Please, someone in Perth gaffa-tape GT!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Please, someone in Perth gaffa-tape GT!
Seriously, this old fool is no aviation expert and his repeated interviews on CNN over AirAsia are disgraceful 
His speculation and wayward beliefs do nothing but incite the media for more wayward stories, in an already volatile situation.
Please, someone in Perth shut that goon up
His speculation and wayward beliefs do nothing but incite the media for more wayward stories, in an already volatile situation.
Please, someone in Perth shut that goon up
Last edited by Chocks Away; 3rd Jan 2015 at 09:47.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chocks - People like GT are employed by the media because they can produce the BS that sells newspapers. It's been a long time since truth and accuracy had anything to do with what journalists write and publish.
What makes it worse is the modern trend for instant and constant "news", when none is to be had.
In the old days, we were lucky to see a newspaper once a week, and we "caught up" on the news when one did come to hand.
Now, if 5 minutes has passed without a tweet producing "news just to hand" - a website carrying a "breaking news" item - a TV station carrying a "scoop" - or some other breathless media pronunciation indicating a startling find, then the world is bound to cease turning.
One only has to see the poor levels of journalism in articles where simple words are misspelled, where words are left out, making no sense of the paragraph (indicating a total lack of proof-reading), where totally irrelevant and misleading pictures are added to flesh out articles (did you see the article about Flight QZ8501 that contained a photo of MH17 wreckage?), and the generally poor levels of knowledge and understanding of the subject the particular journalist is writing about.
There is nothing to indicate that there will be any change to the pattern. It's essentially a race to the bottom.
What makes it worse is the modern trend for instant and constant "news", when none is to be had.
In the old days, we were lucky to see a newspaper once a week, and we "caught up" on the news when one did come to hand.
Now, if 5 minutes has passed without a tweet producing "news just to hand" - a website carrying a "breaking news" item - a TV station carrying a "scoop" - or some other breathless media pronunciation indicating a startling find, then the world is bound to cease turning.
One only has to see the poor levels of journalism in articles where simple words are misspelled, where words are left out, making no sense of the paragraph (indicating a total lack of proof-reading), where totally irrelevant and misleading pictures are added to flesh out articles (did you see the article about Flight QZ8501 that contained a photo of MH17 wreckage?), and the generally poor levels of knowledge and understanding of the subject the particular journalist is writing about.
There is nothing to indicate that there will be any change to the pattern. It's essentially a race to the bottom.
Last edited by onetrack; 3rd Jan 2015 at 11:57. Reason: can't proof read or spell myself, either! ...
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: downunder
Age: 73
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what qualifications does GT have? Or is he just a plane spotter with a journalism side?
I am also getting sick of his dribble, still like the footage of him in the B777 sim trying to take off with the park brake set
I am also getting sick of his dribble, still like the footage of him in the B777 sim trying to take off with the park brake set
In today's The Australian, he's quoted as saying "an aeroplane cannot fly through a thunderstorm".
Really?
He really hasn't a clue, has he?
Really?
He really hasn't a clue, has he?
You guys have beaten me to it - I'm about to write to the Australian (for what it's worth) about the guff spouted by someone named Anthony Khan who quotes Thomas as an aviation expert in an article which is as full of factual errors and uninformed speculation as it is empty of journalistic integrity.
His aviation experience is as a punter and as a bag chucker for MMA based in Carnarvon. I'm sure he's seen the inside of the Chairmans lounge a few times too!
You can contact him personally if you wish. He is on Facepprune
You can contact him personally if you wish. He is on Facepprune
Arm out the window:
I emailed Anthony Klan twice, immediately after reading his Friday & Saturday articles, commenting on how misleading and just plain wrong they were - of course I've had no response.
Give it a go - you'll feel better!
PM sent.
I emailed Anthony Klan twice, immediately after reading his Friday & Saturday articles, commenting on how misleading and just plain wrong they were - of course I've had no response.
Give it a go - you'll feel better!
PM sent.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Australian is owned by Rupert Murdoch, along with the "thinking mans paper", the Telegraph in Sydney.
The thinking mans paper is pathetic and The Australian is so blatantly the Liberal Party newsletter.
The owner is the same scumbag who got busted for tapping the mobile phone of a murdered school girl in the UK and her parents then believed she was still alive because her phone was being accessed.
If you actually expect honesty and integrity in any media this low life owns, then you are a bit naive. If you a customer and follow it up with his Fox News or Sky News, then you don't know any better, I suppose?
The thinking mans paper is pathetic and The Australian is so blatantly the Liberal Party newsletter.
The owner is the same scumbag who got busted for tapping the mobile phone of a murdered school girl in the UK and her parents then believed she was still alive because her phone was being accessed.
If you actually expect honesty and integrity in any media this low life owns, then you are a bit naive. If you a customer and follow it up with his Fox News or Sky News, then you don't know any better, I suppose?
I don't really expect anything much from them, but will punch off a letter to the editor anyway - seems like the aviation section of the Aussie shuts down for a few weeks over Christmas so they've lassoed someone without too many clues on the subject to fill up half a page.
Journos like to talk about integrity; maybe someone in the organisation cares a little bit anyway.
Journos like to talk about integrity; maybe someone in the organisation cares a little bit anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wheelyubarrabackcreek
Age: 55
Posts: 36
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boney
And on the other side of the coin we have our favourite aunty, the Labor/Green partisan production company, the ABC.
The difference is a consumer can decide to spend and buy the Australian, the ABC doesn't give me that choice, they use my taxes to fully fund it.
The difference is a consumer can decide to spend and buy the Australian, the ABC doesn't give me that choice, they use my taxes to fully fund it.
The difference is a consumer can decide to spend and buy the Australian, the ABC doesn't give me that choice, they use my taxes to fully fund it.
In terms of aviation, look at which news websites demonise pilots as overpaid and lazy, because they only "work" 100hrs a month? Which news websites publish the "we were seconds from death" hype articles? Which sites are running random speculation stories about the Airasia accident (What happened to AirAsia Flight QZ8501: Seven theories)?
If you think the ABC is to biased (I believe it's a far sight ahead of News Corp in quality) I'll leave you with the words of the great Stephen Colbert: Reality has a well known liberal bias
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: over the rainbow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Mate, look at how much the various worldwide News Limited papers/TV shows/websites openly are in favour of right wing conservatives." You mean like the Courier Mail?
Let's not get too specific though, in the big scheme of things. Every media outlet today, be it the evening news, the daily newspaper or the local radio news thrives on sensationalism. If they can't make Joe Bloggs stop and watch/listen with bullsh!t headlines and even more horrid reporting, then it isn't worth reporting.
The sad part is a large proportion of posters on sites like these are just as bad, if not worse than the journalists of today. The first few pages of an aircraft accident thread helps to prove that.
The sad part is a large proportion of posters on sites like these are just as bad, if not worse than the journalists of today. The first few pages of an aircraft accident thread helps to prove that.
Letters to Anthony Klan
For the sake of completeness, here are the emails I sent to "The Australian" about Anthony Klan's articles on Friday and Saturday. I'm not saying they're even close to perfect; I was a little steamed up at the time. I used my real name on the emails, changed to "D-9" here.
I ignored all the other tripe that's been published (e.g. Neil Hansford claiming that they shouldn't have planned that route; aircraft caught in updrafts will stall etc etc) and merely concentrated on GT's ravings.
The strong implication in one article was that Rockwell-Collins developed the multi-scan radar solely at the behest of Qantas - I really struggle to accept this! Can this be possibly true, or is GT re-transmitting more Qantas propaganda?
Friday:-
Dear Mr Klan,
Re: “Storm-tracking radar missing from doomed AirAsia flight” (The Australian, Friday January 2nd).
At best, this is an extremely misleading (and demonstrably false) title. They HAD a weather radar! The article mainly seems to comprise the regurgitated opinions of one Geoffrey Thomas. As far as I know, Mr Thomas has no piloting or engineering qualifications, nor has he ever attended an Air Safety Investigation course, yet he is always ready with an opinion which is invariably greeted with groans from the professional aviation community. You chose to publish his illogical theory that “the failure of AirAsia to be fitted with multi-scan radar likely contributed to Sunday’s crash...”.
I’m not for a moment defending AirAsia, but his comment is utter rubbish.
The only area in which “multi-scan” radar differs from earlier, and far more common, airborne radars is that a computer calculates the altitude of storm build ups, rather than the crew having to guesstimate this using the tilt control. Your quote attributed to Qantas that this radar “...gave pilots a better digital picture of the height of storms...” is absolutely correct – and that’s main difference. How you can then move from this fact to saying that this absence contributed to the AirAsia accident? What Mr Thomas doesn’t seem to realize is the build-ups within the Intertropical Convergence Zone (as existed over the Java Sea) inevitably have tops well above the capability of any airliner (perhaps not Concorde), so that assessing if you could fly over the storms is irrelevant; you cannot “top” them anyway and have to pick your way around them.
These “multi-scan” radars are relatively new; the vast majority of the world’s airline fleet fly safely with the earlier manually tilted (and perfectly adequate) radar. If Mr Thomas was correct, wouldn’t we read about these airliners being spat out of thunderstorms on a daily basis?
I would also challenge the statement that “...multi-scan radars detect ice and hail” – radars detect raindrops, not hail (unless you’re very close). And, other than hail, there’s no ice present in thunderstorms, only rain that might freeze on the airframe.
Thank you for reading this,
regards,
"Dora-9"
(A retired airline pilot).
Saturday:-
Re: “Storm detector might have saved doomed AirAsia flight”, The Australian, January 3-4.
Can you put up with me again, Anthony?
As I explained (hopefully) in my email last night, I fail to see how a “multi-scan” radar would have made any difference to this flight's fate.
In your fifth paragraph, you state that “storm-related accidents have plummeted since the 60’s...” - an interesting choice of words, by the way! It indicates that earlier, manually tilted, radars have well and truly done their job, so how you can say that a “multi-scan” radar would have saved this day is baffling. The big difference is that the newer radar makes assessing the height of the clouds easier - even your diagram shows a cell topping out at over 40,000 feet, so any possibility of overflying was highly unlikely!
“...some experts believe may have contributed to the accident.” Apart from Mr Thomas, in no way, other than in his self promotion, an expert – who else claims this? It’s flawed logic for him to state that not having a multi-scan radar contributed to this accident. Since getting above the storm wasn’t an option – the type of radar becomes irrelevant. I’ve canvassed half a dozen friends, all retired or current airline pilots with heaps of experience who have flown behind both types of radar (as I have) – none agreed with his statement.
Again, “Multi-scan radar” can only detect water droplets, not hail. It uses a computer programme to detect vertical movement in the droplets, which is LIKELY to indicate the presences of hail and turbulence (very strong updrafts/downdrafts form hail). There’s nothing new here; this technology was present in the Ansett B737-300’s that I flew over thirty years ago. The limitation was the short range (40 nautical miles), reading Rockwell-Collins’ material this limitation still applies (40 miles travelling at 400 – 500 knots is very close indeed). Note carefully what Rockwell-Collins state in your 14th paragraph – they only talk about detecting raindrops. And they make the thing, so they should know!
Then we have Mr Thomas’s quote: “An aeroplane cannot fly through a thunderstorm”. This opinion is so demonstrably incorrect to make me wonder about how little he really knows about aircraft operations. Aeroplanes DO penetrate storms. Leaving aside deliberate penetrations (weather research etc), there have been many inadvertent storm penetrations over the years. They usually result a truly violent ride, frightening the hell out of the passengers (and crew). Unpleasant, decidedly unsafe, but it certainly does happen. No sane person would deliberately do this, but I repeat – despite Mr Thomas' pontifications - it does happen.
Cheers Anthony,
Dora-9.
I ignored all the other tripe that's been published (e.g. Neil Hansford claiming that they shouldn't have planned that route; aircraft caught in updrafts will stall etc etc) and merely concentrated on GT's ravings.
The strong implication in one article was that Rockwell-Collins developed the multi-scan radar solely at the behest of Qantas - I really struggle to accept this! Can this be possibly true, or is GT re-transmitting more Qantas propaganda?
Friday:-
Dear Mr Klan,
Re: “Storm-tracking radar missing from doomed AirAsia flight” (The Australian, Friday January 2nd).
At best, this is an extremely misleading (and demonstrably false) title. They HAD a weather radar! The article mainly seems to comprise the regurgitated opinions of one Geoffrey Thomas. As far as I know, Mr Thomas has no piloting or engineering qualifications, nor has he ever attended an Air Safety Investigation course, yet he is always ready with an opinion which is invariably greeted with groans from the professional aviation community. You chose to publish his illogical theory that “the failure of AirAsia to be fitted with multi-scan radar likely contributed to Sunday’s crash...”.
I’m not for a moment defending AirAsia, but his comment is utter rubbish.
The only area in which “multi-scan” radar differs from earlier, and far more common, airborne radars is that a computer calculates the altitude of storm build ups, rather than the crew having to guesstimate this using the tilt control. Your quote attributed to Qantas that this radar “...gave pilots a better digital picture of the height of storms...” is absolutely correct – and that’s main difference. How you can then move from this fact to saying that this absence contributed to the AirAsia accident? What Mr Thomas doesn’t seem to realize is the build-ups within the Intertropical Convergence Zone (as existed over the Java Sea) inevitably have tops well above the capability of any airliner (perhaps not Concorde), so that assessing if you could fly over the storms is irrelevant; you cannot “top” them anyway and have to pick your way around them.
These “multi-scan” radars are relatively new; the vast majority of the world’s airline fleet fly safely with the earlier manually tilted (and perfectly adequate) radar. If Mr Thomas was correct, wouldn’t we read about these airliners being spat out of thunderstorms on a daily basis?
I would also challenge the statement that “...multi-scan radars detect ice and hail” – radars detect raindrops, not hail (unless you’re very close). And, other than hail, there’s no ice present in thunderstorms, only rain that might freeze on the airframe.
Thank you for reading this,
regards,
"Dora-9"
(A retired airline pilot).
Saturday:-
Re: “Storm detector might have saved doomed AirAsia flight”, The Australian, January 3-4.
Can you put up with me again, Anthony?
As I explained (hopefully) in my email last night, I fail to see how a “multi-scan” radar would have made any difference to this flight's fate.
In your fifth paragraph, you state that “storm-related accidents have plummeted since the 60’s...” - an interesting choice of words, by the way! It indicates that earlier, manually tilted, radars have well and truly done their job, so how you can say that a “multi-scan” radar would have saved this day is baffling. The big difference is that the newer radar makes assessing the height of the clouds easier - even your diagram shows a cell topping out at over 40,000 feet, so any possibility of overflying was highly unlikely!
“...some experts believe may have contributed to the accident.” Apart from Mr Thomas, in no way, other than in his self promotion, an expert – who else claims this? It’s flawed logic for him to state that not having a multi-scan radar contributed to this accident. Since getting above the storm wasn’t an option – the type of radar becomes irrelevant. I’ve canvassed half a dozen friends, all retired or current airline pilots with heaps of experience who have flown behind both types of radar (as I have) – none agreed with his statement.
Again, “Multi-scan radar” can only detect water droplets, not hail. It uses a computer programme to detect vertical movement in the droplets, which is LIKELY to indicate the presences of hail and turbulence (very strong updrafts/downdrafts form hail). There’s nothing new here; this technology was present in the Ansett B737-300’s that I flew over thirty years ago. The limitation was the short range (40 nautical miles), reading Rockwell-Collins’ material this limitation still applies (40 miles travelling at 400 – 500 knots is very close indeed). Note carefully what Rockwell-Collins state in your 14th paragraph – they only talk about detecting raindrops. And they make the thing, so they should know!
Then we have Mr Thomas’s quote: “An aeroplane cannot fly through a thunderstorm”. This opinion is so demonstrably incorrect to make me wonder about how little he really knows about aircraft operations. Aeroplanes DO penetrate storms. Leaving aside deliberate penetrations (weather research etc), there have been many inadvertent storm penetrations over the years. They usually result a truly violent ride, frightening the hell out of the passengers (and crew). Unpleasant, decidedly unsafe, but it certainly does happen. No sane person would deliberately do this, but I repeat – despite Mr Thomas' pontifications - it does happen.
Cheers Anthony,
Dora-9.
Perhaps a complaint to the press council?
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,966
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
Perhaps a complaint to the press council?
Dora-9; Thank you for making known the content of your e-mails.
It will be interesting to see if Mr Klan writes any correction articles.
I won't hold my breath though.