Re: Old Fishy
- From: Graham P Davis <newsboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:30:04 +0100
Paul Bartlett wrote:
In message <QnoRi.47443$m81.3731@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, MichaelJP
<mjp@xxxxxxxxxx> writes
They all commissar on them, they were both loyal to the USSR by force.
"Paul Bartlett" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hcZxFiCqAQFHFwL6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <1192544376.946592.217590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Richard Dixon <rdngemail@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On 16 Oct, 11:20, "MichaelJP" <m...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I was on duty that night at RAF Cottesmore as S.Met.O. The HQSTC prog
Does Michael Fish's explanation work then? Was there an item on the
news about a Florida hurricane, and did a woman from Wales phone in,
presumably
misinterpreting the item as being about the UK?
Perhaps a full public enquiry should be launched!- Hide quoted text -
There was never a "woman from Wales" - it was Fish's paraphrasing of a
colleague's mother or something. I feel sorry for Fish's treatment by
the media and their rather selective snipping (sniping?!) of his
"don't worry, there isn't", but some things really stand out to me
from what's been said of late.
1) It's pretty clear that the scale of what was about to happen wasn't
known. If there was a really severe event about to happen as did
happen, then Fish would have started quite sternly and wouldn't have
started with a flippant throw-away comment. He seems to think he was
actually right as he said afterwards (secondary to his "hurricane"
comment) that we were in for some windy weather. I get the impression
that Fish suffers from the common human failing of "inability to admit
when you're wrong" - something that Ian McCaskill did when he held his
hands up when interviewed on the One O'Clock News the following day
(looking rather tired and sweaty IIRC!) and admitted as such.
2) The lack of teamwork from Fish/Giles. Fish did the lunchtime
forecast and had an air of "well I was right, it was Giles you should
be lambasting". The impression distinctly comes across as if Fish did
his forecast at lunchtime and then Giles did his in the evening - it's
almost as if they were separate forecasting entities and not both
representing the same source of information (from Bracknell). It all
smacks of two men with very large egos (unlike the aforemention Mr
McCaskill !).
Richard
VT
0001 showed a 140KT gradient behind the low as it swung north. The prog
was issued by my mate Jim Lawson, even knocking a bit off for cyclonic
curvature it was damn good. The defence side therefore suffered no
damage.
The fine mess however ran the low up the channel, I was lead to believe
that was because the intervention forecaster at Bracknell had a choice
of two Russian trawlers in Biscay, but they had a 10MB pressure
difference -
he chose the wrong one. The reports from Russian trawlers were always
suspect - yet useful. (As I realised when forecasting for the Falklands
war).
Fish et alia were irrelevant - apart from the media.
Cheers
Paul
Interesting about the Russian "trawlers", weren't they spy ships and not
actually trawlers at all in those days?
So why did they let their invaluable information on the WMO net?
As I recall, they used to report false positions. British trawlers did the
same during the Cod War.
--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.
.
- References:
- Old Fishy
- From: paulus
- Re: Old Fishy
- From: Alan Murphy
- Re: Old Fishy
- From: Richard Dixon
- Re: Old Fishy
- From: crazyhorse
- Re: Old Fishy
- From: MichaelJP
- Re: Old Fishy
- From: Richard Dixon
- Re: Old Fishy
- From: Paul Bartlett
- Re: Old Fishy
- From: MichaelJP
- Re: Old Fishy
- From: Paul Bartlett
- Old Fishy
- Prev by Date: Re: Davis Vantage Pro - Rain gauge calibration
- Next by Date: [OBS] Chalfont St Giles - Thu 18th Oct 2007
- Previous by thread: Re: Old Fishy
- Next by thread: Re: Old Fishy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading