This is irresponsible reporting. The headline and lede make it seem like this was somehow a failure on the part of the iPad itself. It was not.
Read on, and you'll understand that the issue was that, once dropped, the iPad became a wedged-in obstruction to flight control mechanisms. The same would've been the case if the dropped item had been a Microsoft Surface, or a paper notebook in a rigid binder. There is no fault in the hardware design or software operation of the iPad itself.
I think anyone can quickly assess that the iPad was not responsible. I recall a Harrier jet crash decades ago with a similar cause. The ground lost contact with the jet and it flew out to sea. Other jets were scrambled and they noted that the canopy was gone and the pilot was missing. The plane eventually crashed and the pilot found deceased in the woods somewhere. Investigation determined that a hand-held flashlight fell under the seat and when the pilot changed the seat orientation (maybe after turning into the sun), the flashlight wedged under the seat ejection actuator cable. As the seat moved, the cable got pulled and the seat ejection rockets fired the pilot through the canopy. The cause was termed "accidental extraction of crew". Remedy was to tie all loose items to a string to prevent it from getting under the seat.
This is irresponsible reporting. The headline and lede make it seem like this was somehow a failure on the part of the iPad itself. It was not.
Read on, and you'll understand that the issue was that, once dropped, the iPad became a wedged-in obstruction to flight control mechanisms. The same would've been the case if the dropped item had been a Microsoft Surface, or a paper notebook in a rigid binder. There is no fault in the hardware design or software operation of the iPad itself.
The headline is 100% correct. Nothing in the headline implies that it was a failure of an Apple product. The headline couldn’t have been simpler and more correct.
I’m as Rah Rah for Apple as the next guy but this sort of comment is funny and ridiculous at the same time. Of course it could have been a MS Surface or a book or binder. And the headline would have been “Fatal Helicopter Crash Likely Caused by Dropped Book”. No one would think that the content or color of the book would have been related to the crash. Why would you think a software error on a dropped iPad was the cause here? It plainly states that the fact the iPad was dropped was a cause.
The headline is 100% not correct, particularly as most people only read headlines (sadly) The report is correct and the investigators are pointing the finger in between the lines at electronic kit bags, not being secured correctly during flight
Wrong. Both things can be true. You say that the accident was caused by electronic kit bags not being secured. While the securing of the kit bags may have prevented the accident in the first place, it was the iPad falling and getting trapped in a bad location that actually caused the accident.
This is irresponsible reporting. The headline and lede make it seem like this was somehow a failure on the part of the iPad itself. It was not.
Read on, and you'll understand that the issue was that, once dropped, the iPad became a wedged-in obstruction to flight control mechanisms. The same would've been the case if the dropped item had been a Microsoft Surface, or a paper notebook in a rigid binder. There is no fault in the hardware design or software operation of the iPad itself.
Not to mention disrespectful to allow commenting. My opinion.
I don’t think there was anything wrong with the story or headline. Except that the only reason AI reported it was that it was or might have been an iPad that got stuck. The story isn’t about an iPad, it’s about a dropped object that may have caused this tragedy.
But again, don’t depend on a headline for facts. I do think headlines are over sensationalized and often are contradictory to the actual story and that is the real problem with this article.
To al those commenting, the headline was changed shortly after AppleZulu commented to what it currently reads. Earlier the headline said something to the effect of "Helicopter crash caused by iPad". Adding the word "dropped" changed the tone dramatically.
I saw the initial headline and had the same thought as AppleZulu. AI should have put a note or a response to AppleZulu’s comment. Being an Apple-centric site the expectation is generally that stories have some relevance to the devices or technology. The story here is that a dropped object interfered with the helicopter controls and caused a crash. There’s a difference between an enticing headline that peaks the readers interest in being misleading Clickbait.
FAA guidelines state that all objects and equipment in the cockpit should be secured for this very reason. As the article states, iPads are frequently used by pilots as flight aids so its presence in the cockpit was likely entirely legitimate, and this tragic accident simply a result of the pilot’s mistake.
This was my point. The original headline and lede on an Apple-centric site pointed to the Apple iPad-ness of the cause of the tragic accident. If the dropped object wasn’t an iPad, why would the story even land on this site? Also note that, as of this writing, this is still an ‘above the fold’ featured story.
I’ll also note that as of this writing, the story’s lede still plays to that diversionary click-bait: “The National Transportation Safety Board has found significant evidence that an iPad likely caused a fatal helicopter crash in Idaho in 2022.” So no matter what the following details reveal, the reader’s initial impression is that this crash was caused by an iPad. It’s then up to the reader’s attentiveness to change that first impression. It’s doubtful, frankly, that any reader would make it all the way back to mentally drop the association with Apple entirely. The actual takeaway here is that loose objects in aircraft cockpits can conceivably cause serious problems, regardless of their intended purpose or who made the objects.
This is irresponsible reporting. The headline and lede make it seem like this was somehow a failure on the part of the iPad itself. It was not.
Read on, and you'll understand that the issue was that, once dropped, the iPad became a wedged-in obstruction to flight control mechanisms. The same would've been the case if the dropped item had been a Microsoft Surface, or a paper notebook in a rigid binder. There is no fault in the hardware design or software operation of the iPad itself.
The headline is 100% correct. Nothing in the headline implies that it was a failure of an Apple product. The headline couldn’t have been simpler and more correct.
I’m as Rah Rah for Apple as the next guy but this sort of comment is funny and ridiculous at the same time. Of course it could have been a MS Surface or a book or binder. And the headline would have been “Fatal Helicopter Crash Likely Caused by Dropped Book”. No one would think that the content or color of the book would have been related to the crash. Why would you think a software error on a dropped iPad was the cause here? It plainly states that the fact the iPad was dropped was a cause.
You’re unintentionally supporting my point. “Fatal Helicopter Crash Likely Caused by Dropped Book.” Supporting it in two ways, actually. Leave out the word “dropped,” and many would immediately infer that the content of the book led to some kind of operational error. Most references to books are not about generic, rigid blocks of pulped wood.
Put the word “dropped” in, and suddenly maybe we are talking about a generic rigid object. At this point, some alert readers will correctly infer the rest and won’t even need to read the article, and in fact won’t bother. Despite the brutal tragedy, it’s a fait accompli, and not that interesting. Replace the generic book with an iPad, however, and you’ve got some juicy click-bait. That’s why I said this was irresponsible. Click-bait in general is a scourge, and click-bait built on top of tragic circumstances has, let’s just say, additional moral implications.
This is irresponsible reporting. The headline and lede make it seem like this was somehow a failure on the part of the iPad itself. It was not.
Read on, and you'll understand that the issue was that, once dropped, the iPad became a wedged-in obstruction to flight control mechanisms. The same would've been the case if the dropped item had been a Microsoft Surface, or a paper notebook in a rigid binder. There is no fault in the hardware design or software operation of the iPad itself.
Definitely irresponsible, and you definitely wouldn't have clicked on it unless the headline was crafted as such. I loathe media.
This is irresponsible reporting. The headline and lede make it seem like this was somehow a failure on the part of the iPad itself. It was not.
Read on, and you'll understand that the issue was that, once dropped, the iPad became a wedged-in obstruction to flight control mechanisms. The same would've been the case if the dropped item had been a Microsoft Surface, or a paper notebook in a rigid binder. There is no fault in the hardware design or software operation of the iPad itself.
... I loathe media.
Well, if that's true you could go to North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq or Syria.
I once had my cat sleep under my car’s brake pedal during a road trip
I had a filled water bottle dropped and rolled under my brake pedal once and I couldn’t press my brake all the way in. It was a freak out moment that I never forget. Luckily and miraculously an accident was avoided by steering my wheel viciously.
Comments
I don’t think there was anything wrong with the story or headline. Except that the only reason AI reported it was that it was or might have been an iPad that got stuck. The story isn’t about an iPad, it’s about a dropped object that may have caused this tragedy.
chadbag said: You’re unintentionally supporting my point. “Fatal Helicopter Crash Likely Caused by Dropped Book.” Supporting it in two ways, actually. Leave out the word “dropped,” and many would immediately infer that the content of the book led to some kind of operational error. Most references to books are not about generic, rigid blocks of pulped wood.