The 2019 Hawaii Crash and The “Bad Flight Instructor”

[hindsight2020]

Then again, may there’s something to having all these silly titles… I also fly with the CAF, where everyone’s a Colonel; I could be a Captain Colonel! Or would Colonel Captain sound more catchy and cool??

Point of order: CAF "ranks" are LARPing. PIC in 121 and military ranks in the DOD, are federally recognized duty positions/ranks respectively, which confer an occupational meaning in accountable (to the govt and to the public) positions. For the latter, they can also be used in social and off-duty settings, regardless if others opt to mock retired servicemembers who choose to do so.

Let's not dabble in false equivalencies just because y'all are mocking the OPs lack of ability to read the room. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Now back to the dumpster fire feeding.

 

[TrueCourse]

...I am not a writer or editor. I am a pilot. I am a retired Captain that has had a wonderful career with thousands of hours flown. I see many issues facing aviation and our new pilots that are not even being addressed. Just having you read the articles and posts to see my errors is okay. Hopefully, the issues that are raised starts conversations and awareness so we can fix things. Thanks for putting up with me! God Bless!

I can't speak for everyone, but when I see someone airing their grievances online on a public forum to people they don't know, it causes me to pause and say, "here we go again". I'm probably not alone in this. And, after reading some of this story it doesn't build a foundation of credibility. The "I see many issues facing aviation" is a statement we can all make, but when it's tied to a personal experience or grievance, it can become all encompassing.

I recall this accident and revisited it since you brought it up. There are several red flags that stand out. Maybe not to you, but to me.

1) Why would a King Air PIC think it is beneficial to allow a student pilot with less than 5 hours under their belt to log flight time and landings in a King Air, and think it was even permissible to log it as PIC? As best as I can tell, it appears you wrote it in the log book, though you didn't sign it as an instructor like you did the other training flights.

2) Regarding the multiple check ride failures of the accident pilot you state, "This was more to do with how the FAA was manipulating check rides". That's a big claim. And, if your students were accumulating a higher degree of failures than what might be considered the norm, why didn't you find another DPE if you believed the DPE in question wasn't doing their job correctly?

3) You have discounted the witness comments about the aggressive nature of the accident pilots maneuvers, as if it didn't happen. These were skydivers. Thrill seekers. If they, and others, stated he was flying aggressively at times, why discount those observations?

4) When describing the takeoff sequence, you acknowledge the CG was close to AFT. Don't you think it would have been prudent for the pilot to use an initial climb speed that provides additional margins above blue line, rather than simply published Vx or Vy? Why not, for at least the first 60 seconds, use a more conservative climb angle and speed in case their was an engine failure after liftoff? If the answer is, "because it's skydiving and they need to get to jump altitude quickly", please don't say that.

5) You claim the left engine failed. You say that it makes sense because of the condition of the left engine's blade damage compared to the right engine. But, as I've seen so far, that is the only claim you have; that by appearance of the blades, the left engine failed and a VMC roll occurred. Have you totally ruled out that an aggressive pitch at a slow speed with an aft CG in an airplane that was a history of mechanic issues with its wings or stabs and trim issues isn't capable of rolling over in an accelerated stall?

6) The report shows the findings on the engine instrument readings for the left engine. The impact marks. They show that both engines were producing power. There was only one of the instruments, fuel flow for the right engine, that they couldn't get a reading from. How do you explain this in your left engine failure claim?

And, here is one you will like. It caught my eye.

7) The Hartzell anlysis in the Powerplant Group Chairman's Factual Report for the left engine states there was no evidence of low power or windmilling and in another sentence there was evidence of high power and high rpm at time of impact (page 87). BUT, earlier on page 65 of that same report it states, "The propeller blades Nos. L1 and L2 were found in the feathered-to-high pitch position and propeller blade No. L3 was found in the feathered position." What is the descrepency here? Did I missread something here? Was it feathered or not? In all the things you've stated, why not mention this?

EVEN IF the engine did fail, there are safety margins to prevent an accident and everything about the history of this operation and the airplane indicates high risk. I would have told the pilot to give back the keys and go find somewhere else to fly.

These are all questions I would ask you if I were meeting with you in person, but since you brought it out in the open for the world to read, it probably belongs here.

 

[SFDukie]

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Well now. …
Things have gotten very interesting.

 

[hindsight2020]

dang, talk about shots fired....I knew this thread was gonna deliver. Where's the like and subscribe on this thing -- oh wait wrong interboob.

 

[RussR]

What other term then Captain do you think we should use?

I've always been quite content with the title "Pilot".

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Imagine other federal agencies and their “victims”. This is rich child’s play and pales in comparison to real life issues.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I suspect we will not see Patches again anytime soon.

Going to take a long, creative single paragraph post to spin this into another example of how he is righteous.

 

[CaptainRobertRiter]

Looks like OP is a piece of work. He was the accident pilot's instructor. During the accident pilot's training flights as a student pilot, they flew illegal charter flights. These flights were entered into the student pilot's logbook as PIC time. The accident pilot failed each of his private, instrument, and commercial checkrides. But no, it's a government conspiracy to libel him

Dear Dmspilot,
May we focus upon what is being done here with this report, and see if it is something we want to work on? These are the questions I am raising:

1). Do you agree with the conclusions? Is it okay to say that a pilot was reckless and killed himself and ten passengers on such evidence? Is it okay to destroy his reputation and cause grave harm to his family when the evidence shows something else? Such as the plane flipped inverted which is a Vmc event not a stall. The left propeller having one blade bent back and snapped off at a 90 degree angle with the other blades undamaged. Then reporting that the left engine was running at full power. That the witnesses used barely knew Jerome Renck, and had very little contact with him. Most of the witnesses had only favorable things to say about Jerome. Is the aviation community so naive and compliant that anything can be done to us without question?

2). Is it okay for a CFI to be blamed and held accountable for an accident of a former student? Even after years have past since instruction was given? This is not done in any other industry. There are no law professors being targeted because a former student has been disbarred. There are no medical schools firing their professors because a former student lost his medical license. Why is the aviation community so accepting to allow harm done to it‘s aviators and mechanics?

3). Is it okay to hold a CFI accountable for someone else’s performance on the first attempt on a check ride? Remember that we are talking about the first attempt on a check ride, and not if the person fails and never gets a license. Is it okay to ruin a pilot’s future based solely upon someone else’s behavior or performance? If you lost your job, your reputation, and years of hard work due to someone else would you call that fair?

My career is done and I will write about my expriences as you mentioned to help others. I worry about how the system is being set up for future pilots and mechanics. On any flight we can have an accident. Would this treatment that Jerome Renck received be acceptable if it was you? How about if it was your son or daughter? If someone stood up for you, or your kids, would you appreciate others personally attacking that person? I think I am one of very few people raising these concerns. Please take some time to be just as critical with the FAA, and NTSB as you are with me and your fellow aviators. Thank you for your post! Happy New Year! God bless!

 

[tsts4]

1. Maybe.
2. Possibly.
3. Yes, especially for 3 failures in a row. Now it’s not an automatic association as failures occur for a variety of reasons but since you signed him off you are accountable to some degree especially when there’s a trend and I’ll call 3 in a row a trend.

The bottom line is most of us simply don’t agree with your conclusions. Accept that and move on. The POA court of opinion has spoken and no amount of posting is going to change that.

 

[dmspilot]

1). Do you agree with the conclusions? Is it okay to say that a pilot was reckless and killed himself and ten passengers on such evidence? Is it okay to destroy his reputation and cause grave harm to his family when the evidence shows something else? Such as the plane flipped inverted which is a Vmc event not a stall. The left propeller having one blade bent back and snapped off at a 90 degree angle with the other blades undamaged. Then reporting that the left engine was running at full power. That the witnesses used barely knew Jerome Renck, and had very little contact with him. Most of the witnesses had only favorable things to say about Jerome. Is the aviation community so naive and compliant that anything can be done to us without question?

I thought the NTSB report was very impressive. They could have went with the obvious, a VMC roll, but instead they dug deep and found the true cause of the accident.

2). Is it okay for a CFI to be blamed and held accountable for an accident of a former student? Even after years have past since instruction was given? This is not done in any other industry. There are no law professors being targeted because a former student has been disbarred. There are no medical schools firing their professors because a former student lost his medical license. Why is the aviation community so accepting to allow harm done to it‘s aviators and mechanics?

I'm not a court, lawyer, or judge and can't answer that.

3). Is it okay to hold a CFI accountable for someone else’s performance on the first attempt on a check ride? Remember that we are talking about the first attempt on a check ride, and not if the person fails and never gets a license.

Yes, especially when there is a pattern. Almost half of your students failed on the first attempt. Many of those students failed on their second attempts, as well. Third try's a charm, I guess.

My career is done and I will write about my expriences as you mentioned to help others.

If your career is over why are you advertising your services in the classifieds?

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

How do you propose WE right these wrongs? I’m not saying I agree or disagree with you or the FAA. I think your approach is misguided.

 

[Justin M]

The bottom line is most of us simply don’t agree with your conclusions. Accept that and move on. The POA court of opinion has spoken and no amount of posting is going to change that.

Not sure I agree with this. Maybe the Court of opinion has spoken, but further discussion could change opinions if new information is presented or old information clarified.

I for one have appreciated the conversation back and forth and remember the Hawaii accident.

I have two questions I’m curious about:

How is the captain personally affected by the determinations? Are just his feelings hurt or are there real implications like he’s lost his CFI certificate?

How could one blade of the prop be damaged and the others left unscathed? Not challenging, just wondering. Maybe the other props do show damage and I misunderstood the presentation.

 

[tsts4]

Not sure I agree with this. Maybe the Court of opinion has spoken, but further discussion could change opinions if new information is presented or old information clarified.

I for one have appreciated the conversation back and forth and remember the Hawaii accident.

I have two questions I’m curious about:

How is the captain personally affected by the determinations? Are just his feelings hurt or are there real implications like he’s lost his CFI certificate?

How could one blade of the prop be damaged and the others left unscathed? Not challenging, just wondering. Maybe the other props do show damage and I misunderstood the presentation.

That‘s fine. I simply voiced my opinion— it’s worth exactly what you paid for it. However at the end of the day, what changes? I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed but I’m pretty sure posting diatribes here on POA ain’t gonna accomplish much In the way of meaningful action one way or the other.

 

[Justin M]

However at the end of the day, what changes? [snip] I’m pretty sure posting here on POA ain’t gonna accomplish much In the way of meaningful action one way or the other.

In this I agree with you.

 

[geezer]

Inverse of a New Years Resolution:

I am thankful that the OP has not worked on any of my planes.

I am thankful the OP has never instructed me.

I am confident this will be true in the year to come.

Trivia question, just what is a "Smoked cylinder"?

 

[Vance Breese]

Dear Dmspilot,
May we focus upon what is being done here with this report, and see if it is something we want to work on? These are the questions I am raising:

1). Do you agree with the conclusions? Is it okay to say that a pilot was reckless and killed himself and ten passengers on such evidence? Is it okay to destroy his reputation and cause grave harm to his family when the evidence shows something else? Such as the plane flipped inverted which is a Vmc event not a stall. The left propeller having one blade bent back and snapped off at a 90 degree angle with the other blades undamaged. Then reporting that the left engine was running at full power. That the witnesses used barely knew Jerome Renck, and had very little contact with him. Most of the witnesses had only favorable things to say about Jerome. Is the aviation community so naive and compliant that anything can be done to us without question?

2). Is it okay for a CFI to be blamed and held accountable for an accident of a former student? Even after years have past since instruction was given? This is not done in any other industry. There are no law professors being targeted because a former student has been disbarred. There are no medical schools firing their professors because a former student lost his medical license. Why is the aviation community so accepting to allow harm done to it‘s aviators and mechanics?

3). Is it okay to hold a CFI accountable for someone else’s performance on the first attempt on a check ride? Remember that we are talking about the first attempt on a check ride, and not if the person fails and never gets a license. Is it okay to ruin a pilot’s future based solely upon someone else’s behavior or performance? If you lost your job, your reputation, and years of hard work due to someone else would you call that fair?

My career is done and I will write about my expriences as you mentioned to help others. I worry about how the system is being set up for future pilots and mechanics. On any flight we can have an accident. Would this treatment that Jerome Renck received be acceptable if it was you? How about if it was your son or daughter? If someone stood up for you, or your kids, would you appreciate others personally attacking that person? I think I am one of very few people raising these concerns. Please take some time to be just as critical with the FAA, and NTSB as you are with me and your fellow aviators. Thank you for your post! Happy New Year! God bless!

I expected this sort of oversight as part of being certificated and feel it is important for a flight instructor certificate to have meaning and value.

I started to answer in detail but there were too many questions and I had trouble wading through the hyperbole.

A CFIs responsibilities and consequences of not fulfilling them was explained at length during my training to be a flight instructor.

I have found there are many learners are looking for a CFI exactly how you are portrayed in the NTSB report Captain.

Perhaps if you stop writing about your role in the NTSB report people will forget.

 

[Racerx]

I've always been quite content with the title "Pilot".

Do you have the "pilot" patch for your jacket?

 

[jbDC9]

Point of order: CAF "ranks" are LARPing. PIC in 121 and military ranks in the DOD, are federally recognized duty positions/ranks respectively, which confer an occupational meaning in accountable (to the govt and to the public) positions. For the latter, they can also be used in social and off-duty settings, regardless if others opt to mock retired servicemembers who choose to do so.

Let's not dabble in false equivalencies just because y'all are mocking the OPs lack of ability to read the room. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Dude, chill. The CAF isn’t what I’d consider LARPing; the title of Colonel for all members is pretty much a joke started up in the very earliest days of the CAF. Nobody takes the “rank” or title seriously.

We’re not mocking any titles earned by a retired servicemember; we’re mocking a retired civilian pilot who is overdoing the whole “Captain” title thing. A retired airline/corporate pilot still going by “Captain” is just silly. At work, yes, it’s a token of respect. After work, who cares?

 

[Racerx]

Dude, chill. The CAF isn’t what I’d consider LARPing; the title of Colonel for all members is pretty much a joke started up in the very earliest days of the CAF. Nobody takes the “rank” or title seriously.

We’re not mocking any titles earned by a retired servicemember; we’re mocking a retired civilian pilot who is overdoing the whole “Captain” title thing. A retired airline/corporate pilot still going by “Captain” is just silly. At work, yes, it’s a token of respect. After work, who cares?

What you consider it and how serious you take it is is irrelevant. I thought LARPing was pretty spot on. Most people into cosplay and larping are (probably) aware of reality. Not sure that's the case with OP.

 

[Bell206]

How could one blade of the prop be damaged and the others left unscathed? Not challenging, just wondering.

FWIW: with free turbine engines if the gas coupling between the gas turbine and the power turbine is disrupted the prop can stop almost instantly as there is minimal inertia.

When that happens the result is usually rotational damage to one blade and not the others even though the engine was making power at impact.

 

[CaptainRobertRiter]

I expected this sort of oversight as part of being certificated and feel it is important for a flight instructor certificate to have meaning and value.

I started to answer in detail but there were too many questions and I had trouble wading through the hyperbole.

A CFIs responsibilities and consequences of not fulfilling them was explained at length during my training to be a flight instructor.

I have found there are many learners are looking for a CFI exactly how you are portrayed in the NTSB report Captain.

Perhaps if you stop writing about your role in the NTSB report people will forget.

Dear Vance,
Thank you for your post! I am also having trouble “wading“ through all of the information and issues. There are so many issues involved. This was just a few. I am going to try and just introduce a few things at a time. I do not want to forget one of my students being wronged. It is okay whatever people say about me. Jerome Renck can not defend himself. If I am the only one that is standing up for him that is okay. As long as I do my best that’s all that matters. Thanks for putting up with me! Happy New Year!

 

[Justin M]

FWIW: with free turbine engines if the gas coupling between the gas turbine and the power turbine is disrupted the prop can stop almost instantly as there is minimal inertia.

When that happens the result is usually rotational damage to one blade and not the others even though the engine was making power at impact.

Thank you for explaining.

FWIW I’ve read many of your posts and they helped build your credibility.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

FWIW: with free turbine engines if the gas coupling between the gas turbine and the power turbine is disrupted the prop can stop almost instantly as there is minimal inertia.

When that happens the result is usually rotational damage to one blade and not the others even though the engine was making power at impact.

I have only seen that type of failure in very neglected pt-6 engines.

What is your experience?

 

[CaptainRobertRiter]

FWIW: with free turbine engines if the gas coupling between the gas turbine and the power turbine is disrupted the prop can stop almost instantly as there is minimal inertia.

When that happens the result is usually rotational damage to one blade and not the others even though the engine was making power at impact.

Thank you FWIW for adding to the discussion.
I would like to propose common sense. When something is true it is coherent, is self evident, and needs few if any words to explain.

I have attached a photo of a crop duster with the same engine and propellers as the King Air had in Hawaii. This guy just had his brakes locked up while taxiing. No full power, was just at idle, and at low RPM. Then look at the propeller at the Hawaii crash that looks like it was just windmilling at the time of impact. Also, the one damaged blade does not show rotational damage on the Hawaii propeller. It is snapped in two at almost a 90 degree angle showing the blade stopped rotating as it was dragged thru the ground. Notice the tips of the blades showing rotational damage which is not present on the Hawaii blades.

What makes more sense to you guys? I appreciate the discussion and different points of view! God Bless!

 

[tsts4]

Again even if we all agree, what is it you’re trying to accomplish? Vindication, justice, renumeration, education, emotional closure—what? Nothing we type here is going to erase what has happened so what’s the objective going forward?

 

[dmspilot]

Do you feel it would exonerate you and the deceased pilot if this crash was due to a Vmc roll? Why? Shouldn't a properly trained pilot be able to handle an engine failure without rolling upside down?

 

[Rgbeard]

Tried to read this thread... Couldn't get past OPs writing style. Checked-out.

 

[Bell206]

What makes more sense to you guys?

Not my discussion. But what makes sense to me is this King Air accident was a full board investigation. That speaks volumes to me based on my experience. Perhaps if you really want to clear your name and your students name you should spend more time calling out the aircraft owner, aircraft mechanic, and the operater vs pointing fingers at the NTSB and complaining on PoA.

I have only seen that type of failure in very neglected pt-6 engines.

Thats not been my experience. A neglected turbine may not be able to pass an OEM power check to save its azz but the engine could still lift up a city block into the air.

As to the single blade damage learned that from either an Allison or Pratt rep during an incident investigation. Plus have also seen similar results after helicopter accidents.

While it may appear the engine wasnt producing power there are usually several other checks performed to see whether the engine was making power or not at impact. And the easiest check with a turbine is to see how much dirt and debris was sucked into the intake or not.

 

[Dana]

Shouldn't a properly trained pilot be able to handle an engine failure without rolling upside down?

Not if he never gets above Vmc due to making aggressive pullups on takeoff to thrill the passengers. In which cast the NTSB would probably still say pilot error, with engine or prop failure as a contributing factor.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Having followed this thread (it's too hilarious to ignore), I'm getting a weird sense of deja vu. Several years ago, there was a pilot that wrecked a plane and joined several aviation boards to 'tell the world' about the failings of the manufacturer of his plane! Except that he crashed it because he took off below minimum fuel. No amount of discussion or argumentation could convince him that HE made a mistake. As I recall, that pilot died in a plane crash a few years after his fuel starvation incident.

Riter, I see a total lack of humility in your posts and I hope that you do not share Daniel Bernath's end.

 

[aftCG]

Dude, chill. The CAF isn’t what I’d consider LARPing; the title of Colonel for all members is pretty much a joke started up in the very earliest days of the CAF. Nobody takes the “rank” or title seriously.

We’re not mocking any titles earned by a retired servicemember; we’re mocking a retired civilian pilot who is overdoing the whole “Captain” title thing. A retired airline/corporate pilot still going by “Captain” is just silly. At work, yes, it’s a token of respect. After work, who cares?

I've always cringed at the CAF use of ranks. My dad and I had our differences but he earned the rank of Colonel, he didn't rent it for $225/yr.
His rank was paid for with his own blood and that of his closest friends.

Sorry for the thread drift. This one has been pretty entertaining.

 

[Country Flier]

Inverse of a New Years Resolution:

I am thankful that the OP has not worked on any of my planes.

I am thankful the OP has never instructed me.

I am confident this will be true in the year to come.

Trivia question, just what is a "Smoked cylinder"?

But you won't get a "free" flight jacket!

 

[Jeff767]

Dear Dana,
Captain Renck earned high 90’s on his PPL and Commercial written tests, and 100 percent on his Instrument written. He earned his PPL in two months, his Instrument rating in about another two months, and then his Commercial in another two months. He did fail on his first attempt on each of these ratings for minor issues, and after a 30 minute retraining flight passed each check ride. This was more to do with how the FAA was manipulating check rides then a reflection upon Captain Renck.
He went on to fly as a commercial pilot for two years before the accident. As a corporate pilot I can tell you that anyone that is not good is removed quickly. A pilot does not last as long as Captain Renck if he is not good.
As a mechanic and owner of a plane that was “barrel rolled” I beg to differ! One of my Piper Warriors was rolled by renters and it smoked a cylinder on a factory fresh Lycoming. The PT-6 engine operates at much higher speeds which would cause much more damage.
Can I say that when we fly as PIC we are all Captains. Do you know that even a new Private Pilot is held to the same standards as an airline captain when he is in the air? This is more the case when flying IFR were a deviation is a deviation, and flight time and position are not even considered. Jerome Renck was in the left seat as a paid commercial pilot. What other term then Captain do you think we should use? Thank you for your post! Happy New Year!

Your understanding of what happens in a roll is very incorrect. PT6 engines are rolled constantly in many different aircraft. Even if the specific version did not have a negative G oil system a proper roll would not hurt the engine. The same applies to the piston aircraft you reference. The warrior engine is used in many experimental aircraft and is rolled constantly without issue. If you want to do sustained negative G flight you do need an inverted oil system but for basic acrobatics it’s not required nor installed usually.

 

[Jeff767]

Thank you FWIW for adding to the discussion.
I would like to propose common sense. When something is true it is coherent, is self evident, and needs few if any words to explain.

I have attached a photo of a crop duster with the same engine and propellers as the King Air had in Hawaii. This guy just had his brakes locked up while taxiing. No full power, was just at idle, and at low RPM. Then look at the propeller at the Hawaii crash that looks like it was just windmilling at the time of impact. Also, the one damaged blade does not show rotational damage on the Hawaii propeller. It is snapped in two at almost a 90 degree angle showing the blade stopped rotating as it was dragged thru the ground. Notice the tips of the blades showing rotational damage which is not present on the Hawaii blades.

What makes more sense to you guys? I appreciate the discussion and different points of view! God Bless!

How propellers react to an impact accident is based on a wide variety of factors. I was a trained accident investigator and blades simply don’t look like what you expect. What is far more important are witness marks and the NTSB documented them carefully. Reading that I have no doubt the engine was producing power. You picture of a prop strike on a taxing aircraft is absolutely meaningless in the context of a high speed impact with the ground. Entirely different dynamics.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I suspect we will not see Patches again anytime soon.

Going to take a long, creative single paragraph post to spin this into another example of how he is righteous.

I don’t often quote myself but damn I was wrong.

 

[TrueCourse]

How propellers react to an impact accident is based on a wide variety of factors. I was a trained accident investigator and blades simply don’t look like what you expect. What is far more important are witness marks and the NTSB documented them carefully. Reading that I have no doubt the engine was producing power. You picture of a prop strike on a taxing aircraft is absolutely meaningless in the context of a high speed impact with the ground. Entirely different dynamics.

The OP never responded to Post #42

Especially 5, 6, and 7 in the list.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

From your website linked below you state that a student is a “working pilot from day one”. Are you actually putting student pilots right seat on charter flights and providing instruction with paying passengers? If so thats not just incredibly dumb, but wildly illegal and endangering your passengers, and your student. You should be behind prison bars, instead of on this righteous crusade.

I sincerely hope that is just a marketing term and not genuine, else I fear for all that you have trained and flown.

.”This program is a full time professional pilot program. You will be a working pilot from day one!”

Flight Training | Captain Robert That

www.captthatguy.com

 

[TCABM]

Color me surprised, but the name is actually in the registry.

Between his statements and those of the dude in the G5 level pitch thread, I’m kind of surprised at what people know vs what knowledge is. I get that experience informs opinions, but at some point, I’m just amazed at how divergent that can be.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Color me surprised, but the name is actually in the registry.

Between his statements and those of the dude in the G5 level pitch thread, I’m kind of surprised at what people know vs what knowledge is. I get that experience informs opinions, but at some point, I’m just amazed at how divergent that can be.

Yeah. It’s shocking. I have flown with a former fighter pilot that truly believed the earth is flat.

Mr pitch and this thread are on the same level as the flat earth guy. Its so dumb a response is hard to formulate.