|Quoting Geoffm (Reply 2):|
Are you trying to say that the plane clipped its own wing on the ground?
|Quoting Jush (Reply 13):|
Extremely good journalism there. But did you actually see the tailstrike he was talking bout? I could hardly see the wing dip but the tailstrike or "scratching" is news to me.
|Quoting Jtamu97 (Reply 14):|
|Quoting S12PPL (Reply 23):|
was impressed with how the FOX reporter didn't spout off about how the pilots must have messed up completely. Usually, they start speculating about what could have happened, and it's usually way off. Nice to see them not go over board with the speculation.
|Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 21):|
If the tail did hit, you would not have seen sparks come from the tail cone area, as it is made of fiberglass. It's really hard to tell if it did, some views it looks as if a puff of smoke rolls off the tail, but like someone quoted it could just be smoke from the mains touching down.
|Quoting Qqflyboy (Reply 34):|
but he had one crucial flaw which has already been debated. The tail did not strike the ground.
|Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 35):|
He didn't make that claim. It was the MD-80 instructor being interviewed while watching the video.
|Quoting QQflyboy (Reply 37):|
Exactly. I didn't say Les made the comment. But why would he include that sound bite in his story when the tail clearly did not strike the ground? Because it is not a claim he made, rather a claim a perported expert made. Even though it wasn't true, the idea adds to the potential drama of the story.
I only comment on this because I went through my junior year of college studying broadcast journalism, and even worked as an associate producer at a TV station before chaning my major to aviation science. Including that sound bite was either 1) a mistake because they (FOX5) thought the tail hit the ground or 2) yellow journalism: they could tell the tail did not hit the ground but included it anyway for the drama.
In the end, it does not change my opinion that the overall story was good, and better reported then most other reporters would have done. It was a down to earth, no big deal explanation of how a wing strike could happen.