Typical News Reporting on an accident

george writes:

Evidence ?

Accident reports. The relative unreliability of piston engines in aircraft
contributes to the overall lower safety of small GA aircraft; indeed, were it
not for extremely reliable jet engines, commercial aviation wouldn't be where
it is today.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

george writes:

Evidence ?

Accident reports. The relative unreliability of piston engines in
aircraft contributes to the overall lower safety of small GA aircraft;
indeed, were it not for extremely reliable jet engines, commercial
aviation wouldn't be where it is today.



And neither would you be. Sitting at your desk hiding from the world.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

James Sleeman writes:

B) An engine stall (failure) is very likely to result in a forced
landing, but not necessarily a crash.

An aerodynamic stall is unlikely to cause either, unless one is
already very close to the ground.

C) An aerodynamic stall is benign if you expect it, if on the other
hand it happens while you are in a high angle of attach mode of
flight due to attempting a far too hasty and high G 180 out of a
boxed canyon which you have suddenly found yourself in the wrong end
of (as the article posted implies), is quite likely to result in a
spin at low alititude followed by a very distinct crash.

In such a location, an engine failure is likely to cause the same
thing.

Going by the very brief article, it seems much more likely that this
is a case of aerodynamic stall than engine failure as was reported.

There isn't enough information in the article to assume either way,
and the passenger said it was the engine. Why are the passenger's
words being unconditionally dismissed in the absence of any other
evidence?




You really have no clue whatsoever, do you?

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

El Maximo writes:

Stalls certainly do cause crashes.






Ooops,worng again!






Bertie



Sometimes, but usually not, at least if the pilot is competent. If
they were that dangerous, pilots would die during training, while
practicing them.

BTW, when the engine 'stalls', we call it an engine failure, to avoid
confusion.

Passengers may not use the same terminology.

When the passenger says "the engine stalled," it's highly unlikely
that he or she is referring to an aerodynamic stall, which does not
involve the engine.

If the passenger had any flight experience, which is likely for any
GA passenger, they too would have used the correct term (engine
failure).

That is irrelevant. Even a passenger can recognize an engine
st--failure, and an engine failure is a lot more dangerous than a
stall in the vast majority of cases.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Most people, when talking about something with which they are not already
fairly familiar, will get all sorts of things wrong .

You are incorrectly applying your traits to the rest of humanity again (most
people).

Most people, when talking about something with which they are not already
fairly familiar, LISTEN TO THE ANSWERS.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:39:12 -0700, Gatt wrote:

CNN has a few pilots on its staff that they consult whenever there's an
accident. That's useful. Plus, it adds a -lot- of credibility to that news
outlet. Unfortunately, most reporters don't make nearly enough money to
dump into an aviation hobby.

I've often wondered this, and you seem to be a person to ask: why not
have a stable of experts on particular topics for content checking when
appropriate? They'd not be journalists, but people to whom journalists
could turn for content/terminology/fact checking in various areas of
enterprise.

Somehow, I became the person one particular reporter called for
Internet-related stories. I was happy to spend the few minutes
occasionally required simply to be sure that stories were accurate. I
expect that there are plenty of people in any field with a similar motive.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:39:12 -0700, Gatt wrote:

CNN has a few pilots on its staff that they consult whenever there's
an accident. That's useful. Plus, it adds a -lot- of credibility to
that news outlet. Unfortunately, most reporters don't make nearly
enough money to dump into an aviation hobby.

I've often wondered this, and you seem to be a person to ask: why not
have a stable of experts on particular topics for content checking
when appropriate? They'd not be journalists, but people to whom
journalists could turn for content/terminology/fact checking in
various areas of enterprise.

Somehow, I became the person one particular reporter called for
Internet-related stories. I was happy to spend the few minutes
occasionally required simply to be sure that stories were accurate. I
expect that there are plenty of people in any field with a similar
motive.

- Andrew


I'm not answering for Gatt but when I was a TV reporter I did have a number
of people I would call if I had time. These were all unpaid people I knew
because in a small market there isn't the budget to have experts in any
fields on retainer much less all fields.

BUT.... I didn't have the internet back then that if I were in the business
now it would allow me to check on just about any topic at virtually no cost.

CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC do have people they can call and the internet and
they still get it wrong. It is sad.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:57:40 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

BUT.... I didn't have the internet back then that if I were in the
business now it would allow me to check on just about any topic at
virtually no cost.

The WWW in general really isn't very good at certain types of content
checking. Even ignoring the issue of information quality/reliability,
it's a matter of asking the question in the right way or even knowing to
ask the question at all. That requires some knowledge.

A reporter wouldn't typically even question the [mis]use of the word
"stall", for example.

USENET, on the other hand, provides near-immediate access to a wealth of
self-proclaimed experts in most fields that are by definition willing to
"consult" for free.

Of course, we wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't a bad
idea to ignore the issue of information quality/reliability, and USENET
does have some of that issue as well.

Grin

- Andrew

El Maximo writes:

Most people, when talking about something with which they are not already
fairly familiar, LISTEN TO THE ANSWERS.

Alas! If only that were true.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
Unfortunately, most reporters don't make nearly enough money to
dump into an aviation hobby.

I've often wondered this, and you seem to be a person to ask: why not
have a stable of experts on particular topics for content checking when
appropriate? They'd not be journalists, but people to whom journalists
could turn for content/terminology/fact checking in various areas of
enterprise.

A similar idea has been hatched and is underway.

Somehow, I became the person one particular reporter called for
Internet-related stories. I was happy to spend the few minutes
occasionally required simply to be sure that stories were accurate. I
expect that there are plenty of people in any field with a similar motive.

That kind of thing helps develop a trusted relationship between the media
and general aviation. Poltically, now's the time to act; -everybody's- mad
at the airlines these days.

-c