rlsbutler

This has been a good thread because there have been no self-referring mawkish condolences and no indignant complaints about others leaping to conclusions before the proper authorities have walked to theirs.

But then, as three of us have already observed, this thread was not considered by the-mods-that-be worthy of Rumours and News. So it looks to be expiring in the first page of interesting contributions.

It is also an unhappy feature of mainstream PPRuNe discussion that we demonise journalists. I therefore recommend a very measured and well-informed comment from over the pond:

Alaska Crashes

I would dearly have liked someone whom I respected to have said this about me, with my little contribution to the world of military and quasi-military flying, when Bertorelli comments that "most are just canny pilots who don't scare easily".

FoolsGold

It is true that the survivor's account is consistent with a CFIT with no warning. The witness does not recall any abrupt maneuvering, any power setting changes, any stall warning horn, etc.. The problem is that the witness did suffer a brief loss of consciousness and therefore may not be as reliable as analysis of the technical evidence will later prove to be.

I've noted considerable discussion of the boldness of bush pilots but how "excessively bold" could the pilot have been if he was flying a known GPS course he had flown dozens of times before? And how much boldness is involved if he took off in the same weather conditions that other nearby pilots were flying in? The wreckage was spotted by a pilot already in the air and not on a SAR mission. How bold was that pilot?

Sure we will probably never know the exact weather conditions at time of take off, there being no reliable reporting station at that location, but the plane does appear to have been on its proper course and in its intended location. It was just too low.

I hope the interim report comes along soon. This one will prove interesting.

rlsbutler

I was knocked unconscious for about ten minutes in a car accident in my twenties. Being a serving pilot, I was examined closely at the Central Medical Establishment to see if I had lost significant function. The fact that I could remember clearly the progression of the accident up to my loss of consciousness was a positive indicator in this respect.

Presumably the witness in the Dillingham crash will have the same examination. If the other signs are that he has good brain function, I would have thought his testimony ought to be valid.

FoolsGold

The passenger's recollections may indeed turn out to be consistent with all other evidence of a more technical nature. It is simply that there is a potential for amnesia regarding immediately preceding events. There was a considerable time before any medical evaluation was conducted.

The law would make a statement uttered upon regaining one's senses admissible in a trial but it does not render such a statement as anything that can't be challenged.

MarkerInbound

Hate to be picky but Stevens was not the longest serving Senator. Alaska did not have a serving Senator before it was admitted into the Union. But in a strange coincidence, the longest serving Senator (Byrd from West Virginia) did take office the day Alaska joined the Union.