NTSB releases probable cause for Steve Fossett crash

[Jim Logajan]

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1

Thanks for the link

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Jim Logajan]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1
>
> Thanks for the link

I almost made the mistake of linking to one of the news stories.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1

Thanks for that. Ultimately nothing too surprising. Turbulence exceeded
his plane's performance, and he ran out of airspeed, altitude, and ideas
before it let up. Certainly, turbulence can be violent in that area when
the winds are as described.

Still, good to know, and good to think about. If it can happen to him,
it could happen to you!

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Gezellig]

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:44:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1

How long after first impact should it take for the ELT to kick out a
call on frequency?

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Gezellig > wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:44:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1
>
> How long after first impact should it take for the ELT to kick out a
> call on frequency?

I assume pretty quickly, but if you're referring to the Fossett crash,
note that the NTSB report says the ELT was destroyed on impact.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Gezellig]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:01:43 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

> In article >,
> Gezellig > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:44:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1
>>
>> How long after first impact should it take for the ELT to kick out a
>> call on frequency?
>
> I assume pretty quickly, but if you're referring to the Fossett crash,
> note that the NTSB report says the ELT was destroyed on impact.

I didn't catch the "on impact" only that it was destroyed. I guess they
judged that no signal meant destroyed on strike, must have been a hell
of a crash reading through the report.

I'm looking at the pictures, wow, not pretty. Do all the S Decathlons
have clear canopies?

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Gezellig > wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:01:43 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Gezellig > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:44:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1
> >>
> >> How long after first impact should it take for the ELT to kick out a
> >> call on frequency?
> >
> > I assume pretty quickly, but if you're referring to the Fossett crash,
> > note that the NTSB report says the ELT was destroyed on impact.
>
> I didn't catch the "on impact" only that it was destroyed. I guess they
> judged that no signal meant destroyed on strike, must have been a hell
> of a crash reading through the report.

Oops, you're right, I must have subconsciously assumed the "on impact".
Seems probable that the impact is what destroyed it, but it doesn't say
that, and it certainly could have happened later (e.g. in the fire). My
apologies.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Gezellig]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:40:06 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

> In article >,
> Gezellig > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:01:43 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Gezellig > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:44:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1
>>>>
>>>> How long after first impact should it take for the ELT to kick out a
>>>> call on frequency?
>>>
>>> I assume pretty quickly, but if you're referring to the Fossett crash,
>>> note that the NTSB report says the ELT was destroyed on impact.
>>
>> I didn't catch the "on impact" only that it was destroyed. I guess they
>> judged that no signal meant destroyed on strike, must have been a hell
>> of a crash reading through the report.
>
> Oops, you're right, I must have subconsciously assumed the "on impact".
> Seems probable that the impact is what destroyed it, but it doesn't say
> that, and it certainly could have happened later (e.g. in the fire). My
> apologies.

That's what led to my question. I've never had the "opportunity" to set
off an ELT but I thought they were required to have a gyro or gravity or
some kind of ability to detect crash instantaneously and play out to
406.

CAP was combing the area by the NTSB with no report of transmission so I
suppose we can extrapolate that a severe enough impact can render the
ELT useless. I am guessing where the AC took the initial hit would be
important too in relation ot the positioning of the ELT in the AC.

[vaughn[_2_]]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> Oops, you're right, I must have subconsciously assumed the "on impact".
> Seems probable that the impact is what destroyed it, but it doesn't say
> that, and it certainly could have happened later (e.g. in the fire). My
> apologies.

If it were the fire, then the ELT would be history within 2 or three minutes
of the crash. It would be long-gone hours before anyone was listening for
it.

Depending on the type of installation, another possibility is that an ELT
can simply get separated from its external antenna. That would greatly
reduce its range (from a matter of miles to a matter of feet). From the
choice of words "destroyed" that was apparently not the case in this crash.

Vaughn

[John Clear]

In article >,
Gezellig > wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:44:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1
>
>How long after first impact should it take for the ELT to kick out a
>call on frequency?

If the ELT isn't destroyed in the crash, it usually doesn't go off until
the wreckage is hauled away.

406 ELTs are slightly better then 121.5 ELTs in terms of false
positives (ELT goes off with no crash), but in real crashes, they
both have extremely high failure rates.

I don't have access to the stats any more, but when I was in CAP,
something like 98% of ELT searches where false activations, and
ELTs failed to activate in about 95% of all crashes. Numbers are
from memory, so might be off by a bit, but the magnitude of the issue
should be obvious.

Being on flight following and/or getting off a Mayday before crashing
greatly increase your chances of being found. Manually triggering
your ELT before impact might help, if it survives the impact.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[spanky]

On Jul 10, 6:48*am, Gezellig > wrote:
>
> CAP was combing the area by the NTSB with no report of transmission so I
> suppose we can extrapolate that a severe enough impact can render the
> ELT useless. I am guessing where the AC took the initial hit would be
> important too in relation ot the positioning of the ELT in the AC.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

....i think we can infer from the following description of damage, from
the information found on the NTSB Summary's "Full Narrative" link,
that listening for an ELT signal, regardless of where it was installed
in the aircraft, was moot:

"The airplane was severely fragmented and a severe post crash fire
burned most of the structure and surrounding vegetation. The first
evidence of ground contact was a boulder with paint transfers on it
consistent with the left main wheel and the belly of the airplane. "

"All of the cockpit instruments and avionics were destroyed. Pieces of
instruments were found scattered throughout the debris field. The
airplane's ELT was destroyed; numerous pieces of its orange plastic
case and internal circuit board components were found scattered in the
debris field."

....and this:

"The engine sustained severe impact damage. The crankshaft was broken
off about 3.5 inches inside the nose case, a piece of the nose case
was broken out, and the front thrust bearing was partially extruded,
bent and deformed. All accessories and the oil sump were stripped from
the engine. The cylinder heads of the right side cylinders (#1 and #3)
were destroyed; the impact crush angle measured at the lower #1
cylinder barrel was 39 degrees."

....and finally:

"The front seat frame was bent, deformed and crushed to a size about
one third of its original dimension."

S McF

[gpsman]

On Jul 9, 10:14*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
>
> If it can happen to him,
> it could happen to you!

And that's the most important thing this low hours pilot takes from
every crash report.

I'm not afraid to die, I just don't want to bend a perfectly good
airplane in the process.

As this relates to trucking, an area where I have more expertise, it
is often the most experienced drivers who are involved in the most
serious incidents.
-----

- gpsman

[Gezellig]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:44:52 +0000 (UTC), John Clear wrote:

> In article >,
> Gezellig > wrote:
>>On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:44:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1
>>
>>How long after first impact should it take for the ELT to kick out a
>>call on frequency?
>
> If the ELT isn't destroyed in the crash, it usually doesn't go off until
> the wreckage is hauled away.
>
> 406 ELTs are slightly better then 121.5 ELTs in terms of false
> positives (ELT goes off with no crash), but in real crashes, they
> both have extremely high failure rates.

Tell me about it. Mine went off on a maintenance tow :(

> I don't have access to the stats any more, but when I was in CAP,
> something like 98% of ELT searches where false activations, and
> ELTs failed to activate in about 95% of all crashes. Numbers are
> from memory, so might be off by a bit, but the magnitude of the issue
> should be obvious.

Holy s**t, I never knew, now I feel better.

> Being on flight following and/or getting off a Mayday before crashing
> greatly increase your chances of being found. Manually triggering
> your ELT before impact might help, if it survives the impact.
>
> John

Thx.

[Peter Dohm]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:44:52 +0000 (UTC), John Clear wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Gezellig > wrote:
>>>On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:44:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1
>>>
>>>How long after first impact should it take for the ELT to kick out a
>>>call on frequency?
>>
>> If the ELT isn't destroyed in the crash, it usually doesn't go off until
>> the wreckage is hauled away.
>>
>> 406 ELTs are slightly better then 121.5 ELTs in terms of false
>> positives (ELT goes off with no crash), but in real crashes, they
>> both have extremely high failure rates.
>
> Tell me about it. Mine went off on a maintenance tow :(
>
>> I don't have access to the stats any more, but when I was in CAP,
>> something like 98% of ELT searches where false activations, and
>> ELTs failed to activate in about 95% of all crashes. Numbers are
>> from memory, so might be off by a bit, but the magnitude of the issue
>> should be obvious.
>
> Holy s**t, I never knew, now I feel better.
>
>> Being on flight following and/or getting off a Mayday before crashing
>> greatly increase your chances of being found. Manually triggering
>> your ELT before impact might help, if it survives the impact.
>>
>> John
>
> Thx.

This seems to really involve more than one subject:

1) In the particular case of Steve Fossett; it appears that timely
location would have made no difference at all for Mr Fossett, but admittedly
would have saved a tremendous amount of effort and also expedited and
simplified the settlement of his estate. (As a side note, simply as
serendipity, the search for Mr Fossett did appear to uncover the answers to
some other misteries which had been under investigation for some time.)

2) One of the major arguments for the adoption of the 406Mhz system was
the ever expanding use of the 121.5Mhz beacons by hikers, boaters, and
probably others as well. IIRC, the new beacons were supposed to be
available for the various uses so that searchers would have greater reason
to presume which type of incident might be involved. (I have not ket up,
and don't know whether the change has helped; but there do seem to be some
similarities to the use of other emergency response systems.)

3) When I was working on avionics, it seemed to me that about three
fourths of all radio problems that I saw were airframe wiring as opposed to
inside the radios. The radios themselves have probably gotten more reliable
in the years since, so I would be amazed if the change to 406Mhz has made
much more difference in physical reliability than would have been the case
if all of the old 121.5Mhz beacons were completely removed and then
completely reinstalled during the same time period.

4) In the event that most false or inadvertant activations actually occur
on airports, which would certainly make sense, then there should be a fairly
simple and cost effective method to observe, locate and deactivate the
beacons in question.

5) Crashes that occur away from the airports, where a search operation is
needed, probably involve a very small percentage of pilots and passengers
over their lifetimes. I really don't know how small that percentage is; but
if the percentage is as small as I suspect, then there is some question
about whether any system makes sense--with the exception of post crash
beacons in aircraft carrying passengers commercially and possibly combat
aircraft. (If the lifetime probability, for the participants in the
activity, is only one or two percent, then it is long past time to reopen
the debate about general aviation fleetwide use in terms of its value versus
cost in money, time, effort, freedom and privacy.)

Peter

[John Clear]

In article >,
Peter Dohm > wrote:
>
>2) One of the major arguments for the adoption of the 406Mhz system was
>the ever expanding use of the 121.5Mhz beacons by hikers, boaters, and
>probably others as well. IIRC, the new beacons were supposed to be
>available for the various uses so that searchers would have greater reason
>to presume which type of incident might be involved. (I have not ket up,
>and don't know whether the change has helped; but there do seem to be some
>similarities to the use of other emergency response systems.)

406Mhz ELT/EPIRB/PRB emit a distinct identifier and are supposed
to be registered, so false positives can often be taken care of
with a phone call and not a SAR team going out at 2am looking for
it.

>4) In the event that most false or inadvertant activations actually occur
>on airports, which would certainly make sense, then there should be a fairly
>simple and cost effective method to observe, locate and deactivate the
>beacons in question.

Most false activations are on airports (or marinas, EPIRBs are on
121.5/406 as well). Tracking down which specific plane/boat is
still very time consuming with 121.5 beacons. With 406 beacons,
it is much easier, if they are registered. Especially at airports,
the metal hangars make finding the activated 121.5 beacon very
challenging since the signal reflects all over the place.

Another unfun one to track is when someone sends a ELT/EBIRP in for
servicing, but doesn't remove the batteries. UPS trucks have
plastic tops, so the signal hits the satellite just fine, but
tracking the moving target from the ground is nearly impossible.

>5) Crashes that occur away from the airports, where a search operation is
>needed, probably involve a very small percentage of pilots and passengers
>over their lifetimes. I really don't know how small that percentage is; but
>if the percentage is as small as I suspect, then there is some question
>about whether any system makes sense--with the exception of post crash
>beacons in aircraft carrying passengers commercially and possibly combat
>aircraft. (If the lifetime probability, for the participants in the
>activity, is only one or two percent, then it is long past time to reopen
>the debate about general aviation fleetwide use in terms of its value versus
>cost in money, time, effort, freedom and privacy.)

ELTs were originally mandated by Congress after Congressman Hale
Boggs's plane went missing in 1972 (and still hasn't been found).
There never was a serious discussion of the cost/benefits of ELTs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hale_Boggs#Disappearance_and_search

I haven't seen any stats, but I feel the number of survivable
crashes where an ELT assisted in the rescue is very small. On the
water, a large number of rescues have been the result of EPIRB
activations. I've heard ELTs referred to as ballast, since the
most useful thing they do is move the CG aft.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Gezellig]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:37:22 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

> 5) Crashes that occur away from the airports, where a search operation is
> needed, probably involve a very small percentage of pilots and passengers
> over their lifetimes. I really don't know how small that percentage is; but
> if the percentage is as small as I suspect, then there is some question
> about whether any system makes sense--with the exception of post crash
> beacons in aircraft carrying passengers commercially and possibly combat
> aircraft. (If the lifetime probability, for the participants in the
> activity, is only one or two percent, then it is long past time to reopen
> the debate about general aviation fleetwide use in terms of its value versus
> cost in money, time, effort, freedom and privacy.)
>
> Peter

I was told but never confirmed that it was a prerequisite for insuring
the plane and, potentially, the pilot.

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:34:43 +0000 (UTC), John Clear wrote:

> I haven't seen any stats, but I feel the number of survivable
> crashes where an ELT assisted in the rescue is very small. On the
> water, a large number of rescues have been the result of EPIRB
> activations. I've heard ELTs referred to as ballast, since the
> most useful thing they do is move the CG aft.

Do you know if there is a mandated position on any plane where the ELT
must be installed? Or is it mfg preference (so to properly balance CG,
etc)

[Ron Wanttaja[_2_]]

Gezellig wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:37:22 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:
>
>> 5) Crashes that occur away from the airports, where a search operation is
>> needed, probably involve a very small percentage of pilots and passengers
>> over their lifetimes. I really don't know how small that percentage is; but
>> if the percentage is as small as I suspect, then there is some question
>> about whether any system makes sense--with the exception of post crash
>> beacons in aircraft carrying passengers commercially and possibly combat
>> aircraft. (If the lifetime probability, for the participants in the
>> activity, is only one or two percent, then it is long past time to reopen
>> the debate about general aviation fleetwide use in terms of its value versus
>> cost in money, time, effort, freedom and privacy.)
>
> I was told but never confirmed that it was a prerequisite for insuring
> the plane and, potentially, the pilot.

I flew a plane for seven-eight years without an ELT, and the insurance
carrier never seemed to care. That was just a liability policy, though.

Ron Wanttaja