entertainment or informed opinion. If the 'breakfast crew', all potential passengers on the next 'crash' can dismiss his waffle and the accident so easily, without concern, why should it trouble us? He, his opinion and his 'entertainment' management simply don't signify. Not in my jungle anyway.

Just saying.

[KrispyKreme]

Very interesting read, having a go about the "experts" Experts make disaster porn of AirAsia flight QZ8501 | Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/01/05/media-sink-to-new-lows-with-speculation-over-downed-airasia-flight/)

[Slippery_Pete]

FGD135,

I don't think any Ppruners would begrudge GT for keeping language of technical details a little light on, because as you say, he has to target an audience.

It's not the language.

We just want to know what makes him an "aviation expert".

Is that a title one can just gift oneself?

From other posts I've read (and I may be wrong), others on Pprune seem to think his only aviation expertise is chucking bags at PH decades ago.

Does this make him an "aviation expert"? Surely an aircraft designer, the aircraft manufacturer, an extensively experienced LAME or pilot, or someone with years of experience in airline or aircraft management would be an "aviation expert". Surely you'd agree that these would be better equipped to comment publicly on this accident.

I took a sh** the other day on my aircraft. But that doesn't make me a "proctology expert".

[FGD135]

GT is an embarrassment to the aviation fraternity.But GT is not a member of our fraternity. This little statement by Capn Rex Havoc quite possibly reveals why so many here have a problem with him.


You think it's rubbish, that many of us pilots can do a better job than GT? Pull yuh head out, please.Chocks Away, no, I don't think it rubbish at all, but I said nothing of the sort.


What I said was rubbish was the following statement from allthecoolnamesarego. The statement is such a gross exaggeration that it should be considered rubbish. You seem to have difficulty with reading, so I will bold the words that indicate gross exaggeration:


I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media.


I take it you're pretty happy with Anthony Klan's article then?Arm, I haven't read his article and had not heard of him before. Please could you post a link to his article. My defence is of GT, whose articles I have been reading for many years.


About Klan, however, I would say what I would say about any journalist covering aviation: he is a journalist, not an aviation insider. It is not reasonable to expect from a journalist the same knowledge and insight as you could from an insider. Remember the constraints these guys are bound to (e.g deadlines). Everybody here seems to forget those.


Thanks for those examples, allthecoolnamesarego, but you appear to be blissfully ignorant of the constraints GT has to work to.


"This is what happened"
"We are in a spin"I went to this link, but the first thing I saw on the page was the statement "This is what may have happened". Note the word may. The presence of that word means that everything following is opinion. There was no need for me to actually watch the video. GT would have just been doing exactly what his media masters were paying him for.


GT is just the messenger. People here don't seem to understand that, and want to shoot him.


"Debris is ABSOLUTELY aircraft wreckage"I did look at that video. Remember those constraints I keep referring to? One of them is that you must get information from other sources, and there can be big variations in the accuracy and consistency of that information. GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.


Remember that he is speaking to the camera, and answers must be instantaneous and brief. When doing his research, he may have heard a range of views on that wreckage, but there is no time, on camera, to go over that. He must distil hours of phone calls and discussion down into one 5 second answer.


To have said "absolutely" suggests to me that this was the consensus view of those he questioned about it. Keep in mind that nobody has yet proven him wrong on this. Some of that debris may actually have been from MH370. The fact that the recovered debris was not from MH370 does not mean that *some* of the sighted debris was not from the accident!



The Daily - 2SER - Real Radio 107.3 FM (http://www.2ser.com/component/k2/itemlist/category/569-the-daily?start=10)
"Planes can not fly though the middle of a thunderstorm"He used the word can't when he should have used the word shouldn't. Is that your gripe on this one?



Reporter: "Did the pilot make the right decision to climb.?
GT: "Oh absolutely, he would have been trying to get over this Thunder cell"Not the answer I would have given, but you must remember that GT must give instant and brief answers if he wants to keep his job. After such interviews, he probably goes back over some of his statements and answers and wishes he said things differently. If you were in his shoes, you too would probably say things that, on reflection, you wished you had said differently.


One answer that GT must be very careful about giving is the "we just don't know ... we must wait for the completion of the investigation and publication of the final report". For us in the aviation fraternity, that would be the correct answer most of the time, but for GT, that answer is poison. He must avoid it if he wants to continue being asked to make media appearances!


I am not convinced by those examples. There was nothing there that I would not have expected to see or hear from somebody in his position.

[Stanwell]

FGD,
I'm sorry, I can't agree that GT is "just a messenger".
While you do your best to justify his performance, I'd spent some years in the media industry myself.
I'm sure he lays awake at nights with one hand on the keyboard - and the other hand on something else.


p.s. Perhaps I should be more charitable to your friend.
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

[FGD135]

We just want to know what makes him an "aviation expert".
Slippery Pete, you must remember that it is the media that give him that title and it is in their interests to do so!


We probably all have different definitions for what "expert" means, but he easily meets my definition of "expert".


Get and read his book "Qantas Flightpaths". After you do, you will not begrudge him the title of "expert".

[Slippery_Pete]

he easily meets my definition of "expert"

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Vehemently.

I intend to read that book, thanks for the recommendation. Hopefully the shire library has it.

Given GT has already solved the AirAsia crash (several times over), I can stop worrying about that, and concentrate on his book.

[Snakecharma]

Chocks away, add A330 to your list of aeroplanes that can respond to a RA on autopilot.

Certainly the new ones can.

[Lookleft]

My recollection of "Flightpaths" was that it was a promotional publication commissioned, paid for and distributed by Qantas with GT as its author. It was such an outstanding piece of writing that Qantas gave each employee a copy of it because they knew no one was going to fork out money for it. I also note that it hasn't been updated as it was printed in the heady days of the post-Ansett collapse and the brave new world of Jetstar was evolving. I think my copy went the way of all those glossy QF annual reports. It would be far better if the media just referred to him as an aviation journalist and called on someone like Owen Zupp if they want an aviation professional.

[Arm out the window]

Arm, I haven't read his article and had not heard of him before. Please could you post a link to his article.

Sorry FGD, I tried but it's a pay-to-view thing. As a guide, though, it was a bit like as if I'd tried to cobble up a story on any specialised field from Wikipedia entries ... I could probably do something that looked OK to the casual observer, but it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny by those in the know.

I understand these guys are just doing a job, but I agree with the sentiments of previous posters who are saying it's not an excuse that you have to get attention-grabbing copy out for your expectant masters - I want my journos to put at least a reasonably rigorous effort into fact-checking.

Silly, I know, in this day and age of the sound bite, but it annoys me when something put up in a medium purporting to be an authoritative source, i.e. a major national newspaper, reads as shabbily as this particular article did.

If the whip-cracking editors just wanted something on the page that looked vaguely right from a distance, well, that's what they got in this case.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Let me start by acknowledging George Carlin; “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
With that said, here goes anyway....

What I said was rubbish was the following statement from allthecoolnamesarego. The statement is such a gross exaggeration that it should be considered rubbish. You seem to have difficulty with reading, so I will bold the words that indicate gross exaggeration:
Quote:
I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media.

Mate, and yes that is meant as a put down in case your handle on sarcasm, is as poor as that of the English language. Despite the bolding, I refer to the first point in my previous post. Your ability to highlight parts of my sentence, don't make it less valid or true. I will state it again clearly. (I would bold it, but don't know how) "I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media."

Thanks for those examples, allthecoolnamesarego, but you appear to be blissfully ignorant of the constraints GT has to work to.


Quote:
"This is what happened"
"We are in a spin"
I went to this link, but the first thing I saw on the page was the statement "This is what may have happened". Note the word may. The presence of that word means that everything following is opinion. There was no need for me to actually watch the video. GT would have just been doing exactly what his media masters were paying him for.

There was no need for me to actually watch the video.

Really? I supplied a video showing not only GT's poor understanding of heavy jet operations, his stating as FACT things that we may never know even happened, and his atrociously presented and written 'script'. Watch the first 30 seconds and see what an amateur job he does, even by that point. Has he not heard heard of 'cut, let's try that bit again'?

Yet, you didn't even watch it to find out for yourself? Have you taken tips from GT? Don't even study the video, yet feel superior enough to comment on it with authority.

GT is just the messenger. People here don't seem to understand that, and want to shoot him.

A messenger doesn't instinctively mean they have to be wrong. A messenger can in fact be knowledgable on the subject. He isn't forced to deliver the message, he CHOOSES to! He therefore has no reason to be under-prepared.


Quote:
"Debris is ABSOLUTELY aircraft wreckage"
I did look at that video. Remember those constraints I keep referring to? One of them is that you must get information from other sources, and there can be big variations in the accuracy and consistency of that information. GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.

Remember those constraints I keep referring to?

Oh the ones that YOU THINK mean that facts don't count, as long as he only speaks for a few seconds? Mate (yes, again) the presenters aren't even listening half the time, they are thinking of their next question. GT has to fill a certain time, FACTS don't take any longer than misinformation to spruke. The presenters might actually learn something if he spoke about FACTS.

Try this at home: "I can not breath underwater without breathing apparatus."
"People have been known to breath underwater regularly."
About the same time for each would you say?? One is true, one isn't. (Hint, the first one is wrong).

GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.

Exactly, therefore he would be very well aware that he had no justification to say 'Absolutely!'

Remember that he is speaking to the camera, and answers must be instantaneous and brief. When doing his research, he may have heard a range of views on that wreckage, but there is no time, on camera, to go over that. He must distil hours of phone calls and discussion down into one 5 second answer.

I call BS on this. A media trained person will control the interview and own the message. If in fact he was an expert with expert knowledge, he wouldn't have to grapple with info he didn't really understand. He would know what was true or not, and what he needed to say to convey the message.


To have said "absolutely" suggests to me that this was the consensus view of those he questioned about it. Keep in mind that nobody has yet proven him wrong on this. Some of that debris may actually have been from MH370. The fact that the recovered debris was not from MH370 does not mean that *some* of the sighted debris was not from the accident!

Keep in mind that nobody has yet proven him wrong on this.

Really, then where is the EVIDENCE? I'm pretty sure that when that debris was classified as general Flotsam, he was proven wrong.

Quote:
The Daily - 2SER - Real Radio 107.3 FM
"Planes can not fly though the middle of a thunderstorm"
He used the word can't when he should have used the word shouldn't. Is that your gripe on this one?

Partly, because words matter. Facts matter.
"There was movement at the satiation for the word had passed around, that the colt from Old Regret had got away".

"There was movement at the satiation for the word had got around, that the colt from Old Regret had passed away".

One or two words poorly used, change the ENTIRE meaning. (The first one is the correct one, just in case you were wondering).

What he said was a half truth that could easily have been rectified, or if he actually was fully on top of the subject, not used at all.
The other thing that irks me about this is that you see nothing wrong with describing things incorrectly...


Quote:
Reporter: "Did the pilot make the right decision to climb.?
GT: "Oh absolutely, he would have been trying to get over this Thunder cell"
Not the answer I would have given, but you must remember that GT must give instant and brief answers if he wants to keep his job. After such interviews, he probably goes back over some of his statements and answers and wishes he said things differently. If you were in his shoes, you too would probably say things that, on reflection, you wished you had said differently.


Mate (sorry, I can't help myself), I have done many many interviews, ranging from extended segments for TV shows, to newspaper articles, to TV news interviews, to extended (>30 minute) live radio interviews. On EVERY one, I was prepared because I knew what I was talking about. People make mistakes, but a FUNDAMENTAL one like saying that 'out climbing a TS' was 'absolutely the right thing to do' is reprehensible. This is my point. If GT was in fact an expert, such a basic mistake would not have been made, no matter what 'pressure' he was under. Another example why I don't believe GT is up to the job.

One answer that GT must be very careful about giving is the "we just don't know ... we must wait for the completion of the investigation and publication of the final report". For us in the aviation fraternity, that would be the correct answer most of the time, but for GT, that answer is poison. He must avoid it if he wants to continue being asked to make media appearances!

So you are advocating making stuff up, just to stay on the Telly? Have you heard of credibility? This is another reason that many in the 'aviation fraternity' are so annoyed by this guy. He purports to speak on 'our behalf' but everyone of us would tell the the TRUTH "we just don't know ... we must wait for the completion of the investigation and publication of the final report" seems like a pretty good response to me.


I am not convinced by those examples. There was nothing there that I would not have expected to see or hear from somebody in his position.

Unfortunately, if you don't bother to even watch or read the examples I have provided, and look at them with an open mind, then nothing will convince you.

George Carlin, please forgive me.

[Chocks Away]

Copied that Snakecharma :ok:

Good post Kharon... a small reflection on society now I guess.

FGD, I understood exactly what you said, hence my reply. Please re-read (with out bolds :p).

Enough said.

Happy Landings:ok:

[Dora-9]

allthecoolnamesarego:

Fabulous posting, though I'm wondering if FGD = GT.

[Stanwell]

That thought had crossed my mind, too.

[P51D]

Well said FGD. There are plenty trying to shoot you down, bit like seagulls fighting over a chip. We all know who GT is but some on here "Allthecool...etc" are almost bragging about how good they've been with the media..ok, so who are you so that we can draw a comparison or gauge your credibility, and if you're that good why aren't the media using you. Maybe GT just has that audience appeal that you don't. Doesn't matter what you say, GT is recognized by the media, in all it's forms, as an EXPERT! BTW, I'm not him either but the vitriol coming from some posters is particularly nasty. Talk about playing the man and not the ball. Old Goon heh Chocks Away? There but for the grace of god go you....mate!!!

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Well said FGD. There are plenty trying to shoot you down, bit like seagulls fighting over a chip. We all know who GT is but some on here "Allthecool...etc" are almost bragging about how good they've been with the media..ok, so who are you so that we can draw a comparison or gauge your credibility, and if you're that good why aren't the media using you. Maybe GT just has that audience appeal that you don't. Doesn't matter what you say, GT is recognized by the media, in all it's forms, as an EXPERT! BTW, I'm not him either but the vitriol coming from some posters is particularly nasty. Talk about playing the man and not the ball. Old Goon heh Chocks Away? There but for the grace of god go you....mate!!!

I should stop, really I should.....

P51D. Why don't you just stay logged in as FGD? It would save time when posting.

You seem to have similar comprehension problems to FGD.
Talk about playing the man and not the ball

The BALL is the MAN, or the MAN is the BALL in this case. We are discussing the 'expertise' or otherwise of an individual. It is pretty hard to discuss that, WITHOUT discussing knowledge, presentation techniques, background, personality etc.
If someone is a dill, then where is the problem with saying that? It is a shame when it gets a bit close to home, that we need to hide behind 'play the ball not the man'.

As for my media stuff, here is a link..... Hold one, that would give away my identity! You almost had me! I am no media Guru, but as I said previously, I always told it how it is/was, without the need to make it up on the spot.

I don't do media stuff now, because I have no need to and because the media is a whore who will use your time, expertise and effort for it's own reward. I have seen enough to know that my time could be better spent doing things I enjoy.

Coolnames

[Frank Arouet]

Statistically 50% of the Australian voting public are ... idiots. Somebody has to cater for their needs. (insert political party of your choice at ellipse).

[Seabreeze]

IMO, an expert is someone who has achieved a distinction of high level professionalism in a particular area. Airline captains, senior maintenance engineers, people with degrees and senior experience in management and economics, etc.

Unfortunately, while many areas of science engineering, and economics require a high level of education and training to be an expert, safety (like education) is something that everyone thinks they are an expert in, because of their personal experience in having avoided accidents through "superb" personal driving skills (for example). In addition, attending a 2 day (no fail) short course or reading a parody of Reasons' "Swiss cheese" model, does not of itself qualify a person as an expert.

Reporters are those that report on events, interview witnesses, and relay what experts say and think. They should not pretend to be experts.

There are some excellent reporters (e.g. Matt Brown from the ABC), but there are a lot of reporters who haven't the background to understand, or can't be bothered to understand the intricacies of complex matters.

The brave new world has reporters that think they are experts because they once read a technical article, or spoke to an expert, and reporters that interview other reporters (saves on travel costs, and actually precludes needing to attend events).

Unfortunately, GT appear to have no expertise whatsoever in aviation safety, so IMO he should stick to REPORTING, not presenting judgements and opinions as an expert.

(For those with a sense of irony, I should say that I am not, however, an expert on the definitions of what constitutes either an expert or a reporter!).

The weekend Aus article by AK used most text space writing about what reporter GT thinks, with smaller comments reported from real experts, and with Nathan Safe getting only a small para quote at the end. This article is IMO a classic example of how not to write an article about aviation safety!

Oh well, maybe the media, editor of the Aus, AK and GT will read this, but probably not.

Seabreeze

[m-dot]

P51D, FGD135 and FoxtrotAlpha18 = GT?

[Pinky the pilot]

P51D, FGD135 and FoxtrotAlpha18 = GT?

Nothing would surprise me less!

Excellent post Seabreeze but I suspect that most of the 'reporters' to whom your post would apply would take little if any notice of your comments, simply because their ego would not permit it!:ugh:

I once told a reporter that it was her job to tell us what happened but it was not given to the likes of them to try to tell us what to think, or offer opinions. Just report the facts.:=

It didn't go down too well, judging from her facial expression!

[P51D]

M-dot - totally wrong, wouldn't know FGD if I fell over him, or her. I know GT and know he's very well connected right across the industry. To "Allthecool names etc" no link, don't disbelieve you, done a bit myself, but avoid it like the plague. You guys have to stop beating yourselves up over GT, he's got an ego you can't jump over but the media and public have fed him to be like that. FGD was just trying to offer a different view and was set upon with him and me being branded as dopes....really, give me and him a break!

[Tidbinbilla]

Indeed, Pinky. :O

The media is supposed to REPORT the news, not create it.

That appears to not be happening in the case of one particular 'reporter'.

[FGD135]

allthecoolnamesarego,


You and one other in this thread have let slip that you feel GT is somehow "one of us", or is "representing" us. You said:


He purports to speak on 'our behalf' ...I don't see how you can say that. He is not one of us, and does not represent us. He does not speak "on our behalf".


Perhaps if you could recognise this, you wouldn't be so bothered by his statements and appearances?


GT the writer comes across very differently to GT the TV "aviation expert". This would be entirely due to the different constraints between these two forms of media.


GT the TV personality is entirely the creation of the media. He is exactly how his media masters want him to be. We know this because they continue to ask him to appear.


For the TV appearances, you must remember that entertainment is first and foremost. Factual accuracy comes second. The TV stations just want somebody that sounds like they know what they are talking about and can explain, in everyday speak, why planes crash. GT carries this off perfectly.


If the above comes as a surprise to you, then you don't understand the nature of commercial media to the extent that you claim.


If GT was hit by a bus tomorrow, the media would soon find someone else, but they would sound exactly like GT. Your gripe should not be with GT, but with the producers of the TV shows frequented by GT. But if you were to complain to them, they would just say they were "giving the audience what it wanted"!


About that "wreckage" that GT described as "absolutely" coming from an aircraft. On the question of knowing whether something was true or not, you said:


He would know what was true or not ...Really? Nobody else in this world has that power. Why would you expect him to?


You also said:
I'm pretty sure that when that debris was classified as general Flotsam, he was proven wrong.So they recovered ALL the debris that was seen by the satellites did they? I think you will find that only a tiny, tiny percentage was recovered.



P51D, FGD135 and FoxtrotAlpha18 = GT?I am not GT. I have also been accused of being Geoff Dixon (former Qantas CEO) at one time!

[gerry111]

If the GT haters are prepared to risk becoming physically ill, then have a read of 'NAPC Awards' in the current 'Australian Aviation' magazine..


That was quite a 'knees up'!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Pinky,

"Just the FACTS Man / M'aam..... nuthin' but the FACTS'......

IS GOOD!!!

Cheerrsss :ok:

[allthecoolnamesarego]

FGD,

What's that old saying? Never post on the internet after a few reds... Even then, I think I can still point holes in your argument; that, plus I sense a change in tone....

You and one other in this thread have let slip that you feel GT is somehow "one of us", or is "representing" us. You said:

Quote:
He purports to speak on 'our behalf' ...
I don't see how you can say that. He is not one of us, and does not represent us. He does not speak "on our behalf".

FGD, The use of quotations is often a form of sarcasm or a way of saying that something isn't quite right. I certainly meant it in this manner. I don't believe for a second GT is 'one of us', so I apologise to you for the misunderstanding. I will endeavour to be clearer in the future.

GT the writer comes across very differently to GT the TV "aviation expert". This would be entirely due to the different constraints between these two forms of media.

I've covered this point enough I think, so will let you re read my posts on this. Facts don't know the difference between print and TV.

For the TV appearances, you must remember that entertainment is first and foremost. Factual accuracy comes second

Maybe for shows like 'The Bachelor' or 'The Block' or 'Hey Hey a It's Saturday'. However the news is a little different. If GT was building a new kitchen in less that 3 days, perhaps I could agree.....

The TV stations just want somebody that sounds like they know what they are talking about and can explain, in everyday speak, why planes crash. GT carries this off perfectly.

You know there doesn't have to be a difference between someone who "sounds like they know what they are talking about" and someone "who knows what they are talking about".
I'll let you ponder that for a while. Ask a grown up if you are having trouble with this concept.

About that "wreckage" that GT described as "absolutely" coming from an aircraft. On the question of knowing whether something was true or not, you said:

Quote:
He would know what was true or not ...
Really? Nobody else in this world has that power. Why would you expect him to?

You were almost clever for a second then, however, I remembered that the two quotes you posted there were from two DIFFERENT answers! You almost got through my 'red wine filter'.

Quote:
GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.

So without being there to confirm, of course he would know that 'absolutely' was the wrong word to use.

The second part about knowing 'what was true or not', was from this exchange:

Quote:
Remember that he is speaking to the camera, and answers must be instantaneous and brief. When doing his research, he may have heard a range of views on that wreckage, but there is no time, on camera, to go over that. He must distil hours of phone calls and discussion down into one 5 second answer.
I call BS on this. A media trained person will control the interview and own the message. If in fact he was an expert with expert knowledge, he wouldn't have to grapple with info he didn't really understand. He would know what was true or not, and what he needed to say to convey the message.

Can you see what I am saying? If you know your stuff, you don't need to make things up because he would know what is true/feasible/realistic and be able to talk about it with authority.

As an example of knowing what is true or not, He would not tell an interviewer that out climbing a TS was 'absolutely the right thing to do"

Some of us have studied things like Aerody and Physics, so I think that your claim "Nobody else in this world has that power" is a little strange. Many humans have the ability to know what is true and what is not.

An expert would be able to say 'we are unsure
You also said:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that when that debris was classified as general Flotsam, he was proven wrong.
So they recovered ALL the debris that was seen by the satellites did they? I think you will find that only a tiny, tiny percentage was recovered.

As someone with a SAR background, I can categorically tell you that anything that *might* be of interest will be investigated. I can assume (feel free to have a go at me for assuming) that people with great skill in deciphering SAT images, have been sufficiently convinced that the flotsam in the photos *does not* (I can't bold but like your use of asterisk- thanks!) belong to an aircraft. Given the HIGH PROFILE of this accident, I can be doubly sure of that.

I applaud you on your persistence, and as General Melchett says: "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."

Coolnames

[Kiwiconehead]

Here is GT's latest effort

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/25910363/why-i-will-never-fly-airasia/

though, as a rule, I don't fly on low-cost airlines because the seating is too cramped for my height.

And normally drinking the corporate coolaid in the chairmans lounge.

[myshoutcaptain]

Check out this piece of brilliance!!!!!! :mad:

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/25910363/why-i-will-never-fly-airasia/

One of my favorite comments is "don't forget the park brake" alluding to the 777 sim takeoff - with it on. :ok::ugh::mad:

[Slippery_Pete]

More utter tripe from GT.

He doesn't travel Air Asia, because he travels Qantas - probably in return for sickenly pro-Qantas articles such as this.

When you pay for your Qantas ticket, you are paying for some of the best-paid pilots

And yet, the guy takes every opportunity to blame overpaid technical staff at Qantas (like engineers) for the down fall of the airline (ie his fictional $300m claims back in 2011).

Which is it, GT?

Do you want the best paid, safest staff to be responsible for your life (as this latest article suggests)?

Or do you want to continue selling the management line that overpaid Qantas staff are responsible for the airline's financial demise?

It seems you want high paid Australian Qantas staff driving your aircraft, but you want it maintained overseas by foreigners on a budget.

[Soteria]

The similarities between GT and FGD are uncanny!
Both like to write utter bull****. Both are conceited. Both display a lack of real aviation knowledge. Both express themselves by using long drawn out analogies and assumptions about........nothing!

FGD if you aren't GT then you should move to Perth and marry him because you are both a perfect match :ok:

[FGD135]

Which is it, GT?Both, Slippery_Pete, and that should not only be obvious, but really easy to understand.

When speaking from the point of view of a Qantas passenger, he would say that he likes the idea of his pilots being the best paid in the world. Who wouldn't?

When reporting on the ails of Qantas, he will say it is because their costs are way higher than their competitors - which is exactly the situation, so he is telling it exactly like it is.

You seem to think that he can't say both of these things - but that is the logic of a child. Of course he can say both!

You seem to think that because he is of the view that Qantas must cut its costs, he personally *wants* the aircraft to be maintained overseas.

If you could ask him where he would prefer the aircraft to be maintained, from the Qantas passenger's point of view, he would say Australia. And who wouldn't?


However the news is a little different.allthecoolnamesarego, that is probably true on the planet where you live, but on this planet, where we have GT, the news has to be entertaining. You are just not grasping this reality. The aviation expert, whoever he is, just cannot give the "we don't know ... we will have to wait for the final report" answers. If he does, he will not be invited back and will cease to be labelled an "expert". This is true not just of commercial TV but ABC and SBS as well!

You know there doesn't have to be a difference between someone who "sounds like they know what they are talking about" and someone "who knows what they are talking about".Sure, but where is that person of the latter category? Why aren't we seeing him on the telly instead of GT? He has had years now to come forward and supplant GT. I wonder where he is?

... of course he would know that 'absolutely' was the wrong word to use.How do you know that the SAR expert he was speaking to, just prior to going on air, didn't use the word "absolutely"? You think he should only use "absolutely" if he personally was in the ocean, inspecting the debris? That is ridiculous.

As someone with a SAR background, I can categorically tell you that anything that *might* be of interest will be investigated.Well you are categorically speaking rubbish then - because there can be an enormous, enormous cost involved. A cost so enormous that it is just not practical to retrieve 100% of the satellite-observed debris so as to investigate it all. I will cut you some slack on this statement as you did admit to having a few reds!

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

on this planet, where we have GT, the news has to be entertaining

On my planet, I'd like the news to be factual and well-informed.

The aviation expert, whoever he is, just cannot give the "we don't know ... we will have to wait for the final report" answers. If he does, he will not be invited back and will cease to be labelled an "expert".

You seem to be saying (repeatedly) that you/Geoffrey need to spout ill-informed speculative nonsense in return for recognition and monetary reward, and that this is quite ok. Maybe it is, but let's not dignify it with the term "expert".

[Frank Arouet]

Narcissists thrive on publicity. Good or bad, it's all publicity and this thread is giving the afflicted more oxygen than they deserve.


Never argue with fools, you may educate them. An educated fool with an opinion is more dangerous than one that is easily seen as just a fool. To think some media mob would pay for these opinions says more about that media outlet than the fool.

[mickjoebill]

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/complaint-form/

Here is the link to make an online complaint at the press council.

Multiple complaints have more gravitas than one offs.


Mickjoebill

[FGD135]

Here is the link to make an online complaint at the press council.
Imagine complaining to them about a view expressed by Oprah Winfrey. If your complaint is about something GT said on a TV show (including the nightly news), then that is how they will regard your complaint.


But if about something he said in a newspaper, then they will look more closely. In this case, the first thing they will consider is whether the article is "news" or opinion.


I believe GT contributes opinion (aka "commentary") only, so this licences him to say whatever he likes and speculate as much as he likes.


I believe that any complaint to the Press Council would be a complete waste of time.


Why aren't you targeting the producers of the TV shows he appears on? GT is just the messenger. It is the producers that like his message and insist on bringing it to us.

[FGD135]

On the issue of the nightly TV news shows being more oriented towards "entertainment", I found the following article, about TV news in the USA but still highly relevant here:

Whatever Happened to the News? | Center for Media Literacy (http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/whatever-happened-news)


Some quotes from it:

News has always mixed the serious and the entertaining. The tension between journalism and commercialism goes back long before television, but it is felt with special intensity in television news today.

In the 1970s and '80s, however, the barrier between news and entertainment has been increasingly eroded.

It was the local stations that first discovered, late in the 1960s, that news could make money– lots of money. By the end of the '70s, news was frequently producing 60 percent of a station's profits. With numbers like that, news was much "too important" to leave to journalists, and a heavily entertainment-oriented form of programming began to evolve.

And this, about shows like "Today Tonight" and "A Current Affair", where we often see GT:

They are not news shows that borrow conventions from entertainment television, but the other way around: entertainment programs that borrow the aura of news. The forms and the "look" are news– the opening sequences frequently feature typewriter keys and newsroom-like sets with monitors in the background. The content, however, has little of the substance of journalism;

[mickjoebill]

IQuote:
Here is the link to make an online complaint at the press council.
Imagine complaining to them about a view expressed by Oprah Winfrey. If your complaint is about something GT said on a TV show (including the nightly news), then that is how they will regard your complaint.


But if about something he said in a newspaper, then they will look more closely. In this case, the first thing they will consider is whether the article is "news" or opinion.


I believe GT contributes opinion (aka "commentary") only, so this licences him to say whatever he likes and speculate as much as he likes.

But not if opinion is presented as fact or when facts are innacurate.
Here are the relevant principles from press council:
Principle 6)
(E.g. failure to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy in texts, quotes, headlines, captions and images; misrepresentation or suppression of facts; failure to correct an inaccuracy; opinion based on false factual claims)
Lack of balance (General Principles 1, 2 and 3 and Privacy Principle 6)
(E.g. lack of balance in an article; lack of balance in a series of articles or in a particular publication over time; failure to publish a letter to the editor or other response)
Failure to distinguish between fact and opinion (Part of General Principles 4, 6)
(E.g. presenting opinion as fact, or blurring the line between fact and opinion)
Unfair or dishonest presentation (General Principle 1; part of General Principle 6)
(E.g. failure to identify reports as rumours or unconfirmed; unfair headlines, captions and images; failure to declare conflict of interest, including commercial interest; advertorial not identified)
Unfair or dishonest investigation (General Principle 5; Privacy Principles 5, 7)
(E.g. unfair or dishonest methods of newsgathering (such as deception); breach of confidence; identifying anonymous sources; exploitation of a victim or bereaved person)


The news brodaster has a duty to flag its content as opinion, speculation or fact. Reporting should be balanced. Viewers should be made aware of a contributor's vested interest. Broadcasters have to take take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness.

You can complain about a point of view if it in context of the broadcast, challenges the above guidelines. The complaint isnt toward the contributor it is to those who publish or broadcast.

Oprah can state a personal view on whatever she likes as she is not presented as being a specialist.

From the press council;
WHAT CAN BE COMPLAINED ABOUT?

Types of material

Complaints may relate to news reports, articles, editorials, letters, cartoons, images and other published material.


Why aren't you targeting the producers of the TV shows he appears on? GT is the messenger. It is the producers that like his message and insist on bringing it to us

A complaint to press complaints detailing the publisher or broadcaster does just that.

By the way, Australia has uniform libel and slander laws, under the umbrella of defamation.
If one is directly defamed by a contributor then action can be taken by that person or entity. So if a commentator's view, regardless if they are expert or not, is that an individual or group were wreckless or incompetent then such comment can be challenged in court.
This is rare as retractions usually are suffice in correcting non maliscous defamation.


Mickjoebill

[FGD135]

mickjoebill,


The Australian Press Council is not interested in what happens on TV. See this page:


What we do - Australian Press Council (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/what-we-do/)


A quote from it:


The Council is the principal body with responsibility for responding to complaints about Australian newspapers, magazines and associated digital outlets.

[YPJT]

He has spouted similar incorrect facts on both printed and visual media. Perhaps put him in the starters box with Media Watch to see if he gets a run?

[mickjoebill]

The Australian Press Council is not interested in what happens on TV. See this page:

FDG135 it is precisely what I quoted in my post!
The council generally only looks into companies from its members (which does not include ABC) but it may be worth a try as most ABC TV news programs are online.


Whilst we are on the subject, complaints can be made about a Journalist's ethics to the local guild or union if he or she is a member.
In Australia the journo union is the MEAA.

Here is their code of ethics. http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics-breaches-how-to-complain



Mickjoebill

[Capn Rex Havoc]

What about writing to media watch?

[Dora-9]

"There is no doubt that Qantas is a standout in safety enhancements and an industry benchmark for best practice," Mr Thomas said.
Back to another query I made earlier - in one of the offending articles it's claimed that Qantas were solely responsible for getting Rockwell-Collins to develop the multi-scan radar. It's an unattributed line, but it sounds a lot like a GT usual "Qantas is wonderful" line.

Is this correct?

[Creampuff]

You mean there are still people left who watch/read/listen to commercial media and expect facts to be reported and opinions to be expressed by real experts in the field of the matter being reported?

I hope the trauma counsellors are on hand when they find out about Santa Claus. :uhoh:

[kaz3g]

For complaints about television media, you contact ACMA

ACMA: Home
Home | ACMA (http://www.acma.gov.au/)


Kaz

[Compylot]

Wow, it just blows my mind how such a small minded bunch of pseudo elite whingers can get their panties twisted into such a knot!


I myself find it hard to get to sleep some nights... lying awake thinking about the misunderstandings that the media, the public, the government, management, journalists, hot girls down the pub and even bogans who subscribe to The Australian perceive our ancient and precious profession.


Who cares?


You are all just jealous that 'GT' has made a buck doing what he does.. good on him.


He's not there to provide specific, expert commentary on the exact technical nature of every aspect of our complicated jobs that only we, as professional aviators with years and years of training, study, experience, ego and knowledge will ever understand.


Only a Surgeon at their highest level of expertise and qualifications would ever understand the woes that airline pilots endure at having their profession degraded to such an extent by such amateur journalists...


Toughen up princesses, you all sound like a bunch of stuck up whining schoolgirls.. "contact media watch or the press council...??"

Please...

I hope that I don't ever have the misfortune of flying with some of you pansies, "Oh Oh there's a bit of cloud up ahead request 50 miles right of route before I wet my knickers, and by the way lets get onto the press council about that monster GT.." you all need a bit of harden the you know what up.

Poor Chopper would be turning in his grave. :ok:

[Virtually There]

Touché.

As someone who has sat on both sides of the fence, the level of ignorance displayed on these boards about how the media works is astounding.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say the majority of people posting here understand the media industry even less than the mainstream media understands aviation.

The biggest difference is the fact that the only people reading this are a bunch of bored pilots and plane-spotters, whereas someone like GT probably has a readership of tens, if not hundreds of thousands each time he writes an article.

The general public doesn't even know pprune exists.

Yet you all rely on the media for your source of local and world events each day, don't you? Or do you all have crystal balls?

Because many of you don't have real balls, that's for sure.

I don't do media stuff now, because I have no need to and because the media is a whore who will use your time, expertise and effort for it's own reward. I have seen enough to know that my time could be better spent doing things I enjoy.
If none of you are prepared to put your money where your collective mouths are - to step up and nurture contacts with journos so you can be Johnny-on-the-spot when the need arises (and most importantly, put your real name and credentials on the record) - then you're all just pissing in the wind.

Because no-one important is reading this.

So if you think you can do a better job, then do it. But don't complain about it if all you're going to do is sling arrows from the eaves and belittle others for their difference of opinion.

And the first person who accuses me of being GT is a bloody idiot. Journalism 101: do your research - baseless accusations will get you sued for defamation in the real world. Which - I dare say - is why some of you would never make it in journalism.

Professional Pilots Rumour Network indeed! Where the fark is the apostrophe? :rolleyes:

[P51D]

Hey "Allthecool..etc" you said this.. "P51D, why don't you just stay logged in as FGD? It would save time when posting". Totally wrong mate, c'mon, put up or shut up, you love beating up GT as to his media prowess or otherwise and bragging about how good you are, or have been - Prove it!!! You also appear to like belittling posters such as FGD (I have no idea who he/she is) and me, but getting personal says more about you than FGD or me. Irrespective of all that, this site continues to have posters who delight in tearing down well known people, particularly those who have a profile, and think they are more expert but stay behind the veil of a nickname. Anyway, a mate who knows GT tells me that GT is running out of space in his pool room for all the awards he's picked up for his aviation journalism.

[spinex]

Got it in one, Virtually There, I'd sue too if someone defamed me by calling me GT.

[psycho joe]

Compylot wrote:

Toughen up princesses, you all sound like a bunch of stuck up whining schoolgirls.. "contact media watch or the press council...??"

Please...

I hope that I don't ever have the misfortune of flying with some of you pansies, "Oh Oh there's a bit of cloud up ahead request 50 miles right of route before I wet my knickers, and by the way lets get onto the press council about that monster GT.." you all need a bit of harden the you know what up.


But wait a minute last year he also wrote:

I agree also with the OP the standard of journalism regarding the facts about an aviation incident is decidedly poor.
I've mentioned before that we pilots should put together a committee to oversee and endorse appropriately accurate technical reporting.

Quote:
I suggest that we draw together a body of aviation professionals, representing not just professional air crew but also Air Traffic Control, Engineers, Flight Attendants and Ground Handlers. (I have included ground handlers here because I am sick to death of the poor attempt many commercials make when including marshalers in some way to sell a product. Too often I see actors waving glow sicks around with absolutely no idea of the correct procedures and don't get me started on their lack of appropriate high visibility clothing or ASIC!)


So which is it Compylot?

Do you think that an industry "expert" should at least have some relevant industry experience and perhaps a modicum of technical knowledge to which their title alludes, or are you just trying to raise your perceived online profile by claiming some moral high ground by way of a sanctimonious rant.

[Stanwell]

The latter.
He thinks he's one of the 'men'.
He's got a bit of growing up to do, I'm afraid.

[The Green Goblin]

Virtually there, a most appropriate username for an avid flight simmer. How's those bali fly ins going for you?

Just don't forget the park brake now :)

[psycho joe]

Without wishing to drift the thread, you can't really have a discussion about dodgy aviation enthusiasts trying to pass themselves off as "experts" without also giving a dishonourable mention to the aviation journalist with the appropriate initials B.S.

Given the nature of journalism these days B.S. Should be in the running for an OBE for "services to cutting and pasting" and passing other people's articles off as his own work.

He was harmless enough back when he was merely comparing inflight meals and seat pitch, but since the tragedies of AF447 and MH370, he now thinks that he has the prowess to explain aircraft systems to his eclectic mix of ignorant followers. Unfortunately his view of systems, airline procedures, aerodynamics etc as explained by him are based not on science or manuals, but on what seems right in his head. :rolleyes:

[The Green Goblin]

At least B.S tries to get it right. It's also opinion and a blog vs fact/news.

I thoroughly enjoy Ben Sandilands. He's one of the good guys.

[psycho joe]

These days virtually every one of his aviation stories is written in the tone of faux outrage. Try telling him that his take on how something works is technically wrong and he has an absolute meltdown about how you are standing in the way of his one man crusade and he won't be silenced, blah blah ignorant blah.

It's amazing that in over 40 years of aviation "journalism" he clearly hasn't been interested in actually picking up a manual or at least having a credible contact in the industry to verify the validity of his many innocuous rages.

[FGD135]

... dodgy aviation enthusiasts trying to pass themselves off as "experts" ...
psycho joe,


It is the media that refer to GT as an "expert" - not GT. I think you will find that GT considers himself a journalist, specialising in aviation.


It is the media that put the "expert" label on him. If more people here understood this there might be a bit more acceptance of him.

[Virtually There]

Congrats, Green Gobbler, you get today's "Bloody Idiot Award". :ok:

If you knew how to use the search function - which clearly you don't - you could very easily get an idea of who I am (and others posting here are) through post history.

But you're obviously not that clever, are you? Or perhaps you're just lazy and prefer to cast aspersions rather than back your claims with evidence.

Reds under the beds and GTs on the PCs - what else will the bored pruners think of? :rolleyes:

[psycho joe]

FGD

Clicking your heels together and repeatedly trotting out a line, wishing that it were true doesn't make it so.

GT is always careful to be conspicuously quiet about his credentials or the lack thereof. Call it lying by omission, most reputable interviewees will start with a brief overview of their credentials.

As in:

"Thanks koshie. As a former assistant to the manager who oversaw the committee who outsourced the decision to order glossy fax paper for the QANTAS head office, my opinion is blah blah blah."

[Virtually There]

Perhaps I was being a bit harsh. That wasn't a bad effort, TGG. :p

[Slippery_Pete]

Anyway, a mate who knows GT tells me that GT is running out of space in his pool room for all the awards he's picked up for his aviation journalism.

If you think anyone here doesn't believe FGD135 and GT aren't the same person, you've got rocks in your head. So parade around your empty pool room, holding all your trophies, and blaming the network for calling you an expert.

Anyway, back to the real world...

Recently some no-name website called airlineratings.com, decided to name Qantas as the world's safest airline.

World's Safest Airlines for 2015 (http://www.airlineratings.com/news/425/worlds-safest-airlines-for-2015)

Then, if you go to this link...

Airline Ratings (http://www.airlineratings.com/editors.php)

It shows Geoffrey Thomas as Editor-In-Chief of this Company.

If you then go to this link...

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/25910363/why-i-will-never-fly-

It shows GT claiming Qantas is the safest airline in the world. He even refers to airlineratings.com (the very site where he happens to be chief editor) in his new article.

In the depths of the disclaimers of the airlineratings.com website, it also says about use of information by airlineratings.com and... Get this.... West Australian Newspapers (where he frequently appears).

What could be going on here?

[The Green Goblin]

There's a reason why some of us live the dream, and others write about those living the dream. Cleverness has everything to do with it.

You were not being harsh, you just didn't get it - straight away anyway :p

[Virtually There]

Oh, I got it. But being the combative arena that pprune is, my first reaction was obviously to jump on the defensive.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match, but suffice it to say, there's no rule in life that says you can't do both ;)

EDIT: For the record, I'm no great fan of GT. But I am a very firm believer in free speech. The sock-puppet game of "Spot the GT" is both disingenuous and tedious. The fact that many criticising the media about it's lack of aviation nous display a vast lack of reciprocal knowledge strikes me at the very least as ironic.

[Lookleft]

I found my copy of Flightpaths and it still had the letter from Geoff dixon telling us all what a wonderful book it was. I am still intrigued FGD, what about the book moved you to write:

Do yourself a favour and get a copy of his "Qantas Flightpaths" book. Read it and you will then find you have an enormous respect for the man.

From what I can tell it is mainly a large font airline history for dummies! If it is such a great tome then why hasn't it been updated and revised to include Qantas history from 2004 to the present? I particularly like the bit about Jetstar Asia having an enormous upside for Qantas! I also like in the bibliography the reference to "How airliners fly: A passengers guide.". Says it all really.

[mickjoebill]

Over the years I have shot around 400 interviews for high end science documentaries including airline accidents.
It is a crying shame that GT is not an oracle of factual information the majority of the time. It is a privelaged position that is being squandered.

Rolling live news quickly makes the ill prepared look like a fool to the well informed on the given subject.
The challenge is to respond to a difficult complex or idiotic question.
Even live this is possible if you are prepared. The trick is to act like a politician and not be drawn and simply talk about something else!
But GTs tone is to dramatise and he appears eager to please regardless of the validity or relevance of the question.

Yesterday there was a high price paid by those who believe in the right of free speech. We should endevour to ensure that in exercising this right we are communicating honestly and accuratly, especially when discussing the cause of highly significant accidents that directly affect thousands of loved ones of innocent victims.

Mickjoebill

[Chocks Away]

Geez, I should have sold tickets on TickeTek if I knew it would get this reaction :}

Rolling live news quickly makes the ill prepared look like a fool to the well informed on the given subject. Full stop!

Well summed up, mickjoebill.
I have nothing more to add and can't see any use in continuing this thread after the preceding eloquent contribution.

Happy landings:ok:

[FGD135]

GT is always careful to be conspicuously quiet about his credentials or the lack thereof. Call it lying by omission, most reputable interviewees will start with a brief overview of their credentials.


Sigh. Another one with precious little appreciation of how the media works. I agree with the view of some earlier posters that "the media understands aviation way better than pilots understand the media"!


psycho joe,


If you appreciated the $ value of one second of air time on the morning shows such as Sunrise, you would realise that they would NEVER allow interviewees to give a "brief overview of their credentials".


But it has never been that way anyway. For ALL shows - commercial or otherwise, it is ALWAYS the interviewer that does the introduction. For the really slick introductions, they will say 2-5 words, but put a caption along the bottom of the screen (e.g "Aviation Expert") when the expert is on screen.


This is how it is done. The "expert" does NOT get a say on how the introduction is done. With your blinkered view of the world however, you choose to interpret this as GT "lying by omission". Take a look at Lateline or any other show that has "guests" - even chat shows. To you, all those guests must be liars!


Rolling live news quickly makes the ill prepared look like a fool to the well informed on the given subject.But he is not there for the benefit of the well informed! Is that not blindingly obvious? How many times do I have to say this?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

But he is not there for the benefit of the well informed!
A fair point. Many would suggest that the nature of his 'analysis' is such that it doesn't benefit the ill-informed, either.

[Slippery_Pete]

You ignored my post completely, Geoffrey (FGD135).

Is GT selling stories to Yahoo7 indicating that Qantas is the world's safest airline, and using the website "airlineratings.com" (of which he may have deep interests) as the "factual basis" for said statements?

Does GT perhaps own "airlineratings.com"?

I'm interested in knowing where everyone's interests lie.

[Stanwell]

Pete,
I too noted, with interest, that your post#92 was ignored.
Interesting.

[Hasherucf]

airlineratings.com is owned by The West Newspaper

Registrant Name: Nick Sertis
Registrant Organization: West Australian Newspapers Ltd
Registrant Street: 50 Hasler Road
Registrant City: Osborne Park
Registrant State/Province: WA
Registrant Postal Code: 6017
Registrant Country: AU
Registrant Phone: +61.894823386
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: Email Masking [email protected]

[Lookleft]

The West Australian also owns Aerospace Technical Publication International P/L who also printed Qantas Flightpaths which is still held up as an example of why FGD135 has an "enormous respect for the man". Can you give me some guidance FGD as to what you found so awe inspiring in the publication?

[tecman]

As a consequence of the unholy link described by Hasherucf, the West Australian carries page after page of GT tosh - far more than most of you guys on the East Coast see (unless you are crazy enough to seek it out online). I suppose you could look on GT as WA's revenge on the wicked East; fix up the GST and we'll take him back. (There you go..I'm practically a local now).

I don't buy the West myself, it being distinguished in my memory as the foul organ that front-page serialized a woman's death and subsequent legal proceedings for the entertainment of the masses. However, colleagues often shove the GT stuff my way, invariably with a shake of the head.

I've found the thread interesting and, noting that most journos are lazy buggers who enjoy feeding on each other, I reckon the idea of an alternative source of higher grade, pre-written tosh is a good one. As a complement, the Media Watch encouragement is also good. Forget the legalities of the Press Council etc and go for good old-fashioned public derision.

[Slippery_Pete]

Thankyou stanwell. It is bizarre.

What is also bizarre, is that this webpage

Geoffrey Thomas | LinkedIn (http://au.linkedin.com/pub/geoffrey-thomas/14/2/266)

lists GT as FOUNDER of airlineratings.com

It's all very interesting.

.
.
.

And that above, is the sound of the continued silence from FGD on this matter.

[Stanwell]

Hmm, "Aviation Professional", eh?
I'll have to tell my mate down the road - who spent a month or two as a bag-chucker, that he was an "Aviation Professional".

[FGD135]

You ignored my post completely, Geoffrey (FGD135).

Is GT selling stories to Yahoo7 indicating that Qantas is the world's safest airline, and using the website "airlineratings.com" (of which he may have deep interests) as the "factual basis" for said statements?

Does GT perhaps own "airlineratings.com"?
I read that post #92, but couldn't see anything to get excited about - Ppruners jumping at shadows is something that happens every day.


Any website can do any study or analysis on anything it likes. Any journalist can then write about the findings. Any news outlet is free to buy the story from the journalist and publish it. What's the big deal?


If GT was the journalist, then the outlet doing the publishing probably should mention the link between the journalist and the website. Was said mention made?

[Slippery_Pete]

The big deal, GT, is that Qantas MAY or MAY NOT be the safest airline in the world.

You appear (and I may be wrong) to be sprouting personal opinion from your own website as irrefutable fact.

There would be no difference if I started a website called pilotratings.com, nominating Jo Bloggs as the safest pilot in the world, and then selling stories to Yahoo7 saying that Jo Bloggs is the safest pilot in the world because pilotratings.com says so.

What a farce. :D

Was said mention made?

No.

Anyone else's BS meter peaking?

[FGD135]

You appear (and I may be wrong) to be sprouting personal opinion ...
Not personal opinion. There is some methodology by which the ratings are made - and you could have established that by yourself.


There would be no difference if I started a website called pilotratings.com, nominating Jo Bloggs as the safest pilot in the world, and then selling stories to Yahoo7 saying that Jo Bloggs is the safest pilot in the world because pilotratings.com says so.
You think Yahoo7 would buy that story?

[Slippery_Pete]

Well, given that it is about as factual as yours... And also given I have chucked a couple of bags in my time, I don't see why not?

Why was there no disclosure on your AirAsia article?

[mickjoebill]

If you appreciated the $ value of one second of air time on the morning shows
Quote:
Rolling live news quickly makes the ill prepared look like a fool to the well informed on the given subject.

But he is not there for the benefit of the well informed! Is that not blindingly obvious? How many times do I have to say this?

Your response ignores my point that the view of professional pilots on this list that the accuracy of his information is poor. Your reply seems to suggest the public have no need or will not understand accurate technical information.

Dumbing down info to the point that is facile or even misleading is a low brow response. Espousing high tech info which public wont understand doesnt work either especially if it is innacurate.

Accuracy is a cornerstone of journalism.

The public are able to understand the mechanics and science of life.
It is critical for the interviewee to be knowledgeable on the subject! but also as critical to show restrant by shutting up and not talking crap.
Ive just heard abctv news london correspondant reporting on the terrorist seige in France, describe supa puma helicopters as "attack helicopters"
We can excuse him for that mistake as he is not an expert, but there is no excuse for an aviation expert to apparently regularly make mistakes about simple stuff.

Speaking on a specialist subject in a way the public can understand is possible!
If any ppruners are interested a good technique is to research and practice responses to likely questions relating to aircraft incidents. This is good fun and a challenge to accuratly describe what flaps do or how a pitot works.

The last page of posts about connections is very interesting when you refer to the ethics and standards that govern broadcasters and publishers.

I edited a technical trade mag for 5 years and am shocked by lack of disclosure portrayed in this thread.



Mickjoebill

[Virtually There]

What lack of disclosure would that be, Mick?

You guys bang on about journalists reporting the truth, yet you're all accusing FGD135 (and others) of being Geoffrey Thomas without one iota of proof.

I don't give a flying fig who FGD is, but the hypocrisy in this thread is astounding!

So seeing as none of you know how the media industry works, I'll try to solve the mystery for you . . .

Geoff Thomas is employed by The West Australian.

Geoff Thomas can write whatever the hell he likes in his Linked in bio - that doesn't mean it's true (hint - do your research!).

In all likelihood, The West registered airlineratings.com as a spin-off publishing venture.

Geoff Thomas may have been a founding editor (as opposed to financial founder), but he likely wasn't the only one.

"Managing Director" is a title - it doesn't mean the MD has shares or any other fiscal interest in the company.

airlineratings.com may - or may not - have been Geoff Thomas's idea, pitched at newspaper management. In all likelihood (I am speculating - I have no inside knowledge), he may have partly come up with the idea jointly with the newspaper and possibly other writers, now employed as airlineratings.com editors.

Joint publishing ventures between journalists and media organisations are common.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Have a look at the list of editors: Airline Ratings (http://www.airlineratings.com/editors.php)

Half of them are West reporters, while the remainder are freelancers.

Is it ethical? Not in my opinion. But it wouldn't be the first time a media organisation has quoted its own spin-off venture or specialist supplement to mutually benefit both parties (which are really one and the same party, after all).

You know, when the pot (loony conspiracy theorist pruners) call the kettle (media) black, it's time for the pot to stop smoking its namesake!

The rumour-mongering and lack of basic knowledge in this thread is embarrassing. Maybe even more embarrassing than the media's understanding of our sacred cow aviation industry! :eek:

[Virtually There]

Je suis Geoffrey Thomas!

LOL! :}

[Stanwell]

"None of you know how the media industry works.."
Oh, OK.
I must have been dreaming about my twelve year involvement in it, then.
Thanks for letting me know.

[Virtually There]

Then if you're as experienced as you say, why couldn't you address Slippery_Pete's post at #92?

And surely you realise the folly of trying to finger everyone as GT without any evidence.

I don't agree with everything FGD has written, but he doesn't deserve to be pilloried for his views. Because of all the people posting here, he is one of the few who does seem to have a genuine understanding of how the media industry works in the real world.

Others are simply displaying the same industry bias and ignorance against which they, themselves, have been rallying.

You can't have it both ways.

[mickjoebill]

yet you're all accusing FGD135 (and others) of being Geoffrey Thomas without one iota of proof.


I have not suggested fg is gt. In respect to disclosure I refer to GTs connection with organisatons listed here.

No he can't write what he likes and at the same time conform to the ethics and standards of the profession.

You may think ethics and standards dont matter when speculating and investigating on the sudden death of hundreds of people.



Mickjoebill

[Virtually There]

I do believe ethics and standards matter - at all times - firmly. And I do not absolve any journalist of that responsibility to his/her industry and the public they serve.

But the reality is, many journalists only serve themselves, and such is the cut-throat, bankrupt industry these days (most media organisations still haven't found a way to make money online), few new journos receive proper training like they used to, while other, more experienced journos just don't have the time and resources they are expected to have to do their job properly.

Sound familiar? You could apply the same to another industry I'm thinking of.

Yes, there are lazy journos who hurt not only themselves and the industry at large, but the general public, victims and families as well.

But so do lazy pilots . . .

[aeromatt]

Geoffrey "Biggles" Thomas had his heart set on indulging in some liquorice delights.

From today's West Australian: :rolleyes:

http://s18.postimg.org/cakpp8yph/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/cakpp8yph/)

[Chronic Snoozer]

Is it ethical? Not in my opinion.I do believe ethics and standards matter - at all times - firmly.

OK so everyone's agreed on that.

But the reality is, many journalists only serve themselves, and such is the cut-throat, bankrupt industry

FGD135 is suspected of being GT because of your second quote. Banter on an anonymous forum can hardly be compared with paid journalism requoted around the world. That needs to be correct.

When one reads or watches 'the news', we expected factual, accurate reporting in the time available. To wildly speculate is human, to print it is not journalism.

I've never subscribed to the idea that news needs to be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. Educate them.

[vee1-rotate]

Geoffrey "Biggles" Thomas had his heart set on indulging in some liquorice delights.

From today's West Australian:

Please, don't give this hack of a human any more publicity. He thrives on it.

[m-dot]

That's hilarious. Good on the JQ pax for getting their money's worth.

Given the ever degrading morale of QF peeps in PER (slowly being replaced by JQ), I highly doubt the QF club staff would give a hoot.

GT can't be that important if he doesn't get Chairmans lounge access!

[Stanwell]

I seem to remember someone saying earlier on this thread (or another one) that he DOES have access to the Chairman's Lounge.

This is not surprising, considering all the 'good work' he does for the red tail rat.

[PLovett]

You really think they are going to let a journalist loose in the Chairman's Lounge?

[Virtually There]

FGD135 is suspected of being GT because of your second quote. Banter on an anonymous forum can hardly be compared with paid journalism requoted around the world. That needs to be correct.

When one reads or watches 'the news', we expected factual, accurate reporting in the time available. To wildly speculate is human, to print it is not journalism.

I've never subscribed to the idea that news needs to be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. Educate them.
Unfortunately, CS, lowest common denominator journalism is what tends to rate highest with the paying punters. Witness Today Tonight and A Current Affair. Pure trash, but high ratings, high advertising rates and a cash cow for the networks.

The highest circulation newspapers in the world are all trashy tabloids.

Quality journalism, such as Four Corners, Foreign Correspondent and Dateline etc, have much lower audiences. Even the venerable ABC News rates consistently lower than 7 and 9. And they don't have even ads to compete with.

I'm not excusing trash journalism, but that's just how it is. Welcome to the real world of fast food and dumbed down facts. It's perhaps why the old adage states: "A fool and his money are soon parted."

On the subject of FGD vs GT, even a cursory glance at FGD's post history points to him being a pilot with real-world experience. He was born in 1964 - GT is much older - and claims to have started his aviation career in 1989, well after GT started his writing career.

None of that proves FGD is or was a commercial pilot, of course, but it doesn't prove he's GT, either (despite being an obvious "fan"). I'm not going to spend all arvo going through someone's post history, but perhaps if those claiming FGD and GT are one and the same care to do it themselves, they might be in a better position to judge.

Frankly, I don't care.

You are correct that "Banter on an anonymous forum can hardly be compared with paid journalism requoted around the world". Which is why I stated earlier that if people on these boards want to change what happens in the real world, get out there and change it! Don't just gripe about it on the prune.

For example, instead of writing letters to journos, phone them and have a friendly chat. Don't rub their noses in it - we all have our expertise. Make yourself known. Leave your contact details. Offer to help or go on the record whenever said journo needs some background or there's an incident.

Nurture those contacts and make the world a better place, one interview at a time.

[Frank Arouet]

Journalist is a very loose term these days. I doubt GT is even a reporter. They are supposed to deal in facts, for journalists to make presentable for an editor, who determines if it is worthy of publishing. It may be that GT is a 'spin doctor' like a few others paid for favorable services in the public and private sector.


A pox on them all, and the awards, and the accreditations, and their bull**** story's. Oh, and a pox on people who pay to read their drivel. And a pox on their dogs.


Journalist. Bah!

[Stanwell]

VT,
A reasonable post.
I'm afraid, though that nurturing a contact is going to get you little more than a taxi-ride and 'tea and bikkies' in the Green Room.

The 'others', meanwhile, dance all the way to the bank.

[Virtually There]

People who do the right thing in this world rarely do it for the money, mate.

[gerry111]

Virtually There,


"People who do the right thing in this world rarely do it for the money, mate."


I agree.


But may I twist that to:


"People who do it (only) for the money, rarely do it for the right thing, mate."

[Pinky the pilot]

"People who do the right thing in this world rarely do it for the money, mate."

"People who do it (only) for the money, rarely do it for the right thing, mate."


Sadly Virtually There and gerry111, I fear that both of you are quite correct.:(

One possibly bright note though; Out of all my immediate non aviation affiliated friends/acqaintances etc, I know of no-one who pays any attention to anything GT has to say on the subject. I suspect mainly because aviation itself is only a passing concern to them.:hmm:

[Compylot]

Compylot wrote:

Quote:
Toughen up princesses, you all sound like a bunch of stuck up whining schoolgirls.. "contact media watch or the press council...??"

Please...

I hope that I don't ever have the misfortune of flying with some of you pansies, "Oh Oh there's a bit of cloud up ahead request 50 miles right of route before I wet my knickers, and by the way lets get onto the press council about that monster GT.." you all need a bit of harden the you know what up.
But wait a minute last year he also wrote:

Quote:
I agree also with the OP the standard of journalism regarding the facts about an aviation incident is decidedly poor.
I've mentioned before that we pilots should put together a committee to oversee and endorse appropriately accurate technical reporting.

Quote:
I suggest that we draw together a body of aviation professionals, representing not just professional air crew but also Air Traffic Control, Engineers, Flight Attendants and Ground Handlers. (I have included ground handlers here because I am sick to death of the poor attempt many commercials make when including marshalers in some way to sell a product. Too often I see actors waving glow sicks around with absolutely no idea of the correct procedures and don't get me started on their lack of appropriate high visibility clothing or ASIC!)
So which is it Compylot?

Do you think that an industry "expert" should at least have some relevant industry experience and perhaps a modicum of technical knowledge to which their title alludes, or are you just trying to raise your perceived online profile by claiming some moral high ground by way of a sanctimonious rant. I'm so sorry pyscho joe I cannot believe that you have caught me out.

I'm at a loss for words.

Never in my wildest dreams did I think that someone would use the search function to then use my own quotes, thoughts and ideas against me :(

I confess that at one stage in my career I was a little jaded at the media and their portrayal of professional flight crew. Heck, I was disappointed at their portrayal of ALL aviation professionals, including the hard working ground crew!

The tipping point for me (not long after I gained my ATPL) was seeing I think it was a Coles (or Bunnings or Woolies?) commercial, whereby there was a scene showing an aircraft marshaller waving his glow sticks around "apparently" in an attempt to marshal an aircraft into its bay. Any aviation professional would of seen that their signals were NOT that which is promulgated in the Jeppesen's.

Anyway that was the catalyst for my idea concerning the creation of "The Alliance of Aviation Professionals and Associates".

Perhaps, pyscho joe, it is pertinent that we may now revisit such an idea as the Alliance of Aviation Professionals and Associates and we could perhaps together be on the board to vet and provide our seal of approval on anything aviation related so that all aviation professionals can sleep well at night knowing that their industry, (nay their lively-hood!) is being reported on in an accurate, technical and factual way!

Wow, I think I can feel an email to Nick Xenophon coming on here!

And lots of thumbs up smiles :ok::ok::ok:

[Arnold E]

Any aviation professional would of seen that their signals were NOT that which is promulgated in the Jeppesen's.

You are ****ting aren't you, I mean, your not fairdinkum? please tell me you were joking. you have made decisions on the basis of an advert on tv,...... you are seriously weird man.:hmm:

[Arm out the window]

Anyway, back to the subject - I think the thing that annoys me most with this 'expert' bizzo is that anyone who's happy for themselves to be tagged as 'Biggles' in an article should, in my world of right and wrong, be an experienced pilot; apparently not the case with old mate, although perhaps it's appropriate as Biggles was fictional...

[Compylot]

Anyway, back to the subject - I think the thing that annoys me most with this 'expert' bizzo is that anyone who's happy for themselves to be tagged as 'Biggles' in an article should, in my world of right and wrong, be an experienced pilot; apparently not the case with old mate, although perhaps it's appropriate as Biggles was fictional...

Yes, back on topic gentlemen.

And on to the important matter, Biggles...

I can see your point regarding the title of "Biggles" and the appropriateness of its usage on a layperson.

The burning question is how appropriate is it to bestow such a title as "Biggles" on one who has NOT completed the necessary licenses and qualifications?

At what point does one earn the right to be called "Biggles". Should it be a minimum CPL standard or higher? Is it possible to bestow the 'honorary' title of "Biggles" on someone who has not the necessary licenses and qualifications, but who has made a significant contribution to aviation?

These gentlemen, are the big questions.

The important questions.

[Trent 972]

Compy, the really big question is why haven't you asked the mods to remove your very first post. The one about paxing in uniform (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/390859-pax-ing-uniform-2.html#post5231204).
Keep digging that hole.
GT does not bother nor interest me anymore.
I tune out if he pops up on TV and I skip by any Aus Aviation article that has his ByLine.
No sweat really.

[Slippery_Pete]

Arm out the window has hit the nail on the head - complete fiction must be the common denominator with the name "biggles".

Here we have an aviation "expert", flabbergasted that jetstar passengers are raiding the Qantas fridge.

Isn't this the same guy who was touting the wonderful success and business acumen of Dixon and Joyce to start Jetstar? Wasn't the expense of Qantas sevice standards and particularly Qantas labour making Qantas profitability impossible? Wasn't jetstar to be Dixon and Joyce's master stroke, GT?

And now, here he is, having a cry because the exact sort of passenger Jetstar attracts is stealing his Brie cheese and liquorice lollies from the Qantas lounge.

Give me a fn break. :ugh:

[P51D]

GT didn't ask for himself to be called Biggles..his journo mates gave him that, but what other name should they have given him...the Phantom, Popeye, Fred Flintstone, Buzz Lightyear, Action Man? But heh, course GT can fly, after all there's a photo of him in the B777 simulator (park brake on!!) looking around at the Cabin Attendant wanting to know if she (or him!) have brought in the brie and liquorice allsorts!! Time out....can the moderator, or preferably all of us, now just put a big full stop to this post...pleeeease and as Monty Python would say - "it's getting silly"!!!! :D

[Stanwell]

I beg to differ, P51.
Who do you think probably contributed that snippet in the West Australian?

One other thing that some people may not be aware of..
If a person is being paid to be interviewed in front of the cameras as an "Aviation Expert" (for example), such description cannot be given without the interviewee's expressed consent.

Anything else you'd like to know?

[Cessna 180]

P51,


Whilst I think I see where you are coming from, please hope it stays open.


This thread is some of the best light entertainment I have read in some time. Something generally lacking in the world of pprune which generally seems to take itself a little too seriously in my opinion.


I think Comylot is on to it as well.


Also I do think GT is a bit full of it and if for some reason he found himself on a JQ ticket am darn sure he would be making the most of the Q club if he has access.

[The Green Goblin]

You'd think with the squillions he must be earning he (and his wife), would fix their chompers.

You can tell a lot about a person by oral hygiene. Might have been all those years as a peon working the ramp for mma.

He must use the same dentist as the Irishman.

[VR-HFX]

P51D

As you are asking....I profer...SQUIGGLES:cool:

[pilotchute]

slippery Pete.

Jetstar is simply a copy of what BA did in 98 when it started GO. The "master stroke" was simply copying somebody else's succes. The difference is GO was a success. So much so Easyjet bought it.

[VR-HFX]

Pilotchute

GO was a success in the same way that Jetstar has been a success. The only difference is that once Ayling left BA they started getting rid of the various cancers he had created. GO was cannibalising BA's short-haul business and bleeding their balance sheet. I think anyone in BA at the time will tell you that getting rid of GO was, along with getting out of AirLib and Deutsche BA, their saviour.

Sure Babara Cassani and the 3i folk made a cool wedge on the way through but it was the best thing BA did to steady the ship.

[P51D]

Well Stanwell. Nope, nothing from you thanks, but don't think there's anything in your posts that puts you into the oracle category..but I was just being flippant and trying to add a bit of humour to a post that's just got too serious..including stuff from you!!!

[Stanwell]

Well, it's just that I and indeed a number of others, have a problem with people who deliberately misrepresent themselves for monetary gain and self-advancement.
It demonstrates a lack of journalistic ethics and integrity.


Otherwise, I agree - he is a joke.

[Slippery_Pete]

The pros/cons of Jetstar aren't really for this thread. Although any idiot can see that Jetstar has essentially cannibalised and made unprofitable its parent company.

My main point was GT, who promoted the CEOs Dixon and Joyce as geniuses with the starting and growing of Jetstar, was finally on the receiving end of the race to the bottom.

His lounge lacking liquorice must have been a real wake up call. Perhaps he will change his position now re: Qantas management.

The fact that the genius Joyce made a 2.8 billion dollar loss last FY must not have been obvious enough.

[FGD135]

Some chronically deluded, bitter and twisted people on this thread.


... people who deliberately misrepresent themselves for monetary gain and self-advancement.
Ok, Stanwell, just when and how has GT done this?

[Stanwell]

Look, FGD..
I you're unable to sort the wheat from the chaff of all the posts on this thread to date, then I'm not going to take you by the hand and show you.

[FGD135]

That's quite an accusation you've made there, Stanwell, and as I suspected, you can't substantiate it.

[MACH082]

Yep, BA sold Go to easy jet, which has totally destroyed BA short haul.

Better to own the genie and grow it at your pace, than sell it off, or gift the market to a competitor who won't grow it at your pace.

If Jetstar were not there, Virgin would be a lot bigger and still a LCC or tiger would be Jetstar. There would still be the same amount of frames in the market, Qantas would just own less of them. There would be more pressure on Qantas lowering its cost base to meet virgin as a low cost carrier. At least Jetstar gives you that buffer.

[Lookleft]

you can't substantiate it.

Similarly FGD you have not as yet substantiated your claim as to why the GT authored "book" titled Qantas Flightpaths moved you to such an extent that it gave you "an enormous respect for the man." In that book there are some extraordinary claims about the way Jetstar Asia was going to have an enormous upside for Qantas! Clearly his ability to forecast the future was not what generated that respect?

[VR-HFX]

082

What a load of old cobblers. BA didn't sell it to Easy, it sold to 3i who sold it to Easy some time later. As to the rest of your hypothesis, it is simply wrong. If you price the back end of the a/c the right way you don't need a separate entity to gradually reverse engineer your business and ultimately eat you.

[The Green Goblin]

Which is why easy jet is now killing ba on narrow bodies.

Jetstar is the right thing for qantas. Only the qantas employees can't see it.

[Soteria]

More silence from FGD. He must be either Googling or phoning Alan so he can get an answer to Looklefts question!

FGD/GT/whatever alphabet letter you use - you are a complete knob.