Ed Haywood
En-Route
As a general observance, there is often a lot you can learn from reading and discussing accidents
^^^This^^^
As a general observance, there is often a lot you can learn from reading and discussing accidents
Don't know about that scenario. There was the Columbo episode "Swan Song" where Johnny Cash played a singer-pilot and bailed out and left his wife to crash in the plane. I primarily remember this because the LAPD plane shown in the episode was a Navion (Just step on the seat, sir).It seems I remember one of those crime shows where a husband and wife went up for a flight and she "jumped."
"I'm going for help. You stay here."Tweet from a WRAL reporter
BREAKING: Pilot who made emergency landing
@RDUAirport
on Friday told air traffic control his co-pilot "just jumped out" of plane mid-air. FAA employee told 911, "I am sure the pilot is going to be shaken up...He literally just said, ‘my pilot just jumped out.'"
@WRAL
Possible ≠ probable ≠ definite. I'll buy that it's the only conclusion you can reach based on the assumptions you've made with the information you've heard/read/divined so far.It had to have been an intentional act by the copilot to depart the aircraft.
"Presumably." Why do you believe what's being reported if the reporting is 'abysmal'? To paraphrase @Fearless Tower, there's an awful lot of distrust in media *until* they post something we agree with, then it's gospel.The reporting on whatever cockpit communication occurred has been abysmal, but the intent of the copilot to jump into a lake has been reported, presumably by the pilot.
^^^This^^^
Unfortunately death is being more frequently presented as a rational response to problems in life.Either scenario paints the picture of a very (perhaps temporarily) emotionally unstable person.
Possible ≠ probable ≠ definite. I'll buy that it's the only conclusion you can reach based on the assumptions you've made with the information you've heard/read/divined so far.
"Presumably." Why do you believe what's being reported if the reporting is 'abysmal'? To paraphrase @Fearless Tower, there's an awful lot of distrust in media *until* they post something we agree with, then it's gospel.
Nauga,
carpe datum
ETA: I’m also curious when the remaining pilot closed or secured whatever door/ramp was ajar.
Tweet from a WRAL reporter
BREAKING: Pilot who made emergency landing
@RDUAirport
on Friday told air traffic control his co-pilot "just jumped out" of plane mid-air. FAA employee told 911, "I am sure the pilot is going to be shaken up...He literally just said, ‘my pilot just jumped out.'"
@WRAL
I'm going to make one of those obtuse internet forum broad statements:
All flights involve returning to Earth, one way or another.
[No fair mentioning orbiting in space.]
Awfully quick to condemn given the complete lack of facts. What if he was wearing a harness and it failed? or going off of this crazy wild murder theory, what if the other pilot unclipped or cut it? To call him stupid without ANY credible information says more about the poster than the intended target...
Mtns2skies,
who sometimes agrees with Nauga.
The credible information I am going off is as follows:
1. There was a plane, in the air.
2. A commercial pilot with a CFI certificate exits the aircraft mid-air
The information I am presuming, but that seems highly likely:
1. The flying pilot didn't murder him
2. The pilot who fell/jumped most likely had some experience with the harnesses, etc., used
3. The failure of jump harnesses in planes is rare
If the guy didn't use a harness, that was stupid.
If the guy used a harness that he didn't know how to use, that was stupid.
If the guy used a harness that broke, you're right, that's not stupid. But I couldn't find a single recorded instance of a jump plane's harness breaking. I may be missing something, and maybe the harnesses on a jump plane fail all the time. But from what I can tell, it hardly ever happens, so assuming that it happened here seems a bit extreme. Both of the "simple" explanations require some stupidity, thus my conclusion. I may be wrong. There is always that chance!
But why did the pilot who landed the plane tell ATC that the other guy jumped? Not fell, not harness broke, “jumped.” If you were flying and had this issue and the other guy said “I’m going to go harness in and stick my head out the ramp,” then suddenly he was no longer on the plane, why in the world would you say “he jumped out?”
I wouldn't. But I was trying my best to give every single benefit of a doubt that I could.
I understand the logic, but left of bang is where my mind is.…That fits well with "fell out while inspecting the wheel" scenario.…
I listened to our local North Carolina news on the radio at 11:00AM today...they are still reporting this as a man jumping...not falling.
Where’s the ADM that takes us to the point of opening the ramp?
Pilots are notoriously bad at physics. Stacking a bunch of “ifs” in front of this, I could envision a pilot thinking that at 120 knots, a falling trajectory would cover two miles in a minute. Being wrong by a mile and a half could easily happen.But then the lake story comes back into play.
No kidding.Pilots are notoriously bad at physics.
This just doesn’t make sense, and I would be thinking murder if I was investigating until the facts ruled it out.
Pilots are notoriously bad at physics. Stacking a bunch of “ifs” in front of this, I could envision a pilot thinking that at 120 knots, a falling trajectory would cover two miles in a minute. Being wrong by a mile and a half could easily happen.
I disagree.I don’t think any of us could even discern the “lake” in question from 3,000 AGL and 120 knots.
I disagree.
You’re changing your assertion to something other than what I responded to.Initial reports were that they were searching around a lake near West Lake Middle School. Initial reports were also that he exited toward a body of water.
Find all the lakes between where the body was found and the “lake” near that school and assert whether that “lake” could have either been selected as a target by the jumper or discerned as a target by the remaining pilot, given the altitude and speed. There are larger lakes within a few miles, but why start in that area, given those reports, specifically?
You’re changing your assertion to something other than what I responded to.
What was said, what was meant, and what actually happened are different things.
If you can spot the lake, you can say I’m going to try to jump into it.You’re saying you can spot a lake of that size from that speed and altitude? No disagreement there, if you’re set on looking for it.
However, the very next sentence, which you cropped, was that it would be difficult to discern that it was the intended target.
The entire assertion is what I responded to, regardless of whether you cropped that part out or not.
These type outfits do a lot of contract support for special operations by DoD and "other government agencies", both training and downrange. Plenty of night blackout operations on unimproved dirt strips with questionable or non-existent ATC and NAVAID support and very limited maintenance support. Requires aircrew with a mentality to adapt, improvise, and overcome. I can totally see opening the ramp for visual inspection of damage to be part of their problem solving process. There is nothing inherently dangerous about it if conducted with adequate precautions, eg safety harness or chute. As stated earlier, this aircraft type flies around with the ramp open all the time. It is no big deal.
Opening the SIDE DOOR to inspect main gear would make a lot more sense than opening the RAMP for same.
Opening the SIDE DOOR to inspect main gear would make a lot more sense than opening the RAMP for same.
There is no door (to the outside) in the cockpit. He had to get up and leave the cockpit to get to a door.Is it possible that the door came open in flight and um... You know... Bernoulli?
Obviously a wild story for many reasons... from an engineering / materials strength perspective HOW IN THE CRAP do you completely shear off a main landing gear on a fixed wing aircraft from a "hard landing"?? And then successfully go around and get airborne again. Like the aircraft in question must have sustained more damage from an impact like that right? There has to be more to that story. I feel like they would have had to hit some kind of debris on the runway or maybe departed the runway into an obstacle to shear a landing gear off. I guess metal fatigue is a thing too. But still, landing gear struts are going to be designed with a generous safety factor (just like wing struts) to account for cyclical loading and fatigue. Maybe that part of the story isn't as insane as I'm thinking?
Obviously a wild story for many reasons... from an engineering / materials strength perspective HOW IN THE CRAP do you completely shear off a main landing gear on a fixed wing aircraft from a "hard landing"?? And then successfully go around and get airborne again. Like the aircraft in question must have sustained more damage from an impact like that right? There has to be more to that story. I feel like they would have had to hit some kind of debris on the runway or maybe departed the runway into an obstacle to shear a landing gear off. I guess metal fatigue is a thing too. But still, landing gear struts are going to be designed with a generous safety factor (just like wing struts) to account for cyclical loading and fatigue. Maybe that part of the story isn't as insane as I'm thinking?
Except that A) there is no SIDE DOOR on the right side of the aircraft, which is the side that the gear was damaged on ... that is an emergency egress hatch; and B) the view of the gear leg structure is blocked from above by the gear well fairing, but visible from the ramp when it is lower than the floor.
View attachment 109401
Ok, my comment on the pilot giving him a shove wasnt serious...at all. It was not meant to add more speculation. More to highlight the fact that we know nothing.ah, yes straight to the limit. no. i'm saying that the only thing we care about in this accident is why the pilot fell out. as far as why that is, we have zero information. so we can be "responsible" in discussing things.
well the following...........