2007-09-19 08:29:15 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Yes they have heard of satellites - what is your point?
(BTW - in a search and rescue operation satellite imagery does not provide good enough resolution to be really useful, this is why they use specially designed camera systems on aircraft.)
2007-09-19 08:35:06 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure if satellites could be used, he would have been found a long time ago. There alot of aircraft missing that are apparently lost in the Sierra Nevada. Some large armed forces plane went down there and they didn't stumble upon it for something like 13 or 15 years later.
http://www.slate.com/id/2173735/
2007-09-21 11:17:14 · answer #2 · answered by Connie B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't understand this story. Looking for a man in that vast extent of land would be very difficult but an aircraft is quite big even though its a small plane and its not as if it crashed in the jungle. Yes I would have thought a plane would show up on a satellite
2007-09-19 15:44:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I said it before and i will say it one more time. His plane with full fuel tanks only has a range of 500 miles. If he crashed, he is within that 500 radius. They assume he was headed south, but you take off on a runway into the direction of wind and climb out. he could have turned after he was airborne and went either direction. North, South, East or West. No one really knows, but you can rest assured, he will be somewhere with 500 of the airport that he took off from.
2007-09-20 01:09:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The plane if still intact, the 22 ft wingspan would only be ----- this large on the 1000 ft sat. image. So think if it crashed, the wingspan would break apart and be in pieces, which would be undetected by any sat. photos. I am sure he is hiding out somewhere and doesn't want to be discovered. I'll apologize for that if his body ever gets found. This story sounds fishy from the start.
2007-09-21 01:18:54 · answer #5 · answered by Karen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do believe it was reported nearly 4 days ago they already used satellite imagery provided by Google Earth's most recent maps which were taken after he went missing.
They stated that his plane would be most likely be 10 pixels by 20 pixels. So almost impossible to make out. But a team of researchers looked anyway.
Try reading before acting like a smartass.
2007-09-19 16:23:50 · answer #6 · answered by Bob J 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Apparently you're not famliar with plane crashes, satellite imagery, or the terrain in which he was lost. Unless he had a functioning ELT on his plane that a satellite transponder would have picked up, which he apparently didn't, satellites are about as much use in this search as a metal detector would be.
2007-09-19 16:09:35 · answer #7 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I find it absurd that ANY plane can fly without a common locator affixed in at a couple different locations . It should be mandatory to fly with a search beacon. Battery types are inexpensive and chargeable."for the want of a nail". And the fact an "adventurer" was without this rescue aid speaks volumes about the attitudes of proud men and women, not to mention the FAA...
2007-09-19 15:42:08 · answer #8 · answered by Raymond C 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
he went in hard and burned that is why no ELT was heard
what little of the plane was left is little pieces an blackened by the fire.
some hunter will find the crash site in a few years.
2007-09-19 23:28:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No way...thats crazy he's out there somewhere...I supposed with all his former friends busy defending the guilty he's not front page news anymore!!
2007-09-19 15:37:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋