Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Journalism at its best

Old 5th Oct 2016, 07:05
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 81
Journalism at its best

Here is the story synopsis from news.com.au today:

A PASSENGER has told of her terror when a plane descended about 30,000 feet an hour into a Qantas flight.

30,000ft an hour....wow that must have been terrifying!!!

Wonder if FOQA picked up such a high rate of descent
Density is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2016, 07:31
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 100
Wasn't there news on the other day about an aircraft go-around due to crosswinds. Terrified passengers feared for their lives as the crew attempted to try to land again.
aviator's_anonymous is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2016, 08:18
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 68
Nothing wrong with the journalism, could be a reader issue...

I've made it a bit simpler by changing 'an' into 'one' - A PASSENGER has told of her terror when a plane descended about 30,000 feet one hour into a Qantas flight
canterbury crusader is online now  
Old 5th Oct 2016, 09:59
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 81
Canterbury: You are obviously a journalist!
Density is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2016, 10:02
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 81
The piece does not improve after reading the abstract either....The plane descended from 40,000 feet to 10,000feet. (Yep it will do that)...
and
I looked out the window and could clearly see the ground....(Oh thank goodness for that...I would be more concerned if I saw blue)
Density is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2016, 19:53
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: illabo
Age: 51
Posts: 161
Canterbury is correct mate. To quote you
30,000ft an hour....wow that must have been terrifying!!!
Wonder if FOQA picked up such a high rate of descent



The article did not say 30,000ft PER hour - it said 30,000ft after it had been airborne for an hour. Quite different.


Can't believe I'm even pointing this out. Actually I can't believe Canterbury had to point it out to you and that you chose to have a dig at him because you STILL didn't get it. ICAO English level 2 for you.
rodney rude is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2016, 20:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 57
Posts: 22
either way
30,000 per hour equates to only 500ft per min by my MDR ... hardly excessive ???
towerguy is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2016, 20:57
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 233
Did you hear how the journalist died? She thought the Dr. said take 100 million grams.
FakePilot is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.