yardbird78 Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) Some additional information on the search for Mr Fossett. http://www.af.mil:80/news/story.asp?storyID=123067178 Another media article: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070908/D8RHC9LG2.html Darwin Edited September 8, 2007 by yardbird78 Link to post Share on other sites
Julien (UK) Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) Sorry to say its not looking to good if they have not found him by now. Especially since they have now found at least 6 crashes no one was aware of. Sad. Julien Edited September 8, 2007 by Julien (UK) Link to post Share on other sites
DPD1 Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 Not super surprising really... That is a very rugged area with patches of extremely low population. If they don't have a good track to work with, no witnesses and no ELT, it could very well end up a modern day Amelia. A plane that size could easy fall down a remote canyon and be virtually invisible. Dave http://www.thenorthspin.com Dedicated to Aircraft Flight Test for the Aviation Enthusiast Link to post Share on other sites
J.C. Bahr Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Its extremely surprising why they have not located the wreck after all these days. Not super surprising really... That is a very rugged area with patches of extremely low population. If they don't have a good track to work with, no witnesses and no ELT, it could very well end up a modern day Amelia. A plane that size could easy fall down a remote canyon and be virtually invisible. Anyone see Bondo Phil Brandt's take on this over on HS? He said something about how his unit lost an RF-4 up in that area and went looking for them (and even knew WHERE to look because they knew the planned route!)... but didn't find the wreckage until the following spring! Didn't sound too encouraging for a flight that they don't even know the flight plan for! Me thinks this one's not going to be a positive outcome given the time that's passed already with no word whatsoever out of Fossett himself. One would hope that were he still alive he'd have managed a way to get word out somehow. Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Its extremely surprising why they have not located the wreck after all these days. Actually, it's not surprising at all. Rugged terrain, no ELT... The private airstrip where Fossett took off from Monday, located at the ranch of hotel magnate William Baron Hilton, near Yerington, Nev. is seen above. This photo also provides a good glimpse of the type of terrain the SAR teams are dealing with. Link to post Share on other sites
J.C. Bahr Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 And that's obviously taken from a pretty good altitude and not showing the real nitty-gritty of the terrain up close... so yeah, finding a needle in a haystack! Link to post Share on other sites
djeeper Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I've heard several times today that Google earth has recent pics of the area and volunteers are looking on the pics to try and find him. Don't know if it's for real though. Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 <...> they have now found at least 6 crashes no one was aware of. Hope they'll find him all right. Link to post Share on other sites
Will7813 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I seriously question anyone saying he could still be alive. Even if he survived a crash in which he could not alert anyone to his predicament, he would be in serious trouble even if he wasn't injured which he probably is. I think he is gone, no offence. Will Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 JC's right about that photo not even really showing the half of it when it comes to the ruggedness of the terrain around here. If you're stuck and can't get yourself to a place where it would be easier to find you, you've got some serious problems. Link to post Share on other sites
GForceSS Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 In the massive all out search for this guy they have found seven other plane wrecks dating back a number of years. They said it will bring an final close for those families. Kind of makes you wonder why those poor people didn't warrant a search like Fossett does. I guess if your just a nobody pilot and you crash, nobody really cares. :) Nice! Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Kind of makes you wonder why those poor people didn't warrant a search like Fossett does. I guess if your just a nobody pilot and you crash, nobody really cares. Nice! Well, did they say how long those other searches went on for before they were called off? Link to post Share on other sites
Just call me Ray Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Well, did they say how long those other searches went on for before they were called off? I think the point is that, if the massive effort to find Steve Fosset could find 7(!) previous wrecks, then they could've been found when finding those wrecks was more pertinent. Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I think the point is that, if the massive effort to find Steve Fosset could find 7(!) previous wrecks, then they could've been found when finding those wrecks was more pertinent. Maybe these were discovered now because new technologies are being used that didn't exsist when those earlier aircraft were lost ... Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 (edited) I think the point is that, if the massive effort to find Steve Fosset could find 7(!) previous wrecks, then they could've been found when finding those wrecks was more pertinent. Very true. I'd just be curious to know if during the search for any of those other seven lost aircraft, were other unknown wrecks found? If they've found seven in the course of the Fossett SAR effort alone, how many more are out there unknown/undiscovered? Maybe these were discovered now because new technologies are being used that didn't exsist when those earlier aircraft were lost ... Also a good point. I didn't even think of that. Edited September 10, 2007 by Trigger Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Maybe these were discovered now because new technologies are being used that didn't exsist when those earlier aircraft were lost ... Gregg Or just changing environment. I don't know any particulars, but maybe the wrecks had been obscured by terrain or vegetation that's no longer there (vegetation dying off - it IS the high desert - or wind wearing away soil etc) Link to post Share on other sites
CW4 Erick Swanberg Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 It kind of makes you wonder who is going to foot the bill for this massive SAR. If he is found alive I hope he gets the bill. Again it just goes to show why the enroute block of the flight plan is an important piece of info so SAR knows where to start looking. Erick Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Again it just goes to show why the enroute block of the flight plan is an important piece of info so SAR knows where to start looking. That and an ELT Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 It kind of makes you wonder who is going to foot the bill for this massive SAR. If he is found alive I hope he gets the bill. Again it just goes to show why the enroute block of the flight plan is an important piece of info so SAR knows where to start looking. Erick Don't know about civil aviation, but I do know in the state of Nevada if you're skiing outside of a designated ski area boundary and a SAR effort has to be launched for you, you're liable for the bill. Link to post Share on other sites
Julien (UK) Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 That and an ELT Apparently he had one of those Breitling watched with a beacon in it which would suggest he was not able to operate it for whatever reason. Not good. The civilian air patrol said they had made a note of the other wrecks and they would be investigated. Julien Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 (edited) Actually, it's not surprising at all. Rugged terrain, no ELT... Is that true? News reports I have seen stated the aircraft had an ELT, but that it did not trigger. That was why they hoped he had set down (vs impact) and was walking out. Edited September 11, 2007 by habu2 Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Is that true? News reports I have seen stated the aircraft had an ELT, but that it did not trigger. That was why they hoped he had set down (vs impact) and was walking out. I had also heard that the aircraft was ELT equipped but that for whatever reason it had not gone off. Link to post Share on other sites
yardbird78 Posted September 11, 2007 Author Share Posted September 11, 2007 A couple of comments concerning the cost of the search and the size. 1. Do you know for certain that the Fossett family, Baron Hilton, Richard Branson or other friends are NOT already funding major portions of the search? 2. I worked in direct support of the USAF Rescue Coordination Center in the early 80s when it was located at Scott AFB, (It is now at Tyndall AFB), and I can vouch for the extensiveness of the searches carried out for "average John Q Public" when they were lost or stranded from aircraft, hiking, skiing, mountain climbing, etc incidents. Some of these "lost souls" were the result of unavoidable accidents, others the result of unbelievable stupidity, but ALL of them received extensive search efforts. 3. Is this search more extensive or intensive than others? It may be, but I wouldn't be so quick to criticize something until I had all the details about what is involved. Darwin Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Is that true? News reports I have seen stated the aircraft had an ELT, but that it did not trigger. That was why they hoped he had set down (vs impact) and was walking out. I had also heard that the aircraft was ELT equipped but that for whatever reason it had not gone off. I also recall hearing something about the aircraft being equipped with an ELT, but I've also heard of people intentionally disabling their ELTs for what they thought were perfectly good reasons. Perhaps he did set it down somewhere and it didn't go off, or if he crashed, something malfunctioned to cause it not to go off. I would certainly hope that one of those would be a reason there's no signal as opposed to operator neglect. Link to post Share on other sites
J.C. Bahr Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 One thing that's really struck me as odd with this whole ordeal... NO RADIO DISTRESS SIGNAL TRANSMITTED WHATSOEVER! One would've thought that he might've been able to gotten off some sort of transmission that he was having difficulty, had it been a controlled set-down... which leads me to think it must've been either a pretty catastrophic break-up in the air... or rapid un-controlled flight into the ground, caused by wind-shear, or else something happened to him like a heart-attack or something else surprising. I know that's all arm-chair quarter-backing, but the only thoughts I've been gambling on since hearing the news. One way or another, I hope he's found and that it might be able to put some questions to rest. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts