Sad story. I met this guy once and he seemed very down to earth. RIP

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/micron-ce ... 52830.html

Shame... good pilot.
Gave generously to his community.

My buddy in Boise who used to work for Micron just texted this to me... very sad news.

Sad when anyone goes down....

I noticed that the article mentioned he had not filed a flight plan.

I noticed that the article mentioned he had not filed a flight plan.

Somehow the media always thinks that reveals something.

Very sad, whenever one of "ours" buys it.

Cary

soggyc wrote:
I noticed that the article mentioned he had not filed a flight plan.

Completely, totally irrelevant. It has as much bearing on the cause of the accident as the color of his shirt.

I had today off from work and have been following this story on the TV news all day, the reporters and/or copy writers are really clueless about the planes in general and this plane in particular but are trying to outdo each other on the air. One news bimbo actually said the plane was made of "carbon fibers, whatever that is". By 6:00 this evening they had sorted out enough basic information to sound intelligent, apparently he took off, climbed to about 5 foot off the ground, landed and went back to the hanger. Then he tried to take off again in less than 15 minutes, the second time he got to 100-200 feet evevation, told the tower he was coming back to land, then rolled over and dove into the ground. He apparently landed inverted and burst into flames. An airport security camera has the flight and crash recorded, but it has not been released to the press. The plane is being described as a presurized, turboprop lancair. Overall a very bad day in Boise.

I thought reporters went to journalism school. Maybe I am just un-informed..
Anyway, most written reporting just plain sucks nowdays.. Is nowdays a word?

Sad to hear the man got killed.

PA12_Pilot wrote:

soggyc wrote:
I noticed that the article mentioned he had not filed a flight plan.

Completely, totally irrelevant. It has as much bearing on the cause of the accident as the color of his shirt.

I think that was soggyc's point.

I've never liked the Lancairs. I've flown 'em all. They're pretty, and they're fast, but.......Had a good friend killed in a Lancair IVP. Went to test fly the IVP back in 2001 in Redmond. I wanted to stall it to see how it reacted. Test pilot said nooooooo. We don't stall this airplane. That said it all to me. He was killed in a crash about 6 months later, cart wheeled it on the runway in windy conditions. A few months later my friend was killed.

Friend of mine and a passenger were killed when their Lancair stalled and spun in. Have never heard the "Offical" cause but believe it was fuel starvation. Neat looking machine but from what I've heard about them it's not something I would want to own.

Without overtly speculating, or condemning the aircraft type, at face value this accident sounds an awful lot like a classic "turn back to the runway" at low altitude scenario. That is a really, really tough urge to overcome for pilots of any experience level.

Zane wrote:

PA12_Pilot wrote:

soggyc wrote:
I noticed that the article mentioned he had not filed a flight plan.

Completely, totally irrelevant. It has as much bearing on the cause of the accident as the color of his shirt.

I think that was soggyc's point.

It was...

I just think it is amazing how that always gets into every article about light airplane incidents. It makes you wonder about what the media reports, because anytime they write or talk about something you have some knowledge of they never get it right.

I feel bad for the this guy's family.

The loss of fellow airmen and women is always tragic. It is bad enough that the lawyers salivate over situations like this and seldom fail to sniff out any money that they can find, exploiting the efforts of those who have taken chances, created private sector jobs, paid taxes and actually contributed something of value. I don't believe that being critical of aircraft designs contributes anything to improve these situations.

Lancairs are very fast, stable, efficient, strong, extremely fun to fly, aesthetically outstanding airplanes. They represent some of the most significant modern general aviation aircraft that humanity has ever created. While most of General Aviation airframe technology was stagnating, Lancair and a few other players were developing brand new innovative designs using ground breaking composite fabrication techniques that resulted in enormous gains in structural and aerodynamic efficiency.

I would not be eager to stall a IV, but I would have no reservations to do so in any other model in the Lancair fleet. Every airplane has limitations and characteristics that must be understood and respected.

People on this forum won't generally express criticism of the Cub when people die in those, but my personal experience is that I have more friends that have died in Cub's than in Lancairs, and I know a lot of Lancair pilots. Like most others, this unfortunate incident does not necessarily reflect poorly on the aircraft design.

I offer many praises to Steve Appleton, Lance Niebauer, his colleagues, and other such visionaries for taking risks and pushing the boundaries, and my condolences to those who suffer close to this tragedy.

Scolopax wrote:The loss of fellow airmen and women is always tragic. It is bad enough that the lawyers salivate over situations like this and seldom fail to sniff out any money that they can find, exploiting the efforts of those who have taken chances, created private sector jobs, paid taxes and actually contributed something of value. I don't believe that being critical of aircraft designs contributes anything to improve these situations.

Lancairs are very fast, stable, efficient, strong, extremely fun to fly, aesthetically outstanding airplanes. They represent some of the most significant modern general aviation aircraft that humanity has ever created. While most of General Aviation airframe technology was stagnating, Lancair and a few other players were developing brand new innovative designs using ground breaking composite fabrication techniques that resulted in enormous gains in structural and aerodynamic efficiency.

I would not be eager to stall a IV, but I would have no reservations to do so in any other model in the Lancair fleet. Every airplane has limitations and characteristics that must be understood and respected.

People on this forum won't generally express criticism of the Cub when people die in those, but my personal experience is that I have more friends that have died in Cub's than in Lancairs, and I know a lot of Lancair pilots. Like most others, this unfortunate incident does not necessarily reflect poorly on the aircraft design.

I offer many praises to Steve Appleton, Lance Niebauer, his colleagues, and other such visionaries for taking risks and pushing the boundaries, and my condolences to those who suffer close to this tragedy.

FAA expressing safety concerns of the Lancairs and other high wing loading amateur built:

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation ... O10001.pdf

Photos of Steve's plane- What a beauty!

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/173847.html

SixTwoLeemer wrote:
Photos of Steve's plane- What a beauty!

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/173847.html

Beautiful plane! That would get someplace quick.

I haven't flown the Lancair IV-P, but I have flown the Evolution. Did all of the stalls in it. More docile than my 182. Full fuel, full load, pointed it uphill at 130 knots and we were seeing 4500 feet per minute. Landing speeds were exactly the same as the 182: 90 on downwind, 80 on base, 70 over the fence and 60 landings. Great plane built from the ground up for the P&W turbine. The IV-P wasn't built for that; bring it over the fence at 70 and you'll crash.

This is a grim and chilling reminder of how fast things can go bad....

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kboi/ ... -1530Z.mp3

15:08 line up and wait
16:04 cleared for takeoff
16:52 calls in with "problem", lands
17:11 do you need assistance? negative

24:36 cleared takeoff right traffic
25:40 turn back call
25:54 cancel takeoff for another aircraft, background omg

So how did he take off a second time without a new clearance?

At 24:36 he receives his second takeoff clearance.