|
Author
|
Topic: Steve Fossett (1944-2007) (was: Search for aviator Steve Fossett)
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-03-2008 09:10 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by spaced out:
Absolutely - what is needed is an image of the crash site from the last year at the resolution that was used in the Mechanical Turk search.
With regards to updated satellite imagery, Google is now equipped to refresh their map products' data within a few days to a few weeks of a specific need with higher resolution imagery than previously commercially available. |
Philip
Member Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 10-03-2008 09:18 AM
Most of us know the quality of a NOMEX flightsuit, even after a fire you can still find some of it and the news announced they cannot make out who/what's in the wreckage? |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-03-2008 09:34 AM
In fact it seems that the area of the crash was indeed covered by high-res images taken during the search, as shown by the map in this article. Hopefully it is only a matter of time before an image of the crash site is released, so that we can know if the site could actually have been recognised at the time or not. The interest in all of this is obviously to know the limitations of satellite searches for future cases. |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 10-03-2008 09:36 AM
I'm surprised no ELT signal. Maybe the ELT got smashed beyond operation. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 10-03-2008 10:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
...and FWIW I don't think it's seemly to start a detailed debate on this aspect.
Sorry Paul: don't agree. Without addressing all the anomalies surrounding Steve Fossett's disappearance, there will always be questions to be asked. I'm sure we all concur that a little decorum and sensitivity are required, but the first page of this topic was full of conjecture about Mr Fossett's financial & personal situation. The one thing that will draw a line under these sad events is if DNA tests on the sliver of bone prove positive... |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 10-03-2008 02:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ejectr:
I'm surprised no ELT signal. Maybe the ELT got smashed beyond operation.
It does seem odd, but if this were a high speed impact (which it probably was if the motor broke loose from the firewall to end up several hundred feet away), then the ELT might not have survived either. They are durable, but they aren't airliner black box flight recorder durable necessarily. Even if it had gone off, the terrain might have masked the signal as it transmits radio signals. Radio signals are line of sight, so the mountain would have obscured the signal to one direction and other mountains could potentially have obscured it to other directions as well. |
Spacepsycho
Member Posts: 818
From: Huntington Beach, Calif.
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 10-03-2008 03:55 PM
In an earlier post I described what specs the ELT's are built to withstand and it wasn't the impact that caused it's failure. These ELT units can withstand 1000 G's and this aircraft couldn't generate the energy needed to destroy it.That being said, it probably failed because of a dead battery, but there have been 1-2 cases where the coaxial cable and antenna have been found broken. The ELT's are designed to send a signal to satellites on 3 emergency freqs, alerting rescue teams as to the crash location. Going down in the mountains isn't a factor, as long as there's a satellite that can receive the ELT signal. Check out this link about ELT's and it's pretty interesting. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 10-04-2008 04:56 AM
...and not all ELTs are automatic. Some require manual activation. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 10-04-2008 09:35 AM
Fossett's (until recently) secret work on Deep Flight Challenger, a high performance submersible capable of reaching the Marianas Trench. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 10-05-2008 12:56 PM
Ray, good to be back in action.Your right when you say the Citabria could not generate enough force to render the ELT inoperable. It would have to hit the ground at 1,500 mph (I'm exaggerating, but you know what I mean). Now as far as the dead battery goes, that's a very real possibility. When is the last time you checked your smoke detector? I would have liked to have seen him found living aboard a yacht anchored in front of the Monte Carlo Cassino on the French Rivera. But so far only Elvis has reported seeing him. |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 10-05-2008 01:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Chinal:
Now as far as the dead battery goes, that's a very real possibility.
If the aircraft was maintained according to FAA reg FAR Part 91.207, an ELT must be checked on a 12 month period for corrosion, condition and operation. The battery must be changed after 1 hour of cumulative use and replaced after 50% of its shelf life has expired. The date of expiration is stamped on the battery by the manufacturer of the battery and the date of installation and next replacement date is written in the airframe log book of the aircraft for the next mechanic who performs the required annual to maintain air worthiness to readily see. It is also common practice before shutting down the aircraft after a landing, to monitor 121.5 to ensure the landing did not accidentally activate the ELT. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 10-05-2008 04:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ejectr:
If the aircraft was maintained according to FAA reg FAR Part 91.207, an ELT must be checked on a 12 month period for corrosion, condition and operation.
Of course that depends on who the A&P is who did the annual. There are plenty of A&Ps out there who cook the books, but the good ones do the proper inspections and changeouts.As for ELT durability itself, there can be other factors also which can kill them. Besides, the thing may be rated for high G, but what if the battery cell itself got penetrated? Or what if the antenna itself got damaged in the impact? A heavy blow might not kill them, but throw random chance in, and it may not end up working. I do think in this case though, the terrain probably masked the signal from getting out, assuming the battery was good and it survived. |
kosmonavtka
Member Posts: 170
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 11-04-2008 01:34 AM
Bones confirm Steve Fossett death |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 03-06-2009 11:41 AM
Fox News:
Camper Says He Saw Steve Fossett's Plane 'Standing Still' in Air Before Crash A camper who believes he saw Steve Fossett's plane moments before he slammed into a Sierra mountainside says headwinds were so strong that day that the plane appeared to be "standing still," according to a federal report released Thursday on the 2007 crash.The report by the National Transportation Safety Board says the unidentified camper and his companions watched the plane struggle at an altitude of about 11,500 feet as strong winds blew out of the southwest. "It looked like it was standing still due to the wind," the report said. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-07-2009 03:37 AM
If he was in mountain wave it would not be unusual for the a/c to appear to be "standing still" though quite how someone can judge an altitude to the nearest 500ft from the ground amazes me. Steve was an accomplished glider pilot and would have been very familiar with strong wind and wave flying.A bigger questions surrounds oxygen starvation at that height. |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 07-09-2009 06:31 PM
CNN: Strong Winds Probable Cause of Fossett Crash Nearly two years after the disappearance of adventurer Steve Fossett, investigators on Thursday determined that strong winds probably downed his plane. Investigators said that downdrafts -- strong downward currents of air -- along with thin air and a mountainous terrain contributed to the crash, the National Transportation and Safety Board said in its report on the accident. The board's findings are in line with witness testimony revealed in the agency's March report: Fossett's single-engine craft was fighting headwinds. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 07-09-2009 08:07 PM
Oxygen starvation no dought played a part. The fact that the wreckage was found at the 10,000 ft. level is a strong indication (the FAA requires oxygen above 10K).Strong turbulent winds especially at sundown can destroy a planes ability to gain lift. A sad end to a fine man. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-10-2009 06:23 AM
A sad end indeed to a modest and immensely capable aviator, but surprising that his experience in gliding and the Perlan project in particular didn't forewarn him of the dangers of rotor, turbulence and O2 starvation... if indeed these were the contributing causes. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-04-2010 02:25 PM
Programme on C4 (UK) right now covering the search for Fossett and the "Nevada Triangle" of aircraft crashes. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-05-2010 09:07 AM
Yes, very interesting but sad I thought how something quite basic should result in his death. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 01-07-2010 12:26 AM
It was a shame that the programme made so much of the spurious 'Nevada Triangle' concept and only briefly referred to the evidence that Fossett survived the crash and crawled half a mile to where the bone fragments were found. |
cfreeze79
Member Posts: 455
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-07-2010 02:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Chinal:
Oxygen starvation no dought played a part. The fact that the wreckage was found at the 10,000 ft. level is a strong indication (the FAA requires oxygen above 10K).
Since when is O2 required above 10K? The AIM only recommends it for Day VFR. The regs require supplemental oxygen for flight crew above 12.5K, and then only for durations longer than 30 minutes. Anytime above 14K requires oxygen for flight crew, and above 15K requires it for passengers as well (but they don't have to use it  ) |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 01-07-2010 06:16 AM
If you're going to go cruising around the Sierra Nevada's, there's no way you're going to avoid being at 10,000 feet MSL.Being familiar with the area as Steve Fossett was, and being familiar with high altitude balloon flying, I doubt Steve didn't know his oxygen altitude FAR's. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-07-2010 06:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by ejectr:
Being familiar with the area as Steve Fossett was, and being familiar with high altitude balloon flying, I doubt Steve didn't know his oxygen altitude FAR's.
I agree. He'd been to 42,000ft in a glider and was running the Perlan High altitude project. Oxygen MAY have been a contributing factor, but the conclusion seems to have been that this was CFIT due to encountering rotor in excess of the max climb rate of the aircraft. This was compounded by being boxed into a canyon below summit height. Although I've done quite a bit of wave flying and have flown out of Minden, NV I had not appreciated the extreme severity of the rotor that can come off the Sierra Nevada until seeing this program. ...and yes, the "Nevada Triangle" thing was a complete sensationalist red herring. Whilst they blurbed on about Area 51, NAS Fallon etc they failed to provide a clear explanation for the high volume of accidents within a limited area. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-08-2010 02:52 AM
cfreeze has the FAR correct about oxygen use. Indeed one does become a little muddled at higher altitudes if they haven't acclimatised, although I've done flights at a cruising altitude of 10,500 without any problems (level flight, VFR conditions, daylight, VFR flight following from ATC). If unexpected things happen fast though, you can get a little overwhelmed until you get more oxygen in you.It just goes to show that an exceptional pilot can be killed by the things that can also just as easily kill a less skilled pilot. Flying can be very unforgiving and I always made sure to keep that in mind everytime I took the controls of an airplane. |
advertisement