Aviation for Reporters

Question:

And the really peevish thing about that was that it was a documentary about the "black boxes" which repeatedly touted itself as being a fact-finding program that would de-myth much that has been reported about aviation in the past. After they said the thing about the stick shaker warning the pilots that an engine was about to stall, I lost all confidence in anything else they were reporting. Shame too, cuz’ I had been feeling like I was learning. At least documentaries should have SME’s kicking around somewhere to listen to a read-through before public viewing… don’tchathink? tracy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What peeves me most are the half-assed documentaries on the History and Discovery channels. Loaded with inaccuracies, half truths and just plain bad writing. Just the other night I saw one that said the stick shaker was warning the pilots that the engines were about to stall. Jeez! Dan

Response:

I think the best one I have heard locally was about this "two engine, one propeller" skymaster that lost electrical power, and had to "crash land" on a highway. Heather – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Several of us were talking last night about the butcher job reporters usually make of aviation accidents. Someone suggested that we create a sort of "aviation for dummies" handout and mail it to various reporters. Now, we all know about the fact that stalls are reported as "the engine stalled", and we know that reporters seem to have the idea that an aircraft will immediately go into an unrecoverable nose dive if the engine fails. What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press? George Patterson, N3162Q.

Response:

Nice idea, but it won’t help. By and large (there are exceptions, of course) reporters simply don’t care about accuracy. I have brought glaring errors to the attention of news editors after the 5pm news – and provided references and explained things in detail and had them completely in agreement with me. And EVERY time they have run the same story on the 10pm news. They don’t care. It doesn’t matter what the story is about. We tend to single out aviation related stories because we know enough about the subject matter that the news errors are glaring in their severity and frequency. But if you look at stories about other subjects you know a fair amount about – say whatever it is you do for a living – you have probably noticed the same thing. The safest thing to assume is that any story you see, read or hear is no more accurate an account than a typical aviation story – because it probably isn’t. What really eats me is the nonsense they continually spout about their commitment to accuracy. I get so tired of their claims about how they verify all stories with at least two independent sources. What a crock. Time and time again they put out blatantly wrong information based on one person’s statement and repeat it over and over even though it would be a trivial matter to verify the information. The classic example of this occurred during the Gulf War. CNN had a retired general giving commentary and one of the briefers mentioned how many pounds of munitions had been dropped to date in the air war. This general, recalling from memory figures for other conflicts, tried to put this in perspective. He was very upfront that he was pulling the numbers out of his head and that this was all back-of-the-envelope work (he even waved the envelope he was scribbling on) and he made a glaring mistake – one that I caught as he was speaking. The numbers he was recalling from other conflicts were in tons while the numbers just given by the briefer was in pounds an the general missed that, even though he said tons and pounds with the appropriate numbers. So what happens? The next morning the leading newspapers all around the country have this fancy graphic with scaled pictures of bombs showing how we have dropped so many times more bombs than in all of World War II, Korea and Vietnam. The numbers they had on the bombs were the EXACT numbers that this general had mentioned and the units on the numbers on the figures were correct – it said tons and pounds properly. But, the Gulf War figure was 2000 times bigger than it should have been! Think of all of the steps that this story had to go through to get from the general’s mouth to that fancy graphic. Not ONE person along the way bothered to say, "Hey, the general said that he was recalling the figures from memory, let’s call the Pentagon and verify the actual values." Not ONE person along the way bothered to say, "Hey, these are in tons and these are in pounds. The main conclusion of this whole story is completely wrong." Not ONE. They simply do not care. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Several of us were talking last night about the butcher job reporters usually make of aviation accidents. Someone suggested that we create a sort of "aviation for dummies" handout and mail it to various reporters. Now, we all know about the fact that stalls are reported as "the engine stalled", and we know that reporters seem to have the idea that an aircraft will immediately go into an unrecoverable nose dive if the engine fails. What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press? George Patterson, N3162Q.

Response:

You can try. But I think you will be very disappointed. They don’t care. Even if they understand exactly what you are saying, they are going to write the stories using the standard phrases and approaches that these stories are written in. It’s almost like a religion. If they do it any other way, their editors give them grief because they will, "confuse the public." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Waste of time, George. I once hosted a Media Day at Boeing Field, inviting reporters from TV, radio, and the print media. I made a point of asking that their regular aviation beat reports not show up. What a joke. If the assignment editor says that it is an aviation story, the aviation reporter goes, period, so I did not get the people I really wanted. Yeah, we figured that would happen if we held a seminar. What we have in mind is a mass mailing to every reporter and editor whose names we can get (getting these is the next problem I have to work). I figure if we keep it short and use a catchy title (I’m think of using "Aircraft engines don’t stall"), most of them will read it. I also intend to send the draft down to a friend of mine who is a reporter. He’s not really into aviation, so if he can understand it, it’ll fly. George Patterson, N3162Q.

Response:

Now, we all know about the fact that stalls are reported as "the engine stalled", (delivered in ominous, disapproving tones:) "…aaand, Action New has learned that the pilot *didn’t file a flight plan!!" …not to mention that the "two aircraft passed within 500 feet of each other!"

The pilot was seen consulting a map prior to flight indicating the possibility that he was lost.

Response:

Howdy! [snip] What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press?

On the other hand (and not intended to refute the thesis), I note an article that appeared the other day in the Washington Post. The teaser on the front page spoke of a "near miss" or "close call" (I don’t recall precisely). The article was about the recent incident at LaGuardia where a landing jet did _not_ hold short of the intersecting runway where another plane was taking off. The article did not make any obvious boners, and I have no problem characterizing the incident as a "near miss" (closest approach was somewhere between 100 and 500 feet; the article spoke of ambiguity). The article did not make any sensational claims or use wild phrasing. yours, Michael — Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d’Ormonde and Megan O’Donnelly Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff | http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

Response:

Mentioned before, the "twin engine Piper Cub", but along those lines, 90% of all small planes mentioned by manufacturer are Piper Cubs. No wonder Piper had frequent financial trouble. I guess that’s why I and so many others chose Cessna for PPL training – they absolutely never crash….<g DC3

Response:

Several of us were talking last night about the butcher job reporters usually make of aviation accidents. Someone suggested that we create a sort of "aviation for dummies" handout and mail it to various reporters. Now, we all know about the fact that stalls are reported as "the engine stalled", and we know that reporters seem to have the idea that an aircraft will immediately go into an unrecoverable nose dive if the engine fails. What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press?

This week the Toledo Blade blamed the accident at Newark, where the jet jumped its chocks and went into the terminal, on high traffic volumes. John – N8086N Big brother is watching. Disable cookies in your web browser. Wise man says "Never use a bank with the initials F. U." Are you interested in a professional society or guild for programmers? Want to fight section 1706? See www.programmersguild.org Newsgroup: us.issues.occupations.computer-programmers EMail Address:

Response:

he probably has some ideas!!! JP – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Several of us were talking last night about the butcher job reporters usually make of aviation accidents. Someone suggested that we create a sort of "aviation for dummies" handout and mail it to various reporters. Now, we all know about the fact that stalls are reported as "the engine stalled", and we know that reporters seem to have the idea that an aircraft will immediately go into an unrecoverable nose dive if the engine fails. What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press? George Patterson, N3162Q.

Response:

Even if they wanted to (which I seriously doubt they would) there is NO way they would do it for at least three big reasons. First, if they publish it here then they didn’t publish it in their actual forum (paper, TV, whatever). Their editors and publishers would probably fire them for that. The first time a story appears it better be through their outlet – after all, that is what their outlet is getting paid for. Second, would you post a news article that you were running in tomorrow’s paper in a forum where your competition is going to see it in time to put in on the news tonight or in their own paper tomorrow as well? Finally, news is far too perishable. Reporters live and die by the deadline on most stories – human interest and follow-up stories are exceptions to some degree. There simply isn’t enough time to post a story to the newsgroup, wait for responses and then rework the story. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Good idea, George. However, in this connected world, why bother with those silly postage stamps and such? Why not popularize this very forum. Invite reporters to this newsgroup and have them bounce their stories off us folks so they won’t sound like an idiot? — Jim Fisher North Alabama Cherokee 180 Several of us were talking last night about the butcher job reporters usually make of aviation accidents. Someone suggested that we create a sort of "aviation for dummies" handout and mail it to various reporters.

Response:

(delivered in ominous, disapproving tones:) "…aaand, Action New has learned that the pilot *didn’t file a flight plan!!"

Good one. However, I think the source of that line is always from the NTSB incident report. Just about every one of ‘em have that line in the report and it always sounds kinda ominous to me. I don’t think the NTSB intends it that way but that’s the way it always reads to me. — Jim Fisher North Alabama Cherokee 180

Response:

It’s the same thing with skydiving accident/facilities. We are soooo tired of hearing the line; The parachute (’s) failed to open. Failing of course to mention that neither main or reserve canopies were ever deployed at all, for whatever reason. This mis-reporting just reinforces the general public’s view that modern ram-air parachutes are not very reliable, and that skydiving is the same as Russian Roulette. The other one I hate is the line; The engine stalled, then the plane plummeted to the earth. And then there is the mis- reporting of accident’s involving real stalls. What a joke. Yes , I heard about the stick Shaker explanation; "disgusting" There was on local Phoenix news the other night, a Police Chief, who was said to be an authority on auto crashes saying that two cars had collided head-on, each going 40 MPH, and that meant an 80 MPH crash! Physics guys and many others know better, that it’s the same as a 40 MPH crash into a concrete wall for both cars. We do know that 80 MPH does sound sensational, which they love. Yes again The media could care less about educating it’s self, much less their audience. Dave Brownell (DB Technologies) Comm pilot/skydiver Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

Good idea, George. However, in this connected world, why bother with those silly postage stamps and such? Why not popularize this very forum. Invite reporters to this newsgroup and have them bounce their stories off us folks so they won’t sound like an idiot? — Jim Fisher North Alabama Cherokee 180 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Several of us were talking last night about the butcher job reporters usually make of aviation accidents. Someone suggested that we create a sort of "aviation for dummies" handout and mail it to various reporters.

Response:

Waste of time, George. I once hosted a Media Day at Boeing Field, inviting reporters from TV, radio, and the print media. I made a point of asking that their regular aviation beat reports not show up. What a joke. If the assignment editor says that it is an aviation story, the aviation reporter goes, period, so I did not get the people I really wanted. The turnout was about 25 percent of the invitation list…and when reporters were offered rides, only those reporters who were already pilots accepted. I gave a copy of my private pilot book to one TV newsroom…if it has not been thrown away, I know for sure it has never been referred to. Bottom line is that stories are assigned without thought to reporter background, and reporters are unwilling to take the time to do any research. Here in Seattle, I know at least one print reporter and one TV weatherman who are pilots and who are never asked any questions about an aviation story by their compatriots. Bob Gardner – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Several of us were talking last night about the butcher job reporters usually make of aviation accidents. Someone suggested that we create a sort of "aviation for dummies" handout and mail it to various reporters. Now, we all know about the fact that stalls are reported as "the engine stalled", and we know that reporters seem to have the idea that an aircraft will immediately go into an unrecoverable nose dive if the engine fails. What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press? George Patterson, N3162Q. (delivered in ominous, disapproving tones:) "…aaand, Action New has learned that the pilot *didn’t file a flight plan!!" Please! As if filing a flight plan would have prevented the stall/spins that kill most pilots. We *should* all file flight plans for X-countrys, but only so the CAP knows approximately where to search for the smoking hole in the ground! Fairwinds, Brian * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press? I’m used to the news media’s laziness. They believe the’re speaking to a zero-attention-span audience (they’re 98% right about that) and they do research accordingly. What peeves me most are the half-assed documentaries on the History and Discovery channels. Loaded with inaccuracies, half truths and just plain bad writing. Just the other night I saw one that said the stick shaker was warning the pilots that the engines were about to stall. Jeez! Dan

Response:

My favorite is "a twin engined Piper Cub." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Several of us were talking last night about the butcher job reporters usually make of aviation accidents. Someone suggested that we create a sort of "aviation for dummies" handout and mail it to various reporters. Now, we all know about the fact that stalls are reported as "the engine stalled", and we know that reporters seem to have the idea that an aircraft will immediately go into an unrecoverable nose dive if the engine fails. What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press? George Patterson, N3162Q.

Response:

Waste of time, George. I once hosted a Media Day at Boeing Field, inviting reporters from TV, radio, and the print media. I made a point of asking that their regular aviation beat reports not show up. What a joke. If the assignment editor says that it is an aviation story, the aviation reporter goes, period, so I did not get the people I really wanted.

Yeah, we figured that would happen if we held a seminar. What we have in mind is a mass mailing to every reporter and editor whose names we can get (getting these is the next problem I have to work). I figure if we keep it short and use a catchy title (I’m think of using "Aircraft engines don’t stall"), most of them will read it. I also intend to send the draft down to a friend of mine who is a reporter. He’s not really into aviation, so if he can understand it, it’ll fly. George Patterson, N3162Q.

Response:

My pet peeve is the "death spiral." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Several of us were talking last night about the butcher job reporters usually make of aviation accidents. Someone suggested that we create a sort of "aviation for dummies" handout and mail it to various reporters. Now, we all know about the fact that stalls are reported as "the engine stalled", and we know that reporters seem to have the idea that an aircraft will immediately go into an unrecoverable nose dive if the engine fails. What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press? George Patterson, N3162Q.

Response:

What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press?

"The parachute didn’t open" for skydivers. Tina Marie — /* skydiver, PP-ASEL, N860SG */* http://www.neosoft.com/~tina */ Definition of Usenet: "Through the wonders of modern technology, you too can be irritated by people you otherwise would never have met." – Amanda Walker

Response:

Several of us were talking last night about the butcher job reporters usually make of aviation accidents. Someone suggested that we create a sort of "aviation for dummies" handout and mail it to various reporters. Now, we all know about the fact that stalls are reported as "the engine stalled", and we know that reporters seem to have the idea that an aircraft will immediately go into an unrecoverable nose dive if the engine fails. What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press? George Patterson, N3162Q.

Response:

What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press? Just ’cause it’s painted like a military plane doesn’t make it one. Image: Crumpled civilian T-34, w/ n-number clearly visible on tail. Voice: "This navy jet crashed near…"

The other one is based on the Disney cartoon flight algorithm. ‘The plane suffered an engine failure and as a result crashed’… Best Wishes

Response:

Several of us were talking last night about the butcher job reporters usually make of aviation accidents. Someone suggested that we create a sort of "aviation for dummies" handout and mail it to various reporters. Now, we all know about the fact that stalls are reported as "the engine stalled", and we know that reporters seem to have the idea that an aircraft will immediately go into an unrecoverable nose dive if the engine fails. What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press? George Patterson, N3162Q.

(delivered in ominous, disapproving tones:) "…aaand, Action New has learned that the pilot *didn’t file a flight plan!!" Please! As if filing a flight plan would have prevented the stall/spins that kill most pilots. We *should* all file flight plans for X-countrys, but only so the CAP knows approximately where to search for the smoking hole in the ground! Fairwinds, Brian * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

Now, we all know about the fact that stalls are reported as "the engine stalled", (delivered in ominous, disapproving tones:) "…aaand, Action New has learned that the pilot *didn’t file a flight plan!!"

…not to mention that the "two aircraft passed within 500 feet of each other!" == Do not reply to "from" address. (Sorry, this is an anti-spam measure.) ==

Response:

What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press?

Just ’cause it’s painted like a military plane doesn’t make it one. Image: Crumpled civilian T-34, w/ n-number clearly visible on tail. Voice: "This navy jet crashed near…" Benton 21jun00 — BC&G Holzwarth

Response:

Every gun is an AK47. The AOPA and EAA have such educational material for reporters, as does the NRA. But reporters aren’t even trained to report, they just get the UPI clip, edit two lines and sign there name to it. www.aopa.org www.eaa.org www.nra.org Jim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Several of us were talking last night about the butcher job reporters usually make of aviation accidents. Someone suggested that we create a sort of "aviation for dummies" handout and mail it to various reporters. Now, we all know about the fact that stalls are reported as "the engine stalled", and we know that reporters seem to have the idea that an aircraft will immediately go into an unrecoverable nose dive if the engine fails. What else? What little pet peeves have *you* noticed in the press? George Patterson, N3162Q.

Response:

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI