Knee Jerks

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
This all said, I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought here. By
saying "s*it happens" are you implying that I survived these challenges
through luck?

Minimizing the risk through good training is great. And there certainly are
some idiots out there that I don't want to share the sky with. However, I'm
not so quick to categorize all non-mechanical, non-medical accidents to
pilots being idiots. I don't judge a pilot until I have all the facts.
Sometimes circumstances are beyond the control of the best pilots. I also
don't believe NTSB accident reports to be gospel.

In my younger days, I was quick to judge other pilots. I was 10 years old
the first time I saw a crashed airplane. It was a C-150 with 2 bodies still
in it. They were the victims of a mid-air collision. I wondered how they
could have let that happen. What was wrong with them? In the years since
then, I've had some close calls of my own. I quit judging others quickly.

I check that my landing gear is down and green 3 times before landing. Want
to guess why I am so paranoid about it? I haven't yet, but I've come close.
If I do land with the gear up one day, would that make me a bad pilot? Some
of my friends with over 10,000 hours each have landed with the gear too
short. Does that make them bad pilots?

In 2 cases mechanical discrepencies were discovered after the investigation
was
over. One of those helped spawned an AD concerning Mooney's electric gear.
People sure were quick to judge that pilot before the switches were found to
be at fault. None of them apologized afterwards.

Here's another angle. Last fall, I went into the Mexican desert, put some
air in the tires of Navajo, put some gas in the tanks, and flew it to
Florida. It was a drug confiscation that had set there for 16 years. The
instrument panel had nothing but bullet holes. One wing leading edge had a
dent nearly back to the spar. The paint and interior was long gone. The
airplane looked like crap. The risk of me needing to fill out an NTSB report
was somewhat higher than when you fly Atlas. Does that make me a bad pilot?

Some may think so, and I have been labeled a cowboy. And yet I have 10 years
of airline management and the Administrator's blessing to give checkrides on
3 families of aircraft. Who's right about me?

One other lesson that took me many, many years to learn is to not hold
others to my standards. Most won't be able to meet my standards, including
some airline pilots I have flown with. I have to respect the ideal that even
the idiots have a right to fly, and a right to crash.

D.

Capt Doug
BRAVO !!! I have often asked some of my students if they would fly an
airplane when they KNEW something was wrong with it.The answer was
always a resounding NOOOOoooo.
Then in their aviation history they are faced with something similar to
the Navajo you describe. I don't know how many aircraft I've been
tasked to fly that were like that.
In my 45 years of professional aviation around the world, and now
pushing 23,000 hours logged, I've had one accident that injured
someone. A student on a dual XC with a C-150 back in 1966. We had
contaminated fuel and junk in the fuel lines. Engine puked at night
over trees. We both got hurt.
I've been called as an expert witness in agricultural aircraft
operation crashes and was appalled at the sloppy field work by whoever
did the investigations...both FAA and NTSB. I got the impression if it
wasn't a major news event with lots of press coverage, the "C" team was
sent to investigate.
Back in my earlier days I too was labeled a cowboy or renegade. That
has morphed into more like..."That old guy knows his sh*& and if you
can get some dual with him take it."
Now I am smart enough to wait to see all the facts before I make a
judgement and even then sometimes I elect to keep my conclusions to
myself. That holds true here as well. I never realized I could strike
such a nerve with my original post and I'm glad I did.
Best Professional Regards
Rocky

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:49:11 GMT, "Capt.Doug"
wrote in
::

I also don't believe NTSB accident reports to be gospel.

You've got that right.

Read the NTSB's probable cause of this MAC between an Navy A7 and a
glider: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

PREFLIGHT PLANNING/PREPARATION..IMPROPER.
IN-FLIGHT PLANNING/DECISION..IMPROPER.
CHECKLIST..POOR.

So while the NTSB found the glider pilot (who obviously had the right
of way) to be at fault in this MAC, the truth is, the military pilot's
actions weren't merely improper, they were contrary to _regulations_*,
but the NTSB failed to mention that.

* http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/searc...I11-202&page=2

22 AFI11-202V3 6 JUNE 2003

5.5. Right-of-Way Rules . Usually, right-of-way is given to the
aircraft least able to maneuver, which normally permits that
aircraft to maintain course and speed. However, visibility
permitting, each pilot must take whatever action is necessary to
avoid collision, regardless of who has the right-of-way. When
another aircraft has the right-of-way, the yielding aircraft must
not pass over, under, abeam, or ahead of the other aircraft until
well clear.

5.5.1. Distress . Aircraft in distress have the right-of-way over
all other air traffic.

5.5.2. Converging. When converging at approximately the same
altitude (except head-on or approximately so), the aircraft to the
other’s right has the right-of-way. Aircraft of different
categories have the right-of-way in the following order of
priority:

5.5.2.1. Balloons.

5.5.2.2. Gliders.

5.5.2.3. Aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft.

5.5.2.4. Airships.

5.5.2.5. Rotary or fixed-wing aircraft.

5.5.3. Approaching Head-On . If aircraft are approaching each
other head-on or approximately so, each shall alter course to the
right.

5.5.4. Overtaking Aircraft . An overtaken aircraft has the
right-of-way. The overtaking aircraft must alter course to the
right.

You've got that MORE than right. I was doubly involved with an aircraft
that was destroyed in an emergency landing in 1989. I was the PIC, but also
the A&P on that aircraft. Neither the FAA nor the NTSB ever asked for
copies of the maintenance logbooks which clearly reflected the overhaul and
service bulletins performed on that aircraft.

The proximate cause of the accident was double ignition failure -- one
magneto failed and leaded up the other set of plugs. After the accident,
one set of plugs (the ones on the failed magneto) were white-clean and the
other set of plugs were loaded with lead. It can be easily shown how this
can happen.

The NTSB (which galls me to this day) laid the cause of the accident to
"improper maintenance". Yet the magneto overhaul times and bulletin times
were complied with to the letter and spirit of the mag company. The plugs
had less than 25 hours since cleaning. THe failure mode (open coil)
couldn't have been detected even with a full-bore overhaul, much less the
service bulletin inspections.

Gospel, my tiny hiney.

Jim



"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:49:11 GMT, "Capt.Doug"
wrote in
::

I also don't believe NTSB accident reports to be gospel.

You've got that right.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:26:08 -0800, "RST Engineering"
wrote in
::

You've got that MORE than right.

[Stupid NTSB finding snipped]

I'm beginning to think our federal government is broken to the point
of uselessness. The many personnel among its ranks have no incentive
to perform competently; apparently they are paid the same amount
regardless of their level of performance.

I had occasion to contact FEMA a few days ago. The person to whom I
spoke was so moronic and illiterate, that I was astonished that she
was employed at all, let alone being paid with my tax dollars.

Welcome to the 21st century.

If something is done about our nation's abysmal education system soon,
we're not going to enjoy living in this country in the future.

Jim-RST Enginering
I've had a number of engine or mechanical failures that caused me to
make an unscheduled landing in both airplanes and helicopters. The
problems could not have been found short of a tear-down inspection. The
fact that I got the machine back on the ground without further damage
was how much luck and how much pilot skill? To be sure, in ag
operations the vast majority of pilots fly "cocked and locked" for an
immediate response to an emergency or malfunction. Now, having said
that, with 40 years of crop dusting behind me, and at least 13,000
hours in the lowest reaches of the airspace system, and having had more
scares and frights in a year than most pilots will ever experience in a
lifetime.... I think too many lesser experienced pilots here tend to
limit their views to that narrow range of their experience. Well, that
is to be expected. It is their fault if they don't pick the diamonds of
wisdom to add to their pilot bag of tricks to help them out if the sh*&
hits the fan and they have to react to salvage the ensuing mess.
In 50 years of flying as PIC, I've experienced 18 maydays, have had at
least 5 actual autorotations with mechanical failures or fuel
exhaustion, I've hit 18 wires that were carefully logged, have killed
literally hundreds of birds in mid-air collisions aka bird strikes,
have many times come back in to the base with pine needles or leaves
stuck someplace on the aircraft. Now I ask you, does this put me into
the Bad pilot catagory? Does it put me into the LUCKY pilot catagory?
Is it a combination of lucky, poor/good/bozo?
Doesn't really matter to me since I am still here and able to pass
along my mistakes and observations to those who may one day be faced
with similar problems. Those who choose to slam me are free to do so. I
invite them to fly with me under challenging circumstances and see what
THEY can do to cope. Finger pointing doesn't accomplish much.
Now I'll take a step back with my big stick and see what happens next.
Cheers
Rocky aka Ol Shy & Bashful

On 17 Feb 2006 10:52:04 -0800, wrote in
. com::

To be sure, in ag operations the vast majority of pilots fly
"cocked and locked" for an immediate response to an emergency
or malfunction.


And then, there are those who aren't able to reach the four mile
distant work-site before winning a Darwin Award:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X08016&key=1
NTSB Identification: SEA97LA099 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS).
14 CFR Part 137: Agricultural
Accident occurred Monday, May 05, 1997 in ROSALIA, WA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/28/2000 1800 local time
Aircraft: Grumman G-164A, registration: N7926
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
The pilot-in-command departed the airport in a Grumman G-164A
spray plane. En route to the destination field, and while
overflying hilly terrain, the aircraft's tail wheel impacted the
ground, followed by the main gear. The aircraft continued over an
embankment, nosing over while crossing a paved road, before coming
to rest and burning. There was no evidence that the pilot
jettisoned the 2,040 pound herbicide load. Propeller slash marks
early in the ground track indicated high engine RPM at the initial
ground impact. Additionally, toxicological evaluation of samples
from the pilot-in-command revealed 0.002 ug/ml of
Tetrahydrocannabinol detected in blood, 0.08 ug/ml of
Tetrahydrocannabinol Carboxylic Acid detected in blood, and 0.035
ug/ml of Tetrahydrocannabinol Carboxylic Acid detected in urine
indicating fairly recent (within several hours) use of Marihuana.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot-in-command's failure to maintain clearance with terrain.
Factors contributing to the accident were, hilly terrain
conditions and impairment due to recent use of marihuana.

Full narrative available:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...97LA099&rpt=fa

RST Engineering wrote:
The NTSB (which galls me to this day) laid the cause of the accident to
"improper maintenance". Yet the magneto overhaul times and bulletin times
were complied with to the letter and spirit of the mag company. The plugs
had less than 25 hours since cleaning. THe failure mode (open coil)
couldn't have been detected even with a full-bore overhaul, much less the
service bulletin inspections.


The idiots at the NTSB concluded I was too fast when I crashed and totalled a
Piper Lance, estimating I was doing a cool 130 knots when I hit. I must be the
toughest man alive, because I wasn't wearing a shoulder strap. Didn't break any
ribs either.

The engine out approach was flown at 90 mph; I told them that. No telling how
much slower I was when I lost the wing but there's no way in hell I was anywhere
near the speed they concluded.

I sometimes wonder if they mix up the reports in a big stack on the desk when
they write their conclusions.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Don't recall the dates..1990's..a crop duster pilot in a Grumman Ag
Cat, Palouse area of SE Washington state was returning to base and got
overun by some Navy jets on low level training. He was RUN OVER FROM
THE REAR and the Navy tried to blame him for the accident. When fault
is being discovered, it seems those with the best legal minds are going
to prevail regardless of what happened. OJ Simpson anyone...?

On 17 Feb 2006 10:30:12 -0800, wrote in
.com::

Don't recall the dates..1990's..a crop duster pilot in a Grumman Ag
Cat, Palouse area of SE Washington state was returning to base and got
overun by some Navy jets on low level training. He was RUN OVER FROM
THE REAR and the Navy tried to blame him for the accident. When fault
is being discovered, it seems those with the best legal minds are going
to prevail regardless of what happened. OJ Simpson anyone...?


Would that have been this MAC?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1
NTSB Identification: SEA93FA094A.
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 50895.
14 CFR Armed Forces
Accident occurred Wednesday, April 14, 1993 in STEPTOE, WA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/18/1994
Aircraft: GRUMMAN A6E, registration: USN
Injuries: 2 Serious, 1 Minor.
THE A6E WAS TRACKING 033 DEG LEVEL AT 200 FT AGL AT 468 KTS VFR IN
PUBLISHED ROUTE VR-1354. THE AGCAT WAS TRACKING 334 DEG LEVEL AT
200 FT AGL AT 96 KTS VFR ACROSS THE ROUTE TO HIS DESTINATION SPRAY
FIELD. THE TWO AIRCRAFT CONVERGED ON A 59 DEG COLLISION ANGLE WITH
A CLOSURE SPEED OF 429 KTS. THE A6E NOTIFIED FSS THAT HE WAS
ENTERING THE ROUTE LATE AND PROJECTED EXITING 8 MINUTES AFTER THE
PUBLISHED CLOSURE OF THE ROUTE. THE AGCAT PILOT REPORTED HE WAS
UNAWARE OF ANY INFORMATION/PUBLICATIONS REGARDING THE OPERATION OF
MILITARY AIRCRAFT IN THE AREA. THE LOCAL FSS WAS IN THE HABIT OF
REPORTING THE ROUTE 'HOT' 24 HRS A DAY RATHER THAN THE PRECISE
SCHEDULE. THE CONVERGENCE ANGLE OF THE A6E WAS 111 DEG (8 O'CLOCK
POSITION & BEHIND THE AGCAT'S LEFT WING). THE CONVERGENCE ANGLE OF
THE AGCAT WAS 10 DEG. AT THE PROJECTED CLOSURE SPEED THE AGCAT
WOULD HAVE SUBTENDED AN ANGLE OF 0.2 DEG 8.6 SECS BEFORE IMPACT;
THE A6E 19.2 SECS.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

THE INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF THE SEE-AND-AVOID CONCEPT OF
SEPARATION OF AIRCRAFT OPERATING UNDER VISUAL FLIGHT RULES THAT
PRECLUDED THE CREW OF THE A6E AND THE PILOT OF THE AGCAT FROM
RECOGNIZING A COLLISION HAZARD AND TAKING ACTIONS TO AVOID A
MIDAIR COLLISION

It would appear that the NTSB investigator got that part of the
probable cause right, but why is there no mention of FAR § 91.113
(f):

(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the
right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter
course to the right to pass well clear.


I don't know if a Class 1 medical certificate is required to PIC an
A6E, but given:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...3FA094A&rpt=fa
Date of Last Medical Exam: 08/1992
Medical Cert.: Valid Medical--no waivers/lim. Class 1
Occurrence Date: 04/14/1993

It would appear that the A6E pilot's Class 1 medical certificate was
two months out of date.