Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:52 pm
RageJon wrote: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.
Your right it is pretty much speculation at the moment
Whats getting to me is the aaib are or have been reluctant in the past to retrieve smaller planes from oceans as it's costs a few quid so will there ever be a full explanation if it lays there.
The first day I found it strange the media hadn't reported the failed take offs.
Pilot issue is an alarm in my ears
The actual plane are church bells in my ears 229 actual in flight write offs and the rest were ground due to economic beyond repair.. I've read there are more grounded also there just the figures I've read.
It's labbeled as the best worst plane of it's type pretty much like an rx8 car awsome performance but shit goes wrong quickly and sells cheap second hand. Constant maintenance and constant problems. Also read alot about the cockpit at night not being the best. the systems are low budget.
It's a plane used for jumpers. Goes up and comes down in the day time.
The stats were just to compare the logic of how can a plane that goes into a war and does alot more mileage and is up against it have a stat against a plane that does not do alot of mileage.
The 747 is I were to say that 98% of those planes are safe then you would look at it in a different light.
In regards to speculation on what's happened the plane should have been grounded like any commercial airliner would have been failing to take off.
Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:02 am
Charlie Harper wrote: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
Theres my point Sky High Bluebird, although I understand what you do for a living and IMO you have the best understanding here
Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:51 am
Charlie Harper wrote: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 ???
Theres my point Sky High Bluebird, although I understand what you do for a living and IMO you have the best understanding here
Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:29 am
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:47 am
SirJimmySchoular wrote:Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.
Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:29 am
Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:12 pm
Steve Zodiak wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.
I think the aircraft part you mentioned earlier is probably the pitot tube. Would'nt be the first accident to happen due to ice forming over this component.
Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:16 pm
City1983 wrote:I thought it was referring to the 'Pitot Tube' to. If this did become blocked due to Ice, then Mr Ibbotson would have become very disorientated because of the poor handling of the Aircraft.
Thus, the Aerodynamics of flight could have seriously impacted on his Actions.
Indeed, if he was getting mixed messages in the cockpit, due to the erroneous altimeter readings, it is conceivable that he was much lower than he originally thought he was..by which time he realised..it was way too late.
The AAIB will have his QNH made available from which they can figure out at which height the Aircraft was at each point on its Path to its point from which it vanished from radar.
The QNH would have to have been constantly adjusted along the route, if the weather was continually deteriorating. If he did not monitor this inflight due to his other cockpit priorities then it would easily have distracted him from what he should have bee doing to correct the situation.
Like we are discussing, none knows what he was experiencing and or what the aircraft was experiencing up to its disappearance.
Though as I suspect, if conditions were that bad and the flight was flying in very low pressure say, at for instance, 978 Hectopascals that would have -25 below the ISO Mean Sea Level of 1013 hectopascals. So, immediately he would have had to have been aware of 750 feet of Pressure Altitude or Density Altitude.
If Mr Ibbotson had had this on his mind he would have thought to Aviate first, Navigate and Communicate if he was in distress.
Its at this point he was taking actions he thought would stabilise the aircraft. By altering his altitude.
If as is suspected his pitot tube was blocked then every action of his altitude was having a drastic affect on his height above msl.
He needed to account for the 750 ft msl when descending because the water below would have been 750ft closer to the aircraft.
Add that to the elements: fog, wind, rain and the darkness. He wouldn't have seen much until impact.
It will all be explained in the Interim report by the aaib.
Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:36 pm
City1983 wrote:I thought it was referring to the 'Pitot Tube' to. If this did become blocked due to Ice, then Mr Ibbotson would have become very disorientated because of the poor handling of the Aircraft.
Thus, the Aerodynamics of flight could have seriously impacted on his Actions.
Indeed, if he was getting mixed messages in the cockpit, due to the erroneous altimeter readings, it is conceivable that he was much lower than he originally thought he was..by which time he realised..it was way too late.
The AAIB will have his QNH made available from which they can figure out at which height the Aircraft was at each point on its Path to its point from which it vanished from radar.
The QNH would have to have been constantly adjusted along the route, if the weather was continually deteriorating. If he did not monitor this inflight due to his other cockpit priorities then it would easily have distracted him from what he should have bee doing to correct the situation.
Like we are discussing, none knows what he was experiencing and or what the aircraft was experiencing up to its disappearance.
Though as I suspect, if conditions were that bad and the flight was flying in very low pressure say, at for instance, 978 Hectopascals that would have -25 below the ISO Mean Sea Level of 1013 hectopascals. So, immediately he would have had to have been aware of 750 feet of Pressure Altitude or Density Altitude.
If Mr Ibbotson had had this on his mind he would have thought to Aviate first, Navigate and Communicate if he was in distress.
Its at this point he was taking actions he thought would stabilise the aircraft. By altering his altitude.
If as is suspected his pitot tube was blocked then every action of his altitude was having a drastic affect on his height above msl.
He needed to account for the 750 ft msl when descending because the water below would have been 750ft closer to the aircraft.
Add that to the elements: fog, wind, rain and the darkness. He wouldn't have seen much until impact.
It will all be explained in the Interim report by the aaib.
Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:42 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
Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:29 pm
Sky High Bluebird wrote:City1983 wrote:I thought it was referring to the 'Pitot Tube' to. If this did become blocked due to Ice, then Mr Ibbotson would have become very disorientated because of the poor handling of the Aircraft.
Thus, the Aerodynamics of flight could have seriously impacted on his Actions.
Indeed, if he was getting mixed messages in the cockpit, due to the erroneous altimeter readings, it is conceivable that he was much lower than he originally thought he was..by which time he realised..it was way too late.
The AAIB will have his QNH made available from which they can figure out at which height the Aircraft was at each point on its Path to its point from which it vanished from radar.
The QNH would have to have been constantly adjusted along the route, if the weather was continually deteriorating. If he did not monitor this inflight due to his other cockpit priorities then it would easily have distracted him from what he should have bee doing to correct the situation.
Like we are discussing, none knows what he was experiencing and or what the aircraft was experiencing up to its disappearance.
Though as I suspect, if conditions were that bad and the flight was flying in very low pressure say, at for instance, 978 Hectopascals that would have -25 below the ISO Mean Sea Level of 1013 hectopascals. So, immediately he would have had to have been aware of 750 feet of Pressure Altitude or Density Altitude.
If Mr Ibbotson had had this on his mind he would have thought to Aviate first, Navigate and Communicate if he was in distress.
Its at this point he was taking actions he thought would stabilise the aircraft. By altering his altitude.
If as is suspected his pitot tube was blocked then every action of his altitude was having a drastic affect on his height above msl.
He needed to account for the 750 ft msl when descending because the water below would have been 750ft closer to the aircraft.
Add that to the elements: fog, wind, rain and the darkness. He wouldn't have seen much until impact.
It will all be explained in the Interim report by the aaib.
The altimeter uses a PITOT STATIC system , a quick perusal of the PA46 MALIBU flight operating manual shows that the
System consists of a “HEATED pitot head (standard) , two static vents either side of the fuselage and an alternate static on the bottom of the fuselage.
The static pads/vents for the altimeter have been demonstrated as non icing , however in the event of icing the pilot can select the alternate static system to allieviate the effect” (Something the AAIB Will show particular interest in).
Whilst the pitot head is heated like any aircraft and noted in the ops manual “The airplane is not designed to operate for an indefinite period of time in every icing condition encountered in nature”
Note that this is despite the Malibu having de icing boots On the wing leading edge and heated pads on the propellor.
So for clarification a pitot tube blockage only affects AIRSPEED , not altitude.
A more plausible explanation would be an iced up aircraft which would add weight to the airframe and therefore a considerable increase in the stall speed
This with unreliable airspeed indications and a pilot not proficient in instrument flying would rapidly lead to disorientation And Loss of control.
A lack of a mayday call would suggest that the onset of the chain of events would have been rapid especially if the accumulation of ice was quick.
That would be my take on it and im still learning after 13000 hrs of flying and 1500 hrs instructing on and flying Piper aircraft.
I await the prelimary AAIB Report with interest.
Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:33 pm
Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:35 pm
Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:25 pm
SirJimmySchoular wrote:Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:29 pm
Sven wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.
TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)
I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned
Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:23 pm
Sven wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.
TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)
I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned
Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:01 pm
Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:47 am
DandoCCFC wrote:People will say hindsight is a wonderful thing but when you break the record for a signing I don't get why his agent arranged a flight on a plane that size. Will never make sense it's a record breaking transfer for us. I don't think I will ever wrap my head around it.
Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:51 am
Sky High Bluebird 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
The Malibu is a safe aircraft , the problem lies with the people who tend to own and fly it.
Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:25 pm
Sky High Bluebird wrote:Sven wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.
TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)
I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned
You’ve lost me Sven ....which switch would you be referring to ?
Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:36 pm
Charlie Harper wrote:Sven wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.
TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)
I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned
Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:52 pm
BlueMoon1974 wrote:Charlie Harper wrote:Sven wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.
TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)
I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned
I guess that was directed at myself from someone who likes to have a dig at posters every so often, but surely its better to leave it to experts as I've already said [/quote
Spot on there Mr Harper, this forum of late is getting a bit touchy . I was accused last week of making up stories(sick)by this Sven character and he was plugging a free pint with a meal. He might be a moderator but the power gone to his head.
Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:12 pm
dogfound wrote:BlueMoon1974 wrote:Charlie Harper wrote:Sven wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.
TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)
I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned
I guess that was directed at myself from someone who likes to have a dig at posters every so often, but surely its better to leave it to experts as I've already said [/quote
Spot on there Mr Harper, this forum of late is getting a bit touchy . I was accused last week of making up stories(sick)by this Sven character and he was plugging a free pint with a meal. He might be a moderator but the power gone to his head.
the body in the plane video ?
Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:05 pm
BlueMoon1974 wrote:Charlie Harper wrote:Sven wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.
TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)
I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned
I guess that was directed at myself from someone who likes to have a dig at posters every so often, but surely its better to leave it to experts as I've already said [/quote
Spot on there Mr Harper, this forum of late is getting a bit touchy . I was accused last week of making up stories(sick)by this Sven character and he was plugging a free pint with a meal. He might be a moderator but the power gone to his head.
Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:16 pm
Charlie Harper wrote:BlueMoon1974 wrote:Charlie Harper wrote:Sven wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.
TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)
I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned
I guess that was directed at myself from someone who likes to have a dig at posters every so often, but surely its better to leave it to experts as I've already said [/quote
Spot on there Mr Harper, this forum of late is getting a bit touchy . I was accused last week of making up stories(sick)by this Sven character and he was plugging a free pint with a meal. He might be a moderator but the power gone to his head.
Absolutely Blue Moon 1974. There was a thread a few weeks ago where we were asked to respect others as we don't know who is posting.
The general feeling was to respect each other but it does seem as if this is not being adhered to especially by certain posters, who have a dig when it is not needed.
After all we are all Cardiff City aint we
Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:53 pm
Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:31 pm
RageJon wrote:Sky High Bluebird 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
The Malibu is a safe aircraft , the problem lies with the people who tend to own and fly it.
AAIB and forum reports suggest that there is a 50/50 take on the aircraft.
Mechanical problems
Pilot error
And your quite right in saying it's a safe aircraft under the right pilot but does that take away the fact that alot have come down to the amount that were made.
I'm not a pilot and I do not maintain aircraft's I just look at facts and figures.
However what does stand out in what you are saying is if the person that owns the aircraft fails to properly maintain the aircraft can that lead to a pilot error.
I've read your previous stuff on the plane and you seem like you know a but about the flying of the plane.. out of curiosity how many miles do you do in it per flight ?
Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:17 am
Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:46 am
BlueMoon1974 wrote:Many posters feel belittled by the constant personal snipes. But I totally agree we are all firstly Cardiff City. More united than ever! !!
Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:01 am
RageJon wrote:Cheers for the info I've read a fare bit about it myself.
But my question was .. How many miles do you fly in it ?