Learning from NTSB reports

"Dave Butler" wrote in message ...
Ben Smith wrote:

His right engine came back to life after switching
to the aux tank. (As the other tank was contaminated with oxygen).

Huh?

Certainly was uncontaminated by fuel.

I think he was making a joke refering to the fact that his tank was filled
with air rather than fuel. Damn lineman.


"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...
Ben Smith wrote:

His right engine came back to life after switching
to the aux tank. (As the other tank was contaminated with oxygen).

Huh?

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:57:53 GMT, "Roger Long"
om wrote:

I believe that reading accident reports is an important safety activity.
I've learned about a lot of things to avoid and anticipate.

This one is a must read for every pilot. Don't tell yourself you know
better than that. It could happen to anyone.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...12X18632&key=1

Such activity could wreak havoc on your balance moment calculations, I
should think.

Rob


--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Brad Z wrote:
I think he was making a joke refering to the fact that his tank was filled
with air rather than fuel. Damn lineman.

Oh, OK, I missed the smiley. It's like the Boeing 307 that went in the drink
because of "air in the fuel lines" (says the NTSB).

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
Dave



"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...

Ben Smith wrote:

His right engine came back to life after switching

to the aux tank. (As the other tank was contaminated with oxygen).

Huh?

"Ben Smith" wrote
Do any CFI's in the group point their students to the NTSB and usenet
archives?

I certainly don't think much of having my students read NTSB archives.
I've been flying long enough to have had direct, extensive personal
knowledge of a few accidentes that ended up in the NTSB reports. In
every single case, the NTSB report was missing data crucial to
understanding what really happened. Certainly my experience is
limited to just a handful of cases, but I have no reason to believe
the other light GA accidents were investigated any better. After all,
nobody has any particular incentive to cooperate with the
investigation, and many people have good reason to lie or keep quiet.
The resources are just not there to figure out what really happened
when some little airplane crashes.

As for usenet, it's certainly better than the NTSB investigations
because at least most people are telling the truth. However, you have
to understand that usenet aviation groups, like hangar flying, are
primarily for the entertainment of the participants and any education
that occurs is incidental. My experience is that 80% of what you will
hear in hangar flying sessions or read here on usenet is going to be
wrong. The trick is to figure out WHICH 80% - because the other 20%
is stuff you need to know.

Michael

Whoa! Lighten up. Did you read this report?

(Good point of view though for another time

--
Roger Long

Michael wrote in message
om...
"Ben Smith" wrote
Do any CFI's in the group point their students to the NTSB and usenet
archives?

I certainly don't think much of having my students read NTSB archives.
I've been flying long enough to have had direct, extensive personal
knowledge of a few accidentes that ended up in the NTSB reports. In
every single case, the NTSB report was missing data crucial to
understanding what really happened. Certainly my experience is
limited to just a handful of cases, but I have no reason to believe
the other light GA accidents were investigated any better. After all,
nobody has any particular incentive to cooperate with the
investigation, and many people have good reason to lie or keep quiet.
The resources are just not there to figure out what really happened
when some little airplane crashes.

As for usenet, it's certainly better than the NTSB investigations
because at least most people are telling the truth. However, you have
to understand that usenet aviation groups, like hangar flying, are
primarily for the entertainment of the participants and any education
that occurs is incidental. My experience is that 80% of what you will
hear in hangar flying sessions or read here on usenet is going to be
wrong. The trick is to figure out WHICH 80% - because the other 20%
is stuff you need to know.

Michael

Michael Nouak wrote:

What a great way to go!

Well, it may be a great way, but I'd prefer a little later in life. Say, about
150? (If I can still qualify for the MHC at that age, I probably won't be ready
to go then either).

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

In article , Peter
R. wrote:

I wonder who was wearing the hood?

Or which one had their hand on the stick?

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Dave Butler wrote:

Ben Smith wrote:

His right engine came back to life after switching
to the aux tank. (As the other tank was contaminated with oxygen).

Huh?

Tank was empty, I think he meant.

Brian.

EDR ) wrote:

In article , Peter
R. wrote:

I wonder who was wearing the hood?

Or which one had their hand on the stick?

rim shot

--
Peter















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---