Preliminary NTSB report on Walton accident

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

Here's the link to the preliminary NTSB report on the Walton accident.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05FA100&rpt=p


See ya

Chuck S

[Dave S]

Sounds like a slow gradual flight into the ground, no communication of
an emergency.

Medical Incapacitation, anyone?

Dave

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> Here's the link to the preliminary NTSB report on the Walton accident.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05FA100&rpt=p
>
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S
>

[Morgans]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's the link to the preliminary NTSB report on the Walton accident.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05FA100&rpt=p

Thanks for the link, Chuck.

Has an autopsy been done, and released to the public?

There sure isn't much to give a clue, in the NTSB report. I don't like
speculation, but I gotta wonder about medical complications.
--
Jim in NC

[RST Engineering]

....consistent with every "pilot was dead before he hit the ground" report
I've read in the last 40 years.

God bless.


Jim



"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's the link to the preliminary NTSB report on the Walton accident.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05FA100&rpt=p
>
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S
>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Morgans says...

It's in the process .

See ya

Chuck S

>Has an autopsy been done, and released to the public?
>
>There sure isn't much to give a clue, in the NTSB report. I don't like
>speculation, but I gotta wonder about medical complications.

[Juan Jimenez]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> ...consistent with every "pilot was dead before he hit the ground" report
> I've read in the last 40 years.

Also consistent with every "pilot in a new aircraft finds him/herself in an
unfamiliar situation and does what he/she's supposed to be doing... aviate
first, then communicate, and finds himself in a no-win situation leading to
a crash."

Juan

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-07-06 23:05:40 -0400, "RST Engineering" > said:

> ...consistent with every "pilot was dead before he hit the ground"
> report I've read in the last 40 years.


Jim and guys --

Lord, I hope that was the case for several reasons --

1. it means JW went instantly doing what he loved more than anything
(except maybe running recon). No suffering.

2. It means our sport is off the hook. Not that that will ever get the
headlines that Walton's premature death did.

3. It means that the questions some have prematurely raised about the
aircraft -- an aircraft that has flown tens of thousands of hours (at
least) by hundreds and hundreds of pilots (at least) over 20+ years --
can be laid to rest. They should not have been raised.

I keep saying (in every outlet I've got including here at the FBO) that
it's premature to speculate about plane crashes when we don't have the
data. Of course, it's hard to resist, yet mainstream media reports,
initial NTSB/FAA reports, and even aviation media reports (which tend
to depend on the first two in the early stages of a crash
investigation) are thin and speculative by nature.

The only regular in this group who has any significant amount of the
data is Chuck (as a "party" to the investigation, a term which has a
formal, specific meaning) and he is, in the way of the "party" system,
required to keep what he learns confidential, pretty much, until NTSB
is ready to release it (If I'm wrong about that, Chuck will correct me,
but I'm pretty sure he got the standard Board "what you learn here
stays here until the factual report is released" speech). When the
factual report is released, the information has been gathered and the
professionals are working it up for the actual Board members to vote on
probable cause at a Board meeting.

There are occasional NTSB reports I find that I disagree with, but it's
often a matter of degree or giving the right weight to different causal
factors, a pretty subtle thing. More often, I'm amazed at their
dedication and detective work (especially when you consider the
starvation wage those guys and gals get paid).

There are legitimate (and not so legitimate) disagreements between lots
of people in aviation. I would hope that safety would be one area where
we could work together and not resort to uninformed bashing. What if
some producer for 60 Minutes looked in here and contacted a basher to
do a hack attack on some manufacturer (that IS the way 60-min works)?
Not many people have been around long enough to remember when bad
journalism damn near killed ultralighting 20 years ago, but it did.

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Zoomballastic]

"Juan Jimenez" >
:

>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ...consistent with every "pilot was dead before he hit the ground"
>> report I've read in the last 40 years.
>
> Also consistent with every "pilot in a new aircraft finds him/herself
> in an unfamiliar situation and does what he/she's supposed to be
> doing... aviate first, then communicate, and finds himself in a no-win
> situation leading to a crash."
>
> Juan

Ooops! Someone's not getting any..


>
>

[Big John]

A bit of history that could be applicable????

At the end of WWII, AAC Pilots could get a Private Pilots License by
taking a 20 question test on Civiliam rules. No flight test required.

There were a multitude of accidents in GA aircraft with AAC Pilots who
had been flying Heavy Iron and did not understand the low power GA
aircraft flight charactics.

Could this have been a factor in this accident since he had a fair
amount of 'heavy' time???

Big John
````````````````````````````````````````````

On 6 Jul 2005 17:30:06 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>
>Here's the link to the preliminary NTSB report on the Walton accident.
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05FA100&rpt=p
>
>
>See ya
>
>Chuck S

[Juan Jimenez]

"Zoomballastic" > wrote in message ...
>
> Ooops! Someone's not getting any..

So take the paper bag of your head, that may help you.

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-07-10 21:01:33 -0400, Big John > said:

> Could this have been a factor in this accident since he had a fair
> amount of 'heavy' time???

He had a ton of light GA time including about five years of cropdusting
in the seventies.
--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Big John]

Kevin

I may well stand corrected?????????????

I've never flown a duster, either loaded or empty.

'Heavy Iron' normally is operated well above the best glide air speed.
If you lose an engine(s), the inertia allows you to trade air speed
for altitude until your airspeed is reduced to best glide speed or
hold altitude until A/S bleeds off. In either cae you have a period of
time until you have to do anything to transition to the emergency
condition.

In GA aircraft you see, as a standard procedure, to imediately push
over to maintain best glide speed as the available excess inertia is
small and if you don't, then you can approach a stall condition with
fatal results.

My SIL had a UL that was so draggy it required using power on final
approach to maintain best glide air speed vs diving toward the end of
the R/W. He ended up donating the aircraft to Arlington and it is
displayed each year as an example of UL construction, etc. Those who
attended Arlington this year may have seen the bird and talked to
Robert?

Through my many years of flying I have see good guys who flew safely
not survive and don't have an answer to that phenomena :o(

Best to all and fly conservatively and safe.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:21:36 -0400, Kevin O'Brien
<kevin@org-header-is-my-domain-name> wrote:

>On 2005-07-10 21:01:33 -0400, Big John > said:
>
>> Could this have been a factor in this accident since he had a fair
>> amount of 'heavy' time???
>
>He had a ton of light GA time including about five years of cropdusting
>in the seventies.