C-172 down at HPN - 2 fatalities [Archive]

R.L.

April 25th 05, 09:07 AM

Here's a story from the Stamford Advocate along with the usual helping of
assoholic reporter ignorance at the end:

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-plane6apr24,0,5850238,print.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines
--
Plane crash kills 2 near Greenwich border
By Michael Dinan
Staff Writer
April 24, 2005
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- A flight instructor and his student were found dead
in thick woods just beyond Greenwich's northwest corner yesterday afternoon,
after the single-engine propeller plane they were flying crashed during an
apparent attempt to land at Westchester County Airport, officials said.

"The plane was broken in half, it appeared to me, and there was fire, with
two people trapped in burning flame," North Castle, N.Y., Police Chief
Robert D'Angelo said during a news conference last night at the airport's
media center.

Airport officials identified the instructor as Isaac Negron of Hamden, and
the student as Lev Naumov, 23, of Yonkers, N.Y. Negron's age was not known
last night.

The Cessna 172 four-seater belonged to American Flyers, a flight instruction
school based at the airport, said Lawrence Salley, Westchester County's
transportation commissioner.

The men had flown out of the airport shortly after noon yesterday, to
Albany, N.Y., and appeared to be returning to the airport, though their
arrival was not scheduled.

The Federal Aviation Administration tower, based at the airport, lost radar
contact with the plane about 40 minutes before its smoldering remains were
located by North Castle firefighters, said Anthony Sutton, commissioner of
Westchester County's Department of Emergency Services.

The causes and times of the accident and deaths are not yet known. FAA
officials began investigating the crash yesterday, and National
Transportation Safety Board members are expected to join them today, Salley
said.

The Cessna disappeared from the FAA's radar at 3:19 p.m., Salley said. The
plane, which Salley said relayed no distress signals and whose pilot had no
verbal contact with the air tower, was last seen on screen about a
quarter-mile from the airport runway. It was flying at 800 feet, which
Salley said is not unusually low for a plane attempting to land at the
airport.

A hotline transmission from local police went out at 3:29 p.m., by which
time Westchester County's emergency response teams had converged to perform
a "grid type of search," Salley said. At 3:41 p.m., the FAA had confirmed
that no other air towers were able to locate the plane, Salley said.

The burning remains, were discovered at 4:01 p.m. by firefighters who
smelled something burning in the woods near the intersection of Routes 22
and 120 in North Castle. Negron and Naumov were found dead inside the plane,
D'Angelo said.

The Cessna 172 model was produced in 2001 and does not a have a "black box,"
Salley said. Experts can sometimes use the voice recording device to
reconstruct an accident.

The plane crashed near, but did not contaminate, the Kensico Reservoir,
officials said. It was not clear last night who owned the property where the
plane crashed. Officials said last night that they knew of no witnesses to
the accident.

Six flights were canceled and two flights were delayed as a result of the
crash, Salley said. Outbound services at the airport resumed at 5:20 p.m.
yesterday, but FAA officials halted inbound service, Salley said, to "check
out (the airport's) instrument landing system."

Grief counselors had arrived at the airport last night to talk to Negron's
and Naumov's families, Westchester County Police Commissioner Tom Belfiore
said.

American Flyers runs 15 flight schools nationwide, according to the
company's Web site. Salley, Westchester's transportation commissioner since
2000, said that he couldn't recall the company having a fatal crash before.

The Westchester County Airport grew out of plans to defend New York City
during World War II, and has evolved slowly into a modern airport used by
thousands of business and leisure travelers.

There have been numerous aviation accidents in the region since commercial
operations expanded. Since 1974, 40 people have died and 20 people have been
injured in 31 accidents after take-offs from and attempted landings at
Westchester County Airport.

Most recently, in June 2001, the pilot of a single-engine plane was killed
when his Piper Saratoga crashed into the fog-shrouded woods off Bedford Road
in backcountry Greenwich. The pilot had unsuccessfully attempted an
instrument landing at Westchester County Airport, about a half-mile from the
crash site.

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in
message
news:240420051342072877%bodhijunkoneeightyeightjun ...
>
> A Cessna 172 crashed yesterday short of the approach end of RWY 16
> killing the pilot and instructor aboard. No cause for the accident has
> yet been established, but the weather was at or near minimums for the
> ILS-16 approach at the time of the crash and and tracking the flight
> on:
>
> http://www4.passur.com/hpn.html
>
> at 15:10 local time on 4.23.05 shows the flight significantly below the
> glideslope for much of the approach.
>
> From the news reports I'd guess that it was an instrument student and a
> CFII returning from ALB on a long IFR cross country flight.
>
> Here are a couple of news reports:
>
> http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/headlines/?ArID=127983&SecID=33
> http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3252575

[email protected]

April 25th 05, 03:07 PM

What does the reporter say in the article that causes you to classify him as an "assoholic?"

"R.L." wrote:

> Here's a story from the Stamford Advocate along with the usual helping of
> assoholic reporter ignorance at the end:
>
>
> --
> Plane crash kills 2 near Greenwich border
> By Michael Dinan
> Staff Writer
> April 24, 2005
> WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- A flight instructor and his student were found dead
> in thick woods just beyond Greenwich's northwest corner yesterday afternoon,
> after the single-engine propeller plane they were flying crashed during an
> apparent attempt to land at Westchester County Airport, officials said.
>
> "The plane was broken in half, it appeared to me, and there was fire, with
> two people trapped in burning flame," North Castle, N.Y., Police Chief
> Robert D'Angelo said during a news conference last night at the airport's
> media center.
>
> Airport officials identified the instructor as Isaac Negron of Hamden, and
> the student as Lev Naumov, 23, of Yonkers, N.Y. Negron's age was not known
> last night.
>
> The Cessna 172 four-seater belonged to American Flyers, a flight instruction
> school based at the airport, said Lawrence Salley, Westchester County's
> transportation commissioner.
>
> The men had flown out of the airport shortly after noon yesterday, to
> Albany, N.Y., and appeared to be returning to the airport, though their
> arrival was not scheduled.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration tower, based at the airport, lost radar
> contact with the plane about 40 minutes before its smoldering remains were
> located by North Castle firefighters, said Anthony Sutton, commissioner of
> Westchester County's Department of Emergency Services.
>
> The causes and times of the accident and deaths are not yet known. FAA
> officials began investigating the crash yesterday, and National
> Transportation Safety Board members are expected to join them today, Salley
> said.
>
> The Cessna disappeared from the FAA's radar at 3:19 p.m., Salley said. The
> plane, which Salley said relayed no distress signals and whose pilot had no
> verbal contact with the air tower, was last seen on screen about a
> quarter-mile from the airport runway. It was flying at 800 feet, which
> Salley said is not unusually low for a plane attempting to land at the
> airport.
>
> A hotline transmission from local police went out at 3:29 p.m., by which
> time Westchester County's emergency response teams had converged to perform
> a "grid type of search," Salley said. At 3:41 p.m., the FAA had confirmed
> that no other air towers were able to locate the plane, Salley said.
>
> The burning remains, were discovered at 4:01 p.m. by firefighters who
> smelled something burning in the woods near the intersection of Routes 22
> and 120 in North Castle. Negron and Naumov were found dead inside the plane,
> D'Angelo said.
>
> The Cessna 172 model was produced in 2001 and does not a have a "black box,"
> Salley said. Experts can sometimes use the voice recording device to
> reconstruct an accident.
>
> The plane crashed near, but did not contaminate, the Kensico Reservoir,
> officials said. It was not clear last night who owned the property where the
> plane crashed. Officials said last night that they knew of no witnesses to
> the accident.
>
> Six flights were canceled and two flights were delayed as a result of the
> crash, Salley said. Outbound services at the airport resumed at 5:20 p.m.
> yesterday, but FAA officials halted inbound service, Salley said, to "check
> out (the airport's) instrument landing system."
>
> Grief counselors had arrived at the airport last night to talk to Negron's
> and Naumov's families, Westchester County Police Commissioner Tom Belfiore
> said.
>
> American Flyers runs 15 flight schools nationwide, according to the
> company's Web site. Salley, Westchester's transportation commissioner since
> 2000, said that he couldn't recall the company having a fatal crash before.
>
> The Westchester County Airport grew out of plans to defend New York City
> during World War II, and has evolved slowly into a modern airport used by
> thousands of business and leisure travelers.
>
> There have been numerous aviation accidents in the region since commercial
> operations expanded. Since 1974, 40 people have died and 20 people have been
> injured in 31 accidents after take-offs from and attempted landings at
> Westchester County Airport.
>
> Most recently, in June 2001, the pilot of a single-engine plane was killed
> when his Piper Saratoga crashed into the fog-shrouded woods off Bedford Road
> in backcountry Greenwich. The pilot had unsuccessfully attempted an
> instrument landing at Westchester County Airport, about a half-mile from the
> crash site.
>

Gig 601XL Builder

April 25th 05, 03:26 PM

The two statements...

"its smoldering remains were located"
"The burning remains, were discovered"

....did it for me. I think while one could be explained as poetic license the
second was just for the fun of it.

Also, I doubt the guy gives a 30 year death and maiming history for every
car wreck he covers.

"Since 1974, 40 people have died and 20 people have been
injured in 31 accidents after take-offs from and attempted landings at
Westchester County Airport"

> wrote in message ...
> What does the reporter say in the article that causes you to classify him
> as an "assoholic?"
>
> "R.L." wrote:
>
>> Here's a story from the Stamford Advocate along with the usual helping of
>> assoholic reporter ignorance at the end:
>>
>>
>> --
>> Plane crash kills 2 near Greenwich border
>> By Michael Dinan
>> Staff Writer
>> April 24, 2005
>> WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- A flight instructor and his student were found
>> dead
>> in thick woods just beyond Greenwich's northwest corner yesterday
>> afternoon,
>> after the single-engine propeller plane they were flying crashed during
>> an
>> apparent attempt to land at Westchester County Airport, officials said.
>>
>> "The plane was broken in half, it appeared to me, and there was fire,
>> with
>> two people trapped in burning flame," North Castle, N.Y., Police Chief
>> Robert D'Angelo said during a news conference last night at the airport's
>> media center.
>>
>> Airport officials identified the instructor as Isaac Negron of Hamden,
>> and
>> the student as Lev Naumov, 23, of Yonkers, N.Y. Negron's age was not
>> known
>> last night.
>>
>> The Cessna 172 four-seater belonged to American Flyers, a flight
>> instruction
>> school based at the airport, said Lawrence Salley, Westchester County's
>> transportation commissioner.
>>
>> The men had flown out of the airport shortly after noon yesterday, to
>> Albany, N.Y., and appeared to be returning to the airport, though their
>> arrival was not scheduled.
>>
>> The Federal Aviation Administration tower, based at the airport, lost
>> radar
>> contact with the plane about 40 minutes before its smoldering remains
>> were
>> located by North Castle firefighters, said Anthony Sutton, commissioner
>> of
>> Westchester County's Department of Emergency Services.
>>
>> The causes and times of the accident and deaths are not yet known. FAA
>> officials began investigating the crash yesterday, and National
>> Transportation Safety Board members are expected to join them today,
>> Salley
>> said.
>>
>> The Cessna disappeared from the FAA's radar at 3:19 p.m., Salley said.
>> The
>> plane, which Salley said relayed no distress signals and whose pilot had
>> no
>> verbal contact with the air tower, was last seen on screen about a
>> quarter-mile from the airport runway. It was flying at 800 feet, which
>> Salley said is not unusually low for a plane attempting to land at the
>> airport.
>>
>> A hotline transmission from local police went out at 3:29 p.m., by which
>> time Westchester County's emergency response teams had converged to
>> perform
>> a "grid type of search," Salley said. At 3:41 p.m., the FAA had confirmed
>> that no other air towers were able to locate the plane, Salley said.
>>
>> The burning remains, were discovered at 4:01 p.m. by firefighters who
>> smelled something burning in the woods near the intersection of Routes 22
>> and 120 in North Castle. Negron and Naumov were found dead inside the
>> plane,
>> D'Angelo said.
>>
>> The Cessna 172 model was produced in 2001 and does not a have a "black
>> box,"
>> Salley said. Experts can sometimes use the voice recording device to
>> reconstruct an accident.
>>
>> The plane crashed near, but did not contaminate, the Kensico Reservoir,
>> officials said. It was not clear last night who owned the property where
>> the
>> plane crashed. Officials said last night that they knew of no witnesses
>> to
>> the accident.
>>
>> Six flights were canceled and two flights were delayed as a result of the
>> crash, Salley said. Outbound services at the airport resumed at 5:20 p.m.
>> yesterday, but FAA officials halted inbound service, Salley said, to
>> "check
>> out (the airport's) instrument landing system."
>>
>> Grief counselors had arrived at the airport last night to talk to
>> Negron's
>> and Naumov's families, Westchester County Police Commissioner Tom
>> Belfiore
>> said.
>>
>> American Flyers runs 15 flight schools nationwide, according to the
>> company's Web site. Salley, Westchester's transportation commissioner
>> since
>> 2000, said that he couldn't recall the company having a fatal crash
>> before.
>>
>> The Westchester County Airport grew out of plans to defend New York City
>> during World War II, and has evolved slowly into a modern airport used by
>> thousands of business and leisure travelers.
>>
>> There have been numerous aviation accidents in the region since
>> commercial
>> operations expanded. Since 1974, 40 people have died and 20 people have
>> been
>> injured in 31 accidents after take-offs from and attempted landings at
>> Westchester County Airport.
>>
>> Most recently, in June 2001, the pilot of a single-engine plane was
>> killed
>> when his Piper Saratoga crashed into the fog-shrouded woods off Bedford
>> Road
>> in backcountry Greenwich. The pilot had unsuccessfully attempted an
>> instrument landing at Westchester County Airport, about a half-mile from
>> the
>> crash site.
>>
>

Flyin'[email protected]

April 25th 05, 04:51 PM

wrote:
> What does the reporter say in the article that causes you to classify him
> as an "assoholic?"

What I think is funny: "burning flame"

Really!?!?! What other kinds of flames are there?

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

George Patterson

April 25th 05, 05:27 PM

R.L. wrote:
> Here's a story from the Stamford Advocate along with the usual helping of
> assoholic reporter ignorance at the end:

Sounds completely cockeyed to me. Westchester is a controlled field, yet the
reporter states that the "pilot had no verbal contact with the air tower"?
Conditions were IMC, yet "their arrival was not scheduled"?

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

RomeoMike

April 25th 05, 05:37 PM

When I read posts critical of the knowledge of reporters I think one of
two scenarios: One, the poster has forgotten how much training it took
for him to get so "smart" and thereby figures the reporter and anyone
else should know as much as he does. Or, second, criticizing others is a
way for some to pump up their own egoes. Some reporters are better than
others (as are pilots), and they have to report on a wide variety of
topics in a timely fashion and often make statements that are erroneous
or seem juvenile. They can't all be perfect or there would be only one
newspaper in the country. Some of these statements, however, answer the
questions that uninformed readers may want to know, such as the fact
that 172s don't have a black box: A stupid statement to a pilot but not
to the readership. I think "assoholic" does not apply to the reporter of
this particular story. Now, politically motivated stories are another
matter...

wrote:
> What does the reporter say in the article that causes you to classify him as an "assoholic?"
>
> "R.L." wrote:

Andrew Gideon

April 25th 05, 05:39 PM

George Patterson wrote:

> Sounds completely cockeyed to me. Westchester is a controlled field, yet
> the reporter states that the "pilot had no verbal contact with the air
> tower"? Conditions were IMC, yet "their arrival was not scheduled"?

The reporter thinks of "scheduled" as in part 121. If someone mentioned
"general aviation" to him, he'd probably want to interview the fellow (of
obvious import due to his high rank {8^).

It's possible that there was no contact with the tower if the pilot hadn't
been handed off yet (or if he never made contact with the tower after the
hand-off). It's been a couple of years since I ILSed into HPN, so I don't
know how early/late TRACON does the hand-off.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

April 25th 05, 05:54 PM

RomeoMike wrote:

> They can't all be perfect or there would be only one
> newspaper in the country.

I don't expect a reporter to know all subjects. I expect them to ask
intelligent questions, collect and understand the answers, and report from
that. This obviously has not occurred to some degree with this reporter.

However, the reporter also chose inflammatory phases (if you'll forgive the
pun), which does - in my opinion - earn distain. The question as to
whether he or she discussed the last few decades of automobile accidents
while reporting on every accident on the road is a good one, and points out
the bias reflected in the reporting.

> Some of these statements, however, answer the
> questions that uninformed readers may want to know, such as the fact
> that 172s don't have a black box: A stupid statement to a pilot but not
> to the readership.

I don't think that anyone questions the utility of these informational
points. It would have been nice had the reporter indicated that this type
of aircraft is not required to - and such almost never do - carry a black
box. Instead, he left that hanging as if the plane was in violation of
some rule which will prevent experts from reconstructing the accident.

Further, the mention of "arrival not scheduled" without context implies a
rogue operation, as opposed to someone operating under ATC control but
without being a part of an airline. It's just as bad as the reporters that
love to write "w/o filing a flight plan" yet apparently hate to write
"which wasn't required".

- Andrew

Peter R.

April 25th 05, 06:02 PM

George wrote:

> Westchester is a controlled field, yet the
> reporter states that the "pilot had no verbal contact with the air
tower"?

Technically, this might be correct. Perhaps approach had yet to hand
off the aircraft to the tower.

> Conditions were IMC, yet "their arrival was not scheduled"?

Again, technically, this might be considered correct, too. The
aircraft was operating under part 91, not part 121.

Its possible those facts were relayed to the reporter, who then added
them to the article out of context.

--
Peter

Gig 601XL Builder

April 25th 05, 07:16 PM

"Peter R." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> George wrote:
>
>> Westchester is a controlled field, yet the
>> reporter states that the "pilot had no verbal contact with the air
> tower"?
>
> Technically, this might be correct. Perhaps approach had yet to hand
> off the aircraft to the tower.
>
>> Conditions were IMC, yet "their arrival was not scheduled"?
>
> Again, technically, this might be considered correct, too. The
> aircraft was operating under part 91, not part 121.
>
> Its possible those facts were relayed to the reporter, who then added
> them to the article out of context.
>
> --
> Peter
>

And gets information he doesn't understand he should follow up on it, not
just stick it in the story.

DCMacLean

April 25th 05, 08:40 PM

In article >,
says...
> wrote:
> > What does the reporter say in the article that causes you to classify him
> > as an "assoholic?"
>
> What I think is funny: "burning flame"
>
> Really!?!?! What other kinds of flames are there?
>
>
Flaming a**holes ... like the reporter.

R.L.

April 25th 05, 08:59 PM

The reporter is young ("staff writer"), doesn't know aviation, is hostile to
it and is hostile to HPN. For what purpose would he try to make a tortured
connection between HPN's increased commercial activity and GA accidents? Why
else dredge up stats from the seventies and dust-off the airport's history
if not to imply that HPN has outlived its purpose?

He's also dusting off his editor's old press-kits from the come-lately
revisionist, not-in-my-back-yard nouveau riche disingenuous scumbags who
moved to the nuisance that they consider HPN and now want to get rid of it.

Hence the "noise abatement" for the oh-so-off-put weenies whose
sensibilities are offended if they hear the sound of an aircraft while
they're playing canasta and munching on "cah-shooos" whilst they sip their
gin martinis in their recently acquired McMansions. There's a load of them
that were recently built less than a quarter-mile from the Rwy 36
threshold - that's the ILS Rwy and the active about 75% of the time. The
developers placed them so close that I can see the gardeners taking a leak
while coming in for a touch-and-go.

> wrote in message ...
> What does the reporter say in the article that causes you to classify him
as an "assoholic?"
>
> "R.L." wrote:
>
> > Here's a story from the Stamford Advocate along with the usual helping
of
> > assoholic reporter ignorance at the end:
> >
> >
> > --
> > Plane crash kills 2 near Greenwich border
> > By Michael Dinan
> > Staff Writer
> > April 24, 2005
> > WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- A flight instructor and his student were found
dead
> > in thick woods just beyond Greenwich's northwest corner yesterday
afternoon,
> > after the single-engine propeller plane they were flying crashed during
an
> > apparent attempt to land at Westchester County Airport, officials said.
> >
> > "The plane was broken in half, it appeared to me, and there was fire,
with
> > two people trapped in burning flame," North Castle, N.Y., Police Chief
> > Robert D'Angelo said during a news conference last night at the
airport's
> > media center.
> >
> > Airport officials identified the instructor as Isaac Negron of Hamden,
and
> > the student as Lev Naumov, 23, of Yonkers, N.Y. Negron's age was not
known
> > last night.
> >
> > The Cessna 172 four-seater belonged to American Flyers, a flight
instruction
> > school based at the airport, said Lawrence Salley, Westchester County's
> > transportation commissioner.
> >
> > The men had flown out of the airport shortly after noon yesterday, to
> > Albany, N.Y., and appeared to be returning to the airport, though their
> > arrival was not scheduled.
> >
> > The Federal Aviation Administration tower, based at the airport, lost
radar
> > contact with the plane about 40 minutes before its smoldering remains
were
> > located by North Castle firefighters, said Anthony Sutton, commissioner
of
> > Westchester County's Department of Emergency Services.
> >
> > The causes and times of the accident and deaths are not yet known. FAA
> > officials began investigating the crash yesterday, and National
> > Transportation Safety Board members are expected to join them today,
Salley
> > said.
> >
> > The Cessna disappeared from the FAA's radar at 3:19 p.m., Salley said.
The
> > plane, which Salley said relayed no distress signals and whose pilot had
no
> > verbal contact with the air tower, was last seen on screen about a
> > quarter-mile from the airport runway. It was flying at 800 feet, which
> > Salley said is not unusually low for a plane attempting to land at the
> > airport.
> >
> > A hotline transmission from local police went out at 3:29 p.m., by which
> > time Westchester County's emergency response teams had converged to
perform
> > a "grid type of search," Salley said. At 3:41 p.m., the FAA had
confirmed
> > that no other air towers were able to locate the plane, Salley said.
> >
> > The burning remains, were discovered at 4:01 p.m. by firefighters who
> > smelled something burning in the woods near the intersection of Routes
22
> > and 120 in North Castle. Negron and Naumov were found dead inside the
plane,
> > D'Angelo said.
> >
> > The Cessna 172 model was produced in 2001 and does not a have a "black
box,"
> > Salley said. Experts can sometimes use the voice recording device to
> > reconstruct an accident.
> >
> > The plane crashed near, but did not contaminate, the Kensico Reservoir,
> > officials said. It was not clear last night who owned the property where
the
> > plane crashed. Officials said last night that they knew of no witnesses
to
> > the accident.
> >
> > Six flights were canceled and two flights were delayed as a result of
the
> > crash, Salley said. Outbound services at the airport resumed at 5:20
p.m.
> > yesterday, but FAA officials halted inbound service, Salley said, to
"check
> > out (the airport's) instrument landing system."
> >
> > Grief counselors had arrived at the airport last night to talk to
Negron's
> > and Naumov's families, Westchester County Police Commissioner Tom
Belfiore
> > said.
> >
> > American Flyers runs 15 flight schools nationwide, according to the
> > company's Web site. Salley, Westchester's transportation commissioner
since
> > 2000, said that he couldn't recall the company having a fatal crash
before.
> >
> > The Westchester County Airport grew out of plans to defend New York City
> > during World War II, and has evolved slowly into a modern airport used
by
> > thousands of business and leisure travelers.
> >
> > There have been numerous aviation accidents in the region since
commercial
> > operations expanded. Since 1974, 40 people have died and 20 people have
been
> > injured in 31 accidents after take-offs from and attempted landings at
> > Westchester County Airport.
> >
> > Most recently, in June 2001, the pilot of a single-engine plane was
killed
> > when his Piper Saratoga crashed into the fog-shrouded woods off Bedford
Road
> > in backcountry Greenwich. The pilot had unsuccessfully attempted an
> > instrument landing at Westchester County Airport, about a half-mile from
the
> > crash site.
> >
>

Tom Fleischman

April 25th 05, 09:52 PM

In article e.com>,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> George Patterson wrote:
>
> > Sounds completely cockeyed to me. Westchester is a controlled field, yet
> > the reporter states that the "pilot had no verbal contact with the air
> > tower"? Conditions were IMC, yet "their arrival was not scheduled"?
>
> The reporter thinks of "scheduled" as in part 121. If someone mentioned
> "general aviation" to him, he'd probably want to interview the fellow (of
> obvious import due to his high rank {8^).
>
> It's possible that there was no contact with the tower if the pilot hadn't
> been handed off yet (or if he never made contact with the tower after the
> hand-off). It's been a couple of years since I ILSed into HPN, so I don't
> know how early/late TRACON does the hand-off.

Believe me, by the time he got to his final position he would have been
handed off long ago. Normally NY App does the handoff shortly before
clearing for the approach, certainly outside the HESTER (the outer
makrker/FAF). He went down less than a half mile from the threshold.

It's worth noting that the student was NOT an instrument student. He
was still working on his private ticket. It was a pretty low day for a
student pilot to be shooting instrument approaches, in fact I have no
idea what they were doing out there that day. I can't imagine my
primary instructor allowing me out in such low weather.

Tom Fleischman

April 25th 05, 10:03 PM

In article
<250420051652421759%bodhijunkoneeightyeightjunkatma >,
Tom Fleischman >
wrote:

> Normally NY App does the handoff shortly before
> clearing for the approach, certainly outside the HESTER (the outer
> makrker/FAF).

DOH!!

That would be "after".

Matt Whiting

April 25th 05, 10:31 PM

wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>What does the reporter say in the article that causes you to classify him
>>as an "assoholic?"
>
>
> What I think is funny: "burning flame"
>
> Really!?!?! What other kinds of flames are there?
>

Internet ng flames. :-)

That was too easy...

Matt

A.Coleman

April 25th 05, 10:41 PM

The damned ceiling couldn't have been more than 500 feet. Temp/dewpoint
spread was zero. Says something about American Flyers that it's taking a
primary student up shooting instrument approaches in low IMC .

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in
message
news:250420051652421759%bodhijunkoneeightyeightjun ...
> In article e.com>,
> Andrew Gideon > wrote:
>
> > George Patterson wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds completely cockeyed to me. Westchester is a controlled field,
yet
> > > the reporter states that the "pilot had no verbal contact with the air
> > > tower"? Conditions were IMC, yet "their arrival was not scheduled"?
> >
> > The reporter thinks of "scheduled" as in part 121. If someone mentioned
> > "general aviation" to him, he'd probably want to interview the fellow
(of
> > obvious import due to his high rank {8^).
> >
> > It's possible that there was no contact with the tower if the pilot
hadn't
> > been handed off yet (or if he never made contact with the tower after
the
> > hand-off). It's been a couple of years since I ILSed into HPN, so I
don't
> > know how early/late TRACON does the hand-off.
>
> Believe me, by the time he got to his final position he would have been
> handed off long ago. Normally NY App does the handoff shortly before
> clearing for the approach, certainly outside the HESTER (the outer
> makrker/FAF). He went down less than a half mile from the threshold.
>
> It's worth noting that the student was NOT an instrument student. He
> was still working on his private ticket. It was a pretty low day for a
> student pilot to be shooting instrument approaches, in fact I have no
> idea what they were doing out there that day. I can't imagine my
> primary instructor allowing me out in such low weather.

Andrew Gideon

April 25th 05, 10:50 PM

A.Coleman wrote:

> The damned ceiling couldn't have been more than 500 feet. Temp/dewpoint
> spread was zero.Â*Â*SaysÂ*somethingÂ*aboutÂ*AmericanÂ*FlyersÂ *thatÂ*it'sÂ*takingÂ*a
> primary student up shooting instrument approaches in low IMC .

Right. Instead of training students in this weather, they should be
permitted to experience it for the first time on their own.

I've no idea of the status of the left-seater. IR and just getting
experience in real weather? Student on his first instrument training
flight? There's a huge difference between the two, of course.

I do know that my CFII and I sought out poor weather in the later parts of
my training. I've flown appoaches down to actual misseds during that time,
and I'm glad of it.

[Though the short term weather reporting does indicate a possible cell, and
that would be a little worrisome.]

- Andrew

Peter R.

April 25th 05, 11:18 PM

Tom wrote:

> It's worth noting that the student was NOT an instrument student. He
> was still working on his private ticket.

If that is truly the case, then it would seem more probably that the
instructor were flying the approach from the left seat. I cannot
imagine any student pilot being able to, nor a primary instructor
allowing the student to fly an approach in actual low IFR conditions.

--
Peter

Peter R.

April 25th 05, 11:23 PM

> approach from the left seat

Sorry, meant to type right seat.

--
Peter

Richard Kaplan

April 25th 05, 11:35 PM

"A.Coleman" > wrote in message
. ..

> Says something about American Flyers that it's taking a
> primary student up shooting instrument approaches in low IMC .

As far as I am concerned, it would be just fine for a flight school to give
intro rides to prospective pilots, no less student pilots, in low IMC. The
relevant question is the experience level of the CFII, especially his
experience in low IMC. It is entirely possible for a CFII to have never
been in a cloud and/or to have never been in the right seat in IMC -- THOSE
experience factors are far more important IMHO than the experience of the
pilot in the left seat.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan

April 25th 05, 11:36 PM

Maule Driver

April 25th 05, 11:43 PM

Earlier thread idicated 200 and 1/8 I believe. If that's what is being
reported, a good lesson may be that, "we don't even try that, it's time
to divert"

A.Coleman wrote:
> The damned ceiling couldn't have been more than 500 feet. Temp/dewpoint
> spread was zero. Says something about American Flyers that it's taking a
> primary student up shooting instrument approaches in low IMC .
>
>
>

[email protected]

April 25th 05, 11:55 PM

I agree, but it is more meaningful to the pilot if he/she has had some
instrument training. I once gave a cross country phase check to a
(quite capable) student pilot. When we departed (near dusk) it was VFR
but when we returned 45 minutes later, the infamous Southern California
stratus had covered our home base. I had the student fly the whole
approach. I handled the radios and watched carefully. Althought it
wasn't "low IMC" it was a great experience for him- a real confidence
builder.

Lee Elson
Richard Kaplan wrote:
> "A.Coleman" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> > Says something about American Flyers that it's taking a
> > primary student up shooting instrument approaches in low IMC .
>
> As far as I am concerned, it would be just fine for a flight school
to give
> intro rides to prospective pilots, no less student pilots, in low
IMC. The
> relevant question is the experience level of the CFII, especially his
> experience in low IMC. It is entirely possible for a CFII to have
never
> been in a cloud and/or to have never been in the right seat in IMC --
THOSE
> experience factors are far more important IMHO than the experience of
the
> pilot in the left seat.
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan
>
> www.flyimc.com

R.L.

April 25th 05, 11:57 PM

An old flame.

> wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> > What does the reporter say in the article that causes you to classify
him
> > as an "assoholic?"
>
> What I think is funny: "burning flame"
>
> Really!?!?! What other kinds of flames are there?
>
> --
> Mike Flyin'8
> PP-ASEL
> Temecula, CA
> http://flying.4alexanders.com

George Patterson

April 26th 05, 01:31 AM

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> It's possible that there was no contact with the tower if the pilot hadn't
> been handed off yet (or if he never made contact with the tower after the
> hand-off).

He's 1/4 mile from the runway and hasn't been handed off yet?

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

BTIZ

April 26th 05, 02:21 AM

>> Its possible those facts were relayed to the reporter, who then added
>> them to the article out of context.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>
> And gets information he doesn't understand he should follow up on it, not
> just stick it in the story.

I've never seen a reporter do that... they think they have it right the
first time and are the most stupid people I've seen... seeming to be
experts at things they no nothing about... they don't even know enough to
ask the question..

but that's JMHO
BT

Journeyman

April 26th 05, 02:55 AM

In article <240420051342072877%bodhijunkoneeightyeightjunkatma >, Tom Fleischman wrote:
>
> A Cessna 172 crashed yesterday short of the approach end of RWY 16
> killing the pilot and instructor aboard. No cause for the accident has
> yet been established, but the weather was at or near minimums for the
> ILS-16 approach at the time of the crash and and tracking the flight
> on:

Expletive. This hits too close to home. My sympathies to both
families.

Morris

George Patterson

April 26th 05, 03:06 AM

BTIZ wrote:
>
> I've never seen a reporter do that... they think they have it right the
> first time and are the most stupid people I've seen...

The few with which I've dealt haven't seemed to be stupid -- they're just in too
much of a hurry to double-check things. Gotta make that deadline.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

April 26th 05, 03:47 AM

George, this is not about common sense, this is about the belief that only
you have common sense and the rest of the world are idiots. The sooner you
get that, the sooner you will stop posting these reasonable posts and get
with the flaming.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Pmhbe.4701$WX.776@trndny01...
> BTIZ wrote:
>>
>> I've never seen a reporter do that... they think they have it right the
>> first time and are the most stupid people I've seen...
>
> The few with which I've dealt haven't seemed to be stupid -- they're just
> in too much of a hurry to double-check things. Gotta make that deadline.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

Wizard of Draws

April 26th 05, 04:49 AM

On 4/25/05 10:47 PM, in article ,
"Ed" > spewed:

> George, this is not about common sense, this is about the belief that only
> you have common sense and the rest of the world are idiots. The sooner you
> get that, the sooner you will stop posting these reasonable posts and get
> with the flaming.
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:Pmhbe.4701$WX.776@trndny01...
>> BTIZ wrote:
>>>
>>> I've never seen a reporter do that... they think they have it right the
>>> first time and are the most stupid people I've seen...
>>
>> The few with which I've dealt haven't seemed to be stupid -- they're just
>> in too much of a hurry to double-check things. Gotta make that deadline.
>>
>> George Patterson
>> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
>> mashed potatoes.
>
>
I work at a newspaper. About half of the reporters are concrete stupid. We
had one last year doing an interview with a Navy vet and she asked him what
Pearl Harbor was. Those of us that heard her ask were stunned when he
continued with the interview instead of hanging up on her dumb ass.
Even when we did a story on the flight school I trained at, and I pointed
out a number of glaring errors long before deadline, they were not fixed.
Among other things, it "sounded better" to say "license to fly" when the
student had only soloed.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

H.P.

April 26th 05, 05:35 AM

They're stupid AND lazy. I was in P.R. for about 10 years and reporters just
ate out of my hand. I basically did the work for them on the facts and my
clients paid for it. My biggest successes were stories that I wrote but were
printed whole cloth by the paper. I once was duped by a client. I sent out
press releases, press kits and got the nets, locals, cable and radio to
cover an event based upon a wrong premise. I got ink, video and radio for my
client like there was no tomorrow. Not one of them fact-checked.

The saying used to be: those who can't, teach. Now it's: those who can't,
report.

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in
message news:BE933281.64DF1%jeffbTAKEOUTALLCAPS@TOEMAILwiz ardofdraws.com...
> On 4/25/05 10:47 PM, in article
> ,
> "Ed" > spewed:
>
>> George, this is not about common sense, this is about the belief that
>> only
>> you have common sense and the rest of the world are idiots. The sooner
>> you
>> get that, the sooner you will stop posting these reasonable posts and get
>> with the flaming.
>>
>> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
>> news:Pmhbe.4701$WX.776@trndny01...
>>> BTIZ wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've never seen a reporter do that... they think they have it right the
>>>> first time and are the most stupid people I've seen...
>>>
>>> The few with which I've dealt haven't seemed to be stupid -- they're
>>> just
>>> in too much of a hurry to double-check things. Gotta make that deadline.
>>>
>>> George Patterson
>>> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to
>>> the
>>> mashed potatoes.
>>
>>
> I work at a newspaper. About half of the reporters are concrete stupid. We
> had one last year doing an interview with a Navy vet and she asked him
> what
> Pearl Harbor was. Those of us that heard her ask were stunned when he
> continued with the interview instead of hanging up on her dumb ass.
> Even when we did a story on the flight school I trained at, and I pointed
> out a number of glaring errors long before deadline, they were not fixed.
> Among other things, it "sounded better" to say "license to fly" when the
> student had only soloed.
> --
> Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
>
> Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
> http://www.wizardofdraws.com
>
> More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
> http://www.cartoonclipart.com
>

David Cartwright

April 26th 05, 10:00 AM

"A.Coleman" > wrote in message
. ..
> The damned ceiling couldn't have been more than 500 feet. Temp/dewpoint
> spread was zero. Says something about American Flyers that it's taking a
> primary student up shooting instrument approaches in low IMC .

Was it _expected_ low IMC? When I was learning to fly, my instructor (13,000
hour ATPL) took me out in IMC with a cloudbase of 800 feet and two potential
diversions to where the weather was nice just in case. The forecast said 800
feet for the rest of the day, and ATC said 800 feet when we started down the
ILS. We went around at 500 feet (still in IMC) on the first attempt, just so
we could resolve the conflict between what we heard and what we saw, and on
the second attempt (at which point ATC's observations had been revised)
popped out of the bottoms at 300 feet.

The experience was most rewarding and educational. At no time was there any
danger, we were well within the restrictions of the instructor's licence,
the instructor was extremely experienced in IMC flying, training and
examining (in fact he was my IMC rating examiner a couple of years later)
and we had diversions just in case everything got foggy.

It's not fair, then, to suggest that taking a student out in IMC was a bad
thing to do. In my case it taught me how to not kill myself by inadvertently
flying into a cloud (something that I'm not convinced you can learn properly
on a nice day with foggles on). The only caveat here, though, is that the
zero spread between temperature and dewpoint would have made me think twice.

D.

David Cartwright

April 26th 05, 10:04 AM

"Peter R." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> It's worth noting that the student was NOT an instrument student. He
>> was still working on his private ticket.
> If that is truly the case, then it would seem more probably that the
> instructor were flying the approach from the left seat. I cannot
> imagine any student pilot being able to, nor a primary instructor
> allowing the student to fly an approach in actual low IFR conditions.

It's quite possible that the student flew a chunk of the approach and then
the instructor took over when it started to go a bit askew. When I was a
student I flew a vectored rejoin, established (sort of) on the localiser and
got down to about 600 feet with my instructor giving instructions all the
way ("left a couple of degrees, take off about 100rpm, ..."). Only when the
needles started to drift about did the instructor take over (and isn't it
annoying when you've been slaving for five minutes to keep them vaguely
right and the instant he takes over they hammer back to where they should be
and stay there ? :-)

Of course, the sign of a good instructor is that (a) he/she knows to take
over while all is not lost; and (b) he/she realises that if he/she takes
over a bit late, the direction to go in is up.

D.

David Cartwright

April 26th 05, 10:07 AM

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:rIgbe.19158$%c1.12969@fed1read05...
> I've never seen a reporter do that... they think they have it right the
> first time and are the most stupid people I've seen... seeming to be
> experts at things they no nothing about... they don't even know enough to
> ask the question..

Having worked in publishing, I've seen good reporters and bad ones. I'd
never try to be a reporter because I hate interviewing people for 80-word
stories - I'm more a features writer who wants to explore the subject more
thoroughly. So I've tended to reside in the tech-editor slot in the
magazines I've worked for.

The bad reporters I've worked with have never asked me anything about
technology. The good ones have come to me daily and said: "I think this is
what this means, but can you explain it?".

D.

OtisWinslow

April 26th 05, 01:37 PM

What he was doing was putting IMC time in the CFI's logbook.

> It's worth noting that the student was NOT an instrument student. He
> was still working on his private ticket. It was a pretty low day for a
> student pilot to be shooting instrument approaches, in fact I have no
> idea what they were doing out there that day. I can't imagine my
> primary instructor allowing me out in such low weather.

Dave Butler

April 26th 05, 02:32 PM

Tom Fleischman wrote:

> Believe me, by the time he got to his final position he would have been
> handed off long ago. Normally NY App does the handoff shortly before
> clearing for the approach, certainly outside the HESTER (the outer
> makrker/FAF). He went down less than a half mile from the threshold.

How is the approach clearance delivered *after* the handoff?

Dave Butler

April 26th 05, 02:32 PM

Tom Fleischman wrote:
> In article
> <250420051652421759%bodhijunkoneeightyeightjunkatma >,
> Tom Fleischman >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Normally NY App does the handoff shortly before
>>clearing for the approach, certainly outside the HESTER (the outer
>>makrker/FAF).
>
>
> DOH!!
>
> That would be "after".

Oh. Disregard my earlier question. DGB

Matt Barrow

April 26th 05, 03:19 PM

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in
message news:BE933281.64DF1%jeffbTAKEOUTALLCAPS@TOEMAILwiz ardofdraws.com...
> I work at a newspaper. About half of the reporters are concrete stupid. We
> had one last year doing an interview with a Navy vet and she asked him
what
> Pearl Harbor was.

That's where Germany attacked the US and drew us into the Spanish-American
War.

Everyone know that!

Gig 601XL Builder

April 26th 05, 05:46 PM

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 04:35:27 GMT, "H.P." > wrote:
>
>>They're stupid AND lazy. I was in P.R. for about 10 years and reporters
>>just
>>ate out of my hand. I basically did the work for them on the facts and my
>>clients paid for it. My biggest successes were stories that I wrote but
>>were
>>printed whole cloth by the paper. I once was duped by a client. I sent
>>out
>>press releases, press kits and got the nets, locals, cable and radio to
>>cover an event based upon a wrong premise. I got ink, video and radio for
>>my
>>client like there was no tomorrow. Not one of them fact-checked.
>
>
> Let's see if I understand this...
>
> YOU were duped, and the newspaper reporters were the ones at fault for
> not fact-checking?

No he was given false info by his client who paid him to get it out in the
press. He had no responsibility to prove everything that he gave the press
was true. If PR people had to do that they would all be out of business in a
week. Their job is to spin information to put their client in the best
light.

On the other hand the press has a responsibility to check facts. ESPECIALLY
when it comes from a PR firm.

Casey Wilson

April 26th 05, 06:47 PM

> wrote in message

>>No he was given false info by his client who paid him to get it out in the
>>press. He had no responsibility to prove everything that he gave the press
>>was true. If PR people had to do that they would all be out of business in
>>a
>>week. Their job is to spin information to put their client in the best
>>light.
>>
>>On the other hand the press has a responsibility to check facts.
>>ESPECIALLY
>>when it comes from a PR firm.
>>
>
>
> In other words, I DO understand this.

So..., If a client gives a PR person something to spin, the PR hack
has NO responsibility. That's what your understanding is? It doesn't matter
whether the material is good or total BS?
I predict some back-pedalling coming here. Like, "Oh well, if I KNOW
it's BS, I won't take the job." Well, how about when you have some suspicion
that the info isn't on the up and up? Do you spin it then? Or do you do
some questioning? Are the $$$ bigger than the ethics?
How about when some convincing flake passes plausible BS to the
reporter? The reporter, you say is obligated to determine the material is
true, yet you have no responsibility to make sure its true in the first
place. In other words, you can BS the public... if nobody catches it at the
news desk.

Andrew Gideon

April 26th 05, 07:26 PM

Casey Wilson wrote:

> InÂ*otherÂ*words,Â*youÂ*canÂ*BSÂ*theÂ*public...Â*i fÂ*nobodyÂ*catchesÂ*itÂ*atÂ*the
> news desk.

Back to politics, are we?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

April 26th 05, 07:29 PM

RomeoMike wrote:

> Most people in general circumstances
> will forget the story in a few days.

I'd like to think you're right. But companies pay a lot for "branding", so
I'm left feeling that comments such as those from this particular reporter
do "add up" in the public consciousness.

> In any case, the bottom line is
> that if we pilots were as perfect at flying as you wish reporters were
> at reporting, there would be practically no accidents to report (these
> being the relatively few pure mechanical failures), and therefore no
> cause for your angst.

I'd pit our record against theirs any day.

- Andrew

Tom Fleischman

April 26th 05, 09:37 PM

In article >, RomeoMike
> wrote:

> IMHO, you are a little too sensitive as to what you think the public
> will think, UNLESS we're talking about an airport near which a political
> movement is underfoot to close it.

<snip>

There *is* a political movement afoot to close HPN, there has been for
years, ever since the McMansions started going up all around the
airport about 15 years ago. There are all these aviation enthusiasts
buying homes off the approach end of the main runway and then getting
upset about it and doing their damndest to cklose the airport.

Matt Barrow

April 27th 05, 04:07 AM

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow"
> > That's where Germany attacked the US and drew us into the
Spanish-American
> > War.
>
>
> "Remember the...starts with "M" ...Merrimack"
>
> Half the kids in my 1977 High School history class drew a line (east to
> west) across Asia, Europe, the Atlantic Ocean, North America, and out into
> the Pacific Ocean to Hawaii - to show the route Japan used to attack Pearl
> Harbor. Some went around Africa and South America because they knew it had
> something to do with aircraft carriers.

They didn't know that Japan moved her entire attack force throught the
Panama Canal, huh?

> Yup, flat map - US on the left, Japan on the right.

Flat map -- flat earth!!

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Everett M. Greene

April 27th 05, 04:50 PM

"Matt Barrow" > writes:
> "Montblack" > wrote
> > "Matt Barrow"
> > > That's where Germany attacked the US and drew us into the
> > > Spanish-American War.
> >
> > "Remember the...starts with "M" ...Merrimack"
> >
> > Half the kids in my 1977 High School history class drew a line (east to
> > west) across Asia, Europe, the Atlantic Ocean, North America, and out into
> > the Pacific Ocean to Hawaii - to show the route Japan used to attack Pearl
> > Harbor. Some went around Africa and South America because they knew it had
> > something to do with aircraft carriers.
>
> They didn't know that Japan moved her entire attack force throught the
> Panama Canal, huh?
>
> > Yup, flat map - US on the left, Japan on the right.
>
> Flat map -- flat earth!!

Right! What's the problem?

Isn't that why all our aviation maps are flat?

> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO

Montrose has a Super-Walmart, Home Depot, and Chili's. What
more is there to want?

Andrew Gideon

April 27th 05, 05:45 PM

Everett M. Greene wrote:

> Isn't that why all our aviation maps are flat?

I thought that it was because globes are so tough to fold.

- Andrew

Jay Beckman

April 28th 05, 12:05 AM

> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Hey, I'm with you on this.
>
> Too much of this "It's the other guy's job to be honest" stuff in
> corporate America, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> And the free market is fast destroying honest journalism, which once
> upon a time we could depend on to reveal the machinations of
> deceptive government and dishonest business.
>
> Unfortunately, the Fox News model seems to be growing rapidly
> dominant. Shill for anybody as long as it turns the most profit.
>
>

I gotta call BS here...

The "traditional" broadcast networks were (and are) capable of being slanted
themselves...while being commercial enterprises. Don't hang it all on FOX.

It took FOX (right leaning though they may be...) to show that the status
quo had been leaning the other way for quite some time.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Gary Drescher

April 28th 05, 01:51 AM

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in
message news:BE933281.64DF1%jeffbTAKEOUTALLCAPS@TOEMAILwiz ardofdraws.com...
> Even when we did a story on the flight school I trained at, and I pointed
> out a number of glaring errors long before deadline, they were not fixed.
> Among other things, it "sounded better" to say "license to fly" when the
> student had only soloed.

Sorry, I don't see what's inaccurate there. A solo endorsement *is* a
license to fly (but not with passengers). Why not refer to it as such?

--Gary

[email protected]

April 28th 05, 04:28 AM

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:05:56 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

>I gotta call BS here...
>
>The "traditional" broadcast networks were (and are) capable of being slanted
>themselves...while being commercial enterprises. Don't hang it all on FOX.
>
>It took FOX (right leaning though they may be...) to show that the status
>quo had been leaning the other way for quite some time.
>
>Jay Beckman
>PP-ASEL
>Chandler, AZ

There was a time that the TV news departments were separate entities,
and not answerable to the commercial side, and did not have to fear
offending the commercial interests.

That all changed, and the networks are now almost as bad as the news
channels, although probably less so.

60 Minutes caved in to the tobacco interests back in the days of the
guy (forget his name) who ratted out one of the tobacco companies,
because they feared a huge lawsuit. They lived to regret it.

About the only real journalism that's left is the Lehrer New Hour on
PBS, where you can actually get two civilly presented sides of real
issues.

Unfortunately, Bush and Co are loading up the CPB governing board with
their right-wing cronies, and we will soon be treated on public TV
to staged news conferences and shlled performances where hand-picked
audience members ask pre-screened softball questionsin an attempt to
make a moron president look like he knows what he is talking about.

Heaven knows what we will do for real news after that.

Montblack

April 28th 05, 05:45 AM

" wrote)
> Unfortunately, Bush and Co are loading up the CPB governing board with
> their right-wing cronies, and we will soon be treated on public TV
> to staged news conferences and shlled performances where hand-picked
> audience members ask pre-screened softball questionsin an attempt to
> make a moron president look like he knows what he is talking about.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/27/bush.prime.time/index.html
President Bush will hold a (prime time) news conference Thursday at 8:30
p.m.

These things need to be approached with extreme caution - pizza (cold/hot
your choice) and much, much, much ice cold beer in the freezer will be
needed. BTW, 29 F beer (in bottles) can be thrown down quicker than normal
40 F refrigerator beer ...useful tip for emergencies like this.

Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush - doesn't matter:
Recliner, remote, friends, beer, pizza, beer, pizza.

"My Fellow Americans ....."
Beer, beer, beer, beer, beer, beer, beer, beer, beer, beer.

Montblack
Anyone going to eat that last piece of pizza?

Jose

April 28th 05, 02:32 PM

> Recliner, remote, friends, beer, pizza, beer, pizza.

Feh.

The two things that go with pizza are red wine (syrah, shiraz, petit
syrah, or most Italian reds) or orange juice.

Yes, orange juice. Try it. :)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dan Luke

April 28th 05, 04:03 PM

"Jose" wrote:
> > Recliner, remote, friends, beer, pizza, beer, pizza.
>
> Feh.
>
> The two things that go with pizza are red wine (syrah, shiraz, petit
> syrah, or most Italian reds)

Yum.

> or orange juice.

Ick.

> Yes, orange juice. Try it. :)

Ok, I'll try it, but I have severe doubts.

Ever tried shrimp as a pizza topping? Delicious.
--
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM
______________
\0/
o/ \o

Gig 601XL Builder

April 28th 05, 04:40 PM

> wrote in message
> There was a time that the TV news departments were separate entities,
> and not answerable to the commercial side, and did not have to fear
> offending the commercial interests.
>

There was never such a time. CBS News in the time of Edward R. Murrow was
subject to sponsor created heat from time to time.

[email protected]

April 28th 05, 05:05 PM

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:40:07 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
>> There was a time that the TV news departments were separate entities,
>> and not answerable to the commercial side, and did not have to fear
>> offending the commercial interests.
>>
>
>There was never such a time. CBS News in the time of Edward R. Murrow was
>subject to sponsor created heat from time to time.
>

The difference was. they didn't cave.

Jose

April 28th 05, 05:29 PM

> Ever tried shrimp as a pizza topping? Delicious.

I have not, but shrimp is great with pasta and tomato based sauces, so
should go well with pizza. I did have a seafood pizza that was less
than impressive though.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Wizard of Draws

April 29th 05, 02:45 AM

On 4/27/05 8:51 PM, in article , "Gary
Drescher" > spewed:

> "Wizard of Draws" > wrote in
> message news:BE933281.64DF1%jeffbTAKEOUTALLCAPS@TOEMAILwiz ardofdraws.com...
>> Even when we did a story on the flight school I trained at, and I pointed
>> out a number of glaring errors long before deadline, they were not fixed.
>> Among other things, it "sounded better" to say "license to fly" when the
>> student had only soloed.
>
> Sorry, I don't see what's inaccurate there. A solo endorsement *is* a
> license to fly (but not with passengers). Why not refer to it as such?
>
> --Gary
>
>
The article was written as if his training was over and he had been given
his certificate. I won't get into a semantic argument about license v.
certificate, but the article taken as a whole was entirely misleading and
inaccurate. Keeping in mind that newspapers become historical documents, if
a reporter can't get a story right, it shouldn't be written.

In light of the fact that I am a pilot and everyone in the office knows it,
I don't think it would have been too much to expect a reporter to just cross
the room and have me proofread it (or even get a bit of background on the
training syllabus from someone who's been through it) before going to press.
But apparently it was.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Judah

May 28th 05, 03:28 PM

It doesn't take all that much training to recognize when a reporter is
willing to compromise his integrity by attempting to slant his article
toward an agenda.

Unfortunately, these days, it is rare to see an unslanted report,
regardless of the topic.

It's a shame it doesn't require more training to become a reporter.

RomeoMike > wrote in
:

> When I read posts critical of the knowledge of reporters I think one
> of two scenarios: One, the poster has forgotten how much training it
> took for him to get so "smart" and thereby figures the reporter and
> anyone else should know as much as he does.

<snip>

Matt Whiting

May 28th 05, 03:53 PM

Judah wrote:
> It doesn't take all that much training to recognize when a reporter is
> willing to compromise his integrity by attempting to slant his article
> toward an agenda.

Yes, you only need to know how to read...

Matt

Judah

May 30th 05, 05:56 PM

"A.Coleman" > wrote in
:

> The damned ceiling couldn't have been more than 500 feet.
> Temp/dewpoint spread was zero. Says something about American Flyers
> that it's taking a primary student up shooting instrument approaches
> in low IMC .
>

When they left ALB, the METAR reported Vertical Visibility 200' and 1/8
mi visibility in fog that had been sitting at the airport all day. Plus
earlier that day the Approach Lights were reported out of service
(though I don't know if it was still inop at the time of the report I am
referring to).

1/8 mi is below ILS 16 minimum @HPN. And VV002 is exactly minimum. But
without a rabbit you lose a fair amount of latitude with an approach
into below minimums. (ie: You can see the rabbit a few hundred feet
ahead of the threshold, and once you see it you can go down another
100'. It's a big safety feature.)

I know experienced Instrument Rated pilots who would cancel a flight in
those conditions. By 3pm, the METAR reported VV002 and 1/2mi Visibility
in Fog, so it was exactly at minimums.

My guess is that the instructor felt that he could take the student up
and take over at some point when the student was clearly out of his
league. Still, I don't know enough about the instructor to know A) how
far he would let the student go before he decided it was time to take
over, B) if he had enough experience teaching THIS particular student to
read through potentially confused signals to recognize when it was time
to take over, and C) if he would be able to take over a potentially
panicked approach in IMC, recover, and safely navigate the plane onto
the ground from the right seat.

None of us will ever know... But we can sure guess at it based on the
unfortunate and dire result...

Judah

May 30th 05, 06:02 PM

The reports that I heard indicated that he received and acknowledged an
altitude alert at 800 feet, just before the accident. Was that not from
Tower?

Andrew Gideon > wrote in
online.com:

<snip>
>
> Or he never completed the hand-off. TRACON might have switched him at
> 5 miles, but the aircraft never contacted the tower. I don't know.
>
> Frankly, there's a lot about this that confuses me. No warnings about
> being too low from ATC? I once has a TRACON controller contact me
> almost breathlessly about my altitude (which was, fortunately, a
> transponder problem). And this was in VMC.
>

<snip>

>
> This does trigger a memory, though. During my primary training, my
> CFI wanted to go up into a snowstorm. Not knowing any better, I
> questioned it but didn't refuse. We were at the hold line just about
> to get onto the runway when the tower talked some sense into the CFI
> (and the controllers tone helped me push the matter).
>
> What if that hadn't occurred? I don't recall the CFI carrying any
> extra (ie. IFR) charts. And those weren't planes I'd take into IMC
> myself (from my current perspective) anyway.
>
> Scary.
>

Indeed.

Judah

May 30th 05, 06:43 PM

Who pays the salaries of the Press?

Do you think your piddly 50-cents is covering the cost of the crappy
newsprint your paper is printed on, much less the costs of the equipment
and labor required to paginate, platemake, press, package, distribute
and deliver a newspaper?

I believe it costs the newspapers something like $3 per newspaper to do
that. And the carrier takes half of the 50-cents that you pay for it...

Advertising pays the bills, and the newspaper's first allegiance is to
the advertiser. It's been that way pretty much from the very beginning.
Journalistic Integrity is only a priority if it doesn't conflict with
revenue generation.

How much do you pay to watch a News Report on a network TV channel? How
much of your $50 cable bill do you think goes to CNN? The priorities in
TV media are no different.

The CUSTOMER in the media is the ADVERTISER, not the reader. The reader
is just a means to support the customer.

For a long time, the media talked about journalistic integrity because
they thought it was necessary to be taken seriously and increase
circulation (which subsequently allows them to charge more to
advertisers), especially as compared to the tabloids. Most papers were
family owned and operated, and the publishers looked at the tabs as junk
and embarrasing, and it inflated their egos to know their paper was
"above that."

However, over the years, and especially since the success of CNN during
the Gulf War in 1990, it has become apparent to the newspapers that
sensationalism works, and the junk tabs have circulations higher than
theirs... That, in combination with the growing number of corporate
buyouts from companies like Gannett, Tribune, NYT Co, Knight Ridder,
Newhouse, CNHI, and others have nearly eliminated family-owned
newspapers that were driven by the ego of a person who has "run this
paper with integrity for generations" in favor of papers that are driven
by corporate agendas and wall-street reporting requirements.

And so, as newspaper publishers recognize that junk is more profitable
than integrity, and get pressure from their corporate executives to show
better numbers, they forget about enforcing integrity and accuracy, and
focus on generating revenue, selling advertising, and cutting costs.
Some papers today barely have stories in them anymore - they've become
advertising rags. As the quality of the product goes down, and the
readers become more cynical, the circulation continues dropping (WSJ
reported a 1.9% decline in circulation this year), and the whole thing
backfires.

Over time, there will be a backlash, and at some point newspapers will
get back to basics - reporting local stories with integrity to provide a
product that their readers cannot get anywhere else - not on Major Metro
TV networks or mass-market Internet Web sites. And perhaps the
circulation will tick up again. But make no mistake - the newspapers are
feeling the crunch, and don't seem to understand that journalistic
integrity, which is now low on thier list, is a significant player in
their recovery.

It will be interesting transition to watch.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in
news:Vfube.24313$up2.19288@okepread01:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 04:35:27 GMT, "H.P." > wrote:
>>
>>>They're stupid AND lazy. I was in P.R. for about 10 years and
>>>reporters just
>>>ate out of my hand. I basically did the work for them on the facts
>>>and my clients paid for it. My biggest successes were stories that I
>>>wrote but were
>>>printed whole cloth by the paper. I once was duped by a client. I
>>>sent out
>>>press releases, press kits and got the nets, locals, cable and radio
>>>to cover an event based upon a wrong premise. I got ink, video and
>>>radio for my
>>>client like there was no tomorrow. Not one of them fact-checked.
>>
>>
>> Let's see if I understand this...
>>
>> YOU were duped, and the newspaper reporters were the ones at fault
>> for not fact-checking?
>
> No he was given false info by his client who paid him to get it out in
> the press. He had no responsibility to prove everything that he gave
> the press was true. If PR people had to do that they would all be out
> of business in a week. Their job is to spin information to put their
> client in the best light.
>
> On the other hand the press has a responsibility to check facts.
> ESPECIALLY when it comes from a PR firm.
>
>

Don Tuite

May 30th 05, 09:22 PM

On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:43:14 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>Who pays the salaries of the Press?

>
>The CUSTOMER in the media is the ADVERTISER, not the reader. The reader
>is just a means to support the customer.

Yeahbut.

The commodity the medium is selling to the advertiser is eyeballs.
Eyeballs of particular ages, genders and income levels.

Advertisers want to base their buying decisions on circulation,
zipcodes and ratings.

To that extent, the reader/viewer could influence what runs in the
media.

Except when every medium is controlled by one entity, at which point
the reader/viewer *and* the advertiser both have hobson's choice.

Don

Judah

May 31st 05, 02:08 AM

Don Tuite > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:43:14 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>
>>Who pays the salaries of the Press?
>
>>
>>The CUSTOMER in the media is the ADVERTISER, not the reader. The
>>reader is just a means to support the customer.
>
> Yeahbut.
>
> The commodity the medium is selling to the advertiser is eyeballs.
> Eyeballs of particular ages, genders and income levels.

Most newspapers currently do a poor job of segmenting their markets and
selling advertising based on demographics. They don't believe they can
effectively distribute inserts to specific households accurately, even
though the equipment has been capable of doing it for a decade. They
think it is asking too much of a carrier to make sure that the paper
with the address on it actually gets to that address, and as they all
switch to Distribution Centers are concerned about their ability to
control the carrier through the DC...

> Advertisers want to base their buying decisions on circulation,
> zipcodes and ratings.
>
> To that extent, the reader/viewer could influence what runs in the
> media.

Only when the influence is En Masse. A few hundred eyeballs won't make a
difference one way or the other, even to a small local paper. Only when
enough of the general public start to react will an influence be
noticed, much less be enacted. It's starting to happen - that's why
circulation numbers are going down.

> Except when every medium is controlled by one entity, at which point
> the reader/viewer *and* the advertiser both have hobson's choice.
>
> Don

Michael

May 31st 05, 03:10 AM

The Metars that day were as follows

KHPN 232056Z 19014G20KT 1/4SM FG OVC002 13/13 A2947
KHPN 232018Z 19012G20KT 160V220 1/2SM -RA FG OVC002 13/13 A2948
KHPN 231956Z COR 18012G20KT 3/4SM -RA BR OVC002 13/13 A2948 RMK
AIRCRAFT MISHAP
KHPN 231856Z 19012G16KT 1/2SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951
KHPN 231756Z 18013G19KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2952
KHPN 231743Z 17016G22KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2
KHPN 231656Z 19013KT 1/2SM FG VV002 13/13 A2952
KHPN 231556Z 18006KT 1/4SM -RA FG VV002 12/12 A2954

turns out that POU had 800 foot ceilings and 7 mile visability and DXR
had 300 and 2 mile vis.....

The most charitable thing we can say is that praciticing IFR approaches
in those conditions with a PPL student was less than optimal judgement.

David Cartwright

May 31st 05, 09:56 AM

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> Advertising pays the bills, and the newspaper's first allegiance is to
> the advertiser. It's been that way pretty much from the very beginning.
> Journalistic Integrity is only a priority if it doesn't conflict with
> revenue generation.

In theory, perhaps, but not in practice.

In the publications I've worked for (UK IT press), and indeed still work
for, the editorial and advertising divisions have been deliberately
separate. While the editorial people are sufficiently bright to realise that
it's the advertising that pays their wages, the advertising people are also
sufficiently bright to realise that (a) advertising revenue is proportional
to size of readership; and (b) size of readership is proportional to quality
of editorial. The two sides are therefore mutually sustaining.

I have had instances where advertisers have made hints that they'll spend
more if we write more about them (or, on rare occasions, if we'll be nicer
about them than in the past). In all cases, the answer has been "no", and
the publishers have stood behind us all the way. Not that they had any
choice, actually, because writers and editors are fiercely protective of
their personal integrity and reputation.

Interestingly, though, where an advertiser has been upset that we've "not
written enough about them" it has often been solved by a few minutes on the
phone explaning how the editorial process works. I remember one case where
we invited a furious advertiser to the office to explain to him the
relationship between ads and editorial, and he went away smiling. All we'd
done was point out that his PR people used to send us, on average, ten press
releases a week - all about piddly little things, and none about their new
product line (which was actually quite nice!) - and that if they restrained
themselves and only told us, in decent sized chunks, when something happened
that actually mattered, he'd stand half a chance of being written about.

D.

Judah

June 1st 05, 02:18 AM

UK is a whole different animal. After all - you guys don't even have
FSIs!

And of course, that is why all us Americans who are looking for honest
newscasts watch the BBC on PBS instead of the BS on CNN...

:)

"David Cartwright" > wrote in
:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Advertising pays the bills, and the newspaper's first allegiance is
>> to the advertiser. It's been that way pretty much from the very
>> beginning. Journalistic Integrity is only a priority if it doesn't
>> conflict with revenue generation.
>
> In theory, perhaps, but not in practice.
>
> In the publications I've worked for (UK IT press), and indeed still
> work for, the editorial and advertising divisions have been
> deliberately separate. While the editorial people are sufficiently
> bright to realise that it's the advertising that pays their wages, the
> advertising people are also sufficiently bright to realise that (a)
> advertising revenue is proportional to size of readership; and (b)
> size of readership is proportional to quality of editorial. The two
> sides are therefore mutually sustaining.
>
> I have had instances where advertisers have made hints that they'll
> spend more if we write more about them (or, on rare occasions, if
> we'll be nicer about them than in the past). In all cases, the answer
> has been "no", and the publishers have stood behind us all the way.
> Not that they had any choice, actually, because writers and editors
> are fiercely protective of their personal integrity and reputation.
>
> Interestingly, though, where an advertiser has been upset that we've
> "not written enough about them" it has often been solved by a few
> minutes on the phone explaning how the editorial process works. I
> remember one case where we invited a furious advertiser to the office
> to explain to him the relationship between ads and editorial, and he
> went away smiling. All we'd done was point out that his PR people used
> to send us, on average, ten press releases a week - all about piddly
> little things, and none about their new product line (which was
> actually quite nice!) - and that if they restrained themselves and
> only told us, in decent sized chunks, when something happened that
> actually mattered, he'd stand half a chance of being written about.
>
> D.
>
>
>