Evan Burton

Let's go back and look at some of Dr Fetzer's claims, and see how they stand up.

As always, I urge people to independently investigate the claims and NOT rely on what myself nor Dr Fetzer say.

Another example. The plane was headed south when it crashed, but the airport was almost due north. The plane was off course in its general direction by 8 degrees, which may not sound like much but extended over rate times time, could have put it very far from the airport.

The NTSB reports says they entered an inadvertent stall during the approach. What would be the result of such a stall?

In aviation, a spin is an aggravated stall resulting in autorotation about the spin axis wherein the aircraft follows a corkscrew path. Spins can be entered unintentionally or intentionally, from any flight attitude and from practically any airspeed—all that is required is sufficient yaw rate while an aircraft is stalled. In either case, however, a specific and often counterintuitive set of actions may be needed to effect recovery. If the aircraft exceeds published limitations regarding spins, or is loaded improperly, or if the pilot uses incorrect technique to recover, the spin can lead to a crash.

In a spin, both wings are in a stalled condition, however one wing will be in a deeper stall condition than the other. This causes the aircraft to autorotate due to the non-symmetric lift and drag. Spins are also characterized by high angle of attack, low airspeed, and high rate of descent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28flight%29

The bolding is mine, but you'll find similar examples amongst the internet (or better yet - flight training manuals). If people would like further explanation or more references, I am happy to provide.

Next we should examine the claims it was an electrical fire because of the colour of the smoke. Can we be sure of this?

Electrical Fires

By definition, electrical fires originate from electrical components. Often, we can detect an electrical fire before it really gets going. The first clue might be an over-voltage warning light, a higher than normal electrical load, or a popped circuit breaker. The acrid smell of hot insulation or visible white smoke also are common indicators — but don't be fooled. In one incident, white smoke filled the cabin of a Piper Arrow, leading the pilot and instructor to think they had an electrical fire. In reality, they had a fuel fire in the engine compartment, which had begun to melt the ducts that supply heated air to the cabin.

Flight Training (Fires) - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)

Note that none of the above were reported in the incident under discussion. Even so, could an electrical fire occur without a directed energy weapon? If so, how common is it? Let's hear from some pilots:

Was reading this very good AOPA safety brief on electrical fires and it brought to mind the electrical fire that broke out in an avionics wiring loom while I was completing my twin rating near the DET VOR a couple of years ago. The fire was contained by switching off the master switch after a quick PAN call and the judicious use of a fire extinguisher but the white heat of the melting loom just a couple of inches from my right thigh is still etched in my mind. The fact that I was flying with a very experienced pilot and the ability to share the cockpit work load ultimately literally saved my bacon.

In fact three of the four in flight incidents I have encountered over the years have had electrical origins, the most stressful of which was a radio failure (carrier wave only) in class D airspace in IMC (the recovery from which situation was expedited by an incredibly “switched on” ATC approach controller at Bournemouth ).

I think electrical problems are very, very common in (light, but not only) aircraft. The older they are, the more problems there are. I have had electrical smoke once (short circuit in the windshield heater of a C421), two complete electrical failues (one of them in a twin with two working alternators, but a failed paralleling unit) and countless failures of single COM and NAV units. Therefore I never ever get on board a light aircraft without my (charged!) handheld transceiver with headset adapter and a portable GPS unit. This is because I mostly fly on light aircraft as an IFR instrutor and will encounter those failures with high probability in controlled airspace and in IMC.

PPrune - Thread on light aircraft electrical system safety

What a nitwit! These events, each of which is relatively improbable, are all happening at the same time. Their probability of occurring together is equal to their product. That would be a very small number, indeed. I am quite confident that all of these -- or even a substantial subset -- have never occurred together before. Some of them, like the odd meteorological phenomenon, have probably never happened before. Evan Burton appears to be pulling this right out of his ass. IF THERE EVER WAS A CASE WHERE THE SIMPLE OCCURRENCE OF A CRASH WAS NOT USED AS IF IT WERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF SABOTAGE, THIS IS IT! Either Burton is not reading my posts or he is grossly incompetent or he is dissembling in the extreme. There are no other alternatives.

(My bolding)

The above data clearly show that such an occurence has happened a number of times in the past.. a couple even involving KingAir aircraft! Human error is the most common cause of aircraft accidents around the world, and no-one is immune. I don't know how Dr Fetzer can refute the statistics but sadly note that rather than trying to dispute them, Dr Fetzer just resorts to bluster, insults and name calling - a behaviour he appears notorious for. I would imagine that in a live debate he would believe that he who shouts loudest, wins.

Evan a couple of questions for a moderator why is Craig Lamson allowed to call Jack a moron in his latest post 451 i believe it is..or is his nasty bad habit of callling derogatory names to be allowed all through this thread as they have been allowed through many others..also if and for fos it is fair the mods are allowed their opinions also, are they not to be none biased seeing they are moderators..thanks..b

Bernice,

If there is a clear violation of Forum rules (calling a Forum member a xxxx, saying what they have said is a lie, saying someone lacks research ability, etc) then it is clear and Moderators can act. Insulting someone is not quite so clear. As you might recall, there was discussion about being treated like children or similar when Mods told people to be more civil. What I might think as being insulting, others might consider to be a lively debate. It is especially difficult if more than one party is engaging in what might be considered to be insulting behaviour. It is difficult at best.

With respect to bias and Mods, I think Kathy Beckett's tagline sums it up nicely.

John B, Jack W, Bill K (and possibly others):

A reminder that there is a banned word when used in relation to Forum members. You can call George Bush a xxxx, you can call Georgte Washington a xxxx, but you may not do the same to another Forum member. You can say they are misleading, wrong, uninformed or similar but do not call them a xxxx without clearing it first with John Simkin.

Thank you.

... the weather was fine...

Another example of Dr Fetzer's ignorance in the aviation field.

About 0730, the pilot contacted Aviation Charter's headquarters in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and asked the receptionist who answered his call to inform the company's scheduling office that the Senator's flight would be delayed because of the weather. The pilot then contacted the Million Air fixed-base operator (FBO) at STP and told its general manager that he would be departing about 1300 instead of 0920 and asked her to ensure that the airplane would be available at that time. However, the Senator's campaign scheduler stated that when she talked to the pilot again about 0800, he indicated that the cloud ceiling had improved, and they agreed to go ahead with the flight as originally scheduled.

According to Aviation Charters director of charter, sales, and marketing, the pilot called her about 0840 and stated that he had done a weather check with the Senator's campaign staff and that they still wanted to depart as planned. He indicated that he was getting conflicting guidance from another of the Senator's staffs and that he did not feel comfortable deciding whether or not to make the flight.

The other King Air pilot indicated that he told the Senator that the weather was at minimums, but he was sure the pilots could handle the flight.

Weather observations at EVM are made by an AWOS, 38 which is located about 2 miles northwest of the accident site at an elevation of about 1,380 feet. Observations from this station are reported every 20 minutes. At 1014 on the day of the accident, the AWOS reported that the visibility was 3 statute miles in light snow and that the sky condition was scattered clouds at 400 feet and overcast at 700 feet. At 1034, the AWOS reported that the visibility was 4 statute miles in mist and that the sky condition was overcast at 400 feet. Both AWOS reports indicated calm winds and temperatures of 1° C.

Once again we see that Dr Fetzer, a layman in the aviation field, makes assumptions far above his station and assumes professional abilities he does not hold.

There have been claims of "blue" smoke versus "black" smoke. This is a terribly inaccurate way to try and judge anything about an aircraft accident site - especially the cause.

Let's have a look at some examples:

23 AUG 08. A Beechcraft King Air A100 crashes near the Canyonland Field airport in Utah:

Is that blue or black smoke?

Yet more damning evidence of Dr Fetzer's arrogence leading to unfounded conclusions: FAA response to NTSB recommendations regarding Wellstone accident.

The FAA shares the Board's concern regarding flightcrew awareness of low airspeed situations. As noted in the Board's letter dated December 2, 2003, failure to maintain adequate airspeed can result in unsafe circumstances like loss of control, impact with terrain or water, hard landings, and tail strikes.

The Board further states that it has investigated numerous accidents and incidents involving commercial flightcrews that inadvertently failed to maintain airspeed. For example, the Board has investigated at least 11 events since 1982 involving 14 CFR Part 135 flights and at least seven events involving 14 CFR Part 121 flights in which stall or failure to maintain airspeed during approach or landing phases was cited as a causal or contributing factor and in which icing was not cited as a factor.

Current rules require stall warning (stick shaker or natural buffet) for both small airplanes and transport airplanes. The Board acknowledges the existing requirements for stall warning, but challenges the premise that stall warnings and flightcrew vigilance provide adequate low airspeed awareness.

The Board states that a low airspeed alert, which would be activated at some airspeed higher than stall warning, would provide additional protection against low airspeed conditions that may lead to stall. The Board noted the existing installation of a low airspeed alert in the Embraer 120. The FAA required this alert as an interim solution until Embraer redesigns the stall warning system to account for icing conditions adequately.

Many current transport airplanes include additional cues on airspeed indicators. These cues are intended to provide improved low airspeed awareness. While not alerts, these color-coded symbols indicate the low airspeed region (the maneuver margin, typically at about 1.3 Vstall) in which the airplane is approaching the stall warning speed. As noted by the Board, such displays are now becoming available for use in less sophisticated general aviation airplanes.

Additionally, the Board has recognized that there are unresolved technical, operational, and human factors issues that will need to be carefully evaluated and addressed in connection with the design and implementation of a low airspeed alert system.

On January 21, 2004, the Board provided the FAA with more complete information on the 18 accidents cited by the Board to support these safety recommendations. The FAA will include a review of these 18 accidents in determining what action needs to be taken to address the safety issue. The FAA will also consider efforts already accomplished or in progress under the Safer Skies programs and other initiatives dealing with airspeed awareness. I will keep the Board informed of the FAA's progress on these safety recommendations.

Now let's have a look at more general statistics and the accident in question. The pertinent facts are that it was judged to be loss of control / pilot error (human error) during an instrument approach (landing phase). A contributory cause was weather. Dr Fetzer has said:

What a nitwit! These events, each of which is relatively improbable, are all happening at the same time. Their probability of occurring together is equal to their product. That would be a very small number, indeed. I am quite confident that all of these -- or even a substantial subset -- have never occurred together before. Some of them, like the odd meteorological phenomenon, have probably never happened before. Evan Burton appears to be pulling this right out of his ass. IF THERE EVER WAS A CASE WHERE THE SIMPLE OCCURRENCE OF A CRASH WAS NOT USED AS IF IT WERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF SABOTAGE, THIS IS IT! Either Burton is not reading my posts or he is grossly incompetent or he is dissembling in the extreme. There are no other alternatives.

So let's look at more worldwide statistics. The stats come from the Aircraft Crashes Record Office in Geneva.

67.57% of all aircraft accidents have human error as the primary cause.

50.39% of all aircraft accidents occur during the landing phase.

53.89% of all aircraft accidents occur less than 10 km from the airport.

5.1% of all aircraft accidents occur during a charter flight.

41.49% of all aircraft accidents have no survivors.

Now let's compare that to Dr Fetzer's belief:

0.0% of all aircraft accidents have occurred because of a directed energy weapon against the incident aircraft.

Lastly, I'd like to recount the relative experiences in aviation:

Me: Over 20 years in military and civil aviation. Qualifications as a civil pilot, military flight navigator, military air traffic controller, civil surveillance airborne mission co-ordinator. Previous posting was four years as assistant Operations Officer of a Navy squadron. Currently (last four years) posted in an operational airworthiness standards role, conducting operational airworthiness audits on all Navy squadrons.

Dr Fetzer: Has flown in aircraft?

I am happy to expand on, or provide further details on, all the data I have provided.

Edited to add: I forgot to reiterate, I do not say Dr Fetzer is wrong regarding his belief that the aircraft accident was caused by a deliberate act by a person or persons unknown; I simply stand by by assertion that the facts of the accident to not provide any substance to his belief. These events have happened before and they will happen again... without sabotage.

Here are more incidents with similar circumstances to that of the Wellstone accident:

So far I am only looking between about 1998 and 2004. An expanded search will highlight more examples.

Next we need to look at aviation accidents statistics. Since it is very important to compare apples to apples, I'll only look at US aircraft operations. US commercial aircraft operations generally fall under three Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) areas:

- FAR Part 121 (major airlines)

- FAR Part 135 Scheduled (minor airlines operating to a schedule)

- FAR Part 135 On Demand (charter airlines)

The Wellstone aircraft was operating under FAR 135 On Demand, so my stats will involve only those aircraft. The figures also refer to fixed wing operations, and not helicopters.

Firstly, let have a look at the general statistics. All data has been taken from the annual NTSB Review of Aircraft Accident Data reports, available at the NTSB website (www.ntsb.gov). I have shown:

- the total number of aircraft accidents

- the number of those accidents that involved fatalities*

- the percentage of aircraft accidents that were due to pilot error

- the number of aircraft accidents that were due to loss of control during the approach to landing phase

- the number of fatal accidents that were due to loss of control during the approach to landing phase, and

- the number of fatal accidents per million flight hours

(* The number shown is not the number of fatalities but simply the number of incidents which resulted in at least one fatality)

In 2000, the NTSB changed the way it published data, so some stats aren't available. So you can still compare 2002 to previous years data, I have copied the graphs from earlier reports:

So we can now see that experienced pilots losing SA with resultant loss of control during instrument approaches - especially during marginal weather conditions - is nothing unusual. As I said previously: it's happened before and it will happen again.

Next we'll show just how incorrect Dr Fetzer's boast is:

What a nitwit! These events, each of which is relatively improbable, are all happening at the same time. Their probability of occurring together is equal to their product. That would be a very small number, indeed. I am quite confident that all of these -- or even a substantial subset -- have never occurred together before.

What is more, I'll do it without resorting to bombastic posts or ad hominem.

And yet more:

13 MAR 02, Beech King Air E90, N948CC. Inadequate approach airspeed for existing conditions during instrument approach. Delayed reaction to avert stalling leading to loss of control.

6 MAR 02, Cessna 208B, N208TF. Inadvertent stall during approach.

That is just during 2002.

Next, we'll do a more in-depth review of FAR 135 accident statistics and see if this incident was somehow unusual.

What a nitwit! These events, each of which is relatively improbable, are all happening at the same time. Their probability of occurring together is equal to their product. That would be a very small number, indeed. I am quite confident that all of these -- or even a substantial subset -- have never occurred together before.

Dr Fetzer, if you bothered to read my previous posts you would see you are quite wrong and simply - once again - showing your ignorance. 16 FEB 05, Cessna Citation 560, N500AT. An experienced crew conducting an ILS approach. They failed to monitor the situation and icing caused a stall, from which they did not recover. They did not make any MAYDAY call. The stall warning did not activate until after the stall had occurred.

There was a sister ship, of the same aircraft type, flying with them at the same time. It landed at the same airport in the same conditions 14 minutes later... without problems.

So you see your confidence in your judgment was again wrong.

Ah yes - attack dog Healy come to the aid of its master with nothing of substance to add, as usual. Come on sunshine - where am I wrong? The stats? The other instances where similar aircraft accidents have occurred? My qualifications in the field and Prof Fetzer's lack of them? Please enlighten me.

And given the vast number of flights that occur in the US every day, have you made any calculation of the relative frequency with which these small plane crashes take place, much less those that satisfy the circumstances I have described above? How many?

Ah! Lies, damned lies and statistics. Okay, lets have a look.

The King Air comes in varying models. Overall, in excess of 3100 have been produced since 1963.

There have been 289 King Air crashes worldwide. Of those, 194 involved fatalities. Of those fatalities, 86 incidents were in the US.

If we look at just the A100, there were 157 built. Of those, 38 have been involved in aircraft accidents. Of those, 23 had fatalities. Of those 23, 19 were is the US.

So lets do the math:

24% of A100 King Airs have been involved in a crash.

60% of A100 King Air accidents have resulted in fatalities.

50% of A100 King Air accidents have occurred in the US and resulted in fatalities.

82% of all A100 King Air accidents resulting in fatalities have occurred in the US.

Happy now?

that there was a loud stall-warning alarm?

Has happened before.

that the pilots were well-qualified, the senior pilot having 5,200 hours of experience, an Air Transport Pilot's certification, and passing his FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight?

Similar circumstances have happened before.

That you would shoot off your mouth in a state of virtual ignorance tells me all I want to know about Evan Burton.

The fact that you have no experience in this area and try to tell people whose profession it is that you know better than them speaks volumes about your arrogance.

And given the vast number of flights that occur in the US every day, have you made any calculation of the relative frequency with which these small plane crashes take place, much less those that satisfy the circumstances I have described above?

And the odds were over a million to one that two B747s could collide on the ground... but they did.

Do you even know that, when the NTSB conducted simulations with a simulator with a weaker engine and had it flown abnormally slowly, they were unable to bring the plane down? Which means that the NTSB's own data contradicted its conclusion?

No, they were able to fly out of it - further evidence of pilot error.

And how many of these crashes you list were with King Air A-100s, the Rolls Royce of small planes?

Oh please. As far as aircraft are concerned, you don't really know the difference between a Rolls Royce and an Edsel.

Please tell me, because otherwise I and others are likely to conclude that you are simply one more phony who posts on this forum based upon their own ignorance! There's a big difference between you and us: we know that reasoning must be based upon all of the available evidence.

I'm not the ignorant one nor the phony here since I can back up all my assertions with documented examples and can prove my expertise in the field. How many flight hours do you have? Do you have piloting qualifications? As a flight navigator? As an air traffic controller? Work in the aviation field? Please - show me the qualifications.

I can't believe you are another in a seemingly endless list of those who practice special pleading by citing only the evidence that is favorable to their side and ignoring the rest.

No, you mustn't be reading my posts. Wellstone may have had people out to get him, and may have been murdered... but the aircraft incident does not point to that. You can't use the aircraft accident itself as 'proof' because it does not specifically point to foul play. Perhaps the aircrew were slipped undetectable drugs that caused them to lose SA; if you can find such a drug then it becomes a possibility. The fact is, however, that there have been similar aviation accidents involving loss of SA during an instrument approach, unintentional stalling of the aircraft, crew actions leading to either uncontrolled or controlled flight into terrain and various combination of them. So don't use the simple occurence of the accident as 'proof' that they were murdered, because it's not true.

the cessation of communication shortly before the crash?

Has happened before.

the spontaneous garage door openings?

Has happened before.

the fuselage burning with blue smoke, not black?

Has happened before.

the wrong approach, even though the airport is user-friendly?

Has happened before.

hat the props were on idle, even though the pilots should have been "powering up" to avoid a stall?

Has happened before.

The probability that two pilots would overlook their airspeed, altitude, and azimuth approaches zero as its value.

Poppycock. It has happened time and time and time again in aircraft ranging from single engine light aircraft to multi-engine jet airliners, involving from low time private pilots to highly experienced aircrew. Do a google search on CFIT.

For more, see, for example, my study co-authored with John P. Costella, a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone".

To the best of my knowledge, neither you nor Dr Costella have experience in aviation nor human factors in aviation nor aviation accident investigation. Two laymen do not an expert make. You are drawing incorrect conclusions from the available data. As I said, he may well have been murdered but the evidence does not support that conclusion.

It's both, Evan. I am McKnight Professor Emeritus and earned my Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.

Which do you prefer me to use?

I am just a bit taken aback by your post suggesting that plane crashes like this one are commonplace. That suggests to me you have not studied what happened here.

That suggests to me that you, as a layman in this field, haven't had a look through accident / incident databases. They are littered with similar instances:

That reminds me - is it Professor Fetzer or Dr Fetzer?

Thanks.

I don't know if Senator Wellstone was murdered or not, but there is nothing unusual about the aircraft incident. Similar events have happened before and will happen again.

No problems. I just have a history with the CCA200 and trying to get our items codified. *sigh* A prime example of bureaucracy gone mad.

I wish the analysis of ballistic vests had been that easy.

Out of curiosity, was this the CCA200?

It's obscene on many different levels.

So true.... but I don't see it changing any time in the future.

Despite a massive failure of the trial, the Australian Government is planning to censor what Australians see on the internet.

Want a conspiracy? This is a real one. Despite overwhelming evidence that it is flawed, the Australian government is planning to censor what Australian's will see on the net.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technolog...91215-ktzc.html

Take what action you believe is appropriate. I hope people - from any nation - will choose protest.

The Minister's email is:

minister@dbcde.gov.au

If anyone has his personal phone numbers, I would hope they would post it.

Evan Burton

Resident

New North Korea