Another Kennedy Tragedy
Chat with ABCNEWS Aviation Analyst John Nance

July 19,1999 - Investigators say they have no hope of finding survivors in the crash of John F. Kennedy Jr.'s plane. The search and rescue mission has now shifted to a search and recovery mission - to locate the plane and the bodies of JFK Jr., his wife and her sister. The shock and suddenness of this latest tragedy to America's most famous family once again brings the nation together to mourn the loss of another Kennedy cut down in his prime.

ABCNEWS aviation analyst, John J. Nance, joined us for a live chat with an update on the invesigation.

Moderator at 2:09pm ET
John J. Nance now joins us. Welcome to the chat.

Beth R. from Orlando from [207.239.72.175], at 2:09pm ET
John, Have there been any new discoveries of debris today?

John J. Nance at 2:11pm ET
So far, the situation appears to be that we have at least 3 teams of divers diving on three different locations, which were identified by side scanning sonar as suspicious areas that might contain something other than natural features.

What that means, according to the Coast Guard, is simply that the sonar images raise the possibility that some manmade item is at that location. But they have emphasized repeatedly that there is no way to "see" aircraft wreckage as such on the bottom. That job belongs to the divers and they should know something shortly. How long it takes them to inform the media is undetermined.

Bev from [159.53.238.19], at 2:13pm ET
John: Is it typical that this type of aircraft would ultimately explode upon contact with the water? What is the likelihood that they might find bodies?

John J. Nance at 2:17pm ET
This type of aircraft would not be expected to explode, as in a fiery, incendiary detonation. However, with any impact greater than 100 knots, the structure of the aircraft itself would disintegrate in a fraction of a second, spilling occupants, bags, seats, and all manner of parts into the water. This type of catastrophic impact is by definition not survivable, but the likelihood or possibility of finding bodies is reasonably good. It's hard to conceive how a water impact could scatter bags, headrests, and insulation and not be instantaneously fatal to the three people inside. In addition, if this terrible accident resulted from an inadvertent flight into the water through pilot disorientation, it is likely that none of the three were ever aware of what hit them.

Ann from [206.74.14.51], at 2:18pm ET
Do small aircraft such as the one Kennedy was flying have "black boxes" we all hear about after larger, commercial airline crashes? If not, is there any similar device aboard planes such as these?

John J. Nance at 2:20pm ET
Good question Ann! In fact, the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorders carried by commercial aircraft as a matter of regulation are simply too heavy and too expensive to be mandated for small private aircraft. The average CVR or FDR weigh around 13 pounds and cost nearly $20,000 a piece. However, partially spurred by this accident and numerous others, there is growing interest among manufacturers to include a much more basic and inexpensive recorder located somewhere on or around the dash panel of a private aircraft. You won't see this mandated by the FAA, but they may become available and feasible.

Mike from Seattle from boeing.com at 2:21pm ET
Had John Kennedy made this flight at night before? If not, why would he take such a risk when weather conditions were so poor?

John J. Nance at 2:25pm ET
Mike, our understanding is that John Kennedy had made this flight before after dark, and it may well have been his successful completion in the past of this routing that led him to make an incautious decision about Friday night's flight. Aviation safety depends on pilot judgment, and judgment in turn is simply the process of balancing the benefits of a particular flight against the risks (provided it's legal).

In this case, Kennedy wanted obviously to get to his destination to be with family as planned and the fact that he may have completed this flight before, coupled with a belief that the visibility being legally sufficient would not cause him a problem, led to his decision to go. We can look with hindsight at these decisions and say they were wrong, but the most useful analysis is to follow the same line of logic and reason that he followed in reaching his go/no go decision. Only then can we unravel any elements that would help pilots in the future avoid the same result.

Guido Bevaart from [24.132.40.93], at 2:26pm ET
How many flight hours does JFK Jr. have total, and how many instrument hours? Did the flight take place under Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC)?

John J. Nance at 2:32pm ET
Asked like a true pilot Guido. In fact, I believe that Kennedy had somewhere between 300 and 400 hours total, but by no means am I certain of that. As far as instrument time is concerned, he would have had only the time allotted during his private pilot training for exposure to basic instruments, and that would probably be around 5 hours maximum.

While I do not see anything currently in the preliminary analysis of this tragedy that would call for changes in the federal air regulations, the loss of John Kennedy may well spur us to require better training for basic instrument flying for non instrument rated pilots, and especially better training in the skills of knowing when to turn around and fly yourself out of deteriorating visual conditions.

And in regard to your prime question, this entire flight was conducted under what we call VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions) including the weather report and forecast for Vineyard Haven Airport. This may be considered a hole in the rules by some, but the reality is visibility at altitude can decrease the dangerous levels of opacity, even when the technical reports leave you legal to fly VFR (Visual Flight Rules).

dominick from [208.160.137.10], at 2:32pm ET
Are small planes required to file a flight plan? If John Jr. was not licensed to fly by instruments and the conditions were questionable, who monitors whom in the air?

John J. Nance at 2:34pm ET
Thanks for bringing this up Dominick. If you are flying by instruments under what we call an IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) flight plan, you have to file and adhere to a flight plan. However, VFR (Visual Flight Rules) flight plans are entirely optional. It is not the best judgment to launch on a cross-country trip, however familiar you are with the route, without a VFR flight plan. But I have to confess that all of us have done it.

As to your second question, if a private pilot wants to disregard the fact that his departure airport or destination airport is not legally able to accommodate aircraft under VFR, there is no one and no entity to prevent such a stupid violation. Certainly, if the FAA finds out about such an operation, they often proceed against the pilot in what is called a Certificate Action, which could result in the suspension or revocation of the airman's license. But we license pilots in this country based on assumption of honor and promise of diligent compliance, rather than make the assumption that we need a miniature police state in the air to enforce the rules. For the most part, this works brilliantly. Most pilots thoroughly and diligently honor that covenant.

Robert from S.F. from [207.44.168.190], at 2:39pm ET
It was noted on one of the reports that the smaller airports are not manned after 10 p.m. In those cases, do they leave the runway lights on all night for late night flights?

John J. Nance at 2:42pm ET
In some cases, Robert, the control towers at smaller airports will shut down at even earlier hours such as 7 or 8 p.m. Unfortunately, many control towers have now been eliminated nationwide from smaller fields, and others have been turned over to private contractors operating under FAA supervision. When a tower is shut down, the runway lights are either left on all night or can be activated by any pilot by simply tuning the correct aviation frequency on his or her radio and clicking the transmit button five times. The system works very well at tiny airports without a tower but with runway approach lights. The absence of a control tower does not translate to the absence of safety, but obviously a controlled airfield reduces the opportunity for mid-air conflict.

William P from [209.219.209.67], at 2:43pm ET
Is it possible that he lost his horizon reference and went into a spin?

John J. Nance at 2:49pm ET
The many possibilities will be considered by the NTSB. There is the possibility that John Kennedy could have over controlled the airplane at some point after losing visual reference with the horizon, and in doing so -- especially if in steep bank -- stalled the aircraft too low to the surface of the ocean to recover. One of the difficulties here is that when a pilot is flying an airplane keeping it right side up, primarily by reference to the horizon outside, when that horizon becomes fuzzed up and indeterminate, it is frighteningly easy to end up flying in a left or right bank and even descending inadvertently with the mind and eyes convincing the pilot that he is still straight and level.

Experienced pilots used to flying primarily by instruments seldom are subject to this, because even on a clear day they are flying primarily be reference to the instruments. But this was not a well-honed capability in John Kennedy's flying experience, thus the questions and possibilities of pilot disorientation as a major causal factor become paramount in our thinking.

Joe Bergman from [208.242.208.140], at 2:50pm ET
Based on the speculation that his plane took a steep dive and crashed, wouldn't that be contradicted by the lack of debris found?

John J. Nance at 2:55pm ET
Good question Joe. In fact, if the aircraft hit the water in a steep dive, you would expect to find very little debris. What you would find is consistent with what has floated to shore in this case. The only thing we can be relatively sure of with the pattern of debris found so far is that this was highly unlikely to have been a controlled ditching at any speed under 70 or 80 knots. The momentum of an airplane like this in a steep dive would not only be the force behind its structural fragmentation on impact with the non-compressible water surface, but the force would also drive most of the resulting wreckage many feet under water instantly.

But it is also true that if the airplane impacted at a fairly shallow angle and high speed, you would get both a fragmentation of the structure and a slightly more widespread debris field. But, to the extent that the structure remained in one or several large pieces, those pieces would tend to sink with the remaining contents of the airplane, rather than scatter them on the waves.

The upshot of this analysis is that the only thing we can discern from the type of debris found so far is a high-speed impact with the water, but we cannot discern the angle.

Kenny S. from [134.27.3.1], at 2:58pm ET
To reduce such tragedy in the future, can the flight rules/regulations be reinforced so that no 'fly by visual' pilot is allowed to fly at night, especially over the sea, under any circumstance?

John J. Nance at 3:01pm ET
Kenny, the reality is that while night visual flying is outlawed in Europe and Canada, it has been traditionally allowed in the U.S. because the accident statistics have never validated the idea that it was significantly more risky than visual flight at any other time. What we would be doing by joining Europe and Canada in outlawing night visual flying would be engaging in a knee-jerk reaction, closing off the privileges of private pilots from enjoying the beauty of a sparkling night flight and essentially attempting to legislate pilot judgment. I seriously doubt that's a reasonable course of action, and I seriously doubt that it is needed.

Paul from [216.155.34.79], at 3:02pm ET
I am uncomfortable with your report that Kennedy had between 300 to 400 hours of PIC time. That seems like a lot for someone who just got his license a year ago. Where does this information come from? Most private pilots who fly recreationally log less than 100 hours a year. Has anyone looked into sources like Hobbs meter readings on his other aircraft and fuel receipts to confirm this?

John J. Nance at 3:04pm ET
I'm equally uncomfortable with quoting any estimate on John Kennedy's flying time, not because I'm suspicious of the accuracy of his reporting (which is the implication of your question) but because we have not had time to verify his logbook entries. In fact, an active private pilot with 2 airplanes over time (even a year) is very likely to have achieved in the vicinity of 300 hours. The truth is, as I warned before, we're simply unsure at this stage.

R.P. from [216.93.53.12], at 3:11pm ET
I understand a storm is brewing. How will this effect the divers' efforts to find any wreckage on the bottom of the ocean?

John J. Nance at 3:15pm ET
In the case of a storm, there is a certain minor roiling of the waters 10 to 20 feet down, but no disturbance would be expected at 80 feet down, especially on a rocky bottom with minimal amounts of sand to be spread around. The biggest difficulty is maintaining the surface craft on station over the site of any wreckage long enough to maintain diving operations. Before the days of GPS (Global Positioning Satellites) it was very risky to temporarily leave a wreckage site because of the possibility of having to launch another search to find it a second time. However today, you can return to the exact coordinates that you left using GPS to an accuracy of within 5 feet. So a 12 or 24 hour suspension of recovery operations has only one impact: the possibility that continued immersion in salt water will erase or compromise evidence in the wreckage that could be used to reconstruct what happened, as well as the obvious effects on any human remains.

Moderator at 3:26pm ET
Thanks for your time today John.

Back to top or previous page