Decker screws up original post title and edits

[Decker]

Article here

One British family feared a repeat. Well they obviously never read about the original - tough to repeat when you've been airborne for an hour already.

[Scrooge]

Well at least they got the right type of plane, though not LIP, they got GAL instead...close though.

As I stood outside my house, watching as it was engulfed in flames, the kindly VS spokesdrone came up to me and said, 'There's no fire in your house! It's merely a technical problem.'

And then I felt ever so much better.

GJ

Is it me or does Joe Public seem to increasingly feel a need to overly exaggerate stories to make their experiences seem that much more death defying and/or interesting.

Passenger interviewed for that article claims the engine was on fire. I'm kinda thinking the flight crew would not be trying to restart an engine while it has 15ft flames coming out of it like this guy claims. Maybe there was fire...but I'm just thinking how unreliable eyewitnesses are these days - those who insisted in the Madrid crash last week that the port engine was on fire before it crashed, yet video footage shows no such thing.

VS says there was no fire. I don't know why they'd lie about that, but nonetheless, the God awful tabloid paper that is the Daily Mail still runs with a headline 'Passengers' terror as flames shoot from holiday jets engine'. It baffles me how the Mail gets away with some of the crap they print. First, they seem to have interviewed one not very savvy passenger, yet the headline becomes passengers' (plural).

Then the guy makes out that the passengers all stamped their feet and insisted on not getting back on the same plane because of fears of what happened in Madrid, and 'most waited until another aircraft was found'....well, actually, everyone waited until another aircraft was found, they had no choice cos Virgin wasn't sending that one back up.

Wow do I hate that newspaper!

I agree - another example of tabloid exaggeration. Is this really necessary so soon after Madrid?

Why let the truth get in the way of a good headline?

[Scrooge]

Well...( technical hat on) if there is a compressor stall in a high by pass engine then chances are your going to see flame (hat off)

But yes, a little melodramatic for me.

[preiffer]

Interesting terminology for a 'Joe Bloggs' type person to use in that statement though, don't you think?


'The number 1 engine'? [:?]

Originally posted by preiffer
Interesting terminology for a 'Joe Bloggs' type person to use in that statement though, don't you think?


'The number 1 engine'? [:?]

I've been quoted in various international media and more often than I care to mention have seen my quotes changed by the tabs. Usually it's just a colloquialism ('No one should be complaining about...' changed to 'No one should be whinging about...') but sometimes it's total fabrication. I've taken to carrying a pocket digital voice recorder when I do interviews for just such circumstances.

That said, bird strikes often result in a jet of flame coming from the engine and not everyone is as blessedly smart as this lot when it comes to parsing what one type of engine flame means versus another. To this poor sod, the engine shot flame and so the engine was on fire. I'm willing to forgive him that.

I'm less willing to forgive the newspapers for not interviewing an expert to counteract the pax comment OR to forgive VS for issuing a statement of such oblique, mealy-mouthed value as to appear deceptive. [V]

GJ

[Scrooge]

Originally posted by preiffer
Interesting terminology for a 'Joe Bloggs' type person to use in that statement though, don't you think?


'The number 1 engine'? [:?]

Well he could hang around on here or on A'net, then he would know it was the number 1 engine that went pop...or it could be the Mail doing it's thing [:w]

After witnessing: 'At rotation and during the part of the initial climb ... orange flames trailed the No 1 engine in regular double pulses, each double pulse with an interval of about 1.5 seconds. ... flames appeared detached from the engine by about 10 metres and the flames themselves seemed about 15 metres long' it is not surprising that someone might think this is an engine 'on fire'

A nice video of a compressor stall can be seen here. (In that instance due to a bird)
Can be spectacular and seems much worse than it is. It must be remembered that jet engines are designed to burn - and to burn lots of fuel - hopefully with lots of heat developing power inside the engine rather than a comparatively cold flame trailing behind.

Pax at the back would have a nice show. Crew earned their beer that night!

Slightly off Topic, but why such a downer on the Mail?

Every paper (I tend not to use the term 'newspaper') does the same whether it is the Guardian being a New Labour advertising agency, The Mirror being published from Congress House, The Sun being a comic etc etc.

If you hate a particular paper then it is probably because the political slant does not gel with your own. After all, it can't be because of factual inaccuracies or sensationalism. No paper is above that - I seem to remember years ago The Times got it's knickers in a twist with The Hitler Diaries.

Bad news sells. Having been in Florida for the last 12 days, looking at the local news you would have thought the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse were coming rather than a Tropical Storm that dumped huge amounts of rain on us.

Originally posted by spiceke
Slightly off Topic, but why such a downer on the Mail?

Every paper (I tend not to use the term 'newspaper') does the same whether it is the Guardian being a New Labour advertising agency, The Mirror being published from Congress House, The Sun being a comic etc etc.

If you hate a particular paper then it is probably because the political slant does not gel with your own. After all, it can't be because of factual inaccuracies or sensationalism. No paper is above that - I seem to remember years ago The Times got it's knickers in a twist with The Hitler Diaries.

Bad news sells. Having been in Florida for the last 12 days, looking at the local news you would have thought the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse were coming rather than a Tropical Storm that dumped huge amounts of rain on us.

100% spot on post. [oo][oo][oo][oo][^][^][^][^][oo][oo][oo][oo]

GJ

Originally posted by spiceke
Slightly off Topic, but why such a downer on the Mail?

Every paper (I tend not to use the term 'newspaper') does the same whether it is the Guardian being a New Labour advertising agency, The Mirror being published from Congress House, The Sun being a comic etc etc.

If you hate a particular paper then it is probably because the political slant does not gel with your own. After all, it can't be because of factual inaccuracies or sensationalism. No paper is above that - I seem to remember years ago The Times got it's knickers in a twist with The Hitler Diaries.

Bad news sells. Having been in Florida for the last 12 days, looking at the local news you would have thought the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse were coming rather than a Tropical Storm that dumped huge amounts of rain on us.

The Daily Mail is a particularly nasty newspaper.
This is the newspaper that criticised Mo Mowlem's appearance, despite the fact that she was suffering from cancer. This is the paper that thinks women who have a drink are to blame if they are raped. This is the paper that opposes gay rights, and constantly berates women. Other papers (Daily Express excepted) do actually give a right to reply. Do you know the Daily Mail edits responses from readers on their website (And I don't mean for profanity - they actively reject comments that disagree with the article or delete relevant comments)? These are just some of the reasons why some people have a downer on the Daily Mail.

No newspaper is perfect, but at least some try a bit to be

Sorry, I know it's a bit late but I couldn't resist. [;)][;)]
To quote 'Yes, Prime Minister'

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and the The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

I wonder if we will get the full story behind this incident.
Rumoured there were concerns about this engine before the flight...
An explanation on Verbal hastily deleted.