aximbigfan

is anyone else really weirded out by the whole thing?

my dad (aero space engineer) seems to think that he is running away. im not so sure, although it is weird. i do have quit a bit of experience with aircraft, and have recently (4 weeks ago) started becoming interested in becoming active in it again, note i said again.

a few interesting points...
*he had 2 different emergency transmitters, nether went off implying that the "crash" was: too light to cause the sensor to trip, so hard that the trans. was shattered/damaged before it was able to send anything (1), or that he turned both off

*he wasn't wearing a parachute. although its not required, the aircraft he was in was aerobatic capable, and if you intended to fly aerobatic you MUST under law, wear a parachute. he had no intentions to fly that way, but it is still a point.

*he had 4 full tanks (upon further review, it was just the standard left-right tanks, 2 total). the B/S/D (Bellanca Super Decathlon) is a pretty light plane, doesn't use alot of fuel. aviation experts feel free to correct me, but 4(2, see note above)) full tanks seems a bit excessive for 3 hours.

---
(1): not much can cause an impact that high,(2)(3)
++wing snap (extremely unlikely, those wings are pretty damn strong )
++fuse snap, again (i have been in a decathlon last week during an eaa meeting)) the thing is pretty sturdy and due to its aerobatic nature has braces out the ying-yang.

(2) both of these are very, very unlikely, especially because this aircraft was built for aerobatic proposes it is VERY, VERY strong, besides, where is the wreckage(4)?

(3) for the impact to be that high, the aircraft would pretty much need to fall out of the sky like a rock. these are the only 2 scenarios that i could come up with, in which there would be no recovery, for those of you wondering, i have heard of aircraft landing safely after a part of the tail falling off.

(4)yes, i do know that they are still searching..

as for the "tin foil hat crowd out there, who believe that he mistakenly fly over the restricted airspace over A51 and was promptly shot down, this is completely wrong, for a few reasons:
++A51 is no longer active due to chemical hazards
++if he did, then don't you think A51 would say something to him before they fired a missile at him?
++a missile is expensive, why would they shoot him down is they could just tell him to get the f**** out of there before they had to shoot him?

comments?

chris

CodeBubba

Yeah, this one does seem weird. I find it very odd that the ELT failed - those are built to withstand a lot of abuse. Still ... accidents do happen. Sometimes even a seasoned pilot can make a mistake. When I got my ticket I was told "here is your license to LEARN". It never stops. I think Steve was flying in the mountains. That's an art in and of itself - if he got caught in a heavy downdraft his plane might have really gotten smashed.

Still ... very odd.

-CB

Pocketbrain

How about a link?

Quote:

Searchers looking for Steve Fossett have come across six uncharted plane crashes, but none of the wrecks sheds light on what may have happened to the multimillionaire adventurer.

Interesting. Perhaps some other missing persons will be resolved, and their bones finally put to rest.

aximbigfan

i just got back from an eaa meeting (experimental aircraft assoc.) and a few things need to be straightened out.

*the rumor abotu the 4 full fuel tanks is wrong. it was the standard 2 tanks, one in the left strake, and one in the right strake.

*the ELT has been known to fail. the antenna is located on top of the airraft, and if the aircraft crashes inverted, the antenna has been known to snap, before sending a mayday signal. this doesn't account for his survival watch though

chris

jadesse

It is tragic but he is pushing up daisies. I hope I am wrong.