Beech V35 crashes in S.C.

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/featur...484602.story?c
oll=chi-newsbreaking-hed

- Rick

"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 =----

"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 =----

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?