The Star's "reporting" of it as a "DISASTER" is so laughable as to make a complete mockery of so-called journalism. They even mix up the two incidents!
Bottom line is that two aeroplanes had problems, both pilots acted in the textbook manner to bring the machines down quickly and at no risk to the crowds. One pilot was hurt, nobody died. The rules and regulatory mechanisms worked as they should. Airshows remain, as they always have been, safe. Nothing to see here.
The Star's "reporting" of it as a "DISASTER" is so laughable as to make a complete mockery of so-called journalism. They even mix up the two incidents!
Bottom line is that two aeroplanes had problems, both pilots acted in the textbook manner to bring the machines down quickly and at no risk to the crowds. One pilot was hurt, nobody died. The rules and regulatory mechanisms worked as they should. Airshows remain, as they always have been, safe. Nothing to see here.
But "Pilot brings aircraft down safely, no one in danger" as a headline isn't going to sell any papers to the frogspawn masses who would prefer death and destruction. Are you surprised?
No we're not surprised at all, but a little bit of truth and balance on here can't do any harm, even if it doesn't do a lot of good! What it needs is a return to the days of football hooliganism, that kept the chip wrappers busy!
The Star's "reporting" of it as a "DISASTER" is so laughable as to make a complete mockery of so-called journalism. They even mix up the two incidents!
Bottom line is that two aeroplanes had problems, both pilots acted in the textbook manner to bring the machines down quickly and at no risk to the crowds. One pilot was hurt, nobody died. The rules and regulatory mechanisms worked as they should. Airshows remain, as they always have been, safe. Nothing to see here.
I generally agree with everything you've said, but w.r.t. the twister incident: Low and slow with engine failure, I thought that a 180 back to the airfield was exactly what the textbook said NOT to do...? (Though I appreciate that in a particular situation, it might be the 'least worst' option!)
And as the smart ship grew, In stature, grace and hue, In shadowy silent distance grew the iceberg too....
The Star's "reporting" of it as a "DISASTER" is so laughable as to make a complete mockery of so-called journalism. They even mix up the two incidents!
Mind-boggling irony seeing that the author of that article tweeted this a few weeks ago: [tweet]https://twitter.com/Sabrina_Dougall/status/857667099321405440[/tweet]
If life gives you melons then you're probably dyslexic
The Star's "reporting" of it as a "DISASTER" is so laughable as to make a complete mockery of so-called journalism. They even mix up the two incidents!
Mind-boggling irony seeing that the author of that article tweeted this a few weeks ago: [tweet]https://twitter.com/Sabrina_Dougall/status/857667099321405440[/tweet]
The only incredible thing about the "incredible footage" is that people are still using mobile phones in "portrait " mode!!
Dan O'Hagan wrote:Wonder who'll be the first to sell their photos to the Daily Mail for tomorrow's sensationalised "The Shocking Moment A..." scare story?
That should be the least of our worries right now...
Doesn't mean it isn't a comment worth mentioning. Speculating on the sensationalism that will probably be in the newspapers with two incidents at one event, doesn't take away from thoughts and feelings from those affected.
'Thoughts and feelings from those affected'
What are you talking about? It was a well executed emergency belly landing, not a 747 plowing into a block of flats.
Dan O'Hagan wrote:Wonder who'll be the first to sell their photos to the Daily Mail for tomorrow's sensationalised "The Shocking Moment A..." scare story?
That should be the least of our worries right now...
Doesn't mean it isn't a comment worth mentioning. Speculating on the sensationalism that will probably be in the newspapers with two incidents at one event, doesn't take away from thoughts and feelings from those affected.
'Thoughts and feelings from those affected'
What are you talking about? It was a well executed emergency belly landing, not a 747 plowing into a block of flats.
Whether it was well executed or not there will still be people affected. Most notably the pilot ending up in hospital and his family hearing of the incident.
Dan O'Hagan wrote:Wonder who'll be the first to sell their photos to the Daily Mail for tomorrow's sensationalised "The Shocking Moment A..." scare story?
That should be the least of our worries right now...
Doesn't mean it isn't a comment worth mentioning. Speculating on the sensationalism that will probably be in the newspapers with two incidents at one event, doesn't take away from thoughts and feelings from those affected.
'Thoughts and feelings from those affected'
What are you talking about? It was a well executed emergency belly landing, not a 747 plowing into a block of flats.
The pilot was still injured, so yes, there is every right to say that. People will have been affected by this. Some people on this forum look to cause an argument over anything they can. It's pathetic
I have to be honest, if that is what was said, I find it a very strange response. We expected problems?
So everytime a pilot displays at a new venue for them (in effect the same as displaying over a new display box) you expect a problem. If that's the case ban all airshows immediately.
I had no issues with traffic and liked the layout. The issues I did have were a lack of urinals. Portaloos a-plenty, but no urinals (that I could see), and a couple clowns taking the PA system down before the end of the flying. Not just inconvenient and unhelpful but also dangerous as its used to pass on announcements to Joe.
I enjoyed the show, fairly good traffic managment and an easy get away at the end around 1825. Despite the incidents it was a good commentary and several good static surprises.The great warbirds are a good act, glad the 504 crew ok. Shame about the Twister FL, hope the pilots recovers. I also found that static aircrew and stall holders were happy to chat and not hurried.Very lucky with the weather as the biggest downpours showers missed and only one dark cloud appeared near the extended end of the show.
As Hampshire said,I ment ie new layout equals potential traffic issues etc etc which no thanks partly to a dud set of paid company officials did a not very good job for me & proved a point. The paper as yet again misquoted....and Baron if I found out what clowns took down the PA horns I would string them up,how dare they compromise our safety.
Oldtower wrote:Capercaillie so do I as I never said it......
As Hampshire said,I ment ie new layout equals potential traffic issues etc etc which no thanks partly to a dud set of paid company officials did a not very good job for me & proved a point. The paper as yet again misquoted....and Baron if I found out what clowns took down the PA horns I would string them up,how dare they compromise our safety.
That's the problem with almost all media these days, you say something, then something else and then they twist it into an order that suits a story. I wouldn't even give them the time of day.
Oldtower wrote:Capercaillie so do I as I never said it......
As Hampshire said,I ment ie new layout equals potential traffic issues etc etc which no thanks partly to a dud set of paid company officials did a not very good job for me & proved a point. The paper as yet again misquoted....and Baron if I found out what clowns took down the PA horns I would string them up,how dare they compromise our safety.
I know the Scout helicopter took one of them down as it was lifting