Not all media go berserk - here's an example of a reasonable story (CX 744)

Not just the Aviation Industry by a long shot, and it's not confined to the Herald Sun either!:ugh:

I think the issue here is sensationalism. The simple job of gathering and disseminating the facts are no longer adequate. Reporting that an aircraft plunged is clearly more exciting than an aircraft descending to a safe altitude as per SOPs in a controlled manner...
Therefore suggesting that a journo should google "depressurisation+aircraft" and get some facts on why the aircraft descended are irelevant. Why bother? - the ticker accross the news looks much better if your news channel has it up there first. The facts can be sorted with later, the scoop is the win.
Unfortunately by the time the facts come to light, aside from a small group of people the only thing that the general public will recall when someone mentions 'that Qantas incident', is the plunge and chaos and near disaster...

Now I am not qualified to fly and airliner or write a column or come up with any suppositions on what happened to that aircraft, but I am in a position (thanks to a 3 second google)to show my elderly nervous SLF Mother that there was a standard descent to breathable air and in time we will more than likely see that the pilots always had it under control once the facts are established.

So will she get onboard her Qantas jet next week to come home? Probably not... and guess what - thats down to crap journalists with little regard for how their reporting affects the lives of other people. There are simply no excuses for some of the reports I have read over the past week, but I am sure they have shifted plenty of the black and white.

So Jonny - I have put my foot in as 'an ordinary SLF' and guess what - we don't like it either.

AGOW

Media---First let me say there are excellent journalists---Ted Koppel, the late Tim Russert---Jim Lehrer----now, I've noticed that in most other topics journalists tend to refrain from mindless speculation---i.e medicine they'll quote a physician, or science they'll quote a scientist and use accurate simple language---like a piece I read on steam explosions in NYC---[and I know a thing or two about steam:8]---very accurate!!!

Now, in comes aviation---then all hell breaks loose

examples include:

use of incorrect airport terminology Taxiways for runways Ramp/tarmac for Taxiways, and of course plenty of fear evoking terms--, " near fatal plunge" "seconds from disaster" "plummet", "Fuselage separated", "wing departed" etc...again... not all -----Chuck Scarborough--- does a great job but he's an experienced pilot;)

So if you don't want a bad reputation don't :mad: up!!!


Also, How does an 'journo' truly understand the tech stuff on PpruNe...unless your reading some of the Wiki {injinirs}:} or MS test pilots---if you're not as pilot or an engineer---and you say you can interpret the {xpurts}:} on Pprune ---To that----I must say B***:mad:


Edited to add: many second and third graders can do a much better job of researching topics than supposedly college educated {junknoless}:}
Lester:E

sevenstrokeroll,

In 36 years I have never heard the expression 'highdive'.

I suspect that makes it as much slang as 'dangle the dunlops':ok:

Having a forum that was only open to aviation professionals wouldn't really work as it would only take about five minutes before some cheap skate pilot, (there are cheap skates in every walk of life), sold his ID to the highest bidding journo.

JST - there are a lot of professionals on this site from all aspects of aviation and you should be able to spot them, surely a journo that was serious about his job could, from PPRuNe, build themselves an extensive network of expertise for quick reference if they really wanted to?!

so, if you are all fed up with journalists, why not help?
 

so, help your local journalist with your knowledge...do you have an atp? cfii?

then you are an expert...as much as anyone else believe me.

next time you hear someone say "reverse thrusters" or "tarmac" or whatever...call up the journalist, correct them and offer your help...off the record if you like.

When working in 1980s for the predecessor of the Oz ATSB (in safety education) I too became concerned about the 'popular' media's reporting of aviation accidents and incidents.

I discovered that the US AViation Media Association (or some such org) had also become concerned and they had produced a book for non-specialist journos to help them understand the terminology and a little of the physics and operational aspects. It was distributed widely to news rooms and they also were prepared to run special briefings for journos.

I don't know whetehr they still do it - but someone should.

I could never get my ex-military management on-side to do likewise. They thought (back then) that the media was the enemy and nothing to do with their business of accident investigation.

Things have changed a great deal since and they are now prepared to be quite active in media relations.

Bark

Hi,

This remember me a old media story.
offshore Belgium time ago .. a tanker ship was involved in a collision with a bulk carrier.
THe RTBF (main stream Belgian TV) commented the event with in attendance their maritim specialist (a named Demis Rousseau)
The comments of the expert:
"The bulk carrier collided with the tanker cause a problem with the helm machinery (rudder).
He run in the middle of the tanker hull ... just where is the engine room"
All know (and certainly a maritim expert) the engine room space on a modern tanker is on the aft of the ship.
I make the remark to the RTBF .. but they never answered.
I search myself how this journalist was a "maritim expert" and found he was sailing sometime with a small boat..... :)
So..I don't rely the press for tell my the true as the bible ..experts or not


Cheers.

Yes, never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

As an Australian having lived in the UK, I agree, the UK press would sell their own grand mother.......and then resell her again......just to get a story.....any story.......so long that it is negative to give maximum effect...and maybe we might put in a few facts.

The aviation industry in the UK has been canned so badly by the press that the johny public think that flying is now like broaching the subject of masturbation....you know that it is bad, you shouldn't be doing it, you feel guilty and you definitely won't admit it to anyone!

The only common thread between a Journo and a PP is the massive distance of integrity and we all know who is at what end.

Busy B

That is my point, there are terms that have become "slang" and our profession should be exacting and precise.

the brits call afterburners "reheat".

high dive is a largely used slang term for practicing a rapid descent...but only in America it seems

so, if WE can't get it right, can we truly blame the journalists?

JST,

I am no big fan of the mainstream tabloid press , but isn't it ironic that the "pilots and aviation types" ,who scream loud and long about the usually innaccurate reporting of aviation incidents (albeit taken from the quotes of non aviation types passengers and witnesses) , are also extrememly happy to use the media as a conduit of all their grievances and woes when they have an EBA on the table. And of course , when reporting such the media is 100% on the mark!!

Lest we forget though, it was an Australian who pioneered that kind of journalism in the UK, and made such a success out of it that the rest ended up following suit just to compete in the sales stakes. Said Australian's been working the same black magic on the US media for the last 15 years too...

I hope you'll forgive us Brits that, after all the concept was invented here (or possibly in Germany, pending full release of captured Nazi documents).

And Pugilistic Animus - not to speak ill of the dead, but Tim Russert spent the last 8 years of his life unapologetically carrying water for the Bush Administration and even provided an uncontested forum for Dick Cheney to tell bald-faced lies to the US public, for fear of losing the White House access privileges that helped pay his wages.

My tuppence is that there are good and bad journalists just as there are good and bad pilots, engineers, or any profession you care to name. Given the current trend for tabloid journalism that ratchets up sensationalism in the name of pushing up the price of advertising space, or indeed the spectre of the case of Glen Stewart, it's not surprising that pilots are very wary of inaccurate media reporting. However I do think that the bunker mentality of some on here is very counterproductive sometimes.

So in short we have a Mexican stand-off.

The Media have an inherent desire to sensationalize incident reporting, or mis-report or even create a story out of a non-issue and the aviation community is loathed to enter into factual discussion with the media due to potential of distortion, making the ability to provide a factual account of cause and circumstance limited in the event that there was a true intent to provide an accurate account.

What would seem to be a resolve is that journalists/editors/news agencies be held in account for the perversion of facts given by industry professionals in relation to cause and circumstance input.

of course then this opens up another can of worms..

I am taking an interest in thread for professional reasons..

I have been dealing with a situation that involves an administrative failure that affects flight safety to crew and pax. The administrative problem involves a certain jurisdiction left of the North Atlantic Track.

however, the administration in question has failed to not only address the situation, but to even listen to the problem. it is ongoing and remains off the official radar.

Do i want to involve media attention to the situation ? no. for the above reasons.

Should the problem be addressed ? yes. it affects us and our industry.

Will the representative authority give it any attention? no. much worse they are trying to brush it under the carpet and in fact being obstructive.

I think it is wrong to blanket the media with comments such as "bottom feeding scum" and otherwise imply that they are all incompetent buffoons. However when certain elements of the profession (in particular Channel 7 Australia) are still, a week after the event and some days after the cause is all but known, reporting the damage to the QANTAS 747 as having occurred to "the undercarriage" it really does make one wonder about the quality of their research.

Unfortunately for QANTAS the spotlight is now well and truely on them and every single "incident" will be noticed and reported even though most of these are simple, minor, spontaneously occurring maintenance issues, which were no doubt occurring anyhow. In any vehicle with umpteen million parts the odds of one or more breaking at any one time has to be quite high; that, surely, is why so many redundancies are built in. It's to be expected that those breakages won't always occur in such a way that they will fall conveniently into the maintenance time frames.

Had it been Virgin who were unfortunate enough to have an Oxy bottle let go, they would be the bad boys of choice instead right now, although, as they don't currently have members of their own staff suggesting that they have problems with their maintenance standards they might have got off a bit easier.

The media, and the general public, hear these comments and in the absence of anything to the contrary naturally make up their own minds.

My Great Grandmother says when you see a crazy fool "just let'em talk they're crazy":}---When I listen Bush/Cheney---I feel that every time they talk ---the better--- because the get more rope upon which to hang themselves---just let'em talk!!!---although 'Conde' Rice is Gansta:}

tell you the truth I'll miss Bush a little, because he's provided me with 8 long years of comedy relief---with phrases such as " I believe what I believe, because,what I believe is what I believe" ---or when our observation plane crashed there---"China bring back our plane":}


PA

This thread got me thinking about all the expressions that we know, love and hate i.e. 'wrestling with the controls', 'kick the rudder', 'tailspin' etc. I suggest that these terms come from books that were written about WWII (yes and WWI as well). Once terms like these are ingrained with the media they pop up with every story. Hmm, maybe there is a handbook that is given to every fledgling reporter.

I'll get me coat and bale out now.........

deecee

Journos write for the public they intend to address, and frankly some newspapers deliberately use terms which are comprehensible to the educational level of a 12 year old and restrict more complex writing.

Dangling the dunlops is witty and has a place as there is no profession where slang isnt used. It depends on context. If a pilot said on this forum that "I dangled the dunlops" I wouldnt be in the slightest bit concerned. If I heard it over RT or saw it in a transcript I would be mightily concerned.

Vital to have standard phrases
 

I mentioned "dangle the dunlops" to start a discussion.

I've flown for 3 regionals and now one of the biggest airlines in the world.

While flying copilot for a regional some 23 years ago, my captain indicated "dangle the dunlops" and i said: HUH?

"Landing gear down", would have been the better choice. "Extend the undercart" would have done fine.

How about the phrase, "I'm popeye"? I had flown 20 years before hearing that one.

And then, just the word: Fifteen

Again, it meant nothing to me...slang by the captain.

when I made captain, I didn't allow slang. And like the guy above, if its on the CVR transcript, BANG .

I have "kicked the rudder" (meaning kicked the rudder pedals...or even danced upon them).

SO, let's throw the first stone shall we? (not)

Good point Dozy! Although I think that said Australian is now a US Citizen....so let's just call it even and blame the Americans :}