Don's reproduction photo problem.

[AndrewT1976]

That's a good point. The one's who saw everything happen can't provide much information, but the one's who didn't see anything are the one's who are talking about it. Very strange.

I, for one, believe that it was an accident. Plain and simple. You can't manuver a plane like that over and over without suffering some consequences. This guy was not a great pilot. If he was, he wouldn't also be driving a bus. He'd probably be flying 5 days a week.

Mistakes happen. It's just an unfortunate thing.

[rokket]

Well for me the case is a shut one, and for the prime reason the pilot was an arsehole. I never knew until you posted up the Jake Duncan interview in the other thread. Jake Duncan mentioned that he went up with Aycock and Don Airey. To his knowledge Aycock had his pilot licence, which was out of date. So he shouldn't of even been in that plane. As far as his past goes, he'd had a previous accident in a helicopter which ended with a young boy dead. So was his licence revoked ?. As Jake went onto say "he took us up for a spin and he seemed to know his stuff doing stall turns and everything. He brought the plane back down and it was fine." So he was doing a similar 'stunt pilot' showing off his skills with Don and Jake. That was something i never knew and he carried on his little show when Randy and Rachel went up. Even though he told Aycock 'to take it easy' for obvious reasons as it must of been an arse clenching moment when he was up previous. He took no notice and carried on with his low flying and stunt pilot performance. The only difference his skills went from showing off to a total accident. If you've seen the aerial film of the area the tour bus was in and how low he would have to fly and then avoiding hitting any trees or the mansion. So the pilot was at fault being at the controls and high on cocaine, taking risks. I rest my case and if you can pick the bones out of the ashes and make another theory be my guest.

Another theory....ok...Aycock's licence wasn't out of date, his medical certificate was. Which means his license, although current, is one he shouldn't "technically" have flown on. But I'm not sure how often a medical is required, or even if Aycock realised it was due, if he was "on the road" maybe it was something he wouldn't have been aware of until he got home and checked the mail.....who knows. Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you when my insurance runs out, just a point to get the theory across.

He may well have been "showing off his stuff" with Don and Jake, or that might be Jake adding a bit of excitement to his story. If true though, there's no mention from witnesses he was doing that when Randy and Rachel were up with him, so perhaps he did take Jake's suggestion to "take it easy".

'High on cocaine" .....I'd have gone with that had the toxicology report shown cocaine in his blood, but it doesn't, which means there's no way he'd had cocaine that morning before flying. It showed up in his urine sample only, which it does, up to approx. 7 days after taken. But if he'd have had cocaine within say 12 hours before flying, cocaine would have shown up in both.

"Cocaine" is the basis for just about all the theories I've heard......from "Aycock passed out because of cocaine", "Aycock had a heart attack because of cocaine"......"Rachel had a heart attack and slummped on controls, because Aycock was coked off his head and flew like a madman", "Aycock had a blackout because of cocaine".....and on and on the theories go.

The toxicology report doesn't lie.

Also, if (and I can't find any info about it) Aycock was guilty of being the cause, or his actions the cause, of a young persons death, would he not be charged and sentenced? and certainly not be ever again allowed a license to fly? Surely these details would have come up in an official report...i.e. "pilot had license cancelled after being found to be the direct cause of a young persons death...etc..etc...

[rokket]

That's a good point. The one's who saw everything happen can't provide much information, but the one's who didn't see anything are the one's who are talking about it. Very strange.

I, for one, believe that it was an accident. Plain and simple. You can't manuver a plane like that over and over without suffering some consequences. This guy was not a great pilot. If he was, he wouldn't also be driving a bus. He'd probably be flying 5 days a week.

Mistakes happen. It's just an unfortunate thing.

I don't think Aycock was a 'great" pilot either, but from the looks of his record it seems he was experienced. He was rated in instruments, single and mulit-engine aircraft, and helicopters. With 1500 hrs flying time.

If he'd just got his license and had only flown say, 200 or 300 hrs ....then yeah....probably not very good. Being a pilot for a living, might not have been his goal. Could just have been his personal interest.

[rokket]

I just cannot see Jake or Don allowing Andy to take anyone else up for a ride if he was high. I would think they would have known upon landing, that Andy wasn't in the best condition to fly and the joy rides were over.

Interesting to hear Sharon's comments in the Blizzard Doc:
"...and unbeknownst to me, the driver was also a a pilot. He was asking everybody if they wanted to go up in the little propeller plane, and everybody did go up.
And then it was Randy's turn to go up, and that was it."

Wouldn't 'everybody' mean all ten folks aboard the bus? As far as we've known, only half took a flight that morning.
Sure it changes nothing, but I've always thought it odd that we've been able to read the statements of those who were asleep or didn't witness the accident, but not the accounts of those who actually did see it happen.

You hit the nail on the head there as well........Don and Jake were older guy's than Randy, so was Aycock (33), Don has always seemed like a sensible guy with his head screwed on. If I went up in a plane with a guy who I discover, in flight, is "not with it" or acts like a complete idiot, I would stay calm until we landed and then probably punch the guy in the face or at least yell at him something along the lines of...."you f$#@ing idiot, nobody is going up with you after that......"

When Sharon say's 'everybody' I 'd say she means, Don, Jake, Randy and Rachel......everybody who was up that morning.

[Tito]

his license wasnt renewed i thought??

[rokket]

his license wasnt renewed i thought??

As far as I can tell his license hadn't expired, his medical certificate had, which therefore means his license wasn't cancelled, but "technically" wasn't valid. Big difference between that and not having a license at all, or an expired one needing renewal.

[Tito]

thats what i was thinking of the med certificate...thanks rokket!!!!

[RhoadsRockPhotographer]

his license wasnt renewed i thought??

As far as I can tell his license hadn't expired, his medical certificate had, which therefore means his license wasn't cancelled, but "technically" wasn't valid. Big difference between that and not having a license at all, or an expired one needing renewal.

His medical certificate expired in 1979.

No certificate ....no valid license.

So, not a "big difference" at all.

[RhoadsRockPhotographer]

his license wasnt renewed i thought??

As far as I can tell his license hadn't expired, his medical certificate had, which therefore means his license wasn't cancelled, but "technically" wasn't valid. Big difference between that and not having a license at all, or an expired one needing renewal.

His medical certificate expired in 1979.

No certificate ....no valid license.

So, not a "big difference" at all.