Please, someone in Perth gaffa-tape GT!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a complaint to the press council?
They are not a Regulator and they rely on their members for funding.
Kaz
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The striking thing about these GT bashing threads - and I've seen a few - is that they never take account of the fact that GT, or some other journalist, is addressing the non-aviation minded general public.
The substance of these threads would have some validity if GT was a pilot himself, addressing only pilots. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE, and I would have thought that should have been obvious.
The only quote in this thread from GT was something about "can't fly through thunderstorms". So you are quibbling that he used the word can't when he should have used the word shouldn't?
Let me tell you a little something about the word can't. It would have to be the most misused word in the English language. In everyday spoken English, people use can't when, 90% of the time, they should really have used shouldn't, mustn't, or unable, etc. GT is just using the common, everyday language that is the most accessible to the man in the street.
Make a complaint to the Press Council that some journalist used can't when he should have used shouldn't and you will be the laughing stock of the Press Council office.
I have an enormous respect for anything GT writes. Unlike people on this thread, however, I know and accept the constraints he has to work to. I therefore know how to read him. I regularly go out of my way to read his articles.
Do yourself a favour and get a copy of his "Qantas Flightpaths" book. Read it and you will then find you have an enormous respect for the man.
If GT wants to keep his job - and I'm sure he does - he has to continue using the words, phrases and language that he is currently using.
People on this thread need to open their minds a little to understand the situation he is in.
By the way: When he is speaking on television, he is REQUIRED to say his piece in as few words as possible, preferably with a touch of sensationalism thrown in. I would wager that NONE of the posters on this thread could do the TV bit anywhere near as well as he does.
The substance of these threads would have some validity if GT was a pilot himself, addressing only pilots. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE, and I would have thought that should have been obvious.
The only quote in this thread from GT was something about "can't fly through thunderstorms". So you are quibbling that he used the word can't when he should have used the word shouldn't?
Let me tell you a little something about the word can't. It would have to be the most misused word in the English language. In everyday spoken English, people use can't when, 90% of the time, they should really have used shouldn't, mustn't, or unable, etc. GT is just using the common, everyday language that is the most accessible to the man in the street.
Make a complaint to the Press Council that some journalist used can't when he should have used shouldn't and you will be the laughing stock of the Press Council office.
I have an enormous respect for anything GT writes. Unlike people on this thread, however, I know and accept the constraints he has to work to. I therefore know how to read him. I regularly go out of my way to read his articles.
Do yourself a favour and get a copy of his "Qantas Flightpaths" book. Read it and you will then find you have an enormous respect for the man.
If GT wants to keep his job - and I'm sure he does - he has to continue using the words, phrases and language that he is currently using.
People on this thread need to open their minds a little to understand the situation he is in.
By the way: When he is speaking on television, he is REQUIRED to say his piece in as few words as possible, preferably with a touch of sensationalism thrown in. I would wager that NONE of the posters on this thread could do the TV bit anywhere near as well as he does.
My beef was with Anthony Klan's article, which looked like it was thrown together from a bunch of half-grasped ideas, and in which he quotes Thomas as an aviation expert. There's a lot more garbage in there but I picked on a few to address. Here's what I wrote to the Aussie; if you haven't seen Klan's article, have a read - I think any pilot will cringe, and it's not because he's written it in terms the public will understand, it's because he clearly doesn't understand what he's writing about (with an assertion of authority) himself.
Subject: Letter to the Editor – Weekend Australian Newspaper
Dear Sir or Madam,
Anthony Klan’s speculative, poorly-researched and error-filled article on the crash of flight QZ8501 (‘Storm detector might have saved doomed AirAsia flight’, 3/1) should not have been published. His implication that an improved weather radar would have saved the flight is plain wrong – the flight crew were clearly aware of the storm cell in front of them, having requested a climb to avoid it, but would have been better off trying to go around rather than climb over a severe thunderstorm.
Mr Klan states that it is most likely that a severe updraft sent the flight into an aerodynamic stall, and that excess weight can significantly lower the speed at which a plane stalls. In fact, the exact opposite would be true in both cases – updrafting air tends to increase airspeed, lessening the likelihood of a stall, and the heavier an aircraft is, the higher its stall speed will be. A stall may very possibly have been involved in the accident, but not for the reasons put forward in the article.
Other clearly incorrect assertions from the article are that traffic collision and avoidance systems ‘automatically take over the controls of collision-bound planes’, or that the lack of an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) signal indicates that the impact with the ocean wasn’t severe – in fact, it might suggest the opposite, that impact forces were severe enough to render any ELT or its associated antenna unserviceable.
Mr Klan is not wrong in suggesting that flight through a severe storm led to the loss of this aircraft, but he should heed the advice of the AirAsia chief executive whom he quotes in his article as saying it would be improper to speculate on the cause of the crash, particularly as he appears to have only a tenuous grasp on aviation-specific matters.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Anthony Klan’s speculative, poorly-researched and error-filled article on the crash of flight QZ8501 (‘Storm detector might have saved doomed AirAsia flight’, 3/1) should not have been published. His implication that an improved weather radar would have saved the flight is plain wrong – the flight crew were clearly aware of the storm cell in front of them, having requested a climb to avoid it, but would have been better off trying to go around rather than climb over a severe thunderstorm.
Mr Klan states that it is most likely that a severe updraft sent the flight into an aerodynamic stall, and that excess weight can significantly lower the speed at which a plane stalls. In fact, the exact opposite would be true in both cases – updrafting air tends to increase airspeed, lessening the likelihood of a stall, and the heavier an aircraft is, the higher its stall speed will be. A stall may very possibly have been involved in the accident, but not for the reasons put forward in the article.
Other clearly incorrect assertions from the article are that traffic collision and avoidance systems ‘automatically take over the controls of collision-bound planes’, or that the lack of an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) signal indicates that the impact with the ocean wasn’t severe – in fact, it might suggest the opposite, that impact forces were severe enough to render any ELT or its associated antenna unserviceable.
Mr Klan is not wrong in suggesting that flight through a severe storm led to the loss of this aircraft, but he should heed the advice of the AirAsia chief executive whom he quotes in his article as saying it would be improper to speculate on the cause of the crash, particularly as he appears to have only a tenuous grasp on aviation-specific matters.
FGD,
I find your post gobsmackingly ignorant in a number of areas, not least that you think it is ok for GT to keep telling half truths and spreading misinformation.
" he has to continue using the words phrases and language..."
One of the major problems with the Media today, is the lack of trust that the public has in their ability to tell a story in a factual, non biased manner.
If GT keeps on with much of his ill informed 'journalism' he is continuing to erode any trust that might be left between the papers and their readers.
Also, on the word 'can't' . You seem to think that it not a problem to use it in this case. I suggest that word does a lot of harm to aviation and to travellers, particularly those nervous flyers. If they read this type of stuff, they will believe it and never understand the truth. In many cases, it is the fear of the unknown, or the 'incorrectly known' that feeds problems.
As for his TV appearances, sure he needs to keep it short, but I fail to see where that means he has to speak rubbish.
I have done many TV/Radio and newspaper interviews on aviation related matters, and never once have I had to speak crap to be put to air/print. You simply speak the facts and let the editor/producer sort it out.
There is no need for sensationalism, I would have thought that over 155 people dying, would be sensationalist enough!
I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media. Some already write for magazines, so a factual, informed, researched article on something as important as this story, would be a walk in the park for them.
Perhaps you should 'open your mind a little more to understand the situation he is in'.
Now, I realise that you are a troll, and that I have just fed you, but you know what? I feel better
Coolnames
I find your post gobsmackingly ignorant in a number of areas, not least that you think it is ok for GT to keep telling half truths and spreading misinformation.
" he has to continue using the words phrases and language..."
One of the major problems with the Media today, is the lack of trust that the public has in their ability to tell a story in a factual, non biased manner.
If GT keeps on with much of his ill informed 'journalism' he is continuing to erode any trust that might be left between the papers and their readers.
Also, on the word 'can't' . You seem to think that it not a problem to use it in this case. I suggest that word does a lot of harm to aviation and to travellers, particularly those nervous flyers. If they read this type of stuff, they will believe it and never understand the truth. In many cases, it is the fear of the unknown, or the 'incorrectly known' that feeds problems.
As for his TV appearances, sure he needs to keep it short, but I fail to see where that means he has to speak rubbish.
I have done many TV/Radio and newspaper interviews on aviation related matters, and never once have I had to speak crap to be put to air/print. You simply speak the facts and let the editor/producer sort it out.
There is no need for sensationalism, I would have thought that over 155 people dying, would be sensationalist enough!
I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media. Some already write for magazines, so a factual, informed, researched article on something as important as this story, would be a walk in the park for them.
Perhaps you should 'open your mind a little more to understand the situation he is in'.
Now, I realise that you are a troll, and that I have just fed you, but you know what? I feel better
Coolnames
Last edited by allthecoolnamesarego; 4th Jan 2015 at 10:05.
Kaz3g,
Perhaps the 'Australian Press Council' is simply a Trade Union, appropriately protecting its members?
A little like 'The Law Society of NSW'. A Trade Union for solicitors.
And the 'NSW Bar Association'. A Trade Union for barristers?
"They are not a Regulator and they rely on their members for funding."
That's it.
Perhaps the 'Australian Press Council' is simply a Trade Union, appropriately protecting its members?
A little like 'The Law Society of NSW'. A Trade Union for solicitors.
And the 'NSW Bar Association'. A Trade Union for barristers?
"They are not a Regulator and they rely on their members for funding."
That's it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arm,
Plain wrong? How do you know this? Were you there in the cockpit?
"... would have been better off trying to go around ...". This is pure speculation on your part, given that you weren't there in the cockpit. And what makes you describe the thunderstorm as "severe" when you weren't there witnessing events? The reality is that nobody knows anything about the part the weather played. The weather *may* have been a factor - that is all we know.
You are guilty of the speculation of which you accuse Klan.
Was Klan's piece presented as opinion, or as a regular report? If it was titled "Storm detector might have saved doomed flight", then I would suggest it was opinion, in which case he has licence to speculate all he wants.
If you look at a vector diagram of the resultant air flow when an updraft is suddenly added in, you will see that the wing is suddenly at a greater angle of attack. For this reason it is not unreasonable to say that a stall is a likely result.
. My understanding is that for some aircraft, the autopilot, if engaged, *will* fly the TCAS RA manoeuver. If my understanding is correct then your assertion is wrong, in which case you are guilty of the same inaccuracies of which you accuse Klan.
This statement makes it sound like you were there, in the cockpit, witnessing events. Were you there?
allthecoolnamesarego,
Could you please give some examples? I find it incredible that the only example I have seen presented in this thread is that he used the word can't when he should have used the word shouldn't.
Rubbish. Complete and utter rubbish. A typical grossly exaggerated claim that anonymous bloggers make everyday on the internet.
Examples of the "half truths" and "misinformation" please.
His implication that an improved weather radar would have saved the flight is plain wrong – the flight crew were clearly aware of the storm cell in front of them, having requested a climb to avoid it, but would have been better off trying to go around rather than climb over a severe thunderstorm.
"... would have been better off trying to go around ...". This is pure speculation on your part, given that you weren't there in the cockpit. And what makes you describe the thunderstorm as "severe" when you weren't there witnessing events? The reality is that nobody knows anything about the part the weather played. The weather *may* have been a factor - that is all we know.
You are guilty of the speculation of which you accuse Klan.
Was Klan's piece presented as opinion, or as a regular report? If it was titled "Storm detector might have saved doomed flight", then I would suggest it was opinion, in which case he has licence to speculate all he wants.
... updrafting air tends to increase airspeed, lessening the likelihood of a stall ...
Other clearly incorrect assertions from the article are that traffic collision and avoidance systems ‘automatically take over the controls of collision-bound planes’
Mr Klan is not wrong in suggesting that flight through a severe storm led to the loss of this aircraft...
allthecoolnamesarego,
...you think it is ok for GT to keep telling half truths and spreading misinformation.
I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media.
Examples of the "half truths" and "misinformation" please.
FGD135-
The A380 has the autopilot coupled to the TCAS for an RA event. I doubt many other aircraft have that technology fitted. Maybe the 787. The 350 yes, and I presume the 320NEO. It certainly isn't the norm.
I whole heartedly agree with Arm out the Window's comments. GT is an embarrassment to the aviation fraternity.
You are praising his layman speak ability- Please, Don't kid yourself, he knows NADA.
The fact is this.
No one, absolutely no one knows what happened to that flight. CBs may have had naught to do with it. The emergency directive OEB recently released RE frozen AOA probes affecting V alpha prot may have been an issue, hell maybe Aliens were involved.
Until the CVR/FDRs are recovered, can GT and his ilk spare us the laymen's version to aviation 'expertise'.
The A380 has the autopilot coupled to the TCAS for an RA event. I doubt many other aircraft have that technology fitted. Maybe the 787. The 350 yes, and I presume the 320NEO. It certainly isn't the norm.
I whole heartedly agree with Arm out the Window's comments. GT is an embarrassment to the aviation fraternity.
You are praising his layman speak ability- Please, Don't kid yourself, he knows NADA.
The fact is this.
No one, absolutely no one knows what happened to that flight. CBs may have had naught to do with it. The emergency directive OEB recently released RE frozen AOA probes affecting V alpha prot may have been an issue, hell maybe Aliens were involved.
Until the CVR/FDRs are recovered, can GT and his ilk spare us the laymen's version to aviation 'expertise'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'll help you there, before you go back and climb under the rock you came from FGD. You're wrong I'm afraid (& very wrong for supporting the git GT) 
GT on CNN said the aircraft landed upside down on the water... in another interview he said it broke up in flight due to the indication of a unclothed body being found floating... I won't go on.
Radars and the facts: The A320 IS equipped with an advanced radar able to detect such CB's and turbulence. Quote from the manual:
Question here is were they utilising it correctly?
Now how do we know major CBs were a factor?
Just by looking at the repeated and multiple weather replays run by BBC/CNN et all, of the time in question. There were MAJOR reds and magentas (=Severe to Intense)! IF you have any idea or experience of the monsoon trough (ITCZ) you know that to penetrate such moisture is stupid and you can not out-climb any CB's, so divert as much as is needed. It's the only way. This vision together with personal experiences, is what qualifies many of us to make such a comment as ARM did. Together with Havoc's comment above regarding frozen probes & Alpha vanes, it scratches on the surface of further possibilities.
So ARM it seems would be correct then.
P.S. Sidetrack but no aircraft can automatically fly or is rated to fly an "RA" yet, apart from A380/350 and 787. Company policies may also limit this use of automation (Interesting Cathay incident on this, by the way).
P.P.S. You think it's rubbish, that many of us pilots can do a better job than GT? Pull yuh head out, please. Many of us on here have done so in various capacities already, well before he started getting his noggen on the idiot box!
(edited and toned down once off my soap box)
Happy Landings.
GT on CNN said the aircraft landed upside down on the water... in another interview he said it broke up in flight due to the indication of a unclothed body being found floating... I won't go on.
Radars and the facts: The A320 IS equipped with an advanced radar able to detect such CB's and turbulence. Quote from the manual:
...RDR-4B advanced weather radar and our new IntuVue family of 3-D volumetric weather radars are the most advanced weather surveillance equipment in the industry. For the A320 family, the RDR-4000 model of the IntuVue family allows pilots to detect and reroute around storms sooner for improved safety and route efficiency. Its advanced turbulence detection and windshear capability has demonstrated over a 50% reduction in turbulence encounters.
Now how do we know major CBs were a factor?
Just by looking at the repeated and multiple weather replays run by BBC/CNN et all, of the time in question. There were MAJOR reds and magentas (=Severe to Intense)! IF you have any idea or experience of the monsoon trough (ITCZ) you know that to penetrate such moisture is stupid and you can not out-climb any CB's, so divert as much as is needed. It's the only way. This vision together with personal experiences, is what qualifies many of us to make such a comment as ARM did. Together with Havoc's comment above regarding frozen probes & Alpha vanes, it scratches on the surface of further possibilities.
So ARM it seems would be correct then.
P.S. Sidetrack but no aircraft can automatically fly or is rated to fly an "RA" yet, apart from A380/350 and 787. Company policies may also limit this use of automation (Interesting Cathay incident on this, by the way).
P.P.S. You think it's rubbish, that many of us pilots can do a better job than GT? Pull yuh head out, please. Many of us on here have done so in various capacities already, well before he started getting his noggen on the idiot box!
(edited and toned down once off my soap box)
Happy Landings.
Last edited by Chocks Away; 4th Jan 2015 at 15:19.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaz3g,
Perhaps the 'Australian Press Council' is simply a Trade Union, appropriately protecting its members?
A little like 'The Law Society of NSW'. A Trade Union for solicitors.
And the 'NSW Bar Association'. A Trade Union for barristers?
"They are not a Regulator and they rely on their members for funding."
That's it.
Perhaps the 'Australian Press Council' is simply a Trade Union, appropriately protecting its members?
A little like 'The Law Society of NSW'. A Trade Union for solicitors.
And the 'NSW Bar Association'. A Trade Union for barristers?
"They are not a Regulator and they rely on their members for funding."
That's it.
But the most significant regulatory control is exercised by the Legal Services Board supported by the Legal Profession Act and a myriad regulations with severe penalties for breaches.
Lawyers are actually the most heavily regulated of the professions and the LSB enforces the statutes vigorously.
The rules include a number of ethical obligations to ensure trust and confidence between lawyer and client. It also requires that legal advice provided be accurate and a true reflection of the law as it stands. Breaches of these requirements regularly result in de-registration and fines or imprisonment.
There is no similar restriction on the activities of the media and I've never heard of a journalist being dismissed because he got the facts wrong.
Kaz
Lawyers also pay into a Practice Insurance fund so that anyone "injured" by a practitioner's negligence or malfeasance is able to be recompensed should that lawyer's assets be insufficient to meet the damages claim. Lawyers are individually liable for their professional conduct and can't hide behind the vicarious liability of the employer.
Last edited by kaz3g; 4th Jan 2015 at 20:03. Reason: Add a bit more
Hi FGD. I take it you're pretty happy with Anthony Klan's article then?
Without trying to get into a point-scoring table tennis match, I think the two main start points for my argument (and call them speculation by all means, but not wild speculation a la Klan) are:
1) a thunderstorm probably caused the demise of the aircraft, and
2) you're better off going around big storms than trying to go over them.
There's no clear statement that it's just opinion, and the clear implication with the quotes from the 'aviation expert' in question, detailed diagrams and so on is that the article presents authoritative information.
Perhaps the aircraft is with Elvis on the moon! Speculate all he wants - not at all. The style and content of the writing shows he doesn't know much about flying, and someone like that shouldn't be allowed to write half-page articles on aviation in national newspapers.
Without trying to get into a point-scoring table tennis match, I think the two main start points for my argument (and call them speculation by all means, but not wild speculation a la Klan) are:
1) a thunderstorm probably caused the demise of the aircraft, and
2) you're better off going around big storms than trying to go over them.
Was Klan's piece presented as opinion, or as a regular report?
I would suggest it was opinion, in which case he has licence to speculate all he wants.
FGD,
I'll let you think about how stupid that comment is for a second....no I won't actually. It seems you might struggle with reason. Let me spell it out for you.
A (or if numbers are easier for you -1): You don't know who I am (it is an anonymous forum!)
B (2) therefore, it follows that you don't know who I know (following me thus far?)
C (3) you don't know the qualifications and personalities of those people I am suggesting (the ones you don't know- still with me?)
D (4) you can't possibly claim that my claim is utter rubbish, made on an anonymous forum, because of...well, start at point A (1)
Examples....
Too many to list here, watch it and see how many you can find. "This is what happened"
"We are in a spin"
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/vi...370-simulator/
Mar 27, 2014 - Uploaded by CNN
http://youtu.be/0f8vJFFg1Q4
"Debris is ABSOLUTELY aircraft wreckage"
The Daily - 2SER - Real Radio 107.3 FM
"Planes can not fly though the middle of a thunderstorm"
Reporter: "Did the pilot make the right decision to climb.?
GT: "Oh absolutely, he would have been trying to get over this Thunder cell"
There's a few to start with.
Any other requests?
Rubbish, complete and utter rubbish
A (or if numbers are easier for you -1): You don't know who I am (it is an anonymous forum!)
B (2) therefore, it follows that you don't know who I know (following me thus far?)
C (3) you don't know the qualifications and personalities of those people I am suggesting (the ones you don't know- still with me?)
D (4) you can't possibly claim that my claim is utter rubbish, made on an anonymous forum, because of...well, start at point A (1)
Examples....
Too many to list here, watch it and see how many you can find. "This is what happened"
"We are in a spin"
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/vi...370-simulator/
Mar 27, 2014 - Uploaded by CNN
http://youtu.be/0f8vJFFg1Q4
"Debris is ABSOLUTELY aircraft wreckage"
The Daily - 2SER - Real Radio 107.3 FM
"Planes can not fly though the middle of a thunderstorm"
Reporter: "Did the pilot make the right decision to climb.?
GT: "Oh absolutely, he would have been trying to get over this Thunder cell"
There's a few to start with.
Any other requests?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering, is GT is worth the Pprune bandwidth? Seriously? As you do over the Christmas period, you go to BBQ's, dinners and lunch and the like, and meet a fairly wide selection of people. What I have observed is nearly all have a similar 'interest' span, I have met no one recently who has even a vague notion of who GT is when I raise the question; few were aware of the accident details other than broadly knowing an 'accident' had occurred, (yes, it was awful, pass the tomato sauce please) and none who quoted him to me as a source of information. Not that I encourage 'shop' talk, in fact I avoid it whenever politely possible.
Was having breakfast at a friends place recently, the TV was on tuned to one of those truly dreadful 'morning shows' when the GT visage appeared; being a guest, I could not just grab the remote, so I sat quiet watched the eight or so others. After the four minute advert break I asked what they had made of the GT spiel; "Oh that accident, terrible business - would you like more bacon?" Four minutes and a plate of porridge was all it took to erase the item from conscious memory. Just for fun, I asked a question about one of the adverts shown; total recall. It's a funny old world out there
GT and the stations are in the business of selling advertising space, not entertainment or informed opinion. If the 'breakfast crew', all potential passengers on the next 'crash' can dismiss his waffle and the accident so easily, without concern, why should it trouble us? He, his opinion and his 'entertainment' management simply don't signify. Not in my jungle anyway.
Just saying.
Was having breakfast at a friends place recently, the TV was on tuned to one of those truly dreadful 'morning shows' when the GT visage appeared; being a guest, I could not just grab the remote, so I sat quiet watched the eight or so others. After the four minute advert break I asked what they had made of the GT spiel; "Oh that accident, terrible business - would you like more bacon?" Four minutes and a plate of porridge was all it took to erase the item from conscious memory. Just for fun, I asked a question about one of the adverts shown; total recall. It's a funny old world out there
GT and the stations are in the business of selling advertising space, not entertainment or informed opinion. If the 'breakfast crew', all potential passengers on the next 'crash' can dismiss his waffle and the accident so easily, without concern, why should it trouble us? He, his opinion and his 'entertainment' management simply don't signify. Not in my jungle anyway.
Just saying.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: downunder
Age: 73
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting read, having a go about the "experts" Experts make disaster porn of AirAsia flight QZ8501 | Crikey
FGD135,
I don't think any Ppruners would begrudge GT for keeping language of technical details a little light on, because as you say, he has to target an audience.
It's not the language.
We just want to know what makes him an "aviation expert".
Is that a title one can just gift oneself?
From other posts I've read (and I may be wrong), others on Pprune seem to think his only aviation expertise is chucking bags at PH decades ago.
Does this make him an "aviation expert"? Surely an aircraft designer, the aircraft manufacturer, an extensively experienced LAME or pilot, or someone with years of experience in airline or aircraft management would be an "aviation expert". Surely you'd agree that these would be better equipped to comment publicly on this accident.
I took a sh** the other day on my aircraft. But that doesn't make me a "proctology expert".
I don't think any Ppruners would begrudge GT for keeping language of technical details a little light on, because as you say, he has to target an audience.
It's not the language.
We just want to know what makes him an "aviation expert".
Is that a title one can just gift oneself?
From other posts I've read (and I may be wrong), others on Pprune seem to think his only aviation expertise is chucking bags at PH decades ago.
Does this make him an "aviation expert"? Surely an aircraft designer, the aircraft manufacturer, an extensively experienced LAME or pilot, or someone with years of experience in airline or aircraft management would be an "aviation expert". Surely you'd agree that these would be better equipped to comment publicly on this accident.
I took a sh** the other day on my aircraft. But that doesn't make me a "proctology expert".
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GT is an embarrassment to the aviation fraternity.
You think it's rubbish, that many of us pilots can do a better job than GT? Pull yuh head out, please.
What I said was rubbish was the following statement from allthecoolnamesarego. The statement is such a gross exaggeration that it should be considered rubbish. You seem to have difficulty with reading, so I will bold the words that indicate gross exaggeration:
I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media.
I take it you're pretty happy with Anthony Klan's article then?
About Klan, however, I would say what I would say about any journalist covering aviation: he is a journalist, not an aviation insider. It is not reasonable to expect from a journalist the same knowledge and insight as you could from an insider. Remember the constraints these guys are bound to (e.g deadlines). Everybody here seems to forget those.
Thanks for those examples, allthecoolnamesarego, but you appear to be blissfully ignorant of the constraints GT has to work to.
"This is what happened"
"We are in a spin"
"We are in a spin"
GT is just the messenger. People here don't seem to understand that, and want to shoot him.
"Debris is ABSOLUTELY aircraft wreckage"
Remember that he is speaking to the camera, and answers must be instantaneous and brief. When doing his research, he may have heard a range of views on that wreckage, but there is no time, on camera, to go over that. He must distil hours of phone calls and discussion down into one 5 second answer.
To have said "absolutely" suggests to me that this was the consensus view of those he questioned about it. Keep in mind that nobody has yet proven him wrong on this. Some of that debris may actually have been from MH370. The fact that the recovered debris was not from MH370 does not mean that *some* of the sighted debris was not from the accident!
The Daily - 2SER - Real Radio 107.3 FM
"Planes can not fly though the middle of a thunderstorm"
"Planes can not fly though the middle of a thunderstorm"
Reporter: "Did the pilot make the right decision to climb.?
GT: "Oh absolutely, he would have been trying to get over this Thunder cell"
GT: "Oh absolutely, he would have been trying to get over this Thunder cell"
One answer that GT must be very careful about giving is the "we just don't know ... we must wait for the completion of the investigation and publication of the final report". For us in the aviation fraternity, that would be the correct answer most of the time, but for GT, that answer is poison. He must avoid it if he wants to continue being asked to make media appearances!
I am not convinced by those examples. There was nothing there that I would not have expected to see or hear from somebody in his position.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FGD,
I'm sorry, I can't agree that GT is "just a messenger".
While you do your best to justify his performance, I'd spent some years in the media industry myself.
I'm sure he lays awake at nights with one hand on the keyboard - and the other hand on something else.
p.s. Perhaps I should be more charitable to your friend.
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
I'm sorry, I can't agree that GT is "just a messenger".
While you do your best to justify his performance, I'd spent some years in the media industry myself.
I'm sure he lays awake at nights with one hand on the keyboard - and the other hand on something else.
p.s. Perhaps I should be more charitable to your friend.
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
Last edited by Stanwell; 5th Jan 2015 at 04:17. Reason: add ps
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We just want to know what makes him an "aviation expert".
We probably all have different definitions for what "expert" means, but he easily meets my definition of "expert".
Get and read his book "Qantas Flightpaths". After you do, you will not begrudge him the title of "expert".
he easily meets my definition of "expert"
I intend to read that book, thanks for the recommendation. Hopefully the shire library has it.
Given GT has already solved the AirAsia crash (several times over), I can stop worrying about that, and concentrate on his book.