My favorite P-40!

[John-Curtiss Paul]

Bill...it seems you are trying to raise more questions rather than simply accepting the facts. Like Jack said...It's Black and White. Jeff Ethell did not have permission (or the qualifications) to fly Bruce's airplane that day and in my opinion that decision alone ranks pretty darn high in an airman's ability to make responsible decisions.

I'll bet there are a lot of airplanes out there that I could take off and land safely, that does not however mean that I am properly trained, qualified or legal to fly them....even If I have the owners permission....or don't.

[John-Curtiss Paul]

Bill...it seems you are trying to raise more questions rather than simply accepting the facts. Like Jack said...It's Black and White. Jeff Ethell did not have permission (or the qualifications) to fly Bruce's airplane that day and in my opinion that decision alone ranks pretty darn high in an airman's ability to make responsible decisions.

I'll bet there are a lot of airplanes out there that I could take off and land safely, that does not however mean that I am properly trained, qualified or legal to fly them....even If I have the owners permission....or don't.

I completely get your point here, but I'm still confused as to who allowed the poor fellow to get into and fly this P-38 that crashed. I'm just not getting it here. And if it's really not my business, then why even bring it up? I have no connection at all, but I just have several questions as to who allowed this guy to jump in the cockpit, fire this plane up, taxi it out, take off and fly it around until he ran out of gas and spun in to his death. If it were my expensive airplane, no one, but no one, would get close to it. Unless I was right there next to them. Believe me when I say I'm NOT taking anyone's side here. I just see too many open holes here that cause me to think in too many directions. .... READ THIS CAREFULLY!!!!! ... no disrespect to anyone here in this discussion .... I would just like to understand how something like this could possibly happen. If it's not my business, just ignore me. fair enough?

and PS ... if it were black & white ... I wouldn't bother to ask questions like I'm asking .... Show me black and white ... all I see is grey

Last edited by Hellcat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[bdk]

As for as switching tanks, it may not be that simple, he may have been out of fuel.. Somewhere I have the accident report, I'll try to look it up.

He was out of fuel because he failed to switch tanks?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X08240&key=1

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

failure of the pilot to maintain minimum control speed (VMC), after loss of power in one engine, which resulted in a loss of aircraft control and collision with terrain. Related factors were: the pilot's improper fuel management and failure to change the fuel selector position before a fuel tank had emptied, which led to fuel starvation and loss of power in one engine; and the pilot's lack of familiarity with the aircraft, relative to single-engine minimum airspeeds.

[John-Curtiss Paul]

Ummmmm........ seems pretty clear. Or should I say "Black and White".

[Bill Greenwood]

John Curtis, yes I am asking for facts to clairify and understand what happened. There are a lot of opinions, but there are some grey areas. I have a hard time believing Jeff, in effect, stole the plane in front of his Dad, cameras and other people. So, I think it is more complex, likely that whoever flew the plane that morning before Jeff gave him permission to fly it. It seems the question was did that person have that legal right? Thanks for clearing up that there may have been two owners. I still would like to know who owned the one Jeff flew in the video.
Hellcat, some people, good pilots or good people may see things black or white. In my experience, Jeff was not only one of the nicest people I met in warbirds, but a careful pilot. I believe he made a mistake that day, as many have. But after the fact, after the $$$$ is lost, out come the claims and we are only hearing one side.
There is a current big lawsuit on another accident. Two planes collided, both experienced pilots. I think it is clear to most of us that no 2 caused the accident. However that's not what is said in court. It claims the briefer was at fault. Did any of the pilots complain or question AT THE TIME OF THE BRIEFING? Nope, it was all fine until there is a loss and someone is paid to find some deep pockets to point the blame at. Jeff may well have been at fault, I just want to see both sides.

[Bill Greenwood]

John Curtis, yes I am asking for facts to clairify and understand what happened. There are a lot of opinions, but there are some grey areas. I have a hard time believing Jeff, in effect, stole the plane in front of his Dad, cameras and other people. So, I think it is more complex, likely that whoever flew the plane that morning before Jeff gave him permission to fly it. It seems the question was did that person have that legal right? Thanks for clearing up that there may have been two owners. I still would like to know who owned the one Jeff flew in the video.
Hellcat, some people, good pilots or good people may see things black or white. In my experience, Jeff was not only one of the nicest people I met in warbirds, but a careful pilot. I believe he made a mistake that day, as many have. But after the fact, after the $$$$ is lost, out come the claims and we are only hearing one side.
There is a current big lawsuit on another accident. Two planes collided, both experienced pilots. I think it is clear to most of us that no 2 caused the accident. However that's not what is said in court. It claims the briefer was at fault. Did any of the pilots complain or question AT THE TIME OF THE BRIEFING? Nope, it was all fine until there is a loss and someone is paid to find some deep pockets to point the blame at. Jeff may well have been at fault, I just want to see both sides.

Ummmmm........ seems pretty clear. Or should I say "Black and White".

OK ... explain how he got into the P-38 in the first place .... since it's so black & white. It should be pretty easy then.

Look I'm a pretty bright guy ... If I do say so myself, ... If I don't see a clear outlook, believe me, no one will. You can state all you want about this fellows piloting skills, whether he had them or not, but until you explain how he was allowed in a very rare and expensive airplane without the owners permission, well, it'll never be black & white, no matter how far you want to go with this conversation. I'd BBQ the fool that let him into MY P-38 without MY permission. You can count on that.

[John-Curtiss Paul]

Apples and Oranges........... One man in a plane that he his soley responsible for the the airworthiness of and all aspects of the flight. He was the pilot and every part of the flight was his responsibility. ESPECIALLY knowing who owned the aircraft and if he had permission to fly it for crying out loud. I personally believe he knew the answers to both questions. But this issue is more of a moral one. The reason the accident happened is clear. As for the reason he took it up Hellcat, as I understand it, his father was an accomplished P-38 pilot in the war and was having a P-38 Pilot's reunion that Jeff was eager to fly the P-38 at. The owner of said P-38 lives in California and the Plane was based at Tillamook, Or. along with it's sister ship. He took off on the reserve tanks and never switched to the mains, he than ran one engine out of gas (according to the NTSB), did not get it going again, and than stalled and spun in. It's Black and white.

Jack Cook was there and watched it happen.

Apples and Oranges........... One man in a plane that he his soley responsible for the the airworthiness of and all aspects of the flight. He was the pilot and every part of the flight was his responsibility. ESPECIALLY knowing who owned the aircraft and if he had permission to fly it for crying out loud. I personally believe he knew the answers to both questions. But this issue is more of a moral one. The reason the accident happened is clear. As for the reason he took it up Hellcat, as I understand it, his father was an accomplished P-38 pilot in the war and was having a P-38 Pilot's reunion that Jeff was eager to fly the P-38 at. The owner of said P-38 lives in California and the Plane was based at Tillamook, Or. along with it's sister ship. He took off on the reserve tanks and never switched to the mains, he than ran one engine out of gas (according to the NTSB), did not get it going again, and than stalled and spun in. It's Black and white.

Jack Cook was there and watched it happen.

Your still not getting it .... Someone allowed him to take off in that airplane .... I'm not defending the guy. I don't even know him and I'm sure he killed himself because of himself. I'd just like to know how he was allowed to get into that plane in the first place .... do you understand where I'm going here? .... nothing against anyone ... other than the idiot who let this guy take the plane up in the first place. I completely get your point, and yes it's black & white, a pilot in command is a pilot in command, but how on earth could anyone EVER allow this guy to fly this airplane if he simply didn't have the experience to fly it. You think about that, would you have allowed this guy to fly your P-38 if you knew he didn't have enough experience? even worse, how would you like it if someone flew your airplane without your permission? I don't care if you live in China .... This is my point ... and my last point ... because, as usual, it's becoming "pointless" ....

Last edited by Hellcat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:01 am, edited 3 times in total.

[Bill Greenwood]

Bdk , thanks for finding the NTSB report. Two points: 1st Fuel. You are supposed to land on reserve tanks, the selector was found in the correct or reserve position. Also there was minimum fire at the site, maybe oil and hydraulic fluid, does NOT look like there was much wing tank fuel if any. I think he flew too long and ran out, compounded by the plane being flown that morning, not topped off and having less fuel tankage than stock.

2nd;Single engine speed. They say Jeff had flown 9 hours in the other P-38, INCLUDING SINGLE ENGINE SIMULATED PRACTICE. Then they say he was unfamiliar with the engine out speed. So NTSB wants us to believe Jeff flew 9 1/2 hours in a plane his DAd had 1000 hours in, which Jeff had the manual for, and which he practiced single engine and he didn't know the speed? They point out he did sim single engine, not an actual shut down. Am I correct that approved FAA practice in twin instruction is to simulate it and not shut down an engine? Here I am not sure, I am not multi rated, I think Jeff was in twin Beech and B-25.

[Bill Greenwood]

John Curtis, It is getting so late and we have gone so deep into this, just one more point. You sort of make an assumption like many of us do. "He took off on reserve and never switched to main tanks. Jack was there and saw it". This may well be the case. BUT Jack was not in the cockpit, he can only guess or assume that Jeff did not use the mains. My inpression from the NTSB report of limited fire and dry soil was he ran out of all the fuel, and the time line fits, not that it matters much in the end.

Hey Jack's a great guy, but what does Jack have to do with this? ... other than he was there. I've been to Oshkosh and Reno and witnessed two tragic accidents. Do I know what actually happened? ... negative ...

OK I'm tired too .... goodnight all .... and thanks for the debate .... And that is what this all was .... A DEBATE!!!! .... treat it as such .... goodnight friends.

[John-Curtiss Paul]

Wow..Hellcat, you think that just because you don't understand something that nobody else here does? Read between the lines here Hellcat, the answer to your question is already known by many of us and I'm quite certain that the others on this board who do not know the answer to your question at least have been around long enough to understand why it is intentionally not being answered. Just because you can't seem to wrap your head around the possiblility that your question is very clear, but intentionally remains unanswered does not mean that the others on the board are as clueless or don't get it.
You are clearly not the smartest person on this board as you like to so frequently like to make enuendo

I'm not arguing with Bill either. His points are very clear and insightful. They provoke thought and that is how we all learn to do this better and fly safer. Jeff Ethell was a friend of his. Everyone of Bill's points apply to some pretty serious stuff that we all should be thinking about. You on the other hand are Badgering for an answer that perhaps you have no business knowing the answer to. [/i]

Look fella, maybe I'm just stupid, but one thing I do know is that I know common sense, and I can place a good bet that there are MANY here that have no clue, or could care less about what it is you're not explaining or know yourself. It's very simple, If you come to an open board like this, you better explain yourself or you tend to look like a fool. I'm not calling you a fool, I'll leave that up to you to determine. I really could care less about what you know or don't know, but if you think you can come out here in an open forum with me and piss around ... it's my will against your will, and you WILL lose. So all I can say is if you don't like the questions I ask ...then simply don't try to answer, because you haven't answered anything at all. You want to answer who this guy was flying your friends airplane, I'm all ears, but until then ... don't waste my time.

PS ... this isn't a hangar ... this is an open forum on the internet, what do you expect? .... If you're some "inside warbird" guy ... more power to you, you can talk your "inside" BullSh*t to your other "inside warbird' pals. If you want to discuss warbird issues here on the internet, you better accept all directions of conversation.

Last edited by Hellcat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.