http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1
For the click-challenged:
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's inadvertent encounter with downdrafts that exceeded the climb capability of the airplane. Contributing to the accident were the downdrafts, high density altitude, and mountainous terrain.
If you read the narrative, it indicates there was a bad witness report, no ELT, and basically only small shards of wreckage.
Q: Are search altitudes different for mountain flying? (i.e. higher?)
Because to my non-pilot ears, it seems like even over flatland we'd be right near our legal no-supplemental-oxygen ceiling just to fly over at all.
Mountain searches are very different - the terrain picks your search pattern for you, which is often a contour search. You're not going to be able to get down in the bottom of canyons (for many reasons) so your altitude over the potential target is going to be higher. As the NTSB points out, a light airplane can't outclimb the conditions up there, so you'd better go in with more altitude than Mother Nature is going to collect from you as a toll for flying around up there.
Most/all of the grids in that area are mandatory oxygen areas for everyone in the CAP airplane. Oxygen logistics are a big challenge - all of our planes have the equipment, and we're trying to train the crews so that they know how to put the plumbing together and use the systems properly. Getting a lot of oxygen bottles filled during a mission is a real challenge, too.
There are very few (if any) decent emergency landing sites, so you want to be high to gain some time and distance if you have engine trouble. Add in the winds over the mountains and you get a lot of bounces ... another reason to be higher than you might be AGL over central Florida. Cessnas can't climb faster than a lot of the terrain, so you can't go low to look at something and hope to get back up to an altitude to clear the ridge.
The probability of detection is going to be low - you're high up, everything is a rock slope with scattered boulders, and often is snow covered even in the summer.
WASHINGTON – The air crash that killed entrepreneur Steve Fossett, famed for his daredevil aerial feats, probably was caused by downdraft's that exceeded the ability of his small plane to recover before slamming into a California mountainside, federal safety officials said Thursday.
Fossett, 63, disappeared on Sept. 3, 2007, after taking off alone from a Nevada ranch owned by hotel magnate Barron Hilton for what was supposed to be a short pleasure flight. His Bellanca 8KCAB-180 — a single-engine, two-seater known as the "Super Decathlon" that was sometimes used for acrobatic flying — crashed near Mammoth Lakes, Calif.
An extensive, high-profile search failed to turn up any clues to his fate. A year later, on Oct. 7, 2008, a hiker found some of Fossett's belongings, including a pilot certificate and another identification card. An aerial search located the wreckage about a half-mile away at an elevation of about 10,000 feet.
At breakfast on the day of the accident, Fossett told the ranch's chief pilot that he intended to fly along Highway 395 and that he did not plan to wear a parachute, which would have been required for acrobatics, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a report.
Fossett's wife likened his intended flight to "a Sunday drive," the report said.
No emergency radio transmissions were received from Fossett, nor were any emergency locater transmitter signals received.
However, after the wreckage was discovered, a review of radar data from September 2007 revealed a "track" that ended about a mile northwest of the accident site, the report said.
The radar track was initially dismissed in the search for Fossett because an employee at Hilton's ranch had reported seeing the Bellanca in a different location at about the time of the radar track, the report said. It was later determined that the employee's time estimate of the sighting was off by nearly an hour, the report said.
The radar track shows what is now believed to be Fossett's plane flying south the along a crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The track started about 35 miles south-southwest from where he took off that morning, continuing roughly parallel to Highway 395 about 10 miles to the west of the road.
The first few minutes of the track indicated an altitude of about 14,500 feet to 14,900 feet, while the rest of the track consisted of blips with no altitude or identifying information, the report said.
Based on its investigation — including weather reports, interviews with other pilots who flew in area that day and an examination of the wreckage — the board concluded the Bellanca was probably unable even at full power to climb out of what were likely downdrafts of at least 400 feet per minute. The report estimates the Bellanca's climb capability was about 300 feet per minute. Winds were gusting at the time at an estimated 29 to 35 miles per hour.
A contributing factor, the report said, was a combination of high altitude and weather conditions that resulted in less dense air. The lighter air reduces an airplane's performance by exerting less force on the wings, reducing lift.
The wreckage examined by investigators was charred from a fire that erupted on impact and scattered over an area 350 feet long and 150 feet wide, the report said. The main wreckage was in a group of Ponderosa pines and the engine was about 100 feet away. Small planes do not carry the cockpit voice or data recorders required in airliners.
Fossett, who made a fortune in the Chicago commodities market, gained worldwide fame for setting records in high-tech balloons, gliders, jets and boats. In 2002, he became the first person to circle the world solo in a balloon.
Within two days of Fossett's disappearance, experienced pilots were speculating that even the master of aerial adventure could have fallen victim to the notorious winds on the Sierra's eastern front that are so powerful and tricky they can swirl an airplane like a leaf and even shear off a wing.
"There's been times when I've been flying in the wind and my blood turns cold," Adam Mayberry, a private pilot and former spokesman for the Reno-Tahoe International Airport, said at the time.
Wind gusts in the area can whip up without warning from any direction, with sudden downdraft's that can drag a plane clear to the ground. Passengers flying even on commercial airliners between Las Vegas and Reno know to keep their seat belts fastened for a ride that is never smooth.
Mark Twain wrote about the "Washoe Zephyr" — named for the Nevada county — in the book "Roughing It."
"But, seriously, a Washoe wind is by no means a trifling matter. It blows flimsy houses down, lifts shingle roofs occasionally, rolls up tin ones like sheet music, now and then blows a stagecoach over and spills the passengers," he wrote.
-- Joan Lowy & Scott Sonner, Associated Press.
Having flown a good bit in that part of the Sierras, I have no real question about the NTSB finding. It is not a place to do casual flying.
Sparky Imeson (Who wrote the Mountain Fling Bible) was killed in a mountain flying accident 2 months ago. Including Mr. Fossett these are two cautionary tales for our 2 mile high single engine air crews of the Rockies. (I'm in Colorado)
As they say in the in the Imeson Course: Mountain Flying in something you get used to... but never completely comfortable with.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8448.0
Merged.
Well somebody screwed up and I understand CAWG & NVWG still refuse to do an after action report. NVWG's IC had the radar LKP and sent 1 aircraft that spent less than 1 hour in the grid. I understand that the 1 hour time error by the ranch hand was know within a day of his report by the NVWG IC who still completely focused on his report and tried to keep CAWG and other wings out of the search. Later per CAWG's IC Lt. Col. Ron Butts, the grid was searched over an additional 20 plus times by CAWG and they still never saw the large burn area, smoldering trees or wreckage. This is a record CAP should NOT be proud of!
How in the world can you say it was downdrafts based on this evidence. I'm sure they exist in this area and certainly could be the real cause but this seems quite speculative.
Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 20, 2009, 05:11:30 PM
Well somebody screwed up and I understand CAWG & NVWG still refuse to do an after action report.
?? You must be referring to some type of written and published report that is not required for any other CAP search? The mission was closed and documented per CAP regulations. There was also an after-action briefing and hot-washup given to the National Commander. Sorry, the press was not invited.
Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 20, 2009, 05:11:30 PM
NVWG's IC had the radar LKP and sent 1 aircraft that spent less than 1 hour in the grid.
NSTB Report: After the wreckage was discovered, radar tracks identified during the original search were reviewed. A radar track beginning at 0907 and terminating at 0927 showed a target flying southbound following the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The track started about 35 miles south-southwest of the departure airport, roughly paralleled Highway 395, offset about 10 miles to the west of the highway, and ended about 1 mile northwest of the accident site. The first few minutes of the track consisted of beacon code 1200 returns with Mode C altitudes of 14,500 to 14,900 feet. The remainder of the track consisted of primary returns with no altitude information. Early in the original search, this track was eliminated as a possibility, as its time did not agree with the time of a witness sighting that was believed to be accurate. The witness sighting was that of the Flying M employee who observed the airplane approximately 9 miles south of the departure airstrip. Initially, the time of this sighting was believed to be 0925 to 0935; however, it was later determined that the time of the witness sighting was actually 0825 to 0835.Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 20, 2009, 05:11:30 PM
I understand that the 1 hour time error by the ranch hand was know within a day of his report by the NVWG IC who still completely focused on his report and tried to keep CAWG and other wings out of the search.
You seem to understand a lot that those of us on the search seem to have missed, especially this bit about the NVWG IC. I am really surprised he wasn't relieved of duty by the Region Commander for not playing well with others – like the CAWG/CC was. And an IC that doesn't want more resources???
Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 20, 2009, 05:11:30 PM
Later per CAWG's IC Lt. Col. Ron Butts, the grid was searched over an additional 20 plus times by CAWG and they still never saw the large burn area, smoldering trees or wreckage. This is a record CAP should NOT be proud of!
NSTB Report: The California Wing of the CAP reported that the area where the wreckage was located had been searched once by air during the original search. Looks like the NSTB failed to talk to Lt Col Butts.
Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 20, 2009, 05:11:30 PM
Well somebody screwed up and I understand CAWG & NVWG still refuse to do an after action report. NVWG's IC had the radar LKP and sent 1 aircraft that spent less than 1 hour in the grid. I understand that the 1 hour time error by the ranch hand was know within a day of his report by the NVWG IC who still completely focused on his report and tried to keep CAWG and other wings out of the search. Later per CAWG's IC Lt. Col. Ron Butts, the grid was searched over an additional 20 plus times by CAWG and they still never saw the large burn area, smoldering trees or wreckage. This is a record CAP should NOT be proud of!
You "understand," eh?
Unless you're willing to cite your sources, I understand that you've got nothing but
rumors.
I think one thing we might want to draw from this is to not get too wrapped up in witness sighitngs. While you would have thought that this was a great one considering the source, it obviously wasn't.
In the missing aircraft searches (and SAREX's with that focus) wherein I've been on mission staff, it seems as if we tend to jump on witness statements just a little too quickly if they seem reasonably credible. To some extent I think the CAP-USAF guys are training us to do this as it seems that the percentage of accurate and useful clues they give is much higher than we see during regular missions. So, we get trained to think that these are going to be good bets for follow-up.
Now, I'm not saying we should ignore them, but perhaps we should take them with a grain of salt.
Would more attention have been paid to that radar track without the witness statement? We'll never know.
Quote from: Rotorhead on July 20, 2009, 09:40:52 PM
Unless you're willing to cite your sources, I understand that you've got nothing but rumors.
(http://rokdrop.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/7-rumint.JPG)
Personally, I would make completing the Inland SAR Planner's Course a requirement for becoming a PSC. We have far too many people in CAP planning searchs who have not been adaquately trained. Of course that would reduce the numbers of PSCs, OSCs, and ICs so it will never fly.