Fact Checking Nelson's "Doors Of Death" light aircraft near death experience

[Dr Moore]

This data base (FAA and NTSB versions) were transcribed from hardcopy records and they happened to use the Table format you see. These are not the original official records, and do not claim to be. They are a convenient and accessible way to get to transcriptions of official records starting in 1973.

Thanks.

I re-read the 1976 language of section 830 again today.

How plausible is it that if the events happened as-described by Nelson, the pilot and/or aircraft operator could have interpreted the rules in such a way as to NOT file any notification?

As told, it doesn't fit the definition of an "Aircraft accident." Because: (1) No one was injured, evidently, and (2) Nelson's description doesn't meet the criteria for "substantial damage."

I think that much is clear from any of the versions described by Nelson. Would you agree?

So it is a question of whether this rises to a reportable incident. Those criteria in 1976 were:


As I read them, (a)(1)-(3) and (5) seem to obviously not apply, leaving just:
(4) In-flight fire
or
(b) An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident.

Would you agree?
Then:
(b) seems less likely, as the pilot continued flying, presumably maintained radio control, so there would never have been reason to believe the plane was in an accident.

Leaving just

(4) In-flight fire

for a potential initial notification.

How is "In-flight fire" interpreted?

Is it possible that a pilot and operator in 1976 could have interpreted "in-flight fire" to exclude an engine fire and some splattered burning oil or fuel on the wing? Or is any fire, including such an engine fire, encompassed by that requirement? Is that found anywhere in a code book?

[Dr Moore]

Here is the substance of the FOIA I will submit to NARA:

1. Any and all records of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration, or the Civil Aeronautics Board of aircraft accidents and/or incidents that occurred in Utah from January 1, 1970 through December 31, 1977.

2. Any and all indexes of files of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration or the Civil Aeronautics Board that include records from January 1, 1970 through December 31, 1977.

3. Any and all records of document management procedures, including retention, disposition, destruction or transfer to any other agency or organization, of reports of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration, or the Civil Aeronautics Board that apply to Reports of aircraft accidents or incidents.

4. Any statistical or summary reports of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration or the Civil Aeronautics Board that include period totals of aviation accidents or incidents.

The terms "aviation accident" and "incident" refer to the defined terms found in 49 CFR § 830.2.

Seems pretty complete. I bet you already know what you will find, but good luck anyway.

Do emergency services -- fire, police -- have records that can be requested via FOIA?

If a plane lands in a field with an exploded engine, how does that plane get moved and re-certified for flight? Would there be logs of the repair and re-certification for flight worthiness somewhere?

All the hubbub of transferring passengers from a field, removing a busted plane, adds noise that would not have gone unnoticed. So we're kind of back to the lack of newspaper coverage making the scene less believable.

[Morley]

And the funny is that we only recall what we really right now. When we think about a memory, our brains erase the old one and rewrite it with the current one. So, while others can notice changes in a story that we tell over time, the story teller has no memory of the previous memories and is blind to it. So, once a memory is altered in some way, there is no need to reinforce the change. The altered memory is the only memory -- there is no former version to revert to.

It's not anywhere near that simple, Res.

.

[Res Ipsa]

Here is the substance of the FOIA I will submit to NARA:

1. Any and all records of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration, or the Civil Aeronautics Board of aircraft accidents and/or incidents that occurred in Utah from January 1, 1970 through December 31, 1977.

2. Any and all indexes of files of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration or the Civil Aeronautics Board that include records from January 1, 1970 through December 31, 1977.

3. Any and all records of document management procedures, including retention, disposition, destruction or transfer to any other agency or organization, of reports of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration, or the Civil Aeronautics Board that apply to Reports of aircraft accidents or incidents.

4. Any statistical or summary reports of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration or the Civil Aeronautics Board that include period totals of aviation accidents or incidents.

The terms "aviation accident" and "incident" refer to the defined terms found in 49 CFR § 830.2.

Seems pretty complete. I bet you already know what you will find, but good luck anyway.

Do emergency services -- fire, police -- have records that can be requested via FOIA?

If a plane lands in a field with an exploded engine, how does that plane get moved and re-certified for flight? Would there be logs of the repair and re-certification for flight worthiness somewhere?

All the hubbub of transferring passengers from a field, removing a busted plane, adds noise that would not have gone unnoticed. So we're kind of back to the lack of newspaper coverage making the scene less believable.

Thanks for looking it over, Dr. Moore. I really don't know what to expect. According to the general description of accident reports in the National Archives, the reports I've requested are supposed to be in FAA correspondence folders or CAB board minutes. There is general collection of FAA documents and one of CAB documents, but I couldn't find a similar collection of NTSB documents. From general reading, Congress moved responsibility for determine probable cause from the CAB to the NTSB years before, but they failed to give the NTSB enough funding to do the job. So, it kind of subbed out some investigations to the FAA and maybe, based on records at the National Archives, to the CAB. Organizationally, it's a cluster.... and the records are the same.

I don't feel good about being to find the records I think are important, but it's worth a shot.

FOIA applies to the federal government. I know Washington has an equivalent statue for state and local records. I haven't checked Utah. My wild-assed guess is that those kinds of records would have been destroyed long ago under records retention policies.

The problem of course is which, of the many different and sometimes conflicting details in the different versions, correspond to what really happened? Field or just safe landing? Engine fire or explosion and/or wings flambe? What gets in a newspaper is subject to so many variables that I think it really depends on how extreme the actual event was.

I'd defer to DrW on logs and recertification requirements, but from what he's said in the past, even a simple engine failure would be logged in both the pilot and aircraft logbooks. And I would hope that recertifications would be required. I don't know whether those records would still exist. Might be worth checking.

I keep wondering how to test the whole newspaper thing. If we had a complete list of incidents and accidents for, say, the 1970s, we might have a big enough list of events in the county where Nelson says they landed to compare to what the newspapers reported to draw at least some conclusions. But if we had that list, I don't think we'd need to check the papers.

We'll just have to see what we get.

[Res Ipsa]

And the funny is that we only recall what we really right now. When we think about a memory, our brains erase the old one and rewrite it with the current one. So, while others can notice changes in a story that we tell over time, the story teller has no memory of the previous memories and is blind to it. So, once a memory is altered in some way, there is no need to reinforce the change. The altered memory is the only memory -- there is no former version to revert to.

It's not anywhere near that simple, Res.

.

Oh, I know. It's complex as hell. But does the complexity allow us to compare our current memory with past memories? I remember my sister biting me on the shoulder when I was five. But I don't remember how I remembered it 20 years ago.

[Res Ipsa]

This data base (FAA and NTSB versions) were transcribed from hardcopy records and they happened to use the Table format you see. These are not the original official records, and do not claim to be. They are a convenient and accessible way to get to transcriptions of official records starting in 1973.

Thanks.

I re-read the 1976 language of section 830 again today.

How plausible is it that if the events happened as-described by Nelson, the pilot and/or aircraft operator could have interpreted the rules in such a way as to NOT file any notification?

As told, it doesn't fit the definition of an "Aircraft accident." Because: (1) No one was injured, evidently, and (2) Nelson's description doesn't meet the criteria for "substantial damage."

I think that much is clear from any of the versions described by Nelson. Would you agree?

So it is a question of whether this rises to a reportable incident. Those criteria in 1976 were:


As I read them, (a)(1)-(3) and (5) seem to obviously not apply, leaving just:
(4) In-flight fire
or
(b) An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident.

Would you agree?
Then:
(b) seems less likely, as the pilot continued flying, presumably maintained radio control, so there would never have been reason to believe the plane was in an accident.

Leaving just

(4) In-flight fire

for a potential initial notification.

How is "In-flight fire" interpreted?

Is it possible that a pilot and operator in 1976 could have interpreted "in-flight fire" to exclude an engine fire and some splattered burning oil or fuel on the wing? Or is any fire, including such an engine fire, encompassed by that requirement? Is that found anywhere in a code book?

I tried to puzzle that out, too. I don't think I found anything definitive, but the gist of what I found is that an engine fire is an in-flight fire. That fits with DrW's description of how dangerous fires are on an aircraft. So, I've been assuming that the operator would have been required to give immediate notification to the NTSB. Hmm. Maybe should add that to the FOIA request...

[Morley]

It's not anywhere near that simple, Res.

.

Oh, I know. It's complex as hell. But does the complexity allow us to compare our current memory with past memories?

It can at times, yes.

If memory were as simple as you say (and sometimes, Elizabeth Loftus has suggested) there would be no PTSD or psychological addiction. Those memories could all be overwritten with new ones.

.

[Res Ipsa]

It can at times, yes.

If memory were as simple as you say (and sometimes, Elizabeth Loftus has suggested) there would be no PTSD or psychological addiction. Those memories could all be overwritten with new ones.

.

Thanks. Do you have any recommended sources that I could use to get more up to date?

[Morley]

It can at times, yes.

If memory were as simple as you say (and sometimes, Elizabeth Loftus has suggested) there would be no PTSD or psychological addiction. Those memories could all be overwritten with new ones.

.

Thanks. Do you have any recommended sources that I could use to get more up to date?

I'm sure you're up to date. Unfortunately, it's easy to read one theoretical framework in a given field and think it fits everything.

.

[Res Ipsa]

Morley, understood. Thanks.