Journalists and Jetstar aerobatics
 

AAP reports at Jetstar jet returns to Cairns after leak | General | National News | thedaily.com.au

Jetstar jet returns to Cairns after leak

11:05a.m. 1st May 2009

A Jetstar Airbus A320 that took off from Cairns airport on Friday morning was forced to return after the pilot noticed a hydraulic leak.

Fire and ambulance crews were called around 9.45am (AEST), but were not required.

A Jetstar spokeswoman said the pilot made several loops of the airport before undertaking a "standard air return" at the airport, landing without incident.

The Brisbane-bound plane had 175 passengers on board.

"Engineers at Cairns are now looking into it," the spokeswoman said.

She said passengers should be on another flight within hours.



Forgive my bolding but seriously somebody needs to be careful about using terms they only know half of nothing about:=

tipsy
:yuk:furball:yuk::yuk:

Dammit! Somebody beat me to the punch. Just read it in the Australian.

Accuracy in journalism at its finest. Assuming that's not what they actually did... :}

ABC radio just said it was bound for Sydney how can they get that wrong?

They get it wrong because today's journos are idiots. No fact checking, just write the first thing they see as long as it has the words 'plunge', 'war', 'dead' or the phrase 'there are fears that...'

In my book they equate to cockroaches. Scrounging around looking for filth to dig up with about the same amount of intelligence.

jeees...... I didn't think cockroaches were THAT bad!

Hang on a minute, depends who the PIC was....... One I know may well have done a few loops just to ease the boredom of the delay! :}

The dumb think is that the airline spokeswomen said it did several loops and the journo wasn't smart enough to say did you really mean that. It seems to me watching things I know more about, like finance, and farming, that the reporters let the biggest porkies go through to the keeper without even swinging the bat. I watch bankers lie ever night on television. No one ever asks the frigging obvious questions.

The Land used to be written by smart boys and girls who knew agriculture. These days they just go through the motions and print whatever crap is dropped in their laps. Just like the howlers you see in the city papers.

This is something I tell the family all the time. Don't believe anything you are told without digging around. And don't believe a politician, or someone working for an airline.

just to add to denabol's comment; maybe the journo should have asked the spokewoman 'so did the loops cause the problem'?:ugh:

Word (rumour) on the ramp this morn' was that the gear wouldn't retract, and subsequently, there was concern that the gear may not have been locked down.

Standard Air return? so what a Non standard air return? or a land return?

you select "Standard air return" on line 6 left on the FMC.
"Non standard air return" is on line 6 Right.

Once selected it does everything for you..... :E

Sometimes words mean different things
 

I know that journalists often get stuff wrong, but I think that this is being unnecessarily picky. Is there anyone who would confuse a "loop of the airport" with a "loop"?

Either that or I have been doing it wrong when told to roll the aircraft forward to check the tyres.

And I bet if the acft had to ditch for some reason, that the Coral Sea would instantaneously have become "Shark Infested Waters!" :}

Crocodile!:}

I think the only solution is to create the pprune all purpose multiple choice news story package.

Tick the box, add in the matching cliche and there you go.

The premium model could come with ready made dodgy mobile phone clips, an assortment of grabs from the always stranded terrified passengers and of course selections of the textbooks used in those textbook landings.

For Fox news we could add the semi-naked flight attendants

And the ultra premium package includes overlay vision of other airlines in case you have to cover a story on an airline that haas offered you a biz class freebie.

Poor old Denabol! Fancy suggesting a journo is not too smart when he writes "The dumb think is that the airline spokeswomen said it did several loops and the journo wasn't smart enough to say did you really mean that." At least on my keyboard, the 'g' and the 'k' keys are well separated enough so as to not hit one for the other! :ugh::ugh:

Journalist
 

It would seem to me that everyone is ready to belt the journalist over the head without enquiring as to what the JetStar spokeswoman actually said. If she stated that the aircraft made a "few loops of the airport" then it is her backside which should be feeling the heat, I would think. As for the "standard air return" she may well have said that too, meaning the aircraft made a normal landing without incident.

sorry old fella - company spokes/man/woman/person often is a failed (or would be) journalist - so I guess it is a vicious circle!

It was the Jetstar spokeswoman that made the statement about "several loops" and "standard air return".

The media duly reported what was said. It is ridiculous to suggest that journalists should know the meaning of aviation-specific terms - and ridiculous to suggest that they should have "checked the facts" themselves.

The vast majority of the public will understand "loops" to mean something along the lines of what we call "orbits", so the message was satisfactorily conveyed by the Jetstar spokesperson. She was not speaking to aviation insiders, but to the public.

A journalist does not have to check every "fact" in every story. To do so is utterly impractical. Whether any "facts" are checked or not depends on a number of things - one of which being whether the story is big enough.

FGD [quote]:
"A journalist does not have to check every "fact" in every story. To do so is utterly impractical. Whether any "facts" are checked or not depends on a number of things - one of which being whether the story is big enough"

That's sad that you think that way. (watching too much Today Tonight?)

Aside from a mighty kick from your news director/editor, the odds are that by not checking facts your credabiliy will be eventually compromised.

There is also the chance that even in the smallest story those
'non-checked facts' may result in you discussing the merits of checking vs the cost of exemplorary damages with His Honour at a later date. (with the classic "journalist fined/jailed headlines appearing in your competitors newspaper/bulletin)

The trouble with "the media" generally is that there are too many so called journalists willing to accept a company statement/quote/media release as ultimate fact.

To be balanced though, on the other side there are too many untrained, inexperienced company 'spokespeople' who think that the wider public are dumb.

In the JetSAR case, (+ QF30 and the Mrats @MEL) a call to a pilot/LAME contact and checking/'googling' a few bits of terminology would have been minimium for anyone filing a story.

This of course also raises the point that the companies, CASA, Air Services etc., all rush to get caught in shot and proffer a self proclaiming position - however, generally, the bodies representing Pilots (and CC, LAMEs etc., for that matter) are silent.

A Solution?
Maybe the unions would do well to consider being a bit more media proactive? - In this manner the sometimes ridiculous and inarticulate statements made by company spokespersons, 'aviation experts' and Ministerial flunkies may be professionally balanced/challenged/clarified.

AT :E