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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm

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

Post by Res Ipsa »

tapirrider wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:06 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:38 am


Anybody else want to take guess as to whether this picture shows an accident or an incident based on the understanding you’ve gleaned on this thread?
Is there some kind of point you are trying to make?
Yes, thanks for asking. Please see my response to DrW.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” -- Voltaire
User avatar
DrW
CTR A
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:25 pm

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

Post by DrW »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:15 pm
tapirrider wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:06 pm


Is there some kind of point you are trying to make?
Yes, thanks for asking. Please see my response to DrW.
There are incidents, serious incidents, and accidents. My advice to you, RI, is to wait for the NTSB final report of the investigation. The final determination of cause (pilot error, inadequate maintenance inspections, FOD, bird strike, etc.) and damage external to the engine, (including damage to the wing, fuselage and pylon, and to property on the ground from falling debris, etc.) will all be factors in the final designation of the event.

The point you seem to be missing is that the 777 event was reported to the NTSB and there is already a permanent record on file, which file will eventually include the final NTSB report on what is now an incident. The same would have happened with a commercial Navajo commuter flight in 1976 in which the engine was reported to "explode" and catch fire near Delta Utah, engulfing the plane in flames and causing the pilot to make a forced landing in a field.

The 777 landed safely and no one was killed or seriously injured. The investigation could take many months. Aircraft accident investigators (not incident investigators) will tear down the engine and inspect every part. They will try to determine if a bird strike might have occurred, and ensure that the damage to the fuselage and wing of the 777 was from engine debris. They will evaluate the significance of the falling debris, which put people not on the aircraft at risk. They will compile the data and perhaps even write interim reports if the PW4000 engine appears to have a systemic issue affecting safety. There will eventually be a final report, and then someone at NTSB will decide on a final designation.

I'm sure that you noted the difference between the occurrence date and the dates of the 'latest report updates' when you were searching the NTSB aircraft accident data base records, assuming that you went that far. If you had, you would have noted that many of accident reports had been updated periodically as the investigation proceeded, or as other material information regarding the event was reported to the FAA or NTSB.

As you saw from the 1976 NTSB reports on files, the same would have happened then. By the way, if you noticed, most (perhaps all, I didn't check) of the records for 1976 in the NTSB accident database, were also included in the FAA accident and incident data base for 1976. Think about what that means for the administrative loophole you seem to be searching for.

At this point, you seem to be wasting the time of others with questions that you should know the answers to yourself, now that you have become an expert on NTSB 830. It appears that Tapirrider may be of the same opinion.

If you wish continue your quest for some shred of evidence or administrative loophole that would let you continue to believe that, in some way, RMN is something other than one who confabulates (and I'm being kind here) fantastical faith promoting stories feed his sheep, be my quest. I'm not willing to contribute any more of my time.
User avatar
tapirrider
Nursery
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:01 pm

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

Post by tapirrider »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:15 pm
tapirrider wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:06 pm


Is there some kind of point you are trying to make?
Yes, thanks for asking. Please see my response to DrW.
I see your response, and am still at a loss to see your point. Is your point an attempt to claim that in Nelson's tale, there might be no record in aviation related documents had it been an incident?

Consider a hypothetical situation with this Boeing 777. Rather than the catastrophic engine failure occurring in flight with passengers, consider the what if had it occurred during a ground maintenance run being performed by a mechanic, with no passengers and having nothing to do with a flight. Further suppose that the failed engine was not the one being run for maintenance, that it was only being operated to provide symmetrical thrust for the power setting needed for the maintenance run of the other engine. You do understand, don't you, that whether this hypothetical would be classified as an incident or accident would make little difference on the necessity of an investigation to determine the cause and to ensure airworthiness of the fleet?
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 1407
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

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

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Hello,



This email acknowledges the receipt of your FOIA request sent on Flight Information for a SkyWest commercial flight, on November 12, 1976, from SLC-SGU.



Your request has been assigned for action to:



Federal Aviation Administration

Regulatory Support Division

6500 S MacArthur

PO Box 25082

Oklahoma City, OK 43125



Contact:

xxxx xxxx

Xxx-xxx-xxxx



Under Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 7.34, we are extending the response due date by a minimum of 10 working days because we need to search for and collect records from field facilities.



Should you have any questions, you may email 9-ATO-WSA-FOIA@faa.gov or contact me directly at the number listed in my signature block below.



Thank you.





Have a great day~



Xxxx xxxx

Management and Program Analyst

MAST Team, AJV-W64

Federal Aviation Administration

Western Service Center

Xxx-xxx-xxxx
- Doc
Clinton King commenting on SeN: "My (perhaps) uncommon personal opinion: I find it easier to doubt the accuracy of carbon dating than the historicity of the Book of Abraham narrative." Good, Lord.
User avatar
Gadianton
Bishop
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm

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

Post by Gadianton »

Hate to jump in the middle here, but many of the latest things being discussed is triggering a possible dimension to this database thing that hadn't registered with me before. I don't know anything about planes, but I do have a background in problem management.

If that has any relevance here, then whether an incident caused impact or not is irrelevant to the point of tracking, because an incident that didn't cause impact on Wednesday could cause impact on Friday. And if certain incidents are repeating, then that could point to a problem, and you wouldn't want to throw out data that could help you determine there's a problem.

Okay, that's pretty high level, but, the point was made a while back, I think, that the rules seemed to be geared to not report stuff that didn't hurt anybody. But if these regulators have anything to do with problem management, that couldn't be true.

Thresholds must be tuned so that you're not swamped with minutia, but something like a fire that say, hypothetically, only damages beyond the engine 10% of the time, you'd still want to track because that 10% could be deadly, and you'd want to be tracking any kind of incident that indicates there's a problem. If a certain kind of engine part is blowing up all the time, you want to know that before the 1 out of 10 times happens that kills somebody.

maybe problem management is out of scope for this reporting, but tapirrs recent comment makes it sounds like that's what it's all about.

another thing is the problem of an "unknown unknown". If it takes a while to assess the damage from something like a fire, and if you don't know if you have damage beyond the engine in some cases without an extensive review, then it seems you would need to have an presumptive incident anyway.
Lem
Prophet
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

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

Post by Lem »

Speaking of miraculous stories, a summary from yesterday's GC :
Last fall, Elder and Sister Rasband hosted a Face to Face event in Goshen, Utah. Twenty minutes before 6 p.m., the power in the complex went out. He stepped away from the others “and pleaded with the Lord for a miracle.” Seven minutes after 6, the power miraculously returned.

“Miracles are worked through the power of faith.” They also come as answers to prayer.

Miracles don’t always come on one’s desired timetable or preferred resolution. “Does that mean we are less than faithful or do not merit His intervention? No. We are beloved of the Lord.”
"choosing to work the job she loved and elevated to the end." -honorentheos
User avatar
DrW
CTR A
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:25 pm

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

Post by DrW »

tapirrider wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:41 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:15 pm


Yes, thanks for asking. Please see my response to DrW.
I see your response, and am still at a loss to see your point. Is your point an attempt to claim that in Nelson's tale, there might be no record in aviation related documents had it been an incident?

Consider a hypothetical situation with this Boeing 777. Rather than the catastrophic engine failure occurring in flight with passengers, consider the what if had it occurred during a ground maintenance run being performed by a mechanic, with no passengers and having nothing to do with a flight. Further suppose that the failed engine was not the one being run for maintenance, that it was only being operated to provide symmetrical thrust for the power setting needed for the maintenance run of the other engine. You do understand, don't you, that whether this hypothetical would be classified as an incident or accident would make little difference on the necessity of an investigation to determine the cause and to ensure airworthiness of the fleet?
______________________________

"NTSB 830" : Subpart B—Initial Notification of Aircraft Accidents, Incidents, and Overdue Aircraft

§ 830.5 Immediate notification.

The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office 1 when:

1 NTSB regional offices are located in the following cities: ....

(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious incidents occur:

(1) Flight control system malfunction or failure;

(2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness;

(3) Failure of any internal turbine engine component that results in the escape of debris other than out the exhaust path;

(4) In-flight fire
;


(5) Aircraft collision in flight;

(6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.

(7) For large multiengine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight):....

(8) Release of all or a portion of a propeller blade from an aircraft, excluding release caused solely by ground contact;

(9) A complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50 percent of an aircraft's cockpit displays known as:

(i) Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) displays;

(ii) Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) displays;

(iii) Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) displays; or

(iv) Other displays of this type, which generally include a primary flight display (PFD), primary navigation display (PND), and other integrated displays;

(10) Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution advisories issued either:

(i) When an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft; or

(ii) To an aircraft operating in class A airspace.

(11) Damage to helicopter tail or main rotor blades, including ground damage, that requires major repair or replacement of the blade(s)
IHAQ
Elder
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:00 am

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

Post by IHAQ »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:56 pm
Hello,



This email acknowledges the receipt of your FOIA request sent on Flight Information for a SkyWest commercial flight, on November 12, 1976, from SLC-SGU.



Your request has been assigned for action to:



Federal Aviation Administration

Regulatory Support Division

6500 S MacArthur

PO Box 25082

Oklahoma City, OK 43125



Contact:

xxxx xxxx

Xxx-xxx-xxxx



Under Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 7.34, we are extending the response due date by a minimum of 10 working days because we need to search for and collect records from field facilities.



Should you have any questions, you may email 9-ATO-WSA-FOIA@faa.gov or contact me directly at the number listed in my signature block below.



Thank you.





Have a great day~



Xxxx xxxx

Management and Program Analyst

MAST Team, AJV-W64

Federal Aviation Administration

Western Service Center

Xxx-xxx-xxxx
- Doc
Thanks for doing this Doc.
IHAQ
Elder
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:00 am

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

Post by IHAQ »

DrW wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:52 pm
If you wish continue your quest for some shred of evidence or administrative loophole that would let you continue to believe that, in some way, RMN is something other than one who confabulates (and I'm being kind here) fantastical faith promoting stories feed his sheep, be my quest. I'm not willing to contribute any more of my time.
I for one appreciate the time you've invested into this thread, and the quality and patience of your responses.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm

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

Post by Res Ipsa »

DrW wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:52 pm

There are incidents, serious incidents, and accidents.
Well, yes. If you had actually been reading my posts, you'd understand by now that I knew that days and days ago. See the following posts:

viewtopic.php?p=17770#p17770

viewtopic.php?p=17711#p17711
Res Ipsa wrote:Whether what happened was an accident, serious incident, or other incident is critical because the subject were discussing was exactly what was contained in the on-line database.
viewtopic.php?p=17725#p17725 [bolding added]
Res Ipsa wrote:Step 1: Determine which of three categories apply: accident, serious incident, or non-serious incident. (The last does include squirting the pilot with your fake label flower, Moksha)
viewtopic.php?p=17688#p17688 [bolding added. The "non-serious" part is mine. I used it because "serious incident isn't a defined term under Subpart A -- it's a subset of the defined term "incident."]

By the way, I walked through all the relevant notice regulations, point by point in the post, fully quoting the regulations. You replied to this post. But you clearly didn't read it.
Res Ipsa wrote:If what happened was an "aircraft accident," it must be filed within 10 days of the accident.

If what happened was a "serious incident," it is filed only if the NTSB requests one to be filed after review of the Initial Notification

If it was a non-serious incident, no report required.
viewtopic.php?p=17688#p17688 [bolding added. The "non-serious" term is mine. I used it because "serious incident" isn't a separate, defined term under Subpart A -- it's a subset of the defined term "incident."]
Given the circumstances, I doubt Nelson knew or understood what he saw. According to the regulations, an engine fire would be an accident if there was damage to something other than the engine. Otherwise, it would be a serious incident.

Both require immediate notification to the NTSB. An accident would also require the filing of a report. A serious incident would require the filing of a report if the NTSB requested one.
viewtopic.php?p=17613#p17613
That’s also an accident. If there are injuries, it’s an accident and must be reported. According to Nelson’s accounts, there were no injuries.
viewtopic.php?p=17617#p17617

viewtopic.php?p=17592#p17592 This is the post in which I described in detail my understanding of the relevant terms and the FAA database. I was unclear at that point as to whether "serious incident" was the correct term, as it is not defined in the definitions section. After reviewing 49 CFR Subpart B - Initial Notification of Aircraft Accidents, Incidents, and Overdue Aircraft, a saw that even though it's not a defined term, that is the correct term used in the Initial Notification section. This was posted Friday, and distinguishes among all three terms that, for some reason that you don't explain, you felt the need to tell me about today. I specifically asked you in that post whether my understanding of those terms was correct. And you 100% blew me off.

So, if you'd actually been reading what I've posted since Friday, when you declared case closed based on a search of the FAA database, you would have understood that I both know those three terms and that I know how to use them correctly. You just told me something that you should have known that I already know.

Or maybe you were responding to this part of my post:
Res Ipsa wrote:I searched the CAROL database for February 2021 and Aircraft Model 777. There was one hit, and it matched the information you provided. The returns on a search include an event type field that identifies the event as an incident, accident, or occurrence. For some events, it is blank.
If you are suggesting that I'm wrong because there are also "serious incidents," then you are once again shooting from the hip without taking a couple minutes to look at the source. While it's true that the notice and reporting regulations use the terms "incident," "serious incident," and "accident," it is also true that the "event type" field in the CAROL database does not include "serious incident" as a value. Here's a quote from the instruction manual for the CAROL database:
Event type
Options for Event type are: Accident, Incident, and Occurrence. Refers to a regulatory definition of the event severity. The severity of a general aviation accident or incident is classified as the combination of the highest level of injury sustained by the persons involved (that is, fatal, serious, minor, or none) and level of damage to the aircraft involved (that is, destroyed, substantial, minor, or none). This drop-down menu field is only available in the ADVANCED SEARCH.
https://www.ntsb.gov/Documents/CAROL-Guide.pdf

I don't know why the NTSB doesn't include "serious incident" as a value in the Event Type field. But they don't.

I had to use the CAROL database because that's the databased used for events or after 1/1/2008. For dates back in the 1970s, we have to use the older "Aviation Accident" database which, despite it's name, includes some, but not all, incidents.
DrW wrote:My advice to you, RI, is to wait for the NTSB final report of the investigation. The final determination of cause (pilot error, inadequate maintenance inspections, FOD, bird strike, etc.) and damage external to the engine, (including damage to the wing, fuselage and pylon, and to property on the ground from falling debris, etc.) will all be factors in the final designation of the event.
Ok, let me get this straight.

You looked at a picture and posted this:
An unintended (accidental) uncontained engine failure (explosion) that blew off cowling of the PW4000 engine, damaged the wing and the fuselage of the plane and apparently damaged the fuel system, resulting in a fuel leak that started and sustained a fire, would have definitely been an accident. This is because the explosion and fire resulted in damage not confined to the engine, which adversely affected the flight characteristics of the aircraft, and for which the pilot declared an emergency and received clearance to return to the airport.
[bolding added]

You said nothing about waiting for the NTSB to finish its investigation or examining all the evidence or anything. One picture, and you concluded that it was "definitely an accident."

Now, what you obviously didn't do was go to the NTSB website and look to see if there was additional evidence on the investigation. If you had done so, you would have found a month-old interim report on the status of the investigation. I linked it upthread, but I'll do it again. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pag ... FA085.aspx It contains a narrative description of the initial damage inspection. I'm going to quote the whole narrative in a second, but I want to contrast what you concluded that a single picture showed and the NTSB's description of the damage after inspecting the actual aircraft:

DrW: there was an explosion
NTSB: no use of the word "explosion"

DrW: "damaged the wing and fuselage"
NTSB: "the airplane sustained minor damage"
Note: The exceptions listed in the second sentence of definition of "substantial damage" include "bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric...." The NTSB classifies aircraft damage as "destroyed, substantial, minor, or none." https://www.ntsb.gov/Documents/CAROL-Guide.pdf In other words, if the the inspection revealed "substantial damage," it would not have said "minor damage.

DrW: "fuel leak that started and sustained a fire"
NTSB: "there was no evidence of a fuel-fed fire

Your conclusion about damage, based on a single photo, is significantly exaggerated when compared with the NTSB's description after inspecting the actual aircraft. HMM... You and a picture vs. the NTSB and the actual aircraft. That's not a tough call.

Had you read the update, or anything posted about the investigation at the NTSB website, you also would have known that the NTSB classifies this as an incident, not an accident.

So, here's the full narrative.
The Real Honest to God National Transportation Safety Board wrote:

An NTSB structures engineer and two investigators from the NTSB's Denver office collected fallen debris with local law enforcement and safety agencies over the next several days. Most of the structure from the inlet cowl and fan cowl doors was recovered and identified. Recovered portions of the inlet cowl, fan cowl door structure, and inlet cowl attach ring were laid out in a hangar, as shown in figure 1. The inlet cowl, fan cowl doors, and thrust reversers will be examined further to map damage and cowl failure patterns after the fan blade failure, and to examine the subsequent progression of fire in the thrust reversers.

Initial examination of the right engine fire damage, as shown in figures 2 and 3, found it was primarily contained to the engine's accessory components, thrust reverser skin, and composite honeycomb structure of the inboard and outboard thrust reversers. Both halves of the aft cowl appeared to be intact and undamaged, and all four pressure relief doors were found in the open position. The spar valve, which stops fuel flow to the engine when the fire switch is pulled in the cockpit, was found closed; there was no evidence of a fuel-fed fire. Examination of the engine accessories showed multiple broken fuel, oil, and hydraulic lines and the gearbox was fractured.

Examination of the cockpit found that the right engine fire switch had been pulled and turned to the “DISCH 1" position, and both fire bottle discharge lights were illuminated, as shown in figure 4.

Initial examination of the right engine fan revealed that the spinner and spinner cap were in place and appeared to be undamaged (see figure 5). The fan hub was intact but could not be rotated by hand. All fan blade roots were in place in the fan hub, and two blades were fractured. One fan blade was fractured transversely across the airfoil about 5 inches above the base of the blade at the leading edge and about 7.5 inches above the base of the blade at the trailing edge. The blade's fracture surface was consistent with fatigue. A second fan blade was fractured transversely across the airfoil about 26 inches above the base of the blade at the leading edge and about 24 inches above the base of the blade at the trailing edge (see figure 6). The second blades fracture surfaces had shear lips consistent with an overload failure. The remaining fan blades were full length but all had varying degrees of impact damage to the airfoils.

The right engine fan blades were removed from the hub, and the blade that exhibited fractures consistent with fatigue was sent to the metallurgical laboratory at Pratt & Whitney for further examinations led by a senior NTSB metallurgist. Preliminary findings from the scanning electron microscope (SEM) examination have identified multiple fatigue fracture origins on the interior surface of a cavity within the blade (see figure 7). Efforts to further characterize the fracture surface, including identifying the primary origin and counting striations, are ongoing.

Fluorescent penetrant inspection identified multiple secondary crack indications within an inch of the fracture surface in the same cavity as the fatigue failure origin, and SEM examination confirmed them as potential secondary cracks. Additional work is underway to further characterize the size and depth of the secondary cracks before attempting to open at least two of them for further examination. The NTSB metallurgy group also plans to analyze its chemical composition and the microstructure near the fracture surface.

As a result of this incident, on February 22, 2021, Pratt & Whitney issued Special Instruction 29F-21 providing revised thermal acoustic image (TAI) inspection threshold intervals to 1000 cycles for the first stage low pressure compressor (LPC) blades on the affected engines. On February 23, 2021, the FAA issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2021-05-51, which instructs owners and operators of Pratt & Whitney PW4077 and similar type engines to, before further flight, perform a TAI inspection of the first stage LPC blades for cracks and to remove the blade from service if it does not pass the inspection and replace the blade before further flight.

Fluorescent penetrant inspection identified multiple secondary crack indications within an inch of the fracture surface in the same cavity as the fatigue failure origin, and SEM examination confirmed them as potential secondary cracks. Additional work is underway to further characterize the size and depth of the secondary cracks before attempting to open at least two of them for further examination. The NTSB metallurgy group also plans to analyze its chemical composition and the microstructure near the fracture surface.
So, you concluded that there was definitely an accident after viewing a picture. There was no hint of wanting to review more evidence or wait until the NTSB had concluded its investigation. In fact, you didn't even take the time to do a simple search on the NTSB database to see if NTSB had provided any information with respect to its inspection.

Only after I told you that the current NTSB classification was "incident" and not "accident" did you give me the advice to wait until the completion of the NTSB investigation. Your level of expertise is really not relevant to this particular discussion because your obvious bias, arrogance, and motivated reasoning is overriding your substantive expertise.

As for the relevance of "to property on the ground from falling debris, etc." in deciding whether this was an "accident" or an "incident," you've apparently forgotten even the incomplete definition of "substantial damage" that you lectured me on a few days ago. Just to, as we say in the lawyer biz, refresh your recollection:
The One True Version of the Incomplete Definition of Substantial Damage That Dr W Claims He Has Memorized wrote: Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.
Even a slow, dense lawyer who doesn't understand anything about airplanes knows the difference between an airplane and property on the ground. Once again, you shot from the hip on that point, and what exited the barrel was nothing but B.S..
DrW wrote: The point you seem to be missing is that the 777 event was reported to the NTSB and there is already a permanent record on file, which file will eventually include the final NTSB report on what is now an incident. The same would have happened with a commercial Navajo commuter flight in 1976 in which the engine was reported to "explode" and catch fire near Delta Utah, engulfing the plane in flames and causing the pilot to make a forced landing in a field.
DrW, what the fuck are you talking about? In my previous post I linked to part of the goddam record you claim that I don't seem to know about. Only one of the two of us looked for and read the NTSB's Preliminary Report and the two interim updates the NTSB has issued. And it's not you. Seriously, are you experiencing some kind of cognitive problem, because if you are, I'll back right off.

But if you can't even be bothered to get the facts right on an accident that happened a couple of months ago when those facts are literally at your fingertips, why the hell should I rely on what you think would have happened thirty years ago. I don't. I don't care what your level of expertise is, or what you think it is, when time after time after time you shoot from the hip with easily disproven B.S..
DrW wrote:The 777 landed safely and no one was killed or seriously injured. The investigation could take many months. Aircraft accident investigators (not incident investigators) will tear down the engine and inspect every part. They will try to determine if a bird strike might have occurred, and ensure that the damage to the fuselage and wing of the 777 was from engine debris. They will evaluate the significance of the falling debris, which put people not on the aircraft at risk. They will compile the data and perhaps even write interim reports if the PW4000 engine appears to have a systemic issue affecting safety. There will eventually be a final report, and then someone at NTSB will decide on a final designation.
Some of what you've said here is so off base and bizarre that it's clear that, for whatever reason, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You say you've got all this stuff memorized, so you should know that "Accident Investigators" investigate both "accidents" and "incidents." The NTSB has statutory authority to investigate and determine the cause of anything that fits in the category of "accident" or "incident." There are no "Incident Investigators." You should know all that. And if you do, your implication that "Accident Investigators" investigate only accidents is the stupidest stupid argument I've run into in ages.

And again, falling debris has nothing to do with whether the event is categorized as an "accident" or an "incident." I'd ask for a link that shows otherwise, but you haven't yet responded to any request I've made for evidence that supports your claims.

Sure, the NTSB can redesignate the classification anytime it wants. I seem to recall reading that it sometimes does mid-investigation if the facts warrant a change. For example, hypothetically speaking, if it turned out that the event resulted in a passenger death, that's a slam-dunk accident 100%. Are seriously suggesting the NTSB would continue to use the incorrect term "incident" until however long the investigation takes? Wait, why am I asking you? You don't work for the NTSB and you're clearly willing to say anything that will support your motivated reasoning.

[quote="DrW"I'm sure that you noted the difference between the occurrence date and the dates of the 'latest report updates' when you were searching the NTSB aircraft accident data base records, assuming that you went that far. If you had, you would have noted that many of accident reports had been updated periodically as the investigation proceeded, or as other material information regarding the event was reported to the FAA or NTSB.[/quote]

Of course I noticed it. But I didn't have to. I have a passing familiarity with how both administrative agencies and investigation work. Of course, even "final reports" get updated when new information is received.

But listen to yourself. You insist that I should wait until the NTSB completes many months until it completes an exhaustive review of the available evidence just to make sure that it won't change it's classification from "incident" to "accident." The event happened a couple of months ago, and the NTSB has access to the eyewitnesses, the aircraft, the flight recorder, videos taken by passengers etc. But, when it comes to trying to understand what, if anything, happened on airplane 45 years ago, You're satisfied with a story (not even a witness interview) where the first version we have is around a decade after the event (and we haven't even seen that source), and where we have several versions with different, sometimes conflicting, details. Not only that, the source is a passenger, not a pilot who would be trained to understand whatever events occurred, and it's not even clear what he was in a position to observe from his seat. And despite the mountains of evidence we have about the inaccuracy of eyewitness events and how "flash club" memories significantly change over time, you just assume that precisely the details that you need to be true in order to confirm your pre-existing conclusions about Nelson's character are 100% accurate. Then, you claimed case closed. Nelson made everything up -- every bit of it. After a single search on a single database. You claimed that the FAA database contained every accident and incident report during calendar year 1976. And when you found nothing that remotely resembled Nelson's account, you declared case closed.

When we're talking about evidence that confirms your conclusions about Nelson that pre-exist this thread, you're ready to go go go with a laughable assumption about our sole eyewitness narrative(s) and a couple of online searches. But when it comes to evidence that even raises the slightest possibility that the "guts" of that story (twin engine, one scary looking engine failure, scary steep dive, safe landing) could be the origin of the story, then we need to wait months and months to make sure we have all the evidence. All you've "proven" here is your bias, laziness, and motivated reasoning.
DrW wrote:As you saw from the 1976 NTSB reports on files, the same would have happened then. By the way, if you noticed, most (perhaps all, I didn't check) of the records for 1976 in the NTSB accident database, were also included in the FAA accident and incident data base for 1976. Think about what that means for the administrative loophole you seem to be searching for.
The reports from the NTSB files can't tell what decisions were made about what, if anything, happened on a plane trip in 1976. Given what we know about perception and memory, it is unreasonable to assume that Nelson's perception of what he actually saw or memory a decade after the event is accurate. Once you let go of that unreasonable assumption that your entire argument hinges on, you can't tell whether you are looking at an accident or an incident. And if it's an incident, you don't know whether it will appear in the NTSB database or not. How do I know this? I read the description of what's in the goddamn database. You're so sure that you know what's in these databases that you don't even bother to do the minimal scrolling required to find out. Here's the link: https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx Here's what it says, right there on the search page.
The NTSB aviation accident database contains information from 1962 and later about civil aviation accidents and selected incidents within the United States, its territories and possessions, and in international waters. Generally, a preliminary report is available online within a few days of an accident. Factual information is added when available, and when the investigation is completed, the preliminary report is replaced with a final description of the accident and its probable cause. Full narrative descriptions may not be available for dates before 1993, cases under revision, or where NTSB did not have primary investigative responsibility.
[bold added]

Based on your performance to date on this thread, I have zero confidence in your ability to determine which 45 year old incidents were selected by the NTSB to appear in the database.

Here's another fun fact: the "FAA accident and incident data base" doesn't actually have any accidents in it. You know how I know? I looked. Lots of times. Here is a link to the FAA home page. https://www.faa.gov On the homepage is a row of tabs. One is labeled "Data and Research" Click on it, and you go here: https://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/ Now, here's the problem: The first section is called "Accident and Incident Reports." There are two links under that heading. Clicking on "Preliminary Data" will give you preliminary reports from the last 10 days. Clicking on "Final Data" will take you to a page on the NTSB website. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... ation.aspx That page is a list of NTSB post-investigation final reports. Just like the one that will be issued for the 777 incident we've been talking about. But they only go back to 1996, so if the NTSB did a full investigation of an accident in 1976, you could not find it in the NTSB database. Before 1996, there's just a single page summary report. So, neither of the links under "Data and Research" give you access to a searchable, FAA database.

To find the searchable database, you have to look under the "Safety" heading and click on the link for the AVIATION SAFETY INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND SHARING (ASIAS) SYSTEM. That will take you here: https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:1:::::: But where's the database? You have to click on the pull down menu labeled "Data and Information, then select "Databases A-E". And, finally, after navigating through the worst designed website in the history of websites, you arrive here: https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:2:::NO::: Now you can click on the database with a very unfortunate acronym: the FAA Accident & Incident Data Systems (AIDS). Whew. Now we can search for those 1976 FAA reports of accidents and incidents.

But, maybe, before we start searching, we should just check and make sure we know what is in the database. Here's the information page: https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100: ... GION_VAR:1

Under "Background" we learn:
The FAA Accident and Incident Data System (AIDS) database contains incident data records for all categories of civil aviation . Incidents are events that do not meet the aircraft damage or personal injury thresholds contained in the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) definition of an accident. For example, the database contains reports of collisions between aircraft and birds while on approach to or departure from an airport. While such a collision may not have resulted in sufficient aircraft damage to reach the damage threshold of an NTSB accident, the fact that the collision occurred is valuable safety information that may be used in the establishment of aircraft design standards or in programs to deter birds from nesting in areas adjacent to airports.
[bold added]

So, despite the title, the "FAA Accident & Incident Data System" doesn't actually have any "accidents" in it. You don't know that because you've never gone to the FAA site to verify exactly what is available online from the FAA. You just blindly accepted that a website that pulls data from other websites, including the FAA and the NTSB was accurate in its description of what is available.

Okay then, we won't find any accidents from any year in the FAA database. But at least we can search the incident reports, right? Well, on the same page, under "Things You Should Know," we find this:
The FAA issues a separate report for each aircraft involved in an aviation incident. The FAA Accident and Incident Data System (AIDS) database contains incidents that occurred between 1978 and the present. The current system is being revised to reflect the full narrative on all incident reports with an active event date of January 1, 1995 or greater. This will apply to approximately 10,000 reports.
So, if we search the FAA Accident and Incident Database for the year 1976 with no other restriction, we will find NOTHING. Because the database doesn't contain accidents and it doesn't contain incidents before 1978. If we search this database for Utah accidents or incidents and don't find anything that remotely resembles Nelson's account, what can we conclude from the absence of evidence? Absolutely nothing. Because we should already know that the type of information we are looking for isn't available in that database.

Now, there are other FAA databases, and please waste your time checking them out. If you do, you will also find that the FAA has it's own search page for the NTSB database. But, again, if you take the time to make sure you know what you are looking at, you'll see that it only goes back to the 1980s.

So, now, let's review what you posted that started off on this little journey to figure out what is in the relevant online databases.
DrW wrote: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.
[bold added]

Actually, your post is incontrovertible evidence that, on the topic of what information is and is not present in the accessible online databases, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. The FAA doesn't have an online database for accidents -- it relies on the NTSB. And its online database does not contain any incidents for the year 1976. You looked for evidence in a place that the evidence you were looking for couldn't possible exist. And then when, of course, you didn't find it, you thumped your chest, high-fived yourself and declared case closed based on your definitive research. Do you get it yet, Doc, what you confidently declared based on "evidence" wasn't evidence. Not at all. It's like you went to your local grocery store, looked for steak in the produce department, ignored the signs that said "there is no steak here" and then confidently announced that the store didn't sell meat.

You got some returns on a search on a site that was neither the FAA nor the NTSB website. You never thought to read the part of the site that talked about where the data was coming from, so you literally didn't understand what you were looking at. You relied on a secondary source instead going to the primary source for the relevant data. And you just assumed you knew what you were looking at cuz, hey, you're an expert. So you never bothered to check yourself and make sure of what you were looking at by reading the information provided to you at the sources.

And why? Because you already knew the answer you wanted to arrive at before you ever lifted a finger. You've provided everyone here with a wonderful lesson in what motivated reasoning looks like and how it leads one to confidently declare that "not evidence" is "conclusive evidence." Bravo.
DrW wrote: At this point, you seem to be wasting the time of others with questions that you should know the answers to yourself, now that you have become an expert on NTSB 830. It appears that Tapirrider may be of the same opinion.
No, this another thing you have completely backwards. It is you who have wasted my time. I've spent literally hours and hours checking, double checking, and triple checking the B.S. you've been slinging around about what is and what is not in the databases. Since we started this on Friday, I've demonstrated numerous of times that I understand the relevant regulations. Honestly, interpreting regulations is not rocket science. It's a skill like any other skill that anyone can get good at with a little coaching and lots of practice. But, it does require that you read the goddam text rather than thinking you have a perfect memory. And not just the pieces that support an argument you want to make.

I've been very detailed to this point so people can understand, that your side of our conversation has mostly consisted of you shooting from the hip and not reading or responding to anything I've said. You don't click links. You don't check facts. But you mislead folks into thinking that you know what you're talking about on this question of what we should expect to find in the available databases. You don't. If you did, you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.
DrW wrote: If you wish continue your quest for some shred of evidence or administrative loophole that would let you continue to believe that, in some way, RMN is something other than one who confabulates (and I'm being kind here) fantastical faith promoting stories feed his sheep, be my quest. I'm not willing to contribute any more of my time.
I've been perfectly candid about exactly what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. Anyone who reads my posts will recognize your silly straw man for what it is. As you've been so kind as to offer me advice, I'll reciprocate. Drop the investigator cosplay. You'd already decided that Nelson was lying bastard before you read the OP. I called it pages ago. What you're doing has nothing to do with any sort of genuine attempt to find and evaluate evidence. It has everything to do with thumping your chest because you "proved" what you already concluded long before this thread. Congrats.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” -- Voltaire
Post Reply