Quote:
Originally Posted by FastDEW
You felt this article was Boeing bashing?
To me, it read like Airbus this is problem; Boeing system is better.
Did we read the same article?
Let me try and explain what I am getting at. You are right, outwardly this seems like a good article written for mass consumption, but the media has little tricks to temper its advertisers, let me show you a few.
..... Actually this is far from fair and balanced. The First Sentence: "With the report into the tragedy of Air France 447 due next month, Airbus’s 'brilliant’ aircraft design may have contributed to one of the world’s worst aviation disasters and the deaths of all 228 onboard." Think about the word 'brilliant'. Its an emotive not a technical word in this instance. It implies rather than informs, not a good way to start a well centered journalistic work reporting on the deaths of 228 civilians. A tragedy is the Knicks going down to the Lakers, or Chevy beating Ford or having a 32 hour layover somewhere you hate, an individual killing 228 passengers by accident whilst performing his job is something else.
Then there's this: "Anything to do with Airbus is important. The company has sold 11,500 aircraft to date, with 7,000 in the air. It commands half the world market in big airliners, the other half belonging to its great American rival, Boeing.".... Now it seems I have pulled this out of context but no, it hangs in the article in the same dis-jointed way it sits in this thread, why even include this little tit bit of trivia?
And more: "Boeing has always begged to differ, persisting with conventional controls on its fly-by-wire aircraft,".... Disinformation. Airbus is the company who continues to break from convention and a tiny amount of research would confirm this.
The implied, of faux interview with Captain King. Complete fabrication. Captain king supplied a press statement to the telegraph, there was no dialog. Breaking up a press statement to 'own' it is sensational journalism at best.
Ask yourself why it is that the BEA thought it prudent in its interim report to mention the fact that the pitot tubes had been changed out of this aircraft <from type AA to type BA> some 6 days before the crash but telegraph.co didn't?
Then the biggest problem, the time line of events. Nick Ross and Neil Tweedie write: "Only 45 seconds before impact Bonin blurted out that he had been trying to climb throughout the emergency, "
Yet in the CVR transcript the announcement by Bonin is only seconds before the end of the recording. What happened? Did the CVR malfunction some 30 seconds before impact? Is it just poorly written? Its a pretty big problem for the editors not to pick up on.
Also consider this. Nick Ross is a broadcaster, not a journalist. His claim to fame is the BBC series 'Crime Watch', kind of cops for the UK audience. And not two months before this tripe was written Feature writer Neil Tweedie got 'the scoop' on his peers with this headline: Secrets of the Freemasons.
If this was well written then it would answer with complete clarity the following: Who? What? When? Where? and Why?
Rant Ends.