QF144 Auckland to Sydney engine out
We could do better...
For those who weren't there, David Evans was a checkie amongst the five pilots on the flight deck when QF2 blew an engine apart over Singapore.
Look: I get it; it's amusing to make fun of journalists who display breathtaking ignorance about aviation matters. But it doesn't help the cause much (either theirs or ours...).
Disclaimer: I have a foot in both camps: I was briefly a glider pilot, and I was a journalist for ten years. I was even an aviation reporter (briefly).
Journalists these days are under intense pressure: a journalist who files their story for publication within half an hour of the incident is considered "slow" these days. Not a lot of time for deep research or fact-checking. So a response of "I don't know, wait for the report in 12 months time..." is singularly unhelpful. We will do that: the Diary Sub-Editor at a major news organisation will insert a tag in the diary to follow up with the ATSB until the final report comes out, and a second story will be generated based on its content. And just like Pilots, Journalists are busy people; expected to file five or ten stories per day (in my day -- it's probably worse now...). But unlike pilots who have the luxury of doing only one job at a time and operating a single type they understand at a level almost down to the individual rivet, a journalist may find that none of the ten stories they file each day are on the same subject. They are totally reliant on their sources (in aviation, that would be YOU!) to understand and interpret for them. If you decide to have a lend of them, the published story will indeed be wrong; because these days there is nobody in the chain between keyboard and the public who knows any better than the journalist. The "Aviation Correspondent" these days is just that: a "correspondent". Who is probably out fishing when the story breaks... "Johnny-on-the-Spot" is often a lone young reporter with a year or so of experience, who has to do the best they can with their native wit and ability under intense pressure to beat their competitors.
In case you think the embarrassment you will cause that kid by blaming the incident on a flux capacitor (hi Trekkies...) is huge, you have no idea the humiliation they will suffer from their peers in their own newsroom if they get one wrong. It's the journalistic equivalent of taking off with insufficient fuel. Sadly, I speak from personal experience.
We could all improve things -- simply by foregoing the urge to have a lend of someone when they are in the journalistic equivalent of single-pilot IFR at night in inclement weather with an engine failure.
I hope to all available deities there's no spelling mistakes in this
The following users liked this post:
This lack of quality reporting has been going on for a very, very long time, I think Mark Twain said it best, 'if you don't read the papers you are uninformed, if you do, you are misinformed.
The following users liked this post:
Things have improved a bit (at least, at the Sydney Morning Herald: https://www.smh.com.au/national/we-n...18-p5cdlh.html
For those who weren't there, David Evans was a checkie amongst the five pilots on the flight deck when QF2 blew an engine apart over Singapore.
Look: I get it; it's amusing to make fun of journalists who display breathtaking ignorance about aviation matters. But it doesn't help the cause much (either theirs or ours...).
Disclaimer: I have a foot in both camps: I was briefly a glider pilot, and I was a journalist for ten years. I was even an aviation reporter (briefly).
Journalists these days are under intense pressure: a journalist who files their story for publication within half an hour of the incident is considered "slow" these days. Not a lot of time for deep research or fact-checking. So a response of "I don't know, wait for the report in 12 months time..." is singularly unhelpful. We will do that: the Diary Sub-Editor at a major news organisation will insert a tag in the diary to follow up with the ATSB until the final report comes out, and a second story will be generated based on its content. And just like Pilots, Journalists are busy people; expected to file five or ten stories per day (in my day -- it's probably worse now...). But unlike pilots who have the luxury of doing only one job at a time and operating a single type they understand at a level almost down to the individual rivet, a journalist may find that none of the ten stories they file each day are on the same subject. They are totally reliant on their sources (in aviation, that would be YOU!) to understand and interpret for them. If you decide to have a lend of them, the published story will indeed be wrong; because these days there is nobody in the chain between keyboard and the public who knows any better than the journalist. The "Aviation Correspondent" these days is just that: a "correspondent". Who is probably out fishing when the story breaks... "Johnny-on-the-Spot" is often a lone young reporter with a year or so of experience, who has to do the best they can with their native wit and ability under intense pressure to beat their competitors.
In case you think the embarrassment you will cause that kid by blaming the incident on a flux capacitor (hi Trekkies...) is huge, you have no idea the humiliation they will suffer from their peers in their own newsroom if they get one wrong. It's the journalistic equivalent of taking off with insufficient fuel. Sadly, I speak from personal experience.
We could all improve things -- simply by foregoing the urge to have a lend of someone when they are in the journalistic equivalent of single-pilot IFR at night in inclement weather with an engine failure.
I hope to all available deities there's no spelling mistakes in this
For those who weren't there, David Evans was a checkie amongst the five pilots on the flight deck when QF2 blew an engine apart over Singapore.
Look: I get it; it's amusing to make fun of journalists who display breathtaking ignorance about aviation matters. But it doesn't help the cause much (either theirs or ours...).
Disclaimer: I have a foot in both camps: I was briefly a glider pilot, and I was a journalist for ten years. I was even an aviation reporter (briefly).
Journalists these days are under intense pressure: a journalist who files their story for publication within half an hour of the incident is considered "slow" these days. Not a lot of time for deep research or fact-checking. So a response of "I don't know, wait for the report in 12 months time..." is singularly unhelpful. We will do that: the Diary Sub-Editor at a major news organisation will insert a tag in the diary to follow up with the ATSB until the final report comes out, and a second story will be generated based on its content. And just like Pilots, Journalists are busy people; expected to file five or ten stories per day (in my day -- it's probably worse now...). But unlike pilots who have the luxury of doing only one job at a time and operating a single type they understand at a level almost down to the individual rivet, a journalist may find that none of the ten stories they file each day are on the same subject. They are totally reliant on their sources (in aviation, that would be YOU!) to understand and interpret for them. If you decide to have a lend of them, the published story will indeed be wrong; because these days there is nobody in the chain between keyboard and the public who knows any better than the journalist. The "Aviation Correspondent" these days is just that: a "correspondent". Who is probably out fishing when the story breaks... "Johnny-on-the-Spot" is often a lone young reporter with a year or so of experience, who has to do the best they can with their native wit and ability under intense pressure to beat their competitors.
In case you think the embarrassment you will cause that kid by blaming the incident on a flux capacitor (hi Trekkies...) is huge, you have no idea the humiliation they will suffer from their peers in their own newsroom if they get one wrong. It's the journalistic equivalent of taking off with insufficient fuel. Sadly, I speak from personal experience.
We could all improve things -- simply by foregoing the urge to have a lend of someone when they are in the journalistic equivalent of single-pilot IFR at night in inclement weather with an engine failure.
I hope to all available deities there's no spelling mistakes in this
Depending on my mood, like/dislike for those management types, and desire for continued employment, I would have let those managers go into the Ops Review with the "flux capacitor" issue at the top of their notepads. Just to see how far it would go. I'm guessing there'd be committees formed and teams deployed to conduct a full on flux capacitor review, looking for patterns of flux capacitor failures, reading flux capacitor reliabilty reports, and conducting investigations into alternate flux capacitor suppliers...
Looking back and thinking who used to run the meetings, I suspect the person I'm thinking of (no names, no pack drill) would have probably said something like "Ah well, I need to leave the call now as I have to go and get my DeLorean serviced" and even that would have gone over said managers' heads.
Hey Mr 'JM',
Re 'I hope to all available deities there's no spelling mistakes in this'......
'Cause 'mistakes' is plural, shud it not be 'there are no.......',
Or you cud use the singular, then you cud say 'there's no spelling mistake in this..."
The devil made me do it....honestly...!!
Re 'I hope to all available deities there's no spelling mistakes in this'......
'Cause 'mistakes' is plural, shud it not be 'there are no.......',
Or you cud use the singular, then you cud say 'there's no spelling mistake in this..."
The devil made me do it....honestly...!!
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It should always be remembered that the "Flux Capacitor" is a critical piece of equipment to ensure a safe return from NZ to the present. I am sure this was not lost upon the astute aviation experts lurking in Dunnunda, Godzone and the Pacific. Look what happened today to the PM over the dutch when she blew her flux capacitor. Far worse than a simple thronomister issue and well worthy of a MAYDAY MAYDAY (in caps).
Negative. But you’re close. The origins of the word are in fact French - From ‘Pain au Chocolat’. First used inflight in the late 1600s. Transmitted by an irate French first officer bickering over a flight deck breakfast on a hot mic. Hence, Urgency.
It should always be remembered that the "Flux Capacitor" is a critical piece of equipment to ensure a safe return from NZ to the present. I am sure this was not lost upon the astute aviation experts lurking in Dunnunda, Godzone and the Pacific. Look what happened today to the PM over the dutch when she blew her flux capacitor. Far worse than a simple thronomister issue and well worthy of a MAYDAY MAYDAY (in caps).
Rumor has it Jacinda has taken full responsibility for QF144 and resigned. It must be true, I read it in the Tele.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Breaking news, the cause has been discovered, DBT has the scoop: https://doublebaytoday.com/qantas-ce...eroplane-mode/
Turns out it wasn't an engine problem after all
Turns out it wasn't an engine problem after all
In Australia aviation journalism is an oxymoron except for a handful of individuals who know what they are talking about. Standards of reporting could easily be improved to the detriment of media sensationalism and revenue. Airlines and other aviation entities need to be represented in the media by current on type operational people who can with management approval convey in no nonsense technical language the facts relating to an incident or accident. Sure most readers would be ignorant of the meanings of acronyms etc. but those with half a brain could research and make some sense of what they read. For the rest spare them the ill informed musings of PR numpties and work experience reporters in the media. Company reporting should be vetted by the authors prior to publication to ensure media spin is not inserted. To be fair to news outlets, updates should be frequent and factual without interference from management if company reputation is perceived to be compromised.
I'm reading too many instances of "engine failures are extremely rare occurrences" in a 12 month period where around 10 QF group aircraft have had shut downs, and that's just the ones I know about. What I'm seeing is that reporting of QF group engine failures is extremely rare and is kept out of the public view for some reason while claiming to be the safest airline in the world.
Was this a normal engine failure? was it possibly a reverser un-latching in flight? that would explain why both engines had reversers deployed and might warrant a "mayday" until its sorted out and then it's just a "Pan" once the engines secured, but who knows, we won't, as the ATSB will probably hide anything we could learn from any public scrutiny.
Was this a normal engine failure? was it possibly a reverser un-latching in flight? that would explain why both engines had reversers deployed and might warrant a "mayday" until its sorted out and then it's just a "Pan" once the engines secured, but who knows, we won't, as the ATSB will probably hide anything we could learn from any public scrutiny.
They are totally reliant on their sources (in aviation, that would be YOU!)
You must have given them an incorrect number.
The Double Bay Today may have a "scoop" but the Betoota Advocate will have the real story.
They just have to wait for the carrier pigeon to arrive.