DiscussMormonism.com

And I just scrolled through about 20 pages from somewhere between 70 & 90. You guys lost me at eating bags of dicks. lol

There's some serious aviation discussion in there.

azflyer wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 07, 2021 6:43 am

Dr. Moore, thank you for your response.

If you map the flight path, they would have been at least 20 miles south of Delta at the time of the engine roughness / failure.

I don't agree with this. Please see my detailed flight plan right up in the post above this. Here is the link to the flight plan I believe they would have followed in skyvector.

https://skyvector.com/?ll=39.0049561439 ... DTA%20KSGU

Delta VOR is not halfway in miles, but it is the last main marker, and it is, in my opinion, the most likely place to make the 1/2 way announcement. Also, if they were 20 miles south of Delta VOR, they probably would have landed at Fillmore. That would have been the closer airport.

CAB report specifically says the plane was fully capable of continuing on to destination or returning to origin, but company policy was to make a precautionary landing at the nearest airport.

Not true. Nowhere in the report does it say the plane was capable, or should have, continued flying. It says, "Engine was feathered and precautionary landing made at Delta, Utah, per instructions in company manual."

When you're flying a twin, and one engine goes out, you land at the closest airport. You don't continue to your destination. This is how people get killed. (side note - twins are safer than singles. But when twins have to make forced landings, they are much more likely to result in death. A twin flying on one engine is MUCH less safe than a single engine plane.)

I completely agree that the point of no return thing is weird. It doesn't make any sense. Not sure what to make of that.

I'm slowly making my way through the thread. There is a lot to read. LOL

It states so elsewhere in the CAB report. That text and the page number is up thread.

I will check your map.

azflyer wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 07, 2021 5:07 am

I certainly know that I'm late the party here. At least I made it in before the pages numbers on this thread hit the century mark.

And Mr. Stig did in fact messages me separately and advise that I need to make it clear that I am most certainly not TBM.

Why?

azflyer wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 07, 2021 6:59 am

And I just scrolled through about 20 pages from somewhere between 70 & 90. You guys lost me at eating bags of dicks. lol

Strictly speaking it was a plate of dicks. And it has more to do with knowledge of flight procedures interfering with understanding of retrievable database content than anything flight-related on its face. I don't expect most participants to really follow the issue when most of the thread couldn't quite agree on the rational for the effort being exerted.

By the pages in the 30s it was clear that not only had the story evolved dramatically between tellings, but the reason the story was even meaningful had taken a 180 from being an incident that caused Russell M. Nelson to reflect on his mortality and legacy and that he had not done all he should have done in sharing his testimony with his family, to one about having secure knowledge of one's own immortality and preparedness for eternity. All that on top of it being a story told by the person in charge of a massive hedge fund paid for with widows mites whose existence was exposed to the membership who made it possible only through the efforts of a whistleblower. The point of the thread then, and frankly still, seems to be little more than some itches feeling very gratifying when scratched but otherwise clearly never being able to bear meaningful fruit. Trying to prove Russell M. Nelson made the entire story up from whole clothe was an ambitious fool's errand, but it had internal logic as it seemed to seek to extend beyond what was already known about the person behind the story. Now? Well, I suppose some people get self-serving satisfaction in seeing TBMs trying to make the story fit the worldview where Russell M. Nelson is a prophet of God with all of the positive connotations that's supposed to carry.

Anywho, an actual lesson from the thread I took away is when a person whose confidence in their knowledge of flight procedures reacts with indignation to the idea their expertise in that field is apparently blinding them to a gap in available information in a database and asserts that it isn't possible they could be mistaken because they are an expert, then no one is immune from being that person. So a net point for skepticism. Or something.

azflyer wrote: Not true. Nowhere in the report does it say the plane was capable, or should have, continued flying. It says, "Engine was feathered and precautionary landing made at Delta, Utah, per instructions in company manual.

For the record, Dr. Moore is correct on this. In the course of the wider investigation, the aircraft involved in Russell M. Nelson's story was determined capable of safely continuing on to St. George or returned to SLC. The relevant portion of Dr. Moore's research confirming this finding is posted upthread. For convenience, a copy is pasted below where the statement is underlined under "SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS" (reformatting mine).

Dr. Moore wrote: Among the arguments made by Page related to Sky West's safety record, specifically 3 engine failures during the period of Oct-Nov 1976, which included the "scary" flight which now appears to be on the public record as it is shown that his flight, a two-engine craft flying from SLC to SGU on Nov. 11 1976, experienced one engine failure, and made a precautionary landing in Delta UT, the nearest airport.

Relevant text below, from pages 782-783.
"SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS"
...In its reply to Airwest's answer to Page's motion for stay pending judicial review (p.4) filed March 14, 1977, Page alleged that Sky West had experienced "three emergency landings in the last three months."

Due to the seriousness of the matters alleged, the staff requested that the FAA update its safety and compliance report in light of the facts alleged. That updated report (which indicates that the referenced occurrences were merely incidents, not accidents; the carrier was not in any way at fault; and there is no reason for the Board to act unfavorably as to Sky West) was served upon all parties (and Sky West) as an attachment to order 77-4-50, April 11, 1977 (73 C.A.B. 1087) which established procedures for the filing of comments and answers with regard to the report.

Comments were filed by Arizona and Sky West, and Airwest filed an answer to those comments). ... For the record, the facts surrounding each of the incidents in question is set forth below.

Each of the incidents involved the failure of the engine. Two of the three incidents involved single-engine aircraft of the type which Sky West operates in charter service, not in scheduled commuter operations. The third engine malfunction occurred on a twin-engine Navajo being operated in scheduled commuter operations.

Although the aircraft could have continued to its destination or the originating station on one engine, in accordance with the company's operations manual, the pilot made a precautionary landing at the nearest airport. Once again, there were no injuries to any person, property, or the aircraft. As a result of the unfortunate coincidence of these three unrelated engine malfunctions within a short period of time, the incidents in question were investigated in depth by the FAA as well as the two engine manufacturers. ...

While the loss of an engine on a twin aircraft would normally call for a precautionary landing as soon as safely possible, in the one reported instance of a Navajo in-flight engine fire while in commercial service we found in the NTSB records (also posted upthread), the pilot secured the affected engine and elected to continue to his destination while letting the fire burn. He then deplaned the passengers and put out the engine (oil) fire with a portable fire extinguisher.

Strictly speaking it was a plate of dicks.

I stand corrected

Dr. W,

I respectfully suggest that you're splitting hairs with respect to the capabilities of twins with an engine out.

When a twin has a single engine failure, it is an emergency. Piper designed the airplane to fly on one airplane, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the airplane needs to land right away.

Somewhere back up thread I posted a video of an incident where a twin with a single pilot had an engine failure. He radioed ATC and when asked if he wanted to declare an emergency, said "no". A few minutes later ATC declared an emergency on his behalf.

The text you quoted from Sky West sounds like a mid level manager trying use weasel words to explain their safety record isn't really as bad as it looks. I speak from experience here as a mid level manager at an aerospace company that uses weasel words to try and make things look not as bad as they are.

I continue to maintain that with an engine out, and only "half way" to their destination, the pilot did the very responsible thing in landing at the nearest airport. The situation was most certainly an emergency. And continuing flight any further than the nearest airport would have been foolish.

the pilot secured the affected engine and elected to continue to his destination while letting the fire burn. He then deplaned the passengers and put out the engine (oil) fire with a portable fire extinguisher.

If this guy worked for me I'd fire him (no pun intended).

That's irresponsible.

azflyer wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 07, 2021 5:47 am

Hey everyone, I'm trying to get a handle on all the different versions of this story, so I started a google spreadsheet. Someone probably already did this...

Here are the versions I'm tracking.

Nelson's autobiography - 1979 - This description is VERY short. He doesn't go into much detail beyond, "I was on a small plane and the engine exploded, so I'm writing this book". I'm trusting that RFM read this part of the book accurately. I don't' actually have the book. I believe it's about 7 or 8 minutes into the podcast.

https://radiofreemormon.org/2021/07/mor ... -of-death/

I don't have a copy of this, but BR and RFM did read the portion of the story from his book on their podcast.

April 5, 1992 conference talk - Nelson first hand description.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... h?lang=eng

Another Book. "Russel M Nelson - Father, Surgeon, Apostle" - I don't have the book, but I got the text from page 1 of this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=709

Church New story - April 2019 - This one is tricky. This is an English article describing a talk given by Nelson in Spanish. The talk is Spanish is not actually available. They do have a short video of him speaking in Spanish, and I must say, his Spanish sucks. I don't really trust this one. There are two too many translations of the story happening.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... ntina-2019

This is a Deseret news story with an embedded youtube video - March 2019. The is Nelson describing the story first hand.

Sheri Dew Book - 2019 - Second hand account of the story

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... piral.html

Are there any other versions that I'm missing???

Various accounts are quoted and cited here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=709&p=17553#p17553

azflyer wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 07, 2021 6:59 am

And I just scrolled through about 20 pages from somewhere between 70 & 90. You guys lost me at eating bags of dicks. lol

There's some serious aviation discussion in there.

Yes there is, which is more representative of most of us. The 'plates of dicks' post was rude and didn't contribute anything, but there is a strictly observed policy of free speech here, and posts like that are included.