Beech V35 crashes in S.C.

[Mike W.]

Some sad news...

http://www.nbc4i.com/news/4763280/detail.html

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Mike W. wrote:
> Some sad news...
>
> http://www.nbc4i.com/news/4763280/detail.html


I was working Sunday when one of the EMT's mentioned an airplane had crashed out
by the airport. A quick call to Bryant Field suggested nobody was missing and
there'd been no Mayday called.

I can't help but think this fellow was circling his father's house when he ran
dry or his engine decided to take a powder. Not that there was anything wrong
with that... nobody suggested he was buzzing, but I have to wonder what he was
circling "looking for a place to land" since he was essentially already in the
pattern for Bryant Field. The newspaper said his parents lived about a mile
from the airport. Purely conjecture at this point....

The other thing that comes to mind is the conception people have on the ground
that he was a hero somehow "because he tried so hard not to hit anything".
Well, don't we all? In my own crash back in 1988 they said the same thing about
the excellent job I'd done avoiding the houses and kids playing in the yards.
At the time I can remember asking: "What kids? What houses?" When something
like this happens your mind focuses on the clear space, not the obstacles.

I'm not knocking this guy. I have no doubt he did the best he could and it just
didn't work out well for him. I am delighted I wasn't flying with him because I
doubt I'd have done any better. But let's not misunderstand what he did or why
he did it. He did what any of us would do... what any of us do. I personally
always try to avoid obstacles when I land, emergency or not.

The public perception is akin to the "great responsibility" airline pilots feel
towards all the folks in back. Actually, the great responsibility is towards
themselves. And if they arrive alive, EVERYBODY arrives alive. These people
aren't bigger than life; they're just real people. But I digress.

The fellow sitting in the back seat of the Bonanza is still in critical
condition at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte. That is an excellent trauma
center and if it's possible for the guy to pull through, they'll find it. My
prayers go to him, his family and to the families of the ones who died. They're
the ones who feel the pain.

Please excuse my rambling. This brought back some memories I don't enjoy.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Dudley Henriques]

As cruel as it sounds, you are quite right in my opinion about the "save the
kids in the schoolhouse" theory. I lost a friend in an F86 that had the same
media presentation associated with the crash. It's so common that it's
actually a known issue among professional pilots, and to many of us
represents a disservice to a pilot by tagging him with a story his
associates or anyone with half a brain knows to be untrue!
I can tell you from my own experience that when it comes to putting a
crippled airplane on the ground, you're looking for only one thing, and you
have but one thing on your mind and that's putting it into that clear area
you're trying desperately trying to reach over there because that's the only
spot you see that just might save your life. In these situations you can't
see schoolhouses. You can see people at the last second, but you're not
looking for people. You're looking for open ground, and open ground usually
will mean no people anyway.
Personally, I wish the GD media would stay the hell out of our cockpits and
stop using us to sell stories to the public. If some pilot is lucky enough
to get it into that open spot over there without killing himself and others
in the process, he has in effect done his job properly and that's good
enough for the pilots who know him. If he dies trying to get it in there,
that's ALSO good enough for the pilots who knew him and those who survive
him.
Dudley Henriques

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> Mike W. wrote:
>> Some sad news...
>>
>> http://www.nbc4i.com/news/4763280/detail.html
>
>
> I was working Sunday when one of the EMT's mentioned an airplane had
> crashed out by the airport. A quick call to Bryant Field suggested nobody
> was missing and there'd been no Mayday called.
>
> I can't help but think this fellow was circling his father's house when he
> ran dry or his engine decided to take a powder. Not that there was
> anything wrong with that... nobody suggested he was buzzing, but I have to
> wonder what he was circling "looking for a place to land" since he was
> essentially already in the pattern for Bryant Field. The newspaper said
> his parents lived about a mile from the airport. Purely conjecture at
> this point....
>
> The other thing that comes to mind is the conception people have on the
> ground that he was a hero somehow "because he tried so hard not to hit
> anything". Well, don't we all? In my own crash back in 1988 they said the
> same thing about the excellent job I'd done avoiding the houses and kids
> playing in the yards. At the time I can remember asking: "What kids? What
> houses?" When something like this happens your mind focuses on the clear
> space, not the obstacles.
>
> I'm not knocking this guy. I have no doubt he did the best he could and
> it just didn't work out well for him. I am delighted I wasn't flying with
> him because I doubt I'd have done any better. But let's not misunderstand
> what he did or why he did it. He did what any of us would do... what any
> of us do. I personally always try to avoid obstacles when I land,
> emergency or not.
>
> The public perception is akin to the "great responsibility" airline pilots
> feel towards all the folks in back. Actually, the great responsibility is
> towards themselves. And if they arrive alive, EVERYBODY arrives alive.
> These people aren't bigger than life; they're just real people. But I
> digress.
>
> The fellow sitting in the back seat of the Bonanza is still in critical
> condition at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte. That is an excellent
> trauma center and if it's possible for the guy to pull through, they'll
> find it. My prayers go to him, his family and to the families of the ones
> who died. They're the ones who feel the pain.
>
> Please excuse my rambling. This brought back some memories I don't enjoy.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>
>

[Maule Driver]

Sounds like a welcome gift horse to me - but I hear you.

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Personally, I wish the GD media would stay the hell out of our cockpits and
> stop using us to sell stories to the public. If some pilot is lucky enough
> to get it into that open spot over there without killing himself and others
> in the process, he has in effect done his job properly and that's good
> enough for the pilots who know him. If he dies trying to get it in there,
> that's ALSO good enough for the pilots who knew him and those who survive
> him.

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:46:46 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>As cruel as it sounds, you are quite right in my opinion about the "save the
>kids in the schoolhouse" theory. I lost a friend in an F86 that had the same
>media presentation associated with the crash. It's so common that it's
>actually a known issue among professional pilots, and to many of us
>represents a disservice to a pilot by tagging him with a story his
>associates or anyone with half a brain knows to be untrue!

I heard the media praising the pilot of a Stealth Fighter that lost an
aileron during an air show (a few years ago) and the airplane suffered
severe flutter and broke up. The pilot ejected and the airplane
wafted down looking like a big falling leaf. No one was injured and
the media claimed it was because the pilot skillfully avoided the
crowd.

Anyone seeing that flight would know that once the airplane began
loosing parts, the pilot became a passenger. It reared up and stopped
flying almost instantly. The pilot ejected immediately.

Corky Scott

[Dudley Henriques]

There's always been a fairly large crevasse between the natural romance of
flight and the reality involved with flight. In most cases, those of us who
remain as pilots for some length of time learn to appreciate the difference
and deal with it.
The press on the other hand, for reasons of their own, in many cases
involving our last moments as pilots, choose to emphasize the romance and
completely neglect the realities.
Dudley Henriques

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
om...
> Sounds like a welcome gift horse to me - but I hear you.
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Personally, I wish the GD media would stay the hell out of our cockpits
>> and stop using us to sell stories to the public. If some pilot is lucky
>> enough to get it into that open spot over there without killing himself
>> and others in the process, he has in effect done his job properly and
>> that's good enough for the pilots who know him. If he dies trying to get
>> it in there, that's ALSO good enough for the pilots who knew him and
>> those who survive him.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:46:46 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>As cruel as it sounds, you are quite right in my opinion about the "save
>>the
>>kids in the schoolhouse" theory. I lost a friend in an F86 that had the
>>same
>>media presentation associated with the crash. It's so common that it's
>>actually a known issue among professional pilots, and to many of us
>>represents a disservice to a pilot by tagging him with a story his
>>associates or anyone with half a brain knows to be untrue!
>
> I heard the media praising the pilot of a Stealth Fighter that lost an
> aileron during an air show (a few years ago) and the airplane suffered
> severe flutter and broke up. The pilot ejected and the airplane
> wafted down looking like a big falling leaf. No one was injured and
> the media claimed it was because the pilot skillfully avoided the
> crowd.
>
> Anyone seeing that flight would know that once the airplane began
> loosing parts, the pilot became a passenger. It reared up and stopped
> flying almost instantly. The pilot ejected immediately.
>
> Corky Scott

Exactly!

For the media , the facts end the story too quickly, and contain no "hook".
The media equation is quite simple; facts CAN be uninteresting. Romance on
the other hand............ALWAYS SELLS!!!!
Dudley Henriques

[Mike W.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...

> I can't help but think this fellow was circling his father's house when he
ran
> dry or his engine decided to take a powder.

I am familiar with that aircraft, it was based at the airport I fly out of
(KOSU). It was up for sale earlier this year. I would bet when the report
comes out, the tanks are dry.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

[Peter R.]

"Mike W." > wrote:

> I would bet when the report comes out, the tanks are dry.

On what do you base this speculation?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Mike W. wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I can't help but think this fellow was circling his father's house when he
>> ran dry or his engine decided to take a powder.
>
> I am familiar with that aircraft, it was based at the airport I fly out of
> (KOSU). It was up for sale earlier this year. I would bet when the report
> comes out, the tanks are dry.


Well, there was conjecture that there was no fuel because there was no fire, but
I'm living proof that doesn't mean much. I crashed a Lance full of fuel,
splashed it everywhere, and I didn't burn.... for which I thank God.

Having run a tank dry more than once, the description does sound a little
familiar though. I remember a Baron that crashed in Lake Wylie back in the
1980s maybe a mile from the currently discussed crash site that supposedly ran
out of gas, yet I got eaten alive when I dove on the wreck from the avgas
getting under my wetsuit (I recovered three bodies from that one). The Baron
had four fuel tanks but only two fuel gauges... and it was possible to read one
tank while feeding from another. That particular pilot never thought to change
tanks because the fuel gauges still ran full. The mistake killed him.

I don't have any time in Bonanzas... could this have happened here?

To confuse things further, the TV last night said the NTSB was looking into a
different cause for the accident other than fuel. That opens quite a can of
worms. The one thing I know without a doubt, the crash wasn't weather related.
Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine. Although I'm fairly certain the
NTSB, in their infinite wisdom, will find the pilot contributed to the accident
by" failing to maintain separation from the terrain". It's amazing how they
think the laws of the FAA supercede those of gravity.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> That particular pilot never thought to change
> tanks because the fuel gauges still ran full. The mistake killed him.
>
> I don't have any time in Bonanzas... could this have happened here?

The V35B I fly has a left, right, and off fuel selector. The two Beech
fuel gauges do indicate full fuel, but the left tank gauge is slow to
indicate any level less than full.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Rich Ahrens]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> The press on the other hand, for reasons of their own, in many cases
> involving our last moments as pilots, choose to emphasize the romance and
> completely neglect the realities.

You are of course ignoring the fact that it wasn't "the press" who said
he avoided a swimming pool at the end. It was the public - eyewitnesses.
That big, bad "press" simply reported what the eyewitnesses said.
Strangely enough, that's exactly what they're supposed to do.

Certainly eyewitnesses get things wrong at times. But what would you
have the reporter do - balance what the eyewitnesses reported with the
speculation of a few Usenet pilots who weren't there?

I think an unbiased reader can determine who is more responsible here -
the journalist reporting objectively what witnesses said, or a Usenet
poster (Mr. Schnerd) making an uninformed and potentially libelous
accusation such as the pilot "was circling his father's house when he
ran dry." Not that you find many unbiased readers in Usenet...

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> There's always been a fairly large crevasse between the natural romance of
> flight and the reality involved with flight. In most cases, those of us who
> remain as pilots for some length of time learn to appreciate the difference
> and deal with it.
> The press on the other hand, for reasons of their own, in many cases
> involving our last moments as pilots, choose to emphasize the romance and
> completely neglect the realities.

What harm does it cause if the press and general public believe that
pilots are trying to avoid schools, crowds, etc.? Even if their motive
isn't pure (trying to create a story), I'm not sure that the outcome is
all that bad for pilots. I'd rather have this than reporters saying
that pilots just look for any open spot and don't care if it is a
playground.


Matt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> There's always been a fairly large crevasse between the natural romance
>> of flight and the reality involved with flight. In most cases, those of
>> us who remain as pilots for some length of time learn to appreciate the
>> difference and deal with it.
>> The press on the other hand, for reasons of their own, in many cases
>> involving our last moments as pilots, choose to emphasize the romance and
>> completely neglect the realities.
>
> What harm does it cause if the press and general public believe that
> pilots are trying to avoid schools, crowds, etc.? Even if their motive
> isn't pure (trying to create a story), I'm not sure that the outcome is
> all that bad for pilots. I'd rather have this than reporters saying that
> pilots just look for any open spot and don't care if it is a playground.

Nobody said anything about 'not caring'. You are one bridge too far.

[Dudley Henriques]

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not even referring to this specific accident.
I'm basing my comments about the media on years and years of reading what
these idiots write. I made no reference to this specific incident at all.
DH
"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> The press on the other hand, for reasons of their own, in many cases
>> involving our last moments as pilots, choose to emphasize the romance and
>> completely neglect the realities.
>
> You are of course ignoring the fact that it wasn't "the press" who said he
> avoided a swimming pool at the end. It was the public - eyewitnesses. That
> big, bad "press" simply reported what the eyewitnesses said. Strangely
> enough, that's exactly what they're supposed to do.
>
> Certainly eyewitnesses get things wrong at times. But what would you have
> the reporter do - balance what the eyewitnesses reported with the
> speculation of a few Usenet pilots who weren't there?
>
> I think an unbiased reader can determine who is more responsible here -
> the journalist reporting objectively what witnesses said, or a Usenet
> poster (Mr. Schnerd) making an uninformed and potentially libelous
> accusation such as the pilot "was circling his father's house when he ran
> dry." Not that you find many unbiased readers in Usenet...

[Rich Ahrens]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not even referring to this specific
> accident. I'm basing my comments about the media on years and years
> of reading what these idiots write. I made no reference to this
> specific incident at all.

Under the subject line "Beech V35 crashes in S.C." Context matters, and
that makes it pretty specific...

[Dudley Henriques]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not even referring to this specific
>> accident. I'm basing my comments about the media on years and years of
>> reading what these idiots write. I made no reference to this specific
>> incident at all.
>
> Under the subject line "Beech V35 crashes in S.C." Context matters, and
> that makes it pretty specific...

Although dealing with the subject line is indeed an option for a responding
post, it is also quite common to address issues brought up within the
subject body, which in this case is exactly what my response did.
If you read both the initial post and my response to it, you will
immediately see that the initial poster addressed a side issue directly
related to his line of thinking that deals with general media projection
after a great many crashes.
It was this I was addressing and nothing else. That was made quite plain in
my post, since I deliberately avoided mentioning the specific crash being
discussed.
Of course, if it's your thing that only the main topic be addressed in all
responding posts, I'll take that as your critique on Usenet protocol. Other
than that, I think it's quite obvious what my responding post was meant to
convey and I'll leave it at that unless you wish to continue this path with
me.
DH

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Rich Ahrens wrote:
> I think an unbiased reader can determine who is more responsible here -
> the journalist reporting objectively what witnesses said, or a Usenet
> poster (Mr. Schnerd) making an uninformed and potentially libelous
> accusation such as the pilot "was circling his father's house when he
> ran dry." Not that you find many unbiased readers in Usenet...


You have taken my statement out of context. I never framed it as anything other
than conjecture; I suggested that he may have run out of fuel or "his engine may
have taken a powder".

As for libelous statements, since when is circling your father's house a crime?
Nobody said he was buzzing; least of all me. The original newspaper articles
quoted somebody as having said he must have been circling looking for a place to
land. With the Rock Hill Airport less than a mile away, I find that unlikely.
What better place to land?

I'm not busting this guy's balls. All I'm saying is that the media and the
public's view of pilots in general is a little cloudy.

Which of us is more uninformed here? Which one of us lives in the area? Which
of us flies out of that airport and has since the late 1970s? Which of us has
had to deadstick a sick airplane to a disasterous landing? Which of us has had
his motivations misinterpreted in the same way the poor dead guy was in trying
to land in a clear spot? I think I have something to offer here... even if the
facts aren't all in. My conjecture comes from a certain level of specific
experience I doubt you can match. And I do call it conjecture.

If I end up being totally off-base I've still made some valid points about the
media and the public's perceptions of these events.

"A journalist reporting objectively"? How do you know the reporter was
objective? Perhaps the quotes that didn't fit the leanings of the article were
discarded. Do you really doubt that happens?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mike W.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...

> I don't have any time in Bonanzas... could this have happened here?

If I remember right, the plane did have tip tanks. Not sure about the guage
arrangement.
>
> To confuse things further, the TV last night said the NTSB was looking
into a
> different cause for the accident other than fuel. That opens quite a can
of
> worms.

Maybe a pump failure. You mentioned weather. What about carb icing?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Mike W. wrote:
>> To confuse things further, the TV last night said the NTSB was looking into a
>> different cause for the accident other than fuel. That opens quite a can of
>> worms.
>
> Maybe a pump failure. You mentioned weather. What about carb icing?


It was hot and humid... a possibility I suppose. I thought the Bonanza was
injected.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Rick]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote in message ...
[snip]

>The other thing that comes to mind is the conception people have on the
ground
>that he was a hero somehow "because he tried so hard not to hit anything".
>Well, don't we all? In my own crash back in 1988 they said the same thing
about
>the excellent job I'd done avoiding the houses and kids playing in the
yards.
>At the time I can remember asking: "What kids? What houses?" When
something
>like this happens your mind focuses on the clear space, not the obstacles.

I caught the end of a TV report on a helicopter crash today. They also
mentioned the "heroic effort" by the pilot. I know in some cases there can
be some control by the pilot, but in this case it looks too early to know
what the exact cause is. It was reported that the "rotor came off", but that
may have just been an eyewitness account. It certainly was unattached by the
time the chopper came to a rest - fortunately gently enough to save the
passengers from anything but minor injuries.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-0507180181jul18,1,3484602.story?c
oll=chi-newsbreaking-hed

- Rick

[Peter R.]

"Mike W." > wrote:

> If I remember right, the plane did have tip tanks.

For those who may be unaware, the Beryl D'Shannon tip tanks, one of two
manufacturers (IIRC) that are STC'ed for the V35, have separate fuel pumps
that must be manually activated by the pilot.

These pumps, when operating, send the fuel into the main tanks at a rate of
about 13 gallons per hour, which results in approximately 1 1/4 hours to
completely drain the 17 gallons (literature only states 15, but in reality
tips hold almost 17) from the tips into the mains.

Since a Bonanza, depending on the engine, burns about 16 to 17 gallons per
hour, the pilot will not be able to pump the fuel from the tips to the
mains in time to prevent fuel exhaustion if the mains were to go dry prior
to the tip pumps being activated.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter R.]

"Mike W." > wrote:

> What about carb icing?

The IO-520 (original engine in the V35) and IO-550 (an available upgrade)
are fuel injected.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Maule Driver]

The press is sloppy and ill informed regarding aviation in general and
accidents in particular. Since the reporting is so often independent of
reality, I'd say we are fools to not encourage "the natural romance" and
discourage the negative realities when dealing with the press and
public relations.

It's an information war and we should try to win.

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> There's always been a fairly large crevasse between the natural romance of
> flight and the reality involved with flight. In most cases, those of us who
> remain as pilots for some length of time learn to appreciate the difference
> and deal with it.
> The press on the other hand, for reasons of their own, in many cases
> involving our last moments as pilots, choose to emphasize the romance and
> completely neglect the realities.
> Dudley Henriques
>
> "Maule Driver" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Sounds like a welcome gift horse to me - but I hear you.

[Rich Ahrens]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>
>>I think an unbiased reader can determine who is more responsible here -
>>the journalist reporting objectively what witnesses said, or a Usenet
>>poster (Mr. Schnerd) making an uninformed and potentially libelous
>>accusation such as the pilot "was circling his father's house when he
>>ran dry." Not that you find many unbiased readers in Usenet...
>
> You have taken my statement out of context. I never framed it as
> anything other than conjecture; I suggested that he may have run out
> of fuel or "his engine may have taken a powder".
>
> As for libelous statements, since when is circling your father's house
> a crime?

A crime isn't necessary for libel. However, I think we would all agree
that running an aircraft out of fuel and killing two (perhaps three)
people as a result is a highly negligent act. For you to speculate that
the pilot was negligent in that fashion with no evidence to back it up
could indeed be libelous if proven to be false.

Imagine an auto accident. Someone publishes in a widely read journal, "I
can't help but think this fellow was drunk on his ass and killed himself
and his passenger by running into that bridge." Then it turns out the
driver was a teetotaler and the crash was caused by a sudden mechanical
failure. You don't think the driver's survivors would be justified in
going after the false accusation?

> Nobody said he was buzzing; least of all me. The original newspaper
> articles quoted somebody as having said he must have been circling
> looking for a place to land. With the Rock Hill Airport less than a
> mile away, I find that unlikely. What better place to land?
>
> I'm not busting this guy's balls. All I'm saying is that the media
> and the public's view of pilots in general is a little cloudy.

As are some other pilots' views: "I can't help but think this fellow was
circling his father's house when he ran dry or his engine decided to
take a powder." Sure sounds like a ball-busting to me.

> Which of us is more uninformed here? Which one of us lives in the
> area? Which of us flies out of that airport and has since the late
> 1970s? Which of us has had to deadstick a sick airplane to a
> disasterous landing? Which of us has had his motivations
> misinterpreted in the same way the poor dead guy was in trying to
> land in a clear spot?

All of which have nothing to do with an accusation of poor fuel
management on the part of the deceased pilot. I agree with the notion
that the public often misattributes altruism to what is more a survival
effort. You could have made that point quite well without slipping in
the fuel accusation, about which you were indeed uninformed when you
posted it.

> I think I have something to offer here... even if the facts aren't
> all in. My conjecture comes from a certain level of specific
> experience I doubt you can match. And I do call it conjecture.

And my comments come from a certain level of specific experience with
the reporting process and ignorant criticism of it. Which I doubt you
can match.

> If I end up being totally off-base I've still made some valid points
> about the media and the public's perceptions of these events.

The public's perceptions, yes. But not about this particular piece of
reporting.

> "A journalist reporting objectively"? How do you know the reporter
> was objective? Perhaps the quotes that didn't fit the leanings of
> the article were discarded. Do you really doubt that happens?

How do you know it did happen? You are attributing malice to fit *your*
prejudice about the journalistic process.

[George Patterson]

Rich Ahrens wrote:
>
> Imagine an auto accident. Someone publishes in a widely read journal, "I
> can't help but think this fellow was drunk on his ass and killed himself
> and his passenger by running into that bridge." Then it turns out the
> driver was a teetotaler and the crash was caused by a sudden mechanical
> failure. You don't think the driver's survivors would be justified in
> going after the false accusation?

Under U.S. law, only if they can prove that the accusation caused injury.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Doug Semler]

George Patterson wrote:

> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>
> > Imagine an auto accident. Someone publishes in a widely read journal, "I
> > can't help but think this fellow was drunk on his ass and killed himself
> > and his passenger by running into that bridge." Then it turns out the
> > driver was a teetotaler and the crash was caused by a sudden mechanical
> > failure. You don't think the driver's survivors would be justified in
> > going after the false accusation?
>
>
>
> Under U.S. law, only if they can prove that the accusation caused injury

It's actually more than that...it's injury to personal reputation that
causes public contempt. You also (generally) have to the statements
made were made without cause or with malice (in other words, that they
were made to be purposely harmful). A good example of libel would be a
restaurant critic claiming that a restauranteur puts rat poison in the
dishes he serves. This causes injury reputation (the guy is being
accused of poisoning), the public would hold the guy in contempt (shown
by loss of business revenues); all that would need to be proven was
that the reviewer purposely did it.

Libel is difficult for a private person (a non public figure) to prove,
since you have to prove both that your reputation was injured and that
the public generally holds you in contempt because of the untrue
statements. In the case of a person that is not a public figure, it is
difficult to prove the second part of it, generally because the public
at large wouldn't care one way or the other...

I don't see how in either hypothetical (the pilot running the tanks dry
or the guy crashing because he was drunk) could be considered libelous,
since the second portion (public contempt) would be difficult at best
to prove. This is all beside the point that the survivors of a dead
person do not have (legal) standing (in these cases) to bring a libel
suit anyway.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Rich Ahrens wrote:

> A crime isn't necessary for libel. However, I think we would all agree
> that running an aircraft out of fuel and killing two (perhaps three)
> people as a result is a highly negligent act. For you to speculate that
> the pilot was negligent in that fashion with no evidence to back it up
> could indeed be libelous if proven to be false.


This is America. I can speculate any damned thing I want. I said right up
front for everybody to see that it was nothing more than specualtion on my part.


> Imagine an auto accident. Someone publishes in a widely read journal, "I
> can't help but think this fellow was drunk on his ass and killed himself
> and his passenger by running into that bridge." Then it turns out the
> driver was a teetotaler and the crash was caused by a sudden mechanical
> failure. You don't think the driver's survivors would be justified in
> going after the false accusation?


Good luck collecting. The "damaged party" would have to prove he in fact didn't
think that but published or said the words anyway.


> As are some other pilots' views: "I can't help but think this fellow was
> circling his father's house when he ran dry or his engine decided to
> take a powder." Sure sounds like a ball-busting to me.


When I bust somebody's balls, believe me, there'll be no doubt in your mind.
This wasn't it. I suggested that he was probably circling his parent's house;
not looking for a place to land as suggested by some of the folks on the ground.
OTOH, with deeper reflection, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps he was showing the
place he went to high school to his buddies when he either ran out of fuel or
the engine decided to take a powder. That also is in the general area he was
circling.

I noticed a quotation from his mother in today's Rock Hill Herald: something
about she doesn't want to hear any noise about there being any pilot error.
I've got news for her... and for you probably as well. I absolutely guarantee
he'll be found to have at least contributed to the accident by the NTSB when all
is said and done one or two years from now. That's the way those assholes
think. If I'm wrong, present me with the bill and I'll pay for a steak dinner
for you and a guest of your choosing.

If the engine fell off shortly after a complete xray examination of the entire
airframe, the NTSB would pin at least a portion of the blame on the pilot.
That's what's going to happen here as well. His mom needs to come to accept it
and hopefully ignore it when the time comes because the findings are never
flattering. Sometimes you have to wonder if the NTSB was at the same
accident....




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Doug Semler wrote:
> I don't see how in either hypothetical (the pilot running the tanks dry
> or the guy crashing because he was drunk) could be considered libelous,
> since the second portion (public contempt) would be difficult at best
> to prove. This is all beside the point that the survivors of a dead
> person do not have (legal) standing (in these cases) to bring a libel
> suit anyway.


What a relief. I was worried I was going to be dragged into court for posting
an opinion about possibilities in USENET. Anyhow, you said it much better than
I could.... thanks.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Skywise]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
:

> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>>
>>>I think an unbiased reader can determine who is more responsible here -
>>>the journalist reporting objectively what witnesses said, or a Usenet
>>>poster (Mr. Schnerd) making an uninformed and potentially libelous
>>>accusation such as the pilot "was circling his father's house when he
>>>ran dry." Not that you find many unbiased readers in Usenet...
>>
>> You have taken my statement out of context. I never framed it as
>> anything other than conjecture; I suggested that he may have run out
>> of fuel or "his engine may have taken a powder".
>>
>> As for libelous statements, since when is circling your father's house
> > a crime?
>
> A crime isn't necessary for libel. However, I think we would all agree
> that running an aircraft out of fuel and killing two (perhaps three)
> people as a result is a highly negligent act. For you to speculate that
> the pilot was negligent in that fashion with no evidence to back it up
> could indeed be libelous if proven to be false.
<Snipola>

Let's put this back into the context in which it was said. Quoting the
entire paragraph from Mortimer's post,

"I can't help but think this fellow was circling his father's
house when he ran dry or his engine decided to take a powder.
Not that there was anything wrong with that... nobody suggested
he was buzzing, but I have to wonder what he was circling
'looking for a place to land' since he was essentially already
in the pattern for Bryant Field. The newspaper said his parents
lived about a mile from the airport. Purely conjecture at this
point...."

Look at that last sentence again, "Purely conjecture at this point...."

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>
> > That particular pilot never thought to change
> > tanks because the fuel gauges still ran full. The mistake killed him.
> >
> > I don't have any time in Bonanzas... could this have happened here?
>
> The V35B I fly has a left, right, and off fuel selector. The two Beech
> fuel gauges do indicate full fuel, but the left tank gauge is slow to
> indicate any level less than full.
>
With mine it's both gauges, but they become quite accurate when the tank is
about 3/4th or so full.

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> "Mike W." > wrote:
>
> > What about carb icing?
>
> The IO-520 (original engine in the V35) and IO-550 (an available upgrade)
> are fuel injected.

I think some of the very early models were carbureted, but not since the
1950's.

[Mike W.]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Mike W." > wrote:
> >
> > > What about carb icing?
> >
> > The IO-520 (original engine in the V35) and IO-550 (an available
upgrade)
> > are fuel injected.
>
> I think some of the very early models were carbureted, but not since the
> 1950's.
>
This particular aircraft is a '71, I believe.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

[John Larson]

True. Look at the Harrier crash in Yuma last month. The pilot ejects, the
plane drops like a rock into the small area separating four houses in town.
Four 500lb bombs drop into the neighborhood with the plane. One minor
injury.

It defies reason the think that the pilot, just before ejecting, was able to
input control commands that would have the plane auger in directly between
the houses.

I bet the guy simply and understandably saw that his plane was doomed, and
he pulled (or whatever they do in a Harrier) the ejection
knob/handle/whatever and once free of the crippled craft thanked God.
"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
. com...
> The press is sloppy and ill informed regarding aviation in general and
> accidents in particular. Since the reporting is so often independent of
> reality, I'd say we are fools to not encourage "the natural romance" and
> discourage the negative realities when dealing with the press and public
> relations.
>
> It's an information war and we should try to win.
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> There's always been a fairly large crevasse between the natural romance
>> of flight and the reality involved with flight. In most cases, those of
>> us who remain as pilots for some length of time learn to appreciate the
>> difference and deal with it.
>> The press on the other hand, for reasons of their own, in many cases
>> involving our last moments as pilots, choose to emphasize the romance and
>> completely neglect the realities.
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> "Maule Driver" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>>>Sounds like a welcome gift horse to me - but I hear you.

[John Larson]

The fact is, according to the NTSB and the FAA, (in that order) it is and
will always be the pilots fault when a plane crashes.

1) The pilot is responsible for the correct piloting of his craft.
2) The pilot is responsible for the mechanical fitness of his craft.

Sure, people sue everyone when these things happen, but in the end it's the
pilots fault. That's easier for the FAA/NTSB to deal with.


"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> Mike W. wrote:
>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in
>> message
>> ...

[deleted stuff ...]

> NTSB, in their infinite wisdom, will find the pilot contributed to the
> accident by" failing to maintain separation from the terrain".

[deleted stuff ...]


> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>
>

[jsmith]

> "Mike W." > wrote:
>> I would bet when the report comes out, the tanks are dry.

Peter R. wrote:
> On what do you base this speculation?

I, too, fly out of OSU and knew both the aircraft and the pilot.
The pilot purchased the aircraft two or three years ago from a former
Navy Commander who had flown the aircraft around the world back in the
70's. The aircraft had either 11 or 13 fuel tanks. I was courious about
fuel usage and operation and had the opportunity to examine the fuel
system and discuss operation with the now deceased owner.
Depending on what tanks contained fuel, it is possible to inadvertantly
run a tank dry. The system requires transferring from the auxillary
tanks to the two main tanks. If the transfer process is not monitored
properly, you may not be able transfer to an empty tank fast enough to
restart the engine.
The accident aircraft has been for sale for more than six months, as the
owner was in the looking to purchasing a newer Bonanza.

[Mike W.]

> > "Mike W." > wrote:
> >> I would bet when the report comes out, the tanks are dry.
>
> Peter R. wrote:
> > On what do you base this speculation?
>
Because the plane crashed due to engine failure (loss of power) and the
overwhelming majority of engine failures are due to fuel exhaustion.

[Peter R.]

jsmith > wrote:

> The aircraft had either 11 or 13 fuel tanks.

Really? Where were all of those tanks located? With two tip tanks, I have
a total of four tanks on the wings. I cannot imagine where 3 times that
many tanks would be placed, unless the remainder were all gallon milk jugs
located in the cabin. But then if this were the case, where would the
passengers go?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter R.]

"Mike W." > wrote:

> Because the plane crashed due to engine failure (loss of power)

And you are basing this on... ?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Peter R. wrote:
> "Mike W." > wrote:
>
>> Because the plane crashed due to engine failure (loss of power)
>
> And you are basing this on... ?


The (July 27th) Charlotte Observer reported the engine was heard "sputtering"
just before they crashed .




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
>> "Mike W." > wrote:
>>
>>> Because the plane crashed due to engine failure (loss of power)
>>
>> And you are basing this on... ?
>
> The (July 27th) Charlotte Observer reported the engine was heard "sputtering"
> just before they crashed .

So, how does "was *heard* sputtering just before the crash" translate to
"the plane crashed *due* to engine failure?"

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Peter R. wrote:
>> The (July 27th) Charlotte Observer reported the engine was heard "sputtering"
>> just before they crashed .
>
> So, how does "was *heard* sputtering just before the crash" translate to
> "the plane crashed *due* to engine failure?"


Well, gee... I'm not sure. We all took numbers and this is the clue that won?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[john smith]

> jsmith > wrote:
>>The aircraft had either 11 or 13 fuel tanks.

> Peter R. wrote:
> Really? Where were all of those tanks located? With two tip tanks, I have
> a total of four tanks on the wings. I cannot imagine where 3 times that
> many tanks would be placed, unless the remainder were all gallon milk jugs
> located in the cabin. But then if this were the case, where would the
> passengers go?

I was amazed to find that many tanks distributed throughout the
aircraft. If there was a space, there was a fuel tank. Aft fuselage,
wings, cabin.

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> Well, gee... I'm not sure. We all took numbers and this is the
> clue that won?

What clue?

Are you claiming that an eye witness account of a sputtering engine is
enough to convince you and Mike W. so soon after the smoking wreckage was
removed that this aircraft had engine troubles? And, since you give so
much credibility to this account, you make the further leap in logic that
since the NTSB accident statistics demonstrate that most engine problems
are related to fuel exhaustion or starvation, this particular accident was
definitely caused by fuel exhaustion?

It is no wonder that the National Enquirer continues to enjoy such a large
subscriber base.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Peter R. wrote:
> Are you claiming that an eye witness account of a sputtering engine is
> enough to convince you and Mike W. so soon after the smoking wreckage was
> removed that this aircraft had engine troubles? And, since you give so
> much credibility to this account, you make the further leap in logic that
> since the NTSB accident statistics demonstrate that most engine problems
> are related to fuel exhaustion or starvation, this particular accident was
> definitely caused by fuel exhaustion?


I'm so ashamed... I jumped the gun again without consulting you. So... tell us
what you think caused this accident? Are you expecting the NTSB to get it
right?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Happy Dog]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in
> Peter R. wrote:
>> Are you claiming that an eye witness account of a sputtering engine is
>> enough to convince you and Mike W. so soon after the smoking wreckage was
>> removed that this aircraft had engine troubles? And, since you give so
>> much credibility to this account, you make the further leap in logic that
>> since the NTSB accident statistics demonstrate that most engine problems
>> are related to fuel exhaustion or starvation, this particular accident
>> was
>> definitely caused by fuel exhaustion?
>
>
> I'm so ashamed... I jumped the gun again without consulting you. So...
> tell us what you think caused this accident? Are you expecting the NTSB
> to get it right?

Diversion noted. Your conclusion is unwarranted. You could have "likely",
no?

moo

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Happy Dog wrote:
> Diversion noted. Your conclusion is unwarranted. You could have "likely",
> no?


And actually I did when I initially wrote about this unfortunate accident. I
just added my 50 cents when Peter got snippy with the other fellow. I would
think it would be understood by all that anything written about an accident none
of us attended would be conjecture. I guess there I go jumping the gun again.

When all is said and done, I think it's highly likely it's going to turn out
that this ends up being a fuel starvation accident. Just call it a hunch. I'm
willing to be wrong. If this particular bird did indeed have this highly
complex fuel system it would seem highly possible that something went wrong with
it or its management. **** happens.

Peter hasn't made any suggestion at all what he thinks might have brought this
aircraft down. Unwilling to ever be wrong? Or take a chance? It's just a
conversation... it's not like it's going to cost him money if he guesses wrong.

I think it's ridiculous to wait 18 months for a NTSB opinion which is likely to
be wrong anyway. They don't spend the resources on GA that they do on
commercial crashes. You definitely get the second string with those guys.

We are allowed to speculate today. This is America. <G>




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> And actually I did when I initially wrote about this unfortunate accident. I
> just added my 50 cents when Peter got snippy with the other fellow.

What you interpreted as "snippy" was nothing more than a legitimate
question, kept brief and to the point. Why is it that the only intention
one interprets while reading in this medium is that of snippy?


--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Peter R. wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>
>> And actually I did when I initially wrote about this unfortunate accident. I
>> just added my 50 cents when Peter got snippy with the other fellow.
>
> What you interpreted as "snippy" was nothing more than a legitimate
> question, kept brief and to the point. Why is it that the only intention
> one interprets while reading in this medium is that of snippy?


You're not from the South, are you? Just another one of my wild guesses....

Speaking of that, what's your guess about this accident? You must have an
opinion; share it with us.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> You're not from the South, are you? Just another one of my wild guesses....

Why do you ask? <- note, no snippy attitude was intended or implied in the
previous question.

> Speaking of that, what's your guess about this accident?

I am replying to your other post now.



--
Peter

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Peter R. wrote:
>> You're not from the South, are you? Just another one of my wild guesses....
>
> Why do you ask? <- note, no snippy attitude was intended or implied in the
> previous question.


Because in the South, being "brief and to the point" is interpreted as rudeness.
If you were from here, you'd already know that.


>> Speaking of that, what's your guess about this accident?
>
> I am replying to your other post now.


So here's the one question in this post: what is your opinion about what might
have caused this accident?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> Because in the South, being "brief and to the point" is interpreted as rudeness.
> If you were from here, you'd already know that.

I guess you have your answer, eh?

>>> Speaking of that, what's your guess about this accident?
>>
>> I am replying to your other post now.
>
> So here's the one question in this post: what is your opinion about what might
> have caused this accident?

Sorry for the confusion. I meant that I had another post that was still in
the composition stage. It has been posted as of now, however.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> I'm so ashamed... I jumped the gun again without consulting you.

I am not the one acting like the authority here, tossing around phrases
like "the plane crashed *due* to engine failure" so soon after the
accident. Rather, I am simply questioning how side-line pilots arrived at
what appears to be a firm conclusion.

Include a few "probablys" or "in my opinions" into the above conclusion and
the intent of the sentence changes from one of authority to one of
speculation. Speculation and opinion I don't question. Mike W was stating
with authority and I was curious how he arrived at this conclusion. There
was no snippy attitude intended.

> So... tell us

Us? You the spokesman for the group now? hehe...

> what you think caused this accident?

Honestly? I have absolutely no idea. The only reason I have been
following this thread is that I own and fly a V35 of approximately this
vintage so my natural curiosity of this crash is heightened. What I was
questioning was Mike W's and your apparent certainty of the cause of a
still-smoldering crash.

Over and over again, eye witness accounts of a "sputtering engine" have
been proven wrong, so I put very little faith in these reports. An
aircraft spinning into the ground makes what appears to be a sputtering
sound to an aviation-inexperienced, ground-based witness.

> Are you expecting the NTSB to get it right?

I certainly hope so. But sadly, there are many accidents where the actual
cause will never be determined and the pilot will be faulted for an
inability to maintain proper airspeed. That's the reality in aviation.

If the cause of this particular accident were fuel exhaustion, the NTSB
*should* be able to determine that in due time.


--
Peter

















--
Peter

[Mike W.]

I don't think the exact number of tanks is that important, although anything
more that 5 sounds unlikely. But, the guy says he saw it up-close and talked
with the owner about it.
Anyway, what I'm gathering from all this is that even with just 4 tanks,
lets say, a pilot not entirely familiar with the plane could get confused.
It sounds like the owner was in the right seat, and a friend or perspective
buyer was piloting. Maybe he just turned the fuel selector the wrong way, or
not far enough, or forgot to turn on a transfer pump etc. Take a look at the
John Denver accident, plenty of fuel on board, just wasn't sending it to the
engine.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> > jsmith > wrote:
> >>The aircraft had either 11 or 13 fuel tanks.
>
> > Peter R. wrote:
> > Really? Where were all of those tanks located? With two tip tanks, I
have
> > a total of four tanks on the wings. I cannot imagine where 3 times that
> > many tanks would be placed, unless the remainder were all gallon milk
jugs
> > located in the cabin. But then if this were the case, where would the
> > passengers go?
>
> I was amazed to find that many tanks distributed throughout the
> aircraft. If there was a space, there was a fuel tank. Aft fuselage,
> wings, cabin.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Peter R. wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>
>> Because in the South, being "brief and to the point" is interpreted as
>> rudeness. If you were from here, you'd already know that.
>
> I guess you have your answer, eh?



Another one of my wild ass guesses: you're Cannuckistani.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Peter R. wrote:
> Over and over again, eye witness accounts of a "sputtering engine" have
> been proven wrong, so I put very little faith in these reports. An
> aircraft spinning into the ground makes what appears to be a sputtering
> sound to an aviation-inexperienced, ground-based witness.


Except this one didn't auger in.


>> Are you expecting the NTSB to get it right?
>
> I certainly hope so. But sadly, there are many accidents where the actual
> cause will never be determined and the pilot will be faulted for an
> inability to maintain proper airspeed. That's the reality in aviation.
>
> If the cause of this particular accident were fuel exhaustion, the NTSB
> *should* be able to determine that in due time.


They may be able to determine *that* though I have my doubts. When I had my
accident, the NTSB stated that I hit the ground at approximately 130 knots. I
did not have a shoulder strap on. I did not break any ribs. I'm either the
toughest man alive and have very poor recall of my airspeed, or they screwed the
pooch when it came to drawing conclusions. I was quite specific in my accident
report as to my airspeed and yet they chose to ignore that for whatever reason:
the bruises on my chest were consistent with unrestrained impact at 130 knots?

I'm not going to hold my breath with them. They do well enough at measuring
distances but they're likely to be way off on their conclusions.

Kiss and make up? <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
>> Over and over again, eye witness accounts of a "sputtering engine" have
>> been proven wrong, so I put very little faith in these reports. An
>> aircraft spinning into the ground makes what appears to be a sputtering
>> sound to an aviation-inexperienced, ground-based witness.
>
> Except this one didn't auger in.

Nor was I implying that. This was just one example where ground-based
witnesses often incorrectly label what they really hear.

> Kiss and make up? <G>

Definitely. I was not looking for trouble in this thread, just some
answers. Besides, I have a good friend who is an RN and male nurses have a
very peculiar sense of humor. A few years ago I recall reading some
snippets from your web site and it seems that you, too, have a peculiar
sense of humor. :)

And, no, I am not Canadian, although we are close to the border. Fly out
of Syracuse, NY.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[john smith]

>>>Are you expecting the NTSB to get it right?

>>I certainly hope so. But sadly, there are many accidents where the actual
>>cause will never be determined and the pilot will be faulted for an
>>inability to maintain proper airspeed. That's the reality in aviation.

NTSB and FAA get things wrong all the time.

This crash is a good example. The FAA website lists the aircraft
involved in this accident as a Pitts S-1. It has been that way all week.

I have first-hand knowledge of other accideents that have been posted
where the facts expressed on the FAA and NTSB websites were wrong, they
were told they were wrong, and they wouldn't change their documents.

[john smith]

Mike W. wrote:
> I don't think the exact number of tanks is that important, although anything
> more that 5 sounds unlikely. But, the guy says he saw it up-close and talked
> with the owner about it.
> Anyway, what I'm gathering from all this is that even with just 4 tanks,
> lets say, a pilot not entirely familiar with the plane could get confused.
> It sounds like the owner was in the right seat, and a friend or perspective
> buyer was piloting. Maybe he just turned the fuel selector the wrong way, or
> not far enough, or forgot to turn on a transfer pump etc. Take a look at the
> John Denver accident, plenty of fuel on board, just wasn't sending it to the
> engine.

The Columbus DISPATCH has a small article in last Thursday's paper in
which the Sheriff's Department corrected the seating arrangements saying
that the instructor was in the right seat and the owner was in the rear
seat.