Among Coon’s claims was the distribution of weight on the plane. He basically contended that the pilot, Roger Peterson, got a bad wrap in the 1959 investigation in Clear Lake, Iowa.
The original investigation performed by the Civil Aeronautics Board said Peterson was flying in low visibility and he was not qualified for those conditions.
The NTSB told Coon in March, “You have gotten our attention. Let us do our due diligence in order to give you a proper answer.”
But now the answer has been received, and basically it was “no.”
“We find that the criteria for a petition for reconsideration were not met,” the NTSB wrote.
“Your letters contend that the weight and balance calculations were performed with the originally planned passengers. However, you do not provide new factual evidence to support your concern,” the NTSB said.
Holly, a Lubbock native, was an icon of early Rock and Roll music. Below is the full text of the NTSB letter to Coon.
April 21, 2015
Dear Mr. Coon:
Thank you for your January 15, 2015, and February 10, 2015, letters regarding the Mason City, Iowa, airplane crash. As stated in our previous letter to you, in order for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to consider a petition for reconsideration, it must meet the requirements specified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 845.41: it must either present new information or show that the original report's findings were erroneous. Upon review of the accident report issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) on September 23, 1959, and your letters, we find that the criteria for a petition for reconsideration were not met. Below is a more detailed discussion of our evaluation of your letters.
While your letters imply facts by stating "(It was reported)," they do not contain the evidence needed to substantiate the information you present as factual. For example, you state that the landing lights were turned on and the airplane maneuvered to avoid two farmhouses. However, without evidence to support these claims as facts, we cannot evaluate the validity of the information you contend to be factual.
You raise a concern that the CAB final report does not mention the quantity of fuel onboard the accident airplane. However, the CAB report states that the engine was producing power at impact (based on the blade damage), which is indicative of fuel being present and powering the engine at the time of the accident.
Your letters contend that the weight and balance calculations were performed with the originally planned passengers. However, you do not provide new factual evidence to support your concern and, therefore, have not met the basis for a reconsideration of the accident flight's weight and balance.
Regarding your contentions about the accident pilot's flight experience, we note that the CAB report states that the pilot had 128 hours in Bonanza aircraft and 52 hours of dual instrument training; several different aircraft were used for the dual training, all of which were equipped with the conventional-type artificial horizon indicator. There is no evidence to substantiate whether the pilot had flown this aircraft in instrument conditions before the accident flight.
You also offer your theories regarding the rudder pedal, magneto switches, and gauge readings on the accident aircraft. However, you do not provide new factual information to support these theories.
You contend that the pilot would have had ground lights and a visual horizon to help with navigation because of the contrast between the snow and the dark sky. However, the report notes, this accident occurred after midnight in a rural area with many farms; thus, there were few, if any, ground lights. Further, no moon was available to illuminate the horizon because of the cloud cover.
You provide extensive calculations regarding the airplane's descent rate. The CAB report does state that Mr. Dwyer saw the airplane in a gradual descent. We note that the CAB report concluded that it is likely that the pilot took off and, once away from the airport environment, in dark, night conditions with light snow falling, entered a descending right turn, rather than a climbing left turn—a common pattern for spatially disoriented pilots.
Finally, your letter contends that carburetor icing may have led to the gradual descent. However, the weather conditions noted and a review of a carburetor icing probability chart indicate no probability of carburetor icing on the night of the accident. You do not put forth any new evidence regarding your contention that the report be reconsidered regarding this point.
In summary, your letter does not supply—and we could not find—any additional information that would be needed for the NTSB to reconsider the findings of the original investigation. Therefore, we have determined that your letter does not meet the requirements of a petition for reconsideration, and no further action is planned.
Sincerely,
John DeLisi Director, Office of Aviation Safety
Original article can be found here: http://www.everythinglubbock.com
No comments:
Post a Comment