The Day The Music Died
The NTSB is looking to reopen the investigation of the Buddy Holly,Ritchie Valens and JP Richardson plane crash.
The reason, They are looking for Pilot Error ?
I thought that had already been determined?
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
The Day the Music Died
- Thread starter loknload
- Start date
The Day The Music Died
The NTSB is looking to reopen the investigation of the Buddy Holly,Ritchie Valens and JP Richardson plane crash.
The reason, They are looking for Pilot Error ?
I thought that had already been determined?
Register to hide this ad
Waylon Jennings was one lucky man.
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
Why do they want to establish this now?
It has to be decades too late for any civil suit or criminal charges.
It has to be decades too late for any civil suit or criminal charges.
Last edited:
Shoulda,,,,,???? Heard this on the world news, all they said was to investigate possible pilot error ?
I thought that was the determined cause all along? Pilot did not have the proper instrumentation rating to be flying in that weather.
Somebody must be pushing this since the last anniversary .
I thought that was the determined cause all along? Pilot did not have the proper instrumentation rating to be flying in that weather.
Somebody must be pushing this since the last anniversary .
vigil617
US Veteran
Pilot error was determined back in 1957 to have been the cause of the crash.
The NTSB has been asked to consider reopening the investigation, based on the contentions of an aviation expert that factors such as weight and balance, rate of climb, fuel gauge status, and a rudder issue need to be looked at more carefully.
It likely will be a year or so before the NTSB even decides whether to reopen the case by ruling on what's called a "petition for reconsideration."
The NTSB has been asked to consider reopening the investigation, based on the contentions of an aviation expert that factors such as weight and balance, rate of climb, fuel gauge status, and a rudder issue need to be looked at more carefully.
It likely will be a year or so before the NTSB even decides whether to reopen the case by ruling on what's called a "petition for reconsideration."
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
Yeah, go figure. It's glaringly obvious what went wrong. Same thing that killed Glenn Miller.
It's probably not going to happen, but they have to go through the motions.
The NTSB has received a letter from a Mr. L.J. Coon, a pilot from New England. He contends that there were other issues involving weight and balance calculations, the rate of the plane's climb and descent, fuel gauge readings and the passenger-side rudder that the board should investigate.
I surmise that he feels that the alleged issues are contributing factors and in someway would mitigate the pilot's decision to fly into instrument meteorological conditions without being familiar with the instruments in the airplane he was flying. From the NTSB report:
"When his instrument training was taken, several aircraft were used and these were all equipped with the conventional type artificial horizon and none with the Sperry Attitude Gyro such as was installed in Bonanza N 3794N. These two instruments differ greatly in their pictorial display.
The conventional artificial horizon provides a direct reading indication of the bank and pitch attitude of the aircraft which is accurately indicated by a miniature aircraft pictorially displayed against a horizon bar and as if observed from the rear.. The Sperry F3 gyro also provides a direct reading indication of the bank and pitch attitude of the aircraft, but its pictorial presentation is achieved by using a stabilized sphere whose free-floating movements behind a miniature aircraft presents pitch information with a sensing exactly opposite from that depicted by the conventional artificial horizon."
(My personal experience with the Sperry type gyro horizon is limited to some flights in a WWII era simulator and a couple of VFR flights in a 1953 D35 Bonanza that was still in it's original configuration, but I can vouch for the distinctly different visual presentation of a non moving plan against a moving back ground versus a moving plane against a fixed background.)
In any event, the NTSB has 60 days to determine whether or not the submitted request meets the requirements of a Petition for Reconsideration. Then if they decide that is the case, they would have up to a year to determine if the petition will be granted. At that point, and only at that point, the investigation would be re-opened.
Personally, I don't think Mr. Coon has a hope in hell of the petition being granted.
He lacks any standing in the case as far as I can tell, as he's not appealing a decision that affects him. He's also way past the normal time line to appeal the decision. It's nice to want to clear a pilot (Roger Peterson), but that's not the same as asserting your right to clear your own name if you disagree with an NTSB decision in an accident where you were the PIC.
In the unlikely event the board determines he does have legal standing, Section 821.50 states an airman may submit arguments in his or her petition based upon new matters provided the arguments are substantiated through affidavits, prospective witnesses, authenticated documents, or both. However, section 821.50(c ) qualifies this opportunity by requiring that an airman "explain why such new matter could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence prior to the date on which the evidentiary record closed."
So in short, his petition will have to show the "new matters", and he'll have to prove and demonstrate why they were not discovered or considered during the initial investigation. Generally speaking, only evidence that was truly not available or discoverable through proper due diligence will be considered by the Board in a petition for reconsideration. Given that he has "discovered" the issues he references - weight and balance calculations, the rate of the plane's climb and descent, fuel gauge readings and the passenger-side rudder - he'll have to demonstrate that they were known and were not available or discoverable in 1959. You, know….by the accident investigators at the actual scene. That's going to be tough to do.
If all he is asking the board to do is to reconsider things already presented into evidence and in effect change it's decision, which seems to be the case, then the petition will be denied and no further investigation will occur.
I suspect we'll hear this in about 60 days.
----
In Mr. Peterson's partial defense I will add that the NTSB report stops short of pointing out some factors that probably contributed to the accident.
V tail Bonanzas have a very pronounced dutch roll characteristic in turbulence that is caused by roll yaw coupling - think of it as the wing tips constantly describing small figure eights on the horizon. To stop this, you have to apply a bit of aileron with some opposite rudder, and under instrument flight conditions the combination of roll and yaw can cause vertigo, which makes flying under instrument conditions even more difficult. Given the winds were 20 kts gusting to 30 kts at the time of departure, turbulence at low altitude was a given.
Along with his, Mr. Peterson had already failed an instrument flight check in the past, and had a medical waiver for a hearing issue. It's possible his ear condition may have left him even more susceptible to vertigo. In any case, a bad case of vertigo, no visible horizon, and a gyro horizon display that you are not familiar with is a killer combination.
The NTSB report does mention that the gyro horizon was caged, but it's unclear whether it ended up that way in the crash, whether the pilot caged it during flight (which he would have done if he did not trust what it was telling him), or whether it was caged for the entire flight. That raises the possibility that he was also flying with a partial panel (much more difficult on instruments), and it's possible that he may have been flying on a partial panel without recognizing it - i.e. not realizing until it was too late that the gyro horizon was caged.
That does not alleviate Mr. Peterson of his responsibility, he should have recognized the conditions were in excess of what he could handle and cancelled or delayed the flight. But I suspect he felt a great deal of pressure to get the famous folks in the plane where they wanted to go.
The NTSB has received a letter from a Mr. L.J. Coon, a pilot from New England. He contends that there were other issues involving weight and balance calculations, the rate of the plane's climb and descent, fuel gauge readings and the passenger-side rudder that the board should investigate.
I surmise that he feels that the alleged issues are contributing factors and in someway would mitigate the pilot's decision to fly into instrument meteorological conditions without being familiar with the instruments in the airplane he was flying. From the NTSB report:
"When his instrument training was taken, several aircraft were used and these were all equipped with the conventional type artificial horizon and none with the Sperry Attitude Gyro such as was installed in Bonanza N 3794N. These two instruments differ greatly in their pictorial display.
The conventional artificial horizon provides a direct reading indication of the bank and pitch attitude of the aircraft which is accurately indicated by a miniature aircraft pictorially displayed against a horizon bar and as if observed from the rear.. The Sperry F3 gyro also provides a direct reading indication of the bank and pitch attitude of the aircraft, but its pictorial presentation is achieved by using a stabilized sphere whose free-floating movements behind a miniature aircraft presents pitch information with a sensing exactly opposite from that depicted by the conventional artificial horizon."
(My personal experience with the Sperry type gyro horizon is limited to some flights in a WWII era simulator and a couple of VFR flights in a 1953 D35 Bonanza that was still in it's original configuration, but I can vouch for the distinctly different visual presentation of a non moving plan against a moving back ground versus a moving plane against a fixed background.)
In any event, the NTSB has 60 days to determine whether or not the submitted request meets the requirements of a Petition for Reconsideration. Then if they decide that is the case, they would have up to a year to determine if the petition will be granted. At that point, and only at that point, the investigation would be re-opened.
Personally, I don't think Mr. Coon has a hope in hell of the petition being granted.
He lacks any standing in the case as far as I can tell, as he's not appealing a decision that affects him. He's also way past the normal time line to appeal the decision. It's nice to want to clear a pilot (Roger Peterson), but that's not the same as asserting your right to clear your own name if you disagree with an NTSB decision in an accident where you were the PIC.
In the unlikely event the board determines he does have legal standing, Section 821.50 states an airman may submit arguments in his or her petition based upon new matters provided the arguments are substantiated through affidavits, prospective witnesses, authenticated documents, or both. However, section 821.50(c ) qualifies this opportunity by requiring that an airman "explain why such new matter could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence prior to the date on which the evidentiary record closed."
So in short, his petition will have to show the "new matters", and he'll have to prove and demonstrate why they were not discovered or considered during the initial investigation. Generally speaking, only evidence that was truly not available or discoverable through proper due diligence will be considered by the Board in a petition for reconsideration. Given that he has "discovered" the issues he references - weight and balance calculations, the rate of the plane's climb and descent, fuel gauge readings and the passenger-side rudder - he'll have to demonstrate that they were known and were not available or discoverable in 1959. You, know….by the accident investigators at the actual scene. That's going to be tough to do.
If all he is asking the board to do is to reconsider things already presented into evidence and in effect change it's decision, which seems to be the case, then the petition will be denied and no further investigation will occur.
I suspect we'll hear this in about 60 days.
----
In Mr. Peterson's partial defense I will add that the NTSB report stops short of pointing out some factors that probably contributed to the accident.
V tail Bonanzas have a very pronounced dutch roll characteristic in turbulence that is caused by roll yaw coupling - think of it as the wing tips constantly describing small figure eights on the horizon. To stop this, you have to apply a bit of aileron with some opposite rudder, and under instrument flight conditions the combination of roll and yaw can cause vertigo, which makes flying under instrument conditions even more difficult. Given the winds were 20 kts gusting to 30 kts at the time of departure, turbulence at low altitude was a given.
Along with his, Mr. Peterson had already failed an instrument flight check in the past, and had a medical waiver for a hearing issue. It's possible his ear condition may have left him even more susceptible to vertigo. In any case, a bad case of vertigo, no visible horizon, and a gyro horizon display that you are not familiar with is a killer combination.
The NTSB report does mention that the gyro horizon was caged, but it's unclear whether it ended up that way in the crash, whether the pilot caged it during flight (which he would have done if he did not trust what it was telling him), or whether it was caged for the entire flight. That raises the possibility that he was also flying with a partial panel (much more difficult on instruments), and it's possible that he may have been flying on a partial panel without recognizing it - i.e. not realizing until it was too late that the gyro horizon was caged.
That does not alleviate Mr. Peterson of his responsibility, he should have recognized the conditions were in excess of what he could handle and cancelled or delayed the flight. But I suspect he felt a great deal of pressure to get the famous folks in the plane where they wanted to go.
Last edited:
model70hunter
Member
My Dad was from that generation, he loved his big band stuff and traveled to see and dance to all the names you hear. Glenn Miller was his favorite.
I read an article that the military bombing runs that were scratched dropped their bombs in the English channel upon return. Glen was flying low level to do a thing in France.
They said he was under a bunch of planes coming back from a scratched mission who were dropping their payload at the same time he was low level over the channel. They feel one of the bombs took Glenn's plane out.
Thank you for the explanation, they didn't say that in tonight's news broadcast unless I missed it!
Now that you bring that up I sort of remember something being said back around the anniversary ?, or am I having a Brian Williams moment?
Now that you bring that up I sort of remember something being said back around the anniversary ?, or am I having a Brian Williams moment?
Interesting, Ritchie Valens's sister lives here in Okoboji, I've had the pleasure of having cocktails with her several times. I wonder if family members were contacted about this before release to the news services.
This received more of an in depth explanation this morning on the Today show!
Exactly as what was reported here by vigil an BB.
It is interesting that someone wants to look at this again after all these years, and it truly was...
The Day the Music Died
Exactly as what was reported here by vigil an BB.
It is interesting that someone wants to look at this again after all these years, and it truly was...
The Day the Music Died
