The Paul H Dunn-ing of President Nelson

[bOObOO]

12 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I agree. I have noticed this in myself as I've moved from a believing to a secular worldview.  What I used to see as miraculous, I now see through naturally occurring eyes.  Take our rain storm from last night.  Not too long ago I would have seen this as an answer to our collective prayers for deliverance from the drought.  I now recognize that we're in a drought and that every single year we get these monsoonal rain patterns where rains move up from the south in this same manner year over year pattern.  Every year at the end of July early August we get these rains.  It was a welcome relief but nothing miraculous or unexpected and had nothing, in my mind, to do with prayer.

The only reason we have rain on this planet is because God set up this planet so that it would rain, with the sun causing evaporation of water on the earth to the heavens and the moon causing the tides and air movements.  It's all miraculous.

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I agree. I have noticed this in myself as I've moved from a believing to a secular worldview.  What I used to see as miraculous, I now see through naturally occurring eyes.  Take our rain storm from last night.  Not too long ago I would have seen this as an answer to our collective prayers for deliverance from the drought.  I now recognize that we're in a drought and that every single year we get these monsoonal rain patterns where rains move up from the south in this same manner year over year pattern.  Every year at the end of July early August we get these rains.  It was a welcome relief but nothing miraculous or unexpected and had nothing, in my mind, to do with prayer.

The city of Enoch (no, not that city), got pummeled with answers to prayers yesterday.  One could hear them praying "ok, enough is enough already!"

I haven't heard anyone claim that this storm is an answer to prayer.  If we continue to have steady rain and are relieved from drought this year (very, very unlikely), would you be more open to miraculous intervention in this case?    

Edited August 2, 2021 by pogi

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I agree. I have noticed this in myself as I've moved from a believing to a secular worldview.  What I used to see as miraculous, I now see through naturally occurring eyes.  Take our rain storm from last night.  Not too long ago I would have seen this as an answer to our collective prayers for deliverance from the drought.  I now recognize that we're in a drought and that every single year we get these monsoonal rain patterns where rains move up from the south in this same manner year over year pattern.  Every year at the end of July early August we get these rains.  It was a welcome relief but nothing miraculous or unexpected and had nothing, in my mind, to do with prayer.

Personal bias is a powerful thing.  I think the only real danger is if we think that it's only a problem for those we disagree with.  

Speaking to the rain, it's interesting that you say that because we have a friend who has always lived here (we've only been here 7 years) and he said that having monsoonal rains in august used to be normal, but hasn't been for the last few years and it's so exciting that it looks like it's going to happen again this year when we really need it.

I have no idea how to see which one of you is right.  I don't remember last couple of augusts being as rainy as the our first few years, but that doesn't mean much.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't remember last couple of augusts being as rainy as the our first few years, but that doesn't mean much.

I remember them as being more frequent at times in the past, when at BYU in the summers in 76 and then in early 80’s. Not as consistent it seems the last almost 20 years.  There should be weather records to prove it one way or another.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Calm

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The city of Enoch (no, not that city), got pummeled with answers to prayers yesterday.  One could hear them praying "ok, enough is enough already!"

I haven't heard anyone claim that this storm is an answer to prayer.  If we continue to have steady rain and are relieved from drought this year (very, very unlikely), would you be more open to miraculous intervention in this case?    

Probably not

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The city of Enoch (no, not that city), got pummeled with answers to prayers yesterday.  One could hear them praying "ok, enough is enough already!"

I haven't heard anyone claim that this storm is an answer to prayer.  If we continue to have steady rain and are relieved from drought this year (very, very unlikely), would you be more open to miraculous intervention in this case?    

Do some of that rain praying for California. We are in a drought.  The driest rain year since 1885.

[bOObOO]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Do some of that rain praying for California. We are in a drought.  The driest rain year since 1885.

People who live in a desert should realize they're very likely to not get a lot of rain, otherwise they would not be living in a desert.  Go to where the water is, all ye people.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, cfi said:

Under the current rules for notifying the NTSB, found in 49 CFR 850.5, the incident described by Pres. Nelson does not require notification (or investigation). Rules in effect back then were likely similar. Commercial operators also have additional rules, call "Ops Specs", which may include the reporting of incidents and accidents, but these are specific to each operator. I have no way of finding this for a defunct operator from the 1970s, but this is likely why there was any report to the CAB at all.

49 CFR 830.5

Helix did post a link to the standard reference on airplane emergency procedures, the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook. It covers general procedures not specific to any airplane.

Airplane Flying Handbook chapter 17

Government-written texts are often insomnia-inducing, so here's an easier-to-read article on the subject:

How to Fly an Emergency Descent

Each make & model of airplane has its own specific procedures, spelled out in the checklists contained in the Pilot's Operating Handbook. A quick google search failed to find one for the PA-31, but here's the checklist for my airplane. Note that it lists only airplane-specific details. It is assumed the pilot knows the general procedure (i.e. this checklist gives specific configuration items, but does not mention a spiraling descent, because the pilot should already know that).

 

Thanks for your contributions to this thread. I’m curious, how likely is it that an engine fire would be called a “rough engine”? And I’m guessing that “sheered engine studs” could cause such a fire? 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Thanks for your contributions to this thread. I’m curious, how likely is it that an engine fire would be called a “rough engine”? And I’m guessing that “sheered engine studs” could cause such a fire? 

Excellent, now I don’t have to ask this. 

[cfi]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Thanks for your contributions to this thread. I’m curious, how likely is it that an engine fire would be called a “rough engine”? And I’m guessing that “sheered engine studs” could cause such a fire? 

On an air-cooled engine, the cylinders are attached with studs (bolts without heads) threaded into the crank case and secured with nuts. In the photo below, the studs and nuts are black, around the circular base of each of the four cylinders. The photo is looking at the front of the engine towards the rear; the propeller would be attached to the large silver shaft in the lower left. If enough of the studs break ("shear" is one way a stud or bolt could break), the cylinder will no longer be sealed against the crank case, and the engine oil will escape. This will cause a rough running engine, which will get worse as the oil continues to drain and the engine starts grinding itself up. Eventually it will seize and stop entirely.

If a few more studs break, the cylinder will shift and the piston will no longer move freely. With the piston moving up and down in the cylinder 80-90 times per second, the resistance will likely cause the cylinder to split open or break off the engine. This will allow the burning fuel/air mixture to escape. A loud bang and fireball, followed by severe vibrations as the engine is still trying to move the piston back and forth inside the misaligned or detached cylinder. If the fuel supply and ignition are not cut off, the spark plugs will continue to ignite the fuel, which will escape and possibly ignite other things in the the engine bay. In addition to the fire, the violently shaking engine could break free from the airplane, and possibly take part of the wing with it. Thus the urgent need to get everything shut down and stopped quickly. If the fire spread outside the engine, getting on the ground quickly is even more urgent.

The second photo below shows a cylinder that split open in flight. The thin silver tubes are the fuel lines, taking fuel from the round manifold on the right to each cylinder on the left. The spark plugs are attached to the blue wires, and enter the cylinder right next to the fuel lines.

Whatever the exact details, this would definitely be terrifying -- both the initial event, and the emergency descent and landing.

I never thought I'd be explaining airplanes on a church message board, but someone said "airplane." You can guess who one of my favorite General Conference speakers is... 🤔

 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, cfi said:

The second photo below shows a cylinder that split open in flight.

Yikes. 

How well can the engines be seen from the cockpit?  Just wondering how well fires can typically be seen.

(I did get to visit cockpits with my dad back when I was younger than 10, but have no memory of looking out back, just at all the cool dials…and thinking my dad was so awesome for being best buds with pilots and flight attendants; always got to fly first class too…for free…have I bragged about that already?, do remember first class very well and sometimes cursed that it wasn’t reversed so I was in coach when small as a bird and First Class as adult given I could have really used the larger seats when I too was larger (especially when I flew 8 months pregnant…I know, wasn’t supposed to, but wasn’t going to move to Canada on my husband’s say so and this was way before phone cameras).

[helix]

Thanks cfi, your posts here are very informative. 

What's interesting in that second photo is how relatively minor the damage appears on the outside.

[Calm]

17 hours ago, helix said:

Thanks cfi, your posts here are very informative. 

What's interesting in that second photo is how relatively minor the damage appears on the outside.

You did not grow up on horror stories of damaged planes obviously. (Dad’s job was trouble shooting for emergencies for a few years at O’Hare and then later switched fixing them in San Fran). I may know nothing about what is actually wrong, but anything going wrong meant Dad was stuck at work and later exhausted…some exciting times (because Dad was generally unflappable).

Edited August 3, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 hours ago, cfi said:

On an air-cooled engine, the cylinders are attached with studs (bolts without heads) threaded into the crank case and secured with nuts. In the photo below, the studs and nuts are black, around the circular base of each of the four cylinders. The photo is looking at the front of the engine towards the rear; the propeller would be attached to the large silver shaft in the lower left. If enough of the studs break ("shear" is one way a stud or bolt could break), the cylinder will no longer be sealed against the crank case, and the engine oil will escape. This will cause a rough running engine, which will get worse as the oil continues to drain and the engine starts grinding itself up. Eventually it will seize and stop entirely.

If a few more studs break, the cylinder will shift and the piston will no longer move freely. With the piston moving up and down in the cylinder 80-90 times per second, the resistance will likely cause the cylinder to split open or break off the engine. This will allow the burning fuel/air mixture to escape. A loud bang and fireball, followed by severe vibrations as the engine is still trying to move the piston back and forth inside the misaligned or detached cylinder. If the fuel supply and ignition are not cut off, the spark plugs will continue to ignite the fuel, which will escape and possibly ignite other things in the the engine bay. In addition to the fire, the violently shaking engine could break free from the airplane, and possibly take part of the wing with it. Thus the urgent need to get everything shut down and stopped quickly. If the fire spread outside the engine, getting on the ground quickly is even more urgent.

The second photo below shows a cylinder that split open in flight. The thin silver tubes are the fuel lines, taking fuel from the round manifold on the right to each cylinder on the left. The spark plugs are attached to the blue wires, and enter the cylinder right next to the fuel lines.

Whatever the exact details, this would definitely be terrifying -- both the initial event, and the emergency descent and landing.

I never thought I'd be explaining airplanes on a church message board, but someone said "airplane." You can guess who one of my favorite General Conference speakers is... 🤔

 

Thank you. So it seems like we have two plausible stories. We have the civil aeronautics board report, which states that sheered bolts led to a rough engine. The pilot turned off and feathered the offending engine (likely explaining his actions in real time to the 3 passengers), and then proceeded to land at the nearest airport. For a lot of passengers this would be terrifying. I've been on bumpy flights and it always surprises me how fearful people get. To believe this, we have to account for President Nelson's account. A plausible explanation is a simple confabulation (similar to Brian Williams). It's possible that on landing the pilot had a lot of time to chat with his passengers and talk about what could have happened. Possibly an engine fire etc etc. Overtime the memories merge.

Alternatively, the company fabricated information and downplayed the incident when reported to authorities. What was reported as a precautionary landing and a feathered rough engine were actually an emergency landing and an engine fire resulting from a ruptured piston. The company's motive to lie would be to downplay a string of unfortunate engine failures. 

Does that seem fair?

[cfi]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

How well can the engines be seen from the cockpit?  Just wondering how well fires can typically be seen.

Depends on how the interior is set up. The engines are on either side of the first row of seats (pilot/co-pilot). There are either two or three rows of seats behind that. In a typical setup, the seats all face forward, and everyone can see everything. In a "luxury" setup, the front windows are mostly blocked by dividers and there may be a cockpit curtain that would be closed, blocking all view out the front, and there may also be curtains on the side windows. In this setup, the two front passenger seats face backwards, allowing fold-down tables to be set up between them. The rear-facing passengers would have trouble seeing forward even if the curtains are open.

My guess is that a low-cost commuter airline would use the less expensive setup, with everyone facing forward, and nothing blocking any of the windows. A charter service might use the more expensive luxury setup.

These photos are actual PA-31 Navajo airplanes, with the camera mid-cabin facing forward.

[Tacenda]

You won't catch me on a small plane! And I can imagine Pres Nelson on that particular flight, I'm sure it was terrifying if he had no idea if this was a just a procedure that was done for a safe landing.

[helix]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A plausible explanation is a simple confabulation (similar to Brian Williams). It's possible that on landing the pilot had a lot of time to chat with his passengers and talk about what could have happened. Possibly an engine fire etc etc. Overtime the memories merge.

A solution can be simpler than that.  There was an engine fire.  The pilot responded with a common approach for an engine fire, which Nelson noted.  The passengers were alarmed, but the pilot was in full control.  They landed in a nearby airport.  The damage was only engine damage, nothing to rest of the plane.  The report simply said engine damage, which as cfi indicated in a prior post, were a dime a dozen and not worth getting into the details.  Everyone acted normal.  Nobody merged memories or purposely suppressed info. 

The easiest answer is the most mundane one. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by helix

[SeekingUnderstanding]

30 minutes ago, helix said:

A solution can be simpler than that.  There was an engine fire.  The pilot responded with a common approach for an engine fire, which Monson noted.  The passengers were alarmed, but the pilot was in full control.  They landed in a nearby airport.  The damage was only engine damage, nothing to rest of the plane.  The report simply said engine damage, which as cfi indicated in a prior post, were a dime a dozen and not worth getting into the details.  Everyone acted normal.  Nobody merged memories or purposely suppressed info. 

The easiest answer is the most mundane one. 

Except the report said “pilot experienced rough engine” and that he made a “precautionary” landing after feathering the engine. Rough engine does not indicate engine fire. “Precautionary” does not equal emergency. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except the report said “pilot experienced rough engine” and that he made a “precautionary” landing after feathering the engine. Rough engine does not indicate engine fire. “Precautionary” does not equal emergency. 

That seems like a pretty fine hair to split, particularly for the passengers.  

Further, it seems like the former (a "precautionary" landing) is often treated as a subset of the latter (an "ermergency" landing).  

From this website (emphases added) :

Quote

Description

Emergency landing is a landing of an aircraft in a state of emergency. This does not necessarily happen on a runway. Emergency landings can be made in fields, on water surfaces, on trees, etc.

From an ATM pespective, a landing is considered an emergency one if the pilot has delcared an emergency situation (e.g. via voice, CPDLC (message DM56), SSR code, etc.) and has not cancelled it by the time the aircraft touches down. If the emergency landing happens at an aerodrome, the standard procedure is to activate the "full emergency" routine which results in sending RFFS equipment and personnel to their designated positions so that dealing with the expected accident may commence without delay. Also, an aircraft that has declared an emergency and the intention to land on a particular aerodrome will be given priority over other traffic, including stopping departures and delaying (or diverting) other arriving aircraft.

Terms Used

Emergency landing is the most general term to describe situations where an aircraft makes an abnormal touchdown. Various other terms are used to point out a specific aspect of the event. Examples of related terms are listed below. Note that sometimes more than one term can be used while in other cases an alternative term will apply but the situation will not be considered as an emergency landing.

• Forced landing is a situation where an aircraft unavoidably needs to land, usually regardless of terrain. A typical example of this is an airplane forced down by engine failure. Normally, a forced landing is also an emergency landing because the underlying cause of the event is often a good reason for declaring an emergency (e.g. fire on board, engine failure of a single-engine aircraft, extensive structural damage, etc.). There are situations, however, where a forced landing is not an emergency, e.g. when an aircraft is forced to use a particular aerodrome following a military interception. Also, there are many situations where an emergency is declared but the crew decides to continue the flight to a more suitable aerodrome. An example of this is the 1989 event invloving a DC10 where the aircraft continued flight for about 45 minutes after experiencing an engine failure that caused a loss of all hydraulic systems. If made at an aerodrome, the forced landing would normally coincide with a "full emergency" procedure, meaning that the RFFS equipment and personnel will be at their designated positions (near the runway).
• Precautionary landing is a situation where further flight is possible but inadvisable, i.e. in the judgement of flight crew, a hazard exists with continued flight. A common situation requiring a precautionary landing is a technical problem that is not serious enough to declare "Mayday" (e.g. navigation system degradation) but the company SOPs suggest that landing at the nearest suitable aerodrome should be made. Other examples of conditions that may call for a precautionary landing, particularly on small general aviation aircraft, include deteriorating weather, being lost, fuel shortage, and gradually developing engine degradation. The difference between a precautionary and a forced landing is that in the former case the crew may choose to continue the flight (at least for a time) while in the latter case there is no such option. Precautionary landings are often made at an aerodrome although this is not always the case. Sometimes landing in a field (and accepting there will be damage to the aircraft) is preferable to trying to reach an aerodrome (and risk to be forced to land on worse terrain). Depending on the hazard, a "full emergency" or a "local standby" procedure may be activated. The difference is that in the latter case the RFFS will remain at their normal positions but their state will be set to "ready" so that they may leave for the accident site immediately if necessary. It should be noted that some precautionary landings are not preceded by a declaration of an emergency and therefore not treated as emergency landings.
• Ditching is an emergency (forced or precautionary) landing on water. It includes occurrences by landplanes only. Events involoving landings on water by seaplanes or amphibious aircraft are normally reported as precautionary/forced landings.
• Belly landing is an emergency landing with the gear in the "up" position. This is usually caused by equipment malfunction (the gear cannot be extended or cannot reach locked position). Sometimes the pilots would choose to perform a forced landing with the landing gear intentionally up if they consider this would lead to a safer outcome, especially when landing outside an aerodrome. A situation where the aircraft lands with the gear up due to human error (i.e. the crew forgetting to extend it) is normally referred to as "gear up landing". While this would usually be followed by a rapid RFFS response it is not considered an emergency or belly landing becasuse the crew would not anticipate anything abnormal until the moment the aircraft touches down.
• Crash landing is a landing where the aircraft receives significant structural damage. Not all emergency landings are classified as crash landings - if the aircraft has remained intact (or has received minor damage) using the term would be inappropriate.

And from Wikipedia (emphases added) :

Quote

An emergency landing is an expedited landing made by an aircraft in response to an emergency involving an imminent or ongoing threat to the safety and operation of the aircraft, or involving a sudden need for a passenger or crew on board to terminate the flight (such as a medical emergency). It typically involves a forced diversion to the nearest or most suitable airport or airbase, or an off airport landing or ditching if the flight cannot reach an airfield. Flights under air traffic control will be given priority over all other aircraft operations upon the declaration of the emergency.

...

Types

There are several different types of emergency landings for powered aircraft: planned landing or unplanned landing.

• Forced landing – the aircraft is forced to make a landing due to technical problems. Landing as soon as possible is a priority, no matter where, since a major system failure has occurred or is imminent. It is caused by the failure of or damage to vital systems such as engines, hydraulics, or landing gear, and so a landing must be attempted where a runway is needed but none is available. The pilot is essentially trying to get the aircraft on the ground in a way which minimizes the possibility of injury or death to the people aboard. This means that the forced landing may even occur when the aircraft is still flyable, in order to prevent a crash or ditching situation.
• Precautionary landing may result from a planned landing at a location about which information is limited, from unanticipated changes during the flight, or from abnormal or even emergency situations. This may be as a result of problems with the aircraft, or a medical or police emergency. The sooner a pilot locates and inspects a potential landing site, the less the chance of additional limitations being imposed by worsening aircraft conditions, deteriorating weather, or other factors.
• Ditching is the same as a forced landing, only on water. After the disabled aircraft makes contact with the surface of the water, the aircraft will most likely sink if it is not designed to float, although it may float for hours, depending on damage.

And here (emphases added) :

Quote

Emergency Landings

This section contains information on emergency landing techniques in small fixed-wing airplanes. The guidelines that are presented apply to the more adverse terrain conditions for which no practical training is possible. The objective is to instill in the pilot the knowledge that almost any terrain can be considered “suitable” for a survivable crash landing if the pilot knows how to use the airplane structure for self-protection and the protection of passengers.

Types of Emergency Landings

The different types of emergency landings are defined as follows:

• Forced landing—an immediate landing, on or off an airport, necessitated by the inability to continue further flight. A typical example of which is an airplane forced down by engine failure.
• Precautionary landing—a premeditated landing, on or off an airport, when further flight is possible but inadvisable. Examples of conditions that may call for a precautionary landing include deteriorating weather, being lost, fuel shortage, and gradually developing engine trouble.
• Ditching—a forced or precautionary landing on water.

A precautionary landing, generally, is less hazardous than a forced landing because the pilot has more time for terrain selection and the planning of the approach. In addition, the pilot can use power to compensate for errors in judgment or technique. The pilot should be aware that too many situations calling for a precautionary landing are allowed to develop into immediate forced landings, when the pilot uses wishful thinking instead of reason, especially when dealing with a self-inflicted predicament. The non-instrument-rated pilot trapped by weather, or the pilot facing imminent fuel exhaustion who does not give any thought to the feasibility of a precautionary landing, accepts an extremely hazardous alternative.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2021 by smac97

[T-Shirt]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except the report said “pilot experienced rough engine” and that he made a “precautionary” landing after feathering the engine. Rough engine does not indicate engine fire. “Precautionary” does not equal emergency. 

The only reason an engine is feathered (in reality, it is the propeller that is feathered) is if the pilot has to shut down the engine due to a problem or if the engine shuts down on its own.  In either case, it is an emergency situation.  Some planes, if I understand correctly, will automatically feather the propeller if the engine fails.  If not, or if it fails to do so, the pilot will need to do it manually, which will cause the engine to dump oil.  This could explain what President Nelson said about oil splattering.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

24 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

The only reason an engine is feathered (in reality, it is the propeller that is feathered) is if the pilot has to shut down the engine due to a problem or if the engine shuts down on its own.  In either case, it is an emergency situation.  Some planes, if I understand correctly, will automatically feather the propeller if the engine fails.  If not, or if it fails to do so, the pilot will need to do it manually, which will cause the engine to dump oil.  This could explain what President Nelson said about oil splattering.

Are you saying that changing the propeller pitch to reduce drag (feathering) requires dumping the engine oil?

[T-Shirt]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying that changing the propeller pitch to reduce drag (feathering) requires dumping the engine oil?

Quote

You can feather a propeller manually as well, done as part of the engine failure procedure. After detecting and confirming a failed engine, and exhausting all restart attempts (assuming you have altitude and time to try a restart), pull the propeller control handle through a detent to the FEATHER position. This opens a valve that dumps all oil from the prop dome and drives the blades into feather.

See the full article here:  https://studentpilot.com/2005/01/09/the-propeller-unfeathering-trap/

[SeekingUnderstanding]

50 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

See the full article here:  https://studentpilot.com/2005/01/09/the-propeller-unfeathering-trap/

Always glad to learn something new! 🙏

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Rough engine does not indicate engine fire.

No, but the report also noted that the studs had sheared. And as cfi has noted twice, if enough studs shear, this allows 'the burning fuel/air mixture to escape. A loud bang and fireball, followed by severe vibrations as the engine is still trying to move the piston back and forth inside the misaligned or detached cylinder'. I'm not sure this classifies as an 'engine fire' technically, but I'm not sure it's an entirely inaccurate description either.

[DBMormon]

The most rational logical answer is the one that requires the least conjecture and allowances.  If the flight happened as Rusty insinuates, there would be reports available to the public for multiple reasons.  Also the chance there is a flight the day earlier matching the essential flight path details that had issues and chose to land would be extremely odd.  These two facts along with the other data make it the most rational answer is that Rusty deeply embellished his story.  Sadly along with the other stories which also are seemingly embellished significantly, it appears Rusty has a propensity for deceiving his audience.  I'm curious exactly what his role was on the medical machine.  Rumor is that he was a grad student assistant in charge of sanitizing the machine to prevent infection and he created nothing new.  Remember Prophets don't lie according to Nelson himself.  Hence by his own standard, he isn't a prophet.