Van's RV-10 fatal crash N626PB in Simi Valley / Ventura County CA

IOW:

“How dare you point to a likely cause that would tend to lower our ability to sue everyone under the sun and recover maximum compensation for our greedy firm…oops, our clients”.

Disclaimer: this is just my opinion and is not factual…
 
Disappointed to hear the youboober capitulated so easily. I recognize for blanco that shtick is just a side hobby when not cosmic/circadian cancering himself to/from SYD, so I understand it's not a hill he's willing to die on. For my part, I don't dabble in video opinions mostly out of my own experience with peers (Mover is the closest one) having had reprimands and negative career effects. I'd say more, but I'm afraid.....:fingerwag:

For civilians though? Yeah this economic lawfare is out of control. We "defame" one another every minute on here, by that fascistic standard of so called "defamatory speech". To say nothing of the nonsense this creates of "well, only the government [NTSB] can legally defame you". Eff that noise.

This one's easy for me, as 1A is the only ideological reason (take it up with Congress if that's not noble/pure enough for the gallery) for my uniformed service (the others are straight up economic/transactional). As such, I share the speculative opinion given current information available to me on the internet, that this was another case of Spatial D. Come. at. me. bro.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Yeah, as it was a retraction that really wasn't. Regardless of how hardass lawyers are, we know that the likely cause is the likely cause.
(I foresee a ruling in the not-to-distant future that says that online writings are opinions by default, unless stated as being fact.)
Click to expand...
You won't see such a ruling. But it isn't necessary. This stuff is protected by the First Amendment.
 
idahoflier said:
While that is true, never underestimate the ability of a good attorney to entice a jury of "peers" into a nonsensical verdict. If you end up in court as a defendant, you have already lost...
Click to expand...
Yup, reminds me of the UCMJ. Pre-adjudicational economic, occupational and even physical constraints is preemptive punishment. Absolutely Orwellian to call that order inversion "justice".
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yup, reminds me of the UCMJ. Pre-adjudicational economic, occupational and even physical constraints is preemptive punishment. Absolutely Orwellian to call that order inversion "justice".
Click to expand...
It's been proven over and over that once the UCMJ is cracked open, the target of that simple act will suffer irreparable career altering impact.
 
idahoflier said:
While that is true, never underestimate the ability of a good attorney to entice a jury of "peers" into a nonsensical verdict. If you end up in court as a defendant, you have already lost...
Click to expand...
This claim would not make it to a jury.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Disappointed to hear the youboober capitulated so easily. I recognize for blanco that shtick is just a side hobby when not cosmic/circadian cancering himself to/from SYD, so I understand it's not a hill he's willing to die on. For my part, I don't dabble in video opinions mostly out of my own experience with peers (Mover is the closest one) having had reprimands and negative career effects. I'd say more, but I'm afraid.....:fingerwag:

For civilians though? Yeah this economic lawfare is out of control. We "defame" one another every minute on here, by that fascistic standard of so called "defamatory speech". To say nothing of the nonsense this creates of "well, only the government [NTSB] can legally defame you". Eff that noise.

This one's easy for me, as 1A is the only ideological reason (take it up with Congress if that's not noble/pure enough for the gallery) for my uniformed service (the others are straight up economic/transactional). As such, I share the speculative opinion given current information available to me on the internet, that this was another case of Spatial D. Come. at. me. bro.
Click to expand...
Well, I've been at the crappy end of two lawsuits. "Won" both. Could have bought a house with the attorney fees. So he made the right move.
 
So we are not entitled to our opinions any more?
 
Lindberg said:
This claim would not make it to a jury.
Click to expand...
Probably true. But he could easily spend several thousand dollars in legal expenses and a fair amount of personal time wasted before the suit was dismissed. I'm guessing it takes quite a lot of Youtube hits to earn the money back and he'd never get the time back. So do you operate on the principle of journalistic integrity (i.e. I ain't givin' in) or operate on the basis of saving your time and money?
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
Probably true. But he could easily spend several thousand dollars in legal expenses and a fair amount of personal time wasted before the suit was dismissed. I'm guessing it takes quite a lot of Youtube hits to earn the money back and he'd never get the time back. So are you operate on the principle of journalistic integrity (i.e. I ain't givin' in) or operate on the basis of saving your time and money?
Click to expand...
Maybe immediately speculating on the cause of accidents for clout before having all the facts isn't worth all that much.
 
Lindberg said:
Maybe immediately speculating on the cause of accidents for clout before having all the facts isn't worth all that much.
Click to expand...
I am personally bothered by the gratuitous monetizing of accident speculation. Of course, that's what the bigger news media does, and (IMO) the usual list of Youtubers (minus Dan) seems to have a better grasp of things than all the so called experts CNN and the others throw in front of a camera.
 
Lindberg said:
You won't see such a ruling. But it isn't necessary. This stuff is protected by the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The courts have extended "Congress" to include any governmental body, but the government isn't involved in this: It's a dispute between two private individuals. The First Amendment ensures that the government can't stop you from saying what you want, but there's no protection if some individual takes umbrage at what you say. The way it should be, I think. Realize, too, that I'm one of the few people in this group who HAS been sued for defamation (actually "conspiracy to defame"). Nauga is another, but the son-of-a-gun didn't get served. :-)

Note, too, in my case, a national publication called me, by name, a "dupe of terrorists." Would I *not* be allowed to take the offender to court?
If there's no governmental action, the First Amendment doesn't apply. This actually was part of the judge's decision in the raft of the lawsuits associated with me and Nauga's case.

I'm ambivalent about this particular case. I've hated the rush-to-judgement seen too often on social media. I grind my teeth at the apparent fan-boy-ism that comes out in these cases....if the pilot was famous, well, it must have been a medical issue, or the plane broke, or the controller was faulty. Such a well-respected pilot COULDN'T have made a mistake!

Contrast this if the victim is Joe Schmo...the idiot forgot his training, they panicked, ANYbody should know they shouldn't take off in weather conditions like that, or "Hey, the guy committed suicide!"

Still, I believe speculation on accident causes..even premature speculation...is acceptable. I prefer this be done in a respectful manner; we've had grieving relatives come on POA in the past, disputing what has been posted. But, of course, my preferences in this don't matter.

In what little I've seen of his work, I think Browne does leap to judgement too quickly. People don't watch his YouTube channel to see him waffling, they want to see a definitive declaration as to WHY this happened. The fact that Browne makes money on his declarations puts him into the "making profit on others' deaths" category, which I think puts him more in the crosshairs for lawyers wanting to make a point.

I think the opinions expressed by random individuals on social media are probably safe...though I should say that Nauga and I got sued for exactly that.

Ron Wanttaja
 
GLMS_NC said:
So we are not entitled to our opinions any more?
Click to expand...
Apparently, not everyone is comfortable with speculation or WAG's. In my opinion we are all still entitled to our own opinions, regardless of the subject matter.

After an aviation incident, what many pilots do (of their own free will) is communicate and SPECULATE on what MAY have happened. Opinions are voiced then often changed as facts continue to be revealed. In my opinion this process, for those who decide to participate, can be a great way to learn from the mistakes or misfortunes of others who tread before us...
 
Last edited:
AdamB said:
The prelim report is out, but doesn’t really shed much light.
Click to expand...
I can't find it on the NTSB site---still shows as 'in work'. But when I search on the tail number and 'preliminary report', the AI summary generated looks like it found the report, but doesn't indicate where. Weird.
 
So is Juan neutered now? Just simply say the facts. No commentary on what may of happened?
 
I don't think so. He can say that according to the evidence at this time, in my opinion, looks like spatial disorientation, but that is only my non expert opinion.
 
Last edited:
Last night in Dan Gryder's YouTube commentary (Probable Cause), Dan didn't support the early theory this crash was caused by pilot induced spacial disorientation.

In his opinion, the fact that altitude excursions occurred both down and up, and at one point the aircraft descended into visual conditions beneath the low overcast then flew back up into the clouds was not consistent with a typical spacial disorientation event.

Dan 's waiting for more information to be shared before writing this unfortunate event off as a common "run of the mill" pilot induced spacial disorientation. Sounds reasonable to me.
 
Rick A said:
They don't negate them, but they are certainly in the minority of LOC accidents during climb outs into IMC and instrument approaches gone bad. My observations are that LOC accidents often end up creating smoking holes that may not include some shedded aircraft parts which broke off during the later pre-impact stages of an uncontrolled arrival. In this case establishing visual ground contact then climbing back up into the clouds is not unheard of, but certainly doesn't occur often.

IMO (and apparently Dan's too) there are possibly other factors that could be involved in this particular accident than just pilot error by not believing and flying his instrumentation. I.E., maybe his dog weighted 120 lbs. and was running wild, causing havoc with the W&B? Or any number of potential hypotheticals. Just because he informed ATC that he has having problems with heading and altitude doesn't necessarily mean it was spacial disorientation.
Click to expand...
Bottom line: if the clouds weren't there, do you think the accident would have happened?

Note this isn't implying anything specific about the instruments, the autopilot, or the programming thereof; failures or mismanagement of which can contribute to disorientation.

Also, climbs and descents during disorientation are very frequent. Not that anecdotes equal data, but I've got flight tracks from a lot of GA spatial-d accidents in the past few years that show both climbs and descents. Heck, there's a whole thread that started just today, which seems to be pointing in the same directions - even so much as the aircraft coming out of and back into the clouds before crashing.

Also if his dog was running around, don't you think he would have mentioned that instead opting to talk about the effects of a common sensory illusion? I know people like to be contrary and/or come up with all sorts of stuff to suit whatever ends, but the name Occam is well-known for a reason.

Disclaimer: this is all, of course, my own opinion.
 
Ed Haywood said:
And you know this how?
Click to expand...
I'm a CFII that's been interested in LOC's for a long time. Especially when they occur by experienced instrument pilots during initial climbs into low IMC conditions, i.e. the recent lawn dart type crash of the medical business jet that departed NE Philadelphia and left the smoking hole at Dunkin' Donuts couple of miles southwest of KPNE.

I follow LOC fatals in IMC conditions, of all types, as many as I can find and follow. Are my observations definitive and accurate? No, just opinions based on personal observations over the course of decades.
 
Rick A said:
I'm a CFII that's been interested in LOC's for a long time. Especially when they occur by experienced instrument pilots during initial climbs into low IMC conditions, i.e. the recent lawn dart type crash of the medical business jet that departed NE Philadelphia and left the smoking hole at Dunkin' Donuts couple of miles southwest of KPNE.
Click to expand...
Consider the performance difference between a Learjet, a 414, a 172, a RV10, etc, the amount of time that buys you (or not), and how that affects recovery from an unusual attitude incurred at low altitude.
 
Flying Keys said:
Consider the performance difference between a Learjet, a 414, a 172, a RV10, etc, the amount of time that buys you (or not), and how that affects recovery from an unusual attitude incurred at low altitude.
Click to expand...
Loss of control, especially at low altitudes, is the killer regardless of aircraft speed or type. Buying more time to correct the excursion could be helpful, but the important factor is not letting the plane get away from you. Someone years ago wrote that flying instruments is like balancing a broom on one finger... don't ever let it get from you, for any reason.
 
bonefishpete said:
Juan touched on this awhile ago about private planes hitting houses on the ground. We seem to have more and more of these incidents. The RV going into the industrial factory and injuring factory workers. Simple fact that there is a lot more houses built around airports than years ago.
Will we see pushback from the FAA on this especially the home built aircraft markets that have exploded with more and more aircraft being built?
Click to expand...
zoning is 100% a local issue. the FAA has zero control of the land outside of an airport.

So you shouldn't blame the FAA on an issue that is really just local muni's looking for tax revenue.
 
Lindberg said:
And unnecessary.
Click to expand...
how much will you contribute to the legal defense fund of said YouTuber ?

The lawyers are not the problem. It's the family that is paying them to hide this person's opinion that's the core issue.

Just like when there is a fatal police shooting... the deceased was ALWAYS a good kid/father/mother that never did anything wrong. It's not possible that they would attack a policeman! no matter what the body cam shows
 
kyleb said:
I am personally bothered by the gratuitous monetizing of accident speculation. Of course, that's what the bigger news media does, and (IMO) the usual list of Youtubers (minus Dan) seems to have a better grasp of things than all the so called experts CNN and the others throw in front of a camera.
Click to expand...
"If it bleeds, it leads."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top