LiveATC Discussion Forums
Air Traffic Monitoring => Aviation Audio Clips => Topic started by: pilotmike on July 27, 2010, 10:44:14 PM
-
Most of the audio of the incident at Oshkosh this evening was on the South Tower Frequency, but I have included both. I did trim down the audio slightly from when N6JR initially checks in.
Pilot: "Is 6JR going to be okay with this?"
ATC: "Afirm..."
Pilot: "I don't think so."
I'm glad everyone is okay!
Update 1: Here is a pic of Jack exiting the aircraft as posted by Twitter user jasonmcdowell. (Warning: there is blood): http://yfrog.com/mns2jj
Update 2: Added audio of KOSH-App-Fisk during airport shutdown. In addition, I can't figure out why the South Twr archive is missing some audio. Most archive clips are about 31 Minutes long, but for some reason the South Twr audio archive is only 18 Minutes and missing several minutes right after what I have already posted. Can anyone confirm if they get the same thing when they pull up the South Twr archive from 2300-2330Z?
-
A little more info on the accident...
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20100727/OSH0107/100727152 (http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20100727/OSH0107/100727152)
Hope Jack comes through OK.
-
Thanks for posting this Mike!
-
I think it is time for The Cat in the Hat to hang it up.
-
This is a CNN article with video of Roush and his passenger exiting the aircraft after the accident.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/28/wisconsin.roush.crash/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/28/wisconsin.roush.crash/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn)
-
Mike,
I got the same, only 18 minutes for archive KOSH-Twr-South-Jul-27-2010-2300Z
-
Listening live yesterday during the incident (North Tower), i was having intermitent stoppages in transmission, but i thought it was my internet, maybe it was their stream.
-
The part that gave me chills was when an aircraft asks, "Is 6JR going to be okay with us?"
ATC: "Afirm..."
Pilot: "I don't think so."
That was N6JR (Roush) asking "Is 6JR going to be okay with this?" You quoted it as "us". Thanks for posting the audio files!
-
I have listened to this audio so many times trying to figure what went wrong. I have to admit up front that I am a Jack Roush fan, so I am desiring to find that it was not just poor aviation skill on his part. :|
At first, I thought that the traffic referred to as "Lake" may have been part of the problem. After several listens I have deducted that although the controller stumbled somewhat on the instructions given to "Lake", that was simply the aircraft in the pattern behind N6JR. After the mishap "Lake" was told to go around. The audio that was played on Speed Channel was edited to sound as though Roush made his statement of disapproval immediately after the confused instructions to "Lake". After listening to your real time audio, it is apparent that Roush made his displeasure with the situation known well after the controller instructions to "Lake".
I believe that Mr. Roush (N6JR) was put into a cramped predicament with traffic landing ahead of him. He expressed his doubts to the controller by asking "Is 6JR going to be okay with this?" The controller assured him it was going to work. I am not sure what type was ahead of 6JR, but my guess is that it was a slower aircraft and Mr. Roush recognized pending difficulty as he turned base for final. He stated "I don't think so!"
Just BEFORE the controller warns 6JR of caution for traffic ahead upwind (a bit late in my opinion), you can hear an unintelligible transmission which I believe was 6JR stating that he was going around! Reports that 6JR was too slow for his type would also make sense here, considering that I believe he was jammed into a situation where his type was too close behind the slower aircraft landing ahead.
Considering he may have been pressed to slow on final and then because eyewitness reports stated that he applied power as if to go around makes sense. It sounds as if he trusted the controller a bit too long....maybe he should have called a go around sooner. It sounds as though by the time he applied power to go around, the stall overcame the aircraft and some adverse yaw from the power rotated the Premier to the right.
I may not be qualified to speak this much on the subject since I am a Locomotive Engineer, but I have studied aviation all my life and just dream of one day being a pilot. A good pilot like Mr. Roush!
8-)
Wow, I got chills posting that! LOL!
-
...and another thing that bothers me. When the controller was very tardy in warning 6JR of traffic ahead upwind on the runway, AFTER 6Jr's voicing his displeasure, where did the controller go? It is obvious that someone else took over. I guess the controller freaked and called for a relief!
He probably went to the restroom to finish wetting himself!
-
That was N6JR (Roush) asking "Is 6JR going to be okay with this?" You quoted it as "us". Thanks for posting the audio files!
I re-listened the the audio tonight on my desktop PC (vs my Netbook) and you are absolutely right, that is 6JR and it seems very clear on desktop speakers. I've edited the quote in my original post.
Good analysis of the audio everyone! I had not even noticed the controller swap after the incident.
-
I got the same, only 18 minutes for archive KOSH-Twr-South-Jul-27-2010-2300Z
Dave was going to look into it. It's possible there was a connectivity or other technical issue right after the incident. I'm guessing it was just coincidence as I hear lots of people are having issues with data service this year at KOSH.
-
That was N6JR (Roush) asking "Is 6JR going to be okay with this?" You quoted it as "us". Thanks for posting the audio files!
I re-listened the the audio tonight on my desktop PC (vs my Netbook) and you are absolutely right, that is 6JR and it seems very clear on desktop speakers. I've edited the quote in my original post.
Good analysis of the audio everyone! I had not even noticed the controller swap after the incident.
Thanks for correcting your post, and for recognizing us!
-
Oh. there definitely was a Controller swap afterwards! Mr. Roush was thrown into an impossible situation and tried too late to correct for it!
-
I believe that Mr. Roush (N6JR) was put into a cramped predicament with traffic landing ahead of him. He expressed his doubts to the controller by asking "Is 6JR going to be okay with this?" The controller assured him it was going to work. I am not sure what type was ahead of 6JR, but my guess is that it was a slower aircraft and Mr. Roush recognized pending difficulty as he turned base for final. He stated "I don't think so!"
I listened to a good 3 or 4 minutes of audio before 6JR checks in and heard nothing but dead air. If there was any traffic there's no evidence of it in the feed. Neither did I hear any transmission where the tower tells 6JR to slow down or is told about any traffic. In fact the tower tells him to start his downwind. If was I concerned about a slower aircraft in front of a faster I wouldn't prompt the faster to turn a downwind.
Just BEFORE the controller warns 6JR of caution for traffic ahead upwind (a bit late in my opinion), you can hear an unintelligible transmission which I believe was 6JR stating that he was going around! Reports that 6JR was too slow for his type would also make sense here, considering that I believe he was jammed into a situation where his type was too close behind the slower aircraft landing ahead.
...and another thing that bothers me. When the controller was very tardy in warning 6JR of traffic ahead upwind on the runway, AFTER 6Jr's voicing his displeasure, where did the controller go? It is obvious that someone else took over.
There's 5 seconds from the garbled transmission that sounds like 6RJ is going around and when the controller issues upwind traffic. An aircraft on a upwind leg (parallel to the runway flying the same direction as the runway) wouldn't be a factor to an aircraft making a full stop. I don't know why you seem to think that 6RJ should have been told about it before he stared going around.
I don't hear a change in controller until 2 transmissions after the lake is told to go around which is presumably when 6RJ crashed.
As I stated in my first paragraph I didn't hear anything that would indicate traffic in front of 6JR or 6JR being told to slow down. It seems your respect for Jack Roush has caused you to jump to unnecessary conclusions which are not at all supported by the evidence at hand. A lot is being made of the transmission "is 6JR ok with this?". Honestly I have no idea how any conclusion as to what "this" was can be made given there were only 2-3 transmissions made before it and we can't see what the aircraft was actually doing.
I guess the controller freaked and called for a relief!
He probably went to the restroom to finish wetting himself!
These types of comments given the limited data available are just as inappropriate any which would assume Jack Roush was an incompetent pilot.
-
These types of comments given the limited data available are just as inappropriate any which would assume Jack Roush was an incompetent pilot.
skyfocus,
You are 100% correct about my jumping to uneducated conclusions. I don't have the experience or the information to make the statements I made in my previous post. You are also correct in repeating that I have a lot of respect for Mr. Roush. My scenario was without evidence, none of us really know what happened.
I have heard so many folks jumped to the conclusion that Roush is too old to fly and should hang it up. I was just as wrong to try and blame the controller or airport.
Thank you for your post!
-
It is standard for the controller involved to be relieved after an incident. There are statements to be made, drug tests, paperwork, etc. Not to mention the controller just witnessed a terrible accident.
Saying he had to wet himself is not a fair statement. If there is an accident with only one aircraft in the pattern, you get relief. It is not a reflection of performance or error on the controllers part, just how its done.
I have no idea what happened in regards to specifics of the N6JR accident at OSH, but the few times I have worked N6JR on overflights, he was very professional.
-
Here is a link of some pics of the crash posted on the TMZ website
http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/jack_roushs_plane_crashed_pictures#tab=most_recent (http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/jack_roushs_plane_crashed_pictures#tab=most_recent)
-
Here is a link of some pics of the crash posted on the TMZ website
http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/jack_roushs_plane_crashed_pictures#tab=most_recent (http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/jack_roushs_plane_crashed_pictures#tab=most_recent)
Wow, that first picture has a real rightwing low position... indicates a stall and the airplane did a near 360 on the ground. . .
-
Here is a link of some pics of the crash posted on the TMZ website
http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/jack_roushs_plane_crashed_pictures#tab=most_recent (http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/jack_roushs_plane_crashed_pictures#tab=most_recent)
Wow, that first picture has a real rightwing low position... indicates a stall and the airplane did a near 360 on the ground. . .
The airplane did not do a 360 spin on the ground...look again at the pics...focus on the background. The pics of the rear of the airplane are taken from a different vantage point...in all the other pics, ORION is visible is the background.
The right wingtip struck the ground and the aircraft cartwheeled according to witnesses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC7CTywzw_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EODJ2M1CWyQ
-
Different photos from Avweb:
http://www.avweb.com/news/airventure/EAAAirVenture2010_JackRoushCrash_MomentOfImpact_203026-1.html#gallery
-
I'm probably being a bit too critical here but after 30 years in law enforcement I found it interesting how the eyewitness account from JoeyB's first referenced Youtube video (the Fox News clip) differed from the actual facts. He (the eyewitness in the clip) talked about the aircraft cartwheeling and losing its left wing and then about 3 people evacuating the aircraft. I can't say for sure whether or not the aircraft actually cartwheeled into the ground but the photos published thus far, including those showing the jet just prior to impact, seem to indicate that it pancaked into the ground rather than cartwheeling. The photos also show both wings still attached in the aftermath and video clearly shows only two people exiting the jet (not to mention all reports indicating only two occupants). It has always amazed me how inaccurate eyewitness accounts often can be.
-
Who can help me with the callsign in the KOSH-TWR-North-Incident?
Can't understand it at all...
-
Who can help me with the callsign in the KOSH-TWR-North-Incident?
Can't understand it at all...
Blue and white lancair? that one?
-
new pictures:
http://jalopnik.com/5602493/new-photos-show-roush-plane-crash-as-it-happened
(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2010/08/500x_roush_plane_crash_01.jpg)
-
Um..wow :-o Talk about right place, wrong time! That guy in the brown is like "screw the shot, save the camera bag!"
Has anyone heard what JR's condition is? I haven't seen anything lately. From the look of those pictures that were linked earlier in the thread the left side of his face particularly in the eye area looked pretty beat up.
-
new pictures:
http://jalopnik.com/5602493/new-photos-show-roush-plane-crash-as-it-happened
(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2010/08/500x_roush_plane_crash_01.jpg)
Wow! Looks like the guy who took the shot had some balls and the other guys didn't care.
-
:? Wonder how great the forces must have been here, where the seatbelt gives way so much, so that Jack can hit his head at the yoke?
If the seatbelt did not give way he would be less hurt in my opinion. . .
-
Are we sure he was wearing his seatbelt to begin with?
-
From the NTSB preliminary report:
The pilot was flying to KOSH to attend the Experimental Aircraft Association’s Airventure 2010 fly-in convention. Air traffic control (ATC) data indicated that the accident flight entered the Oshkosh area under visual flight rules and was cleared to land on runway 18R (8,002 feet by 150 feet, concrete).
A review of amateur video taken at KOSH showed the accident airplane in a left base turn to final for runway 18R. The airplane appeared to overshoot the runway centerline during this turn and then level its wings momentarily before entering a slight right bank simultaneously as the nose of the airplane pitched up. The airplane then turned left toward the runway centerline and began a descent. During this descent the airplane’s pitch appeared to increase until the airplane entered a right bank and struck the grass area west of the runway in a nose down, right wing low attitude.
The pilot and passenger were assisted out of the aircraft and transported to the hospital for treatment of their serious, but non-life-threatening injuries.
An on-scene investigation was immediately initiated after the accident. The air traffic controllers working the final portion of the accident flight were interviewed and the recorded ATC voice transmissions were secured for further review. The final segments of the accident flight were below available radar coverage, and as such no radar track data was available for review. The wreckage debris path and accident site were surveyed before the airplane was eventually recovered to a secured area where further inspections were performed the following day. No preimpact malfunctions or anomalies were noted during the on-scene inspections of the airframe structure, flight control systems, or two turbo-fan engines. Several non-volatile memory devices were removed from the airplane and were retained for future download. A cockpit voice recorder was recovered and shipped to the NTSB Vehicle Recorder Division in Washington D.C. for readout. The remaining wreckage was released back to the aircraft owner/operator on July 29, 2010.
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20100728X70427&key=1
-
Roush made a statement today on ESPN that he was essentially put in a position where he had to crash the plane to avoid another aircraft.
-
Aloha All,,,
Did anyone hear that the aircraft in conflict,
might of been an airplane cleared for takeoff in
front of 6JR ??? Listening to the tapes, it also
sounds like Jack may have had to be "reminded" to
turn downwind... That might have contributed to
"being" in a little "tight" on downwind...
Just speculation at this point... Jack has a
ton of "High-Performance" time... Something
distracted him, and it distracted him big time...
A friend of mine there, did state that he
thought that Jack did "Over-Shoot" center line
on 18R... That always makes for a lot of "fancy"
air work, to get lined back up... Thank you all,
and a big "Mahalo" for your time and effort...
Again, the question is, could the "conflict"
aircraft, be a airplane taking off ???
Big
-
Roush was on a left downwind for 18R which means they would have wanted him to make his base leg right at the end of the runway to stay away from 9/27 traffic. If Roush saw traffic that his jet was going to run over that would account for him wanting to extend his downwind and then the question on base about whether it was going to work. My only question is why a go-around wouldn't have solved his problem?
-
Sounds like he's blaming ATC on it already.
In an AvWeb article: "The reality of it -- on a trip arrival into Oshkosh, Wisc., I was put in conflict with the flight plan of another airplane close to the ground, and I was unable to address the conflict and keep the airplane flying. I ground-looped the airplane..." Roush told the car racing publication Motorsports."
Also, the prelim report cofirms he overshoot the centerline of the runway as well.
He's out of the hospital thankfully now, but he's lost sight in his left eye among the many other injuries that required surguries.
-
but he's lost sight in his left eye among the many other injuries that required surgeries.
I was afraid of that. He was bleeding pretty badly on that side of his face. Looks like his days of flying himself are over. I just hate the blame game has already started, damage control for the preliminary NTSB report?
-
" I was put in conflict with the flight plan of another airplane close to the ground, and I was unable to address the conflict and keep the airplane flying. "
That phrase, "put into conflict..." whether consciously intentional or not, sure does seem to be pointing his finger toward ATC...
I won't presume to judge, but it seems like a statement like this paints one into a pretty narrow corner, in terms of having to explain a conflict that would come up so quickly and so close to the ground that one could not fly the aircraft out of it with a go-around, but that a "ground loop" would be the best option available. Basically something like a runway that was clear on final, but then traffic suddenly enters the runway after it's too late for the aircraft to execute a GA?
Roush was on a left downwind for 18R which means they would have wanted him to make his base leg right at the end of the runway to stay away from 9/27 traffic.
Agree - in fact, the controller issued "Premier, make your base turn abeam the tower", (i.e. well south of the approach end of 18) which 6JR acknowledged. He gave the same instruction to the Lake following 6JR.
Well, all I can say is that some day I'll be interested to read the report to see if it gives any more insight, especially to the question "Is 6JR gonna be OK with this?", and the subsequent "don't think so..." At that point in time, he's essentially put himself on record as declaring that he doesn't believe his aircraft is "OK" with what he perceives is coming up.
-
Blue and white lancair? that one?
[/quote]
I'm trying 2 transcript that exchange.
For not it is
CTL: ….Sir. I need you to go back to the Island for me. You need to go back to the Island. The airport is closed now.
PIL: OK.??????????. Back to the Island.
CTL: And I’ll let you know. It could be a while, it could be better to find any other place to go, I guess. The airport is closed now due to an incident.
PIL: OK. Will just go to Fond Du Lac.
CTL: Roger.
So in this abstract I can't catch the callsigh. Is it lancair? Can't hear it at all.
-
So in this abstract I can't catch the callsigh. Is it lancair? Can't hear it at all.
Note that at Oshkosh they often refer to aircraft by their color and type. In the south tower clip the controller stays with this practice just referring to 6JR as "Premier". They'll also instruct how to respond -they may say "rock your wings" which means "stay off the radio for now". There's an example of this on the south tower clip starting at around 0:44.
Anyway, I hear the north tower clip differently from your transcription in a number of spots. This is how I hear it:
CTL: Blue and White Lancair, I need you to go back to the Island for me. I need you to go back to the Island; the airport is closed now.
PIL: OK, Blue and White Lancair, back to the Island.
CTL: And I'll let you know, uh. It could be a while, it could be, (( well you'll )) just have to find a new place to go. I guess the airport is closed now due to an incident.
PIL: OK, we'll just go to Fond Du Lac.
CTL: Roger
The "well you'll" in double parentheses above, I'm not completely sure of, but it's my best guess and it fits the context - can't think of what else it would be...
-
Quote
CTL: Blue and White Lancair, I need you to go back to the Island for me. I need you to go back to the Island; the airport is closed now.
PIL: OK, Blue and White Lancair, back to the Island.
CTL: And I'll let you know, uh. It could be a while, it could be later, just find any place to go. I just hear the airport is closed now due to an incident.
PIL: OK, we'll just go to Fond Du Lac.
CTL: Roger
-
My listening skills need improvement =) cause I've noticed lots of small mishearings like "will vs we'll" or "it could be better vs it could be later" and Blue and White Lancair as a callsing - the most difficult thing for me.
Thank you for you help and helpful explanation!
-
A go-around would have solved the whole thing. A tricycle gear airplane does not "ground loop" so he's totally off kilter even thinking that this is somehow a sanctioned procedure or something. The answer to any problem in approach is a go around or balked landing. Two different things, and the difference not known to this guy which is why the airplane STALLED, rolled, and CRASHED. Not a good outcome, but the average ESPN viewer doesn't know any better. He's posturing but the NTSB isn't stupid, the report will show pilot error. Remember, the PIC is the final authority in the operation of the airplane and you can't blame ATC for putting you in a bad position although it may happen from time to time.
-
Agree
-
Just been sent these pics that you may find interesting......... those planes on the taxiway sure got a fright on the next set of pics
-
more pics
-
Ditto
-
ditto again
-
Here is a link of some pics of the crash posted on the TMZ website
http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/jack_roushs_plane_crashed_pictures#tab=most_recent (http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/jack_roushs_plane_crashed_pictures#tab=most_recent)
Wow, that first picture has a real rightwing low position... indicates a stall and the airplane did a near 360 on the ground. . .
:-o Well not a 360 here but at least a 175 degree turn on the ground !
-
Great Pics donaldlaw! Tells the story just by looking at the pics! She is defiantly facing back the way she came from, that's for sure! So given that, I have to agree with alltheway on the 180 turn-around here, and retract what I said in my earlier post... :wink:
-
I bet N27970 got a nice coronary out of that sight.
-
I bet N27970 got a nice coronary out of that sight.
Guy probably needed a new pair of shorts after that! :-o
-
So I'm not claiming I know the answers, but the question for me is, how do you go from being 50 feet off the deck with wings level, to a right-wingtip-first crash in the grass? How does ATC "put you in" a situation that results in that sequence? What prevented the pilot from flying the airplane to a landing?
The "touchdown" sequence looks pretty clear, from a physics point of view. At the point where the right wingtip strikes first, there's an aft force put on the plane at that location, at a moment arm far out to the right, which imparts a clockwise (from above) rotational inertia to the plane. After the whole thing pancake's down, it's no longer about aerodynamics and all about momentum and friction. It slides the rest of the way forward, and rotates clockwise, as far as it does until all the momentums (both linear and rotational) are eaten up by friction with the ground.
And yeah, if I'd been in N27970, it would need a new upholstery job...
-
OK, I know this is a 2-year "bump" to the thread, but it looks like the NTSB report is out on this one. I have only read news summaries and I don't want to comment until I can read the original report, but I can't seem to get on the ntsb site to get it. Is anyone else able to access the report on the ntsb.gov site?
-
NTSB report (released 06/12/2012):
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100728X70427 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100728X70427)
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's decision not to advance the engines to takeoff power during the go-around, as stipulated by the airplane flight manual, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall at a low altitude.
More here: http://kathrynaviationnews.com/?p=62663 (including a link to media coverage with a host who nods throughout the interview - but finally summarizes "so he loses just enough speed to stall one of the engines, right?". No! They'll never learn what stalling an aircraft means... :roll:
-
More here: http://kathrynaviationnews.com/?p=62663 (including a link to media coverage with a host who nods throughout the interview - but finally summarizes "so he loses just enough speed to stall one of the engines, right?". No! They'll never learn what stalling an aircraft means... :roll:
Thanks. I have been having a weird problem getting to the ntsb.gov site for several days (I tried different browsers, different computers, and as a test, I was able to get to the really fun site at irs.gov just fine, so I don't know what the problem was...) but I finally got a chance to read the report, both the summary and the full narrative.
I note that on the "Kathryn's Blog" site of your link, they end the pilot's quote at "I accept the findings." Makes it sound all tidied up. However, in the story at sportingnews.com, (linked in that blog post), the next thing out of his mouth after "I accept the findings..." is
There are some omissions. I wish they had been more complete in the description of the things that were happening in the congested airspace that I was presented there in Oshkosh. They didn’t do that, so that’s a moot point.
(emphasis mine)
It sounds like he's still pitching the story that ATC "put him" in a situation, and this was the tough-as-nails, go-down-with-the-ship response that he was forced to accept. But as he's used to talking to the press, he manages to sell himself as the good guy falling on his sword.
Further down :
I can’t emphasize this too much—what a relief it was that I was able to negotiate a contact with the ground that kept me free of other airplanes and free of anybody that could have been injured outside of the airplane,” Roush said.
This is a reprise of his previous statement "I was put in conflict with the flight plan of another airplane.... I ground-looped the airplane."
I don't mean this to sound snippy, but it sounds like he should have been negotiating with his power levers, and not the ground.
I guess the one quote of his that does seem to fit the situation in a factually accurate way, but it helps to take it out of its original context:
"I was unable to address the conflict and keep the airplane flying."
-
I guess the one quote of his that does seem to fit the situation in a factually accurate way, but it helps to take it out of its original context:
"I was unable to address the conflict and keep the airplane flying."
I don't think I had heard that quote before but to me it's very telling. The vast majority of responsibility to "address the conflict" belonged to ATC, and it sounds as they were able to do that even though it was very close:
"Several witnesses recalled seeing the yellow Piper Cub offset from runway 18R when the accident occurred. One witness reported that the Piper Cub performed a short-field takeoff and offset after liftoff. The same witness reported that the Piper Cub was between runways 18R and 18L as the Premier jet was turning base to final."
It sounds very much like the pilot got caught up in watching the departure ("addressing the conflict"?) and fell behind flying the aircraft. I don't know what it's like to fly a Premier jet and I'm not saying I could do better in the busy airspace of Oshkosh, but the fact is he did overshoot the runway on his base turn which certainly didn't help his attempt to execute a go around.
Here's a PDF of the full narrative I copied from the NTSB site
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/152429/N6JR%20narrative.pdf