My last post about the crash.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:34 pm
The debate about the crash will, no doubt, be never ending. More 'theories' etc will always come up from time to time. One way to look at it though, is that no matter what is found (or not found) out, it doesn't change what happened, I wish it could.
I don't want to be here, on the site, and only talk about that day. I haven't got any pleasure at all, in going over all the reports etc if anything, it makes me both sad and angry at the same time.
Some of you have read what I've posted in regards to the crash, some thought it was a waste of time, others, I think, probably have concerns now similar to mine.
I'll finish up with this, and unless something really important crops up, this will be it from me on the crash.
Was Aycock high on cocaine that morning? The toxicology report says no.
Was Aycock an inexperienced pilot. The reports say no.
If flying like a crazy reckless idiot, would Don and Jake have had something to say to him about it, and to Randy and Rachel? Common sense say's they would.
Was the plane modified for wing tanks? It looks like it.
Was Calhoun's brother, who was there that day, in charge of aircraft maintenance? and did Aycock really just take the plane without asking anyone, or is it likely he would have asked Calhoun's brother? If so, was it mentioned that the plane had had a modification, and also not inspected for 12 months?
Was the crash investigation done thoroughly, with wreckage being examined to rule out a problem with the plane? It doesn't look like it.
I'll leave the last word to Phillip J. Kolezynski, a lawyer who's firm specializes in the field of aircraft crash cases, and you make up your own mind.
God Bless you Randy.
"Example of a Poorly Handled NTSB Investigation"
This true story reveals the NTSB's failure to always uncover the exact cause of a major air crash disaster. A number of years ago, the author supervised the liability defense of the air carrier which had a take off crash, in which 70 people died and one survived. The NTSB conducted a "Go Team" investigation and held public hearings. A suspected cause of the crash was that an external "door" or "hatch" was left open before take off, which resulted in terrible vibration (heard on the CVR) and aerodynamic anomalies recorded on the FDR. The pilot is believed to have misinterpreted the cause of the vibration perhaps fearing a structural failure. He did not apply sufficient power after lift off to sustain flight. The aircraft crashed into a trailer park stocked with liquid propane tanks. The pilot was the first to pay for his error with his life, and of course, unavailable to explain why he inexplicably failed to maintain flying speed. The suspected external hatch was not guarded by a "door open" warning light and was the type designed to be closed by ground service personnel. (Raise any questions?) The Board's Probable Cause was pure pilot error — failure to maintain flying speed!
A formal request made to the Board to examine the wreckage to search for the suspect hatch was denied. The NTSB investigators never found it. After they were done with the wreckage, they used an "articulating loader" to scoop up the airplane parts which were crunched and dropped into a dump truck. The truck then poured the evidence into a pile on the floor of a hangar whereupon it was turned over to us. My consultants found the suspect hatch and I turned it over to the Board member in charge at the public hearing. A hastily organized test flight test had already been attempted by the Board using a similar aircraft, but the Board was unable to duplicate the vibration condition. The Board returned the hatch.
Funded by the air carrier's insurer, we leased the same model airliner, equipped it with cameras, microphones and vibration sensors and conducted test fights in a remote location with "yours truly " in the jump seat. Video cameras captured the hatch which was, "intentionally left unsecured in pre-flight," flipping up in front of the leading edge of the wing during take off rotation. Guess what? Severe vibration was created by the hatch sticking up in front of one wing, which was recorded by equipment in the test airplane. The frequency and amplitude of the vibration matched the same signals on the accident airplane's CVR/FDR! We had proved the exact cause of the problem that caused the crash!
We filed, but the Board denied, a Petition For Reconsideration. They said that the pilot should have maintained flying speed. Yes, the pilot made a horrible mistake by not maintaining flying speed in a controllable airplane, but that wasn't the only cause.
The video tape footage and vibration/sound recordings were made into a documentary film and successfully used as demonstrative evidence to negotiate a multimillion settlement with other parties.
The NTSB Determines "Probable" Cause, Not Liability
The NTSB's charter under the Independent Safety Act of 1974, does not empower the Board to conduct investigations for the purpose of determining all causes with certainty. NTSB investigations are terminated after finding the "probable" cause. The NTSB admittedly does not attempt to allocate responsibility to various parties who may have caused a crash. Its not that NTSB investigators these days, aren't dedicated and thorough professionals - most of them are. The unfortunate reality is that they do not always have the funding and manpower to pinpoint all the causes.
The Probable Cause determination of the NTSB is not based on "evidence." The determination of proximate cause in a civil liability trial must be based on competent evidence. The NTSB may consider matters in reaching the probable cause determination, which could be excluded from evidence in civil litigation, because hundreds of years of jurisprudence has taught us that certain information is unreliable.
Unfortunately, for any "operator" involved in an air crash, the NTSB's most common determination is "Pilot Error."
I don't want to be here, on the site, and only talk about that day. I haven't got any pleasure at all, in going over all the reports etc if anything, it makes me both sad and angry at the same time.
Some of you have read what I've posted in regards to the crash, some thought it was a waste of time, others, I think, probably have concerns now similar to mine.
I'll finish up with this, and unless something really important crops up, this will be it from me on the crash.
Was Aycock high on cocaine that morning? The toxicology report says no.
Was Aycock an inexperienced pilot. The reports say no.
If flying like a crazy reckless idiot, would Don and Jake have had something to say to him about it, and to Randy and Rachel? Common sense say's they would.
Was the plane modified for wing tanks? It looks like it.
Was Calhoun's brother, who was there that day, in charge of aircraft maintenance? and did Aycock really just take the plane without asking anyone, or is it likely he would have asked Calhoun's brother? If so, was it mentioned that the plane had had a modification, and also not inspected for 12 months?
Was the crash investigation done thoroughly, with wreckage being examined to rule out a problem with the plane? It doesn't look like it.
I'll leave the last word to Phillip J. Kolezynski, a lawyer who's firm specializes in the field of aircraft crash cases, and you make up your own mind.
God Bless you Randy.
"Example of a Poorly Handled NTSB Investigation"
This true story reveals the NTSB's failure to always uncover the exact cause of a major air crash disaster. A number of years ago, the author supervised the liability defense of the air carrier which had a take off crash, in which 70 people died and one survived. The NTSB conducted a "Go Team" investigation and held public hearings. A suspected cause of the crash was that an external "door" or "hatch" was left open before take off, which resulted in terrible vibration (heard on the CVR) and aerodynamic anomalies recorded on the FDR. The pilot is believed to have misinterpreted the cause of the vibration perhaps fearing a structural failure. He did not apply sufficient power after lift off to sustain flight. The aircraft crashed into a trailer park stocked with liquid propane tanks. The pilot was the first to pay for his error with his life, and of course, unavailable to explain why he inexplicably failed to maintain flying speed. The suspected external hatch was not guarded by a "door open" warning light and was the type designed to be closed by ground service personnel. (Raise any questions?) The Board's Probable Cause was pure pilot error — failure to maintain flying speed!
A formal request made to the Board to examine the wreckage to search for the suspect hatch was denied. The NTSB investigators never found it. After they were done with the wreckage, they used an "articulating loader" to scoop up the airplane parts which were crunched and dropped into a dump truck. The truck then poured the evidence into a pile on the floor of a hangar whereupon it was turned over to us. My consultants found the suspect hatch and I turned it over to the Board member in charge at the public hearing. A hastily organized test flight test had already been attempted by the Board using a similar aircraft, but the Board was unable to duplicate the vibration condition. The Board returned the hatch.
Funded by the air carrier's insurer, we leased the same model airliner, equipped it with cameras, microphones and vibration sensors and conducted test fights in a remote location with "yours truly " in the jump seat. Video cameras captured the hatch which was, "intentionally left unsecured in pre-flight," flipping up in front of the leading edge of the wing during take off rotation. Guess what? Severe vibration was created by the hatch sticking up in front of one wing, which was recorded by equipment in the test airplane. The frequency and amplitude of the vibration matched the same signals on the accident airplane's CVR/FDR! We had proved the exact cause of the problem that caused the crash!
We filed, but the Board denied, a Petition For Reconsideration. They said that the pilot should have maintained flying speed. Yes, the pilot made a horrible mistake by not maintaining flying speed in a controllable airplane, but that wasn't the only cause.
The video tape footage and vibration/sound recordings were made into a documentary film and successfully used as demonstrative evidence to negotiate a multimillion settlement with other parties.
The NTSB Determines "Probable" Cause, Not Liability
The NTSB's charter under the Independent Safety Act of 1974, does not empower the Board to conduct investigations for the purpose of determining all causes with certainty. NTSB investigations are terminated after finding the "probable" cause. The NTSB admittedly does not attempt to allocate responsibility to various parties who may have caused a crash. Its not that NTSB investigators these days, aren't dedicated and thorough professionals - most of them are. The unfortunate reality is that they do not always have the funding and manpower to pinpoint all the causes.
The Probable Cause determination of the NTSB is not based on "evidence." The determination of proximate cause in a civil liability trial must be based on competent evidence. The NTSB may consider matters in reaching the probable cause determination, which could be excluded from evidence in civil litigation, because hundreds of years of jurisprudence has taught us that certain information is unreliable.
Unfortunately, for any "operator" involved in an air crash, the NTSB's most common determination is "Pilot Error."