Guest ozzie Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Rather interesting segment on Sevens 'Today Tonight' where the tabloid has been fighting for two years under the freedom of information act for CASA to release 1600 or so pages on audits they have conducted and have been keeping them 'secret'. A lot of umming and erring from CASA during the interview. Just by refusing to make the results public make CASA seem a bit suss, me thinks. CASA have only released about a third of the information. wonder what they are hiding? wonder how much of my tax dollar has gone on playing this game? Wonder just how safe our airlines really are? anyone else see the show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest studentbiggles Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 :wave:Ozzie I just caught the last bit of the show after I read your post (SA) time zone...Very UMMY and ARRY wasn't he???..and I'm just about to pay my CASA medical Fees, that by the way has taken them months to sort out????:loopy:i_dunno..Me thinks very suss too?:Disappointed: Cheers Studentbiggles (Alley) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonflyer Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I wouldn't believe anything you see on Today Tonight or any of those other "news" shows...They probably asked him to spell Kaleidoscopic and then used the footage him umming and aahing.. Those shows are completely rigged to look exactly as they want them too.. Just my little vent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 HMMM this is a tough one. do i belive CASA or the TV? they're both as transparent as a brick wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonflyer Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 ...:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 In any media battle the attacker appears very clear, because he's the one who has done all the research and knows what he is going to say. The defender Ums and Errs, particularly in a big organization because he doesn't know what they've got, or whether one of his own people has done something wrong. The honest defender usually says "I don't know, I'll find out and get back to you" and the TV producers usually defer release of the story until that happens. All the stories go to the Channel's Legal department - even evening news stories, so you usually CAN believe what to see. They certainly WILL shade their story to match what they are trying to say. There was a classic photo of John Howard apparently hanging his head in defeat while out exercising, a few weeks before the last Fed election. He was probably just bobbing his head up and down when he walked, but the photo made front page. If you don't want to be taken out of context, it's important not to rabbit on. Having said all that, and noting the obvious Australian agenda to carry out aircraft maintenance here, it seems CASA does have a few questions to answer, and should release many of the documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 You can't even necessarily believe what you see. There was a great example last week on 60 minutes - which used to be a reputable source. A case I know something about was being reported on, and the facts were not presented at all. They even did a classic street chase asking questions of a principal in the story on the run. They didn't show a single response from him, making it look like he was trying to ignore the questions and get away. They also didn't show a single piece of footage from an entire interview he gave them immediately before the "chase". That's just plain shonky, and I'll never trust them again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 60 minutes have ALWAYS been shonky. Do you remember, if you were flying back in the 80's, when Yana<?> did the story on ultralight accidents in Australia? She could not find enough gory information to support her claims so they used American satistics and footage to amp up the story they did not bother to tell anyone were they obtained the footage and the figures. They led everyone to belive that the accidents were all in Australia. Also are you aware that when CASA first came into being that they went into parlament at 3am and convinced the ministers that had not fallen asleep that for CASA to do their job properly and ensure the safety of fare paying passengers they had to be able to operate without interference and had a bunch of legislation approved right there and then that gave people like you and me or the PM for that matter no course of reproach to CASA's rule making or any charges that may be laid against anyone. so who do i trust? Not CASA mate that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Today Tonight might have a point if we had RPTs falling from the skies left right and centre. However, it is BY FAR the safest way to travel so what are they even doing a piece on this for? By the same logic, however, CASA can't have much to hide and should just release the documents. On the other hand, there's likely a lot of to the untrained eye highly damaging looking evidence about operators and CASA doesn't want it to be misquoted and used in a hit-piece on what are essentially safe operators that have had a few mistakes. But here's some handy tips for spotting editted interviews: The camera going to the interviewer while asking a question when normally they show both people or just the interviewee. Most likely, they didn't get the answers they wanted and recorded a new question after the subject has left. I am not kidding. The camera going to a shot of a nodding interviewer or a shot from behind the subject where you can not see them talking means an edit in the answer itself. As bad as this is, at least on TV you have tell tale signs of it going on, on radio it happens without giving you any clue! Edits themselves may not be a bad thing and can be used to make things clearer and take less time to say the same thing. However, when watching "Today's Current 60 Minute Affair Tonight", you should always be suspicious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Yes, i forget just what the shots are called but usually after the interview they will video the person doing the interview to do the facial and vebal expressions stuff like uh huh, nod in agreement or shock, distain,disbelief, raising of the eye brows ect. then add them in during the editing process. can't beat a live interview to really see what is going on. If anyone missed this show it concentrated on the offshore maintainence and audits of the facilities doing the work for Qantas. i am surprised that CASA even allowed the interview. Golden rule is with these people is say nothing, absolutely nothing not even 'no comment' then they have zilch to add to their story and you cannot be misquoted or have them edit your comments to their favour. SAY and DO NOTHING!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying dog Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 "The truth is out there....." (runs and ducks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Well it is Flying Dog, it's just hard to get it through the camera, editor and producer at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thx1137 Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 SAY and DO NOTHING!! But then it looks like your hiding something or maybe just arrogant! If they want to paint you a particular way there is nothing that can be done about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazda Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 I didn't see the story, just had a look on the website, I hope I looked at the right story. On the filming side, the cutaways you are talking about are known as "noddies" and yes, everyone records noddies for editing purposes. It isn't done to mislead (generally!), it is usually done to assist smooth editing to avoid "jump cuts" - edits that don't cut together smoothly for various reasons, or to try to show the interviewer looking interested so there's not just one long shot on one person, to improve the timing perhaps. So don't think automatically if a noddy is used that there's something untoward going on. Of course unscrupulous people could certainly edit to mislead! I don't know too much about the story, but Mick Quinn (CASA) I think is a reasonable sort of bloke. The issue isn't whether an audit was carried out on this date or that date, I guess the outcome is the important thing. I do agree that safety related CASA and ATSB documents should be made available, but who knows what TT is asking for. As for Qantas, they are simply the luckiest airline in the world, no more. They did have a hole in the side of one aircraft, but another hole nearly as big never seemed to make the news. Who is to say how close they were to killing people at Bangkok. They did very nearly slam into the runway in Melbourne when a go around went wrong (I think that was Jetstar). They did very nearly crash into a mountain at night near Canberra, when the crew set up a holding pattern around the wrong location. They do appear to have a very cosy relationship with CASA and the ATSB. If they say they want a change to airspace or procedures (or they don't want a change if one is proposed), it almost always goes their way. Jetstar were operating out of their base at Avalon in a Class G CTAF to keep the costs down, but they fought enroute Class E. If they land at night without turning on the runway lights, it is covered up. If they are in conflict with a light aircraft, it is always the fault of the light aircraft - tapes are provided to the airline but not to the other pilot. I don't think it was much of a story, but Qantas is a powerful, business making money for shareholders, and I could see how they would cut costs to improve profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 That is the real story here...the favourable conditions offered to Qantas over all other carriers in Australian skies. The audit system used by the new players on the field (and I am talking about the true "Australia's own Airline" VirginBlue) is vastly different to that followed by Qantas/Jetstar. Qantas has lower safety standards...This is common knowledge in the industry....although I guess the naysayers have always been able to just write it off as 'sourgrapes' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orion Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Virgin Blue is australia's own airline. Did I miss something here or did Richard Branson just become an australian citizen ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Branson does not own VirginBlue...it is owned by and has the highest percentage of Australian shareholders of any Australian airline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 wasn't so much Qantas as it was Ansett and TAA. The two airline domestic policy was a sham, flying the same routes 5 minutes apart with half full aircraft. How long did Virgin get screwed around at Sydney terminal. An empty ex Ansett terminal closed and locked while virgin had to operate from what seemed like a portable shed with passengers lined up outside in the rain. Qantas used to brag about a perfect accident free record. small print reads jet aircraft. very few of the public realise they have in fact lost two aircraft with all on board killed. Ozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 As far as I could pick up quickly, Toll own about 68% of Virgin Blue but it certainly isn't Australia's own airline. Looks like a bit of sour grapes against Qantas to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Toll no longer own 68% of VirginBlue...but it still has a higher percentage of Australian ownership through shares. I must admit it does leave a sour taste in my mouth when a company with a true blue Aussie heritage such as Qantas is reduced to what it has become today...and has completely duped the Aussie public into thinking that it still is 'Australia's Own Airline'. I think that was the reasoning behind the Today Tonight story...I think the Australian public put a lot of faith in Qantas which is undeserved and if Casa were to release its figures and stop treating Qantas as its "favourite" we would all be safer and better off. This is just my opinion of course but it is based upon my experience in the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 i watched the show, wasn't it about the LAME union or association or something. Being concerned about the poor maintenance practises overseas (and rightly so). I dont think it would matter which airline it was (in this case Qantas). Using staples to bridge a gap (IE- BOND TOGETHER) in a electrical ribbon AS SHOWN ON THE TV is B%$# @#%t. CASA are not in my opinion doing enough Audits a the maintenace facilties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antzx6r Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 But here's some handy tips for spotting editted interviews:The camera going to the interviewer while asking a question when normally they show both people or just the interviewee. Most likely, they didn't get the answers they wanted and recorded a new question after the subject has left. I am not kidding. The camera going to a shot of a nodding interviewer or a shot from behind the subject where you can not see them talking means an edit in the answer itself. As bad as this is, at least on TV you have tell tale signs of it going on, on radio it happens without giving you any clue! Edits themselves may not be a bad thing and can be used to make things clearer and take less time to say the same thing. However, when watching "Today's Current 60 Minute Affair Tonight", you should always be suspicious! Maybe someone should do a freedom of information act on these guys. Get some raw footage of all the half baked interviews done over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wags Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Qantas passengers killed? "very few of the public realise they have in fact lost two aircraft with all on board killed. Ozzie". Must have missed something over the past 40 years or so Ozzie. Can you please enlighten me as to when and where Qantas passengers were killed in an aircraft accident. Wags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Here's a list. Interesting reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 On October 3rd 1934 a Q.A.N.T.A.S DH50 VH-UHE 'Atlanta" crashed near Winton in Queensland. enroute to Darwin. The pilot, Norman Chapman and his two passengers RH Hickson from Sydney and R McKnow of Roma were killed. On November 15th of the same year a Q.A.N.T.A.S DH 86, VH-USG, was lost on its delivery flight shortly after taking off from Longreach on it's final leg The aircraft was crewed by Imperial Airways officers Cpt A R Prendergast, First Offficer W V Creates and Flight Engineer F R Charton. During the overnight stop in Darwin they picked up their only passenger an Australian Shell Rep, E Broardfoot, who had managed to 'hitch a lift' after being stranded in Darwin. This was one of several Australian DH86 accidents and i suggest you research the story on them as it reeks of cover ups and outright lies by both the de Havilland company and the British Govenment who refused to belive that the aircraft had severe design deficiancies and how dare the 'colonial' aviation authority ground the aircraft and even attempt to test and suggest redesign of it. The great DH86 cover up and details of the above and other early Australian accidents can be read in Macarthur Job's 'Air Crash' Vol 1. It's a bit of an eyeopener. Qantas can rightly claim a fatality free jet operation history but Q.A.N.T.A.S can not. Ozzie 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