Controller responding Negative to canceling radar services?

vintage cessna said:
If he had gone on his filed routing over DNW, do you think he would have still caught a mountain wave, or would it be as severe? The terrain looks at lot less ominous on his filed route.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's possible to know for sure whether the mitigating factors on that route would have been enough to avoid loss of altitude control. Maybe the 3,000 feet of additional terrain clearance would have been enough, but I don't like "maybe." Also, The route from DNW to RIW parallels the high terrain on the lee side for quite a while, and the effects of mountain wave can extend a long distance from a ridge on the lee side.

Another issue with his filed route is whether his plane could have made the climb gradient needed going direct from JAC to DNW. And the tailwind would have made that problem worse.
 
vintage cessna said:
I already suggested a routing option that would have been appropriate for the pilots filed altitude. Fly the SID, at KCINE, reverse course back on the SID radial, then proceed as filed over the lower terrain .
Click to expand...

That is exactly what he should have done...:yes:
 
vintage cessna said:
Right. Ok to be incompetent , as long as it is not intentional.
Click to expand...
It means it's OK to confess your mistakes in a non-punitive environment so others can learn from them. It's obvious that your viewpoint is different so there is nothing more to discuss.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't think it's possible to know for sure whether the mitigating factors on that route would have been enough to avoid loss of altitude control. Maybe the 3,000 feet of additional terrain clearance would have been enough, but I don't like "maybe." Also, The route from DNW to RIW parallels the high terrain on the lee side for quite a while, and the effects of mountain wave can extend a long distance from a ridge on the lee side.

Another issue with his filed route is whether his plane could have made the climb gradient needed going direct from JAC to DNW. And the tailwind would have made that problem worse.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that they were departing RWY19 precluded clearing him exactly as filed. If it was IFR and the winds demanded a south departure you had to follow the departure procedures that went south.

I was just wondering, if someone with local knowledge knew if that higher terrain to the south made a big difference with the conditions one would encounter given the winds as opposed to the lower terrain to the north.
 
MarkZ said:
If your suggestion were a good one, why wouldn't the TETON SID include such a transition?
Click to expand...

Trying to publish every possible safe routing would be impractical, IMO. There would too many possibilities to cover.
 
Everskyward said:
It means it's OK to confess your mistakes in a non-punitive environment so others can learn from them. It's obvious that your viewpoint is different so there is nothing more to discuss.
Click to expand...

That gives me a warm fuzzy. I'm glad we are stopping , my heart is starting to bleed.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't think it's possible to know for sure whether the mitigating factors on that route would have been enough to avoid loss of altitude control. Maybe the 3,000 feet of additional terrain clearance would have been enough, but I don't like "maybe." Also, The route from DNW to RIW parallels the high terrain on the lee side for quite a while, and the effects of mountain wave can extend a long distance from a ridge on the lee side.

Another issue with his filed route is whether his plane could have made the climb gradient needed going direct from JAC to DNW. And the tailwind would have made that problem worse.
Click to expand...

Now you guys /gals are drilling down on the logical departure....

As Mari and other who live in the Rocky Mountains know, we get snow squalls on days when a front has pushed through and before the trailing edge has cleared the area..

We can go from 100 feet RVR ....to clear and 10+ in 5 minutes time... He left in the peak of the squall and the weather that day was coming directly out of the KICNE direction with the surface winds blowing right down 19.. Our guess is he was icing up within 1 minute of departure.

Had he waited 10 more minutes he could have left VFR, done a downwind departure and headed straight to DNW. Traffic was real light that day..

Also, since I fly around here ALOT.. my guess is ridge top winds were more then double 30 kts... Virtually no chance to survive that washing machine effect downrange of Gannett peak...:sad::sad:..

I recovered the wreckage of this crash

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...-179e-40e4-81ec-553049c68b6f&pgno=3&pgsize=50


a couple of years ago and going over Togwotee Pass is ALOT safer then skirting the Wing River Range ( Gannett Peak) IMHO..
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
I've been thinking about what my response would have been to the weather information that was available prior to this flight. I'm pretty sure the forecast of moderate icing would have been enough to make me wait for a better day. At least I hope so. Also, the NTSB report is a little vague about the winds aloft forecast, but if thirty knots at mountain top level was in the forecast, that also would have been enough to make me postpone the flight.

The report says that the weather wasn't good enough for significant search activity until two days later.

By the way, here is a Skyvector plot that ends at the approximate crash location:

http://skyvector.com/?ll=43.4099945....KICNE:G.43.1618757316215,-109.56011247140587
Click to expand...

Your Skyvector map is pretty accurate, altho he did crash a bit closer to the ridgeline... .

Also notice he passed within a couple of miles of my private Airport just before he crashed...... I REALLY wished he has chickened out and landed at Haas International... I would have more then happy to shake his hand and drive the family back to Jackson..:yes:......:sad:
 
Lost two friends west of Lander in similar conditions 8/14/2011. Doesn't pay to play with clouds in the mountains.

N801BH said:
Now you guys /gals are drilling down on the logical departure....

As Mari and other who live in the Rocky Mountains know, we get snow squalls on days when a front has pushed through and before the trailing edge has cleared the area..

We can go from 100 feet RVR ....to clear and 10+ in 5 minutes time... He left in the peak of the squall and the weather that day was coming directly out of the KICNE direction with the surface winds blowing right down 19.. Our guess is he was icing up within 1 minute of departure.

Had he waited 10 more minutes he could have left VFR, done a downwind departure and headed straight to DNW. Traffic was real light that day..

Also, since I fly around here ALOT.. my guess is ridge top winds were more then double 30 kts... Virtually no chance to survive that washing machine effect downrange of Gannett peak...:sad::sad:..

I recovered the wreckage of this crash

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...-179e-40e4-81ec-553049c68b6f&pgno=3&pgsize=50


a couple of years ago and going over Togwotee Pass is ALOT safer then skirting the Wing River Range ( Gannett Peak) IMHO..
Click to expand...
 
ejensen said:
Lost two friends west of Lander in similar conditions 8/14/2011. Doesn't pay to play with clouds in the mountains.
Click to expand...

Sad to hear...:sad::sad:..

IIRC it was a Rockwell Commander single and those poor people missed clearing the top of a mountain by about 6 feet...

Soooooo Close....:redface::redface::redface::(
 
N801BH said:
Sad to hear...:sad::sad:..

IIRC it was a Rockwell Commander single and those poor people missed clearing the top of a mountain by about 6 feet...

Soooooo Close....:redface::redface::redface::(
Click to expand...

It was a Bonanza with a turbine conversion. And yes, it was very close.
 
Last edited:
vintage cessna said:
Ok, if I'm wrong, correct me. What is the limit on the number of errors one can have under ATSAP?
Click to expand...

No hard number, but people have been terminated for excessive errors reported under ATSAP. Maybe 3 possibly 4 similar instances, just like it was 20 years ago.

We also have radar that updates every second (rendering history trails useless and turn a ham fisted course correction into a loss of divergence) and jumps targets a half mile at a time along with programs that record separation errors down to a hundredth of a mile.

Were you ever decertified due to 100 feet lateral? I'd imagine any losses of separation you saw were much worse and you're applying the "I can't ignore this" standard to today's "Well, according to the region they were 15,740 feet apart, not the required 15,840. That's roughly 6 thousandths of a mile, I can't see that on the scope and neither could you in you prime, ever.

That's what you are asking for though. be careful what you wish for. Start decertifying everyone for a 100 foot loss and watch 3 miles turn into 5 and 5 into 7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top