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

[Lem]

What we're discussing is not whether this all occurred. We can guess that the story, in all its parts, most likely isn't true. But we're trying to determine what portions might be true.

We can speculate that Nelson is probably not telling the truth, or at the very least not correcting falsehoods told on his behalf--we just don't know whether or not Nelson is intentionally lying.

Do I have that right?

Well, what if Nelson has turned so many personal stories into scripture over the years that at a relatively young age, all standards had gone out the window, and this is just how he normally sees things? what if he's really delusional, then is it intentional? What if everything happened just as he stated it, but it happened 10 years prior in a third-world country where a drastic plane episode is more likely to happen, but for some reason he intentionally lied and said it was Dixie?

It's hard to know where to draw that line, exactly. Did you read his account of the couple who he baptized after he'd said dramatically, "you didn't read the Book of Mormon, get the F* out of my sight and we can continue this conversation once you do! F'ers!" And then, they come groveling back in tears, "yes, we suck, just as you said, and we've read it now. Obviously, it's True, anybody who actually reads it would know that!" And then Rusty coldly forgives, "very well, we may continue the lessons and we'll see if you qualify for baptism, eventually -- should I find myself in the mood".

That is the perfect example of a story that for me can be said to be pure BS. The invented narrative elements far outweigh the utility of what is probably true, that he did convert that couple. Using that as a template, how would I judge this story? The essential difference seems to be that a couple getting baptized is an ordinary enough claim, whereas a plane on fire and nosediving is pretty exceptional. And so even if Rusty's narrative was lifted from a book, we're primed to accept the truth of the story on account of something core to the exceptional claim being true....

That's two questionable stories. A third story is the one that actually had to be withdrawn from a book because the woman's family objected to the made up parts, and 4th, the truly unbelievable story about taking his 7 year old on rapids with the highest world rating for difficulty--and not recommended for kids under 10-12, and 5th, the extreme story about a prominent medical professional making his internship miserable and denying him his yearly vacation after trying to force him to take a drink at a company party, and...... Well, that's just the few discussed here in the last couple of weeks.

Quite the pattern in his storytelling, right?

[Res Ipsa]

Yeah, the odds of anyone coming up with something as wrong as the Dales just by chance are 1 in 10^80.

Wait. Doh!

Not the answer, the method of getting there. In DrW’s case, that has included searching in a database for a specific event, not finding that event, and then declaring he had proved that the event he searched for never happened. The problem was he never made sure he knew what was in the database in the first place. The database had no data at all for the year he searched. Yeah, that’s guest guesser bad.

DrW, over and over talks about all the different kinds of paper would have been generated 45 years ago, and claims the fact that no one here has found any of those pieces of is evidence that the events didn’t happen. The only “searching” he’s done is Internet databases. And there’s no evidence that any of these types of paper records were ever converted to database form. So, what can we conclude from the failure to find a specific record using Google when that type of records can’t be found on Google in the first place? Nothing. Yeah, Guest Guesser bad.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oh, for “F”’s sake RI. You haven’t found crap, either. Yet that somehow lends itself to a Russell M. Nelson-of-the-Gaps. Give me break, counselor. Russell M. Nelson made that crap up and you know it. Stop litigating it as if it were a criminal trial and he’s going to get off on a technicality.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Setting aside any lost database.

The point of no return announcement, the engine fire, the dive to extinguish the flames, the landing in a field, the subsequent tag-team flight, the miracle of arriving on time in spite of everything--all together, packed into one narrative, probably didn't happen.

What we're discussing is not whether this all occurred. We can guess that the story, in all its parts, most likely isn't true. But we're trying to determine what portions might be true.

We can speculate that Nelson is probably not telling the truth, or at the very least not correcting falsehoods told on his behalf--we just don't know whether or not Nelson is intentionally lying.

Do I have that right?

.

Hi Morley. I think we can reach a stronger conclusion than that. Given what we know about the accuracy of eyewitness descriptions of an event, even those recorded close in time to the event, it is very unlikely that a narrative provided by Nelson immediately after the plane landed would be 100% accurate.

Then we have a number of versions that have been told over decades with many differing details. If we combine every detail in every version of the story, the odds that the combination of all those facts is accurate is so low that I it’s reasonable to treat that combination as a whole as false.

But false as a whole means only that at least one of the many details is false. And because I’m interested in stories in general, I’m interested in trying to figure out whether there was an actual event on which the story was based.

I’m interested in what, if anything, happened and how the story evolved. Accuracy is my main concern. I’m agnostic on the question of whether Nelson is lying — it’s hard enough to establish facts. Determining whether Nelson is lying would be more work than I’m willing to to.

[Res Ipsa]

Oh, for “F”’s sake RI. You haven’t found Crap, either. Yet that somehow lends itself to a Russell M. Nelson-of-the-Gaps. Give me break, counselor. Russell M. Nelson made that Crap up and you know it. Stop litigating it as if it were a criminal trial and he’s going to get off on a technicality.

- Doc

LOL Doc! I’m not the one leaping to dramatic conclusions based on not finding crap. I’m not the one claiming that I have conclusive evidence based on something that doesn’t even qualify as evidence over and over.

This has nothing to do with a criminal trial or technicalities. This is basic reasoning 101 — how to draw reliable conclusions from the absence of evidence.

Hell, you couldn’t get the stuff I’m talking about in front of a jury in a garden variety more likely than not civil case.

You guys choose to take on the very difficult task of proving a negative. But when you find out how tough it is to do that, instead of taking the problem seriously, you retreat to “Aw c’mon,” which is the antithesis of an evidence based argument.

If you’re going to claim to be making an evidence-based conclusion from the absence of evidence, you have do the work that is needed that allows you to reach a justifiable conclusion. If you aren’t willing to do that, confine your conclusions to evidence you can find, and stop pretending to draw conclusions from evidence you can’t find.

[Res Ipsa]

RI,
Anyone with the understanding of statistics and probability reflected in your posts on this thread should consider avoiding the use of those terms in a public forum. The point of the analogy, which you clearly missed, was that the events described by the woman in her sacrament meeting story made it ridiculous on its face to the point that one need not worry about the absence of information contained in the unavailable national security data base in deciding to discount it.

DrW, anyone with the understanding of basic reasoning reflected in your posts on this thread should consider avoiding reasoning in a public forum.

I have pointed out your basic error in reasoning a number of times in this thread. And never once have you addressed the substance of what I have said. Not. One. Time. You have ignored, changed the subject, or, as in this case, deflected. So, how many opportunities should I give you to defend your poor reasoning before I conclude that you know you can't, yet you continue to do it and mislead the people on this board who are relying on you? Does Nelson being a lying bastard magically transmute non-evidence into evidence?

To those familiar with aviation, including air traffic control procedures, aviation communications and aircraft performance, Russell M. Nelson’s story is ridiculous on its face. The reasons why have been described in excruciating detail.

If what you mean by "Russell M. Nelson's story" is including every single detail of every single version ever told, that's what I said at the beginning of this thread. I don't need to have any expertise in aviation or with aircraft to know that, given the nature of the event, the passage of time, and repeated tellings with different details in different versions, some added decades after the time of the alleged events, the probability of every single one being accurate is so close to zero it's not worth considering. So, if you are so confident that the story is ridiculous on its face, why spend so much time cosplaying investigator?

But, learning that you considered the story ridiculous on its face, goes a long ways toward explaining the motivated reasoning and confirmation bias I've seen.

Checking the accident and incident data bases for evidence that supports the story should be done, of course. However, the absence of any mention of the events described by Russell M. Nelson in the aviation accidents and incidents data base should not be of concern in deciding to discount the story. Lack of contradictory evidence is to be expected if the story was pure fantasy.

Now that really takes a pair of brass ones, DrW, because you are the guy who has been claiming that the absence of events in databases not only discounts the story, but proves it's all made up. You not only moved the goalpost here. You moved it to the other team's end zone. I've really been reluctant to do this, but let's roll the videotape:

Dr. Moore, Your website is a great find. Looks like the Holy Grail of aviation accident and incident information to me. No need to be concerned about entering the wrong search parameters. After entering the time interval for the search, just leave the other parameter values alone and designate the State of Utah.

Searching only the date and state parameters settings, one can see every FAA aviation accident and incident report in the State of Utah for a given year or other time interval. I did the search for 1976.

FAA Accidents and Incidents Query
Occurrence date from equal 1976-01-01
Occurrence date to equal 1977-01-01
Accident state code equal UT

It took less than ten minutes to carefully evaluate the 54 returns for viable aircraft type (there were only 7) and then to check the details of each event. Details on each clearly ruled them out as possibly being involved in the Nelson story.

So, as far as I'm concerned, this FAA listing provides incontrovertible evidence against such an incident as described by Nelson in 1976.

viewtopic.php?p=17586#p17586

That was you, searching a database, not finding what you are looking for, and declaring your failure to find what you are looking for "incontrovertible evidence."

Except it wasn't even evidence at all. Why not? Because there are no records at all for the year 1976 in the FAA database.

What you did here is an error in basic reasoning. To reach any conclusion from the absence of evidence, whether from an electronic database or in paper records, requires two steps: (1) Have an evidence-based reason for believing that the general type of record you are looking for is in the place you are looking. (2) Look. You skipped step 1. Fatal error. You might as well have run your search in a database of dog breeds.

I called the error to your attention. "I spent a fair amount of time checking out that website to try and understand exactly what I was looking at. So, I'm going to give you my understanding and ask you to double check me." viewtopic.php?p=17592#p17592

You didn't "double check me." In fact, you completely ignored the whole issue and changed the subject to a discussion of federal regulations and a brand new search in a completely different database. viewtopic.php?p=17606#p17606

Back to the videotape:

To the list of reasons noted above as to why such an incident as Nelson described would not have escaped the attention of the FAA ,one can add:

- The pilot of an aircraft experiencing a fire that disabled the engine would declare an emergency to ATC.

- If nothing else, this action would initiate a requirement for FAA paperwork galore when the pilot landed.

- ATC would notify the FSS at the destination airport in case emergency assistance was required when the aircraft landed.

- The FAA would be notified via the FSS when the aircraft was overdue according to its flight plan, accounting for reported fuel on board.

- Even if the aircraft arrived on time and the flight plan was not properly closed the FSS would take note.

- If the plane was forced down in a field, and was unable to communicate with ATC or any nearby airport tower, and therefore could not respond to radio calls from ATC or the tower, the FAA would have been notified.

- The aircraft owner (in this case assume SkyWest) would record the Emergency Declaration event at its flight operations center and make said record available to FAA inspectors, or NTSB investigators, if requested.

- The aircraft owner (SkyWest?) would be required keep a record of any repairs made to the aircraft in the company maintenance logs, also subject to FAA inspection.

- Major repairs would require a test flight to confirm airworthiness, before the aircraft could return to service, which would also be recorded as such in the maintenance records of the aircraft.

What affect contemporary media coverage would have had on public awareness of the harrowing aviation accident can only be imagined, but it would not have been zero - which is what seems to be the case for Nelson's story.

By now it is abundantly clear that Nelson made the whole thing up and got trapped in his lies, both in his speeches and in print, by the advent of the internet. He should print a retraction and make a public apology. Given his past behavior, it is more likely the he will double down and the story will continue to evolve.

viewtopic.php?p=17661#p17661

This is an example, not with a electronic database, but with paper records. The steps are the same: (1) Have an evidence-based reason for believing that the general type of record you are looking for is in the place you are looking. (2) Look.

In the case of this mountain of paper you claim should exist, you never lifted a finger to try and determine whether 45 year-old records of this type still exist anywhere today and, if they do, where they are. And, other than some Google searches, you never tried to find them. Unless you do the work, you can't draw any conclusions from the fact that mountains of paperwork haven't magically appeared on your desk.

Back to the videotape:

At a later point, I described which records were contained in the FAA and NTSB databases according to the FAA and the NTSB:

The problem is what is in the databases. The databases themselves tell us what is in them.

FAA Accident and Incident Database (AIDS): no records of accident or incidents before 1978.
NTSB Accident database: no images of original records during the decade of the 1970s. NTSB personnel prepared summaries of final reports (all include probable cause determinations) of all accidents and "selected incidents." A search of all records from Utah during the entire decade generates 55 or 56 accidents and only a single incident -- an incapacitated pilot on a commercial passenger jet. Given the disparity between the number of accidents and the number of "selected incidents," as well as the nature of the single incident (commercial passenger jet), there is no basis for assuming that database is complete enough to draw conclusions from the absence of a record for some other incident.

If any aircraft sustained an engine fire that was limited to the engine, followed by a safe landing with no injuries (just like the example you posted upthread) at any time during the 1970s, we could not find it in either database because neither includes all incidents for that time period.

You responded:

Images below are (1) Items 1-10 from the 1973 list of Incidents and accidents reported in Utah, and (2) example of the detail data available for each listing. Overall this data base includes close to 400 entries (not 55 or 56), for incidents and accidents reported in Utah from 1973 through 1979. (Note the image header on the first screenshot.) A few of these reports are repeats. The NTSB version of this list is comprised of essentially the same entries for the years 1973 to 1979.

Upthread I offered to copy these and post them as a favor to RI. He did not seem interested. After again seeing RI's claim regarding unavailability of these records before 1978, I thought it best to post at least two screenshots from several days ago.

...

Each report allows access to the details, by clicking on the Details, as shown in the second screenshot below. These records were scraped and digitized and are available on the internet from 1973 on. The only Navajo (PA31) incident I saw anywhere near Cedar City was for a minor incident on the ground. It did not occur in 1976.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=709&start=400

Except, that you were completely wrong about what you were looking at. You continued to use a third-party website that scraped information from the FAA and NTSB websites instead of using the primary sources. As a result, your description of the data you were looking at was completely wrong. First, despite its title, the FAA database includes only incidents. And it does not contain any records before 1978. The FAA states both of these facts in its explanation of the data that is included in its database. And I pointed out to you the first time around with the FAA database that it started in 1978.

You should have recognized from the fact you got the same list by searching both the FAA database and the NTSB database that something was wrong.

So, once again you searched a database, found nothing, and drew conclusions. But you skipped the step of having an evidence-based reason for concluding that what you were looking for (incident reports from 1976) could be found in the place you were looking (a database that had no records at all for 1976.) And the evidence -- the FAA and NTSB's own descriptions of what was in their database -- was right at your fingertips.

If you look at the next few entries, you'll see that a couple of the good folks here accepted what you had to say at face value when, in fact, you hadn't added anything that we already didn't know from searching the NTSB database -- that if anything happened to a plane on which Nelson was flying in Utah in 1976, it wasn't an accident. One was ready to start calling journalists.

Again, I responded to the incorrect conclusions with a very detailed post, which ended:

The bottom line: If whatever happened on Nelson's aircraft occurred before 1978 and was categorized as an "incident," we know that the chance of finding that event in the online databases is exactly zero before we ever run a query. That's not because an incident didn't happen. It's because the databases do not include reports of "incidents" for that timeframe.

Confirming my understanding of the database requires doing some research and reading, as well as running several different queries to test what type of documents are included for which years. Falsifying my understanding should be easy peasy. Post a list of the aircraft incidents in Utah before 1978 from the database, and the search parameters you used to find it. DrW's single record from 1979 does not falsify my description, which applies to incidents before 1978.

My goal from the beginning has been to have an accurate understanding. If I'm wrong, I want to know that, so that I can fix my understanding. I asked DrW to do this nine days ago. He has yet to provide a single counterexample.

viewtopic.php?p=18457#p18457

After hearing nothing for a while, I asked again:

DrW, can you, or can you not, use the Aviation DB database to generate a list of aircraft incidents in Utah for the years 1973 through 1977? If so, please post a screen shot.

viewtopic.php?p=18604#p18604

You responded: viewtopic.php?p=18646#p18646

Except, all that you did was use the same problemmatic third-party database instead of going to the FAA or NTSB databases themselves that were the source of the data. Once again failing step 1.

I responded by, not only pointing out that you were still wrong in your description of the databases, but described exactly how you could test the database yourself, which would have allowed you to do step 1:

Every entry in your image is an accident, not an incident. I know. I looked. They all report "substantial damage." Now, rerun your search changing the search parameter to Incidents -- Commercial Aviation and then Incidents - General Aviation. Please report the total number of hits for each. If, as you keep claiming, the database includes reports of incidents dating back to 1973, each of those searches should generate a list of incidents, which we can verify by looking at the entries. And you should be able to screenshot examples of records of incidents that occurred from 1973 through 1977.

Please return and report.

viewtopic.php?p=18650#p18650

Even though other posters did try to test the database, and were unable to find any "incidents" before 1978, you did not test the database to verify what it included. Instead, you took a screenshot of what you insisted was an "incident" from 1973. Except, the report identified the event as "General Aviation Accident." viewtopic.php?p=18667#p18667

So, still failing step 1 after pages and pages and pages. And the question is critical because if you were correct, we'd have a complete set of the data that we need in a searchable online database, eliminating the need for hunting down paper records. So, I tried again:

Doc, I've asked multiple times for something that would either confirm or refute my description of what's in the database. My specific claim that you take issue with is that it does not include incidents from 1973 through 1978. I've asked you to provide a list of, or specific records for, incidents from 1973 through 1977. If those documents are contained in the database, you could retrieve them in a minute or two.

So far, you've shown me:

1. A list of accidents from 1973.
2. A report of an incident from 1979

and now, an accident report from 1973. It says right on the form. GENERAL AVIATION ACCIDENT. It lists the damage as "substantial."

It's a very simple request to test which reports are in the data and which are not. I'm not interested in your arguments about the nature of accidents. You've been claim that the relevant incident reports are in the database since a week ago Friday.

True or False: the database you are searching does not contain any reports of incidents in Utah for the years 1973-1977.

And if the answer is false, provide a screenshot of the evidence.

viewtopic.php?p=18672#p18672

You didn't respond to me, but you gave a lengthy and incorrect explanation of the same search and the same set of "accidents" that you insisted were "incidents" in a response to Dr. Moore. In it, you tried to rationalize away the fact that the records themselves stated that they were "accidents" when you were sure at least some of them were incidents. (Because, I guess, "horse" can mean "tapir")

As I have tried to explain several times, when one searches the data base with NO RESTRICTIONS, the data base returns every record for the time span included. What you found is a data base that was transcribed and from the hardcopy records over several years (looks like 2005 to 2012 perhaps). The records from 1973 to sometime in the early 1980s were transcribed and digitized using a standard format.

The data base format was set up with a single field to categorize the event in question. That field was Accident Type. As I have just described upthread, whether the event was a ground loop, a hard landing, a prop strike, or a total demolition of the aircraft, a notation was made in the Accident Type cell. There is no incident cell in the Table.

If one wants to see what happened in Utah civil aviation in 1976, enter 1976-01-01 to 1977-01-01 for the date span, and UTAH in the State field, and run the query. (Leave every other field in default.) I just ran it again and for 1976 and 54 records came up. Nothing even remotely related to Russell M. Nelson's story in any way came up for 1976. Click the Details on any records of interest to see the information as shown below.
[boldface added] viewtopic.php?p=18707#p18707

So, now, according to you, we couldn't tell accidents from incidents in the earlier period because incidents and accidents were both classified as "accidents." Except they weren't. I responded by showing you a record from 1970 in the NTSB database that clearly states: CLASSIFIED AS INCIDENT.

viewtopic.php?p=18719#p18719 The NTSB database contains exactly what the NTSB says it does for the years before 1982 -- all accidents and selected incidents.

Post after post after post after post because you simply refused to take step 1 seriously. All you had to do was go to the FAA and NTSB websites and read their own description of what is in their databases. Or just test the database you were using like I and other posters did. Because you didn't take the time to understand the contents of the databases you were searching, you drew incorrect conclusions from your failure to find something in a search again, and again, and again.

And then there is this:

I do not know what was done before or after 1978 in terms of record keeping or destruction of records according to policy.

Again, the use of the Accident Type cell to categorize the events does not mean that they were categorized by the FAA or the NTSB as accidents. The transcribers could just as well have labelled the cell Mishap Type. As I mentioned, in this data base one sees everything from hard landing to a runway collision to aircraft demolished.

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.

With a fairly consistent average number of entries per year, and pretty much the kind of aviation events one would expect to see in Utah, I would be very surprised if the curator decided that an in-flight fire on a commercial flight, with a forced landing in a farmers field, didn't rate inclusion, especially when two hard landings did.

My view is that the Russell M. Nelson story has little, if any, basis in fact (except possibly on movie screens). And if it did, the embellishments that appear in the later versions of the story certainly cross the line. This view comes from operating aircraft in controlled airspace, according to a flight plan, and understanding the close eye that ATC keeps on aircraft with radar transponders.

It comes from knowing how serious the FAA and the NTSB considers in-flight engine fires and forced landings, especially of commercial aircraft, and especially on civilian property, to be. The number and types of alerts and notifications that would have promulgated through the ATC and NTSB systems had such an event occurred do not magically disappear from all the places they would have been recorded. All this is not to mention the human interest story that the pilot, Russell M. Nelson and the other passengers would have had to tell.

Yet, nothing.

The juxtaposition of two sentences from that post is a crystal clear illustration of the basic error in reasoning you keep making over and over:

I do not know what was done before or after 1978 in terms of record keeping or destruction of records according to policy.

The number and types of alerts and notifications that would have promulgated through the ATC and NTSB systems had such an event occurred do not magically disappear from all the places they would have been recorded.

The first sentence completely negates the claim of the second. Disappearance of records doesn't happen by magic -- it happens through policies of record keeping or destruction, which you just said you know nothing about.

If you know nothing about the policies regarding record retention and destruction, then you have no evidence-based reason to expect that all the records you describe in the second sentence still exist today.

The same problem repeated over and over. Failing to have an evidence-based reason for why you expect to find what you are looking for in the place you are looking. You just assumed that every record that was created would exist today. And then you said "nothing" without ever trying to look.

And finally, the most recent skipping of step 1.

The Bureau of Aircraft Accident Archives < https://www.baaa-acro.com/ > maintains a searchable data base that archives aircraft accidents worldwide by date, aircraft type, registration, operator, region, and number of fatalities, if any, along with other search parameters. Details and narratives from NTSB notifications, or other official accident reports, are included in a Details section.

...

Had the events Russell M. Nelson described actually occurred, the resulting NTSB notifications would have appeared in the www.baaa-acro.com data base. The only accidents reported for SkyWest were the three listed above.

Except, there's absolutely no evidence based reason to make that claim. First, you talk about "NTSB notifications." For all the searching folks have done, no one has produced a single piece of paper that is a "NTSB notification" from 1976. Based on our FOIA requests, it appears that NTSB notifications were destroyed and not retained as permanent documents. There is no evidence-based reason to expect that this "Bureau," which is in reality one guy in Geneva who is compiling a database, has any "NTSB Notifications" from 1976, let alone a complete enough set of such notices that would allow us to draw a justifiable inference from the absence of a notice that matched Nelson's report.

But it's easy to confirm that the "Bureau's" database does include reports from the NTSB, and we do have those in a database. So it's pretty easy to test the percentage of NTSB Reports (as reported by the NTSB) that appear in the Bureau's database. And the answer to that is around 2% So, your statement "Had the events Russell M. Nelson described actually occurred, the resulting NTSB notifications would have appeared in the www.baaa-acro.com data base" is completely false. What's true? Had the events that Russell M. Nelson described actually occurred, there is a 2% chance that we could find it in this database.

Same mistake. Again. Skipping step 1: you never bothered to look to see how complete your database was before you searched. You just searched, and then unjustifiably jumped to a totally false conclusion.

That Nelson's story may be facially ridiculous does not give you license to ignore basic logic and principles of reasoning. If there isn't sufficient evidence to disprove the story, tough luck. It's a 45 year old case. Documents are destroyed. Witnesses die. Recollections become more inaccurate and fade over time. That's just reality. Sometimes the evidence just isn't there to prove the case you want to argue.

If you're going to argue from the absence of evidence, just do it right. Half-assing it gets you exactly what you've done throughout this thread -- make terrible inferences that are easily shown to be flat wrong.

That said, if you believe that one needs to comb through thousands of reported incidents such as cabin pressurization issues, bird strikes, blown tire on landing, landing gear deployment issues, temporary engine failure, loud bang when the landing gear was deployed, (false) in flight engine fire indication in the cockpit, lavatory smoke indication, wingtip strike on landing, landing gear indicator disagreement, flaps deployment issue, indication of thrust reverser deployment in flight, runway excursion on landing, deployment of air driven generator in flight, overheated brakes, etc., have at it.

Here is a URL address where you can find incident reports for SkyWest: https://www.aeroinside.com/airline/skywest-airlines. It may not go back as far as 1976. However, it does include the kinds of routine incidents that you would find should you get access to the incident records from that year. Let us know if you make it past the first 100 reports.

Now you're starting to understand what it takes sometimes to be able to reach a conclusion from the absence of evidence. You have to roll up your sleeves and do what it takes. And if it takes trawling through thousands of records, that's exactly what you have to do. And if you're not willing to do the work required to draw conclusions from the absence of evidence, then what you say is "There isn't enough evidence to determine what did and did not happen." Because that's the 100% true and honest answer if you aren't willing to do the work.

by the way, the link is to 156 reports. I could do that before breakfast. I'm not going to, because a small selection of incident reports from the last three years doesn't help me figure out what did and did not happen in 1976.

[Themis]

I’m interested in what, if anything, happened and how the story evolved. Accuracy is my main concern. I’m agnostic on the question of whether Nelson is lying — it’s hard enough to establish facts. Determining whether Nelson is lying would be more work than I’m willing to to.

People are even known to implant stories told of other people's events into their own memory and think it happened to them. I would also be agnostic that Nelson is intentionally lying. I don't see his stories going to the same level as Paul H Dunn.

[IHAQ]

If you’re going to claim to be making an evidence-based conclusion from the absence of evidence, you have do the work that is needed that allows you to reach a justifiable conclusion. If you aren’t willing to do that, confine your conclusions to evidence you can find, and stop pretending to draw conclusions from evidence you can’t find.

A lot of work has been done, by a number of people. Research has gone into reviewing the versions of the story Russell M. Nelson has told and how it's been embellished over time; newspaper archives have been searched; numerous flight databases have been searched; Russell M. Nelson's track record has been investigated and reviewed; Custom and practice of the era within pilot training has been reviewed, along with the types of twin engined aircraft in use at the time; the logic of Russell M. Nelson's story against what we would expect to be the behaviours and outcomes of such an incident for people etc etc etc. So far nothing supports Russell M. Nelson's story. Nothing.

I get that you discount all of that because an official record of the flight to Dixie on that day in 1976 hasn't turned up definitively showing that the flight happened without incident, but personally I think we do have conclusive evidence of that. Nelson arrived at Dixie on time to give the opening prayer at the event he was travelling to when the incident supposedly happened. I think that's the smoking gun on the "landing in a field" tale.

Can you bring us up to speed with what you are looking into?

[Res Ipsa]

If you’re going to claim to be making an evidence-based conclusion from the absence of evidence, you have do the work that is needed that allows you to reach a justifiable conclusion. If you aren’t willing to do that, confine your conclusions to evidence you can find, and stop pretending to draw conclusions from evidence you can’t find.

A lot of work has been done, by a number of people. Research has gone into reviewing the versions of the story Russell M. Nelson has told and how it's been embellished over time; newspaper archives have been searched; numerous flight databases have been searched; Russell M. Nelson's track record has been investigated and reviewed; Custom and practice of the era within pilot training has been reviewed, along with the types of twin engined aircraft in use at the time; the logic of Russell M. Nelson's story against what we would expect to be the behaviours and outcomes of such an incident for people etc etc etc. So far nothing supports Russell M. Nelson's story. Nothing.

I get that you discount all of that because a record of the flight to Dixie on that day in 1976 hasn't turned up definitively showing that the flight happened without incident, but I think we do have conclusive evidence of that. Nelson arrived at Dixie on time to give the opening prayer at the event he was travelling to when the incident supposedly happened.

I'm now more interested in seeing your positive contribution to the search, rather than your critiquing of others efforts. So can you bring us up to speed with what you are looking into?

Respectfully, IHAQ, that’s neither a fair or accurate version of what’s been done so far or the views I have expressed here. Right now there are three pieces of evidence I want to review: Nelson’s first biography. I haven’t located any in Washington, but there are copies in several collections in Utah. I’m not in a position to take a trip to Utah yet, so I don’t know when I’ll be able to do that. The same thing with the first record we have off the incident being told at a fireside, that’s in Utah, too.

The last is whatever reports have been transferred from the FAA and NTSB to the National Archives for permanent storage. I drafted a FOIA request that I think is comprehensive enough, but likely to result in going through more paper than I really need.

After playing with the request again this weekend, I’ve decided to request copies of indexes to and lists of documents related to aviation accidents and incidents. Those should help me do a more focused search for whatever exists, instead of having to wade through linear feet of documents that we aren’t interested in.

If I end up taking a trip to Utah, I might try to track down an aviation historian with knowledge of the ways one could fly from SLC to St. George in 1976, just to make sure we aren’t missing something.

Besides, a trip in fall would give a chance to cross “hike the narrows of my bucket list.

[DrW]

Not the answer, the method of getting there. In DrW’s case, that has included searching in a database for a specific event, not finding that event, and then declaring he had proved that the event he searched for never happened. The problem was he never made sure he knew what was in the database in the first place. The database had no data at all for the year he searched. Yeah, that’s guest guesser bad.

DrW, over and over talks about all the different kinds of paper would have been generated 45 years ago, and claims the fact that no one here has found any of those pieces of is evidence that the events didn’t happen. The only “searching” he’s done is Internet databases. And there’s no evidence that any of these types of paper records were ever converted to database form. So, what can we conclude from the failure to find a specific record using Google when that type of records can’t be found on Google in the first place? Nothing. Yeah, Guest Guesser bad.

RI,

My claim that the Russell M. Nelson event never happened is based on Russell M. Nelson's description of the event itself. It is not based upon, but only supported by, the lack of contrary evidence in the relevant databases. You seem to be writing more and understanding less.

Let's try a different approach. To accept the flight events as described by Russell M. Nelson as true, one must also be willing to believe that a professional flight crew (Captain and First Officer) who were both pilots well trained in engine out procedures and aircraft performance limitations, would decide between them to execute pretty much the exact opposite of standard procedures at every juncture of the emergency, thus willfully risking their lives and the lives of their passengers, as well as the aircraft itself.

If both engines of a twin were to fail (which itself is unheard of unless the aircraft ran out of fuel, in which case they could not have gotten a re-start), standard procedure is to secure the engines and feather both props. Failure to feather will allow the props to windmill, creating drag nearly equal to that of the aircraft itself and substantially reducing the distance the aircraft can glide.

The aircraft must then be trimmed for best glide airspeed (maximum glide distance). For the Navajo Chieftain, the glide ratio is approximately 12.5:1. Assuming a cruising altitude of 10,000 feet above ground level the crew could reasonably make an alternate airport that was within about 22 miles with both engines out and props feathered.

As mentioned upthread, any banked turn would to cost altitude because of loss of lift. This is especially true with the additional drag from two inoperative props, even if feathered. If the flight crew wishes to increase airspeed in an attempt to extinguish the fire, again as mentioned upthread, they would execute a straight line dive with the wings level. There would be no reason whatsoever for a banked turn as in a spiral death dive. To try this with both engines out would be tantamount to suicide.

Assuming that the flight crew had secured both inoperative engines and feathered the props, they would now have two choices for spending their precious altitude:

(1) attempt to extinguish the fire by increasing airspeed and altitude loss rate in a steeper dive, or

(2) setting the aircraft up for maximum glide range, thus increasing the chances of a controlled landing on a suitable surface, and letting the right engine burn* if the fire persisted.

Either choice means no spiral death dive.

Once they had a restart of the left engine, their choices would be:

(1) to land at the Delta Municipal airport to which they had been cleared, or

(2) to land in a farm field with the attendant risk of wrecking the aircraft and injuring those on board, and thereafter hitchhiking to Delta Municipal.

Does anyone believe that two trained pilots would decide to execute a dangerous and unnecessary spiral death dive and then decide to land in a farm field instead of on an airport runway?

I don’t know how to make it any clearer that the Russell M. Nelson story is complete nonsense. Having read a few versions of the story a few times after my initial post on this thread, I personally felt no more need to consult the accident and incident databases to decide it is BS than I would if Russell M. Nelson had claimed to fly from SLC to St. George by alien teleportation. References to data bases were to participate in the discussion, not to make a decision as to whether the story was true or not.

Your apparent failure to read or understand the relevant aviation related information provided, along with your continued and false claim that my opinion is based on the lack of contrary evidence in the accident and incident data bases, does not help your credibility on this thread.

____________________________

*A decision to allow the right engine to burn would be reasonable. Chieftains have an electrically operated firewall shut off valve that isolates the wing tanks from the fuel pump. This means that once the avgas in the line between the tank and the engine is consumed, the only fuel for the fire would be engine oil. In the Chieftain engine fire event report posted up thread, the pilot was able to continue flying to the destination airport with the oil fire burning. He put it out with a portable extinguisher after landing and deplaning the passengers.