PPrune visits Plane Talking.
A Troll, by any other name. ?
The comment above was made in response to a Ben Sandilands article, which featured yet another incident at Melbourne. Like the ATSB and ASA, the writer fails utterly to grasp the essentials. Perhaps he too could be an Unspeakable Prune moderator. They’d love him over there. I love the use of ‘behoves’ (‘behooves’ as if bee’s have feet ) it has a certain condescension, typical of the high handed arrogance and purblind ignorance that just makes me happy all over. Playing the man, not the ball – only way to go, when convincing the travelling public that Ben has overstated the case – I wish it were that simple.
Anyway – FWIW.
A Troll, by any other name. ?
Quote:While I am used to reading some inaccurate, outlandish and inflammatory comments on your articles, it again disappoints me to find them in the article itself. Please take the time to read the report your writing on, and if you still aren’t clear on the facts, make the effort to consult an SME to get your writing on aviation incident/accidents reviewed. You are commenting on a highly technical area with an implied claim of expertise; surely it behooves you to make the effort to be accurate?
Please note that the flight in question did not “plough through at low level the general aviation airspace of Essendon Airport …” or any other grammatically clumsy, hyper-sensationalised activity.
As clearly indicated in the ATSB report the flight was in compliance with the STAR restriction of 2500 ft over Essendon Airport, but subsequently established an approach profile below the 3 degree approach path espoused by Flight Safety Foundation as part of the ALAR initiative of the late 90′s, now part and parcel of Aircraft Manufacturer and Airline SOPs. There was never any risk to aircraft approaching or departing Essendon airport – at worst they could have been 1000 ft below (standard separation); and since we are talking about aircraft taking off and landing at Essendon, quite a bit more.
When you inaccurately describe an event in this way, your readers take it at face value and further inflame and degenerate the subsequent conversation to depths of inaccuracy beyond recovery. It’s a pity – I like reading about Australian Aviation; there’s not a lot of opportunity to do so; this an unsatisfactory reflection on the quality of aviation reporting in general. I realise you have to “sell papers” but please keep the rhetoric away from Incidents/accidents.
The comment above was made in response to a Ben Sandilands article, which featured yet another incident at Melbourne. Like the ATSB and ASA, the writer fails utterly to grasp the essentials. Perhaps he too could be an Unspeakable Prune moderator. They’d love him over there. I love the use of ‘behoves’ (‘behooves’ as if bee’s have feet ) it has a certain condescension, typical of the high handed arrogance and purblind ignorance that just makes me happy all over. Playing the man, not the ball – only way to go, when convincing the travelling public that Ben has overstated the case – I wish it were that simple.
Anyway – FWIW.