This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I don't think it's that bad. And I've seen a lot of other sites with the same picture. I understand your point, though.
I found it disgusting that reputable news outlets were showing the dead body floating from the Air Asia crash. I think CNN showed that as well.
I don't mind the picture. What I object to his the style. Blowing the photo up so that it fills the reader's screen and hits them over the head immediately upon the site loading is lame. I had already watched the video multiple times, so nothing but the crass method caught me off guard.
The link is still on the front page - the entire 22-minute ISIS video
Seriously? I haven't, and don't want to, watch that.
Agreed. You can tell the story and report the news without those images. I'm not saying that those images should be locked away, but they don't need to be mainstream news.
What about the "in between"? For example, the jumpers from the WTC as they fell to the earth?
9/11 and a plane crash killing 20 on the other side of the world are two wildly different things in the context of American media.
So based on gut reaction alone, those images were much more viceral than the image of the building falling. It's impossible to dehumanize an image of a human being. Therein lies the difference for me at least. Not that one is any more or less tragic.
I don't know - I never saw the images. Death is real though. I think sometimes we try to sanitize things too much. I am not offended to see dead bodies in news coverage of a catastrophic event.beavers said:
Yeah. I get that, too.Apple Jack said:
Honestly, that was my 1st thought when I saw the video..."Dang. That's a BIG video image." I've never seen a streaming news video that big. Of course I feel like CNN's new design basically makes everything look overly large.
Imagine seeing it live like that woman who is shrieking in the vid did...George Jefferson Airplane said:That's crazy video.
Just from the looks of things, my first instinct is a classic "stall-spin" into the ground. It appears that the plane lost it's left engine just after takeoff. Keep in mind that the plane is at it's heaviest at take-off as it will burn fuel during the flight. In an engine-out procedure, one of the first things you do is give the operating engine full power and also give full deflection of the rudder to arrest the tendency of the airplane to roll in the direction of the non-operating engine. From the video, it looks like the airplane was pitched up while still level wings. However, it also looks like the plane is slowly sinking toward the buildings. The one engine may not have been able to provide enough thrust to climb while fully loaded. Improperly feathered props would also add drag, which would negatively affect the ability to climb. I imagine the pilot is making a desperate attempt to avoid plowing into the buildings and shoot for the river. However, just before he can cross the road, the plane finally stalls and because you have the rudder fully deflected, it instantly enters a spin. Just myFat Nick said:
To be fair, Fox did have the video no a separate page with the link saying EXTREMELY GRAPHIC, etc. I'm still not sure they should've shown the video, but at least you had the choice. CNN has this photo on their homepage. If it's the kind of thing you find disturbing to see (I don't personally) you have no warning.Fat Nick said:
Good analysis. My thing with the improperly feathered props is that it's shortly after take-off. I don't know why the pilot would've taken the props out of the take-off configuration...and I'd assume that take-off configuration would've been optimal for the most power in a lower altitude, lower speed, engine-out situation.Just from the looks of things, my first instinct is a classic "stall-spin" into the ground. It appears that the plane lost it's left engine just after takeoff. Keep in mind that the plane is at it's heaviest at take-off as it will burn fuel during the flight. In an engine-out procedure, one of the first things you do is give the operating engine full power and also give full deflection of the rudder to arrest the tendency of the airplane to roll in the direction of the non-operating engine. From the video, it looks like the airplane was pitched up while still level wings. However, it also looks like the plane is slowly sinking toward the buildings. The one engine may not have been able to provide enough thrust to climb while fully loaded. Improperly feathered props would also add drag, which would negatively affect the ability to climb. I imagine the pilot is making a desperate attempt to avoid plowing into the buildings and shoot for the river. However, just before he can cross the road, the plane finally stalls and because you have the rudder fully deflected, it instantly enters a spin. Just myFat Nick said:
It seemed like he could have possibly belly flopped the plane into the river "Ala Sully" had he not put the plane into a steep bank right at the end when the wing clipped the bridge. It would have been a hard landing on water but the result could have been better. Of course my only pilot experience has been on a Microsoft Flight simulator...and I crashed a Cessna in Lake Michigan after takeoff in Chicago.Good analysis. My thing with the improperly feathered props is that it's shortly after take-off. I don't know why the pilot would've taken the props out of the take-off configuration...and I'd assume that take-off configuration would've been optimal for the most power in a lower altitude, lower speed, engine-out situation.Just from the looks of things, my first instinct is a classic "stall-spin" into the ground. It appears that the plane lost it's left engine just after takeoff. Keep in mind that the plane is at it's heaviest at take-off as it will burn fuel during the flight. In an engine-out procedure, one of the first things you do is give the operating engine full power and also give full deflection of the rudder to arrest the tendency of the airplane to roll in the direction of the non-operating engine. From the video, it looks like the airplane was pitched up while still level wings. However, it also looks like the plane is slowly sinking toward the buildings. The one engine may not have been able to provide enough thrust to climb while fully loaded. Improperly feathered props would also add drag, which would negatively affect the ability to climb. I imagine the pilot is making a desperate attempt to avoid plowing into the buildings and shoot for the river. However, just before he can cross the road, the plane finally stalls and because you have the rudder fully deflected, it instantly enters a spin. Just myFat Nick said:
Regardless of the cause, he clearly doesn't have enough lift. Whether this is just a full-on lack of power, or if he's pulling back too far and stalling, we can't really tell. There's clearly not enough altitude by the time we see things to execute a typical nose-down stall recovery, so I don't think he had much choice on what to do here...At least not by the time the dash cam caught him.
Absolutely. My guess is that the road runs parallel to the river (as per the little map in this article). If that's the case, he was coming in perpendicular to the river and probably wanted to try and straighten up so he was coming in along the river, but he just didn't have the speed to do it.
Yup. When I first saw the video, I thought he clipped that one building. But he didn't. I realized he crashed, but I think he made that horrible situation into a much better one.
Yeah. I think he really saved a lot of lives. I've been playing on Google Maps and Streetview trying to find the exact spot that footage was shot on. I will say this though...that river isn't very wide, and there are major buildings, schools, hospitals, etc. EVERYWHERE. I don't know what the local time was when that happened, but I'm shocked there weren't more cars on that road.TheIronSheik said:
:X 
