NTSB Factual Walton Crash

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

For those who are interested the NTSB has released the 2nd report on the Walton
crash. You can read it in it's entirety at the NTSB site at :


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1

See ya

Chuck S

[BobR]

Read it earlier today and it clearly shows that somebody owes you a big
apology. Sounds like the builder was totally responsible for the
modifications made. Good Show Chuck.



ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> For those who are interested the NTSB has released the 2nd report on the Walton
> crash. You can read it in it's entirety at the NTSB site at :
>
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article . com>, BobR says...
>
>Read it earlier today and it clearly shows that somebody owes you a big
>apology. Sounds like the builder was totally responsible for the
>modifications made. Good Show Chuck.

Thanks Bob. I don't expect one from "you know who" because an apology would
require him to have to admit he was wrong .We all know that he thinks he's never
wrong but the egg on his face says it all.

It hurts to have anyone hurt in one of my planes and it is really heartbreaking
to have a fatality especially since I probably knew the person personally.

What we can gain from this is to be very careful in preflights, don't make any
modifications unless you consult the factory and most of all don't be a test
pilot.

See ya

Chuck S

[[email protected]]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> For those who are interested the NTSB has released the 2nd report on the Walton
> crash. You can read it in it's entirety at the NTSB site at :
>
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1
>

After reading the report myself I have two questions:

1) What caused the crash?

2) Given the 20 gallon fuel capacity of the plane, why does the
following
statment refer to 10 gallons, rather than 5?

"The airplane was not eligible for certification in the ultralight
category
due to a fuel capacity of greater than 10 gallons. "

--

FF

[Dean A. Scott]

> What we can gain from this is to be very careful in preflights, don't make any
> modifications unless you consult the factory and most of all don't be a test
> pilot.

Absolutely!

The report doesn't seem to offer any speculative conclusion as to what caused
the sudden but level-winged descent. What is your understanding re. "the
aileron cable was separated and exhibited a random raveling of individual
wires typical of an overload failure."? Is this to say both cables broke
due to impact or broke in-flight? If they broke in-flight, this would obviously
mean no bank control for coordinated turns, but would unrestrained ailerons
cause a rapid descent? That is, would they drop down and act like flaps,
increasing drag?

The drill left of the engine causing prop strike when it fell off at TO, hard
landing at BUB, and loss of luggage at TO from BUB, are surprising insights
to the pilot's possible lack of attention to details that may have contributed
to his demise.





Dean A. Scott, mfa
---------------------------------------
School of Visual Art and Design
southern adventist university
---------------------------------------
http://www.southern.edu/~dascott

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Peter Dohm]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> For those who are interested the NTSB has released the 2nd report on the
Walton
> crash. You can read it in it's entirety at the NTSB site at :
>
>
>
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&a
key=1
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S
>
I've both heard and read many times that an accident is nearly always the
result of a series of errors; and it's a tribute to your design that it took
such a dramatic series to reach this unfortunate conclusion.

Peter

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article m>,
says...

>
>After reading the report myself I have two questions:
>
>1) What caused the crash?

Officially the probable cause has not been determined by the NTSB at this time
..This report is about the facts that were discovered during the course of the
investigation. The last report will be the Probable Cause determination which
may or may not cite a probable cause..
I think the cause of the crash was a combination of factors as most crashes are.
I suspect the missing gap cover and the incorrectly assembled control stick
coupled with a possible forward CG are most suspect to me.. But it's just my
opinion.


>2) Given the 20 gallon fuel capacity of the plane, why does the
>following
>statment refer to 10 gallons, rather than 5?
>
>"The airplane was not eligible for certification in the ultralight
>category
>due to a fuel capacity of greater than 10 gallons. "

If it were a legal 2 seat airplane operating under the Ultralight training
exemption he could have 10 gallons of fuel. Single seat Ultralights are limited
to 5 gallons. There is no such thing as a 2 seat Ultralight.

Actually it was an unregistered Amature built airplane . I hope this helps.

See ya

Chuck S

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Peter Dohm says...
>I've both heard and read many times that an accident is nearly always the
>result of a series of errors;

Exactly right ,I've heard it was usually a combination of 3 things that cause
accidents and if any one of them was missing it wouldn't have happened.

>and it's a tribute to your design that it took
>such a dramatic series to reach this unfortunate conclusion.
>
>Peter


Thanks Peter I appreciate the comment.

See ya

Chuck S

[Capt.Doug]

>"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
> Officially the probable cause has not been determined by the NTSB at this
time
> .This report is about the facts that were discovered during the course of
the
> investigation. The last report will be the Probable Cause determination
which
> may or may not cite a probable cause..

Not being intimately familiar with the design, the wording in the report
about an inspection mirror does not draw a good mental image for me. Was the
mirror part of the aircraft or was it a misplaced tool? Could it have caused
a control surafce to jam?

D.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >,
Capt.Doug says...

>Not being intimately familiar with the design, the wording in the report
>about an inspection mirror does not draw a good mental image for me. Was the
>mirror part of the aircraft or was it a misplaced tool? Could it have caused
>a control surafce to jam?

John was using an inspection mirror during the repairs he was doing.Witnesses
reported him using it to see into the boom area by the rear control stick
access. The NTSB said they weren't able to simulate a jam up .I bought the
identical mirror and on an undamaged aircraft was able to simulate a jam up.
The mirror is not part of the equiptment and was found in the wreckage.

See ya

Chuck S

[stol]

With a "Homebuilt" plane we are always a Test Pilot........ Your
comment would apply in the RAP list though...

ps. there is more to this story that will even see the light of day,

Ben
N801BH
Jackson Hole Wy
www.haaspowerair.com


ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article . com>, BobR says...
> >
> >Read it earlier today and it clearly shows that somebody owes you a big
> >apology. Sounds like the builder was totally responsible for the
> >modifications made. Good Show Chuck.
>
> Thanks Bob. I don't expect one from "you know who" because an apology would
> require him to have to admit he was wrong .We all know that he thinks he's never
> wrong but the egg on his face says it all.
>
> It hurts to have anyone hurt in one of my planes and it is really heartbreaking
> to have a fatality especially since I probably knew the person personally.
>
> What we can gain from this is to be very careful in preflights, don't make any
> modifications unless you consult the factory and most of all don't be a test
> pilot.
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S

[RST Engineering]

What I found even more interesting was that the glass mirror part of the
tool was completely gone. Missing. I agree that if the tool had gotten
itself jammed into the mechanisms that it is entirely possible for the
mirror to have been shattered. But they didn't find a TRACE of glass. I
suppose it could have popped out whole and then departed the airframe.

Jim



"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...

>
> John was using an inspection mirror during the repairs he was
> doing.Witnesses
> reported him using it to see into the boom area by the rear control stick
> access. The NTSB said they weren't able to simulate a jam up .I bought the
> identical mirror and on an undamaged aircraft was able to simulate a jam
> up.
> The mirror is not part of the equiptment and was found in the wreckage.
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S
>

[[email protected]]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article m>,
> says...
>
> >
> >After reading the report myself I have two questions:
> >
> >1) What caused the crash?
>
> Officially the probable cause has not been determined by the NTSB at this time
> .This report is about the facts that were discovered during the course of the
> investigation. ...
>
>
> >2) Given the 20 gallon fuel capacity of the plane, why does the
> >following
> >statement refer to 10 gallons, rather than 5?
> >
> >"The airplane was not eligible for certification in the ultralight
> >category
> >due to a fuel capacity of greater than 10 gallons. "
>
> If it were a legal 2 seat airplane operating under the Ultralight training
> exemption he could have 10 gallons of fuel. Single seat Ultralights are limited
> to 5 gallons. There is no such thing as a 2 seat Ultralight.
>
> Actually it was an unregistered Amature built airplane . I hope this helps.
>

Thanks. It certainly does help. I wasn't aware that ten-gallon tanks
were permitted for trainers.

--

FF

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article . com>, stol says...
>
>With a "Homebuilt" plane we are always a Test Pilot........ Your
>comment would apply in the RAP list though...
>
>ps. there is more to this story that will even see the light of day,
>
>Ben
>N801BH
>Jackson Hole Wy
>www.haaspowerair.com


Hi Ben

Your right we are all test pilots in a way ,but when you start making changes to
a proven design your even "more" of a test pilot.
I worked with the NTSB for over a year on this investigation and the report
contains everything we found out. I'd be interested in an "off the record
private discussion" about this. As the planes designer I'd like to know about
anything that could have contributed to the accident .My work phone is 440 564
1212.

See ya

Chuck S

[stol]

Hi Chuck, let me say right up front there are alot of your planes
flying and if there was a quirk it would have showed up a long time
ago. You can rest your mind in the fact the planes design in its stock
form most probably didn't lead to Johns demise. The NTSB guy I met last
year was very competent and interested in getting to the bottom of this
tragidy. The remains of the plane sat in the hangar right next to my
plane for a while and both of us examined it pretty closely on
afternoon. The thing that struck me the most was the way the initial
investigation at the crash site went. The plane came down in Grand
Teton National Park, they first called the NTSB who told the rangar is
was an ultralight and they would not get involved, next called was the
FAA and they too didn't want a thing to do with it, next call was to
the Teton County sheriffs office and they said it's on your turf, you
deal with it, the rangar then called the local FBO and asked for
someone familier with experimental / ultralights planes to come over
and look at the scene. By this time we knew it was fatal and I really
didn't want to see John like that. The local flight instructor went
over to the site and did some checking, ie, all control surfaces were
present , control continunity, etc.. At this stage the rangar wanted
the wreakage off their sagebrush so they sent for a flat bed truck and
the fire rescue truck with the jaws of life to cut up the plane and
cart it off to the local landfill. All the time Mike was telling them
it was John Walton and they really needed to preserve "everything".
Well, after them cutting up most of the stuff to get it to fit on the
flatbed truck in comes a phone call from someone very high up in
government telling the rangar to"not" do anything to the plane and take
it some where and lock it up. Opps, Too late,,,,,, It did get
transported to the park HQ and the next day was driven over to hangar
next to mine and locked up. I was probably the last person to speak
with him not including the tower guys and he was in good spirits as he
taxied by me. Several things need to be put in perspective.

First, John was a billionaire, worth something like 18.7 billion,
That's equal to 18,700 millionaires for you people that can't add. The
potential for foul play goes up pretty fast when you have those assets,
hence the phone call from DC

Second, John flew his CJ jet several times a week for years and was a
good pilot for sure, he even was a crop duster for a few years and
those guys can fly a dinner table if they had to, crop duster pilots
are either REAL good or REAL dead, real fast, so you can be assured he
tried everything in his book not to hit the ground in that attitude.

The way this whole thing evolved will preclude not getting an accurate
report on his demise.

It might have been an accident.
It might have been the "perfect murder"

We will probably never know now.

John will be missed, Godspeed to him......

Ben.

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article . com>, stol says...
> >
> >With a "Homebuilt" plane we are always a Test Pilot........ Your
> >comment would apply in the RAP list though...
> >
> >ps. there is more to this story that will even see the light of day,
> >
> >Ben
> >N801BH
> >Jackson Hole Wy
> >www.haaspowerair.com
>
>
> Hi Ben
>
> Your right we are all test pilots in a way ,but when you start making changes to
> a proven design your even "more" of a test pilot.
> I worked with the NTSB for over a year on this investigation and the report
> contains everything we found out. I'd be interested in an "off the record
> private discussion" about this. As the planes designer I'd like to know about
> anything that could have contributed to the accident .My work phone is 440 564
> 1212.
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

Make sure you state the fact this is still not a statement of probable
cause. You wouldn't want to mislead anyone, wouldya?

See ya indeed.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> For those who are interested the NTSB has released the 2nd report on the
> Walton
> crash. You can read it in it's entirety at the NTSB site at :
>
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[ower]

"Juan Jimenez" Wrote

> You wouldn't want to mislead anyone, wouldya?
>

And that comes from the puppeteers fat doll?

Owe R.

[[email protected]]

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> Make sure you state the fact this is still not a statement of probable
> cause. You wouldn't want to mislead anyone, wouldya?


That's about as misleading ... errr, deceptive ....ummm, no, make that
fallacious ...aw hell, you're a lying sack of $hit Juan. Must be the
company you keep. Read what the man wrote:


Chuck Slusarczyk wrote:
>> Officially the probable cause has not been determined by the NTSB at this time. This report
>> is about the facts that were discovered during the course of the investigation. The last report
>> will be the Probable Cause determination which may or may not cite a probable cause.

[Andy Asberry]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:34:44 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" >
wrote:

>Make sure you state the fact this is still not a statement of probable
>cause. You wouldn't want to mislead anyone, wouldya?

Any dimwit that had read the whole thread would have seen that Chuck
had already pointed that out.

"Officially the probable cause has not been determined by the NTSB at
this time."



--Andy Asberry recommends NewsGuy--

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> Make sure you state the fact this is still not a statement of probable
>> cause. You wouldn't want to mislead anyone, wouldya?
>
>
>That's about as misleading ... errr, deceptive ....ummm, no, make that
>fallacious ...aw hell, you're a lying sack of $hit Juan. Must be the
>company you keep. Read what the man wrote:
>
>
>Chuck Slusarczyk wrote:
>>>Officially the probable cause has not been determined by the NTSB at this time.
>>>This report
>>>is about the facts that were discovered during the course of the investigation.
>>>The last report
>>>will be the Probable Cause determination which may or may not cite a probable
>>>cause.
>

Thank you very much. it's good to know that there are people out there who
can read and understand American English. Credibility it was always about
credibility and as we just saw he doesn't have any just like his hero zoom.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Andy Asberry says...
>
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:34:44 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" >
>wrote:
>
>>Make sure you state the fact this is still not a statement of probable
>>cause. You wouldn't want to mislead anyone, wouldya?
>
>Any dimwit that had read the whole thread would have seen that Chuck
>had already pointed that out.
>
>"Officially the probable cause has not been determined by the NTSB at
>this time."

Thanks for pointing that out to jaun,it would appear that reading comprehension
is not his strong suite.But he used to be the "Associate Editor" for zoom in a
publication where credibility ,true facts and distortion of truth was the norm.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

[Joaquin]

On 15 Aug 2006 18:50:01 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>
>For those who are interested the NTSB has released the 2nd report on the Walton
>crash. You can read it in it's entirety at the NTSB site at :
>
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1
>
>See ya
>
>Chuck S


You need to tell them how to make a "Fly" propelled airplane Chuck.

Joaquin

[stol]

Ok. I am not the brightest guy on the planet but the statement

" You need to tell them how to make a "Fly" propelled airplane
Chuck."

doesn't make much sense to me...


Anyone want to fill me in on the details ???????????


Joaquin wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2006 18:50:01 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >For those who are interested the NTSB has released the 2nd report on the Walton
> >crash. You can read it in it's entirety at the NTSB site at :
> >
> >
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1
> >
> >See ya
> >
> >Chuck S
>
>
> You need to tell them how to make a "Fly" propelled airplane Chuck.
>
> Joaquin

[John Ammeter]

It's in reference to a story that Chuck told at Pinkneyville a few years
ago. I have a strong hunch that Joaquin is really someone we all know
and love... BWB....

stol wrote:
> Ok. I am not the brightest guy on the planet but the statement
>
> " You need to tell them how to make a "Fly" propelled airplane
> Chuck."
>
> doesn't make much sense to me...
>
>
> Anyone want to fill me in on the details ???????????
>
>
> Joaquin wrote:
>
>>On 15 Aug 2006 18:50:01 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For those who are interested the NTSB has released the 2nd report on the Walton
>>>crash. You can read it in it's entirety at the NTSB site at :
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1
>>>
>>>See ya
>>>
>>>Chuck S
>>
>>
>>You need to tell them how to make a "Fly" propelled airplane Chuck.
>>
>>Joaquin
>
>

[Barnyard BOb]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:56:39 -0700, John Ammeter
> wrote:

>It's in reference to a story that Chuck told at Pinkneyville a few years
>ago. I have a strong hunch that Joaquin is really someone we all know
>and love... BWB....


Since your strong hunches are known to be dead on...
Why the expose', sir?
You becoming some kind of 'party pooper' in your old age? :-)


- Barnyard BOb -

[John Ammeter]

Actually, I tried to delete the post only 5 minutes after making it but,
obviously, I was too late....

John

Barnyard BOb wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:56:39 -0700, John Ammeter
> > wrote:
>
>
>>It's in reference to a story that Chuck told at Pinkneyville a few years
>>ago. I have a strong hunch that Joaquin is really someone we all know
>>and love... BWB....
>
>
>
> Since your strong hunches are known to be dead on...
> Why the expose', sir?
> You becoming some kind of 'party pooper' in your old age? :-)
>
>
> - Barnyard BOb -
>
>
>
>
>

[Morgans[_4_]]

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, I tried to delete the post only 5 minutes after making it but,
> obviously, I was too late....

You old-timers had this planned, right? Many names not seen in ages, only
pop up - right at the same time BwB pops up. You just came in with him, to
watch the wringing of hands, and gnashing of teeth, right? <g>

Oh, the humanity! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Barnyard BOb]

Anteater...
Nothing was spoiled by your "strong hunch" fer me.
The pecker tracks and style should be a dead giveaway
to any regular reader of RAH with at least a double digit IQ.

- Barnyard BOb -



On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:53:36 -0700, John Ammeter
> wrote:

>Actually, I tried to delete the post only 5 minutes after making it but,
>obviously, I was too late....
>
>John
>
>Barnyard BOb wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:56:39 -0700, John Ammeter
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's in reference to a story that Chuck told at Pinkneyville a few years
>>>ago. I have a strong hunch that Joaquin is really someone we all know
>>>and love... BWB....
>>
>>
>>
>> Since your strong hunches are known to be dead on...
>> Why the expose', sir?
>> You becoming some kind of 'party pooper' in your old age? :-)
>>
>>
>> - Barnyard BOb -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Barnyard BOb says...
>
>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:56:39 -0700, John Ammeter
> wrote:
>
>>It's in reference to a story that Chuck told at Pinkneyville a few years
>>ago. I have a strong hunch that Joaquin is really someone we all know
>>and love... BWB....
>
>
>Since your strong hunches are known to be dead on...
>Why the expose', sir?
>You becoming some kind of 'party pooper' in your old age? :-)

Hi unka Bob nice to hear from you. I figured everybody forgot about the fly
story by now due to excessive muzzle loader syndrome.Usually my wife has to tell
me on the next day what I did at the party so I know if I had a good time or
not :-)
So...first ya gotta get some flies the bigger the better,the best method is the
stoop and swoop technique over doggy do do ,,,,then

Chuck S

[Barnyard BOb]

>>>It's in reference to a story that Chuck told at Pinkneyville a few years
>>>ago. I have a strong hunch that Joaquin is really someone we all know
>>>and love... BWB....
>>
>>
>>Since your strong hunches are known to be dead on...
>>Why the expose', sir?
>>You becoming some kind of 'party pooper' in your old age? :-)
>
>Hi unka Bob nice to hear from you. I figured everybody forgot about the fly
>story by now due to excessive muzzle loader syndrome.Usually my wife has to tell
>me on the next day what I did at the party so I know if I had a good time or
>not :-)
>
>Chuck S

Hi nefoo Chuck.
Ever since I overdosed on Muzzle loader and wuz resurrected,
I've been seriously wondering....

Is it possible that I might now live forever?
Stop rolling on the floor for a minute, OK?
Hear me out.

Since that fateful day at Pink-Knee-Ville,
I've not aged a single day.
After much testing, my family doctor agrees!

It's true that when I arose from the dead,
I looked 50 years older. However, that cloud
might well have a silver lining. Muzzle loader
could be the fabled Fountain of Youth juice!
It definitely STOPPED MY CLOCK !!!!

It is said that what doesn't kill you, makes ya stronger.
Well, what about what DOES kill you...
and then resurrects you????

P.S.
When we resolve this issue, I have another that needs answering.
It concerns the youthful effects of Muzzle loader on a senior's love
life.

- Unka BOb -

The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog
and George Carlin humor.