Minor failure causes JQ aircraft to return to Cairns

A JQ A320 returned to Cairns today, when the crew received a warning from one of their three hydraulic systems. The aircraft circled Cairns airport for 20 minutes whilst the crew prepared the aircraft for landing, and an uneventful landing was accomplished. There was no immediate danger to passengers or crew, as the aircraft can continue to operate on any one of the three hydraulic systems, however an investigation has begun to determine the cause of the problem.


What is wrong with something like this - same story, but without the sensationalist bulls&^t. Todays media are scum, trying to extract every possible bit of attention ($$$) out of anything - and of course not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.

FYI, I have no idea if an A320 has 3 hydraulic systems, and do not work for JQ - so I apologise if I am incorrect here.

Instead of the above, we seem to have something like this:

JQ's Death Dive

A JQ Boeing 320 was seconds away from plummeting into the shark infested waters of the Barrier Reef today, after a catastrophic failure of the wing control systems. Mr Rob Smith from the local "save the reef" organisation said that the Great Barrier Reef could have been destroyed if the aircraft leaked fuel and other toxic substances into the reef. The pilot was declared a hero, after making several loops over the airport and guiding the stricken plane in to landing. Some have said however, that this was more luck than flying skill, because if he had been a mile further left on landing, he would have been in the water for sure. Mrs Julie Brown who was sitting in row 29 of the aircraft said she heard the pilots screaming for help, as the wings changed shape prior to landing. "It was the most horrific time of my life - I will never fly again" said Mrs Brown, as she made her way towards the VB counter.

Maybe I could be a journalist......

Dramatic Bullsh*t.
 

Holy Smoke Chef, did we read the same report? Apart from the loops and standard air return lines the article was reasonable, hardly reason enough for you to label all journalists as "scum". If you are going to let a poorly worded newspaper report upset you, to the extent it apparently has, I would shudder to think how you would handle an in-flight emergency. Maybe you would make a good journalist!!! :ugh:

I think you have missed the sarcasm in my post, and probably do not appreciate the amusement I got from writing it.

I am appalled by the sensationalist journalism that seems to be everywhere today, from TV to newspapers, internet and radio. It may sound boring to some, but I prefer the facts, and maybe some speculation - but without the sensationalistic, headline ($$$) grabbing rubbish.

Maybe that's why I watch the ABC (and even they have their moments...).

The Chef

Chef
you left out
"firefighters battled the blaze"
"terrified passengers were left stranded"
"air safety authorities have commenced their investigation"

and a link back to QF (even though the incident involved another airline) so the editor could overlay some vision of QF30 etc., and pad out the extra 8 seconds

oh don't forget the terms:

allegedly.......
and according to sources....

AT

airtags,

You have a simplistic idea of how news reporting works. This story did not warrant any more treatment than what it got. Are you suggesting the journalist should have been questioning the LAMES/ Flight Attendants/pilots/air traffic controllers?

That kind of effort can take days. Any journalist spending that much time on a story as small as this would certainly get that "mighty kick from the news director/editor".

For a journalist to be fined/jailed, he must have committed a crime. It is not a crime to print non-facts in a newspaper. I think you are confusing the defamation action that is frequently taken against media with the general run-of-the-mill journalism that is applicable to this story.

When defamation action is a possible outcome from a news article, then yes, the newspaper must be careful what it writes. Research and fact checking is definitely in order. But that research and fact checking can take days or weeks, so the story has to be big enough in the first place to warrant that usage of resources.

The chances of defamation action in this case, given that the newspaper was simply repeating the facts given to them by the airline concerned, were ZERO.

If the newspaper had to "check the facts" contained in every press release before reporting on it, then those press releases would never be reported. You, I and the rest of the public would then be considerably less informed. Would you prefer that?

Why bother? This "problem" is only a problem for you and a few other PPruners.

The Chef,
Just what was the "sensationalist bulls&^t" in that news report? I can't see any.

To your question of "what is wrong with something like this?": Your version was written by an aviation insider (you), with the facts already laid out in front of you. Of course you think that was quick and easy.

In the real world, however, journalists usually won't be aviation insiders and won't have the "facts" laid out in front of them.

And now for some journalism 101,
This is opinion, not fact. Your article should only contain facts. If you had attributed this statement to a spokesman from the airline, or some "expert", then it would have been a "fact" - in the journalistic sense.

Can you show me an example of where a news report has been untruthful?

You were given the facts. The terminology was not what you or I would have used but that does not mean they were not the facts.

Jeez Tipsy I've seen some anal juvenile quotes here but yours really takes the biscuit.

Get a life.

Edit - Wait - I hadn't seen the Chefs errr "contribution":ugh::ugh::ugh:

It's in common use already ;)

The Lazy Journalists Plane Story Generator

FGD135 and OLDFELLA what part of professional pilot didn't you get and please declare what arm of the media you represent. Me thinks thee protest too much.:ugh: