LiveATC Discussion Forums
Air Traffic Monitoring => Listener Forum => Topic started by: chefnoel on January 12, 2009, 04:53:37 PM
-
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjocCPmhqj7ENiUdwTNUWWYvym6AD95LQMA04
-
Just when you think you've heard everything :)
-
Marcus Schrenker's Fake-Out
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/01/marc_schrenkers_fake-out.php
According to a filing made in Federal Court on December 22, 2008, Marcus Schrenker, the head of Heritage Wealth Management, Inc. was the defendant in a suit made by Creative Marketing International for breach of contract. Schrenker was also named in papers related to Delta Airline's bankruptcy filing. Schrenker had done work analyzing post-retirement income possibilities for retiring Delta pilots. The filing stated that "review of the analysis described in the Schrenker Declaration shows that it contains multiple seriously flawed assumptions that decimate its validity."
See: Sociopath
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html (http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html)
-
n428dc
check out the flight log cruising along at 200' 80 knots
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N428DC/history/20090112/0152Z/KSCD/KDTS/tracklog
-
Sad end for such a nice aircraft.
-
Sad end for such a nice aircraft.
I was thinking that too.
Meanwhile (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-plane-crash-mystery,0,1219249.story)....
Schrenker's neighbor Tom Britt said he received an e-mail Monday night from Schrenker claiming the crash was an accident and saying he wanted the companies under investigation to succeed. Britt believes the e-mail is real, but its authenticity hasn't been verified.
In the e-mail, Britt is asked to set the record straight and Schrenker says he's stunned after reading coverage of the case on the Internet. According to the e-mail, the accident was caused when the window on the pilot side imploded, spraying him with glass and reducing cabin pressure.
"Hypoxia can cause people to make terrible decisions and I simply put on my parachute and survival gear and bailed out," the e-mail reads.
Hypoxia? According to the track log above he never got above 4000ft. Yea, right.
-
I suspect the insurance company that covers the aircraft is going to have a hard time accepting this was not an intentional and premeditated act. Therefore, among the other troubles he is experiencing this aircraft owner will probably soon learn he has to foot the bill for this approximate US$ 900K loss.
What angers me is that if investigators do discover this was intentional, this self-centered pilot paid no mind to the potential loss of life that could have occurred had that aircraft fallen out of the sky on some occupied buildings. Apparently it crashed not too far from some homes.
-
Marc Schrenker. We know you're out there.
Give yourself up and nobody gets hurt.
Your Local FBI Office:
http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm (http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm)
(Just click on the link, Marc.)
-
he has been caught.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28623108?GT1=43001
-
If the plane had remained on the same trajectory for another 100 miles or so, it would have crashed well out to sea in the Gulf. I wonder if that was his objective.
-
Yes I agree, he wanted the plane to crash in the gulf. Looks like he set the autopilot to 200 feet so he would escape the radar. He would have done it if it did not crash before hand. I also noticed he had \a video on youtube that showed him flying under 2 bridges. Why hasn't the FAA suspended his licence?
-
I don't agree that he set the autopilot at 200' to avoid radar detection. ATC guys correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that flightaware.com shows the entire flight track would indicate that he had his Mode C Transponder on - clearly not indicative of someone trying to avoid radar.
-
I don't agree that he set the autopilot at 200' to avoid radar detection.
I also don't believe he set the AP for 200'. Instead, by looking at the altitudes and groundspeed track log in FlightAware it seems to me that the pilot slowed the aircraft so that he could bailout and the aircraft as as result of the AP attempting to climb struggled to maintain that airspeed through the remainder of the flight. Given this theory it seems that eventually the aircraft did stall and fall, resulting in the crash.
-
Guys, I don't agree that the airplane actually cruised at 200ft and 80kts for a while.
I think that the airplane actually crashed at 200ft going while going at 82kts and the transponder just replied that last data to the radar forever.
If you examine the log closely, you will agree that the airplane was flying at 3800ft for a long time, and somewhere in that time frame is when this crazy bastard bailed out.
The plane flew on and at 9:55 PM is probably when the engine quit, and the autopilot, being an electrically operated device, controlled the descent without letting the airplane stall out until the plane finally crashed at 10:11PM while going at 82kts. Even though the log displays 82kts from then on, the position of the aircraft does not change from this point on; The exact same latitude and longitudes are recorded until the end of the log.
I don't know exactly where the airplane crashed but if you find out, and find out the altitude of that place it will most likely be 200 knots, and will be in the same coordinates that are displayed in the last part of the log.
My conclusions are 3, could be ither one:
1) the flight log displays the same information until its updated with new data the next minute, but since the transponder was broken it probably never transmited that next updated set of data.
2) that the transponder remained on after the crash indicating the correct altitude and just transmitted the last reasonable speed (there may be an algorithm that won't allow it to transmit a velocity difference of 80kts between to adjacent minutes)
3) or maybe the log is displaying the last data received by the radar before it lost the target.
Could be either one. Choose the one that pleases and belive it
Cheers,
OA
-
2) that the transponder remained on after the crash indicating the correct altitude and just transmitted the last reasonable speed (there may be an algorithm that won't allow it to transmit a velocity difference of 80kts between to adjacent minutes)
transponders don't tramsmit speed. if it's mode c, just altitude and the 4 digit code. atc's radar calculates the ground speed
-
Could be either one. Choose the one that pleases and belive it
Good points.