Mainstream Press Unable to Understand Actual Cause of Crash --
Need To Blame Something 'Simpler'
ANN APRIL 1st "SPECIAL"
EDITION: Aviation experts are describing the cause of a
recent aircraft incident on matters that require some technical
expertise... to the total bewilderment and consternation of the
mainstream press (especially the CNN crew, now working without
aviation-conversant reporters since the firing of Miles O'Brien and
the Science/Tech group).
The resultant coverage is not pretty.
The media's current quandary involves a 1973 King Air C90 that
was forced to perform an otherwise
uneventful precautionary landing at a small rural
airstrip, without damage, when a hydraulic failure resulted in the
unexpected deployment of the landing gear. NTSB and FAA
investigators have determined that the pilot's actions were
appropriate and that the failure was the result of an
impaired hydraulic line. The company which maintains the
aircraft is currently under review, though it "feels safe" in
standing by its long history and clean safety record.
When asked by a TV Anchor as to how the deployment of the gear
was even possible, Raytheon engineer and aerospace expert Jay
Curtiss essayed, (Admittedly with some sarcasm), "Um... we call it
gravity. Familiar with it?"
Unable to understand an expert consultant's explanations of the
accident and the 'overtly technical issues' at hand,
mainstream press representatives have resorted to extreme
generalities in the hope of avoiding sounding totally ignorant.
To date, they have met with limited 'success.'
'Consulting experts from knowledgeable aerospace firms mean that we
have to deal with jargon-filled explanations that are too full of
science," complained one journalist from the New York Times.
"Science has nothing to do with journalism," he added.
Television news
correspondent, Nathasha "Clu" Lesse admitted that, "We're forced to
just say things like, 'electrical problem' and hope that's right. I
mean, it's all electric on there... right?"
A reporter from the Chicago Sun Times added that, "Why can't they
just crash, like cars and computers? There's no aerodynamics or
avionics or all that (deleted) mumbo jumbo! They just crash, and
maybe there's a fire. We can report fires, we know fires, we like
fires. Fires are easy. And explosions... give us explosions. We
don't want much, but we do need visuals."
"I told them a dozen times," reported Orville Ramos,
owner/operator of the King Air, "the plane was perfectly under
control the whole time. Doesn't anyone understand the difference
between a precautionary landing and a crash?"
"I don't know about all that," complained one passenger, speaking
to crowd of 32 reporters looking for a juicy statement. When
prompted with a careful misquote of the pilot's statements, the
passenger responded, that "We were just coming to land like normal
when there was this big clunk. If everything was fine, what was
that big noise?"
"That was the gear! Its what we land on. Without it, you'd REALLY
have heard some clunking," the pilot was heard to respond, with
some evident frustration... unfortunately, nearly three dozen media
reps had already left (in a hurry) when a passing ambulance siren
caught their attention.