The pilot in command is responsible for the airplane. Blames substantial damage on the copilot. The copilot is dead. The only narrative is the PIC, who is ultimately on the hook for substantial damage. The only person who can say otherwise or give any further insight is the SIC. Who is dead.

The narrative puts everything on the SIC. Who is dead.

Convenient, for the PIC.

I think it's likely the copilot was exaggerating the effect on his career of the hard landing in Raeford. Combine that with some personality disorder or even mental illness and I can see making the suicide decision. Some people just can't stand not being perfect. Think of the NASA Astronaut who put on the diaper and drove TX to FL to attack her romantic rival. Or as someone else speculated he could have had illicit drugs in his blood that he knew would be detected. That probably would end his career.

Here's the Flying Magazine story on the NTSB preliminary:

https://www.flyingmag.com/ntsb-preli...air-departure/

And yet putting the damaged aircraft on autopilot and going into the back and wrestling the man out the aft door seems sort of unlikely too.

What are you suggesting? That the PIC made the initial bad landing and that he was so concerned about his own career that he was willing to kill the copilot? The PIC can’t really escape blame regardless since he WAS the Pilot in Command.

Wild speculation, or what some other person did, is irrelevant.

The copilot on this flight was neither an astronaut nor was he reported to wear a diaper, and nothing has been introduced beyond speculation (muddying the water) stipulating that the copilot had a mental disease or defect, or emotional problem, or psychological issue.

The copilot exited the aircraft; beyond the word of the PIC, there is no indication whether this was voluntary or involuntary, and there is no information available as yet regarding an evaluation of the deceased.

Certainly the statement of the PIC has value, as he is the only witness to the event: his testimony must also be closely examined and viewed with skepticism. He is responsible for his aircraft and his crew; as the PIC he is responsible for a substantially damaged aircraft, for the emergency and handling of the emergency, and for a death. The degree of responsibility, beyond his legal blanket responsibility for the safe outcome of a flight as PIC, remains to be seen; wild, baseless and unsubstantiated speculation will not move anyone closer to making such a determination. There are many possibilities. Some would paint the PIC culpable for some, or all of the outcomes, some might absolve him to some degree. Regardless, he remains the pilot in command, where the buck stops, and who is ultimately responsible for that aircraft, it's operation, his crew, and whatever occurs on that flight.

Irrelevant.

What am I suggesting? I've been very clear.

I did not state that the PIC made the landing. Had I intended to state that, I woiuld have. The PIC stated that the SIC did the landing. The only person who can dispute that is dead.

I did not state that the PIC was will to, or attempted to kill the copilot. The PIC stated that the copilot got out of his seat, and exited the aircraft. The only person who can dispute the PIC, is dead.

Yes, the PIC is ultimately responsible for the operation of the aircraft, for the safe outcome of the fight, and whatever occurs on that flight, regardless of who did the landing, who opened the door, who maneuvered the aircraft, or who did what...the PIC is still responsible. In flight, there is no authority with greater responsibility for the operation of the aircraft: when it comes to being the pilot in command, that authority, and that subsequent responsibility, is absolute.

What I did state is that regardless of who did the landing, and regardless of how the copilot exited the aircraft, the PIC's statements putting the landing in the copilot's lap, putting the substantial damage in the copilots lap, and putting the copilot opening and exiting the door, conveniently put those events in the shoulders of someone other than the PIC, despite his ultimate legal responsibility. The only person who could possibly dispute that is dead. It is convenient for the PIC.

The PIC's statements may be true, or may not be true. I do not presume to suggest either one; I do not know. The only other one, aside from the PIC, who does know, is dead.

It's worth noting that witnesses make the worst source of information about a mishap or incident, and witnesses with a vested interest may be more suspect. It's also worth noting that under administrative law (eg, the CFR, or the regulation), one is guilty until proven innocent. When one has a legal authority and responsibility, the burden of proof rightfully rests on him, or her, as it does us all when placed in a situation in which we must explain ourselves.

I would say it most definitely IS NOT convenient for the PIC. A live copilot expressing regret for having dinged the aircraft would have been convenient for the PIC. The questions on this will dog him his whole future career.

Murder is implausible. If for no other reason than it would a complicated evolution with no time to plan under the circumstances. Almost nobody commits cold, calculated murder on an impromptu basis as a matter of convenience.

Might be as simple as the guy went to the ramp to barf so as to not foul the cockpit, and then fell out.

Skilled investigators can parse a witnesses' statements and get a pretty good idea as to what's true and what's not. Doesn't mean they can prove it though.

This story just gets stranger by the day.
Its certainly possible to maneuver the airplane in such a way that somebody looses his footing and tumbles out.
Its certainly possible for someone to get get upset and caught up in the moment.
Its certainly possible someone tried to visually check and accidentally tumble out.
All equally unlikely yet plausible.
Seemed to have been a driven ambitious young man, let’s not forget that.

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries...ry?id=36192526

Thank you for the reminder. A little empathy helps us remember that a young man lost his life. Let the investigators follow the trail, but don’t lose sight of how tragic this whole incident is.

Also possible to slip and fall, turbulence, etc. And more plausible than murder with no clear motive.

Certain types of people might be more plausibly prone to that sort of behavior. Pilots are generally not that type.

Under tge circumstances I'd believe that one pretty readily.

I wouldn't say equally unlikely. I'd buy an accident long before suicide or murder, ie he went to the ramp to check the gear or toss his cookies and turbulence or poor footing did the rest.

Wasn't suggested or implied.