Geoff Thomas strikes again!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Perth
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoff Thomas strikes again!
From News Limited:
What caused the Swan River seaplane crash on Australia Day | Perth Now
"When the plane crashed it was travelling north-east so the 20km/hr south-west wind would have worsened the situation by affectively reducing his over-the-wing-speed by 20km/hr."
Hmmm...
What caused the Swan River seaplane crash on Australia Day | Perth Now
"When the plane crashed it was travelling north-east so the 20km/hr south-west wind would have worsened the situation by affectively reducing his over-the-wing-speed by 20km/hr."
Hmmm...
No fan of GT.
However I guess he was just trying to explain, using low syllable count words to the greater audience, the perils of a downwind turn at low level and high alpha.
That appears to be a factor in this case, and the ATSB will have to investigate and consider without access to real metrics as available from a FDR or like.
However I guess he was just trying to explain, using low syllable count words to the greater audience, the perils of a downwind turn at low level and high alpha.
That appears to be a factor in this case, and the ATSB will have to investigate and consider without access to real metrics as available from a FDR or like.
Originally Posted by Bug Smasher Smasher
Guess the ATSB can just pack up and go home now.
What irks me even more is his statement, "reducing his over-the-wing-speed by 20km/hr."
There's extensive discussion about this in another thread.
Given the heading of the aircraft when it stalled, it was actually starting to turn into the wind. Therefore its IAS (Geoffrey, not "over the wing speed"
) would have been subjected to a very slight increase, if anything.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 102 Likes
on
59 Posts
Perhaps not all of the Media are taken in by GT these days. One of the last times I saw him interviewed in a TV News item the subtitle described him as an "Aviation Journalist." Note; not 'expert!'
Thankfully Mrs Pinky had me in an armlock at the time,
otherwise I might just have thrown a bottle of Red at the TV screen if indeed the word 'expert' was shown instead.
Thankfully Mrs Pinky had me in an armlock at the time,
otherwise I might just have thrown a bottle of Red at the TV screen if indeed the word 'expert' was shown instead.
Last edited by Pinky the pilot; 10th Mar 2017 at 07:46. Reason: Typo
Yes just love these so called experts. The important point however is are they self proclaimed experts or experts by their peers? Because there is a huge difference between them.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However I guess he was just trying to explain, using low syllable count words to the greater audience
That may be because those people the media may try to contact to get expert points of view, prefer to remain anonymous and keep their private opinions to themselves lest they get flamed by those that enjoy flaming Geoff Thomas.
It's not that, it's the fact that he isn't even a very good journalist... he is overtly sensationalist just look at his interview for Air Crash Investigation regarding Garuda, he was completely sensationalist and I know it's a small thing but I just HATE how he always says the "plane" did this or the "plane" did that... no one who is serious in the industry calls it a 'plane' that is a childish term that is bandied about by the media and by people who don't know anything about aviation... an aeroplane, airplane or aircraft is what most knowledgeable people say. Is that the end of the world??? No, it's not but those sort of subtle signs show he really knows nothing at all and I and am sure, many others are sick to death of him sticking his face on TV and carrying on like he's an expert. I find Peter Harbison (not sure of the spelling) similarly annoying. I remember him saying once that "If Qantas had not created Jetstar, Virgin would have torn them to pieces" - really, a company with $4.5bn dollars cash in the bank at the time versus a company that narrowly avoided folding and only survived because AN collapsed could have killed Qantas. No. Qantas would have just undercut them to the point they went out of business. These people are held up as experts. It doesn't mean any of the rest of us are journalist types but many people on here would be capable of providing much better commentary and balanced as well and not using every opportunity on camera to big note and advance themselves only because their audience doesn't know any better.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Couch
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By "downwind turn" spleener, I assume you're actually referring to "low-level windshear", as opposed to turning your back on a uniformly moving airmass? (if one couldturn their back on an airmass that they were part of...)
Here we go again!
Here we go again!
Aerial, you might just check your dictionary, you'll find it refers to "planes" as aircraft, among many other things. Term was used as far back as 1920 by professionals in the industry. The US Navy have "Plane Captains", Crew Chiefs by name in the Air Force.
I'm sure you are correct but I still think it sounds amateurish - in thirty years in the industry I never heard anyone call an aeroplane a 'plane except outside the industry... except for one operator (VA) where many also refer to multiple aircraft as 'aircrafts' which definitely is incorrect. As for the US Navy, that may be the case but I've never heard an aviation professional or airline person of any experience in the US call them anything but an 'airplane'. To me, a 'plane' is something you fashion wood with and if it is a shortening of airplane or aeroplane, shouldn't it have an apostrophe at the beginning i.e. 'plane.
Aerial, from an Airbus add.
And a Flight Dynamics add, who build your Head-Up Guidance Systems.
One pilot fits all. Thanks to fly-by-wire technology, the flight deck, flight procedures and handling characteristics on Airbus planes are virtually identical. The same goes for our aircraft systems and maintenance programs. So everything from training pilots to managing spare parts is easier and more cost-efficient. Obviously making our planes the smart choice. Airbus. Setting the standards.
seeing these planes as equals in heavy fog doesn't take imagination, it takes Flight Dynamics.
Chalk one up for all airlines, major or regional. Now your fleet can take off and land in extremely low visibility conditions, big planes right along with small ones. Flight Dynamics Head-Up Guidance systems (HGS®) is the great equalizer. This proven system projects full flight guidance information in the pilot's field of view. For more details on how Flight Dynamics can keep your planes flying without delay, call 503-684-5384.
Chalk one up for all airlines, major or regional. Now your fleet can take off and land in extremely low visibility conditions, big planes right along with small ones. Flight Dynamics Head-Up Guidance systems (HGS®) is the great equalizer. This proven system projects full flight guidance information in the pilot's field of view. For more details on how Flight Dynamics can keep your planes flying without delay, call 503-684-5384.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was probably latent katabatic winds blowing downward from the subtropical jestream causing aerodynamic slip in the lenticular ground effect
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not by a pilot.
A "plane" is a place in Spain where the rain mainly falls.
Aircraft or aeroplane, (or airplane at a pinch)! Or join GT in the ranks of ignorant half wits.