NTSB Final Report On Valujet 592 Debunks Witness Accounts
cli...@cari.net
This letter can be found on the Valujet Flight 592 Memorial Website at
http://www.flight592.com/Flight592Discussion-Current/_disc5/0000014b.htm
Flight 592 Discussion
[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Final Report Debunks Witness Accounts
From: John D King<jki...@mediaone.net>
Date: 14 Jun 1998
Time: 09:53:48
Remote Name: 24.128.16.6
Comments
HOW THE WITNESSES WERE LOST TO THE NTSB 'PLUNGE' THEORY. Recently one
of the family members asked whether 592 'plunged' helplessly from
altitude or attempted to land. A 'plunge' would fit the calamitous
oxygen canister scenario put forth in the NTSB's Final Report where a
fast moving fire fed by oxygen from burning oxygen canisters quickly
disabled the aircraft and crew. The groundwork was further laid in the
Final Report with a heavy focus on hazardous cargo rules and the
theory that somehow one or more jostled canisters set off and
initiated the fire. No tests (i.e. drop tests) supporting the jostling
assumption were claimed by the FAA but rather the pins were
deliberately pulled.
Even though the FAA's April 6, 1998 FOIA response said FAA's
preliminary tests and a report "with single canisters and multiple
canisters packed in a cardboard box that were conducted in a open
area" was not available for yet another three months, the earlier
Final Report of August 19, 1997 clearly labeled the canisters at
fault. The alternative to the canisters was electrical wiring
troubles. A database search for other such electrical troubles turned
up 9 other DC-9 in-flight emergencies where crews experienced
electrically related fires and smoke. See my March 29th post here, "A
HISTORY OF DC-9 IN-FLIGHT FIRES -EXPANDED". Oxygen canister shipments
were easily banned but wiring troubles are far more serious and costly
to fix. The 737 wiring inspections have been expanded to include DC-9s
but,importantly, the wire type involved here is not the specialty wire
suspected in TWA 800 but rather a general purpose wire found
throughout many type aircraft.
A more clear view of where this 'plunge' scenario comes from was the
originating Structures Group Chairman's Factual Report (DCA-96-MA-054)
dated 10/8/96. On page 2, the SUMMARY, it said; "Witnesses in the area
of the accident stated that they observed the airplane in a steep
wing-down, nose-low attitude at a high rate of speed." This 'plunge'
was further fortified with the NTSB's FDR (flight data recorder),
Radar Altitude exhibit. It showed a quickening decent down to about
6,800 feet and then a dramatic drop down to about 1,000 feet (the
limits of the radar). Before the radar ceased it also showed a quick
change to level-off but then leaves you guessing as to what happened
next. This is where the importance of the witness accounts comes in.
Only they can fill in that missing gap. Normally, in other
investigative procedures, witness accounts are given a high priority
and all the more so when numerous witnesses' accounts concur. However
that's not what happen here. Only portions of the witness accounts in
support of the 'plunge scenario' were included in the Final Report.
All other statements that indicated an attempt to land were deleted.
Thus the reader was assured that all the witnesses agreed and said
that the aircraft 'plunged' to earth when in-fact none did !
The media also played a role in creating that helpless 'plunge' from
altitude scenario and was critical in forming that all-important
public perception. Ask around, the public remembers the 'plunge'
scenario. First, the media's role, then how the witness accounts were
changed to serve only the 'plunge' scenario.
Media accounts within weeks of the crash. (emphasis added) a.
Washington Post, by Don Phillips, 5/14/96; "ValuJet Flight
592…...abruptly "plunged" 7,500 feet in 40 seconds before slamming
into the Everglades Saturday the National Transportation Board said
last night." b. Aviation Week & Space Technology, (AWST) 5/20/96, pg
24; "Safety investigators are looking closely at whether cargo in a
ValuJet DC-9-32 could have set off a flashfire and led to the
aircraft's "plunge" of more than 7,000 ft into the Everglades swamp."
c. Reuter, 5/26/96; "……an intense fire in the cargo hold during the
plane's fatal "dive" into the Florida Everglades, federal air safety
experts said on Sunday." d. AWST 5/27/96, pg 30; "Federal
investigators are pressing their efforts to determined what role more
than 100 oxygen generators in ValuJet Airlines Flight 592's belly may
have played in creating or intensifying the conditions that caused
that aircraft to "plunge" into the Everglades."
Witness Accounts Deleted Or Edited In NTSB Final Report. Source;
Witnesses Group Chairman's Factual Report (DCA-96-MA-054) dated
11/2/96. Recognizing the importance of witness accounts, the NTSB
Witnesses Group moved quickly and conducted, on May 12-13, 1996,
interviews with seven eyewitnesses. Quoted summaries of these
interviews follow. The detail in just these summaries is virtually all
removed in the Final Report. The relevant detail including claims of
'attitude' (relationship with the ground, i.e. flying past, nose
level, still level, flying very low, horizontal) and 'altitude'
(height above the ground) have been highlighted in caps for
illustrative purposes.
Witness 1. Steven Almeciga, Sr., and Steven Almeciga, Jr. (Key words
shown in caps) "The witnesses were interviewed separately on the
morning of May 12 at their residence in Miami. Mr. Almeciga, Sr., was
standing in an open area several miles southeast of the accident site.
His son, Steven, Jr. (age nine years), was riding a small motorcycle
nearby. They both described AN AIRPLANE FLYING PAST AT A VERY LOW
ALTITUDE IN A RIGHT TURN. They heard no sounds above those of the
motorcycle and did not observe an accident." >DELETED; All Of The
Almeciga's Statements Were Deleted In The Final Report On page 4 in
the Final Report; ("1.1.1 Statements of Witnesses"), all of the
Almeciga's statements, including an airplane 'flying past at a very
low altitude were deleted'. These statements indicated an airplane
under control.
Witness 2. Walton ('Bo") Little, Jr. (Key words shown in caps) "The
witness was interviewed on the afternoon of May 12 at his residence in
Margate, Florida. Subsequently, he provided these more relevant
statements included as his attachment 2." From his 4 page attachment,
Mr. Little said; "IT CONTINUED TOWARD THE CANAL IN A NOSE LEVEL
ATTITUDE, but the roll continued to the right. As it reached a "window
of view" directly over the canal, I was able to see the aircraft even
more clearly and better judge its attitude and altitude. …. I
estimated the altitude to be between 400 and 600ft….The bank angle was
very near 90 degrees….THE NOSE WAS STILL LEVEL AT THE TIME the
aircraft entered the "window" over the canal….As the aircraft began to
exit my "window of reference" over the canal, the nose dropped to 15
degree pitch down….At some point in time after crossing over the
canal, the bank angle exceeded 90 degrees….I believe it is at this
time that the nose made a dramatic change in pitch downward..…At that
point, the bank angle was probably 120 degrees to the right….Contact
with the ground was made almost immediately in this attitude."
>DELETED; All Of Mr. Little's Statements Were Deleted In The Final
Report. On page 4 in the Final Report; ("1.1.1 Statements of
Witnesses"), all of Little's statements including an airplane "IN A
NOSE LEVEL ATTITUDE" AND "NOSE WAS STILL LEVEL AT THE TIME" were
deleted. His statements indicated an airplane under control.
Witness 3. Henry Nelson (Key words shown in caps) "The witness was
interviewed on the evening of May 12 at his residence in Hollywood,
Florida. Mr. Nelson stated that on May 11, 1996, at approximately
1415, he and his nephew, Chris Osceola, were fishing in the Everglades
(Holiday Park) along the canal, in his fishing boat facing south, when
his nephew, who was seated in the back of the boat, called for him to
"look at the plane." Mr. Nelson observed an airplane STARTING TO MAKE
A RIGHT BANK OVER THE CANAL AND FLYING AT AN ELEVATION OF ABOUT 300
FEET. The aircraft was about 100 yards from them as it crossed the
canal. Mr. Nelson stated that he turned completely around, looking
north down the canal, and he stated to Chris that the plane was FLYING
VERY LOW and it looked like it was about to crash. THE AIRPLANE WAS
BANKING AT AN 80 DEGREE ANGLE AND APPEARED TO BE NORMAL WITH THE
EXCEPTION THAT IT WAS FLYING AT A LOW ELEVATION. The engines were
running and it was traveling at a high rate of speed, perhaps in
excess of 500 miles per hour. As the airplane banked, THE NOSE DROPPED
AND IT CONTINUED DOWNWARD, HITTING THE GROUND IN A VERTICAL ATTITUDE.
The sounds of the jet engines appeared to increase as if attempting to
power up. When the airplane hit the ground, he heard a great
explosion, vibration, and a huge cloud of water and smoke was emitted
into the air." >DELETED; Most Of Mr. Nelson's Statements Were Deleted
In The Final Report. Only his out of context and favorable words to
the 'plunge' were adopted in the Final Report. On page 4 in the Final
Report; "1.1.1 Statements of Witnesses", All of his statements
including an airplane "STARTING TO MAKE A RIGHT BANK", "FLYING VERY
LOW", "APPEARED TO BE NORMAL" were deleted. These statements indicated
an airplane under control. Only the latter, and out of context, words
supporting the 'plunge' ("THE NOSE DROPPED AND IT CONTINUED DOWNWARD,
HITTING THE GROUND IN A VERTICAL ATTITUDE") were adopted in the Final
Report.
Witness 4. Chris Osceola (Key words shown in caps) "The witness was
interviewed on the evening of May 12 at the residence of his uncle,
Henry Nelson, in Hollywood, Florida. Mr. Osceola stated that on May
11, at about 1430, he and his uncle Henry Nelson were fishing in the
Everglades (Holiday Park), along the canal in his uncle's boat, when
his attention was caught by the loud sound of jet engines. He observed
a large airplane, FLYING AT AN ALTITUDE OF APPROXIMATELY 300 TO 600
FEET. He immediately notified his uncle, who was seated in the front
of the boat, to observe the airplane. The airplane was loud and
appeared to be flying at least 200 miles per hour. IT WAS IN A
HORIZONTAL POSITION AND, AS IT APPROACHED THE CANAL, IT STARTED TO
MAKE A RIGHT BANK AT A 90 DEGREE ANGLE. ASIDE FROM THE AIRPLANE FLYING
AT A LOW ALTITUDE AND MAKING A SHARP RIGHT BANK, WHICH HE FOUND
UNUSUAL FOR SUCH A LARGE AIRPLANE, NOTHING ELSE ABOUT THE AIRPLANE WAS
NOTICEABLE. The landing gear was up, all the airplane's parts appeared
to be intact and, aside from the engine smoke, no signs of fire were
visible. Mr. Osceola advised that as the airplane CONTINUED TO FLY
OVER THE CANAL AT A RIGHT BANK THE NOSE SUDDENLY DROPPED AND THE
AIRPLANE DROPPED QUICKLY HITTING THE GROUND ALMOST VERTICAL. He
recalled that all he could see as the airplane banked and fell was the
top of the airplane." >DELETED; Most of Mr. Osceola's Jr. Statements
Were Deleted In The Final Report. Out of context and favorable words
supporting the 'plunge' were adopted. On page 4 in the Final Report;
("1.1.1 Statements of Witnesses"), all of Mr. Osceola's Jr. statements
including the airplane "WAS IN A HORIZONTAL POSITION AND, AS IT
APPROACHED THE CANAL, IT STARTED TO MAKE A RIGHT BANK AT A 90 DEGREE
ANGLE. ASIDE FROM THE AIRPLANE FLYING AT A LOW ALTITUDE AND MAKING A
SHARP RIGHT BANK, WHICH HE FOUND UNUSUAL FOR SUCH A LARGE AIRPLANE,
NOTHING ELSE ABOUT THE AIRPLANE WAS NOTICEABLE", "CONTINUED TO FLY
OVER THE CANAL AT A RIGHT BANK" were deleted. These statements
indicated an airplane under control. Only his latter, and out of
context, words supporting the plunge ("THE NOSE SUDDENLY DROPPED AND
THE AIRPLANE DROPPED QUICKLY HITTING THE GROUND ALMOST VERTICAL") were
adopted in the Final Report.
Witness 5. Daniel B. Muelhaupt (Key words shown in caps) "The Witness
was interviewed on the morning of May 13 at the NTSB Command Post near
the Miami International Airport. Mr. Muelhaupt began flying in 1992,
and holds private pilot certificate with an instrument rating. He has
about 575 flight hours and is working on advanced pilot ratings. He
holds an MBA degree and works professionally in real estate. On May
11, Mr. Muelhaupt was flying a small private airplane, a Piper Arrow
owned by his family, from Opa-Locka Airport to Naples, Florida. It was
a pleasure flight with his friend Richard Delisle, to see the
Everglades and have lunch at Naples. At approximately 1400, the
aircraft departed Opa-locka and CLIMBED TO 1000 FEET. He was traveling
about 115-120 knots. The weather was beautiful, with some scattered
clouds in the distance and little if any turbulence. There was no
visible traffic in the Everglades, and no relevant traffic on the
radio frequency. As the flight proceeded westbound towards Alert Area
A291-B, the witness, was explaining to his passenger that outside
vigilance would be required because they were approaching a
concentrated flight training area." "Mr. Muelhaupt observed an
airplane in the practice area near the canal. It was in his side
window at the 10 o'clock position. He saw the outline of the airplane,
did not observe any colors in it, and believed he was observing the
top of the airplane. IT APPEARED TO BE AT HIS ALTITUDE, DESCENDING IN
A 75-80 DEGREE LEFT BANK. He thought it was practicing a Chandelle or
Lazy 8 maneuver and would recover, since the only reason the airplane
would be at that angle would be for practice. He remarked to his
passenger to look at the airplane and about one mile away. Then he
noticed it had swept winds and he thought it was a small military or
Coast Guard airplane. THE AIRPLANE NEVER CHANGED ITS DIRECTION. IT
CONTINUED WITH LEFT WING LOW ON A STEADY COURSE TO IMPACT. IT DID NOT
PULL UP AND HIT THE GROUND IN THE COCKPIT AREA. Prior to impact, he
observed no smoke, flames, or anything coming off the airplane. The
entire sequence took only several seconds. >DELETED; All Of Mr.
Muelhaupt's Statements Were Deleted In The Final Report. Unlike the
other witnesses, Mr. Muelhaupt's perspective was that of looking down
upon the aircraft. None of his words appears in the Final Report but
instead were said to have "PROVIDED SIMILAR ACCOUNTS OF THE ACCIDENT."
That reference was to the two in a fishing boat (witness 3, Mr. Nelson
and witness 4, Mr. Osceola) above.
Witness 6. Richard Delisl (Key words shown in caps) "The witness was
interviewed on the morning of May 13 at the NTSB Command Post near the
Miami International Airport. Mr. Delisle was a passenger on Piper
Arrow N2868R, being flown by his friend Daniel Meulhaupt, on May 11.
He had flown many pleasure flights with Meulhaupt over the past two
years, and, this day, they were flying to Naples, Florida, for lunch.
They departed Opa-locka Airport about 1330. As the airplane flew over
part of the Everglades, Mr. Delisle was looking around with
binoculars. Suddenly, Mr. Muelhaupt yelled "there's a plane over
there" and then, with alarm, yelled "this plane is crashing." MR.
DELISLE NEVER OBSERVED AN AIRPLANE, BUT HE OBSERVED THE EXPLOSION
CLOUD IT MADE." >Statement Added To The Final Report - But Never Made
In Originating Witness Report. Although 1,000 feet above in a private
aircraft with witness Muelhaupt (above), Mr. Delisle never saw the
aircraft in flight. Irregardless, he was accredited with "have
"PROVIDED SIMILAR ACCOUNTS OF THE ACCIDENT." to the two 'in a fishing
boat' (witness 3, Mr. Nelson and witness 4, Mr. Osceola) above.
WHAT THAT FINAL REPORT SAID. Ref. page 4, "part 1.1.1. Statements of
Witnesses" (Caps added.) "QUOTE> Two witnesses fishing from a boat in
the Everglades when flight 592 crashed stated that THEY SAW A
LOW-FLYING AIRPLANE IN A STEEP RIGHT BANK. ACCORDING TO THESE
WITNESSES, AS THE RIGHT BANK ANGLE INCREASED, THE NOSE OF THE AIRPLANE
DROPPED AND CONTINUED DOWNWARD. THE AIRPLANE STRUCK THE GROUND IN A
NEARLY VERTICAL ATTITUDE. The witnesses described a great explosion,
vibration, and a huge cloud of water and smoke. One of them observed,
"the landing gear was up, all the airplane's parts appeared to be
intact, and that aside from the engine smoke, no signs of fire were
visible." Two other witnesses who were sightseeing in a private
airplane in the area at the time of the accident PROVIDED SIMILAR
ACCOUNTS OF THE ACCIDENT. These two witnesses and the witnesses in the
boat, who approached the accident site, described seeing only part of
an engine, paper, and other debris scattered around the impact area.
One of the witnesses remarked that the airplane seemed to have
disappeared upon crashing into the Everglades. <UNQUOTE.
IN SUMMARY. Only four of the above seven witness's accounts had been
carried into this Final Report. Of these four, one (Mr. Delisle ) did
not see the aircraft flying but only the impact. None-the-less, his
(Mr. Delisle's) statement was falsely claimed to be the same as the
other three statements as in-flight testimony. In review, every one of
the six witnesses whose accounts to the aircraft Flying Level and In
Control, were Deleted in this Final Report; i.e. (two witnesses in #1,
#6 didn't see it) For example; #1, Steven Almecia Sr. and Steven Jr. ;
"Flying past at a very low altitude in a right turn". #2. Walton
Little, Jr.; "It continued toward the canal in a nose level attitude
.". "The nose was still level…" #3. Henry Nelson; "…was banking at an
80 degree angle and appeared to be normal with the exception that it
was flying at a low elevation." #4. Chris Osceola; "It was in a
horizontal position and, as it approached the canal …". #5. Daniel B.
Muelhaupt; "It appeared to be at his altitude, descending in a 75-80
degree left bank". #6. Richard Delisle; "…never observed an airplane,
but he observed the explosion cloud it made."
A most important factor in any other investigative process, but here,
witness accounts, were deleted or altered to fit a 'plunge scenario'.
And thus the reader is left with the clear picture of a helpless
plunge to the ground because of the calamitous fire and a loss of
control initiated by overly hot 02 canisters promoting a fast moving
fire. In this contradictory report, the witness deletions are but one
of many things wrong with this Final Report and why there are real
reasons why the NTSB and any reader should be uncomfortable with it.
I hope this answers some questions. Perhaps you know someone at the
NTSB who can add more. Please call at any time.
Sincerely,
John. D. King FAA Lic. 1552888
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last changed: June 14, 1998