Hi onetrack.
Your handle does ring a bell from decades ago, but I can't remember. Perhaps you may wish to pm me.
On reading your appriasal, I get the distinct impression that you have not read my book and therefore have only the (wrong) "official" side which is complete disinformation.
I have never seen myself as another Chesley Sullenberger. Why would I? I have referred to his accident once or twice. That is all.
"Rod has to accept a degree of resposibility for the crash". Yes, I accept full responsibilty for converting a potentially tragic accident potentially killing all 25 people onboard into a highly successful ditching with all lives saved.
"taking off overweight". By law, aircraft must be re-weighed at regular intervals (3 yearly) and at that time had to be weighed twice to confirm accuracy.
Unbeknown to me, when the aeroplane was last weighed in October 1992, it was weighed on Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) truck scales, not approved by the CAA.
The aeroplane was weighed in the open, in the tail down position instead of the level flying position as required by the CAA. This process should have been conducted in a hangar.
The aeroplane was weighed in a non-approved environment, in a non-standard position and on non-approved scales.
The empty weight and centre of gravity for the aeroplane were unknown. It was certified by an authorised Weight Control Authority officer of the CAA.
It is quite probable that this re-weigh was highly inaccurate. It is highly plausible that the basic weight of the aeroplane would have been in error, therefore the BASI calculated final MTOW would also be in error. They accused me of being an amount overweight to the exact kilogram. How can that be when there were so many dubious statements concerning the weight? Another interesting fact of this weighing in 1992 was that the resulting figures from both weight records were identical—8158 kg. Each of the three jack-point figures showed identical weight readings as well—what are the chances of this?
I personally witnessed BASI weighing the passengers’ baggage while it was dripping wet, on a set of analogue bathroom scales on a hangar floor and then they ‘factored’ it.
The fundamental mandate of an ICAO Annex 13 investigation and its subsequent reports is strictly to prevent future accidents and incidents.
On 25th September 1996, (two years after my accident) the Dutch Dakota Association, lost their DC-3 (PH-DDA) which crashed into the Wadden Sea about 35 miles north of the Dutch capital, sadly killing all 32 people on board. The crew had reported
engine problems five minutes after take-off from Texel Island on return to Amsterdam, 89 km away. They too shut down the left engine and its propeller also mechanically failed to feather correctly, flying at an altitude of
around 500 ft they tried to position the aircraft for an emergency landing but lost control and crashed onto a flooded sandbank covered by just chest-deep water, around nine minutes after take-off.
Sadly, 32 people died. Why?
For those who want to know, the left engine failed after takeoff and the right engine was not producuing rated power. I proved in the simulator it was only producing about 70% of rated power. No wonder it was not going to stay in the air.
"As you age, you either get bitter, or you get better." Well, I'm nowhere near as ANGRY as I was 32 years ago. BUT I will not let these pathetic public servant bureaucracy get away with their deceit.
I will fight for the truth until the day I die.
I'm more than happy to answer any questions, however, before you criticise me or my actions, I suggest you read my book.
Thank you.
