4 ms·

Don't read the article; read the report.

by the__alchemist 1y ago

VerminOctopus1 1y ago
I’m guessing you also didn’t read the report given that he was indeed on the conference call.
- eduction 1y ago
  One clear indication he was not, from PDF p14 (8 as numbered) ("MP"="mishap pilot"): "At 21:12:52Z, the SOF informed the MP, “Alright the engineers uh are not optimistic about this COA but, extremely low PK [probability kill, meaning the probability this would fix the issue], but we’re going to try anyway is a touch-and-go on the runway, mains only, do not touch the nose gear, uh lift back off in all cases and have the uh have Yeti 4 reconfirm the nose gear position once your safely airborne.”" No need for this if the pilot was on the call directly.
  - jasonlotito 1y ago
    From the Report: > The MP initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers through the on-duty supervisor of flying (SOF). The MA held for approximately 50 minutes while the team developed a plan of action. "though the SOF" implies a middle-man, but I imagine that's because you don't want literally hook up a conference call directly to the cockpit. That being said, seems like the pilot was effectively on the conference call. Unless you want to suggest I don't trust the report? https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report.pdf?ver=z-QJglR9Qm7slupMlo6zeA%3D%3D https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report....
    - eduction 1y ago
      What I said is he was not on the call /directly/. You can argue over whether he was “effectively” on the call because someone was summarizing it for him per what I quoted. I just think it’s worth nothing he was not “on” the call the way someone is traditionally on a conference call.
andy_xor_andrew 1y ago
Sure, of course I will trust the report as the source of truth. But I'm interested in the reporting. There are, you know, journalistic standards, which are considered kinda "journalism 101"! For instance, getting the basic facts of a story correct - especially the facts stated in the headline. So I'm curious, did the reporter do their due diligence, and write the article in a way that is factually correct, but highly misleading? Or did they simply not follow basic reporting protocol?
- mulmen 1y ago
  > There are, you know, journalistic standards Are there? What are they?
- the__alchemist 1y ago
  The article is standard news stuff. It is sloppy and misleading. The report is what you want.
- hluska 1y ago
  I’m curious why you’re getting this worked up when the report is clear that the pilot was part of the information flow in that conference call. This is a really minor case of a headline using less precise language.
- throwawayoldie 1y ago
  > There are, you know, journalistic standards, which are considered kinda "journalism 101"! Pretty sure you meant to use the past tense here: "There _were_ journalistic standards..."
- jasonlotito 1y ago
  From the Report: > The MP initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers through the on-duty supervisor of flying (SOF). The MA held for approximately 50 minutes while the team developed a plan of action. Seems accurate to what CNN was reporting. It's simplified a bit, but it's not misleading to me. I mean, I guess if you want to nit pick and suggest "No the pilot wasn't literally on a phone and there was an intermediary in between" or some such, but the report makes it seem like CNN is accurate. https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report.pdf?ver=z-QJglR9Qm7slupMlo6zeA%3D%3D https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report....

Don't read the article; read the report.

VerminOctopus1 1y ago

I’m guessing you also didn’t read the report given that he was indeed on the conference call.

eduction 1y ago
One clear indication he was not, from PDF p14 (8 as numbered) ("MP"="mishap pilot"): "At 21:12:52Z, the SOF informed the MP, “Alright the engineers uh are not optimistic about this COA but, extremely low PK [probability kill, meaning the probability this would fix the issue], but we’re going to try anyway is a touch-and-go on the runway, mains only, do not touch the nose gear, uh lift back off in all cases and have the uh have Yeti 4 reconfirm the nose gear position once your safely airborne.”" No need for this if the pilot was on the call directly.
- jasonlotito 1y ago
  From the Report: > The MP initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers through the on-duty supervisor of flying (SOF). The MA held for approximately 50 minutes while the team developed a plan of action. "though the SOF" implies a middle-man, but I imagine that's because you don't want literally hook up a conference call directly to the cockpit. That being said, seems like the pilot was effectively on the conference call. Unless you want to suggest I don't trust the report? https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report.pdf?ver=z-QJglR9Qm7slupMlo6zeA%3D%3D https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report....
  - eduction 1y ago
    What I said is he was not on the call /directly/. You can argue over whether he was “effectively” on the call because someone was summarizing it for him per what I quoted. I just think it’s worth nothing he was not “on” the call the way someone is traditionally on a conference call.

andy_xor_andrew 1y ago

Sure, of course I will trust the report as the source of truth. But I'm interested in the reporting. There are, you know, journalistic standards, which are considered kinda "journalism 101"! For instance, getting the basic facts of a story correct - especially the facts stated in the headline. So I'm curious, did the reporter do their due diligence, and write the article in a way that is factually correct, but highly misleading? Or did they simply not follow basic reporting protocol?

mulmen 1y ago
> There are, you know, journalistic standards Are there? What are they?
the__alchemist 1y ago
The article is standard news stuff. It is sloppy and misleading. The report is what you want.
hluska 1y ago
I’m curious why you’re getting this worked up when the report is clear that the pilot was part of the information flow in that conference call. This is a really minor case of a headline using less precise language.
throwawayoldie 1y ago
> There are, you know, journalistic standards, which are considered kinda "journalism 101"! Pretty sure you meant to use the past tense here: "There _were_ journalistic standards..."
jasonlotito 1y ago
From the Report: > The MP initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers through the on-duty supervisor of flying (SOF). The MA held for approximately 50 minutes while the team developed a plan of action. Seems accurate to what CNN was reporting. It's simplified a bit, but it's not misleading to me. I mean, I guess if you want to nit pick and suggest "No the pilot wasn't literally on a phone and there was an intermediary in between" or some such, but the report makes it seem like CNN is accurate. https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report.pdf?ver=z-QJglR9Qm7slupMlo6zeA%3D%3D https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report....