On 3rd August 2002, N3R, a modified Long-EZ on extended loan to NOAA for air sampling, crashed into the sea off Martha's Vineyard. The plane was being flown by Tim Crawford, a highly experienced pilot who had flown N3R hundreds of times on all sorts of missions. The NTSB report of the accident is here.
Since local search and rescue craft were called out after N3R disappeared, and the wreckage was found floating offshore, the local news media snapped into action. The Boston Globe sent along reporters, and in due course an article appeared in the paper, and also in the Boston Herald. To say that the articles were scandalously short on facts and long on hyperbole would be an understatement. The Globe and the Herald seemed to be adhering to the old tabloid journalism rule that one should never let the facts get in the way of a good story. According to the article, the skies were full of "experimental" planes, built by enthusiastic amateurs in garages, held together with glue, sealing wax etc. and at any moment, one of these planes could be about to fall out of the sky on YOU OR YOUR FAMILY. One sentence in the article from the Boston Globe will give you an example. The sentence read "the type of aircraft flown by the scientist has a crash history". One is tempted to reply "No Shit Sherlock". Any plane with more than a few flying examples will have a crash history. The Boeing 757 has a crash history, with many times the number of deaths for every crash of that plane, yet I don't see the Boston Globe ranting and raving about that aircraft. My reaction and that of the canard aviation community was "what is this nonsense?"
Lost in this slew of journalistic innuendo was any coherent description of what might have actually happened. As far as the Globe and the Herald were concerned, the articles implied that the accident occurred because the plane was experimental and clearly failed in flight.
In contrast, the Cape Cod Times printed a short article, reporting the accident, the death of the pilot, and noting that accident investigations were in progress. Missing was any rant about "experimental aircraft" or any attempt to pre-judge the cause of the accident.
N3R was an interesting Long-EZ. It was built from the ground up as an atmospheric sampling aircraft. It carried (among other additional equipment) a nose probe to collect air from out in front of the aircraft, was wider and longer than a standard Long-EZ, and was heavily instrumented. It was also very well maintained. The owners actually maintained a web site for N3R for a number of years, and they published all of the maintenance checklists on the website. I was so impressed with the checklists that I used them as the basis for my own Long-EZ's Annual Condition Inspection and equipment maintenance checklists.
A couple of days after the accident, the local medical examiner's report was released. It revealed that Tim Crawford had suffered an incapacitating stroke in the air, and as a result had lost control of the plane. In the final NTSB accident report, released in 2003, it was stated that he was actually dead before the plane hit the water.
Conclusion: There was no failure of the plane. Tim had unfortunately died almost immediately in flight, intiating the crash into the ocean. He had died doing what he loved best, and there was no issue with the plane, it's maintenance or mode of operation.
The Cape Code Times duly reported the medical examiner's findings on its web site on 7th August.
I then waited for the follow-up article from the Boston Globe. Just as well I wasn't holding my breath. They printed no follow-up, or correction to their initial sensationalist nonsense. After expressing my frustration to my fellow canard aviators, and being reminded by my good friend David Orr that I should be addressing my complaints to the perpetrators, I wrote the Boston Globe an email on 8th August 2002 asking them if they intended to correct their reporting, and received....silence.
Hooray...for the Cape Cod Times. They showed how journalism should work.
Boo Hiss!..to the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. They showed that given the choice between professional journalism and sensationalist nonsense, they would rather publish sensationalist nonsense.