Talk:John F. Kennedy Jr.

Assassination

There are many credible sources that indicate JFK Jr. was assassinated via mid-air explosion. Such claims are not ridiculous and should not be simply swept under the rug. -- James

Yeah, uh, you might want to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources before you make any more edits to this article.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ha! The sources I had were nothing like Stromfront or Hamas. Political assassination is a credible, plausible narrative of JFK Jr.'s death, widely reported and researched, and I will restore that section to this article. -- James

Perhaps now would be a good time to remind you that Wikipedia has a policy against original research. Please do not re-add this section to the article.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it would be terrible if people started using original research people might start passing on knowledge and the like. Someone might work out which came first, the chicken or the egg. The theory of evolution was not Darwins, it was Alfred Russel Wallace, and he got it from another bloke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.192.178 (talk) 18:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

That never was a problem, because I'm not doing any original research. I cited others' research that included original press reports that conflict with the version of the story that has been settled on by the establishment press. Just because you do not agree with these pre-existing theories, widely published and cited, doesn't mean they are "crackpot" or on the "fringe." That's just your rabid POV.

The only "rabid" POV around here is that espoused by you and the articles you keep promoting. They're utterly ridiculous, and they do not meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources.

The articles I "keep promoting"? Well, that's certainly a wide and varied bunch, but they all meet the standard of reliable sources, inasmuch as any of my minor contributions goes that far. I understand that you don't personally support the reliability of certain sources, but that's your opinion. And your idea of what is "ridiculous" is not the standard for reliability. -- James

No. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Personal websites as secondary sources. Each of the links you added is a personal Web site, and is being used as a secondary source. In other words, you're linking to -- at best -- dubious original research by a third party, rather than doing it yourself. From a verifiability standpoint, there's not really any difference, and it's blatantly obvious that the links you've cited are pushing an agenda of crackpot conspiracy theories.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my entries here on the talk page? I'll restore it:

1. Your namecalling ("crackpot") is shrill, insulting and a poor debate tactic.

2. You do admit that I'm not doing any original research. Thanks.

3. My main source, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/JFK_JR/jj.html, was not a personal website. It features articles by many different writers.

4. One of the "personal websites" cites an original UPI story on the crash that is conveniently unavailable from UPI now: http://www.beverlyunderground.com/issue9/rabbithole.htm

5. Two could be construed as personal websites, although articles appear on both sites that are attributed to other writers: http://www.skolnicksreport.com/goldenboy.html and http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/PurgeTheEvil.htm.

6. Of the many public figures who have died unnaturally or under suspicious circumstances, many of their Wikipedia pages include a brief section citing reports of assassination. This includes Princess Diana and John Lennon. Are you going to go cleanse those "crackpot" theories? -- James

The deletion was accidental; I was reverting a vandal at the same time you posted the above edit. Sorry about that. Princess Diana was most certainly not assassinated. John Lennon was; that's a well-known fact. I don't see what that has to do with anything, though.—chris.lawson (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What they have to do with our discussion is that both of those articles include the allegations that they were assassinated by a conspiracy. Neither article is slanted in favor of conspiracy, but each at least addresses the controversy as it exists. -- James

Uh, I don't see any mention of conspiracy in the John Lennon article. The mention of conspiracy in Princess Diana is fairly mild and cites reliable sources. The links you added to this article are not reliable sources.—chris.lawson (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"Some people believe that Lennon's murder was actually a political assassination, although this idea is often dismissed as a conspiracy theory" -- it's in the Trivia section. -- James

These are the "reliable sources" that, according to your standards, allows the Diana assassination theory in that article when the JFK Jr. assassination theory is cut from this article:

• alt.conspiracy.princess-diana - Diana assassination newsgroup
• Chronology of Diana's last day, from an anonymous website whose "central tenet" is that "the primary motive force behind the murders of Diana and Dodi is Elizabeth Regent, current Queen of England" [1]

In that case, I'll be looking into those articles as well.—chris.lawson (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Clawson, if you go around purging pages of all references to the subject's possible political assassination, like Princess Diana and John Lennon, you'll find that your personal standard for a reliable source clashes with the standards of the community. You seem to think you can label a claim as "crackpot" and then take that label itself as proof that the source is not reliable. That's circular reasoning. Your opinion of a source doesn't make it reliable or unreliable. -- James

You'll note that I left the Guardian link in there. That was deliberate. The Guardian is a reputable news organisation. The other two links are well outside the boundaries established by WP:EL. Please do not re-add them.--chris.lawson 04:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Flight Instructor

What is the source for the claim that Kennedy's flight instructor stated that he offered to fly with Kennedy on the fatal journey, but Kennedy replied, "I want to do it alone."? Rpawn 14:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That source was the NTSB final report, quoting the CFI number two, who we now know is Robert Merena. We know this because in a January 27, 2000 investigative report, NTSB interviewer David Muzio quotes Merena as speaking with Kennedy the day he died, July 16, 1999, and offering to fly with him. Kennedy declined, saying, “I want to do it alone.” This quote obviously made headlines in both mainstream and gossip media.

However, there is substantial evidence that this quote was fabricated.

1. Merena discussed his final conversation with Kennedy in a letter addressed to the NTSB on July 19, three days after the crash-

My last contact with Mr. Kennedy was by telephone on July 16, 1999. I had contacted Mr. Kennedy's office to inquire as to whether or not he needed his keys to the aircraft for that weekend. I was advised by Mr. Kennedy that he did not require the keys and that I should return them at my convenience to Mr. Ferguson at Caldwell Airport.

No mention of offering to fly with Kennedy, and no mention of Kennedy "wanting to do it alone".

2. Muzio interviewed Merena on July 21, five days after the crash. Part of the interview states-

The instructor was not aware of the pilot conducting any flights in the accident airplane without an instructor aboard.

3. Muzio submitted a report on January 27, 2000 claiming an interview with Merena, without including the time, date and place of the supposed interview, nor Merena's signature. Here is the full text-

The instructor stated that he talked to the pilot on the day of the accident, and offered to fly with him on the accident flight. "The pilot replied he wanted to do it alone." In addition, the instructor restated that he was not aware of the pilot ever flying the accident airplane without an instructor onboard.

4. Merena had his attorney, Peter V. Van Deventer, Jr. send a letter dated February 25, 2000 to the NTSB. Mr. Van Deventer’s letter states that Mr. Merena and Kennedy 1) had their conversation between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on the day in question. 2) John F. Kennedy, Jr. never indicated at that time that he intended to depart on the day or evening in question. 3) Kennedy never expressed to Mr. Merena anything concerning a change in his plans.

Merena is claiming that Muzio is lying. How could Merena not be aware of Kennedy flying without a CFI in the accident airplane, yet state that Kennedy told him that was exactly what he planned to do? The only possible conclusion is that either Merena is lying about what Kennedy said, in which case he contradicts himself, or Muzio is lying about what Merena said. Since the lie shows up in the final NTSB report, without any mention of Merena's dissension, I believe that Muzio planted the obviously false statement. It is definitely odd that this short tidbit of interview shows up six months after all other pilot interviews had been completed. Odder still would be Merena lying to Muzio, denying it, and then somehow this contentious and belated statement still ends up in the final NTSB report. As difficult as it is to believe that an NTSB investigator would manufacture a false statement, what is the alternative?--Gseymour (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

JFKJR at Chico State

Perhaps someone can confirm or deny the local rumor that JFKJR was enrolled at California State University, Chico. I actually checked with the records office and confirmed that a "John Fitzgerald Kennedy" was enrolled at Chico State prior to 1993. The rumor is that he was in Chico under the pseudonym "Jake"

You state that this is a "local rumor." Is that to mean that it is a "local rumor" in and around Chico, California?

In any event, JKKJR was not a California resident, nor did he leave New York City to pursue any kind of further education after recieving his Juris Doctor degree from New York University. --172.191.66.215 00:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, its more than a rumor. Apparently there was an article in the Chico News and Review about it. If he was under a pseudonym that would be consistent with a desire for anonomymity. Unless you were with him the whole time, you wouldn't necessarily know that he was never a CA resident or didn't leave NY. I'm not saying you don't know for sure, but I think you would actually have to have to be pretty close to JFKJR for a pretty long time to say so authoritiatively.

--gregbard

Panicking

I was just reading this and thought it was an interesting theory to do with JFK Jr.'s crash: The Art of Failure. Cctoide 16:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for posting this URL. It is a very interesting article in reference with different reactions to stressful situations. --172.191.66.215 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

1000 Days

This line appears in the entry: "And of his nephew's marriage, (Edward Kennedy) invoked what had been said of his brother's presidency : both lasted 1,000 days." Some might believe that this means both lasted *exactly* 1000 days. In fact, both lasted more than 1000 days. John Kennedy died on the 1037th day of his presidency. JFK Jr. died on the 1032nd day of his marriage. Perhaps an overly picky point, but just wanted to point this out. Anson2995 18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

John Hankey films

I've removed the references to both of John Hankey's films. These are, to put it mildly, poorly edited secondary sources. Please see Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination for my complete comments on the matter. If we want to cite the "The Bushes Killed the Kennedys" theories, then we should do so by citing well sourced scholarly research or primary sources. -Harmil 05:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Last Will and Testament of John F. Kennedy, Jr.

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of John F. Kennedy, Jr. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of John F. Kennedy, Jr. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Drunk

Shouldn't it be mentioned that many sources believe that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the plane crash?--68.149.181.145 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Name one, preferably one that has some sort of credibility, like a medical examiner's report, or the NTSB.--chris.lawson 23:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the person who wrote this article was under the influence of alcohol. Or his mother was when she was pregnant with him.--75.39.131.245 (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The "many" sources that repeat the drunk claim all stem back to C. David Heymann, and to his book, American Legacy: The Story of John and Caroline Kennedy. Heymann claims that ethanol found in tissue samples from Kennedy's autopsy indicates that he had ingested alcohol. He also claims that Kennedy was taking Vicodin for his ankle injury, and drugs for both Graves disease, and attention deficit disorder, and to top it off, at a service station near the airport before his flight, Kennedy was spotted carrying an opened bottle of white wine. Horse crap. Heymann is simply smearing John's name for the money he can make by sensationalizing the accident.

From the NTSB report:

On July 21, 1999, examinations were performed on the pilot and passengers by Dr. James Weiner, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The results indicated that the pilot and passengers died from multiple injuries as a result of an airplane accident. Toxicological testing was conducted by the FAA Toxicology Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The toxicological tests were negative for alcohol and drugs of abuse.

FAA toxicologists are well aware that bodies subjected to severe trauma and immersed in 58F water for several days prior to autopsy will contain elevated levels of bacteria generated ethanol. Other tests can mitigate or eliminate the indication of antemortem alcohol ingestion. Also, the FAA tests for virtually all drugs of abuse, including most over the counter medicines. --Gseymour (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit or not?

The article says the Kennedy family paid to avoid a wrongful death suit, but if you click on the very source it says there was a lawsuit. Should the article be changed? (unisgned comment)

17 years

i just watched a documentary which claimed that jfk jr had 17 years of flight experience and over 700 hours of flight time. also, the program used a flight simulator to show the last few moments of his life..the haze and light conditions were simulated (i believe it was a mirosoft flight simulator) but what i found most remarkable was that you could see the island..the times were verified with his actions and with his final communication with the tower..i find this to somewhat contradict the spatial disorientation theory. i still havent figured out what this page is exactly for yet, any talk page really, so if i have posted this in the wrong place, well, you know. here is the documentary.. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3179462717908405974&q=jfk+jr+duration%3Along -just copy and paste. also, the program contained many initial broadcasts and information which are not available here. there seems to be a great deal of information, with sources, in this doc. an editor should at least view it...i would make edits but i dont have enough time and i dont really know how to anyhow. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 19:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed: I added the very link to the article as well. Extremely sexy 14:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

John Hankey is trying to overcome the reckless image that has been smearing Kennedy's name ever since the crash. He is an excellent researcher, but in this particular case he may have over-reached a little with these claims about Kennedy's experience. There was so much wild information flying around, that I decided to spreadsheet his entire flight log from 1982 to Nov 11, 1998. His latest flight log is missing. Kennedy first flew seventeen years before the crash, but I wouldn't really portray that as seventeen years of experience. He logged 12.3 hrs in 1983/83, and in 1988 logged 35.1 hrs more for a total of 47.4 hrs (and flew solo for the first time). Then in early 1998, he took intensive flight training at Flight School International (FSI) at Vero Beach, FL, one of the best flight schools in the world. At a total of 102.2 hrs, he obtained his private pilot's license on April 22, 1998. Most of his flight time was accumulated in Piper Warriors. He then purchased a high performance Cessna 182Q Skylane (it had a Texas Skyways engine upgrade). He received his high performance sign-off in the Cessna from Chris Benway on June 28, 1998. His first logbook ends on Nov 11, 1998 with a total of 218.7 hours, about half of which were in high performance airplanes as PIC (pilot in command).

An NTSB advisory notice, dated July 30, 1999 states that- "The Safety Board has information indicating that he had accumulated about 300 hours of flying experience, not including time he accumulated in the Saratoga." Kennedy's insurance application for coverage of the newly purchased Saratoga on April 28, 1999, indicated 300 accumulated flight hours at that point, in addition to several witness accounts of Kennedy stating that he had 300 hours at the time he purchased the Saratoga. In its final report, the NTSB estimates that he accumulated about 36 hours in the Saratoga, yet the NTSB obviously can't add 300 and 36 because they come up with 310 total flight hours. Huh? At any rate, Hankey is even farther off with a claim of 700.

The NTSB also makes a serious (and curious) error when it estimates the total solo hours of Kennedy at 72. That is just silly. I know for a fact that Kennedy had 80 total hours solo on November 9, 1998, because that is the date of the last entry into his first logbook that I have painstakingly spread-sheeted. He also had 103 hours as PIC at that time. It may not strike you as very important, 72 hrs... 80 hrs... who cares? The discrepancy, however, is much larger than that. It first shows that the NTSB didn't even bother to tabulate the information from Kennedy's first logbook. Second, they said that the basis for their estimate of Kennedy's flight hours during the entire period of the missing second logbook was based on instructor's logbooks, statements from instructors, and records from flight schools. So obviously, they underestimated Kennedy's solo time after Nov 9, 1998, also. After injuring his ankle five weeks before the crash, Kennedy did rely on CFIs as a safety pilots. But prior to the injury, he probably had at least ten solo hours in the Saratoga, making his total accumulated flight hours about 346. His total solo time was therefore about 120 hours.

Kennedy also loved to fly at night. After his intensive training period, flown almost exclusively during the day, about a third of his flight hours were accumulated at night. Statistics show that private pilots on average, spend less than 5 percent of their flight time at night. The NTSB claimed that Kennedy only had a total of 55 hours of night flight time. It was at least 70 hours, probably more.

Because of the retractable landing gear, a complex airplane sign off was required to be PIC of the Saratoga, and he received that sign off in May, 1999. By the time of the crash, Kennedy had accumulated about 222 hrs in high performance airplanes, and most of the other hours were in Piper Warriors, so he was well qualified to fly the Piper Saratoga. He also was in the middle of intensive training for his instrument rating, having passed the written test and completed 12 of 25 instrument flight lessons. Kennedy's logbook shows extensive work with GPS navigation and autopilot operation, and his instructors have also noted his competence with both devices. The KLN90B moving map GPS unit in the Saratoga interfaced with the dual axis Bendix/King 150 autopilot and was FAA rated for IFR coupled approaches. In other words, the avionics in the Saratoga were sophisticated and capable of flying the airplane with little input from Kennedy. The NTSB investigation indicated that the GPS unit was on, but the autopilot had been switched off at the time of the crash. The flight path indicated, however, that the autopilot was engaged for most of that flight.--Gseymour (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Small change Fuel Cut-Off Valve

I re-worded a small section regarding the shut-off valve: according to the NTSB report, after the plane had been recovered, the fuel valve had been found in the "OFF" position.

Where has this comment gone? Not edited by an IP address connected to Yale or The White House by any chance?? Was this not on page 333 of the NTSB report? Another Skull and Bones fingerprint or is it just me. Seems strange that this was tucked away, perhaps the investigators didn't the significance! I guess switching off the fuel is an easy mistake for an inexperienced pilot, especially in a dark cockpit during IFR. Or perhaps it was turned off as a fire precaution, as the plane glided into the sea.

10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 15:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Phi Psi

There is definitely a "Phi Psi" at Brown, despite the statement here that the fraternity branch is now defunct. Is it a different Phi Psi? (131.111.243.37 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

my edits

a small, little teeny-weeny part about a fucking fuel valve which was shut off was removed from the article... WHY? no good explaination to remove proven, hard facts from a government produced report. i hate wikipedia 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 16:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the fuel valve was found off was in the report. Everything else was from that conspiracy website, which is not a reliable source. Frise 03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

so why did you delete the information about the fuel valve? the ends dont justify the means. and your an idiot 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 15:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing there is no evidence the fuel valve was *shut* off. THe NTSB report catalogues an array of damage to the fuel valve and surrounding structures, mentions the valve was found in the "off" position, and that the fuel valve linkage (which presumably leads from the valve to the valve selector) was deformed. I think it is safe to assume that once an aircraft smashes into the sea at over 100kts, the chances of all the bits being in the same place as they were 10 seconds earlier are rather slim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.224.162 (talk • contribs)

Obviously a air crash investigator in our midst, I'm glad that has been cleared-up! Now I just need the same sort of clear explanation regarding the JFK single bullet theory, and how it got to the hospital unblemished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.192.178 (talk) 17:52, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Simple. It didn't. Read Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" for a detailed discussion of how the damaged bullet known as CE 399 was deformed and how it injured two different people after being fired by presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.139.48.25.61 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point about the damage to the selector linkage, but it must be kept in mind that there is a safety button that must be pressed and held while the selector switch is slid into the off position. This is intended to prevent 'accidental' shut-offs. It is likely that this mechanism would also prevent 'accident' related shut-offs.--Gseymour (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where to post this discussion, so I'll try here. I rewrote the mishap section; it was pretty bad in substance and style. The emphasis on the autopilot was distracting and pretty much irrelevant; no general aviation autopilot is required for any operation, and no pilot can be certified who cannot fly the airplane without the autopilot. Likewise, GPS is irrelevant; this mishap had nothing do to with navigation error. It was a loss of control event. Navigation errors involve CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) or fuel exhaustion. This was an out of control spiral dive. The discussion failed to give any background information but plunged right into autopilot and GPS details.

I am glad the "fuel valve" stuff, discussed here, stayed out. This event had nothing to do with fuel; airplanes do not hit the surface inverted at high speed just because the engine stops from fuel exhaustion.

The whole istructor business was also overdone. No instructor was necessary for this flight, where the published ceilings and visibility was above the minimums necessary for this pilot to exercise the privileges of his airman's certificate. Also, the previous text said that JFKJR had landed at Martha's Vinyard several times under IFR without an instructor. This would have been quite illegal, not to say, reckless. I doubt this happened. On another point, the text makes a point of how many times the pilot had flown this route. This not usually very important except in navigation issues (and even then, it is not important). Control of the airplane does not require route familiarity.

Having said the flight was legal without an instructor, nonetheless overwater operations at night, and in hazy but legal conditions, claim many general aviation pilots each year, even though even basic VFR pilots must demonstrate minimal competence in controlling the airplane with reference to basic instruments. So why does this happen? Evidently inexperienced pilots (and some veteran pilots too) have difficulty in making the transition from visual to inside or instrument reference. Once control is compromised, especially in a moderately fast airplane such as the Saratoga, recovery must occur within seconds or the airplane will overspeed or strike the surface. The graveyard spiral is one of those little bugbears in the aviation world which those outside the aviation community never imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.64.166 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Split?

It is my opinion that the section on the plane crash is sufficiently long as to be split off into a plane crash article, the way several other famous folks who have died in plance crashes have had their articles handled. I realize, though, that there's a lot of people involved in this article, and not everyone might agree, so I'd like to hear input on this idea. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with splitting. Extremely sexy 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote no! For heavens sake, don't let the facts get in the way of a good obituary! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.192.178 (talk) 17:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I think a separate section on the plane crash would be of immense value. The bashing and disinformation about John's culpability in the death of three people has been rampant in the media for way too long. I would love to set the record straight about the circumstances surrounding the crash. Normally, pilots are the most reticent to condemn another pilot's decisions, especially those that involve a fatal accident. In this case, however, it seems that fellow pilots are at the vanguard of the media hyperbole. Shame on them for joining the expected feeding frenzy of sensationalism surrounding any celebrity misfortune. Let's take an honest and measured look at this tragedy for its true instruction, and not yield to the condescending pronouncements of the self aggrandizers.--Gseymour (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Two of the most famous pictures in which John Jr. is present are not to be found in this article. Why? The first one: [2]

The second one: [3] Quietmartialartist (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Its hard to believe that a fair use showing of him saluting the casket cannot be put up. This is THE photo of him from his youth. 24.24.244.132 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody bother to read the NTSB report? -Kyle Bailey

Quote from article: "Kyle Bailey, a pilot believed to have been the last person to see Kennedy alive at Essex County Airport, subsequently stated that he had canceled his own flight to Martha's Vineyard because the enroute weather was "a little too hazy."

The NTSB report is not all that long, but I will 'excerpt' relevant passages for readability. While I believe that it contains a few well documented errors itself, for the most part the report factually refutes the "reckless pilot" hearsay claims circulating through the media, in the JFK, Jr. article itself, and here in this discussion forum. The above quote gives the impression that 'sensible' pilots (like 25 year old Bailey) chose not to fly because visibility was marginal along the entire route due to hazy conditions. (Unlike that 38 year old suicidal maniac, Kennedy.)

From the NTSB report:

On July 16, 1999, about 2141 eastern daylight time, a Piper PA-32R-301, Saratoga II, N9253N, was destroyed when it crashed into the Atlantic Ocean approximately 7 1/2 miles southwest of Gay Head, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. Gay Head had a lighthouse for marine navigation ... The rotating beacon ran on a 15-second cycle, 7.3 seconds white and 7.3 seconds red. The expected range of the white light was 24 miles, and the expected range of the red light was 20 miles.

MVY 2053...Clear at or below 12,000 feet; visibility 8 miles; winds 250 degrees at 7 knots...

MVY 2153...Clear at or below 12,000 feet; visibility 10 miles; winds 240 degrees at 10 knots...

During an interview, the tower manager [at MVY] ... stated the following: "The visibility, present weather, and sky condition at the approximate time of the accident was probably a little better than what was being reported. I say this because I remember aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the airport in sight between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able to see those aircraft and I do remember seeing the stars out that night."

About 2140, the moon was about 11.5 degrees above the horizon at a bearing of 270.5 degrees and provided about 19 percent illumination.--Gseymour (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the entire 200 mile route between CDW and MVY was not hazy. A widely circulated radar weather map of the area an hour after the crash shows the smoggy haze that covered CDW and Long Island Sound, while indicating clear skies east of Long Island Sound. The radar was set to 'clear air' sensitivity since no rain was occurring, and at this sensitivity it indicates fog, smoke and/or haze (down to -28 dBZ). The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology published a report in 2004 which indicates that visibility is a factor in 24 percent of all private plane accidents, and 2.3 percent of those are related to haze/smoke. That is less than one percent of all general aviation accidents from 1989 to 1997 (.55%).

A more complete quote from Kyle Bailey possibly reveals much stronger influences on his decision that day-

From the NTSB report:

"From my own judgement visibility appeared to be approximately 4 miles-extremely hazy. Winds were fairly light. Based only on the current weather conditions at CDW, the fact that I could not get my friends to come with me, and the fact that I would not have to spend money on a hotel room in Martha's Vineyard, I made the decision to fly my airplane to Martha's Vineyard on Saturday."

Mr. Bailey is implying that he WOULD have flown if his friends decided to fly with him and pay for the hotel room? Now that is prudent. Notice that Bailey is only referring to the hazy condition at CDW, not the en route conditions.

Kyle Bailey may well be an excellent and cautious pilot. But his immediate and resounding criticism of Kennedy's abilities speak more about Bailey's rash judgments than actual knowledge of Kennedy's imprudence. Those CFIs that actually flew with Kennedy, who either instructed or tested him, overwhelmingly have praised his caution, experience and skill as a pilot. Christopher P. Andersen in The Day John Died quotes Bailey telling his parents a few weeks before the crash that "John Kennedy is going to kill himself in that airplane." Bailey also tells Andersen "It was a suicide mission to take off in that plane without an instrument-trained co-pilot aboard."

My opinion- Kyle Bailey is full of ... himself.

Gseymour (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The NTSB refutes another article claim...

"It also emerged that while Kennedy had flown from Essex County Airport to the Vineyard several times before, he had never done it without an instructor pilot aboard or at night."

This sentence immediately follows Kyle Bailey's quote, so I can't figure out if the article is trying to attribute it to Bailey, or if the author simply had a vision. However, it 'emerges' that the author doesn't have a clue about John's flight experience between Essex County (CDW) and Martha's Vineyard (MVY).

From the NTSB report:

In the 15 months before the accident, the pilot had flown about 35 flight legs either to or from the Essex County/Teterboro, New Jersey, area and the Martha's Vineyard/Hyannis, Massachusetts, area. The pilot flew over 17 of these legs without a CFI on board, including at least 5 at night.

One CFI flew with the pilot on three occasions. One of the flights was on June 25, 1999, from CDW to MVY. The CFI stated that the departure, en route, and descent portions of the flight were executed in VMC, but an instrument approach was required into MVY because of a 300-foot overcast ceiling. The CFI requested an instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance and demonstrated a coupled instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 24. The CFI stated that the pilot performed the landing, but he had to assist with the rudders because of the pilot's injured ankle.

A second CFI flew with the pilot between May 1998 and July 1999. This CFI accumulated 39 hours of flight time with the pilot, including 21 hours of night flight and 0.9 hour flown in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The pilot used this CFI for instruction on cross-country flights and as a safety pilot. On July 1, 1999, the CFI flew with the pilot in the accident airplane to MVY. The flight was conducted at night, and IMC prevailed at the airport. The CFI stated that, during the flight, the pilot used and seemed competent with the autopilot. The instructor added that during the flight the pilot was wearing a nonplaster cast on his leg, which required the CFI to taxi the airplane and assist the pilot with the landing.

A third CFI flew with the pilot between May 1998 and July 1999. This CFI accumulated 57 hours of flight time with the pilot, including 17 hours of night flight and 8 hours flown in IMC. The pilot also used this instructor for instruction on cross-country flights and as a safety pilot. This CFI had conducted a "complex airplane" evaluation on the pilot and signed him off in the accident airplane in May 1999.

Gseymour (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not legal

"He was not yet rated for flying in low-visibility; but, at the time of his crash, During the last part of his flight he was flying in conditions that were not legal for someone with his license which restricted him to flights where he could orient himself and navigate by visual reference to the ground, Visual Flight Rules."

Where do these Kennedy-bashers come from? He flew off into a storm illegally, murdering all aboard!!! Come on, read your own link to 'visual flight rules'. Nowhere does it state that a visible horizon, or visual reference to ground is required for VFR. Above clouds and between clouds VFR flight is commonplace. Factors that contribute to spatial disorientation are certainly not 'not legal' VFR conditions.

Look, there's a common misconception about his entire flight. The haze at Caldwell was the thickest in the area. By all ground witnesses, including tower personnel, Aviation Terminal Forecasts (TAF), area forecasts, Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS), in-flight weather advisories, and flight service station (FSS) briefs, the haze varied from 4 miles visibility at Caldwell to 10 miles at Martha's Vineyard. The NTSB report however, relied mainly on three pilot weather observations. These reports are mostly higher altitude, twenty miles off-shore accounts.

Kennedy's flight route was entirely over water from Bridgeport to MVY, yet he hugged the coastline at 5500 feet. Reports that he turned out over the water at either Westerly, RI or Point Judith are a lie. I personally have tracked the radar path of Kennedy's flight from the raw NTAP data. He actually turned to the NORTH a few degrees at Westerly, to stay within 6 or 7 miles of the shoreline, until he was within a few miles of populated Cuttyhunk Island, Cuttyhunk light tower, and Buzzards Bay Entrance light tower. Only then did he turn south toward the Vineyard. At no point in the entire flight was Kennedy's plane more than 8 miles from land, and if the reported visibility was indeed 10 or 12 miles, then he never lost sight of that land, nor for that matter, the three very bright light towers that were all within 8 miles of the crash site. The light at Gay Head lighthouse is one of the brightest on the east coast, classified by the Coast Guard as a primary landfall light, used as an aid to ships approaching from the open sea. It is visible at a distance of 60 miles on an extremely clear night, 28 miles with the assumed 10 mile visibility, and even if there was a patch of haze that reduced meteorological visibility to 6 miles, the light could still be seen at a distance of 18 miles. It would require 2 mile visibility or less in order to not be able to see the Gay Head light from the crash site.

John Kennedy flew a course that kept him in visual contact with both land and lighthouses over the entire route. Reports that he veered out over open ocean are a fabrication designed to mislead you into visualizing that he recklessly flew into a 'black hole'. The implication is that he was simply trying to shave a few minutes off the flight time, sacrificing three lives in exchange for his impatience. The truth is that he had a choice between a right downwind approach to Martha's Vineyard, or a left downwind approach, since the prevailing SW winds required an approach from the NE of the island. He obviously was attempting a left downwind by flying along the southern coast of the island, probably because that route keeps the airport in view during the entire approach, due to the pilot's position on the left side of the airplane. It also "buzzes" Red Gate Farm (the family estate on the south end of Gay Head). However, it most certainly wasn't chosen to save time, since that route is actually ten miles longer than the alternative that would have approached from the mainland side of the island.

Speaking of the Red Gate Farm, Kennedy insisted that his cousin, Tony Radizwill, stay at the estate while fighting terminal cancer. Tony's wife, Carole was best friends with Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, affording the Kennedys a chance to visit and support Tony and Carole when they visited the compound almost every weekend that summer. Tony died from his cancer just three weeks after John's crash. Carole Radizwill was the one that finally started the search with a call to the Coast Guard at Woods Hole. The Coast Guard garbled Carole's name into 'Carol Ratowell' which they released to the press, and ever since the media has stuck with the misnomer. Supposed good friends and even expert biographers of the Kennedys use the garbled name in articles and books about the crash, affording at least a small judgment on the quality of their research.

I don't know what caused the crash that night. It may have been disorientation or sabotage, but I doubt that it was caused by a hypnotized zombie CFI. And I am very certain that it wasn't reckless impatience. I see no solid evidence for sabotage, disorientation, loss of situational awareness, nor any other form of pilot error. I can only hope that someone not indoctrinated by the 'reckless playboy' hype can someday piece together this puzzle and solve the mystery.--Gseymour (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion of maritime and land based lights shows ignorance of aviation reality. Maritime lights do little to avoid spatial disorientation, especially when they present as an isolated bright light. THe perception of the horizon, not singular lights, is critical for control by outside reference. This mishap is, sadly, a textbook, garden variety loss of control in low visibility or over dark water or land. Note that the VFR aviation chart containing New Orleans Lakefront Airport warns that pilots can lose orientation while departing over Lake Ponchatrain at night. The Bahamas insist that all night operations be conducted under Instrument Flight Rules. Overwater operations at night, and also VFR operations in marginal visibility, are the most common cause of general aviation fatalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.203.175 (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Overwater operations at night, and also VFR operations in marginal visibility, are the most common cause of general aviation fatalities", writes the previous anonymous editor.

This statement is patently and demonstrably false. Every edition of the Nall Report since its inception clearly contradicts the idea that either night operations or "marginal visibility" are anything remotely close to "the most common cause of general aviation fatalities". The most common cause of GA fatalities is maneuvering accidents, most of which occur low-level and result in an unrecoverable stall and/or spin. 70.226.78.119 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my point was not to compare stall-spin statistics to those from continued VFR into marginal weather. For one thing there is overlap between these mishaps. Low level stall-spins often accompany attempted VFR operations in marginal visibiliy when attempting to land. Moreover, it depends on how you select the cohort, whether you include agricultural flying (a lot of stall-spins), select on retractables (a lot of VFR upsets like this one), etc. The point was to show that the presence of maritime lights or occasional land lights would not make nighttime overwater loss of control mysterious or unexplained. It is a common, garden-variety mishap. Whether it is the MOST or second-most is not important for this purpose.

Likewise in the nitpicking area, my statement that an autopilot is not required for any GA operation is not strictly true. Single pilot certification for some turbojets requires a functioning autopilot and demonstration that the pilot can use it. The observation is correct when restricted to piston engine aircraft.

Succession box?

Is it really necessary to have a succession box for the children of JFK and Jackie Kennedy? It just looks silly on the page to me. (If there's a better place to discuss this topic, let me know.) Terence7 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Name ?

How would he have been John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jnr. ? Rose Fitzgerald was his grandmother. If anything he should have been John Bouvier Kennedy , no ?