Micron CEO dies in crash

steingar said:
Do IV's make up the preponderance of the Lancair fleet?
Click to expand...

You know they seem to be the more plentiful model as of lately. I remember seeing numbers for all kits sold as they were up there. 400 out of 1300 if I remember. I'll try to find the link.
 
The voice clearing him for takeoff and the voice announcing the new ATIS are different, I think those are two different frequencies. Probably the local controller for the first, and the approach frequency for the second... the scanner went to the other frequency when things were quiet.
 
Total speculation here, but there was another aircraft cleared to line-up-and-wait behind his departure, and as he was "returning"... he may have seen the other aircraft on the runway and tried to avoid it... but it sounds like he didn't have much time to make any decisions, anyway.
 
Last edited:
I'll just say it: super hot homebuilts, X-military jets, war birds, true experimentals (engineered in someones garage), are all death traps IMO.

Many of the pilots of these aircraft are wealthy experts with all the advantages, yet they still have problems.

I'm sure he was a smart guy and knew the risks. Maybe he just needed that level of thrill to keep him sane?

Very sad, RIP.
 
They are not death traps. Not by a long shot. They are sometimes flown with people that have more money than expertise. I am NOT saying that is the case here, I don't know Steve's flying ability enough to comment. But to say they are death traps is being unfair to the aircraft. Complex, and high performance aircraft should be treated with respect, and pilots should be properly trained on them.
 
Inverted said:
They are not death traps. Not by a long shot. They are sometimes flown with people that have more money than expertise. I am NOT saying that is the case here, I don't know Steve's flying ability enough to comment. But to say they are death traps is being unfair to the aircraft. Complex, and high performance aircraft should be treated with respect, and pilots should be properly trained on them.
Click to expand...

In this case we know Steve Appleton had been flying a long time. He was well versed in aerobatics, so presumably his stick and rudder skills were excellent. Of course it appears he had some kind of problem, but that still doesn't explain the high incidence of Lancair IV's crashing in VFR weather often with very experienced pilots at the stick.

The FAA also issued an advisory due to the abnormally high incidence of loss of control crashes.

I don't know where more money than sense could apply in this case?
 
Never try to return to the runway if you don't have enough altitude....nuff said
I would rather find a chicken house or a hen farm
:rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
WarriorPilot said:
Never try to return to the runway if you don't have enough altitude....nuff said
I would rather find a chicken house or a hen farm
:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I for some reason I get the feeling this was something more along the lines of a flight control issue rather than an engine failure based on the tapes
 
Alexb2000 said:
I'll just say it: super hot homebuilts, X-military jets, war birds, true experimentals (engineered in someones garage), are all death traps IMO.

Many of the pilots of these aircraft are wealthy experts with all the advantages, yet they still have problems.

I'm sure he was a smart guy and knew the risks. Maybe he just needed that level of thrill to keep him sane?

Very sad, RIP.
Click to expand...
None of those airplanes are really death traps by nature. The issue is similar to the same problems with Cirrus and Bonanzas before them. They are high performance, advanced aircraft and generally expensive....to the point where the kinds of folks who can actually afford to own and operate them do not have the time to spend staying current and proficient in them.
 
I don't know if they still do, but they used to build computers too. My first notebook was a Micron top of the line in about '97 or so. Loaded to the gills with 64MB of RAM. :D
 
steingar said:
Do IV's make up the preponderance of the Lancair fleet?
Click to expand...

I download the FAA registration database yearly and have a set of standard filters for common homebuilt types.

My 30 December 2011 database yields 987 Lancairs. Of those, 297 have some combination of four in the model name (4, IV, "Four", etc.). About 30%.

Pete posted a link to an earlier posting I'd made about the Lancair accident record. This might also be of interest:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=630563&postcount=63

It includes a plot of fatality rate vs. wing position, cruise speed, and production vs. homebuilt. The low-wing outlyer on the far upper right is the Lancair IV.

Ron Wanttaja
 
BrianNC said:
I don't know if they still do, but they used to build computers too. My first notebook was a Micron top of the line in about '97 or so. Loaded to the gills with 64MB of RAM. :D
Click to expand...

My LiveATC feed machine for the KAPA TWR feed is an old Pentium III Micron tower. Still running after all these years.
 
schmookeeg said:
Every time a Beech goes down, I endure "I bet it was a V-Tail"

Your suffering isn't new. Crosses are over there, grab one and bear away. ;) It's not all bad.
Click to expand...

there is a reason people say that
 
Fearless Tower said:
None of those airplanes are really death traps by nature. The issue is similar to the same problems with Cirrus and Bonanzas before them. They are high performance, advanced aircraft and generally expensive....to the point where the kinds of folks who can actually afford to own and operate them do not have the time to spend staying current and proficient in them.
Click to expand...

I made a pretty broad statement I know. Part of my reasoning is how they are being used, others are based on a lack of engineering, and defined flight characteristics.

Super hot experimentals like the Lancair IV probably need to be operated like a jet and flown within a tightly defined envelope, especially during take-offs and landings. Being experimental it's hard to know where the boundaries are until you figure it out for yourself I guess.

Old X-Military jets become much more dangerous IMO when you do things like disable the ejection seats, fire systems, etc. They are also an experimental so each owner does largely what they see fit.

Last category was just building something without the benefit of engineering or testing. I wasn't talking about an RV, but someone putting a Corvette engine in a 172 and becoming their own test pilot type of thing.

I don't consider any of the above anywhere close to a Cirrus or Bonanza in terms of safety, but I agree with you about the commitment these kinds of aircraft require.
 
I have to believe if you had a engine failure and the prop is slowly
Making its way to feather from loss of oil pressure that you are
going to have a real hard time holding airspeed without pointing straight at the ground.
No SEL turbine here, but a bunch of multi and there is a really good reason
most have auto-feather. Decelleration is impressive when pulled to idle in the air.
Dave
 
I always roll my eyes at the rich guy can't fly comments. Maybe, but perhaps poverty keeps the rest of us alive. How many of us regular guys would perish if we had all the aviation flying opportunities we wanted?
 
ClimbnSink said:
I always roll my eyes at the rich guy can't fly comments. Maybe, but perhaps poverty keeps the rest of us alive. How many of us regular guys would perish if we had all the aviation flying opportunities we wanted?
Click to expand...


Hmmm.. Probably most of us...:yikes::hairraise::wink2:
 
d.grimm said:
I have to believe if you had a engine failure and the prop is slowly
Making its way to feather from loss of oil pressure that you are
going to have a real hard time holding airspeed without pointing straight at the ground.
No SEL turbine here, but a bunch of multi and there is a really good reason
most have auto-feather. Decelleration is impressive when pulled to idle in the air.
Dave
Click to expand...

I just went through King Air initial. In the sim, they put me in a C-90B and I never could keep heading controlled on the engine cut on climb out. Auto feather did change that. The instructor said a very few pilots had been able to reasonably control it after practicing, but it wasn't pretty AND they were expecting it.

Best,

Dave
 
N801BH said:
Hmmm.. Probably most of us...:yikes::hairraise::wink2:
Click to expand...

As a young military pilot, I often heard the sniping comments about rich guys flying planes that exceeded their skill level. Of course, I couldn't afford much but a flying club plane while on active duty.

Over the years, I built a business and have been able to quench my flying addiction by owning my own plane.

A young CFI made a comment when I was in an FBO about rich guys flying turbines and didn't realize I had a KA on the ramp. So, I asked him how much he thought one of those cost. He was way off. I asked him if he wanted to fly one, and of course he did. I asked if he couldn't afford one, how he expected to have someone hire him if they or their corporation weren't well off (in his opinion). He didn't seem to have an answer. Nothing like burning bridges. I do fly my own plane, but I know I'm not a full time pilot and don't want to be. I really train to be good and don't push the limits.

Early in life my challenge was to build skills and qualifications along with building a business. Hopefully, along with doing that I developed enough wisdom and judgement to use those skills now when I can afford to fly something nicer. Be careful with broad generalized statements; one may come back to bite you <g>

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Alexb2000 said:
I'll just say it: super hot homebuilts, X-military jets, war birds, true experimentals (engineered in someones garage), are all death traps IMO.
Click to expand...

The truth is a good way to get feathers ruffled on an aviation board as you may have noticed.

The FAA agrees with your assessment.

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...afety/info/all_infos/media/2010/InFO10001.pdf

Those types of aircraft built by one party using the manufacturers labor and sold to a third party will be the undoing of the experimental amateur built category. Although this plane was built in 2007, it was already on the third owner. Probably scared the living daylights out of the last guy.

And yes, it is a valid question whether a corporation can allow its CEO to fly experimentals. Many companies of this size go to great lengths to ensure that their key staff can travel safely, e.g. by providing them with dual-crew twin jets at company expense. Yes, he was the CEO of the company, he was not the founder or owner. He was taking care of other peoples investment.
 
weilke said:
Although this plane was built in 2007, it was already on the third owner. Probably scared the living daylights out of the last guy.
Click to expand...

Conjecture....

Last owner might have decided it was to expensive to operate. Maybe he wanted to build one himself, or used this plane while building. Happens all the time.
 
There is an assumption that being a propilot first(military counts) counters the rich pilot death spiral. Maybe. Pilot qualifications aside risk goes up with exposure. So if we all the resources to expose ourselves to Lancair IVs, helicopters, floatplanes, P-51s, etc., there is a greater chance of fiery death. I'm not criticizing pilots or calling for rules, just pointing out that being able to afford more toys(wish I could) increases your chances of perishing in said toys(a risk I'd happily take.)
Dave Siciliano said:
As a young military pilot, I ofter heard the sniping comments about rich guys flying planes that exceeded their skill level. Of course, I couldn't afford much but a flying club plane while on active duty.

Over the years, I built a business and have been able to quench my flying addiction by owning my own plane.

A young CFI made a comment when I was in an FBO about rich guys flying turbines and didn't realize I had a KA on the ramp. So, I asked him how much he thought one of those cost. He was way off. I asked him if he wanted to fly one, and of course he did. I asked if he couldn't afford one, how he expected to have someone hire him if they or their corporation weren't well off (in his opinion). He didn't seem to have an answer. Nothing like burning bridges. I do fly my own plane, but I know I'm not a full time pilot and don't want to be. I really train to be good and don't push the limits.

Early in life my challenge was to build skills and qualifications along with building a business. Hopefully, along with doing that I developed enough wisdom and judgement to use those skills now when I can afford to fly something nicer. Be careful with broad generalized statements; one may come back to bite you <g>

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
I'm not criticizing pilots or calling for rules, just pointing out that being able to afford more toys(wish I could) increases your chances of perishing in said toys(a risk I'd happily take.)
Click to expand...

Or as my wife put it once: Poor folks dont die heli-skiing.
 
ClimbnSink said:
There is an assumption that being a propilot first(military counts) counters the rich pilot death spiral.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely true. I have to do a recurrent checkride in the Beech 99 every 6 months. That airplane (just like a King Air) will kill you very quick if you let it. I am convinced that if somebody who is part 91, and doesn't fly daily in a plane like this, will face an engine failure on takeoff, and if auto feather fails, you will die. It increases VMC by over 40kts if the failed engine isn't feathered. The prop on most turboprop aircraft is a pretty big drag penalty. Even in Steve's case, if he didn't feather(assuming the engine failed) then he would have a hard time making anything work out in a plane like the IV. I only have a few hours in a IV and none in a IV-P but Vg is high, and the wing on that airplane is more comfortable at 500mph than anything else, very very slick, aerodynamic airplane. It didn't like operating at low airspeeds. In fact I remember it feeling a bit sluggish at speeds below 100mph.
 
ClimbnSink said:
There is an assumption that being a propilot first(military counts) counters the rich pilot death spiral. Maybe.
Click to expand...
Maybe not. Your statement made me think immediately of this accident, which was recent and local. He had extensive military and civilian experience and died in a stall-spin, in a Carbon Cub, not really considered a "hot" plane. I'm not trying to pick on this person who I met a couple times and was a nice guy. Just saying that we can sometimes play a little too hard and we should not feel immune, regardless of our experience level.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/epilot_acc/cen11fa304.html

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110425X40459&key=1
 
ClimbnSink said:
There is an assumption that being a propilot first(military counts) counters the rich pilot death spiral. Maybe. Pilot qualifications aside risk goes up with exposure. So if we all the resources to expose ourselves to Lancair IVs, helicopters, floatplanes, P-51s, etc., there is a greater chance of fiery death. I'm not criticizing pilots or calling for rules, just pointing out that being able to afford more toys(wish I could) increases your chances of perishing in said toys(a risk I'd happily take.)
Click to expand...

In sum, we still don't know what happened here. He went back to his hanger for a brief period, returned and went flying again from what I read. Let's see what actually happened, pilot skills may not have been the proximate cause of the accident.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I agree with a part of it. Some of us take flying very seriously and don't consider things like a King Air toys. They're planes designed for someone with decent flying skills to be able to handle if proficient and they use reasonable judgement. I do agree if one flies more in more exotic aircraft, the odds can go up of having an accident; they simply are less forgiving. But I also feel someone with good skills (and I find top-notch training to begin with helps) that stays proficient can fly a GA plane safely.

Even in the military, we had our share of folks that didn't fly in a disciplined manner. Many were lost for things that could have been prevented. Military training gets one off to a good start, but life is a marathon, not a sprint.

I still worry about engine loss on departure in the 58P I fly also, but do things to minimize exposure: use longer fields when heavy and hot, go to recurrent training each year and take instruction in between and keep the plane well maintained. Tom Turner cited a stat at the last American Bonanza Society meeting that almost 90% of GA engine failures were fuel management related. That should be a manageable issue.

We can all cite a special circumstance in which being a pro pilot might make the difference, but in general, those are few and far between flying a GA plane if one is current and proficient. I kind of pride myself in avoiding situations where I have to prove my pro pilot skills <g>


Best,

Dave
 
TangoWhiskey said:
This is exciting news... :yes:
Click to expand...

Thanks. Don't know where it'll take me. Right now I'm just flying it to see if it fits my needs. So far, it's just a big Barron to me with different engines and some systems (some commonalities also). Very stable instrument platform. It's like my 58P is a sports car and this is an SUV <g>

Best,

Dave
 
weilke said:
Many companies of this size go to great lengths to ensure that their key staff can travel safely, e.g. by providing them with dual-crew twin jets at company expense.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, I checked the FAA N-number database for aircraft. Micron owns two aircraft in its own name:
The model years of those planes correspond to the peak of Micron's stock price, suggesting that they were bought when the company's fortunes were at their peak.

Both fly often according to FlightAware. Strangely, the Citation has an expired registration according to the FAA's web site, but it is still flying, with a flight today as a matter of fact.
 
Last edited:
Dave Siciliano said:
I just went through King Air initial. In the sim, they put me in a C-90B and I never could keep heading controlled on the engine cut on climb out. Auto feather did change that. The instructor said a very few pilots had been able to reasonably control it after practicing, but it wasn't pretty AND they were expecting it.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
Good for you, Dave :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top