Another crash at KRNO

[Kristin]

Legal schmegal, Gus McRae knows what Zeldman meant. You ride with an outlaw, you die with an outlaw!

So of the three in the plane, who were the outlaws and who deserved to die because they rode with the outlaw?

It is well that our country was not founded on the morality of the old west.

 

[Cooter]

So of the three in the plane, who were the outlaws and who deserved to die because they rode with the outlaw?

It is well that our country was not founded on the morality of the old west.

It was simply an opportunity to quote Lonesome Dove that I couldn't pass up, and a joke. As someone said recently in another thread, lighten up Francis. That was a Stripes quote, in case you missed that as well.

 

[Cooter]

But having now been included in the conversation, it appears to me that you introduced the concept of deserving death. Not Zeldman.

 

[Hank S]

Let it go. Both if you.

It will be interesting to read the Factual report on this accident, sometime next year. Passenger weight, location, CG, use of prisoner restraints, etc., anything interesting in the radio, radar/GPS track, etc.

That way we can all learn something. As it is, you're both running off pilots who want to learn . . . because no one lives long enough to make all the mistakes ourself.

 

[deonb]

The wages of sin is death, and we all will die sooner or later for our sins.

Let me give you another scenario:

Your teenage daughter attends a party and there is some drinking. Cops comes over and busts up the party and take some of the kids to the police station in order to call their parents to come pick them up. Fairly common scare tactic.

Only thing is, they don't transport your kid in a police vehicle - they load her up on the back of a police motorcycle. Cop crashes the bike and kills your daughter.

Will you still have that attitude?

 

[Kristin]

It was simply an opportunity to quote Lonesome Dove that I couldn't pass up, and a joke. As someone said recently in another thread, lighten up Francis. That was a Stripes quote, in case you missed that as well.

I knew the reference, hence my old west reference.

 

[gismo]

Handcuffs?

I wouldn't consider this unless the bail jumper was rendered unconscious. As to the allegations that she somehow deserved her fate, I completely disagree. Even a convicted murderer shouldn't be compelled to fly with an unknown to him pilot against their will.

 

[denverpilot]

I wouldn't consider this unless the bail jumper was rendered unconscious. As to the allegations that she somehow deserved her fate, I completely disagree. Even a convicted murderer shouldn't be compelled to fly with an unknown to him pilot against their will.

DoC operates aircraft. Nobody on board knows those pilots.

I could see saying non-prisoners shouldn't be transported on non-Commercially operated flights, perhaps.

But technically isn't a bail jumper a prisoner who's escaped in a fashion, anyway? Isn't restraining prisoners normal fare on aircraft? I don't know.

 

[gismo]

DoC operates aircraft. Nobody on board knows those pilots.

I could see saying non-prisoners shouldn't be transported on non-Commercially operated flights, perhaps.

On a commercial airliner or even a DoC airplane flown by a professional crew of two, no increased risk, no problem.

 

[denverpilot]

On a commercial airliner or even a DoC airplane flown by a professional crew of two, no increased risk, no problem.

Well, since that's not what you originally said, it's rather hard to guess.

Why not simply require that it be a commercial operation, then? I'm not really seeing how it shouldn't have been one in the first place for this event, really.

But then again, one doesn't see too much argument for making Dog the Bounty Hunter hire a cab to transport people or stick them on a city bus, either.

Society gets to vote on how prisoners are transported on the ground, and seems "okay" with private carriage there.

Since society doesn't really vote on air carriage rules, it seems like if this flight was somehow legal (again I don't see how it could be with recent FAA events surrounding ride shares and holding out) then FAA hosed the prisoner-pax, and if it wasn't legal, the point is moot.

Well maybe not moot, but only an opinion of what FAA should do, or already did.

Maybe an example of rules not being followed also, perhaps.

What am I missing? I don't see how slapping a prisoner who's also your meal ticket in the back seat of anything, and flying from one point to another, could ever be interpreted as needing to be anything less than a Part 135 operation. Do you?

 

[midcap]

I must be having an issue, because when I try to run the W&B on the plane right from the POH I am coming in with it being way out of range.

 

[midcap]

now keep in mind I am a noob here, but it look like their W&B was off in that plane not matter how you stacked it. They would have had to put the woman in the cargo to get it right, since I would have to assume they were at max gross. I had to put 22gals of fuel to make the gross using the assumed weights of the article I even used the big guys weight at 300 and not 400. Also they would have needed a direct flight from RENO to San Carlos and filed for 150kts to make the 22 gallons give them the hour there and 45min reserves. Given that, all of the possible configurations they still are not within the limits of W&B. here is the chart below.



feel free to critque

 

[gismo]

Well, since that's not what you originally said, it's rather hard to guess.

Sorry, I definitely wasn't clear in that post. I was only thinking in terms of "joe pilot" who may or may not have been commercially rated flying a piston single in a fairly unregulated scenario as I'm guessing was the case in the accident.

Why not simply require that it be a commercial operation, then? I'm not really seeing how it shouldn't have been one in the first place for this event, really.

I think the real requirement ought to be something that provides a level of safety equal to or better than transportation typically used to move prisoners on the ground or in the air. Someone else made the analogy that the statistical safety of this flight was comparable to using a motorcycle on public highways (debatable but close enough for this discussion) vs a Crown Vic or Suburban. As much as I advocate that one's "recreational" flying or even a commercially rated pilot on a legal SE charter) can be a lot safer than the statistical averages, the prisoner likely had no way to know the pilot's qualifications, judgement, track record, etc. and therefore might have been forced to accept a much higher risk
level than they should have been given.

But then again, one doesn't see too much argument for making Dog the Bounty Hunter hire a cab to transport people or stick them on a city bus, either.

Nope, just a statistically equivalent level of risk. To me for flight with no personal knowledge of the pilot(s) and aircraft that means at least a two pilot crew flying turbine (or maybe turboprop) equipment on a part 135 or 121 certificate.

What am I missing? I don't see how slapping a prisoner who's also your meal ticket in the back seat of anything, and flying from one point to another, could ever be interpreted as needing to be anything less than a Part 135 operation. Do you?

No, I don't either and certainly if this wasn't a legal flight in the FAA's eyes it would clearly not meet my notion of equivalent risk.