John Brandon Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 False reporting in Australian national daily newspapers RA-Aus members should not be alarmed by the articles written by Paul Bibby appearing in the December 30 issues of The Age (Melbourne) and the Sydney Morning Herald. The report "Light plane deaths up more than 50%" states: "The death of a NSW farmer in a crop-duster crash yesterday brought the number of light plane crash deaths to 36 for the year, up from 23 last year. The figures show that more than half of the deaths involved planes in the category weighing less than 2250 kilograms, including a significant number [website author's emphasis] of ultralights and other recreational aircraft." The statement pertaining to a "significant number" is totally unfounded; if there were 36 deaths in light plane crashes then 34 are certainly not attributable to Recreational Aviation Australia. At 3.00 pm AEST, December 30, 2008 there has been only one fatal accident in an RA-Aus registered aircraft during 2008, though unfortunately both occupants died. There were no accidents where long-term injuries were sustained. Since the AUF/RA-Aus was established in 1983 there has been one other year (1996) where only one fatal accident occurred. So, considering the 145% increase in members since 1996, RA-Aus members have achieved our safest flying year ever. The remainder of Mr Bibby's article mainly concerns the ambitions of Recreational Aviation Australia. It seems a deliberate attempt at public disinformation, the purpose of which is unknown. You can read the complete article at Light plane deaths up more than 50% | theage.com.au A protest from individual members is appropriate. Try [email protected] or someone may know the email address of The Age and SMH editors. John Brandon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelorus32 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 This was my response to The Age, emailed a few minutes ago: NOT FOR PUBLICATION This article by Paul Bibby: Light plane deaths up more than 50% | theage.com.au Represents lazy and biased reporting and in my view does not adhere to the editorial standards that we've come to expect from The Age. Indeed I wondered whether I had by mistake stumbled onto the pages of the Murdoch Press. Bibby conflates deaths in light aircraft accidents with proposed changes to the regulatory regime. These changes would allow greater weight limits for aircraft under the regulation of Recreational Aviation Australia. If Bibby had cared to check the facts he would have found that up to 3:00 pm on 30 December 2008 there has been only 1 fatal accident in an RAAus regulated aircraft during 2008. This regrettably resulted in the death of both occupants of the aircraft. Put this another way, despite Bibby's sloppy attempt to link RAAus regulation with the increase in light aircraft fatalities this year, the figures do not support his view. Indeed it can be accurately said that around 95% of fatalities in light aircraft in 2008 occured in aircraft where the pilot was directly under CASA regulation. RAAus membership - and all RAAus pilots are required to be members - has reached more than 8,000 during 2008. Yet RAAus has had its "safest" year for many years in 2008. Bibby quotes two people both with a particular (and largely ill-informed) view of aviation. He fails to effectively explore the real issues and the safety record in the industry. He does not seek to offer a balanced view. Nor does he explore the trends in general aviation world wide, the causes and effects of the current shortage of pilots and the strongly emerging trends in aviation training. Had Bibby cared to do so he would have found an interesting story about the rejuvenation of light aviation in Australia largely through the growth of recreational flying. For some time Australia has trained insufficient new pilots to meet industry demand. This situation is gradually changing and RAAus through its accessible and high quality training regime is playing a key role in fostering this change. Should Bibby or any other of your staff wish to do an effective and competent job of covering this issue I'd be glad to arrange for that person to speak with a variety of credible sources both within RAAus and beyond. Mike H Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Oh well said Pelorus. Far better than I could have put it. You deserve a medal, or at least a long cold beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 I agree with Yenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hihosland Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 I also Davidh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigPete Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Ditto :thumb_up: regards :big_grin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyingphot Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Don't just agree - send a complaint to the Age and SMH. I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-man Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Yes, I also sent letters to both papers. Bloody hard to vent the steam in under 200 words. Neither published my response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEON Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Another reply sent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Mile. How did all those cold beers go down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelorus32 Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Mile. How did all those cold beers go down? Never even touched the sides Ian!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Lewer Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 WELL SAID MIKE We should go to the Opposition's paper and ask them to wright an editorial on how safe "ultralight" flying is, how it has changed Etc A whole page dedicated to Rec flying and flying in general. i know it is a long shot but hey could you imagine if a big paper wrote a large cover story about Rec aviation Etc how many more people could get to see the light. you say "why would a paper do that" well to make the other paper who wrote that XXXX and bull story look like a wanker... i do not bother telling people i have my "ultralight" license anymore i just say i have my pilots license and they say "wow you can fly cessnas and stuff like that" i just say yeah whatever. if you mention you have an ultralight license they say "oh not those dangerous things, your mad" of which i reply nearly always "you are an uneducated fool", this worked on a friend of mine who cracked the wobblies with me for treating him like an idiot, so i replied shut your mouth untill you have been in one..., now he is half way through his rec license and is loving it. all because he has been informed. SORRY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Certificate. Perhaps you are not quite ready for the Diplomatic Corps yet Adrian. Anybody who knows anything about aeroplanes, knows it is harder to fly the lighter stuff, so don't bother getting "thing" with these people. You do NOT have a flying licence, (I am sorry) but you do have an RAAus CERTIFICATE which is ALL you need to legally get airborne in any of the fascinating array of affordable aircraft available to us. (with appropriate endorsements). When I was your age, none of this was available, so you are all very fortunate to have it. If the general population doesn't know it ,that is their problem, not yours. THEY are the ones missing out. Nev.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Lewer Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Hi Nev, yeah i know mate, saw an oppertunity for a rant. my entire family think i am mad thats all i hear from them, and you are right i should just ignor them the dont know what they are missing out on... yep well aware i have a certificate not a license just a figure of speach i guess. when are we getting together for a fly (need a scribe for NavX # 3) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 False reporting. Getting back to how this thread started, It really is a serious matter when this sort of thing is done. We do have a right to expect that a paper will be FACTUAL. How often have you heard it said "well I read that in the newspaper". Well I've been involved directly in some things that have subsequently been reported on in newspapers and it can be hard to find the resemblance between what happened, and how it is reported. However papers receive their income from sales and advertising. Sensationalism helps sales , and advertisers have influence on content, and the organisation can have an inbuilt bias. How about seeing if "Media Watch" would look at it? Nev.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Longden Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Neither published my response. Ahh, but the people who matter - the editor and chief sub-editor WILL have seen the letters, and they now know Bibbys' reporting is not up to par. What usually happens, is unless the complaint is on a solicitors letterhead, there will never be a rewrite / correction / clarification or retraction. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 I would hate to say this but. All newspapers and media outlets are full of rubbish. I have been involved in several court cases and media 'press releases' and the media (as a whole) have yet to get any of the facts correct. The RAA should have a 'professional' public relations company on contract to handle and issue media releases. The company we use to handle our 'communications' is Seftons (based rural NSW). When I have complained in the past about the incorrect reporting of a court case 'set of facts', the standard form letter response includes the line. 'We only report what was presented during the course of the hearings'. I feel that most the the Jorno's involved just dont understand the basics of anything they are reporting. It may have something to do with them having an arts degree. The worst thing is that the pollies in Canberra actually believe what gets printed. "Was that in the herald-sun or was your News limited" Gibbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hihosland Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Gibbo the best laughs are the ones that burst forth in response to a line that is essentially true. Your quote leaves me LOL. '''truth is that I feel that most the the Jorno's involved just dont understand the basics of anything they are reporting. It may have something to do with them having a degree. ..... "Was that in the herald-sun or was your News limited" "' Davidh Gibbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Brandon Posted January 7, 2009 Author Share Posted January 7, 2009 Published in The Age today: WE WERE WRONG The article "Light plane deaths up by more than 50%" (The Age, 30/12) incorrectly stated that the 36 fatalities which resulted from light plane crashes last year involved a significant number of ultralight aircraft. There were two fatalities involving ultralight aircraft registered with Recreational Aviation Australia in 2008. The remaining crashes involved other types of light aircraft registered by other authorities. The article also incorrectly stated that Recreational Aviation Australia represents glider and gyroplane pilots. It is the policy of The Age to correct all significant errors as soon as possible. The Age is committed to presenting information fairly and accurately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hihosland Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Excellent result Pelorus et al Sad to say that those who read and remembered the major article probably will neither read nor remember the retraction. However there is a fair chance that the correction has been brought to the attention of the original reporter who may be a bit more careful when reporting on aviation incidents/accidents in the future. Davidh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Result. A good result, really, Often nothing............ My faith is restored (slightly)... Nev.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 The fairfax group wins a round. This was handled by the SMH much better than any of the dealings I have had with news limited. At last someone who has been willing to admit a stuffup. Gibbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Good result, at the very least Mr Bibby might pull his head in for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I just came accross Mr Bibby on a mountain climbing forum, it seems he doesnt like climbers either. Apparently many climbers wrote letters of complaint to SMH about his article (after a tragic fatality on the weekend) and his methods of gathering information (ie asking questions on their forum without declaring that he is a journalist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 his methods of gathering information (ie asking questions on their forum without declaring that he is a journalist). Sounds like he is just a rat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now