Time for a rant.
By now you will have heard about the A320 that ditched into the Hudson River in New York this morning (Australian time).
As someone with an abiding interest in planes and airports, I tip my lid to the pilot who did a brilliant job of safely landing his aircraft on the water.
Read the italicised words in that last paragraph again.
It drives me absolutely bonkers when I read and hear people saying that a plane "crash landed".
Aircraft do NOT "crash land". They either crash OR they land. Occasionally they crash AFTER landing. This one safely ditched (landed) on the water. It did not CRASH! I am not being pedantic, I am being accurate. The argument that it must have "crashed" because it needs to be reparied or replaced before it can be used again is just ridiculous.
Once again the media live by the addage of never letting the truth spoil a sensational headline.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Agreed. I noticed that 2GB (with their resident aviation expert in toe) did not refer to it as a "crash landing" once, however other places which I won't name here, clearly without the help of somebody who knew what they were talking about, did call it a "crash landing".
The skill of the pilot was extraordinary, and so was the response from emergency services and civilians. New York knows how to handle an emergency...perhaps they should train the rest of us.
Post a Comment