media misunderstanding of aviation isn't limited to the US

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4660644.stm

This was on the front page of news.bbc.co.uk today. While the article
does give quotes from officials stating that the photo is an illusion,
the implication of the writer seems to be that the officials aren't
being entirely truthful. Just look at the sub-headline: "Officials have
denied any breach of safety after two planes were pictured apparently
flying perilously close together over east London."

- Ray

***************************
Raymond Woo
e-mail: raywoo|at|gmail.com
http://gromit.stanford.edu/ray

"Ray" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4660644.stm

This was on the front page of news.bbc.co.uk today. While the article
does give quotes from officials stating that the photo is an illusion, the
implication of the writer seems to be that the officials aren't being
entirely truthful. Just look at the sub-headline: "Officials have denied
any breach of safety after two planes were pictured apparently flying
perilously close together over east London."

I don't see any implication that the officials were being untruthful. The
article (and the sub-headline) simply points out that the photograph made
the planes look close together even though officials stated they weren't.
The quoted explanation thoroughly debunks the illusion of proximity.
Attributing the explanation to the quoted officials--rather than flatly
stating it as fact--is just careful journalism.

(In any case, an article's headline is generally written by a copy editor
rather than by the article's author, so you can't infer the author's intent
from the headline.)

--Gary

I don't see any implication that the officials were being untruthful. The
article (and the sub-headline) simply points out that the photograph made
the planes look close together even though officials stated they weren't.
The quoted explanation thoroughly debunks the illusion of proximity.
Attributing the explanation to the quoted officials--rather than flatly
stating it as fact--is just careful journalism.

(In any case, an article's headline is generally written by a copy editor
rather than by the article's author, so you can't infer the author's intent
from the headline.)

--Gary



The article appears to have been re-written since I saw it last night.
Previously the section titled "Exaggerated Effect" was not there. In
the old version I definitely don't think that the illusion was
thoroughly debunked. Perhaps the version I first saw was simply brief
and not intentionally biased against the officials. But consider also
that they put the article on the front page of the website which means
that, at least originally, they didn't realize that the photo was a very
commonplace illusion.

- Ray

***************************
Raymond Woo
e-mail: raywoo|at|gmail.com
http://gromit.stanford.edu/ray

Ray wrote in :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4660644.stm
Snipola

Awwww...no picture in the story...

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Ray" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4660644.stm

This was on the front page of news.bbc.co.uk today. While the article
does give quotes from officials stating that the photo is an illusion, the
implication of the writer seems to be that the officials aren't being
entirely truthful. Just look at the sub-headline: "Officials have denied
any breach of safety after two planes were pictured apparently flying
perilously close together over east London."
\
I remember the first time I rode the silver Delta tube down the Atlanta
approach path, to the parallel landing runways. As the planes slowly got
closer and closer, it was almost disconcerting how close we were. Under ATC
control, and visual, at all times, but I can only imagine if someone took a
picture of our two planes ( or two of many, many other pairs) at that point
in time.

Yes, it would look a *whole lot* like a near miss, but it was not. Could it
be the same thing happening, in this case?
--
Jim in NC