Steve Fossett

[bumper]

Discovery HD Channel is airing a special on Steve Fossett next Monday at
10PM eastern 7PM PST. They took footage of my Husky flying along the eastern
flank of the Sierra, as it's blue and white and "sort of like" the plane
Steve was flying.

For the interview part, I got them to set up with one of Minden's soaring
FBO's "Soaring NV" in the background. Also asked them to consider doing a
special on soaring . . . can't hurt to ask.

all the best,

bumper

[ContestID67]

It will also be on the regular Discovery channel too. The trailer for
the documentary shows the crash site and a closeup of Fossett's SSA
card.

[db_sonic]

Thanks for letting us know this was going to be on the tube. Great to
see all that familiar scenery and get a few more details about the
accident.

[vontresc]

On Nov 26, 7:55*am, ContestID67 > wrote:
> It will also be on the regular Discovery channel too. *The trailer for
> the documentary shows the crash site and a closeup of Fossett's SSA
> card.

Watched it last night, and aside from seeing bumper interviewed and
them showing his husky, it pretty much sucked. To me it seemed to be
the usual over hyped aviation disaster "documentary". Don't get me
wrong, Steve was a good pilot, but I got kinda annoyed when they kept
calling him the "worlds greatest pilot".

Pete

[bumper]

Pete,

I can't disagree, though I thought it wasn't as bad as most of the usual TV
stuff. As pilots, we tend to be sensitized to inaccurate aviation info.
Considering the average viewer this was directed to, I thought they did a
pretty good job. It did slow down some after the first shots of my Husky . .
.. then they kept interest up by showing little snippets of it interspersed
with the rest of the show (g).

bumper
zz
Minden, NV


"vontresc" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 7:55 am, ContestID67 > wrote:
> It will also be on the regular Discovery channel too. The trailer for
> the documentary shows the crash site and a closeup of Fossett's SSA
> card.

Watched it last night, and aside from seeing bumper interviewed and
them showing his husky, it pretty much sucked. To me it seemed to be
the usual over hyped aviation disaster "documentary". Don't get me
wrong, Steve was a good pilot, but I got kinda annoyed when they kept
calling him the "worlds greatest pilot".

Pete

[ContestID67]

Yeah, I was disappointed also. There was far too much time spent
going over the same details again and again. I was left with the
feeling that they didn't have enough material for an entire hour. I
suppose I wanted more technical details than the general public (which
might not know an aileron from an altimeter).

I was really hoping for the why. I guess we all are. At least a
discussion of what the NTSB has found out about the airframe and if it
was the culprit. It may be too early to rule this in/out but the
producers should have given more details.

The one interesting point was how they highlighted the areas of the
impact (quite flat) and how Steve may have tried to crawl out of the
bush (because he was found 3/4 of a mile away and scavengers wouldn't
have dragged the body that far).

So what are the theories? Weather? Medical? Airframe? A
combination? The one piece of clear evidence is that the plane
impacted straight ahead at a very high speed to do that much damage.
This implies IMHO that Steve had nearly zero time to react.

Possibilities are;

- Weather (i.e. fog, rain) obscured the mountain. Was fog seen
around this area at the time of the accident? Could a microburst or
wave rotor create the same impact pattern?
- Steve was totally incapacitated (i.e. heartattack). But he was in
very good shape for his age.
- Some critical part of the airplane broke (i.e. elevator). Would the
impact have been nose down?
- Terrain (box canyon) - While this is possible I would think that
Steve would have pulled up sharply (and slowed down) as he got to the
end of the canyon. The debris field would have been signicantly
different. IMHO.
- Forced Landing (out of fuel, etc) - Fossett would have tried for a
landing (which was implied in the show). I would think that this
would have been a low speed event. The airplane might have
cartwheeled or gotten wrapped up in a tree, but it would not have been
utterly distroyed.

So my money is on an airframe failure, with fog as a second choice and
medical as a third. Again, we may never know. My $2.02.

Finally, Google was providing high resolution satellite images during
the web based search effort. We now know the coordinates of the crash
site. What, if anything, can be seen on the high-res images? The
normally available low resolution satellite images don't shown nearly
enough detail.

- John

[Larry Goddard]

"ContestID67" > wrote in message
:

<SNIP>
> Finally, Google was providing high resolution satellite images during
> the web based search effort. We now know the coordinates of the crash
> site. What, if anything, can be seen on the high-res images? The
> normally available low resolution satellite images don't shown nearly
> enough detail.
>
> - John


I recall reading right after they found the wreckage that the crash site
was outside (west of) the high-res area being searched.

Larry "01"

[db_sonic]

> Possibilities are;
>
> - Weather (i.e. fog, rain) obscured the mountain. * Was fog seen
> around this area at the time of the accident? * Could a microburst or
> wave rotor create the same impact pattern?


No fog. Turbulent, yes. We flew that day at TAGARs (Truckee glider
race). While I can't vouch for the conditions at Mammoth, I am pretty
sure it was similar to Truckee. We had bright blue conditions at TRK
with SW winds 20kts increasing thoughout the day to 30kts in the BL.
I remember looking south in that direction and seeing nice Cus develop
in the afternoon in the 15k range thinking, forget the race, why
didn't I go south..it looks really good(ya I had no chance of
winning). Steve was flying earlier in the day so it was most likely
blue but the winds were probably there. I couldnt tell from the
documentary if he then landed with the wind.

[JJ Sinclair]

On Dec 2, 4:13*pm, db_sonic > wrote:
> > Possibilities are;
>
> > - Weather (i.e. fog, rain) obscured the mountain. * Was fog seen
> > around this area at the time of the accident? * Could a microburst or
> > wave rotor create the same impact pattern?
>
> No fog. Turbulent, yes. *We flew that day at TAGARs (Truckee glider
> race). *While I can't vouch for the conditions at Mammoth, I am pretty
> sure it was similar to Truckee. *We had bright blue conditions at TRK
> with SW winds 20kts increasing thoughout the day to 30kts in the BL.
> I remember looking south in that direction and seeing nice Cus develop
> in the afternoon in the 15k range thinking, forget the race, why
> didn't I go south..it looks really good(ya I had no chance of
> winning). *Steve was flying earlier in the day so it was most likely
> blue but the winds were probably there. *I couldnt tell from the
> documentary if he then landed with the wind.

I believe the answer lies in Steve's mind-set that day, we know he
buzzed a ranch hand shortly after takeoff. The NTSB has removed the
accident report to update after finding the ship, but the original
report stated Steve was seen between 100 and 200 feet near 9-mile
ranch. He was having fun! If he was flying with that mind-set near the
crest of the Sierras on a windy day.........................
JJ

[CindyASK]

On Dec 3, 6:56 am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> On Dec 2, 4:13 pm, db_sonic > wrote:
>
> > > Possibilities are;
>
> > > - Weather (
snipped > > No fog. Turbulent, yes. We flew that day at TAGARs
(Truckee glider
> > race). While I can't vouch for the conditions at Mammoth, I am pretty
> > sure it was similar to Truckee.

>
> I believe the answer lies in Steve's mind-set that day, we know he
> buzzed a ranch hand shortly after takeoff. The NTSB has removed the
> accident report to update after finding the ship, but the original
> report stated Steve was seen between 100 and 200 feet near 9-mile
> ranch. He was having fun!

Gad zooks. The Discovery program and RAS drivel drives me nuts.
NTSB isn’t likely to find anything conclusive that we don’t already
know.
I’ve already had these discussions with most of my students and
customers and many persons of the public who know I fly.

Possibilities are: Weather, Mechanical Failure, Pilot Failure.

Weather - nope. Unless there was a density altitude issue. And some
other crazy elements that make less sense and probability.

It was a gorgeous soaring day.
My customers flew 750 km triangles, and 500 km O&Rs that day from Cal
City. The 750 km pilot flew within 11 miles of the crash site at
about 2 pm at 14,500 msl, and the 500km pilot was within 35 miles, on
the Whites. There was a sniff of cumulus OD in the much later
afternoon. There was not a sniff of the vicious Sierra wave, nor
those dreadful ‘shear’ zones reported by Discovery Channel. And no
one seems to wish to recall that Steve had actually flown a few days
of wave, and might be wary of those conditions in a little Bellanca
with a moderately powered airframe. Or would this then be an
indication of a less than “world class pilot”?

I think JJ is a lot closer in his surmisings than most folks.
It was a pretty day, and a guy was out in a little airplane looking at
some of the most breathtaking scenery available on this continent.
Based on the apparent heading of whacking the surface, I’d guess he
was headed back north towards a light lunch.

Mechanical failure - Statistically, we don’t see many in flight
breakups of even
poorly maintained airframes. There was no reason to think this one
was poorly maintained. The MOST common cause of airplanes out landing
didn’t seem to apply here. The airframe burnt on impact, so it had
some fuel on board.

Could there have been a moment of carburator icing? Sure. Could the
mixture have run rich and caused an interruption of power? Possibly.
Would those things alone cause a pilot to run into the ground at fast
speed? Hmmm.

Why was it going fast on impact? Perhaps the airframe broke. We’ll
wait for the NTSB for another 9 months to hear that answer. I was
curious about the prop blade/shank that was shown as mostly intact,
and not hardly marked nor twisted and separate from the wreckage. Not
knowing its location relative to the bulk of the parts, it is
impossible to conclude if it left the machine pre-or post-impact.
High speed usually means high prop rpm, so it is curious to have it be
relatively unscathed. High-speed impact onto rocks means that parts
will tend to remain in motion until friction slows them down.
A shallow impact angle means more spreading of parts. 200 mph for a
Bellanca is howlingly fast, and won’t happen without the nose being
pointed down some.



Medical Factors –
Well, Steve was 63 years old. Jim Fixx, a renowned personal distance
runner, dropped dead of a heart attack at age 52. We all know that
aviation medicals do not actually predict sudden incapacitation.
Incapacitation can happen for many reasons, stroke, heart attack,
eschemia, medication, and illness. http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/cb/cb_198.pdf

From the FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine in a study of airline
pilots:
“The most frequent categories of incapacitation were loss of
consciousness, cardiac, neurological, and gastrointestinal. Safety of
flight was seriously impacted in seven of the 47 flights and resulted
in two non-fatal accidents. “ http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0416.pdf


If Steve was not aware at impact, how to explain speed and seat belts
perhaps being loose? Have you ever unbuckled to rearrange in your
seat for a moment or two? If the moment coincided with a big whacking
thermal bump in the later morning hours over rising ground, couldn’t a
head be struck on tubing in the cockpit? A loose, sturdy body slumped
forward over a stick would certainly have pointed the nose down.

Or, a pilot who perhaps did survive impact might have unbuckled to try
to exit.
Or, a scavenger wouldn’t have any trouble scrabbling around and
dragging a nail across a Pacific Scientific buckle and having it
unlatch. Or a limp torso in not snug belts, leaning into a stick
might just poke the buckle into the stick top and rotate the hub. I
have seen pilots rotate a stick in a cockpit and easily unlatch their
belts on their own bellies during preflight checks. It is not beyond
comprehension.

Will we ever have a concrete answer? Not in my mind. The body isn’t
available for autopsy, which likely wouldn’t yield an answer on
incapacitation anyway. Will the NTSB get a ‘good’ handle on the
mechanical possibilities? Maybe. Why bother? No one else was
killed; there is no liability issue, and no air transport safety
issue.

We as aviators should take away from this loss of a fellow pilot the
information to apply to our own flying, which will either prevent our
demise, or simplify the recovery for our loved ones, and diminish bad
press for aviation to the public.

File at least an informal flight plan with friends, to give them a
route to retrace. Take communications equipment with you to use,
should you interrupt your flight before the destination. If you fly
over remote or inaccessible areas, consider equipping the airframe
with an auto-reporting function of ELTs, APRS or Spot functioning
systems. Remember that in this case, an ELT was of little service to
Steve or to Search and Rescue efforts. Have a landout kit that
provides shelter and sustenance for a couple days.

This flight did nothing to improve the case of general or recreational
aviation in the eyes of the public. And Discovery Channel did general
aviation no service here either. Let’s see if at least some soaring
pilots can garner some benefit from the tragedy.

Cindy B

[Hellman]

On Dec 2, JJ wrote:
> > Steve was seen between 100 and 200 feet near 9-mile
> > ranch. He was having fun!

On Dec 3, 6:59 pm, CindyASK > wrote:
> Possibilities are: *Weather, Mechanical Failure, Pilot Failure.

Another possibility that is relevant whether or not it was the cause
of Steve's accident: Flying close to terrain leaves little room for
error and needs to be better recognized as incurring risk. John
Denver's fatal crash would probably have been a non-incident if he'd
been at 2000 feet instead of <500 (per NTSB report) when he messed up
changing fuel tanks. In the PASCO Safety Seminar talk I gave last year
I proposed five "99.9% safe" maneuvers, and it's telling that four
involve flying close to terrain. BTW, a 99.9% safe maneuver is not
that safe! I won't repeat the arguments here since the talk is on line
at

http://ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/soaring/PASCO_2007_talk.html

Martin