The knee-jerk vitriol poured over the media on this issue says far more about the ignorance and thoughtlessness of those making the criticisms than it does of the press.
Consider, for instance, that it is Pentagon policy to announce the time, location AND AIRCRAFT TYPE of almost all military air cashes WITHIN ONE HOUR of the crash occurring. The exceptions are to protect the mission they are on, or any other special circumstances.
The MOD did not offer any such special circumstances in refusing to announce the aircraft type for six hours yesterday. It only said it wanted time to notify next of kin. (the Pentagon takes care of that by not releasing the names of those killed for 24 hours, under a two-year-old law. It separates that from naming aircraft type)
I believe other Nato nations and Australia generally follow US policy on aircraft types, which leaves the MoD isolated in the disclosure stakes.
You may rail against the media all you want - and very often you will be right - but not on this occasion because the aircraft type was singularly vital information, whose public absence actually made matters much worse for the families of all those who might have been travelling in an RAF plane over Afghanistan.
The Americans, at least, have long understood that absence of critical public information in the modern era of 24-hour news merely creates a vaccum which will be probably be filled by more damaging misinformation.
This is a fact of life, like the weather. Your time would be better filled lodging complaints at the MoD, not the BBC.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that it was categorically stated to NOT be due to enemy action yet considerable confusion about what type was involved?

You'd think if they knew what had happened, they'd know what it had happened to.

The problem with news media these days is that people want instant news as it happens and, unfortunately, all the outlets are competing. They all want to be first with the news and to give as much information to their audience. We all do it, as soon as we hear of a news story, we run to the internet or the TV; we want to know what's going on as it happens.
The trouble is, with breaking news, it's like shifting sands and the information coming in is changing all the time. I was working in TV on the day of 9/11 and when you saw what was coming in on the wires, it bore no relation to what the eventual outcome was. I've seen some things across all channels that have made me cringe, because I know it's not possible or have inside knowledge and I don't think that will change in the near future.
In the case of the correspondent, yes, his comments were probably extremely distressing for those directly affected. But, if he's had it from a 'reliable source' you may find that's journo speak for someone speaking off the record. i.e and I'm guessing here, it could be someone in the MOD had told him that but didn't want the comments attributed to him or her. That's usually how it works.

Unfortunately a lot of journo's (not all) are more interested in furthering their own ambitions and careers and spend very little time considering the stress they are putting families through. Complaint made by me, i urge you all to do the same, that way someone might learn from this. I have pasted CM's complaint here again and the web site addrees to save you searching for it.


Having heard with sadness at the loss today of the nimrod aircraft in Afghanistan, I must say that I am utterly disappointed at the “speculation” produced during the various BBC News features on the radio & Television, The comments suggested that the aircraft “could be a Chinook" then later to include a hercules.
By this single element of reporting this has ensured that UK families of the Chinook & Hercules crews based in Afghanistan suffered prolonged distress in the belief that a knock on the door was a possibility, This may also have had an opposite effect on the families of Nimrod crews who upon hearing from Mr Wood that it was “not in fact a Hercules, we're talking about a Chinook helicopter here” may have in turn caused them further unnecessary distress by suggesting their loved ones were safe. I feel that the BBC have overstepped the mark in Investigative Journalism and finally begun to follow the majority of other broadcasters by including speculation into their reporting when a number of years ago they would simply have said “until officially informed by the ministry of defence we are unable to confirm what type of aircraft was involved”, I for one will be seeking an official apology to be broadcast, and for a much more sensitive BBC to be returned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make...nt_step1.shtml

bombedup,

You make an interesting point, but I think you go too far by implying our ignorance in the issue.

Maybe it is indeed time for the MOD to change its policy; whatever happens with reference to disclosure, however, it is still reckless and damaging to speculate on the aircraft type, bringing intense fear of bereavement to families of Chinook and Hercules crew-members. Acknowledge, at least, the fact that the BBC and other media failed to consider the impact of their speculation.

I hope it's not going to be seen as unsympathetic or insensitive to raise the issue of what actually happened to this a/c. If it is I'll delete this.

The MoD seemed very quick to rule out enemy action here.

If it was hit by a Stinger, left there by the Americans, this accident could be one red-hot political potato. Does anyone actually know it was a 'technical' issue and if so, what exactly?

It's known that the Taliban have Stingers and the Stinger recovery program continues to this day.

Out of respect for those lost, I didn't intend to join in any discussions today. But I feel that I have to reply to bombedup6.

First of all, you have to remember that the British military are so much smaller in scale than the US military. Whilst the US policy of releasing the aircraft type may well put many minds at rest, anyone hearing that news who has a loved one operating on that type will usually still have the knowledge that he/she is one of many doing so. Due to our smaller scale, that is not necessarily true about RAF operations.

Personally, I didn't like the way that the MOD released the initial casualty details. Giving away the service disposition of the casualties somewhat gave the game away to me and perhaps to many others who also have a little knowledge. But I'm sure that there must have been a good reason for doing that - so at this stage, we should just let people greave in their own way. Some will be angry (that's natural) and vent that anger in all directions. So please don't argue with them.

Outrage
 

Smoking hot letter of complaint and outrage dispatched to the BBC. Whilst I know it is human nature to speculate, the speculations of these people have caused unecessary worry in the friends and family of just about all of our servicemen in Afganistan. The fact that they stated it was most likely a Chinook, or possibly a Herc, means that just about any serviceman/woman in the country could have been on it. Can people that start such speculation be punished by law?

As always in these sad situations there is the reaction following the event. I have had experience in post accident contact with relatives and it is the worst job in NATO and I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy.

But, is there a right way to do this? Any ideas? Which is the best way to deal with the press / Families etc? Is there a right way?

Ladies (for I taught JG to fly her first Sqn Type) & Gentlemen,

Whilst I agree that certain elements of the Press appear to have drastically overstepped the mark in "guessing" which type of aircraft was involved; the delay in specifying the aircraft type will surely will be laid at the door of MOD by the Politicians to protect themselves. I suggest that at MOD there is the very reasonable fear that some of our aircraft are so antedeluvian that they may just fall apart.

I note that the 2nd Nimrod prototype (XV 147 fitted with Avon engines) made its first flight on my 21st Birthday. Tomorrow my Wife, who is younger than myself, qualifies for the UK State Pension. To put that into perspective regarding time; it is like trying to fight the Korean War with BE2C's and Maurice Farman Shorthorns!!

Which particular Party (whilst in Government) has consistantly ignored calls for equipment updates, refurbishment and replacement, on grounds of cost? Who has paid, and are still paying, the cost of that Policy? Regrettably, to be fair, the answer to the first question is BOTH major parties. We ALL know the answer to the second question.

Now, more than ever before since WW2, we NEEDa cross party consensus regarding Defence based on REQUIREMENTS not cost.

Rant over for today.

Regarding the cause of the accident, do these aircraft have 'black boxes' similar to those in comparable sized civil aircraft?

No and Yes. Not a black box as per civil airliners but a different and less crash worthy recorder.

Complaint submitted to the BBC. Anyone got a link for Sky complaints?

Sky News complaints weblink is http://news.sky.com/skynews/feedback...ry/0,,,00.html

Channel 4 still thinks it's a Russian An-32 turboprop: http://www.channel4.com/news/content...sp?id=18333861 :hmm:

I/C

I/C
ITN are showing the same pic. Bothe claim the pic is provided by Reuters.

nimrod down
 

IMHO nimrods dont crash- their crews are too clever for that ---

condolences to all and the sooner we get all our forces out of this stupid situtation ( including Irac) the better

Tony B Liar is the biggest Idiot this country has ever produced----


I have 4 sons all between 11 and 16 and I have forbibben then to even consider joining the armed forces---they will just be used as cannon fodder for some stupid politican's own agenda

Operating Question. I have absolutely no experience of operating large military aircraft. Would the crew and supernumeries have personal parachutes on board?

Not when I've flown with the mighty hunter on maritime patrol missions. Maybe other PPRuNers have different information for OOA ops, though.

No they dont.

Besides i doubt if it were possible even if they did - what with how the a/c doors are situated.

correct me if im wrong.

Most of you are having a good go at the media, and quite rightly so. They have been doing this for years. But don’t forget they do this with “ALL” stories. You are all having a dig because you understand the subject being talked about. Most of you however, choose to accept the views of the Media (BBC) when you are not totally gen’d up on a particular news item. If it was an article on a subject that you know nothing about, you tend to believe it totally – why? - because most people in this country believe everything they are told. That is why the newspapers will continue to be sold and most people will watch BBC, ITN,or Sky news to get info. And by the way “Most people love speculation!!!!”
The main thing that annoys me is the way Dez Browne and the Government are so keen to say that it was not caused by hostile action. He said yesterday that we must not speculate, yet whet straight on to say that it was “probably” not caused by hostile fire. I might be thick – but is that not speculation???
If it was not by hostile fire, can they wash their hands of any responsibility?????.
I don’t care if it was hostile fire or an accident. The fact is that friends and families are hurting because they are no longer with us.
Finally, yes I have had a few and quite frankly I am sick of loosing friends and colleagues from our Royal Air Force. My thoughts go to all involved in this sad loss.

Doors open inward. No chutes. You would need a shute like the KC135/E3 otherwise the wing, engines and tail rather get in the way.

We fought long and hard even to get immersion suits as the ditching model sustained something like 25g on the cockpit and broke up. At 200 feet you would pile in or climb safely away on one engine.

We got the suits about 1979-80 and Art Stacey proved the aircraft could ditch.

Noel Anthony (I think) also proved it could be crash landed too albeit the pilots both died.