The Paul H Dunn-ing of President Nelson

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

But the real issue is one of opinion, isn't it? So what if the CAB report or some such comes back pretty clearly that it was nowhere near as dire as President Nelson made it seem? What are you therefore concluding about President Nelson? He should be careful when recounting stories? He's a liar and not fit to be a prophet of God? He can't be trusted with anything he says? What?

I don't believe I've opined on any of that, and I'm not sure why I'm obliged to do so.  I provided insight on some of the factual elements, some of which had a bearing on assumptions being made by a defender in this thread.  I was also curious whether certain people had actually read any of those elements before they launched into their defense or their attacks on the OP.  That's been about the extent of my involvement in this thread and I see no reason to expand it.

Edited July 29, 2021 by ttribe

[bOObOO]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Huh? No, that’s not RFM. That’s Joseph Bishop, who allegedly victimized Denson. 

That's good.  I was imaging him morphing into that from this  

would not have been a good look for him

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't believe I've opined on any of that, and I'm not sure why I'm obliged to do so.  I provided insight on some of the factual elements, some of which had a bearing on assumptions being made by a defender in this thread.  I was also curious whether certain people had actually read any of those elements before they launched into their defense or their attacks on the OP.  That's been about the extent of my involvement in this thread and I see no reason to expand it.

No, that's fair. If your position is let's get to the facts as much as we can and let the chips fall as they may, then I'm ok with that and as a matter of fact, I think it should be that way more often. It just seems you have put a reasonable amount of energy over the course of this thread not to have an opinion you'd like to share. My position - as if that hasn't already been made clear - is that none of this rises to the occasion of accusing the prophet of lying or entertaining the possibility he is doing damage the church. 

[ttribe]

Just now, Vanguard said:

No, that's fair. If your position is let's get to the facts as much as we can and let the chips fall as they may, then I'm ok with that and as a matter of fact, I think it should be that way more often. It just seems you have put a reasonable amount of energy over the course of this thread not to have an opinion you'd like to share. My position - as if that hasn't already been made clear - is that none of this rises to the occasion of accusing the prophet of lying or entertaining the possibility he is doing damage the church. 

In this venue, I'm only interested in the facts and leaving it to the reader to conclude.  My only effort at contributing to this thread is about the completeness of the facts.

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, in this case, materiality to the story is a matter of opinion, and not a topic I'm interested in debating.

Well, if all this hue and cry is down to an "eye of the beholder" sort of thing, to the individual's perspective, to a "matter of opinion," then the issue seems both less cut-and-dried and less significant.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well, if all this hue and cry is down to an "eye of the beholder" sort of thing, to the individual's perspective, to a "matter of opinion," then the issue seems both less cut-and-dried and less significant.

Thanks,

-Smac 

Just my opinion, Spencer.  I caution you against trying to make more out of my statements than is there.

[cfi]

I am a pilot and flight instructor with 35 years experience. The Piper PA-31 Navajo is a small twin-engine airplane that carries 6 to 8 people including the pilot. The interior is about the size of a small mini-van. Everyone can see the pilot up front and both engines out the windows. The engines are piston engines, not jets.

One engine experienced a cylinder failure. On an air-cooled engine, the cylinders are individual assemblies attached to the crank case (very different from a car engine, where everything is buried inside the engine block). If one fails, it can be quite spectacular as the burning fuel/air mixture escapes and the now-unbalanced engine begins shaking violently.

Standard procedure:

1) Shut down the bad engine and feather the propeller (turn the blades into the wind to minimize drag). This causes the propeller to stop spinning. The fuel would also be shut off so as to not feed the fire.

2) Descend as quickly as possible to land, even if not at an airport. Better to land in a field than to burn up in the air. The emergency descent involves pulling the throttle on the good engine back to idle (it is NOT shut down), banking the airplane, and pushing the nose down to get as much airspeed as possible. This creates a spiraling descent. (Descending rapidly in a straight line "unloads" the wings, which could cause severe airframe damage if the wings were suddenly "loaded" by turbulence.) This rapid descent also has the benefit of possibly "blowing out" the fire (much like blowing out a candle).

3) Near the ground, roll out of the dive, level out, let the airplane slow down, and bring the power back up on the good engine to keep the airplane flying. If still burning, land wherever possible and evacuate. If the fire is out, proceed to the nearest airport or suitable landing site.

The passengers were never about to die, and there was no miracle recovery from the dive. The pilot knew the outcome from the start. Every multiengine pilot is trained to do this. It's published in countless manuals and training materials. I teach this to my multiengine students frequently. The "emergency descent" is a wild ride as the view out the front window looks like you're pointing straight towards the ground (really only about 30* nose down) and the airspeed shoots up into the "yellow arc" on the airspeed indicator (the "caution zone").

But Pres. Nelson wasn't describing what the pilot was doing, he was describing the emotional perception of the naive passengers, whose reaction apparently ranged from terrified to hysterical. The passengers perceived that one engine had exploded, that the other had been shut down, that the airplane was falling uncontrolled out of the sky, that they were going to die, and that they miraculously recovered. No embellishment, just  a story about an emotional experience. If I put a passenger in the back of an airplane and demonstrated an emergency descent without telling them, they would probably have a similar reaction, even without the spectacular engine failure.

 

As a side note, for an incident like this, the CAB / FAA / NTSB would not have sent anyone to investigate. They would have merely gathered information from the mechanic who inspected the airplane, the pilot, and the owner/operator. Engine failures in flight, with no injuries or airframe damage, are a dime a dozen and not worth investigating.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, helix said:

But they do this.  Every week.

They are positively devout.

26 minutes ago, cfi said:

But Pres. Nelson wasn't describing what the pilot was doing, he was describing the emotional perception of the naive passengers, whose reaction apparently ranged from terrified to hysterical. The passengers perceived that one engine had exploded, that the other had been shut down, that the airplane was falling uncontrolled out of the sky, that they were going to die, and that they miraculously recovered. No embellishment, just  a story about an emotional experience. If I put a passenger in the back of an airplane and demonstrated an emergency descent without telling them, they would probably have a similar reaction, even without the spectacular engine failure.

Thank you. I think I was approaching this in my personal anecdote above.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Very possible.  I've stated in this thread that I believe President Nelson to be a good decent man

Thanks for acknowledging that, but why speculate and gossip (which may lead to unfair judgment by some)?  What’s the point?  If you believe him to be a good decent man, why risk hurting his good name for no good reason?

Edited July 30, 2021 by pogi

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, cfi said:

I am a pilot and flight instructor with 35 years experience. The Piper PA-31 Navajo is a small twin-engine airplane that carries 6 to 8 people including the pilot. The interior is about the size of a small mini-van. Everyone can see the pilot up front and both engines out the windows. The engines are piston engines, not jets.

One engine experienced a cylinder failure. On an air-cooled engine, the cylinders are individual assemblies attached to the crank case (very different from a car engine, where everything is buried inside the engine block). If one fails, it can be quite spectacular as the burning fuel/air mixture escapes and the now-unbalanced engine begins shaking violently.

Standard procedure:

1) Shut down the bad engine and feather the propeller (turn the blades into the wind to minimize drag). This causes the propeller to stop spinning. The fuel would also be shut off so as to not feed the fire.

2) Descend as quickly as possible to land, even if not at an airport. Better to land in a field than to burn up in the air. The emergency descent involves pulling the throttle on the good engine back to idle (it is NOT shut down), banking the airplane, and pushing the nose down to get as much airspeed as possible. This creates a spiraling descent. (Descending rapidly in a straight line "unloads" the wings, which could cause severe airframe damage if the wings were suddenly "loaded" by turbulence.) This rapid descent also has the benefit of possibly "blowing out" the fire (much like blowing out a candle).

3) Near the ground, roll out of the dive, level out, let the airplane slow down, and bring the power back up on the good engine to keep the airplane flying. If still burning, land wherever possible and evacuate. If the fire is out, proceed to the nearest airport or suitable landing site.

The passengers were never about to die, and there was no miracle recovery from the dive. The pilot knew the outcome from the start. Every multiengine pilot is trained to do this. It's published in countless manuals and training materials. I teach this to my multiengine students frequently. The "emergency descent" is a wild ride as the view out the front window looks like you're pointing straight towards the ground (really only about 30* nose down) and the airspeed shoots up into the "yellow arc" on the airspeed indicator (the "caution zone").

But Pres. Nelson wasn't describing what the pilot was doing, he was describing the emotional perception of the naive passengers, whose reaction apparently ranged from terrified to hysterical. The passengers perceived that one engine had exploded, that the other had been shut down, that the airplane was falling uncontrolled out of the sky, that they were going to die, and that they miraculously recovered. No embellishment, just  a story about an emotional experience. If I put a passenger in the back of an airplane and demonstrated an emergency descent without telling them, they would probably have a similar reaction, even without the spectacular engine failure.

 

As a side note, for an incident like this, the CAB / FAA / NTSB would not have sent anyone to investigate. They would have merely gathered information from the mechanic who inspected the airplane, the pilot, and the owner/operator. Engine failures in flight, with no injuries or airframe damage, are a dime a dozen and not worth investigating.

Very helpful stuff.  Thanks for sharing!

-Smac

[cfi]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thank you. I think I was approaching this in my personal anecdote above.

Two possibilities come to mind reading your story.

One (more likely), the pilot was mentally "behind" the airplane and allowed it to get away from him. He allowed the airplane to get too slow on approach, allowing the wings to "stall," causing the airplane to drop rapidly towards the ground. He tried to recover by adding power, but the airplane hit the ground in the process. It bounced back into the air before it had enough speed for stable flight, resulting in wild gyrations as the pilot tried to regain control, which he finally did.

Or two, the airplane encountered vertical windshear that rapidly pushed the airplane towards the ground, with a similar recovery attempt and premature bounce back into the air.

Either way, your story is more scary than Pres. Nelson's 😲

[sunstoned]

On 7/28/2021 at 2:19 PM, ttribe said:

Instead of doing a victory lap and relying on Smac to make you feel better about this, have you actually read the 85 page thread on the board we aren't allowed to link?  That is where all of this research both happened in real time and was documented.  Also, have you watched the 'Mormonism Live' episode from last week where this entire thing was summarized and discussed?  The embellishments are not minor.

I have reviewed this information, and it really looks like Nelson does have a tendency to depart from the facts.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, cfi said:

Two possibilities come to mind reading your story.

One (more likely), the pilot was mentally "behind" the airplane and allowed it to get away from him. He allowed the airplane to get too slow on approach, allowing the wings to "stall," causing the airplane to drop rapidly towards the ground. He tried to recover by adding power, but the airplane hit the ground in the process. It bounced back into the air before it had enough speed for stable flight, resulting in wild gyrations as the pilot tried to regain control, which he finally did.

Or two, the airplane encountered vertical windshear that rapidly pushed the airplane towards the ground, with a similar recovery attempt and premature bounce back into the air.

Many thanks for these explanations!

Quote

 Either way, your story is more scary than Pres. Nelson's 😲

And yet I suspect that if I had had both experiences, as a passenger I would have perceived the one described by Pres Nelson as more scary ... which is an important part of your point.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[ttribe]

52 minutes ago, cfi said:

I am a pilot and flight instructor with 35 years experience. The Piper PA-31 Navajo is a small twin-engine airplane that carries 6 to 8 people including the pilot. The interior is about the size of a small mini-van. Everyone can see the pilot up front and both engines out the windows. The engines are piston engines, not jets.

One engine experienced a cylinder failure. On an air-cooled engine, the cylinders are individual assemblies attached to the crank case (very different from a car engine, where everything is buried inside the engine block). If one fails, it can be quite spectacular as the burning fuel/air mixture escapes and the now-unbalanced engine begins shaking violently.

Standard procedure:

1) Shut down the bad engine and feather the propeller (turn the blades into the wind to minimize drag). This causes the propeller to stop spinning. The fuel would also be shut off so as to not feed the fire.

2) Descend as quickly as possible to land, even if not at an airport. Better to land in a field than to burn up in the air. The emergency descent involves pulling the throttle on the good engine back to idle (it is NOT shut down), banking the airplane, and pushing the nose down to get as much airspeed as possible. This creates a spiraling descent. (Descending rapidly in a straight line "unloads" the wings, which could cause severe airframe damage if the wings were suddenly "loaded" by turbulence.) This rapid descent also has the benefit of possibly "blowing out" the fire (much like blowing out a candle).

3) Near the ground, roll out of the dive, level out, let the airplane slow down, and bring the power back up on the good engine to keep the airplane flying. If still burning, land wherever possible and evacuate. If the fire is out, proceed to the nearest airport or suitable landing site.

The passengers were never about to die, and there was no miracle recovery from the dive. The pilot knew the outcome from the start. Every multiengine pilot is trained to do this. It's published in countless manuals and training materials. I teach this to my multiengine students frequently. The "emergency descent" is a wild ride as the view out the front window looks like you're pointing straight towards the ground (really only about 30* nose down) and the airspeed shoots up into the "yellow arc" on the airspeed indicator (the "caution zone").

But Pres. Nelson wasn't describing what the pilot was doing, he was describing the emotional perception of the naive passengers, whose reaction apparently ranged from terrified to hysterical. The passengers perceived that one engine had exploded, that the other had been shut down, that the airplane was falling uncontrolled out of the sky, that they were going to die, and that they miraculously recovered. No embellishment, just  a story about an emotional experience. If I put a passenger in the back of an airplane and demonstrated an emergency descent without telling them, they would probably have a similar reaction, even without the spectacular engine failure.

 

As a side note, for an incident like this, the CAB / FAA / NTSB would not have sent anyone to investigate. They would have merely gathered information from the mechanic who inspected the airplane, the pilot, and the owner/operator. Engine failures in flight, with no injuries or airframe damage, are a dime a dozen and not worth investigating.

Informative post.  Thank you.

[Tacenda]

54 minutes ago, cfi said:

I am a pilot and flight instructor with 35 years experience. The Piper PA-31 Navajo is a small twin-engine airplane that carries 6 to 8 people including the pilot. The interior is about the size of a small mini-van. Everyone can see the pilot up front and both engines out the windows. The engines are piston engines, not jets.

One engine experienced a cylinder failure. On an air-cooled engine, the cylinders are individual assemblies attached to the crank case (very different from a car engine, where everything is buried inside the engine block). If one fails, it can be quite spectacular as the burning fuel/air mixture escapes and the now-unbalanced engine begins shaking violently.

Standard procedure:

1) Shut down the bad engine and feather the propeller (turn the blades into the wind to minimize drag). This causes the propeller to stop spinning. The fuel would also be shut off so as to not feed the fire.

2) Descend as quickly as possible to land, even if not at an airport. Better to land in a field than to burn up in the air. The emergency descent involves pulling the throttle on the good engine back to idle (it is NOT shut down), banking the airplane, and pushing the nose down to get as much airspeed as possible. This creates a spiraling descent. (Descending rapidly in a straight line "unloads" the wings, which could cause severe airframe damage if the wings were suddenly "loaded" by turbulence.) This rapid descent also has the benefit of possibly "blowing out" the fire (much like blowing out a candle).

3) Near the ground, roll out of the dive, level out, let the airplane slow down, and bring the power back up on the good engine to keep the airplane flying. If still burning, land wherever possible and evacuate. If the fire is out, proceed to the nearest airport or suitable landing site.

The passengers were never about to die, and there was no miracle recovery from the dive. The pilot knew the outcome from the start. Every multiengine pilot is trained to do this. It's published in countless manuals and training materials. I teach this to my multiengine students frequently. The "emergency descent" is a wild ride as the view out the front window looks like you're pointing straight towards the ground (really only about 30* nose down) and the airspeed shoots up into the "yellow arc" on the airspeed indicator (the "caution zone").

But Pres. Nelson wasn't describing what the pilot was doing, he was describing the emotional perception of the naive passengers, whose reaction apparently ranged from terrified to hysterical. The passengers perceived that one engine had exploded, that the other had been shut down, that the airplane was falling uncontrolled out of the sky, that they were going to die, and that they miraculously recovered. No embellishment, just  a story about an emotional experience. If I put a passenger in the back of an airplane and demonstrated an emergency descent without telling them, they would probably have a similar reaction, even without the spectacular engine failure.

 

As a side note, for an incident like this, the CAB / FAA / NTSB would not have sent anyone to investigate. They would have merely gathered information from the mechanic who inspected the airplane, the pilot, and the owner/operator. Engine failures in flight, with no injuries or airframe damage, are a dime a dozen and not worth investigating.

Thanks, I think this explains a lot!

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I believe all of the brethren are good well meaning men but they live in a world where miracles are real. 

Well, I would say that we all live in a world where miracles are real.

But not all miracles are recognized as such. It is possible that miracles have occurred in your life that you did not recognize. You may only become aware of them when your life review occurs.

And what is a miracle, anyway? They can be a lot of things, I suppose, but a general definition might be "something that occurred which involved intervention by Deity that may or may not have been noticed by the beneficiary of the miracle." 

I've given priesthood blessings where immediate effect occurred. Of course, some might say "placebo effect" or give some other psychological explanation. One of my sons had a bad ear infection when he was 2 years old. We had decided to take him to the doctor the next day, but he was crying in pain and discomfort so much, and wouldn't sleep, that it seemed like a good idea to give him a blessing. So I did, and being a man of small faith, I blessed him to take away the pain -- rather than take away the infection. As soon as I finished the blessing, he stopped crying and pulling at his ears, and in very short order went to sleep. We took him to the doctor first thing the next morning, and his mother and I were waiting with him. The doctor came into the treatment room, expecting the find a very distraught little boy, but was puzzled to see him sitting on momma's lap as if nothing was wrong in the entire world. I don't remember the entire conversation, but he seemed almost annoyed, as if we were wasting his time with a child that had nothing wrong. But upon looking in our son's ear (the infection was only in the one) he was startled, and said something along the lines of "I don't understand why he's not screaming in pain. I don't usually see infections as red as his." So he prescribed whatever antibiotic (probably Amoxicillin), and we went on our way.

Now I was there, and saw the immediate effect. Our son wasn't particular verbal at that point, wasn't talking to us about his discomfort, and I don't know if he even knew what a priesthood blessing was. I wasn't in the habit of handing out blessings like penny-candy. So was this placebo effect? Some sort of psychological "trick", where the words of the blessing caused his brain to somehow short-circuit the pain? I know that's what some would say. But I am convinced that the priesthood blessing did the job. That it was a divine intervention; a small miracle. This has actually happened twice in my life. The second time was with a little girl of similar age to my son. The blessing just seemed to turn her pain off. Believe me or not; I was there and you were not.

Now, to the OP. Was President Nelson's life saved by a miracle? I have no idea. And neither do you. He might have described it as "miraculous," but that word covers a range of causation. Something can seem miraculous to a non-expert in a given field, when it is simply expert-level performance.  When Captain Sully brought that bird-struck 737 down safely in the Hudson River, was that a miracle, merely miraculous, or simply expert pilotage? It's called "Miracle on the Hudson" by some people. But if another, less-experienced pilot had been in charge, it might have gotten a rather less positive sobriquet. Like Disaster in Manhattan. If I had been one of those passengers in the event, I would definitely be thanking both God and Sully. Perhaps other, less-theistic, persons might have just thanked Sully and left God out of it. No doubt there were some atheists on board that aircraft. But I have noticed that even atheists sometimes give God thanks when something goes unexpectedly not disastrously.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, cfi said:

I am a pilot and flight instructor with 35 years experience. The Piper PA-31 Navajo is a small twin-engine airplane that carries 6 to 8 people including the pilot. The interior is about the size of a small mini-van. Everyone can see the pilot up front and both engines out the windows. The engines are piston engines, not jets.

One engine experienced a cylinder failure. On an air-cooled engine, the cylinders are individual assemblies attached to the crank case (very different from a car engine, where everything is buried inside the engine block). If one fails, it can be quite spectacular as the burning fuel/air mixture escapes and the now-unbalanced engine begins shaking violently.

Standard procedure:

1) Shut down the bad engine and feather the propeller (turn the blades into the wind to minimize drag). This causes the propeller to stop spinning. The fuel would also be shut off so as to not feed the fire.

2) Descend as quickly as possible to land, even if not at an airport. Better to land in a field than to burn up in the air. The emergency descent involves pulling the throttle on the good engine back to idle (it is NOT shut down), banking the airplane, and pushing the nose down to get as much airspeed as possible. This creates a spiraling descent. (Descending rapidly in a straight line "unloads" the wings, which could cause severe airframe damage if the wings were suddenly "loaded" by turbulence.) This rapid descent also has the benefit of possibly "blowing out" the fire (much like blowing out a candle).

3) Near the ground, roll out of the dive, level out, let the airplane slow down, and bring the power back up on the good engine to keep the airplane flying. If still burning, land wherever possible and evacuate. If the fire is out, proceed to the nearest airport or suitable landing site.

The passengers were never about to die, and there was no miracle recovery from the dive. The pilot knew the outcome from the start. Every multiengine pilot is trained to do this. It's published in countless manuals and training materials. I teach this to my multiengine students frequently. The "emergency descent" is a wild ride as the view out the front window looks like you're pointing straight towards the ground (really only about 30* nose down) and the airspeed shoots up into the "yellow arc" on the airspeed indicator (the "caution zone").

But Pres. Nelson wasn't describing what the pilot was doing, he was describing the emotional perception of the naive passengers, whose reaction apparently ranged from terrified to hysterical. The passengers perceived that one engine had exploded, that the other had been shut down, that the airplane was falling uncontrolled out of the sky, that they were going to die, and that they miraculously recovered. No embellishment, just  a story about an emotional experience. If I put a passenger in the back of an airplane and demonstrated an emergency descent without telling them, they would probably have a similar reaction, even without the spectacular engine failure.

 

As a side note, for an incident like this, the CAB / FAA / NTSB would not have sent anyone to investigate. They would have merely gathered information from the mechanic who inspected the airplane, the pilot, and the owner/operator. Engine failures in flight, with no injuries or airframe damage, are a dime a dozen and not worth investigating.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, cfi said:

But Pres. Nelson wasn't describing what the pilot was doing, he was describing the emotional perception of the naive passengers, whose reaction apparently ranged from terrified to hysterical. The passengers perceived that one engine had exploded, that the other had been shut down, that the airplane was falling uncontrolled out of the sky, that they were going to die, and that they miraculously recovered. No embellishment, just  a story about an emotional experience. If I put a passenger in the back of an airplane and demonstrated an emergency descent without telling them, they would probably have a similar reaction, even without the spectacular engine failure.

In my very first flying lesson (I never progressed to get my license, btw, though I wanted to), the pilot had me fly out to an area where there were a number of grass strips. As we came up to one of them, a place where he had landed a number of times, apparently, because he knew the family that lived there, he took over the plane and demonstrated what one would do if our engine failed at that moment. He put the engine to idle and maneuvered as if he were going for a landing. He recovered from the demo before getting very close to the ground, but let me tell you, I knew what he was doing and that the aircraft was running fine, and it still scared me!  This was in a Cessna 150, incidentally.

Thanks for the informative post!

[let’s roll]

This thread brings to mind two things:

1.  What Deity has to say in the scriptures about seeing and blindness; and 

2.  The “where’s Lopez” story Professor Woody Deem shared for years in his 1L Criminal Law class.

Both are timeless.

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, cfi said:

I am a pilot and flight instructor with 35 years experience. The Piper PA-31 Navajo is a small twin-engine airplane that carries 6 to 8 people including the pilot. The interior is about the size of a small mini-van. Everyone can see the pilot up front and both engines out the windows. The engines are piston engines, not jets.

One engine experienced a cylinder failure. On an air-cooled engine, the cylinders are individual assemblies attached to the crank case (very different from a car engine, where everything is buried inside the engine block). If one fails, it can be quite spectacular as the burning fuel/air mixture escapes and the now-unbalanced engine begins shaking violently.

Standard procedure:

1) Shut down the bad engine and feather the propeller (turn the blades into the wind to minimize drag). This causes the propeller to stop spinning. The fuel would also be shut off so as to not feed the fire.

2) Descend as quickly as possible to land, even if not at an airport. Better to land in a field than to burn up in the air. The emergency descent involves pulling the throttle on the good engine back to idle (it is NOT shut down), banking the airplane, and pushing the nose down to get as much airspeed as possible. This creates a spiraling descent. (Descending rapidly in a straight line "unloads" the wings, which could cause severe airframe damage if the wings were suddenly "loaded" by turbulence.) This rapid descent also has the benefit of possibly "blowing out" the fire (much like blowing out a candle).

3) Near the ground, roll out of the dive, level out, let the airplane slow down, and bring the power back up on the good engine to keep the airplane flying. If still burning, land wherever possible and evacuate. If the fire is out, proceed to the nearest airport or suitable landing site.

The passengers were never about to die, and there was no miracle recovery from the dive. The pilot knew the outcome from the start. Every multiengine pilot is trained to do this. It's published in countless manuals and training materials. I teach this to my multiengine students frequently. The "emergency descent" is a wild ride as the view out the front window looks like you're pointing straight towards the ground (really only about 30* nose down) and the airspeed shoots up into the "yellow arc" on the airspeed indicator (the "caution zone").

But Pres. Nelson wasn't describing what the pilot was doing, he was describing the emotional perception of the naive passengers, whose reaction apparently ranged from terrified to hysterical. The passengers perceived that one engine had exploded, that the other had been shut down, that the airplane was falling uncontrolled out of the sky, that they were going to die, and that they miraculously recovered. No embellishment, just  a story about an emotional experience. If I put a passenger in the back of an airplane and demonstrated an emergency descent without telling them, they would probably have a similar reaction, even without the spectacular engine failure.

 

As a side note, for an incident like this, the CAB / FAA / NTSB would not have sent anyone to investigate. They would have merely gathered information from the mechanic who inspected the airplane, the pilot, and the owner/operator. Engine failures in flight, with no injuries or airframe damage, are a dime a dozen and not worth investigating.

Oh my. Many thanks for this explanation. My emotional experience would have probably been the same as the passenger with President Nelson! I'm bowing out of this exchange at this point (barring any egregiously ridiculous commentary!). Your info was as much as I need to let it rest. You know, "Move along, mam. Nothing further to see here". Looking to disprove your explanation is a law of diminishing returns at this point and the effort would smack of unseemly navel pondering that I have no interest in.

Best to all.

[helix]

2 hours ago, cfi said:

I am a pilot and flight instructor with 35 years experience. The Piper PA-31 Navajo is a small twin-engine airplane that carries 6 to 8 people including the pilot. The interior is about the size of a small mini-van. Everyone can see the pilot up front and both engines out the windows. The engines are piston engines, not jets.

One engine experienced a cylinder failure. On an air-cooled engine, the cylinders are individual assemblies attached to the crank case (very different from a car engine, where everything is buried inside the engine block). If one fails, it can be quite spectacular as the burning fuel/air mixture escapes and the now-unbalanced engine begins shaking violently.

Standard procedure:

1) Shut down the bad engine and feather the propeller (turn the blades into the wind to minimize drag). This causes the propeller to stop spinning. The fuel would also be shut off so as to not feed the fire.

2) Descend as quickly as possible to land, even if not at an airport. Better to land in a field than to burn up in the air. The emergency descent involves pulling the throttle on the good engine back to idle (it is NOT shut down), banking the airplane, and pushing the nose down to get as much airspeed as possible. This creates a spiraling descent. (Descending rapidly in a straight line "unloads" the wings, which could cause severe airframe damage if the wings were suddenly "loaded" by turbulence.) This rapid descent also has the benefit of possibly "blowing out" the fire (much like blowing out a candle).

3) Near the ground, roll out of the dive, level out, let the airplane slow down, and bring the power back up on the good engine to keep the airplane flying. If still burning, land wherever possible and evacuate. If the fire is out, proceed to the nearest airport or suitable landing site.

...

As a side note, for an incident like this, the CAB / FAA / NTSB would not have sent anyone to investigate. They would have merely gathered information from the mechanic who inspected the airplane, the pilot, and the owner/operator. Engine failures in flight, with no injuries or airframe damage, are a dime a dozen and not worth investigating.

Thanks for this.  What you said lines up perfectly with Nelson's story.  A loud bang, a fire, doing a steep dive to put out a fire, finding the closest strip to land, a lack of airframe damage, and minimal investigation report. 

[sunstoned]

On 7/28/2021 at 4:23 PM, Vanguard said:

And so there we have it (see my boldface). You too have already concluded Nelson is embellishing for artificial faith promotion. And so your faux call-to-arms in the defense of our beloved prophet comes off as cheap gamesmanship. And that is precisely what myself and others suspected from the get-go. I recommend in order to keep you own sanity you should go on concluding everything your write in this last post rather than introspectively consider how disingenuous your initial one came off as. Se la vie.

As for taking time away from the board, I too get it. I have needed to do the exact same thing. Best to you on that recess. 

Did you bother to read the information contained in the links?  

[sunstoned]

On 7/28/2021 at 6:27 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

The engine stopped. He thought he was going to die. He was ok with that. The engine started again.

There was no praying to get the engine to start. There was no "I knew I would be protected". There was no missionary experience.

Hardly a grand faith promoting story.

There was no fire.  There was no death dive.  There was no emergency landing in a field.   This is just one of his "stories" that seems to stray in a big way from reality.

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

RFM has a regular podcast called Radio Free Mormon.  He also does a podcast with Bill Reel called Mormonism Live. I don't listen to all their podcasts but I Do some.  I like the ones RFM does on his own.  Less back and forth bantering.  I have nothing against Bill Reel but he tends to drone on to much. I have found RFM fairly bright and thorough and like I said on his own less "smarm and sneering and nastiness."

I agree, the RFM podcasts are well done.  I much prefer these to Mormon Stories.  I don't like how John constantly interrupts his guests.  

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

There was no fire.  There was no death dive.  There was no emergency landing in a field.   This is just one of his "stories" that seems to stray in a big way from reality.

I've been in an airplane when the pilot was demonstrating to me a loss-of-power incident where there was grass strip we could land on. I knew it was coming about 10 seconds beforehand, and it still scared me.  And it bloody well felt like a death dive. Ever have an experience with other people where you remembered things differently from some of the others? I don't think you've read this entire thread, actually.