Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Media Finally Got It Right, Well Almost  
User currently offlineLevg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 994 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070603/p...122515_450x310_us_usa_plot_airport

Caption says that the plane is departing JFK to ORD but the picture shows a 4-engine plane. At first I thought that the media screwed it up again. But then I clicked on the picture and it turned out to be A380 on it's JFK-ORD run a few months ago. Any reason why would they use a picture of A380 in connection with a plot to blow up JFK airport?

Leo.


A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

Because last picture they had of a huge airplane so they put 2 and 2 together maybe, I mean it is the media correct!


Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineN911YX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

Quoting Levg79 (Thread starter):

Perhaps I don't get your point. What aircraft flying into or out of JFK would you prefer to accompany the story? Seems to me the A380 is a good photo for this story.


User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1291 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1873 times:

Most likely, somebody just searched their file photo database for "JFK" and this was one of the first ones to come up, and being picture of a plane with an American flag in the shot, they went for it.

User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1069 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Could it be that since the plot involved the concept of blowing up large fuel tanks.... that the media focused on the plane that likely has the largest fuel capacity.

I am glad that the media report I saw mentioned that the people did not have the technical expertise to exercise their plot. At least they got that part right.

I wonder how much these people, and the media, understand about jet fuel (or the vast majority of other hydrocarbon products). Sorry bulk Jet fuel was not mentioned in my explosives training as something I could make detonate or even explosively conflagrate (Black Powder explosively conflagrates compared to TNT which Detonates - the difference is that Black Powder burns slower than the speed of sound in the black powder, whereas TNT and other high explosives burn faster than the speed of sound in the TNT or other high explosive). Of course the fire from a burning tank would be a conflagration (large burning fire).

I am of course ruling out that jet fuel could be used at 6% by weight in a mix with Ammonia Nitrate to make ANFO (which detonates), or a few gallons sprayed into the air in a very fine mist to make a fuel air bomb (explosive conflagration). The plot did not seem to be focused on those methods.

I cannot imagine how you would make a full fuel tank's contents "blow up".

Blow a hole in a tank and create a large spill; Yes.

Create a large fire; again Yes.

Blow up a tank that was empty (if it was full of air and vapors); Yes, but limited damage to the area around the tank.

Blow up the whole area; No.

Blow a leak into a pipeline; Yes.

Start a fire at said pipeline leak; Yes.

Blow up the entire pipeline; No.

Kill lots of people; No, but perhaps kill a few.

Shutdown the airport for a couple of months; Yes. It would probably take 6 months to return the airport to full service if all the tanks were significantly damaged.

I hate to say it.... but sometimes ignorance is a good thing. I can think of lots of things these people could have done if they understood what could and could not actually be done. No need for them to go shopping for expertise then.


User currently offlineN911YX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1803 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 1):

When I was young man, I found a WW II aircraft spotters chart in my grandfathers garage. Seems grandpa was a member of the Civil Defense during the war. We lived in Pittsburg, California about 30 miles inland from the Pacific. Civil defense volunteers would sit atop city hall and observe aircraft movements and call any unknown or enemy type a/c in to authorities using such charts for comparison. I found the chart highly interesting and it eventually wound up hanging on the wall of my bedroom where I spent many an hour memorizing the shapes. All aircraft were black and displayed in various positions for identification.

Now let's turn to 'the media'. Having spent quite some time in newrooms as a Meteorologist I am well aware of the lack of knowledge and understanding of aviation and science in general, so, blaming the media for not reporting the correct aircraft type in a newsreport is to be expected. News Directors don't have the luxury of employing specific reporters to cover aviation related stories. Consequently, you'll see and hear some odd things, i.e., a story about a 727-200 but a picture of an L-1011-500 to go with it. That happens everywhere, whether it be in the news biz, advertising, or school textbooks. And yes, we expect car accidents as cars are driven by sometimes marginally functional human beings. However, if it has wings and falls from the sky, that's an entirely different scenario. The safety track record of aviation, especially in the USA and western Europe is phenomenal, so when a GA or commercial flight goes down, of course the media is going to report it wall to wall. Riding in a car isn't nearly as unsettling to the human as riding in a winged cylinder at 35,000 feet and this causes the public to squirm whether first time flyers or Triple Gold Elite Double Dutch Platinum Coke Straw CEO's sitting in First.

That is why 'the media' over-plays any aviation story. It plays on our fears. Now, if the News Director would just buy a spotter's guide chart for the newsroom or provide a reliable link to airliners.net or some such website, the issue of mis-identification might be less of a problem. However, expecting 'the media' to be anything else is just wishful thinking.


User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9371 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1754 times:

Quoting Levg79 (Thread starter):
Any reason why would they use a picture of A380 in connection with a plot to blow up JFK airport?

it's the most recent video/file they probably have.

the story came down over the affiliates wires yesterday with TWA planes on it. yeah, i made a good phone call over that one.



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

Quoting N911YX (Reply 2):

How about a nice C150.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1584 times:

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 4):

I cannot imagine how you would make a full fuel tank's contents "blow up".

Blow a hole in a tank and create a large spill; Yes.

....

I made that point in the other thread, but apparently I got attacked for it. Go Fig. The damage to human life would be minimal. People can fly out of LGA, tanks can be rebuilt, airlines can tanker some fuel in and do more tech stops. Yea it might be more expensive and have an economical toll, but its just money.

And regarding the use of the A380, well it was probably pure luck that it had a US flag in the picture. All about inspiring patriotism so we willingly hand over more of our freedoms.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
777-200 Replacement For 747-Have PIA Got It Right? posted Mon Jan 20 2003 21:12:34 by Airmale
New Delta - Have They Gotten It Right? posted Sat May 19 2007 20:13:42 by BrianDromey
Finally Got A Cardiff-Barcelona Connection! posted Tue Dec 12 2006 18:01:17 by Cwldude
Finally Got Into The Industry! posted Fri Oct 6 2006 07:38:48 by USAir330
Finally Got Into The Industry! posted Fri Oct 6 2006 07:38:12 by USAir330
Conviasa Finally Have It´s A340-200 posted Sun May 14 2006 07:57:53 by BA747
A News Reporter Finally Gets It! posted Wed Feb 15 2006 19:56:55 by Learpilot
I Finally Got To Fly On This AC Bird! posted Mon Oct 17 2005 02:00:07 by Slashd0t
Airbus Does It Right In China posted Mon Jun 6 2005 12:44:09 by N79969
Ticked? AA Gets it Right posted Fri Mar 12 2004 19:17:06 by KKMolokai