BBC Planespotting live....

[f4phixeruk]

Fast forwarded through a lot of it. Did cringe at a lot of the Andi Peters stuff. The historic stuff wasn't too bad. Was surprised Martin Withers didn't get the begging bowl out for shed in Yorkshire

[andygolfer]

Quite. And i’m the collection of sick bags. ...

there's nothing wrong with collecting sickbags!

(I've been collecting them for about 30 years and i'm perfectly sane).

You do realise you're not supposed to keep the full ones, don't you?

Indeed, the nearest I got to having a full one was when my wife inadvertently used one in my car that was 'pending filing' when one of the children was a bit sick, it was quite a rare one so I rescued it and washed it out. It still smelt a bit when I tried to dry it on a radiator.

Mine aren't all aviation ones, I know I've got one from a submarine and another from the Japanese Bullet train and one or two other non-flying ones.

some readers may know me from other fora where my username is sickbag-andy BTW I thought it appropriate to publicise my hobby

[canard67]

This just shows what rubbish the media is generally .We know this subject well, but there are many areas we know nothing about and we are being constantly fed rubbish.

[lambo17841]

Friend of mine was the one interviewed at Stansted who spoke about having the heart attack.
Camera was there for 5 hours just to film that small segment,can see how so much money is wasted by BBC.

John

[CatB]

Wow. 5 pages.

I’m Cat Burton and I thought I’d stick my head above the parapet to give you all some point of contact with the show.

Because trainspotting live was such a success...

Yep. Same production company and pitched by the same producer.

Interesting that although they had access to a live camera feed - probably from the tower judging by the angles, but the authorities didn't let any of the show come from the airport itself, hence the stupid shots of that woman stood at the top of some aircraft steps…

The camera, and cameraman, were on the tower balcony. The set was in the Aeropark to make it a little more interesting, visually, than the average field. The stage was 69m from the runway and those steps, 60m. Given the two cameras used for aircraft movement shots were bulky (the one in the aeropark was on a 100’ high platform crane) that was a close as anybody could have got.

What a clueless pilot, "it's got 4 engines so a 747 or a380" when looking at an aircraft clearly with 2 trails, Norwegian 737!!!!

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Unwarned question from Peter, blurred photo on an ‘outdoor plasma monitor’ (ie nice and bright but not exactly HD, answer now constraints of live TV. Oh. And if you’ve never seen a 4 engine aircraft leave two trails, you truly need to get some time in.

The aircraft itself looked like a 4 engine aircraft on my monitor.

Andi Peters 'Yes it is a 737' - well big wow Mr P, a true enthusiast would say 737-800 at the very least, right? Painted those with an aviation interest as total wackos and oddballs!

Andi is a member of the public with an above average interest in aviation. He actually fought for the job because he’s so interested. I presume you know every little detail of winglet (top and bottom) and cowling to accurately differentiate each variant? Well the general public don’t, and just 737 is probably enough for most of them.

Wouldn't say I disliked it,thought some parts were interesting but could have been better if they didn't rush things too much.

Agreed. From script meeting to dress rehearsal, we were squeezing content to fit the whole way.

Loved the bit where the 'only one who knew what they were talking about' identified a Norwegian 737 as a 747 or 380 because it had 4 engines, the clue was the twin trails behind the aircraft, I am afraid that person is also clueless as a spotter.

I’m NOT a spotter. I’m a pilot. And, as I said earlier, if you don’t think a 4 engine aircraft can leave 2 trails, you need to get some time in. It took me all of two minute on Google to find images of just that (but I haven’t got a clue how to embed them in this post).

I thought Arthur was going to a military base tonight so spot some helicopters and planes tonight.

He was. Brize Norton. Two problems. The spotting site scouted meant that the satellite feed would have directed the microwave transmissions OVER the runway. Brize, understandably refused. Plus, they had no movements. Nobody was more disappointed than I, given that I was to join Arthur there, that I was really looking forward to meeting him, and that they ended up standing me down for the final show. What you saw was the result of frantic contingency planning on Thursday morning.

Why oh why was Arthur Williams not as noticed by someone, not at a Military Airfield and always at the end of City Airports runway?

See above.


And finally, maybe you missed the point. The program wasn’t aimed at spotters. Way too small an audience. If it had been, it would never have been commissioned. Niche audiences need to be catered for by the likes of YouTube channels. It was in the spirit of Springwatch. To encourage the wider public to take an interest, with ‘the mission.’

I’m no spotter myself, as I have admitted, but I do have a pretty good relationship with the South Wales spotter community (in retirement from British Airways, I’m now the SFI Cardiff).

Sorry if this all came over as defensive, and for the length of my first post, but I’ll now shut up and lurk, and try to answer any questions you may have. Just don’t shoot me.

Cat

[UKTopgun]

Thanks for adding some insider perspective, I think most here will admire you for that.

I thought that in general, the format had potential but a couple of points:

EMA did not make the most compelling venue, as it was mainly a string of Cargo types landing

Also there is nothing wrong with making a programme that caters for those with deep genuine interest and those just casually watching. The BBC is far too quick to dumb down assuming the average viewer can't comprehend. To my mind there is nothing wrong with highlighting differences within type. Think of Packham on Springwatch, to use your analogy. He is fascinating because he imparts an intimate subject knowledge and makes the fine detailing compelling. He does not shy away from detail for fear of alienating Joe Public.

Nevertheless, thanks for the reply, I think most here would welcome series 2 with some tweaks of course!

[LN Strike Eagle]

I would concur with the previous post. The idea is not without its merits - I loved the Stargazing Live series that was on BBC2 for a few years (before they started dumbing it down with the silly robot dog from Dr Who, anyway), but the big difference between that show and Plane Spotting was the fact that Brian Cox really knows his stuff, and Dara O'Brien could keep pace with him for the most part, so you felt like you were being taught something by people who know what they were talking about. If you show someone like Brian Cox or Chris Lintott a photo of a constellation, they don't get the identification wrong and that authority over the subject matter makes a big difference into how the overall programme conveys itself to the audience.

Enthusiasm alone isn't enough if the presenters are bumbling around making mistakes, and overall the tone from the two main presenters felt as if it was ever so slightly taking the pee - you had a Rolls Royce test pilot on stage answering questions, and we were reduced to watching the presenter singing the Top Gun theme to him? Puerile behaviour of that sort doesn't lend the programme any air of legitimacy I'm afraid, and I could say the same about paper aeroplanes... Away from her rushed and nervous live content, I will say that I enjoyed Zoe Laughlin's feature on the Comet at Cosford, so again I think there's something there if you can play on those strengths and rely more on well-researched VTs rather than clumsy live demonstrations.

I noted that James May sent in a photo - he might be a decent shout to present this sort of thing, as I generally find his stuff (when not paired with Clarkson and Hammond) to be quite engaging. There was a series of his on earlier this year looking at Hornby models and Airfix - his enthusiasm for the subject comes through and makes what is potentially a very vanilla concept into something more wholesome.

For what it's worth, I thought you came across as the most knowledgeable and articulate presenter across the three nights.

[effects]

Wow. 5 pages.

I’m Cat Burton and I thought I’d stick my head above the parapet to give you all some point of contact with the show.

Because trainspotting live was such a success...

Yep. Same production company and pitched by the same producer.

Interesting that although they had access to a live camera feed - probably from the tower judging by the angles, but the authorities didn't let any of the show come from the airport itself, hence the stupid shots of that woman stood at the top of some aircraft steps…

The camera, and cameraman, were on the tower balcony. The set was in the Aeropark to make it a little more interesting, visually, than the average field. The stage was 69m from the runway and those steps, 60m. Given the two cameras used for aircraft movement shots were bulky (the one in the aeropark was on a 100’ high platform crane) that was a close as anybody could have got.

What a clueless pilot, "it's got 4 engines so a 747 or a380" when looking at an aircraft clearly with 2 trails, Norwegian 737!!!!

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Unwarned question from Peter, blurred photo on an ‘outdoor plasma monitor’ (ie nice and bright but not exactly HD, answer now constraints of live TV. Oh. And if you’ve never seen a 4 engine aircraft leave two trails, you truly need to get some time in.

The aircraft itself looked like a 4 engine aircraft on my monitor.

Andi Peters 'Yes it is a 737' - well big wow Mr P, a true enthusiast would say 737-800 at the very least, right? Painted those with an aviation interest as total wackos and oddballs!

Andi is a member of the public with an above average interest in aviation. He actually fought for the job because he’s so interested. I presume you know every little detail of winglet (top and bottom) and cowling to accurately differentiate each variant? Well the general public don’t, and just 737 is probably enough for most of them.

Wouldn't say I disliked it,thought some parts were interesting but could have been better if they didn't rush things too much.

Agreed. From script meeting to dress rehearsal, we were squeezing content to fit the whole way.

Loved the bit where the 'only one who knew what they were talking about' identified a Norwegian 737 as a 747 or 380 because it had 4 engines, the clue was the twin trails behind the aircraft, I am afraid that person is also clueless as a spotter.

I’m NOT a spotter. I’m a pilot. And, as I said earlier, if you don’t think a 4 engine aircraft can leave 2 trails, you need to get some time in. It took me all of two minute on Google to find images of just that (but I haven’t got a clue how to embed them in this post).

I thought Arthur was going to a military base tonight so spot some helicopters and planes tonight.

He was. Brize Norton. Two problems. The spotting site scouted meant that the satellite feed would have directed the microwave transmissions OVER the runway. Brize, understandably refused. Plus, they had no movements. Nobody was more disappointed than I, given that I was to join Arthur there, that I was really looking forward to meeting him, and that they ended up standing me down for the final show. What you saw was the result of frantic contingency planning on Thursday morning.

Why oh why was Arthur Williams not as noticed by someone, not at a Military Airfield and always at the end of City Airports runway?

See above.


And finally, maybe you missed the point. The program wasn’t aimed at spotters. Way too small an audience. If it had been, it would never have been commissioned. Niche audiences need to be catered for by the likes of YouTube channels. It was in the spirit of Springwatch. To encourage the wider public to take an interest, with ‘the mission.’

I’m no spotter myself, as I have admitted, but I do have a pretty good relationship with the South Wales spotter community (in retirement from British Airways, I’m now the SFI Cardiff).

Sorry if this all came over as defensive, and for the length of my first post, but I’ll now shut up and lurk, and try to answer any questions you may have. Just don’t shoot me.

Cat

Hilarious, the only way a four engine jet could produce 2 trails is to shut 2 down! I suppose in theory you could have more than 4 from a leaky old jumbo, fuel jettison and grey water.

[Sabrina]

It was in the spirit of Springwatch

Exactly. Thanks for the context Cat and for bringing a much-needed sense of perspective.

[CatB]

Hilarious, the only way a four engine jet could produce 2 trails is to shut 2 down! I suppose in theory you could have more than 4 from a leaky old jumbo, fuel jettison and grey water.

So I suppose beating back and forth over the Atlantic for 30 years doesn’t qualify me to know much about contrails.

Let’s try a specific example. Four into two because they get twisted by the tip vortices.

Please don’t try top trumps with me. You’d lose. And belittling me is a non starter too.

Be civil or be gone.

Oh. And when you quote a post, simple forum netiquette is to edit out the parts that are irrelevant, not to quote the whole damn thing.

[DerekF]

Welcome to UKAR CatB, where there is a wealth of opinions and knowledge, which in rare instances might even be correct.

[harkins]

So I suppose beating back and forth over the Atlantic for 30 years doesn’t qualify me to know much about contrails.

Please don’t try top trumps with me. You’d lose. And belittling me is a non starter too.

Be civil or be gone.

Oh. And when you quote a post, simple forum netiquette is to edit out the parts that are irrelevant, not to quote the whole damn thing.

You make a good defence of the programme but, I still feel it was a bit on the poor side. Just because the general public aren't spotters shouldn't mean that mixing up a Spitfire and Lysander is fine and there really were quite a lot of errors throughout the three programmes. And the general production was a bit rough. Poor old Peter Snow was struggling a bit and the poor sick bag guy, Peter fired questions at him faster than he could possibly answer them. Came across almost as if he didn't care about the mans collection.

Still, I really liked your post

[Euan Buchan]

It was in the spirit of Springwatch

Exactly. Thanks for the context Cat and for bringing a much-needed sense of perspective.

Yep it definitely is like Springwatch though this years Springwatch has been the best in recent years,

[CatB]

You make a good defence of the programme but, I still feel it was a bit on the poor side. Just because the general public aren't spotters shouldn't mean that mixing up a Spitfire and Lysander is fine and there really were quite a lot of errors throughout the three programmes. And the general production was a bit rough. Poor old Peter Snow was struggling a bit and the poor sick bag guy, Peter fired questions at him faster than he could possibly answer them. Came across almost as if he didn't care about the mans collection.

Still, I really liked your post

No argument from me. Peter is 81, charming, helpful but had no knowledge. The speed was all down to the script, which was trimmed and trimmed to try to squeeze us into the time. They originally planned to have me tell two sickbag anecdotes but they went early on.

I wasn’t there on Thursday, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the confusion between two such dissimilar types came from having to listen to the feed from the gallery (often two voices at once) while looking at the screen and talking, all simultaneously. As the amateur on the team, they were amazed when I asked for the feed, not just the output channel, on my earpiece. I likened it to a busy ATC frequency. Huge amounts of info, taken in almost subconsciously to form a complete mental model, but hear your callsign - or name in this context - and you focus in and listen. But it CAN distract even a consummate professional.

If I give you a single insight into pitch, it might make things clear. I can explain my knowledge at pretty much any level from doctorate students to primary school kids. I was told to pitch to a bright bunch of GCSE students. And I was the studio expert. The presenters were pitching a little lower.

[FarnboroJohn]

[quote="CatB
If I give you a single insight into pitch, it might make things clear. I can explain my knowledge at pretty much any level from doctorate students to primary school kids. I was told to pitch to a bright bunch of GCSE students. And I was the studio expert. The presenters were pitching a little lower.[/quote]

You're not wrong about the level the presenters were pitching.... if I can give you an insight into aircraft enthusiasts (who contra upthread claim that "spotter" = number cruncher, come in all varieties), it might be that at the age of eight I could distinguish between all Marks of Spitfire, on TV or in the field. By 16 I (and my friends in the hobby) had a working knowledge in my head of most of the RAF's active fleet and pretty much all airworthy UK warbirds at serial number level. To me R5868 creates awe, MH434 is a familiar friend, RR299 is a mourned loss, WB188 is an example to aspiring pioneers and ZA718(BN) worries me because of the continuing level of risk this historic airframe is exposed to.

I judge others by this standard. Mr Peters' inability to correctly quote the name of one of the very few remaining RAF MOBs came up short.... I could, and do when reminiscing in the pub with friends, quote lists of RAF/USAFE bases that were routine stops on spotting trips that started at Kinloss and ended at the twinned Woodbridge-Bentwaters, home of the A10s of the 81st TFW (at the time largest wing in aircraft numbers of the USAF), let alone the few that remain.

The BBC has a tradition of good science programmes - Horizon, The Sky at Night, the Life collection - that, far from dumbing down or patronising audiences, could be quoted in e.g. GCE exams successfully. Hobbyists with the level of knowledge that such matters as aviation produce deserve equal respect in production and TBH the British public will respond well to such treatment.

If there's going to be a series two (and I'd like to see one) then the format needs adjusting, the audience respect needs adjusting and most particularly the presenters need to realise that a genuine test pilot doesn't have to kowtow to the ideas of a Top Gun wannabe. Although the test pilot may be able to quote the whole of High Flight, and that might be worth listening to..... Above all, for goodness sake dump the red top journalist approach. In aviation the only correct context for Red Top is AAM.

[effects]

Hilarious, the only way a four engine jet could produce 2 trails is to shut 2 down! I suppose in theory you could have more than 4 from a leaky old jumbo, fuel jettison and grey water.

So I suppose beating back and forth over the Atlantic for 30 years doesn’t qualify me to know much about contrails.

Let’s try a specific example. Four into two because they get twisted by the tip vortices.

Please don’t try top trumps with me. You’d lose. And belittling me is a non starter too.

Be civil or be gone.

Oh. And when you quote a post, simple forum netiquette is to edit out the parts that are irrelevant, not to quote the whole damn thing.

Well for a start, I have been watching contrails from the ground for over 40 years so I am probably just as qualified as you on that one, in fact you've never seen the contrail produced by your aircraft.
A tip vortex would not blur the formation of the contrail immediately behind the engine so my point is valid.
As for the trumps thing, I suppose you are a pilot and you out- trump everyone in the known universe

[CatB]

Hilarious, the only way a four engine jet could produce 2 trails is to shut 2 down! I suppose in theory you could have more than 4 from a leaky old jumbo, fuel jettison and grey water.

So I suppose beating back and forth over the Atlantic for 30 years doesn’t qualify me to know much about contrails.

Let’s try a specific example. Four into two because they get twisted by the tip vortices.

Please don’t try top trumps with me. You’d lose. And belittling me is a non starter too.

Be civil or be gone.

Oh. And when you quote a post, simple forum netiquette is to edit out the parts that are irrelevant, not to quote the whole damn thing.

Well for a start, I have been watching contrails from the ground for over 40 years so I am probably just as qualified as you on that one, in fact you've never seen the contrail produced by your aircraft.
A tip vortex would not blur the formation of the contrail immediately behind the engine so my point is valid.
As for the trumps thing, I suppose you are a pilot and you out- trump everyone in the know universe

Maybe I haven’t seen my own contrail - directly. But I’ve seen it’s shadow on countless occasions - on the clouds just below me on days when you just see a flat universal grey. And it’s my experience that trumps, not being a pilot. Your disrespect is what caused me to react that way. Just because you haven’t seen something doesn’t make it not so. Laughing and calling an experienced point of view ridiculous and attempting to belittle the person just reduces you to irrelevant noise.

[blueskytoday]

It was in the spirit of Springwatch.

Didn't watch the programmes so am not in a very strong position to comment, but the above quote fits in nicely with my suppositions of how it might go: a set of erudite individuals showing and discussing lesser creatures in their native environment.

[speedbird2639]

Take no notice of him, Cat. Some of the people on here appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge and experience.

@effects - rule #1 - when in a hole already, stop digging. You are making yourself look stupid like a drunk taking on a pro boxer outside a pub at the end of Saturday night.

@farnboroughjohn - you are exactly the sort of extremely knowledgeable person the programme was NOT aimed at. I wouldn't hold out much hope of them changing the programme to suit your interests.

[Domvickery]

Oh. And when you quote a post, simple forum netiquette is to edit out the parts that are irrelevant, not to quote the whole damn thing.

You’re already my new favourite poster! Welcome to UKAR, your knowledge is very insightful & hopefully you’ll stick around!

[effects]

Hilarious, the only way a four engine jet could produce 2 trails is to shut 2 down! I suppose in theory you could have more than 4 from a leaky old jumbo, fuel jettison and grey water.

So I suppose beating back and forth over the Atlantic for 30 years doesn’t qualify me to know much about contrails.

Let’s try a specific example. Four into two because they get twisted by the tip vortices.

Please don’t try top trumps with me. You’d lose. And belittling me is a non starter too.

Be civil or be gone.

Oh. And when you quote a post, simple forum netiquette is to edit out the parts that are irrelevant, not to quote the whole damn thing.

Well for a start, I have been watching contrails from the ground for over 40 years so I am probably just as qualified as you on that one, in fact you've never seen the contrail produced by your aircraft.
A tip vortex would not blur the formation of the contrail immediately behind the engine so my point is valid.
As for the trumps thing, I suppose you are a pilot and you out- trump everyone in the know universe

Maybe I haven’t seen my own contrail - directly. But I’ve seen it’s shadow on countless occasions - on the clouds just below me on days when you just see a flat universal grey. And it’s my experience that trumps, not being a pilot. Your disrespect is what caused me to react that way. Just because you haven’t seen something doesn’t make it not so. Laughing and calling an experienced point of view ridiculous and attempting to belittle the person just reduces you to irrelevant noise.

Hmmm, disrespect, is that is a good description of simply pointing out that someone who was paid to be part of a programme was wrong, and respect is a two way street, remember the 'get some time in' comment.

[effects]

:clap:

Take no notice of him, Cat. Some of the people on here appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge and experience.

@effects - rule #1 - when in a hole already, stop digging. You are making yourself look stupid like a drunk taking on a pro boxer outside a pub at the end of Saturday night.

@farnboroughjohn - you are exactly the sort of extremely knowledgeable person the programme was NOT aimed at. I wouldn't hold out much hope of them changing the programme to suit your interests.

Of course, I know nothing about aviation.....

[CatB]

Oh. And when you quote a post, simple forum netiquette is to edit out the parts that are irrelevant, not to quote the whole damn thing.

You’re already my new favourite poster! Welcome to UKAR, your knowledge is very insightful & hopefully you’ll stick around!

Thanks, Dom. That snippet came from moderating other forums in my dim and distant past.

One think I wish you had - a like button, or upvote button on posts. Some on this thread hit the nail squarely on the head and I would have liked to acknowledge such simply.

[speedbird2639]

One think I wish you had - a like button, or upvote button on posts. Some on this thread hit the nail squarely on the head and I would have liked to acknowledge such simply.

I agree - but I think the Luddites on here think its 'all a bit too Facebook' so they won't consider it.

[CatB]

It was in the spirit of Springwatch.

a set of erudite individuals showing and discussing lesser creatures in their native environment.

Haha. In fact, the criticisms have mostly been the exact opposite. A set of know nothings insulting the intelligence of superior beings.