Chocks away, add A330 to your list of aeroplanes that can respond to a RA on autopilot.

Certainly the new ones can.

My recollection of "Flightpaths" was that it was a promotional publication commissioned, paid for and distributed by Qantas with GT as its author. It was such an outstanding piece of writing that Qantas gave each employee a copy of it because they knew no one was going to fork out money for it. I also note that it hasn't been updated as it was printed in the heady days of the post-Ansett collapse and the brave new world of Jetstar was evolving. I think my copy went the way of all those glossy QF annual reports. It would be far better if the media just referred to him as an aviation journalist and called on someone like Owen Zupp if they want an aviation professional.

Sorry FGD, I tried but it's a pay-to-view thing. As a guide, though, it was a bit like as if I'd tried to cobble up a story on any specialised field from Wikipedia entries ... I could probably do something that looked OK to the casual observer, but it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny by those in the know.

I understand these guys are just doing a job, but I agree with the sentiments of previous posters who are saying it's not an excuse that you have to get attention-grabbing copy out for your expectant masters - I want my journos to put at least a reasonably rigorous effort into fact-checking.

Silly, I know, in this day and age of the sound bite, but it annoys me when something put up in a medium purporting to be an authoritative source, i.e. a major national newspaper, reads as shabbily as this particular article did.

If the whip-cracking editors just wanted something on the page that looked vaguely right from a distance, well, that's what they got in this case.

Let me start by acknowledging George Carlin; “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
With that said, here goes anyway....

Mate, and yes that is meant as a put down in case your handle on sarcasm, is as poor as that of the English language. Despite the bolding, I refer to the first point in my previous post. Your ability to highlight parts of my sentence, don't make it less valid or true. I will state it again clearly. (I would bold it, but don't know how) "I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media."

Really? I supplied a video showing not only GT's poor understanding of heavy jet operations, his stating as FACT things that we may never know even happened, and his atrociously presented and written 'script'. Watch the first 30 seconds and see what an amateur job he does, even by that point. Has he not heard heard of 'cut, let's try that bit again'?

Yet, you didn't even watch it to find out for yourself? Have you taken tips from GT? Don't even study the video, yet feel superior enough to comment on it with authority.

A messenger doesn't instinctively mean they have to be wrong. A messenger can in fact be knowledgable on the subject. He isn't forced to deliver the message, he CHOOSES to! He therefore has no reason to be under-prepared.


Oh the ones that YOU THINK mean that facts don't count, as long as he only speaks for a few seconds? Mate (yes, again) the presenters aren't even listening half the time, they are thinking of their next question. GT has to fill a certain time, FACTS don't take any longer than misinformation to spruke. The presenters might actually learn something if he spoke about FACTS.

Try this at home: "I can not breath underwater without breathing apparatus."
"People have been known to breath underwater regularly."
About the same time for each would you say?? One is true, one isn't. (Hint, the first one is wrong).

Exactly, therefore he would be very well aware that he had no justification to say 'Absolutely!'

I call BS on this. A media trained person will control the interview and own the message. If in fact he was an expert with expert knowledge, he wouldn't have to grapple with info he didn't really understand. He would know what was true or not, and what he needed to say to convey the message.


Really, then where is the EVIDENCE? I'm pretty sure that when that debris was classified as general Flotsam, he was proven wrong.

Partly, because words matter. Facts matter.
"There was movement at the satiation for the word had passed around, that the colt from Old Regret had got away".

"There was movement at the satiation for the word had got around, that the colt from Old Regret had passed away".

One or two words poorly used, change the ENTIRE meaning. (The first one is the correct one, just in case you were wondering).

What he said was a half truth that could easily have been rectified, or if he actually was fully on top of the subject, not used at all.
The other thing that irks me about this is that you see nothing wrong with describing things incorrectly...



Mate (sorry, I can't help myself), I have done many many interviews, ranging from extended segments for TV shows, to newspaper articles, to TV news interviews, to extended (>30 minute) live radio interviews. On EVERY one, I was prepared because I knew what I was talking about. People make mistakes, but a FUNDAMENTAL one like saying that 'out climbing a TS' was 'absolutely the right thing to do' is reprehensible. This is my point. If GT was in fact an expert, such a basic mistake would not have been made, no matter what 'pressure' he was under. Another example why I don't believe GT is up to the job.

So you are advocating making stuff up, just to stay on the Telly? Have you heard of credibility? This is another reason that many in the 'aviation fraternity' are so annoyed by this guy. He purports to speak on 'our behalf' but everyone of us would tell the the TRUTH "we just don't know ... we must wait for the completion of the investigation and publication of the final report" seems like a pretty good response to me.


Unfortunately, if you don't bother to even watch or read the examples I have provided, and look at them with an open mind, then nothing will convince you.

George Carlin, please forgive me.

Copied that Snakecharma :ok:

Good post Kharon... a small reflection on society now I guess.

FGD, I understood exactly what you said, hence my reply. Please re-read (with out bolds :p).

Enough said.

Happy Landings:ok:

allthecoolnamesarego:

Fabulous posting, though I'm wondering if FGD = GT.

That thought had crossed my mind, too.

Well said FGD. There are plenty trying to shoot you down, bit like seagulls fighting over a chip. We all know who GT is but some on here "Allthecool...etc" are almost bragging about how good they've been with the media..ok, so who are you so that we can draw a comparison or gauge your credibility, and if you're that good why aren't the media using you. Maybe GT just has that audience appeal that you don't. Doesn't matter what you say, GT is recognized by the media, in all it's forms, as an EXPERT! BTW, I'm not him either but the vitriol coming from some posters is particularly nasty. Talk about playing the man and not the ball. Old Goon heh Chocks Away? There but for the grace of god go you....mate!!!

I should stop, really I should.....

P51D. Why don't you just stay logged in as FGD? It would save time when posting.

You seem to have similar comprehension problems to FGD.
The BALL is the MAN, or the MAN is the BALL in this case. We are discussing the 'expertise' or otherwise of an individual. It is pretty hard to discuss that, WITHOUT discussing knowledge, presentation techniques, background, personality etc.
If someone is a dill, then where is the problem with saying that? It is a shame when it gets a bit close to home, that we need to hide behind 'play the ball not the man'.

As for my media stuff, here is a link..... Hold one, that would give away my identity! You almost had me! I am no media Guru, but as I said previously, I always told it how it is/was, without the need to make it up on the spot.

I don't do media stuff now, because I have no need to and because the media is a whore who will use your time, expertise and effort for it's own reward. I have seen enough to know that my time could be better spent doing things I enjoy.

Coolnames

Statistically 50% of the Australian voting public are ... idiots. Somebody has to cater for their needs. (insert political party of your choice at ellipse).

Note to the media: Definitions of expert and reporter?
 

IMO, an expert is someone who has achieved a distinction of high level professionalism in a particular area. Airline captains, senior maintenance engineers, people with degrees and senior experience in management and economics, etc.

Unfortunately, while many areas of science engineering, and economics require a high level of education and training to be an expert, safety (like education) is something that everyone thinks they are an expert in, because of their personal experience in having avoided accidents through "superb" personal driving skills (for example). In addition, attending a 2 day (no fail) short course or reading a parody of Reasons' "Swiss cheese" model, does not of itself qualify a person as an expert.

Reporters are those that report on events, interview witnesses, and relay what experts say and think. They should not pretend to be experts.

There are some excellent reporters (e.g. Matt Brown from the ABC), but there are a lot of reporters who haven't the background to understand, or can't be bothered to understand the intricacies of complex matters.

The brave new world has reporters that think they are experts because they once read a technical article, or spoke to an expert, and reporters that interview other reporters (saves on travel costs, and actually precludes needing to attend events).

Unfortunately, GT appear to have no expertise whatsoever in aviation safety, so IMO he should stick to REPORTING, not presenting judgements and opinions as an expert.

(For those with a sense of irony, I should say that I am not, however, an expert on the definitions of what constitutes either an expert or a reporter!).

The weekend Aus article by AK used most text space writing about what reporter GT thinks, with smaller comments reported from real experts, and with Nathan Safe getting only a small para quote at the end. This article is IMO a classic example of how not to write an article about aviation safety!

Oh well, maybe the media, editor of the Aus, AK and GT will read this, but probably not.

Seabreeze

P51D, FGD135 and FoxtrotAlpha18 = GT?

Nothing would surprise me less!

Excellent post Seabreeze but I suspect that most of the 'reporters' to whom your post would apply would take little if any notice of your comments, simply because their ego would not permit it!:ugh:

I once told a reporter that it was her job to tell us what happened but it was not given to the likes of them to try to tell us what to think, or offer opinions. Just report the facts.:=

It didn't go down too well, judging from her facial expression!

M-dot - totally wrong, wouldn't know FGD if I fell over him, or her. I know GT and know he's very well connected right across the industry. To "Allthecool names etc" no link, don't disbelieve you, done a bit myself, but avoid it like the plague. You guys have to stop beating yourselves up over GT, he's got an ego you can't jump over but the media and public have fed him to be like that. FGD was just trying to offer a different view and was set upon with him and me being branded as dopes....really, give me and him a break!

Indeed, Pinky. :O

The media is supposed to REPORT the news, not create it.

That appears to not be happening in the case of one particular 'reporter'.

allthecoolnamesarego,


You and one other in this thread have let slip that you feel GT is somehow "one of us", or is "representing" us. You said:


I don't see how you can say that. He is not one of us, and does not represent us. He does not speak "on our behalf".


Perhaps if you could recognise this, you wouldn't be so bothered by his statements and appearances?


GT the writer comes across very differently to GT the TV "aviation expert". This would be entirely due to the different constraints between these two forms of media.


GT the TV personality is entirely the creation of the media. He is exactly how his media masters want him to be. We know this because they continue to ask him to appear.


For the TV appearances, you must remember that entertainment is first and foremost. Factual accuracy comes second. The TV stations just want somebody that sounds like they know what they are talking about and can explain, in everyday speak, why planes crash. GT carries this off perfectly.


If the above comes as a surprise to you, then you don't understand the nature of commercial media to the extent that you claim.


If GT was hit by a bus tomorrow, the media would soon find someone else, but they would sound exactly like GT. Your gripe should not be with GT, but with the producers of the TV shows frequented by GT. But if you were to complain to them, they would just say they were "giving the audience what it wanted"!


About that "wreckage" that GT described as "absolutely" coming from an aircraft. On the question of knowing whether something was true or not, you said:


Really? Nobody else in this world has that power. Why would you expect him to?


You also said:
So they recovered ALL the debris that was seen by the satellites did they? I think you will find that only a tiny, tiny percentage was recovered.



I am not GT. I have also been accused of being Geoff Dixon (former Qantas CEO) at one time!

If the GT haters are prepared to risk becoming physically ill, then have a read of 'NAPC Awards' in the current 'Australian Aviation' magazine..


That was quite a 'knees up'!

Hey Pinky,

"Just the FACTS Man / M'aam..... nuthin' but the FACTS'......

IS GOOD!!!

Cheerrsss :ok:

FGD,

What's that old saying? Never post on the internet after a few reds... Even then, I think I can still point holes in your argument; that, plus I sense a change in tone....

FGD, The use of quotations is often a form of sarcasm or a way of saying that something isn't quite right. I certainly meant it in this manner. I don't believe for a second GT is 'one of us', so I apologise to you for the misunderstanding. I will endeavour to be clearer in the future.

I've covered this point enough I think, so will let you re read my posts on this. Facts don't know the difference between print and TV.

Maybe for shows like 'The Bachelor' or 'The Block' or 'Hey Hey a It's Saturday'. However the news is a little different. If GT was building a new kitchen in less that 3 days, perhaps I could agree.....

You know there doesn't have to be a difference between someone who "sounds like they know what they are talking about" and someone "who knows what they are talking about".
I'll let you ponder that for a while. Ask a grown up if you are having trouble with this concept.

You were almost clever for a second then, however, I remembered that the two quotes you posted there were from two DIFFERENT answers! You almost got through my 'red wine filter'.

So without being there to confirm, of course he would know that 'absolutely' was the wrong word to use.

The second part about knowing 'what was true or not', was from this exchange:

Can you see what I am saying? If you know your stuff, you don't need to make things up because he would know what is true/feasible/realistic and be able to talk about it with authority.

As an example of knowing what is true or not, He would not tell an interviewer that out climbing a TS was 'absolutely the right thing to do"

Some of us have studied things like Aerody and Physics, so I think that your claim "Nobody else in this world has that power" is a little strange. Many humans have the ability to know what is true and what is not.

As someone with a SAR background, I can categorically tell you that anything that *might* be of interest will be investigated. I can assume (feel free to have a go at me for assuming) that people with great skill in deciphering SAT images, have been sufficiently convinced that the flotsam in the photos *does not* (I can't bold but like your use of asterisk- thanks!) belong to an aircraft. Given the HIGH PROFILE of this accident, I can be doubly sure of that.

I applaud you on your persistence, and as General Melchett says: "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."

Coolnames

Here is GT's latest effort

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa...r-fly-airasia/

And normally drinking the corporate coolaid in the chairmans lounge.

Check out this piece of brilliance!!!!!! :mad:

One of my favorite comments is "don't forget the park brake" alluding to the 777 sim takeoff - with it on. :ok::ugh::mad:

More utter tripe from GT.

He doesn't travel Air Asia, because he travels Qantas - probably in return for sickenly pro-Qantas articles such as this.

And yet, the guy takes every opportunity to blame overpaid technical staff at Qantas (like engineers) for the down fall of the airline (ie his fictional $300m claims back in 2011).

Which is it, GT?

Do you want the best paid, safest staff to be responsible for your life (as this latest article suggests)?

Or do you want to continue selling the management line that overpaid Qantas staff are responsible for the airline's financial demise?

It seems you want high paid Australian Qantas staff driving your aircraft, but you want it maintained overseas by foreigners on a budget.

Twats
 

The similarities between GT and FGD are uncanny!
Both like to write utter bull****. Both are conceited. Both display a lack of real aviation knowledge. Both express themselves by using long drawn out analogies and assumptions about........nothing!

FGD if you aren't GT then you should move to Perth and marry him because you are both a perfect match :ok:

Both, Slippery_Pete, and that should not only be obvious, but really easy to understand.

When speaking from the point of view of a Qantas passenger, he would say that he likes the idea of his pilots being the best paid in the world. Who wouldn't?

When reporting on the ails of Qantas, he will say it is because their costs are way higher than their competitors - which is exactly the situation, so he is telling it exactly like it is.

You seem to think that he can't say both of these things - but that is the logic of a child. Of course he can say both!

You seem to think that because he is of the view that Qantas must cut its costs, he personally *wants* the aircraft to be maintained overseas.

If you could ask him where he would prefer the aircraft to be maintained, from the Qantas passenger's point of view, he would say Australia. And who wouldn't?


allthecoolnamesarego, that is probably true on the planet where you live, but on this planet, where we have GT, the news has to be entertaining. You are just not grasping this reality. The aviation expert, whoever he is, just cannot give the "we don't know ... we will have to wait for the final report" answers. If he does, he will not be invited back and will cease to be labelled an "expert". This is true not just of commercial TV but ABC and SBS as well!

Sure, but where is that person of the latter category? Why aren't we seeing him on the telly instead of GT? He has had years now to come forward and supplant GT. I wonder where he is?

How do you know that the SAR expert he was speaking to, just prior to going on air, didn't use the word "absolutely"? You think he should only use "absolutely" if he personally was in the ocean, inspecting the debris? That is ridiculous.

Well you are categorically speaking rubbish then - because there can be an enormous, enormous cost involved. A cost so enormous that it is just not practical to retrieve 100% of the satellite-observed debris so as to investigate it all. I will cut you some slack on this statement as you did admit to having a few reds!

On my planet, I'd like the news to be factual and well-informed.

You seem to be saying (repeatedly) that you/Geoffrey need to spout ill-informed speculative nonsense in return for recognition and monetary reward, and that this is quite ok. Maybe it is, but let's not dignify it with the term "expert".

Narcissists thrive on publicity. Good or bad, it's all publicity and this thread is giving the afflicted more oxygen than they deserve.


Never argue with fools, you may educate them. An educated fool with an opinion is more dangerous than one that is easily seen as just a fool. To think some media mob would pay for these opinions says more about that media outlet than the fool.

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/complaint-form/

Here is the link to make an online complaint at the press council.

Multiple complaints have more gravitas than one offs.


Mickjoebill

Imagine complaining to them about a view expressed by Oprah Winfrey. If your complaint is about something GT said on a TV show (including the nightly news), then that is how they will regard your complaint.


But if about something he said in a newspaper, then they will look more closely. In this case, the first thing they will consider is whether the article is "news" or opinion.


I believe GT contributes opinion (aka "commentary") only, so this licences him to say whatever he likes and speculate as much as he likes.


I believe that any complaint to the Press Council would be a complete waste of time.


Why aren't you targeting the producers of the TV shows he appears on? GT is just the messenger. It is the producers that like his message and insist on bringing it to us.

On the issue of the nightly TV news shows being more oriented towards "entertainment", I found the following article, about TV news in the USA but still highly relevant here:

Whatever Happened to the News? | Center for Media Literacy


Some quotes from it:

Quote:

---

News has always mixed the serious and the entertaining. The tension between journalism and commercialism goes back long before television, but it is felt with special intensity in television news today.

---

Quote:

---

In the 1970s and '80s, however, the barrier between news and entertainment has been increasingly eroded.

---

Quote:

---

It was the local stations that first discovered, late in the 1960s, that news could make money– lots of money. By the end of the '70s, news was frequently producing 60 percent of a station's profits. With numbers like that, news was much "too important" to leave to journalists, and a heavily entertainment-oriented form of programming began to evolve.

---

And this, about shows like "Today Tonight" and "A Current Affair", where we often see GT:

Quote:

---

They are not news shows that borrow conventions from entertainment television, but the other way around: entertainment programs that borrow the aura of news. The forms and the "look" are news– the opening sequences frequently feature typewriter keys and newsroom-like sets with monitors in the background. The content, however, has little of the substance of journalism;

---

IBut not if opinion is presented as fact or when facts are innacurate.
Here are the relevant principles from press council:
The news brodaster has a duty to flag its content as opinion, speculation or fact. Reporting should be balanced. Viewers should be made aware of a contributor's vested interest. Broadcasters have to take take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness.

You can complain about a point of view if it in context of the broadcast, challenges the above guidelines. The complaint isnt toward the contributor it is to those who publish or broadcast.

Oprah can state a personal view on whatever she likes as she is not presented as being a specialist.

From the press council;

A complaint to press complaints detailing the publisher or broadcaster does just that.

By the way, Australia has uniform libel and slander laws, under the umbrella of defamation.
If one is directly defamed by a contributor then action can be taken by that person or entity. So if a commentator's view, regardless if they are expert or not, is that an individual or group were wreckless or incompetent then such comment can be challenged in court.
This is rare as retractions usually are suffice in correcting non maliscous defamation.


Mickjoebill

mickjoebill,


The Australian Press Council is not interested in what happens on TV. See this page:


What we do - Australian Press Council


A quote from it:

He has spouted similar incorrect facts on both printed and visual media. Perhaps put him in the starters box with Media Watch to see if he gets a run?

FDG135 it is precisely what I quoted in my post!
The council generally only looks into companies from its members (which does not include ABC) but it may be worth a try as most ABC TV news programs are online.


Whilst we are on the subject, complaints can be made about a Journalist's ethics to the local guild or union if he or she is a member.
In Australia the journo union is the MEAA.

Here is their code of ethics. http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-e...ow-to-complain



Mickjoebill

What about writing to media watch?

Back to another query I made earlier - in one of the offending articles it's claimed that Qantas were solely responsible for getting Rockwell-Collins to develop the multi-scan radar. It's an unattributed line, but it sounds a lot like a GT usual "Qantas is wonderful" line.

Is this correct?

You mean there are still people left who watch/read/listen to commercial media and expect facts to be reported and opinions to be expressed by real experts in the field of the matter being reported?

I hope the trauma counsellors are on hand when they find out about Santa Claus. :uhoh:

For complaints about television media, you contact ACMA

ACMA: Home
Home | ACMA


Kaz

Wow, it just blows my mind how such a small minded bunch of pseudo elite whingers can get their panties twisted into such a knot!


I myself find it hard to get to sleep some nights... lying awake thinking about the misunderstandings that the media, the public, the government, management, journalists, hot girls down the pub and even bogans who subscribe to The Australian perceive our ancient and precious profession.


Who cares?


You are all just jealous that 'GT' has made a buck doing what he does.. good on him.


He's not there to provide specific, expert commentary on the exact technical nature of every aspect of our complicated jobs that only we, as professional aviators with years and years of training, study, experience, ego and knowledge will ever understand.


Only a Surgeon at their highest level of expertise and qualifications would ever understand the woes that airline pilots endure at having their profession degraded to such an extent by such amateur journalists...


Toughen up princesses, you all sound like a bunch of stuck up whining schoolgirls.. "contact media watch or the press council...??"

Please...

I hope that I don't ever have the misfortune of flying with some of you pansies, "Oh Oh there's a bit of cloud up ahead request 50 miles right of route before I wet my knickers, and by the way lets get onto the press council about that monster GT.." you all need a bit of harden the you know what up.

Poor Chopper would be turning in his grave. :ok:

Touché.

As someone who has sat on both sides of the fence, the level of ignorance displayed on these boards about how the media works is astounding.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say the majority of people posting here understand the media industry even less than the mainstream media understands aviation.

The biggest difference is the fact that the only people reading this are a bunch of bored pilots and plane-spotters, whereas someone like GT probably has a readership of tens, if not hundreds of thousands each time he writes an article.

The general public doesn't even know pprune exists.

Yet you all rely on the media for your source of local and world events each day, don't you? Or do you all have crystal balls?

Because many of you don't have real balls, that's for sure.

If none of you are prepared to put your money where your collective mouths are - to step up and nurture contacts with journos so you can be Johnny-on-the-spot when the need arises (and most importantly, put your real name and credentials on the record) - then you're all just pissing in the wind.

Because no-one important is reading this.

So if you think you can do a better job, then do it. But don't complain about it if all you're going to do is sling arrows from the eaves and belittle others for their difference of opinion.

And the first person who accuses me of being GT is a bloody idiot. Journalism 101: do your research - baseless accusations will get you sued for defamation in the real world. Which - I dare say - is why some of you would never make it in journalism.

Professional Pilots Rumour Network indeed! Where the fark is the apostrophe? :rolleyes:

Hey "Allthecool..etc" you said this.. "P51D, why don't you just stay logged in as FGD? It would save time when posting". Totally wrong mate, c'mon, put up or shut up, you love beating up GT as to his media prowess or otherwise and bragging about how good you are, or have been - Prove it!!! You also appear to like belittling posters such as FGD (I have no idea who he/she is) and me, but getting personal says more about you than FGD or me. Irrespective of all that, this site continues to have posters who delight in tearing down well known people, particularly those who have a profile, and think they are more expert but stay behind the veil of a nickname. Anyway, a mate who knows GT tells me that GT is running out of space in his pool room for all the awards he's picked up for his aviation journalism.