What an eyewitness to an F-15 crash saw

[Dan Luke]

"Another said, 'It went lower and lower and in a little bit three parachutes
came out and then the plane hit the ground.' "

There was only the pilot aboard.

http://www.wishtv.com:80/Global/story.asp?S=6591286&nav=0Ra7

[Kingfish]

On Jun 1, 7:23 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Another said, 'It went lower and lower and in a little bit three parachutes
> came out and then the plane hit the ground.' "
>
> There was only the pilot aboard.
>

A military spokeman said, "The airplane has pretty much impacted the
ground"

Well, that pretty much sums up most accidents...

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote

> "Another said, 'It went lower and lower and in a little bit three
> parachutes came out and then the plane hit the ground.' "
>
> There was only the pilot aboard.
>
> http://www.wishtv.com:80/Global/story.asp?S=6591286&nav=0Ra7

OMG !!!

In the same link, in the other news listings, it says, "South Bend officer
looses finger during dog training."

If they can't spell "loses," how do you expect them to report an airplane
crash correctly?
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 1, 7:23 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Another said, 'It went lower and lower and in a little bit three
>> parachutes
>> came out and then the plane hit the ground.' "
>>
>> There was only the pilot aboard.
>>
>
> A military spokeman said, "The airplane has pretty much impacted the
> ground"
>
> Well, that pretty much sums up most accidents...
>
"It's not flying that's dangerous, it's the hard impact with the ground
that's dangerous."

[Erik]

Morgans wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote
>
>
>>"Another said, 'It went lower and lower and in a little bit three
>>parachutes came out and then the plane hit the ground.' "
>>
>>There was only the pilot aboard.
>>
>>http://www.wishtv.com:80/Global/story.asp?S=6591286&nav=0Ra7
>
>
> OMG !!!
>
> In the same link, in the other news listings, it says, "South Bend officer
> looses finger during dog training."
>
> If they can't spell "loses," how do you expect them to report an airplane
> crash correctly?

Maybe Lockheed Martin is doing reporting, now, too.

[John[_1_]]

> >> "Another said, 'It went lower and lower and in a little bit three parachutes>


OK, I will assume we are taking about a recent version of the F-15 and
since the story discusses a pilot only with no GIB (Guy-In-Back), that
eliminates the F-15E, and we are left with the F-15C. The F-15C is
equipped with the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) Advanced Concept
Ejection Seat (ACES) II zero-zero seat.

This seat uses an extractor chute to help deploy the drogue which
slows and stabilizes the seat. Then after the pilot separates from
the seat, out comes the main chute to bring the pilot down. [See:
http://www.ejectionsite.com] So the extractor, drogue and main chutes
may account for three chutes seen by the witness.

Two problems with this explanation:

1. We don't know what mode the seat was in. In Mode 1 which cover 0
- 250 kts, the all chutes are deployed but the drogue is not inflated
since the main deploys and inflates within 2 seconds (makes a groin
ache thinking about it).

2. The witness rseems to say that the three chutes were small
(whatever that means). While the main is not a big chute, the three
chutes deployed in succession are distinctly larger than their
predecessor.

So yeah . . . witnesses need to be taken with a grain of salt, but
this person could have seen three chutes.

Take care . . .

John

[Rich Ahrens]

Morgans wrote:
> If they can't spell "loses," how do you expect them to report an airplane
> crash correctly?

What leads you to believe they misreported it? The three parachutes line
is precisely what the witness said. You can see her on the video saying
it. The reporting was accurate. The witness may have been wrong, but
that's an entirely different question.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote
>
> What leads you to believe they misreported it? The three parachutes line
> is precisely what the witness said. You can see her on the video saying
> it. The reporting was accurate. The witness may have been wrong, but
> that's an entirely different question.

THAT aspect may have been right, but what else did they mess up? I can't
have ?ANY faith in anyone who could write copy with such an obvious mistake,
and not even have an editor catch it, either.

Come on, Rich; loose for lose, from a so called journalist? If you made
that mistake, I would think you were stupid. A journalist makes that
mistake, and it gets out to the whole world? I think they are ignorant.
--
Jim in NC

[Dan Luke]

"Morgans" wrote:

> Come on, Rich; loose for lose, from a so called journalist? If you made
> that mistake, I would think you were stupid. A journalist makes that
> mistake, and it gets out to the whole world? I think they are ignorant.

What's being a good speller got to do with being a good reporter? It's the
copy editor's job to catch stuff like that.

--
Dan
? at BFM

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote.
>
> What's being a good speller got to do with being a good reporter? It's
> the copy editor's job to catch stuff like that.

It is all about being a professional, and using the tools of the trade; in
this case, words. A simple word. One that a 5th grader should be able to
recognize as being the wrong choice.

What your argument is like is about like asking, "why should a mechanic need
to know how to use a torque wrench?"

And yes, the copy editor and the webmaster should have caught it, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Rich Ahrens]

Morgans wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote
>> What leads you to believe they misreported it? The three parachutes line
>> is precisely what the witness said. You can see her on the video saying
>> it. The reporting was accurate. The witness may have been wrong, but
>> that's an entirely different question.
>
> THAT aspect may have been right, but what else did they mess up?

You tell me. I watched the video. It appeared to me to be a reasonably
well done piece of reporting, going into more detail in background that
a lot of television reporting does. You apparently presume it guilty
without ever viewing it. *That* would be misreporting in my book.

> I can't have ?ANY faith in anyone who could write copy with such an
> obvious mistake, and not even have an editor catch it, either.

You obviously have no idea how TV news sites like that are put together.
The page in question is essentially a transcript of most of the on-air
report. In part, it may be re-purposed from an on-air script which was
never written to be seen by the public. To call the transcriber a
reporter is inaccurate on your part. At best, he's an editor. Granted, a
faulty one, but that spelling error does not affect the accuracy of the
original reporting. But you didn't criticize the editing in your
original post - you implied that the reporting was inaccurate with no
evidence to back your claim up.

As for the "Looses Finger" story, the only thing written by the station
staff on that would be the headline (which contained the typo). The
story itself came from a wire service. Your painting all reporting by
the station as likely to be inaccurate because of a spelling error in a
headline reveals your own questionable judgment.

> Come on, Rich; loose for lose, from a so called journalist? If you
> made that mistake, I would think you were stupid. A journalist makes
> that mistake, and it gets out to the whole world? I think they are
> ignorant.

I think the web staff for most TV station websites are underpaid,
hurried, and only marginally journalists. By the way, you made a
spelling error in the first sentence of the paragraph above, but I'm not
going to assume you're stupid.

[Rich Ahrens]

Morgans wrote:
> And yes, the copy editor and the webmaster should have caught it, too.

The copy editor is probably the one who made the typo. The webmaster?
Now you're truly revealing your ignorance about such websites. First
off, there probably is no webmaster per se. That was a WorldNow site,
hosted by a company that provides a centralized hosting facility and
content management tools for many, many stations. Second, a webmaster
would not be involved with the content anyway. The editor enters content
in a content management systems which then publishes it on the site
without any technical staff involvement. Most of all, though, have you
ever seen the writing skills of many web techies like webmasters? They'd
be the *last* people I'd count on for good written language skills.
Based on the paper I see, most can't even write or edit their own
resumes correctly.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>> And yes, the copy editor and the webmaster should have caught it, too.
>
> The copy editor is probably the one who made the typo. The webmaster? Now
> you're truly revealing your ignorance about such websites. First off,
> there probably is no webmaster per se.

You know, there was a reason I had plonked you long ago, and it is coming
back to me now.

I really don't give a rat's ass if I know exactly how a web page works. A
mistake was made that does not reflect well on a media outlet's
professionalism.

If you can not admit to the fact that a media web site should not be making
mistakes like that, then you have very low standards, or are just arguing
for argument's sake. In either case, I see no reason to continue this any
further.

Pigs and mud and enjoyment, and all.
--
Jim in NC

[Rich Ahrens]

Morgans wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Morgans wrote:
>>> And yes, the copy editor and the webmaster should have caught it, too.
>> The copy editor is probably the one who made the typo. The webmaster? Now
>> you're truly revealing your ignorance about such websites. First off,
>> there probably is no webmaster per se.
>
> You know, there was a reason I had plonked you long ago, and it is coming
> back to me now.

Yep. It's the fact that you can't make a coherent argument.

> I really don't give a rat's ass if I know exactly how a web page works. A
> mistake was made that does not reflect well on a media outlet's
> professionalism.

And the fact that you cannot distinguish between a typo in a headline
and inaccurate reporting does not reflect well on your judgment.

> If you can not admit to the fact that a media web site should not be making
> mistakes like that, then you have very low standards, or are just arguing
> for argument's sake. In either case, I see no reason to continue this any
> further.

I've agreed several times that there was an error made in editing. You,
on the other hand, cannot admit to being caught drawing false
conclusions from it.

> Pigs and mud and enjoyment, and all.

Subjects you probably know quite well, I imagine.