I'm sorry John, I was entering the thought that it may have been possible that this crash was preplanned and if that was the case, and nobody sensed it, that would have made it unavoidable. Wouldn't that also be classified as pilot error?

(Written on 01/31/2020)(Permalink)

Thank you

(Written on 01/31/2020)(Permalink)

I was under the assumption that communication was not lost. He was able to communicate his request for "Flight Following" but was told by the air traffic controllers that he was flying too low for that service. How convenient, now he could fly anywhere he wanted and no-one would know where he was. He knew before he asked that Flight Following would not be available but I believe he just wanted to confirm it. He showed up a little later on traffic control at 2,300 ft. before he went down. Was he above, within, or still below the layer of fog at that altitude? When he made the left turn away from Hwy 101, he was no longer following any roads but flew right into mountainous terrain as confirmed by the location where he contacted the ground. He knew where he was. If he had no bad intentions, he would have just continued to follow Hwy 101, either westward or turned around and gone back. I have an idea he intended to make that left turn at that point. Remember, MH370 made a sharp lef

(Written on 01/31/2020)(Permalink)

This is a tragic event that may or may not have been avoidable. I think there are some things that show up that contradict the consensus about the weather. The reports indicate that there was fog all the way to the ground that day in that area. There are photographs of the helicopter several hundred feet in the air from the ground with a building in the foreground showing it to be below the fog layer. There are photographs of another helicopter flying above the wreckage site shortly after the accident happened who is clear of the fog layer with good visibility of the ground below. If the fog extended all the way to the ground, these photographs would not exist. Another question comes to mind and that is why was the pilot flying in this particular area? He had been following the highway that led directly to Camarillo but suddenly made a left turn away from the highway into a hilly area. I don’t know if this particular highway went up and down in such a way that it penetrated the

(Written on 01/29/2020)(Permalink)

There are comments given here that imply that the structure of the airplane is determined by a budget that is given to the engineers by Boeing management and that safety is a secondary issue because that has an adverse effect on “profits”. I think this is absurd and the farthest from the truth. I am not a Boeing engineer but I have an idea that money does not enter into any equations when it comes down to designing the aircraft structure. It all boils down to building the strength into the structure to meet the airworthiness requirements with the least amount of weight - period. Look at the photo of the failure. Where did it fail? In the middle of the skin! It did not fail at a seam. Why did it fail at that particular location? What really failed? Did that particular sheet of aluminum have an unseen flaw that caused the failure? Was the test overkill in how it was performed? Would the test have been a success without the “extra” twists and turns? All of these things will

(Written on 12/07/2019)(Permalink)

Wish I didn't have to be a subscriber to the LA Times to see it. I was working for TWA as a mechanic at the time and never did recover the lost wages experienced as a result of that strike.

(Written on 08/23/2019)(Permalink)

If Boeing could make their customers happy by offering the B767-300ER passenger plane, they should not have any problem producing it on the KC46 tanker production line. It all depends on what the sales price difference would be between the B787 and the B767 and if Boeing could make the B767 to fly as efficient. They would probably use KC46 engines on it and of course modern instrumentation. I believe that the freighter version is still being produced.

(Written on 10/28/2017)(Permalink)

Boeing 717 or 707?

(Written on 02/25/2017)(Permalink)

I know Mr. Ford and know he would not deliberately create this mistake on purpose. I would like to invoke a different scenario regarding this incident. Harrison had been flying his helicopter several times recently. A helicopter, like his Husky, has a control stick between his knees and he would feel as comfortable with one as the other and maybe mix them up temporarily. He was confused, or forgot, what he was flying as reported by the tower. He identified his aircraft as a helicopter 3 times before he correctly identified his Husky. Helicopters don’t normally land on fixed wing runways and if he usually lands his helicopter in an area designated for them, he might just fly over a taxiway to get there. If he was thinking about landing on a helicopter pad rather than a runway, he would not line up with the runway but fly a helicopter pattern. Remember, he saw the airliner and on purpose, didn’t fly into it. He made a successful, safe landing, even if it was on the wrong piece of

(Written on 02/19/2017)(Permalink)

Think about that for a moment. There are 2 AF1 airplanes to keep in parts and __ (you fill in the numbers) B-52s still in service. It is more cost effective to keep making spare parts for many airplanes than for just 2. The cost to operate and maintain the older airplanes should be put into more efficient, modern airplanes. The average person would not want to keep feeding their 1986 car getting maybe 15 or 16 m.p.g. when they can achieve twice that much in a modern vehicle. The same applies to these airplanes. I'm not saying the new AF1 will use only half the amount of fuel as tho older ones but it will be significant.

(Written on 12/14/2016)(Permalink)