PAO 101 - the math should balance on the same page...

[Eclipse]

http://generalaviationnews.com/2015/01/26/sd-cap-wing-holds-search-and-rescue-training/

"All five of the wing's aircraft, six vehicles and 75 officers and cadets took part in the training exercise."

"The South Dakota Wing of the Civil Air Patrol, with squadrons in South Dakota in Sioux Falls, Brookings, Rapid City, Pierre, Custer and Spearfish has approximately 300 members, six aircraft and 17 multi-purpose vehicles."

When you send a press release to a news agency, the math should be the same throughout the article...

[LSThiker]

Well they have 5 aircraft assigned to SDWG.  Unfortunately, I cannot tell/remember if they have a glider assigned to them as well.  So while it may be difficult for a lay person to understand, it may after all be an accurate statement that needs a better explanation. 

This line appears to be a canned line that is used throughout their press releases in 2014. 
"The South Dakota Wing of the Civil Air Patrol, with squadrons in Sioux Falls, Brookings, Rapid City, Pierre, Custer and Spearfish,
has approximately 300 members, six light aircraft and 17 multi-purpose vehicles."

[A.Member]

^ You don't need to make excuses for them.   

Eclipse is right.  PAO's need to ensure what they're producing is accurate.

...oh, and last I checked, glider is an aircraft, so that attempt doesn't aid the excuse in any way.

[LSThiker]

^ You don't need to make excuses for them.   

Eclipse is right.  PAO's need to ensure what they're producing is accurate.

...oh, and last I checked, glider is an aircraft, so that attempt doesn't aid the excuse in any way.

Cricky, was not making an excuse so please do not assume.  I have no connections to SDWG but you seemed to have taken something as personal.

What they said could after all be accurate statements.  All 5 powered aircraft showed up and they have 5 assigned powered aircraft.  So that statement is true.

If they have a glider (again I am not sure because I cannot remember if SDWG was assigned one or not), then the statement they have six aircraft is true as well.

So they have made two factual statements (assuming they have a glider as well).  As I pointed out earlier, they just need to better explain the aircraft classifications.   

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Not to mention that the PAO's press release might have said "All five of the wing's powered aircraft,..." and reporter or editor may have considered powered aircraft redundant and removed powered.

Judging a PAO's work by what shows up in the media is guesswork at best.

[lordmonar]

What gave anyone the idea that this was issued by a CAP PAO or PIO?

The by line is the general aviation staff.

[A.Member]

What gave anyone the idea that this was issued by a CAP PAO or PIO?

The by line is the general aviation staff.

The story didn't get here by accident.

[Eclipse]

I certainly never said that, just making the point.
Granted, most people skim headlines in their Twitbook feed with 1/2 attention,  but
occasionally people actually read the articles, and when simple math doesn't balance,
the details of the whole article come into question.

With that said, where do you think these seed stories come from?  Of course someone locally
sent them the release.

Whether it's a PAO using an old footer, the or the editor not bothering to proof read it,
that's a fairly glaring mistake to miss in such a short article.

It caught my attention mainly because NHQ chose to use that sentence as the URL to the original article.

[lordmonar]

What gave anyone the idea that this was issued by a CAP PAO or PIO?

The by line is the general aviation staff.

The story didn't get here by accident.

Does not mean a CAP PAO/PIO wrote it.

[Eclipse]

Does not mean a CAP PAO/PIO wrote it.

it was most likely submitted as a general release by the wing to either a syndicate or a bunch of new outlets.

But fair enough, that means that the editor didn't proof it.

[SarDragon]

I certainly never said that, just making the point.
Granted, most people skim headlines in their Twitbook feed with 1/2 attention,  but
occasionally people actually read the articles, and when simple math doesn't balance,
the details of the whole article come into question.

With that said, where do you think these seed stories come from?  Of course someone locally
sent them the release.

Whether it's a PAO using an old footer, the or the editor not bothering to proof read it,
that's a fairly glaring mistake to miss in such a short article.

It caught my attention mainly because NHQ chose to use that sentence as the URL to the original article.

Oh really? Is this intended to be an example of genuine frontier gibberish?

Hoist on your own petard! 

[Eclipse]

Good catch.

Proves the rule...