JQ A320 off the runway at CHC

[tartare]

Appears to have slid off runway on landing at CHC - no one injured.
Media passenger quote citing hydraulic leak on right.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/christchurch-airport-emergency-plane-goes-off-runway/MOUGXWCZZBAELK3LWNU7CVEVGQ/
No detail yet on whether this is correct - what was leaking.
Jet now on the grass - flights being diverted.​​​​​​​

[nomess]

‘Swerved wildly’
’crashed on the runway’
’so scared’
‘I was seated in the aisle seat’

You NZ media are nothing but a disgrace. I won’t mention the journalists name, not even worth the time.

[Lapon]

‘Swerved wildly’
’crashed on the runway’
’so scared’
‘I was seated in the aisle seat’

You NZ media are nothing but a disgrace. I won’t mention the journalists name, not even worth the time.

In defence of the journalist who published that, those are quotes from a passenger on board.
Yea yea, the 'passenger' happened to be a Herald columnist - but for all we know that could be the Life & Style or Horoscopes columnist.

[nomess]

In defence of the journalist who published that, those are quotes from a passenger on board.
Yea yea, the 'passenger' happened to be a Herald columnist - but for all we know that could be the Life & Style or Horoscopes columnist.
No need to run ‘plane crashed on the runway’ as the lead in headline across all its socials and front pages.

They are just as bad as the passengers.

Also. You don’t need to quote everything a passenger mentions. I have seen the media in action at an aviation incident, they literally put words in passengers mouths and try to get a comment.

[CI300]

Wow, Im not a great fan of any media reporting standards these days. But I don't usually burst a blood vessel over it.
See those " quotation marks" in the article? That means the reporter is just quoting what a passenger has said. Not their own thoughts.
You should use them instead of ' apostrophe ' in your quotes.
" You NZ media ". I think you mean your Nzud media.







‘Swerved wildly’
’crashed on the runway’
’so scared’
‘I was seated in the aisle seat’

You NZ media are nothing but a disgrace. I won’t mention the journalists name, not even worth the time.

[tartare]

The initial headline about a plane crashing at CHC was ridiculous.
I see they've now updated it.

[nomess]

Wow, Im not a great fan of any media reporting standards these days. But I don't usually burst a blood vessel over it.
See those " quotation marks" in the article? That means the reporter is just quoting what a passenger has said. Not their own thoughts.
You should use them instead of ' apostrophe ' in your quotes.
" You NZ media ". I think you mean your Nzud media.
Twitter posts released soon after the incident ‘plane crashed at Christchurch’ have been promptly now removed by numerous media.

It needs to be called out. I need the NZ Herald have pulled back a few comments already.

It’s all about clicks these days.

[LostWanderer]

‘Swerved wildly’
’crashed on the runway’
’so scared’
‘I was seated in the aisle seat’

You NZ media are nothing but a disgrace. I won’t mention the journalists name, not even worth the time.

Never understood why pilots get so butt hurt over passenger quotes. They don't nor are they expected to understand what is causing or how an aircraft emergency is being handled. Calm down buddy, who cares.

[giggitygiggity]

The video at the link has the PA from the flight deck which says after landing one engine seemed to spool up, which presumably made it hard to keep the centreline... Also suggestions of a hydraulic failure. So presumably the engine did as it was told and produced about 70% fwd thrust with the reversers stowed due to the hydraulic failure.

[43Inches]

Looks like it veered quite a bit to end up at that angle to the runway, I'd say a few passengers would be scared if the aircraft skidded sideways on the runway. In anycase the PA to the passengers by the captain, that is being played by the media, says something about the engine spooling up after landing. It will be an interesting report that we will never see...

*Can't post the picture for some reason, but it's about 45 degree or so to the runway with the mains on the grass, nosewheel on the runway.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

See those " quotation marks" in the article? That means the reporter is just quoting what a passenger has said. Not their own thoughts.

​​​​​​​From personal experience: not necessarily.

[Lookleft]

It will be an interesting report that we will never see...

​​​​​​​Are you suggesting that the TAIC is corrupt and won't publish it or that it will take a bit of time for it to be released?

[Stationair8]

Another clear air turbulence event due to climate change?

[43Inches]

Are you suggesting that the TAIC is corrupt and won't publish it or that it will take a bit of time for it to be released?

Not sure if it's corrupt or the new age process, but a lot of incidents are not longer investigated or even listed as happening in Australia. I've mentioned it before that several engine failures for various airlines in Australia have not shown anywhere. I assume all in house investigations with no public awareness or even what we could learn from each. The operators can just claim nothing happened if they want. In the past you had a run down regularly of all report events.

[Ollie Onion]

If you look at the track the aircraft was only doing 30 kts onto a 45 degree runway exit. Word is the Hydraulic system failed which led to a NWS failure so the aircraft continued straight off the TAXIWAY and was steered across a short piece of grass back onto the runway. All very low speed. Headline that popped up on my media feed this
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/721x1015/img_1335_18db1c0847df942567a4855a922593e0580ce132.jpeg
morning was ‘JETSTAR AIRCRAFT LANDS ON THE GRASS IN CHRISTCHURCH’.

[SHVC]

Nothing to see here! Crew seemed to handle it well after the event with passenger information etc.

Imagine these NZ or even Aussie journos in Europe or USA where stuff like this a daily event not even reported on.

[Ollie Onion]

Correct ^*^

[compressor stall]

Ollie, is that the exit on 02 that looks like high speed but isn't?

[Ollie Onion]

Ollie, is that the exit on 02 that looks like high speed but isn't?

Yep, sure is but the flight radar stuff seems to suggest they were quite slow at the exit.

[compressor stall]

Noted. I wasn’t implying anything to the contrary. More just trying to understand where they were.

[shinz0]

Looking at this (https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2024/05/video-emerges-of-moment-jetstar-flight-veers-off-the-runway-at-christchurch-airport.html), rather than veered off the runway, better than slid off, veered back onto runway might be closer too the truth. Lucky Harewood is well drained& probably fairly firm from lack of rain so recovery wasn't too difficult by the sound of things.

[43Inches]

Looking at this (https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2024/05/video-emerges-of-moment-jetstar-flight-veers-off-the-runway-at-christchurch-airport.html), rather than veered off the runway, better than slid off, veered back onto runway might be closer too the truth. Lucky Harewood is well drained& probably fairly firm from lack of rain so recovery wasn't too difficult by the sound of things.

If you have the audio turned up it sounds like one engine does increase thrust significantly as it takes the high speed, or is it my imagination. Maybe the Right did go to full thrust or something close, which fits in with what the pilot says on the PA. It could also be the 'ohnosecond' the crew realised there was no steering and hit reverse for some braking. I would have thought a known hydraulic issue would have the aircraft stop on the runway first.

[Lookleft]

By that stage of the rollout the T/Rs would have been stowed. If it is a hydraulic problem then the sound might be the PTU operating.

[A320 Flyer]

Brain fart - Loss of braking memory items part done….. maybe

[43Inches]

By that stage of the rollout the T/Rs would have been stowed. If it is a hydraulic problem then the sound might be the PTU operating.

Definitely sounds like a rumbling more akin to an engine going to high thrust, the left engine is blowing dust out ahead as well in that picture, so could be in reverse/idle reverse. I'll add that at the start of the video it sounds like the normal landing and thrust reverse being removed, so it was all good until around that exit. So if a reverser had done something, it didn't do it during the early roll out, and same for steering.

[nomess]

Definitely sounds like a rumbling more akin to an engine going to high thrust, the left engine is blowing dust out ahead as well in that picture, so could be in reverse/idle reverse. I'll add that at the start of the video it sounds like the normal landing and thrust reverse being removed, so it was all good until around that exit. So if a reverser had done something, it didn't do it during the early roll out, and same for steering.

That’s an engine going to full thrust indeed. It starts about 0.08 seconds on that video if you listen carefully, just before they commence the turn onto the rapid. Interesting.

[Hollywood1]

Link to X Twitter for the video

https://x.com/NewshubNZ/status/1796322974200680627

[Lookleft]

If one engine had gone to 70% power then the departure off the taxiway would have been a lot more rapid, not the reasonably gentle turn back onto the runway in the video. For context 43" look at what happened to the Kendell Saab that departed the runway in DPO when one engine was in reverse and the other one wasn't.

[First_Principal]

It will be an interesting report that we will never see...
​​​​​​​Are you suggesting that the TAIC is corrupt and won't publish it or that it will take a bit of time for it to be released?

Not sure if it's corrupt or the new age process, but a lot of incidents are not longer investigated or even listed as happening in Australia...

To say more here would be too much thread drift I think, and I'd like to think 'corruption' is going too far, but there is evidence to support that it's not unreasonable to question certain aspects of accident reporting in NZ...

[43Inches]

If one engine had gone to 70% power then the departure off the taxiway would have been a lot more rapid, not the reasonably gentle turn back onto the runway in the video. For context 43" look at what happened to the Kendell Saab that departed the runway in DPO when one engine was in reverse and the other one wasn't.

To be fair reverse on the Saab can move it backwards at quite a rate if you let it. The cascades on modern jets more blow a wall of air out more side ways than forward. That becomes much less effective at low speed. Reversed propellers are a lot more effective then the redirected jet exhaust thats called reverse.

[shinz0]

Are you suggesting that the TAIC is corrupt and won't publish it or that it will take a bit of time for it to be released?
By the time this comes out, it'll be old news & if reported will be a small bit of column on the inside pages & will be missed by many, who by then have probably lost interest anyway. If you want to know the outcome, you'll likely need to go digging a bit.

[Ollie Onion]

By the time this comes out, it'll be old news & if reported will be a small bit of column on the inside pages & will be missed by many, who by then have probably lost interest anyway. If you want to know the outcome, you'll likely need to go digging a bit.


That is true, Air NZ put a 737 off the end of the RWY in CHC and no real publicity, Air NZ also almost put a 787 into the ocean off Rarotonga and again no publicity or publicly available report. Not a lot of publicity either around the 787 Landing in Auckland on a contaminated runway departing the center line while aquaplaning before taking out 6 runway edge lights at high speed causing deflated tires and barely staying on the tarmac. But hey, mass headlines over a Jetstar crossing the grass at 25 kts.

[Saintly]

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2024/05/video-emerges-of-moment-jetstar-flight-veers-off-the-runway-at-christchurch-airport.html

[Fuzz99]

That is true, Air NZ put a 737 off the end of the RWY in CHC and no real publicity, Air NZ also almost put a 787 into the ocean off Rarotonga and again no publicity or publicly available report. Not a lot of publicity either around the 787 Landing in Auckland on a contaminated runway departing the center line while aquaplaning before taking out 6 runway edge lights at high speed causing deflated tires and barely staying on the tarmac. But hey, mass headlines over a Jetstar crossing the grass at 25 kts.

Correct about the 737 but everything after is about as accurate as what NZ Herald reporter would dream up 😆 🤡

[Visual_Approach]

That is true, Air NZ put a 737 off the end of the RWY in CHC and no real publicity, Air NZ also almost put a 787 into the ocean off Rarotonga and again no publicity or publicly available report. Not a lot of publicity either around the 787 Landing in Auckland on a contaminated runway departing the center line while aquaplaning before taking out 6 runway edge lights at high speed causing deflated tires and barely staying on the tarmac. But hey, mass headlines over a Jetstar crossing the grass at 25 kts.
I think you mean 777

[Ollie Onion]

I think you mean 777

Yep, sorry you are correct.

[krismiler]

The A320 has had issues in the past with nose wheel steering, and I'm sure we've all seen the pictures of aircraft landing with the gear at a funny angle and the wheel ground down.

There was an incident in South America where the aircraft departed the runway due to an incorrect thrust lever setting on landing which led to a revision in procedures for selecting reverse thrust.

[artee]

Appears to have slid off runway on landing at CHC - no one injured.
Media passenger quote citing hydraulic leak on right.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/christchurch-airport-emergency-plane-goes-off-runway/MOUGXWCZZBAELK3LWNU7CVEVGQ/
No detail yet on whether this is correct - what was leaking.
Jet now on the grass - flights being diverted.​​​​​​​
Jetstar 20th birthday bash?

[Hollywood1]

That grass excursion was still a lot smoother than taxiing on taxiway E at YMML

[nomorecatering]

Looking at the video with the sound way up, it sure sounds like an engine at high power. If it was a lodd of nose steeing hydraulics, from the angle of the dust being blown forward, it looks like it's comming from the #2 engine. Could they have used asymetric reverse in an attempt to steer the aircraft round the right hand curve of the rapid exit taxiway. Now I admit that's getting into Bob Hoover territory but to me it seems plausable.

[Likeasomebody]

Yep, sorry you are correct.
I was there too when it happened. Standing airside outside the Air NZ Check in desks. We all thought wtf is happening!

[nomess]

Could they have used asymetric reverse in an attempt to steer the aircraft round the right hand curve of the rapid exit taxiway. Now I admit that's getting into Bob Hoover territory but to me it seems plausable.

Thrust seems to be from #2 not #1.

Perhaps the intention was to keep it on the runway which would explain #2, you can hear it during the start of the turn for those who know IAE will pick up the early sounds if on full blast. Probably too late and ended up entering the rapid then coming off heading left as originally planned but now had to cut over the grass.

[nomorecatering]

yeah.....reverse thrust on #2. If there was significant thrust being developed by #1 you wouldn't have the dust (or what ever it was) wafting in front of the inlet at a 45 deg angle, it would heve gone straight into the intake. High forward thrust on #2 doesn't even make sense. Why would the PF do that? My only guess is in the confusion the #2 thrust lever could have been bumped forward, or an uncommanded thrust increase.

[nomess]

High forward thrust on #2 doesn't even make sense. Why would the PF do that? My only guess is in the confusion the #2 thrust lever could have been bumped forward, or an uncommanded thrust increase.
The intention was to go left for whatever reason. They could have started the turn onto the rapid, noticed the issue, and attempted to steer back onto the runway which explains the sounds I hear from #2 and at the specific times. Unfortunately it happened too late. Could have been obstacles on the right and it was safer to go across the grass on the left. I don’t know the taxiway area here but others can comment as above.

I don’t think many Training Departments would look too fondly on crew using asymmetric thrust at low speeds purely to steer around taxiways when one has tech issues while vacating, unless a significant obstacle or uneven surface is in the way which is unlikely near a rapid exit.

Regardless it was a safe result. You would be better off looking into the engineering logs vs worrying about which piece of grass the crew went over. I am sure a few others in this thread would be well across the state of this operators fleet.

[JamieMaree]

The intention was to go left for whatever reason. They could have started the turn onto the rapid, noticed the issue, and attempted to steer back onto the runway which explains the sounds I hear from #2 and at the specific times. Unfortunately it happened too late. Could have been obstacles on the right and it was safer to go across the grass on the left. I don’t know the taxiway area here but others can comment as above.

I don’t think many Training Departments would look too fondly on crew using asymmetric thrust at low speeds purely to steer around taxiways, unless a significant obstacle or uneven surface is in the way which is unlikely near a rapid exit.

Regardless it was a safe result. You would be better off looking into the engineering logs vs worrying about which piece of grass the crew went over.

Maybe you could should show some humility and instead of relying on what you are “hearing” , waiting until a bit more info comes out, or even some facts come out.
FFS the pilots are doing the best they can under the circumstances. They did they can or the fu*ked up. Time will tell.
You seem to be an expert on everything..
A320 landing issues
Cessna 210emergency landings
Bonza demise
B787 issues

[nomess]

Maybe you could should some humility and instead of relying on what you are “hearing” , waiting until a bit more info comes out, or even some facts come out.
FFS the pilots are doing the best they can under the circumstances. They did they can or the fu*ked up. Time will tell.
You seem to be an expert on everything..

The discussion is on Thrust Asymmetry. If you bothered to read the post, the only criticism on the post is towards the media.

The crew did well. Everyone was safe. Time will not tell. They didn’t screw this up. I stand with the crew.

You seem to be an expert on everything..
I am not going to sink to your level, as seen in pretty much all posts, just attacks, and abuses everyone who you disagree with. I respect that you have had a long and great career as mentioned previously, but your attacks lately have been called out by many. Providing zero substance to any threads, just abuse and snappy attacks. With such experience behind you, it would be great if you could contribute to some of these technical discussions, as many do, rather than the rolling snappy remarks.

[JamieMaree]

The discussion is on Thrust Asymmetry. If you bothered to read the post, the only criticism on the post is towards the media.

The crew did well. Everyone was safe. Time will not tell. They didn’t screw this up. I stand with the crew.


I am not going to sink to your level, as seen in pretty much all posts, just attacks, and abuses everyone who you disagree with. I respect that you have had a long and great career as mentioned previously, but your attacks lately have been called out by many. Providing zero substance to any threads, just abuse and snappy attacks. With such experience behind you, it would be great if you could contribute to some of these technical discussions, as many do, rather than the rolling snappy remarks.


On this thread, I only object to guesses at what actually happened.

For example, in the LAN jet upset on the Tasman recently, speculation all over the place, it turned out that someone/ something activated the LH seat and jammed the pilot up against the control column which caused the autopilot to react which in turn plastered a few pax on the ceiling ie those who weren’t wearing their seat belt.

[Power]

The Austranauts out in full force

[nomess]

On this thread, I only object to guesses at what actually happened.
Your objections to pretty much what everyone was saying was well documented in the Network thread. Well done on that, it’s now closed. You got what you wanted. I’ll keep quiet now, otherwise I’ll end up like the poor other souls who got banned trying to silence your abuse over in the NAA thread. Pity about the poor few hundred NAA folks who would like the discussion to continue.

[nivsy]

Nothing to see here! Crew seemed to handle it well after the event with passenger information etc.

Imagine these NZ or even Aussie journos in Europe or USA where stuff like this a daily event not even reported on.
Um if this happened in Europe (slide or turn onto grass after
​landing) it would be in the newspaper with probably more sensational headlines and videos...not sure why you think it would not.

[Ollie Onion]

Correct about the 737 but everything after is about as accurate as what NZ Herald reporter would dream up 😆 🤡

It is hard to get the details right considering they were/are so well buried.

[framer]

QUOTE]It is hard to get the details right considering they were/are so well buried.[/QUOTE]
How does that happen? I was told about the Raro event the week it happened by an Air NZ pilot who was an F/O on the same fleet. It seems like it was about three years ago now from memory and I’ve been keeping a look out in the papers, on the TAIC website, and on the CAA ( or whatever it’s called now) website……nada…..zip.
Can the CAA or TAIC simply decide not to make the report public? That goes against a long history of aviation learning if that’s the case.

[framer]

It seems strange to me that I was never able to find public information on an incident that the NZ Civil Aviation Authority was investigating. The only thing I can think of is that an investigation was opened, and then a decision was made that an investigation was not required. From what I was told the event involved an Air NZ B-777 descending after take-off in Rarotonga which resulted in EGPWS warnings. After being told about it I kept a close eye out for some sort of report but with no luck. Now when I search for it the only reference to the incident is an NBR article stating that the CAA is opening an investigation into a ‘nose-dive’ after take-off in Rarotonga on November 22nd 2019.
I read incident reports from all over the globe as a matter of interest ( I know, I should get a hobby ) and was looking forward to this one. The fact that it never made the public view makes me nervous for the health of our Aviation culture. The only reason we have made the safety strides we have made in the 20th century was a culture of investigation of incidents and dissemination of lessons learnt to the broader community.
Does anyone here know if the investigation was canned after further information came to light, or if the investigation was completed but is not available to the public?

[43Inches]

I've alluded to the same point numerous times recently, as the same appears to be happening in Australia. I've witnessed several events that easily should have made it to at least some form of notice that it was being looked at, but nothing. Then from hearsay many other events that sound fairly serious and not a bit of information, in fact in some cases information after the event was around, but seemed to be cleaned out after some time. It feels like somebody is abusing the system to protect brands and so on, instead of allowing the public to be able to see for themselves the safety record of our airlines. And I don't mean listing every go-round and missed transponder code, or readback, I mean engine failures and serious operational deviations.

Does it take an actual smoking hole and then somebody pops up with a list of every similar occurrence they had on file, but nobody knew there was a problem, because nobody outside of a safety department knew about it to avoid that scenario. Some of the scenarios being investigated are also being posed as if it was a one off, when a series of events had occurred similar to it in the years before.

I'm fairly sure the NTSB/FAA lists all reported events and they are searchable online. That does not seem to be the case here, that is in Australia and NZ.

[nomess]

Someone made the comment, that as one operators fleet was so old and facing retirement, it wasn’t worth reporting on all the engine events. If a fleet is having weekly or monthly shutdowns, then the fleet should be grounded.

Alpha Floor was reported at another operator. Didn’t hear about that one either. Alpha Floor has always been reported on previously, so definitely a shift. Perhaps it didn’t occur, perhaps it did.

The TAIC has a very small budget and a few dozen employees, likely time gets chewed up on a whatever few investigations they have underway. I’m not saying that’s an excuse, but they probably can’t deal with the workload, and often request assistance from the ATSB.

The ATSB said last year they had staffing challenges and are working through that.

[morno]

I'm fairly sure the NTSB/FAA lists all reported events and they are searchable online.

I can assure you that’s not correct. I know of at least one serious incident that occurred and the operator asked for it to be made confidential and it was.

[43Inches]

I can assure you that’s not correct. I know of at least one serious incident that occurred and the operator asked for it to be made confidential and it was.

I was just searching the NTSB database and it seems a lot of things are on there as accident/incident stubs, problem is you don't know what should be there that isn't. Big differences are that the crews names are all there for the public to see as well as their statements regarding the event. Was interesting to read recent events like an AA vs DAL near miss on the runway at JFK and a DAL occurrence where an aileron froze due to leaking toilets, which was fixed by descending to warmer temps.

I just looked at their open government statement, and it does say that "Accidents and Selected Incidents will be published"

It is funny though that the NTSB does not even require an engine failure to be reported, unless it's uncontained or involves fire. Where the ATSB requires almost any unusual operation to be reported, including engine failures, and even if you just declared a PAN call, but they publish very little information from all that is gathered.

[Gate_15L]

It seems strange to me that I was never able to find public information on an incident that the NZ Civil Aviation Authority was investigating. The only thing I can think of is that an investigation was opened, and then a decision was made that an investigation was not required. From what I was told the event involved an Air NZ B-777 descending after take-off in Rarotonga which resulted in EGPWS warnings. After being told about it I kept a close eye out for some sort of report but with no luck. Now when I search for it the only reference to the incident is an NBR article stating that the CAA is opening an investigation into a ‘nose-dive’ after take-off in Rarotonga on November 22nd 2019.
I read incident reports from all over the globe as a matter of interest ( I know, I should get a hobby ) and was looking forward to this one. The fact that it never made the public view makes me nervous for the health of our Aviation culture. The only reason we have made the safety strides we have made in the 20th century was a culture of investigation of incidents and dissemination of lessons learnt to the broader community.
Does anyone here know if the investigation was canned after further information came to light, or if the investigation was completed but is not available to the public?


The investigation report was done, by Air NZ. It was accepted by CAA. TAIC declined to investigate.

Whenever there's is an event, TAIC and CAA decide who will take the lead to investigate. If TAIC decline, then it's up to the CAA.
Often the CAA will request a investigation report by the operator and accept that as the investigation report, hence that report will never see the light of day into the public domain. The CAA will often then accept the matter as closed.
That's what happened with the 777 at RAR and the reject after V1 at Osaka.

The only time reports like that are released to the public is when TAIC investigate or CAA do their own investigation such as a fatal.

[framer]

Thanks 15L.
I didn’t realise that the ICAO obligations only applied to fatal accidents etc, I thought serious incidents under part 121 would be investigated by CAA or TAIC.
I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I wonder if safety learnings from incidents like Osaka and Raro are lost to all but the Airline involved or if they are somehow captured and promulgated industry wide? If they are lost to industry it seems to run contrary to the basic ethos of Annex 13.

[AerialPerspective]

Never understood why pilots get so butt hurt over passenger quotes. They don't nor are they expected to understand what is causing or how an aircraft emergency is being handled. Calm down buddy, who cares.

Not a big deal because passengers often don't know better.

But a so-called journalist or news outlet putting out such egregious BS is just pathetic. Among the gems I've seen in the last 20 years were a obviously just out of journalism school 19 year old touted as the "aviation reporter" talking about a Qantas aircraft that had to return because of a 'hydraulic fuel leak', a major tabloid stating there was a 'huge hole in the engine' when it was the thrust reverser cascade deployed on landing and some other nitwit saying something about the "passenger manifesto".

Sadly, like you know who (Australia's greatest aviation 'expert') most of the journalists who are touted as experts once saw an aircraft, more than a few of them constantly say "aircrafts" too.