Typical News Reporting on an accident
dea...@msn.com
canyon...
http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-jun1707-valley_co.13839aa8.html
The reporters never seem to get that a stall has nothing to do with
the engine.
Gatt
<dea...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1182203925.3...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The pilot's name was Berk Snow. The passenger was his wife, who suffered a
broken neck and multiple-day exposure (the crash may have happened as early
as Thursday) apparently up on a ridge where she was rescued.
If any of you are familiar with Burning Man, he was sort of a hero there for
exposing so many non-aviation people to the joy of flying.
-c
dea...@msn.com
> <dean...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182203925.3...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Note that the "engine" stalled as a result of flying into a box
> > canyon...
>
> > The reporters never seem to get that a stall has nothing to do with
> > the engine.
>
> The pilot's name was Berk Snow. The passenger was his wife, who suffered a
> broken neck and multiple-day exposure (the crash may have happened as early
> as Thursday) apparently up on a ridge where she was rescued.
>
> If any of you are familiar with Burning Man, he was sort of a hero there for
> exposing so many non-aviation people to the joy of flying.
>
> -c
Sorry to hear he was a friend of yours... how much experience did he
have with back-country flying?
Dean
Gatt
<dea...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1182205342.3...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>> The pilot's name was Berk Snow. The passenger was his wife, who suffered
>> a
>> broken neck and multiple-day exposure (the crash may have happened as
>> early
>> as Thursday) apparently up on a ridge where she was rescued.
> Sorry to hear he was a friend of yours... how much experience did he
> have with back-country flying?
I don't know for sure. We exchanged a few e-mails but I never had a chance
to meet him in person. The forums he and I were on is pretty shaken up
about it, though. He was a member of the backcountrypilot.org forum.
-c
James Sleeman
> The reporters never seem to get that a stall has nothing to do with
> the engine.
I don't think it's fair to blame reporters, probably what was said is
"he flew into the canyon and stalled the aircraft trying to get out"
or something like that, a reporter is not (necessarily) a pilot, stall
in the common man's vocabularly is associated with engines not wings.
When talking to lay-persons, reporters especially, pilots and
associated personell should avoid that S word and spell out the
ramifications instead.
What they should have been told is something like "he flew into the
canyon and in trying to get back out they inadverantly caused the wing
to stop producing lift".
Rick
<1182221518.3...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>...
That doesn't sound much more useful to the average person. I would think
"they ended up flying too slow." would be adequate.
- Rick
Mxsmanic
Unfortunately, journalists cannot be specialists in everything, so they often
get all sorts of things wrong. Something to remember the next time you read
an article concerning a subject in which you're not a specialist yourself: the
article may be way off the mark.
Mxsmanic
> The reporters never seem to get that a stall has nothing to do with
> the engine.
They were quoting a passenger, and the passenger apparently said the engine
stalled, which could well be a cause for a crash (whereas an aerodynamic stall
should not have been). Small aircraft often have engine problems,
unfortunately.
Mxsmanic
> I don't think it's fair to blame reporters, probably what was said is
> "he flew into the canyon and stalled the aircraft trying to get out"
> or something like that, a reporter is not (necessarily) a pilot, stall
> in the common man's vocabularly is associated with engines not wings.
>
> When talking to lay-persons, reporters especially, pilots and
> associated personell should avoid that S word and spell out the
> ramifications instead.
>
> What they should have been told is something like "he flew into the
> canyon and in trying to get back out they inadverantly caused the wing
> to stop producing lift".
What makes you so certain it was an aerodynamic stall? That type of stall
normally does not cause a crash. The stalling of an engine, however, which is
apparently what the passenger mentioned, could easily cause a crash or make
one more likely.
Bertie the Bunyip
news:fhme739jdr1ja3bfc...@4ax.com:
You're an idiot.
Stall accidents are very common indeed, fjukktard.
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
news:ebme735373vh2uo21...@4ax.com:
> dea...@msn.com writes:
>
>> Note that the "engine" stalled as a result of flying into a box
>> canyon...
>> http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-jun1707-valley_co.138
>> 39aa8.html
>>
>> The reporters never seem to get that a stall has nothing to do with
>> the engine.
>
> Unfortunately, journalists cannot be specialists in everything, so
> they often get all sorts of things wrong.
Just like you
Except you're not a journalist. and not a pilot..
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
news:meme73tn7a4jae4i6...@4ax.com:
No, they don't, fjukkwit
Bertie
>
george
Mxsmanic wrote:
Small aircraft often have engine problems,
> unfortunately.
Evidence ?
Or are you just spamming the newsgroup again?
El Maximo
news:fhme739jdr1ja3bfc...@4ax.com...
> What makes you so certain it was an aerodynamic stall? That type of stall
> normally does not cause a crash.
You're trying to apply your limited knowledge to the rest of the world
again.
Stalls certainly do cause crashes. BTW, when the engine 'stalls', we call it
an engine failure, to avoid confusion.
> The stalling of an engine, however, which is apparently what the passenger
> mentioned, could easily cause a crash or
> make one more likely.
If the passenger had any flight experience, which is likely for any GA
passenger, they too would have used the correct term (engine failure).
El Maximo
> dea...@msn.com writes:
>
>> Note that the "engine" stalled as a result of flying into a box
>> canyon...
>> http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-jun1707-valley_co.13839aa8.html
>>
>> The reporters never seem to get that a stall has nothing to do with
>> the engine.
>
> Unfortunately, journalists cannot be specialists in everything, so they
> often
> get all sorts of things wrong.
Are you a journalist?
El Maximo
> dea...@msn.com writes:
> Small aircraft often have engine problems, unfortunately.
Outside your scope of knowledge (again).
James Sleeman
> What makes you so certain it was an aerodynamic stall? That type of stall
> normally does not cause a crash. The stalling of an engine, however, which is
> apparently what the passenger mentioned, could easily cause a crash or make
> one more likely.
A) I made no comment on this particular accident, my comments were in
regard to blame being apportioned to reporters for inaccurate analysis
of accidents.
B) An engine stall (failure) is very likely to result in a forced
landing, but not necessarily a crash.
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. 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.
James Sleeman
> A) I made no comment on this particular accident, my comments
To stymie any rebuttal of that statement, re-reading my original
comment, the statement was not entirely accurate, however my intention
was not to pass any judgement on the causes of the accident in
question but to condition the assertion by the thread starter that
Viperdoc
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.
Gatt
"El Maximo" <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:1cPdi.188490$p47.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>> Unfortunately, journalists cannot be specialists in everything, so they
>> often get all sorts of things wrong.
>
> Are you a journalist?
I'm a former journalist with a degree in technical journalism. There is no
part of the curriculum or stylebook pertaining to aviation and at no point
does somebody come up to a student journalist or young reporter and say
"Look, you guys. It's called an engine failure. Not an engine stall..."
Almost all journalists use the Associated Press Stylebook or something
equivalent. Perhaps there's a need for an technological addition to the
stylebook, or a journalist's quick reference guide. It could include
nautical and aeronautical terms and concepts for aviation, boating and other
transportation--(is it "semi" "big-rig", "eighteen-wheeler",
"tractor-trailor"....) etc. That might fix a lot of things.
-c
Hmmm...what might a commercial pilot with a journalism degree do to help
rectify this situation?
El Maximo
news:137ft6q...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "El Maximo" <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:1cPdi.188490$p47.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>> 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.
Gatt
>> 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
JGalban via AviationKB.com
>B) An engine stall (failure) is very likely to result in a forced
>landing, but not necessarily a crash.
> 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.aspx/aviation/200706/1
Gatt
"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
Jules
Maxwell
"Jules" <jhgskldhgskl...@dhgkjhdytrn.com> wrote in message
news:XYYdi.106176$Y_.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
> It is a greater comment, about who responds to him.
What's you point?
webs...@cox.net
> 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"?
Mxsmanic
> 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.
Mxsmanic
> 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?
Mxsmanic
> 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.
Mxsmanic
> 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.
Bertie the Bunyip
news:a6dh73h9g2mtg7ql5...@4ax.com:
And neither would you be. Sitting at your desk hiding from the world.
Bertie
>
Bertie the Bunyip
news:arch73tgsdrv6tleq...@4ax.com:
You really have no clue whatsoever, do you?
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
news:bnch73puqm1q7g6au...@4ax.com:
> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Stalls certainly do cause crashes.
>
Ooops,worng again!
Bertie
El Maximo
> 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.
Andrew Gideon
> 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
Gig 601XL Builder
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.
Andrew Gideon
> 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
Mxsmanic
> Most people, when talking about something with which they are not already
> fairly familiar, LISTEN TO THE ANSWERS.
Alas! If only that were true.
Gatt
"Andrew Gideon" <ag7...@gideon.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.20...@gideon.org...
>>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
Gatt
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:137ijkg...@news.supernews.com...
> CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC do have people they can call and the internet
> and they still get it wrong. It is sad.
Too true, unfortunately. It's sad that the pressure has always generally
been to beat the competitor to the press, not to be more accurate than the
competitor even if the story comes out a couple of hours later.
-c
Gatt
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> 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.
He's not the only one... I have no idea WTF he's talking about either.
-c