Accidents, loss, the FAA, NTSB, and the media

[MoonCat]

That sucks. My sympathies go out to you and your CW's as well as to the families who lost loved ones.

I can say this much about reporting, although I speak only as a newspaper employee: They're stuck between wanting to have accurate complete information, and wanting it five minutes ago. Because when the story hits the paper, two things will happen immediately: Half of the readers will cuss them out for not having it out sooner, claiming they heard it 2 hours ago on TV; and the other half will cuss them out for having incorrect or incomplete information because "you rushed to get the story out". We can't win. The age of instant information has trained people to believe that they are entitled to full details of everything that happens, the moment it occurs, and anything less is cheating them out of something vital.

That said, there is NO excuse for shoving mics in the faces of onsite personnel or family members, or for sneaking into offices and taking notes of private conversations.

[Mental_Mouse]

You have my deepest sympathies, that's always a rough situation.

Those interested in aircraft accidents and "incidents" in general, may want to check out the site Fear of Landing, which covers these, usually by way of the official accident reports.

[Shyla]

I'm sorry. I'm sure it's tough to deal with this. There have been quite a few small plane crashes around here lately. I don't know why.

I do hate the shoving microphone thing. "Your husband just died. How do you feel?" Really?

[wolfie]

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

Are there any legal consequences to feeding the vultures a bunch of BS? For example:

A Cessna 182, depending on age, will have either a Continental (before the "gap" in production) or Lycoming (after the "gap"). This change is due to, during the "gap", Cessna and Lycoming coming under the same corporate "umbrella" (Textron). They have ONLY had piston engines, and NEVER had engines made by Pratt&Whitney.

Vulture reporter is snooping around trying to get a lead on the cause of a Cessna 182 crash. Someone tells him "You didn't hear this from me, and the investigators aren't going to release anything until they've got information from Pratt&Whitney, but initial indications are that the crash happened due to a loss of power when the afterburner failed to ignite". If they ask your name, it's "Michael Hunt, but you can call me Mike".

If a larger aircraft is involved, you can give them the "scoop" about a problem with the aircraft type that "The FAA knows about but isn't doing anything about it - while the anti-ice system is OK under moderate icing conditions, under severe icing conditions the ice will build up faster than the anti-ice system can get rid of it". Swordsman422 would know why this isn't really a problem, but for those of you not familiar with aviation the DEFINITION of severe icing conditions is that the ice builds up faster than the anti-ice system can get rid of it. Of course, one principle of American law is that the truth is not libelous - and one principle of journalism is that publishing either BS or a tautology as if it were information that the "powers that be" were trying to suppress makes you look like a moron.

[eltf177]

I can say this much about reporting, although I speak only as a newspaper employee: They're stuck between wanting to have accurate complete information, and wanting it five minutes ago.

I still vividly remember my encounter with the local paper some 25 years ago. We were the geotech firm for the new multi-story garage the town was building. We'd done the preliminary investigation and found competent bedrock where the structure was to be built.

Well, while excavating the crew found a bad area. Work had to stop for a few days while the engineers investigated. They finally did the only thing they could do, dig the area out and see how extensive the problem was. It was soon discovered the area wasn't all that big so the loose rock was dug out, the area cleaned up and concrete poured in the hole. The lost time and extra expense was minuscule compared to the multi-million dollar cost of the job.

Well, some reporter at the local paper got wind of this and apparently thought some major scandal was going on. It was raining that day and I was answering phones. He called and asked what the problem was with the garage. I wasn't on that job and told him I had no idea what he was talking about. He hung up.

Then he immediately called back, asking my name. I offered to transfer him to Mike (the office manager), which he accepted.

I heard Mike go round and round with this clown:

"No sir, I cannot discuss this with you without the permission of the town."
"No sir, just because you say the mayor says I can talk to you doesn't mean I can. I need to hear it from him."
"No sir, YOU need to contact the town for permission."

They did this dance about five or six times. Finally Mike got exasperated and told the clown that he did not have the time to keep going in circles like this and hung up.

A few days later the article appeared in the paper. It said "Repeated calls to the Geotechnical Firm were not returned", which strongly implied we were hiding something despite the fact we told them we couldn't break client privilege.

The paper is still in business (it's now free), but I don't believe a word they say...

[Swordsman422]

Are there any legal consequences to feeding the vultures a bunch of BS?

Well, I do recall a bunch of lawsuits flying around over a gag regarding Asiana 214's crew names. Damn funny but wrong on so many levels.

Feeding them BS is at least irresponsible. There is some belief, in spite of statistical proof to the contrary, that aircraft are dangerous and pilots are a bunch of moron cowboys out for a thrill. I remember hearing an On-Air opinion after some crash in the SoPac that the crash was cause because the pilots "lacked the cowboy spirit and ingenuity of Americans, who make some of the best pilots in the world." Crap. And I can say with some certainty that British, Canadian, Japanese, and Australia/New Zealand pilots are generally better due to the challenges they face in their environments than we do here in the US. Hollywood doesn't help either. In aviation movies, the hero is always the unsafe adrenaline junky while his rival is the by-the-numbers aviator we all strive to be. Uninformed or sensationalized journalism means an under-educated or misinformed public. If you have ever read Airframe by Michael Crichton, he covers this topic rather accurately. The number of online articles that can be found titled "Scary Shit Airlines Don't Want You To Know" or similar don't help either, as they tend to misrepresent or blow certain issues out of proportion. There is enough dumbass shit going on in this business that, while stupid, doesn't really harm anyone, but "that one time an airliner landed in Frankfurt with the engine fan discs held together by seatbelts" is really that one time.

[eltf177]

I read AIRFRAME, a most impressive book...

[dalesys]

I've found Crichton in every book of his I've read (6-10) to be a contradictory author. Good yarns, interesting details, and howling errors that may be explained by authorial ego.

Two I remember from 'Congo': a largest tree, 30 feet around... We've got ones bigger than that in Utah, FFS. And citing the C-130 Hercules as the world's largest aircraft... I doubt it was ever that, even for a production aircraft, even at its first flight (August 23, 1954), let alone at the time of M.C.'s story.

[wolfie]

And citing the C-130 Hercules as the world's largest aircraft... I doubt it was ever that, even for a production aircraft, even at its first flight (August 23, 1954), let alone at the time of M.C.'s story.

Just did a quick check. At the time of the C-130's first flight, another aircraft (ironically, also known as the Hercules) had already flown (once - and only the prototype was ever built) which had a greater length, larger wingspan, and an EMPTY weight greater than the C-130's maximum takeoff weight, but a bit less height.

The Convair B-36 entered service before the C-130's first flight, exceeded the C-130's specs in length, wingspan, and height, and had an empty weight greater than the C-130's maximum takeoff weight.

At the time of the book's publication, the C-5 Galaxy and the Boeing 747 had already entered service (the AN-225 was introduced years after the book was published).

As for the other Hercules, the H-4 is better known by its nickname "Spruce Goose".

[Swordsman422]

Specifically I was referring to the effect of irresponsible journalism on aviation presented in the novel, which I found to be accurate in my experience. The other stuff... well, ain't nobody perfect. Sorry for any confusion.

[Mental_Mouse]

hearing an On-Air opinion after some crash in the SoPac that the crash was cause because the pilots "lacked the cowboy spirit and ingenuity of Americans, who make some of the best pilots in the world."

As you note, "cowboy spirit" is the last thing you want to see in a pilot.

As far as Crichton, I'll note that in the few books of his I've read, and all his books that I've heard about, he consistently paints scientists as irresponsible idiots, if not actually villains. (Sure, lets clone the biggest predatory dinosaurs we can manage, and let them loose in an unmonitored open environment! What could go wrong? Or: I know I'm an uncontrolled epileptic, and that for this reason I'm forbidden to work in a level V biocontainment facility. But I just gotta have this particular job, despite displays that flash to highlight unexpected results.)

[Captain Neon]

I've read all of Crichton's fiction, and, IMHO, it appeared that he had an agenda in at least a few. As a medical doctor, he HAD to know better but chose to omit information to prey upon the ignorance of the average reader; even repeatedly stating incomplete facts through out the book.

[protege]

Uninformed or sensationalized journalism means an under-educated or misinformed public.

But, how else will they "inform" their viewers?

I mean, I'm sure everyone remembers when an oil train derailed recently. Just about every talking head on TV suddenly became a railroading expert. Every news station carried some nasty "what if" story that insisted the city of Pittsburgh would turn into a massive wasteland if a train derailed here. Not even a day after that oil train derailed...when C-Peacock covered a local short line's derailment.

They insisted that it was going through a "residential area." Bullshit. I drive though that area every day--it's a former steel mill brownfield. There are maybe 2 houses--one of which is vacant--in the area, about a half-mile from the tracks. They claimed the train was hauling "chemicals." Bullshit. Footage of the derailment showed a dozen two-bay hopper cars. Cars, that are designed to haul things like sand or cement, not liquids. Then they claimed the train was "going too fast." Bullshit. The train was on former mill trackage with a lot of tight curves. No way it was speeding. Lastly, they claimed that "chemicals were released." Seriously? There were no damn tank cars in the train! All that got "released" was a few buckets of sand, when one of the hopper doors came off. It made a mess, but there wasn't any real damage.

But no, that wouldn't have served to keep viewers. I read the official report--it was a loose joint (there's still some bolted rail around industrial areas--most mainline tracks use welded rail now) that caused the derailment. Nothing sinister about it. Minor damage to the car(s), but nobody got hurt.

[wolfie]

As you note, "cowboy spirit" is the last thing you want to see in a pilot.

Definitely. Couple of sayings I've heard:

There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots.

A truly superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid getting into situations where he would need to use his superior skills.

It's not just pilots. Anyone familiar with Red Sovine's song "Phantom 309"? If Big Joe hadn't been overdriving his stopping distance, it would have been a non-event.

[eltf177]

I've read all of Crichton's fiction, and, IMHO, it appeared that he had an agenda in at least a few.

I'm glad someone else noticed that as well. For example, in THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN it's the US Government sending up satellites and building a secure base to modify whatever the satellites find in space for biological warfare...