| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/01/2016 4:58:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:
per poster’s request |
Posted on 05/06/2016 9:57:00 PM PDT by LucyT
Hawaii's former health director who died after a plane she was traveling in crashed into the ocean was wearing an infant life vest and the pilot didn't give a safety briefing before takeoff, according to details in a National Transportation Safety Board report.
An autopsy determined Loretta Fuddy died of an irregular heartbeat from hyperventilating after she exited the plane, which landed in choppy water off the island of Molokai. The pilot and seven other passengers on the 2013 Makani Kai Air flight survived.
Pilot Clyde Kawasaki reported to the NTSB that he heard a loud bang, followed by an immediate loss of engine power soon after the single-engine Cessna took off from Molokai, headed for Honolulu.
----------------------------------------------
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
If the pilot had used the plane’s PA system to brief the passengers after the engine stopped, his instructions would have been heard on the video right along with the cockpit alarm. Unexpectedly, one hears no pilot briefing or instructions about any water landing or to don any PFDs.
Another confirmation of the absence of such a briefing is that four of the first five passengers to exit the plane weren’t wearing life jackets, the 5th didn’t inflate his, and the sixth was carrying his on his way out of the craft!
That passenger in the lower right picture is the videographer. He might have been highly stressed to forget to inflate his lifejacket; he’s apparently relaxing by listening to his tunes—in mono. Or … maybe not.
In its Final Report, the NTSB faulted the pilot’s terse pre-flight briefing, of “You know the procedures!” That NTSB Report noted that if that briefing had been properly given, it might have allowed passengers more easily and quickly to find their proper life jackets and might have prevented Ms Fuddy, the reported fatality, not to have had to use an infant life jacket. Her reported stress, fear and hyperventilation was noted by the medical examiner as having given rise to a heart arrhythmia as her Cause of Death.
As yet, The Fuddy Estate has not leveled Complaint against the Pilot.
If there was ever a case of claimed pilot-briefings of his passengers that went seriously wrong, this was it!
Fred, I think the essence of this event had nothing to do with following correct safety regulations. ('Zatchu behind Gandalf?)
I'm sure the "[e]ye-witness is always hard to beat" is one of the central tenets of this ruse. If the dupes all stick to their story--and these did--it's pretty difficult for anyone to prove them wrong.
However, I think that's exactly where we are with this one.
Back in 1967, some folks knew activities the government might like to undertake would involve the collusion of several participants, who, being insiders and otherwise compensated, would be ready to testify falsely. That would be known as a conspiracy.
But if the very mention of "conspiracy" were to draw a conditioned, eye-roll response, real conspiracies (read: government) could be doubly insulated from exposure to a sleepy populace.
1) It's hard to break the word of multiple eye-witnesses and 2) People would be pre-conditioned to understand that people who would even dare think of something as a possible conspiracy theory are ipso facto nut-cases.
What can wear down the populace's resistance, however, just as how it's been with Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, the lies upon lies upon lies upon lies upon lies have worn down all but the most die-hard, publik skool drop-out as to what's actually been going on.
In the present case, there was a book author among the passengers. In his book, which he describes as factual account of this crash, he notes the airplane's owner to have been "Lies Air", spelled L-I-E-S. Although he misspelled it, perhaps a real truth caused that Freudian slip.
"Truth Will Out," I always say.
I do think there’s a drip-drip-drip aspect to the falsehoods shown throughout this crash. One plane occupant after the other shows himself (or herself) to be a compromised witness, telling untruths about things that are dispassionately discernable as being otherwise, even provably so.
The Molokai Tower operator, who was some 8 miles to the west southwest of Kalaupapa heard reports of an ELT and checked with the first-on-the-scene pilot, Josh Lang. His girlfriend was reportedly first to spy the craft on the water.
That got radioed back to the Molokai Tower operator, who send up the alarm via the FAA’s Honolulu Control Facility. There is no reason to believe that operator disappeared from the scene before the normal end of his shift.
In the photograph here it's obvious at least four people were not wearing a life jacket.
The photographer Fuentes LATER had his jacket inflated.
Looks like the pilot is still swimming without a jacket, I think that's him in the middle in the background with some of his white shirt showing. It looks like a fiasco - certainly no indication they had any warning. But what is one to think when the pilot himself doesn't think to grab a jacket on his way out of the aircraft?
The pilot made many representations that seemed not to be true and here's another.
I meant in general for crimes committed by this administration and their helpers, not so much this particular incident. Althought that would be nice too, if crimes were committed.
The “when” is when Trump is in the WH and cleans house.
The first plane to arrive on the crash scene was a fixed-wing, two-seater, a 1977 Grumman Cheetah aircraft. The pilot’s name was Josh Lang and he had with him his girlfriend, Jaimee Thomson, who is shown on the right, standing in that Grumman. The plane is registered to an LLC for which Joshu Lang is the registered agent. Lang and Thomson took video and photographs for the first hour of the crash scene until the USCG command C130 arrived on-scene and dismissed them. Circling the plane’s occupants overhead for much of that time, Josh later would tell the assembled media at the Makani Kai offices that he wanted to “give [the ditched plane’s occupants] hope.”
Lang said, “It was pure luck that we were there when we were.”
As the large panel in the upper left features, Josh Lang is actually one of the hottest helicopter-flying commodities and personalities west of Hollywood. For years, he’s flown onscreen for CBS’s Hawaii Five-O and ABC’s LOST TV series programs. 
What are the odds?
In all coincidence, for years, Makani Kai has been the exclusive supplier of helicopters to both LOST and Hawaii series!
The three pilots, Josh Lang, Clyde Kawasaki (Director of Operations), and Richard Schuman (owner) would have the world believe “it was pure luck,” but in context, anyone can plainly see it wasn’t. Lang’s dressed-down arrival with a girlfriend and a slow, clunky Grumman fixed-wing aircraft that Lang called “Dusty Crop-hopper” on Facebook, coincidently all set to take pictures and video that would protect Schuman’s interests, was staged for an audience in the film and TV traditions Schuman and Lang know so well.
Both Lang and Schuman are very experienced with stunts, actors and made-for-TV scenes. They tried to keep their true relationship hidden behind the scenes in the Makani Kai incident, which would keep Lang’s misinformation from being deemed suspect. Plus, Lang’s pictures and video--as yet mostly undisclosed--would insure Schuman wasn’t short-changed in compensation for his efforts on behalf of the scenario’s planners.
Thus for years, Schuman and Kawasaki have been Lang's superiors. But that must boil down to Josh "just happened to be there at the right place at the right time!"
Would this at all suggest a plan for any of this would have been developed beforehand? No, of course not!
As the videographer reaches a spot where he can stand shortly before being extracted from the water (upper right =L=), he kicks up his heels in the video, showing, contrary to his later claims: 1) his laces had not loosened at all. 2) his work boots’ and clothing’s weight didn’t overcome the buoyancy of his life jacket, even with only one of his lifejacket’s two chambers filled with air. and 3) he’s not particularly exhausted, or as he would later say, “just trying to survive”
On the ABC video, Puentes shows a GoPro stick with a single camera, but there is proof there were two cameras on the staff and the picture lower left, 2nd from left, shows a staff that casts a decidedly different shadow than the one he’s holding. In the lower right picture, note the straps and flotation gear for his camera equipment that Puentes coincidentally had with him at his seat for the short trip!
So despite his mis-directions, exaggerations, and falsehoods, none of this is to suggest anything was pre-planned. No, of course not!
There is no way the pilot could have missed this extra personage getting onto his airplane at this remote, low-traffic-volume airport.
Note well the ridged manufacturing artifact of the mannequin’s helmet is just coincidentally identical to the ridge on Mr. Briley’s helmet seen above!
These features 1) mannequin in Fuddy's likeness pre-position on the plane prior to ditching, 2) Helmet and neck brace for Bruce Briley, who later disowned ever needing or wearing a helmet, 3) a hair-covering, blue helmet disguise for the mannequin, and 4) that the pilot allowed a stowaway, 5) ridged mold manufacturing artifact, suggesting field production, as is common in the military
all support the pre-planned nature of this ruse!
And if it's pre-planned, it can't be called an accident.
Just trying to grok the new info (with very little time to spend on it today, sadly).
With all the preparation, surely Fuddy (as well as all the other passengers) would have known in advance something was going to happen.
So what happened to Fuddy?
Harris’ mama reported years later that there was never an investigation into his murder.
Viginia’s BC is the smoking gun. It had to disappear for some reason.
Granted, older people sometimes can’t handle stressful situations like younger folks but from what we’ve heard, the landing was the smoothest possible considering. Sure, they would have been scared. There were older passengers than Fuddy and the one guy swam to shore so was perfectly fine. No one was injured except for the cut on the pilot’s head. It’s been reported everyone was calm getting into vests and out of the plane. Just seeing how close to shore they were would have soothed nerves. These are Hawaiians. They don’t fear the water. Kick back, relax and praise the lord while you wait for the rescuers.
Ok, fine, a heart can stop at any moment. Mine could stop before I finish typing this. But there’s just too many coincidences with Joker.
The “helmet” could be some sort of soft sided patchwork bag being held up or handled or repositioned. The patchwork squares move around and change shapes.
Seat 3B in front of the videographer had someone with a tattoo on the left elbow, a ponytail, and a blue cap. If you slo-mo the vid, you can see the head turning.
Despite the GoPro recording’s good audio that has a clear, decreasing-frequency, running engine sound and stall warning horn, no one apparently said a peep, just as we heard confirmed by the Nightline narrator.
By the time of the second and third ABC news segments that covered the crash aired--although the month-old video recording obviously didn’t change--Nightline shows the videographer declaring, “You realize at the moment what was going on,” and its narrator saying, “All of these people know their plane is about to crash.” Just how was it they all could have known the pilot wouldn’t be able to make it back to the runway with his Caravan? Even if the videographer was a somehow extremely airplane-disaster savvy from his seat in 4B, how could all these passengers know? Are these particular passengers that savvy about aircraft failures? And if they did all know they were going to crash, why did no one put on a life jacket or act the least bit upset?
Which narrator had it correct? And why was there a 180-degree change from the first narrator’s declaration?
The pilot told the USCG on-scene commander he briefed the passengers about a water landing and told them to don their Personal Flotation Devices. Should we believe the passengers were all stiff-necked and noncompliant? Do we dare believe our own lying ears when we don’t hear any of the pilot’s self-interested representations to the USCG Commander on the GoPro audio?
Experiencing a catastrophic engine failure at 300’ during climb-out in a turn, as the pilot reported to the FAA, would inherently include a dramatic change in pitch attitude and most likely, very uncomfortable negative g-forces. But did these passengers react in any way as if such things happened just seconds before? No!
How could any of these things possibly be?
The videographer would have us believe not just he, but everybody realized at that moment they were going to crash onto the water, yet these passengers didn’t react in a way that seems to reflect any such thought. With no one even reaching for a life jacket, one would think these passengers had absolutely no fear for their well-being. Perhaps in their estimation everything was proceeding just about the way it was planned and explained to them in an earlier briefing, where they might have been told, “Just stay calm.”
Are these just laid-back Hawaiians, or did someone have a supply of inderal they shared before the flight?
Maybe we're watching the movie SPEED and someone's recording a film loop. It wouldn't do if someone put on a life jacket or removed a purse that the "studio audience" would see. There would be only one take for this one!
Who was telling the truth about this scenario and who wasn’t?
Jake’s green hat, as seen in #117, is obviously not the same as the blue helmeted mannequin.
The common ridge on both manufactured head coverings settles the issue for me.
Other passengers surely saw the blue helmeted, red-haired mannequin. One has to wonder why no one reported it to the police as being unusual. Oh, that's right! The police didn't ask anyone about anything (according to their report). They merely let passengers make a statement, if they so desired.
One wonders which passenger brought along this orange metal contraption that was on the wing in full view of all the plane's occupants. The videographer put this very image on his FB webpage, as if to dare all passers-by to ask, "What's that and who put it there?"
Let me suggest no innocent, manifested plane occupant had any reason to have brought that along to be unfolded on the wing "for just such a ditching emergency."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
