Rattler71
order out of chaos
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Posts
- 117
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
What a piece of Junk
- Thread starter Rattler71
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
The only inoperative items listed are the marker beacon, ADF, and a light in the #2 VOR navhead. Sounds like a lot more, but if you read the report, it's the same things mentioned several different ways. That's three items, none of which should have appreciably impacted his operation.
It's a little like the time honored jag about the airplane crashing because the pilot failed to file a VFR flight plan...the real cause here was that the pilot ran into a mountain. He reported, and was tracking a VOR radial. His instruction was to descend on that radial to intercept the ILS. His victor nav equipment was working. Worst case scenario he intercepts it and flies it to minimums based on his altimeter...he might not see fixes along the ILS based on lack of the marker beacon or NDB...but flying the ILS shouldn't have been an issue.
What was an issue was the pilot's failure to not his location properly. He reported himself at 11.9 miles, when in fact he was more than 24 miles out, and impacted the hillside at the 24 mile mark. He was given a descent clearance based on his reported position; his reported position was incorrect, the descent clearance premature, and his death the result.
I see no evidence in that short report of any problems other than a marker beacon and ADF. And the light. What else do you see?
It's a little like the time honored jag about the airplane crashing because the pilot failed to file a VFR flight plan...the real cause here was that the pilot ran into a mountain. He reported, and was tracking a VOR radial. His instruction was to descend on that radial to intercept the ILS. His victor nav equipment was working. Worst case scenario he intercepts it and flies it to minimums based on his altimeter...he might not see fixes along the ILS based on lack of the marker beacon or NDB...but flying the ILS shouldn't have been an issue.
What was an issue was the pilot's failure to not his location properly. He reported himself at 11.9 miles, when in fact he was more than 24 miles out, and impacted the hillside at the 24 mile mark. He was given a descent clearance based on his reported position; his reported position was incorrect, the descent clearance premature, and his death the result.
I see no evidence in that short report of any problems other than a marker beacon and ADF. And the light. What else do you see?
That's kind of the whole idea of the accident investigation. That's why it's called an investigation. An investigator examines wreckage, flight paths, switch positions, radio tapes, whitness reports, debris fields, etc, and comes to a conclusion based on the facts in evidence. These facts are then combined into a report.
I see little value in guesswork, or reading into the report what is not there.
I see little value in guesswork, or reading into the report what is not there.
Rattler71
order out of chaos
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Posts
- 117
Yes, I am familiar with the definition of "investigation".
The pilot obviously knew how to track a VOR or read a DME. The fact he was so far off his stated position would lead me to believe there were other things wrong.
Just trying to have a discussion here. If you don't like discussing something not in a formal report, then don't post anymore in this thread.
Rattler71
The pilot obviously knew how to track a VOR or read a DME. The fact he was so far off his stated position would lead me to believe there were other things wrong.
Just trying to have a discussion here. If you don't like discussing something not in a formal report, then don't post anymore in this thread.
Rattler71
I didn't realize it was a fantasy thread about what might have occured. I suppose that could range from the innocuous snake on the cabin floor to an alien abduction that went terribly wrong...he reported out at 11.9 miles, but was teleported back to 24 miles.
Or it could just be that he got it wrong. That happens sometimes.
What does gripe my cookies is speculation. That all powerful guesswork, supposition is the halmark of unprofessionalism. Sort of a National Enquirer mentality. I heard this, so-and-so said that. What if's. Suppose. The report clearly says this, but I think it really should have said that, therefore...
You did start the thread by asking "Man, did anything in this airplane work." You didn't start it by asking what else had failed (Nor can anyone provide that answer, and the professional dedicated accident investigators who formulated the report didn't find more to add, either). You then provided a link which indicated three minor items were inoperative...hardly the basis for asking if anything was working.
Apparently you're looking for the sensational dirt. As the report is all there is to go on, I'd say you're wasting your time. But it's your time to waste. I won't trouble you in this thread further.
I'd hate to see your analysis if four things were inoperative.
Or it could just be that he got it wrong. That happens sometimes.
What does gripe my cookies is speculation. That all powerful guesswork, supposition is the halmark of unprofessionalism. Sort of a National Enquirer mentality. I heard this, so-and-so said that. What if's. Suppose. The report clearly says this, but I think it really should have said that, therefore...
You did start the thread by asking "Man, did anything in this airplane work." You didn't start it by asking what else had failed (Nor can anyone provide that answer, and the professional dedicated accident investigators who formulated the report didn't find more to add, either). You then provided a link which indicated three minor items were inoperative...hardly the basis for asking if anything was working.
Apparently you're looking for the sensational dirt. As the report is all there is to go on, I'd say you're wasting your time. But it's your time to waste. I won't trouble you in this thread further.
I'd hate to see your analysis if four things were inoperative.
I here ya man!
RightPedal
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2002
- Posts
- 841
Bluestreak
Fitty-Six F100's rock
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 375
NYCPilot
Incorporated.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 645
I think a lot of people on this board get schooled by avbug and become defensive about it, while others learn from it.
Like it or not, avbug may take unpopular positions at times, but he is mostly by-the-book in his interpretations. Now whether he practices a lot of what he preaches is a different matter. Although pedagogical theory and real-world practice are two different matters, most of what he states is technically correct.
Like it or not, avbug may take unpopular positions at times, but he is mostly by-the-book in his interpretations. Now whether he practices a lot of what he preaches is a different matter. Although pedagogical theory and real-world practice are two different matters, most of what he states is technically correct.
Rattler,
Seems you got your underwear all knotted up there, mate. Take a few deep breaths and calm down.
Post a stupid question...what do you expect? Did you not say you wanted rational, adult conversation regarding the topic at hand? Is that not your goal? Is your goal instead to cry incessantly about being slighted, about your feelings being hurt?
Really I thought you had a deep and abiding interest in speculating about all the things the report you cited doesn't mention...but you've fallen away from that completely.
Ah well, it's always the way. With nothing intelligent to say, one does usually attack the poster. Attack away, mate, if it makes you feel better.
Seems you got your underwear all knotted up there, mate. Take a few deep breaths and calm down.
Post a stupid question...what do you expect? Did you not say you wanted rational, adult conversation regarding the topic at hand? Is that not your goal? Is your goal instead to cry incessantly about being slighted, about your feelings being hurt?
Really I thought you had a deep and abiding interest in speculating about all the things the report you cited doesn't mention...but you've fallen away from that completely.
Ah well, it's always the way. With nothing intelligent to say, one does usually attack the poster. Attack away, mate, if it makes you feel better.
And you can't seem to stay on topic...your own topic. You also won't let go. Get it out of your system. Speculate away to your imaginative heart's content. Go on, drift back to that wild guesswork...you know you wanna.
I think bluestreak made landmark insight into the issue. The pilot crashed on the right radial, but the wrong VOR.
Somehow I don't think that inoperative marker beacon, the VOR navhead light, or the ADF would have changed that. Do you?
What else do you think was inoperative? Perhaps his landing gear lights were intermittant. That could have lead him to fly south to Florida and crash in a swamp. Or perhaps his seat belt was frayed. That would have made things worse. Possibly a noisy door seal. That's the worst. With three things wrong, I can imagine that's an indicator that the entire airplane was falling apart. Perhaps that's why the pilot failed to notice he had tuned in the wrong VOR and read the wrong DME...or was he possibly reading DME off one VOR and tracking another? If so...how did that apply to the marker beacon being out?
You're fortunate to never fly aircraft with three things wrong with them. Three must seem like a lot...three things inoperative or intermittant, and it probably does feel like everything is failing all at once. Then again, I heard of a man once that thought a primary inverter failure was an earth shattering emergency, too. We're just fortunate that four things didn't go wrong with that airplane, because things could have really gone from bad to worse.
Of course, I'm not certain what's much worse than fatally crashing into a hillside in this case...but one thing we do know...there's no significant evidence from the limited information provided in the report to suggest that it was anything but pilot error. Even without drawing that conclusion from the facts in evidence, the fact that the position was misreported and he was flying a radial to the wrong VOR, apparently out of radar contact, paints a more exact picture than guessing what other equipment might not have been working.
I think bluestreak made landmark insight into the issue. The pilot crashed on the right radial, but the wrong VOR.
Somehow I don't think that inoperative marker beacon, the VOR navhead light, or the ADF would have changed that. Do you?
What else do you think was inoperative? Perhaps his landing gear lights were intermittant. That could have lead him to fly south to Florida and crash in a swamp. Or perhaps his seat belt was frayed. That would have made things worse. Possibly a noisy door seal. That's the worst. With three things wrong, I can imagine that's an indicator that the entire airplane was falling apart. Perhaps that's why the pilot failed to notice he had tuned in the wrong VOR and read the wrong DME...or was he possibly reading DME off one VOR and tracking another? If so...how did that apply to the marker beacon being out?
You're fortunate to never fly aircraft with three things wrong with them. Three must seem like a lot...three things inoperative or intermittant, and it probably does feel like everything is failing all at once. Then again, I heard of a man once that thought a primary inverter failure was an earth shattering emergency, too. We're just fortunate that four things didn't go wrong with that airplane, because things could have really gone from bad to worse.
Of course, I'm not certain what's much worse than fatally crashing into a hillside in this case...but one thing we do know...there's no significant evidence from the limited information provided in the report to suggest that it was anything but pilot error. Even without drawing that conclusion from the facts in evidence, the fact that the position was misreported and he was flying a radial to the wrong VOR, apparently out of radar contact, paints a more exact picture than guessing what other equipment might not have been working.
Rattler71
order out of chaos
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Posts
- 117
Avbug,so not only do you seem to think you are intellectually superior to the rest of us, you also think you have some insight into what I have flown in my career. Somehow, I have managed to keep myself alive for the last 30 years and 16000 hours without benefit of your superior knowledge. And I intend, God willing, to keep flying for the next 20 years.
Yes, I did intend for the thread to go into a different direction than what your self-fullfilling dribble carried it to.
If this thread is so beneath your obvious superior intellect in things aviation and life in general, why are you still here?
Rattler71
Yes, I did intend for the thread to go into a different direction than what your self-fullfilling dribble carried it to.
If this thread is so beneath your obvious superior intellect in things aviation and life in general, why are you still here?
Rattler71
Hmmm. Interesting rant. I never suggested the thread was beneath me. You suggested I should stop posting if I didn't go where you wanted it to go...and you never went there...too busy defensively crying in your suds to have a real conversation, apparently. Shoot, I'd have been thrilled if you'd even addressed the topic, but you're still too bitter to do that...you'd rather talk about me. Allllriiighty, then!
I think I'm intellectually superior because I discussed facts and didn't deviate from them? You must be really intimidated by the evening news. Thems some scary stuff. What with all that talk about what really happened, and all.
I think I have some insight into what you've flown in your career? How on earth did you come to that conclusion, and where in the conversation did that ever come up? I don't care what you've flown in your career.
You managed to keep yourself alive for thirty years and sixteen thousand hours. That's good. Keep doing that. Whatever you're doing, keep doing that. You say you did it without my superior knowledge. Well, that's kind of you to say but (sit down for this, it's going to come as a shock) I never said otherwise.
That's very commendable. So long as you never have more than a marker beacon go out on your airplane, you'll probably be very successful. I sincerely hope you are. But that's really not related to the topic of this thread, either. Is it?
After all, (and I keep trying to bring this back on topic by actually addressing the thread topic which you chose, incidentally...see the trend?) we are talking about a young man that flew into a hill side while tracking the wrong VOR at the wrong DME. The thrust of your question was an increadulous disbelief at the decaying state of the airplane in which nothing worked (does anything work(?), you ask), an airplane which you identified as a "piece of junk." That was what you wanted to talk about. So how about it? Are you going to speculate for us, or not?
I think I'm intellectually superior because I discussed facts and didn't deviate from them? You must be really intimidated by the evening news. Thems some scary stuff. What with all that talk about what really happened, and all.
I think I have some insight into what you've flown in your career? How on earth did you come to that conclusion, and where in the conversation did that ever come up? I don't care what you've flown in your career.
You managed to keep yourself alive for thirty years and sixteen thousand hours. That's good. Keep doing that. Whatever you're doing, keep doing that. You say you did it without my superior knowledge. Well, that's kind of you to say but (sit down for this, it's going to come as a shock) I never said otherwise.
That's very commendable. So long as you never have more than a marker beacon go out on your airplane, you'll probably be very successful. I sincerely hope you are. But that's really not related to the topic of this thread, either. Is it?
After all, (and I keep trying to bring this back on topic by actually addressing the thread topic which you chose, incidentally...see the trend?) we are talking about a young man that flew into a hill side while tracking the wrong VOR at the wrong DME. The thrust of your question was an increadulous disbelief at the decaying state of the airplane in which nothing worked (does anything work(?), you ask), an airplane which you identified as a "piece of junk." That was what you wanted to talk about. So how about it? Are you going to speculate for us, or not?
Rattler71
order out of chaos
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Posts
- 117
Well lets see you wrote,
"You're fortunate to never fly aircraft with three things wrong with them. Three must seem like a lot...three things inoperative or intermittant, and it probably does feel like everything is failing all at once."
I have flown Part 135 my entire life, I can assure you they were not all perfect airplanes.
And you know, reading your mindnumbing dribble is just to exhaustive for most normal people. Like an earlier poster said about you in another thread
"Ummm... that's essentially what I said. Your petulance and pedantic attitude is not very comely, avbug.
A fed, a fed lawyer, an attorney, if you must - whatever.
You remind me of the class snitch/bully who really got off on making sure everyone else knew the rules. Your knee-jerk need to have the last and "most correct" work speaks volumes about your raging insecurities. And, to humor those insecurities, I will politely let you have the last word, since you crave it so.Grow up."
My sentiments exactly. I will also let you have the last word in this thread. I think most people now see you for the truly pompous self-righteous a** you are. Like I said earlier "internet experts such as yourself" are a dime a dozen.
"You're fortunate to never fly aircraft with three things wrong with them. Three must seem like a lot...three things inoperative or intermittant, and it probably does feel like everything is failing all at once."
I have flown Part 135 my entire life, I can assure you they were not all perfect airplanes.
And you know, reading your mindnumbing dribble is just to exhaustive for most normal people. Like an earlier poster said about you in another thread
"Ummm... that's essentially what I said. Your petulance and pedantic attitude is not very comely, avbug.
A fed, a fed lawyer, an attorney, if you must - whatever.
You remind me of the class snitch/bully who really got off on making sure everyone else knew the rules. Your knee-jerk need to have the last and "most correct" work speaks volumes about your raging insecurities. And, to humor those insecurities, I will politely let you have the last word, since you crave it so.Grow up."
My sentiments exactly. I will also let you have the last word in this thread. I think most people now see you for the truly pompous self-righteous a** you are. Like I said earlier "internet experts such as yourself" are a dime a dozen.
Last edited:
There is NO need to apologize. You're okay just the way you are.
I'm still uncertain what other things were wrong with the accident airplane that what has already been noted...but I'm sure we'll get back to it sooner or later.
Does that mean it's safe to jump out of them, then?
After all, I hear people say all the time, "why would you jump out of a perfectly good airplane?"
Sounds like you found some that weren't perfectly good. Save them for jumping, and let the wuffo's eat cake.
Now what else was wrong with the accident airplane that wasn't in the report, and how did it result in the fatal tragedy that's described therein?
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
