boeing247, please don't follow a train which I'm not riding.
Instead, e. g. follow my media examples by using the sites mentioned and you will see the headlines in the top 3 of e. g. Google News.
I didn't pick them with a bias, but randomly. First search word was A380, second was 747.

What I wanted to show? That the simple picking of news and headlines forms up the perception on the reader's end which sometimes isn't related to the real picture at all.
My second paragraph additionally showed that reading the headline alone may form up a wrong picture while the article itself holds a completely different one.

Test yourself, your impression seems to be that e. g. the A380 makes aviation news these days.
Does it? With a simple and open search? I doubt.
But from this thread, it actually does and it even forms an overlay over some deaths with other planes which you didn't know about because nobody around mentioned it.
Caught my point with the 'picking powers'?

Now, as you may recall, even well before the news picking another aspect forms up opinions since newspapers actually report stuff with the big outcome only. Regarding the solved RR engine case on the A380, there wasn't a real media echo, but only a small article.
Not much to pick in the sensational view if things turn out .. boring.

As for the A-380 video, someone sent me the link and I thought it was interesting, so I posted it under my stories. I don't go looking for these items, but it do think it is of interest when a professional pilot does something like that.

Lou

There is no one more bias against Scarebuses than me, if it aint Boeing, I ain't going 

In the words of a friend of mine who flys the Scarebuses now (he flew 1549 the day before it went into the Hudson)....... "Airbuses are second world planes designed to make 3rd rate pilots look good"   

CoolP wrote on Jul 28^th, 2011 at 4:50pm:


Me? No...I just don't like Scarebuses, I'm a pilot not an airborne computer monitor  

Nice show, Jay. 

Lou

I remember several months ago you writing about the River Approach to KDCA. I figure if you landed at KDCA you must have also done takeoffs. I lived in the Washington area from 64-69 and listened to a lot of ATC from DCA. From ATC I was able to figure out a departure from RWY 18 (now 19) was to maintain runway heading until vectors to Casanova VOR, Linden VOR or Front Royal VOR and then on course. The climbout was what the crew calculated to 1000 feet and then the rate had to be reduced to 500 FPM until something like 3000 feet. Do you recall if this was still in effect when you departed to the south?

Thank you
Michael Cubine

No problem there.

Quote:

We don't actually know, nor does anyone else in this thread. And even if it was, the influences to drive pilots into errors of any kind are hard to put in numbers.
As you saw, I'm looking at the simple 'I did expect more of those pilots' in the same way as on every fast summarization, regardless of the speaker.
Assumptions are always valid though, but should be read and clearly marked as such.

I wouldn't, when being asked, assume anything more than I saw. I did saw a plane landing, I saw it scratching one engine or so. End of facts.

boeing247 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2011 at 8:19pm:

Once again, even if this may compliment the A380, we don't know that.
There so much interesting literature out there about investigations of all kinds and when listing the most common error sources, the 'assuming from thinking to know' is the very first one.

Psychologically it's a though part of work for experienced investigators to 'start new' on every given case by the way. Humans tend to assume from a knowledge basis in the first place, but this isn't (always) helpful when it comes to any scientific work as any 'entry bias' builds up a growing error margin.

Since we guys only have access to that video, we not even have a quality source for anything more than assuming 'I think that engine pod was damaged'.
I know, sort of boring outcome.