NTSB Factual Walton Crash

In article ,
Capt.Doug says...

Not being intimately familiar with the design, the wording in the report
about an inspection mirror does not draw a good mental image for me. Was the
mirror part of the aircraft or was it a misplaced tool? Could it have caused
a control surafce to jam?

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

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

"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?...DEN05FA100& a
key=1

See ya

Chuck S

I've both heard and read many times that an accident is nearly always the
result of a series of errors; and it's a tribute to your design that it took
such a dramatic series to reach this unfortunate conclusion.

Peter

In article , Peter Dohm says...
I've both heard and read many times that an accident is nearly always the
result of a series of errors;

Exactly right ,I've heard it was usually a combination of 3 things that cause
accidents and if any one of them was missing it wouldn't have happened.

and it's a tribute to your design that it took
such a dramatic series to reach this unfortunate conclusion.

Peter


Thanks Peter I appreciate the comment.

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.

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

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--