Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:55:38 +0000 From: Martin Shough <parcellular@btinternet.com> Hi Fran and all involved
Well done, fascinating stuff. One thought about the oxygen
issue:
The statement in the Accident Report
"Oxygen system was not serviced. System was in working
order."
seems possibly ambiguous. It could be interpreted to mean
that the system was considered by the accident investigator to have
been in working order at the time of the accident. It could also be
interpreted to mean that ground staff believed (possibly mistakenly)
that the system appeared to be in working order and therefore did not
service it. Obviously the latter interpretation leaves open the
possibility of an undetected fault.
I was unable to read the small type on the jpg and pdf
versions of this page of the Report to clarify the context of the
quoted remark. Brad and others have probably looked into this in
detail. Could there have been a scheduled service that did not take
place?
Martin. ====== Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:14:09 -0400 From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca> It could be interpreted to mean that since the system was in working order it was not thought neccessary to service it. If there was no service order on the system or if its mandatory inspection time was not due ( usually included in the 50 hour and 100 hour inspections) then there would have been no need to service it. In any event, lack of oxygen was the cause of the crash.
There seems to be no argument over that point except by some of the
fringe who want or wanted to make this event a shootdown by 'the
aliens".
What is in question is what Mantell was chasing.
<>Don Ledger====== Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:54:23 +0000 From: Martin Shough <parcellular@btinternet.com> But I have now had time to
download the complete pdf. And I find that the relevant Section I, 'Special Equipment', is
subheaded: 'Use if special equipment was a contributing cause factor in
the accident' and has the instruction: "Describe how the special
equipment contributed to the accident or its result".
<>In this context I would have
to interpret the words
<>"Oxygen system was not serviced. System was in working order."
<>
as meaning that not servicing
the oxygen system was being recorded as a contributing factor to the
accident.
<>I appreciate there may be other
information that alters this conclusion. Can anyone clarify this please?
Martin
====== Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 07:41:51 -0600 From: Francis Ridge <nicap@insightbb.com> Oxygen system was not serviced. System was in working order."
Martin, List,
Brad may want to comment on that, but I just want to say
that the issue of oxygen gets lost in the full discloseure of facts
discovered in this case. I lean toward oxygen system failure that
caused his death, but am amazed at what came out regarding the entire
incident.
Brad did an excellent preliminary analysis. I just wish that we would
have come out with the full report sooner (2008?) and therefore would
have had others to comment sooner and conduct their own independent
analyses. I do hope this will still happen and I welcome that. I also
will date Brad's analysis so that any updating will show the most
recent version.Fran
====== Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:14:09 -0400 From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca> It could be interpreted to mean that since the system was in
working order it was not thought neccessary to service it. If there was
no service order on the system or if its mandatory inspection time was
not due ( usually included in the 50 hour and 100 hour
inspections) then there would have been no need to service it.
In any event, lack of oxygen was the cause of the crash.
There seems to be no argument over that point except by some of the
fringe who want or wanted to make this event a shootdown by 'the
aliens".
What is in question is what Mantell was chasing.
<>Don Ledger====== Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:01:37 +0000 From: Martin Shough <parcellular@btinternet.com> Well, the oxygen issue was raised three times in Fran's
summary of this large multi-participant investigation and given its own
paragraph heading. I have now also had the opportunity to look at
Brad's impressive analysis of the accident report which refers to the
oxygen issue no fewer than 100 times. I don't think the interpretation
of it is a "fringe" concern. Having said that I now understand
the meaning of "serviced" differently. I assumed it referred to a
mechanical service of the oxygen system. Brad's interpretation - backed
up by the same usage elsewhere in the Accident Report - is that not
serviced means not resupplied with oxygen. On that basis I agree with
his conclusion that the Accident Report is internally inconsistent and
highly suspect.
Martin
====== Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 13:40:35 -0400 From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca> I believe if you read what I said below you will see that I
said that the lack of oxygen was the cause of the crash while I also
noted that some on the fringe were more interested in making this into
some alien shootdown.
Certainly the oxygen problem was not a fringe concern.
I'm looking for it and might find the right wording to
indicate that an oxygen system was "topped up" or "fully charged" or
whatever the American AF term was for it. In today's terms, 'serviced'
doesn't work for me. But these terms change over a period of 62 years.
Don
====== Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:58:37 +0000 From: Martin Shough <parcellular@btinternet.com> Perhaps I misunderstood. I
took you to imply that the oxygen issue did not merit
attention because "what is in question is what Mantell was
chasing." I disagree with this because the argument for a cover
up is rather strong in my opinion and it is necessary to understand the
nature, extent and motivation of such a cover up in order to interpret
the evidence. I'm quite impressed with the job Brad has done on
this.
<>As for the meaning of the term
"serviced" in this context, the ANG Accident Report itself says on p.31
under Recommendations that "No aircraft be cleared for Cross-Country
unless it be serviced with oxygen."
Martin
====== Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:27:25 -0400 From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca> Perhaps you are right, Martin, re the cover-up and the
use of the oxygen question. I don't think we will ever know.
<>It could be that Mantell thought he had oxygen although the
checks in place re the metering of oxygen (self regulating) should have
given him pause to continue his climb without oxygen through a
restricted area above 12,500 to approx. 15,000 feet during daylight
hours. He had the hight altitude training.
I'm not new to this investigation. When this first came up
Brad , myself, Joel Carpenter, Dan and several others took a
look at the case when Fran first brought up his doubts about what
Mantell was chasing and I agreed with him. Then the floodgates opened
and we were at first hammered about this event being an accident caused
by a pilot flying too high and without oxygen- that this case had been
settled. But the main problem was not that he crashed due to the lack
of oxygen but that he was chasing something that as of this date has
not been definitively identified.
Fran wasn't convinced that this was a Skyhook balloon, I
wasn't and then Brad, after an initial look, wasn't either. But Brad
picked up the raines and went with it.
I've read the accident reports which by today's standards
were poor.
<>But accident report by its very nature implies that Mantell had
oxygen and that his aircraft had been serviced OR that the tanks were
charged but perhaps not fully charged. The P-51D pilot had the option
of going pure oxygen or staying with the metered (pressure altitude
corrected) stream coming through his mask. The former option was there
to give the pilot bailing out at high altitudes a chance to charge
himself with pure oxy then holding the last gasp for his descent to
lower altitudes.
Don
====== Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:47:13 -0500 (EST) From: KRandle993@aol.com Fran, all -- I have been reading, with great interest, the
<>First, was the idea that a suggestion from Colonelanalysis of the Mantell case and I noticed a couple of assumptions that might not be valid. I though I would comment on them. Hix was the same as an order. We’re into aviation here and things are a little different. Colonel Hix was not the flight leader, Mantell was. If he believed that the suggestion from Hix would have endangered his mission or his aircraft, then Mantell was under no obligation to follow it. He might have to provide an explanation later, but Mantell was the ultimate authority in this situation. Second, it is my understanding that this was a ferry
flight which meant that it was a one time flight to move aircraft from one location to another. It means that the aircraft could be flown under what we later called a circle Red-X, meaning a one time flight. It means that the aircraft could be flown one time in a condition that would otherwise ground it. Third, I saw nothing that said the oxygen system in
<>Fourth, just because they were all flying the sameMantell’s aircraft had oxygen in it. Yes, the system was working but that doesn’t mean it held any oxygen. The ground crew, knowing that it was a ferry flight might not have bothered with charging the system. model of aircraft, that doesn’t mean all the aircraft operated in the same way. Don can confirm this. I know from my experience that range of capabilities of aircraft of the same make and model can vary greatly. We knew which of our D-model Hueys were powerful, which were weak and which had trouble catching up to flight lead. We called one the Chinook because it was much more powerful than any of the other aircraft. Finally, I’m not sure that Mantell understood how
<>These are just a couple of observations based onquickly he could lose conscious at the altitudes he was flying. Each person reacts differently, but according to aeromed studies, at 25,000 feet he would lose consciousness rapidly... and at those altitudes the decision-making process is totally compromised. The people don’t even realize the trouble they’re in. my experience as a military pilot, although that experience was twenty years later and in helicopters and not fighters. Still, some of the circumstances apply. Kevin
====== |