boycotting USA TODAY

[stall022]

Help boycott USA TODAY and there poor investigating and reporting until they retract the article. What an amazing piece of misunderstood trash reporting. infact the aircraft was 100 lbs UNDER gross via the index method used at the time.



http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/...21/5605389s.htm



Was crash preventable?

As they prepared their 19-seat commuter plane Jan. 8 to depart Charlotte, two Air Midwest pilots followed the standard procedure to calculate the plane's weight. First officer Jonathan Gibbs jotted a series of figures onto a sheet of paper. Then he added them.

Interrupted several times, Gibbs made two errors, according to National Transportation Safety Board documents. As a consequence, he underestimated the plane's weight by 110 pounds. The plane took off slightly above its weight limit. Within seconds, all 21 people aboard were dead after the plane went out of control and crashed.

Federal accident investigators have focused on maintenance done on the plane shortly before its fatal flight. But they say that weight is one of several factors also under investigation. The incident highlights how small errors by pilots can compromise safety.


Here is the whole story:
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/...21/5605389s.htm

 

[stall022]

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031021/5605389s.htm

 

[T-Gates]

That is the worst piece of journalistic trash I have ever read.....

 

[T-Gates]

Interrupted several times, Gibbs made two errors, according to National Transportation Safety Board documents. As a consequence, he underestimated the plane's weight by 110 pounds. The plane took off slightly above its weight limit. Within seconds, all 21 people aboard were dead after the plane went out of control and crashed.

WHAT BULLSH!T!!!!!

Way to skip all the points of the NTSB Prelim.....

I have half a mind to write their editor.

Wanna bet this article was subsidized by jetBlue?

 

[FL000]

I will never buy the USAToday again...wait...I'll never pull the USAToday out of a seatback pocket again, or pick one up at the front desk, or off the seat at the terminal...or in the break room...or pull the one out of the MEL slot...or borrow my F/O's...EVER AGAIN.

 

[Newjetjockey]

I hope you get your whole mind together and write that letter to the editor. This is complete slander and should not be taken lightly.

Here's how you can.

[email protected]

or
fax 703-854-2053

or
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108

*Must include verifiable phone number and address to be published (250 words or less)

 

[captainv]

OK, i understand the frustration, but boycotting USA Today will only mean one less informed reader. Besides, boycotting them won't do a dang thing. What are you going to do, cancel your subscription? Every one I've ever read was provided free at the hotel....

>>Help boycott USA TODAY and there poor investigating...

by the way, the correct usage is their... sorry, i'm a former copy editor who worked at a newspaper for 4 years before getting into aviation.

aviation stories have lots of mistakes. why? because the average person doesn't know much about it. neither does the average reporter. they rely on their sources to tell them what's what, and talking to pilots ain't easy. we use all sorts of jargon that people don't understand.

in this case, they cite an NTSB document, perhaps something besides the prelim report. perhaps the document was a memo in the early stages of the investigation that had the facts wrong - hard to know unless you've seen the document the reporter saw.

what you should do is call (better) or write (may never see it) and tell the writer his mistake. be nice and don't tell him he's a moron. if you yell, they tune you out, and suddenly you're just another a$$hole arrogant pilot. they won't retract the story, but maybe they'll run a correction. even if they don't, most reporters i worked with were glad to have someone set them straight. there are tons of things journalists don't know. we try to get it right, but that's impossible since we cover a huge spectrum of news and we're not experts. that's why we interview people who are supposed to know things. have you ever flown with a pilot who acted like he knew everything but was pulling things out of his a$$? they get interviewed too, every now and then. nature of the biz...

did JetBlue subsidize the story? no, that's ridiculous. they're prominently featured because they're spearheading the use of laptops among major carriers.

but the paper is in fact subsidized, by advertising. that's why it only costs 50 cents. the space a paper has for news content is entirely driven by how many ads are sold. lots of ads, lots of pages, more stories. fewer ads, fewer pages, fewer stories - think monday morning's paper. usually the smallest of the week.

Captainv

 

[Newjetjockey]

Please copy your letter to these addresses.

[email protected]

Fairness and accuracy in the media:
[email protected]

Accuracy in the media:
[email protected]

Institute for public accuracy:
[email protected]

Poynter Institute:
[email protected]

 

[Rogue5]

Well, I have to agree that, like many airline pilots, I would have little ability to boycott the USA Today...

It is a comic book of a newspaper and the only reason it ever comes in front of my eyes is because when I open the door three mornings a week it is on the floor outside my hotel room.

Sad excuse for a "newspaper." Even more unfortunate that it reaches so many people.

Like a high school history teacher told me, "Be critical of your news sources!"

 

[belchfire]

Wellll...

I wrote, I didn't yell like I do here
sometimes, and I hope you all do
too.

The article was about computers
in the cockpit, but as we know,
'puters don't fix a broke plane,
and WE know 110 lbs ain't going
to stuff a 1900...it was a poor,
really poor choice to use as an
example in an article that really
was just filler.

Ya know who makes out on the
"paperless" cockpit? Jeppeson!
CDs are cheap compared to all
that printing. Surprised mesa
hasn't gone to it!!!

 

[DDpaysoff]

Freedom of press, gotta love it. Everyone out there is an expert. Maybe we should trade places w/ press and see who lives the longest.

 

[RUhiring?]

I haven't read USA Today for over a year. I'm glad all of you have seen that they are a trash publication. It's a shame that "one of our own" had to be lied about before you realized it. I do however support anything that goes against USA Today. It won't matter a dime to their bottom line, but it makes me feel better.

 

[ArcticFlier]

They've got

a pretty good sports section, though...........

AF

 

[lazy8s]

As you can see under my screen name, I don't really "buy" the USA Today....


I just wrote to the editor, we'll see what they say, they usually at least write back some short reply.

BTW: Every one who doesn't like this article should write a letter, the more they get the more likely a reply will get published. Especially by those with B-1900 time.

110lbs, ooooohhhhh, sooo heavy!!
Look at maintenance......

Lazy8s

 

[B190Captain]

Was crash preventable?

As they prepared their 19-seat commuter plane Jan. 8 to depart Charlotte, two Air Midwest pilots followed the standard procedure to calculate the plane's weight. First officer Jonathan Gibbs jotted a series of figures onto a sheet of paper. Then he added them.

Interrupted several times, Gibbs made two errors, according to National Transportation Safety Board documents. As a consequence, he underestimated the plane's weight by 110 pounds. The plane took off slightly above its weight limit. Within seconds, all 21 people aboard were dead after the plane went out of control and crashed.

Federal accident investigators have focused on maintenance done on the plane shortly before its fatal flight. But they say that weight is one of several factors also under investigation. The incident highlights how small errors by pilots can compromise safety.

These feds never flew a D.

110 lbs. a contributing factor my @$$!! CNN is also a poor excuse for "investigative reporting."

The following were actual statements made by CNN so called aviation experts after the CLT crash.

"Passengers are boarded from the rear through this large door."

"It was fully fueled."

televised pictures of a C model saying it was the Air Midwest aircraft.

I also read an article by some other bonehead that a flight attendant was not required because it was a short flight.


The media sucks!!

 

[brew3departure]

The C-12

As I've said I don't know how many times over the past months to various folks:

The military operates their version of the B1900D - except they call it the C-12, maybe the C-12A? We had a tech. rep. from Raytheon on board soon after the CLT crash happened and he stated that the military model and the normal civillian model were identical, except for the fact that the military's model is certified with a gross weight of over 20,000lbs! 110lbs over? How many times due to large PAX do you 1900 drivers think you were a heckuva lot heavier than 110lbs over gross with the average weights?

Any C-12 operators out there care to back this up?

Hrrrrrumph...they need to find and fix the trim/elevator problem. I have a very hard time believing it was a weight issue. Just my opinion...

-brew3

 

[tubelo]

I fly the C-12B for the Navy, but it is basically a Super King Air (BE20). The military may fly a 1900 equivelant, but it is not designated the C-12. Our Max T/O is 12.5 or 13.5 under a restricted category.

 

[B190Captain]

Re: The C-12

As I've said I don't know how many times over the past months to various folks:

The military operates their version of the B1900D - except they call it the C-12, maybe the C-12A? We had a tech. rep. from Raytheon on board soon after the CLT crash happened and he stated that the military model and the normal civillian model were identical, except for the fact that the military's model is certified with a gross weight of over 20,000lbs! 110lbs over? How many times due to large PAX do you 1900 drivers think you were a heckuva lot heavier than 110lbs over gross with the average weights?

Any C-12 operators out there care to back this up?

Hrrrrrumph...they need to find and fix the trim/elevator problem. I have a very hard time believing it was a weight issue. Just my opinion...

-brew3

I believe you are referring to the C-12J which is more like a C Model 1900. As for a C-12J with PT6A-65B engines, It's hard to believe the military has certified it to 20K GTOW. The C model on a hot day is a pig at 16,600 GTOW. But then again our engines were tired. I can see a D model (PT6A-67D) certified for the military at 20K but not a C. The D model does a hell of a job at 17.120lbs MTOW which is what our D's are certified for.

The C-12J aircraft is the military version of the Raytheon Beech 1900C. Developed from the Super King Air business twin turboprop, the 19-seat Beech 1900C Airliner was first flown in September 1982 and entered service in early 1984. With its Pratt and Whitney PT6A-65B engines, it has a cruise speed of 268 knots with a certified ceiling of 25,000 feet and a range of 1,555 miles. Since its introduction in 1984, Raytheon Aircraft's Beech 1900C Airliner has been known as "the workhorse of the sky." The Beech 1900C consistently earns high marks for its large-airliner styling and passenger comfort. A later version of the Beech 99, the model 1900 is recognized as the favoured tier-3 aircraft. It is passenger friendly, highly reliable, and much appreciated by both maintenance and aircrews alike. A total of 250 1900Cs were delivered between 1984 and 1991 to regional airlines, special mission operators and corporations. Production then switched entirely to the current version, dubbed the 1900D, which has a taller cabin. Some commentators suggest that the Beech 1900C had some defects, and that to rectify these shortcomings while improving on the technical aspects, Raytheon went on to manufacture Beech 1900D, the most popular 19-seater aircraft in the world.

The 586th Flight Test Squadron is responsible for all Air Force flight test activity taking place over the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). The squadron owns and operates fighter and cargo aircraft in support of avionics, guidance/navigation, and weapon system testing. The 586th has added a C-12J to its fleet of highly modified and unique test support AT-38B aircraft. The C-12J is the only test asset of its kind and provides unparalleled ability to conduct Global Positioning System and inertial navigation tests.

Here is a pic of the C-12J

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/c-12j_2.jpg

 

[Hansel]

Not to be an a$$, but if any reporter were to write an article on what's been written about in this forum, it would be much more damaging than that article.

 

[captainv]

what the media should be focusing on is the maintenance practices at Raytheon. from what i've read, the guy who rigged the elevator on the Air Midwest 1900 was a third-party subcontractor, who wasn't at all familiar with the Beech.

don't get me started on TV news. pretty people who aren't smart enough for radio end up on TV news.

by the way, it does bear pointing out that the primary thrust of the article was laptops in the cockpit - the Air Midwest thing was a small example that was used incorrectly by the reporter.....