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 :ugh:
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 :yuk:

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.

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 :D

I have heard GT's operational experience was as a check in, ramp rat or similar.
He does peruse this site so must have the hide of a rhinoceros.

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?

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 :)

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.

Thanks, I will!

Although before I bag him out too much I'd better make sure I get his name right - it is Klan, as you said.

.....and his nickname is Ku-klux.....

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?

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.

Would someone be able to post links to GT's articles?
I would like to write to him also, and better have his quotes correct before I do.

Ta
Coolnames

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.

Mate, look at how much the various worldwide News Limited papers/TV shows/websites openly are in favour of right wing conservatives. You don't think when those right wingers get into power they return the favour by doing such things as cutting the funding of their competitors or kill programs that may damage them, or look the other way as they openly break the law?

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 ;)

"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.

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.

Perhaps a complaint to the press council?

Worth a try I should think. And I tend to share the OP frustration and annoyance with GT.

Dora-9; Thank you for making known the content of your e-mails.:ok: It will be interesting to see if Mr Klan writes any correction articles.:hmm:

I won't hold my breath though.:ugh:

I hate to disillusion anyone but my experience with the APC is that it isn't interested in pursuing complaints against its members...hasn't even provided me with the courtesy of a reply to my last complaint on behalf of a deceased person who was totally demeaned in an article about the manner of her death.

They are not a Regulator and they rely on their members for funding.

Kaz

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.

They couldn't do any worse either.:ok:


Tipsy

FGT135, Your not GT's mum by chance?

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.

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 :p

Coolnames

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.

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.

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'.

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) :ugh:

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. :yuk:

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.

Cant speak for how various law associations in other jurisdictions operate, but the Law Institute in Victoria retains some regulatory control.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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".

But GT is not a member of our fraternity. This little statement by Capn Rex Havoc quite possibly reveals why so many here have a problem with him.


Chocks Away, no, I don't think it rubbish at all, but I said nothing of the sort.


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:



Arm, I haven't read his article and had not heard of him before. Please could you post a link to his article. My defence is of GT, whose articles I have been reading for many years.


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.


I went to this link, but the first thing I saw on the page was the statement "This is what may have happened". Note the word may. The presence of that word means that everything following is opinion. There was no need for me to actually watch the video. GT would have just been doing exactly what his media masters were paying him for.


GT is just the messenger. People here don't seem to understand that, and want to shoot him.


I did look at that video. Remember those constraints I keep referring to? One of them is that you must get information from other sources, and there can be big variations in the accuracy and consistency of that information. GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.


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!



He used the word can't when he should have used the word shouldn't. Is that your gripe on this one?



Not the answer I would have given, but you must remember that GT must give instant and brief answers if he wants to keep his job. After such interviews, he probably goes back over some of his statements and answers and wishes he said things differently. If you were in his shoes, you too would probably say things that, on reflection, you wished you had said differently.


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.

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."

Slippery Pete, you must remember that it is the media that give him that title and it is in their interests to do so!


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".

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Vehemently.

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.