Originally posted by Evan
View Post
The original source of my comment yesterday was . . .
…which has since been updated removing that remark regarding second landing attempt. Now, because I think I hear people already madly typing a flame out at me...this is the background and why it was likely an errant report.
Apparently, a ground witness to the crash said to a Russian reporter "The pilot tried to make a second landing attempt but failed to climb."
SOURCE: para4 @
That witness comment/quote was interpreted (rightfully so) to mean the pilot was making a second landing attempt – based on his words “the pilot tried to make a second landing attempt.” This witness quote was picked up by various outlets such as Av. Herald, NTV, and others and was disseminated accordingly on the 15th/16th See, e.g.:
SOURCE: way down towards end of article...
SOURCE: para5
SOURCE:: para4
[NB: the date (17th)shown on the SUN article reflects the last updated date, not first publication date].
These reportings even made it to the Wiki on Flight 6491 as pilots crashed on 2nd landing attempt – in the Jan 16th version.
SOURCE: Flight 6491 WikiL earlier version
You’ll note that Wiki sources a comment from Deputy Prime Minister Muhammetkaly Abulgaziyev, who said the plane had tried to land twice.
ADDITIONAL SOURCE re: Dep. Prime Minister comments…
That’s about when I popped into the picture with my OP, though hesitated by saying ‘apparently’ . . . which was fully reasonable given the eyewitness comment which was seemingly backed up by a gov’t spokesperson.
Now, I hear typing again – “plane crash witnesses are like the worst ever, you shouldn’t have remarked based on that!”
Indeed, we all know witnesses of any type (plane crash or otherwise) are generally pretty lousy. However his comment wasn’t the sort of witness statement we are used to hearing, you all know the type:
“omg the wings fell off then I saw a huge massive explosion when it was up high which I heard before it happened yet after it hit the ground with the wings afire but very clearly attached – it was wobbling and the engine was making an odd sound, I’ve never seen anything like this before!”
His statement was more of ‘this was his second attempt’ sort of thing which was matter of fact – and as a matter of fact – later echoed by the Dep. Prime Minister (as noted).
And we also know all too well ‘the media’ sucks in lots of reporting - not just plane crashes but regular stuff like 'email' - but yes plane crashes are definitely not their forte. The thing to do seems to be pump out/regurgitate whatever can be found in order to get a clickable headline with the least possible effort or knowledge or (gasp!) research. Heck, look no further than a huge chunk of our population that - through some slick marketing and some tragically bad ‘reporting’ - has come to believe that deleting emails is some sort of crime. And it’s like totally not. But anyway…
…the media also isn’t really to blame on this kerfuffle either. So where did it all go so very, very wrong? STELLLLLA!!
Well the witness was in fact correct, but what he said while fully accurate was interpreted (it seems!) differently by the media (and me) because of his use of English that while accurate was ‘different’ than how it’s perceived by English speakers.
Because he said ‘the pilot was making his second landing attempt’ meaning that the 1st attempt didn’t land so he was ‘going for try #2’ or ‘second landing attempt’ which is, after all, true. But his words as used it appears were construed as the pilot was in the act of actually commencing his 2nd landing, vs. what the witness was really saying – the pilot crashed while at the very start of his second landing attempt (i.e., the go around which failed).
Happily, AV Herald and most media outlets today (early this AM) seem to have realized the mistake in interpreting the witness (who knows, maybe the Dep. Prime Minister misspoke based on this too?) and corrections are already rolling out.
SOURCE: current Flight 6491 Wiki
“At 7:31 a.m. local time on 16 January 2017, the aircraft impacted the ground, near the end of runway 26 at Manas International Airport, amid thick fog.[4] Initially, it was reported that the plane had crashed during a second landing attempt.[5] Kyrgyz authorities later stated that the plane had crashed on its first landing attempt.[6]”
The MarketWatch article in fact notes this small nuance in verbiage and interpretation – both of which were in and of themselves correct, but for folks not realizing what 2nd landing attempt meant to the witness, which was ‘pilot crashed while initiating go-around as part of his 2nd landing attempt’
QUOTE “The pilot [didn’t succeed in landing attempt #1 and thus] tried to make a second landing attempt but failed to climb [out on the go-around from failed landing #1].”
It was just an innocent misunderstanding – witness and media were just looking at things from different perspective. I got caught in the middle – at least according to multiple sources.
Comment