Typical News Reporting on an accident

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"El Maximo" wrote in message
...

Unfortunately, journalists cannot be specialists in everything, so they
often get all sorts of things wrong.

Are you a journalist?

I'm a former journalist with a degree in technical journalism. There is no
part of the curriculum or stylebook pertaining to aviation and at no point
does somebody come up to a student journalist or young reporter and say
"Look, you guys. It's called an engine failure. Not an engine stall..."

I was more referring to his sweeping statement that "They often get all
sorts of things wrong".

As a journalist, I consider you to be qualified to weigh in on this subject.

I suspect the closest thing to journalism that Anthony has done was a book
report on a Hardy Boys mystery.

"El Maximo" wrote in message
...

I'm a former journalist with a degree in technical journalism. There is
no part of the curriculum or stylebook pertaining to aviation and at no
point does somebody come up to a student journalist or young reporter and
say "Look, you guys. It's called an engine failure. Not an engine
stall..."

I was more referring to his sweeping statement that "They often get all
sorts of things wrong".

Yeah. It's pretty easy to trash-talk somebody who writes under a deadline,
probably lives in near poverty and might have to cover politics, medical
science, aviation or economics on any given day. Journalists get a lot of
crap because they're never as much of an expert as the experts they're
quoting.
Granted...some reporting is just stupid. It would be useful for local
publications if they had journalists who were aviation experts, or medical
experts, or whatever but not all of them can or do.

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.

The easiest way to convert a publication that may be lukewarm or clueless
about general aviation is to take some of them flying. A professional pilot
in a clean aircraft who can demonstrate the concepts to them and answer
their questions will gain their respect. The FBO owner in Troutdale has
done just such a thing; when he installed his new TruFlite sim he put some
reporters in it and appeared quite favorably in at least two newspapers and
local TV.
That's good advertising! (The TV reporter augered, though.)

-c

James Sleeman wrote:
B) An engine stall (failure) is very likely to result in a forced
landing, but not necessarily a crash.
snip
A forced landing you
usually walk away from, a crash you often get carried away in a bag.
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.

In the region where this particular accident took place, a power failure /
forced landing is most likely to result in a crash in some very hostile
terrain.

I do agree with your conclusion, though. The mention of flying into a
box canyon would make an aerodynamic stall a more likely cause than a power
failure.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200706/1

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:73f2c952f6799@uwe...

I do agree with your conclusion, though. The mention of flying into a
box canyon would make an aerodynamic stall a more likely cause than a
power
failure.

Recent discussions on various forums indicate that he was not only aware of
and concerned about box canyon hazards, but very recently seeking
information from others about how to avoid those situation.

Other sources indicate that he may have taken a wrong turn or flown into a
fork in the terrain, and that he was aware of the problem and knew they were
in trouble before impact.

Festina Lente...
-c

It is a greater comment, about who responds to him.

Viperdoc wrote:
He is not a journalist- he does not have nor can he hold on to any kind of
regular employment. However, he is smarter and more educated than everyone
else in the world, and won't hesitate to tell us. Why he continues to
dominate this and other newgroups is baffling.

"Jules" wrote in message
...
It is a greater comment, about who responds to him.

What's you point?

On Jun 19, 9:39 am, "Gatt" wrote:

Yeah. It's pretty easy to trash-talk somebody who writes under a deadline,
probably lives in near poverty and might have to cover politics, medical
science, aviation or economics on any given day. Journalists get a lot of
crap because they're never as much of an expert as the experts they're
quoting.

That's one of the reasons I take for granted very little of what gets
printed. I consider the source--the author, the "expert" being
quoted, etc. Newspapers and magazines (and tv/radio) are just
starting points, and little more.

ANYthing that requires specialized knowledge is likely to be incorrect
in mainstream reporting, even if there is no bias. I usually get a
chuckle out of anything to do with nuclear energy. And someone
covering a recent (and unfortunately fatal) accident reported that a
"cessna diamond da-40" plunged into a lake. You have to wonder: if
they got the Diamond DA-40, where did they get "cessna"?

El Maximo writes:

Stalls certainly do cause crashes.

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.

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?

El Maximo writes:

I was more referring to his sweeping statement that "They often get all
sorts of things wrong".

Most people, when talking about something with which they are not already
fairly familiar, will get all sorts of things wrong ... and that includes
journalists, who are no more omniscient than anyone else (although they may
have a pretty broad superficial exposure to many subjects). But since
journalists explain things to other people, their mistakes are more
significant.

As a journalist, I consider you to be qualified to weigh in on this subject.

Thanks.