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...

:ugh:
Guess the ATSB can just pack up and go home now.

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.

The article was primarily based on what the ATSB says on it's website, apart from the tailwind effect.

I agree that's what the article refers to but the title, "What caused the Swan River seaplane crash on Australia Day" makes it sound like it's case closed already.

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" :rolleyes:) would have been subjected to a very slight increase, if anything.

Jesus wept. :mad:

I thought we had covered this before.....

Can we please please please stop talking about a 'downwind turn'.

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,:eek::} otherwise I might just have thrown a bottle of Red at the TV screen if indeed the word 'expert' was shown instead.:mad::ugh:

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.

Like it or not, GT is the aviation go to man by the media. Cut him some slack. Who else are they going to find to get their thoughts on aviation matters? We don't hear of many volunteers in the aviation business rushing to the media organisations to volunteer their "expert" opinions.

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.:ok:

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.

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!

We jetjoks drivers in the star call em "frames":rolleyes:

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.

They're Aeroplanes, Laddy... planes shave wood!

Aerial, from an Airbus add.And a Flight Dynamics add, who build your Head-Up Guidance Systems.

Just love the word expert.

Broken down, it becomes...

X = an unknown quantity

Spert = a drip under pressure.

I'll just get my coat....

It was probably latent katabatic winds blowing downward from the subtropical jestream causing aerodynamic slip in the lenticular ground effect

Written by the PR department for the ignorant masses.

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.