Don's reproduction photo problem.

[rokket]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... v26vksXN4U
Heres a link to f35 dual controls- As for as finding out why'how,when the accident it's all going to be speculation all/most of the evidence is gone or was destroyed so I can't see what any other info could come forward? Pictures of the bodies? finding out for sure they found Randys hand, that it was his body outside the garage or maybe Randy was flying the plane?? I don't need to know that. The pilot was flying like a idiot on purpose 10 ft off the ground close to buildings trees and a bus.He ran into some kind of trouble(Rachel passing out or his blizzard of ozz 8 track fell on the floor and he was reaching for it and lost control who knows)?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for keeping the forum interesting and your later posts are very interesting and researched well. I am interested in aviation as well and spend alot of time in "small"planes and at the local airport Rokket.I'll ask some of the av mechs about the tanks/retro fit kit
My home actually back yard is a airport for small aircraft I have talked to every pilot I run into and lay the RR crash on them-they all say the same thing"why was he flying that close to the bus?
Again I enjoyed your posts and the info you provided- Good luck with finding more info be sure to post them!-JAY

Thanks Jay, no I'm not interested in the gruesome details, bodies and pictures like that I certainly wouldn't post, and don't really want to talk about on a forum. My study is about the plane, (thanks for the link, it would be interesting to find out if the plane involved in the crash had dual controls or not, some did, some didn't, as I discovered and you probably have as well), and my interest also is in the original investigation, or lack of, which is what disturbs me the most.

I'm also interested in who else was there that day, and what, if any, involvement they had it the resulting crash, i.e did someone give the "o.k" to Aycock, knowing that the plane had not been through an annual inspection in the last 12 months, and that, as it seems, it had had wing-tip tanks fitted.

I just hope that the officials investigating didn't just adopt the "well it's obvious what happened here, no need to investigate anything else", type of attitude, which, I know sounds crazy, but it has happened before, and only when something is re-investigated years later, they found out what really was attributed to a crash. It does seem like that is the attitude they took, and didn't bother with any other aspects or investigating.

I have the offical N.T.S.B Factual Report, and it is poorly done. Under "Aircraft Inspection Information" is a section "Type of Last Inspection" all it has there is "Unknown"......and "Date Of Last Inspection" is blank........surely there must have been a record of the last inspection that plane had, even if it was 2 or 3 years prior. Also under "Aircraft Information" is "Airworthiness Certificate(s)" which is also blank. Are they telling us it NEVER had one?

The records of the plane were stored on the aircraft, so we are told, and were for the most part destroyed. Is that common to store them ON the plane?, I would have thought you'd keep the records in a filing cabinet in an office or similar? Or were they on the plane in preparation for an inspection that hadn't happened yet?

Who looked after the maintenance of the various aircraft at the ranch? Was that person there that day, it seems they were, and why were'nt they interviewed by the "officials" in regards to the aircraft?

Going out on a limb here,.... what if the reason the plane was flying so low and crashed was not due to "pilot error", what if something went wrong with the plane? And if anyone did give the "ok" to take it up, knowing it hadn't been inspected for 12 months, who was it, and doesn't that make them also responsible? Going further out on a limb........suppose Don could see into the cockpit for a few seonds, maybe what he thought was a 'struggle' was the result of Aycock being helped trying to regain control of the plane. ........"....there's something wrong I can't get it to pull up....."

[Tito]

never know if the plane stalled?just throwing that out there..

[rokket]

never know if the plane stalled?just throwing that out there..

I think Don,Jake and whoever else was there, probably would have mentioned hearing something like a stall......or engine cutting out......but ...you never know.

[oth]

Aycock went apeshit when he saw that there were no raisins in his cornflakes and suspected sharon took them out of the bowl ergo he flew the plane straight into bus to avenge this misdeed.

Sorry.

This theory hasnt been confirmed but im working on it.

[dmnjr]

Didn't Ozzy say in a recent soundbite that the plane stalled while they were up taking pics?

[RhoadsRockPhotographer]

Didn't Ozzy say in a recent soundbite that the plane stalled while they were up taking pics?

Ozzy was asleep. He has no clue what did or didn't actually happen.

[rokket]

Didn't Ozzy say in a recent soundbite that the plane stalled while they were up taking pics?

Ozzy and Sharon only know what they have been told from various people over the years. I doubt he's even looked at any of the official reports, can't blame him, don't know that I would either if it were my friend. Same probably goes for Don, Jake and the rest of the band.

Maybe if they had of, one of them might have said ...."bloody hell, not much of an investigation........." and done something about it.

But, I imagine, they would all have thought it was thoroughly done.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I just hope that the officials investigating didn't just adopt the "well it's obvious what happened here, no need to investigate anything else", type of attitude, which, I know sounds crazy, but it has happened before

It wouldn't suprise me at all..... (Rockband + 'joyriding' with a plane...)

Going out on a limb here,.... what if the reason the plane was flying so low and crashed was not due to "pilot error", what if something went wrong with the plane?

Well..., how likely is it that a pilot would make 4 low passes over a tourbus when there is a technical problem with the plane? (maybe only if he was trying to land on the tourbus.... or the technical problem did not play a role until the fourth pass, but how likely is that?)

[rokket]

Going out on a limb here,.... what if the reason the plane was flying so low and crashed was not due to "pilot error", what if something went wrong with the plane?

Well..., how likely is it that a pilot would make 4 low passes over a tourbus when there is a technical problem with the plane? (maybe only if he was trying to land on the tourbus....)

There might not have been a problem until sometime during the last pass....!!!

As for the investigation and record keeping,.........I don't want these guy's doing reports for me......"Reason For Cancellation ......Unknown"......gee they did a thorough job.....NOT

[The Flying Dutchman]

There might not have been a problem until sometime during the last pass....!!!

Read my post again, I did add that while you made your reply!
Again: how likely is that? To find out they needed to study the left wreckage parts, not sure if that happened.....?
Are there reports of that?

[rokket]

There might not have been a problem until sometime during the last pass....!!!

Read my post again, I did add that while you made your reply!
Again: how likely is that? To find out they needed to study the left wreckage parts, not sure if that happened.....?
Are there reports of that?

Sorry, yeah, read your post again. Well it's likely it could happen on the fourth pass, lets face it, aircraft have flown for hours without a problem and then all of a sudden on approach to land and engine gives out and they crash.....

As far as I can tell, with all the supporting documents, there is no mention of any of the aircraft wreckage being examined. And from all the reports I've been able to get now, it seems the N.T.S.B published their report on why the accident happened even BEFORE they received the toxicology reports.

Like I said before, I don't think there was anything like the investigation there should have been............(technically) Unlicensed pilot, rock band, on tour, joy ride, no permission to take out the plane (although there's good reason to dispute that) flew too low, hit the tour bus, crashed ....end of investigation and report.

If a judge or an official of some kind had been killed in that crash, every available resource would have been used to investigate it, and every avenue explored....not to mention every nut and bolt that survived would have been put under a microscope.

[GUITARIDOL5682]

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.

[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.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Well I think the witness of some people (Jake, Don) probably played the biggest role in finding the cause of the accident.
If they saw 4 very similar kamikaze dives, but only the fourth was maybe an 'inch' too low..., well (to me) it's very likely that a judgement error of the pilot played a role here. To me it's not likely there was a technical problem. BUT though I think the technical state of the plane should have been investigated to be sure.
Also if he took the plane without permission he was at fault in any way regardless the technical state of the plane...... (because maybe the plane was already grounded for that...)

[whoopiecat]

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.