Slashdot Mirror
Steve Appleton, Micron CEO, Dies In Plane Crash
CR0WTR0B0T writes "Micron CEO Steve Appleton was killed in a plane crash around 9AM on Friday, February 3rd. He was flying an experimental fixed-wing single engine Lancair, which crashed in between two runways at the Boise airport."
Guess that Steve was looking for the John Denver Experience.
http://investors.micron.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=646118
I wonder what Micron was paying him. Usually, CEOs seem to prefer multimillion-dollar private jets, not small homebuilt planes.
Apparently this was the second crash he was involved in. He crashed in 2004 as well.
Micron's Website: http://www.micron.com/
What Micron is: A company that is in the business of designing and building some of the world’s most advanced memory and semiconductor technologies.
The "Experimental" tag is applied to anything except for vanilla factory builds, even changing engine from factory default usually ends up with an "experimental" sign on the aircraft. The tag does not reflect on it's safety. They do have a higher incidence of accidents then factory, but that seems to be attributed to second owners rather than builders, and very rarely to the aircraft itself.
DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
...plane crashes are dangerous.
Sounds like he knew he had a major malfunction and was trying to land. Air traffic controllers are heard screaming expletives.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
Appleton has owned more than 20 airplanes and is known for doing aerobatics. He crashed in July of 2004 while performing maneuvers over the Idaho desert.
In an interview with Appleton after that crash, he said he suffered a few scrapes and scratches.
"I was only in the hospital one night and then I went home and showed up for work Monday morning," said Appleton about the crash. "I've been flying since then and everything's back to normal."
That crash left some wondering if the CEO was taking too many risks, considering he is head of a major corporation.
"My description of myself, whether I'm the CEO of a very competitive industry or whether I happen to fly aerobatics in airplanes, it's all one package. I mean, it's the personality that comes through in my business at my personal life."
Carolyn Holly spoke with Appleton in 2004 about his flying, Appleton said he is very fortunate for the things he has been able to do.
"I'm very fortunate, lucky to be able to experience the kinds of things that I do," Appleton said. "If my life were to end tomorrow, I've had a full life."
The man was a flight enthusiast. At least he went out doing what he loved. It's not like someone put him on that plane against his will.
It would be like me being killed in a freak audio production accident... I dunno, brain liquefied by bass resonance. After everyone got over their little cry-fest, they'd knock back a pint and say "Death by music, that's our Billco alright".
-Billco, Fnarg.com
A lot of people hear "experimental aircraft", and assume that it is a high-risk, never-proved type of aircraft, but that's rarely true. "Experimental" is just a type of aircraft certification by the FAA.
The different certificates available can be seen here on Wikipedia. Almost everything that is homebuilt or home-modified carries this certification, even if that model of plane has been built thousands of times by other builders, and has been in constant use for decades. Even a change to the engine will throw a stock plane into the experimental category.
You probably have a friend or two who is a member of the EAA. That organization's name is "Experimental Aircraft Association".
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Yep, definitely a little different from the typical corporation-raiding golden-parachute-collecting CEO like Bob Nardelli.
Steve Jobs....Steve Appleton....Steve Wozniak.....How many F**** Steve's are there!?!
From Wikipedia:
"Steve Appleton participated in a number of sports, including professional tennis. His hobbies included scuba diving, surfing, wakeboarding, motorcycling and more recently, off-road car racing. His aviation background included multiple ratings and professional performances at air shows in both propeller- and jet-powered aircraft. He also had a black belt in Taekwondo.
On the 43rd edition of the Tecate SCORE Baja 1000 on 2010 Appleton finished 1st on a SCORE Class 1 buggy and 7th overall with a time of 20:32.18.[6]"
I feel like such a bum compared to this guy, actually I am a bum compared to this guy.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Bad past 12 months for CEOs of tech companies named Steve. :(
If I were a CEO named Steve working for a tech company I'd spend every day wrapped in bubble wrap for a while... there again- that might end up suffocating me.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
He owned a small fleet.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
Steve Jobs....Steve Appleton....Steve Wozniak.....How many F**** Steve's are there!?!
Did Steve tell you that perchance? Hmmm... Steve.
Guess that Steve was looking for the John Denver Experience.
John Denver, Steve Fossett and too many others.
The spirit to take risks is the spirit of adventure.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Coming from an EAA member with some hands on experience in aircraft construction etc.
Lancairs are light composite home/kit built aircraft with somewhat high wing loading and comparitively powerful engines.
On one hand, you have near-turboprop like speed and performance for a quarter of the price. On the other hand, you end up with some not so agreeable handling characteristics.
I'll just say that amongst the General Aviation and home / kit community that "They have a bit of a reputation."
I guess he went out doing the thing he loved. Most people don't get to live or experience the things they love for that long, or even have it be the end of them. (some don't get that at all, which is even worse)
Old age is both a curse and a dream. A time to rest from a life of hardship. But for most it always ends horribly, and sometimes painfully.
And worst of all, sometimes without a single memory of those you love and care about, or even where you are, or who you yourself are.
The thought of being slowly undone and nothing you could do to stop it is probably the scariest thing in existence.
Small single-engined plane crashes...
*Still* negative function...
9am Friday morning? Why wasn't he at work?
Big difference between a 4-passenger plane and an ultralight, FWIW. The rest of your remark smells like confirmation bias: you had to go back 6-7 years to point to another wealthy plane victim.
Rich people die quietly daily from cancer, disease, heart disease, etc (and not so quietly from pissed-off lovers, fast cars and every other form of fast living). C'est la mort.
If he's done everything he wanted to do in life, is that really a bad thing?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Depends on the risks. There is no real adventure in confronting the same challenges day-in, day-out. Once you pass an obstacle, the spirit of adventure is to move on to the next one, not to go back.
I'm not criticizing what these guys did - they did many things that really WERE adventures - but they didn't die in one. They died on simple, unadventurous excursions that went badly wrong. Had Fossett found the site for his attempt to break the land-speed record and then died in that record attempt, that would have been an adventure. He would have been pushing the limits of what was known. Donald Campbell died in an adventure - a little negligently, as he didn't wait for the water to calm, but nobody had ever built a boat that fast and nobody knew what would happen at any moment. That's an adventure.
The successful solo attempt to balloon around the world by Fossett was equally an adventure - and a brilliant one at that. He held 115 other records over his life. That's a hell of an achievement. It's tragic that he died during an extremely boring site-scouting flight due to something as mundane as a downdraft plunging him into a mountain. Low flying in turbulent air next to a mountain was certainly in the spirit of taking risks, but where's the adventure in it? He'd conquered worse in just about every vehicle known to man.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I met Steve a couple of times when he visited our facility doing work on some joint (PCM) projects. From the previous posts you can probably tell he was quite a guy and it came across immediately when you met him. Our hearts go out to his family and friends.
Even if he had been a golden parachute kind of guy, those things are useless for bailing out of single-seater aircraft. Way too heavy.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Twin-engine planes are good only if they can handle the failure of one engine. Some can, some can't. Four-engine planes are usually designed to handle the failure of two engines, but the only rich guy I know of that flies those is Bruce Dickenson from Iron Maiden.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I guess he went out doing the thing he loved.
He loved to crash his airplane???
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
The Graveyards Are Full of Indispensable Men
So no, he was not taking too much risks.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
True, I stand corrected, and I am enriched by the Iron Maiden trivia.
*Still* negative function...
He died because he fucked up. Not because the aircraft was "experimental".
His engine quit and he tried to turn back to the airport (the "impossible turn", it's often called) from too low of an altitude and let his airspeed dwindle down too low, and ended up stalling the thing and also entered an incipient spin and augered it into the ground. This is the classic impossible turn + stall/spin that kills so many pilots who lose their shit, panic, and do exactly the most wrongest things possible at the controls of their powerless (now poor glider) aircraft.
I myself fly an experimental aircraft all the time (Vans RV) that I built myself. An experimental aircraft that's built correctly is as safe as a factory-built aircraft, but the pilots who fly them are most definitely NOT as safe as a typical private pilot who only flies factory spamcans. Experimental airplanes are almost always very *high performance* aircraft, which demand advanced piloting skills, sense of judgment and training far beyond the demands of most general aviation pilots get. They are not very forgiving of fuckups at all.
The Lancair is a particularly nasty-behaving airplane to fly when you suddenly lose power. You must push the nose over *a lot* and *immediately* to keep the airspeed up, lest you abruptly cause that thin little super critical wing to stall. You have to dive towards the ground to keep it flying (very counter-intuitive, but that's how it works if you want to live). This pilot didn't do that. An eyewitness I know of (who's also a pilot) on the ground saw this whole wreck happen, the Lancair kept way too level in pitch and it slowed way too quickly... with the usual and very predictable results. :-(
One of my own best friends died the exact same way over ten years ago. Lost engine power, tried to turn back to the runway, stalled/spun and augered the damn thing into the ground. He failed to do what our training was supposed to be drilled into our brains in case of engine loss of power.... push the damn nose over and keep your airspeed up so you don't stall. The ground is going to come up at you very quickly, and there's nothing you can do to avoid that, but as long as you keep the damn thing flying and under control, just keep flying as far into and through the forced landing as your airspeed over the wings lets you, chances are good you will live, but if you panic and keep pulling back, you will surely die as your aircraft plummets out of control in a stall/spin and hits the dirt so hard all your internal organs rip loose from their mountings inside your torso, and your brain busts down thru the base of your skull and thru roof of your mouth as the sudden stop G-forces hit at the end of the ride.
Speaking as a pilot who is building an experimental-class aircraft (Vans RV-10)...
"Experimental" is what the FAA calls all home-built and kit aircraft. It is a registration designation (which includes a no-commercial-use clause), little more. There is no assumption of decreased reliability with the designation "experimental". An experimental aircraft can be as reliable, or even better than, "certified" aircraft such as Cessna. As a matter of fact, Cessna bought Lancair recently and began selling their aircraft as Cessna the C400. The Lancair family of aircraft (experimental-class or otherwise) have an excellent service record.
Uninformed media want you to think it's some sort of Rube Goldberg contraption or a one-off; that feeds into the "rich, idle playboy" image they pander to their audiences. Don't buy it. They don't know what they're talking about; neither do you.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Experimental are all planes that have not been vetted by proper people.
WRONG. Experimental aircraft, when ready for their first flight, go through an inspection from an FAA representative that is extremely thorough. The build log of the plane (which is required to be detailed) is examined, every system on the plane is demonstrated on the ground, and a provisional airworthiness certificate is granted. At that point, a flight test plan is agreed upon (anywhere from 25 to 60 hours, depending upon whether it's an original design or a well-known kit from a major manufacturer). The test flights, which include operating the aircraft on every maneuver it is expected to perform, flight at the extremes of its weight-and-balance profile, performance measurements, and operation of all flight systems (navigation instruments, flight instruments, etc.) is demonstrated under actual flight. Once these tests are performed and signed off, the aircraft is again inspected, just as rigorously. Then, and only then, is it granted an airworthiness certificate.
Experimental planes ARE vetted by the proper people.
I'm building an experimental plane. I'm a pilot. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You're talking out of your ass.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
rich white man dies doing things rich white people enjoy doing, but not things youll ever have time or resources to do in your life.
local slashdotter quoted as saying, "i wonder if the plane was printed on a makerbot?"
Good people go to bed earlier.
Actually general aviation is more safe per takeoff and landing (or used to be - haven't looked up the stats for 20 years), but commercial rules on safety per passenger miles.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
I was thinking another rich guy got killed playing with dangerous toys. It appears, however, that he was an accomplished aviator. Nonetheless, experimental aircraft are usually untested and this might be an example of production shortcuts. Takeoff is where it happens- max thrust, low to the ground, low energy... Boise is mostly flat to the southeast with rising terrain and flat with steady terrain to the northwest- maybe he should have gone straight ahead. Single engine means always be ready to become a glider. We'll know in a year when the NTSB is finished.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
For parachuting, the smaller, slower planes are better. Even the Sheikh of UAE has a parachuting plane (GippsAero Airvan) that cost him less than a million Aussie dollars (small change for him no doubt). I’ve seen a photo of it parked in a huge hangar amongst a bunch of jet helos.
The spirit to take risks is the spirit of adventure.
Could you please rephrase that using an analogy including Rock, Paper, Scissors?
wing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Experimental" is just a type of aircraft certification by the FAA.
yes,Its a certification for high-risk aircraft, or aircraft in some high risk activity.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Experimental category allows you to fly an aircraft that isn't certified in any other category (such as "normal category"). Every aircraft has to go through the experimental stage regardless of its safety. Extensive flight testing is required during the certification process. In Australia, the experimental certificate conditions can be found here: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c10.pdf
However, getting an experimental certificate is usually the last step in a long process of getting the aircraft ready. Even making relatively small modifications can require an experimental certificate for an already certified aircraft type. There are a lot of restrictions imposed and a lot of supporting documentation required. I have written a fair few flight test schedules for modifications to a type certified aircraft as a requirement for experimental certificates. These reports detail the testing involved, the flight profile (limited by experimental certificate conditions such as within 25nm from an aerodrome, but in some cases can be more strict), risk analysis, etc. These documents must be approved by an airworthiness authority approved person (AP) or delegate.
I'm no longer working in the field (got sick of the politics), but I'm a former (but still qualified) aerospace engineer with experience in normal category aircraft certification.
The Lancair isn't a parachuting plane, it's a high performance homebuilt plane with either 2 or 4 seats. According to the Wiki page, Lancair was among the first to popularize the use of molded composites with homebuilt aircraft, and is known for higher cruise speeds compared to similar-size planes. Not generally the kind of plane a super-rich person would care that much about (because they can afford jet fuel for a private jet, which are much more spacious and also generally have better range and cruising speeds than small piston-engine planes). This kind of plane is usually for middle-class people who want to build their own plane (for fun, or to save money, or both).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancair
All flying experimental aircraft are certified as airworthy by an FAA examiner. They review construction records and check out the plane itself. You are not allowed to take passengers for the first 25 hours (40 hours for non-certified engines). Most experimental accidents occur during this initial testing phase. After that, the accident rate drops quite close to the rate for normally certified aircraft. The distinction is weather the plane was built using a certified "process" or not. Perhaps the AC here was confusing experimental and ultralight aircraft.
He was clearly in communication with the tower as the plane was rapidly loosing airspeed, asking permission to turn around and land. WTF? I mean seriously, whats the first fucking thing you learn as a pilot? It's amazing how that brain can fart, even for an experienced guy like this. RIP.
It's an FAA certification for aircraft not produced though a certified process. Commercial aircraft (even Cessna) are built using an extremely well documented process. Process certification is expensive - very expensive. Even planes constructed at Scaled Composites are certified experimental - not because they are built by buffoons, not because the designs are unsafe, not because they are dangerous, but because even they are usually one of a kind. IIRC even the small fleet of white nights built for Virgin are going to be individually certified experimental.
I supposed being built by an individual rather than coming off a production line does imply more risk, but that's what the testing phase is for. After that, the safety record is quite good.
If other people had his money, the kind of money CEOs are (over)paid, they could live out their dreams too.
The tag does not reflect on it's safety.
Afaict the tag means that they have inspected the plane and are convinced it's safe enough to let you fly it but not convinced it's safe enough to let you run commercial operations with it.
Of course actually being safe and convincing the authorities something is safe are a very different matter.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I bet I can guess how he would have answered the question.
He was 50 years old, and healthy. I sincerely doubt he considered himself to be ready to die.
It would be like me being killed in a freak audio production accident... I dunno, brain liquefied by bass resonance.
You're not a dubstep producer/engineer are you? ;)
Quoted from a post higher up:
Carolyn Holly spoke with Appleton in 2004 about his flying, Appleton said he is very fortunate for the things he has been able to do.
"I'm very fortunate, lucky to be able to experience the kinds of things that I do," Appleton said. "If my life were to end tomorrow, I've had a full life."
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Unfortunately, this is what Slashdot has become. Twelve years ago, I visited the first time and was impressed with the expertise I found here. Now, every yahoo who's ever watched a Bill Nye episode wants to tell you your business.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
At least he was experimenting. That's a good way to go.
Try telling that to the armchair basement-dwelling experts in these parts, they know all but risk nothing. Losers and wannabes, mostly.
Hey... I wonder if we're related? I will be waiting for my inheritance.
FUCK NO SON! More like the opening scene in Back to the Future :)
Actually I am planning to make a satirical Dubstep tune just to piss people off...
-Billco, Fnarg.com
And, by "people", I mean idiot stoner kids with zero music appreciation.
-Billco, Fnarg.com