Plane down at Dayton Airshow

[MikeD]

I'm not directly ranting at any particular person. Just a little disappointed that it's so frowned upon to have a conversation about an airplane crash.

/rant over

Not saying this at all, and you can see how I've been writing my own questions on this accident; from my position of not having been there, not seeing the evidence beyond a video, and other factors. A healthy informed and informative discussion can be had; it's just all in how it's done. That was the only point I was making. And there have been good posts that have had informed speculation.

 

[MikeD]

Who is doing that on this thread? Or, is ALL speculation "cavalier"? What is the difference between cavalier speculation and asking, answering, or having dialogue about an accident, particularly one in which a video exists?

Cavalier vs informed speculation, as I wrote above. One based purely on supposition, the other on actual facts at hand. One written in a definitive "it MUST be this!" manner, the other as a question or potential that would/should be further looked into. That's how I'd differentiate them. All I ask is that people be cognizant of this when they post. That's all. Very simple.

 

[Seggy]

Who is doing that on this thread? Or, is ALL speculation "cavalier"? What is the difference between cavalier speculation and asking, answering, or having dialogue about an accident, particularly one in which a video exists?

Did your original question, "What is the purpose of Jetcareers?" get answered?

When someone assumes that 'familes don't have time to read these boards' or makes a lot of statements with the words 'if...if...if...if...' then that is cavalier speculation.

 

[dustoff17]

114 replies. 11 only speculated what could have happened.

The other 103 consists mostly of bickering about NOT talking about it.



Welcome to JC, where you need to be a Constitutional Scholar to talk about your rights and a FAA Investigator to talk about airplane crashes.

:rollseyes:

..............

Exactly!

Someone posted it earlier; why not post (or move as required) ALL accident discussions in the Lav? This really seems like the best of both worlds. Moving accident posts to the Lav will accomplish two things: it will provide some protection of the discussion from web searches and will keep it out of the view of those who are sensitive/bothered/up tight about these type of discussions.

For those who don't want ot be a part of whatever discussion happens to take place, don't look at the thread!!!

As for me, I enjoy reading what has been called "speculation" here. I take the words of those more experience than I as "food for thought". I understand that these comments don't stand as a final NTSB Reoprt and that they are premature at best as far as the actual cause of an accident.

However, most of the comments (the ones about the accident, NOT the whining about the comments about the accident) are thought provoking. Those that have been from pilots having aerobatic and/or Stearman experience have stood as "possible causes". To me this means, "It might not have caused this crash but if you do "X" it might get you in trouble" THIS is file knowledge to me........

 

[WacoFan]

Did your original question, "What is the purpose of Jetcareers?" get answered?

When someone assumes that 'familes don't have time to read these boards' or makes a lot of statements with the words 'if...if...if...if...' then that is cavalier speculation.

I never said, or implied that "families don't have time to read Boards" - although I wouldn't think it likely in many cases. What you describe as "cavalier speculation" could also be questions or someone wanting to know "if" something was "x", then could "y" happen...which would lead to "further learning".

As to your first question...guess I'm still a little unsure, but I've definitively learned what a condescending D-bag is - so "further learning" has taken place.

 

[Bumblebee]

If you two address each other one more time, it's time off for both... not kidding...stop poking each other.You can beat each other up all you want in PM's. This is not the place for it.

 

[pullup]

Did your original question, "What is the purpose of Jetcareers?" get answered?

When someone assumes that 'familes don't have time to read these boards' or makes a lot of statements with the words 'if...if...if...if...' then that is cavalier speculation.

Well unless we are part of the NTSB, all the statements should be "if" based. There is nothing wrong with discussing accidents, it's how we learn.

 

[Seggy]

Well unless we are part of the NTSB, all the statements should be "if" based. There is nothing wrong with discussing accidents, it's how we learn.

It is comments like this were no one learns, unnecessarily speculative and are cavalier (look at the bold part)...

"Maybe I'm callous because I've dealt with death a lot throughout my life... IF the aircraft was overweight and IF the pilot knew about it before takeoff (which he should have) then they died because he was stupid. Hopefully that strokes your sensitive bone. Not trying to be a jerk, but to me any competent pilot should know to do a w/b before takeoff with a full load that way and check to make sure the fuel was at the appropriate levels during the pre-flight. And I know of pilots who have flown 172s a hundred + pounds overweight and were still able to maintain a decent climb rate on the hottest summer days here in FL... So this guy must of been a good bit over the max gross IF it was a weight issue.

Remember the Colgan 3407 on how EVERYONE outside of the investigation was speculating ice brought the plane down in a few hours after the accident? Looking at the conditions at the time of the accident people were assuming it was the ice on the airplane. They were completely wrong.

That's why speculating with broad statements as shown above is a dangerous and unnecessary.

 

[pullup]

It is comments like this were no one learns, unnecessarily speculative and are cavalier...

What are you talking about??

I

Remember the Colgan 3407 on how EVERYONE outside of the investigation was speculating ice brought the plane down in a few hours after the accident? Looking at the conditions at the time of the accident people were assuming it was the ice on the airplane. They were completely wrong.

That's why speculating with broad statements as shown above is a dangerous and unnecessary line we walk here.

I guess most thought that two professional pilots stalling an airplane was not the cause. Would you rather everyone blamed the pilot first?

 

[Seggy]

I guess most though that two professional pilots would never stall an airplane. Would you rather everyone blamed the pilot first?

It happened in Buffalo and also over the Atlantic so maybe we have a systemic problem here.

Of course I don't think everyone should blame the pilots first. Patience needs to be applied when a plane goes down. There will be answers in time. Do YOU really think we should blame the pilots first? Why even ask that?

 

[pullup]

It happened in Buffalo and also over the Atlantic so maybe we have a systemic problem here.

Of course I don't think everyone should blame the pilots first. Patience needs to be applied when a plane goes down. There will be answers in time. Do YOU really think we should blame the pilots first? Why even ask that?

We very well have a systemic issue where we have gotten too far away from stick and rudder and more into systems management.

You talked about tail icing and how everyone was wrong. The cause of the accident was pilot error, hence I guess we should've jumped all over that first, then it wouldn't have been speculative per your comment.

 

[Seggy]

We very well have a systemic issue where we have gotten too far away from stick and rudder and more into systems management.

You talked about tail icing and how everyone was wrong. The cause of the accident was pilot error, hence I guess we should've jumped all over that first, then it wouldn't have been speculative per your comment.

While the cause was pilot error you have to look at the systemic issues that caused that error (twice in four months mind you).

But I digress, God for bid you have an incident that causes you to make the news. How would you want the aftermath to be handled? A bunch of folks on the interweb speculating? Or would you want the facts to be gathered by the NTSB about the the entire chain of events and then comments be made on the entire scenario?

 

[pullup]

While the cause was pilot error you have to look at the systemic issues that caused that error (twice in four months mind you).

But I digress, God for bid you have an incident that causes you to make the news. How would you want the aftermath to be handled? A bunch of folks on the interweb speculating? Or would you want the facts to be gathered by the NTSB about the the entire chain of events and then comments be made on the entire scenario?

Hey if I have an incident it really doesn't matter what Internet forums say, only the NTSB. They will gather the facts and make the ruling. If talking about it on the internet helps people then they can have at it. I don't see what the big deal is about.

 

[Seggy]

You may not see the big deal, but others who are involved may.

 

[pullup]

You may not see the big deal, but others may.

And they have every right not to read the comments. I find most of them very useful for exercising my brain, for thinking of scenarios I may never have thought of.

 

[MikeD]

Ive already posted, multiple times, the middle ground for how some of these accidents can be professionally discussed. It's not that difficult.

So do so, people.

 

[rframe]

Not even the NTSB necessarily knows much. There is a shortage of accident investigators between the FAA and NTSB such that some accidents just cannot be looked at much at all. I know a former Air Force and FAA crash investigator and he was explaining just how resource strapped investigators are and the limitations they are given in investigating some (even relatively larger/higher profile) crashes... it was quite surprising. In many cases, smaller crashes have very little work done on them. In fact, there has been some work done to look at using qualified volunteer investigators who are trained through the NTSB training program to help supplement.

 

[MikeD]

... it was quite surprising. In many cases, smaller crashes have very little work done on them. .

Little work by the NTSB. Those low profile accidents with no injuries or minor, are actually normally handed off to the servicing FSDO by the NTSB, for a single FAA investigator it handle.

 

[Seggy]

And they have every right not to read the comments. I find most of them very useful for exercising my brain, for thinking of scenarios I may never have thought of.

Saying...."if this, this, that, that as well, AND that happened, then that person is stupid" isn't useful. It is degrading and unnecessary for those lost.

 

[Stomp16]

It is comments like this were no one learns, unnecessarily speculative and are cavalier (look at the bold part)...



Remember the Colgan 3407 on how EVERYONE outside of the investigation was speculating ice brought the plane down in a few hours after the accident? Looking at the conditions at the time of the accident people were assuming it was the ice on the airplane. They were completely wrong.

That's why speculating with broad statements as shown above is a dangerous and unnecessary.

I understand what you are saying about the assumptions made about 3407 right after the incident. However, unlike this accident, 3407 wasn't caught on camera, thus the larger number of assumptions.

(Next part is not directed at you Seggy, but the general group) Pilots usually want to fix things, that's what comes with the job. If there's a problem, fix it. Because of that, when an accident is captured on video, the wheels in the head start turning as to what may have been the issue. It's just natural and those thoughts are put into text via this forum to get others opinions and help to understand the bigger picture of what may have went wrong (learning). Stating an opinion as fact on an accident is not the proper way to discuss the incident, but I think most of the time it is done sub-consciously and people don't take the time to proof before they hit the submit button. However, even if that happens, you cannot expect pilots, on an aviation forum to not discuss accidents. The answer is not to just shut-up about an accident until the NTSB comes out with their findings (many many months later). Thoughtful, logical and open discussion should take place in order to hopefully prevent something similar from happening to someone else out there defying gravity, IMO. This is the premise behind safety management systems and why companies need to enact "just" safety cultures to prevent mistakes that have already been made, from happening again. Personally, I have learned a lot from the discussions made on this forum (on many different topics) and take that knowledge to the cockpit to hopefully become a safer and more well rounded pilot. IMO, that's one of the greatest things about this forum.