ACCIDENT REPORT ON "ICARUS - THE FIRST FLIGHT"
Dave Kearton
Accident Report (abstract)
Site of accident: 5 miles north west of Crete
Date of Accident: Approx 250 BC
Aircraft Type: Homebuilt, Man-Powered (ultralight class)
Injuries: 1 (fatal)
Investigator: Glutinous Maximus (Head of Air Ops, Mediterranean Sector)
Date of Report: 1/1/0001
Details of Accident
Considerable delay has occurred between the accident and the investigation,
so the following notes detail the facts that have been established. The
aircraft was a homebuilt ultra-light of original design, one of two
constructed. The aircraft was constructed from a range of novel composite
materials. The accident occurred on the first flight of the type. The pilot
was the co-designer of the aircraft, and at the time of the accident had a
total time of 25 minutes (all on type). At the time of the flight the wind
was 180/3kts and cloud cover was 0/10 at all altitudes.
There are no records of the pre-flight inspection, indeed the indications
are that none was performed. On the day of the accident witnesses report the
aircraft to have successfully taken off from Crete, the pilot having
announced the intention of making for Greece (although no flight-plan had
been filed). The flight was in company of another aircraft of the same type
flown by the co-designer and father of the pilot. The second aircraft was
also on its maiden flight, and its pilot also had no experience on the type
prior to the flight. Approximately 25 minutes into the flight, some 5 miles
north west of Crete, the aircraft was observed to climb to a considerably
higher altitude than its partner. At this point it appeared to suffer a
substantial structural failure followed by a departure from controlled
flight; the aircraft entered a dive from which it did not recover before
impact with the sea.
There was no post-impact fire. No search was attempted due to lack of
facilities, but the circumstances of the accident suggest that the pilot
would have died on impact. The second aircraft proceeded successfully to its
destination.
Analysis of Accident
Despite the elapsed time and total absence of surviving physical evidence it
is felt that sufficient information exists to infer the sequence of events
and the cause of the accident.
The novel composite structure of the aircraft was known to be the subject of
physical restrictions on operating temperature. These restrictions had been
carefully explained to the pilot before the flight. When the pilot climbed
to a higher altitude the levels of ambient solar radiation probably led to
these temperature restrictions being exceeded, resulting in a thermal
degradation of the basic structure.
A progressive failure would have occurred, initial delamination of the upper
skin material would have been be followed by a compressive failure of the
upper mainspar. Brazier forces would then have extruded the internal wax
core material leading to a catastrophic failure of the entire primary
structure. This theory would help to explain why the second aircraft (at a
lower altitude) experienced no such failure.
CAA Comment
This accident was clearly caused by an inexperienced pilot paying scant
regard for the operational envelope of the airframe. Although the novel
materials used in the airframe had strict limitations, these were well
documented and explained to the pilot. It is regarded as significant that,
despite the known thermal limitations of the materials used, no attempt had
been made to protect the structure from infra-red radiation.
A layer of aluminised film over the outside of the structure would probably
have prevented the accident by extending the operational envelope of the
airframe. In view of this, and other, design deficiencies in the aircraft it
is recommended that Form 100 signatory approval be withdrawn from this
manufacturer.
It is further felt that from today (1/1/01) onwards no pilot should be
permitted to attempt primary training flights as solo P1 on an experimental
type. If this regulation had been in force at the time, Mr Icarus would
probably not have attempted the flight.
MLenoch
>core material leading to a catastrophic failure of the entire primary
>structure.
It is also known that bee's wax has an ability to explosively combust at high
temperatures. Other types of wax are less prone to this characteristic.This
may also have been a factor in the failure at altitude,
V. Lenoch
Unknown
Hell's bells guys, what's all this speculation about?, why don't
we just wait till the NTSB finishes it's investigation?...
:)
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada
"Old age is no place for sissies" -Bette Davis.
Moggycat
There's a follow-up as well. Glutinous Maximus is a busy
investigator!
ACCIDENT REPORT ON PEGASUS AIR-STRIKE ACCIDENT
Accident Report (abstract)
Site of accident: Mount Olympus, Greece
Date of Accident: Approx 250 BC
Aircraft Type: Winged Equine
Injuries: 1 (serious)
Investigator: Glutinous Maximus (Head of Air Ops, Mediterranean
Sector)
Date of Report: 14/1/0001
Details of Accident
Considerable delay has occurred between the accident and this
investigation, but the following facts have been established. The
aircraft was a one-off winged equine acquired under mysterious
circumstances by Bellerophon (formerly Hipponoüs), stepson of Glaucus,
King of Ephyra. Prior to the accident, Bellerophon had flown the craft
on several successful missions on behalf of Iobates, King of Lycia.
These included killing the Chimera; conquering the Solymi; subduing
the Amazons and defeating the Iobates' entire army. At the time of the
crash he was on a self-appointed mission to fly "up to the heavens"
(also reported as "to the throne of the gods").
Under the historical tenet of "finders-keepers", the pilot was de
facto owner of the aircraft and had logged over 2000 flying hours (all
on type). At the time of the flight the wind was 180/3kts and cloud
cover was 0/10 at all altitudes.
There was apparently no pre-flight inspection (divine waiver). The
aircraft was controlled solely by means of a golden bridle supplied to
Bellerophon by former accomplice Athena. This was never recovered, but
there were no previous reports of bridle-faults. On the day of the
accident witnesses reported the aircraft to have successfully taken
off from Iobates' private airstrip in Lycia, the pilot having earlier
boasted that he would fly "to the heavens" on what was possibly a
publicity stunt. No flight-plan had been filed with Lycian authorities
and the mission had not been personally approved by Iobates. There
were no other manned aircraft in Lycia at the time.
The maximum airspeed of the craft is unknown. The duration of the
doomed flight is unknown. The altitude at the time of the incident is
unknown, but was low enough that the pilot sustained serious, but not
fatal, injuries.
On the final approach to Mount Olympus, the aircraft was observed to
buck and pitch uncontrollably, immediately ejecting the pilot. The
pilot-less aircraft apparently resumed its previous course and setting
under autopilot and landed safely on Mount Olympus.
The pilot achieved terminal velocity and hit the ground approximately
2 miles from Mount Olympus. He did not die upon impact, but escaped
with serious injuries. He was denied medical treatment due to "crimes
of arrogance against the gods" (or lack of insurance) and apparently
wandered alone, crippled, blind and humiliated, until he died
anonymously an undisclosed period of time later.
Note: Upon landing at Mount Olympus, the Pegasus aircraft was claimed
as salvage by Zeus who, for a time, used it for carrying shipments of
thunderbolts. The change from passenger carrier to cargo carrier was
not formally registered. Zeus finally disposed of the aircraft among
"the stars".
Analysis of Accident
Despite the elapsed time and total absence of surviving physical
evidence it is felt that insufficient information exists to infer the
exact sequence of events and the cause of the accident. However,
numerous eye-witness reports were filed at the time and statements
were taken from the residents of nearby Mount Olympus. The statements
contained some discrepancies, but these are very minor.
Reports indicate that Zeus, ruler of Mount Olympus, had fired (or had
authorised the firing of) a "bolt of lightning at the craft as it
tried to enter Olympian airspace. Lightning strike cannot be ruled
out. The earlier loss of directional and altitude control is
consistent with electro-magnetic interference to an inadequately
shielded control system. Bellerophon's sons Isander and Hippoclochus
claimed that it was an act of terrorism by Zeus who headed a loose
alliance known as "The Pantheon of The Gods of Olympus".
It has also been widely reported that Zeus had employed an insect,
possibly a gadfly, to either sting or bite Pegasus, causing it to
spontaneously eject the pilot. In the absence of physical evidence,
this explanation cannot be ruled out.
The pilot was not wearing a flight safety harness or any other form of
restraint. He was not equipped with a parachute.
CAA Comment
Some accident reports erroneously cited Perseus as the rider of
Pegasus for some of the Iobates missions. The confusion apparently
arose following a fictionalised version of the incident in the20th
Century docu-drama "Clash of the Titans".
The direct cause of the accident was an Olympian air-strike against a
Lycian aircraft illegally entering Olympian airspace. There is no
record of Zeus issuing a warning prior to firing
The severity of injury was due to a highly experienced pilot
performing a stunt with inadequate safety precautions and no technical
or medical support. In addition, Pegasus was not fitted with a radio
or a transponder or a cockpit voice recorder.
This illustrates some of the problems of flying a one-off airframe of
poorly documented origins. Pegasus had reportedly been manufactured
from the blood of the neck of Medusa (Gorgon) who had been decapitated
by Perseus on the orders of King Polydectes. Bellerophon had
apparently "acquired" the aircraft while it was parked unattended at
Mount Helicon in Boeotia. To effect the appropriation of the craft he
had used equipment supplied by an accomplice, Athena. The aircraft was
not reported stolen, but it is surprising that Bellerophon was allowed
to continue flying it. He was a known criminal who had already changed
his name from Hipponoüs after murdering a countryman and had fled his
home country. He had been granted political asylum by Lycia.
Bellerophon left a widow, 2 sons and 2 daughters.
http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/humor-site/pegasus.htm
(The original Icarus report is also on that site:
http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/humor-site/humor-index.htm)
Moggycat
> Taken from a posting to a newsgroup by P. D. Rieden
Mr Rieden & his colleagues have contributed further to spoof accident
reports
ACCIDENT REPORT ON PORCINE AVIATION FLIGHT 001
(http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/humor-site/porcine-aviation.html)
By Sarah Hotdesking (with apologies to Peter Rieden)
Accident Report (abstract)
Site of accident: Bristol, UK
Date of Accident: 12 October 2000
Aircraft Type: Tamworth/Gloucester Old Spot Hybrid, Single-Seater,
Single-Engine
Injuries: Pilot (fatal) and three on ground (minor, burnt by bacon
fat), several reports of E Coli in a 2 mile radius of impact site.
Investigator: Sus Scrofa (Head of Air Ops, Western Europe)
Date of Report: 12/10/0001
Details of Accident
There was considerable difficulty in recovering the debris in order to
reconstruct the circumstances of the accident due to the peculiar
nature of the aircraft. Many important structural parts were never
recovered and of those which were, several were recovered from
supermarket delicatessen counters where they were being traded as
"sausage", "bacon", "gammon", "prosciutto" and similar. The following
notes detail the short maiden flight of Porcine Aviation Flight 001.
The aircraft was a home-grown single-engined prototype built to
demonstrate the theory of porcine aviation. It was constructed from
pigskin stretched over a musculo-skeletal frame with an internally
mounted bio-fuel conversion plant. The accident occurred on the first
flight of the type. The pilot was the designer (described as
"breeder") of the craft, and at the time of the accident had no
previous flying experience (discounting "test flights", none of which
reached an altitude greater than 7 feet above ground level). At the
time of the flight the wind was an estimated Force 4 increasing to
Force 5 on the Beaufort scale and cloud cover was 5/10 at all
altitudes with light precipitation i.e. "typical British summer".
Pre-flight inspection consisted of checking all 4 trotters, cleaning
debris from nose, eyes and ears and ensuring that the saddle and
bridle were fully tightened. No straps were found to be frayed or
unduly worn. The craft had internally converted enough "best slop and
swill" into combustible gas for a successful take-off. Ground crew
reported than unusually large amounts of onion and red pepper had been
used in this batch of bio-fuel to increase gas production.
Witnesses report that 2 previous flight attempts had ended when the
craft ditched into a haystack during, or shortly after, take-off.
Previous flights had totalled 3.5 minutes airtime although it is
debatable that the craft was actually airborne in the accepted sense
of the word. On the day of the accident, the Tamworth/Gloucester Old
Spot Hybrid took off from a narrow cobbled runway beside Farrowing
Unit Number 2 at Walls Pork Farm. Take-off was effected by igniting a
tail-mounted gas jet and according to ground crew, the craft "took off
down the runway like a pig with its tail on fire".
Approximately 12 minutes into the flight, some 1.5 miles south of
Farrowing Unit Number 2, the aircraft was observed to maneouvre
erratically and the pilot was unable to re-establish control. After
several aerobatic manouevres apparently caused by intermittent failure
of the single aft jet engine, the craft spun out of control and
exploded on impact due to pockets of gas in the fuel lines. The
remains of the craft and the pilot were impossible to separate
although Mrs Jones' ham pies (Jones Pork Butchers Est 1885) were
reportedly "tastier than usual".
Analysis of Accident
The novel musculo-skeletal structure of the aircraft was known to be
the subject of physical restrictions on flight or "It's a miracle the
damn thing ever took off in the first place". When the gas supply to
the aft jet engine failed, the craft's velocity was insufficient to
keep it airborne and the surface-to-weight ratio did not permit it to
glide safely to earth. The unfortunate pilot was, in effect, strapped
to a craft which followed the Laws of Physics as applicable to a
rocket. The steering systems apparently consisted of bridle and reins.
The post-impact fire converted most of the craft into pork by-products
which were salvaged by onlookers. It is, however, possible to re-enact
the final moments of the flight using similar Oxford Sandy-and-Black
propelled from a large catapult to demonstrate the fundamental design
flaws which caused Porcine Aviation 001's sudden return to earth.
CAA Comment
This accident was clearly caused by an enthusiast attempting to prove
the airworthiness of an aerodynamically unsound craft. The combined
weight of the aircraft and pilot would require a substantially
increased wing surface area in order for it to remain airborne once
the rocket-assisted take-off engine burned out. In addition, the
steering system was inadequate. However, the large shipment of pork
chops from the scene of the accident was much appreciated by staff at
this office.
Postscript
We currently have no comment to make on the rumour of a "Red Farrows"
formation flying team.
Also at http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/humor-site/porcine-aviation.html
Dear Mr Bowyer,
In response to your recent enquiry to register Porcine Aviation as a
public carrier of freight and/or passengers, please find enclosed the
requisite application forms you will need to complete to obtain an Air
Operator's Certificate. You will see that these cover Airworthiness
Requirements, Business Probity Requirements, Security Requirements,
Ground Operations Requirements and the General Exposition Requirement.
I have to say that from the brief outline in your letter it would
appear that you may have some significant work to do before Porcine
Aviation can be duly certified as a Commercial Air Carrier. My
concerns are summarised below, but please be advised that these are
purely personal comments which have no official standing. You are
naturally free to pursue registration in any way that you desire.
1. Your letter advises that your Air Vehicle Maintenance Authority
will be "J.A Herriot FRCVS & Sons". After extensive searches I have
been unable to establish any prior M3 Maintenance Approval or Chief
Engineer Registration for Mr Herriot
or his company. Such registration would be a prerequisite.
2. Your Air Vehicle Pilot Designees are specified as "Farmer Giles
boys Rory and Bill". Whilst recognising that they may be registered
under other names, I have been unable to verify that these pilots hold
the required Frozen ATPL and Type Ratings to enable them to act as P1
on commercial flights. Please be advised that if they hold FAA ATPL
qualifications from the USA they will need to undertake conversion
training.
3. Your Pilot Proficiency Authority/Check Pilot/Aircrew Training
Officer is listed as "Farmer Giles old Head Pigman, Joe Grundy".
Again, I have been unable to establish any pilot qualifications for
this man, nor can I find where he would have obtained the required
10,000 hours as P1 on type.
4. You have proposed that "Rosey Buggins" would function as your
Passenger Safety/Cabin Attendant because "she's always willing to
satisfy anyone's needs and never gets upset by people asking for weird
stuff". I have to say that, even though
you have offered me the opportunity to personally verify this claim,
Ms Buggins would need to acquire further training and qualifications
before we could accept her suitability for this role. Whilst we accept
that it indicates a high degree of physical fitness and agility, the
fact that she can be "off the pole, out of the hayloft, into her
clothes and back into the kitchen within 5 seconds of hearing her
father's footsteps" will not automatically waiver the requirement for
emergency cabin escape training.
5. I have had some difficulty in identifying the aircraft type you
intend to use for your services. As far as I am aware the "Gloucester
Old Spot" has never received a Public Category Certificate of
Airworthiness - I presume that the "Vietnamese Pot-Belly" is some form
of freighter and as such would require less rigorous certification,
but even this appears to be lacking.
Overall I cannot recommend strongly enough that you reconsider your
choices in personnel and equipment, at least for the early stages of
your business. An initial fleet of recognised aircraft from either
Airbus or Boeing would certainly simplify the whole initial
certification process, leaving you free you explore and experiment
with your Gloucester Old Spots as your operational experience
increases.
My personal recommendation would be to pick an aircraft which would be
naturally associated with your chosen company name - the Boeing Sonic
Cruiser would be the obvious fleet choice for a company called Porcine
Aviation.
If I can help you further in any way please do not hesitate to write
to me.
I Remain your obedient servant,
Reg Ffoulkes
Sir Reginald ffoulkes
(Certification Manager, Public Transport Division, CAA)
The further annals of Porcine Aviation according to Rieden & company
can be found at:
http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/humor-site/porcine-aviation.html
http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/humor-site/porcine-aviation2.html
http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/humor-site/piggles.html
Vince Brannigan
Dave Kearton wrote:
> Taken from a posting to a newsgroup by P. D. Rieden
>
> Accident Report (abstract)
>
> Site of accident: 5 miles north west of Crete
>
> Date of Accident: Approx 250 BC
>
> Aircraft Type: Homebuilt, Man-Powered (ultralight class)
>
> Injuries: 1 (fatal)
>
> Investigator: Glutinous Maximus (Head of Air Ops, Mediterranean Sector)
>
>
> It is further felt that from today (1/1/01) onwards no pilot should be
> permitted to attempt primary training flights as solo P1 on an experimental
> type. If this regulation had been in force at the time, Mr Icarus would
> probably not have attempted the flight.
In re air airdiaster -Crete
Estate of Icarus against Daedalus Et al
Complaint in Product Liability , negligence and unlawful detention
Summary The deceased was killed attempting to escape an unlawful imprisonment
ergo Defendant King Minos is strictly liable for this death.
The deceased was killed flying a defective homemade aircraft, designed and
produced by defendant Daedalus.
Defendants claim of the plainiffs causing his wown death are not supportable.
1) Defendant Daedalus, an expert inventor and engineer affixed feathers to the
wings with heat soluble wax.
2) alternative glues were known to the builder.
3) the warning given to the operator Icarus, was inadequate given the age of the
youth.
4) in particular the warning claimed to be given was "Icarus, my son, I
charge you to keep at a moderate height, for if you fly too low the damp will
clog your wings, and if too high the heat will melt them. Keep near me and you
will be safe."
5) the only testimony supporting the claim that an oral warning was given is
the self serving testimony of the negligent inventor.
6) in any case a warning is inadequate if a safer non heat sensitive glue is
available
7) The warning is in vague terms and fails to specify that melting the wings
would lead to the death of the minor operator. given the youthful age it is
critical that a warning be given in the clearest and most explicit language.
8) a water landing was a reasonably anticipated outcome of even a successful
flight. no provision was made for a safe water landing.
9) Sources indicate that notwithstanding the claim of instant injury that Icarus
in fact drowned.
While his mouth uttered cries to his father it was
submerged in the blue waters of the sea which
thenceforth was called by his name. His father cried,
"Icarus, Icarus, where are you?" At last
he saw the feathers floating on the water, and
bitterly lamenting his own arts, he buried the
body and called the land Icaria in memory of his
child. (Bullfinch)
10) The claims that flying higher caused the sun to melt the wax is based on
"junk scince" inamissable in this litigation. teh is no evidence at all that
radian solar energy increases at the heights invovled in this matter and if
anything the atmospherre cools as the flyer ascends
Given these facts plaintiffs estate demands 1,000,000 gold pieces in damages
/s/ Bar Sinister Attorney Sinister& Sinisterer
Sarah H
> Estate of Icarus against Daedalus Et al
> Complaint in Product Liability , negligence and unlawful detention
Mind if I use this?
Sarah H
Vince Brannigan
Sarah H wrote:
wrap it in anything you like
vb
Eugene Griessel
>Given these facts plaintiffs estate demands 1,000,000 gold pieces in damages
>
>/s/ Bar Sinister Attorney Sinister& Sinisterer
This would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Eugene L Griessel www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat History www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/guybook.html
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because
they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous
sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
Bill Silvey
The US Air Force and/or Navy shot it down.
--
http://home.cfl.rr.com/delversdungeon/index.htm
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
Me: "What you have to understand, dear, is that the internet is a global
community...a village!"
My Wife: "And you're the village idiot, right?"
Donnell Miller
Those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it. or could this be a Lawyer
joke?
> .In re air airdiaster -Crete
Unknown
>All of this is nonsense.
>
>The US Air Force and/or Navy shot it down.
Or maybe an explosion in the large intestine similar to 800's CFT
explosion?...
Snowman
news:Bubb9.13254$bc.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> All of this is nonsense.
>
> The US Air Force and/or Navy shot it down.
>
Can you be absolutely sure that it wasn't a plasma cloaked stealth fighter
firing optical nukes? ;)
Regards,
Snowman
Bill Silvey
"Snowman" <sno...@snowman.snowman> wrote in message
news:rsob9.574$le1....@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Hmm, I've rethought my position on this.
It's obvious that, given it's geographic location, a SURB SUPER SAM shot it
down. Y'see, not only do SURB MIZZLEZ have the ability to destroy
hundreds - nay, thousands - of US and NATO aircraft, they also have the
ability to travel through time and space and destroy percieved threats at
ranges of up to 1500 miles.
And, as always, "I have proofs that I will show in two years time of all
shot down!"
-ahem-
Snowman
it
> down. Y'see, not only do SURB MIZZLEZ have the ability to destroy
> hundreds - nay, thousands - of US and NATO aircraft, they also have the
> ability to travel through time and space and destroy percieved threats at
> ranges of up to 1500 miles.
>
> And, as always, "I have proofs that I will show in two years time of all
> shot down!"
>
> -ahem-
you would of course be referring to those mythical missiles capable of
rendering a b-52 down into small enough parts that wreckage is impossible to
find, right? ;)
Walt BJ
a fool from killing himself. Aviation history is replete with examples
of this axiom.
The attempt by unscrupulous lawyers to profit from these individuals
is unprofessional, unethical and has no basis in fact. Move to dismiss
the case with prejudice and furthermore to enchain said attorney next
to Prometheus.
Walterius Ursusurbus
Dave Eadsforth
<dkea...@ozemail.com.au> writes
I'm a bit late in on this, but feel it is worth citing the investigative
work done by the AIB at Farnborough in the 1960s ('Aircrash Detective'
by Stephen Barclay), which put forward a very convincing case for the
wax not melting, but actually becoming brittle in the cold evening air
(at the altitude estimated to have been reached by Icarus) and suffering
structural failure. This explanation also resolved conflicting reports
of where Icarus fell, as the two possible sites were 30 miles apart
(When the airframe failed, Icarus fell straight down, to one traditional
site, whereas the feathers were carried by the breeze to the other
traditional site). This last part of the theory was confirmed by
dropping wax tipped feathers from the top of one of the hangars at
Farnborough.
The whole four page analysis is a real beaut - worth tracking down a
copy of the book!
Cheers,
Dave
--
Dave Eadsforth
Vince Brannigan
Dave Eadsforth wrote:
This natually supports the statment that Daedalus lied like a rug, and
blamed a structural failure on pilot error.
If anyone can find a coply of htis Ill use it in my class and be happy to
trade womthing of equal value with the finder
Vince
Vince Brannigan
Walt BJ wrote:
> Rebuttal: It is a fact of life that no amount of warnings will prvent
> a fool from killing himself. Aviation history is replete with examples
> of this axiom.
yeah you can always blame the pilot for the defective machine hey, it
worked on the V-22
for a while
>
> The attempt by unscrupulous lawyers to profit from these individuals
> is unprofessional, unethical and has no basis in fact. Move to dismiss
> the case with prejudice and furthermore to enchain said attorney next
> to Prometheus.
> Walterius Ursusurbus
note the substitution of invective for evidence.
Prometheus after all was a beneficiary to humanity. not bad company
Of course there are those who are jealous of success
vince
Alan Minyard
>The attempt by unscrupulous lawyers to profit from these individuals
>is unprofessional, unethical and has no basis in fact.
Well, what do you expect, after all, they are lawyers!!!!!!!
Al Minyard
Kerryn Offord
Walt BJ wrote:
>
> Rebuttal: It is a fact of life that no amount of warnings will prvent
> a fool from killing himself. Aviation history is replete with examples
> of this axiom.
> The attempt by unscrupulous lawyers to profit from these individuals
> is unprofessional,
We are talking about a lawyer here... this type of behaviour is of
course "professional" for this group...
> unethical
Again this type of behaviour is considered "ethical" for lawyers.
Trying to profit for a fixed rather than contingency based fee would of
course be both unprofessional, and within the profession, unethical...
> and has no basis in fact.
Facts are nothing lawyers should be overly concerned about. Facts are
what you make of them (or what you can convince the jury to believe...).
John Halliwell
<da...@magnum.demon.co.uk> writes
>I'm a bit late in on this, but feel it is worth citing the investigative
>work done by the AIB at Farnborough in the 1960s ('Aircrash Detective'
>by Stephen Barclay), which put forward a very convincing case for the
>wax not melting, but actually becoming brittle in the cold evening air
>(at the altitude estimated to have been reached by Icarus) and suffering
>structural failure. This explanation also resolved conflicting reports
>of where Icarus fell, as the two possible sites were 30 miles apart
>(When the airframe failed, Icarus fell straight down, to one traditional
>site, whereas the feathers were carried by the breeze to the other
>traditional site). This last part of the theory was confirmed by
>dropping wax tipped feathers from the top of one of the hangars at
>Farnborough.
It seems like the usual idea when working out where bits ended up was
throwing things off the hangar roof. I believe they threw a model of a
DH Comet off the roof when looking for the second to disappear near
Rome. They plotted where the bits landed, compared it to a map and
pointed the Royal Navy to it, they found most of the aircraft.
>The whole four page analysis is a real beaut - worth tracking down a
>copy of the book!
I tried unsuccessfully to find a copy, I believe I've read a version by
the same author, possibly in 'Final Call' by Stephen Barclay (my copy
has that haunting photo of the PSA 727 (?) going down after colliding
with the Cessna).
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Unknown
>
>I tried unsuccessfully to find a copy, I believe I've read a version by
>the same author, possibly in 'Final Call' by Stephen Barclay (my copy
>has that haunting photo of the PSA 727 (?) going down after colliding
>with the Cessna).
A good description of that picture - haunting. Same for the
picture of the DC-10 in Chicago as it carved behind the hangars
at 90 degrees of bank and you just knew that they couldn't
possibly recover it. Just imagine the desperation in the cockpit
with the control column in their laps and the control yoke and
rudders at full deflaction with the bells, clackers and whoop
whoops at full bellow. They earn their big bucks.
The Enlightenment
> mle...@aol.com (MLenoch) wrote:
>
> >>Brazier forces would then have extruded the internal wax
> >>core material leading to a catastrophic failure of the entire primary
> >>structure.
> >
> >It is also known that bee's wax has an ability to explosively combust at high
> >temperatures. Other types of wax are less prone to this characteristic.This
> >may also have been a factor in the failure at altitude,
> >
> >V. Lenoch
>
> Hell's bells guys, what's all this speculation about?, why don't
> we just wait till the NTSB finishes it's investigation?...
>
> :)
They were employed by egyptair?
John Halliwell
<jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> writes
>>The whole four page analysis is a real beaut - worth tracking down a
>>copy of the book!
>
>I tried unsuccessfully to find a copy, I believe I've read a version by
>the same author, possibly in 'Final Call' by Stephen Barclay (my copy
>has that haunting photo of the PSA 727 (?) going down after colliding
>with the Cessna).
Found it, it is in 'Final Call' (subtitled 'Air Disasters ...When Will
They Ever Learn?') by Stephen Barclay ISBN 0-09-989070-4. My copy is
from 1991 (no idea if still available), with four pages about the
'Icarus Investigation' (from 'Aircrash Detective' 1969).
Much of the evidence used in the investigation is based on ancient
'witness' statements (not all consistent with each other). Sounds like
the majority of accidents today in that regard.
It's a book that tries to show that most air accidents could have been
avoided if previous lessons had been learned from previous crashes. Many
crashes are used as examples, but it doesn't go into as much detail on
each one as many other books.
Unknown
>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 16:21:54 GMT, "Gord Beaman" (ve...@rac.ca) wrote:
>
>>A good description of that picture - haunting. Same for the
>>picture of the DC-10 in Chicago as it carved behind the hangars
>>at 90 degrees of bank and you just knew that they couldn't
>>possibly recover it. Just imagine the desperation in the cockpit
>>with the control column in their laps and the control yoke and
>>rudders at full deflaction with the bells, clackers and whoop
>>whoops at full bellow. They earn their big bucks.
>
>The sad thing is, if they were less professional in their handling, they might
>have made it.
>
>cheers,
>
>Paul Saccani
>Perth West Australia
That's a very insightful observation Paul and is exactly correct.
I'm sure that some pilots would have gone slightly against the
Dash One and hoarded those extra few knots and would have
selected a less energetic rate of climb. Which, of course, would
have kept them out of the du-du. (in this case anyway - might
have killed them in others) The dash One was amended to include
this choice later.