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

[DrW]

At the same time we're talking about a minor incident that happened, or didn't, 45 years ago.

What Russell M. Nelson described was not a "minor incident". Far from it. He described an in-flight "explosion" of the right engine on an aircraft in commercial passenger service. According to the story, the event was made worse by a pilot or aircrew that responded improperly to the emergency by attempting to extinguish the resulting fire with an aerial maneuver that is dangerous (a "death spiral") with an engine out in a twin.

Russell M. Nelson also described the left engine as being "out" and only restarted in the nick of time to land in the field (or fly along a road for a while and then land in a field, depending on the version). As mentioned up thread, the whole point of a twin is that the engines operate independently (separate throttles, separate starters and controls, separate fuel supplies, etc.) so that a problem with one does not affect the other. Loss of the second engine in flight is an exceedingly low probability event and would have further adversely affected the airworthiness of the aircraft (to say the least). Loss of the second engine would have required an NTSB notification in and of itself.

Furthermore, according to Russell M. Nelson, the pilot operated his aircraft not in accordance with his ATC authorized clearance to his alternate airport in broad daylight. Instead, the pilot tried to land a low wing twin engine aircraft with one operable engine in a farmer's field. I'm confident that ATC did not clear the aircraft to farmer Brown's alfalfa field. Significant deviation of a pilot from ATC clearances, not to mention improper operation of an aircraft resulting in significant damage or endangerment, also requires NTSB notification.

Finally, as shown in the image above of a fully operational Navajo Chieftain landing in a farm field, the aircraft would have ended up in a situation that would have required extensive repair or replacement (NTSB 830 definition of an accident). According to Russell M. Nelson, not only was the right engine burned out, but recovering an inoperable aircraft from a field is a major undertaking. I posted an image upthread of a Navajo that had landed in a field and was simply abandoned after the engines, and who knows what else, had been salvaged.

With regard to landing a low wing twin prop aircraft in a farm field, from the bent props and no evidence of nose gear or main gear extension, it appears that the pilots of the aircraft shown in the image above elected to attempt a gear-up "belly" landing in the foliage. This rather than take the risk of having the nose gear dig in and flip the aircraft. Given the presence of foliage in the field, or even snow cover in November, a belly landing attempt by Russell M. Nelson's pilot would have been a reasonable option, especially if he cared more about the lives onboard than the aircraft itself.

It's borderline history.

I would say it's on the fantasy side of the border.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

RI, did your FOIA turn anything up?

- Doc

What are we up to now? Four databases that have turned up zero hits for Russell M. Nelson's ill-fated flight? I get what's been posted throughout the thread, but surely, SURELY, something would've hit? We have no newspaper articles covering this event. No corroborating witnesses. No hits on any 'flight-related' database. The story itself hits all sorts of cliches and tropes.

RI, since you've taken a more critical role in this discussion, what bar must be met in order to meet conclusive proof, in your mind, that this story is pure unadulterated BS?

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

RI, did your FOIA turn anything up?

- Doc

I’ve been fussing with it so I can submit it in stages in order to prevent a whopping copy bill and keep me from drowning in paper. I’ll try to finish up this weekend.

[Res Ipsa]

RI, did your FOIA turn anything up?

- Doc

What are we up to now? Four databases that have turned up zero hits for Russell M. Nelson's ill-fated flight? I get what's been posted throughout the thread, but surely, SURELY, something would've hit? We have no newspaper articles covering this event. No corroborating witnesses. No hits on any 'flight-related' database. The story itself hits all sorts of cliches and tropes.

RI, since you've taken a more critical role in this discussion, what bar must be met in order to meet conclusive proof, in your mind, that this story is pure unadulterated B.S.?

- Doc

Fair questions, but only one relevant database. This latest one is just some guy in Belgium putting together his own database. It’s not clear how he collects data. And it’s woefully incomplete. I compared the total number of entries for the US in 1976 in this latest database with the same search in the NTSB database. Only 2% of the events in the NTSB database are in this latest database, so it doesn’t give us any information that we already had. In fact, the only database that has given us any evidence to work with is the NTSB’s. The others have been incomplete and/or are duplicative of the NTSB database.

The problem we face is that reaching that conclusion requires proof of a negative. And that’s damn hard, especially in a 40 year old case.

Let’s assume we get the records we’re looking for from the National Archives. At that point, I think we could be reasonably confident that we have NTSB data for every in-flight engine fire in Utah in 1976. And we look at all the reports of engine fires and find no evidence of an engine fire followed by a safe landing. So, if the story is based on a real life incident, I think we’d have a very strong case that it didn’t happen in Utah in 1976.

So now, let’s say we hold a press conference and announce that Nelson’s story is complete BS. How much evidence would it take to refute our case? Exactly one piece of evidence. That’s all. One piece of paper. One witness. One photograph. And, if evidence exists, who is mostly likely to know how to find it? Nelson. Nelson with a building full of lawyers and unlimited financial resources to scour the earth for that one piece of evidence. And if that piece of evidence exists, we get to be complete fools.

Some folks are hyper-focused on what we’re looking for based on assuming that the parts of the story that just so happen to support a case against Nelson are accurate. That’s a tunnel vision problem that increases our chances of missing that one piece of evidence. If Nelson’s memory is simply wrong about the date or that it was a commuter flight or that it was a flight to that specific City, then all of the hard work folks have done here is worth nothing, because we’ve been looking in the wrong place.

We’ve got very little in the way of knowns and huge known unknowns. And none of us has any idea of the unknown unknowns.

I’ve been trying to figure out a concrete risk assessment for folks to think about. The best I’ve got is how willing would you be to bet the reputation of this website against the odds that Nelson can’t produce the one piece of evidence he needs to make us look like fools? How willing are you to risk sacrificing genuinely credible efforts like dismantling the guest guesser paper? Or certain parties dismissing any future future solid research here?

That’s the way I’d think about it. The problem isn’t the time and effort people are putting in. It’s just that proving a negative in a 40 year old case is mind numbingly difficult. It’s way too easy to miss that one piece of evidence.

So, personally, it’s hard to imagine us being able to get this puppy to, say, a 95% chance that Nelson can’t find that one piece of evidence. 49% is going to be hard enough. It’s a tough problem.

[Physics Guy]

I didn't mean that what Nelson described would be minor for a small aircraft incident, only that it would have been minor for a historical incident. It probably wouldn't have made even local news at the time.

For the little it's worth, I would have expected an incident like this to have been recorded by some authority. 1976 wasn't the Dark Ages, and there are a lot of good reasons why information about serious problems with aircraft should be kept for decades in widely accessible form. You never know what potentially life-saving data could be mined out of it someday. So I'm still hoping that somewhere there will be an authoritative database of which we can sure that if the incident isn't recorded in it, then there was no such incident.

I was a little kid in 1976, and I still don't know much about aviation, so my expectations could well just be naïve. Maybe nobody cared about things like this in the 70s, or maybe they cared about them then but all the old records got flushed in the 90s. In which case Nelson beats the rap and we all learn a higher respect for the ancient Nephites, who would have recorded that flight on multiple sets of gold plates and buried them redundantly in two separate hills, with accessibility via angels and seer stones.

[Chap]

The problem we face is that reaching that conclusion requires proof of a negative.

Um, that rather depends what 'that conclusion' is.

In my case, the conclusion I am asking myself whether I can accept is whether or not this story looks like yet another example of a faith-promoting story told by a prominent Mormon figure, which, when examined at all closely, looks like having been (to put it as charitably as possible) considerably improved from what (if anything) is likely to have actually occurred.

And the answer to that is definitely 'Yes'.

Do the believers in other religions have to swallow this kind of regular credulity-straining story-telling from their religious leaders? It never happened to me in my days of Episcopalian-related pew-polishing.

[Physics Guy]

So now, let’s say we hold a press conference and announce that Nelson’s story is complete B.S.. How much evidence would it take to refute our case? Exactly one piece of evidence. That’s all. One piece of paper. One witness. One photograph. And, if evidence exists, who is mostly likely to know how to find it? Nelson. Nelson with a building full of lawyers and unlimited financial resources to scour the earth for that one piece of evidence. And if that piece of evidence exists, we get to be complete fools.

But might that just be the answer?

Somebody who has done a serious search and made a serious case holds a press conference or something, and tries not to be overconfident or overly aggressive but raises an honest question about Nelson's honesty. If the question gets any kind of media traction, Nelson's going to have to do his best to refute the charge.

If he can, then he does. Case is closed, questions answered. If he can't, though, with his own memory and all his resources, then that failure to answer will itself be the final convincing piece of evidence that makes up for whatever the other evidence lacks.

So it's a gambit. On the upside for skeptics, it won't be necessary to get conclusive evidence against Nelson, just to get enough evidence for the accusation to get media traction. If Nelson did lie, then that lower standard of evidence will still be enough to get him to convict himself through silence in the face of a serious accusation.

On the upside for Mormons, Nelson could end up proving his story was true after all. That's an upside for Mormons and also a downside for skeptics. First of all the Mormon prophet comes out looking like an honest man whose honesty was reasonably questioned but then conclusively vindicated. And secondly the skeptics who challenged Nelson's honesty over this story may come out looking stupid or mean.

As to the upside for Mormons part, yeah, if Nelson proves his case then Mormons will be able to crow about it for years. But in this case they'll be entitled to crow about it, in my book. If Nelson can really prove that this story was true then I myself will be that much more hesitant to doubt similar stories by Mormon leaders in future. Whatever the original Mormon leaders were, and however deluded the current ones still may be, if the current ones are at least scrupulously honest then that is worth something. My kind of skepticism about Mormonism would rather learn that, if it is true, than avoid looking at it for fear that it might be true.

As to the downside for skeptics, of looking stupid and mean, I think that depends on how aggressively the accusation was made and how reasonably convincing the evidence looked. It ought to be possible to raise the charge in such a way that being proven wrong doesn't mean being proven stupid or vicious, especially if one makes a fair and gracious concession and apology.

The tactical question is whether a moderate press conference, that is moderate enough to avoid looking too mean and stupid in case Nelson can vindicate himself, will still be dramatic enough to get media attention that Nelson can't pretend to ignore. It might depend on what else was in the news that week. But probably it would always depend on that, anyway.

[Res Ipsa]

The problem we face is that reaching that conclusion requires proof of a negative.

Um, that rather depends what 'that conclusion' is.

In my case, the conclusion I am asking myself whether I can accept is whether or not this story looks like yet another example of a faith-promoting story told by a prominent Mormon figure, which, when examined at all closely, looks like having been (to put it as charitably as possible) considerably improved from what (if anything) is likely to have actually occurred.

And the answer to that is definitely 'Yes'.

Do the believers in other religions have to swallow this kind of regular credulity-straining story-telling from their religious leaders? It never happened to me in my days of Episcopalian-related pew-polishing.

Yes, it all depends on what you want to figure out and what level of confidence you want to have in the answer. I was referring to Doc's question, which was:

what bar must be met in order to meet conclusive proof, in your mind, that this story is pure unadulterated B.S.?

The question I'm interested in is more similar to yours than Doc's.

[Res Ipsa]

So now, let’s say we hold a press conference and announce that Nelson’s story is complete B.S.. How much evidence would it take to refute our case? Exactly one piece of evidence. That’s all. One piece of paper. One witness. One photograph. And, if evidence exists, who is mostly likely to know how to find it? Nelson. Nelson with a building full of lawyers and unlimited financial resources to scour the earth for that one piece of evidence. And if that piece of evidence exists, we get to be complete fools.

But might that just be the answer?

Somebody who has done a serious search and made a serious case holds a press conference or something, and tries not to be overconfident or overly aggressive but raises an honest question about Nelson's honesty. If the question gets any kind of media traction, Nelson's going to have to do his best to refute the charge.

If he can, then he does. Case is closed, questions answered. If he can't, though, with his own memory and all his resources, then that failure to answer will itself be the final convincing piece of evidence that makes up for whatever the other evidence lacks.

So it's a gambit. On the upside for skeptics, it won't be necessary to get conclusive evidence against Nelson, just to get enough evidence for the accusation to get media traction. If Nelson did lie, then that lower standard of evidence will still be enough to get him to convict himself through silence in the face of a serious accusation.

On the upside for Mormons, Nelson could end up proving his story was true after all. That's an upside for Mormons and also a downside for skeptics. First of all the Mormon prophet comes out looking like an honest man whose honesty was reasonably questioned but then conclusively vindicated. And secondly the skeptics who challenged Nelson's honesty over this story may come out looking stupid or mean.

As to the upside for Mormons part, yeah, if Nelson proves his case then Mormons will be able to crow about it for years. But in this case they'll be entitled to crow about it, in my book. If Nelson can really prove that this story was true then I myself will be that much more hesitant to doubt similar stories by Mormon leaders in future. Whatever the original Mormon leaders were, and however deluded the current ones still may be, if the current ones are at least scrupulously honest then that is worth something. My kind of skepticism about Mormonism would rather learn that, if it is true, than avoid looking at it for fear that it might be true.

As to the downside for skeptics, of looking stupid and mean, I think that depends on how aggressively the accusation was made and how reasonably convincing the evidence looked. It ought to be possible to raise the charge in such a way that being proven wrong doesn't mean being proven stupid or vicious, especially if one makes a fair and gracious concession and apology.

The tactical question is whether a moderate press conference, that is moderate enough to avoid looking too mean and stupid in case Nelson can vindicate himself, will still be dramatic enough to get media attention that Nelson can't pretend to ignore. It might depend on what else was in the news that week. But probably it would always depend on that, anyway.

Might be. I'm just trying to give a concrete example of what the risks look like so people can make their own risk assessment. For me, it's a sucker bet. If I want to bet against the house, I'll go to Vegas where the odds are better. But everybody gets to assess their own risks. If folks decide to try and take this public, I'm getting as far away from this sucker as I can.

[Res Ipsa]

I didn't mean that what Nelson described would be minor for a small aircraft incident, only that it would have been minor for a historical incident. It probably wouldn't have made even local news at the time.

For the little it's worth, I would have expected an incident like this to have been recorded by some authority. 1976 wasn't the Dark Ages, and there are a lot of good reasons why information about serious problems with aircraft should be kept for decades in widely accessible form. You never know what potentially life-saving data could be mined out of it someday. So I'm still hoping that somewhere there will be an authoritative database of which we can sure that if the incident isn't recorded in it, then there was no such incident.

I was a little kid in 1976, and I still don't know much about aviation, so my expectations could well just be naïve. Maybe nobody cared about things like this in the 70s, or maybe they cared about them then but all the old records got flushed in the 90s. In which case Nelson beats the rap and we all learn a higher respect for the ancient Nephites, who would have recorded that flight on multiple sets of gold plates and buried them redundantly in two separate hills, with accessibility via angels and seer stones.

I'm pretty convinced that we're not going to find the records that we're lacking in a database. No database we've looked at so far is more comprehensive than the NTSB's. But, according the National Archive's website, they should exist in the archives in paper form.