Re: Fact Checking Nelson's "Doors Of Death" light aircraft near death experience
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:15 pm
Yes, thanks for asking. Please see my response to DrW.
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
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.
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?
- DocHello,
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
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.”
______________________________tapirrider wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:41 pmI 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?
Thanks for doing this Doc.Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:56 pm- DocHello,
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
I for one appreciate the time you've invested into this thread, and the quality and patience of your responses.DrW wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:52 pmIf you wish continue your quest for some shred of evidence or administrative loophole that would let you continue to believe that, in some way, Russell M. Nelson 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.
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=17725#p17725 [bolding added]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=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."]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" 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."]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=17613#p17613Given 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=17617#p17617That’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.
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: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.
https://www.ntsb.gov/Documents/CAROL-Guide.pdfEvent 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.
Ok, let me get this straight.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.
[bolding added]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.
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.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.
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 BS.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.
DrW, what the “F” 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.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.
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 Screw 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 damned argument I've run into in ages.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.
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.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.
[bold added]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]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.
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.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.
[bold added]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.
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 BS 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.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.
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.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, Russell M. Nelson 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.