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

[kairos]

Dr W continues to amaze me with his excellent detailed description of the pilot-aircraft-air traffic control/ops and his technical/operational knowledge of aircraft-thanx again.

Trying to nail down one more small put perhaps important aspect of the doomed ghost flight- What would be the ambient noise level inside the passenger compartment? That is- during a normal(no rain or thunder) flight would the passenger compartment be so noisy that a normal conversation could not be carried on without raising one's voice? If the compartment is normally very noisy and suddenly the plane blows an engine so to speak, could Nelson have detected screaming and yelling from the so-called hysterical woman? Were head phones or ear plugs issued to passengers? i assume the pilot was headphone equipped. As a some time Huey passenger in Vietnam the noise was a bitch and headphones to "vips" was the norm.

A pretty long haul to 100 pages but i have supreme confidence in our prolific posters- in the end truth will prevail!

k

[DrW]

Dr W continues to amaze me with his excellent detailed description of the pilot-aircraft-air traffic control/ops and his technical/operational knowledge of aircraft-thanx again.

Trying to nail down one more small put perhaps important aspect of the doomed ghost flight- What would be the ambient noise level inside the passenger compartment? That is- during a normal(no rain or thunder) flight would the passenger compartment be so noisy that a normal conversation could not be carried on without raising one's voice? If the compartment is normally very noisy and suddenly the plane blows an engine so to speak, could Nelson have detected screaming and yelling from the so-called hysterical woman? Were head phones or ear plugs issued to passengers? i assume the pilot was headphone equipped. As a some time Huey passenger in Vietnam the noise was a bitch and headphones to "vips" was the norm.

A pretty long haul to 100 pages but i have supreme confidence in our prolific posters- in the end truth will prevail!

k

Ahh, yes - the venerable Bell UH-1 Iroquois. Not sure why Bell and Piper both liked to name their aircraft after Native American tribes, but they have done so for years. At some point there will be more A/C families than there are well known tribe names, and they will be forced into duplication.

My first ride in a Huey came close to ending in an unplanned exit out the side door from about 50 feet, having been slow to secure my gear and get my seat belt on, when the pilot pulled a steep bank after lift-off. A more experienced belted private grabbed my web belt just in time. (No headsets for the grunts in the side seats - right?)

To answer your question, the Navajo Chieftain had a reasonable noise level in the cabin during cruise. The cabin is not spacious as can be seen below, so passengers are close together. Clearly understood conversation with those beside or facing you was possible with only a slight increase in voice volume. If a female were screaming hysterically in the cabin, everyone would clearly hear her.

The pilot would have a headset with an mike boom, but would still be able to hear loud voices in the cabin, and most of the cabin occupants could hear the pilot if he spoke loudly. There may have even been an intercom system in the commercial pressurized Chieftains, but I doubt it in 1976.

While looking for a Chieftain cabin image I came across the little tidbit below from Piper stating that the Navajo Chieftain had counter-rotating engines (and props). This feature greatly reduces the difficulty of handling engine out problems. This feature makes the idea that the pilot lost control of Russell M. Nelson's aircraft and entered a death spiral even more unlikely than in twins without this feature.

Piper aircraft In September 1972, Piper unveiled the PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain, a stretched version of the Navajo B with more powerful engines and counter-rotating propellers to prevent critical engine handling problems.

(Twins with engines rotating in the same direction are trimmed from the factory to compensate for the substantial combined torque the two engines and their props. With counter-rotating props the net torque is zero, so not special trim for torque compensation is required. When one engine fails, the aircraft is immediately out of trim because of the loss of torque from the failed engine and the resulting difference in net torque. This makes the aircraft harder to control on one engine because there is not only asymmetrical thrust, but also unbalanced torque. However, this unbalance in torque with counter-rotating props has less effect on trim than it would have if the aircraft had been originally trimmed for the net torque from two engines and props rotating in the same direction. Its pretty clear that most of Pipers that SkyWest flew in the mid 1970's were Navajo Chieftains, especially on the route down to St. George. )

The image below, taken from the three-across rear seat looking towards the cockpit, shows the interior of a Navajo Chieftain 9 passenger model. This is a newer version. In 1976, the instrument panel would have been all analog (all "steam gauges") and no screens, except for radar if so equipped.


_____________________________

Edited to provide more detail on the advantages of counter-rotating props in an engine out situation.

[kairos]

Tight quarters but comfortable seating !
Great picture!
k

[Dr Moore]

And in 1976, $38 from SLC to SGU. Heck of a deal!

[DrW]

DrW - so much to chew on here. Thanks! I’m reflecting on the family drive-by parade and again baffled about no news coverage.

Dr. Moore,

Here is what baffles me: in Tom's post of April 02, wherein he includes various versions of Russell M. Nelson's faith promoting story spanning the period from 1985 to 2019, there were at least 9 instances where Russell M. Nelson refers to "the pilot". He does not refer to the "Captain", or the "First Officer", or "the co-pilot", or "one of the pilots", or "the pilot in the left seat", or the "second pilot". It is always just "the pilot".

1. The pilot had just announced that they were halfway to St. George when the engine on the right wing exploded, spewing oil all over the right side of the aircraft and then bursting into flames.

2. In an attempt to douse the flames, the pilot turned the fuel off, causing the small plane to go suddenly into a free fall death spiral.

3. -the pilot was able to start the left engine, regain control of the plane, and guide it to an emergency landing in a farmer’s field not far from Delta, Utah.

4. The pilot got control and started the other engine up. We made an emergency landing out in a field.

5. --in the few seconds that passed before the pilot was able to shut off the fuel line and extinguish the flames,

6. The pilot had just announced that we were over the halfway point between Salt Lake City and St. George—we were past the point of no return.

7. --the pilot was able to regain control and land the plane safely.

6. --the pilot was able to stabilize the plane and bring us down safely.

9. --The pilot had just announced that we were over the halfway point between Salt Lake City and St. George

If, as your research indicates, the flight in question would have been on SkyWest, or any "commuter" or scheduled feeder airline, and therefore operating under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 ("FAR Part 121"), there would have been first officer (a co-pilot) up front in the right seat.

As the president of the Airline Pilots Association wrote in response to suggestions that computerization could eventually allow commercial transport aircraft to be flown by a single pilot, "-- the most vital safety feature in transport category aircraft now and for the foreseeable future: two experienced, trained, and rested professional pilots in the cockpit."

A second trained pilot aboard would have made any loss of control of the aircraft in an engine-out emergency even more unlikely than already described. Why, in the numerous retellings of the story, over a period of at least 35 years, did Russell M. Nelson never mention the the co-pilot, the cockpit crew, the flight crew, or anyone else beside the pilot up front? If this really happened on a commuter flight 1976, there would have been a cockpit crew of two.

Again, as Gadianton has suggested, it appears that the Russell M. Nelson story had its roots in books and motion pictures such as "The High and the Mighty", or documentary series such as "World at War" from ITV in the UK. Starting in the early 1970s, "World at War" was shown frequently in the US and featured air combat scenes of disabled fighters and multi-engine bombers spiraling to earth trailing smoke as the crew bailed out - or not.

In my description of Russell M. Nelson's story from the pilot's viewpoint, it seemed odd to leave the right seat empty up front, or at least not to mention any role for the co-pilot in saving everyone from dying in an aircraft spiraling out of control. This was done so as not to add elements that RI would claim were not actually in Russell M. Nelson's telling of the story.

But therein lies a problem, a Navajo Chieftain, or any twin engine aircraft on a commercial flight with an empty right seat up front is another important element of Russell M. Nelson's story that indicates it is pure fantasy.

[Moksha]

Is there any chance that this smaller aircraft entered the Twilight Zone and then crashed, leaving at least one passenger with a distinct memory of the event, but upon being recalled to our dimension of sight, sound, and smaller tales reality, erased the memory of everyone else along with any the crash damage to the aircraft?

by the way, apologists are free to use this as an explanation.

[Res Ipsa]

So, just to get this straight DrW, you gave us a detailed pilot’s eye view, but intentionally left out an important part of that view based on what you imagined I might say, only to make a huge deal out of what you left out?

Did you leave anything else important out of your pilot’s eye view simply based on how you imagined I might respond? Why is what you imagine I might say so important that you would intentionally choose not to given an accurate and complete description in your pilots eye view?

You keep making the same basic error in reasoning over and over again. You are assuming that you know what other people will do or what other people would have done based on your personal experience, which is a relatively narrow slice of the whole range of what humans actually do.

You had no idea what I would say if you had included in your pilots eye view. And your imagined response is completely wrong. I’m the guy who has been stressing over and over the inherent problems with jumping to conclusions from the absence of evidence. But in your imagination, you concluded that I would jump to some conclusion based on the absence of the co-pilot in Nelson’s story.

That’s not what I do. That’s what you do. You’re the one who thinks you can draw some kind of inference from the absence of a copilot in Nelson’s story. You told us all a perfectly good, meaningful story of the pilots eye view without once mentioning the co pilot. Why do you think it’s odd that Nelson, who lacks your training and experience as a pilot, tells the story without mentioning the copilot? You have no basis for assuming what details Nelson would have included when he told the story. Your level of confidence in your ability to predict the thoughts and action of others far exceeds your actual ability to do so.

I haven’t the faintest idea why you would leave something important out of a post just because of the way you imagine I might respond. If facts are important, just tell everybody here the facts. If I respond, you can address it, knowing what it actually is instead of guessing.

You and I have been on this message board for years. If you can’t accurately predict how I would respond to you pointing out that there was a co-pilot on the plane, why do you think you can predict what people you’ve never met would do?

[Res Ipsa]

Brett Ripley posted this on another thread. It addresses many of the issues I’ve raised about reasoning from evidence as an ethical issue. I’ve reached similar conclusions, but only in terms of giving one the best shot at reaching accurate conclusions.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf

[DrW]

So, just to get this straight DrW, you gave us a detailed pilot’s eye view, but intentionally left out an important part of that view based on what you imagined I might say, only to make a huge deal out of what you left out?

Did you leave anything else important out of your pilot’s eye view simply based on how you imagined I might respond? Why is what you imagine I might say so important that you would intentionally choose not to given an accurate and complete description in your pilots eye view?

You keep making the same basic error in reasoning over and over again. You are assuming that you know what other people will do or what other people would have done based on your personal experience, which is a relatively narrow slice of the whole range of what humans actually do.

You had no idea what I would say if you had included in your pilots eye view. And your imagined response is completely wrong. I’m the guy who has been stressing over and over the inherent problems with jumping to conclusions from the absence of evidence. But in your imagination, you concluded that I would jump to some conclusion based on the absence of the co-pilot in Nelson’s story.

That’s not what I do. That’s what you do. You’re the one who thinks you can draw some kind of inference from the absence of a copilot in Nelson’s story. You told us all a perfectly good, meaningful story of the pilots eye view without once mentioning the co pilot. Why do you think it’s odd that Nelson, who lacks your training and experience as a pilot, tells the story without mentioning the copilot? You have no basis for assuming what details Nelson would have included when he told the story. Your level of confidence in your ability to predict the thoughts and action of others far exceeds your actual ability to do so.

I haven’t the faintest idea why you would leave something important out of a post just because of the way you imagine I might respond. If facts are important, just tell everybody here the facts. If I respond, you can address it, knowing what it actually is instead of guessing.

You and I have been on this message board for years. If you can’t accurately predict how I would respond to you pointing out that there was a co-pilot on the plane, why do you think you can predict what people you’ve never met would do?

RI,

What is the point of your comment? I stated at the beginning of the pilot's view narrative that I would comment from the point of view of the pilot as described in Russell M. Nelson's story. I left the co-pilot out of the narrative because Russell M. Nelson did not have a co-pilot in his story.

You will admit that you have accused me of making assumptions about elements of the the story in my comments that were not specifically stated by Russell M. Nelson in his version, so I was trying to be careful not to do so. If my assumption that you would comment on my adding elements not specifically in Russell M. Nelson's story is offensive to you, then please accept my apology.

If your goal here is to simply keep the thread going, a better argument would have been to claim that the fact that Russell M. Nelson did not mention a co-pilot does not mean there was not a co-pilot. Just trying to be helpful.

[Res Ipsa]

So, just to get this straight DrW, you gave us a detailed pilot’s eye view, but intentionally left out an important part of that view based on what you imagined I might say, only to make a huge deal out of what you left out?

Did you leave anything else important out of your pilot’s eye view simply based on how you imagined I might respond? Why is what you imagine I might say so important that you would intentionally choose not to given an accurate and complete description in your pilots eye view?

You keep making the same basic error in reasoning over and over again. You are assuming that you know what other people will do or what other people would have done based on your personal experience, which is a relatively narrow slice of the whole range of what humans actually do.

You had no idea what I would say if you had included in your pilots eye view. And your imagined response is completely wrong. I’m the guy who has been stressing over and over the inherent problems with jumping to conclusions from the absence of evidence. But in your imagination, you concluded that I would jump to some conclusion based on the absence of the co-pilot in Nelson’s story.

That’s not what I do. That’s what you do. You’re the one who thinks you can draw some kind of inference from the absence of a copilot in Nelson’s story. You told us all a perfectly good, meaningful story of the pilots eye view without once mentioning the co pilot. Why do you think it’s odd that Nelson, who lacks your training and experience as a pilot, tells the story without mentioning the copilot? You have no basis for assuming what details Nelson would have included when he told the story. Your level of confidence in your ability to predict the thoughts and action of others far exceeds your actual ability to do so.

I haven’t the faintest idea why you would leave something important out of a post just because of the way you imagine I might respond. If facts are important, just tell everybody here the facts. If I respond, you can address it, knowing what it actually is instead of guessing.

You and I have been on this message board for years. If you can’t accurately predict how I would respond to you pointing out that there was a co-pilot on the plane, why do you think you can predict what people you’ve never met would do?

RI,

What is the point of your comment? I stated at the beginning of the pilot's view narrative that I would comment from the point of view of the pilot as described in Russell M. Nelson's story. I left the co-pilot out of the narrative because Russell M. Nelson did not have a co-pilot in his story.

You will admit that you have accused me of making assumptions about elements of the the story in my comments that were not specifically stated by Russell M. Nelson in his version, so I was trying to be careful not to do so. If my assumption that you would comment on my adding elements not specifically in Russell M. Nelson's story is offensive to you, then please accept my apology.

If your goal here is to simply keep the thread going, a better argument would have been to claim that the fact that Russell M. Nelson did not mention a co-pilot does not mean there was not a co-pilot. Just trying to be helpful.

Now you're attempting to rewrite history again. Contrast your former explanation of why you omitted the co-pilot from your pilot's eye view with your new version:

In my description of Russell M. Nelson's story from the pilot's viewpoint, it seemed odd to leave the right seat empty up front, or at least not to mention any role for the co-pilot in saving everyone from dying in an aircraft spiraling out of control. This was done so as not to add elements that RI would claim were not actually in Russell M. Nelson's telling of the story.

[Boldface added.]

I stated at the beginning of the pilot's view narrative that I would comment from the point of view of the pilot as described in Russell M. Nelson's story. I left the co-pilot out of the narrative because Russell M. Nelson did not have a co-pilot in his story.

If your reason for omitting the co-pilot had nothing to do with me, then why mention me at all?

I think the point of my post is very clear: "Your level of confidence in your ability to predict the thoughts and action of others far exceeds your actual ability to do so."

Why do you think you can draw any conclusion at all from the fact that Nelson does not include the co-pilot in his story?