Hi folks,
You might remember some discussion on the forum a few weeks back about the publishing of a picture of the Spirit of St.Loius crash at Coventry in Aeroplane Monthly’s news pages.This picture showed the wingtip pointing vertically upwards just a moment before the wing snapped and the aircraft tumbled to the ground.I for one was pretty horrified to see a magazine of Aeroplane’s standing publishing such a picture,and from the discussions on the Flypast board,I know a number of other folks did aswell. There was a lot of talk about ‘sensationalism’ and there were folks promising to write letters etc etc.
Having written to them almost immediately,I’ve since received a reply from Aeroplane’s editor. He says in his reply that they thought long and hard about the publishing of the picture,and finally decided to go with it,for reasons best known to themselves. The explanation he gave for this decision was that the picture ‘shows what happened without showing what happened’-bullsh*t if ever I heard it! The moment the photograph captures could well have been the same moment that Mr.Hollander realised how grave the situation was,with the wing obviously on the brink of failure. To publish a picture of that moment was extremely tasteless IMHO whichever way you look at it.
It’s perhaps predictable that they should reply in this way,but more worryingly his reply also stated that I was the ONLY PERSON to have complained to the magazine about the publishing of the picture.Now I know a lot of people were going to write letters to the magazine to complain about it,and it’s quite possible that there are other letters waiting unread in their extensive inbox,but I feel very strongly that the publishing of such a picture should not go without more widespread criticism.It’s here that I come to the main point of writing this message (finally!).
I was thinking that if you took offence as I did to the publishing of that picture,it might be an idea to write a letter so as to make yourself heard and to add to the email(s) already sent .It can’t be denied that we’re having a difficult year in historic aviation, and the last thing we need is for a leading aviation mag to take the line which Aeroplane seem to be taking lately. Their coverage of the Firefly accident in this month’s issue is also a bit odd.Whilst they pay tribute to the crew and lament the loss of the aircraft, they also manage to make back-handed suggestions that pilot error was the cause of the accident. One of the headlines on the front page is “Heinkel and Firefly crashes-First Reports”.I find it odd that they’re trying to attract readers on the basis of drawing attention to accidents and speculating about the causes. Making headline news of fatal accidents isn’t particularly helpful to anybody anyway,especially when there’s nothing more than speculation to go on.
All in all,I can’t help feeling that they’re in need of a good verbal slap to put some sense into them. My hope is that with more condemnation of their approach, they will change their tune and get down to some serious and objective reporting.
[email]aeroplane_monthly@ipcmedia.com[/email]
By: David Burke - 11th August 2003 at 19:43
Simply put if you look at the pictures in Aeroplane you are witnessing the events which lead to a death of a pilot.
I don’t honestly think you gain anything from having the picture –
a picture taken beforehand on the ground would have sufficed.
If it served any purpose that could prevent deaths in the future well maybe it would be worthwhile but is it likely to have any implications to other operators – I think no.
By: Tony C - 11th August 2003 at 11:37
Subscribers to an aviation fan magazine are reading the publication for enjoyment. Flipping through the pages to see an airplane and an unseen crewmember(s) in the midst of a fatal descent isn’t what I would call enjoyment.
I am a subscriber to Aeroplane and agree that it is read for my enjoyment.
However, I personally had no qualms about seeing the picture.
Not being apart of the industry, it helped me understand where and what the failure was, which I otherwise would not have grasped.
While I can understand that this may appear ghoulish and others would not wish to see such images, I think that a specialised magazine should have the right to print, as longer as certain standards are maintained, with the most important being, that the next of kin are informed FIRST.
Without wishing to re-open an old debate, this obvoiusly wasn’t the case with Sky and the loss at Duxford. As far as I am concerned, Sky should be fined and possibly barred from further events.
By: MarkG - 11th August 2003 at 09:29
It’s not just a “fan” magazine though surely? It contains news and you can’t deny that an accident such as this isn’t news.
I personally have no problem with Aeroplane reporting the news and in the course of that action publishing this photo.
You just have to take the good with the bad I’m afraid – that’s life. Thankfully in the historic aviation world there is generally more good than bad.
By: Whiskey Delta - 10th August 2003 at 05:14
Originally posted by Wrenchbender
When I was in the Navy we had to watch crash and burn movies of mechaincs and pilots who had their head where it did not belong and usualy resulted in someone dead or handicaped.
I agree there is a lot to be learned from such tools in the professional world but I think it’s a different situation when such events are depicted in a medium that is used for pleasure. Subscribers to an aviation fan magazine are reading the publication for enjoyment. Flipping through the pages to see an airplane and an unseen crewmember(s) in the midst of a fatal descent isn’t what I would call enjoyment. Sure pilots and mechanics can learn a little bit from every accident and incident but there are professional outlets to gain access to the records. Plus when such events impact interests of the aviation history enthusiests the accident can be just as easy reported with words.
When I’m sitting back, enjoying a drink and reading my lastest magazine after a day of work I want happy thoughts and images. 😀
By: Wrenchbender - 10th August 2003 at 04:26
Thanks, I wrote them to give thanks for keeping me abreast of the current aviation news and to continue the good work. Aviation isn’t always pretty and the pictures like the Spirt of St louis are great learning tools with a lesson to the wise. Furthermore, the only way they would have been wrong was if they would have shown the body after the crash.
By: Ant.H - 10th August 2003 at 00:52
“When I was in the Navy we had to watch crash and burn movies of mechaincs and pilots who had their head where it did not belong and usualy resulted in someone dead or handicapped.”
I agree it can be useful to see these things and that it is right to show them for thier educational value.It seems the key question that we come back to is whether Aeroplane is the right place to publish the picture and what thier motives were for doing so.It’s largely a magazine for enthusiasts rather than pilots or engineers,so to my mind the educational point is largely invalid.I still think that it was published for the sake of ‘gaup factor’ rather than educational value,and I don’t think it should’ve been done.
To go back to my original post,it wasn’t my intention to start up a debate on whether it was right or not,but to ask people who thought it was wrong to write to them about it so that they didn’t go unnoticed.
By: Wrenchbender - 9th August 2003 at 23:40
If you don’t like the picture turn the page! Sometimes reality can be very harsh! I am afraid that Airmen do become complaceant in the daily grind and overlook critical items. Seen it all the time at United Airlines. Becasue of faulty design, maintenance, construction, or overzealous airmenship someone died. I’d call that a wakeup to pay attention to detail! What are the usual channels? Most people don’t have the time to research wreck reports and hanger flying ( That’s what this is ) is of very little usefull information. When I was in the Navy we had to watch crash and burn movies of mechaincs and pilots who had their head where it did not belong and usualy resulted in someone dead or handicaped. Hard as it seems, it served has a warning to remain vigalant to keep yourself and those depending on you alive! I would agree with you if it were in anything but an aviation magazine though.
By: Ant.H - 9th August 2003 at 23:11
“Get over it! Those types of pictures serve to remind us of the ever constant danger of flying and to remain vigalant maintaining and constructing Aircraft. Check, Recheck and tripple check maintenance items. It’s to bad the gentelman bought the farm but not to learn from it is the real tragedy.”
Hi Wrenchbender,
I understand your point about learning the lessons of an accident,but I still don’t feel that such a picture has a place in a magazine.The same lessons can be learnt from the official reports into the incident,and there is no need to publish such a picture for the public to gaup at.The aviation community is a well connected one,and surely if there are lessons to be learnt then they will be passed on via the usual channels,rather than relying on a picture in a magazine.
I would also say that vigilance and respect for the possible dangers of flying an aeroplane are forefront in the minds of those who fly them and that the majority need no reminding of these things by the aviation press.
As for the Lindbergh website showing pictures of the crash,they should know better.Again I would say that it was a move to increase the number of hits to thier site than anything else. Respect should be shown for those who’ve died and the bereaved.
By: Wrenchbender - 9th August 2003 at 22:58
Get over it! Those types of pictures serve to remind us of the ever constant danger of flying and to remain vigalant maintaining and constructing Aircraft. Check, Recheck and tripple check maintenance items. It’s to bad the gentelman bought the farm but not to learn from it is the real tragedy.
By: Ant.H - 9th August 2003 at 00:20
“Ant, I was just wondering what your opinion on aviation archaeology is.
The reason I ask is that part of the research process of this (whether fatal or non fatal) is trying to find pictures of the crash, aircraft and indeed the crew. I dont feel we do the crew (whether dead or alive) any disservice by finding and publishing these photos. We also take photos of the crash site (also whether fatal or not) so is this the same thing or is it different. We all have different ideas of what is right and wrong.”
I don’t see anything wrong with aviation archaeology,but I don’t see what that has to do with the publishing of the photo.There is a difference between publishing a picture just a few days after the crash and excavating a wreck 50 years after the accident. There are different intentions involved.My interpretation of Aeroplane’s publishing of the photo is that they wished to increase thier sales by it,which I feel is wrong.There was no objective purpose to the publishing of the picture.True,it helps us to understand what happenned,but you have to ask whether we really need to know,or whether it’s just macabre curiosity.
I think there is also a difference in a picture being taken and it being broadcast or published.If you take pics of crash sites,then it serves as a research tool and as a record of what was found. There is an objective value to it.If you take a picture of a crashing aeroplane,you donate it to the AAIB or whoever and leave it at that.It’s not something which should be brought into the public gaze as it does nothing but satisfy morbid curiosity.Perhaps in a few years or decades it will have some historical significance and could be published on that basis,but for now the subject should be left well alone.I suspect the relatives of the man killed at Coventry could do without the picture of thier loved one’s demise being published so soon after the accident,particulalrly in a magazine which is supposed to support historic aviation.
“the fact that the Editor took time to reply and state a few facts was rather good of them. They really dont need to explain themselves to us”
I agree it’s very good of them to reply.Aeroplane have a highly commendable policy of replying to everything that’s sent to them,so this wasn’t a special case.One of the reasons I’m so keen to make myself heard is the fact that the magazine is so good in many ways.I feel that publishing the picture lets them down.If the mag were crap,I’d probably just toss the copy in the bin and never buy it again,but there is so much that’s good that I’ve come to expect a higher standard of reporting from them. It also presents the general media with a good excuse for publishing crash footage when a respectable magazine is setting the wrong example.
By: Merlin3945 - 8th August 2003 at 23:45
Ant, I was just wondering what your opinion on aviation archaeology is.
The reason I ask is that part of the research process of this (whether fatal or non fatal) is trying to find pictures of the crash, aircraft and indeed the crew. I dont feel we do the crew (whether dead or alive) any disservice by finding and publishing these photos. We also take photos of the crash site (also whether fatal or not) so is this the same thing or is it different. We all have different ideas of what is right and wrong.
I dont believe that it is wrong to report the facts and publish pictures after the accident as it can also help people understand what went wrong when they see for themselves.
However there is an exception to the statement I have just made and that is the plight of the Firefly crew. I believe it was utterly insensative of the news reporters to put the crash live to tv as I am led to believe that the crash was shown before the crews families had been informed. I think this was very insensative and completely wrong of them to do this and would like to see some sort of contract being drawn with airshows and press at events so this does not happen again.
These are my own opinions and not that of my group or any other persons.
I personally dont find anything really wrong in publishing the photo and I think the fact that the Editor took time to reply and state a few facts was rather good of them. They really dont need to explain themselves to us but must have thought about it because their sales could have fallen a lot if people were unhappy with the picture they published.
Sign In
August 8, 2003 at 7:14 pm