Have you got any flying clichés?
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Northumberland, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 293
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hew
It most certainly is. 
I wonder if journalists' appalling lack of knowledge on aviation, where I can see their errors and cliches, is matched in other areas where I can't?
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening Star et al--
Journalists use cliches for a number of reasons, not all of them dishonorable. Sometimes it's laziness, sometimes it's because of time pressure, sometimes it's because that's the best way to get something across to a reader while telling a story in a very small space. I think one of the big problems is that aviation, like any profession -- like journalism, even -- is different for those professionally involved to those who just use it.
Take a standard bugbear: cabin depressurisation at cruise. Every few months, one of these gets into the press and gets the 'terror dive at 35,000 feet' treatment in the tabloids. Then the report in the press gets onto Pprune, and the usual tut-tutting goes on about sensationalist reporting.
From the flight crew's point of view, it's a standard procedure, trained for and practiced, and not seen as something that's terribly dangerous. (Am I right on this?).
In the back, though, you've got a couple of hundred terrified people heading downwards who seconds ago were pootling along feeling safe. That's the story -- readers will be interested because they're used to flying as an uneventful business where nothing goes wrong. Certainly, the airlines don't go out of their way to prepare pax for the eventuality: all that anyone's told about is that some masks will gently descend from the heavens and we should put them on. The bit about seemingly falling out the sky is curiously omitted.
The story is that people were frightened out of their wits. You've got 150 words. For those involved, absolutely it was a 'terror dive at 35,000 feet', so that's what gets reported. If you're lucky, you'll have some of the passengers reported afterwards as saying how well Captain Nigel wrestled with the controls of the stricken craft, and perhaps F/O Bigglesworth saying that nobody was in any danger.
How would you do it?
As for inaccuracies: this is always a problem. If you're a generalist news journalist, you might be covering a riot one day, giant cats spotted in Acacia Avenue the next and an aviation incident on Friday. If people were prepared to pay enough for newspapers to have a much larger staff, and cared for accuracy over immediacy, then the story would be different.
When it comes to specialist correspondents, there's less excuse. I write about technology, and I could point to more than one nationally prominent journalist in the field whose copy and media appearances I cannot bear to see because of the breadth and depth of the mistakes therein. I worry about being in the same position myself, as I seem to write about more and more diverse subjects these days -- cell biology because of cellphone health scares, financial mechanisms because of the .com madness -- but you never get any feedback.
"Getting things right" is a huge part of aviation, and immense cost and time is spent keeping people and machinery as error-free as possible. The reasons for this are obvious and compelling. In other walks of life it's not seen as economic to do that, and I guess it isn't. Most journalists get it right most of the time, but I suppose that's not news!
R
Journalists use cliches for a number of reasons, not all of them dishonorable. Sometimes it's laziness, sometimes it's because of time pressure, sometimes it's because that's the best way to get something across to a reader while telling a story in a very small space. I think one of the big problems is that aviation, like any profession -- like journalism, even -- is different for those professionally involved to those who just use it.
Take a standard bugbear: cabin depressurisation at cruise. Every few months, one of these gets into the press and gets the 'terror dive at 35,000 feet' treatment in the tabloids. Then the report in the press gets onto Pprune, and the usual tut-tutting goes on about sensationalist reporting.
From the flight crew's point of view, it's a standard procedure, trained for and practiced, and not seen as something that's terribly dangerous. (Am I right on this?).
In the back, though, you've got a couple of hundred terrified people heading downwards who seconds ago were pootling along feeling safe. That's the story -- readers will be interested because they're used to flying as an uneventful business where nothing goes wrong. Certainly, the airlines don't go out of their way to prepare pax for the eventuality: all that anyone's told about is that some masks will gently descend from the heavens and we should put them on. The bit about seemingly falling out the sky is curiously omitted.
The story is that people were frightened out of their wits. You've got 150 words. For those involved, absolutely it was a 'terror dive at 35,000 feet', so that's what gets reported. If you're lucky, you'll have some of the passengers reported afterwards as saying how well Captain Nigel wrestled with the controls of the stricken craft, and perhaps F/O Bigglesworth saying that nobody was in any danger.
How would you do it?
As for inaccuracies: this is always a problem. If you're a generalist news journalist, you might be covering a riot one day, giant cats spotted in Acacia Avenue the next and an aviation incident on Friday. If people were prepared to pay enough for newspapers to have a much larger staff, and cared for accuracy over immediacy, then the story would be different.
When it comes to specialist correspondents, there's less excuse. I write about technology, and I could point to more than one nationally prominent journalist in the field whose copy and media appearances I cannot bear to see because of the breadth and depth of the mistakes therein. I worry about being in the same position myself, as I seem to write about more and more diverse subjects these days -- cell biology because of cellphone health scares, financial mechanisms because of the .com madness -- but you never get any feedback.
"Getting things right" is a huge part of aviation, and immense cost and time is spent keeping people and machinery as error-free as possible. The reasons for this are obvious and compelling. In other walks of life it's not seen as economic to do that, and I guess it isn't. Most journalists get it right most of the time, but I suppose that's not news!
R
Paxing All Over The World
Hew Jampton,
".. where I can see their errors and cliches, is matched in other areas where I can't?"
I have been in telecommunications for 22 years and the answer to your question is Yes.
The WORST is to remember that every time an aircraft returns safley to the ground, where some component is unservicable, they are doing so, "On a wing and a prayer".
In WWII, when my father's pilot brought their Mosquito back from being over enemy territory on one engine (the first having failed, as opposed to been damaged) even THEN, they would not have used this stupid line.
[ 11 August 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]
".. where I can see their errors and cliches, is matched in other areas where I can't?"
I have been in telecommunications for 22 years and the answer to your question is Yes.
The WORST is to remember that every time an aircraft returns safley to the ground, where some component is unservicable, they are doing so, "On a wing and a prayer".
In WWII, when my father's pilot brought their Mosquito back from being over enemy territory on one engine (the first having failed, as opposed to been damaged) even THEN, they would not have used this stupid line.
[ 11 August 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF interesting look behind the scenes of life in the media. Thank you for posting that.
Sounds as if good journalists are spurred on by their personal integrity and a desire to deliver quality, while fighting an ongoing battle with the beancounters to recieve enough funding to enable them to do so.
I wonder why that sounds so very familiar..........
Sounds as if good journalists are spurred on by their personal integrity and a desire to deliver quality, while fighting an ongoing battle with the beancounters to recieve enough funding to enable them to do so.
I wonder why that sounds so very familiar..........
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the topic:
"Long Haul is OK but I'm not too keen on the parts between night stops."
And a military one:
The First Principle of War is "Never lose sight of your kit"
[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: fobotcso ]
"Long Haul is OK but I'm not too keen on the parts between night stops."
And a military one:
The First Principle of War is "Never lose sight of your kit"
[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: fobotcso ]
Critical Mass and Arm out the window,
The version I heard:
There I was at 40,000 feet with nothing on the clock but the makers name. The automatic pilot jumped out with the only parachute on board, leaving me with a silkworm and a pair of knitting needles. Boy was I busy !!!!!
The version I heard:
There I was at 40,000 feet with nothing on the clock but the makers name. The automatic pilot jumped out with the only parachute on board, leaving me with a silkworm and a pair of knitting needles. Boy was I busy !!!!!
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Northumberland, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 293
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF
There is a world of a difference between a specialist writing about a subject and a journalist trying to write about something that requires a specialist understanding. (And I accept you do allude to that with your comments concerning general news reporting,) To my (admittedly prejudiced) viewpoint, most journalists have an educational background in the humanities, and at the most charitable interpretation prefer to look at the drama because the facts are beyond their understanding. That is my most charitable, as I have met some who seem positively proud of not understanding anything to do with the sciences or technology (defiant insecurity?).
Some examples to consider. Part of my work is flood risk assessment, and the blind absurdity in much of the reporting about the floods last year gave me plenty to get hot under the collar about. (In fact, think the only non-technical reporting with any impression of objectivity was on Jet Blast – go figure). Then again, I have doctors and nurses amongst my friends, and you should hear what they say about the reporting concerning the NHS. My brother drives Eurostar, and I am a ‘Friend’ of the National Railway museum, so we together have a pretty clued in idea about the railways, and the misreporting there borders on the absurd. Even a casual read of Pprune is the prefect antidote for reporting about anything aviation. And so on.
It seems that there are two choices of conclusion from this. The one is that there is a mammoth conspiracy of scientists and technologists all defending their corner, or that journalists are generally incapable of understanding anything more complicated than their own educational experience and that reporting demonstrating an appalling lack of knowledge is widespread. The conspiracy theory cannot stand up, as (reductio ad absurdum) there are too many people involved to make any conspiracy viable. Therefore, that just leaves us with the conclusion that much journalism is characterised by an appalling lack of knowledge.
(Sorry, bit of a Jet Blast rant more appropriate to the dumbing down debate.)
There is a world of a difference between a specialist writing about a subject and a journalist trying to write about something that requires a specialist understanding. (And I accept you do allude to that with your comments concerning general news reporting,) To my (admittedly prejudiced) viewpoint, most journalists have an educational background in the humanities, and at the most charitable interpretation prefer to look at the drama because the facts are beyond their understanding. That is my most charitable, as I have met some who seem positively proud of not understanding anything to do with the sciences or technology (defiant insecurity?).
Some examples to consider. Part of my work is flood risk assessment, and the blind absurdity in much of the reporting about the floods last year gave me plenty to get hot under the collar about. (In fact, think the only non-technical reporting with any impression of objectivity was on Jet Blast – go figure). Then again, I have doctors and nurses amongst my friends, and you should hear what they say about the reporting concerning the NHS. My brother drives Eurostar, and I am a ‘Friend’ of the National Railway museum, so we together have a pretty clued in idea about the railways, and the misreporting there borders on the absurd. Even a casual read of Pprune is the prefect antidote for reporting about anything aviation. And so on.
It seems that there are two choices of conclusion from this. The one is that there is a mammoth conspiracy of scientists and technologists all defending their corner, or that journalists are generally incapable of understanding anything more complicated than their own educational experience and that reporting demonstrating an appalling lack of knowledge is widespread. The conspiracy theory cannot stand up, as (reductio ad absurdum) there are too many people involved to make any conspiracy viable. Therefore, that just leaves us with the conclusion that much journalism is characterised by an appalling lack of knowledge.
(Sorry, bit of a Jet Blast rant more appropriate to the dumbing down debate.)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One constant cliche that does generally help the image of flying is the eternal 'forced-landing' assumption that missing the housing estate/gasometer/primary school/garage is an act of great courage. Journos don't seem to have twigged that going for the patch of green is primarily in the interests of the person sweating at the controls! 
[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: gravity victim ]
[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: gravity victim ]
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one was banded about the crew rooms for a while.
As the F/O was standing at the flight deck door after a particularly bumpy landing a gentleman asked..."Excuse me laddie did we land or were we shot down"?
As the F/O was standing at the flight deck door after a particularly bumpy landing a gentleman asked..."Excuse me laddie did we land or were we shot down"?
"Push forward and the houses get bigger, pull back and they get smaller"
"I know there alot of money in aviation, I put it there"
"When in doubt, chicken out"
And my favorite one
"If we go, we'll be there"
Along the same lines, kinda, whats every good First Officer say to his Capt?
"Nice landing sir"
If a firm arrival...
"Must have been a gust sir"
"I will take the chicken sir"
And most important of all
"I'll take the ugly one sir"
Urban legend,
When a capt was asked was be grilled on a checkride about aircraft systems, he was asked what the non essential bus is for, his answer, "To take the first officer to and from the hotel" I can only imagine his answer to what a hot bus would be
"I know there alot of money in aviation, I put it there"
"When in doubt, chicken out"
And my favorite one
"If we go, we'll be there"
Along the same lines, kinda, whats every good First Officer say to his Capt?
"Nice landing sir"
If a firm arrival...
"Must have been a gust sir"
"I will take the chicken sir"
And most important of all
"I'll take the ugly one sir"
Urban legend,
When a capt was asked was be grilled on a checkride about aircraft systems, he was asked what the non essential bus is for, his answer, "To take the first officer to and from the hotel" I can only imagine his answer to what a hot bus would be
...and the pneumatic filters will trap particles of 40 micron size..
Excuse me, how big is a micron?
Err..I don't know.
Why do you want me to know how big forty of the f*****s are?
Excuse me, how big is a micron?
Err..I don't know.
Why do you want me to know how big forty of the f*****s are?
short flights long nights
standard ones from passangers; 'do you know what all the knobs are for' and my all time favourite from last year "is that the earth we can see down there?" (Houston we have a problem)
