Alaska Aircrash Investigations

JohnAJohnson

JohnAJohnson

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
1,328
Location
Orange Beach, AL
Display Name
JohnAJohnson
Home Airfield
KJKA
I've been watching "Alaska Aircrash Investigations" on the Smithsonian Channel and am curious as to the mechanics of the show. It appears to follow the standard scripted, reality show model and is using, as far as I can tell, real NTSB employees.

My questions revolve around the financial aspect of the show. Specifically, is the NTSB charging the production company (Lucky 8 TV and Vesper Entertainment for the Smithsonian Networks) for the use of the talent? If so, is it legal for a government agency to make a buck on the side? If not, is the NTSB staffed so fat that it can assign people to perform in a scripted TV series? If it's PR, the NTSB doesn't need to market. Their job is to investigate transportation calamities and public opinion shouldn't enable or hinder that mission. What am I missing here?
 
Last edited:
I have had some of the same questions but, what makes you say it's "scripted"? It appears to me to be documenting real investigations as they are happening. Am I missing something?
 
Croomrider said:
I have had some of the same questions but, what makes you say it's "scripted"? It appears to me to be documenting real investigations as they are happening. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

There are shots of the wrecks that don't reflect what it should be (example: should be intact, as crashed, but has the spark plug leads disconnected) for the specific presentation (state police and NTSB guy walking up to it for the first time), and the narrative, which comes across as live, is obviously after the fact. Also, on a show like this, it would be impossible to get through it without scripts to follow. There is a lot of pre-work such as story boards, scripts, etc., that I think the NTSB would have to consult on, then there is the actual shooting. I believe lots of NTSB time goes into a production like this.
 
I like the show. I have read about a few of the crashes before the show came out. The show matched the NTSB's published findings. You want a real-time running video documentary of crashes? Ain't gonna happen. Of course some of it is scripted, and it demonstrates very well how crashes are investigated.
 
Not the point. Of course the show is scripted and of course it takes a LOT to edit all the info down to 30 minutes. I didn't even say I didn't like it. My questions concerned the financial arrangements.

Lachlan said:
I like the show. I have read about a few of the crashes before the show came out. The show matched the NTSB's published findings. You want a real-time running video documentary of crashes? Ain't gonna happen. Of course some of it is scripted, and it demonstrates very well how crashes are investigated.
Click to expand...
 
Lachlan said:
...it demonstrates very well how crashes are investigated.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think it does. The NTSB won't spend a week investigating a one-fatality GA crash if that person wasn't politically connected. The usual reason is "understaffed and undermanned," hence, my questioning of the $$$. May be different in Alaska but down here, you're lucky to get a delegated (to the FAA) investigation beyond the autopsy.
 
I saw a few episodes. I actually thought it was decent, relative to the typical TV standard. Sure some things are glossed over and editing can make things seem odd sometimes but it seemed a lot more documentary than a lot of the "reality" shows on TV where there's always some producer off camera encouraging people to add more drama to make things more interesting.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
There are shots of the wrecks that don't reflect what it should be (example: should be intact, as crashed, but has the spark plug leads disconnected) for the specific presentation (state police and NTSB guy walking up to it for the first time)....
Click to expand...

There are lots of legitimate documentary shows that do this. They don't want a camera crew trudging across a fresh scene, so it'll be processed before the camera crew is allowed in. OR the camera crew shows up to the scene late, since they're not necessarily sitting with the investigator every minute of every day. So they very well could call the camera crew and say "Hey, we have an accident 2 miles west of Outtamyway off Highway 55" and they're not going to wait around for the crew to show up before they do their work. That'd be a waste of taxpayer dollars. ;)
 
I understand this and as far as reality shows/documentaries, that's fine. I was simply pointing out that to do this takes a lot of preparation and post editing that would require lots of government manpower. It is a production and not just a camera guy riding along, and because of this I questioned the economics of it all. If a government agency's value is not apparent without using a costly PR department, we don't have transparency, we have propaganda.
 
No, I doubt they are doing their own editing but I'm 99% sure they have someone in the booth as subject matter expert or as approval authority. I can imagine that a cameraman goes out and takes lots of raw footage, followed by story board creation and script writing (which will probably call for some additional reenactment), all of which requires input from and voice over work by the NTSB people, and editing to get the thing in the can. This would be the most efficient way to do it and don't get me wrong, it makes for a good show that I am enjoying.
 
Last edited:
Are people confusing documentaries, which are about reality, with reality shows, which aren't?
 
JohnAJohnson said:
.....Specifically, is the NTSB charging the production company (Lucky 8 TV and Vesper Entertainment for the Smithsonian Networks) for the use of the talent? If so, is it legal for a government agency to make a buck on the side? If not, is the NTSB staffed so fat that it can assign people to perform in a scripted TV series? If it's PR, the NTSB doesn't need to market. Their job is to investigate transportation calamities and public opinion shouldn't enable or hinder that mission. What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I'd think that no, the NTSB has not gone into business selling their investigations for profit. But then States have gone into business making book (lotteries), public schools are selling space to fast food restaurants and soda pop vendors, etc etc.
 
Grandstanding politician. :(
 
I've watched enough to warrant turing it off. 48 year Alaskan here. Alaskan reality shows aren't as real as you guys like to believe.
 
Stewartb said:
I've watched enough to warrant turing it off. 48 year Alaskan here. Alaskan reality shows aren't as real as you guys like to believe.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the PIREP. (I don't get that channel, and haven't felt motivated to pay to watch it online.)
 
Is there a way to watch this show online, without a cable subscription?
 
Htaylor said:
The picture in this article shows the front end of a Cessna 207 belonging to my Alaska employer. Crash happened last summer.
Click to expand...

I knew the pilot of that accident. We were members of the came CAP squadron in MS and flew together once.
 
I watched the first episode after buying it.

It is a good way to spend $2 and an hour of time. The production quality was good. I learned a few things about investigations and the people.

After seeing that episode, when I go on vacation in AK, I will definitely decline to be a passenger in a Cessna if the weather is not clear and the flight is under VFR.

I was puzzled why the investigators were so intent on removing the "ADS-B" from a Cessna 207 panel to recover its flight data, which they used to reconstruct the attitude, direction, altitude, etc. before it impacted terrain. Is it possible they meant a PFD instead of ADS-B?
 
In one episode I want to say the got position data off a garmin 396. I'm not sure if that's possible or not, but if it is, that's pretty cool.
 
NoHeat said:
I watched the first episode after buying it.

It is a good way to spend $2 and an hour of time. The production quality was good. I learned a few things about investigations and the people.

After seeing that episode, when I go on vacation in AK, I will definitely decline to be a passenger in a Cessna if the weather is not clear and the flight is under VFR.

I was puzzled why the investigators were so intent on removing the "ADS-B" from a Cessna 207 panel to recover its flight data, which they used to reconstruct the attitude, direction, altitude, etc. before it impacted terrain. Is it possible they meant a PFD instead of ADS-B?
Click to expand...

When I attended the University of Alaska at Anchorage a couple of years ago one of the professors showed us something called the Capstone program ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capstone_Program )

I saw the episode that you are talking about and from what I remember, the system that they showed looked like the capstone system that was installed in the UAA C182. i never got a chance to fly it because it was ground looped and pretty badly damaged by the same professor. By the time it was back in service, I was leaving. Capstone was an early version of ADS-B and, if I remember correctly, there was a grant program to get these systems in to the charter airplanes as a way to build a foundation for later technology.
 
I thought they did a pretty good job on the first episode, more access to NTSB and the deceased pilot's family than I'd expected.

Looked like VFR into IMC. A stupid question and I'm sure you'll all tell me that, but do Alaska 135 pilots not necessarily have experience in IMC?
 
I came across reruns of Alaska Air Crash Investigations. While I was training for my private license in rotorcraft I became keenly interested in helicopter crashes for the model I flew (CB300), the other popular trainer and general rotorcraft crashes to have an overall perspective against my meager flight time. I wanted to know the common causes and found NTSB preliminary and final reports educational. Bringing together every facet of the aviation industry to determine fault or failure shows in these reports. I've also correlated two trainer crashes with no fatalities at my school with the final NTSB report. Factual information presented without personal opinions or bias is important to the aviation industry when investigating aircraft accidents. AACI seems to be a video version of how NTSB steps thru procedures with similar outcomes to produce a final report that's made public as a US government agency. I'm sure the NTSB is not paying for these episodes with Smithsonian and the producer footing the bills, working closely and with permissions to allow filming accident scenes with strict editing to allow presenting NTSB investigations to the public not interested in dry NTSB reports. As pilots, we all have imaginations but the public may not have any clue why crashes occur and may be curious. AACI seems to fit the NTSB view to present a public view of how intense investigations can be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top