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

[Res Ipsa]

What I see from others, you included, is a form of Dunning-Kruger where experience and knowledge of modern flight procedures and airplane mechanics yielded an early assumption and now all of your intellectual effort is going into defending that assumption rather than actual careful unbiased investigation.

Res is doing it right. You could learn from him here.

Honorentheos,
Your offhand comment about individuals on this thread, including those with relevant professional expertise, exhibiting Dunning-Kruger symptoms was offensive and uncalled for.

Individuals to whom you attribute Dunning-Kruger behavio include a professional aircraft mechanic, a college professor specializing in probability and statistics, and an experienced pilot. We, and others, have reached the conclusion that the incident described, in falsifiable detail by Russell M. Nelson, simply did not happen.

Or, as Lem might put it, ‘Given the evidence, the probability that the event happened as described by Russell M. Nelson is so vanishingly small as to warrant no further consideration.’

Our conclusions were reached after not only weighing the relevant evidence, but after having spent a great deal of time looking for more. There was no pre-conceived conclusion for which we sought confirmation. You are attributing the mindset of religionists to aircraft professionals, college professors and scientists.

Have you even read my first post on this thread where I described how one could embellish the experience of a poorly handled engine-out event to come up with Russell M. Nelson's story? My comments were exceedingly generous in that regard. Problem is, there is no evidence whatsoever for such an engine-out event, let alone one with a fire and a death spiral plunge in flames with a miraculous left engine re-start to save God's chosen.

What reflects still worse on your judgement is your suggestion that someone holding a commercial pilot’s license with multi-engine and instrument ratings who has owned two aircraft and flown dozens more, including Piper twins, could learn a lot about decision making related to aviation from an attorney who came to the thread not knowing the difference between a flame out and a tailpipe fire, or an incident from an accident, who doesn’t read or understand the evidence presented by others, resorts to ad hominem attacks when shown to be in error, asks silly questions, and now fancies himself an expert aviation accident investigator.

One who blithely attributes Dunning-Kruger to an entire group of professionals from different disciplines, with relevant experience well in advance of what he himself possess, might do well to look in the mirror.

DrW, can you, or can you not, use the Aviation DB database to generate a list of aircraft incidents in Utah for the years 1973 through 1977? If so, please post a screen shot.

[IHAQ]

Res, from your posted Sheri Dew citations:

May I suggest, however, that my association with the Nelsons has given me access to information, conversations, and personal experiences that likely would not have been available to another writer.

That confirms for me that Nelson and his records is the primary source used, in particular for the detailed airplane story. I think this removes the possibility of the author (Dew) being responsible for any embellishments.

[honorentheos]

What I see from others, you included, is a form of Dunning-Kruger where experience and knowledge of modern flight procedures and airplane mechanics yielded an early assumption and now all of your intellectual effort is going into defending that assumption rather than actual careful unbiased investigation.

Res is doing it right. You could learn from him here.

Honorentheos,
Your offhand comment about individuals on this thread, including those with relevant professional expertise, exhibiting Dunning-Kruger symptoms was offensive and uncalled for.

Individuals to whom you attribute Dunning-Kruger behavio include a professional aircraft mechanic, a college professor specializing in probability and statistics, and an experienced pilot. We, and others, have reached the conclusion that the incident described, in falsifiable detail by Russell M. Nelson, simply did not happen.

Or, as Lem might put it, ‘Given the evidence, the probability that the event happened as described by Russell M. Nelson is so vanishingly small as to warrant no further consideration.’

Our conclusions were reached after not only weighing the relevant evidence, but after having spent a great deal of time looking for more. There was no pre-conceived conclusion for which we sought confirmation. You are attributing the mindset of religionists to aircraft professionals, college professors and scientists.

Have you even read my first post on this thread where I described how one could embellish the experience of a poorly handled engine-out event to come up with Russell M. Nelson's story? My comments were exceedingly generous in that regard. Problem is, there is no evidence whatsoever for such an engine-out event, let alone one with a fire and a death spiral plunge in flames with a miraculous left engine re-start to save God's chosen.

What reflects still worse on your judgement is your suggestion that someone holding a commercial pilot’s license with multi-engine and instrument ratings who has owned two aircraft and flown dozens more, including Piper twins, could learn a lot about decision making related to aviation from an attorney who came to the thread not knowing the difference between a flame out and a tailpipe fire, or an incident from an accident, who doesn’t read or understand the evidence presented by others, resorts to ad hominem attacks when shown to be in error, asks silly questions, and now fancies himself an expert aviation accident investigator.

One who blithely attributes Dunning-Kruger to an entire group of professionals from different disciplines, with relevant experience well in advance of what he himself possess, might do well to look in the mirror.

Thanks for the demonstration. It's valuable to see examples of someone misapplying their expertise in one field to another and missing the mark so widely. The added conceit? Mmmwah! Chef's kiss.

[Gadianton]

I agree with all of the above. Even if it seems to have some dragon-like qualities. There hasn't been a great deal of evidence that came out supporting the claim. So what degree oh skepticism does the most simple telling of the story deserve? Assuming the latest, most mythologized version is broadly deserving skepticism?

So, I have a few thoughts about degrees of mythologizing and time tables, which I'll get back to later. I think an assumption of arrow-of-time is being made that doesn't apply here. More later.

there is a lot going on in this thread, but did you read my summary of my previous story about the "career mentor" I met with? Before answering questions, "how much skepticism does the most simple telling deserve" and the related question, "what constitutes the simple telling" -- I'd love for you to review my mentor story, and ask yourself the same questions about what I disclosed that he was telling me, if you were on the recipient end of those stories.

[Gadianton]

Problem is, there is no evidence whatsoever for such an engine-out event, let alone one with a fire and a death spiral plunge in flames with a miraculous left engine re-start to save God's chosen.

I wasn't sure how much you were intending on continuing to participate, but if you're here, I would like your take on nose dives.

I've done a fair bit of googling, and last night I spent some time in the database, and I'm just not coming up with much.

My gut reaction to nosediving an aircraft with people on board given what I know so far, is it seems crazy. It seems like someone has been watching WWII movies. But, I have to say, I read one semi-official source that suggested a nose-dive is on the table for putting out a fire; noting this is a controversial topic among pilots. Other than that, other than a single semi-official source saying that some pilots might suggest it (for unspecified context, solo? commercial? etc. ) and it's super risky, nothing I've read suggests a practice of nosediving civilian airplanes to put out an engine fire. I've read several fire mitigation check lists and nothing there. I've read that maintaining a certain speed in descent is important to 'blow the flame out' in a scenario with no engine due to fire. But that's not a nose dive, nor a pull up at the last second before impact.

In looking through these incidents or accidents in the database, later accounts are generally more detailed than earlier accounts, but I have yet to find an example of nosediving to put out a fire. Nor have I uncovered a news article where a pilot heroically nose-dived a civilian craft to get the flame out. I have uncovered references to other mitigation efforts, which have included notes about how the plane landed, cutting power to engines and so on. Perhaps in one of those, a nose dive and sudden pull-up also happened, it just didn't get mentioned.

To honor, I'd say that i'm trying to be very fair with my skepticism here, as I'm still looking for an example, mostly because one source mentioned nosedives might be considered. If it weren't for that one source, I wouldn't be looking. So yes, I'm staving off my skepticism at these points I feel I need to, and erroring on the side of caution.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Has anyone submitted a foia to the NARA, yet? - Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Res, from your posted Sheri Dew citations:

May I suggest, however, that my association with the Nelsons has given me access to information, conversations, and personal experiences that likely would not have been available to another writer.

That confirms for me that Nelson and his records is the primary source used, in particular for the detailed airplane story. I think this removes the possibility of the author (Dew) being responsible for any embellishments.

As for written records, she includes his autobiography, but does not list his journals. I think the quotations she uses are from earlier published versions. None of the details added in her version are quotations. I can’t tell whether she interviewed anyone else. (Maybe reading other stories would tell us that.)

I don’t agree that Dew is absolved of responsibility at all. She had access to every printed version of the story that we have. She chose to include irrelevant details that had never appeared in any of the versions before. That’s on her — not on anyone else.

As for the source of the new details, we have several possibilities: Russell said it on tape, Wendy said it on tape, Sheri relied on her memory of a conversation in the past with Russell or Wendy, Sheri replied on someone else’s second hand account of the story, the detail appears in Russell’s autobiography, the detail appears in a version we haven’t seen yet that is included in one of her cited stories, Sheri filed in what she think must have happened in order for Nelson to have arrived on time.

I’d love to listen to the tape, which we’ll never have access to. I’m interested in how it emerged. Did Nelson spontaneously volunteer it? Was he prompted by Wendy or Sheri? Was he asked leading questions? At the time Nelson would have been interviewed, the event was over 40 years old. The detail adds nothing to the story. The whole thing is just odd and makes me curious about Joe that detail was added.

I would agree that the fact that Dew conducted interviews increases the probability that the new information was introduced in those interviews. At least we know there were taped interviews, although Dew doesn’t tell us whether the new details come from those interviews.

[Res Ipsa]

Problem is, there is no evidence whatsoever for such an engine-out event, let alone one with a fire and a death spiral plunge in flames with a miraculous left engine re-start to save God's chosen.

I wasn't sure how much you were intending on continuing to participate, but if you're here, I would like your take on nose dives.

I've done a fair bit of googling, and last night I spent some time in the database, and I'm just not coming up with much.

My gut reaction to nosediving an aircraft with people on board given what I know so far, is it seems crazy. It seems like someone has been watching WWII movies. But, I have to say, I read one semi-official source that suggested a nose-dive is on the table for putting out a fire; noting this is a controversial topic among pilots. Other than that, other than a single semi-official source saying that some pilots might suggest it (for unspecified context, solo? commercial? etc. ) and it's super risky, nothing I've read suggests a practice of nosediving civilian airplanes to put out an engine fire. I've read several fire mitigation check lists and nothing there. I've read that maintaining a certain speed in descent is important to 'blow the flame out' in a scenario with no engine due to fire. But that's not a nose dive, nor a pull up at the last second before impact.

In looking through these incidents or accidents in the database, later accounts are generally more detailed than earlier accounts, but I have yet to find an example of nosediving to put out a fire. Nor have I uncovered a news article where a pilot heroically nose-dived a civilian craft to get the flame out. I have uncovered references to other mitigation efforts, which have included notes about how the plane landed, cutting power to engines and so on. Perhaps in one of those, a nose dive and sudden pull-up also happened, it just didn't get mentioned.

To honor, I'd say that i'm trying to be very fair with my skepticism here, as I'm still looking for an example, mostly because one source mentioned nosedives might be considered. If it weren't for that one source, I wouldn't be looking. So yes, I'm staving off my skepticism at these points I feel I need to, and erroring on the side of caution.

Dean Robbers, in your searching, were you able to locate any reports of incidents, as opposed to accidents, during the years 1973-1978? If so, what did you use for the query?

Thanks.

[Res Ipsa]

The difference for me is where we are in the process of trying to figure things out. I'm saying that, before we try to look for the dragon, we should seriously think about all the evidence a dragon could be expected to leave, assuming we even know what the dragon is. Once we gather evidence, we look at the different scenarios in terms of what evidence we should expect and compare that with what we found. At that point, we no longer have to consider the possible, just what is the most likely.

Your framework is logical, RI. I appreciate your thoroughness. If the burden is "beyond a reasonable doubt" then you've clearly shown us the wide breach of reasonable doubt that exists here.

At the same time, my confidence in the truthfulness of Nelson's account is much lower today than on the first day this thread went up. It might all be chalked up to absence of evidence. But absence of so much evidence that should be out there is troubling.

That absence of evidence is compounded by small inconsistencies, such as the fact that no commercial flights flew direct from SLC to SGU in the 1970s -- Sky West served SGU via Cedar City.

If this was a commercial flight, then his story has a huge gaping hole because he claims the pilot announced passing the half way point of no return to St. George. That makes utterly no sense at all for a flight bound from SLC to Cedar City. Maybe Nelson just recalls the "half-way" announcement but forgot by the time of retelling, that it was a connecting flight. But his retelling was very specific in this regard, that the pilot said they'd gone half way to St. George, not half way to Cedar City. Why add that very specific detail if he wasn't sure in 1979 or 1981 or whenever he first told the story?

If he flew a private charter direct, then his story also has a huge gaping hole because the half way point from SLC to SGU is well south of Delta Utah -- at least 20 miles south of Delta, to be more accurate. Nelson says the incident occurred "shortly after" that point-of-no-return announcement. Okay, so did this harrowing nose dive occur 20 miles or 25 or 30 miles south of Delta? Whatever. The point is, to spin dive and nearly hit the ground, only to stabilize and then fly literally for 20+ miles on one engine means the plane was very much flying (not gliding) toward Delta. So then, this pilot just decided to land in a field and not land at the the actual Delta Airport? So the private charter explanation strains credulity even more.

This was purportedly a life-changing event for Nelson. If his memory was foggy about this or that specific detail, he should leave them out. Or just admit he doesn't remember that detail. If he retells a specific detail, he owes his audience the courtesy of being accurate and truthful. Otherwise, it's no better than Dunn. Nelson's account is very specific and not only that, he makes comments that impress on the listener's/reader's mind that the vividness of his memory is important for the real point he's making about the vividness of clarity he felt regarding peace in his life's choices, temple sealing, and all of that. Specificity is important to his story because it's the specifics that make his story real.

Thanks, Dr. Moore,

I see a significant distinction between the ultimate burden of proof and figuring out a methodology for gathering and evaluating evidence. I haven't intended to make any claim on the ultimate issue of what happened, because I'm still trying to figure out where to look for potentially relevant evidence.

I see no reason to depart from a "more likely than not" burden of proof. No one is at risk of going to prison or having large sums of money removed from their bank accounts. If someone were claiming fraud, i.e., Russell made the whole thing up, knows he made the whole thing up, and is intentionally lying knowing his audience is relying on him for the truth of the story, we might want to at least think about the elevated burden of proof used in legal fraud cases, but I see no reason to apply anything other than the good old "more likely than not" scenario.

But, and here's the trick, that burden of proof applies to anyone who offers an explanation for what happened. I agree with you 100% that if "the story" we are evaluating consists of every fact included in every version of the story that we have today, then I think we can reasonably conclude solely on information provided by DrW on pilot procedures for engine failures that "the story" as I defined it, is false. And, from the beginning, I've said that I think "the story" as I defined it is almost certainly false due to the characteristics of human perception and memory.

So, "the story" as a whole is false. But, we would be committing a logical fallacy if we jumped from that to "every fact in the story is false." So, concluding that "the story" is false does not imply that "none of it happened" or "it was all a dream" or "he made it all up." Anyone who offers an interpretation bears the burden of proving that their explanation is "more likely than not" given the state of the evidence.

But burden of proof is a means to an end, not an end in itself. An its purpose is to give us the best shot at arriving at the correct answers. Burden of proof in law is very flexible. We shift it around in lots of different cases. We have all sorts of presumptions that we make under certain circumstances that essentially alter the burden of proof. The law does this because it is more interested in getting to the right answer than it is in enforcing a static, unchanging set of rules. Burden of proof isn't really an "is," it's a "should."

So, if the question is: what, if anything, happened that was the origin of the story, I'd argue that "more likely than not" isn't a helpful burden of proof. Why? Because if there are enough possible scenarios, it is very likely that no single explanation could meet that burden of proof. As a result, all we could conclude is "I don't know. No scenario meets the burden of proof."

I think it makes more sense to use "most probable scenario" as the burden of proof that helps us reconstruct what happened. Which scenario is the best fit to the evidence, once we are satisfied that we've conducted a sufficient investigation. There may be one that clearly fits the best. There may be two or three that are within a range where reasonable people can and will disagree. Or we may not be able to reach even that conclusion. So, on the issue of ultimate burden of proof, I think "more probable than other alternatives" makes more sense.

None of us know what Nelson's actual memory was at any specific time. We do have evidence that memories can be both vivid and wrong. And, while Nelson can remember the events at any given time, what he can't remember is how he remembered them five years ago or even a day ago. Because the evidence is that the current memory overwrites past versions of the memory.

As to what his obligations to his audience are, I see story telling as a relationship between the story teller and the intended audience. I think Nelson could tell this story in the form of a parable (not a personal story, but about a man) and it would be just as effective. The story of the good Samaritan lacks any identifying detail that would have allowed a contemporary of Jesus to verify that it was an accurate story. It doesn't even tell us who observed the events. Yet, it is an engaging and powerful story. The purpose of telling a story is to communicate a message that isn't literally in the words and sentences of the story itself in a way that is interesting and memorable to the listener. i'm not in Nelson's intended audience. I would look to them as to their expectations as the source of whatever obligations there are between a story teller and a story audience.

[Res Ipsa]

Has anyone submitted a foia to the NARA, yet? - Doc

I have not. I don't want to before making a a sufficient attempt to use the catalog to identify specific folders in the request. It's not that I want to confine the search to those folders, but I want to make sure those folders are searched (or at least the index of those folders is examined.)

So, something like "any and all records blah blah blah contained in Folder 1, Folder 2, Folder 3, or elsewhere in the collection of FAA documents. Something like that. Tapir's link leads me to believe that the documents we want are there somewhere. I just want assurance that the "somewhere" gets searched.