DrW, you instructed me to "get a grip" I am willing to "check myself" to think about whether I should get a grip. So, let's review.
DrW wrote: You seem to assume that I scan the regs like you do, posting everything you find whether it's pertinent or not, whether you understand it or not. Last time for you it was your failure to understand the difference between accidents and incidents. You wasted several posts on that one. Before that is was your "flamethroughs" vs. flame outs vs. tailpipe fires, and I'm still not convinced you know the difference,
First, none of what you say about my posts has anything to do with your intentional failure to quote the entire definition.
Second, your claim that I failed to understand the difference between accidents and incidents puzzled me. So before I started this post, I went back and reread the thread. I don't see any posts that indicate that I don't understand the difference. I also have no idea what you mean by wasting several posts. So, please link to posts that show I don't understand the difference and to those several posts that you claim I wasted. If you can't, you're just rewriting history.
Third, I've posted several times exactly what I'm doing: trying to figure out what happened? And, from years of experience doing this kind of thing, I know that, if I want to get as close to the truth of what happened as I can, I have to start by trying to figure out all the reasonably possible scenarios at the beginning. Then I have to figure out the types of evidence that would help me confirm or rule out various possibilities. Then I have to try and gather as much evidence as I can. Only then do I start trying to find the best fit. If I try to rule things out, especially based on the absence of evidence, on evidence as I gather it, I'm seriously risking tunnel vision that will lead me to the wrong conclusion. And when I think I can rule things out based on the absence of evidence, I know from experience that I have to challenge the hell out of my own assumptions. When insurance companies get into "bad faith" territory, it's things like tunnel vision and unwarranted assumptions that get them there.
I've expressed skepticism from the beginning about the accuracy of Nelson's description of what happened during the incident. If something happened that resulted in engine failure and an unexpected dive, its very likely that a passenger who isn't a pilot would end up with a perception of what happened that was inaccurate. If memory serves (always questionable), there is one telling of the story that says he was seated on the other side of the plane from the engine that failed. So, what kind of view did he actually get of the fire/explosion that he describes. So, one scenario I thought was worth exploring is whether there is a kind of engine failure that could produce visible flame that Nelson's account exaggerates, whether intentionally or otherwise. I noticed in reviewed items in the NTSB database that there were several mentions of engine failure/flameout. I did some googling, saw some pictures, found a couple of examples of people saying that a flameout could involve visible flame. But I wasn't confident that I understood it, so I asked. You gave me very helpful information, including that there would be no flameout if the aircraft was powered by a piston engine and that pictures of flameouts with lots of flame probably involved afterburners or were taken on startup. With that information, I went back and reviewed what I'd looked at before, and most were either taken on the ground or were military jets. The couple that showed flames of flying, non-military aircraft were not very dramatic.
One of the pieces of material that I read discussed engine failures in turboprops, so I asked you about turboprops. You suggested checking Skywest's website and it indeed listed their aircraft from their inception in 1972 through the latest possible date in 1979 that the incident could have happened. I googled each model and confirmed that none of them were turboprops. It was confusing when I was looking at the Navajo and Navajo Chieftans because the first few references I found included a couple that described them as turboprops. I didn't think that squared with what you posted, so I looked some and found, not to my surprise, that you were right. I then posted that I was satisfied that Skywest (the only commuter airline anyone had found during the '70 that flew SLC-St. George) did not fly turboprops on any possible date that could be relevant. Then I never raised it again. So, when faced with an unfamiliar term in an unfamiliar field, I did some research, consulted two experts, reviewed my research to make sure I understood what I was reading and seeing, found an objective way to test whether the hypothetical scenario I was investigating was possible, did the test, and reported the results. So, why the hell are you criticizing me over this issue?
Fourth, your criticism of my posting does not include presenting something as a quotation, intentionally omitting a portion of the thing being quoted, and not indicating that material had been omitted. Telling me that I'm dense has nothing to do with whether what you did was honest.
DrW wrote:Most commercial pilots can pretty much recite NTSB 830 from memory and I'm among them. I have been familiar with pertinent FAA regs for close to 50 years. I know what they mean and how they are applied. I quoted them accurately as required to make the point that the events described by Nelson, had they actually happened, would have necessarily been report to the NTSB. My post was not misleading in the least.
I'm kinda stunned that you don't recognize the problem in what you just said there. You intentionally omitted a portion of the definition because you didn't need it to argue your side of an argument. Yet, you know damn well that, if there was an engine fire, Rusty's perception and recall may be exaggerated. 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. Here's the context.
After running a query or queries on the Aviation DB site, you said this:
Dr. Moore, Your website is a great find. Looks like the Holy Grail of aviation accident and incident information to me. No need to be concerned about entering the wrong search parameters. After entering the time interval for the search, just leave the other parameter values alone and designate the State of Utah.
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.
viewtopic.php?p=17586#p17586
Your description of what one can see in that database is 100% wrong. It does not contain "every FAA accident and incident report in the State of Utah for a given year."
You also say:
So, as far as I'm concerned, this FAA listing provides incontrovertible evidence against such an incident as described by Nelson in 1976.
This is hogwash for two reasons. First, you failed to mention that filing accident reports with the FAA hasn't been required since the mid-'60s. You couldn't have forgotten that fact, as you've got all the regulations committed to memory, right? You also overlooked the fact that the database you were claiming as "incontrovertible evidence" didn't include incidents for the very year you were search. You were so sure you understood what you were looking at that you didn't notice that your query turned up all accidents and no incidents. You blindly trusted the AV database without bothering to consult the actual source of the data, which is right there on FAA.com. Had you bothered to check, you'd have learned that the database does not include any incident reports before 1978.
I knew it was hogwash the second you posted it, because I already knew what was available in the FAA database. I did my goddam homework.
Your next post to me included this:
As described in the above post, I have done a careful search for 1976 and found nothing even remotely close to what Nelson described anywhere in the State of Utah. If it is not listed on this website, it didn't happen in 1976, period.
That's 100% BS. As you must have known, the only mandatory reporting was to the NTSB, not the FAA. That had been true for about a decade. And, there were no incident reports in the database for 1976. So, things not included in your search were (1) everything that wasn't voluntarily reported to the FAA and (2) any incidents whatsoever. And since your claim was about "nothing even remotely close to what Nelson described," that could certainly include an engine fire that didn't damage anything other than the engine. That would be an incident, which your search would not have found even if someone had voluntarily reported it to the FAA.
Again, I knew this was BS when I read it. But to make sure, I went back to both the FAA and NTSB databases and verified my understanding of exactly what was in there and what wasn't, and rechecked the NTSB reporting regulations. Only then did I post back to you:
viewtopic.php?p=17592#p17592
I spent a fair amount of time checking out that website to try and understand exactly what I was looking at. So, I'm going to give you my understanding and ask you to double check me.
I then summarized the reporting regulations from the CFR as well my understanding of what was available from the FAA's database, which was the source for what you were search at Aviation DB. And to test my understanding even further, I gave you two hypotheticals and asked you what your search would have found under each. You'd earlier suggested Bayesian Analysis, and this looked like a good opportunity to use it. My intent was to make sure we all understood what was, and was not, in the available databases.
In response, well, you completely blew me off. Instead of telling me whether my analysis was correct or not and addressing my hypotheticals, you ignored my requests and instead, made the same goddam argument you'd been making and which I understood completely before you posted it again.
viewtopic.php?p=17606#p17606 It's pretty clear that you either you weren't reading my posts or blew them off because you're an aviation expert and I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about. You are perfectly willing to call the entire argument false, but were stubbornly and unreasonably unwilling to even consider that Nelson's description could be exaggerated. And, in terms of understanding what is in the databases, the distinction between "accident" and "serious incident" is critical. If an "accident occurred," we should absolutely expect to find it in the NTSB database. If it is a "serious incident," we can't be certain because a report would be filed only if the NTSB requested one.
The heart of our disagreement was about whether what Nelson saw could be an exaggerated account of a "serious incident" as opposed to an "accident." That's why your intentional omission of the second sentence of the definition was dishonest. I looked at it, thought it looked odd, but assumed that the chance I was misremembering what it looked like was greater than the chance of you posting anything other than the whole definition. Again, a mistake I won't make again.
Look, Dr W, it's not like I'm complaining about you leaving out a bunch of paragraphs that have no relevance whatsoever. The whole definition is only two sentences in a single paragraph. You posted this, representing it as "the definition."
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.
But you decided on your own that this was irrelevant without letting folks here know it was part of the definition.
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.
Both engine failure and what looks like types of landing damage are not "substantial damage," but you mislead folks here to think that they are. If you read forward from your post, you'll note that folks started to analyze whether what happened was a accident using only the first sentence. And, as a result, they were applying the term much more broadly than the actual definition says. What you did was not only misleading, you actually mislead folks.
Rereading you post, its even worse than I recognized.
The NTSB has a Pre-1982 Accident Query website. It can be accessed directly from the website that Dr. Moore provided.
When searched for all Accident entries for Utah for the year 1976, the website returned more than 50 items. As I stated before, none had any relevance whatsoever to Nelson's claim.
Remember, as others have stated upthread, an in-flight engine fire is to be reported to the NTSB. This is a legal requirement. Pilot reporting requirements are set forth under 49CFR Part 830, better known as NTSB 830, as follows:
This is ambiguous, unless one reads the actual regulations. You fail to distinguish between an Initial Investigation and a Report. An inflight engine fire requires an Initial Notification. It requires a report only if (a) the NTSB requests one or (2) the damage extends beyond the engine. You skipped the Initial Notification section completely, even though that's the section that applies to all in-flight fires. By going straight to the Report requirement, you are asserting that all in flight fires are "accidents" that require filing a Report, which is false.
Why would I quote the entire section, and then explain that I really didn't need to do so because the accident still had to be reported to NTSB due to the fact that the damage from the explosion and fire was not limited to the engine?
Because you purported to quote the entire definition, but you left out the part that I was arguing from: that Nelson's account could have been an exaggerated description of something that constituted an incident rather than an accident. That's critical to your argument, because the NTSB database itself says that it does not include all incidents.
If you caught Daniel Peterson omitting part of a quotation that undercut the point he was making, you'd be pointing out to us all how dishonest the guy is. And if he offered the excuse, "Well, I quoted the part that supported my argument." You wouldn't buy that as an excuse for a minute. And rightly so.
If Nelson omitted from his story the fact that the engine failure, dive, and emergency landing was a dream he had on the way to St. George, I doubt you'd accept "I told the parts that supported my point" as an excuse.
This is the same thing.
Look, it makes no difference if the landing gear was damaged, or a wing was dinged, or a prop bent while landing in the field. The additional damage caused by the engine fire meant that the accident was not exempt from NTSB reporting, period. And that was my point.
I understand your argument. You don't need to make it yet again. The problem is, it's non responsive to the point I've tried to get you to address over and over again: If something happened to the engine that was not as severe as Nelson's description, it could qualify as an incident rather than an "accident." If that is the case, we cannot expect to find it in the NTSB database, as it doesn't contain all reports of incidents. If Nelson's description of the fire is exaggerated, it's flat out wrong to claim that, as you were doing at the time, the failure to find it in the NTSB database proves that the incident didn't happen. Damn, man. I even spoon fed you two hypotheticals to illustrate my point.
Maybe you should stop telling me about what an expert you and your memorization skills and, I don't know, read my stuff and respond to it.
DrW wrote:Get a grip.
Naw, I think I'm good.
________________________________________
DrW wrote:ETA: Just rechecked the post in question and saw that RI was correct. I did introduce the passage in the quote box as "the definition" instead of saying "in the definition xxx, we find". That was a mistake. I should have used the 'In the definition we find' wording, or at least put a placed a few dashes after the last sentence quoted. While it makes no difference to the conclusion, it does reflect poor authorship.
Well, that's nice and all, but you're telling me that you posted all that without even bothering to review your post first? No, you should have quoted both sentences of the definition. By failing to do so, you misled several folks who deserve better. The second sentence specifically addresses types of damage potentially involved in the story. If you want to argue that the exceptions don't apply, quote them and make your argument. Give everybody else a chance to agree or disagree with that argument. Don't unilaterally decide that the exceptions don't apply and then omit them because they don't support your argument.
