# How about the more modern day crashes ?



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 4, 2018)

I TEAM: Pilot blamed in deadly Lake Erie plane crash

Spatial disorientation the cause. That is just wow. I guess the instruments didn't work good then. I'm sure it was
an IFR flight as well. 

That is one of many of those types of accidents in that area, do the search.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 4, 2018)

It's really not a case of the instruments not working "good" then or now for that matter. It is exactly what was listed as the cause, i.e. Spatial Disorientation. Your 3 inner ear semicircular canals are telling you your position and motion in space and your aircraft's instrumentation is telling you something totally different. The issue is further compounded by a lack of visual orientation clues.
Then to even further confuse the issue we all are aware of the fact that any mechanical or electrical system can and do malfunction.
The pilot has to decide "who" to believe, his instruments or his senses.
John Kennedy Jr. was caught in this same dilemma. A heavy haze and a featureless sea, absolutely no visual clues, what pilots call 'black hole vertigo': a three-way disconnection between reason, instinct and reality - even an inability to tell the difference between up and down. There is some thought that he may have even turned the plane upside down then pulled back on the controls trying to climb. The out of control aircraft went into a "graveyard spiral" at 80ft/sec.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> I TEAM: Pilot blamed in deadly Lake Erie plane crash
> 
> Spatial disorientation the cause. That is just wow. I guess the instruments didn't work good then. I'm sure it was
> an IFR flight as well.
> ...



I'm a flight instructor. A non-instrument rated pilot with minimal IMC training has about a 35 second life span the minute they go IMC. I do several flight reviews yearly and this is demonstrated to my non-instrument students during the flight review. 90% of the time the minute I put them under the hood within seconds we're in an unusual attitude.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 4, 2018)

I used to take students out to the football field, zero obstacles, and ask them to simply walk directly across the field totally blindfolded.
I only had one student able to do it and he later admitted that he had noted a breeze coming toward him BEFORE being blindfolded. He then TRUSTED the wind direction and kept walking into the wind


----------



## MIflyer (Aug 4, 2018)

There's been only one time I have been under the hood and my butt very definitely told me the airplane was doing almost the exact opposite of what the instruments said, but that was a memorable occasion. 

Some of the Smithsonian Air Disasters series have revealed mishaps that are mind boggling. An airliner flew 270 deg rather 27 deg and ended up crashing in the jungle. Another 737 took off and the crew did not understand why they were getting avionics overheat warnings, assuming it was that the fans were not turned on; in reality they had not turned on the pressurization system and all on board died. .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2018)

I’ve been IMC once. I felt like I was upside down and in a dive, but we were wings level.

I have minimal instrument training at the moment, and maybe 10 hours under the hood. You have to trust your instruments. 

That’s next up for me, getting my instrument rating.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> I TEAM: Pilot blamed in deadly Lake Erie plane crash
> 
> Spatial disorientation the cause. That is just wow. I guess the instruments didn't work good then. I'm sure it was
> an IFR flight as well.
> ...



I wouldn’t say it was a case of the instruments not working. It was a case of the pilot not using or trusting his instruments.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## N4521U (Aug 4, 2018)

I guess my flight instructor was exemplary because I spent enough time Under the hood in my initial training he made me Comfortable (?) enough to learn to trust the instruments. I did however spend some time as a backseat observer during IFR training of a friend, The instructor was a room mate and we did some IFR flying in twins. I did a lot of listening.

Having less than 50 hours VFR flying the story begins... Because of this I felt (over) confident requesting a Special VFR take off from Yuba City, destination Livermore. I lived in Yuba City for a few years and knew straight out was free of danger if I kept a course heading and climb rate to keep me on that track. I say that because I couldn't see the bottom of the fog at the airport and found myself in a milk bottle at about 150 feet AGL the runway. Didn't break out until I reached 1,500 ft. I pressed on and had to Drop in at Tracy and wait for VFR landing conditions at Livermore, two hours later just as it went VFR on 25R.

I don't recommend this to Anyone not instrument rated.I've never done this again!!!!!!! But I sure thank Bob and Greg.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 5, 2018)

I've been under a hood flying in the past many times. The guy in the jet had way more hours than me and tons of IFR too boot. I am curious I didn't see if they found the people that where on the plane? If a pilot knows how to read the instruments they will over come all your inner ear weaknesses. I was put into all sorts of situations with my head down and eyes closed, then told to fly the plane. So what about all the other missing plane cases and crashes in that area. What are all your answers for that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> I've been under a hood flying in the past many times. The guy in the jet had way more hours than me and tons of IFR too boot. I am curious I didn't see if they found the people that where on the plane? If a pilot knows how to read the instruments they will over come all your inner ear weaknesses. I was put into all sorts of situations with my head down and eyes closed, then told to fly the plane. So what about all the other missing plane cases and crashes in that area. What are all your answers for that?



Just because a pilot is instrument trained does not mean they are immune to spatial disorientation. Once it onsets it can be difficult to defeat, even if you trust your instruments.

The one time I went full IMC, the SIC on the controls was a 2000 hr pilot, and she still had a hard time. Me announcing to the redt of the crew that I felt like we were upside down and in a dive certainly did not help. The PIC who had about 3,000 more hours at the time did a great job of talking her through it and keeping her calm. It was a pretty hairy event, especially since we were in a hostile combat zone.

I have a few hundred IFR hours crewing, but none of them compared to hitting unexpected unforecasted weather with no way out of. Just had to punch in, initiate that climb and declare IMC.

I am currently working on a helicopter accident analysis for my work involving every offshore accident world wide, and you would be amazed how many accidents have happened because of loss of visual cues leading to spatial disorientation, and the pilots were instrument rated commercial and ATP pilots.

It’s a real killer, regardless of experience.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Aug 5, 2018)

We humans are VISUAL creatures and we trust our eyes above all else. Though we do have inner ear balence organs we actually use visual clues more. Close your eyes and try to remain upright. You'll soon find yourself weaving back and forth, left and right.
Have you ever been to one of those so-called Mystery Houses in touristy locations? A small house is constructed on a hill about 25 degrees of slope. The exterior of the house is aligned normally, vertical to the pull of gravity BUT the inside walls, floors, etc. are aligned perpendicular to the sloped hillside. Additionally inside the house there are no exterior windows. Once inside visual clues as to true horizontal are absent, walls, door frames, pictures immediately conflict with your sense of balance. Watching people trying to align themselves with the door frames against the pull of gravity is hilarious. They even demonstrate water flowing up the lower end of a trough or even bring out a plumb bob which hangs at an angle to demonstrate how it is gravity that is skewed.

Flying over water is fine as long as water surface can be visually distinguished from sky. With failing light, mist, haze, the water and sky begin to blend until one cannot be visually distinguished from the other. All visual clues are lost. The moving aircraft also presents various accelerations as it moves. These accelerations without visual clues can easily be mistaken for gravitational pulls. An accelerating dive (pushed back into the seat) feels like a climb. The black hole of spatial disorientation


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 5, 2018)

If you do the study of that area, you will see that there are many many aircraft crashes and or missing, and all the crashes are always said to be caused by the same thing. Search United airlines flight 389, Northwest orient airlines 2501 a DC4 disappears with out a trace.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 5, 2018)

I know from personal experience you can get vertigo easier if you're fatigued .
Most of the airline, and private aviation accidents happened at the proposed end of the flight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 5, 2018)

I've had it happen during my IFR training, it kept feeling like I was in a left climbing turn. it was really hard to shake that feeling, and a number of times I almost told my instructor that the A/H must have failed. But during my initial ground HF training, it was beaten into us to trust the instruments - there were failure warnings there for a reason, so I kept shaking my head every time I got that feeling again - it messes up with the inner ear organs and 'resets' them.

Then, when instructing, I'd see how much of an unusual attitude I could get an aircraft in while the student thought we were reasonably straight and level - the best was 95º bank angle with almost no airspeed.


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 5, 2018)

If you can't trust one instrument that is what the others are for, gosh turn bank indicator and altimeter and rate of climb, airspeed, easy stuff. Just like planes that spin out of control, it is all a case of either you have it in you or you don't. The main problem with that great lakes area is something is messing everything up, pilots with 25K plus hours have crashed there, there are some scary flying stories in that area.
I've always wondered how a little bird would do in a plane where the pilot doesn't know up from down. I'm betting the bird would do great his little instruments wouldn't fail him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2018)

gumbyk said:


> I've had it happen during my IFR training, it kept feeling like I was in a left climbing turn. it was really hard to shake that feeling, and a number of times I almost told my instructor that the A/H must have failed. But during my initial ground HF training, it was beaten into us to trust the instruments - there were failure warnings there for a reason, so I kept shaking my head every time I got that feeling again - it messes up with the inner ear organs and 'resets' them.
> 
> Then, when instructing, I'd see how much of an unusual attitude I could get an aircraft in while the student thought we were reasonably straight and level - the best was 95º bank angle with almost no airspeed.



I had it very similar under the hood one time. Though my instruments said I was wings level, I felt like I was in a climb to the left as well. It was really hard to concentrate and believe what my instruments were telling me. I always enjoyed that training. Even the unusual attitude recover was always fun for me. Especially when it was done under the hood as well.


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 5, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> If you can't trust one instrument that is what the others are for, gosh turn bank indicator and altimeter and rate of climb, airspeed, easy stuff. Just like planes that spin out of control, it is all a case of either you have it in you or you don't. The main problem with that great lakes area is something is messing everything up, pilots with 25K plus hours have crashed there, there are some scary flying stories in that area.
> I've always wondered how a little bird would do in a plane where the pilot doesn't know up from down. I'm betting the bird would do great his little instruments wouldn't fail him.


Or its just that there's a higher than average concentration of traffic in the area, like the Bermuda 'Triangle' Scientist ‘solves’ mystery of the Bermuda Triangle – by claiming there was no mystery in the first place


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 5, 2018)

You see tremendous flight hours built up by many of the commercial pilots, but a lot of that time is build up while the auto-pilot was in control of the aircraft, and the pilot is just occupying a seat in the cockpit, hopefully monitoring everything.
Despite the number of flight hours, it seems some weren't fully trained on systems they were supposed to be monitoring, and if something did go wrong they didn't recognize it in time to prevent the aircraft from getting into a attitude to could be recovered from before impact.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 5, 2018)

mikewint said:


> I used to take students out to the football field, zero obstacles, and ask them to simply walk directly across the field totally blindfolded.


Yeah, it's amazing how messed up things go when you can't see at all. The only cues you have are your feet against the ground (doesn't apply when flying an aircraft) and memorization of the layout of the house.

I had a power-outage once and I was basically able to navigate in the dark because I basically can use my feet to determine if I'm right side up and then from there basically guess how many steps it takes before having to make turns. The table I banged into a few times though, and I was definitely going slowly down the stairs lol.



PWR4360-59B said:


> If you do the study of that area, you will see that there are many many aircraft crashes and or missing, and all the crashes are always said to be caused by the same thing. Search United airlines flight 389


United 389's problem was they misread the altimeter and not realizing they were too low, just went right into Lake Michigan. If I recall they were flying flaps up, 270 knots indicated, and BOOSH! I don't think they even felt what hit 'em.



tyrodtom said:


> I know from personal experience you can get vertigo easier if you're fatigued


Few things work well when you're tired!


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 6, 2018)

They the investigators "THINK THEY MISS READ" the altimeter, that sounds like people that should not have a pilot certificate. It is just another excuse for either not knowing the real reason or just an answer to cover up the real reason. I wonder how many of those reports are still classified secret?


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 6, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> They the investigators "THINK THEY MISS READ" the altimeter


There was no CVR on the aircraft so they didn't know for sure. The altimeter design was prone to be misread and a study was done to this effect. The aircraft's position was known via the SAGE system.


> It is just another excuse for either not knowing the real reason or just an answer to cover up the real reason. I wonder how many of those reports are still classified secret?


I didn't know NTSB reports were top secret

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> They the investigators "THINK THEY MISS READ" the altimeter, that sounds like people that should not have a pilot certificate. It is just another excuse for either not knowing the real reason or just an answer to cover up the real reason. I wonder how many of those reports are still classified secret?


OK - a few things - an instrument rating is very hard to get. By the time you're flying higher performing aircraft most (and I emphasize most) pilots are highly proficient, especially if they're flying with the airlines or corporate aircraft. When civilian aircraft crash there are no "classified" reports, the NTSB gets involved and will research the accident until they come up with a probable cause. Every so often you will have a commercial airliner go in due to some malfunction or complacency on the part of the crew. In the US those incidents are extremely rare with the major airlines (look up the NTSB accident statistics). Read the official NTSB reports and filter the operation of aircraft, I bet most of the accidents you're looking into involved GA aircraft


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I didn't know NTSB reports were top secret



They'll keep portions of the investigation under raps, may come out with a press release as the investigation is ongoing but will release all their findings at the end of the day


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 6, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They'll keep portions of the investigation under raps, may come out with a press release as the investigation is ongoing but will release all their findings at the end of the day



For the most part what I have seen they are eventually released to the public. You can go to the NTSB website, and download the final reports. I have been perusing them quite a bit lately for a work project I am working on.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 7, 2018)

Altitude is not as simple a concept as it might seem when dealing with aircraft. In the context of flight one must be very careful to know the "type" of altitude being discussed. INDICATED altitude is what the aneroid altimeter reads. ABSOLUTE altitude is the reading on a radar altimeter. TRUE altitude is the distance above Mean Sea Level corrected for non=STP conditions. There are others such as DENSITY altitude very important to Helos and heavily laden aircraft. PRESSURE altitude is the elevation above a standard usually one standard atmosphere (1013.25 millibars) use to indicate "Flight Level" in the US Class A air space above 18,000ft.
So depending upon the type, a basic altimeter is just a device that measures air pressure which varies with altitude. There are radar altimeters which send radio pulse toward the ground and measure the return time. They will accurately indicate the distance to the earth surface but they are expensive, heavy, and complicated. 
The "trick" with the first type is in remembering to set the altimeter to the correct airport altitude and weather conditions. For example if your aircraft were sitting on the ground at an airport that was at MSL, 59F, and 29.92inHg barometer. Your altimeter correctly reads ZERO. Now you leave and return the next day. Conditions have changed, a Low has moved in and the airport barometer indicates a reading of 29.42inHg. The altimeter of your aircraft will now indicate that you are at 500 feet! Remember it (altimeter) is just a sensitive barometer. So imagine a pilot forgetting to set his altimeter at that airport on that day flying in a heavy overcast/fog. His altimeter will be telling him that he is 500 feet ABOVE the ground when he smashes into it.
In flight you face the same sorts of problems. Let's suppose you are flying at 5,000 feet. Your flight path takes you into a Low pressure front. As the outside pressure drops within the low your altimeter will RISE, you lower the nose to return to a reading of 5,000 feet. Depending on the nature of the Low you might drop down to an actual 4,000 feet while your altimeter indicates 5,000 feet. Too bad about that 4,100 foot mountain in your flight path.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2018)

Mike, Density Altitude is very important to all types of aircraft regardless of being heavy, or fixed or rotary wing. Air density is probably the most important factor affecting an aircrafts performance. It effects everything from lift, prop/rotor efficiency, and the power output of the engine.

Try taking off from a high altitude airport on a really really hot day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 7, 2018)

It was interesting to see the fluctuating Density Altitude reports coming out of Benton Field (O85) during our heatwave just shortly before the Carr Fire broke out!


----------



## mikewint (Aug 7, 2018)

Chris, Thanks, I do realize how much "thin" air affects all aspects of aircraft performance. I have friends who are pilots and have flown with them several times. Hot and humid air is also low density as more and more light H2O (18) molecules replace heavier O2 (32) and N2 (28) molecules. My thought was that while it (low density) affects all aircraft, the effect is more severe on helos and heavy aircraft.
In the US Leadville, CO located above 10,000 feet can have a summer altitude density of over 13,000 feet. Take-offs a bit hairy?
In Nepal Fishtail Air will fly helos to Camp 2 at 21,000 feet (6400 m). Their helos are rated to 23,510 feet (7026 m) and have flown as high as 7400 m


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2018)

It effects everything...


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 7, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> It was interesting to see the fluctuating Density Altitude reports coming out of Benton Field (O85) during our heatwave just shortly before the Carr Fire broke out!


That is interesting, how far was the fluctuation and what was the dominate ending pressure, high or low?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 7, 2018)

Benton's elevation is 723 feet and at one point the reported density altitude was over 4,000 feet (going by memory, but I believe it was 4,120). Exeptionally low dew point, air temps in the neighborhood of 110 degrees plus, not sure how high the pressure got, but it was substantial.

This is also one of the reasons the Carr fire literally exploded into a firestorm


----------



## mikewint (Aug 7, 2018)

My home airport Baxter County is at 929 feet MSL. Today at this time the temp is 80F, dew point is 74F and the airport barometer reads 29.95inHg. The calculated density altitude is 1697.3 feet

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 7, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Benton's elevation is 723 feet and at one point the reported density altitude was over 4,000 feet (going by memory, but I believe it was 4,120). Exeptionally low dew point, air temps in the neighborhood of 110 degrees plus, not sure how high the pressure got, but it was substantial.
> 
> This is also one of the reasons the Carr fire literally exploded into a firestorm


That 4000 plus is low pressure barometric. So you said pressure also got exceptionally high as well?????? Or just the density altitude? 
It would be nice to know the for sure barometric pressure there.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 7, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> That 4000 plus is low pressure barometric. So you said pressure also got exceptionally high as well?????? Or just the density altitude?
> It would be nice to know the for sure barometric pressure there.


Not sure about the specific barometric pressure, but it was noted to have been quite active as the heat wave was building up - we had a week straight with triple digits, exceptionally low dew point and humidity in the mid-teens.
I'll be stopping by Hillside Aviation tomorrow, I'll see if they have a copy of that and if so, I'll share it here.


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 7, 2018)

Fluctuating Density Altitude is normal. e.g. a 16ºC fluctuation of temperature between daytime and nightime will give an 8,000ft density altitude correction difference. It's if there are _rapid_ fluctuations in temperature that its a real problem; so if the wind changed and was blowing off the fires, then I'd expect it to have increased suddenly.

I was always taught not to do performance calculations more than an hour before take-off, and be aware of the temperature when you did it. Pressure isn't so much of a concern as it doesn't have as big an effect of Density Altitude as temperature does.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 7, 2018)

The Redding area is at the north end of the great central Valley, ringed on three sides by mountain ranges: The Coastal and Klamath to the west and north-west, the Cascades to the north and north-east and the Sierra Nevada to the east.
All the heat in the north end of the valley builds up and creates a high-pressure system that typically prevents marine moisture from getting into the area and the daytime temps can rival the high-desert on the southern end of the state. As the day warms, it quickly draws the cooler air up out of the Sacramento Delta, which interact with the cooler air coming out of the canyons and mountain passes.

It can make for interesting flying conditions.


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 7, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The Redding area is at the north end of the great central Valley, ringed on three sides by mountain ranges: The Coastal and Klamath to the west and north-west, the Cascades to the north and north-east and the Sierra Nevada to the east.
> All the heat in the north end of the valley builds up and creates a high-pressure system that typically prevents marine moisture from getting into the area and the daytime temps can rival the high-desert on the southern end of the state. As the day warms, it quickly draws the cooler air up out of the Sacramento Delta, which interact with the cooler air coming out of the canyons and mountain passes.
> 
> It can make for interesting flying conditions.


Current pressure in Redding is about 995hPa, which is 18hPa below standard = 540ft elevation.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 7, 2018)

gumbyk said:


> Current pressure in Redding is about 995hPa, which is 18hPa below standard = 540ft elevation.


Redding Muni (KRDD) is about 504 msl and Benton Field (O85) is 723 msl - I'm looking at Redding's METAR data and it looks like the Density Altitude peaked by 14:22 this afternoon at 3,435 ft., data at the time: 98F, 24% humidity, and pressure being 29.79in. - also interesting to note that the winds were between calm and 12 knots all day.

RDD's geographic location is down in the valley, east of town, O85's location is up on a plateau overlooking the west side of town.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 8, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Redding Muni (KRDD) is about 504 msl and Benton Field (O85) is 723 msl


Holy Cow Dave, I'm here in Arkansas and you be in Colo and I'm 400 feet MSL HIGHER than you???


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 8, 2018)

lol Mike - I'm in California!

And Redding is nestled in the north end of the great central valley, with the mountains directly all around us. Matter of fact, Weaverville, the town where my Mom lives is less than 20 miles (as the crow flies) to my west and their airport (O54) is 2,350 MSL.
Trinity Center airport (O86) is situated on Trinity Lake and is a little north-west of Redding by about 15 miles, they are 2,399 MSL.
Dunsmuir airport (1O6) is about 30 miles north of Redding and sits at 3,258 MSL.
Weed airport (O46), which is roughly 40 miles north of me, is 2,938 MSL.
Shingletown airport (0Q6), which closed recently, is east of Redding and is 3,880 MSL.
Burney/Fall River Mills airport (O89) in eastern Shasta County (east-northeast of Redding) is 3,323 MSL.
And Red Bluff airport (RBL) is about 20 miles south of Redding and is 343 MSL.

So this gives a fairly good idea of the local topography just by seeing the elevations of area fields.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 8, 2018)

That's really wild Dave. We're on a ridge overlooking the lake and we are at 820 MSL at the very front and about 800 on the back patio.
The lake is presently at 657 MSL and can get as high as 695 during the monsoon season. The dam is hydroelectric and as such water release depends on power demands. I've seen the lake rise as much as a foot an hour (it's 85 miles long and 4 others are connected to it and were at the bottom of the pile).


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 10, 2018)

mikewint said:


> Altitude is not as simple a concept as it might seem when dealing with aircraft.


No concept related to flight is as simple as it seems! Altitude, airspeed, lift, drag, thrust, weight, heading, course, distance; you name it, they're all dynamically varying all the time.


FLYBOYJ said:


> OK - a few things - an instrument rating is very hard to get.


If you find an instrument rating hard to get, your primary instructor didn't do his/her job right. You need to help your student walk bravely into their "discomfort zone" again and again and come back a hero. They need to be comfortable under the hood and confident in unusual attitude recoveries before they go for their checkride. They also need to be reasonably proficient at precision flight, as that is both the biggest stumbling block in instrument training, and one of the biggest confidence builders in primary training.
The average private pilot will go through one or two Biennial Flight Reviews before tackling the instrument rating, which gives the instructor a couple of opportunities to banish any complacencies that have set in and polish the pilot's precision flying


mikewint said:


> The pilot has to decide "who" to believe, his instruments or his senses.
> John Kennedy Jr. was caught in this same dilemma. A heavy haze and a featureless sea, absolutely no visual clues


The same happened to me when I was a 150 hour private pilot in an ancient T-34 with tired, badly precessing gyros flying over the Gulf of Mexico on a hazy moonless night. I flew into an unseen cloud and quickly became disoriented by the lack of horizon and the dizzying reflection of my rotating beacon on the surrounding cloud. I tried to fly the gages, but was misled by my rapidly precessing gyro instruments. I wound up in the classic graveyard spiral, totally panicked and befuddled as to what was happening. I knew I was losing altitude fast, but was otherwise clueless. I came out of the bottom of the clouds at about a thousand MSL in a steep spiral dive, pulled almost 7Gs, and saw the reflection of my nav lights in the black water. I don't know exactly how close I came to splashing, but it was CLOSE! I was lucky to be flying an acro-tank of a plane. If I'd been flying JFK Jr's Saratoga, it would have been terminal.
We used to have at least one accident a year of experienced IFR pilots from up north that would auger into the drink on a hazy night because they didn't have an IFR mindset in "VFR conditions".
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> If you find an instrument rating hard to get, your primary instructor didn't do his/her job right.



Sorry Wes, but I totally disagree. My instructor was excellent. It is well known that between the written and practical exams plus the training, an instrument rating is the most difficult rating to attain. I also think you'll find that the instrument written has the highest fail rate out of all FAA written exams.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Aug 10, 2018)

Even with no direct knowledge or experience I have to totally agree 110% with Joe. Zooming through space at +100mph with no visibility whatsoever putting your very life in the hands of electronics that could and do malfunction while your senses are telling you something totally different has to be EXTREMELY difficult to say the very least and scary as hell


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 10, 2018)

If anyone's ever suddenly driven into a fogbank or snowsquall at night, at highway speeds, that's just a fraction of what's going on under night-time moonless/adverse IFR conditions.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 10, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It is well known that between the written and practical exams plus the training, an instrument rating is the most difficult rating to attain.


What'll it be? Pistols at 20 paces, or would you prefer boarding sabers? How about with left arm tied back? My seconds will contact yours to settle on the grounds.
Seriously, the ATP beats the Instrument Rating hands down. Especially if you do it out of a FAR 141 program, as I did. The reason that Instruments beats ATP statistically for failures is because until recently most ATPs came out of airline or academic training programs, whereas Instruments came from "out in the field", where the resources are scarcer and less consistent.
I think you'll find those statistics changing, now that air carrier applicants have to show up with a Multi-engine ATP in hand. They don't get all that air carrier right seat time before they show up for their ATP ride which WAS typically also their captain upgrade ride.
My friend Kathleen had no use for the "new" system which resulted in right seaters in her jet with "theoretical" ATPs and no hard experience. 800-1000 hours of instructing in a "semen-hole" in Florida or Arizona is no preparation for hopping into the right seat of a 70 or 90 passenger jet. Typically these folks had only seen the inside of a cloud once or twice in their life, and icing, what's that? She said "Give me a freight dog who's flown a twin Beech, a MU2, or a Bandit single pilot in the north country for a couple years, any day!"
It's been my experience that most instructors, especially in flat country, are so busy emphasizing a good visual outlook that they tend to not develop student's instrument skills enough. Here in the north country, that doesn't work. I've encountered way too many flatlander pilots while giving BFRs who couldn't do a 180 out of the clouds or an unusual attitude recovery under the hood. In fact they reacted to the hood like it was a rattlesnake. That's a good way to get yourself killed around here. My students didn't get recommended for the Private checkride until they could confidently and precisely fly under the hood, including with partial panel. And so far none of them has flown into a cloud full of rocks.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> What'll it be? Pistols at 20 paces, or would you prefer boarding sabers? How about with left arm tied back? My seconds will contact yours to settle on the grounds.
> Seriously, the ATP beats the Instrument Rating hands down. Especially if you do it out of a FAR 141 program, as I did. The reason that Instruments beats ATP statistically for failures is because until recently most ATPs came out of airline or academic training programs, whereas Instruments came from "out in the field", where the resources are scarcer and less consistent.
> I think you'll find those statistics changing, now that air carrier applicants have to show up with a Multi-engine ATP in hand. They don't get all that air carrier right seat time before they show up for their ATP ride which WAS typically also their captain upgrade ride.
> My friend Kathleen had no use for the "new" system which resulted in right seaters in her jet with "theoretical" ATPs and no hard experience. 800-1000 hours of instructing in a "semen-hole" in Florida or Arizona is no preparation for hopping into the right seat of a 70 or 90 passenger jet. Typically these folks had only seen the inside of a cloud once or twice in their life, and icing, what's that? She said "Give me a freight dog who's flown a twin Beech, a MU2, or a Bandit single pilot in the north country for a couple years, any day!"
> ...


Boarding Sabers!!!!!!

The latest data I could find...

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/a...a/2014/annual/2014_Airmen_Knowledge_Tests.pdf


The 135 ATP score is a hair lower than the instrument but compare the numbers that take the ATP test

2014 Airmen Knowledge Tests
Total Volume - 129,204

Volume Pass Rate Average Score

Air Transport Pilot Airplane (14 CFR part 121)
25,610 92.67% 85.56

Air Transport Pilot Airplane (14 CFR part 135)
1,644 86.86% 79.75

Commercial Pilot Airplane
8,322 96.60% 86.87

Private Pilot Airplane
25,460 89.64% 82.49

Sport Pilot Airplane
567 95.24% 85.83

Instrument Rating Airplane
12,207 87.13% 80.66

Flight Instructor Airplane
3,674 92.05% 84.46

Flight Instructor Instrument Airplane
2,909 97.80% 89.53

I still think its more difficult to teach someone to hold headings, maintain altitude control and fly arcs, especially if they are low time private pilots than it is more advanced ratings.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 10, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I still think its more difficult to teach someone to hold headings, maintain altitude control and fly arcs, especially if they are low time private pilots than it is more advanced ratings.


Interesting stats, but they don't reflect the "new regime". Wait'll you see 2016-17.
Teaching precision comes from emphasizing aircraft performance values. Once they were reasonably adept at herding the airplane in the desired direction and altitude and we were reasonably comfortable with maneuvering we would pick a nice calm day and go play "test pilot". We would establish and hold various descent or climb rates on assigned headings or at specific turn rates and when the student got it adjusted to the desired values he/she would call out the parameters and I would write them on a "flight test card". From then on the student would brief me on every climb, descent, turn, transition, etc, with what speed, power, descent/climb rate they would use, then grade themselves on how well they did, and offer any observations on what made the plane perform differently than they expected. For some students this was just "too much work", but most took it as a challenge and developed pride in their skill. For those who found it oppressive, there were always other instructors available.
Teaching these pilots instruments later on was a breeze, as they had developed and practiced the habit of precision flight all along. Learning procedures and techniques is easy if you have a bedrock of precision flying skills to build on.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Interesting stats, but they don't reflect the "new regime". Wait'll you see 2016-17.
> Teaching precision comes from emphasizing aircraft performance values. Once they were reasonably adept at herding the airplane in the desired direction and altitude and we were reasonably comfortable with maneuvering we would pick a nice calm day and go play "test pilot". We would establish and hold various descent or climb rates on assigned headings or at specific turn rates and when the student got it adjusted to the desired values he/she would call out the parameters and I would write them on a "flight test card". From then on the student would brief me on every climb, descent, turn, transition, etc, with what speed, power, descent/climb rate they would use, then grade themselves on how well they did, and offer any observations on what made the plane perform differently than they expected. For some students this was just "too much work", but most took it as a challenge and developed pride in their skill. For those who found it oppressive, there were always other instructors available.
> Teaching these pilots instruments later on was a breeze, as they had developed and practiced the habit of precision flight all along. Learning procedures and techniques is easy if you have a bedrock of precision flying skills to build on.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Great technique! But not to rain on the parade, you point out how this was too much of a workload for some students. That's the workload I'm talking about that makes getting an instrument rating difficult. Combine that with a difficult written where you have to choose the "most correct answer" and I think the stats show the accuracy. BTW, look at the scores of A&Ps


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 10, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> you point out how this was too much of a workload for some students. That's the workload I'm talking about that makes getting an instrument rating difficult.


Some students "just want to have fun in the sky", without being interested in polishing their skills or pursuing excellence. Such pilots shouldn't (in my mind) aspire to be professional pilots. I got to be pretty good at inspiring students to pursue excellence, and we made a fun game of it. Most of them didn't find the workouts to be onerous, and developed pride in their achievements. Those with "lazy intellects" who didn't want to put out the effort, I didn't see as likely to make good instrument pilots. I know, I was one. It wasn't until I became an instructor and had to develop some self discipline, that I began to see the light. I decided I needed to be a better instructor than mine had been.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 12, 2018)

Latest modern day crash, the stolen joy ride airplane from seatac airport. The guy did some great aerobatics with no experience. I thought it was Bob Hoover flying that thing.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 12, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> Latest modern day crash, the stolen joy ride airplane from seatac airport. The guy did some great aerobatics with no experience. I thought it was Bob Hoover flying that thing.


The pilot live?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> The pilot live?



Have you watched the news? He crashed the plane on an island.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 13, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Have you watched the news? He crashed the plane on an island.


Yeah I found out later


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 13, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Have you watched the news? He crashed the plane on an island.


One of the audio recordings had him mumbling something about losing an engine right at the end. I'm speculating that he lost control at that point and augered in. If he hadn't adhered strictly to the checklist, he may not have armed the autofeather, which would have resulted in a windmilling prop and a sharp yaw induced roll into the dead engine. Once started, this excursion is nearly impossible to stop. Betcha he didn't practice engine-out scenarios when he was playing on his computer sim.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> One of the audio recordings had him mumbling something about losing an engine right at the end. I'm speculating that he lost control at that point and augered in. If he hadn't adhered strictly to the checklist, he may not have armed the autofeather, which would have resulted in a windmilling prop and a sharp yaw induced roll into the dead engine. Once started, this excursion is nearly impossible to stop. Betcha he didn't practice engine-out scenarios when he was playing on his computer sim.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Just speculation, but what about fuel exhaustion? How much fuel did he have before takeoff?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 13, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just speculation, but what about fuel exhaustion? How much fuel did he have before takeoff?


Don't recall the exact amount, but in the traffic between Junior and ATC, it was mentioned that the fuel level was very low.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 13, 2018)

Guys, in an airplane incident or crash being investigated to what extent does no blame culture apply. If the pilot or other does something wrong but there are reasons for him/her doing it wrong what happens?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 16, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Guys, in an airplane incident or crash being investigated to what extent does no blame culture apply. If the pilot or other does something wrong but there are reasons for him/her doing it wrong what happens?


In an ideal world "no blame" culture would be universal except in cases of deliberate malice or wilful negligence. OTOH, in much of the world,
any involvement, no matter how periferral, in an aircraft accident is a criminal act.
Our reality lies somewhere in between. The value of "no blame" is of course the free flow of information to help prevent more accidents, and is rooted in the concept that "blame" lies mostly in external circumstances and personnel are uniformly conscientious. To that effect we have the NASA ASRS safety reporting system in which people who observe, experience, or perpetrate unsafe events or circumstances can be absolved of "blame" if they report them promptly to the NASA safety database.
More authoritarian societies around the world tend to favor the punitive approach, reasoning that the system itself is infallible and that human error can be deterred by severe penalties.
Which world would you rather live in?
I'm reminded of an episode in the novel "Rat Race" by Britain's notorious jockey/pilot/author in which a charter pilot is penalized by the Transport Ministry for violating a ceiling regulation during a dramatic aerial rescue that the press touts as heroic.
Here in the US, very few accidents occur without some level of pilot error involved, even if external circumstances played the major role. Consequently, even if the FAA doesn't elect to pursue a violation action, the tort law system will go after everyone within firing range in pursuit of damages. A one word deviation from the prescribed phraseology in an emergency is all it takes for a smart lawyer to establish culpability in the minds of a jury. That can cost an airline additional millions.
Answer your question?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 16, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> In an ideal world "no blame" culture would be universal except in cases of deliberate malice or wilful negligence. OTOH, in much of the world,
> any involvement, no matter how periferral, in an aircraft accident is a criminal act.
> Our reality lies somewhere in between. The value of "no blame" is of course the free flow of information to help prevent more accidents, and is rooted in the concept that "blame" lies mostly in external circumstances and personnel are uniformly conscientious. To that effect we have the NASA ASRS safety reporting system in which people who observe, experience, or perpetrate unsafe events or circumstances can be absolved of "blame" if they report them promptly to the NASA safety database.
> More authoritarian societies around the world tend to favor the punitive approach, reasoning that the system itself is infallible and that human error can be deterred by severe penalties.
> ...


Yes thanks XBe, I was asking with reference to a recent medical court case in UK, I just wondered how it worked in aviation, very similar.


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 16, 2018)

We don't want a 'no blame' culture, and what's been spoken about isn't a no blame culture. the healthcare industry is a fairly good example of a no blame culture, where no-one is held accountable for mistakes, from the people on the floor to the executives. This is why healthcare kills more people than aviation through preventable errors.
What we currently aim for with aviation safety management is a 'just culture' where, if blame is appropriate, it is apportioned, and to the right people. If blame is not appropriate, then the system is responsible and corrected.

The differences between 'no-blame' and 'just' cultures are subtle but have large impacts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 16, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Guys, in an airplane incident or crash being investigated to what extent does no blame culture apply. If the pilot or other does something wrong but there are reasons for him/her doing it wrong what happens?



We call it “Just Culture & Fair Blame” We look into everything including our own policies and procedures, and try and determine if there were sufficiebt barriers in place. Sometimes you find that the pilot had followed our procedures to a T, but that there was a gap.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 16, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> We call it “Just Culture & Fair Blame” We look into everything including our own policies and procedures, and try and determine if there were sufficiebt barriers in place. Sometimes you find that the pilot had followed our procedures to a T, but that there was a gap.


Yeah, you'll be using a process something like this for decision-making regarding where accountability lies:






It's only really the two on the left where complete blame lies with the individual, and the one on the right where it is deemed 'blameless'. Everything else is a sliding scale, with joint responsibility between the system and the individual.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 17, 2018)

gumbyk said:


> Yeah, you'll be using a process something like this for decision-making regarding where accountability lies:
> View attachment 505762
> 
> 
> It's only really the two on the left where complete blame lies with the individual, and the one on the right where it is deemed 'blameless'. Everything else is a sliding scale, with joint responsibility between the system and the individual.


Everything on the right half of that diagram is "grey area" where in the real world official penalty may or may not occur, but plaintiffs attorneys with malleable juries in hand will find the mining profitable. There's a case I read about where a company was "taken to the cleaners" because the SIC who was PF at the time had failed ONE checkride at some point in her primary flight training history and was thus "proven" eternally incompetent and the company negligent in hiring her.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 19, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Everything on the right half of that diagram is "grey area" where in the real world official penalty may or may not occur, but plaintiffs attorneys with malleable juries in hand will find the mining profitable. There's a case I read about where a company was "taken to the cleaners" because the SIC who was PF at the time had failed ONE checkride at some point in her primary flight training history and was thus "proven" eternally incompetent and the company negligent in hiring her.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Well, that's the American legal system for ya....
That's not an issue with company investigation procedures, that's some overzealous attorneys, and a trial by jury where the juror's don't know what they're doing.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 19, 2018)

gumbyk said:


> Well, that's the American legal system for ya....


Ain't it wonderful?


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 3, 2020)

Here's one of the stranger one's I heard of

MIA92FA051

The co-pilot's seat was reclined to act like a bed, neither were wearing shoulder harnesses, and they were partially clothed. Since there was no indication of ripping to zippers and belts, it's likely this was voluntary and they were trying to have sex in flight. The plane went out of control either due to nobody flying the plane, or them being unable to do so in the positions they were in.

They snapped the wings off.


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 3, 2020)

In other words, they 'effed up. Literally.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 4, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> The plane went out of control either due to nobody flying the plane, or them being unable to do so in the positions they were in.
> They snapped the wings off.



That is a Turbo Seneca, which is essentially a Cherokee 6 with two engines and retractable landing gear. The Cherokee 6 wing was pointed out to us by our Airframes instructor as the most egregious example of the bare minimum acceptable rivet sizing and spacing permissible under Part 23 airworthiness standards. No extra margin built in. He looked straight at me (the only pilot in the class), and said "Think twice about this the next time you're tempted to fly one of these POS's or its derivatives."
I can imagine things getting hot and heavy in the right seat with the autopilot engaged when somebody's exuberant toe catches the right side mixture knob and pulls it to idle cutoff.
An almost identical accident occurred in the winter of 1990 over Lake Winnipesaukee in NH, same type aircraft, same scenario, but the wreckage went through the ice into deep water. Bit of a scandal, as the two individuals involved were married/engaged to other employees of the company.


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 5, 2020)

X
 XBe02Drvr


So, the crew bear primary responsibility for the crash, but the plane was flimsy, and the break-up might not have happened with an aircraft that was more structurally sound?

Out of curiosity, which design had the best structure?


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 5, 2020)

There was a case in the 70's where a pilot flying a Piper over the desert got lost and, running low on fuel, finally spotted a gas station. He landed on the road, pulled into the gas station, and asked if he could fuel up. The station attendant said "Sure." Now, you can see many opportunities for culpability there, landing on a road, fueling up with non-Avgas, but the lawsuit that occurred had nothing to do with those aspects.

A car was driving down the road and the driver looked over, saw the airplane, slowed up to rubberneck, and was hit from behind by a car that failed to slow down. The driver of the car that rear ended the rubbernecker had no insurance. So the lawyer's answer was to sue Piper, the builder of the airplane. The case eventually was thrown out of court but Piper still had to go to spend money defending against that absurdity. 

In another famous case in that same time frame someone was towing a glider off an airport in Ohio using a Piper Super Cub and an employee of the airport decided he did not like that idea and parked a van on the runway to block the takeoff. The Super Cub pilot was unaware of the van on the runway, since he did not have a clear view ahead, hit the van. The jury found that rather than the airport, Piper was negligent for building an airplane where you could not see out of the front on takeoff. Piper had to explain that Ohio could not remove the aircraft's Federally issued airworthiness certification, regardless of the jury's opinion. 

Both of these cases were about looking for Deep Pockets.


----------



## mikewint (Feb 5, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> looking for Deep Pockets.


Aren't they all!!!! One of my best friends was hit head-on by a drunk driver who had crossed 4 lanes and a divider strip to end up driving in the wrong direction. The drunk's lawyer SUED!! my friend saying he was 50% responsible for the accident. Rational - If my friend had not been driving on the road the accident would never have happened - How's that for convoluted logic?


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 5, 2020)

I believe it was Progressive Insurance that made that same claim about one of THEIR customers. Someone was going 90 in a 45 zone and hit their customer. They claimed it was some percentage their customer's fault, because the speeder had no insurance and they would have to foot the whole bill. So she was 30% culpable just for being there.

Back in September 2019 an elderly lady strayed off the road and took out my concrete masonry mail box. A county employee stopped by and pointed out that the mailbox was on county property - it had to be because the county had put in a sidewalk and eliminated the ability to put the mailboxes back far enough off the road so to allow the mailman to pull over. And since the mailbox was on county property, it had to be of breakaway construction. He said a friend of his had his concrete mailbox taken down by an errant driver - who then sued him for the damage to his car, saying his mailbox was not of breakaway construction - and won the lawsuit.

And no one, neither my insurance or the driver's, paid me even a dime for the destruction of my custom concrete masonry mailbox.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 6, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> In another famous case in that same time frame someone was towing a glider off an airport in Ohio using a Piper Super Cub and an employee of the airport decided he did not like that idea and parked a van on the runway to block the takeoff.


And now for THE REST of the story.
I read a number of articles about that case. This stunt was part of an attempt to shoot video for a TV commercial and involved a Super Cub that had been illegally modified by an unauthorized individual to allow the pilot to video a glider under tow, while flying the plane facinging backward and looking through a mirror. They had been refused access by the airport owner who was aghast after one look at the cub. The video producer ordered his people to get it done by whatever means, so they sneaked in just before daybreak and set up to shoot their footage at sunrise. As they were getting ready, they were confronted by airport personnel and ordered off the property, and refused, threatening violence. So the van was parked blocking the runway to prevent takeoff and the cub and glider crashed into it.
Somehow an unscrupulous lawyer managed to convince an ignorant jury that Piper Aircraft was at fault because the cub was a tail dragger, and that tail draggers are by definition unairworthy, as they don't conform to the latest standards of air safety. This created a precedent and a cascade of copycats, and nearly put Piper and Cessna (C180, C185, & Agwagon) out of business. And Ohio discovering it couldn't revoke an airworthiness certificate.
Ralph Nader on steroids! I actually met that lawyer once, but didn't know at the time who he was. Good thing, as I'd probably be behind bars now if I had.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 6, 2020)

Well, it was still the idiot who parked the van on the runway that cause the mishap.

But since they were directed not to be there, so they were trespassing and therefore were committing a criminal act, and while that does not eliminate the possibility of a civil lawsuit it does make it harder. More than one person has shot a burglar and then lost their home when the burglar sued them.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 6, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> Well, it was still the idiot who parked the van on the runway that cause the mishap.


IMHO it was the plaintiff in the case, the video producer that directed the entire fiasco, and was owner/pilot/illegal modifier of the cub, and who wound up a quadriplegic, who was at fault. According to witnesses, the cub was barely controllable on tow, and was an accident in the making, van or no van. The pilot had no tail dragger experience, no glider tug experience, and had modified the cub himself, despite no training or experience in aircraft mechanic work, and little understanding of weight and balance. He hadn't even passed a private pilot checkride.
Egotis maximus disasterus.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## mikewint (Feb 6, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> More than one person has shot a burglar and then lost their home when the burglar sued them.


Our Tort system allows anyone to sue for anything but most cases revolve on a tricky precept: Reasonable"
Homeowners must take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of those who come on their property. This includes ensuring sidewalks and driveways are free of ice during the winter and making sure trip hazards are addressed as needed.

This duty of care extends to those invited onto your property for a specific purpose. This can include a plumber who comes into your home to fix a leak, landscapers taking care of your yard, and contractors performing work in or around your home. This also includes guests you may invite to your home for dinner, neighbors invited to a backyard cookout, and friends your children invite home after school. The homeowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the above are adequately protected from known dangers.

Trespassers, however, do not have a right to be on the homeowner’s property. In most cases, the homeowner has no obligation to protect the trespasser from dangers. There are some exceptions, however, in which the homeowner may be responsible for the safety of a trespasser. A homeowner cannot set up booby traps designed to injure trespassers. Any conduct designed to willfully injure trespassers is not excused, and the burglar may sue for personal injuries that result. Home Alone may succeed as a comedy, but the bandits would likely have grounds to sue for the injuries they sustained.

As to deadly force, homeowners do have the right to use deadly force to defend their lives *in most states*.
The deadly force test in many states can rest on whether you could have escaped from the confrontation and not used the force. Thus many states enacted the so called “stand-your-ground” laws which hold that one is not required to escape in all situations. That being said, you may never use deadly force just to protect personal property. *Unless *you have *reasonable cause *to believe your life is in danger (the kicker here is Judges/Juries can, after the fact, decide the “reasonableness” of your actions), any injuries or fatalities you cause a trespasser intentionally may then result in a successful suit against you for injuries suffered by the trespasser.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jul 25, 2020)

gumbyk said:


> Yeah, you'll be using a process something like this for decision-making regarding where accountability lies:
> View attachment 505762
> 
> 
> It's only really the two on the left where complete blame lies with the individual, and the one on the right where it is deemed 'blameless'. Everything else is a sliding scale, with joint responsibility between the system and the individual.



A good chart - better in many ways than the one from our induction process that I used for the ten plus years though ours included the sanctions which I felt needed to be included in the induction so that there was no excuse for not knowing the process and outcomes. We had a couple of cases where a pilot knowingly violated procedures in order to make up time or to try and get home before forecast weather. Those I treated as training errors and used one in particular as a training exercise. The pilot could easily have got away with it as it was on a charter at a remote airstrip but he was smart enough to realize that others may make the same error with worse consequences so reported himself. I had to give him a written warning to satisfy the regulator but fought that for nearly a year as it is essential to keep the reports coming in with the knowledge there is no penalty for an honest mistake and you are making things safer for everyone by admitting you are human. I used to add if you report it there will be far less consequences but if you fail to report it you will get punished twice, once for the error and secondly for failing to report.


----------



## John Cooper (Dec 4, 2021)

This was my prang in 1960, lives with me to this day
Hastings TG579 - The Handley Page Hastings

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 4, 2021)

Welcome to the forum.


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 5, 2021)

Welcome A lot of military intelligence of the _we never admit a mistake_ variety on show there on your web page.

I am glad that there were no fatalities but if the RAF was like the RAAF then there is a possibility the coroner would have been supplied with statutory declarations that were full of blatantly obvious lies and the RAF would have commandeered and destroyed all the Police records as soon as the coroner made his findings based on those false documents to ensure that the facts remained hidden.

Sound far fetched? 

Absolutely provable from public records that they could not destroy. In the case I am referring to I am one of a large group who believe the RAAF officers who swore false declarations were acting under political duress as one of them is an officer with a long history of being both accurate and honest. For him to swear to the Coroner that the claimed pilot and his aircraft was flying from B to A when all the public and military records related to the claimed pilot state he was flying from A to B, and to swear that the pilot was killed over a week before his actual death, when again both civil and military records, including the records he released to the press many months earlier, gave the correct date. Furthermore there were many press reports of this pilot publicly meeting senior government officials a week after the RAAF said he "died" and Air Force movement orders showing his arrival at another location the day after the RAAF claimed he died. This, to us, suggests that this officer was deliberately making blindingly obvious errors in order to ensure that the cover-up eventually unraveled. Add to that the official RAAF claim to the Police and Coroner that the engine and aircraft had the exact same serial number when everyone with any knowledge of the period knows this was never the case and it is obvious that a cover-up was done. Incidentally we have a record of what aircraft that engine was fitted to when it left the factory. 

In a recent review of some of our groups evidence the RAAF now admit that our group had the date and direction of flight correct and accept our proof that there was no DNA used to identify the human remains but still claim everything else is kosher. 
Other relevant facts are ignored, facts like:
- the manufacturer of an item used to identify the pilot stating that the particular item was manufactured ten years after the date the claimed pilot died, and
- a second item, made of sterling silver, that was used for identification theoretically surviving a fire that burned large parts of the engine and all structure aft of the engine for over two metres, with the object having no heat damage and no tarnishing after over 60 years years in the acidic soil with the steel parts still shiny instead of corroded away, and
- said silver item was found at almost the geographic centre of the minute excavation of the crash site even though most of the debris extends hundreds of metres downhill, and 
- documentary evidence from world renowned experts showing engine and airframe components being first designed (and therefore first manufactured) a full year after the claimed pilots death.,
- add to that instruments and other components recovered from the site being from the wrong model aircraft, two sub-models later than claimed and a sub-model that was only just leaving the factory in the USA when the claimed pilot died, are dismissed as _"a moot point as the pilot and aircraft have been positively identified"_, and 
- that the "positive" forensic identification was only able to estimate the persons age and size, among other things, and claimed the last known dental chart for the claimed pilot was not the one the one in Air Force records.

And most of that extensive RAAF "review" closely reflects, almost plagiarizes, the evidence that we supplied. Naturally not one word in the report addresses the above facts.


----------



## John Cooper (Dec 5, 2021)

MiTasol said:


> Welcome A lot of military intelligence of the _we never admit a mistake_ variety on show there on your web page.
> 
> I am glad that there were no fatalities but if the RAF was like the RAAF then there is a possibility the coroner would have been supplied with statutory declarations that were full of blatantly obvious lies and the RAF would have commandeered and destroyed all the Police records as soon as the coroner made his findings based on those false documents to ensure that the facts remained hidden.
> 
> ...


Thanks, the snag is you cannot change the 'official record' in the RAF, unless there was a lot of political pressure as in the case of the Mull Wokka tragedy, I was always informed that something or someone is to be found culpable, no 'open case' to be considered


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 5, 2021)

There was a crash that happened on December 1st, 1974: I actually wanted to post it on December 1st, but the aircraft was Northwest 6231, and two aircraft crashed on the same day which, might have been why NW 6231 was being ferried.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 6, 2021)

Actually, there were three accidents that day, all 727s. Northwest 6231 was repositioning to BUF from JFK to pick up an NFL football team charter flight and lost control of the aircraft due to an iced up pitot static system.
TWA 514 was approaching IAD (Dulles), descended prematurely, and hit a mountain.
I was working for Eastern at the time at JFK as a simulator tech, and we lost a 727 that night in a non-revenue mishap about which the company was not very forthcoming. Rumors were flying, but no one was talking, though it came to light that an airframe was written off due to some sort of mishap, air or ground. No word of injuries or fatalities. Not the kind of company you want to make a career at.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

