Steve Appleton, Micron CEO, Dies In Plane Crash 116
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."
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what Micron was paying him. Usually, CEOs seem to prefer multimillion-dollar private jets, not small homebuilt planes.
Re:Where was his golden... okay I won't (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Re:Where was his golden... okay I won't (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, definitely a little different from the typical corporation-raiding golden-parachute-collecting CEO like Bob Nardelli.
Re:Where was his golden... okay I won't (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, this got a snicker outta me.
Re: (Score:1)
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 slow
Re:Where was his golden... okay I won't (Score:5, Funny)
I guess he went out doing the thing he loved.
He loved to crash his airplane???
Re: (Score:2)
If other people had his money, the kind of money CEOs are (over)paid, they could live out their dreams too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Where was his golden... okay I won't (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Where was his golden... okay I won't (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
However, getting an experimental certificate is usually the last step in a long process
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Wrong again (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Where was his golden... okay I won't (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
And, by "people", I mean idiot stoner kids with zero music appreciation.
Re:Where was his golden... okay I won't (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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".
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Nope. Or sort of (Score:2)
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
Experimental aircraft (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't his only fuck up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how realistic is it? [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
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 air
The biggest paragraph in the press release (Score:5, Funny)
http://investors.micron.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=646118 [micron.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just a line they include in every press release. Nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, that is harsh. Probably like a form letter with a standard signature for posts on the website, I would *hope*.
Otherwise it sounds like a shameless marketing plug and just short of announcing an office party to celebrate.
Re: (Score:2)
As a publicly-traded company with news like this coming out on a Friday afternoon, I doubt they are celebrating [google.com]. But maybe their PR arm is attempting some damage control.
Re: (Score:1)
http://investors.micron.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=646118 [micron.com]
And how did my +1 Informative mod from earlier today end up listing this comment as funny?
I'll take my mod points back by replying to this article and see if someone can explain this to me...
Not the best hobby (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The plane didn't crash itself.
Re: (Score:3)
A great quote from Screaming Lord Sutch: "If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you."
Extra useful information (Score:1)
Micron's Website: http://www.micron.com/ [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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Some people confuse it, though, with MicronPC [wikipedia.org], a dotcom-bubble company that was well known for sponsoring bowl games, but eventually declared bankruptcy in 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
Micron was originally both a PC, and a memory company. That was @ a time when there were as many PC companies as there are Linux distros. Unfortunately, in the early 2000s, only a few of them, like the Dells, HPs and so on survived, and most of the others either got acquired, or went under. MicronPC wasn't exactly a dotcom-bubble company - it was one of the top PC companies along w/ Gateway, Dell, DEC, Compaq, et al, and even acquired MN based Zeus. However, Micron exited the PC business early enough -
Re: (Score:2)
Take it from Woz... (Score:2)
...plane crashes are dangerous.
Audio of the Crash (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmm... (Score:1, Funny)
That Preposterous Hypothesis (Score:2)
Steve Jobs....Steve Appleton....Steve Wozniak.....How many F**** Steve's are there!?!
Did Steve tell you that perchance? Hmmm... Steve.
Re: (Score:3)
The universe seems to be retroactively working towards a one Steve limit.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot a Steve who is going to throw a chair at you.
Re: (Score:2)
You made my day. Thank you!
ROTFL
Re: (Score:2)
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:live bum with potential (Score:4, Insightful)
If he's done everything he wanted to do in life, is that really a bad thing?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And realize that he started his days at the company working on the production floor. He started from the ground and worked his way up.
He's been with the company for ages, and obviously worked with a lot of people in the company. This doesn't appear to be your oft-maligned appointed figurehead. He probably cared about the company and the people there.
Go around the web and read some of the comments on some of the articles. Lots of people who work or worked for Micron seem to have a lot of good things to say
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like such a bum compared to this guy, actually I am a bum compared to this guy.
Or to put it another way, at least you're still alive and capable of feeling inadequate. That's more than he can say.
Bad year for Steves (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart heir also died of this (Score:1)
Seems that small plane crashes are a major source of accidental death among rich people:
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-06-27/us/obit.walton_1_john-walton-wal-mart-jackson-hole-airport?_s=PM:US [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
True, I stand corrected, and I am enriched by the Iron Maiden trivia.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Fast Glass (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Re: (Score:1)
This was a Lancair IVP-TP, the '-TP' meaning that it was turbine powered. 'True' turboprop speed (over 400kt cruise), but I dare say it was a bit over the quarter price point!
Re:Fast Glass (Score:4, Informative)
I'll just say that amongst the General Aviation and home / kit community that "They have a bit of a reputation."
Bit of a reputation! Hah! That's an understatement. They're flying coffins. I won't get in one. Same goes for a QuestAir Venture.
Dangerous as hell unless in the hands of a pilot who's got way above average stick & rudder skills and WAY FAR SUPER-DUPER above average judgmental abilities. Lose you engine and unless you point the nose to the ground immediately to keep your airspeed up above stall, you'll have the same, predictable results.
Don't pick up any ice on the wings or tailfeathers of a Lancair either.
I'm also an EAA member, who built a few RVs and currently fly an -8. A much more sane-handling experimental under adverse conditions, and still plenty fast and fun to fly.
Re: (Score:2)
working? (Score:2)
9am Friday morning? Why wasn't he at work?
Condoloences from the "Ovoincs" Community (Score:1)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
At first... (Score:2)
Gone, RIP (Score:2)
Appleton, eh? (Score:1)
Hey... I wonder if we're related? I will be waiting for my inheritance.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 h
Re: (Score:2)
The spirit to take risks is the spirit of adventure.
Could you please rephrase that using an analogy including Rock, Paper, Scissors?
Re: (Score:1)
The pilots, friends, and crew that go down with them could hardly be important...
(sarcasm)
Re: (Score:2)