Crash near Miami, FL

[tscottme]

A Chalks Airways Grumman Mallard (Turbine Mallard) crashed during takeoff
near Miami, FL today.

Watching TV coverage of the aftermatch it's certain two things will happen
after such an event. The TV networks will report a fiery explosion before
the crash and Mary Shiavo will be on-air demonstrating she's an ignorant, uh
what's the word, media whore? The TV networks would be better served just
directly airing the first homeless guy they can find.

Hey did you know that according to MSNBC the Mallard is a "hydroplane". All
the years I dealt with them I thought they were seaplanes.
--
Scott

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

tscottme wrote:
> A Chalks Airways Grumman Mallard (Turbine Mallard) crashed during takeoff
> near Miami, FL today.


I thought they flew SA-16s (Grumman Albatrosses).



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[[email protected]]

tscottme wrote:
> A Chalks Airways Grumman Mallard (Turbine Mallard) crashed during takeoff
> near Miami, FL today.
>
> Watching TV coverage of the aftermatch it's certain two things will happen
> after such an event. The TV networks will report a fiery explosion before
> the crash and Mary Shiavo will be on-air demonstrating she's an ignorant, uh
> what's the word, media whore? The TV networks would be better served just
> directly airing the first homeless guy they can find.
>
> Hey did you know that according to MSNBC the Mallard is a "hydroplane". All
> the years I dealt with them I thought they were seaplanes.

Then again, maybe someone will focus on the inherent danger of flying
paying passengers in an airplane that can't maintain a takeoff flight
path with one engine inoperative.

[Hilton]

Tim wrote:
> Then again, maybe someone will focus on the inherent danger of flying
> paying passengers in an airplane that can't maintain a takeoff flight path
> with one engine inoperative.

Not a problem when you're taking off on an infinitely long runway as they
were.

Gees, I hate it when infants, kids, babies die. Sad...

Hilton

[Jim Macklin]

Reports and photographs indicate that there was a fire and
fuel explosion and one wing was blown off the airplane.
Kind of hard to fly anywhere with only half an airplane.

My guess at this point, a fuel line leak in the nacelle and
the fuel mixture in the wing root exploded.

Normal procedure for any seaplane is to land (is that
water?) but the Grumman Albatross (the Mallard is smaller)
with the turboprop engines flies just fine on one engine.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
| Tim wrote:
| > Then again, maybe someone will focus on the inherent
danger of flying
| > paying passengers in an airplane that can't maintain a
takeoff flight path
| > with one engine inoperative.
|
| Not a problem when you're taking off on an infinitely long
runway as they
| were.
|
| Gees, I hate it when infants, kids, babies die. Sad...
|
| Hilton
|
|

[Mike H]

wrote:

> tscottme wrote:
>
>> A Chalks Airways Grumman Mallard (Turbine Mallard) crashed during takeoff
>> near Miami, FL today.
>>
>> Watching TV coverage of the aftermatch it's certain two things will
>> happen
>> after such an event. The TV networks will report a fiery explosion
>> before
>> the crash and Mary Shiavo will be on-air demonstrating she's an
>> ignorant, uh
>> what's the word, media whore? The TV networks would be better served
>> just
>> directly airing the first homeless guy they can find.
>>
>> Hey did you know that according to MSNBC the Mallard is a
>> "hydroplane". All
>> the years I dealt with them I thought they were seaplanes.
>
>
> Then again, maybe someone will focus on the inherent danger of flying
> paying passengers in an airplane that can't maintain a takeoff flight
> path with one engine inoperative.

The Mallard may well have some unusual flight characteristics that I'm not aware of
but I believe your statement applies to the vast majority of lignt-medium twin
aircraft. In most of these, VMC is higher than stalling speed in take-off
configuration. Any pilot that allows the aircraft to remain in this dangerous
flight realm is asking for problems.
Of course, it appears that the subject aircraft flew several miles after takeoff and
was then reported to be in flames and a wing came off prior to the actual crash, so
I doubt that your comments (or mine) have any bearing whatsoever on this crash.

[Jim Macklin]

video clearly shows fuselage impacting with the wing some
distance and on fire,
see link http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/2093752.html


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P



"Mike H" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| wrote:
|
| > tscottme wrote:
| >
| >> A Chalks Airways Grumman Mallard (Turbine Mallard)
crashed during takeoff
| >> near Miami, FL today.
| >>
| >> Watching TV coverage of the aftermatch it's certain two
things will
| >> happen
| >> after such an event. The TV networks will report a
fiery explosion
| >> before
| >> the crash and Mary Shiavo will be on-air demonstrating
she's an
| >> ignorant, uh
| >> what's the word, media whore? The TV networks would be
better served
| >> just
| >> directly airing the first homeless guy they can find.
| >>
| >> Hey did you know that according to MSNBC the Mallard is
a
| >> "hydroplane". All
| >> the years I dealt with them I thought they were
seaplanes.
| >
| >
| > Then again, maybe someone will focus on the inherent
danger of flying
| > paying passengers in an airplane that can't maintain a
takeoff flight
| > path with one engine inoperative.
|
| The Mallard may well have some unusual flight
characteristics that I'm not aware of
| but I believe your statement applies to the vast majority
of lignt-medium twin
| aircraft. In most of these, VMC is higher than stalling
speed in take-off
| configuration. Any pilot that allows the aircraft to
remain in this dangerous
| flight realm is asking for problems.
| Of course, it appears that the subject aircraft flew
several miles after takeoff and
| was then reported to be in flames and a wing came off
prior to the actual crash, so
| I doubt that your comments (or mine) have any bearing
whatsoever on this crash.
|

[tscottme]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> tscottme wrote:
> > A Chalks Airways Grumman Mallard (Turbine Mallard) crashed during
takeoff
> > near Miami, FL today.
>
>
> I thought they flew SA-16s (Grumman Albatrosses).
>

No, Mallards, smaller than the Albatross. I believe they have/had one or
more Albatross, and I may have fueled it once prior to a passenger pickup at
FLL. However that was more than 10 years ago and I may be confusing Chalks'
Albatross for one belonging to a private owner.

Each and every Chalks employee I ever dealt with were just as nice as you
would hope. Heck, even most of the passenegers were above average in the
nice department.

--
Scott

[tscottme]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> >Hey did you know that according to MSNBC the Mallard is a "hydroplane".
All
> >the years I dealt with them I thought they were seaplanes.
>
> They've been called that since the days of Glenn Curtiss.
>
> So you see, you don't know everything, either. Perhaps you shouldn't
> be judging Mary S. ((:-))
>
> vince norris

Did I "credit" Shiavo with the hydroplane comment? None of us that worked
on or around them, including the Chalks employees I knew ever once called
any of the aircraft a hydroplane. Maybe the accident aircraft hit an air
pocket?

Mary made a couple of humdingers during her commentary on TV today, as she
usually does. Did you know the aircraft, contrary to FAA records and the
data plates I saw with my own eyes, couldn't have been of mid 1940's origin.
Mary informs us that seawater is far too corrosive to see such an aged
aircraft survive to the present. Mary wrote a book so she knows better than
the aircraft owners and maintenance personnel what she is talking about,
just ask her.

--
Scott

[Stubby]

tscottme wrote:
> "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Hey did you know that according to MSNBC the Mallard is a "hydroplane".
>
> All
>
>>>the years I dealt with them I thought they were seaplanes.
>>
>>They've been called that since the days of Glenn Curtiss.
>>
>>So you see, you don't know everything, either. Perhaps you shouldn't
>>be judging Mary S. ((:-))
>>
>>vince norris
>
>
> Did I "credit" Shiavo with the hydroplane comment? None of us that worked
> on or around them, including the Chalks employees I knew ever once called
> any of the aircraft a hydroplane. Maybe the accident aircraft hit an air
> pocket?
>
> Mary made a couple of humdingers during her commentary on TV today, as she
> usually does. Did you know the aircraft, contrary to FAA records and the
> data plates I saw with my own eyes, couldn't have been of mid 1940's origin.
> Mary informs us that seawater is far too corrosive to see such an aged
> aircraft survive to the present. Mary wrote a book so she knows better than
> the aircraft owners and maintenance personnel what she is talking about,
> just ask her.
>
My ASES instructor said to don't even think about sal****er near his
plane. He said no matter how thoroughly you wash it off, it will still
corrode.

[Jim Macklin]

Those seaplanes were built to operate on the ocean. They
also have probably been rebuilt several times with
replacement of the skin and other structure. Much more
likely is that a new fuel line to the new turboprop engine
failed, for what ever reason and that caused a chain of
events which led to the wing spar being softened by the
fire, which caused it to fail.

You'll find a lot of corrosion on land planes parked around
any big city due to air pollution, acid rain and car and
factory exhausts fumes get everywhere.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Stubby" > wrote in
message ...
| tscottme wrote:
| > "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >
| >>>Hey did you know that according to MSNBC the Mallard is
a "hydroplane".
| >
| > All
| >
| >>>the years I dealt with them I thought they were
seaplanes.
| >>
| >>They've been called that since the days of Glenn
Curtiss.
| >>
| >>So you see, you don't know everything, either. Perhaps
you shouldn't
| >>be judging Mary S. ((:-))
| >>
| >>vince norris
| >
| >
| > Did I "credit" Shiavo with the hydroplane comment? None
of us that worked
| > on or around them, including the Chalks employees I knew
ever once called
| > any of the aircraft a hydroplane. Maybe the accident
aircraft hit an air
| > pocket?
| >
| > Mary made a couple of humdingers during her commentary
on TV today, as she
| > usually does. Did you know the aircraft, contrary to
FAA records and the
| > data plates I saw with my own eyes, couldn't have been
of mid 1940's origin.
| > Mary informs us that seawater is far too corrosive to
see such an aged
| > aircraft survive to the present. Mary wrote a book so
she knows better than
| > the aircraft owners and maintenance personnel what she
is talking about,
| > just ask her.
| >
| My ASES instructor said to don't even think about
sal****er near his
| plane. He said no matter how thoroughly you wash it off,
it will still
| corrode.

[[email protected]]

Hilton wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>
>>Then again, maybe someone will focus on the inherent danger of flying
>>paying passengers in an airplane that can't maintain a takeoff flight path
>>with one engine inoperative.
>
>
> Not a problem when you're taking off on an infinitely long runway as they
> were.
>
What's an infinitely long runway?

I don't know what happened here, but there have been plenty of takeoff,
engine failure crashes that occurred beyong the airport boundaries, even
with a 12,000' long runway.

KMIA has had more than its share of takeoff accidents because of all the
junk birds that operate to and from there to places south.

> Gees, I hate it when infants, kids, babies die. Sad...

Yep! Or, for that matter, any innocent passenger who doesn't know what
they are climbing into.

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Reports and photographs indicate that there was a fire and
> fuel explosion and one wing was blown off the airplane.
> Kind of hard to fly anywhere with only half an airplane.
>
> My guess at this point, a fuel line leak in the nacelle and
> the fuel mixture in the wing root exploded.
>
> Normal procedure for any seaplane is to land (is that
> water?) but the Grumman Albatross (the Mallard is smaller)
> with the turboprop engines flies just fine on one engine.
>
>
Engine failure was pure speculation on my part. An in-flight explosion
brings to mind all kinds of ugly possibililites.

[[email protected]]

Mike H wrote:

so I doubt that your comments (or mine) have any
> bearing whatsoever on this crash.
>
So it would seem.

[John R. Copeland]

> wrote in message news:ceVpf.1987$LB5.1444@fed1read04...
>
> What's an infinitely long runway?
>
That reminds me of the pithy old saying, to the effect that if someone
could build a runway extending all the way around the world,
then Grumman could build an airplane that would need all of it.

[Jim Macklin]

That was in reference to Republic



"John R. Copeland" > wrote in
message .. .
> wrote in message
news:ceVpf.1987$LB5.1444@fed1read04...
>
> What's an infinitely long runway?
>
That reminds me of the pithy old saying, to the effect that
if someone
could build a runway extending all the way around the world,
then Grumman could build an airplane that would need all of
it.

[Stubby]

John R. Copeland wrote:
> > wrote in message news:ceVpf.1987$LB5.1444@fed1read04...
>
>>What's an infinitely long runway?
>>
>
> That reminds me of the pithy old saying, to the effect that if someone
> could build a runway extending all the way around the world,
> then Grumman could build an airplane that would need all of it.
>
That would be handy for practicing takeoffs and landings without wasting
fuel to go around the patch.

[Hilton]

Tim wrote:
> Hilton wrote:
>> Tim wrote:
>>
>>>Then again, maybe someone will focus on the inherent danger of flying
>>>paying passengers in an airplane that can't maintain a takeoff flight
>>>path with one engine inoperative.
>>
>>
>> Not a problem when you're taking off on an infinitely long runway as they
>> were.
>>
> What's an infinitely long runway?

They took off on water with water in front of them for many many miles.

Hilton

[vincent p. norris]

> None of us that worked
>on or around them, including the Chalks employees I knew ever once called
>any of the aircraft a hydroplane.

The word is in my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
edition, copyright date 2002. It is also found frequently in the
historical literature.

vince norris

[John R. Copeland]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message ...
>> None of us that worked
>>on or around them, including the Chalks employees I knew ever once called
>>any of the aircraft a hydroplane.
>
> The word is in my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
> edition, copyright date 2002. It is also found frequently in the
> historical literature.
>
> vince norris

So then, what should we call a racing power boat with a step in its hull,
designed for high-speed skimming across the water surface?

[Jose]

> So then, what should we call a racing power boat with a step in its hull,
> designed for high-speed skimming across the water surface?

Use the same word. Words have multple meanings. That's the way
language is.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[tscottme]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> > None of us that worked
> >on or around them, including the Chalks employees I knew ever once called
> >any of the aircraft a hydroplane.
>
> The word is in my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
> edition, copyright date 2002. It is also found frequently in the
> historical literature.
>
> vince norris

That's the point I was making. The people that put the news on TV have as
much knowldege and depth on the subjects they cover as someone reading a
dictionary. They spend more time and energy combing their hair then they do
in understanding or selecting what they should breathlessly report to an
even less informed public.



--
Scott

[tscottme]

> wrote in message news:ffVpf.1989$LB5.1838@fed1read04...
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>

> Engine failure was pure speculation on my part. An in-flight explosion
> brings to mind all kinds of ugly possibililites.

While it appears there may be fire/explosion prior to impact this time. The
truth is that in almost every instance of a witnessed aircraft crash there
will be eyewitnesses reporting a pre-impact fire or explosion, even when
that didn't happen.

For example an Avianca 707 crashed in NY due to fuel exhaustion. There was
no evidence of even a post crash fire. The earliest eyemitness accounts
reported the aircraft variously as on fire or exploding and then falling.
As often as not witness reports of fire are an artifact of emotion of
witnessing a traumatic event.

People could witness a glider crash into a lake and someone would report it
exploded and burned before impact.

--
Scott

[Jim Macklin]

Sight is based on expectation as is hearing. That is why
witnesses are just a place to start and investigation. At
least this time they have video, photographs and all the
wreckage.

Read this list
YIELD NO LEFT TURN ON RED SOTP NO PARKING



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin
"tscottme" <blahblah@blah,net> wrote in message
. ..
|
| > wrote in message
news:ffVpf.1989$LB5.1838@fed1read04...
| > Jim Macklin wrote:
| >
|
| > Engine failure was pure speculation on my part. An
in-flight explosion
| > brings to mind all kinds of ugly possibililites.
|
| While it appears there may be fire/explosion prior to
impact this time. The
| truth is that in almost every instance of a witnessed
aircraft crash there
| will be eyewitnesses reporting a pre-impact fire or
explosion, even when
| that didn't happen.
|
| For example an Avianca 707 crashed in NY due to fuel
exhaustion. There was
| no evidence of even a post crash fire. The earliest
eyemitness accounts
| reported the aircraft variously as on fire or exploding
and then falling.
| As often as not witness reports of fire are an artifact of
emotion of
| witnessing a traumatic event.
|
| People could witness a glider crash into a lake and
someone would report it
| exploded and burned before impact.
|
| --
| Scott
|
|

[vincent p. norris]

>The people that put the news on TV have as much knowldege and depth on the subjects they cover.....

Well, they have to discuss a large variety of subects, day after day.
How many subjects can you claim to have expert knowledge of?

You didn't even know that "hydroplane" means, among other things, an
aircraft designed to land on and take off from water.

>They spend more time and energy combing their hair then they do
>in understanding or selecting what they should breathlessly report to an
>even less informed public.

You just make yourself look foolish when you make statements like
that. You don't have the slightest idea how much time they spend
combing their hair or, for that matter, selecting the news to be
covered.

I'm outa here. Merry Christmas.

vince norris

[Marty Shapiro]

"tscottme" <blahblah@blah,net> wrote in
:

>
> "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > None of us that worked
>> >on or around them, including the Chalks employees I knew ever once
>> >called any of the aircraft a hydroplane.
>>
>> The word is in my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
>> edition, copyright date 2002. It is also found frequently in the
>> historical literature.
>>
>> vince norris
>
> That's the point I was making. The people that put the news on TV
> have as much knowldege and depth on the subjects they cover as someone
> reading a dictionary. They spend more time and energy combing their
> hair then they do in understanding or selecting what they should
> breathlessly report to an even less informed public.
>
>
>

That's not always true. There are some news anchors who possess
considerable knowledge of aviation and still present an erroneous news
item.

Many years ago, one of the local news anchor presented an item about a
local GA plane crash. The anchor was a local pilot and had even appeared
on one of the local stations hosting a sightseeing flight around the area
in his twin. His ex-wife hosted a student pilot series on one of the local
community college channels. He was very knowledgable about GA.

The news story had many major errors in it. The airplane in the
picture had one engine, low wing. The item said it was a twin engine and
then gave the name of a single engine high wing aircraft. There were more
errors. Every pilot who saw it couldn't believe that this anchor had read
such an incorrect story.

A short time later, there was an FAA sponsored all-day super safety
seminar. This news anchor was one of the speakers. Of course, the first
question asked of him was about this erroneous news story.

Care to guess what his response was?

Basically, he said that most of the time he doesn't see the news item
until it is handed to him minutes before he reads it. He often didn't even
know the graphic that would be presented in advance. Then came the real
shocker. He said that he was paid to present the news as given to him, not
to write the news article. If he didn't, he could lose his job. He new
the facts were wrong as he read it, but his job depended on him reading it
as written and not commenting on its accuracy. Had there been sufficent
time, he would have pointed the error out to the news editor, but would
have read whatever they gave him, even if the error had not been corrected.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[tscottme]

I certainly knew hydroplane was an archaic term once used to described
aircraft of a certain type. Google the term and you'll see that this is
confirmed. You have to go a few pages deep to see the first use of the term
describing anything other than a certain type of power boat. The term
wasn't used by the people that operate the airplanes or in the company
involved.

A good analogy would be a reporter discussing the transit strike in NYC with
refernces to "omnibus" and people resorting to use of "quadracycles." You
see the same TV reporters trying to impress other reporters when they
constantly refer to the prepared area where aircraft park or taxi as the
"tarmac." They hear a term from someone with an English accent and they
adopt the word because it impressed them. Nevermind that the term used by
people in the industry, at least before a few blow-dry idiots on TV used the
word every 8 seconds, is "ramp."



--
Scott

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> >The people that put the news on TV have as much knowldege and depth on
the subjects they cover.....
>
> Well, they have to discuss a large variety of subects, day after day.
> How many subjects can you claim to have expert knowledge of?
>
> You didn't even know that "hydroplane" means, among other things, an
> aircraft designed to land on and take off from water.
>
> >They spend more time and energy combing their hair then they do
> >in understanding or selecting what they should breathlessly report to an
> >even less informed public.
>
> You just make yourself look foolish when you make statements like
> that. You don't have the slightest idea how much time they spend
> combing their hair or, for that matter, selecting the news to be
> covered.
>
> I'm outa here. Merry Christmas.
>
> vince norris
>

[tscottme]

I submit it far more likely you will hear faulty info from a TV reporter
than see a TV reporter with faulty hair or makeup.

--
Scott

[Everett M. Greene]

Marty Shapiro > writes:
> "tscottme" <blahblah@blah,net> wrote in

> > That's the point I was making. The people that put the news on TV
> > have as much knowldege and depth on the subjects they cover as someone
> > reading a dictionary. They spend more time and energy combing their
> > hair then they do in understanding or selecting what they should
> > breathlessly report to an even less informed public.
>
> That's not always true. There are some news anchors who possess
> considerable knowledge of aviation and still present an erroneous news
> item.
>
> Many years ago, one of the local news anchor presented an item about a
> local GA plane crash. The anchor was a local pilot and had even appeared
> on one of the local stations hosting a sightseeing flight around the area
> in his twin. His ex-wife hosted a student pilot series on one of the local
> community college channels. He was very knowledgable about GA.
>
> The news story had many major errors in it. The airplane in the
> picture had one engine, low wing. The item said it was a twin engine and
> then gave the name of a single engine high wing aircraft. There were more
> errors. Every pilot who saw it couldn't believe that this anchor had read
> such an incorrect story.
>
> A short time later, there was an FAA sponsored all-day super safety
> seminar. This news anchor was one of the speakers. Of course, the first
> question asked of him was about this erroneous news story.
>
> Care to guess what his response was?
>
> Basically, he said that most of the time he doesn't see the news item
> until it is handed to him minutes before he reads it. He often didn't even
> know the graphic that would be presented in advance. Then came the real
> shocker. He said that he was paid to present the news as given to him, not
> to write the news article. If he didn't, he could lose his job. He new
> the facts were wrong as he read it, but his job depended on him reading it
> as written and not commenting on its accuracy. Had there been sufficent
> time, he would have pointed the error out to the news editor, but would
> have read whatever they gave him, even if the error had not been corrected.

The news "anchor" was exhibiting the intelligence level
of a boat anchor with his rationalization. It sounds
as if the TV station where he's employed has no intention
of providing a news service as opposed to filling air time
with random words. And the "anchor" is nothing more than
a robot for parroting whatever words he's handed. This in
no way be construed as being a "news service" providing
anything of value to the public. Is this the ultimate
example of "news" as something to interpose between
commercials?

[Marty Shapiro]

(Everett M. Greene) wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro > writes:
>> "tscottme" <blahblah@blah,net> wrote in
>
>> > That's the point I was making. The people that put the news on TV
>> > have as much knowldege and depth on the subjects they cover as
>> > someone reading a dictionary. They spend more time and energy
>> > combing their hair then they do in understanding or selecting what
>> > they should breathlessly report to an even less informed public.
>>
>> That's not always true. There are some news anchors who
>> possess
>> considerable knowledge of aviation and still present an erroneous
>> news item.
>>
>> Many years ago, one of the local news anchor presented an
>> item about a
>> local GA plane crash. The anchor was a local pilot and had even
>> appeared on one of the local stations hosting a sightseeing flight
>> around the area in his twin. His ex-wife hosted a student pilot
>> series on one of the local community college channels. He was very
>> knowledgable about GA.
>>
>> The news story had many major errors in it. The airplane in
>> the
>> picture had one engine, low wing. The item said it was a twin engine
>> and then gave the name of a single engine high wing aircraft. There
>> were more errors. Every pilot who saw it couldn't believe that this
>> anchor had read such an incorrect story.
>>
>> A short time later, there was an FAA sponsored all-day super
>> safety
>> seminar. This news anchor was one of the speakers. Of course, the
>> first question asked of him was about this erroneous news story.
>>
>> Care to guess what his response was?
>>
>> Basically, he said that most of the time he doesn't see the
>> news item
>> until it is handed to him minutes before he reads it. He often
>> didn't even know the graphic that would be presented in advance.
>> Then came the real shocker. He said that he was paid to present the
>> news as given to him, not to write the news article. If he didn't,
>> he could lose his job. He new the facts were wrong as he read it,
>> but his job depended on him reading it as written and not commenting
>> on its accuracy. Had there been sufficent time, he would have
>> pointed the error out to the news editor, but would have read
>> whatever they gave him, even if the error had not been corrected.
>
> The news "anchor" was exhibiting the intelligence level
> of a boat anchor with his rationalization. It sounds
> as if the TV station where he's employed has no intention
> of providing a news service as opposed to filling air time
> with random words. And the "anchor" is nothing more than
> a robot for parroting whatever words he's handed. This in
> no way be construed as being a "news service" providing
> anything of value to the public. Is this the ultimate
> example of "news" as something to interpose between
> commercials?
>

I think that today's news anchors are hired for their pretty faces and
genial personalities. They also must have the ability to read aloud the
copy in front of them without appearing to be reading. There is no
prerequisite that they be a reporter. The old anchors (Cronkite, Huntly,
Brinkly, Brokaw, Jennings, Koppel, etc.) were reporters who became news
anchors. Maybe the networks still have this prerequisite for their
anchors, but local stations don't.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Scott Moore]

So back on subject, the paper today says they found "long standing" cracks
in the wing that fell off.