FighterControl

I thought I'd share this link with you all and start a new thread on the 'bad reporting' surrounding this accident.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... Arrow.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was that annoyed after reading this article I e-mailed the writter directly to give him some correct facts, and when the MOD come up with same answer that I did within seconds of seeing this picture an apology would be nice in the paper.

The article is full of holes, the exhausts are not under the aircraft. The 25year old 'plane spotter/photographer' must be new to aviation, as as for the flying expert who can't be named...What an idiot.

Its a strobe light ........................... End of.

I'd encourage others to write to the sun and ask them to remove this poor story.

Gary

Done but maybe I was a little harsh. Nearly did the same with that DM article on Sunday. Idiots.

It does amaze me where they find their so called "Aviation Experts".

Wonder if my comment on that page will meet with the moderators approval........doubt it somehow!

That is exactly one of the reasons I never read The Sun. I still reckon it was a bird strike myself.

MikeB wrote:It does amaze me where they find their so called "Aviation Experts".

They dont!

Think about how many times you have read a newspaper article and the following were used.....

an eyewitness said........
a friend said........
someone close to (insert name) said........
an on looker said.........
an expert who doesnt want to be named said.......

I would bet that in most cases none of these people actually exist. By claiming an un-named source reporters can pretty much write what they want to sensationalise a story without any comeback! And by being quite subtle people in most cases wont bat an eyelid and accept what they're reading.

Next time you can, pick up a copy of the Sun (or pretty much any red top) and read the articles, you'll be amazed how many comments are made by un-named people. Oh and by pick up I litterally mean pick up, dont buy, just read!!

Regards

Neil

Planks! God help us if "aviation experts" can't recognise a strobe when they see one.

Holy cow! The Daily Mail is even worse......same picture, same story but has the following.....

"A former Red Arrows pilot yesterday described the photograph as ‘potentially significant’ and ‘a puzzle’, but told the Daily Mail the strange light may be ‘nothing more than a reflection’, but Mr Money said if that was the case, the reflection would be ‘visible on other areas of the plane.’

The ex-pilot, who declined to be identified, said: ‘It’s something investigators will be keen to examine. The light appears to be coming from the area at the rear, where the speed brake and exhaust are situated.

‘It could prove a very significant and interesting piece of evidence as part of the wider investigation.’

The former Red Arrows pilot said the plane’s position in the formation was consistent with ‘where one would expect Red 4 to be’."

And........

"But a retired former wing commander, who also declined to be named, said the most likely explanation for the light was that it was a strobe light, fitted on all aircraft as an anti-collision device.

He added: ‘These lights can be easily triggered by mistake in the cockpit.’"

It beggars belief.

I bet there will be a report in the sun soon that the light was in fact a small alien spacecraft striking the Hawk!!!

Blackcat1 wrote:I bet there will be a report in the sun soon that the light was in fact a small alien spacecraft striking the Hawk!!!

Ha Ha Ha

Thats a shame the MOD scrapped the UFO helpdesk

Unknown74 wrote:That is exactly one of the reasons I never read The Sun. I still reckon it was a bird strike myself.

You might not read it but it seems you're just as willing to speculate...

Isnt that Red 5 for starters!?

7

seven wrote:Isnt that Red 5 for starters!?

7

Don't think so, Red 5 should be in the same position but on the opposite side of the formation.

I could be wrong though.

That is Red 4's position in Big Vixen (the formation photographed).

That is really poor reporting from The Sun regarding the light.

Edit - Cap's in "The Sun"

I stand corrected!

7

jem60 wrote:Surely this has already been done to death on page 2 of the Fighter Control Mess under 'Awful Journalism.' I suggest you read my last post on there, Aug 22nd, then you might be a little bit more understanding of how mistakes get made, including me not helping things!!!.

You may feel this has been done to death, In all honesty, when I started this thread, i didn't know there was one already along the same lines.

Understanding of how mistakes get made - mmmm now let me ponder that for all of two seconds................yep done. If I made mistakes and made things up in my job, I'd loose it. Just because they are Jounalists doesn't give them the right to publish anything without checking the reliablity of the information they are feeding the public.

I accept we may know the flash is a strobe, but if you read the article it mentions this flash is from the landing gear, the air brake and jet pipe...........so how can it come from three place and then to have an un-named proffessional that says "I've never seen anything like that." ................

There is no excuse.

Gary

Have a look at this video of a Hawk on it's take off run, not one of the Reds aircraft, but a Hawk all the same...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWuS9Jxd6qo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At 1.38 on the clip you can clearly see the strobe / anti collision light flashing away under the Hawk's fuselage, surely as already stated in earlier posts this must be the white flash which is shown on the picture in the Sun.


TankBuster

Here is another example - http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6863289&nseq=9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All be it a T.2

It would appear he can't spell LIGHTNING!

As a friend of mine once said

"Don't you just love journalist!"