Gravity is broken (worst journalism ever)

[Hengelo]

This might actually be the worst aviation journalistic take I’ve ever seen

Singapore Airlines plane dropped 178ft in five seconds, black box data reveals

Rapid changes in gravitational force caused the altitude drop which injured passengers, investigators say.

www.bbc.com

“found rapid changes in gravitational force”

I think we all understand what they’re trying to say, but wow.

 

[Baked Potato]

"The rapid changes in G over the 4.6 seconds duration resulted in an altitude drop of 178ft (54m), from 37,362ft to 37,184ft," the TSIB report said.

Is it a misquote, then, or is it the investigative bureau that has the cause and effect wrong?

 

[SebIp]

That works out to average of 1.2 g the way they reported it? For people to hit the ceiling and have serious injuries I’d expect like 2 g?

 

[Dana]

In this case I suspect it's not the journalist at fault:

"The rapid changes in G over the 4.6 seconds duration resulted in an altitude drop of 178ft (54m), from 37,362ft to 37,184ft," the TSIB report said.

Looks like the Singapore TSIB is not the equal of the NTSB...

 

[Baked Potato]

In this case I suspect it's not the journalist at fault:

Looks like the Singapore TSIB is not the equal of the NTSB...

Or maybe a language translation issue?

 

[Half Fast]

Or maybe a language translation issue?

Seems likely. A one-word change fixes it:

"The rapid changes in G over the 4.6 seconds duration resulted in from an altitude drop of 178ft (54m), from 37,362ft to 37,184ft," the TSIB report said.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

That works out to average of 1.2 g the way they reported it? For people to hit the ceiling and have serious injuries I’d expect like 2 g?

The descent rate was likely not distributed equally over the 4.6 seconds.

A big hit initially, with a more gentle recovery after the pilots got over the shock and awe.

 

[Half Fast]

The descent rate was likely not distributed equally over the 4.6 seconds.

A big hit initially, with a more gentle recovery after the pilots got over the shock and awe.

Or a gentle beginning, then an abrupt pull-up when the pilots woke up and panicked.

(I keed, I keed! I know the G's slammed passengers into the ceiling, not the floor.)

 

[Hengelo]

English is the de-facto language in Singapore, but officially it's Malay. Obviously a language translation issue but it's a shame nobody caught the error.

Also, I had enough trouble with FAA testing on weather. I hate to imagine what it would be like if we had to add gravitational fluctuations

 

[Dan Thomas]

Remember that the passengers are travelling in a straight line. Their momentum is along that line. If the airplane is suddenly forced down faster than unbuckled passengers and crew can fall, the ceiling comes down on them, and the ceiling is not far overhead, is it? Like ElPaso Pilot says, it was likely a rapid drop at first. I think most of us little-airplane guys have encountered a downdraft strong enough to pull down hard on our lap belts, right? Less than zero G.

 

[Randomskylane]

I blame gravity fluctuations whenever I step on the scale

 

[Initial Fix]

I read the article this morning and was thinking this was right down there with the bottom feeding grocery story tabloids. Worse is there were a bunch of other news agencies that picked up on it.

 

[Pinecone]

That works out to average of 1.2 g the way they reported it? For people to hit the ceiling and have serious injuries I’d expect like 2 g?

I suspect that the people floated up near the ceiling, then the G returned and they fell to the floor. Or onto seat backs, people, arm rests. etc.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

I suspect that the people floated up near the ceiling, then the G returned and they fell to the floor. Or onto seat backs, people, arm rests. etc.

Looking at some of the photos, the ceiling was destroyed by beverage carts and head-shaped impacts. No floating.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Someone must have looked down.

 

[Hunter Handsfield]

Hey, everyone: give the media and other early commentators a break. Why would you expect the immediate reporters to understand the science? And who would misunderstand the incident if the terminology wasn't scientifically accurate? And the terminology from the regulatory agency wasn't so bad anyway: G did decrease and increase from the perspective of occupants of the aircraft, even if the earth's gravity was constant. And who cares if the aviation community doesn't like "air pocket"? Seems to me it was a pretty good description of what happened. What harm occurred from these inaccuracies?

HHH

 

[Dan Thomas]

And who cares if the aviation community doesn't like "air pocket"? Seems to me it was a pretty good description of what happened. What harm occurred from these inaccuracies?

That old term "air pocket" is a myth and gives people the impression that there are holes in the atmosphere where there is no air or something. The public is dumb enough already without the media making it dumber. It seems that journalists, who are trained to write a story, don't go after aviation professionals to find out what terminology to use and why the airplane did what it did.

So what else is the media distorting? Aviators recognize the numerous errors in accident "reports" in the media, but if they can't get those right, what else are they messed up on?

"Stall" is another term the journalists are totally clueless about. They hear a pilot say that "it appeared that the airplane stalled and then dived into the ground," and they immediately assume that the engine quit, because car engines stall. So the public now thinks that an engine failure means an immediate and uncontrollable dive resulting in a horrible crash, killing everybody aboard.

That sort of perception keeps people from learning to fly, and general aviation dies a little more every time some reporter gets it so wrong. Is that harmless?

 

[Half Fast]

Is that harmless?

Probably. It wasn’t any better during the so-called “Golden Age” of aviation.

I have never read any news story on a topic for which I had personal knowledge where the reporter got it right.

 

[eman1200]

Hey, everyone: give the media and other early commentators a break….

uh, no, absolutely not.

 

[Skyrys62]

Some of those folks looked like they were in pain.
I suggest handing out some of that liquor that was dislodged.

It's getting written off in the insurance claim anyway

 

[Omalley1537]

Hey, everyone: give the media and other early commentators a break. Why would you expect the immediate reporters to understand the science? And who would misunderstand the incident if the terminology wasn't scientifically accurate? And the terminology from the regulatory agency wasn't so bad anyway: G did decrease and increase from the perspective of occupants of the aircraft, even if the earth's gravity was constant. And who cares if the aviation community doesn't like "air pocket"? Seems to me it was a pretty good description of what happened. What harm occurred from these inaccuracies?

HHH

I’m not going to take this thread on a tangent explaining why, but other than elected officials, I can’t think of a profession I have more disdain for than the media. So no, no breaks.

 

[Baked Potato]

Probably. It wasn’t any better during the so-called “Golden Age” of aviation.

I have never read any news story on a topic for which I had personal knowledge where the reporter got it right.

Pretend that you're a local reporter, and your editor has six stories for you to publish by end of day:
A school budget hearing, a plane crash, a convention of sci-fi authors and fans, a farmer complaining about new environmental regs, groundbreaking for a new distribution center being constructed, and a story about a local doctor who is now performing an experimental type of surgery.

Should anyone reasonably expect the reporter to be experts in each of these areas, especially given the time crunch and budgetary constraints imposed on local newsrooms?

(I was a photojournalist for a collection of area newspapers many years ago and this would represent a typical day)

 

[Half Fast]

Should anyone reasonably expect the reporter to be experts in each of these areas, especially given the time crunch and budgetary constraints imposed on local newsrooms?

No. Consequently, we should not take their reporting seriously.

 

[Baked Potato]

No. Consequently, we should not take their reporting seriously.

Just like anything else, one single source of secondhand information should not be taken as a singlular point of truth. It can be used as a gateway for further information gathering, no?

Who else is gathering all of these myriad subjects for us, in one place, so that we can learn what is going on around us so that we can become more aware or involved in the specific items we're interested in?

 

[Half Fast]

Who else is gathering all of these myriad subjects for us, in one place, so that we can learn what is going on around us so that we can become more aware or involved in the specific items we're interested in?

Oh, I agree there’s little alternative, but we should bear in mind Mark Twain’s words that those who don’t read the news are uninformed while those who do read the news are misinformed. Take what you read in the press with a grain of salt (plus a lick of lime and a shot of tequila).

 

[Hengelo]

Every industry has it's inside baseball and it takes years sometimes to understand the nuances. I do think that anybody with a high school education should know that gravity doesn't "fluctuate" as implied here, but then again I'm not writing newspaper stories in a 2nd language so who am I to throw stones. I just though it was funny.

*definitely* agree that if you head cracks open the ceiling you should have all the free liquor the plane has until you land.

 

[Dry Creek]

*definitely* agree that if you head cracks open the ceiling you should have all the free liquor the plane has until you land.

If for no other reason than the astringent benefits offered by the alcohol!
Must prevent a nasty infection. And stuff.

 

[Spring Ford]

That works out to average of 1.2 g the way they reported it? For people to hit the ceiling and have serious injuries I’d expect like 2 g?

They float gently upward to the ceiling at 1.2 - 1 g = 0.2g. They are basically free falling in space and the plane quite gently catches up with them.

After 90 ft of free fall the floor then comes up towards them at 1.2 + 1 = 2.2g and smashes them on the whatever.

The +/- 1 is due to the person free falling at 1g.

Without formally calculating it I suspect that it is like falling from the ceiling of the plane to the floor (or armrest) at 2.2g. Many such collisions will not work out well.

There will also be the effects of the aircraft pitching which may be significant at the extreme front and rear of the cabin.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Pretend that you're a local reporter, and your editor has six stories for you to publish by end of day:
A school budget hearing, a plane crash, a convention of sci-fi authors and fans, a farmer complaining about new environmental regs, groundbreaking for a new distribution center being constructed, and a story about a local doctor who is now performing an experimental type of surgery.

But these stories are written by large news corporations, or at least they receive the stories from local reporters. Those stories should be checked and corrected. Big outfits often have at least one PPL on their staff that could fix it up. Same goes for other stories: there will often be people available on the staff with experience or training in the subject.

But maybe that's how it used to be. Journalists now seem to have about as much expertise in the areas you mention as politicians do.

 

[Dan Thomas]

They float gently upward to the ceiling at 1.2 - 1 g = 0.2g. They are basically free falling in space and the plane quite gently catches up with them.

After 90 ft of free fall the floor then comes up towards them at 1.2 + 1 = 2.2g and smashes them on the whatever.

The +/- 1 is due to the person free falling at 1g.

Without formally calculating it I suspect that it is like falling from the ceiling of the plane to the floor (or armrest) at 2.2g. Many such collisions will not work out well.

There will also be the effects of the aircraft pitching which may be significant at the extreme front and rear of the cabin.

I have run into downdrafts sharp enough that my head hit the ceiling of my airplane even though I was belted in. You have to remember that winds aloft aren't all horizontal. Thunderstorms generate terrific vertical winds that can pull the wings off airplanes.



This is one of the reasons we're told to stay well away from thunderstorms. IIRC, at least five miles behind it and at least 15 miles ahead of it, in the direction of its travel. Strong downdrafts and hail are big threats.

The jet stream also has winds surrounding it, not just in it, and it's also rotating.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Pretend that you're a local reporter, and your editor has six stories for you to publish by end of day:

(I was a photojournalist for a collection of area newspapers many years ago and this would represent a typical day)

Certainly different in TV news. I seldom had to report more than two stories a day, usually just one. I was also a news director for four different stations and would never expect any reporter to cover six stories in one day.

To be fair, the newscast producer and the anchor people might write multiple short stories, often rewriting wire copy.