Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:02 pm
Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:08 pm
Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:34 pm
dogfound wrote:how on earth can someone judge the condition of something mechanical that they last operated 4 years ago.
Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:09 pm
Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:27 pm
Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:42 pm
Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:52 pm
Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:56 pm
Dahboy wrote:The more I look at that plane I just get the feeling those planes are for taking someone up sight seeing for the experience of flying. NOT to take someone on a 2hour flight across the channel at night in bad weather ffs.
Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:05 pm
SirJimmySchoular wrote:Dahboy wrote:The more I look at that plane I just get the feeling those planes are for taking someone up sight seeing for the experience of flying. NOT to take someone on a 2hour flight across the channel at night in bad weather ffs.
You're half right there. I wouldn't personally get into a single engine plane over the sea and I've refused to do so in the past, but this model is regularly used for that sort of flight. A very important thing would be the competence or otherwise of the pilot in the event of a problem arising.
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:03 pm
SirJimmySchoular wrote:He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:09 pm
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:36 pm
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:45 pm
snoopystorm wrote:Ohh my god what a tool, that’s like a ship captain saying I sailed that shop around the world 5 years ago and it never capsized..... or a person who brought a car brand new, sold it on and somewhere down the line it breaks down and they say well it worked fine for me when I had it, or a caravan owner well it never had damp in it when I owned it.... ffs anything for 5 mins of fame
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:45 pm
snoopystorm wrote:Ohh my god what a tool, that’s like a ship captain saying I sailed that shop around the world 5 years ago and it never capsized..... or a person who brought a car brand new, sold it on and somewhere down the line it breaks down and they say well it worked fine for me when I had it, or a caravan owner well it never had damp in it when I owned it.... ffs anything for 5 mins of fame
Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:58 pm
Charlie Harper wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.
I feel its best left to the experts to tell us exactly what happened because nobody on this board or any board know what happened that tragic night
Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:02 pm
Calzaghes trainset wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Dahboy wrote:The more I look at that plane I just get the feeling those planes are for taking someone up sight seeing for the experience of flying. NOT to take someone on a 2hour flight across the channel at night in bad weather ffs.
You're half right there. I wouldn't personally get into a single engine plane over the sea and I've refused to do so in the past, but this model is regularly used for that sort of flight. A very important thing would be the competence or otherwise of the pilot in the event of a problem arising.
Wasn’t it a 4.5 hour flight?
Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:10 pm
nojac wrote:I think it was well over a four hour flight . When it crashed it had been flying for nearly two hours.
A commercial flight from
Nantes to Bristol on easy jet is 75 minutes.
It still doesn't make any sense to me , how easily this tragedy could have been avoided.
Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:29 pm
nojac wrote:I think it was well over a four hour flight . When it crashed it had been flying for nearly two hours.
A commercial flight from
Nantes to Bristol on easy jet is 75 minutes.
It still doesn't make any sense to me , how easily this tragedy could have been avoided.
Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:22 pm
Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:47 pm
RageJon wrote:50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane
Pilot error
Mechanical failure
The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made
25% have been written off near enough
788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance
You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:04 pm
dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane
Pilot error
Mechanical failure
The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made
25% have been written off near enough
788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance
You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu
your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:05 pm
SirJimmySchoular wrote:Charlie Harper wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.
I feel its best left to the experts to tell us exactly what happened because nobody on this board or any board know what happened that tragic night
I don't share your faith in "experts", since I have seen them proven completely wrong on many occasions . Side issue, but it's a worrying thing that you think it impossible that anyone on a board might have a few marbles and the ability to put things together - reminds me of Groucho Marx comment, " I wouldn't join any club which would have me as a member".
Saying this, you're perfectly correct that I'm neither a technical expert nor in possession of any of the evidence and so it's only speculation on my part , but unless there's something we don't know lurking in the background , I think it's the most probable hypothesis.
If I've gotten it completely wrong then no doubt you will point it out when the report is published, but with great respect I don't think we should ever defer so easily to our " betters" , and most certainly not discourage people for thinking about stuff for themselves. All investigators need to feel that they're under informed public scrutiny you know.
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:18 pm
SirJimmySchoular wrote:Charlie Harper wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.
I feel its best left to the experts to tell us exactly what happened because nobody on this board or any board know what happened that tragic night
I don't share your faith in "experts", since I have seen them proven completely wrong on many occasions . Side issue, but it's a worrying thing that you think it impossible that anyone on a board might have a few marbles and the ability to put things together - reminds me of Groucho Marx comment, " I wouldn't join any club which would have me as a member".
Saying this, you're perfectly correct that I'm neither a technical expert nor in possession of any of the evidence and so it's only speculation on my part , but unless there's something we don't know lurking in the background , I think it's the most probable hypothesis.
If I've gotten it completely wrong then no doubt you will point it out when the report is published, but with great respect I don't think we should ever defer so easily to our " betters" , and most certainly not discourage people for thinking about stuff for themselves. All investigators need to feel that they're under informed public scrutiny you know.
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:23 pm
Sky High Bluebird wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Charlie Harper wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.
I feel its best left to the experts to tell us exactly what happened because nobody on this board or any board know what happened that tragic night
I don't share your faith in "experts", since I have seen them proven completely wrong on many occasions . Side issue, but it's a worrying thing that you think it impossible that anyone on a board might have a few marbles and the ability to put things together - reminds me of Groucho Marx comment, " I wouldn't join any club which would have me as a member".
Saying this, you're perfectly correct that I'm neither a technical expert nor in possession of any of the evidence and so it's only speculation on my part , but unless there's something we don't know lurking in the background , I think it's the most probable hypothesis.
If I've gotten it completely wrong then no doubt you will point it out when the report is published, but with great respect I don't think we should ever defer so easily to our " betters" , and most certainly not discourage people for thinking about stuff for themselves. All investigators need to feel that they're under informed public scrutiny you know.
A “pilot switch” to control the altimeter ?????
Really ???
Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:56 pm
RageJon wrote:dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane
Pilot error
Mechanical failure
The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made
25% have been written off near enough
788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance
You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu
your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.
Look it up buddy before you dout
And read again what it says
Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %
Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:13 pm
dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane
Pilot error
Mechanical failure
The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made
25% have been written off near enough
788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance
You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu
your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.
Look it up buddy before you dout
And read again what it says
Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %
ill tell you what you look it up. i mean really look it up and show me those figures youve come up with from an official source...i dont mean bits of those figures where you your self attempted some maths.
I have read your link btw. and it does not conclude what you have.
Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:20 pm
RageJon wrote:dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane
Pilot error
Mechanical failure
The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made
25% have been written off near enough
788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance
You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu
your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.
Look it up buddy before you dout
And read again what it says
Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %
ill tell you what you look it up. i mean really look it up and show me those figures youve come up with from an official source...i dont mean bits of those figures where you your self attempted some maths.
I have read your link btw. and it does not conclude what you have.
So you are telling me that the stats of a 747 are not correct ?
The state of the aviation and grounded aircraft of the Malibu piper are not correct ?
And the stats of a harrier are not correct ?
I would be very interested to see yours so please reply to me on the stats of all 3 aircraft I'm intrigued as you haven't actually produced a debate just an attitude that your right
Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:30 pm
dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane
Pilot error
Mechanical failure
The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made
25% have been written off near enough
788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance
You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu
your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.
Look it up buddy before you dout
And read again what it says
Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %
ill tell you what you look it up. i mean really look it up and show me those figures youve come up with from an official source...i dont mean bits of those figures where you your self attempted some maths.
I have read your link btw. and it does not conclude what you have.
So you are telling me that the stats of a 747 are not correct ?
The state of the aviation and grounded aircraft of the Malibu piper are not correct ?
And the stats of a harrier are not correct ?
I would be very interested to see yours so please reply to me on the stats of all 3 aircraft I'm intrigued as you haven't actually produced a debate just an attitude that your right
its not an attitude .your maths is completely wrong.
as for the harrier, you said its like junping in a harrier at war..really, thats not a stat is it.
Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:50 pm
RageJon wrote:dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane
Pilot error
Mechanical failure
The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made
25% have been written off near enough
788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance
You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu
your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.
Look it up buddy before you dout
And read again what it says
Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %
ill tell you what you look it up. i mean really look it up and show me those figures youve come up with from an official source...i dont mean bits of those figures where you your self attempted some maths.
I have read your link btw. and it does not conclude what you have.
So you are telling me that the stats of a 747 are not correct ?
The state of the aviation and grounded aircraft of the Malibu piper are not correct ?
And the stats of a harrier are not correct ?
I would be very interested to see yours so please reply to me on the stats of all 3 aircraft I'm intrigued as you haven't actually produced a debate just an attitude that your right
its not an attitude .your maths is completely wrong.
as for the harrier, you said its like junping in a harrier at war..really, thats not a stat is it.
Please do the maths for me then and im more then happy to say I'm wrong if I am.
It comes down to the fact that the airport should never had let the aircraft go after numerous attempts to take off so they need to be accountable having it on there logs
Everything after that will be pilot error and should never had flown.
Not taking away the fact the plane is a pile of shit as whole.
Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:30 pm
dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:dogfound wrote:RageJon wrote:50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane
Pilot error
Mechanical failure
The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made
25% have been written off near enough
788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance
You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu
your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.
Look it up buddy before you dout
And read again what it says
Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %
ill tell you what you look it up. i mean really look it up and show me those figures youve come up with from an official source...i dont mean bits of those figures where you your self attempted some maths.
I have read your link btw. and it does not conclude what you have.
So you are telling me that the stats of a 747 are not correct ?
The state of the aviation and grounded aircraft of the Malibu piper are not correct ?
And the stats of a harrier are not correct ?
I would be very interested to see yours so please reply to me on the stats of all 3 aircraft I'm intrigued as you haven't actually produced a debate just an attitude that your right
its not an attitude .your maths is completely wrong.
as for the harrier, you said its like junping in a harrier at war..really, thats not a stat is it.
Please do the maths for me then and im more then happy to say I'm wrong if I am.
It comes down to the fact that the airport should never had let the aircraft go after numerous attempts to take off so they need to be accountable having it on there logs
Everything after that will be pilot error and should never had flown.
Not taking away the fact the plane is a pile of shit as whole.
that's the point mate, the maths required aint something you can just rustle up. too many variants
personally i think this is tragic enough without attempts to make it worse.. numerous attempts, yes i read that on day one as well, not mentioned since or corroborated by anyone. so your next sentence about it all then being pilot error is built on quicksand { unless someone comes forward to confirm }.also read Henderson was the pilot { he was not } Henderson scanned through security { he didnt } Mckay was a con a spiv and was billing the club { he probably is over other things but the texts suggest a favour in this case }..
I am all for anyone that might be to blame for doing wrong being held to account but as it stands we do not know enough.