Got it in one, Virtually There, I'd sue too if someone defamed me by calling me GT.

Compylot wrote:

But wait a minute last year he also wrote:

So which is it Compylot?

Do you think that an industry "expert" should at least have some relevant industry experience and perhaps a modicum of technical knowledge to which their title alludes, or are you just trying to raise your perceived online profile by claiming some moral high ground by way of a sanctimonious rant.

The latter.
He thinks he's one of the 'men'.
He's got a bit of growing up to do, I'm afraid.

Virtually there, a most appropriate username for an avid flight simmer. How's those bali fly ins going for you?

Just don't forget the park brake now :)

Without wishing to drift the thread, you can't really have a discussion about dodgy aviation enthusiasts trying to pass themselves off as "experts" without also giving a dishonourable mention to the aviation journalist with the appropriate initials B.S.

Given the nature of journalism these days B.S. Should be in the running for an OBE for "services to cutting and pasting" and passing other people's articles off as his own work.

He was harmless enough back when he was merely comparing inflight meals and seat pitch, but since the tragedies of AF447 and MH370, he now thinks that he has the prowess to explain aircraft systems to his eclectic mix of ignorant followers. Unfortunately his view of systems, airline procedures, aerodynamics etc as explained by him are based not on science or manuals, but on what seems right in his head. :rolleyes:

At least B.S tries to get it right. It's also opinion and a blog vs fact/news.

I thoroughly enjoy Ben Sandilands. He's one of the good guys.

These days virtually every one of his aviation stories is written in the tone of faux outrage. Try telling him that his take on how something works is technically wrong and he has an absolute meltdown about how you are standing in the way of his one man crusade and he won't be silenced, blah blah ignorant blah.

It's amazing that in over 40 years of aviation "journalism" he clearly hasn't been interested in actually picking up a manual or at least having a credible contact in the industry to verify the validity of his many innocuous rages.

psycho joe,


It is the media that refer to GT as an "expert" - not GT. I think you will find that GT considers himself a journalist, specialising in aviation.


It is the media that put the "expert" label on him. If more people here understood this there might be a bit more acceptance of him.

Congrats, Green Gobbler, you get today's "Bloody Idiot Award". :ok:

If you knew how to use the search function - which clearly you don't - you could very easily get an idea of who I am (and others posting here are) through post history.

But you're obviously not that clever, are you? Or perhaps you're just lazy and prefer to cast aspersions rather than back your claims with evidence.

Reds under the beds and GTs on the PCs - what else will the bored pruners think of? :rolleyes:

FGD

Clicking your heels together and repeatedly trotting out a line, wishing that it were true doesn't make it so.

GT is always careful to be conspicuously quiet about his credentials or the lack thereof. Call it lying by omission, most reputable interviewees will start with a brief overview of their credentials.

As in:

"Thanks koshie. As a former assistant to the manager who oversaw the committee who outsourced the decision to order glossy fax paper for the QANTAS head office, my opinion is blah blah blah."

Perhaps I was being a bit harsh. That wasn't a bad effort, TGG. :p

If you think anyone here doesn't believe FGD135 and GT aren't the same person, you've got rocks in your head. So parade around your empty pool room, holding all your trophies, and blaming the network for calling you an expert.

Anyway, back to the real world...

Recently some no-name website called airlineratings.com, decided to name Qantas as the world's safest airline.

World's Safest Airlines for 2015

Then, if you go to this link...

Airline Ratings

It shows Geoffrey Thomas as Editor-In-Chief of this Company.

If you then go to this link...

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...ill-never-fly-

It shows GT claiming Qantas is the safest airline in the world. He even refers to airlineratings.com (the very site where he happens to be chief editor) in his new article.

In the depths of the disclaimers of the airlineratings.com website, it also says about use of information by airlineratings.com and... Get this.... West Australian Newspapers (where he frequently appears).

What could be going on here?

There's a reason why some of us live the dream, and others write about those living the dream. Cleverness has everything to do with it.

You were not being harsh, you just didn't get it - straight away anyway :p

Oh, I got it. But being the combative arena that pprune is, my first reaction was obviously to jump on the defensive.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match, but suffice it to say, there's no rule in life that says you can't do both ;)

EDIT: For the record, I'm no great fan of GT. But I am a very firm believer in free speech. The sock-puppet game of "Spot the GT" is both disingenuous and tedious. The fact that many criticising the media about it's lack of aviation nous display a vast lack of reciprocal knowledge strikes me at the very least as ironic.

I found my copy of Flightpaths and it still had the letter from Geoff dixon telling us all what a wonderful book it was. I am still intrigued FGD, what about the book moved you to write:

From what I can tell it is mainly a large font airline history for dummies! If it is such a great tome then why hasn't it been updated and revised to include Qantas history from 2004 to the present? I particularly like the bit about Jetstar Asia having an enormous upside for Qantas! I also like in the bibliography the reference to "How airliners fly: A passengers guide.". Says it all really.

Over the years I have shot around 400 interviews for high end science documentaries including airline accidents.
It is a crying shame that GT is not an oracle of factual information the majority of the time. It is a privelaged position that is being squandered.

Rolling live news quickly makes the ill prepared look like a fool to the well informed on the given subject.
The challenge is to respond to a difficult complex or idiotic question.
Even live this is possible if you are prepared. The trick is to act like a politician and not be drawn and simply talk about something else!
But GTs tone is to dramatise and he appears eager to please regardless of the validity or relevance of the question.

Yesterday there was a high price paid by those who believe in the right of free speech. We should endevour to ensure that in exercising this right we are communicating honestly and accuratly, especially when discussing the cause of highly significant accidents that directly affect thousands of loved ones of innocent victims.

Mickjoebill

Geez, I should have sold tickets on TickeTek if I knew it would get this reaction :}

Full stop!

Well summed up, mickjoebill.
I have nothing more to add and can't see any use in continuing this thread after the preceding eloquent contribution.

Happy landings:ok:

Sigh. Another one with precious little appreciation of how the media works. I agree with the view of some earlier posters that "the media understands aviation way better than pilots understand the media"!


psycho joe,


If you appreciated the $ value of one second of air time on the morning shows such as Sunrise, you would realise that they would NEVER allow interviewees to give a "brief overview of their credentials".


But it has never been that way anyway. For ALL shows - commercial or otherwise, it is ALWAYS the interviewer that does the introduction. For the really slick introductions, they will say 2-5 words, but put a caption along the bottom of the screen (e.g "Aviation Expert") when the expert is on screen.


This is how it is done. The "expert" does NOT get a say on how the introduction is done. With your blinkered view of the world however, you choose to interpret this as GT "lying by omission". Take a look at Lateline or any other show that has "guests" - even chat shows. To you, all those guests must be liars!


But he is not there for the benefit of the well informed! Is that not blindingly obvious? How many times do I have to say this?

A fair point. Many would suggest that the nature of his 'analysis' is such that it doesn't benefit the ill-informed, either.

You ignored my post completely, Geoffrey (FGD135).

Is GT selling stories to Yahoo7 indicating that Qantas is the world's safest airline, and using the website "airlineratings.com" (of which he may have deep interests) as the "factual basis" for said statements?

Does GT perhaps own "airlineratings.com"?

I'm interested in knowing where everyone's interests lie.

Pete,
I too noted, with interest, that your post#92 was ignored.
Interesting.

airlineratings.com is owned by The West Newspaper

Registrant Name: Nick Sertis
Registrant Organization: West Australian Newspapers Ltd
Registrant Street: 50 Hasler Road
Registrant City: Osborne Park
Registrant State/Province: WA
Registrant Postal Code: 6017
Registrant Country: AU
Registrant Phone: +61.894823386
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: Email Masking [email protected]

The West Australian also owns Aerospace Technical Publication International P/L who also printed Qantas Flightpaths which is still held up as an example of why FGD135 has an "enormous respect for the man". Can you give me some guidance FGD as to what you found so awe inspiring in the publication?

As a consequence of the unholy link described by Hasherucf, the West Australian carries page after page of GT tosh - far more than most of you guys on the East Coast see (unless you are crazy enough to seek it out online). I suppose you could look on GT as WA's revenge on the wicked East; fix up the GST and we'll take him back. (There you go..I'm practically a local now).

I don't buy the West myself, it being distinguished in my memory as the foul organ that front-page serialized a woman's death and subsequent legal proceedings for the entertainment of the masses. However, colleagues often shove the GT stuff my way, invariably with a shake of the head.

I've found the thread interesting and, noting that most journos are lazy buggers who enjoy feeding on each other, I reckon the idea of an alternative source of higher grade, pre-written tosh is a good one. As a complement, the Media Watch encouragement is also good. Forget the legalities of the Press Council etc and go for good old-fashioned public derision.

Thankyou stanwell. It is bizarre.

What is also bizarre, is that this webpage

Geoffrey Thomas | LinkedIn

lists GT as FOUNDER of airlineratings.com

It's all very interesting.

.
.
.

And that above, is the sound of the continued silence from FGD on this matter.

Hmm, "Aviation Professional", eh?
I'll have to tell my mate down the road - who spent a month or two as a bag-chucker, that he was an "Aviation Professional".

I read that post #92, but couldn't see anything to get excited about - Ppruners jumping at shadows is something that happens every day.


Any website can do any study or analysis on anything it likes. Any journalist can then write about the findings. Any news outlet is free to buy the story from the journalist and publish it. What's the big deal?


If GT was the journalist, then the outlet doing the publishing probably should mention the link between the journalist and the website. Was said mention made?

The big deal, GT, is that Qantas MAY or MAY NOT be the safest airline in the world.

You appear (and I may be wrong) to be sprouting personal opinion from your own website as irrefutable fact.

There would be no difference if I started a website called pilotratings.com, nominating Jo Bloggs as the safest pilot in the world, and then selling stories to Yahoo7 saying that Jo Bloggs is the safest pilot in the world because pilotratings.com says so.

What a farce. :D

No.

Anyone else's BS meter peaking?

Not personal opinion. There is some methodology by which the ratings are made - and you could have established that by yourself.


You think Yahoo7 would buy that story?

Well, given that it is about as factual as yours... And also given I have chucked a couple of bags in my time, I don't see why not?

Why was there no disclosure on your AirAsia article?

Your response ignores my point that the view of professional pilots on this list that the accuracy of his information is poor. Your reply seems to suggest the public have no need or will not understand accurate technical information.

Dumbing down info to the point that is facile or even misleading is a low brow response. Espousing high tech info which public wont understand doesnt work either especially if it is innacurate.

Accuracy is a cornerstone of journalism.

The public are able to understand the mechanics and science of life.
It is critical for the interviewee to be knowledgeable on the subject! but also as critical to show restrant by shutting up and not talking crap.
Ive just heard abctv news london correspondant reporting on the terrorist seige in France, describe supa puma helicopters as "attack helicopters"
We can excuse him for that mistake as he is not an expert, but there is no excuse for an aviation expert to apparently regularly make mistakes about simple stuff.

Speaking on a specialist subject in a way the public can understand is possible!
If any ppruners are interested a good technique is to research and practice responses to likely questions relating to aircraft incidents. This is good fun and a challenge to accuratly describe what flaps do or how a pitot works.

The last page of posts about connections is very interesting when you refer to the ethics and standards that govern broadcasters and publishers.

I edited a technical trade mag for 5 years and am shocked by lack of disclosure portrayed in this thread.



Mickjoebill

What lack of disclosure would that be, Mick?

You guys bang on about journalists reporting the truth, yet you're all accusing FGD135 (and others) of being Geoffrey Thomas without one iota of proof.

I don't give a flying fig who FGD is, but the hypocrisy in this thread is astounding!

So seeing as none of you know how the media industry works, I'll try to solve the mystery for you . . .

Geoff Thomas is employed by The West Australian.

Geoff Thomas can write whatever the hell he likes in his Linked in bio - that doesn't mean it's true (hint - do your research!).

In all likelihood, The West registered airlineratings.com as a spin-off publishing venture.

Geoff Thomas may have been a founding editor (as opposed to financial founder), but he likely wasn't the only one.

"Managing Director" is a title - it doesn't mean the MD has shares or any other fiscal interest in the company.

airlineratings.com may - or may not - have been Geoff Thomas's idea, pitched at newspaper management. In all likelihood (I am speculating - I have no inside knowledge), he may have partly come up with the idea jointly with the newspaper and possibly other writers, now employed as airlineratings.com editors.

Joint publishing ventures between journalists and media organisations are common.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Have a look at the list of editors: Airline Ratings

Half of them are West reporters, while the remainder are freelancers.

Is it ethical? Not in my opinion. But it wouldn't be the first time a media organisation has quoted its own spin-off venture or specialist supplement to mutually benefit both parties (which are really one and the same party, after all).

You know, when the pot (loony conspiracy theorist pruners) call the kettle (media) black, it's time for the pot to stop smoking its namesake!

The rumour-mongering and lack of basic knowledge in this thread is embarrassing. Maybe even more embarrassing than the media's understanding of our sacred cow aviation industry! :eek:

Je suis Geoffrey Thomas!

LOL! :}

"None of you know how the media industry works.."
Oh, OK.
I must have been dreaming about my twelve year involvement in it, then.
Thanks for letting me know.

Then if you're as experienced as you say, why couldn't you address Slippery_Pete's post at #92?

And surely you realise the folly of trying to finger everyone as GT without any evidence.

I don't agree with everything FGD has written, but he doesn't deserve to be pilloried for his views. Because of all the people posting here, he is one of the few who does seem to have a genuine understanding of how the media industry works in the real world.

Others are simply displaying the same industry bias and ignorance against which they, themselves, have been rallying.

You can't have it both ways.

I have not suggested fg is gt. In respect to disclosure I refer to GTs connection with organisatons listed here.

No he can't write what he likes and at the same time conform to the ethics and standards of the profession.

You may think ethics and standards dont matter when speculating and investigating on the sudden death of hundreds of people.



Mickjoebill

I do believe ethics and standards matter - at all times - firmly. And I do not absolve any journalist of that responsibility to his/her industry and the public they serve.

But the reality is, many journalists only serve themselves, and such is the cut-throat, bankrupt industry these days (most media organisations still haven't found a way to make money online), few new journos receive proper training like they used to, while other, more experienced journos just don't have the time and resources they are expected to have to do their job properly.

Sound familiar? You could apply the same to another industry I'm thinking of.

Yes, there are lazy journos who hurt not only themselves and the industry at large, but the general public, victims and families as well.

But so do lazy pilots . . .

Geoffrey "Biggles" Thomas had his heart set on indulging in some liquorice delights.

From today's West Australian: :rolleyes:

http://s18.postimg.org/cakpp8yph/image.jpg

OK so everyone's agreed on that.

FGD135 is suspected of being GT because of your second quote. Banter on an anonymous forum can hardly be compared with paid journalism requoted around the world. That needs to be correct.

When one reads or watches 'the news', we expected factual, accurate reporting in the time available. To wildly speculate is human, to print it is not journalism.

I've never subscribed to the idea that news needs to be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. Educate them.

Please, don't give this hack of a human any more publicity. He thrives on it.