Steve Fosset & Plane Missing

Thread locked

CHECK YOUR PRIVATE MESSAGES

Any more posts off topic will be deleted, Algorithm21 if you want to force your views onto us regarding the benefits of flying “a more up to date and safer aircraft” then please start another thread.

Start a new thread???? STEVE FOSSET IS MISSING AND THE REASON IS HE WAS IN THE WRONG AIRCRAFT FOR THE JOB, I am sorry if I am upsetting your sensibilities by pointing out the bloody obvious, FLYING ANTIQUATED CRAP IS INHERENTLY DANGEROUS !!!!
I don’t think I will bother you Luddites any more!!! you are obviously happy flying crap, IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
Next time you are standing at a grave, farewelling one of your luddite mate’s after his suicidal museum piece killed him, TAKE NOTE!!!!!! If you keep flying this antiquated crap, it will eventually kill you, JUST ASK STEVE FOSSET

OVER & OUT!!!!;)

Any more posts off topic will be deleted, Algorithm21 if you want to force your views onto us regarding the benefits of flying “a more up to date and safer aircraft” then please start another thread.

As an Australian, you should really be discussing the equipment requirements for surviving in the Bush should the worst happen.

If you want to discuss the skills, equipment and techniques required to survive the other side of the black stump, go for your life mate, it is critically important knowledge for anyone flying in Australia, I will read it with interest, as for me?? I am trying to drag general aviation into the 21st century, much to the consternation of the LUDDITES. All the best mate. 🙂

learning in the aviation eqivolent of a morris 1000. something 90% of the population here in England would not consider.Lets continue elsewhere.

If you have an open mind, and really want to talk about the aircraft that we should be flying in the 21st century see you at http://www.aviationblogger.com/blog/?w=Algorithm21:)

missed the entire point of private flying. If you believe in total safety you will NEVER get in a car again as they are DEFINITELY MORE DANGEROUS than aeroplanes.You obviously believe in the ”Nanny State”

I started flying in 1965 when I was in the RAF, my first solo was in a Slingby T21 ( THE BARGE ) I then went on to accumulate 100s of hrs on gliders such as Slingby Swallow, Grunno Baby 11,Forvell,( flying wing ), skylark 11, ASW 15, I even had the terrifying privilege of flying a Primary glider ( winch and aero tow ) In 1971 I met Gerry Breen of micrlight fame, he and I spent quite some time throwing ourselves off very large hills under what was then the first rogalo hang glider in the UK, try flying 75lbs of black ploy sheet and scaffolding tubes rigged with nylon cord 500ft above an English hill,!!!!!! If it’s adventure you are after !!!
I obtained my unrestricted PPL in 1984, and now fly anything I can lay my hands on,

And you think I have missed the point of private flying and believe in the Nanny state!!!!!! I DON”T THINK SO !!!

The point is, there is no reason we should be flying aircraft designed pre 1960, they have horrendously inefficient aerodynamics, stupendously inefficient engines and unreliable equipment.

As for your assertion that cars are definitely more dangerous than aircraft.
The mind boggles!!!!!!!!!!
(1) when a car engine quits just after you leave the garage, it doesn’t force you to find a open area at least 600ft long to park it at 60mph 15 seconds after it stoped , in fact very few people die due to car engine failure.

(2) when the driver of a car gets lost day or night in any weather, he stops and asks directions. Try that at 80 – 120kts in any aircraft. Very few cars are never seen again, funny that maybe it’s because the wheels never leave the ground.

I could go on & on & on suffice to say that if you really believe that cars are safer than aircraft you should not be flying, the very nature of the medium that aircraft operate in makes flying inherently dangerous, why make it more dangerous for no good reason, by flying crap!!!

All I ask is why are we being given crap by the manufacturers???????
They know and we know there is much much better technology available.
😉

Do all American pilots share this devil may care attitude to flying.????????

I would guess to one of Mr Fossett’s experience setting off for a quiet bimble in a trusted and delightful-to-fly aircraft with the intention of scouting a few sites for a possible car run would hardly have seemed like a project fraught with danger. I can perfectly understand why he left no particular details of where he was headed.

To me, it would be more of an ‘adventure’ and I probably would, but then I don’t have a thousandth of his experience.

I frequently fly my ragwing from our grass strip here in East Anglia. I would never think of telling anybody where I was planning to go, ‘just in case’.

A whole different scale of risk, but from Mr Fossetts standpoint I guess it would have seemed similar.

Unfortunately the ‘split thread’ facility is down or I would move the ‘why fly old aircraft’ discussion onto a separate thread.

But at least we do seem to be agreed that the ‘no flight plan’ comment is a genuine red herring and we are settled on ‘he should have told somebody the direction he was headed’. With 20/20 hindsight I can fully agree with that.

Moggy

Ahem. The TwinPin is also little over 50 years old. The Islander is also pushing 50, so what is your point about the Citabria being too old?

My point is!!!! of all the museum pieces available the Decathlon would be far from the top of any list of aircraft suitable to this task,
If I was forced to take a single engine aircraft, I would suggest the Pilatus Pc6 as a possible contender, the Pc6 design is at least 40 years old.
At no time did I suggest Skyvans etc were any younger!!! Only that any one of the aircraft I suggested would have given Steve Fosset a better than fair chance of returning, which after all is said and done is the object of the exercise, no prize if you are dead!!!!!!!!!
😉

failing that a twin turboprop such as the Shorts Skyvan or the Twin Pioneer or even a Brit & Norman Islander would do the trick, and you would even stand a good chance of surviving the trip.

Ahem. Considering your comments about the “non suitablity” of a Citabria for the task in hand, due to mainly, it´s age, I would like to point to you the fact that the Shots Skyvan is already about 50 years old, and is based very firmly on the Miles Aerovan of 1946. The TwinPin is also little over 50 years old. The Islander is also pushing 50, so what is your point about the Citabria being too old?

looks like this thread has gone off topic..

Rick

Fosset disappearance

PS, It might reduce the accident level on roads if people had to learn in Moggy 1000s

Steve Fosset Search

Algorithm 21, It seems to me that you have missed the entire point of private flying. If you believe in total safety you will NEVER get in a car again as they are DEFINITELY MORE DANGEROUS than aeroplanes.
As to flight plans they are unable to forecast where an incident will occur, if you wish to protect search and rescue teams from spending time and perhaps injury in remote places we need to erect a 20 foot high wall around all remote areas of the UK including all mountains, moorland, rivers and lakes to prevent anyone being hurt. You obviously believe in the ”Nanny State”

staart a new thread algorithm21 ,as a wannabe pilot i realise I will most probably be learning in the aviation eqivolent of a morris 1000. something 90% of the population here in England would not consider.Lets continue elsewhere.

Do all American pilots share this devil may care attitude to flying.????????

Silly question.
The U.S. GA accident rate is very good. Could be better or course, but vastly better than years ago.
And if you think there are a lot of crashes, remember the size of the GA fleet and hours flown.

If your beef is with the evolution of GA aircraft, then start another thread. But this is to do with Steve Fossett’s disappearance.

As an Australian, you should really be discussing the equipment requirements for surviving in the Bush should the worst happen.

[QUOTE=J Boyle;1161319]

For an observation flight scouting dry lakes, it’s an excellent choice.
What you you recommend…a Lear 35?:rolleyes:

[B
The aircraft in question was made in 1980. hardly old by general aviation standards.

Ok Let’s split hair’s if we must, the 7-series Champ was designed in 1944 and first manufactured 1945. So let’s see now, my god !!!the design is only 63 years old, and you regard this as almost brand spanking new, Give me a brake !!! It is the aerodynamic equivalent of a 1948 VW COMBI and the engine would fit. How many people do you know that drive cars designed in 1944 ???????? NONE there is a good reason for that.

Don’t you ever wonder why general aviation has been condemned to live in the twilight zone of the C172, Decathlon, and the like, when we have the technology to manufacture F22s. A380s, Avanti‘s,
In the past 60 years general aviation has not reaped the benefit of any aerodynamic development to speak of, but all other forms of aviation have made quantum leaps, why is this technology not filtering down to general aviation??? and don’t tell me the problem is time or money there has been plenty of both flung around over the years. come on lads have a go what do you think is holding general aviation in this holding pattern.

As for the Decathlon being the best tool for the job of landing on dry lakes in tiger country, not in your dreams!!!! If safety of the mission is considered, the only aircraft for the job would be a twin engine helicopter first choice, failing that a twin turboprop such as the Shorts Skyvan or the Twin Pioneer or even a Brit & Norman Islander would do, if I was forced the fly a single engine aircraft, a Pilatus PC6 would be close to the top of my list, and you would even stand a good chance of surviving the trip.
What possessed Steve to chose a Decathlon??, when he could have any aircraft, he is or was a bloody millionaire and one of the best pilots America has produced.

Just what would you fill in on the flight plan for such a flight? Should make interesting reading.

Moggy

I thought that a discussion on why we are still flying aircraft that belong in a museum might perk things up till they find Steve, and BINGO!!! You did not disappoint me, so lets have at it !!

MOGGY C So you would have me believe that by choice,

(1) You would select an aircraft with a similar WING LOADING and engine to the Citabria when going on a recce, and that is your first choice to fly into a area that is renowned for dangerous unpredictable and apparently very strong winds, extremely strong downdrafts and rotor is not uncommon.

(2) You are quite prepared to do this without any form of flight plan or SAR watch.!!! All you have to do is tell someone anyone, roughly where you are going ie, “ I am going to look at some areas 150nm –300nm north east of here, I will be back before last light “ Now how hard is that to on the phone to SAR watch,????? Now when you crash in your first choice museum piece, at least they will have some clue as to the location of your body.

I was wondering why the search was finding so many crashed aircraft in the area, most of which the authorities have no record of, but now I know why,!!!!

What you do in the air is only irrelevant when you are SOLO, and if people don’t have to risk their lives trying to rescue you from your white knuckle adventure.
Do all American pilots share this devil may care attitude to flying.????????

I don’t know where to start.
I haven’t seen a such a tirade aganst GA since Ralph Nader’s comments awhile back.

NOW YOU HAVE GO ME GOING can anyone tell me why Steve was flying the equivalent of a model T Ford into Tiger country “Wilderness” in yank speak when he obviously has the resources to obtain any aircraft that he desired,

For an observation flight scouting dry lakes, it’s an excellent choice.
What you you recommend…a Lear 35?:rolleyes:

please don’t tell me how strong, stable, manoeuvrable, forgiving & agile this good old plane is, I know I know!!! they are a nice old aircraft to fly, the operative word being OLD!!!! the airframe was designed in the 1920s

Wrong, the Aeronca…the Champ type which morphed into Citabrias…not the “bathtub aeroncas…were designed in the mid to late 30s.
The aircraft in question was made in 1980. hardly old by general aviation standards.
And since it is owned by Mr. Hilton, I’d guess it was well maintained.

What is going on ??? why is this rubbish still being produced ???

The Citabria…and Husky…and the new build LSA-certified Aeronca and Cubs are still a great plane for their missions.
We’re not talking about shooting an ILS at O’Hare.:rolleyes:
I’ll agree with Moggy, I’d still rather have a plane like this over a “tupperware” plastic…(BTW the 150 isn’t “Tupperware” call it a “Spam can” if you want , but not plastic:rolleyes: ) LSA with a Rotax engine.
The point is, there is still a market for these aircraft.
I have a friend with a TBM 700, a new Turbo 206…but he also has a Husky for area pleasure flights…and he trusted it enough to have his 18 year old daughter earn her PPL in it.

The truly pleasant thing about flying is that you can get immense enjoyment out of actually being airborne. What you choose to do it in is irrelevant.

If I was going on a recce, a slow high-wing aircraft would be my first choice, certainly a long way ahead of some Rotax engined, plastic bodied lightweight.

And, of course, the Citabria is aerobatic too 😀

Just what would you fill in on the flight plan for such a flight? Should make interesting reading.

Moggy

The flight plan thing is a total red herring.

Moggy

Flight plan a red herring MY ASS!!!, I fly in Australia and whilst flight plans are not mandatory for all flights, there are very few pilots here that would even consider flying into any of our deserts without at least a SAR watch,due to the lack of any clues left by Steve, the SAR mob don’t even know if he went north south east or west, the aircraft he was flying is not known for its blistering speed, so he had to have an area in mind before takeoff why not tell someone ??? Anyone!!!.

NOW YOU HAVE GOT ME GOING!!! can anyone tell me why Steve was flying the equivalent of a model T Ford into Tiger country “Wilderness” in yank speak when he obviously has the resources to obtain any aircraft that he desired, please don’t tell me how strong, stable, manoeuvrable, forgiving & agile this good old plane is, I know I know!!! they are a nice old aircraft to fly, the operative word being OLD!!!! the airframe was designed in the 1920s ( OK they now have an aluminium main spar, like that’s going to help) and the engine that powers it was on the drawing board not long after, In 21st century terms the aircraft has the aerodynamics of a SWB Toyota Landcruser and an engine that would be more at home in a 1948 VW, mmmmm cable brakes & 180hp maybe not, but I am sure you get my point.

What is going on ??? why is this rubbish still being produced ??? Why are manufacturers still pumping out this crap, and now they have got Mexico at it!!, what is the bloody point of reinventing the Cessna 150!!!!????? WHAT A MOB OF LUDITES is that the best designers can come up with after 60 – 90 years!!!!!, A Tupperware 150 built to a price not a standard, GOD HELP US ALL!!!, most of the equipment and systems found in light aircraft at most airports/fields all over the world was designed pre 1960, you would not even consider fitting any of it to your car, at any price !!!!, but pilots are expected to operate this antiquated machinery in Tiger country .

Please don’t get me wrong, I think Steve is a extraordinary aviator, in my book he is right up there with the best of the best, I hope to god he is sitting under the wing right now wondering how long before the cavalry arrive, and possibly pondering on how to rectify all of the above, the clock is really ticking for Steve, NO ELT SIGNAL and nothing from his trick watch!!! It’s not looking good. No SAR watch, No Flight plan, Not good Steve