ST
Having watched both the BBC and ITV coverage since 6pm I think that ITV's seemed to have the better reports. At least this time they didn't give away their "scoops" to Newsnight before using it themselves.
Admittedly, ITV don't have to run a 24 hour news operation and can concentrate on their main bulletins, but ITN/Reuters/DMGT/UBM do, and they seemed to have more information and better reports than BBC.
Admittedly, ITV don't have to run a 24 hour news operation and can concentrate on their main bulletins, but ITN/Reuters/DMGT/UBM do, and they seemed to have more information and better reports than BBC.
JH
Which rolling news channel does ITN run?
StuartPlymouth posted:
Admittedly, ITV don't have to run a 24 hour news operation and can concentrate on their main bulletins, but ITN/Reuters/DMGT/UBM do, and they seemed to have more information and better reports than BBC.
Which rolling news channel does ITN run?
BR
I only saw the coverage at lunchtime on the BBC, which just minutes after the news broke was far better than ITV's 15-20 minutes later.
However, I've always felt in the past that it's with big stories where ITV really do excel, and I've always favoured their coverage over the BBC's and Sky's.
Undoubtedly ITV's coverage of such events in the last couple of years has been affected by the loss of the news channel, but this sort of story I guess where an incident happens, rather than an incident unfolding live, probably favours the structured bulletins more.
However, I've always felt in the past that it's with big stories where ITV really do excel, and I've always favoured their coverage over the BBC's and Sky's.
Undoubtedly ITV's coverage of such events in the last couple of years has been affected by the loss of the news channel, but this sort of story I guess where an incident happens, rather than an incident unfolding live, probably favours the structured bulletins more.
ST
Which rolling news channel does ITN run?
ITN doesn't, which is why I deliberately referred to it as a news operation rather than a TV Channel. The majority of the channel's ownership concentrates on multi-media delivery rather than TV. They obviously have people on the ground from all their constituent organisations. ITV News clearly benefited from that today.
Jonathan H posted:
StuartPlymouth posted:
Admittedly, ITV don't have to run a 24 hour news operation and can concentrate on their main bulletins, but ITN/Reuters/DMGT/UBM do, and they seemed to have more information and better reports than BBC.
Which rolling news channel does ITN run?
ITN doesn't, which is why I deliberately referred to it as a news operation rather than a TV Channel. The majority of the channel's ownership concentrates on multi-media delivery rather than TV. They obviously have people on the ground from all their constituent organisations. ITV News clearly benefited from that today.
NG
What a shame there's not a single TV aerial pointing towards Hannington within about 5 miles of the airport. More 'regional stretching' for cheap copy.
I think 5 miles is being generous... You can be further west than Maidenhead before you see a lot of people with Hannington rather than Crystal Palace facing aerials...
noggin
Founding member
Markymark posted:
South Today posted:
Hannah did a good job with this breaking news on Thames Valley Today this lunchtime. 
What a shame there's not a single TV aerial pointing towards Hannington within about 5 miles of the airport. More 'regional stretching' for cheap copy.
I think 5 miles is being generous... You can be further west than Maidenhead before you see a lot of people with Hannington rather than Crystal Palace facing aerials...
NG
How often have you travelled by plane? The safety briefing always includes the bit about being warned to assume the brace position etc.
There are potential situations where the flight or cabin crew have enough warning that there is a potential emergency or heavy landing that will require you to take the brace position, and they WOULD make that announcement.
However if the incident is sudden - the crew will be concentrating on sorting that out rather than making an announcement.
It was a perfectly sensible question to ask - if an announcement had been made to passengers (or by radio to the ground) it would put into context how early the crew became aware of the problem.
There are many reasons why a plane might land short - and different amounts of notice you would get that it was going to happen.
noggin
Founding member
looknorth posted:
N24 have been dire reporting this -there is to much crap like the report that is being show with the reporter saying "Was there an announcement"Yes of course when the passengers/crew are all seated for landing and had no idea what was going to happen but yes there was an announcement saying they were going to/crashed derrrrr 
How often have you travelled by plane? The safety briefing always includes the bit about being warned to assume the brace position etc.
There are potential situations where the flight or cabin crew have enough warning that there is a potential emergency or heavy landing that will require you to take the brace position, and they WOULD make that announcement.
However if the incident is sudden - the crew will be concentrating on sorting that out rather than making an announcement.
It was a perfectly sensible question to ask - if an announcement had been made to passengers (or by radio to the ground) it would put into context how early the crew became aware of the problem.
There are many reasons why a plane might land short - and different amounts of notice you would get that it was going to happen.
ST
How often have you travelled by plane? The safety briefing always includes the bit about being warned to assume the brace position etc.
I used to travel on short-haul flights every other weekend, and experienced quite a few uncomfortable landings at Plymouth City Airport. By all accounts none of these passengers knew there was a problem and most thought it was just a "bumpy landing" until they were asked to leave in the way they did.
I remember landing at Plymouth once when I was the only passenger on board, the Stewardess (sat in front of me) said "I didn't think we'd manage that"; but she said it afterwards and she meant the weather etc (and a possible divert back to Newquay). She was perfectly calm throught and I wasn't nervous. I imagine the cabin crew on this flight today were as calming as she was.
It's what they are trained to deal with.
They got everyone out!
noggin posted:
looknorth posted:
"Was there an announcement"
How often have you travelled by plane? The safety briefing always includes the bit about being warned to assume the brace position etc.
I used to travel on short-haul flights every other weekend, and experienced quite a few uncomfortable landings at Plymouth City Airport. By all accounts none of these passengers knew there was a problem and most thought it was just a "bumpy landing" until they were asked to leave in the way they did.
looknorth posted:
There are potential situations where the flight or cabin crew have enough warning that there is a potential emergency or heavy landing that will require you to take the brace position, and they WOULD make that announcement.
I remember landing at Plymouth once when I was the only passenger on board, the Stewardess (sat in front of me) said "I didn't think we'd manage that"; but she said it afterwards and she meant the weather etc (and a possible divert back to Newquay). She was perfectly calm throught and I wasn't nervous. I imagine the cabin crew on this flight today were as calming as she was.
It's what they are trained to deal with.
They got everyone out!
IT
How often have you travelled by plane? The safety briefing always includes the bit about being warned to assume the brace position etc.
I used to travel on short-haul flights every other weekend, and experienced quite a few uncomfortable landings at Plymouth City Airport. By all accounts none of these passengers knew there was a problem and most thought it was just a "bumpy landing" until they were asked to leave in the way they did.
I remember landing at Plymouth once when I was the only passenger on board, the Stewardess (sat in front of me) said "I didn't think we'd manage that"; but she said it afterwards and she meant the weather etc (and a possible divert back to Newquay). She was perfectly calm throught and I wasn't nervous. I imagine the cabin crew on this flight today were as calming as she was.
It's what they are trained to deal with.
They got everyone out!
I remember trying to land in New York JFK one year (in the 1990s) but the pilot aborted about three times because we were flying through the tail end of a hurricane. That was a pretty frightening experience as the plane was being tossed around like a cork. The cabin crew looked rather nervous too - not a good sign! We did finally get on the ground and it was a very bumpy landing!
itsrobert
Founding member
StuartPlymouth posted:
noggin posted:
looknorth posted:
"Was there an announcement"
How often have you travelled by plane? The safety briefing always includes the bit about being warned to assume the brace position etc.
I used to travel on short-haul flights every other weekend, and experienced quite a few uncomfortable landings at Plymouth City Airport. By all accounts none of these passengers knew there was a problem and most thought it was just a "bumpy landing" until they were asked to leave in the way they did.
looknorth posted:
There are potential situations where the flight or cabin crew have enough warning that there is a potential emergency or heavy landing that will require you to take the brace position, and they WOULD make that announcement.
I remember landing at Plymouth once when I was the only passenger on board, the Stewardess (sat in front of me) said "I didn't think we'd manage that"; but she said it afterwards and she meant the weather etc (and a possible divert back to Newquay). She was perfectly calm throught and I wasn't nervous. I imagine the cabin crew on this flight today were as calming as she was.
It's what they are trained to deal with.
They got everyone out!
I remember trying to land in New York JFK one year (in the 1990s) but the pilot aborted about three times because we were flying through the tail end of a hurricane. That was a pretty frightening experience as the plane was being tossed around like a cork. The cabin crew looked rather nervous too - not a good sign! We did finally get on the ground and it was a very bumpy landing!
JW
As well as the obvious concerns surrounding any form of aircraft incident, there are three factors about this particular incident at LHR which has shaken us in the aviation industry:
1) It's a Boeing 777 - these are sturdy machines and have never been involved in any type of major incident whatosever since they started flying 15 years ago;
2) It's British Airways - the company has a very good safety record and their air crews (cockpit) are reknowned the world over for their superlative technical skills;
3) It was BA's home base (i.e. LHR). It is unthinkable for any incident of this major nature to occur at Heathrow, let alone an incident involving the flag carrier's brand new fleet!
Of course, aviation incidents are subject to "n" number of factors which can affect any airline, aircraft, airport. The Heathrow incident could have been much more catastrophic if - as the speculations continues - the loss of engine power had occurred just thirty or sixty seconds earlier than it actually did. This would have left the commander with a much longer distance to navigate the aircraft in glide-mode and he may not have made it to the grass strip that fortunately precedes the LHR runway.
This was an amazing feat of airmanship for which the Captain and Co-Pilot, as well as the cabin crew, have justifiably been commended by all involved.
As far as tv news coverage of the event was concerned, and speaking from within the industry, I have to say that the most technically accurate data was provided by CNN International and, in particular their anchorman, Richard Quest. He was spot-on with all the facts and figures he was able to ad-lib from the scene, and his observations were also without drama and with substance.
BBC was inaccurate in some of their facts, and also their reporting was riddled with inane comments from time to time.
Sky appeared to be the most sensational (as expected), with Kay Burley managing to reduce one of the passengers to tears on air in a typical "Kay" interview - the sort of thing the public loves. Not only, but their reporters and their website continually referred to a "packed aeroplane". This was a gross exaggeration, as the aircraft was flying with less than 50% passenger load. (136 passengers as opposed to the 280+ it could have carried).
I didn't see anything of ITN, so will rely on your comments to see how they pitched.
Did BBC or ITN anchor the Ten from the scene? I would like to think that they did, given that the incident only occurred a few moments from their HQ's.
1) It's a Boeing 777 - these are sturdy machines and have never been involved in any type of major incident whatosever since they started flying 15 years ago;
2) It's British Airways - the company has a very good safety record and their air crews (cockpit) are reknowned the world over for their superlative technical skills;
3) It was BA's home base (i.e. LHR). It is unthinkable for any incident of this major nature to occur at Heathrow, let alone an incident involving the flag carrier's brand new fleet!
Of course, aviation incidents are subject to "n" number of factors which can affect any airline, aircraft, airport. The Heathrow incident could have been much more catastrophic if - as the speculations continues - the loss of engine power had occurred just thirty or sixty seconds earlier than it actually did. This would have left the commander with a much longer distance to navigate the aircraft in glide-mode and he may not have made it to the grass strip that fortunately precedes the LHR runway.
This was an amazing feat of airmanship for which the Captain and Co-Pilot, as well as the cabin crew, have justifiably been commended by all involved.
As far as tv news coverage of the event was concerned, and speaking from within the industry, I have to say that the most technically accurate data was provided by CNN International and, in particular their anchorman, Richard Quest. He was spot-on with all the facts and figures he was able to ad-lib from the scene, and his observations were also without drama and with substance.
BBC was inaccurate in some of their facts, and also their reporting was riddled with inane comments from time to time.
Sky appeared to be the most sensational (as expected), with Kay Burley managing to reduce one of the passengers to tears on air in a typical "Kay" interview - the sort of thing the public loves. Not only, but their reporters and their website continually referred to a "packed aeroplane". This was a gross exaggeration, as the aircraft was flying with less than 50% passenger load. (136 passengers as opposed to the 280+ it could have carried).
I didn't see anything of ITN, so will rely on your comments to see how they pitched.
Did BBC or ITN anchor the Ten from the scene? I would like to think that they did, given that the incident only occurred a few moments from their HQ's.