5 dead in an RV-10?

N801BH said:
Hmmmm...

And she was dead 1 hour later...:sad::sad:

Now a possible relationship issue has surfaced.....

She might have been sitting in the front passengers lap and either accidentely ( or ) on purpose pushed forward on the stick.. :dunno:..

From the description of the crash site, I bet all of them were throw out as it broke apart going through the tree tops...
Click to expand...

Not that I should be looking or anything, but relationship status: Single.

Over 4000 friends on Facebook and at a cursory glance, a lot of sharing of all kinds of things instead of just that.
 
I think speculation is starting to get pretty wild in here. I'd be most interested to know what training he did/did not have. I note his medical is older than mine and I do hold a certificate.

Could be anything from he found a disqualifying condition and his medical was no good to a dispute with an instructor to he made it to a point where he felt he was a good enough pilot and didn't need to follow the process anymore.

What I'm seeing from the posts from this small town and knowing a bit about how small town folks, especially in the south think here's what you guys may be missing. I saw somewhere earlier in this discussion someone talked about the certificate being a contract with a regulated society. Well, few in a small town are going to look at it that way. They don't think the federal government represents their corner of society, they don't think it honors it's side of any contracts, and they will generally see it as more of a nuisance than something that they should play fair with.

The reasons for this attitude are beyond the scope of the FAA and aviation but they certainly affect it. Maybe nobody here would fly without a certificate or anything as or nearly as extreme. Perhaps ask yourselves though why it is when we discuss details of some FARs someone often says "WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T ASK THE CHEIF COUNSEL" and you'll at least have the gist.
 
cowman said:
What I'm seeing from the posts from this small town and knowing a bit about how small town folks, especially in the south think here's what you guys may be missing. I saw somewhere earlier in this discussion someone talked about the certificate being a contract with a regulated society. Well, few in a small town are going to look at it that way. They don't think the federal government represents their corner of society, they don't think it honors it's side of any contracts, and they will generally see it as more of a nuisance than something that they should play fair with.

The reasons for this attitude are beyond the scope of the FAA and aviation but they certainly affect it. Maybe nobody here would fly without a certificate or anything as or nearly as extreme. Perhaps ask yourselves though why it is when we discuss details of some FARs someone often says "WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T ASK THE CHEIF COUNSEL" and you'll at least have the gist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I live in a small town, and near me are plenty of folks who have no interest in anything outside their 2 sq mile of life. It's a lot like this pilot. I know 2 guys who keep flying on their med and just get it renewed every 3 years, and keep on flying. They don't have much interest in completing the PPL, and solo around in various paper airplanes and stay off the radio. Gee, sounds like me! hahahhaaa

Anyway, small town 'merica is alive and well through much of the south. That doesn't make his actions right, but it's an explanation that'll do.
 
BillTIZ said:
Last I recollect, the RV10 is a 4 seater? Over gross?
38yo pilot and the others in their 20s?

Hopefully there is enough body mass left for toxicology.

Sad to hear these things happening, planes or cars or motorcycles.
Click to expand...
Bill: Back here in Maine : 28 motorcycle fatalities thus far this year; 11 in ALL of 2014. So many this year, no helmet and/or speed/alcohol-related.

HR
 
I am speculating weather- 2100' clg/3*C Temp/DP spread, dark night due to waxing crescent moon and I'd like to see the pilot's toxicology. We can look back in a year and see what turns up.
 
docmirror said:
I know 2 guys who keep flying on their med and just get it renewed every 3 years, and keep on flying. They don't have much interest in completing the PPL, and solo around in various paper airplanes and stay off the radio.
Click to expand...
Why bother with the Medical?? If you are going illegal by not have a certificate or student pilot solo signoff, might as well skip the medical. Also skip the annual as well, no need for that.
 
teejayevans said:
Why bother with the Medical?? If you are going illegal by not have a certificate or student pilot solo signoff, might as well skip the medical. Also skip the annual as well, no need for that.
Click to expand...

I suppose it provides some small shell of cover if they are ramp checked. If you have a valid medical, you can say you are on a CC and headed back home soon. Might work, might not, but hey - if they get ramped with bupkis, they are grounded right now, and the FAA man is going to see to it that they don't take off again that day, in that plane. Prolly/possibly to the point of calling the local sheriff to stop them.
 
docmirror said:
I suppose it provides some small shell of cover if they are ramp checked. If you have a valid medical, you can say you are on a CC and headed back home soon. Might work, might not,
Click to expand...

It won't. Tell the Inspector you are on a cross country as a student pilot, and the next thing he will ask for is your logbook, which contains the endorsement for the cross country. He'll also want to see that the student has a 90 day solo endorsement as well.
 
RotorAndWing said:
It won't. Tell the Inspector you are on a cross country as a student pilot, and the next thing he will ask for is your logbook, which contains the endorsement for the cross country. He'll also want to see that the student has a 90 day solo endorsement as well.
Click to expand...

Not to mention answering the question of why the three other people and beach chairs are on board. Especially when it's 200' 1/2 mile out, and you just arrived unannounced on the ILS approach.
 
RotorAndWing said:
It won't. Tell the Inspector you are on a cross country as a student pilot, and the next thing he will ask for is your logbook, which contains the endorsement for the cross country. He'll also want to see that the student has a 90 day solo endorsement as well.
Click to expand...

Hey, maybe they carry that stuff around, and forge the endorsement. I have no idea why they get a medical. All I know is there are two guys at a local private field who have been getting them replaced and still don't have a PPL. I'm not their mommy, I don't watch over them, and I don't really want to answer more questions. If you folks really want to know, send a PM, I'll tell you the airport, and what kind of plane they fly and you'all can go get it straight from them. Or not.

Jeezalou.
 
So....what we gots here is a failure of compliance and a lack of safety.....:nono::yikes:

Barney-Fife.jpg
 
Last edited:
What a freaking waste, license or not it still a waste of life.

I see many pilots that are far from being the best they can be, paper or not.
 
Tom-D said:
What a freaking waste, license or not it still a waste of life.

I see many pilots that are far from being the best they can be, paper or not.
Click to expand...

Excellent synopsis.
 
Just so I don't misinterpret things here... Nobody is saying the lack of paper may have contributed to this, right? Of course we need to wait and see. That said, the "paper" or lack there of, definitely tells a lot about the story. No idea if trained in several situations, and would show lack of regard in all situations. Of course, I am opting to wait for the report.
 
timwinters said:
Your signature tagline is pretty haunting in this thread...
Click to expand...

As a low-time pilot I have acquired some of that experience from others mistakes. I have made small errors in judgment myself early on in 172's...and I am super safety conscious. We are all not perfect, but there just is not much room for errors in our hobby. This gentleman should have really stayed with a single-place or on the ground. Fly safe.
 
Kritchlow said:
Just so I don't misinterpret things here... Nobody is saying the lack of paper may have contributed to this, right?
Click to expand...

I don't see how it couldn't have. I see this all the time when "non-certified pilots" - i.e. NON-pilots - crash, people say the lack of paper didn't have anything to do with it. How is it that lack of proper training has nothing to do with crashing? And I haven't looked back in the thread, but everyone realizes that this guy was flying pirate IFR within a year of building this airplane, right? :eek:
 
mryan75 said:
Let's hope so, because this dumb bastard asked for it.
Click to expand...

Uh - I thought this might be evident but the dumb bastard paid the ultimate price for his mistake. Now, his wife and kids(if any) get to suffer more despair and ruin because they are next of kin to a dumb bastard.
 
docmirror said:
Uh - I thought this might be evident but the dumb bastard paid the ultimate price for his mistake. Now, his wife and kids(if any) get to suffer more despair and ruin because they are next of kin to a dumb bastard.
Click to expand...
Them's the breaks. Whatever he thinks of rules and regulations, they still apply. As an adult he's responsible for his actions and for whatever consequences his actions may have for his family. Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for how what he did will negatively affect his family. That's the risk he took.
 
mryan75 said:
Them's the breaks. Whatever he thinks of rules and regulations, they still apply. As an adult he's responsible for his actions and for whatever consequences his actions may have for his family. Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for how what he did will negatively affect his family. That's the risk he took.
Click to expand...

I think we got that from your above post. Interesting you keep saying 'he'. Well, you may call me mr obvious but there is no more 'he' there is only 'the family of late xxxxx'.

Estate culpability is something that kind of gives me the willies. I guess I see both sides of it, but it's a tough line when his family is going to pay the price in their life for the sins of the father/husband.
 
docmirror said:
I think we got that from your above post. Interesting you keep saying 'he'. Well, you may call me mr obvious but there is no more 'he' there is only 'the family of late xxxxx'.
Click to expand...

Yes, those people to whom he had an obligation to not act in such a blatantly reckless manner. To now turn around after the fact and relieve his estate of liability for what he has done is to remove the disincentive to behave responsibly in the first place. I bet you there are more than a few people in Alma, GA, who either now or in the future will think long and hard about the choices they make and the potential consequences for their families should something go wrong. And that's the whole idea.

docmirror said:
Estate culpability is something that kind of gives me the willies. I guess I see both sides of it, but it's a tough line when his family is going to pay the price in their life for the sins of the father/husband.
Click to expand...
I do agree with this. But there are consequences for the things you do in life, even after your life is over. I don't wish anything bad on his family of course, but at the same time he made the choices he did, and I can't see any reason why he should be excluded from the normal rules of society. I specifically wouldn't do something like this because of what would happen to my loved ones if I, say, killed four innocent people. And if I did I wouldn't expect anyone to say, "Oh, poor mryan75 is already gone, let's leave it at that."

It's tough for his family and I acknowledge that. But he made the choice to put them in this position.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Yea, who needs all of that useless training and standards, right? It's just an overbearing government agency trying to ruin pilot's "freedom".



Flame away.
Click to expand...


Aww come on. He had a third class medical. The rules made sure he died healthy. That's something. ;)
 
It occurred to me that the "m" pattern described by the witness might have been the pilot doing a series of zoom climbs and pushovers to give the passengers a thrill ride. And then he got a little low on the last recovery...
 
mryan75 said:
Yes, those people to whom he had an obligation to not act in such a blatantly reckless manner. To now turn around after the fact and relieve his estate of liability for what he has done is to remove the disincentive to behave responsibly in the first place. I bet you there are more than a few people in Alma, GA, who either now or in the future will think long and hard about the choices they make and the potential consequences for their families should something go wrong. And that's the whole idea.


I do agree with this. But there are consequences for the things you do in life, even after your life is over. I don't wish anything bad on his family of course, but at the same time he made the choices he did, and I can't see any reason why he should be excluded from the normal rules of society. I specifically wouldn't do something like this because of what would happen to my loved ones if I, say, killed four innocent people. And if I did I wouldn't expect anyone to say, "Oh, poor mryan75 is already gone, let's leave it at that."

It's tough for his family and I acknowledge that. But he made the choice to put them in this position.
Click to expand...

And, they made the choice to get in the plane with him. Haven't read the entire thread but unless he falsified his credentials, I disagree.

One thing that drives me nuts is when we put people in jail for extended amount of times or raid their estate when they get drunk and kill someone riding with them. Know who you're riding with, understand the risks and consequences. They were willing participants.

I refused to ride with a guy one night after he had been drinking, he stole the keys and left while I was having supper. Wound up on a stretcher 100 yards into the woods after missing a turn.

I refused a ride home in a plane with a guy I knew had freaked out landing once.
 
bartmc said:
And, they made the choice to get in the plane with him. Haven't read the entire thread but unless he falsified his credentials, I disagree.

One thing that drives me nuts is when we put people in jail for extended amount of times or raid their estate when they get drunk and kill someone riding with them. Know who you're riding with, understand the risks and consequences. They were willing participants.

I refused to ride with a guy one night after he had been drinking, he stole the keys and left while I was having supper. Wound up on a stretcher 100 yards into the woods after missing a turn.

I refused a ride home in a plane with a guy I knew had freaked out landing once.
Click to expand...

Agreed..

I have refused to ride in planes, vehicles and boats more then once because the operator was NOT safe IMHO.....


I am still alive................... and a few of those idiots are NOT...:redface::rolleyes:
 
bartmc said:
And, they made the choice to get in the plane with him. Haven't read the entire thread but unless he falsified his credentials, I disagree.

One thing that drives me nuts is when we put people in jail for extended amount of times or raid their estate when they get drunk and kill someone riding with them. Know who you're riding with, understand the risks and consequences. They were willing participants.

I refused to ride with a guy one night after he had been drinking, he stole the keys and left while I was having supper. Wound up on a stretcher 100 yards into the woods after missing a turn.

I refused a ride home in a plane with a guy I knew had freaked out landing once.
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference between consent and informed consent. These people had no fricken' clue the danger they were getting into, I guarantee it. Unless he said, "Hey guys, I'm drunk and unlicensed, flying at night is dangerous and I don't have the required night nor simulated instrument training. Wanna go?" then I hold him 100% responsible.
 
What about a more autonomous approach typically found in the Kantian theme; "no group, or individual should stand in the way of one's desire, or decision on their own individual pursuit of happiness, whatever it may be." ? Bounded only by the obvious restraint that a person's happiness not come at the cost of another person life, liberty, pursuit.

Hume provides some measure of escape clause as well with his ideals on moral choices and merits being limited to the internal struggle for self-realization. To put a finer point on it, these four young people wanted to ride in a small plane. To a greater or lesser degree, they followed their will, and with no doubt some peer pressure they wanted to feel the exhilaration of flight in a small plane.

Moral relativism is a huge, giant maw of philosophical theory, and it doesn't fit well into a legal framework in a country that supposedly prides itself on liberty. Or, at least until the mid-60s prided itself on liberty. Now, seems the country is out to see that no risk can be taken unless codified, and certified by some external authority.

Did they know he was only a student pilot, and not fully licensed(external authority clause)? Did they care(free will, individual liberty, pursuit of happiness)?
 
docmirror said:
What about a more autonomous approach typically found in the Kantian theme; "no group, or individual should stand in the way of one's desire, or decision on their own individual pursuit of happiness, whatever it may be." ? Bounded only by the obvious restraint that a person's happiness not come at the cost of another person life, liberty, pursuit.

Hume provides some measure of escape clause as well with his ideals on moral choices and merits being limited to the internal struggle for self-realization. To put a finer point on it, these four young people wanted to ride in a small plane. To a greater or lesser degree, they followed their will, and with no doubt some peer pressure they wanted to feel the exhilaration of flight in a small plane.

Moral relativism is a huge, giant maw of philosophical theory, and it doesn't fit well into a legal framework in a country that supposedly prides itself on liberty. Or, at least until the mid-60s prided itself on liberty. Now, seems the country is out to see that no risk can be taken unless codified, and certified by some external authority.
Click to expand...

Interesting how many people espouse liberty and ignore the concurrent responsibility involved.

docmirror said:
Did they know he was only a student pilot, and not fully licensed(external authority clause)? Did they care(free will, individual liberty, pursuit of happiness)?
Click to expand...
He wasn't a student pilot, and I guaran-freakin'-tee you they cared. They had not the slightest clue of the danger involved in what they were about to do, and had they known, I'd bet my niece's pancreas they would be alive today.
 
mryan75 said:
Interesting how many people espouse liberty and ignore the concurrent responsibility involved.


He wasn't a student pilot, and I guaran-freakin'-tee you they cared. They had not the slightest clue of the danger involved in what they were about to do, and had they known, I'd bet my niece's pancreas they would be alive today.
Click to expand...

Not at all ignoring it. He was irresponsible, and he paid the ultimate price for exercise of his liberty. Ex-authority equivalent: Cro-magnon man sees a real big fish in the shallows. Wades in, spears it, and tries to haul it in. Yum, big fish for dinner. Big fish turns, bites off Cro-magnon's leg, he bleeds out, and fish gets dinner.

Sorry, my mistake on student pilot.
 
docmirror said:
Not at all ignoring it. He was irresponsible, and he paid the ultimate price for exercise of his liberty. Ex-authority equivalent: Cro-magnon man sees a real big fish in the shallows. Wades in, spears it, and tries to haul it in. Yum, big fish for dinner. Big fish turns, bites off Cro-magnon's leg, he bleeds out, and fish gets dinner.

Sorry, my mistake on student pilot.
Click to expand...
But your argument is that his responsibility ends with his death. That's where our opinions of his responsibility differ. I think this notion of "oh, well he died, he paid the ultimate price, end of story" is way too simplistic. To me his responsibility includes knowing what effect his actions could have on the lives and well-being of his heirs and assigns should he, say, kill 4 innocent people while flying drunk, without a valid pilot certificate, at night, etc. He was a big boy. I'd find it very hard to believe he didn't know of those potential consequences. And to me it was his responsibility to consider those potential consequences and to suffer them should he make a bad choice. He may be dead, but he's going to be paying the piper for a good long time yet.

Also, I apologize for any dickish tone in this discussion on my part. You don't deserve that.
 
Last edited:
mryan75 said:
He wasn't a student pilot, and I guaran-freakin'-tee you they cared. They had not the slightest clue of the danger involved in what they were about to do, and had they known, I'd bet my niece's pancreas they would be alive today.
Click to expand...


You don't know if they cared or not. Absent any other information, the only thing you know is that, in their situation, you would have cared.
 
mryan75 said:
But your argument is that his responsibility ends with his death. That's where our opinions of his responsibility differ. I think this notion of "oh, well he died, he paid the ultimate price, end of story" is way too simplistic. To me his responsibility includes knowing what effect his actions could have on the lives and well-being of his heirs and assigns should he, say, kill 4 innocent people while flying drunk, without a valid pilot certificate, at night, etc. He was a big boy. I'd find it very hard to believe he didn't know of those potential consequences. And to me it was his responsibility to consider those potential consequences and to suffer them should he make a bad choice. He may be dead, but he's going to be paying the piper for a good long time yet.

Also, I apologize for any dickish tone in this discussion on my part. You don't deserve that.
Click to expand...

No worries, I'm an adult, and I can see your POV clearly. Just because we differ on outcomes to a matter of degree, doesn't mean we can't both be somewhat right on process and moral relativism.

The tox will be an interesting study. We have three basic paths of framework to deal with: 1. All medically compromised(alky, drugs, etc) to greater or lesser degree. 2. Pilot only compromised. 3. Pax only compromised. Just for the sake of simplicity(and empirical evidence only) I'm going with 1. If it's 2, then his estate should prolly have some liability. If it's 3, then little or no liability to the estate. But if I'm right and it's 1, hard for me to assign blame to the family when drunks got in a plane with a drunk, and he said(sic) 'hold my beer and watch this'. Where I differ with you in outcome is that if he got drunk, flew his plane, crashed into a house full of kids and killed four on the ground, his estate should be stripped bare. But - that's not the case here.
 
docmirror said:
No worries, I'm an adult, and I can see your POV clearly. Just because we differ on outcomes to a matter of degree, doesn't mean we can't both be somewhat right on process and moral relativism.

The tox will be an interesting study. We have three basic paths of framework to deal with: 1. All medically compromised(alky, drugs, etc) to greater or lesser degree. 2. Pilot only compromised. 3. Pax only compromised. Just for the sake of simplicity(and empirical evidence only) I'm going with 1. If it's 2, then his estate should prolly have some liability. If it's 3, then little or no liability to the estate. But if I'm right and it's 1, hard for me to assign blame to the family when drunks got in a plane with a drunk, and he said(sic) 'hold my beer and watch this'. Where I differ with you in outcome is that if he got drunk, flew his plane, crashed into a house full of kids and killed four on the ground, his estate should be stripped bare. But - that's not the case here.
Click to expand...
I see your point of view as well. I'm guessing it will be 1 also. Even in that instance it will be cloudy what exactly happened, e.g. whose idea was it, was he pressured, did he pressure them? But to me at the end of the day he's the one who made the go/no-go decision, and whereas he may well have been inebriated to a point where one could argue he may not have even had the capacity to make a good decision at that point, he nonetheless clearly had a long history of knowing the law and knowingly and willfully disobeying it.

There's still a lot to be determined here. Do you think they'll announce the results of the autopsies when they're complete, or will that come out with the NTSB report in a year?
 
Everskyward said:
You don't know if they cared or not. Absent any other information, the only thing you know is that, in their situation, you would have cared.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing the kids cared whether they were about to do something which carried with it a 100% risk of death.
 
mryan75 said:
I see your point of view as well. I'm guessing it will be 1 also. Even in that instance it will be cloudy what exactly happened, e.g. whose idea was it, was he pressured, did he pressure them? But to me at the end of the day he's the one who made the go/no-go decision, and whereas he may well have been inebriated to a point where one could argue he may not have even had the capacity to make a good decision at that point, he nonetheless clearly had a long history of knowing the law and knowingly and willfully disobeying it.

There's still a lot to be determined here. Do you think they'll announce the results of the autopsies when they're complete, or will that come out with the NTSB report in a year?
Click to expand...

Yup on the reckless disregard. Last med was issued in 2011 or something, is a long time not to bother getting a PPL. That will work against his estate, no doubt.

I don't know about the report. I guess if the media had enough interest, it would come out sooner, or would be leaked by someone before the final. But, that's purely a guess. Most times when there's a significant aviation event, the media gets it before they should, not sure about this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top