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

[Tator]

There has been so much great information posted and analysis provided by many posters that we who are novices in this area have certainly been given a very good education on the subject of aircraft incidents/ accidents. So KI hope RI and and Dr W can bury the hatchet and appreciate that each has given us all a very good and lively discussion- besides its Easter and many including myself are rejoicing in it!

just sayin, and hopin' everyone can rejoice in their own life today!
k

Kairos, thanx for saying that, I have learned a lot also. Bless everyone much.

[DrW]

Well, that's nice and all, but you're telling me that you posted all that without even bothering to review your post first? No, you should have quoted both sentences of the definition. By failing to do so, you misled several folks who deserve better. The second sentence specifically addresses types of damage potentially involved in the story. If you want to argue that the exceptions don't apply, quote them and make your argument. Give everybody else a chance to agree or disagree with that argument. Don't unilaterally decide that the exceptions don't apply and then omit them because they don't support your argument.

You still don't get it, do you? No one was misled. My claim was that the accident had to be reported to the NTSB. That was the case. You are not the one to decide, or 'make up your mind', as to whether the accident was reportable or not. The regulations are clear. How many times upthread from that post was it mentioned both by tapirrider and me that in flight engine fires were reportable to NTSB?

The post was written in a response to your false charge that my claim of an NTSB report requirement was "100% wrong" due to your misunderstanding of the difference between an accident and an incident.

In my response I said that I would explain the situation to you in a simple way by referring to the CFR. I did so. My only mistake was not taking time to explain that the CFR passage on severe damage had exemptions that did not apply. There are a lot of other regs that don't apply as well. I should have introduced my paste a the 'pertinent passage from the definition'.

The other choice would have been to quote the whole thing, have you come back with your irrelevant objections, and then explain about the fire damage (which, by the way, should have been clear from mentions upthread or to anyone reading the fantastical story of an explosion and an airplane engulfed in fire). But that would not have been the simple way, would it?

And while we're at it, going ad hominem when all else failed was not a good look.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm having a hard time understanding why an engine exploding and a plane making an emergency landing wouldn't be a reportable incident in 1976. That seems like a reach, to believe a commercial carrier in 1976 wouldn't either be required to do so, or for insurance reasons wouldn't need to (unless they self-insure, which I wouldn't know how to verify).

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

I'm having a hard time understanding why an engine exploding and a plane making an emergency landing wouldn't be a reportable incident in 1976. That seems like a reach, to believe a commercial carrier in 1976 wouldn't either be required to do so, or for insurance reasons wouldn't need to (unless they self-insure, which I wouldn't know how to verify).

- Doc

I've never claimed that, Doc. I'm on the first of several steps. (1) What are the requirements for notifying and reporting events to the NTSB? (2) Of that information, how much of it should we expect to find in the online databases that we have access to? (3) Is it possible that Nelson's description is inaccurate for any number of reason? Not seated in a position to get a good look, not understanding what he was looking at, dramatic puffery, etc. (4) How sure can we be that that an accurate description of what took place on the plane would be something we could find by searching the NTSB or FAA database.

If you are going to draw a conclusion from the absence of evidence, and you are interested in being correct, you better have some good reason to expect to find the evidence you are looking for in the place you are looking for it other than you think it should or must be there. That's all.

Here's what the rules say about fires. If there is an inflight fire, there is a requirement to notify the NTSB. There's no required report form -- it can be done over the phone. After repeated trips to the NTSB website, I'm convinced there is no online database of these notifications.

If there is an engine fire that is not confined to the engine, there is a requirement to file a report with the NTSB. Those reports are included in the NTSB on-line database for the relevant time period.

If there is an engine fire that is confined to the engine, there is no requirement tofile a report with the NTSB UNLESS the NTSB requests one. So, this type of fire may or may not be included in the NTSB database.

You're jumping to an ultimate conclusion under the assumption that Nelson's description is accurate. Based on decades of reading witness statements, interviewing witnesses, taking depositions of witnesses, reading trial transcripts, reading publications that discuss the extent to which eyewitness testimony is inaccurate, sometimes wildly so, I'm not willing at this point to assume that Nelson's description is an accurate representation of what, if anything, occurred, and then conclude that nothing happened on the basis that every fact that appears in every version of his story is 100% accurate. If we're interested in trying to figure out what actually happened, assuming that every detail of every version is an accurate recollection of what happened is about the worst way to go about it. It is, however, a method that stands the best chance of concluding that Nelson is dishonest.

Baby steps. Before you attempt to apply a set of rules to a fact situation, make sure you are confident that you understand the rules first. That's all I'm trying to do at this point.

[DrW]

I'm having a hard time understanding why an engine exploding and a plane making an emergency landing wouldn't be a reportable incident in 1976. That seems like a reach, to believe a commercial carrier in 1976 wouldn't either be required to do so, or for insurance reasons wouldn't need to (unless they self-insure, which I wouldn't know how to verify).

- Doc

Doc,

Agree. Shown below is the result of an explosion and fire (sound familiar?) involving a P&W jet engine on a Boeing 777 in February of this year. Who in the world would think that this in-flight engine explosion and fire would not have required an NTSB report?



Certainly not the NTSB:

US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) chairman Robert Sumwalt says a preliminary assessment suggests one of the fan blades had a metal fatigue crack.

Federal Aviation Administration head Stephen Dickson says inspectors have quickly concluded that inspections should be done more frequently on the type of hollow fan blades in certain Pratt & Whitney engines that are used on some Boeing 777s.

The situation Nelson described was worse than this. After the explosion he witnessed, the engine spewed flaming fuel and oil all over the aircraft, which was "engulfed in flames" in one of his many versions.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

RI,

I think you make a sound argument, as does Dr. W. Based off off Russell M. Nelson's description(s), or the Church's description, or Dew's description, I fail to see why there wouldn't be a record of the event, if they phoned in the incident. The whole point of a federal agency like the NTSB or even the FAA is to create a historical record in order to learn from these things so overall safety can be increased. In this case absence of evidence is a problem.

- Doc

[Gadianton]

I'm having a hard time understanding why an engine exploding and a plane making an emergency landing wouldn't be a reportable incident in 1976. That seems like a reach, to believe a commercial carrier in 1976 wouldn't either be required to do so, or for insurance reasons wouldn't need to (unless they self-insure, which I wouldn't know how to verify).

- Doc

I feel the same. I think Res is making the best case old RTMN is ever going to get. With a string of "IFs", maybe the case wasn't reportable, or maybe they could have gotten away with not reporting it?

Or what if it was reportable, but they didn't report it?

the SkyWest history says:

The company faced some bumps and tough times over the years. At one point early on, it was $150,000 in debt and was in such poor shape the owners literally couldn't give it away.

This statement was wedged between 1974 and 1983, and so this incident would have occurred in "the dark years" of the company. If they were doing poorly, then it may have been worth the risk of sweeping it under the rug.

But if that were the case, it would be really odd because this was a thoroughgoing Mormon company, according to the history, all the initial pilots were Mormon and it was likely a Mormon pilot that flew old Rusty. Hell, Henry Eyring was a big executive at SkyWest (years afterward). So what's the right intuition here? On the one hand, any Mormon pilot would be circulating this story ad nauseam "I'm the guy who saved old Rusty from doom!". But if they took a chance and didn't report it, then that would explain why nobody ever bragged about it.

Except one guy. Would Nelson throw all of his Mormon brothers under the bus and leave breadcrumbs to a crime? One imagines that a higher authority would have engaged him later and said, "Look, Rusty, it's best we not talk about this incident, for the greater good of the Church."

But would he have complied? On the one hand, no doubt he's a brown noser of the highest order, but on the other, his narcissism may have been out of control. He may very well had received a vision of becoming prophet himself, and so why should he listen to anybody?

[Res Ipsa]

Well, that's nice and all, but you're telling me that you posted all that without even bothering to review your post first? No, you should have quoted both sentences of the definition. By failing to do so, you misled several folks who deserve better. The second sentence specifically addresses types of damage potentially involved in the story. If you want to argue that the exceptions don't apply, quote them and make your argument. Give everybody else a chance to agree or disagree with that argument. Don't unilaterally decide that the exceptions don't apply and then omit them because they don't support your argument.

You still don't get it, do you? No one was misled. My claim was that the accident had to be reported to the NTSB. That was the case. You are not the one to decide, or 'make up your mind', as to whether the accident was reportable or not. The regulations are clear. How many times upthread from that post was it mentioned both by tapirrider and me that in flight engine fires were reportable to NTSB?

The post was written in a response to your false charge that my claim of an NTSB report requirement was "100% wrong" due to your misunderstanding of the difference between an accident and an incident.

In my response I said that I would explain the situation to you in a simple way by referring to the CFR. I did so. My only mistake was not taking time to explain that the CFR passage on severe damage had exemptions that did not apply. There are a lot of other regs that don't apply as well. I should have introduced my paste a the 'pertinent passage from the definition'.

The other choice would have been to quote the whole thing, have you come back with your irrelevant objections, and then explain about the fire damage (which, by the way, should have been clear from mentions upthread or to anyone reading the fantastical story of an explosion and an airplane engulfed in fire). But that would not have been the simple way, would it?

And while we're at it, going ad hominem when all else failed was not a good look.

No, it's you who doesn't "get it" because you're not paying attention to what I'm actually posting. You keep referring to posts that show I don't understand the difference between an "accident". I laid out my exact understanding in a detailed post and asked you to let me know whether I was wrong. You completely blew me off. In my last post, after you claimed I didn't understand the distinction and wasted several posts because I didn't understand that, I asked you to link to those posts. You blew me off again. Now, add to that list the post in which I made the "false claim" you referred to. Given your failure to respond to polite requests: put up or shut up. Links, or you're full of crap.

How many times upthread from that post was it mentioned both by tapirrider and me that in flight engine fires were reportable to NTSB?

This is a major part of the problem. Given the actual language of the regulations, "reportable to the NTSB" is completely ambiguous. There are two different requirements: (1) giving notice and (2) filing a report. What the regulations say, and I agree that they are clear, is that all-in flight fires require notification. They also say that some, but not all, engine fires require making a report. That's because of the difference between an "accident" and a "serious incident." All in-flight fires are defined as "serious incidents." An engine fire that results in damage beyond the engine itself is also an "accident." If you think this is wrong, quote the CFR section that contradicts what I said.

When you gave me your tutorial on the applicable regulations, you didn't refer at all to the section on giving notice. You went straight to the section that requires a report. If you aren't referring to the section that deals with reporting, don't say "reportable." If you're talking about the requirement to give notice, don't say "report." You're the expert. You're the guy who has this whole section of regulation committed to memory. Use the language that appears in the regulations. Don't blame me or anyone else for misunderstanding your imprecise wording.

Your repeated excuse for only quoting one sentence out of a two-sentence definition is lame. We're on a discussion board trying to figure out if we can verify what, if anything, happened. Part of the account we have is a fire and some kind off-field landing. I didn't ask you to tell me how you think the rules apply to what Nelson said. I asked you about my understanding of how the rules themselves work. We have reference to an engine fire and landing damage. You left out the sentence that includes exceptions for some engine fires and landing damage. Nobody asked you to explain your argument. You'd already made that clear. You were asked whether my description of the rules was correct, and you responded in a way that gave the impression that it wasn't, but only because you omitted the portion of the definition that I took into account when explaining my understanding. After your post, people started to decide whether various things would be "substantial damage" without taking into account the exceptions. They did that because you misled them.

It's not a simple matter of wording. You are the expert here. Other than one compulsive lawyer, folks aren't likely to hack their way through the CFR themselves. When you respond to a general question about how the rules work and decide yourself to quote only the part of an argument you want to make, you're not being candid with the folks here. You're giving them false information about the rules themselves.

Look, you aren't bound by my ethics rules. But, if I were in a case that turned on whether an aircraft sustained "substantial damage" and wrote a brief that included only the first sentence, I would lose all credibility with the judge. And if I explained myself by saying "I decided they didn't apply," I'd be lucky if the only consequence was monetary sanctions. That's formal reprimand territory. Why? Because it's not my place to unilaterally decide that one sentence of a two sentence definition doesn't apply, especially when the sentence contains exceptions that specifically address the general types of damage in the case. That's for the judge to decide.

Here, we've got a bunch of us trying to interpret a set of events. Who gets to decide what we think. We do. You gave everyone (but me) a false impression of a critical definition, not because it dealt with helicopters or runways lights, but because you decided it wasn't relevant to an argument you wanted to make. People here have the right to make up their own minds, regardless of what you think. They have right to now what the regulations are that have any relationship to the possible facts were dealing with. You gave them a false understanding of how the rules work because they weren't relevant to your argument that assumes that Nelson's descriptions are accurate. But they are absolutely relevant to a correct understanding of how the rules work.

It's crystal clear that you've assumed I'm making an argument that I'm not making -- one that I conceded pages ago. You're making no attempt to understand and respond to my actual words. I'll try one last time: I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND HOW THE RULES WORK AND WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THE ONLINE DATABASES. I'M NOT DISPUTING HOW THEY APPLY TO WHAT NELSON DESCRIBES IN HIS VARIOUS ACCOUNTS. I DON'T TRUST THE ACCURACY OF NELSON'S DESCRIPTION.

Clear?

You know what's not a good look? The "not a good look" trope. I've failed at exactly one thing in our back and forth: getting a straight answer out of you as to whether what I've posted is a correct understanding of how the reporting rules work and, if not, what I've got wrong. You're the expert. You're claiming stuff based on the rules. Why are you so resistant to answering these simple questions?

by the way, I don't give a crap about your opinion of my "look." I do give a crap about making sure I understand the notification and reporting regulations.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm having a hard time understanding why an engine exploding and a plane making an emergency landing wouldn't be a reportable incident in 1976. That seems like a reach, to believe a commercial carrier in 1976 wouldn't either be required to do so, or for insurance reasons wouldn't need to (unless they self-insure, which I wouldn't know how to verify).

- Doc

I feel the same. I think Res is making the best case old RTMN is ever going to get. With a string of "IFs", maybe the case wasn't reportable, or maybe they could have gotten away with not reporting it?

Or what if it was reportable, but they didn't report it?

the SkyWest history says:

The company faced some bumps and tough times over the years. At one point early on, it was $150,000 in debt and was in such poor shape the owners literally couldn't give it away.

This statement was wedged between 1974 and 1983, and so this incident would have occurred in "the dark years" of the company. If they were doing poorly, then it may have been worth the risk of sweeping it under the rug.

But if that were the case, it would be really odd because this was a thoroughgoing Mormon company, according to the history, all the initial pilots were Mormon and it was likely a Mormon pilot that flew old Rusty. Hell, Henry Eyring was a big executive at SkyWest (years afterward). So what's the right intuition here? On the one hand, any Mormon pilot would be circulating this story ad nauseam "I'm the guy who saved old Rusty from doom!". But if they took a chance and didn't report it, then that would explain why nobody ever bragged about it.

Except one guy. Would Nelson throw all of his Mormon brothers under the bus and leave breadcrumbs to a crime? One imagines that a higher authority would have engaged him later and said, "Look, Rusty, it's best we not talk about this incident, for the greater good of the Church."

But would he have complied? On the one hand, no doubt he's a brown noser of the highest order, but on the other, his narcissism may have been out of control. He may very well had received a vision of becoming prophet himself, and so why should he listen to anybody?

Dean Robbers,

It's all an exercise in figuring out which assumptions are justified and which aren't. My own opinion is, it would be unreasonable to assume that the operator failed to file a report required by the NTSB. Is it possible? I don't know. DrW posted about a whole bunch other paperwork that would be triggered under FAA's responsibility over flight worthiness, air traffic safety, etc. I think the odds of getting caught failing to file a mandatory report are pretty high and the consequences pretty severe.

Put another way: the NTSB online database does not show a report of an "accident" on the date of the inauguration that is in the right location. I think I looked for the entire decade and could not find a report of even an engine failure on a twin engine aircraft in the state of Utah. Absent some new information, I think it's fair to conclude that what, if anything, is the basis of Nelson's story, it wasn't an "accident" under the NTSB regulations in Utah during the 1970s. I think that assuming the operator failed to file a report in violation of the NTSB regulations is too speculative to be a reasonable assumption.

ETA: I'm not trying to make a case for Nelson. I start with the assumption that Nelson's accounts are inaccurate, based solely on what I know about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and memory changes over time. Maybe a good way to put it is that I'm trying to figure out the scope of reasonably plausible factual scenarios that produce the emotional impact that Nelson reports. (As it appears our brains remember that better than the factual details.) So, it's a matter of thinking through which details of Nelson's story could be wrong and also be consistent with at least: engine failure, scary dive, safe landing. It's a wide net because I want to be confident I'm not ruling something out without sufficient evidence.

[Res Ipsa]

RI,

I think you make a sound argument, as does Dr. W. Based off off Russell M. Nelson's description(s), or the Church's description, or Dew's description, I fail to see why there wouldn't be a record of the event, if they phoned in the incident. The whole point of a federal agency like the NTSB or even the FAA is to create a historical record in order to learn from these things so overall safety can be increased. In this case absence of evidence is a problem.

- Doc

I'm not really at the point of making an argument other than I don't think the state of the evidence is sufficient to justify a firm conclusion. I'm not arguing that DrW's argument is wrong, given his assumptions. I'm just not at the point where I'm willing to assume the accuracy of Nelson's perception and recall.

I'm sure there's some documentation of notifications to the NTSB. But I can't find them online. If we had access to an online database of notifications to the NTSB that included the 1970s, I'm reasonable confident we could figure this out pretty easily. Likewise, there should be a bunch of FAA paperwork in files somewhere. The question for me isn't so much whether documentation should exist, it's whether the documents are accessible over the internet.

I'm just spitballing here, but the NTSB and the FAA both have incident reports. I'd have to check with DrW, but I get the impression that an FAA incident report can be initiated by just about anyone. If DrW observes an unsafe practice as a passenger on a flight, I think he can notify the FAA, which will generate an FAA incident report. There is an online database of those, but just our luck that it starts in 1978. But paper copies of those reports appear to exist, at least according to, I think, the National Archives. So, they may be accessible through a FOIA request. The trick is not to end up with a response of thousands of pages and a huge copying bill.