Eyewitnesses and experts in recent plane crash stories
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
A plane crash is news. What people have to say about the crash is part of the story. But whose perspectives actually add enough to warrant publication? Two recent airplane accidents have brought these questions from readers. One story quoted an unnamed person with experience in the field; one quoted and named an eyewitness with no apparent background in aviation.
Mike Holmstrom of San Jose took note of one passage in one of the first-day news stories on the US Airways crash-gliding in New York’s Hudson River. Toward the end, the article said:
One longtime commercial pilot who has spent years as a company flight instructor warned that before dubbing Sullenberger a hero, investigators needed to determine whether crew error contributed to the emergency. The pilot, who did not want to be named, was skeptical that bird strikes shut down both engines. ‘I’ve seen it happen too many times in the simulators -- you get a flameout in one engine and the quick response is to shut down the wrong one,’ the pilot said.’
After the National Transportation Safety Board said that both engines had indeed simultaneously lost power, Holmstrom wrote, ‘Do us all a favor, and tell the staff of The Times not to speculate so early into an investigation. What were the writers thinking? I wish The Times would come forward & say they blew it by doubting the pilot in this incident.’
A December article covering the crash in San Diego of a military jet included this passage:
‘It was mushing through the air,’ Kreischer said. ‘It was chugging along with what seemed like one engine. Then I heard a roar of engine and all of a sudden, whoop, dead silence. ‘This guy could have turned it around and put it in the ocean. He was never going to make it to Miramar.’
At the time the story appeared, Christopher Chinman in San Diego objected:
‘Based on the fact that you did not offer up this gentleman’s credentials as an Aircraft Accident Investigator, an aviator or someone who was monitoring ATC communications between the jet and either SoCal or the squadron’s maintenance department, this guy had/has no idea what the condition of that aircraft was when it came on shore. As someone who has spent 20+ years in the navy as an aviator and spent a number of years as a mishap investigator and Aviation Safety Officer I find it completely irresponsible to include unfounded comments like that in what should be accurate and objective reporting. People may very well read this and repeat that ridiculous assertion as fact. Perhaps you should to stick to the facts [and] seek out informed sources.’
Informed sources are, of course, a valuable way to shed light on an incident. But were they informed sources or not?
The quotation casting doubt on the birds-in-the-engines theory was there, says national editor Roger Smith, because it addressed the question on everyone’s mind -- what caused the plane to lose power? Smith points out that any information at that point was necessarily speculation, as the investigation was only beginning. And that comment was a single note of skepticism in a first-day story.
What of a separate but related point -- that the passage seems to go against The Times’ use of unnamed sources (‘sources should never be permitted to use the shield of anonymity to voice speculation or to make ad hominem attacks’)? Deputy national editor Ashley Dunn believes that inclusion of the comment was needed and valid, less as an attack but more as informative, because the person was identified as an airline pilot specializing in verifying others’ qualifications.
So expertise was the value in quoting an unnamed person in the case of the National story. What of the named person in the California story who apparently didn’t have any expertise? Eyewitnesses provide a different sort of expertise, says California editor David Lauter:
‘On stories like this, you look for eyewitnesses, and you generally quote their impressions. There is always a risk that someone offers an assessment that later turns out to be wrong. But so long as we make clear to readers what a witness’ expertise is (or isn’t), then I think we can trust readers to judge for themselves how much credit to give it. I don’t think we should restrict ourselves to only quoting ‘experts’ since, as we’ve all seen, there are many cases in which the experts turn out to be wrong. We shouldn’t rely solely on a non-expert’s view, but in this case, the story did quote Marine Corps officials as saying that the pilot ‘was trying to aim the plane at a deserted canyon to avoid slamming into homes or Interstate 805.’’