NTSB to rule on Wellstone crash cause

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/18/wellstone.crash.ap/index.html

Despite icy conditions, Capt. Richard Conry decided it was safe for him to fly Sen. Paul Wellstone in a small plane to a campaign stop in northern Minnesota during the last days of his close race for re-election.

The twin-engine propeller plane never reached its destination. As it approached the runway of Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport, it slowed to a dangerous 87 mph, veered sharply, sheared off treetops and crashed to the ground, where it burned for hours. All eight aboard were killed.

On Tuesday, the National Transportation Safety Board will vote on a probable cause of the October 25, 2002, accident. Was it the pilots' error that caused the King Air A100 to crash 21/2 miles from the runway, or factors beyond their control?

Accident investigators reported that Conry at first wanted to cancel the flight because of possible icing on the wings, which disrupts air flow and can cause the wing to lose its lift.

<snip>

Investigators cited two cases in which co-pilots on other flights took controls away from Conry with Wellstone on board. Just three days before the fatal crash, Conry mistakenly activated the wrong switch and caused the plane to pitch downward during the climb. The co-pilot corrected his action.

When the plane landed, Wellstone jokingly told Conry to "get some sleep."

Weird. I had a physics prof who used to have the class vote on correct answers to problems.... sort of his way of pointing out that voting isn't always the way to truth. :shrug:

Remember the line in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indy tells his class he will teach them facts, not truth, that if they want truth they will have to take a philosophy course?

History and all investigative fields are like that. They collect as many facts as they can, then decide how to interpret those facts. The facts are beyond question, but the interpretation is always subjective. Of course, facts can be proven wrong later, or new facts can be uncovered, and then the interpretation changes. Read any conspiracy theory, or any account of the JFK assassination. The same facts can be intepreted a thousand ways, some more likely than others. What becomes the official historical opinion is simply what the most experts come to believe is right.

That's not to say there aren't wrong interpretations-- which either leave out key facts or use bad facts. Or that sometimes the facts are so incontrevertable that only one explanation makes any sense. That's what the investigators always hope for. The question for the Wellstone crash will be how conclusive are the facts, and is there any way the facts could mean something else. If they find incontrevertible proof that a wrong switch was used or that there was ice on the wings, it looks like an accident. If they can't find any real proof of anything other than that the plane crashed, or if some of their key facts can be interpreted more than one way, then their conclusions won't be convincing. The vote is not to see who is right, but to see how many of them agree on the interpretation of the facts.

Sorry to be pedantic. Very similar to a speech I planned to give freshman history students. I finally get to use it, on people who are much to smart to need it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it was said that it's expected that weather will not be listed as a factor in the crash and the most likely cause will be pilot error. The report did not say where this info is coming from.

The Mpls Star Tribune had an article on this yesterday. I was "amused" by a line in it that said "The report should lay to rest suspicions about sabotage."

Because, of course, the government always tells us the truth.

and just that is suspicious.

Despite typical Minnesota light icing conditions between 8,000 and 11,000 feet, Capt. Richard Conry decided it was safe for him to fly Sen. Paul Wellstone in a small plane to a campaign stop in northern Minnesota during the last days of his close race for re-election.

The twin-engine propeller plane never reached its destination. As it approached the runway of Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport, it mysteriously flew well to the south of its intended course for almost a minute while it slowed more than 50 mph below the recommended approach speed, veered sharply, sheared off treetops and crashed to the ground, where it burned for hours. All eight aboard were killed.

I don't remember reading anywhere before that they were too high and too fast. This explains a lot.

I've been in a similiar situation with where a fast moving plane will came up on a slower plane on final. It happened to me in a Navajowhen we came up on a Cessna 172 student pilot on final. Tower asked us to "kill time" while the 172 got on the ground and out of the way. We did a quick 360 degree turn and zigzagged around a bit. This avoided a "go around" and screwing up the traffic pattern worse than it already was.

If you're too fast and too high you need to do something to bleed off altitude and airspeed. There are several solutions, some drastic:

• go around (probably what should have been done)
  
• Deliberately put the plane into a stall in hopes of coming out of it (eg. the Gimli Glider) - emergencies only
  
• Go off course, bleed the altitude, then make your way back to the glidepath (see above)
  

I suspect they were doing the last one and the plane got away from them.

On edit, I'm even wondering if they decided to get fancy and try an controlled stall. That way, they would have ignored the stall warning, because they caused the stall.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=226389

I'm locking this thread. Interested DUers are welcome to continue discussing this in the referenced thread.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
TahitiNut - DU moderator