Josh Lang's Photos of the Fuddy Crash Are Not the Same Plane

Butterdezillion's Blog ^ | 2-23-14 | Butterdezillion

[butterdezillion]

The photos of the Loretta Fuddy Cessna crash that Josh Lang provided to the media? They weren't of the same plane. The plane that crashed with Fuddy in it had a window between the door and the tail; Lang's photos don't. (I've got photos at my blog and in the first post I'll post them so you can compare the 2 planes)

Lang apparently had photos of a DIFFERENT plane ditching in the water and gave them to the media, claiming they were of this crash, and apparently the media didn't check out the genuineness of the photos...

Now why would Lang do that? Why would he post images of the area with no passengers or anything else in the water ANYWHERE, rather than taking photos of what was actually there and giving those to the media?

[WhiskeyX]

You’re neglecting the tidal currents.

[GBA]

Yes, as captioned on the pictures I first posted.

I'm not sure how helpful it is to repeat what I've already said and you've said again, but we can go over it again, if you like. :)

The two different pictures of ditched airplanes could certainly be pictures of the same airplane. It's not clear enough to be easily determined.

At first glance, the picture in question looks like the shorter Caravan (count the windows on the shorter Caravan and the longer Grand Caravan), whereas Fuddy's airplane is clearly the longer Grand Caravan, as you've shown in your pics, links and comments.

Cheers

[Smokin' Joe]

The plane would have to be tumbled along the bottom to be broken up that badly. For starters, even with a more dense fluid, that would take a substantial current. Additionally, the plane would not be found where it sank, but some distance from there if it had been tumbled that way. Smaller and less dense fragments would be transported farther from the site and be less likely to be recovered. Surface currents do not equal the current at depth.

One more question. Where is the engine in the tangle on board the salvage vessel? Seems like that would be a priority considering that had been documented as the part of the aircraft that failed leading to the ditching.

[PLMerite]

Just to muddy the waters:

To be honest, I believe this plane was de-registered and the number reissued to the Cessna 208.

[WhiskeyX]

According to the following news interviews, the aircraft was torn apart by the ocean swell/s. See:

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24265511/ntsb-gets-first-look-at-salvaged-airplane

Also not the aerial video which shows the aitcraft location in relation to the island.

be sure to play the video. They talk about the enegine and show it. You may also want to paste some of those pictures elsewhere, where they will appear larger and easier to see.

[4Zoltan]

And the fact you don’t hear the alarm on the video until the last “few feet to the surface” tells us what?

[4Zoltan]

The plane's wing was clearly bent by the impact (Puentes video).

Additionally,

""The wings were separate. The fuselage was separate. The engine was separate from rolling on the rocks in the swell," Patrick Ross said."

"The Cessna Grand Caravan sat aboard the salvage vessel Kahana at Pier 29 Thursday morning. Ross said sections of the plane were scattered across a 100-foot-long debris field. It took his crew about ten hours to float all the pieces to the surface."

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24265511/ntsb-gets-first-look-at-salvaged-airplane

[GBA]

After staring at the pic in question for a while, I was wrong that the door looks different. The shadow fooled my eye initially.

I can see it is the same, as the cast shadow clearly shows the window of the upper half of the standard clam shell/air stair style door Cessna uses on their Caravans.

It could be two pictures of two different ditched airplanes or two different pictures of the same airplane. I agree that, given the camera angle and picture clarity, the pic in question looks like that of a different airplane, at least at first glance.

It's hard not to be suspicious of every little thing, especially regarding the players in question, since we are dealing with known liars who will lie about little things and about big things with equal ease.

[WhiskeyX]

The alarm heard in the aircraft moments before the imapct with the sea has nothing whatsoever to do with the earlier alarm associated with the engine failure. The instrument group has more than one alarm to alert the flight crew with a warning. The alarm shortly before impact could have been a stall warning or other warning unrelated to the engine failure.

[Greenperson]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html

“My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin- roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant to the British. ...”

Maybe he’s the son and grandson of a white foreign student and white cook, respectively, who happened to be in Kenya.

[TexasCajun]

On your homepage you have this comment:

I am gagged from Free Republic for nogiven reason and with no warning of anything, but you can see some of the discussion I had until somebody decided they didn’t want me able to communicate with anybody

I have seen your "What is it" & now "The Plane" you posted yesterday.

You posted the plane yesterday, and your FR account is still active.

How is FR gagging you?

[Greenperson]

the water would have to be significantly shallower than reported.
________________________

One thing I noticed on the film of the plane going down: right before they hit the water, there’s what looks like a shelf of rock visible, not far below the surface. That is, unless it’s a reflection. I’ve looked at it many times to try to figure out what it is, with no luck. I remember one story that mentioned that the plane was sitting on a “shelf” below the surface. Would that matter? If there were shelves and drop offs, would that explain the plane being battered by waves after submerging?

[butterdezillion]

They were gagging me on Saturday. On my blog I posted photos of my computer screen with the messages saying my post would be moderated and saying that my account is too new to use this feature (Freepmail). As of Sunday morning I was able to post again.

[TexasCajun]

Happy, Happy, Happy !!

[butterdezillion]

The wingspan includes both left and right wings and the cabin width, but the area being looked at is only the right wing so your proportion is off by over 50%.

[speedbird57]

Hi Joe:

“For the waves to disturb the mass of the plane (much less be destructive) they would have to be larger, with a longer wavelength, or the water would have to be significantly shallower than reported. “

However, when the waves in question are breaking on shore (as opposed to out in the open ocean), and the shore is close to the submerged object, and there is a heavy swell (as in the week following the ditching), the mass of the previous wave is forced to exit the shore by submerging as the mass of the next waves rides up over it. This submerged wave travels down toward the bottom. I think they call it undertow.

An aircraft such as the Caravan, constructed as it is from sheet aluminum, is engineered to withstand flight and landing loads. It is about as strong as a beer can when point loads (pushed against rocks on the bottom) are applied. Water against rocks is relatively very powerful if you are directing that force against a large hollow sheet metal structure.

I originally was very skeptical about the recovery pulling up a separated and heavily damaged airframe until I saw the aerial view of just how close the aircraft was to shore.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24265511/ntsb-gets-first-look-at-salvaged-airplane

The damage looks consistent with the official explanation.

The heavy swell hindering recovery operations for a week makes sense to me, too.

Of course, ‘they’ could have taken advantage of all these factors to further a conspiracy - but without more evidence, I’m still open minded about the situation. For me, pulling up a damaged airframe in these circumstances looks normal, not anomalous.

[4Zoltan]

Some questions:

1) When the engine fails, would the pilot drop the nose to gain speed and maintain lift?

2) would the stall alert sound at the time?

3) what other alarms would be going off in the cabin? Could those alarms be turned off?

4)Just before impact, would the pilot raise the noise of the plane to keep the front landing gear from impacting the water first?

5) would the stall warning go off at that point (10-20 feet above the surface?

6) in this video beginning at 0:16;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnLUVosInNQ

There are no alarms or alerts in the plane for the first 10 seconds, then the stall warning is heard (0:27) and the plane impacts the surface (0:37). Is that inconsistent with the sounds one would expect to hear from the warning systems on the plane?

[holden]

Basically, the stall warning horn coming on only just before shows the pilot to have reserved the final amount of lift available as kinetic energy for the area of “ground effect” (similarly for water). It means he pulled back on the yoke just before touching down, which is a good piloting technique for hitting the surface at the lowest possible speed.

HF

[holden]

Yes, the stall warning horn coming on half the wingspan of the plane above the surface is a reasonable rule of thumb. Ten seconds of horn tells me the pilot was not hasty or clumsy, so long as it’s still going as the aircraft touches down.

HF

[little jeremiah]

Other than the theory posited by butterdezillion, I have not one single solitary clue.

I cannot grok anything from various images; I have no idea one way or another.

And I have no opinion one way or another; just trying to read ans see if any obvious falsities are revealed.