Oklahoma St. WBB coaches die in plane crash

Is there a place you can have a discussion without people who have 2000 plus posts. It appears that at some point the post total blurs the mind.

Editor Note: this is the opinion of the author and not based on facts.
 
You start with the condescension "give me a break", can't answer any questions with facts that support your half-ass opinions, and then try to discredit others based on their number of posts as though your record of a non-poster should carry more credibility? Dunno what you're good at, but intelligent discussion obviously isn't on the list of strengths.

Good Lord, calm down the forum chest bumping. Wayne & Jessie. I'm sorry that I have touched a nerve with two people that collectively have over 13,000 posts. It appears that having a different opinion than the moderators or admins is an immediate challenge to the collective thinking. No wonder pilots have such a glowing reputation with the general population.

Wayne:
1. The pilots that fly them.
2.1970
3. 1946 The airlines use 65 for a reason. I don't think it is so they can spend money new pilots. It's because the age of the pilots is a liability.
4. They are my answers, not my facts. I clearly said that these were some of the items that made me say "huh" Huh aint fact.
5. I don't look at the insurance companies to tell me what to fly or how to fly it.

Your challenge makes me wonder how mature you are as opposed to how old you are. I'm not interested in a competition with you. I only try to fly safely, my application to fly in the Red Bull races was denied year after year.


You are correct that all 16yr old's aren't fit to drive. You are also correct that all 80 yr old's aren't fit to drive.
 
Is there a place you can have a discussion without people who have 2000 plus posts. It appears that at some point the post total blurs the mind.

Editor Note: this is the opinion of the author and not based on facts.

LOL, I disagree with your old airplane assessment. there are 2 somewhat recent incidents that I have convinced myself that old age was partially responsible for bad ADM, regardless of what the FAA or NTSB says.
 
Wayne, I am perfectly happy with people disagreeing with me. I answered all of your questions one by one.
You asked for my and I gave you MY answers. I have never once said that my answers represent any anyone else or are fact based. Give the buzz word "fact" a rest. This isn't your playground and you aren't to derail the supposed open discussion about this accident.

Condescending? You started out asking my age and cursing at me. Not sure what you expected out of me after that.

Anyway, I'm not going to play with the pigs in the mud any longer.

Has anyone read any updated news or reports on this crash?

Bart, I'm confident that there are older aircraft that are better than new and very airworthy. My view on the matter is probably skewed by a few personal experiences. Mostly duringI was receiving my private training
 
Wayne, I am perfectly happy with people disagreeing with me. I answered all of your questions one by one.
You asked for my and I gave you MY answers. I have never once said that my answers represent any anyone else or are fact based. Give the buzz word "fact" a rest. This isn't your playground and you aren't to derail the supposed open discussion about this accident.
Nor is it yours. Please review our rules of conduct:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_faq_rules_of_conduct
 
The older plane and pilot issue is such a dead horse for this community.

I don't understand how we can all agree that age negatively affects buildings, cars, people, dogs, roads, tools, medicine etc. etc. But the GA community defends old aircraft based on the inspections and annuals. Give me a break.Their are plenty of A&P mechanics that do terrible work and that isn't a secret to anyone.

I understand that their are thousands of older aircraft flying. Hell, I rent a 61' C150 from time to time. That aircraft goes thru the motions for it's inspections and I still find missing screws and other issues.

I just can't continue to defend older aircraft to be as safe as newer airplanes even when under control of competent pilots or even more competent pilots for that matter.

What's happening with older aircraft is unprecedented because we simply don't have the data to evaluate how 40+ year old planes will hold up. Do we really thing that the engineers in 1960 were expecting a 4 place plane to still be flying in 2011. It's amazing that they are still surviving but that doesn't make them as safe as newer aircraft.
Kindly note my low post count.:D

Now, we do NOT all agree that "old = bad" for all of the things you cited. In fact, CYCLES make for bad, not years. In many cases, cycles correlate to age, but not all. You mentioned roads - roads wear due to freeze/thaw cycles and cycles of heavy traffic upon them. Rarely travelled roads in places that never freeze last decades, while truck routes in Quebec last just a few years (if that).

Ditto with "old airplanes" like the one I fly. My 182 has 4400-ish hours TTAF and 450-ish hours SMOH. For a plane about to turn 50 years old that is VERY LITTLE time. For the record, I am a Metallurgist by trade. Fatigue occurs from stress loading and unloading, not from years sitting in a hangar.

Lastly, as it specifically regards aircraft engines there is very good data showing that a brand new engine is more likely to suffer a catastrophic failure than one that has a couple hundred hours on it. So "brand new" does not always equal better than "comfortably broken in".



As it all pertains to this crash - who knows. But statistically what is the number one cause of inflight engine stoppage? Fuel exhaustion, right? So if I were a betting man that's where my money would be. The pilot could be 82 or 22 years old, the plane 47 or 4.7 years old - if it ain't got fuel it ain't goin' much further. Grandpa's denture cream ain't aviation fuel, and neither is junior's Red Bull energy drink (cute TV commercial aside).
 
Jessie, thank you for the link. I'm assuming Wayne has read the part about not cursing at other members or is that just behavior that is expected out of some and therefore overlooked?

You will notice that in each of my posts I continue to bring it back to the crash and the victims. This is were my focus remains. I'm not interested in arguing with anyone here.

Morne, well said and thanks for your post.

My understanding is that there are parts of an aircraft that were designed with a life span in mind. Are there any unusual things that tend to be an issue with the aircraft in this accident?

Thanks for everyone's input and I apologize if things got off track. I really am just trying to learn somethings from this horrible accident.
Bill D.
 
My understanding is that there are parts of an aircraft that were designed with a life span in mind.
My experience with "life-limited" components for aircraft is that they are limited by "flight hours", "landing cycles" or "pressurization cycles". Aluminum doesn't much care about the passage of chronological time at room temperature, except in very specific heat treatment situations.

The military flies TONS of old birds. There are B-52 airframes with 3rd generation pilots. Ditto the KC-135. With enough maintenance (and spare parts) you could fly almost any aircraft for a mind-boggling number of years.

Now if you wish to rail against APs and IAs - that's a whole other ball of wax.
 
Well, my experience with A&P's has only been at arms length. I just haven't been overly impressed. I'm sure its like any industry where doing the bare minimum will qualify you but doesn't necessarily mean you are the best or even competent for that matter.

When I read stories about people buying a plane or upgrading something they always mention to find a mechanic you can trust. That tells me that many people have been taken advantage of or had a bad experience.

P.S. Wayne, I live in N. Texas and would be happy to buy you a cup of coffee if you swing thru town. No hard feelings on my part.
 
I think that most professional relationships are based on a certain level of trust, including medical, financial, mechanical or other. I'd be willing to be there are many more crooked roofing contractors than crooked A&P's.

You might be surprised to know there are two sides to the airplane story, and many cheap, crooked and manipulative aircraft owners only choose to remember (and re-tell) the parts of the story that are favorable to them.

I spend a high percentage of most weeks in a building that houses an aircraft maintenance shop, and see this drama play out on a continuing basis. During the past month I have personally witnessed the culmination of an airplane owner refusing to honor a written agreement and purposely cheating a service provider out of ~$500,000.

The bottom line is that airplane owners don't like the fact that airplanes are expensive to maintain (I don't like it either) and many are constantly on the lookout for a cheaper way to skin the cat. The high cost is primarily due to the se the FAA-required inspections that in most cases aren't necessary and in some cases create more problems than they solve. Sometimes the new problems are the fault of the mechanics doing the inspections, sometimes they aren't. An unfortunate fact of life at the airport is that some shops stay in business as a result of the excellent service they provide to their customers and some stay in business in spite of any evidence that they do so.

When you ask an honest A&P for his side of the story, he will quickly tell you that all shops make mistakes, his included. He will also tell you that the difference between good shops and bad shops is the number that they make and their approach to handling them when they occur. The good ones 'fess up, fix the problem and eat the cost. The others don't. If you're looking for perfection, the repair manual isn't the book you should be reading.

P. S. Coffee sounds good to me. Let me know when and where. I have stronger arguments than this with friends of 40 years.



Well, my experience with A&P's has only been at arms length. I just haven't been overly impressed. I'm sure its like any industry where doing the bare minimum will qualify you but doesn't necessarily mean you are the best or even competent for that matter.

When I read stories about people buying a plane or upgrading something they always mention to find a mechanic you can trust. That tells me that many people have been taken advantage of or had a bad experience.

P.S. Wayne, I live in N. Texas and would be happy to buy you a cup of coffee if you swing thru town. No hard feelings on my part.
 
Glad to know that somebody has all the answers on this issue. In support of your position on this statement, please answer the following questions:

1. What mechanical defect have you determined to be the most significant cause of accidents involving older airplanes?

2. What is the latest date of manufacture that meets your definition of "older" airframes?

3. What is the latest date of birth that qualifies a pilot for being "younger" rather than "older."

4. What proof do you have for any of your answers?

5. Has it occurred to you that insurance companies would have long since adjusted the hull coverage premium rates if older airplanes were known to be present a higher accident risk than newer airplanes? Has that happened?

How old are you? Are you willing to bet $500 that I can't beat your ass at anything you want to do in an airplane?

+ 10000

Bill, Do you work for the U.S. Forest Service, I know all of them think they are going to be 34 years of age the rest of their lives.
 
Last edited:
Bob, no i'm not employed by the Forestry Service. I'm not 34 either.

Do you have anything related to this accident to discuss or were you just taken an open shot at me?
 
Is there a piliminary accident report out on this yet? Before a brawl breaks out in some quiet Texas coffee house... ;)

<---<^>--->
 
Back
Top