flying dog Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Wednesday 20:30. Finally, some good shows for us.
Yenn Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Get in quick. I hear that the govt. wants to increase the advertising on SBS. I can't stand the ads on commercial TV so don't want to see SBS go the same way. I will be watching tonight.
Guest ozzie Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Don't forget next Monday night 8:30 SBS "Worst place to be a Pilot". The short looked like it was not a great place to be a Porter either, ouch.
Birdseye Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 " Wednesday 20:30. Finally, some good shows for us." Disappointing enough to turn if off early. Reminiscences from ill-informed schoolboys does not make an investigation. Only thing missing was the 'Discovery Channel' avatar in the corner. "Worst place to be a pilot" is rather better. Quite a few episodes on YouTube if anyone is interested. 2
old man emu Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Disappointing enough to turn if off early. Reminiscences from ill-informed schoolboys does not make an investigation. Quite right. This wasn't an in-depth investigation that the blurb suggested it would be. The blurb hinted that there was some sort of official cover-up which was to be exposed. To me, there wasn't anything sinister about the "investigation". The sole survivor was probably on one of the first flights of his life, and being way down the back he wouldn't have been able to see what the crew was doing. It was interesting to have the mechanics of the superchargers pointed out and how they would cause an layman to think that there was an engine fire. Given the flat approach angle described by witnesses, I think you can rule out a "stall - spin" as the cause. A possible scenario was that there was an engine problem after the plane had made a climbing turn to cross-wind. Don't forget that the planned departure procedure involved two turns within the circuit area - the second to provide an "overhead airfield" position check before gaining planned track. When the problem happened, the crew decided to make a landing on the strip. Perhaps they made a wrong identification of the runway and put down on cleared land they thought was the runway. There were no pictures to show the position of the landing gear at the time of impact. This documentary failed to make a decision on whether it was an investigation of an air crash, or a human interest story dealing with the victims. That being said, it was a better way to spend an hour than watching some fools pretending to be codon bleu chefs. As for the ads on SBS - I taped it and watched it an hour later so I could fast forward through the ads. Old Man Emu
Birdseye Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I wouldn't mind the cordon blu chefs, my wife seems to only watch dross full of murder and postmortems!
Deskpilot Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Well I enjoyed it for what is was. Of coarse it couldn't be a proper investigation as the aircraft isn't still around., and why didn't the presenter talk to relatives of the only survivor. They would certainly know his take on the matter. As hurtful as it seems, I think they got it right with pilot error. Yes, I know the aircraft was probably over weight, in poor condition and with suspect engine/s, but the pilots would also know that and should have flown to the conditions, not the proposed plan. Had they continued straight out and gained a lot more height prior to their first turn, they might have made it all the way to their planned destination. Better to take a bo***cking from the CO than have a cross over your head.
facthunter Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 I tend to think the plane was a piece of crap and had a power loss or a problem with a prop.. Even a partial loss would have made the plane perform as it did. There was no spare performance. Nev
BoxFat Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Personal opinion: I thought it was a pretty silly premise - we can argue for ever about the cause of a crash yesterday with two black boxes in hand. Meaningless speculation for the most part in a cold case like this. Foggy dawn take off in an old, possibly overloaded plane (cryptic comment about the smuggled aboard beef...was it a whole cow ?). Plenty of risk factors there so no great mystery that a crash happened but specifics remain unknowable. If this is a series I would love to see them do it for the Lockheed (Electra ?..or was it a Hudson ? I forget) that crashed on approach to Fairbairn (named after defence minister Fairbairn among those killed in the crash) airbase in Canberra. The pilot (Hitchcock) was the son of RAAF pilot Hitchcock who died of thirst in the desert in the infamous "Coffee Royal" incident while searching for Kingsford Smith. It was a stall spin on after an overshot intercept to final at night. The story goes that Hitchock was a sub-standard skill pilot (training records) who would have been scrubbed but was waved through as a favour to his mother, widow of his father, by RAAF powers that be. If this is trues, it is a chilling case of one tragedy leading later to another...). Birdseye: My wife also has a penchant with murder and mayhem shows like CSI (insert city name here). I sleep with one eye open...... 1
fly_tornado Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Things I didn't like Lack of detail Garth the presenter seemed like a bit of a geezer. Lack of detail Repeating the same CGI and clips of the crew over and over. Lack of detail Interviewing all those old blokes. Things I liked B17 footage from Arizona 2 stars 1
Old Koreelah Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 I missed it in favour of Brian Cox's Human Universe- a show not to miss. Sounds like more dumbing down by the media. Over the years I have bought several US-produced docos about WWII fighter planes and the Space Race. Invariably there was almost nothing technical, just the story of "these brave American men"...
Yenn Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 I watched it, having decided to give Brian Cox's show a miss. Wish I hadn't. There was no detective work and the info. given out was conflicting, with weird conclusions stated. To sum up a real junk program. I will watch mondays program and hope for better. 1
old man emu Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 On the whole, the program seems to have been an insult to the lives lost. OME
Jabiru7252 Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 I watched it and was disappointed, I used to know an old guy that was there when that happened. Trouble is, as he got older I got the same story over and over, but the first time around, all his war stories were great. He didn't like the yanks though, said they were up themselves and trouble makers.
fly_tornado Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 this was a bit of a surprise http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-10/historian-reveals-details-on-townsville-mutiny/3821906 1
Old Koreelah Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 this was a bit of a surprisehttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-10/historian-reveals-details-on-townsville-mutiny/3821906 There were several "mutinies" and battles between allies; many armies had them and most were hushed up. Perhaps the most shameful aspect of Australia's war was the atrocious behaviour of our waterside workers. (I knew the son of one; he gloated about the pilfering his father was involved in.) That too has been quietly kept out of most history books. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/hal-gp-colebatch-heres-the-waterfront-drama-that-aunty-did-n/story-e6frg6zo-1111113559562
fly_tornado Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Don't get too excited about Colebatch's "history" actually happening http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/12/09/mike-carlton-the-shoddy-anti-union-fiction-that-won-the-pms-top-history-award/ 1
facthunter Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 The Yanks were well paid and unsurprisingly were popular with the "Ladies".R&R is what you make it. Doesn't go down with the local "lads" well Nev
old man emu Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 I don't doubt the Townsville mutiny. My mother lived in Glebe, Sydney and her dad was a wharfie. She always said that Australians were stunned by the way White Americans treated their Black countrymen, and how the black Americans loved being treated as equals by Australians. No doubt, however, mum's parents would have exploded if she had ever been escorted home by a black American. They were not backward in coming forward to express their White superiority. The only other incidents that were well known during the war were the Battle of Brisbane, supposedly ignited by US troops telling Aussie troops who were about to embark for the Islands that the Aussies needn't worry about their womenfolk as the Yanks would take care of them. There was also a white American convicted of raping an Australian woman in Melbourne. No doubt there were many back lane skirmishes that did not make the papers. My father used to say that the US MPs were big bastards who liked applying the long baton liberally. However, we do owe the Yanks a big dose of gratitude for re-equipping our forces after England pulled out of the Pacific war at the time of the Japanese expansion. Some think that the Australian soldier was insulted by Macarthur's failing to include them in the push to Japan, but keeping them for mopping up on by-passed islands. Perhaps that was a good thing. Think of the possible loss of Australian lives if they had been involved in the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinowa. Old Man Emu 1
Old Koreelah Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 ...However, we do owe the Yanks a big dose of gratitude... Some think that the Australian soldier was insulted by Macarthur's failing to include them in the push to Japan, but keeping them for mopping up on by-passed islands. Perhaps that was a good thing. Think of the possible loss of Australian lives if they had been involved in the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinowa. Old Man Emu I agree, OME. Many Australians despise the way Churchill wasted Australian lives in Mediterranean blunders (in both World Wars). Compared to him, MacArthur organised slaughter on an industrial scale. Our blokes were lucky not to have been invited.
dsam Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 The Yanks were well paid and unsurprisingly were popular with the "Ladies".R&R is what you make it. Doesn't go down with the local "lads" well Nev From a documentary I saw a while ago, I believe the phrase: 'over-sexed, over-paid and over here' was bandied about. I don't doubt there was a lot of mixed feelings surrounding the US military presence at the time. I seem to remember "over-ranked" sometimes added this phrase, as they tended to be one or two notches in rank above equivalent-talent compared to the Aussie/UK/Canadian military of the period.
old man emu Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Whoa there Old Koreelah! While Churchill is given the blame for the Dardanelles campaign he can't be blamed for its poor execution. All the Allied front line forces (English, Dominion,including Indian, and not the least the French) made remarkable gains on he first day, but it was the timidity and lack of fighting spirit of the British OIC that caused the stalemate by not letting the troops continue their advances over the top of inferior numbers of Turkish troops. After that, these British Generals, none of whom had fought a battle before, forced the troops into suicidal attacks. Consider the Second Battle of Krithia. Ever heard of it? Doubt it. It was fought on the 8/9 May 1915 as a combined British-Dominion-French attack on a village strongly held by the Turks. Australian troops, who had just marched into the bivouac area near the battle field after moving from Anzac Cove, were given 30 minutes to prepare to join the battle. The Australian commanders wanted to wait until dark so they could move up to the front lines more safely, but the British Generals demanded an advance over open ground in daylight. Needless to say, the Turks cut the advancing troops to pieces with machine guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Krithia Churchill was not directly responsible for the Dardanelles failure. It was the British Military class system that should be held responsible. The overall concept of the Dardanelles campaign was militarily sound, and given adequate equipment and better leadership, it would have been a great success. As for Churchill's actions in WWll, no doubt the insertion of ANZAC troops into Greece was based more on political necessity than military wisdom, and the subsequent Crete campaign was more of an attempt to make a controlled withdrawal to Egypt. Although the North African campaign ebbed and flowed based on the differing abilities of the Italian, British and German commanders, and was carried out more purely as a military campaign without undue political influence, other than that the Prime Minister maintained the right to remove generals who were not performing. OME 1
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