Deaf Pilot Sued For Plane Crash By Deaf Passenger, SMSD Saga
Lawsuit Blames 2005 Accident On Lack Of Communication With Deaf Pilot
A man and his daughter, injured in a June 2005 plane crash on Martha’s Vineyard are suing their pilot, and planemaker Cessna — among others — for damages, stemming from the accident they say was caused by lack of communication with a hearing-impaired aviator
According to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a lawsuit filed last week in US District Court states Jeffrey Willoughby, 42, and his 13-year-old daughter were passengers in a Cessna 172 flown by Alec Naiman on June 23, 2005. Naiman and Willoughby are both members of the Deaf Pilots Association.
The three were flying to Katama Airpark, a non-towered airport near Edgartown, MA. The field had been notified numerous times of the arrival of the deaf pilots, according to the lawsuit, so that precautions could be taken by other pilots in the area. To read the remaining of the article article, click on:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=8e444a46-cc97-4c66-8e91-d866d4a4babc
Commentary: [removed]
I took down my commentary when it turned out there is more to this story.
One thing is clear from this article and the other article. The plaintiff, the deaf passenger, is suing his deaf pilot and Cessna maker
The communication difficulties mentioned in the article remain murky
Obviously there is a lot of strong feeling regarding this case, as you can gather from reading the comments.
More on SMSD Saga:
SMSD’s Deaf board member withdraws resignation
A member of the board of trustees at St. Mary’s School for the Deaf in Buffalo submitted his resignation Thursday to protest the way the school has handled its decision not to grant tenure to a popular math teacher.
But board Chairman Joseph S. De- Paolo said he persuaded the board member to withdraw his resignation a few hours later.
I am resigning [from] the board of trustees from SMSD in protest of the handling of the case of denying tenure to Ms. Nettie Brewer,” Robert L. Cagle Jr., one of two deaf members on the 15-member board, wrote in his resignation letter. “I understand that other [trustees] are afraid of getting their hands dirty in verifying whether the tenure evaluation is fairly carried out to rule out the possibility of the personal (and cultural???) conflict between Ms. Brewer and [secondary principal] Mrs. [Patricia M.] Michalek.”
For the full article http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/schools/story/298794.html
Commentary: One out of only two Deaf BoT members serving at a 15-member SMSD board, resigned over the handling of the SMSD crisis. Well, this indicates that BoT isn’t probably a Deaf-friendly one. Definitely SMSD needs more Deaf BoT members for a better balance and the Deaf members must be heard and respected by their hearing peers. The fact the chairperson got the Deaf BoT member to rescind his resignation may be encouraging, as it may show the possible willingness of the board to reconsider its rash decisions. Let’s hope this will happen
P.S. Reviewing the article, I take back my guarded optimism. We see the problem now:
“The parents — it’s not their school. It’s our school,” DePaolo said. “ No, you got it all wrong, DePaola.
By the way, the forum on this SMSD protest is still alive with 219 comments so far. Let them hear you! http://www.topix.com/forum/city/buffalo-ny/TQ9572MCAF4I62HAK/p10#lastPost
Contact information: Mishkazena@aol.com if you want her to hear your side of the story!
WARNING: NO PROFANITY!
Please no mudslinging or personal insults thank you MZ
email contact: mishkazena@aol.com
Lawsuit Blames 2005 Accident On Lack Of Communication With Deaf Pilot
A man and his daughter, injured in a June 2005 plane crash on Martha’s Vineyard are suing their pilot, and planemaker Cessna — among others — for damages, stemming from the accident they say was caused by lack of communication with a hearing-impaired aviator
According to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a lawsuit filed last week in US District Court states Jeffrey Willoughby, 42, and his 13-year-old daughter were passengers in a Cessna 172 flown by Alec Naiman on June 23, 2005. Naiman and Willoughby are both members of the Deaf Pilots Association.
The three were flying to Katama Airpark, a non-towered airport near Edgartown, MA. The field had been notified numerous times of the arrival of the deaf pilots, according to the lawsuit, so that precautions could be taken by other pilots in the area. To read the remaining of the article article, click on:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=8e444a46-cc97-4c66-8e91-d866d4a4babc
Commentary: [removed]
I took down my commentary when it turned out there is more to this story.
One thing is clear from this article and the other article. The plaintiff, the deaf passenger, is suing his deaf pilot and Cessna maker
The communication difficulties mentioned in the article remain murky
Obviously there is a lot of strong feeling regarding this case, as you can gather from reading the comments.
More on SMSD Saga:
SMSD’s Deaf board member withdraws resignation
A member of the board of trustees at St. Mary’s School for the Deaf in Buffalo submitted his resignation Thursday to protest the way the school has handled its decision not to grant tenure to a popular math teacher.
But board Chairman Joseph S. De- Paolo said he persuaded the board member to withdraw his resignation a few hours later.
I am resigning [from] the board of trustees from SMSD in protest of the handling of the case of denying tenure to Ms. Nettie Brewer,” Robert L. Cagle Jr., one of two deaf members on the 15-member board, wrote in his resignation letter. “I understand that other [trustees] are afraid of getting their hands dirty in verifying whether the tenure evaluation is fairly carried out to rule out the possibility of the personal (and cultural???) conflict between Ms. Brewer and [secondary principal] Mrs. [Patricia M.] Michalek.”
For the full article http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/schools/story/298794.html
Commentary: One out of only two Deaf BoT members serving at a 15-member SMSD board, resigned over the handling of the SMSD crisis. Well, this indicates that BoT isn’t probably a Deaf-friendly one. Definitely SMSD needs more Deaf BoT members for a better balance and the Deaf members must be heard and respected by their hearing peers. The fact the chairperson got the Deaf BoT member to rescind his resignation may be encouraging, as it may show the possible willingness of the board to reconsider its rash decisions. Let’s hope this will happen
P.S. Reviewing the article, I take back my guarded optimism. We see the problem now:
“The parents — it’s not their school. It’s our school,” DePaolo said. “ No, you got it all wrong, DePaola.
By the way, the forum on this SMSD protest is still alive with 219 comments so far. Let them hear you! http://www.topix.com/forum/city/buffalo-ny/TQ9572MCAF4I62HAK/p10#lastPost
Contact information: Mishkazena@aol.com if you want her to hear your side of the story!
WARNING: NO PROFANITY!
Please no mudslinging or personal insults thank you MZ
email contact: mishkazena@aol.com
March 14th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
it is sad, but it is only way to do is to get money from him and the insurance… i have a good friend who has same situation like that but different situation… for instance, at age 14, he was shot accidently by his best friend after his best friend showed off old gun that belonged to his best friend’s dad. my good friend became paralyzed from a single shot – from waist down to legs. he had to sue his best friend and his best friend’s family to cover the medicine expenses and everything – approx 2 million dollars, but i dont remember th exact amounts. they remained very closer friendship after that happening. sadly his best friend got killed intantly in truck/car accident a couple of years ago.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Robert L Cagle Jr from Oregon. he lives in NY something like that.. I am not sure if same guy .. Last time I know other deaf guy was same as his name from Texas. who was killed by car accident freak and other car was hit and run.. By the way, I was not sure if the guy from Oregon. It is same name.. but not sure which one.
I am familiar his name.. but not middle names? The reason why I am asking, MZ
Deaf Pixie..
March 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I am keeping an eye on SMSD… I hope it works out soon.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Deaf Pixie,
I know Robert Cagle — the one who came from Florida — I met him at NTID — is that the one you are talking about? Did he get in an auto accident? Let me know what you find out.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
This sounds like the song, “Oh, when one wears the ASL glasses on, he cant see the truth”
Richard
March 14th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I see no ASL mentioned in this article. They could be oral Deaf, for all we know.
Do not ASSume, RR
March 14th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Michelle,
It was wrong person from Texas that guy who have similiar names.. but not middle names I am not sure.. I knew he graduated from Oregon in 1975′s he lives now in New York. and he have a deaf brother who lives in North Carolina,too.. So Obviously Deaf confused the same names of three people are have same names. The reason why I am carefully with right or wrong person?
Thank you for asking question… smile.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Michelle, OOPS.. I forgot to say .. From Texas,Robert Cagle was killed in car accident was about 3 or 4 years ago. We thought it was him .. I found out it was wrong person.. But still it is still sad situation
March 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Ms. Zena,
Why do you always report negative stories?
March 14th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Annoyed, there were some good stories published here in the past.
I don’t consider the school protests bad news. The students tried other options but they were constantly ignored, leaving them no option but to protest. These are inspiring stories showing Deaf students becoming empowered in pursuing their rights to good education and equal communication access afforded to them by the Bill of Rights
By the way, nobody is forcing you to read this blog.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Annoyed,
Puzzled.. MZ, Mishka Zena is excellent information about many things she have a great writter since I know her pretty well since I fell love her story. she never brought up a negative.
She just want to share with Deaf community what the deaf person or school was going on with trouble situation.
MZ is one of best blog since I love to read her story as she wishes to share….
I consider she is excellent example! Be nice to her.
Deaf Pixie
March 15th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Anti R R,
Take off your ASL glasses and read the article.
Richard
March 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Jeffrey Willoughby’s nothing but a money xxxx.. Sueing Cessna and airport and other pilots they had nothing to do with the accident. their being deaf had nothing to do with it either!
the pilot of the Cessna Alex Naiman is 100% at fault. He failed to ensure that his seat was latched & locked. the Cessna seat slides forword to allow rear seat passengers access to aircraft then it slides back to allow the pilot to enter. The pilot handbook and preflight checklist both say to check seat is locked and latched. He failed to do that. it was pilot error that cause this crash. the other airplanes taxing on airport had nothing to do with the crash. It happens all the time. a “go around” isn’t uncommon at uncontrolled feilds / airports
I’m a deaf pilot / skydiver and aircraft mechanic. I hope Mr. Willoughby’s loses his lawsuit. he’s a xxxx! I’ll ask Dennis Bampton in St. Louis to never allow Jeff Willoughby to fly at his airport.
Willoughby claims to know alot about flying and even has a “student pilot” certficate.. he should have checked that the check list was used and seat locked. It was his fault too..
March 15th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot’s failure to maintain airspeed during a go-around, which resulted in an inadvertent stall and subsequent impact with terrain. A factor was the pilot’s hearing impairment.
Jeff Willoughby should sue only the pilot. Cessna had nothing to do with this accident. I have respect for Jeff Willoughby because of this lawsuit. I’m willing to bet he’ll lose his lawsuit.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
They did the go around wrong. they pulled up too steeply.
Go-Arounds (Rejected Landings)
Whenever landing conditions are not satisfactory, a go-around is warranted. There are many factors that can contribute to unsatisfactory landing conditions. Situations such as air traffic control requirements, unexpected appearance of hazards on the runway, overtaking another airplane, wind shear, wake turbulence, mechanical failure and/or an unstabilized approach are all examples of reasons to discontinue a landing approach and make another approach under more favorable conditions…The go-around is not strictly an emergency procedure. It is a normal maneuver that may at times be used in an emergency situation. Like any other normal maneuver, the go-around must be practiced and perfected…
Although the need to discontinue a landing may arise at any point in the landing process, the most critical go-around will be one started when very close to the ground. Therefore, the earlier a condition that warrants a go-around is recognized, the safer the go-around/rejected landing will be. The go-around maneuver is not inherently dangerous in itself. It becomes dangerous only when delayed unduly or executed improperly…The improper execution of the go-around maneuver stems from a lack of familiarity with the three cardinal principles of the procedure: power, attitude, and configuration…
Attitude is always critical when close to the ground, and when power is added, a deliberate effort on the part of the pilot will be required to keep the nose from pitching up prematurely. The airplane executing a go-around must be maintained in an attitude that permits a buildup of airspeed well beyond the stall point before any effort is made to gain altitude, or to execute a turn. Raising the nose too early may produce a stall from which the airplane could not be recovered if the go-around is performed at a low altitude.
A concern for quickly regaining altitude during a go-around produces a natural tendency to pull the nose up. The pilot executing a go-around must accept the fact that an airplane will not climb until it can fly, and it will not fly below stall speed. In some circumstances, it may be desirable to lower the nose briefly to gain airspeed. As soon as the appropriate climb airspeed and pitch attitude are attained, the pilot should ‘rough trim’ the airplane to relieve any adverse control pressures. Later, more precise trim adjustments can be made when flight conditions have stabilized.”
March 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Mike,
The factor of the pilot’s hearing impairment playing a role in the accident implies that the communication access was a problem. If so, please do tell us how is that the hearing impaired pilot’s fault? In the article, it stated that the pilot had made numerous attempts to notify the airplane field of his approaches but his calls were ignored.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
there was no visual stall warning that stall was coming. the Cessna had a stall warning horn. I myself fly without visual stall warning. I can’t hear the stall warning horn either (I’m deaf too)
but you can tell stall coming by airspeed and controls start getting mushy, and aircraft will “buffet” (shake) just as stall happens to recover from a stall lower the nose (decrease angle of attack) I fly all the time and never call out on radio nor can I hear other pilots broadcast their intentions on the CTAF (Common Traffic Advosory Frency or “Unicom”) the lowest aircraft has the right away. the aircraft on the ground had the right of way.. the pilot should NOT have continued to try land.. He should have done a “go around” right away aborted the landing and came around to another landing attemp. their hearing had NOTHING to do with the accident the pilot failed to use good judgement on landing attmp, failed to insure his seat was “locked” thats part of the before take off check list. then on his go around he pitch the nose up too steeply and seat slid back forcing him into deep stall.. I the deaf pilot was 100% at fault for this accident. the other plane had nothing to do with it. the airport did not have taxiway runway is also used as taxi way
its not uncommon at smaller airports. The National transportation safety board says the deaf pilots were not using the radio.. nothing wrong with the its a no tower airport. the mistake was the deaf pilot contining to try to land with another aircraft on the runway he should have excuted a go around right away.. you can see other aircraft on runways from the pattern. as a deaf pilot I lay the blame for this accident on the other deaf pilot. it was 100% his fault!
March 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Jeff Willoughby should sue only the pilot. Cessna had nothing to do with this accident. I have respect for Jeff Willoughby because of this lawsuit. I’m willing to bet he’ll lose his lawsuit.
Should say: I HAVE NO!! NO ! RESPECT FOR Jeff Willoughby because of this lawsuit.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Thanks for the background information. What you have described made a lot of sense. As you can see, I’m not famoliar with the aviation.
Yet the problem was also contributed to “lack of communication with a hearing-impaired aviator”
This statement is confusing, even more when there was no need to use the radio. Can you clarify this? An error on the reporter’s?
March 15th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
there was no visual stall warning that stall was coming. the Cessna had a stall warning horn. I myself fly without visual stall warning. I can’t hear the stall warning horn either (I’m deaf too)
Some aircraft like Pipers have both stall warning horn and a visual stall warning “light”
the Cessna they were flying had only a stall warning horn. you don’t need either one. you’ll know when a stall is coming.. the stall warning goes off just before a stall happens usually 5 to 10 knots before the stall. the stall horn can be adjusted with phillips screw driver to move it up or down to make it go off soon or later.. lot planes used for flight training have them adjusted to sound “sooner” simply the cause of the crash was the pilot stalled (loss of lift) his aircraft into the ground.
March 15th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
The factor of the pilot’s hearing impairment playing a role in the accident implies that the communication access was a problem. If so, please do tell us how is that the hearing impaired pilot’s fault? In the article, it stated that the pilot had made numerous attempts to notify the airplane field of his approaches but his calls were ignored.
the only factor pilots hearing impairment was ” he could not hear the “stall warning horn”
In the article, it stated that the pilot had made numerous attempts to notify the airplane field of his approaches but his calls were ignored. they called airport manager to give them the courtsy of letting them know and the pilots based there that lot of deaf pilots would be arriving. in other words ” would not be using radio it was legal not to use radio at a non tower airport. the plane on runway had the right of way. the pilot of the cessna should NOT have continued to try to land. He waited too long to do his go around, he pulled up too steeply too, which caused his unlocked seat to slid fully aft (back)which cause the stall.. the pilot could no longer reach the controls and Jeff should at least known how to aviod a stall.. “push control forward / relax the back pressure / lower angle of attack (all the same thing)
March 15th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
what as xxx Jeff is.. sueing these people. except for the pilot jeff was flying with they had nothing to do with this accident. I’m going to write Cessna and strongly urge them to take this case to trail. show the pilot screwed up. its not their fault.
stupid people like Jeff should ride the damn bus!
Willoughby et al. v.Cessna Aircraft Company et al.
Plaintiffs: Jeffery Willoughby and Jessica Willoughby
Defendants: Cessna Aircraft Company, Paul Santopietro, Classic Aviators Ltd., Michael J. Creato, Katama Airfield, Edgartown, Town of, Alec Naiman, Paramus Flying Club, Inc. and John Does
Case Number: 4:2008cv00314
Filed: March 6, 2008
Court: Missouri Eastern District Court
Office: St. Louis Office [ Court Info ]
County: St. Charles
Presiding Judge: Mag Judge Thomas C. Mummert III
Nature of Suit: Torts – Injury – Airplane
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
March 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Cessna Seat Defect Caused Crash: Passengers
Portfolio Media, New York (March 7, 2008)–Two deaf passengers injured in a 2005 plane crash on Martha’s Vineyard have sued the plane’s deaf pilot and Cessna Aircraft Company, claiming among other things that a defect in the plane’s seat-adjusting mechanism contributed to the crash.
Jeffery Willoughby and his teenage daughter Jessica Willoughby filed suit Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that Cessna “failed to recognize and correct a life-threatening defect
Jeff full of SHIT!! Cessna had a AD (airworthyness directive) on fixing these seats since the early 1970′s. simply put the pilot failed to ensure that the seat was locked before take off. this is on the checklist: BEFORE TAKE OFF
March 15th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Thanks for the background information. What you have described made a lot of sense. As you can see, I’m not famoliar with the aviation.
Yet the problem was also contributed to “lack of communication with a hearing-impaired aviator”
This statement is confusing, even more when there was no need to use the radio. Can you clarify this? An error on the reporter’s?
its a reporters error. read the NTSB report above.. the blame lays on the pilot and his failure to hear the stall warning horn and no “visual” stall warning light.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I know Robert Cagle, Jr. I taught his hearing sister in ASL II class in Florida back in 1988. She was so sweet. His mother interpreted prior to her death in early 90′.
So why did 2 deaf passengers accept to fly with deaf pilot? Why not go with a jet or airplane instead. Who’s fault? Well, that is my opinion. I have been studying MZ’s story and that made me wonder why those passengers accepted to ride with a deaf pilot? Did they trust him? Did they just prepare for the accident? They should have signed a waiver before flying out with a deaf pilot!
huggyangel
March 15th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
So why did 2 deaf passengers accept to fly with deaf pilot? Why not go with a jet or airplane instead. Who’s fault? Well, that is my opinion. I have been studying MZ’s story and that made me wonder why those passengers accepted to ride with a deaf pilot? Did they trust him? Did they just prepare for the accident? They should have signed a waiver before flying out with a deaf pilot!
they flew with deaf pilot to small airport on Mathra vineyard MA. Jet aircraft do no fly there.. the small aircraft can fly there easy. I’m sure he was a good pilot he just made mistake of faiuling to use the check list to ensure that his seat was secured and locked in position before take off. 2nd on the “Go Around” he pitched the nose of the aircraft up too steeply, maybe by accident as if aircraft is set up in landing trim.. sudden takeoff power with result in the nose pitching up.. unless counter acted against by the pilot…but in this case the pilot couldn’t count act against the sudden nose up because his seat slid fully back and he could no longer reach the controls…. which resulted in a stall (lose of lift) into ground.
did they trust him? yes.. I’m sure he was good pilot… it’s just like you driving on highway you trust your friend driving… but sometimes they scrw up and have an accident..
Did they just prepare for the accident? ? it happen s fast I bet they had little time to react after the seat slid back and stall happen.. maybe 10 seconds all over.. They should have signed a waiver before flying out with a deaf pilot! yea the deaf pilots assc now requires everyone to sign a wavier which I think is a good idea..
March 15th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
From the FAA web site
Become a Pilot-Deaf Pilot Aircraft Operations Frequently Asked Questions
How does a deaf pilot determine the traffic direction at an airport?
An aircraft without radio communications remains out of the airport area and observes the traffic landing and departing. Additionally, the pilot looks for the wind sock or segmented circle, where available, to determine wind direction or direction of landing. The pilot enters the traffic pattern as recommended in the Aeronautical Information Manual and by regulation (14 CFR part 91, subpart B).
March 15th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
also from FAA web page
Are there limitations placed on a deaf pilot’s certificate?
Yes. A deaf pilot’s certificate will include the limitation, “Not Valid for Flights Requiring the Use of Radio” (14 CFR section 61.13).
If I am deaf, can I obtain a pilot certificate?
Yes, an individual who is deaf can obtain a pilot certificate in one of the five categories of aircraft: airplane, rotorcraft, glider, powered-lift, or lighter-than-air.
What are the differences in the certificates?
A student pilot certificate is designed for the initial instructional period of flying. The student pilot is limited to flying with the flight instructor or solo after appropriate instructor endorsements (Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections 61.87 and 61.89). A recreational pilot certificate limits the holder to specific categories and classes of aircraft, the number of passengers which may be carried, the distance that may be flown from the departure point, flight into controlled airports, and other limitations (14 CFR section 61.101). A private pilot certificate permits the pilot to carry passengers and provides for limited business use of an airplane (14 CFR section 61.113). A commercial pilot certificate permits the pilot to conduct certain types of operations for compensation and hire (14 CFR section 61.133).
What are the grades of pilot certificates?
There are five grades of pilot certificates that are available: student pilot, recreational pilot, private pilot, commercial pilot, and airline transport pilot.
What types of certificates can a deaf pilot obtain?
A deaf pilot can obtain a student pilot certificate, recreational pilot certificate, private pilot certificate, and, on a limited basis, a commercial pilot certificate; for example, agricultural aircraft operations, banner towing operations, or any operation which does not require radio communication. With new interface technology for incockpit receipt of weather information and digital communication, additional pilot certificates may be available to deaf pilots in the future.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Are there special medical requirements for the deaf pilot?
Yes, a deaf pilot is required to submit the results of a hearing exam to the medical examiner or the FAA in order to satisfy the medical exam. He or she must also take a Special Medical Flight Test in the later stages of flight instruction to demonstrate the following:
1. Eecognition of engine power loss or engine failure by a change in vibration and by instrument scan;
2. Recognition of approaching stall by aerodynamic buffet and visual cues; and
3. Recognition of retractable gear emergencies by observation of gear warning lights (if applicable).
Upon the successful completion of the Special Medical Flight Test, the FAA will issue a second-class or third-class medical certificate and a Statement of Demonstrated Ability (SODA). This can be done at a Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) of choice.
Are there limitations placed on a deaf pilot’s medical certificate and SODA?
Yes, Both the medical certificate and the SODA will have the limitation “Not valid for flying where radio use is required.” Additional limitations may be placed on the medical certificate and SODA by the Aeromedical Certification Division as appropriate to the class of medical certificate.
When is a medical examination required?
All student pilots must obtain at least a third class airman medical certificate from an FAA Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) before the first solo flight, except for gliders and balloons, which do not require a medical certificate.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
How do I choose a flight school and flight instructor?
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has a book available on choosing your flight instructor and flight school. The International Deaf Pilots Association (IDPA) has information regarding flight instructors who know how to sign. Generally speaking, you should visit the location to observe the professionalism of the school. You will need to discuss your particular degree of hearing impairment with the flight instructor and establish how to communicate best with each other. Have the flight instructor you select contact the IDPA for additional advice and assistance.
How does a deaf pilot complete this requirement for a private pilot certificate?
The student and instructor need to work with the local airport personnel. Light gun signals are available for aircraft that do not have radios or in case of a radio failure. With prior permission, a deaf pilot can communicate with the tower by the use of the light gun signals.
To obtain a private pilot certificate, is there a requirement for operations at a controlled airport?
Yes, a requirement of the private pilot certificate is to perform three takeoff and landings at a controlled airport to demonstrate your ability to communicate with the tower.
What are the hourly requirements in becoming a pilot?
14 CFR part 61 (Certification: Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors) prescribes the hourly requirements for the issuance of pilot certificates and ratings. A person applying for a private pilot certificate in airplanes, helicopters, and gyro-planes must log at least 40 hours of flight time, of which at least 20 hours are flight training from an authorized instructor and 10 hours of solo flight training in the appropriate areas of operation; three hours of cross country; three hours at night, three hours of instrument time; and other requirements specific to the category and class rating sought.
Private pilots in gliders and lighter-than-air aircraft must have logged from an authorized instructor a similar number of hours and/ or training flights, which include both cross country and solo according to category and class rating sought. Though the regulations require a minimum of 40 hours flight time, in the U. S. the average number of hours for persons without a hearing impairment completing the private pilot certification requirements is approximately 75 hours.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
this is all so wrong wrong wrong…
the only person at fault her is the pilot Alec Naiman
this Commentary is totally wrong the hearing people / pilots did nothing wrong.
yes —-What a senseless tragedy so easily avoidable. it was avoid able if the pilot had used the checklist and ensured that his seat was locked in position this accident would never have happen
March 15th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
see? on check list before starting engine
seats check and lock
3. Seats, Belts, Shoulder Harnesses — ADJUST and LOCK
Cessna 172 Checklist
C-172 PREFLIGHT INSPECTION C-172
FIRST
1. Fuel Quantity — CHECK VISUALLY for desired level in BOTH Tanks
2. Fuel Filler Caps — CHECK SECURE
3. Windshield — CHECK
CABIN
1. Pilot’s Operating Handbook, ARW — AVAILABLE IN THE AIRPLANE
2. Control Wheel Lock — REMOVE
3. Ignition Switch — OFF
4. Master Switch — ON
5. Fuel Quantity Indicators — CHECK QUANTITY
6. Flaps — 10°, CHECK for proper extension
7. Master Switch — OFF
8. Fuel Selector Valve — BOTH
LEFT WING
1. Main Wheel Tire — CHECK for proper inflation and security
2. Brakes — CHECK for cracks and security
3. Fuel Sump — DRAIN small amount, CHECK FUEL, CHECK CLOSED
4. Cabin Air Intake — CHECK for blockage
LEFT WING Leading Edge
1. Pitot Tube Cover — REMOVE and CHECK opening for blockage
2. Stall Warning Opening — CHECK for blockage
3. Fuel Tank Vent Opening — CHECK for blockage
LEFT WING Trailing Edge
1. Flap — CHECK freedom of movement and security
2. Aileron — CHECK freedom of movement and security
3. Position Light — RED
Empennage
1. Rudder Gust Lock — REMOVE
2. Control Surfaces — CHECK freedom of movement and security
3. Antenna — CHECK for security
RIGHT WING Trailing Edge
1. Flap — CHECK freedom of movement and security
2. Aileron — CHECK freedom of movement and security
3. Position Light — GREEN
RIGHT WING
1. Main Wheel Tire — CHECK for proper inflation and security
2. Brakes — CHECK for cracks and security
4. Fuel Sump — DRAIN small amount, CHECK FUEL, CHECK CLOSED
4. Cabin Air Intake — CHECK for blockage
C-172 PREFLIGHT INSPECTION CONT C-172
NOSE
1. Engine Oil Level — CHECK, do not operate with less than 6 quarts. Fill to 8 quarts for extended flight
2. Fuel Strainer — DRAIN for 4 seconds, CHECK CLOSED
3. Propeller and spinner — CHECK for nicks and security
4. Alternator belt — CHECK for tightness
5. Carburetor Air Filter — CHECK for blockage
6. Landing Light — CHECK for condition and cleanliness
7. Nose wheel Strut and Tire — CHECK for proper inflation and security
8. Static Source Opening — CHECK for blockage
CABIN
1. Master Switch — ON
2. Flaps — RETRACT
3. Radios — ON and WORKING, listen for ATIS, get CLEARANCE (CRADS)
4. Radios — SET
5. Radios — OFF
6. Lights (all), Pitot Heat — ON and WORKING
7. Lights, Avionics Power Switch, Pitot Heat — OFF
8. Master Switch — OFF
9. Elevator Trim — TAKEOFF
10. Baggage Door — CLOSED and LOCKED
11. Tie Downs — DISCONNECT
BEFORE STARTING ENGINE
1. Preflight Inspection — COMPLETE
2. Passenger Briefing — COMPLETE
3. Seats, Belts, Shoulder Harnesses — ADJUST and LOCK
4. Fuel Selector Valve — BOTH
5. Radios, Electrical Equipment, Avionics Power Switch — OFF
6. Circuit Breakers — CHECK IN
7. Brakes — TEST and SET
STARTING ENGINE ABOVE FREEZING
1. Mixture — RICH
2. Carburetor Heat — COLD
3. Prime — AS REQUIRED, IN, and LOCKED
4. Throttle — OPEN 1/2 INCH
5. Master Switch — ON
6. Rotating Beacon — ON
7. Propeller Area — CLEAR
8. Ignition Switch — START (RELEASE when engine starts)
9. Throttle — ADJUST for 1000 RPM or less
10. Oil Pressure — CHECK
11. Mixture — LEAN for Max RPM’s or RICH below 3000′
12. Radios, Avionics Power Switch — ON
13. Transponder — Standby
TAXI
1. All Radios — ON
2. Turn Coordinator — WORKING
3. Magnetic Compass — FULL OF FLUID
4. Suction/Vacuum — WORKING
5. Electrical (Ammeter) — CHECK
BEFORE TAKEOFF
1. Parking Brake — SET
2. Cabin Doors — CLOSED and LATCHED
3. Fuel Selector Valve — BOTH
4. Flight Controls — FREE and CORRECT
5. Throttle — 1700 RPM
a. Mixture — LEAN for Max RPM’s, RICH below 3000′
b. Magnetos — CHECK (RPM drop should not exceed 125 RPM on either
magneto or 50 RPM differential between magnetos)
c. Carburetor Heat — CHECK (for RPM drop)
d. Engine Instruments — CHECK
e. Ammeter — CHECK
f. Suction Gage — CHECK
6. Flight Instruments — SET including D.G., A.F., Alt.
7. Throttle — 1000 RPM
8. Throttle Friction Lock — ADJUST
9. Parking Brake — RELEASE
Cleared For Takeoff
1. Strobes — ON
2. Time — COPY
3. Airspeed — ALIVE
4. Runway heading — ON D.G.
5. Transponder — ALT
TAKEOFF
Normal Takeoff
1. Wing Flaps — UP
2. Carburetor Heat — COLD
3. Throttle — FULL OPEN
4. Elevator Control — LIFT NOSE WHEEL at 55 KIAS
5. Climb Speed — 80-90 KIAS (78 KIAS Vy)
Short Field Takeoff
1. Wing Flaps — UP
2. Carburetor Heat — COLD
3. Brakes — APPLY
4. Throttle — FULL OPEN
5. Mixture — RICH (Above 3000 feet, LEAN to obtain MAX RPM’s)
6. Breaks — RELEASE
7. Elevator Control — SLIGHTLY TAIL LOW
8. Climb Speed — 64 KIAS (Until all obstacles are cleared)
9. Wing Flaps — RETRACT slowly after reaching 78 KIAS
ENROUTE CLIMB
1. Airspeed — 70-90 KIAS
2. Throttle — FULL OPEN
3. Mixture — RICH below 3000′, LEAN for MAX RPM’s
BEFORE APPROACH
1. Seats, Belts, Harnesses – ADJUST and LOCK
2. Mixture — RICH
3. Carburetor Heat — ON
4. Fuel Selector Valve — BOTH
APPROACH (Prior to IAF)
1. Missed Approach Review — COMPLETE
2. ATIS — ALTIMETER SETTING
3. Radios — (NAV/COMM – IDENTIFY)
4. Time to MAP — COPY
5. Heading Indicator — SET
6. Altitude — (MDA-30 sec, DH-50ft)
At FAF or for Holding
1. Turn — AS NEEDED
2. Time — ONE MINUTE
3. Twist — SET inbound course
4. Throttle — SET to holding speed
5. Talk — AS NEEDED
LANDINGS
Normal Landing
1. Airspeed — 60-70 KIAS (Flaps UP)
2. Wing Flaps — AS DESIRED (below 85 KIAS)
3. Airspeed — 55-65 KIAS (Flaps DOWN)
4. Touchdown — MAIN WHEELS FIRST
5. Landing Roll — LOWER NOSE WHEEL GENTLY
6. Braking — MINIMUM REQUIRED
Balked Landing
1. Throttle — FULL OPEN
2. Carburetor Heat — COLD
3. Wing Flaps — Retract to 20°
4. Airspeed — 55 KIAS
5. Wing Flaps — RETRACT (slowly at 60 KIAS)
AFTER LANDING
1. Flaps — UP
2. Accessories — OFF
3. Carburetor Heat — COLD
4. Transponder — Standby
5. Trim — To Takeoff
6. Strobes — OFF
SECURING AIRPLANE
1. Radios — OFF
2. Electrical Equipment, Lights — OFF
3. Mixture — IDLE CUT-OFF
4. Mags — OFF
5. Master Switch — OFF
6. Flight plan — CLOSE
EMERGENCY CHECKLIST
1. Airplane — FLY
ENGINE FAILURES — During Takeoff Run
1. Throttle — IDLE
2. Brakes — APPLY
3. Wing Flaps — RETRACT
4. Mixture — IDLE CUT-OFF
5. Ignition Switch — OFF
6. Master Switch — OFF
Immediately after Takeoff
1. Airspeed — 65 KIAS (Flaps UP) or 60 KIAS (Flaps DOWN)
2. Mixture — IDLE CUT-OFF
3. Fuel Selector Valve — OFF
4. Ignition Switch — OFF
5. Wing Flaps — AS REQUIRED
6. Master Switch — OFF
7. Land — STRAIGHT AHEAD if below 400 feet AGL
During Flight
1. Airspeed — 65 KIAS
2. Find place to land
3. Carburetor Heat — ON
4. Throttle — FULL
5. Mixture — RICH
6. Fuel Selector Valve — BOTH
7. Primer — IN and LOCKED
8. Ignition Switch — BOTH (or START if propeller is stopped)
9. Magnetos — CHECK
10. Fuel Quantity Indicators — CHECK QUANTITY
11. Radios — Declare Emergency, Transponder — SET to 7700
13. Landing — EXECUTE FORCED LANDING
FORCED LANDINGS — Without Engine Power
1. Airspeed — 65 KIAS (flaps UP) or 60 KIAS (Flaps DOWN)
2. Mixture — IDLE CUT-OFF
3. Fuel Selector Valve — OFF
4. Ignition Switch — OFF
5. Wing Flaps — AS REQUIRED (40° recommended)
6. Master Switch — OFF
7. Doors — UNLATCH PRIOR TO TOUCHDOWN
8. Touchdown — SLIGHTLY TAIL LOW
9. Brakes — APPLY HEAVILY
Precautionary with Engine Power
1. Wing Flaps — 20°
2. Airspeed — 60 KIAS
3. Selected Field — FLY OVER, noting obstructions and terrain, then retract flaps upon reaching a safe altitude and airspeed.
4. Radios, Electrical Switches, and Radio Power Switch — OFF
5. Wing Flaps — 40°
6. Airspeed — 60 KIAS
7. Master Switch — OFF
8. Doors — UNLATCH PRIOR TO TOUCHDOWN
9. Touchdown — SLIGHTLY TAIL LOW
10. Ignition Switch — OFF
11. Brakes — APPLY HEAVILY
Ditching
1. Radio — TRANSMIT MAYDAY on 121.5 and SQUAWK 7700
2. Heavy Objects (in baggage area) — SECURE or JETTISON
3. Approach — High Winds, Heavy Seas — INTO THE WIND
Light Winds, Heavy Swells — PARALLEL TO SWELLS
4. Wing Flaps — 20° to 40°
5. Power — ESTABLISH 300 FT/MIN DESCENT AT 55 KIAS
If no power : Flaps — 10°, Airspeed — 60 KIAS or Flaps — 0°, Airspeed — 65 KIAS
6. Cabin Doors — UNLATCH
7. Life Vests — Put ON, DO NOT inflate.
8. Touchdown — LEVEL ATTITUDE AT 300 FT/MIN DESCENT
9. Face — CUSHION at touchdown with folded coat
10. Airplane — EVACUATE through cabin doors. If necessary, open windows and flood cabin to equalize pressure so doors can be opened.
11. Life Vests and Raft – INFLATE
FIRES — During Start On Ground
1. Cranking — CONTINUE to get a start which would suck the flames and accumulated fuel through the carburetor and into the engine.
If the engine starts:
2. Power — 1700 RPM for a few minutes
3. Engine — SHUTDOWN and inspect for damage
If engine fails to start:
4. Throttle — FULL OPEN
5. Mixture — IDLE CUT-OFF
5. Cranking — CONTINUE in an effort to get a start
6. Fire Extinguisher — OBTAIN (have ground attendants obtain if not installed)
7. Engine — SECURE
a. Master Switch — OFF
b. Ignition Switch — OFF
c. Fuel Selector Valve — OFF
8. Fire — EXTINGUISH using fire extinguisher, wool blanket, or dirt
9. Fire Damage — INSPECT
Engine Fire in Flight
1. Mixture — IDLE CUT-OFF
2. Fuel Selector Valve — OFF
3. Master Switch — OFF
4. Cabin Heat and Air — OFF (except wing root vents)
5. Airspeed — 100 KIAS (If fire is not extinguished, increase glide speed to find an airspeed which will provide an incombustible mixture)
6. Forced Landing — EXECUTE
Electrical Fire in Flight
1. Master Switch — OFF
2. All Other Switches (except ignition switch) — OFF (includes radio power, pitot heat, radios, lights, and electrical equipment)
3. Vents/Cabin Air/Cabin Heat — CLOSED
4. Fire Extinguisher — ACTIVATE
When fire is out:
5. Cabin — VENTILATE
If fire appears out and electrical power is necessary for continuance of flight:
6. Master Switch — ON
7. Circuit Breakers — CHECK for faulty circuit, do not reset
8. Radio Switchs — OFF
9. Radio Power Switch — ON
10. Radio/Electrical Switches — ON one at a time, with delay after each until short circuit is localized
Cabin Fire
1. Master Switch — OFF
2. Vents/Cabin Air/Cabin Heat — CLOSED
3. Fire Extinguisher — ACTIVATE
When fire is out:
4. Cabin — VENTILATE
5. Airplane — LAND as soon as possible
Wing Fire
1. Navigation Lights — OFF
2. Strobe — OFF
3. Pitot Heat Switch — OFF
4. Airplane — SIDE SLIP to keep flames away from cabin and LAND as soon as possible
Landing With A Flat Main Tire
1. Wing Flaps — AS DESIRED
2. Approach — NORMAL
3. Touchdown — GOOD TIRE FIRST, hold airplane off flat tire as long as possible with aileron control
Static Source Blockage
1. Alternate Static Source Valve — PULL ON
2. Airspeed — Consult tables in POH
ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONS
Ammeter Shows Excessive Rate of Charge
1. Alternator — OFF
2. Nonessential Electrical Equipment — OFF
3. Flight — TERMINATE as soon as practical
Low-Voltage Light Illuminates During Flight
1. Radios, Avionics Power Switch — OFF
2. Master Switch — OFF
3. Master Switch — ON
4. Low Voltage Light — CHECK OFF
5. Radios, Avionics Power Switch — ON
If Low-Voltage Light illuminates again:
6. Alternator — OFF
7. Nonessential Electrical Equipment — OFF
8. Flight — TERMINATE as soon as practical
March 15th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Mike Boland and everyone who read about Jeff Willoughby a dear family friend of mine. To be honest with you Mike doesn’t know what the xxxx is he talking about. He is so full of it. If you really want to know I suggested that you come forward and talk with Jeff in person to person. I know you will have to apology to Jeff the way you talk very nasty and don’t make a good straight story. Your story is not correctly! You are truly sick person we all ever saw. Grow up, Mike!!!! Thank you all for putting down on Mike who doesn’t have a clues. Trust me.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Steve
I talked to Jeff before He tried to blame seat failure on “corrision” he’s full of xxxx
even the National Transportation Safety board blames the pilot for the crash. this information from the safety board is correct. the pilot screwed up. Jeff is just trying sue for $$$$
read this:
he National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot’s failure to maintain airspeed during a go-around, which resulted in an inadvertent stall and subsequent impact with terrain. A factor was the pilot’s hearing impairment.
On June 23, 2005, about 1340 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172N, N5118D, was substantially damaged during a go-around from runway 3 at Katama Airpark (1B2), Edgartown, Massachusetts. The certificated private pilot and two passengers were seriously injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight that departed Plymouth Municipal Airport (PYM), Plymouth, Massachusetts. No flight plan was filed for the personal flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.
Katama Airpark was a non-towered airport. The airport manager at Katama stated that he received a telephone call several weeks before the accident. He was contacted, through an interpreter, by a representative of the Deaf Pilots Association (DPA). The representative asked about a group of DPA pilots flying to Katama. The representative provided the week during which the fly-in would occur. The airport manager asked that the representative provide the exact date before coming. However, the airport manager received no further contact about the specific date of the fly-in.
The Secretary of the DPA stated that on May 22, 2005, he wrote a letter to the Katama Airpark manager advising of the fly-in sometime between June 21 and June 24. On June 3 and June 11, the Secretary’s sister spoke to the airport manager via telephone to coordinate the fly-in, and agreed to call again the night before arrival to provide the exact date and estimated time of arrival. Via an interpreter, the Secretary called Katama on the evening of June 22, and the afternoon of June 23, to provide updates on the group’s arrival. The Secretary could not recall who received the most recent telephone calls, but his wireless telephone invoice revealed a 3-minute call to Katama on June 22, and a 1-minute call to Katama on June 23.
The pilot of a red Waco biplane, N32126, stated that on the day of the accident, he planned to back-taxi on runway 3, a 3,700-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, turf runway. The pilot announced his intentions on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF), did not hear a response, and did not observe any traffic in the area. About one-third down the runway, the pilot observed an airplane on final approach for runway 3. The pilot attempted to contact the airplane on final approach, but received no response. The pilot of the Waco then taxied off the runway and waited until the landing airplane rolled past him. The pilot announced his intentions on the CTAF, received no response, and resumed the back-taxi on runway 3. About two-thirds down the runway, he observed another airplane approaching runway 6, a 2,700-foot-long, 50-foot wide, turf runway. The pilot of the Waco again cleared runway 3 in case the landing pilot decided to land on runway 3. The second airplane subsequently landed on runway 6.
The pilot of the Waco attempted to contact both pilots that landed, but received no response. The pilot again announced his intentions of the CTAF, received no response, and resumed the back-taxi on runway 3. As the pilot approached the runway threshold, he observed another airplane turning on final approach for runway 3. The pilot taxied the Waco off the runway, and the landing airplane began a go-around. The pilot of the Waco further stated, “I saw him pull the nose way up and observed the left wing drop, and the airplane hit the ground.”
The airport manager at Katama stated that after the accident, he closed the airport via announcements over the CTAF. He also notified the Martha’s Vineyard air traffic control tower, and the Bridgeport, Connecticut flight service station. However, six to eight more airplanes continued to land on runway 3, while several emergency vehicles were on the airport.
The pilot of the accident airplane held a private pilot certificate, and a third class medical certificate. His most recent medical certificate was issued June 1, 2005, with a special restriction and waiver, “not valid for flying where radio use is required.” The pilot of the accident airplane was interviewed via telephone, through an interpreter, several months after the accident. Due to his injuries, the pilot could not recall the accident. The pilot reported a total flight experience of 660 hours; of which, 500 hours were in the same make and model as the accident airplane. In addition, the pilot had flown 10 hours during the 30 days preceding the accident, and 3 hours during the 24-hour period prior to the accident. The pilot was hearing impaired, and could not hear or sense the vibration from the airplane’s stall warning horn. Further, the airplane was not equipped with a visual stall indicator. When the pilot was asked how he would know the airplane was stalling, he responding that his first indication would be the “buffeting” of the airplane.
The front seat passenger in the accident airplane was also a student pilot, and the student pilot’s 11-year-old daughter was seated in a rear passenger seat. The student pilot was hearing impaired, and was not operating the airplane’s radio. As the accident airplane turned onto a final approach for runway 3, he observed the Waco move on runway 3, and the airplanes were “nose to nose.” The student pilot “blacked out” as he saw the Waco directly below the accident airplane. He then recalled his daughter trying to wake him after the accident. The student pilot’s daughter later told him that before touchdown, the accident airplane was not flying normally, and the pilot was is a state of panic. She recalled that a seat broke and hit her foot, and she thought it was a result of the pilot pushing his leg against the flooring in a state of panic. The witness’s daughter also remembered the Waco being directly below the accident airplane.
The Secretary of the DPA also witnessed the accident. He was flying in his Piper Archer, and was in the traffic pattern at the time of the accident. He observed a red biplane moving at the approach end of runway 3, while the accident airplane was on short final approach. The Secretary then observed, “the right wing and nose of the [accident] aircraft lift up, slide to its left, and then drop onto the ground near the numbers of Runway 6.” The Secretary had an interpreter onboard, and while circling the airport, was able to receive communication via CTAF that the airport was closed. He then returned to Plymouth, Massachusetts uneventfully.
Another witness to the accident was in the front passenger seat of a Piper Cherokee in the traffic pattern, acting as an interpreter, and handling radio communications. She heard the pilot of the Waco announce over CTAF, and ask one of the landing pilots why they were not using a radio. The witness then responded to the Waco pilot’s inquiry with a non-standard transmission, “We have several NORDO approaches, please maintain visual contact.” Just about that time, the accident occurred. The witness then tried to obtain guidance over CTAF, but did not receive any response stating that the airport was closed. She then announced the intention for the airplane she was in was to land on runway 3, and received no response. The airplane landed uneventfully, along with three or four additional airplanes.
Another witness captured part of the accident sequence with a video recorder. Review of the recording revealed that the accident airplane was in a descending left bank attitude near the runway threshold. The pitch attitude appeared approximately neutral as the airplane continued to descend and roll right before impacting the ground. At the same time, a red biplane was taxiing in the vicinity of the runway threshold.
The accident airplane came to rest about 15 feet right of runway 3. The wreckage was examined by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector. The disposition of the wreckage was consistent with an approximate 15-degree nose down, upright, vertical impact. The inspector confirmed flight control continuity and noted that the flaps were in the 10-degree extended position.
After the wreckage was recovered, the seats and seat tracks were examined by a representative from the airplane manufacturer, and a Safety Board investigator. The front left seat was a cast seat. The right portion of the seat base had separated from the seat, but remained attached to its respective seat track. The left side of the seat base remained intact, with the casters and seat clamps intact. One seat pin separated consistent with impact damage, while the other seat pin remained intact with an approximate 1/2-inch extension. The seat back also remained intact.
The right seat base was intact. The base legs were bent consistent with a side load to the right. The seat clamps were deformed or separated consistent with a side load to the right. The right seat back remained intact.
Both sets of seat tracks remained intact, and were separated about mid-span, consistent with impact damage.
The rear bench seat remained intact, and was more deformed on the right side. All seat belts and shoulder harnesses were intact.
Review of FAA-H-8083-3A, Airplane Flying Handbook, revealed:
“Go-Arounds (Rejected Landings)
Whenever landing conditions are not satisfactory, a go-around is warranted. There are many factors that can contribute to unsatisfactory landing conditions. Situations such as air traffic control requirements, unexpected appearance of hazards on the runway, overtaking another airplane, wind shear, wake turbulence, mechanical failure and/or an unstabilized approach are all examples of reasons to discontinue a landing approach and make another approach under more favorable conditions…The go-around is not strictly an emergency procedure. It is a normal maneuver that may at times be used in an emergency situation. Like any other normal maneuver, the go-around must be practiced and perfected…
Although the need to discontinue a landing may arise at any point in the landing process, the most critical go-around will be one started when very close to the ground. Therefore, the earlier a condition that warrants a go-around is recognized, the safer the go-around/rejected landing will be. The go-around maneuver is not inherently dangerous in itself. It becomes dangerous only when delayed unduly or executed improperly…The improper execution of the go-around maneuver stems from a lack of familiarity with the three cardinal principles of the procedure: power, attitude, and configuration…
Attitude is always critical when close to the ground, and when power is added, a deliberate effort on the part of the pilot will be required to keep the nose from pitching up prematurely. The airplane executing a go-around must be maintained in an attitude that permits a buildup of airspeed well beyond the stall point before any effort is made to gain altitude, or to execute a turn. Raising the nose too early may produce a stall from which the airplane could not be recovered if the go-around is performed at a low altitude.
A concern for quickly regaining altitude during a go-around produces a natural tendency to pull the nose up. The pilot executing a go-around must accept the fact that an airplane will not climb until it can fly, and it will not fly below stall speed. In some circumstances, it may be desirable to lower the nose briefly to gain airspeed. As soon as the appropriate climb airspeed and pitch attitude are attained, the pilot should ‘rough trim’ the airplane to relieve any adverse control pressures. Later, more precise trim adjustments can be made when flight conditions have stabilized.”
Review of the Pilot/Controller Glossary, contained in the Airman’s Information Manual, revealed:
“Lost Communications – Loss of the ability to communicate by radio. Aircraft are sometimes referred to as NORDO (No Radio).”
The reported weather at Martha’s Vineyard Airport, Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts, located about 5 miles northwest of the accident site, at 1353, was: wind from 080 degrees at 9 knots; visibility 10 miles; sky clear; temperature 69 degrees F; dew point 45 degrees F; altimeter 30.14 inches Hg.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
You still full of xxxx, you dont know the full story! By the way he is on winning collect money that he cant go to work! If you want to prove go to court and watch careful! You are truly xxxx
March 15th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Can’t wait to collect the big money and have a big party wooooo hoooooooo! Party all night long and spend the retired money, insurance money,etc. etc. Duh! Mike, he cant work at all. He is disability. You better watch yourself or you’ll sue for slangering! Idiot, Mike!
March 15th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
hello Mike Boland
Let me to clarify this simple passage about 3 deaf people involved in a plane crash in Martha Vineyard in 2005
Alec Naiman is the pilot, who was piloting the crashed plane. Jeff and Jessica Willoughby was the passengers. Of course, I know that you rejected the deafness of the pilot. I know you rejected the issues about the waivers and the related issues to that. You have a “aganist” thing to Jeff Willoughby because he is suing to Cessna, actually.. It is obviously that he is not really suing, his lawyer is suing Cessna, not HIM. got it? Also the issues about the waviers, they made a mistake, even I do make mistakes.. Even you too. About the deafness of the pilot, all of humans ride with other humans.. Like a hearing person ride with someone else too. Including a hearing person would ride with you while you are a student pilot too.. I am sure that you did piloted with someone else as the passenger. Mike, actually.. You are jumping to the conclusions too fast.. Just “hold your pants” until the results come with the money and stuff.
Steve- ROCK ON!!! I agree with you!!!
(deafness will never stop anybody! Deaf people are humans! Humans make mistakes!)
thanks
candy
March 15th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
lot of insurance companys feel its cheaper to pay / settle out court than to risk going to trial and losing millions. Jury’s don’t know / understand aviation so they tend to lose…
as for Jeff.. I’ve seen him walk. Jeff disabled my xxx..
I’m not slandering I’m just telling what happen… they stalled it in to a crash simple as that.
I have no respect for Jeff sueing all these other people Cessna, airport other pilots. only pilot that is at fault is the pilot that was flying the plane with Jeff..
March 15th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Candance Wilson says..
Jeff lawyers are sueing Cessna and everyone trying get money they are sueing on Jeff behalf.
if Jeff was sueing only Alec Naiman.. I wouldn’t have a problem with that Alec Naiman was the pilot in command he screwed up. Cessna, the airport and others had nothing to do with the cause of the crash..just the pilot Alex Naiman.. jeff should Sue only him. sueing all the others is bunch bullxxxx
I’m not jumping to the conclusions the national transportation safety board all ready ruled on the cause of the crash ” The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot’s failure to maintain airspeed during a go-around, which resulted in an inadvertent stall and subsequent impact with terrain. A factor was the pilot’s hearing impairment. (not hearing the stall warning horn)
March 15th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Mike
Told you.. You need to hold on your pants, wait and see. Perhaps all insurance will make a agreement to pay instead going to the court ans have too much hassles.
I knew Jeff Willoughby, I did saw him walking. Yes he can walk but not that much. When he go malls or deaf clubs, he cant stand that much. I can see his limits increased after the plane crash. I felt sorry for him, of course he will get a lot of money. but he deserve it because he cant play wrestling with his own 3 young children. He cant do his regularly jobs, helping senior citzens’ homes fixing up their houses up. he CAN’T do it at all. How can you feel like that way against to Jeff. How you can feel if you cant chase your own 8 years old daughter. You cant wrestle your own 13 years old son. You cant stroll down the mall with your own 15 years old daughter for the day. You CANT do most things. Can you talk like this aganist him and his family? he cant help it to sue other companies.. Because his injuries..
Thanks and think TWICE before blahhing on the blog
Candy
March 15th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
too bad we can sue people for Stupidity.
My beef is Jeff Sueing Cessna, the aieport, the other pilots.. they had nothing to do with the crash Jeff was in… no on the other hand of Jeff was Sueing ONLY Alec Naiman the pilot who actions caused the crash.. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.. but sueing all these other people who had nothing to do with the CAUSE of the crash other than being there when I happened or made the aircraft… thats just so wrong.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Mike
Actually, perhaps you dont know the truth of this story. Its obvious that the reporter just told the basic story. You may be wrong, you just jumped to the conclusions, you better to wait until the trail ends and you can speak freely. right now, you speak too early that made everybody felt insulted and more confused. Please stop feel beefs about the Cessena, you could be wrong about the cessena, the suit could suing to something else in cessena that the lawyer cant tell to the reporter
please wait until the suit ends and you can speak freely
thanks
candy
March 16th, 2008 at 12:04 am
It’s Cessna not Cessena
no.. everytime a airplane crashes they always try sue the aircraft maker etc…
people got to take more responabilty for their actions…
I skydive, thousands of jumps…but my will says
if I die skydiving and anyone who trys sue the parachute manufactor (Jumpshack) then all my money goes to Jumpshack to defend then against that lawsuit. They make great parachutes, problem is idiots wearing the parachutes who fail to pull on time. Same thing with stupid people who get hurt and start sueing everyone for money. Cessna makes a damn good airplane.. too bad theres too many stupid people flying them…as for the lawyers.. they lie about everything!
March 16th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Mike
who cares about spelling. Its midnight and its not school time. therefore, I am graduated and WHO CARES ABOUT SPELLING.
You are a skydiver, you have your preference. What if you jumped and you saw the parachute ripped even its new and came from your own favorite manfacturer, Jumpshack. you crashed on the solid ground, left you with paralyzed legs. What you will do? Clap your hands supporting your favorite manfacturer left you with unable to walk ability? Or you will sue them?
Similar to the plane crash issue, everybody made mistakes. there will never perfect “good” airplanes and there will always “lemoned” airplane. A mistake manfactured plane out hundreds of airplanes. So Jeff got the bad luck airplane. Actually CESSNA. Also I am telling you again, the reporter wouldnt tell A to Z story about the crash. There could be something going on with CESSNA while you dont know even you already determined that its just chairs. it could be something else so just sit and wait until the judge ended the trail with his mighty wooden hammer.
Candy
March 16th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Ive had good parachutes fail.. no fault of the parachute maker.. sometimes the forces on opening just rip the cells out of the parachute.. no big deal.. cut it away and use your reserve chute..
skydiving is risky.. you can get hurt no fault of the parachute. in jeffs case Cessna did nothing wrong the pilot flying with Jeff screwed up simple as that.. if Jeff was sueing only him I’d have no problem with that but sueing Cessna the airport the other pilots is wrong.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:36 am
I mean what if only one parachute failed. I am sure you would sue same thing jeff did. Also I am sure that Jeff dont really want to sue too many people but he have to because the lawyer’s orders.
Overall of this suing issues. What if you was in jeff’s spot, the lawyer told you that he have to sue cessna was your good friendship. I am sure you have to because you deserve it. Therefore, you dont know what the deep issues about cessna between the plane crash, it could be more than the chair issues. You should not jump to the conculsions already even the blog just posted yesterday. I am asking you, just shut up about the issues, you is not involved to the crash and stuff. You just comment what you think and your feelings THATS ALL, not deep about cessna and issues about chairs. Just shut up until the trail end then you got the right to speak
Just hold your pants, sit down, and wait.. PATIENT please
I am going to sleep with blessing with jeff and his hardworking 3 years to deserve the missing advantages with his good job, his precious children, and his old life.
Thanks
Candy
March 16th, 2008 at 12:44 am
I’ve had parachutes fail before. You do not sue. sometimes opening forces are just too great.. its happens.. as for me Unlike Jeff I take responabilty for my actions… if I crash a airplanes.. its my fault not the aircraft maker… Pilot error.. simple as that… if Jeff was worried about his childrens welfare he shouldn’t have been risking his / their lifeline (his income) flying….
as I said if Jeff was Sueing only Alex Nainman the pilot I’d have no problem with that.. but Sueing Cessna, the airport and others is just wrong wrong wrong.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:58 am
I have been hurt seriously skydiving in 2006 broke both ankles and femurs from landing crash. the parachute got caught in a dust devil… and stalled to ground about 30 feet above ground kind of just like jeffs plane crash..
did I sue anyone? nope.. It was my fault pilot error..I saw the dust devles but still flew near them.. should have landed out and walked back…
spent 7 months out of work and 5 surgerys but sue any one nope. It was my fault.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Mike, you are an xxxx still you dont know a clue why sued the Cessna!!! Before you jump into conclusion till the court is over and read what really happen out there. Your xxxx will drop to the floor when you find out the truth! Go Candy! Rock on babe!
March 16th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Mike
You are a–h—…
You still carry grudges against Jeff.
You are not an attorney. Jeff’s attorney knows what he is doing. You should shudda up and let them do what they supposed to do.
You talked like a real xxxxx.
BEWARE all Ladies, do not date him as he is really dangerous even with one arm. Heed my warning, Ladies…
March 16th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Hear hear Jack, I seconded that, any ladies out there are not alone that Mike is a stalker, you can sued him in xxxx Remember it takes one Jeff’s lawyer to sued against many lawyers. FAA on Jeff’s side. Mike, quit whining!! Go home.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
FYI,
huggyangels and Michelle
I think same names. Robert L Cagle Jr. Other person that doesnt have a JR or SR. That’s why It is not that person..
My friend’s brother Robert Cagle lives in NY. and he have a deaf brother and their deaf parents. It’s sound not right person.
We used go to OSD, Oregon School For the Deaf Right back from 1975′s .. Seem the name have a so many similiar name.. Glad it is not the right person.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Told you, Mike. Steve is right, you gonna wait until the trail ends. Also, you dont know why the lawsuit is suing Cessna, perhaps it will be not only about chairs. It could something else.
Also, you need to stop carrying grudges aganist jeff. you need just forget the past and accept jeff’s business, you need just leave his issues alone.
Steve, thanks!!!!
Thanks
Candy
March 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Love ya…….Candy and thank you, too.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
they sued cessna because cessna has lots of money.
I hate people who don’t take responability for the risks they take. I have no grude against jeff If he was sueing only the pilot I’d have no problem with that but sueing Cessna, the airport, the bi plane owners and everyone else is just wrong they had nothing to do with the accident the accident was pilot error simple as that.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
They sued cessna because they didn’t fix it right back then and it did several times that you don’t know. Mike, you are just jealous of him getting money which he can’t work no more. You are really xxxx man! Go away. Mr. xxxxx Mike!
March 16th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Mike
Do you know why Jeff is suing Cessna? You already confirmed its the chairs, probbly you are wrong because I bet there is something more than the chairs. Also, you need to shut up and leave jeff and his businsses alone because you are just jealous that he is getting more than one million dollars. Just shut up
thanks
Candy
March 16th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Obviously there are many strong feelings here.
I will need to ask you again please refrain from hurling personal insults at each other. : /
Thank you
March 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Tell Mr. Unknown Mike doesn’t have a clue what was going on. I know him personal that he is a bad news who knows nothing! Looking here One Lawyer(Jeff’s) v.s. Cessna lawyers, towers lawyers, alot of lawyers. Jeff’s Lawyer killed many lawyers with one stone. Wow amazing but it is a truth fact that they failed so do you Mike the loser!
March 16th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
these lawyers are nothing but bunch jerks trying shake big corperate pockets for money.
I have no respect for these type of lawyers.
as for me a stalker? ha ha ok.. 25 years ago she may have felt that way.. but today were pretty good friends. She wouldn’t have given me her physical address, phone and e-mail address if she felt I was a stalker…
Do you know why Jeff is suing Cessna? yep.. he’s trying to get alot easy money for someone else’s stupidty (Alex Naimans)because cessna made the plane he was flying..as I said before If he was sueing ONLY Alex Nainman I could care less but sueing Cessna and everyone else is bunch of crap.
so how is Cessna responsable because the pilot failed to ensure the seat was locked in position BEFORE TAKE OFF?
what?? you are just jealous that he is getting more than one million dollars. yea right he hasn’t got a dime yet.. his lawyer trying to get 1 million and lawyer will get at least 33% of that plus and expenses (filing fees etc) I’m hoping a jury will find in favor of cessna..
FAA on Jeff’s side? I have seen nothing to support that.. even the NTSB ruled cause of accident was pilots fault not Cessna.. FAA generally goes along with NTSB investgations in this cause NTSB says pilot error caused the crash..
Jeff’s attorney knows what he is doing. yea he’s screwing up aviation.. which is why the cost of airplanes and aircraft parts are so expensive they have to make money to fight all these stupid lawyers.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Mike Boland,
Gee, you have WAAAY too much time on your hands.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
nope.. just peeved at this stupid lawsuit? too much time on my hands? nope spent the day flying and rest of the day cleaning up the hanger..
March 17th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Mike, you have to have the last words! Figure! You at yourself who talk that doesn’t know a clue what the hell are you talking about. Just wait till the court is over, your balls will still drop to the floor! Stop whining, everyone sued in America for a good reason!
March 17th, 2008 at 6:57 am
thats what wrong with USA we have more damn Lawyers than we do engineers…..
March 17th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Engineers do screws and not think of People’s live like you do? Heh. Wrong again, more engineers than lawyers! Duh.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:21 am
By the way it is none of your damn business whether people sues or not.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Mike, are you going to bitching about the EX-BEATLE WIFE go the 50M settle on divorce? If so then figure!
March 17th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Steve
you sure about that?
Engineers do screws and not think of People’s live like you do? Heh. Wrong again, more engineers than lawyers! Duh.
go look it up its true USA has more lawyers than engineers every other country has more engineers than lawyers.. as for ex Beatle I could give a shit.. It’s people like Jeff sueing aircraft companys that ruin aviation. like I said if he was sueing Alex Nainman only I’d have no beef with it.. but Sueing Cessna, the airport operators, the biplane pilot and everyone else is bunch bull
March 17th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
This is my last message to you, Mike. Like I said you don’t know a thing about this situation. Why am I bothering with an idiot who don’t get what we are trying to say or you just hate Jeff. Farewell, Idiot Mike the falling balls!