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

[azflyer]

Lem,

I didn’t listen to their podcast but I have read this thread, was the RFM argument that the documented precautionary landing shouldn’t have seemed like the emergency landing Nelson described it as?

I haven't really read this thread, but I listened to the entire two hours podcast. And basically, yes. They're hinging the whole argument on the fact that Civil Aeronautics Board Reports (by the way, whoever found that... Bravo and good work) says that the plane made a "precautionary" landing. And because it was precautionary, that means it wasn't an Emergency and Nelson is basically full of crap.

I just don't agree with that argument.

Here is an example of a light twin having an engine failure in flight, and then landing safely. The pilot DOES NOT want to declare an emergency. A few minutes into the video, ATC declares an emergency on behalf of the pilot. Pilots are sometimes worried about declaring an emergency (especially private pilots) because of the scrutiny it can bring. But in this case, when the pilot notifies ATC he's down an engine, ATC says it's an emergency for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p78xWekdG04

So, this needs to be very clear. Losing one of your two engines in a twin IS an emergency.

[DrW]

Hello azflyer,

Welcome to the DM board and congratulations on your pilot's license. Thank you for your more contemporary description of the Russell M. Nelson flight's likely descent and landing, even if it did occur some 45 years ago. I'm sure we all appreciate your acknowledgement that there was no fire (i.e. the CAB letter was not a misrepresentation of the facts, as has been asserted over at MD&D), and that the landing was not in a farmer's field.

Your description was written with the benefit of hindsight. I think most questions and descriptions that appeared on the thread before the CAB Letter came to light were based on the assumption that there might have been a fire, however unlikely that may have been given the (unavailable) records. It was clear well before the CAB letter that the left engine did not "fail" and then miraculously restart, and that there was no landing in a farmer's field.

You are correct in stating that the left (good) engine on a twin would have been pulled back to idle during the descent. This would have been done whether the descent was a spiral above the airport, as you describe, or not. Rapid descent would be done with near zero thrust from both engines.

You seem to be presenting a defense of Nelson with regard to the incident, so glad to hear your opinion. Not that many qualified individuals who support Nelson have shown up over here. As you have surely noted, the general consensus here, based on the evidence, is that Nelson fabricated a faith promoting story of a supposedly life changing event, many years after the fact, because he felt he felt needed such a event in his life. However, we now know that he crossed the line to describe significant events that did not happen, and which he either knows full well did not happen, or has acquired a delusional belief that they did. Neither alternative is comforting.

After the CAB letter came to light, Dr. Moore made a list the variances between the Russell M. Nelson story and reality. You can find the original somewhere around page 82 of this thread. Here are the main points as I recall.

Complete Fabrications
Russell M. Nelson claimed that:
- the right engine on the aircraft exploded - this did not happen,
- the explosion resulted in an engine fire - this did not happen,
- the right side of the aircraft was on fire from burning gas and oil - this did not happen,
- the aircraft landed in a farmer's field - this did not happen.

These 'vividly remembered' and often described events were total fabrications. Had he made these statements in a court of law he would have perjured himself because the record clearly shows that they did not happen. He appears to be not the least bit concerned about being honest or speaking the truth in what he was saying, or in what was being written about him for publication to be memorialized as an authorized history.

Possible Misunderstanding or Misremembering
Russell M. Nelson claimed that:
- the left engine failed - this did not happen,
- the left engine miraculously restarted in the nick of time before the plane crashed (killing them all) and thus saved their lives - there was no miracle - the thrust needed to land resulted from advancing the throttle for the left engine,
- the pilot announced that they had reached the "point of no return" on the way to St. George - highly unlikely on a routine flight in 1976

This is not the first time Russell M. Nelson has crossed the line with his "embellishments". At least two other instances were mentioned on the RFM video.

My question is, "Should a 96 year old individual who either knowingly lies, or is no longer capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality, be in charge of an organization such as the LDS Church as described up thread?"

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

[Res Ipsa]

From the FAA Handbook:

Types of Emergency Landings
The different types of emergency landings are defined as follows:

• Forced landing—an immediate landing, on or off an airport, necessitated by the inability to continue further flight. A typical example of which is an airplane forced down by engine failure.

• Precautionary landing—a premeditated landing, on or off an airport, when further flight is possible but inadvisable. Examples of conditions that may call for a precautionary landing include deteriorating weather, being lost, fuel shortage, and gradually developing engine trouble.

• Ditching—a forced or precautionary landing on water.

At least in this handbook, the FAA considers a "precautionary landing" to be a subcategory of "emergency landing."

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... h_ch17.pdf

[drumdude]

Isn't it possible the engine exploded, but the pilot didn't want it on his record so he fixed it in a farmer's field and faked the entire report?


Isn't it possible??

[The Stig]

You seem to be presenting a defense of Nelson with regard to the incident, so glad to hear your opinion.

I believe I know azflyer in real life; he is no Nelson supporter or defender. I believe he's trying to inject a little more of even-handed analysis to the discussion.

[azflyer]

Doc,

I don't understand this comment:

Because the objective is to descend the airplane as soon and as rapidly as possible within the structural limitations of the airplane.

All phases of flight are supposed to be conducted within the structural limitations of the airplane. Even emergency descents. Forgive me, I'm just not understanding this argument. Performing the emergency descent maneuver does not create any risk.

In my post that the internet ate, I outlined why I think they are South of Delta. First, they were about half way, and second, they landed at Delta. The Delta VOR is basically the halfway point, and it's South of the airport. If they were further South, they would have landed at Fillmore, not Delta. If they were farther North, which doesn't really seem to make sense, they probably would have landed at Nephi.

And here's the next point. Nelson's version of the story EXACTLY describes what an emergency descent would feel like to a passenger. The "death spiral", the "engine restart". Those are all aspects of the emergency descent that a non-pilot would potentially find terrifying when in fact, they are just normal parts of a very safe maneuver. They are also aspects that a non-pilot would not think to invent. So, to me, the simplest explanation is that the pilot did in fact perform an emergency descent, or something close to an emergency descent.

Also, the fact that you were doing skydiving in the first place indicates you have a much different risk threshold than most people. Here's a vide of a jump plan descending after dropping a load of sky divers. The video description says he's trying TO BEAT THEM BACK TO THE GROUND.

Look at 2:01 in the video, not the angle.

Look at 3:05 in the video, not the view of the ground out the side window.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKilXY2gVn4

I completely believe that YOU felt that the ride back to the ground was no big deal. But I think you need to grant space for someone else to be at least a little unsettled by the experience, especially if one of the engines is inop.

[Res Ipsa]

You seem to be presenting a defense of Nelson with regard to the incident, so glad to hear your opinion.

I believe I know azflyer in real life; he is no Nelson supporter or defender. I believe he's trying to inject a little more of even-handed analysis to the discussion.

Naw, anyone who doesn't jump on the bandwagon must be a Nelson shill. I mean, there's only two types of people, amIright?

[Res Ipsa]

Isn't it possible the engine exploded, but the pilot didn't want it on his record so he fixed it in a farmer's field and faked the entire report?


Isn't it possible??

It depends. Were any of the three Nephites spotted in the vicinity?

[azflyer]

Hello Mr. Stig!

Yes, I am indeed that person you in real life. And you are correct. Most of the reason I'm posting here is related to the BR and RFM podcast. They are both great guys, but there were just a few aviation details that I was cringing at while they were talking. I do not fault them on this, because they are not pilots, but after two hours of listening and not being able to respond at all, I felt somewhat compelled to come here and get my thoughts out.

Also, I am in no way attempting to defend Nelson's obvious and later embellishments. The engine did not explode. The plane was not on fire.

BUT!!!! In the moment all of this was happening, I DO believe it was a harrowing experience. The hears of all of the passengers were likely racing. Every little sound the plane was making was probably exacerbated in their minds. And I most certainly believe that the experience cause Nelson to reflect on his life and his family in those few minutes between engine shutdown and the safe landing on the runway at Delta Airport. I am sure everyone on board breathed a heavy sigh of relief when they got out of the airplane. I am sure that whether it was "technically" an emergency or not, they all sure felt like it was an emergency.

And then over time, the story evolved, and grew and became more than it was and more than it needed to be. The lesson he was trying to teach could have been taught with an oil leak, or a flaming engine.

[azflyer]

Dr. W,

Thank you for the welcome post. This has been a fun situation to examine in detail. And you are right, I do have the benefit of hindsite here, and I greatly appreciate all the work that so many here have done to dig into all of the details.