What they said then:
What they say now:
I'm not sure I care. But there you have it.
Now on ScienceBlogs: Pale Blue Dot
Evolution, Life Sciences, Science Education, Human Evolution, and Stuff
Welcome to Greg Laden's Blog.
« Size and Scaling in Hominid Evolution | Main | Blogospherics: Recommended reads »
Category: Other
Posted on: August 14, 2008 10:51 PM, by Greg Laden
What they said then:
What they say now:
I'm not sure I care. But there you have it.
Find more posts in:
Politics
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/78904
PZ Myers 11.09.2009
PZ Myers 11.09.2009
Ed Brayton 11.09.2009
Orac 11.08.2009
Orac 11.09.2009
Comments
I am glad that no one was hurt.
I think the two reports are not that far off in facts, but very far apart in tone and conclusions.
Posted by: Jim | August 14, 2008 11:13 PM
Im surprised Rush didnt make a joke about this too
Posted by: John McCain Shirts | August 14, 2008 11:27 PM
If Rush had made a joke about this incident, it probably would have been to wonder why the GOP black ops team did such a good job with Wellstone and Carnahan but muffed it with Obama. Then he'd laugh at his own wit.
Posted by: Zeno | August 15, 2008 12:48 AM
Wow, it must have been a slow news day (maybe MSNBC is feeling Olympics fatigue, too?).
I guess it's news that the situation on the plane was more serious than initially reported, but the second story seems (to me) to blow it way out of proportion. I'm not a pilot, but I don't think the plane was in imminent danger of crashing. I've noticed that the media tends to blow non-fatal aircraft incidents way out of proportion (anyone remember the live coverage of the plane at LAX with a landing gear issue?).
Why weren't any pilots interviewed? None of the people interviewed seemed to be in any real knowledge about air travel. Is there really that much of a difference between "a diversion" and "declaring an emergency"? There very well may be, but I don't think we got a satisfactory answer from the story.
Seriously, doesn't the second story just seem like shoddy reporting (but good scare mongering)?
Posted by: Foole | August 15, 2008 7:01 AM
Over-reaction in the second report. It was a POTENTIALLY dangerous malfunction, so the pilot did the right thing and asked for people to be ready just in case. When things are really bad you catch everyone's attention by calling MAYDAY.
Posted by: sailor | August 15, 2008 9:55 AM
Why was this posted on Scienceblogs exactly? This barely qualifies as news.
Posted by: Chris Doms | August 15, 2008 11:35 PM
Chris: Sorry, it won't happen again...
Posted by: Greg Laden | August 16, 2008 9:04 AM
I think the pilot handled it just fine.
Declaring an emergency from an aviation perspective gives the pilot in command the ability to do what they need to do to deal with things, and gives you priority in terms of landing.
The plane was at 30,000', which is mandatory IFR (class A airspace). Declaring an emergency gave the pilot the ability to descend to whatever altitude he needed to attain in order to determine what had happened and to test controllability, without requiring clearance for each altitude. It also gave him precedence at the airport, including the ability to choose which runway he wanted (instead of what the current active was).
The pilot did what he felt was proper, and used the authority given to him by the FAA as pilot in command to get on the ground safely.
Posted by: Russ | August 18, 2008 6:36 PM