NTSB Factual Walton Crash

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

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

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
In article om,
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

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

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

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?...FA100& akey=1

See ya

Chuck S




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

"Juan Jimenez" Wrote

You wouldn't want to mislead anyone, wouldya?


And that comes from the puppeteers fat doll?

Owe R.

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.

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--

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