[PEN-L:9301] RE: Re: JFK Jr and the Hubris of the Rich

["Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Gil,

I could not have gone in visual without some vectoring and it would have
been dicey. I have been an instrument pilot and instructor for years and
frankly when I changed from dusk to dark over the water I got disoriented
fast and had to go on instruments. Mind you, unlike JFK Jr, I am not
familiar with the route from Caldwell to Martha's Lake.

All pilots on instruments or in instrument conditions get vertigo (fluid in
inner ear sloshes around producing disorientation; senses usually tell you
you are in a climbing turn to the right even when instruments tell you  you
are level and inexperienced pilots follow their senses usually pitching nose
down and turning to the left thus producing a rolling-left dive while
experienced pilots just ignor the vertigo and trust (and cross-check) the
instruments.

Even if he had properly learned his aircraft, the Piper Saratoga has a
three-axis autopilot and he could have kicked in the autopilot to stabilize
and even flown a coupled approach to the instrument landing system on runway
24 at Martha's Vinyard. But best yet, would have simply been to take an
instructor, not gone or as a last result, climbed to clear air, stabilized
the aircraft, put down his Kennedy ego and admitted his limitations.

Frankly I don't give a whit about any Kennedy's but I am glad no one on the
ground was killed; the people on the ground do not elect to go aloft with
all the attendant risks which is why my father taught me that if I am going
down, do not go where there are lights (people), go where it is dark, as why
take the innocent with you as they didn't elect to take the risks.

But no, Gil, I could not have gotten into Martha's Vinyard without
descending into spatially disorienting haze that would be difficult for an
inexperienced pilot to handle. The track from Caldwell NJ to Martha's
Vinyard can be flown close to land for most of the trip but there is a
significant and dangerous overwater portion that should not be flow at less
than 7500, should not be flown VFR or at least on flight following.

All in all, the mistakes and gross, wreckless and arrogant negiligence are
almost as obscene as the the star-struck coverage that neglects the real
lessons and hubris of the whole thing.

Jim Craven

-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Skillman [mailto:gskillman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 11:30 AM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:9296] Re: JFK Jr and the Hubris of the Rich


Jim--I agree by and large with your diagnosis of the JFK tragedy, but what
exactly was the result of your simulation experiment?  Could you have
brought the plane in on a VFR basis?  Gil


>I just did an experiment. I have a "Pro-Pilot" simulator in my office (the
>same type used by the Air Force Academy and several airlines--not a game)
>that I use to keep up my skills as a pilot and for relief from some of the
>feudal fascist machinations of our illustrious administration.
>
>It has all the airports in the US and has accurate topography and
human-made
>structures around the airports. I can fly any of five aircraft (Cessna 172,
>Beech Bonanza, Beech Baron, Beech King-Air and Cessna Citation jet) with
>exact and working cockpits, sounds and everything. I can set for day,
night,
>dawn and dusk, and I can set haze, varying degrees of cloud cover to shoot
>instrument approaches down to minimums. It has flight planning
capabilities,
>weight and balance and fuel management.
>
>So I set up a flight from Fairfield County NJ to Martha's Vinyard along the
>track flown by JFK Jr. I set it for dusk departure with haze and flew the
>route at 5500 ft. Unlike JFK Jr who started flying about a year and a half
>ago, I soloed on March 31, 1962 in a Mooney Mark 20A from Boeing Field in
>Seattle and have continued as a pilot since then with brief hiatuses from
>flying.
>
>Suffice to say that JFK Jr with a relatively new private license, flying a
>new high performance Piper Saratoga in which he had few hours, not being
>instrument rated, demonstrated the high costs of hubris. Indeed I have seen
>many accidents caused by rich people who thought "If I can afford it, it
>must mean I can fly it."
>
>First of all, with his limited experience, he had no business flying that
>route at dusk especially when the apparent haze was immediately evident
>(even on a "clear night", haze is often not observable until one is in it
>and then VFR pilots--even IFR pilots--often become disoriented. Secondly,
he
>had no business flying that track at less than 7500 ft minimum (he flew it
>at a reported 5500 ft) and with over water part of the time, single-engine,
>he was pushing it given his limited experience (no water survival equipment
>was reported to be on board). Thirdly, he filed no flight plan (common but
>stupid) and according to reports did not even request flight following from
>ATC which could have advised him or vectored him to stay VFR and even
>vectored him to Martha's vinyard. With the equipment on board that
aircraft,
>he could have easily been vectored to an airport at which he could have
made
>an approach consistent with his limited skills. Fourthly, according to
>recent reports, he decended from 5500 down to 2500 some 12-13 miles out
>which is way too low, way too soon (he was probably trying to "scud run" or
>get down below the haze to stay visual and lost his orientation, went into
a
>steep dive possibly with wings not level, in which case the natural
instinct
>(which you do NOT follow--always follow the instruments) is to pull back on
>the yoke which intensifies the descent and/or sets up a low-level
stall/spin
>situation.
>
>All he had to do was climb, level his wings, get some altitude and radio
ATC
>and admit his limitations--not having an instrument rating and unable to
>stay VFR at low altitudes--and ask for assistance to be vectored to stay
VFR
>and get down. This happens all the time. But it means admitting your
>limitations.
>
>As my father used to say: when you bring ego on board, you have an
excessive
>forward CG problem.
>It is enough of a tragedy that all these resources and air time are being
>wasted on some celebrity whose main contribution to society appears to be
in
>his last name; that rag of his "George" seems to me to be a lot about
>nothing. but since they are going to use the air time, why not emphasize
the
>lessons to be learned so that maybe some lives might be saved in the
future.
>Of course that would mean admitting the limitations, ego and hubris of the
>rich celebs that drive a vacuous star culture.
>
>Jim Craven
>
>James Craven
>Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd.
>Vancouver, WA. 98663
>(360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863
>blkfoot5@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blkfoot5/
>*My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected Opinion*
>