This week, the mainstream media widely reported on the “crash” of a B-17 outside of Chicago. While I’m sad to lose such a great plane, I’m pissed off that the media calls it a crash. I didn’t like it when Capt. Sullenberger “crashed” into the Hudson, and I don’t like how today’s events are being reported.
If you haven’t seen the pictures, you might want to look at these first: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110613/news/706139915/photos/
Lets review what we know:
- The crew reported a fire after takeoff
- The crew landed in a field
- All the passengers and crew got out with no injuries.
- The fire consumed the airframe on the ground
This was not a crash. It was a successful off-field landing following an inflight fire. It’s just too bad the fire totaled the frame. Sad to lose an old plane like that, but I’m thrilled everyone got out when they landed. The CFI in me wonders why they didn’t land with the rows in the field and why the cowl flaps were open on engine number 2, but I’m not one to question those who faced this event and performed so well. I’m certainly no expert on the ’17 so I KNOW I wouldn’t have done as well as they did. Hats off to the crew! Well done.
Someone I know in the mainstream media contacted me about “the crash” since I don’t live far away and, well, I’ve been known to have opinions. At first I, too, assumed it was a crash landing onto the belly. Then I noticed the defined landing gear tracks leading up to plane. Later I saw pictures of the plane on fire but still in one piece. I pointed out that the crew landed it in one piece and got everyone out so it wasn’t a crash. Their next question was:
“How many plane crashes are survivable?”
He didn’t get it that it wasn’t a crash. It was an in-flight fire. He didn’t get it until I asked him, “How many people survive car fires when they pull over to the side of the road and get out to watch?” I’m not surprised the media called it a crash since it sure looked like one. I’m also not surprised they sensationalized so much of it. Headlines made it sound like a fully loaded bomber crashed in a suburban neighborhood. Others questioned why bombers are allowed to even fly outside the military. One TV reporter asked if they even thought about using the parachutes. Nope, I’m not surprised by any of it. I just wish they would be open to actually reporting the truth when faced with facts.
The mis-information continues with laughable results. So, if someone assumes you are an expert because you are a pilot and asks you about the “crash,” give them reason to applaud the crew for doing what they were trained to do… they landed and got the people out.
-Mike
Photos by:
Falling Heavens - http://www.flickr.com/photos/fallingheavens/854060503/ and
Josh Beasley - http://www.flickr.com/photos/silenus81/3998938952/
I agree 100%. Great post!
Well said mike!
Because “crash” sells and “off-field landing” just confuses the average Joe Six-pack. I totally agree though. Reporting the truth is what differentiates “news” from “tabloids”.
Mike, this is an excellent report!
As experts (pilots) in aviation, we clearly know the difference between a crash, precautionary landing, and an emergency landing. On the contrary, the general public does not. Airplanes “crashing” is all they know. Thank you mainstream television and radio.
Whenever I’m approached with “questions” by those lacking aviation-understanding, I see a great opportunity to promote and advance our beloved industry to those swayed and convinced by the media’s sensationalistic misinformation.
My approach in combating basic ignorance when it comes to stories like the B17 and US Airways 1549 is focusing on the true facts concerning aviation. I’m right there with you, Mike.
It gives me great satisfaction knowing the “light bulb” or “LED” has switched on in folks who otherwise may never have known better.