'AIRCRASH' Channel Four

[Artificial Horizon]

I am just watching this load of **** on channel four at the moment. At a time when the airline industry is reeling from decreased passenger numbers and a general increase in the fear of flying this is a hugely inappropriate programme to be showing.

As wannabees we should all be concerned at the absolute rubbish that the media is churning out these days. The newspapers and television time and time again write or show articles that put the fear of god into travellers. Just last week when the man was found with a hand granade in his HOLD luggage the headline in big bold letters read : 'Passenger Jet Moments Away From Disaster'. Today in the Daily Mail the centre pages were imblazened with 'Now More Likely To Die In An Aircrash Than In A Car'. Considering 3600 people die in car crashes in the UK every year I don't know how they can make this claim.

This is easy, cheap and sensationalist journalism that is playing on peoples fears. The more scared people are, the less they fly and there for the fewer jobs available for all of us. Any suggestions on how to stop this rubbish consistantly being published?

[Send Clowns]

Complain to the PCC? It can't hurt, but I think they'll probably fob you off.

[Splat]

I'm currently watching the footie, on Sky Sports 1. Far more entertaining, specialy now Pompey have gone level....

Splat

[P T Flea]

Watched some of it and then turned it off.

IMO it is crappy, 'seen it all before' twaddle. I just don't enjoy watching these kind documentaries anymore with air hostesses in tears recounting the tales of how they smudged lip stick due to the captain inconsiderately rolling the aircraft.

It does absolutely no good for passenger confidence. I have no idea why the media victimises flying so much. All I can think is that flying is not yet a fully accepted method of travel in our modern societies. For consider, if someone crashes in a car we never hear about and if we do no one pays any attention because we all have to drive to get places. If a plane crashes it gets huge amount of press coverage that is thrust in our faces. We demand to know the exact reasons why it happened treating it as if flying is a totally infallable method of travel.

But let's face it, people have morbid fascination with plane crashes and it makes people watch certain channels and buy certain papers, so why shouldn't the media take advantage of that.

At the end of the day people are still going to fly. It is going to be a very small amount that choose to take the boat to Australia instead of flying due to something like the programme tonight. We should be concerned about this issue, but I believe it is way beyond our control and has very minor consequences.

PT

[forget]

Excellent programme. Factual and very well presented. What's your real problem?

[Alberts Growbag]

Artificial Hrzn.

I'm sorry to dissolusion you but as a 767 Capt with many years of flying, I can tell you that this program happens to be telling it like it really is.

My wife, who flew for twelve years as a CA is watching it because she identifies with the CA's who are telling their stories. Flying is not dangerous compared to road travel and the Daily Mail is wrong to capitalise on the story line , but when God decides to tell you that your in for a really **** day, the invite comes with no caveat of a comfortable death!

Grow up laddy, if your not able to face the fact that you may die doing the so called glamourous job you aspire to, then I would suggest that you consider accountancy for a profession.

I am sick and tired of reading how many of you think you are an authority on the aviation industry when you have no idea of the professional pressures and risks that you will be subjected to when you have spent your £50K.

Professional aviators constantly face the fact that every flight might be their last one, in fact on statistical chances they will reach retirement. But some won't. If you want it summed up best open E.K. Ganns book 'Fate is the Hunter'. He opens with a list of those he has known who have 'set their wings to rest'.

In my time I have also known many who I hopefully will wait a long time yet to meet again.

Flying for a living carries a caveat of not always reaching old age, accept it as you wish.

:*

[Gin Slinger]

Thought Aircrash made compelling yet slightly unsettling viewing, probably because it allowed the survivors tell their accounts without too much editorialising and concentrated on the psychological aspects of air crashes, rather than more usual pseudo technical approach.

Without meaning to provoke Alberts Growbag’s vitriol, I do agree there is plenty of utter nonsense spouted about aviation in the media, but I believe Aircrash doesn't fall in this category.

Albert: as a humble wannabe, the more I’ve learnt about aviation, the more I realise there is to know.

[Bodie]

I enjoyed it thoroughly and didn’t find it morbid at all. This program centred on the whole human issue which was most interesting. I was surprised to hear how people coped with it all - people 'staring' straight ahead in silence for instance, realising their own mortality.

At a time when the airline industry is reeling from decreased passenger numbers and a general increase in the fear of flying this is a hugely inappropriate programme to be showing

I don't think so. So programmes should be censored as propaganda so your wannabe chances are increased? Get real.

Bodie

[mdbethell]

Fully agree with Bodie an interesting programe on a topic which not many people can talk about.

as for media they will print want they want to sell papers and as a wannabe i dont plan to complain to the worlds newspapers every time a story about the aviation industry portrays it in a less than amacable view.

[2WingsOnMyWagon]

I totally agree Bodie, Ive read accident reports into most of the accidents featured and to hear the survivors side of things made interesting viewing and brought a reality to the reports I've mentioned. Its the first in a three part series I belive, so same time again next week then?

:ok:

[Jetdriver]

Isn't there a danger of taking this sort of thing a bit too seriously ? This is just "entertainment" in the broadest sense of the word. if you surf through the channels at any time of the day you would be hard pushed to find at least half a dozen not showing some form of human survivor true dramas. A bit of background music with clips of someone hanging from a tree branch over a flooded river/ or dangling from a ferris wheel. Interject this with a few interview clips and it seems to make for marketable TV.

The only bit of this programme that made you or I watch was the title. I don't think it would deter many folk from setting off on business or flying on their holidays any more than Police chase videos or holidays from hell type programmes would. Like any other programme some will find it interesting, some will not. If you want your own brand of responsible journalism or entertainment it is just one click away.

[Dangerous_Dave]

I like that word Caveat, Albert almost as much as you obviously do. :)

I think you might be intoxicated by the exuberance of your own verbosity!!!!

Being well educated doesn't mean you have to try to confuse people with big words:p

[keendog]

Nothing wrong with this programme - apart from the inevitable library shots of the wrong sort of aeroplane accompanying the accounts. There was no hype, editorial comment or attempt to do anything other than let the participants tell it how it was.
It was interesting hearing the real reaction of pax to safety instructions in an emergency - attentiveness rather than hollywood hysteria.
Also, given the justified complains of many aircrew on this forum about pax who ignore safety briefings, I would have thought that a programme that drives home the facts that (a) most crashes are to some extent survivable (b) If you are aware of the safety procedures you are more likely to survive, would be welcomed.
I bet more pax sit up and take notice having watched this.

[GJB]

The programme did say it was to study the psychological, physical and emotional effects on survivors of air accidents.

[Agaricus bisporus]

No hype?
Factual??
Informative???

Can't have been the programme I saw then.

The version shown on my network was a badly produced inconsistant sensationalist over hyped load of emotional bullshine.

Every single one of our favourite journalistic nonsense cliches were trotted out again and again, the same scenes repeated over and over, appalling continuity, every incident resulted in the pilots "losing control", every incident resulted in a "massive explosion" (one so huge it knocked a trolley dollie off her feet...just imagine!), even in the case of decompression where no fire was involved. Implying again and again the assumption that all incidents result in crashes, that all crashes are unsurviveable. Virtually no factual content whatever, no attempt to explain the how or why, let alone to acknowledge how many survived, all they blethered on about was the death toll. Psychological efffects? Where were the psychologists, the medics, the scientists?

Sure, some harrowing tales from survivors, bur nowt else except inflated stuffing to make 15 minutes of poor quality content stretch to an hour.

Negative sensationalist tabloid style crap imho.

Shameful.

[forget]

Every time the 'media' ventures to even mention 'aviation' we can almost hear the gnashing of Ppruner's teeth as cries of "How dare they criticise my industry" are rapidly turned into words - and posted.

As GJB has kindly explained, this programme was to study the psychological, physical and emotional effects on survivors of air accidents.

Agaricus bisporus then lays in with, No hype?, Factual??, Informative???

He then says "every incident resulted in the pilots "losing control" and "all they blethered on about was the death toll".

AB, had you dozed off when we saw the United 747 lose half its front end with the crew (and I include the FA's here) then managing to put it, and the remaining passengers, down in Honolulu?

AB says "Implying again and again the assumption that all incidents result in crashes, that all crashes are unsurvivable".

If this was the intention of the producer why did they advertise the programme as looking into the 'physical and emotional effects on survivors of air accidents'.

Informative??? Yes, I learnt something. The next time I crash I mustn't stand stock still watching the fuselage melt around me. Might help one day.

[IceHouse]

I too thought most of the programme was a series of repeats of clips seen previously, inc the Air Florida crash at washington but I found the tragic SQ crash video with runway construction equipment new and upsetting. 9vspk visited MAN the previous day to the crash and I remember admiring the special colours whilst parked on our ramp, could not believe it when we heard the news.

[Taildragger]

P.T. Flea..... Why are you knocking the Flight Attendants. "Smudging their lipstick whilst the Captain rolls the aircraft". You demean and insult a fine, professional (I do NOT use the word loosely) body of people, who's prime function is safety on board. Slinging buns at the punters, whilst a part of their job, comes secondary to looking after the said punters when the chips are down. The Pilot is too busy rolling the aircraft to smudge their lipstick to care what is happening down the back. In case you haven't noticed, it's called a CREW which has a very precise definition which also defines a TEAM. Loosen up pal, and see it like it really is.

I have just looked at your profile Flea. Are you REALLY qualified to make the remarks you are making.??

[witchdoctor]

Some of the pruners posting here might do well to remind themselves that of the 6 incidents featured, 4 (2 airframe icicng, 1 fuel starvation and 1 incorrect runway) were a result of errors by the flightcrew ably (or not) assisted by people on the ground. Each of these incidents resulted in fatalities, so don't trivialise the issue.

It is useful to remember just how easy it is to get complacent and make a mistake which puts lives at risk, and in those circumstances I think the public and the media are perfectly justified in making a great deal of fuss. It would be nice however to see it all reported factually.

The programme was pretty well put together. No random talking heads trying to analyse everything, just the people involved telling it how it was for them. It was left to the viewer to draw their own conclusions. The simulations were perhaps a little sensationalist as this was not a programme analysing how the crash occurred, but at least we avoided all the worst elements of crazed voiceovers, hysterical exagerations of fact and sheer speculation along with scenes of dead bodies lying in fields or being carted away by emergency workers.

It's a sad fact that this is sometimes what happens in the industry, but if people use the opportunity of such a programme to remind themselves of the consequences of getting it wrong, then perhaps we can see it as a positive thing.

[tonyt]

Didn't see this programme, but reading some of the posts here I rather think it might make a good CRM module...

[Agaricus bisporus]

Forget, if you'd bothered to read my post properly you'd see I specifically mentioned the "explosion" that occurred during the decompression incident.

If all you learnt was not to stand in the wreckage while the fuselage melts around you then I rest my case. But I think most of us would have had that figured that out without even watching at all...

tonyt, it would send everyone to sleep a whole lot quicker than the average CRM module, for sure!

[Silvertop]

I thought the prog was pretty good really, well above the normal network fare of dumbed down tripe.
It might just help Joe Public to appreciate the main role of Cabin Crew and maybe treat them with the respect that they deserve.

[B767300ER]

Now THERE is an aviation classic, written by an excellent author---Ernie K.Gann.
http://www.starmanauctions.com/twa.gif

[jumpseater]

I've seen both programmes, and concur with witchdoctors findings. Last nights dealt with the way our industry dealt with victims relatives in the past, and how they have been improved.

And they needed improving too, one example was showing the wreckage of one accident, as further wreckage was tipped in front of them from a truck, some of which included human remains.

They would make a very useful training tool for those employees who are on an airlines crisis team, particularly those who are in the front line dealing with the bereaved as an insight into their issues and requirements. An area I had not considered, and I have 20 years in the industry, which was covered, was the effect on those on the ground, who have suffered bereavement/injury/loss, from the falling debris/impact of the wreckage. So whilst uncomfortable viewing at times, overall a worthwhile programme.

[Dozza2k]

i also caught the last half an hour of the program. It was a program that was factual and told it how it is. Flying is not always straight forward, each time you fly there is a risk.

On a lighter note i also caught a new comedy/soap/trash program called Mile High on Sky the other day. All light hearted fun though!
Oh dear, low cost operators are'nt really like that are they?..................:eek: :D



edited for a spell mistake.

[Jump Complete]

I watched both programs. I agree that the editing was a bit dodgy in places, but generally thought provocking and interesting.

Airline dissaster programs aren't exactly new, so I don't think it will put people off, other than, perhaps those so scared of flying already that they have no intention of getting on an airliner and just need an excuse for it.
If it makes pax, who otherwise would ignore the saftey brief, take some notice off it, surely that's a good thing. Could well save lives...
Likewise, if it makes those idiots who think that CAs are just waitresses and give them a hard time, think again, than that is great.
I found the last program particually thought-provocking.
I've read alot of transcripts (in MCC courses etc) of some of these accidents, and seen it from a technical point of view. But to watch a man talking about them recovering the body of his wife (from the TWA 800 explosion) then his 8yr old daughter 2 days later and his 6yr old 2 days after that, brings home the effects of an accident. After all, if as flight crew, it all goes t***s up, one is probably not going to be around to worry about it. The hoary old saying of 'If my ass gets there, so will the passengers, so why worry about them' comes to mind. But when you watch that, you realise that attitude really doesn't wash.

[Plan 10]

Here's (http://community.channel4.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=162603557&f=5796002921&m=53360112) what I sent to Channel Four about this program. I find the use of fatal CVR recordings in this context quite appaling and baseless. Indeed, I'd say the same about the video recovered from the Columbia.. there is no motivation in watching/listening to such other than sheer voyeurism (though in the case of the families involved could accept a benefit.)

Could somebody from the production team please justify to me the reason why it is considered acceptable to use the Cockpit Voice recordings from fatal air accidents in any context other than the investigation of these accidents by relevant Accident Investigation boards?
Out of an investigative context, the last words of the pilots' become little more than voyeuristic entertainment. What can it conceivably add to any programme to use this as a resource?
The introduction of cockpit voice recording equipment was allowed in several countries only with the understanding that they would not be used beyond the purpose of establishing the human factor/technical contribution to the accident cause. I feel that to use them as the producers of this program have done (Palm 90 and Alaskan Airlines as examples) is not merely irresponsible but negligent for a program that claims to deal with the aftermath and recovery from such traumatic events for survivors and family.
Plan 9
(Airline Captain)

[jmccrew]

Having watched all 3 progs I found the last one the most enlighting ....I was saddened at how dead passengers were demonised by the Airlines involved ,so as to reduce the amount of compensation awarded . Also how families of the dead had to fight to get at the truth ,as to the reasons the accident happened in the 1st place (as in the case of the parents who lost a son on the united decompression ). Overall i found the prorammes informative and as an after thought if they demonise the passengers in such a way how sure can we be, the way same won't happen to us !

[witchdoctor]

I have to partly agree with plan10 about videotape/cvr use often being voyeuristic in these types of programmes, but in the case of the final programme I felt that the editors were justified in using the Alaska CVR to help illustrate why lawyers for the victims claimed compensation for the suffering in the final moments before the crash.

It made exteremely uncomfortable viewing, but it was clear from the tape that the flightcrew knew they were almost certainly going to die, and from that you could infer the passengers would also know. This more than anything, brought it home to the viewer just how terrifyingly helpless the situation can be.

I take no pleasure from such footage, but I cannot fault the programme makers for producing a powerful and thought provoking series.

[jocko0102]

It told it how it is not how lots of fly boys want people to think it is.So what if they used footage and cockpit recordings it lets the viewer see how it really is and that is a good thing.You cant stick your head in the sand and hope that these programes wont be shown.