Plane Crash

[gordon_as]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#178763

another day , another questionable story on castanet.

Why do they find any of this suspicious ?

[Sonny Taylor]

It would be more relevant to the crash investigation to discover the maintenance history of the aircraft. Who maintained it and how and why they serviced it is more important than who owned it

Having said that; the two questions may be intertwined; and may also ultimately have nothing to do with why it crashed.

The Transportation Safety Board will surely examine all of these details.

[BoB76]

So I'm gonna be the bad guy here....

4 people died in a plane crash last week is sad and all but I'm sure 4 other people died in cars or suicide last week as well. The guy was ousted from parliament after 8 months in office so it wasn't like anything important was accomplished in that time. Not saying he wasn't a good person but I don't understand the constant castanet news feed as if it's a national tragedy. Publicizing his death and making a big deal of it certainly devalues the other 3 lives also lost. Let the investigation take place and wait the year mr castanet reporter.

[Jx3]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-178763-1-.htm#178763

another day , another questionable story on castanet.

Why do they find any of this suspicious ?

Agreed.

The reporting on this accident has been pathetic, even by Castanet standards.

[pentona]

The reporting on this accident has been pathetic, even by Castanet standards.

I recently was told by a news reporter (no names or media outlet mentioned) that competition to get the story out FIRST is number one objective; to beat out the other guys, so sometimes info isn't totally accurate or complete.

I prefer quality over speed; would rather wait for the real news/accurate stories.

[BriTer]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-178763-1-.htm#178763

another day , another questionable story on castanet.

Why do they find any of this suspicious ?

And that's how more rumors and speculation start, that use of the word 'suspicious'.
That article provided by 'contributed' mentions that ownership is a mystery, and it is. So, Castnet doesn't find it suspicious. You do.
How so? What connections to ownership make it suspicious?

[Dizzy1]

That's one of the possibles that will be looked at. The aircraft at the time of the crash would have most likely been on autopilot shortly after take off and even if the pilot jumped out of the aircraft, it would have kept flying. There would have to have been more to it than a medical emergency, like taking the aircraft off of autopilot.

One thing you have to keep in mind though, autopilots are usually designed to be disengaged by manipulating the controls such as the yoke for a set period of time, so in theory, if the pilot did have a medical episode and slumped over the controls, manipulating them for the determined set time the autopilot may have disengaged. Which is what bought down Aeroflot 593 (minus the medical condition) back in 1994.

[Dizzy1]

That article provided by 'contributed' mentions that ownership is a mystery, and it is.

Its not a mystery, at least to the investigators. It sounds like fractional ownership from the article - many private planes all the way from C172s up to Gulfstream GVs are owned and operated this way. A group of people come together, contribute X amount of dollars towards a plane and are allowed X amount of time per year - kind of like time sharing.

As far as the story goes, its absolute trash and completely irrelevant. The story tries to make it sound like this was some "mystery jet" with a mysterious and secretive background when in reality, everything they mentioned is normal. I'm curious as to how much other information the previous owner gave the media who then chose to omit it in the hopes of making a more sinister sound story.

[BriTer]

Good points Dizzy1
I'm outta here. Going to find me a good suspicion movie to watch.

[Dizzy1]

Good points Dizzy1
I'm outta here. Going to find me a good suspicion movie to watch.

May I suggest "Airport '79"? ;)

[Dizzy1]

I recently was told by a news reporter (no names or media outlet mentioned) that competition to get the story out FIRST is number one objective; to beat out the other guys, so sometimes info isn't totally accurate or complete.

Add to that, the more dramatic or catchy the headline, the more hits your gonna get. So in reality, its our thirst for the dramatic that feeds the media.

In one of my old aviation magazines, there was an article about old airplane crashes and one in particular that happened in Chicago or New York back in the 50s/60s - anyway, the photographer that covered the story said one of his tactics to sell the photographs was to carry an old, beat up teddy bear with him and place it at such sites to give the tragedy more of a shock factor.

Back to the crash though, anyone interested in reading a bit about the fractional ownerships I mentioned earlier, here is a light read from wiki ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_ownership

[A10ThunderboltII]

[quote="LTD"]would it build up enough ice to bring the plane down in that short of a time period theres no way it was icing up sitting on the ground I know it doesn't take a lot to disrupt airflow but it seems it would've had to happen awfully quick[/quote]
The aircraft itself wouldn't have to iceup. If the pitot/static ports got clogged with ice or some other substance, the pilot, climbing out in rain and cloud with no visibility wouldn't have much in the way of accurate instrumentation. There have been many incidents of pilots losing control and flying into the ground in such circumstances..

It's just one possibility, from leaving the end of the runway, climbing, to out of control going down. It can happen in not minutes, but seconds..seconds.. we may never know..sad

[gordon_as]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-178763-1-.htm#178763

another day , another questionable story on castanet.

Why do they find any of this suspicious ?

And that's how more rumors and speculation start, that use of the word 'suspicious'.
That article provided by 'contributed' mentions that ownership is a mystery, and it is. So, Castnet doesn't find it suspicious. You do.
How so? What connections to ownership make it suspicious?

My point was that it is not suspicious at all. Things are done that way everywhere , every day. The media story I linked
seemed to be trying to imply that there was something suspicious about the business practices of Norjet.

[cfriedemann]

. The weather that evening was BRUTAL. I have a view of my neighbors 40 foot fir trees, and I could still see the branches on the tree. They were moving UP & DOWN, not sideways as what one would expect in a wind. Up and down multiple times. Highly unusual. Like the winds were blowing downwards.(down drafts) big time. Really unusual winds.
. So when I heard about the plane crash a short time later, it came as no surprise. If that plane took off North, off the runway, it got blown out of the sky by the wind. That would not be a surprising conclusion. Before it really got airborne, it lost control.
. That was extreme windy weather. It even broke my fence.

[Glacier]

. The weather that evening was BRUTAL. I have a view of my neighbors 40 foot fir trees, and I could still see the branches on the tree. They were moving UP & DOWN, not sideways as what one would expect in a wind. Up and down multiple times. Highly unusual. Like the winds were blowing downwards.(down drafts) big time. Really unusual winds.
. So when I heard about the plane crash a short time later, it came as no surprise. If that plane took off North, off the runway, it got blown out of the sky by the wind. That would not be a surprising conclusion. Before it really got airborne, it lost control.
. That was extreme windy weather. It even broke my fence.

Those were my immediate thoughts as well. I heard about the crash the next morning, and thought of the extreme weather we had the night before. It was one of the worst storms to strike my place since moving to the Okanagan.