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

[Res Ipsa]

Sorry to ask this, but surfing right this moment is spotty. Did any newspaper articles legit state that Russell M. Nelson gave the prayer or was at the inauguration?

- Doc

Yes, the university's newspaper reported that he vote the invocation in an article the following Thursday. Dixie Sun, November 18, 1976. Front page. Access it through Newspapers.com.

[Res Ipsa]

In checking something in the NTSB regulations, I realized that Dr. W and have inadvertently misled folks about the legal requirements for filing reports. Here is the correct analysis. And if I find out there's an error in this post, I'll correct here so it's always in the same place.

The applicable regulations are found in the CFR, which in this case stands for Code of Federal Regulations, not Call for References. These are not laws passed by Congress, but are regulations issued by administrative agencies with authority delegated to them to make rules. Agencies issue, change, and withdraw regulations constantly. Those are published in chronological order in the Federal Register. They are then codified in the CFR, which means they are arranged by subject matter. There is a version of the CFR called the eCFR, and I think its continually updated as regulations are published.

The regulations that govern the reporting of bad stuff that happens during airplane flights are issued by the National Transportation Safety Board.
They are found in CFR Title 49 (Transportation) Part 830, which is conveniently captioned "NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS AND OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND PRESERVATION OF AIRCRAFT WRECKAGE, MAIL, CARGO, AND RECORDS"

There are three subparts of Part 830 that apply in this case:

Subpart A -- General. It includes the definitions we will need to refer to. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/830.2

Subpart B -- Initial Notification of Aircraft Accidents, Incidents, and Overdue Aircraft. These are the rules that tell us when the owner of an aircraft is required to notify the NTSB of something.

Subpart D -- Reporting of Aircraft Accidents, Incidents, and Overdue Aircraft. These are the rules that tell us when a report has to be filed with the NTSB.

Confusing thing number 1: "Initial Notifications" and "Reports" are two different things that it is really easy to mix up.

So, let's start with the Initial Notification. There are two sections. The first tells us who and when an Initial Notification Must be Made

§ 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 headquarters is located at 490 L'Enfant Plaza Southwest., Washington, DC 20594. Contact information for the NTSB's regional offices is available at http://www.ntsb.gov. To report an accident or incident, you may call the NTSB Response Operations Center, at 844-373-9922 or 202-314-6290.

(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):

(i) In-flight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air-driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments;

(ii) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces;

(iii) Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and

(iv) An evacuation of an aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.

(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 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.

(11) Damage to helicopter tail or main rotor blades, including ground damage, that requires major repair or replacement of the blade(s);

(12) Any event in which an operator, when operating an airplane as an air carrier at a public-use airport on land:

(i) Lands or departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area not designed as a runway; or

(ii) Experiences a runway incursion that requires the operator or the crew of another aircraft or vehicle to take immediate corrective action to avoid a collision.

(b) An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident.

So, the operator of an aircraft is required to give an Initial Notification to the NTSB if their is an "aircraft accident" or one of the "serious incidents" listed in this section occurs.

"Aircraft accident" is defined in subsection A as:

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined herein.

Great. We just traded one term we had to look up for two new terms we have to look up. Welcome to my world. (insurance policies are much, much worse...)

So, to be an "aircraft accident" one of these things that is associated with the operation of the aircraft beginning with first person on to last person off:

1. Death or "serious injury" to any person; or
2. "Substantial damage" to the aircraft.

Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.

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. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.

Dr. W's mistake was that he quoted only the first sentence of the definition of "substantial damage" The second sentence is commonly called a "carve out." The first part of the definition is broad, and the second carves out certain types of damage that the NTSB does not want to include in the definition. I need to stress that I am 100% sure that this was an innocent mistake on Dr. W's part. It's an easy mistake to make if you copy from a secondary source instead of the CFR itself. Dr. W is a stand up guy that I think has a ton of integrity. I no more believe that Dr. W would intentionally omit the "carve out" section from his quote than I believe Russell Nelson is a prophet. My mistakes were not noticing Dr. W's because I had mixed up the definition of "substantial damage" with the list of "serious incidents. I also was not careful to distinguish between "Initial Notification" and "Report." Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

The main point here is that "substantial damage" does not include a number of types of damage that could apply to Nelson's story. In fact, it looks to me like part of the NTSB's intent was to exclude the effects of safe off-field landings. So, before deciding that something is substantial damage, you really have to go through the carve out list.

OK, now we know what an "Aircraft accident" is. What is an "incident.?" Easy peasy.

Incident means an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations.

It doesn't have to happen in flight. It doesn't have to involve any injury or damage.

OK, now we know when the NTSB has to be given "Initial Notice" of something that happens with an aircraft.

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)

Step 2: Notify the NTSB if it's in the first two categories. Immediately. Like, what are you still doing here? If it's in the third, go thy way and sin no more -- no notice required.

There's no specific form for the notice. It can be done through a telephone call.

The other section of Subpart B tells us the information that has to be included in the notice:

§ 830.6 Information to be given in notification.
The notification required in § 830.5 shall contain the following information, if available:

(a) Type, nationality, and registration marks of the aircraft;

(b) Name of owner, and operator of the aircraft;

(c) Name of the pilot-in-command;

(d) Date and time of the accident;

(e) Last point of departure and point of intended landing of the aircraft;

(f) Position of the aircraft with reference to some easily defined geographical point;

(g) Number of persons aboard, number killed, and number seriously injured;

(h) Nature of the accident, the weather and the extent of damage to the aircraft, so far as is known; and

(i) A description of any explosives, radioactive materials, or other dangerous articles carried.

Okay, that's the regulation that requires "Initial Notification." If you are searching a database and it does not include "Initial Notifications", you won't find these in that database.

OK, now we leave the world of "Initial Notifications" and go to the world of "Reports" Here's the whole shebang:

§ 830.15 Reports and statements to be filed.
(a) Reports. The operator of a civil, public (as specified in § 830.5), or foreign aircraft shall file a report on Board Form 6120. 1/2 (OMB No. 3147-0001) 2 within 10 days after an accident, or after 7 days if an overdue aircraft is still missing. A report on an incident for which immediate notification is required by § 830.5(a) shall be filed only as requested by an authorized representative of the Board.

2 Forms are available from the Board field offices (see footnote 1), from Board headquarters in Washington, DC, and from the Federal Aviation Administration Flight Standards District Offices.

(b) Crewmember statement. Each crewmember, if physically able at the time the report is submitted, shall attach a statement setting forth the facts, conditions, and circumstances relating to the accident or incident as they appear to him. If the crewmember is incapacitated, he shall submit the statement as soon as he is physically able.

(c) Where to file the reports. The operator of an aircraft shall file any report with the field office of the Board nearest the accident or incident.

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.

The report must be filed on a specific form. Here's a link to the 2018 version. https://www.ntsb.gov/Documents/6120_1web_Reader.pdf It requires a crap ton more information than the "Initial Notification"

Why is this important? When you are searching a database, you have to understand what's in it and what is not. When you are looking at a record from a database, you have to understand what you are looking at. If you are searching a database that includes "Initial Notifications," you should expect to find all "accidents" and "serious incidents." You should not expect to find "non-serious incidents." If you are searching a database that contains "Reports," you should expect to find all "accidents," some, but not all "serious incidents" and no "non-serious incidents.

When you draw a conclusion from the absence of a record or evidence, specifically make sure that your assumption that the evidence should be where you are looking is justified.

And my sincere apologies for causing confusion and for being too lazy to write this post days ago.

[DrW]

Sounds to me he wanted to tell his family a tall tale for the sake of their posterity. Sounds less disturbing a lie if his goal was to stretch the truth for family lore. Sounds like after that as he gained apostleship and more attention he and others who promoted him needed more story for praise and glory. Since it was mentioned in his obscure family book he had no way to correct it and not look the fool. Its the age old story of mounting lies. Although I'm not convinced nothing happened. I imagine the description he offers is a near impossibility with the turning off engine and just before impact turning it on to pull out of a spiraling dive.

I still find the moral of the story stupid

Having read the thread so far, this explanation seems about right to me.
Not really excusable, but not as bad as some like Dunn - and certainly nowhere near Trump Class.
In other words, nowhere near as far as many Mormon members' credulity can be stretched when it comes to unfounded belief.

[Lem]

Sounds to me he wanted to tell his family a tall tale for the sake of their posterity. Sounds less disturbing a lie if his goal was to stretch the truth for family lore. Sounds like after that as he gained apostleship and more attention he and others who promoted him needed more story for praise and glory. Since it was mentioned in his obscure family book he had no way to correct it and not look the fool. Its the age old story of mounting lies. Although I'm not convinced nothing happened. I imagine the description he offers is a near impossibility with the turning off engine and just before impact turning it on to pull out of a spiraling dive.

I still find the moral of the story stupid

Having read the thread so far, this explanation seems about right to me.
Not really excusable, but not as bad as some - and certainly nowhere near Trump class.
In other words, nowhere near as far as many Mormon members' credulity can be stretched when it comes to unfounded belief.

I think this is correct also. Look at Nelson's 1979 preface, apparently the first publication of the story. (this was quoted in an earlier link, which of course should be verified by the actual book.):

“The final nudge came as I was a passenger in a small airplane plummeting earthward with one of its two engines exploded. I realized then that although both the spiritual and material needs for my family had been provided, I had not left for them a reasonable recapitulation of my life that they could review. The safe emergency landing of that disabled aircraft provided me with the chance I needed.”

So, a non-pilot says they were "plummeting downward" so, at least, a drop during turbulence.
"with one of its two engines exploded," so, again at least, one propeller made noise and dramatically stopped, reason unknown.
"safe emergency landing of that disabled aircraft," so, at least, safe landing, maybe not at final location but not necessarily, and disabled according to a layman, but maybe not the pilot. An engine that stops because it ran out of gas is not disabled.

( I've read way too many NTSB reports these past few days where cause was listed as: engine failure due to mismanagement of fuel, engine stopped due to lack of fuel, etc. )

The bare bones story would not necessarily have generated an official report, but it would certainly qualify as the start of a dramatic family story that gets better with each telling.

[Res Ipsa]

Lem, At this point, I think that’s one several plausible scenarios, especially after going back through the reporting regulations with gun and camera.

[Res Ipsa]

Sounds to me he wanted to tell his family a tall tale for the sake of their posterity. Sounds less disturbing a lie if his goal was to stretch the truth for family lore. Sounds like after that as he gained apostleship and more attention he and others who promoted him needed more story for praise and glory. Since it was mentioned in his obscure family book he had no way to correct it and not look the fool. Its the age old story of mounting lies. Although I'm not convinced nothing happened. I imagine the description he offers is a near impossibility with the turning off engine and just before impact turning it on to pull out of a spiraling dive.

I still find the moral of the story stupid

Having read the thread so far, this explanation seems about right to me.
Not really excusable, but not as bad as some like Dunn - and certainly nowhere near Trump Class.
In other words, nowhere near as far as many Mormon members' credulity can be stretched when it comes to unfounded belief.

[Res Ipsa]

Sounds to me he wanted to tell his family a tall tale for the sake of their posterity. Sounds less disturbing a lie if his goal was to stretch the truth for family lore. Sounds like after that as he gained apostleship and more attention he and others who promoted him needed more story for praise and glory. Since it was mentioned in his obscure family book he had no way to correct it and not look the fool. Its the age old story of mounting lies. Although I'm not convinced nothing happened. I imagine the description he offers is a near impossibility with the turning off engine and just before impact turning it on to pull out of a spiraling dive.

I still find the moral of the story stupid

Having read the thread so far, this explanation seems about right to me.
Not really excusable, but not as bad as some like Dunn - and certainly nowhere near Trump Class.
In other words, nowhere near as far as many Mormon members' credulity can be stretched when it comes to unfounded belief.

I’m still agnostic between total fabrication and some combination of misperception/embellishment/memory changes. I keep trying to figure out a way to find evidence to help me decide. I’m still frustrated that I can’t the governing regulations in force in 1976. Were you flying in the US in the 1970s? Any chance you have any written materials from then that might include the reporting regulations?

[Gadianton]

from Tom's post:

Most of the significant biographical events prior to his calling as an Apostle were documented in his autobiography, From Heart to Heart. I have borrowed generously from that source to describe events prior to 1979.

Nelson may not have kept a journal or personal record in 1976, but I don’t think that possibility can be ruled out. As indicated earlier, Condie seems to quote from Nelson’s 1985 fireside address in telling the plane story.

Does this mean that the 1985 fireside address has FHTH as a common source, or does it mean that FHTH doesn't have a detailed account of the incident alluded to in the forward?

[Tom]

1976 CFR: https://www.loc.gov/item/cfr1976128-T49CVIIIP830/

[Res Ipsa]

1976 CFR: https://www.loc.gov/item/cfr1976128-T49CVIIIP830/

THANK YOU. I was looking to find them through the FR. This saved me hours!

I haven’t flyspecked it, but it looks pretty much the same in substance. Form is a little different.