G-monx
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There goes my cover ---this shiny new BB (nice) has taken to reporting my login instead of the worthy alias:
Call me Systemsguy (post-edit)
------------------MESSAGE FOLLOWS:
Let's head this thing for the high ground, guys and gals! (or at least for a flat spot...)
I propose that we of the Pprune community establish an ongoing competition for the "Howitzer Prize in Journalism", which periodically and noisily memorializes the aviation press stories that most resemble "shooting a mouse with a cannon".
Not only does this give a constructive vent for the heat that stupid, inacurate, overblown and deceptive reporting deservedly attracts from the professional aviation community, it also creates an open-ended megaphone for giving back in kind.
By issuing a press release now and then with our democratically (har) arrived-at list of the 10 (or whatever) most irresponsible aviation news stories of the year, the existence of the Pprune Howitzer will promote more evenhanded print discussion of these topics and may just bring a little heat to bear on the pulp personalities who thus disgrace themselves in regard to the standards of 'professional journalists'.
On the theory that "some papers will print just about anything", the PPHA should be able to garner enough ink that the word gets out - in a manner that brings deserved credit to aviation and appropriate shame to those perfidious scribes who deliberately get things wrong for personal gain.
Like a well-placed flea, a pro-active press channel doesn't have to be a very big thing to have quite a pronounced effect. If more than three folks feel this would be constructive, and if Capt. P does not object, I will volunteer to do some grunt work to actually get the process lit & encourage others to participate. As a one-time editor and publisher, I know a bit about how and where things are in that swamp; as an aviator since roughly puberty, I would be happy to help level the field a bit.
Call me Systemsguy (post-edit)
------------------MESSAGE FOLLOWS:
Let's head this thing for the high ground, guys and gals! (or at least for a flat spot...)
I propose that we of the Pprune community establish an ongoing competition for the "Howitzer Prize in Journalism", which periodically and noisily memorializes the aviation press stories that most resemble "shooting a mouse with a cannon".
Not only does this give a constructive vent for the heat that stupid, inacurate, overblown and deceptive reporting deservedly attracts from the professional aviation community, it also creates an open-ended megaphone for giving back in kind.
By issuing a press release now and then with our democratically (har) arrived-at list of the 10 (or whatever) most irresponsible aviation news stories of the year, the existence of the Pprune Howitzer will promote more evenhanded print discussion of these topics and may just bring a little heat to bear on the pulp personalities who thus disgrace themselves in regard to the standards of 'professional journalists'.
On the theory that "some papers will print just about anything", the PPHA should be able to garner enough ink that the word gets out - in a manner that brings deserved credit to aviation and appropriate shame to those perfidious scribes who deliberately get things wrong for personal gain.
Like a well-placed flea, a pro-active press channel doesn't have to be a very big thing to have quite a pronounced effect. If more than three folks feel this would be constructive, and if Capt. P does not object, I will volunteer to do some grunt work to actually get the process lit & encourage others to participate. As a one-time editor and publisher, I know a bit about how and where things are in that swamp; as an aviator since roughly puberty, I would be happy to help level the field a bit.
Last edited by arcniz; 3rd Apr 2002 at 19:29.
"The INTRODUCER"
Just had my annual exposure to the Monarch product for a spot of Easter sun (300-600 LGW-ALC) and it was a pleasure as ever (all things being relative). Great to have a widebody and great to see the MON cabin staff in fine form in the teeth of myriad provocations. And an LGW check-in so fast I thought I'd gone to the wrong airport.
(Do any ALC flights EVER arrive or leave on time?)
As a regular scanner of the MORs, I would confirm the enormous inconsistency in reporting - although I've never analysed whether it's a carrrier-specific thing. Always a mad mix of the fantastically trivial (which surely can't be mandatory), the run of the mill, and the mildly alarming.
(Do any ALC flights EVER arrive or leave on time?)
As a regular scanner of the MORs, I would confirm the enormous inconsistency in reporting - although I've never analysed whether it's a carrrier-specific thing. Always a mad mix of the fantastically trivial (which surely can't be mandatory), the run of the mill, and the mildly alarming.
All the flights i've operated to ALC with Spotty M recently have always run on time!!!!
You get more MOR's filed, when the company culture is an open and condusive to reporting problems/incidents. @ Spotty M that is what we have.
Looking on PPrune, it is obvious this system/work culture does not exist at many companies, hence less MOR/ASR's filed.
You get more MOR's filed, when the company culture is an open and condusive to reporting problems/incidents. @ Spotty M that is what we have.
Looking on PPrune, it is obvious this system/work culture does not exist at many companies, hence less MOR/ASR's filed.
Based on the amount of heat and light generated on Pprune by poor journalism I am surprised that arcniz's suggestion has not received more support or, at least discussion. If this BB can be organised to counter the destructive effects of such shoddy reporting, I think it should be done. For what my support is worth I would certainly give it willingly. Perhaps a forum committed to the promotion of good aviation journalism should be started.
The Chinook thread has been extremely valuable in that contributors provided information such, as addresses, facts and arguments, which made it easier for lazy people like me to actually DO something useful instead of just moaning about it. Perhaps a Press forum could provide a similar useful service.
The Chinook thread has been extremely valuable in that contributors provided information such, as addresses, facts and arguments, which made it easier for lazy people like me to actually DO something useful instead of just moaning about it. Perhaps a Press forum could provide a similar useful service.
Last edited by pulse1; 9th Apr 2002 at 10:48.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: A country that most people dislike but we adore
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An update to this topic, the CAA's jumped in on Monarch's side.
09/04/2002
CAA letter to Sunday Times in Response to Article Published 31 March 2002
Letter which appears on CAA's website dated 3 April 2002:
From Mike Bell, Acting Group Director Safety Regulation
Your article 'Revealed: The Most Jinxed Jet in Britain' - 31 March 2002, takes a very simplistic approach to UK civil aviation safety.
Any judgement on the safety of an aircraft or airline based solely on the number of incident reports filed is flawed. Safety performance cannot be assessed without having each occurrence report reviewed and graded by experts, taking into account the number of hours flown by an aircraft.
Since its inception in 1976, the UK's occurrence reporting scheme has been recognised throughout the world as being one of the leading sources of safety data. Vital information from that data has led to significant safety improvements.
The UK industry’s willingness to register these reports with CAA reflects the existence of the strong safety culture that underpins the overall safety performance of the UK aviation community – a record that is one of the best in the world.
Those of us responsible for civil aviation safety in the UK hope that industry is in no way deterred by your article from filing reports as this would have extremely detrimental implications for the effectiveness of the occurrence reporting scheme, and potentially for aviation safety in the UK.
CAA letter to Sunday Times in Response to Article Published 31 March 2002
Letter which appears on CAA's website dated 3 April 2002:
From Mike Bell, Acting Group Director Safety Regulation
Your article 'Revealed: The Most Jinxed Jet in Britain' - 31 March 2002, takes a very simplistic approach to UK civil aviation safety.
Any judgement on the safety of an aircraft or airline based solely on the number of incident reports filed is flawed. Safety performance cannot be assessed without having each occurrence report reviewed and graded by experts, taking into account the number of hours flown by an aircraft.
Since its inception in 1976, the UK's occurrence reporting scheme has been recognised throughout the world as being one of the leading sources of safety data. Vital information from that data has led to significant safety improvements.
The UK industry’s willingness to register these reports with CAA reflects the existence of the strong safety culture that underpins the overall safety performance of the UK aviation community – a record that is one of the best in the world.
Those of us responsible for civil aviation safety in the UK hope that industry is in no way deterred by your article from filing reports as this would have extremely detrimental implications for the effectiveness of the occurrence reporting scheme, and potentially for aviation safety in the UK.
Controversial, moi?
I stopped reading the Sunday Times long ago.
It used to be a newspaper of very high standing. It has steadily descended towards the sensational and inaccurate and can no longer be relied upon as a newspaper of authority and integrity.
But then look who owns it.
It used to be a newspaper of very high standing. It has steadily descended towards the sensational and inaccurate and can no longer be relied upon as a newspaper of authority and integrity.
But then look who owns it.
