Terror in the skies channel 4
 

what, nobody has any comments about the programme last night?

some nice graphics and basic explanations

I was too scared to watch it.

Thought there'd be a huge thread about it already.

"these planes are very new and massively complex so they're gonna fail big style"

"Look a chisel dropped from a height will pierce carbon fibre. WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I thought parts were excellent like praising the BA 777 crew. Happens rarely these days. But some of it, ok it is television.

Most of this was WAAAAY over hyped, I think the worst was the woman on the A320 with a gear problem, they kept coming back to her because she said so much how she was near to dying! As an experienced person in aviation he should have been pointing out how, landing at an airfield with almost any gear problem there might be aircraft damage, but the only likely injuries would be on an evacuation (actually a bit that people do not think of as dangerous, but in many incidents where most, mainly minor, injuries occur). same with the fan failure, as an engineer he MUST know that the casing is designed to largely contain this, so all the "this would go straight through the fuselage" was again over the top!
The only one with any sensible level of reporting was the BA failure, but even this put as much emphasis as he could on the likelihood of people being killed!:mad:

Yes as a supposedly airspace engineer he left a lot of facts out for sensationalism!!!

Biggest load of over-dramatised crap I've seen for some considerable time.

My favourite quote was about the QF A380 that had the uncontained engine failure. "It's been repaired and is now back in active service. So, if you fly Qantas and go on an A380 the chances are you could be on it."

Well no :mad:!

Channel 4's "Terror In The Skies"
 

Fellow Pruners,

Is anyone else watching this complete and utter sensationalist tripe C4 have pushed out?

It makes me want to punch the TV!

The level of technical inaccuracy and "creative scripting" are astounding even for Channel 4 (ie failing to explain the airbus actually had 2 WS go-arounds at BHX).

Would someone who know's the Channel 4 management please get them to pull this load of old cobblers?

It's like watching the Daily Mail on TV! :}

More like the Daily Express - a little bit more opinion than the Mail lol

Re Terror in the sky
 

The trouble is a lot of Joe Public watching will take it all in as fact.

No I wont :ok:

Even though I agree with the fact that it has been dramatised for public viewing it does bring to public attention the facts about FDP and poor T&Cs for those starting out. This can only be a good thing. The public's perception of pilots being paid bucket loads of cash and living a playboy lifestyle is still held (all of my friends/relatives are shocked to hear of flexicrew and that the majority of FR pilots are contractors). Plus, and I'm being biased, it did bring out the point that military pilots are better trained to deal with those emergencies when computers and autopilots fail. About time military aviators became a valuable commodity again in the industry and not just another number

I thought there were some good bits and bad. Some interesting explanations of incidents like Qantas and the BA 777 which went into a reasonable amount of detail.

For an engineer though I thought he sounded very sensationalist; I would have expected a more nuanced view from someone with such qualifications. The JetBlue incident for example simply did not warrant the amount of time and hyperbole that was expended on it!

Other issues raised like automation dependency, fatigue and poor pay were all worth raising and discussing but his presentation of them often seemed disorganised and confused. It would have been nice to see some more interesting and knowledgable experts talk about those points as well because again the few that did speak gave rather basic and alarmist views - I was particularly irritated by the suggestion that hand flying skills can only be gained in the military. :rolleyes:

What you want up front is 2 experienced pilots, regardless of how they were trained. Not P2f rich kid and a 2000 hr captain who started as a 250 hr wonder kid, and has had a whole career constrained by restrictive sop's, so they can't actually fly.

That costs money though!

S'alright folks, panic over! Next week it's the fault of us ATCOs! WOOHOO!:ugh:

I just can't get passed the presenters 'dodgy' facial hair!

Close cropped mutton chop whiskers is not a good look.

If a passenger could choose, they'd want 2 highly trained military pilots up front. Pilots who have had 3 years of vigorous training with repeatedly tested handling, UPs, stalls, spins, inverted spins, aerobatics etc etc. Pilots who have already gone through a rigorous selection process. Pilots who have spent most of their flying career pushing themselves and their aircraft to the limits. Pilots who are used to manoeuvring aircraft at the edge of the envelope, whether that's rotary, fast jet or big transport aircraft (ever seen a tactical descent by a C17?)
What they definitely don't want is an IT nerd with the minimum of training who, when the computers fail (and they will), doesn't know which way is up!

Yep, that's exactly what they want.... *sigh* :hmm: