Rubbish Observer article about private flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rubbish Observer article about private flying
See http://www.observer.co.uk/travel/sto...418680,00.html
for this irritating tosh. Mr Buckley (author), if you are reading this:-
(1) Have you really got a PPL?
(2) If so, did you actually write this stuff, or have you been sub-edited to oblivion?
(3) If you did write it, do you really think that a "plane" (arrrgh) stalls if you take your eye off the "speedo"? Did your instructor ever mention the words "angle of attack"?
(4) Do you really think that you recover a stall by dropping through the sky for long enough to go very fast and so to fly again?
(5) Do you habitually operate your Cessna engine at 10,000 rpm? If so, don't you find that your forward visibility is somewhat impaired by the cylinder heads popping out of the cowling?
(6) Do you intend to repeat your trick of flying into a small gap in clouds whilst exercising your VFR licence privileges?
(7) Do you really think that the Wright's Flyer was an "aeronatical cul-de-sac"? How do you suppose M Bleriot got his monoplane to go around corners? (clue: ask the Wright Brothers)
(8) Lastly, did you think it helpful to the pastime in which you claim to participate to run the usual "it's very dangerous, all the aircraft are made of string and crash everywhere" line?
If the rest of the articles in your series don't get any better than the first one, I think I'd prefer Jemima Khan as aviation columnist.
for this irritating tosh. Mr Buckley (author), if you are reading this:-
(1) Have you really got a PPL?
(2) If so, did you actually write this stuff, or have you been sub-edited to oblivion?
(3) If you did write it, do you really think that a "plane" (arrrgh) stalls if you take your eye off the "speedo"? Did your instructor ever mention the words "angle of attack"?
(4) Do you really think that you recover a stall by dropping through the sky for long enough to go very fast and so to fly again?
(5) Do you habitually operate your Cessna engine at 10,000 rpm? If so, don't you find that your forward visibility is somewhat impaired by the cylinder heads popping out of the cowling?
(6) Do you intend to repeat your trick of flying into a small gap in clouds whilst exercising your VFR licence privileges?
(7) Do you really think that the Wright's Flyer was an "aeronatical cul-de-sac"? How do you suppose M Bleriot got his monoplane to go around corners? (clue: ask the Wright Brothers)
(8) Lastly, did you think it helpful to the pastime in which you claim to participate to run the usual "it's very dangerous, all the aircraft are made of string and crash everywhere" line?
If the rest of the articles in your series don't get any better than the first one, I think I'd prefer Jemima Khan as aviation columnist.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think I agree with you FNG. The style of writing is weedy, the content a bit thin and the whole thing rather amateur. It reminds me of a 'What I did during the school hols' essay!
And if he thinks the Wright Flyer had its rudder at the front, he's got a long way still to go.....
And if he thinks the Wright Flyer had its rudder at the front, he's got a long way still to go.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Come on guys, give the writer some slack.
This is an article for a features section of a national newspaper, not for an enthusiasts mag. I think the tone was just about right. Yes, there are some factual inaccuracies, some of the 'dumbing down' of aviation terms for the layman could have been done in a better manner, but as you suggest FNG these are probably the hand of an ignorant sub-editor rather than the author himself. None of them seriously spoil the flow of an otherwise fair and entertaining article, which even goes some way to dispel some common aviation myths.
In the days of regular aviation bashing by the ignorant majority in the press we should welcome more balanced articles like this, rather than ridicule them in this way. It could be a hell of a lot worse!
This is an article for a features section of a national newspaper, not for an enthusiasts mag. I think the tone was just about right. Yes, there are some factual inaccuracies, some of the 'dumbing down' of aviation terms for the layman could have been done in a better manner, but as you suggest FNG these are probably the hand of an ignorant sub-editor rather than the author himself. None of them seriously spoil the flow of an otherwise fair and entertaining article, which even goes some way to dispel some common aviation myths.
In the days of regular aviation bashing by the ignorant majority in the press we should welcome more balanced articles like this, rather than ridicule them in this way. It could be a hell of a lot worse!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I really think you are being a bit unfair FNG. Whilst that 10,000 RPM bit was rather unforgiveable, and the language is utterly flowery (just as one would expect in the Grauniad - that's why I buy the Torygraph), it was a broadly well balanced pro-flying article. There is no doubt that he is being paid by the word, there's no other justification for the verbal padding in it.
The chap is pro-flying, broadly (if not entirely) correct in his facts, and this sort of exposure in the papers brings people into flying, however many technical errors he makes.
And the Bleriot was a tailplane aircraft, not a canard like the Wright - which I think was the point he was making (even if he does seem to have a bit of a terminology problem). And if you ever get to fly a fixed wing aircraft designed without ailerons, trust me you'll have no doubt that ailerons are a good thing.
And of course flying is dangerous, otherwise licenses and Cs of A wouldn't be made so hard to obtain. He made a point of saying how much safer it is than driving however (which statistically isn't actually true when comparing light aircraft - it is for airliners), be fair on the man.
Just for the record, I've never met the chap.
G
The chap is pro-flying, broadly (if not entirely) correct in his facts, and this sort of exposure in the papers brings people into flying, however many technical errors he makes.
And the Bleriot was a tailplane aircraft, not a canard like the Wright - which I think was the point he was making (even if he does seem to have a bit of a terminology problem). And if you ever get to fly a fixed wing aircraft designed without ailerons, trust me you'll have no doubt that ailerons are a good thing.
And of course flying is dangerous, otherwise licenses and Cs of A wouldn't be made so hard to obtain. He made a point of saying how much safer it is than driving however (which statistically isn't actually true when comparing light aircraft - it is for airliners), be fair on the man.
Just for the record, I've never met the chap.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
A bit heavy with the old condemnation there I think FNG. Ther were technical inaccuracies (10,000 rpm) and it certainly was a tad Jonathon Livingstone Seagull at the begining. However, I do think the guy genuinely enjoys flying and is applying that to what will hopefully be an interesting account of his future travels. We shall see....
Guest
Posts: n/a
I accept that I was being a bit grumpy, and accept also that the article was intended for a general readership, but given that it was in the Observer, and not the Mail on Sunday, it could have been a bit more careful and accurate in its descriptions of the flying. As for the Wright Flyer, I am not advocating a return to wing-warping (except on slab wing Cherokees, as it might make them turn quicker), but my point is that the author seemed regrettably ignorant of aviation history for somone who professed a lifelong passion for aviation. Still, maybe he was right to regard canards as dead ends, at least if Eurofighters are anything to go by (just kidding).
PS: mega-pedantry: I seem to recall that the Wrights may have referred to the sticky out thing at the front as a rudder, at least initially, so maybe the guy knows more than he lets on.
[This message has been edited by FNG (edited 09 January 2001).]
PS: mega-pedantry: I seem to recall that the Wrights may have referred to the sticky out thing at the front as a rudder, at least initially, so maybe the guy knows more than he lets on.
[This message has been edited by FNG (edited 09 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gotta get myself one of those 10,000rpm C152. Surely if he did have a PPL, then the technical discrepensies should not be evident.
It's harmless fun and I ain't losing any sleep over it. At least its nice to see someone attempt to write something interesting.
It's harmless fun and I ain't losing any sleep over it. At least its nice to see someone attempt to write something interesting.
