Australian Flying Mag gets it wrong again.....

[Mick]

Many of you would have read the poor article this magazine ran some time ago bagging Rec Flyers, well now they are getting it wrong again.

 

Last week a B-17 Flying Fortress bomber was invovled in an emergcny landing which was carried successfully but unfortunately then burned as emergency services watched as they were "unable" to get equipment close enough to put the fire out.

 

The following is from the operators of the aircraft......

 

Unlike the sensational photos that you have all seen of the completely burned B-17 on the news, you will see from photos taken by our crew that our Liberty Belle was undamaged by the forced landing and at the time of landing, the wing fire damage was relatively small. The crew actually unloaded bags, then had the horrible task of watching the aircraft slowly burn while waiting for the fire trucks to arrive. There were high hopes that the fire would be extinguished quickly and the damage would be repairable. Those hopes were diminished as the fire trucks deemed the field too soft to cross due to the area’s recent rainfall. So while standing by our burning B-17 and watching the fire trucks parked at the field’s edge, they sadly watched the wing fire spread to the aircraft’s fuel cells and of course, you all have seen the end result. There is no doubt that had the fire equipment been able to reach our aircraft, the fire would have been quickly extinguished and our Liberty Belle would have been repaired to continue her worthwhile mission.

 

 

 

 

 

However Australian Flying magazine has opened it's report on their website with the following.....

 

One of the few remaining flying Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses has crashed and burned while making a forced landing in the US.

 

The article does go on to talk about the forced landing but I think it is pathetic that they chose to open the artilcle with such a sensationalistic line. This is the sort of cr*p that you would expect from the general press, but I would expect the aviation media to take a more factual approach to reporting such an event.

 

Read the whole Aust Flying artilcle here........

 

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/boeing-b-17-flying-fortress-burns-in-forced-landing

 

The whole story from the operators of the B-17 is on their website

 

http://www.libertyfoundation.org/.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Not at all surprised.....

 

 

[Kenchhidu]

The last "GA Flying" magazine I bought was the one with the 'learning to fly' centre booklet. It pretty much said don't bother going Raa,cause your not aloud to do this that and the other, so I didn't bother buying it again.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

At least it didn't "fall from the sky" as aircraft in the mainstream media a often wont to do. Always keep a sharp look out for the edge of the sky!

 

 

[Ultralights]

the one and only flying magazine i will actually spend money on is....... Kitplanes...

 

 

[Methusala]

"the one and only flying magazine i will actually spend money on is,,,,,,,,,,,Kitplanes"

 

.........and the Brit magazine "Pilot".

 

 

[Yenn]

And Pilot is not as good as it used to be. I subscribed to Pilot and then change to Todays Pilot, only to have Pilot take it over. Kitplanes is not as good as it used to be, but maybe that is because any technical magazine loses interest after a few years. I am thinking of joining EAA as I am told their magazine is good and also there is a wealth of stuff available for someone who is building.

 

 

[Hongie]

yenn, the eaa magazine is very good... i have a rather large collection of them, dating from the 70's to present, (no, i'm not that old, found em at an op shop) and i recently became a member, and its still just as good

 

 

[Methusala]

You're correct Yenn. I don't think that magazines take their role seriously these days. I remember when my favorite was "Air Progress", when staff reporters where as passionate as their readers. These days journalism has joined the ranks of bankers and, perhaps, executives of 2 major grocery chains. They believe that they can get comfortable in their old age serving up old tripe wrapped in glossy paper. I suppose we'll be rounded on as a pair of grumpy, disillusioned old buggers! Cheers, Don.

 

 

[kaz3g]

...still reckon u can't go past the "Air Safety Digest" of many years ago.....pilots would 'devour' it...and get lots of tips about how not to become a statistic.......

Wasn't much else in print then, anyway, CFIC... except the little AOPA mag... and Macarthur Job wrote most of it. It was good stuff, wasn't it?

 

kaz

 

 

[Spin]

Geez where's that Op Shop, Hongie - although on second thoughts better not, I already have serious capacity constraints thanks to years, make that decades of support for Pilot, Flyer, Flying and a few others that have come and gone. I agree with Methuselah and others, even the classics like Pilot are a disappointment these days - I was very pleased to find one on the shelf at my local recently but won't be rushing out to subscribe again. Can anyone recall the name of a prolific writer of theirs who put a Nord or similar onto its back and was then found to be sans licence thanks to diabetes? He wrote some brilliant test reports as did Bob Grimshaw.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Wasn't much else in print then, anyway, CFIC... except the little AOPA mag... and Macarthur Job wrote most of it. It was good stuff, wasn't it?kaz

When these idiot Corporate Trainers talk of "No I ion Team", and "We want Team Players" , and "No one is irreplaceable", I think of Macarthur Job. They broke the mould with him.

 

 

[Vorticity]

EAA membership is a bargain and the magazine is fantastic.