i didn't know an ILS brought you right to the control tower

Jim Burns wrote:

I guess my poorly made point would be that they have convinced themselves
that they can substitute accuracy with arrogance, sensationalism, eliteism,
technology, or simply with numbers. What matters most to them is the
furthest thing from what matters most to the viewer, the reader, or the
listener.

The TV air personalities have become entertainers; they long ago ceased to be
reporters. The attitudes you are seeing reflect this fact. The NY Times recently
ran an article which discussed this and problems with other media -- the article
was aptly titled "Bad News." There is some consolation in the fact that the
citizenry is turning more and more to other sources of information. Readership
and viewing audience figures are steadily declining.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Ah Jay, you're right, I wasn't being fair... it was all meant tongue in
cheek. I've actually been impressed with some of the TV networks that hunt
down their own reporters who are pilots to get their informed opinion.
Usually these pilots give a fairly intelligent accounting and are usually
quick to point out when they are speculating. 9 times out of 10 I'll try to
look up their certificates on the FAA database.

What I can't stand is when reporters use technical terms of a subject that
they have no knowledge and then churn them out pretending as if they know
what the H they are talking about WITHOUT so much as a casual attempt of
verifying the correct usage of such terms through another source than that
which had given them the term to begin with.

This "non-verification" is the crime because it fools the uninformed or
unfamiliar public into thinking "Well, she used those big terms...
glideslope and such.... and those initials, ILS... that must be pretty
important... it sure sounds like she knows what she's talking about." I
just think that, especially in type media where time may not be such a
factor, a reporter has the responsibility to insure that the terminology is
correct so that their readers or viewers are informed and educated rather
than simply entertained. Think about everything this person could have
learned by looking up an ILS in the AIM before she wrote her story. It
would have taken all of 5 minutes. She could have even mentioned something
about what a pilot is supposed to do if one part of the ILS System is not
functional or becomes erratic, rather than leaving the reader or viewer to
believe that doom is eminent in such situations.

You're right that a reporter doesn't and shouldn't be required to have more
than the basic knowledge of aviation, or of any other subject for that
matter. I don't expect them to be experts. I just wish they didn't act
like they were.

Jim


"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:9KPMe.60890$E95.11876@fed1read01...
"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...
Makes 'ya think that they forgot to stay at a Holiday Inn Express last
night, doesn't it? Ah, but they rode on an airplane once. And they saw
a
control tower. Everybody knows that the guys in the tower help those
poor
pilots find the airport and the runway when the weather is bad, after
all,
we all heard it on the news or read it in the paper.

I feel sorry for reporters. So many complicated subjects and simply not
enough time to get it right, besides everybody knows that reporters are
smarter than John Q Public, right? And, if you're not smart enough to
be
a
reporter, you can always be an editor. Just make sure there is enough
techno-babble intermixed in the story to make the reporter sound as
smart
as
the editor.

So.... when an airplane stalls, we all know it's engine quits (we've all
read it, right?).... does an airplane on a GLIDE slope have to become a
glider? or shut it's engines down? does an airplane stall when it hit's
the
glideslope? Tell me Miss/Mr Wise Reporter... curious minds want to
know.
Jim



I don't belive this is entirely fair,

We take the time to get proper training to fly and (smart pilots) continue
their education at every turn via magazines, books, software, the web,
additonal ratings, refresher courses, BFRs...etc. Basic flying may not be
brain surgery, but it takes a little bit of "something" to do it at all
and
maybe even more of that "something" to do it well.

Beginning to Intermediate electronic journalists (in the USA) have only
three tests to pass:

- Can you communicate in English?
- Can you do so in as concise a manner as possible?
- Can you look good doing it?

But unless you have a reporter who is an instrument-rated pilot, the
expectation that anyone in the newsroom of a local TV station will have
anything more than very bare boned knowledge about modern avionics is
(IMO)
an unrealistic expectation.

Local TV stations just can't afford to keep a "Science Editor" or
"Aviation
Reporter" on staff.

It's quite possible that the reporter simply regurgitated the basics of
flying an ILS exactly as they were explained to her. Garbage In - Garbage
Out. Or put another way: Dumbed Down In - Dumbed Down Even More Out.

Hell, even Miles O'Brien proved that sometimes the frenzy to get it on the
air first can lead even the most aviation-savvy network-level reporter to
make the occassional wild-ass guess as he did with the cause of that Air
France wreck in Toronto and the fate of those aboard.

Take it with a grain of salt. And if it really offends your sensabilities
that much, then craft a letter to the editor and educate them. I bet
they'd
appreciate it. Who knows, you might get a call to go on the air as a
local
aviation expert. Just try not to freeze up when the red light comes
on...!

Jay Beckman - PP/ASEL
Arizona Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

What's the excuse when a pilot (me) works for a newspaper, the reporter
knows it, and they *still* get a flying-related story wrong? I pointed out
multiple errors in a story before it went to press. Did it make a
difference? Nope.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Because they insist on trying to convince us that they know all. We are the
Munchkins in the Land of Oz, and they are the Wizard. Hey, what's behind
that curtain? Nothing but hot air and over inflated egos. Now bring me
those slippers! Wait... you're the Wizard. Now bring me the broomstick of
the Wicked Witch!

The worst part is that people think because you're a pilot and work for the
newspaper, therefore it HAS to be correct, even though you didn't write it.
Or how crazy or foolish you end up looking because now you have to run
around to your pilot friends and others that ask about it correcting the
errors. Bummer.

What I really want to know is how satellites may interfere with an ILS (as
from the video). I've never heard of that before.

Jim

Wayyy OT and ranting:
Ever watch Who's Line Is It Anyway, where one guy plays an "on the scene"
news reporter standing in front of a green screen without knowing what's on
it? Then the anchors ask him all kinds of questions and he's forced to talk
in generalities while making "nothing" sound exciting and himself sound
intelligent? They just keep interviewing each other trying to make one
another into experts on what ever is on the screen, all the time saying
nothing... nothing at all.

It seems that the media has become more wrapped up in themselves, for what
ever reasons, fame, fortune, profits, whatever, that they've totally lost
site of the audience. They talk down to us like we are incapable of
understanding or thinking for ourselves. They talk over us useing terms
that they themselves do not understand but use only to try to impress us.
They put themselves on pedistals and then chastize us for not worshipping
them. Watch how they act during elections. Watch how they act during
crisis. Watch how they act during trajedy. "They" want to be the story.
"They" BELIEVE they are the story. The rest of the world simply revolves
around them. Do they have power? No doubt. Are most of us lemmings
though?

I about threw up the other day when MSNBC asked whether Peter Jennings death
would finally convince me to quit smoking. (I don't smoke, never have) And
the took a poll on it. I felt like asking "when did he quit beating his
wife". But for them to think that I should think so much of Peter Jennings
predicament and that his death should make a life changing event occur in my
life? Sheesh! Do they think that they are the only influencing factors in
our lives?? This commercial news media who put so little credance in
accuracy or fairness but so much into the arrogance and self importance and
their expertise that they now interview each other more often than
interviewing credible authorities??

I guess my poorly made point would be that they have convinced themselves
that they can substitute accuracy with arrogance, sensationalism, eliteism,
technology, or simply with numbers. What matters most to them is the
furthest thing from what matters most to the viewer, the reader, or the
listener. I had a FSDO Inspector tell me once that it didn't matter how you
told a student something, it mattered a little more what you told a student,
but what mattered the most was that what you told the student was correct
and that the student understood what you told him. Because, if you get the
last parts right, the first two parts won't be wrong.

"Wizard of Draws" wrote in message
news:BF295B7E.29C37%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
On 8/17/05 7:28 PM, in article 9KPMe.60890$E95.11876@fed1read01, "Jay
Beckman" wrote:

It's quite possible that the reporter simply regurgitated the basics of
flying an ILS exactly as they were explained to her. Garbage In -
Garbage
Out. Or put another way: Dumbed Down In - Dumbed Down Even More Out.

Hell, even Miles O'Brien proved that sometimes the frenzy to get it on
the
air first can lead even the most aviation-savvy network-level reporter to
make the occassional wild-ass guess as he did with the cause of that Air
France wreck in Toronto and the fate of those aboard.

Take it with a grain of salt. And if it really offends your
sensabilities
that much, then craft a letter to the editor and educate them. I bet
they'd
appreciate it. Who knows, you might get a call to go on the air as a
local
aviation expert. Just try not to freeze up when the red light comes
on...!

What's the excuse when a pilot (me) works for a newspaper, the reporter
knows it, and they *still* get a flying-related story wrong? I pointed out
multiple errors in a story before it went to press. Did it make a
difference? Nope.

And to whom did you point out the errors?

If it was to the reporter, then you probably lost out to their ego (Hey, I
checked my facts and my sources tell me it was this way...)
If it was to an editor, I'd guess you lost out to either indifference or a
deadline.

Either way, I'd say that publication was not exactly a paragon of
journalistic integrity. Especially if there was an "excuse" for it and not
a reason.

Maybe you should have sent a memo to the Publisher? Squeeky wheel and all
that...

Jay B

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:9KPMe.60890$E95.11876@fed1read01...


I don't belive this is entirely fair,

We take the time to get proper training to fly and (smart pilots)
continue their education at every turn via magazines, books, software,
the web, additonal ratings, refresher courses, BFRs...etc. Basic flying
may not be brain surgery, but it takes a little bit of "something" to do
it at all and maybe even more of that "something" to do it well.

Beginning to Intermediate electronic journalists (in the USA) have only
three tests to pass:

- Can you communicate in English?
- Can you do so in as concise a manner as possible?
- Can you look good doing it?


No, there is a fourth:

- Can you, within the first 30 seconds, find something within any story
that can be construed as negligence, and immediately begin speculation as
to who is "at fault"? (preferably a public/government figure, but any
recognizable entity will do.)

We can then spend the rest of the allotted time creating (unwarranted)
outrage. This will divert the public's attention from the point that we
haven't actually discovered any new facts.

This stems directly from the beliefs of the viewer. One man's villan is
another man's victim.

Look at the Columbine HS shootings: Two diometrically opposed approaches to
this story were used by all the networks:
1) These youths were evil incarnate
2) Society is responsable for what they did.
Which is right? Which is wrong? Why?


But unless you have a reporter who is an instrument-rated pilot, the
expectation that anyone in the newsroom of a local TV station will have
anything more than very bare boned knowledge about modern avionics is
(IMO) an unrealistic expectation.

Local TV stations just can't afford to keep a "Science Editor" or
"Aviation Reporter" on staff.


"Can't" or *Won't*?. Is TV media about accurate reportage to the masses,
or about large dividends to the share-holders?

Can't. Yes, it's economics driven, but more related to day to day
operations than the ultimate bottom line. A specialist in a small to medium
market is basically dead weight until something happens to which they can
add their expertise. I guarentee you that if WCRP-TV has a Science Editor,
he's out reporting on mutant pumpkins or sculptures made from cheese more
often than he is reporting on aviation issues. Also, bear in mind that a
lot of the so called "Science Reports" that smaller market TV stations run
are bought from syndicators who produce pieces and sell them to TV stations.
Dr. Dean Udell does not work for WCRP-TV in Fargo, ND, he's sitting in a
studio in Los Angeles cutting a dozen "Your Health" reports a week.

(And just to be clear, I'm not talking about the national networks and cable
news organizations. They can (and do) have specialists. I'm talking about
markets like Denver, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc. Market sizes
from #20-25 on down.)

It's quite possible that the reporter simply regurgitated the basics of
flying an ILS exactly as they were explained to her. Garbage In -
Garbage Out. Or put another way: Dumbed Down In - Dumbed Down Even More
Out.

TV media especially, perhaps once was "news", but is now simply
entertainment. For the most part, it is masking axe-to-grind political
commentators, as if they were actually news reporters... They alternate
that with masking fluff-heads to referee other political commentators.

One only sees an axe being ground if one disagrees with the holder of the
axe.

I'll betcha a dollar that if you sat the average person down and had them
watch one hour of "American News" and then one hour of the BBC World
Service, they'd be asleep ten minutes into the BBC broadcast. IMO, this
speaks more to the depth (or lack thereof..) of the viewers than it does of
the messenger.

The only place on TV to get "news", is from the text trailers. There,
they only have enough room to put in the facts: as in: "An Air France
passenger jet ran off the runway in Toronto"... That little, stands a
reasonable chance of being at least partially accurate.

Only until sufficient facts are available. I'm pretty certain that CNNs
ticker said "Air France 737 Crashes in Toronto" until more info was
available.



Hell, even Miles O'Brien proved that sometimes the frenzy to get it on
the air first can lead even the most aviation-savvy network-level
reporter to make the occassional wild-ass guess as he did with the cause
of that Air France wreck in Toronto and the fate of those aboard.

Does TV news-programming still have the right to be called "press" in the
sense of the US First Amendment or the Canadian Bill-of-Rights? Or is it
just a game of "frenzy to get it on the air first"?

I think it depends on the perceived magnitude of the story, the degree to
which it appeals to a broad audience, and the impact it might have on
multiple locations or peoples. A mishap involving the flagged carrier of a
European nation at a major North American airport qualifies in my book.

Ha-ha, I win? But the masses lose...

In this age of cable, Sirius/XM Radio, internet, blogs, podcasts and the
like, the masses have no one to blame but themselves if they feel they're
losing...but I'd agree that people have generally lost the abililty to
perform any critical thinking on their own. Why cut your meat when you can
put it in a blender and drink it with a straw? Perhaps this is the route
cause of the decline in American journalism...the pressures of competition.

When I used to work at WDTN in Dayton, OH, we had two catch phrases that
pretty much summed up the state of things:

1) When News Breaks...We Fix It.
2) If It Happened In Dayton, It's News To Us.

Jay B

"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...
Ah Jay, you're right, I wasn't being fair... it was all meant tongue in
cheek. I've actually been impressed with some of the TV networks that
hunt down their own reporters who are pilots to get their informed
opinion. Usually these pilots give a fairly intelligent accounting and are
usually quick to point out when they are speculating. 9 times out of 10
I'll try to look up their certificates on the FAA database.

Some markets are blessed with real pilot-reporters who can actually speak
with knowledge. We had a guy in Detroit for many years by the name of Mort
Crimm. He was a pilot and often did pieces about traveling in Michigan and
he would occassionally do a "Stand Up" from the left seat of a light plane.
It was very cool and probably did wonders for aviation in Michigan (if only
subliminally).

What I can't stand is when reporters use technical terms of a subject that
they have no knowledge and then churn them out pretending as if they know
what the H they are talking about WITHOUT so much as a casual attempt of
verifying the correct usage of such terms through another source than that
which had given them the term to begin with.

I just think you focus this complaint in terms of the scope of abilities per
given market size. It will happen much more often at smaller stations in
smaller markets because they just don't have the staffing ability that large
market stations and the networks posses. While "Judy Blondblue" of WCRP-TV
News is reporting on the winning pumpkin at the county fair today, she could
just as easily have to go report on ol' Doc Johnson stuffing his V-tail
Bonanza into a corn field tomorrow. If WCRP-TV is in Los Angeles, Miami or
Boston and they get it wrong, then I agree...let the brick bats fly. But,
if WCRP-TV is in Billings, North Platte or Ishpeming, then you really have
to temper the criticism with the understanding that most of the talking
heads you'll see on these stations are very new, very wet behind the ears,
very over worked, very underpaid and are just trying to put together a demo
reel so they can move to Buffalo, Dayton or Lansing. That is the dynamic of
the business.

We scream bloody murder everytime a reporter says "The engine stalled and
the plane crashed" because we know better. How cool would it be to know that
there is a cadre of legume officianados who are ****ed off because Judy
didn't get the genetics of that winning pumpkin right either? Is there even
a rec.mutant.legume newsgroup? Do they know there is a
rec.aviation.piloting? Do they care?

We have the ability to crucify the messenger (regarding aviation subjects)
because the message is near and dear to our hearts and wallets.

Take me for example. You really would not want to watch a sporting even on
TV with me in the room because I'll sit there and pick apart a sports
broadcast to the Nth degree. 95% of the nits will be of a technical nature
that I know you'd never even begin to notice much less care about. Why?
Because I can. It's my world, it's what I know and I have very strong
feelings about what works and what doesn't when covering, say, a football
game. I did NFL broadcasts for 11 years...I can find lots of nits.

I think the same applies to how the media portrays aviation. Most folks
don't give a flying fig. It's hits close to home with us because we're
pilots and accuracy matters because we know what real accuracy should be.
Mr and Mrs Suburbia, sitting on the couch after dinner, don't.

This "non-verification" is the crime because it fools the uninformed or
unfamiliar public into thinking "Well, she used those big terms...
glideslope and such.... and those initials, ILS... that must be pretty
important... it sure sounds like she knows what she's talking about."

Man you are giving the viewing public a lot of credit. Short of actually
coming out and saying "This Cessna and thousands just like it could have
fallen on your house and killed you today so be sure to spend all day
tomorrow walking around looking up..." most people have reached the M-E-G-O
(My Eyes Glaze Over) stage well before the reporter gets to the terms ILS,
Glideslope, etc. And in my opinion, that's the heart of the problem we as
pilots have with the mass media in this country. Brevity Rules so you get
style over substance. On the BBC, you'd probably get a very detailed and
accruate graphic showing the parts of an ILS and why they matter, a history
of aviation navigation (from bonfires to GPS), the way in which modern
avionics work and at least a thumbnail sketch of how WAAS-enabled GPS will
allow precision approaches to virtually all airports. Here, we get
soundbites and technobabble because that's all that fits in a story that
can't be more than 2:30 in length.

But to that end, do you think people would watch (or trust) a USBS (United
States Broadcasting Service) channel? People want to know that their media
is independant of the government. To most folks, "them news people" brought
down Nixon, got us out of Viet Nam and ended the Cold War. People forget
about the Washington Post reporter who fabricated the heroin-addicted little
girl, or the NY Times reporter who filed reports on stories he didn't
actually go cover.

Moreover, broadcasting in the United State is a "For Profit" enterprise.
And as such is subject to the same economic factors as Good Year,
Westinghouse, GM, Ford, Dairy Queen and Wendy's. "Do It Cheaper" is as
appropriate for ABC/NBC/CBS News as it is for Ingersol-Rand. We see it
every year in the Sports TV world too. They cut staff, they cut the number
of days we get and the facilities with which we get to do our jobs...but woe
on us if we don't get it on the air, quickly, cheaply and cleanly. Doesn't
stop them, however, from paying obscene fees for the rights to cover the
NFL, MLB, NASCAR etc. I'd love to see the business model that proves you
can make millions by spending billions. (But I digress...)

I just think that, especially in type media where time may not be such a
factor, a reporter has the responsibility to insure that the terminology is
correct so that their readers or viewers are informed and educated rather
than simply entertained. Think about everything this person could have
learned by looking up an ILS in the AIM before she wrote her story.

Well, the title is "Airman's Information Manual" not "Reporter's Aviation
Information Manual." I mean, do you keep a copy of Gray's Anatomy lying
around in case you pull a muscle or sneeze? Or a copy of Don Graff's Data
Sheets so you know exactly how big a regulation volley ball court is
supposed to be before you put the net up in the backyard? Not trying to be
a smartass here (well maybe a little g) but you are placing way to high a
level of expectation on your average local reporter. Should they have a
relieable contact regarding aviation issues? Should they have a secondary
contact to coroborate what the first contact says? Basic J-School 101 says
yes. But, flying is probably like open-heart surgery to a lot of people.
It can do good things but bad things can and do happen. You only need to
talk to one surgeon to get the risks of surgery so I only need one contact
to explain this flying-related thing. Perhaps we suffer because (and not
despite) our position as pilots? I've yet to see a single post here where
anyone has said "I don't understand XXX well enough to explain it to a
reporter better than how they explained it." Somebody explained it to the
reporter...let's go find who that was and ride him or her out of flying on a
rail.

Hmmm, now that you mention it, maybe AOPA should send free AIM/FARs to news
operations around the country. Easy to distribute on DVD or CD-ROM. Maybe
even include pre-produced copy or video segments explaining some of the
basic concepts like Lift/Weight/Thrust/Drag, Stalls, Glide Ratio,
Propulsion, ILSs, GPS, Missed Approaches, ATC, Airspace Classes, etc. (Note
to self: Contact Phil on Monday...)

It would have taken all of 5 minutes. She could have even mentioned
something about what a pilot is supposed to do if one part of the ILS
System is not functional or becomes erratic, rather than leaving the
reader or viewer to believe that doom is eminent in such situations.

Unfortunately, the universal truth is that Doom sells. The technical term
in the business is: "If it Bleeds, it Leads." (I didn't make it up and it's
been used far longer than I've been in TV.)

You're right that a reporter doesn't and shouldn't be required to have more
than the basic knowledge of aviation, or of any other subject for that
matter. I don't expect them to be experts. I just wish they didn't act
like they were.

Of course you don't, but the other 99% of the population does. They need to
know that the press is today still guarding Truth, Justice and the American
Way as it was with Murrow, Cronkite, Swayze, Broun, Woodward/Bernstein, et
al. They want and HAVE to know that Judy Blondblue is a straight shooter
and if she says ol' Doc Johnson's Bonanza engine stalled and that's why he's
dead, than damn it, it's true. And by extrapolation, all Bonanza's, hell,
all them little airplanes are dangerous and should be banned.

It's that same ability to extrapolate or connect that bothers *me* most
about local news. Local news operations (even the smallest ones) are
afforded immense credibility boosts by those promotional spots showing Brian
Williams or Dan Rather sitting on the corner of the WCRP-TV news desk next
to Judy Blondeblue and John Stonejaw convincing Ma and Pa Kettle that that
Brian or Dan work hand in hand with Judy and John to bring you the world's
events as they unfold. "The power of KCRP Action News and ABC
News...Together, we bring you the world." Barf... If it weren't for the
daily newsfeeds the networks send down the line and the syndicated pieces
that get sold to local stations, 7 out of 10 local news operations would dry
up and blow away.

Even the phrases "Eyewitness News" or "Action News" are copywritten and sold
to stations in package form by companies who profit from making over local
news operations. They go shoot the panoramic photo of downtown (Day, Dusk
and Night) for the backdrop, study the local market demographics, suggest
who stays and who should be fired, pick the color schemes for the sets, the
clothes for the anchor people, the wx man, the sports guy or gal and the
reporters. They design the on air graphics and come up with the ever
popular "Super Duper Doppler Storm Tracker 1900" for Channel 19 or "Storm
Watcher Outer 23000 - South Dakota's only live doppler radar" for good old
Channel 23 (forget the fact that maybe SD has only one WX radar site in the
entire state.)

Bottom line: Is it perfect? No. Is it entertainment? Some of it is, to be
sure. But you can glean nuggets out of the noise from time to time. Not
all reporters are idiots nor are all pilots perfect. I can't help chuckling
when I think that the most trusted man in America for many, many years
wasn't a politician, wasn't a rock star, wasn't an athelete, it was Walter
Cronkite ... a reporter. Go Figure.

Sorry for rambling but I get as riled up about accuracy ON the media as most
get about accuracy IN the media.

Jay Beckman - PP/ASEL
Arizona Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

I think the same applies to how the media portrays aviation. Most folks
don't give a flying fig. It's hits close to home with us because we're
pilots and accuracy matters because we know what real accuracy should be.

It hits home with us because it =does= matter in a very real sense.
Nobody is likely to close down college football because reporters get
some nits wrong. OTOH, aviation is in real danger from the
misinformation that the public receives.

It's one thing to keep getting the genetics wrong about the prizewinning
lily in Oregon. It's quite another to keep getting the genetics wrong
about Frankenfoods (whose primary and very real danger IMHO lies in the
ecology changes they cause, both natural and artificial).

And for the record, the particular inaccuracies in the report cited by
the OP didn't bother me all that much, except that they are systemic,
and when all inaccuracies are added up, we get the DC FRZ.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Adding another story that we're all probably familiar with...Centennial
Airport (APA) has had 4 fatal crashes within the past few months, the
last 2 within the last 3 weeks. All very close to the same location,
just short of landing on 35R, altho one was just after takeoff on
17L. For the latest 2 crashes, the favorite interview has been
the folks who live in the apartments a few miles south. In other
words, they're not happy they live under the approach to 35R.

I only have 2 questions -- why on earth would anyone build that
close to an approach (and built in the last 18months) and why
would anyone willingly live there? Real estate law around here
requires a signed notice of the airport and traffic pattern. But
of course, no on-air person (radio or tv) would ever ask these
questions...doesn't get ratings.

For reference, I live under the approach to 17R & L (altho 6 sm north) and
no airplanes fall out of the sky near me. But I do get really annoyed
with the police helicopter that insists on flying so low as to rattle
the windows. How come the traffic and hospital helicopters don't
have the same problem?

"Blanche" wrote in message
...
Adding another story that we're all probably familiar with...Centennial
Airport (APA) has had 4 fatal crashes within the past few months, the
last 2 within the last 3 weeks. All very close to the same location,
just short of landing on 35R, altho one was just after takeoff on
17L. For the latest 2 crashes, the favorite interview has been
the folks who live in the apartments a few miles south. In other
words, they're not happy they live under the approach to 35R.

I only have 2 questions -- why on earth would anyone build that
close to an approach (and built in the last 18months) and why
would anyone willingly live there? Real estate law around here
requires a signed notice of the airport and traffic pattern. But
of course, no on-air person (radio or tv) would ever ask these
questions...doesn't get ratings.

For reference, I live under the approach to 17R & L (altho 6 sm north) and
no airplanes fall out of the sky near me. But I do get really annoyed
with the police helicopter that insists on flying so low as to rattle
the windows. How come the traffic and hospital helicopters don't
have the same problem?


Because they aren't looking for individuals on the ground.

Mike
MU-2