Top 10 UK 'Airshow Moments' of 2014

[UKTopgun]

Thanks for explaining how the order of the top 10 is arrived at Boff. Interesting to know. Just wondered who the staff are in number... 10, 20, 30? You said the margin for the Comet was larger than expected.

I have to say that the way the comet piece is written, it implies plenty of criticism/attack towards the Lanc displays. Displaying as if made of glass etc etc - clear dig at Lancs. I am not fully disagreeing with some of Dan's sentiment, I felt some 2 Lanc showings could have been more engaging... Dunsfold etc, But to say the comet piece contains no attacks on the Lancs is folly.

As a way of driving interest in the article - inspired

[Wissam24]

Whilst I rarely see eye to eye with DanO I have to say Wissam, as I was the one that proof read it (we call Red Biro), that about that number 1 slot article you are completely wrong.

The final paragraph is not an attack, it is a very short explanation as to why it came 1st over the 2nd place slot. Yes some parts of the article were toned down from Dan's original however that paragraph was left as is, to give an example as to the logic processes behind the choice. Does it ever occur that whilst we didn't deliberately (as explained by Tommy) choose an order that would start an argument we were fully aware that there would be many out there that would disagree. Hence why we always start this thread to allow for the discussion.

There is not one ounce of an "attack" in that paragraph in the article, it's almost as if some people are picking faults because of who wrote it.....

Andy

I objected to that part as soon as I read it, before I knew who had wrote that section, thouth I could immediately guess who it was.

And I read it entirely as an attack. There was no need to mention the Lancs at all, it could have read perfectly well had it just been a description. But no, deliberately comparing it to them with more than a hint of sneer serves only to have that one last jab at them. The description could have been only about the Comet and it'd have still be satisfactory for explaining why it was the best of the year. But no, it's used very clearly to say "Nyer her, look what the Lancasters didn't do." Making the comparison was 100% unwarranted in justifying the position it took, and that's why it was an "attack" - the issues with theach tour had already been mentioned in the Lancasters snippet so from an objective point of view there was no need to bring it up again, otherwise everything might as well have been compared to them.

Why do I read it as a snide attack? Because it's exactly the same way he makes his snide attacks in threads. And if I didn't know better I'd say it sounds crowing as well, which comes across as so unprofessional.

It's all very well telling me that I'm "absolutely wrong" about how it is, but Andy, I'm someone who has just read the article and that's the impression I got, so if it's not an attack in the slightest, why does it read like one?

[Pringles]

I actually felt that the top 10 summary was well written and informative. Whilst you could read a veiled insult into DanO's summary of why the Comet is number 1, it has already been said that this final decision is not intended to spark controversy nor insult the immense work that went into bringing Vera accross to the UK.

[boff180]

Thanks for explaining how the order of the top 10 is arrived at Boff. Interesting to know. Just wondered who the staff are in number... 10, 20, 30? You said the margin for the Comet was larger than expected.

Officially the Staff team is currently 17 strong however due to commitments.etc I'd say our current active strength is around 12. The margin certainly was larger, I was expecting it to be one of the last/longest parts of the discussion however it was one of the first things that an agreement was reached on.

It's all very well telling me that I'm "absolutely wrong" about how it is, but Andy, I'm someone who has just read the article and that's the impression I got, so if it's not an attack in the slightest, why does it read like one?

I said "completely wrong" actually I would actually suggest it is because how you want to read it is why you see it as an attack.

The paragraph below....
"The reason this display heads the list is because, unlike the summer's most-vaunted imported act, the Comet left nobody wanting more, or wondering what might have been. Here was a pilot who knew both his machine and his audience. He flew the Comet respectfully, but without treating it as if it were made of glass."

In Lehman's terms that says:
The reason why this is number one instead of the most talked about act of 2014 was because there has been no discussion that the display could have been better than it was. The aircraft was flown within it's limits and not flown as if it was extremely fragile.

That paragraph in no way says the Lancaster display was poor at all, all it says is that they lost out on number 1 because it could have been better than it was.

When Man Utd beat Arsenal and people say Arsenals performance could have been better.... it isn't saying they were crap, they're one of the best teams in the world.... its saying on the day, Man Utd performed better. In a nutshell, that is what that paragraph is saying. If you want to read whatever you want else into it, that's your prerogative but as the person who proof read it I am saying there was no attack in that paragraph.

[HuwJHopkins]

You appear to have missed the sentence regarding the "most-vaunted imported act"...

[Mattster256]

So you're telling me that the line "most vaunted imported act of the summer" in no way shape or form could possibly mean the lancs, when the piece itself says that the top spot was challenged by both the Comet and the Lancs.

Let's just all bury our heads in the sand with you shall we (y)

[Pablo]

The paragraph below....
"The reason this display heads the list is because, unlike the summer's most-vaunted imported act, the Comet left nobody wanting more, or wondering what might have been. Here was a pilot who knew both his machine and his audience. He flew the Comet respectfully, but without treating it as if it were made of glass."

In Lehman's terms that says:
The reason why this is number one instead of the most talked about act of 2014 was because there has been no discussion that the display could have been better than it was. The aircraft was flown within it's limits and not flown as if it was extremely fragile.

That paragraph in no way says the Lancaster display was poor at all, all it says is that they lost out on number 1 because it could have been better than it was.

When Man Utd beat Arsenal and people say Arsenals performance could have been better.... it isn't saying they were crap, they're one of the best teams in the world.... its saying on the day, Man Utd performed better. In a nutshell, that is what that paragraph is saying. If you want to read whatever you want else into it, that's your prerogative but as the person who proof read it I am saying there was no attack in that paragraph.

Sorry Andy - not having a go at you personally - but generally I don't see how the person who proofs it has any more valid a grasp or perception of meaning than anyone else reading it? You don't see an attack - others do. The paragraph referencing the Lancs comes from someone who's spent weeks and weeks criticising them so, quite naturally, people will put it into wider context and think "Oooh, he's at it again...", or similar...

[DanO1978]

Seeing as the GAR brigade are out in force now, allow me to explain in layman's terms that might be understood...

The Comet "moment" was precisely that. It was perfection. Could not be bettered. Hence it is number one on the list.

The text justifies this by pointing out why it beat the Lancasters into second place. At NO venue (barring perhaps the evening Shuttleworth, or C-GVRA's last show at Southport) were the Lancaster pair spared criticism by people other than myself. The Lancasters' display was not perfect. The formation was loose, and offered no respectable photo opportunities. Great to see, certainly. An immense undertaking to bring it over, without question. Moment of the year? Not for me, nor for the rest of the UKAR team.

Second place is not to be sniffed at. No-one has died. There's no actual trophy. It's ultimately a little fun, an article put together in people's spare time to be read and, hopefully enjoyed. If it generates debate, then that's a bonus. I notice GAR were plugging their three-month old "top ten" article on Twitter, so I guess that shows that UKAR is, once again, getting it right.

As I say, it's an article. Nothing more. Nothing less. Change the response from the default "offended" setting, folks.

[Stagger2]

Moving on just a Tad! Thanks to DanO1978 for explaining the 'moment' context, but more for the *Layman's terminology (* in terms the common man can understand)
'Lehmans' of course fix cameras (other camera-repairers are available!), but I guess you knew that Mr Proof-Reader?

[Wissam24]

If it was perfection as you say, then it doesn't warrant the comparison. Perfection is its own justification, and any complaints about the Lancasters had already been addressed. Therefore, the comparison wwas unnecessary.

Like I said, I'm not disputing the positioning itself, I'm saying the writing sounded unprofessional and, when you realise who wrote that piece, more the the same old stuff that needn't go in an official UKAR article.

Andy, part of my job involves proof-reading and editing Web pages for my employer's website. If a member of staff or a student came to me and told me that something that was on our site read a particular way, I wouldn't say "No, actually I was the proof-reader, you're completely wrong." Certainly not if they were familiar with the material at hand.

[boff180]

Well as I've made an idiot of myself in this thread thanks to my misunderstanding of the word vaunted and fecking auto spelling correct on layman I'm bowing out of this thread.

Have better things to be doing such as arranging content for this year that will require taking annual leave to be possible, that's if I can be bothered.

[Wissam24]

I just thought it odd that the controversial former financial services company was weighing in on the debate.

[Russ]

It's pleasing that the Top 10 UK Airshow Moments has achieved it's objective to generate discussion. Everyone has different opinions and tastes, so it's good that that's been reflected here - if everyone agreed, what a boring world and pointless forum UKAR would be.

However, the issue here really is Daily Mail style readership, looking for a whiff of anything to possibly take offence at. Regrettably Dan seems to be hounded whatever he says and does on UKAR now - with people seemingly on a crusade. It's sad and a reflection more on those so desperate to seek offence. So what if Dan had a little pop at it? Does it matter? It certainly isn't without it's critics, there was plenty of criticism of how the tour was handled at the time, by lots of different people - so why all of a sudden is it a problem? Anyway if that's a dig, then some people have incredibly thin skins, how do they cope in the real world when leaving their homes?

[Wissam24]

Regrettably Dan seems to be hounded whatever he says and does on UKAR now - with people seemingly on a crusade.

It's difficult to feel sorry for someone who goes into every other thread to insult the person who started it and anyone participating in it because he considers them all beneath him.

[Russ]

Does he? That's an interesting perception. Presumably to make such a sweeping generalisation you must know Dan pretty well?

[Wissam24]

No, but I can read.

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=64513&p=639586#p639586

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=58180&p=638431#p638431

are two comments that I remember off the top of my head. It's pretty clear that he holds a lot of people on this forum in contempt going by the way he talks down to anyone with a differing opinion or an ounce of naivety, so it's hard to see any particular victimisation.

[Russ]

Which again takes us full circle back to my "Daily Mail style readership." Is it really that offensive?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and how forcefully they choose to make it. I don't know what you'd do with yourself if Dan wasn't on UKAR.

[DerekF]

I would suggest that if any forum member feels he is being hounded or singled out then perhaps they need to take a close look at the nature of the language they use. If you post in a way that is likely to upset or provoke then you should expect a reaction. The vast of majority of members ( and staff for that matter) can post in a polite and considerate manner and yet still get their point across. It isn't too much to ask is it?

[Wissam24]

It's not a matter of offence, I was raising a point about the writing of the article and how I felt it was unnecessary to write it that way. I would've brought it up had anybody else written it, I would've brought it up had Dan never said a word about the Lancasters prior to the writing of this article. However, the fact that it has this wider context is what has blown this up.

You make the point that I don't know Dan very well personally. No, I don't, and clearly you have a different opinion of him knowing him as you do. But the thing is, I don't know Dan well, the only impression of him I have is from his forum posts, and from those posts I find him a very unpleasant person - I have no other way of forming an opinion of him and I obviously didn't join UKAR with some preconceived agenda to badmouth him. So to act like my opinion of him is unwarranted is absurd, why else would I dislike him if not for his posts on here? Evidently I'm not the only person on this forum that feels this way about him. Yes, maybe if you know him in person he's a lovely guy, but if you don't then he comes across as petulant and aggressive. Of course he's entitled to express his opinion how he likes, but if he does so in an unwarranted, unpleasant and insulting manner then people won't like him. So yes, he can carry on commenting like this, but you can't then complain that people victimise him and crusade against him because he's the one making them dislike him. His attitude is the one that needs to change, not everyone else's - he doesn't have to, and he can carry on if he so wishes, but people are going to continue to object. If someone repeatedly walks into your office, calls you an idiot and mocks your work, you're not going to have a very positive opinion of him even if he does happen to be a nice guy down the pub with his mates.

What would I do without him? As far as I can recall this is the first time I've spoken out against him, but I know that I found the forum more enjoyable during the period that he wasn't posting here because there was markedly less hostility in a lot of subfora.

[UKTopgun]

I am not really in the loop... Are some posters here staff/whatever from Global Aviation Resource?

[Tommy]

I am not really in the loop... Are some posters here staff/whatever from Global Aviation Resource?

It's not really a "loop" per se, but we have members on this forum who are staff/writers for and/or from our friends at GAR and Fighter Control, and a couple of other forums, yes. Some of whom have posted in this thread. Likewise most of us UKAR staff are also members/readers on those sites, too. Despite the occasional differences in opinion, we're all of the same hobby after all.

[st24]

The most worrying thing for me is that "DO" is listed as UKAR staff again...

We are certainly all "fools"....

[CJS]

The most worrying thing for me is that "DO" is listed as UKAR staff again...

We are certainly all "fools"....

Um, no he's not... memberlist.php?mode=leaders

I might be wrong (it happens occasionally) but I don't believe you have to be UKAR staff to have an article published (Mods?)

As I understand it, if I was capable of writing something which was up to it, there would be no reason why mine, yours or anyone else's journalistic efforts wouldn't be considered for inclusion on the site (think I read something to this effect from Andy a while back).

Chris

[itfcscott]

100% correct Chris.

Dan has written multiple reports for us through the year, including more than one from Old Warden. As he wrote review of the show from Old Warden that included the Comet's début (and I believe there were no staff members present) he was asked to write the text for the Top 10 moments article.

[Hasboman]

100% correct Chris.

Dan has written multiple reports for us through the year, including more than one from Old Warden. As he wrote review of the show from Old Warden that included the Comet's début (and I believe there were no staff members present) he was asked to write the text for the Top 10 moments article.

I believe I saw Andy there too? Pen Pusher may have been lurking around too