Incident at duxford – crew safe

Mr Foster replied in much the same vein to me, calling my reaction ‘hysterical’ 😡

Mr Foster said to me today:

I can tell you categorically 1) This crash and backgrounders have been treated in the same fair and thorough way as we treat all significant news stories and 2) you and your fellow pilots may object to the word stunt but this is not shared by the rest of us

When you are prepared to drop the insulting manner of your communications, then we can make some progress.

Yours sincerely

James Foster

Deputy Editor, Cambridge Evening News

(01223) 434308

I simply pointed out that like his use of the word ‘stunt’ that the word ‘bas tard’ can mean different things to different people when used in different contects. :rolleyes:

I also wondered if my concern was of a political/religous nature would he treat my concern with the same disregard?

The best way to get an ‘accurate’ account in press is for you to give them the words.

Jeepers Doc, you really are an optimist!

I’ve tried your method several times and believe me – that doesn’t work either!

Roy.

In my experience, journalists are quite lazy, and more than happy to simply reprint what someone else has told them. The best way to get an ‘accurate’ account in press is for you to give them the words. They might try to make it ‘sexier’ to their readership – no one can stop that – but at least their facts are correct.

Journalism has not ‘gone to the dogs’. It has always been there ;-).

DS

Mr Foster replied in much the same vein to me, calling my reaction ‘hysterical’ 😡

What a load of fuss about nothing! The ‘offending’ article simply states things in a tabloid manner, that said with poor / incorrect spelling . To compare a badly mishandled display manouvre as akin to the ‘level of risk’ incured in day to day commercial aviation is pretty amature.

Whilst their spelling certainly doesn’t reach your level of creativity the thing that really angered me more than anything was the sloppiness over Neil Rix’s name.

If you read my letter of complaint more carefully, you might possibly have discerned that there was no comparison of risk levels, merely the statement that risk is present in all things aviation.

Moggy

What a load of fuss about nothing! The ‘offending’ article simply states things in a tabloid manner, that said with poor / incorrect spelling . To compare a badly mishandled display manouvre as akin to the ‘level of risk’ incured in day to day commercial aviation is pretty amature.

Sorry CW, just expressing my views on a ‘FORUM’ 🙁

What a load of fuss about nothing! The ‘offending’ article simply states things in a tabloid manner, that said with poor / incorrect spelling . To compare a badly mishandled display manouvre as akin to the ‘level of risk’ incured in day to day commercial aviation is pretty amature.

Actually I would suggest the man from the CEN is a bit a stunt. 😉

Moggy

Interestingly my dictionary also says ; ” Stunt, a sensational newspaper article” , perhaps you could mention that to him. “Nose dive ,a vertical descent” not entirely accurate either.

Thank you for your email regarding the report into the latest accident at Duxford.

However, I am at a loss to understand your reaction to the report.

In my dictionary, a stunt is a “a difficult or often showy performance”.

I think you seem to be reading some kind of slang meaning into our use of the word. This is present only in your own mind, especially as we use the word “tragically” in the same sentence.

We are using the word in its sense of stunt flying or stunt aerobatics, which is an established and normal use of the word.

Turning to your criticism of the word nosedive, I again rely on my dictionary. It refers to a nosedive as “a headlong plunge or to drop or decline sharply”. The use of this word emphasises the dramatic and uncontrolled nature of the incident. It is a legitimate word for the general reader.

Our newspaper has been a major supporter of Duxford and its airshows. We offer the museum enormous pre and post publicity and our relations are excellent.

However, when a serious incident occurs such as last week’s, our readers are entitled to be reminded about other relatively recent incidents involving Duxford.

Our readers live close by to this important and active air museum. They have a right to ensure its activities are properly scrutinised.

Yours sincerely

James Foster
Deputy Editor, Cambridge Evening News

(01223) 434308

Well, what a complete ignorant ar$e 😡 Hell be getting a phone call tomorrow

Journalism has gone to the dogs in my opinion! 😡

E-mailed to the CEN today

Moggy

Having read your comments I thought I would have a look at the offending news item, I must say that I agree with your general views; the article is a hatchet job. The only thing the un-named journalist and I would be able to agree on was that a number of accidents had occurred, beyond that the piece was a load of ill informed drivel!

I will be interested to see any reply received from the Rag in question, but I will be surprised if you get anything sensible from these people!

To broaden the whole thing out a bit, in these days of 24 hour news coverage the news media tend to belabour every possible aspect of an incident, almost to the point of being ghoulish. In any incident involving loss of life, the only thing necessary is to report the event and then leave things well alone until families have been informed etc. What we tend to get is a report of the incident on television and updates every half hour with an increasing amount of non-news, while this is going on a few news teams will head off to poke about a bit for some human interest and report that, to top it all off a good dollop of speculation on the cause of the incident is then added in to the equation!

As we all know the printed news media is if anything worse with this idea that “the public has a right to know”, the facts yes but surely not all the intrusive stuff and speculation that is added on!

My message to the media is give us fair and honest reporting of events, rather than the sensationalist space filling that we so often get!

Regards to All!

does anyone have recent link?

As more details of the incident are now in the public domain, it seems to be reasonable to mention that that Alan Walker was flying the T-33.

Alan needs no introduction to many members here, and indeed is a contributor himself.

Sadly the press will always be the Enemy to Airshows with their Sensationalism of any incidents that occur, Trouble is when it comes to Newspapers here Sh1t sells,The public buy this stuff by the Lorry load.
I hope the cockpit section of the T-33 can be saved it looks in pretty good condition really and it would be a shame if it was scrapped, It would make a ideal addition to any collection.

Of course the question was then raised, as I expected, as to whether DX was safe for flying in view of the number of accidents in the past few years.

I think aircraft crash near airfields for the same reason cars tend to crash on roads instead of in the middle of lakes & boats tend to sink while in water instead of drydock…..Maybe someone will point this out to CEN etc?

Now, don’t get me wrong, but if everyone reads the bbc report which was linked earlier in this thread, isn’t that speculation?

Dunno about speculation, but the grammar was bloody appalling:
“Witnesses reported the two seat jet trainer clipping a tree before somersaulting into the ground and going on fire.”

*Going* on fire????

Makes you wonder what the colleges teach these guys…..as they say there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.It is all sensationalism,probably why I rarely read a paper these days.I hope the remains of the T33 gets salvaged.The nose would be nice as a cockpit section and the rest of it stripped to provide parts for other aircraft.

Shouldn,t there be more focus on reducing road related deaths??A rare warbird goes in…”shock horror”…but for instance a Ford Escort rolls over after hitting a bump that has been there for ages and is a blackspot for accidents then all that is said is,”oh well”.The presentation of media reports should be balanced and proportional.

It’s never propotional. A friend of mine arrived at the ground without his parachute and the media reported it as something like “Skydiver screamed for 12,000 feet in horror death plunge”. Pull height is 2,500 so he wouldn’t have known that his parachute was going to fail for 9,500 would he stupid journalist.

Ali

What a bizarre report! The first half is balanced and careful, the second part… flamin’ ‘eck!

Adrian

The make it short make it juicy and make it up brigade. Interesting how they quote a 15 year old to give an expert opinion.

Ali