Glider Crash in CA

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/gene...ear-wrightwood

Glad everyone is okay!

What's miraculous to me is that the newspaper only used the word
"miraculous" three times, while the word "crash" was used eleven times.

A little better information would be much appreciated. I won't count on the
NTSB report and, if it was a commercial ride, I won't expect the pilot to be
talking much, either.


"Tom (2NO)" wrote in message
...
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/gene...ear-wrightwood

Glad everyone is okay!

"The glider, described as a DG Flugzeugbau DG100S, 'reportedly crashed in rugged terrain 5.6 miles north of Wrightwood under unknown circumstances," FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer said. "The aircraft sustained substantial damage.'"

So easy and quick to get correct and complete basic information from the same FAA Databases the reporter seems to have used to identify the registered owner:
N624RM is assigned to DG FLUGZEUGBAU GMBH DG-1000S registered to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOARING ACADEMY INC.

Using " DG-100S" for Make / Model Inquiry generates: "No records found for your request please try again"

As I read the article, the reporter is quoting a Sheriff's department spokesperson on the "Miraculous" thing. One of the occurrences of that word in the article is in the lead, which sums up the entire article in a single 30 or so word sentence. The second is in a direct quote from the spokesperson.

The other two occurrences on the page are in the headline, which the hapless reporter has absolutely no control over, and the other is in a link to the article, citing it by its headline.

As for the description of the incident as a crash, I think that a layman's interpretation of 14CFR§830 would side with the reporter. The people on board sustained injuries and the aircraft is said to have sustained substantial damage, so this isn't the kind of thing where a routine off-field landing is reported as a "crash."

Yes, the reporter might have done a better job identifying the aircraft type. But again, they are probably quoting the Sheriff's department. As for why they didn't confirm with the FAA registry database, yes, that is a bit sloppy. Feel free to contact the reporter and set them straight.

Thanks, Bob K.


, and the



On Monday, March 17, 2014 7:39:34 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
What's miraculous to me is that the newspaper only used the word

"miraculous" three times, while the word "crash" was used eleven times.



A little better information would be much appreciated. I won't count on the

NTSB report and, if it was a commercial ride, I won't expect the pilot to be

talking much, either.





"Tom (2NO)" wrote in message

...

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/gene...ear-wrightwood



Glad everyone is okay!

On Monday, March 17, 2014 1:01:08 PM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

As for the description of the incident as a crash, I think that a layman's interpretation of 14CFR§830 would side with the reporter...

My bad, it is actually 49CFR§830.

Also, I apologize about the tone of my earlier post. I would just like to stress that reporters aren't necessarily out to get us. They are just in a tough business that gives them little control over how their stories appear and precious little time to do research.

If this guy got the time and place right, spelled the names right, and got the aircraft ID in the ballpark, then he is doing better than the NTSB sometimes does for glider accidents and incidents.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Monday, March 17, 2014 5:54:40 PM UTC-5, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
Also, I apologize about the tone of my earlier post. I would just like to stress that reporters aren't necessarily out to get us. They are just in a tough business that gives them little control over how their stories appear and precious little time to do research. If this guy got the time and place right, spelled the names right, and got the aircraft ID in the ballpark, then he is doing better than the NTSB sometimes does for glider accidents and incidents. Thanks, Bob K.

That's OK, Bob. And when you read the article carefully, the most humorous part is the National Transportation Safety Boar. Yes, we have one of those. They bring him to the site of an accident. He roots around, kicks up a lot of dirt, snorts a lot, and in general messes things up. Tends to eat the evidence, too. Or, is that the National Transportation Safety Goat? I get them confused all the time.

Steve

Can't argue with that, Bob. ...And no offense taken. I was only
complaining about the hype and hysteria breathless type of reporting. Think
Joe Friday...


"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
...
On Monday, March 17, 2014 1:01:08 PM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

As for the description of the incident as a crash, I think that a layman's
interpretation of 14CFR§830 would side with the reporter...

My bad, it is actually 49CFR§830.

Also, I apologize about the tone of my earlier post. I would just like to
stress that reporters aren't necessarily out to get us. They are just in a
tough business that gives them little control over how their stories appear
and precious little time to do research.

If this guy got the time and place right, spelled the names right, and got
the aircraft ID in the ballpark, then he is doing better than the NTSB
sometimes does for glider accidents and incidents.

Thanks, Bob K.

Glad all were OK.

On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:23:50 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Can't argue with that, Bob. ...And no offense taken. I was only

complaining about the hype and hysteria breathless type of reporting. Think

Joe Friday...

Right now we're in the middle of an incredible shift in the information economy. These days the "only the facts" kind of journalism that has prevailed in the past has much weaker currency in the marketplace of ideas--people can get all of the facts they need from the Internet. Of course, they can get a lot of drivel and misinformation as well, but that's a topic for a different day.

These days reporters are increasingly placed in the position of needing to include "value added" content like context, analysis, and commentary into their stories in order increase their perceived worth. So I would not look for reporting of fringe activities such as soaring to get any less breathless (more breathful?) in the near future.

But, yeah, I hear you, and I agree and sympathize.

Thanks again, Bob K.

On Monday, March 17, 2014 at 6:56:49 AM UTC-7, Tom (2N0) wrote:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/gene...ear-wrightwood

Glad everyone is okay!

This is a curious accident in regards to the pilot decision making. He was probably no further away than 18 nm from Llano (the distance to Mt. Baldy, the highest peak in the area). This translates into 2,500 ft for a glide back, or about 6,000 MSL. Why didn't he just glide back to Llano? Also, this is a sustainer - why didn't he try to start the engine?
Bizarre.